A long-term comparison of pioglitazone and gliclazide in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparison trial

Metformin for preventing the progression of chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Metformin has been used in the management of diabetes for decades. It is an effective, low-cost intervention with a well-established safety profile. Emerging evidence suggests that metformin targets a number of pathways that lead to chronic kidney damage, and long-term use may, therefore, slow the rate of kidney function decline and chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of metformin therapy on kidney function decline in patients with CKD with or without diabetes mellitus and assess the safety and dose tolerability in this population.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 19 July 2023 with assistance from an Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported kidney-related outcomes with a minimum duration of 12 months delivery of the metformin intervention and whose eligibility criteria included adult participants with either i) a diagnosis of CKD of any aetiology and/or ii) those with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Comparisons included placebo, no intervention, non-pharmacological interventions, other antidiabetic medications or any other active control. Studies that included patients on any modality of kidney replacement therapy were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently carried out data extraction using a standard data extraction form. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 11 studies reporting on 8449 randomised participants. Studies were conducted in patient populations with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (ADPKD) (four studies) or diabetes mellitus (seven studies). Six studies compared metformin with no active control, four studies compared metformin with active controls (rosiglitazone, glyburide, pioglitazone, or glipizide), and one study included treatment arms that randomised to either metformin, diet and lifestyle modifications, or other antidiabetic therapies. The risk of bias in included studies varied; two studies were abstract-only publications and were judged to have a high risk of bias in most domains. Other included publications were judged to have a low risk of bias in most domains. Across comparisons, GRADE evaluations for most outcomes were judged as low or very low certainty, except for those relating to side effects, tolerance, and withdrawals, which were judged as moderate certainty. The evidence suggests that compared to placebo, metformin may result in i) a slightly smaller decline in kidney function (3 studies, 505 participants: MD 1.92 mL/min, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.51; I2 = 0%; low certainty), ii) very uncertain effects on the incidence of kidney failure (1 study, 753 participants: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.17 to 8.49), iii) little or no effect on death (3 studies, 865 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty), iv) little or no effect on the incidence of serious adverse events (3 studies, 576 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty), and v) likely higher incidence of intolerance leading to study withdrawal than placebo (4 studies, 646 participants: RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.27; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). The certainty of the evidence for proteinuria was very uncertain. Compared to other active controls (rosiglitazone, glyburide, pioglitazone, or glipizide), metformin i) demonstrated very uncertain effects on kidney function decline, ii) may result in little or no difference in death (3 studies, 5608 participants: RR 0.95 95% CI 0.63 to 1.43; I2 = 0%; low certainty), iii) probably results in little or no difference in intolerance leading to study withdrawal (3 studies, 5593 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.08; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty), iv) probably results in little or no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events (2 studies, 5545 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty), and v) may increase the urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (2 studies, 3836 participants: MD 14.61, 95% CI 8.17 to 21.05; I2 = 0%; low certainty). No studies reported the incidence of kidney failure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the lack of RCTs reporting on the effects of metformin on kidney function, particularly in patients with CKD. Future research in this field requires adequately powered RCTs comparing metformin to placebo or standard care in those with CKD. Seven ongoing studies were identified in this review, and future updates, including their findings, may further inform the results of this review.

[Diabetic kidney disease (update 2023) : Position paper of the Austrian Diabetes Association and the Austrian Society for Nephrology]

Epidemiological investigations have shown that approximately 2-3% of all Austrians have diabetes mellitus with renal involvement, leaving 250,000 people in Austria affected. The risk of occurrence and progression of this disease can be attenuated by lifestyle interventions as well as optimization of blood pressure, blood glucose control and special drug classes. The present article represents the joint recommendations of the Austrian Diabetes Association and the Austrian Society of Nephrology for the diagnostic and treatment strategies of diabetic kidney disease.

Comparison of gliclazide vs linagliptin on hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated cardiovascular safety of glimepiride (a sulfonylureas) against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin. Gliclazide (another newer sulfonylureas) has shown similar glycemic efficacy and 50% decreased risk of hypoglycemia compared to glimepiride.

AIM

Considering the absence of cardiovascular outcome trials for gliclazide, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the car-diovascular (CV) safety by assessing the risk for major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide vs linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This systematic review followed the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to analyze all the clinical studies published from 2008 that compared the two drugs in patients with T2D with no risk of CV disease (CVD). We included only evidence designated high quality by the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

Eight clinical studies were included in the narrative descriptive analysis (gliclazide: 5 and linagliptin: 3). The CV safety of gliclazide in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation trial and of linagliptin in the Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA) and CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin vs glimepiride in patients with T2D (CAROLINA) trials were excluded from the comparative analysis as these trials demonstrated CV and hypoglycemia benefits in patients at high risk of CVD. However, since these are landmark trials, they were discussed in brief to show the CV benefits and low hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide and linagliptin. We did not find any study comparing gliclazide with linagliptin. Hence, direct comparison of their major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk could not be carried out. However, the literature meeting the inclusion criteria showed that both drugs were effective in achieving the desired glycemic control and had low major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk in adult patients with no history of CVD.

CONCLUSION

Gliclazide can be considered an effective and safe glucose-lowering drug in T2D patients with no established CVD but at high risk of CVD due to their T2D status. Future randomized controlled trials comparing gliclazide with linagliptin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can confirm these findings.

Contrasting Three Non-hypoglycemic Antidiabetic Drug Effects on Glycemic Control in Newly Diagnosed Type II Diabetes Mellitus: An Experimental Study

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) type 2 is the most public chronic, metabolic illness whose prevalence is quickly becoming high international. Insulin resistance, the essential metabolic problem leads to the development of DM type 2, is seen in about 90% of patients. AIM: The study’s aim was to compare the efficacy of three antidiabetic drugs on glycated hemoglobin. METHOD: A cross-sectional comparative study for newly diagnosed type II diabetic patients were assigned randomly into one of three conditions: Group I: Metformin consuming patients, Group II: Pioglitazone consuming patients, and Group III: Vildagliptin consuming patients. All patients were newly diagnosed. For all of them, baseline glycated hemoglobin was requested. After that, random assignment was carried out. After 3 months, glycated hemoglobin was checked and compared. RESULTS: Participants were distributed randomly into 27.9% metformin taking participants, 31.1% pioglitazone taking, and 41% vildagliptin taking patient. Findings suggested significant difference between Groups I and III (p =). Likewise, significant difference was seen between Groups II and III (p =). However, Groups I and II have comparable effects (p =). Indeed, all groups had shown significant efficacy on HbA1c. CONCLUSION: Metformin, pioglitazone, and vildagliptin had shown significant impact on HbA1c with variable degree: Metformin and pioglitazone had shown comparably similar efficacy that was exerted more significant impact on HbA1c than vildagliptin does.

k-Resolution sequential randomization procedure to improve covariates balance in a randomized experiment

Balancing allocation of assigning units to two treatment groups to minimize the allocation differences is important in biomedical research. The complete randomization, rerandomization, and pairwise sequential randomization (PSR) procedures can be employed to balance the allocation. However, the first two do not allow a large number of covariates. In this article, we generalize the PSR procedure and propose a k-resolution sequential randomization (k-RSR) procedure by minimizing the Mahalanobis distance between both groups with equal group size. The proposed method can be used to achieve adequate balance and obtain a reasonable estimate of treatment effect. Compared to PSR, k-RSR is more likely to achieve the optimal value theoretically. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to show the superiorities of k-RSR and applications to the clinical synthetic data and GAW16 data further illustrate the methods.

Lobeglitazone: A Novel Thiazolidinedione for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterized by insulin resistance and β-cell dysfunction. Among available oral antidiabetic agents, only the thiazolidinediones (TZDs) primarily target insulin resistance. TZDs improve insulin sensitivity by activating peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ. Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone have been used widely for T2DM treatment due to their potent glycemic efficacy and low risk of hypoglycemia. However, their use has decreased because of side effects and safety issues, such as cardiovascular concerns and bladder cancer. Lobeglitazone (Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical Corporation), a novel TZD, was developed to meet the demands for an effective and safe TZD. Lobeglitazone shows similar glycemic efficacy to pioglitazone, with a lower effective dose, and favorable safety results. It also showed pleiotropic effects in preclinical and clinical studies. In this article, we summarize the pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and clinical characteristics of lobeglitazone.

Effect of insulin secretagogues on major cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In 2019, the Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists nominated an expert panel to develop guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. This expert panel, after identifying the effects of glucose-lowering agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality as critical outcomes, decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of insulin secretagogues (sulfonylureas and glinides) with this respect.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A MEDLINE database search was performed to identify all RCTs, up to January 1st, 2020, with duration≥52 weeks, in which insulin secretagogues (glibenclamide, gliclazide, glimepiride, glipizide, chlorpropamide, repaglinide, nateglinide) were compared with either placebo or active comparators. The principal endpoints were MACE (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their outcomes) and all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified outcomes). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all the endpoints considered. Fourteen RCTs were included in the analysis for MACEs (919 in insulin secretagogues and 1,087 in control group). Insulin secretagogues were not significantly associated with an increased risk of MACEs in comparison with controls (MH-OR 1.08 [95% CI 0.96, 1.22], p = 0.20). When considering the 48 RCTs fulfilling criteria for inclusion in the analysis on all-cause mortality, insulin secretagogues were associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality (MH-OR 1.11 [1.00, 1.23], p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that insulin secretagogues are associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or other anti-hyperglycaemic drugs.

Net benefit index: Assessing the influence of a biomarker for individualized treatment rules

One central task in precision medicine is to establish individualized treatment rules (ITRs) for patients with heterogeneous responses to different therapies. Motivated from a randomized clinical trial for Type 2 diabetic patients on a comparison of two drugs, that is, pioglitazone and gliclazide, we consider a problem: utilizing promising candidate biomarkers to improve an existing ITR. This calls for a biomarker evaluation procedure that enables to gauge added values of individual biomarkers. We propose an assessment analytic, termed as net benefit index (NBI), that quantifies a contrast between the resulting gain and loss of treatment benefits when a biomarker enters ITR to reallocate patients in treatments. We optimize reallocation schemes via outcome weighted learning (OWL), from which the optimal treatment group labels are generated by weighted support vector machine (SVM). To account for sampling uncertainty in assessing a biomarker, we propose an NBI-based test for a significant improvement over the existing ITR, where the empirical null distribution is constructed via the method of stratified permutation by treatment arms. Applying NBI to the motivating diabetes trial, we found that baseline fasting insulin is an important biomarker that leads to an improvement over an existing ITR based only on patient's baseline fasting plasma glucose (FPG), age, and body mass index (BMI) to reduce FPG over a period of 52 weeks.

Efficacy and Safety of Pioglitazone Monotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Pioglitazone, the only thiazolidinedione drug in clinical practice is under scrutiny due to reported adverse effects, it's unique insulin sensitising action provides rationale to remain as a therapeutic option for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing pioglitazone monotherapy with monotherapies of other oral antidiabetic drugs for assessing its efficacy and safety in T2DM patients. Mean changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and mean changes in fasting blood sugar (FBS) level, body weight (BW) and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Safety outcomes were changes in lipid parameters, blood pressure and incidences of adverse events. Metafor package of R software and RevMan software based on random-effects model were used for analyses. We included 16 randomised controlled trials. Pioglitazone monotherapy showed equivalent efficacy as comparators in reducing HbA1c by 0.05% (95% CI: -0.21 to 0.11) and greater efficacy in reducing FBS level by 0.24 mmol/l (95% CI: -0.48 to -0.01). Pioglitazone showed similar efficacy as comparators in reducing HOMA-IR (WMD: 0.05, 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.59) and increasing high-density lipoprotein level (WMD: 0.02 mmol/l, 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.10). Improved blood pressure (WMD: -1.05 mmHg, 95% CI: -4.29 to 2.19) and triglycerides level (WMD: -0.71 mmol/l, 95% CI: -1.70 to 0.28) were also observed with pioglitazone monotherapy. There was a significant association of pioglitazone with increased BW (WMD: 2.06 kg, 95% CI: 1.11 to 3.01) and risk of oedema (RR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.48 to 3.31), though the risk of hypoglycaemia was absolutely lower (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.80). Meta-analysis supported pioglitazone as an effective treatment option for T2DM patients to ameliorate hyperglycaemia, adverse lipid metabolism and blood pressure. Pioglitazone is suggested to prescribe following individual patient's needs. It can be a choice of drug for insulin resistant T2DM patients having dyslipidaemia, hypertension or history of cardiovascular disease.

Effects of liraglutide, metformin and gliclazide on body composition in patients with both type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A randomized trial

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

To compare the effects of gliclazide, liraglutide and metformin on body composition in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 85 patients were randomly allocated to receive gliclazide (n = 27), liraglutide (n = 29) or metformin (n = 29) monotherapy for 24 weeks. Body composition was measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

RESULTS

Liraglutide and metformin reduced total, trunk, limb, android and gynoid fat mass; this also led to weight reduction. However, gliclazide treatment produced no significant changes in weight or fat mass, likely because reductions in fat mass were concomitant with increases in lean tissue mass. Blood glucose concentrations and glycated hemoglobin levels improved in all treatment arms; levels of the latter were lower in patients treated with liraglutide and metformin. Serum alanine aminotransferase concentrations decreased in all treatment arms, whereas serum aspartate aminotransferase concentrations were reduced only by liraglutide and metformin. In all patients, weight loss and total, trunk, limb, and android fat mass reductions were positively correlated with decreases in serum alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels, whereas reductions in waist circumference were positively correlated with lower serum alanine aminotransferase levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with gliclazide, liraglutide and metformin monotherapies result in greater weight loss, reductions in body fat mass, and better blood glucose control among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Reductions in weight, fat mass and waist circumference favorably affect hepatic function.

Physical exercise and non-insulin glucose-lowering therapies in the management of Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a clinical review

In the UK the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advocates intensive lifestyle programmes that attain the levels of daily physical activity set out by the Chief Medical Officer as a first-line strategy for improving the health of people at risk of developing diabetes or reducing the risk of development of Type 2 diabetes. For people with Type 2 diabetes, lifestyle measures complement pharmacological treatments that include both oral and injectable therapies. In line with this, NICE guidelines also support intensification of efforts to improve patient lifestyle along with these glucose-lowering therapies. There is a paucity of evidence, however, in the available published literature examining the association between glucose-lowering therapies and exercise metabolism. In the present review we explore the current knowledge with regard to the potential interactions of oral and non-insulin injectable therapies with physical activity in people at risk of, or who have, Type 2 diabetes, and present evidence that may inform healthcare professionals of the need to monitor patients more closely in their adaptation to both pharmacological therapy and physical activity.

Subgroups from regression trees with adjustment for prognostic effects and postselection inference

Identification of subgroups with differential treatment effects in randomized trials is attracting much attention. Many methods use regression tree algorithms. This article addresses 2 important questions arising from the subgroups: how to ensure that treatment effects in subgroups are not confounded with effects of prognostic variables and how to determine the statistical significance of treatment effects in the subgroups. We address the first question by selectively including linear prognostic effects in the subgroups in a regression tree model. The second question is more difficult because it falls within the subject of postselection inference. We use a bootstrap technique to calibrate normal-theory t intervals so that their expected coverage probability, averaged over all the subgroups in a fitted model, approximates the desired confidence level. It can also provide simultaneous confidence intervals for all subgroups. The first solution is implemented in the GUIDE algorithm and is applicable to data with missing covariate values, 2 or more treatment arms, and outcomes subject to right censoring. Bootstrap calibration is applicable to any subgroup identification method; it is not restricted to regression tree models. Two real examples are used for illustration: a diabetes trial where the outcomes are completely observed but some covariate values are missing and a breast cancer trial where the outcome is right censored.

Insulin and glucose-lowering agents for treating people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is the commonest cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Both conditions commonly co-exist. Glucometabolic changes and concurrent dialysis in diabetes and CKD make glucose-lowering challenging, increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Glucose-lowering agents have been mainly studied in people with near-normal kidney function. It is important to characterise existing knowledge of glucose-lowering agents in CKD to guide treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of insulin and other pharmacological interventions for lowering glucose levels in people with diabetes and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 February 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at head-to-head comparisons of active regimens of glucose-lowering therapy or active regimen compared with placebo/standard care in people with diabetes and CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and quality of data and performed data extraction. Continuous outcomes were expressed as post-treatment mean differences (MD). Adverse events were expressed as post-treatment absolute risk differences (RD). Dichotomous clinical outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four studies (128 records, 13,036 participants) were included. Nine studies compared sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to placebo; 13 studies compared dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors to placebo; 2 studies compared glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists to placebo; 8 studies compared glitazones to no glitazone treatment; 1 study compared glinide to no glinide treatment; and 4 studies compared different types, doses or modes of administration of insulin. In addition, 2 studies compared sitagliptin to glipizide; and 1 study compared each of sitagliptin to insulin, glitazars to pioglitazone, vildagliptin to sitagliptin, linagliptin to voglibose, and albiglutide to sitagliptin. Most studies had a high risk of bias due to funding and attrition bias, and an unclear risk of detection bias.Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 1092 participants: MD -0.29%, -0.38 to -0.19 (-3.2 mmol/mol, -4.2 to -2.2); I2 = 0%), fasting blood glucose (FBG) (5 studies, 855 participants: MD -0.48 mmol/L, -0.78 to -0.19; I2 = 0%), systolic blood pressure (BP) (7 studies, 1198 participants: MD -4.68 mmHg, -6.69 to -2.68; I2 = 40%), diastolic BP (6 studies, 1142 participants: MD -1.72 mmHg, -2.77 to -0.66; I2 = 0%), heart failure (3 studies, 2519 participants: RR 0.59, 0.41 to 0.87; I2 = 0%), and hyperkalaemia (4 studies, 2788 participants: RR 0.58, 0.42 to 0.81; I2 = 0%); but probably increase genital infections (7 studies, 3086 participants: RR 2.50, 1.52 to 4.11; I2 = 0%), and creatinine (4 studies, 848 participants: MD 3.82 μmol/L, 1.45 to 6.19; I2 = 16%) (all effects of moderate certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce weight (5 studies, 1029 participants: MD -1.41 kg, -1.8 to -1.02; I2 = 28%) and albuminuria (MD -8.14 mg/mmol creatinine, -14.51 to -1.77; I2 = 11%; low certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may have little or no effect on the risk of cardiovascular death, hypoglycaemia, acute kidney injury (AKI), and urinary tract infection (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether SGLT2 inhibitors have any effect on death, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), hypovolaemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.62%, -0.85 to -0.39 (-6.8 mmol/mol, -9.3 to -4.3); I2 = 59%) but may have little or no effect on FBG (low certainty evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular death (2 studies, 5897 participants: RR 0.93, 0.77 to 1.11; I2 = 0%) and weight (2 studies, 210 participants: MD 0.16 kg, -0.58 to 0.90; I2 = 29%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may have little or no effect on heart failure, upper respiratory tract infections, and liver impairment (low certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether DPP-4 inhibitors have any effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.53%, -1.01 to -0.06 (-5.8 mmol/mol, -11.0 to -0.7); I2 = 41%; moderate certainty evidence) and may reduce weight (low certainty evidence). GLP-1 agonists may have little or no effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether GLP-1 agonists reduce FBG, increase gastrointestinal symptoms, or affect the risk of pancreatitis (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether glitazones have any effect on HbA1c, FBG, death, weight, and risk of hypoglycaemia (very low certainty evidence).Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin probably reduces hypoglycaemia (2 studies, 551 participants: RR 0.40, 0.23 to 0.69; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin may have had little or no effect on HbA1c, FBG, weight, and eGFR (low certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, it is uncertain if sitagliptin has any effect on death or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty).For types, dosages or modes of administration of insulin and other head-to-head comparisons only individual studies were available so no conclusions could be made.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents in diabetes and CKD is limited. SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are probably efficacious for glucose-lowering and DPP-4 inhibitors may be efficacious for glucose-lowering. Additionally, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce BP, heart failure, and hyperkalaemia but increase genital infections, and slightly increase creatinine. The safety profile for GLP-1 agonists is uncertain. No further conclusions could be made for the other classes of glucose-lowering agents including insulin. More high quality studies are required to help guide therapeutic choice for glucose-lowering in diabetes and CKD.

Pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes: An update

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and a major economic burden. The prevalence of T2DM is rising, suggesting more effective prevention and treatment strategies are necessary. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the pharmacologic treatment options available for patients with T2DM. Each therapeutic class is presented in detail, outlining medication effects, side effects, glycemic control, effect on weight, indications and contraindications, and use in selected populations (heart failure, renal insufficiency, obesity and the elderly). We also present representative cost for each antidiabetic category. Then, we provide an individualized guide for initiation and intensification of treatment and discuss the considerations and rationale for an individualized glycemic goal.

The Low-Dose (7.5 mg/day) Pioglitazone Therapy

Pioglitazone is one of thiazolidinedione derivatives, which stimulates nuclear peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma and improves glucose and lipid metabolism and insulin sensitivity. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that pioglitazone therapy was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with pre-diabetes and diabetes. Further, in a cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes, pioglitazone therapy was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality. Despite these beneficial effects, the meta-analysis showed that pioglitazone therapy had higher risks of heart failure, bone fractures, edema and weight gain. To find out the efficacy and safety of the low-dose (7.5 mg/day) pioglitazone therapy, we reviewed the dose-response of pioglitazone on favorable effects and adverse effects due to pioglitazone, by searching the reports on effects of daily dose of 7.5 mg and/or 15 mg and/or 30 mg of pioglitazone. The low-dose pioglitazone therapy may show the same degree of improvements in glucose and lipid metabolism, fatty liver, insulin resistance, and adiponectin as the standard- and high-dose pioglitazone therapy. Furthermore, the low-dose pioglitazone therapy may also show less adverse effects on weight gain, edema and heart failure as compared with the standard- and high-dose pioglitazone therapy.

Gliclazide

Gliclazide is a second-generation oral hypoglycemic drug used for the treatment of noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. It belongs to the sulfonylurea class that stimulates insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells by inhibiting ATP-dependent potassium channels. Gliclazide also possesses unique antioxidant properties and other beneficial hemobiological effects. This profile represents a comprehensive description of the physical properties, chemical synthesis, spectroscopic characterization (FTIR, ¹H NMR, ¹³C NMR, UV, and single-crystal X-ray), methods of analysis, pharmacological actions, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the title drug.

Identification of subgroups with differential treatment effects for longitudinal and multiresponse variables

We describe and evaluate a regression tree algorithm for finding subgroups with differential treatments effects in randomized trials with multivariate outcomes. The data may contain missing values in the outcomes and covariates, and the treatment variable is not limited to two levels. Simulation results show that the regression tree models have unbiased variable selection and the estimates of subgroup treatment effects are approximately unbiased. A bootstrap calibration technique is proposed for constructing confidence intervals for the treatment effects. The method is illustrated with data from a longitudinal study comparing two diabetes drugs and a mammography screening trial comparing two treatments and a control. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cost-effectiveness of a risk-based secondary screening programme of type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to develop a long-term economic model for type 2 diabetes to describe the entire spectrum of the disease over a wide range of healthcare programmes. The model evaluates a public health, risk-based screening programme in a country specific setting.

METHODS

The lifespan of persons and important phases of the disease and related interventions are recorded in a Markov model, which first simulates the effect of screening, then replicates important complications of diabetes, follows the progression of individuals through physiological variables and finally calculates outcomes in monetary and naturalistic units.

RESULTS

The introduction of the screening programme nearly doubled the proportion of diagnosed patients at the age of 50 and prolonged life expectancy. Three-yearly screening gained 0.0229 quality adjusted life years for an additional €83 per person compared with no screening and resulted an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €3630/quality adjusted life years.

CONCLUSION

From the economic perspective introduction of the 3-yearly screening programme is justifiable and it provides a good value for money. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Pioglitazone — an oral antidiabetic agent and metabolic syndrome modulator. Can theory translate into practice?

The metabolic syndrome, associated with insulin resistance, is a cluster of cardiovascular risk factors which results in premature morbidity and mortality from atherosclerotic vascular disease. Pioglitazone, a peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) agonist, is an insulin sensitiser with the ability to address key features of the metabolic syndrome: glucose intolerance including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, the pro-coagulant state, endothelial dysfunction, inflammation and atherosclerosis. The greatest potential benefit of pioglitazone is to influence atherogenesis itself through its pleiotrophic effects on vascular risk factors. This has been tested by the PROactive study, results of which are published in September 2005.

The Influences of Withdrawal and Daily Dose Reduction of Pioglitazone on Metabolic Parameters in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Longitudinal Observational Study

Background

The aim of the study was to understand the influences of withdrawal or dose reduction of pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

We retrospectively picked up patients who had undergone withdrawal or daily dose reduction of pioglitazone after a continuous prescription for 3 months or longer between January 2010 and March 2014. We compared the data before the withdrawal or dose reduction of pioglitazone with the data at 3 or 6 months after those by a chart-based analysis.

Results

Among 713 patients taking pioglitazone at least once during the studied period, 20 patients had undergone withdrawal of pioglitazone (group A) and 51 patients had undergone daily dose reduction (group B). The mean pioglitazone dose at baseline was 23 mg in subjects of group A, and 30 mg in group B. The number of subjects who had taken high-dose metformin (≥ 1,000 mg) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increased after the withdrawal or dose reduction of pioglitazone in both groups. Although no significant change was observed in plasma glucose and HbA1c levels, body weight significantly decreased at 3 and 6 months after the dose reduction in group B. The same tendency was observed in group A. Serum high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) levels significantly decreased at 3 and 6 months after the withdrawal in group A. The serum alanine aminotransferase levels significantly increased 3 months after the withdrawal in group A.

Conclusions

Present study demonstrated that the withdrawal of pioglitazone exacerbated serum HDL-C and liver function in patients with type 2 diabetes, although glycemic control could be maintained by using high-dose metformin or DPP-4 inhibitors.

DPP-4 inhibitors and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Expectations, observations and perspectives

AIMS

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the greatest burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in terms of morbility, mortality and costs for individuals and societies. Therefore, its prevention is a major goal in diabetes care. Optimal treatment of hyperglycemia is certainly instrumental to CVD prevention. Optimal treatment means both establishing the most appropriate glycemic target for the given individual and selecting the medication(s) with the most favourable benefit/safety ratio. CVD safety, if not a clear CVD benefit, is certainly required for all antidiabetic agents. Dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are among the classes of antidiabetic agents most recently made available for diabetes care. A major question to be addressed is the effect of these compounds on CVD. Expectations were high for their mechanism of action, which targets also post-prandial glucose and minimize hypoglycemia risk, thereby providing a sort of global glucose control, and for some potentially beneficial extra-glycemic effects. This article reviews the existing literature on this issue.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data published so far document that DPP-4 inhibitors have a wide spectrum of glycemic and extra-glycemic effects potentially reducing the risk of CVD as well as favourable effects on intermediate or surrogate CVD endpoints. These data heralded a better CVD outcome. Accordingly, pooling CVD safety data from phase 3 and 4 studies conducted with DPP-4 inhibitors suggested that their use might translate into a better CVD outcome. Data from three CVD outcome RCTs with alogliptin, saxagliptin and sitagliptin documented no harm but did not show any benefit on major CVD events. A modest but significant increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure was observed with saxagliptin and with alogliptin (only in subjects with no history of heart failure before randomization) but not with sitagliptin. A study currently in progress with linagliptin will provide further insights in the issue of CVD safety and benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

It should be considered that most alternative oral antidiabetic agents generally do not possess a better CVD risk profile than DPP-4 inhibitors and that some of them, indeed, should be used with caution because of potentially adverse effects on heart and vasculature. Overall, the selection of antidiabetic agent(s) with the most favourable CVD profile is mandatory but still challenging in diabetes care.

Is gliclazide a sulfonylurea with difference? A review in 2016

Sulfonylureas (SUs) remain the most commonly prescribed drug after metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), despite the availability of several newer agents. The primary reason of SUs being most popular is their quick glycemic response, time-tested experience and least cost. Although SUs are one amongst the several other second line agents after metformin in all major guidelines, the new Dutch type 2 guidelines specifically advise gliclazide as the preferred second line drug instead of SUs as a class. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also included gliclazide in their Model List of Essential Medicines 2013 motivated by its safety data in elderly patients. Specifically advising gliclazide may have been based on emerging evidence suggesting cardiovascular neutrality of gliclazide over other SUs. This prompted us to do a literature review of gliclazide efficacy and safety data compared to other SUs as well as oral anti-diabetic drugs.

Estimating optimal treatment regimes via subgroup identification in randomized control trials and observational studies

With new treatments and novel technology available, personalized medicine has become an important piece in the new era of medical product development. Traditional statistics methods for personalized medicine and subgroup identification primarily focus on single treatment or two arm randomized control trials. Motivated by the recent development of outcome weighted learning framework, we propose an alternative algorithm to search treatment assignments which has a connection with subgroup identification problems. Our method focuses on applications from clinical trials to generate easy to interpret results. This framework is able to handle two or more than two treatments from both randomized control trials and observational studies. We implement our algorithm in C++ and connect it with R. Its performance is evaluated by simulations, and we apply our method to a dataset from a diabetes study. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Safety and efficacy of lobeglitazone monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus over 52 weeks: An open-label extension study

We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of lobeglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes over 52 weeks through 28-week extension study. Clinical benefits in terms of glycemic and lipid control were maintained for 52 weeks. Lobeglitazone showed a favorable balance of efficacy and safety during the extension study.

Early Glycemic Response Predicts Achievement of Subsequent Treatment Targets in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Post hoc Analysis

INTRODUCTION

American Diabetes Association consensus guidelines emphasize individualized treatment in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Early glycemic response is a clinical marker that may predict longer term efficacy for individual patients and provide a clinical tool to enhance personalized treatment. This analysis evaluated whether glycemic response measured at week 12 ("early") could serve as a reliable predictor of glycemic control at weeks 24 and 52 of therapy in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

We used data from 3 randomized, controlled clinical trials that evaluated patients with T2DM treated with 3 commonly prescribed glucose-lowering medications: metformin (n = 597), sulfonylurea (n = 626), and insulin glargine (n = 1046). The gradient boosting method was used to identify predictors of subsequent response; predictive accuracy was represented by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Treatment success at weeks 24 and 52 was assessed for each patient and defined as achieving a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level of <7.0% or a reduction from baseline of ≥1.0%.

RESULTS

The predictive parameters (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV) for improvements in HbA1c at week 24 for metformin were 0.83, 0.81, 0.44, and 0.96; for sulfonylurea, 0.79, 0.94, 0.71, and 0.96; and for insulin glargine, 0.67, 0.89, 0.65, and 0.90. The predictive parameters for improvements in HbA1c at week 52 for metformin were 0.73, 0.84, 0.56, and 0.92 and for sulfonylurea, 0.45, 0.94, 0.74, and 0.82.

CONCLUSION

High predictive values identified in this analysis support "early" response as an appropriate tool for predicting treatment success at weeks 24 and 52. The high NPV (lack of early glycemic response) appears to be an effective indicator of the likely need for change in (or intensification of) therapy. These data support the current guideline recommendations that clinicians evaluate therapeutic responses to pharmacologic interventions with metformin, sulfonylureas, or insulin glargine as early as week 12.

WITHDRAWN: Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group withdrew this review as of Issue 7, 2015 because of the involvement of one author (SS Lund) being employed in a pharmaceutical company. The authors of the review and the Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group did not find that this was a breach of the rules of the Cochrane Collaboration at the time when it was published. However, after the publication of the review, the Cochrane Collaboration requested withdrawal of the review due to the employment of the author. A new protocol for a review to cover this topic will be published. This will have a new title and a markedly improved protocol fulfilling new and important developments and standards within the Cochrane Collaboration as well as an improved inclusion and search strategy making it necessary to embark on a completely new review project.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Effects of gliclazide dose escalation on postprandial hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective, open-label, case-controlled, dose-escalation study

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to determine the effects of increasing doses of gliclazide on postprandial glucose excursions after a standardized breakfast and lunch, and to clarify the relationship between gliclazide dose and glucose response.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, case-controlled, dose-escalation study was conducted at the Addington Hospital Diabetes Clinic, eThekwini/Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Male and female patients aged ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and postprandial hyperglycemia (2-hour postprandial blood glucose [PPBG2 h] level, ≥11.1 mmol/L [≥200 mg/dL]) and receiving an oral hypoglycemic agent were eligible. After a 1-week washout period during which patients were asked to discontinue treatment with all oral hypoglycemic agents, baseline glycemic measurements were performed (fasting blood glucose, PPBG2 h, 6-hour postprandial blood glucose [PPBG6 h], mean blood glucose [MBG], plasma insulin, fasting serum fructosamine, and glycosylated hemoglobin). All patients subsequently received 2 weeks of oral treatment with each of 3 doses of gliclazide: 40, 80, and 160 mg/d. Glycemic parameters were measured at the end of each dosing interval. Adverse-effect monitoring included direct reporting of untoward effects to the resident medical practitioner, clinical examination, monitoring of home blood glucose records, hematology, and liver and kidney function tests. Compliance was assessed using pill counts, examination of diary entries, and patient interview.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were screened; 14 entered the dose-escalation phase. Thirteen patients completed the study (7 women, 6 men; mean [SD] age, 52.0 [11.1] years); 1 was withdrawn because of poor compliance. Dose escalation from 40 to 80 mg/d was associated with a significant change only in MBG (mean [SD], 11.3 [4.2] vs 10.0 [3.9] mmol/L [203.6 (75.7) vs 180.1 (70.3) mg/dL]; P<0.001). Dose escalation from 80 to 160 mg/d was associated with a significant change only in PPBG6 h (9.5 [4.2] vs 10.3 [4.1] mmol/L [171.1 (75.7) vs 185.6 (73.9) mg/dL]; P=0.018). No other significant changes in glycemic parameters between doses were found throughout the treatment period. No adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study of gliclazide dose escalation in patients with type 2 DM and postprandial hyperglycemia, gliclazide 80 mg/d was associated with a reduction in postprandial hyperglycemia. Dose escalation from 80 to 160 mg/d was not found to be associated with additional clinical benefit. Based on these results, we recommend that gliclazide dose escalation to the maximum dose recommended by the manufacturer be guided by measures of glycemia. All doses were well tolerated.

Safety and efficacy of gliclazide as treatment for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Objective and Design

Gliclazide has been associated with a low risk of hypoglycemic episodes and beneficial long-term cardiovascular safety in observational cohorts. The aim of this study was to assess in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials the safety and efficacy of gliclazide compared to other oral glucose-lowering agents (PROSPERO2013:CRD42013004156)

Data Sources

Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Trialregister.nl, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu and the Cochrane database.

Selection

Included were randomized studies of at least 12 weeks duration with the following outcomes: HbA1c change, incidence of severe hypoglycemia, weight change, cardiovascular events and/or mortality when comparing gliclazide with other oral blood glucose lowering drugs. Bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The inverse variance random effects model was used.

Results

Nineteen trials were included; 3,083 patients treated with gliclazide and 3,155 patients treated with other oral blood glucose lowering drugs. There was a considerable amount of heterogeneity between and bias in studies. Compared to other glucose lowering agents except metformin, gliclazide was slightly more effective (−0.13% (95%CI: −0.25, −0.02, I² 55%)). One out of 2,387 gliclazide users experienced a severe hypoglycemic event, whilst also using insulin. There were 25 confirmed non-severe hypoglycemic events (2.2%) in 1,152 gliclazide users and 22 events (1.8%) in 1,163 patients in the comparator group (risk ratio 1.09 (95% CI: 0.20, 5.78, I² 77%)). Few studies reported differences in weight and none were designed to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes.

Conclusions

The methodological quality of randomized trials comparing gliclazide to other oral glucose lowering agents was poor and effect estimates on weight were limited by publication bias. The number of severe hypoglycemic episodes was extremely low, and gliclazide appears at least equally effective compared to other glucose lowering agents. None of the trials were designed for evaluating cardiovascular outcomes, which warrants attention in future randomized trials.

Thiazolidinediones and cancer: results of a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Recent epidemiological data have contributed to the formulation of the hypothesis about the long-term safety of pioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione (TZD), with respect to malignancies, in particular bladder cancer. The primary aim of this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, not designed a priori to test this hypothesis, was to explore whether TZDs affect the risk of cancer. A meta-analysis was performed including published and unpublished randomized trials with a duration of at least 52 weeks, enrolling patients with or without diabetes, comparing TZDs with either placebo or other drug therapies on various different outcomes. We found 22 trials reporting at least one cancer and enrolling 13,197 patients to TZD (pioglitazone: n = 3,710 and rosiglitazone: n = 9,487) and 12,359 to placebo or active comparator groups. The mean follow-up was 26.1 months. Overall, those assigned at random to TZDs had a significant reduction (MH-OR 0.85 [0.73-0.98]; p = 0.027) in the incidence of malignancies, with no significant difference in effect between pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Specifically, subgroup analyses showed a significant reduction for rosiglitazone (MH-OR 0.82 [0.69-0.98]; p = 0.029), but not for pioglitazone (MH-OR 0.66 [0.34-1.28]; p = 0.22). In further subgroup analyses of site-specific malignancies based on the data from four trials, the risk of bladder cancer with pioglitazone (MH-OR) was 2.05 [0.84-5.02]; p = 0.12. Further, rosiglitazone, but not pioglitazone, was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bowel cancer. In contrast, pioglitazone, but not rosiglitazone, was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer. The present meta-analysis of trials, not designed a priori to test the hypothesis, provides reassuring evidence that TZDs are not associated with risk of overall malignancies. In fact, they are compatible with the possibility of a decreased risk of cancer. In site-specific subgroup analyses, for rosiglitazone, there was a significant decreased risk of bowel cancer. Subgroup analyses for pioglitazone did not allow to exclude an increased risk of bladder cancer, while the risk of breast cancer was significantly decreased. While these data are also useful to formulate not test hypotheses, they provide somewhat more cogent evidence than the previously published epidemiological data.

Pioglitazone: an antidiabetic drug with cardiovascular therapeutic effects

The antidiabetic compound pioglitazone, an activator of the intracellular peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma, and decreases metabolic and vascular insulin resistance. The drug is well tolerated, and its metabolic effects include improvements in blood glucose and lipid control. Vascular effects consist of improvements in endothelial function and hypertension, and a reduction in surrogate markers of artherosclerosis. In a large, placebo-controlled, outcome study in secondary prevention, PROactive study, the use of pioglitazone in addition to an existing optimized macrovascular risk management resulted in a significant reduction of macrovascular endpoints within a short observation period that was comparable to the effect of statins and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in other trials. These results underline the value of pioglitazone for managing the increased cardiovascular risk of patients with a metabolic syndrome or Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Do thiazolidinediones still have a role in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus?

Thiazolidinediones have been introduced in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) since the late 1990s. Although troglitazone was withdrawn from the market a few years later due to liver toxicity, both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone gained widespread use for T2DM treatment. In 2010, however, due to increased risk of cardiovascular events associated with its use, the European Medicines Agency recommended suspension of rosiglitazone use and the Food and Drug Administration severely restricted its use. Thus pioglitazone is the only thiazolidinedione still significantly employed for treating T2DM and it is the only molecule of this class still listed in the American Diabetes Association-European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2012 Position Statement. However, as for the other thiazolidinediones, use of pioglitazone is itself limited by several side effects, some of them potentially dangerous. This, together with the development of novel therapeutic strategies approved in the last couple of years, has made it questionable whether or not thiazolidinediones (namely pioglitazone) should still be used in the treatment of T2DM. This article will attempt to formulate an answer to this question by critically reviewing the available data on the numerous advantages and the potentially worrying shortcomings of pioglitazone treatment in T2DM.

Short-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion combined with insulin sensitizers rosiglitazone, metformin, or antioxidant α-lipoic acid in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Short-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes has been proved effective in improving metabolic control and β-cell function, thus inducing long-term drug-free remission. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate whether CSII in combination with rosiglitazone, metformin, or α-lipoic acid separately brings about extra benefits.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred sixty patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of four treatment groups: CSII alone, CSII in combination with rosiglitazone or metformin for 3 months, or CSII with α-lipoic acid intravenous infusion for 2 weeks. Duration of CSII treatment was identical in the four groups. Glucose and lipid profiles, homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) indices, acute insulin response (AIR), intramyocellular lipid (IMCL) level, and malondialdehyde level were compared before and after intervention.

RESULTS

The near-normoglycemia rate at the third month in CSII alone and that in combination with rosiglitazone, metformin, or α-lipoic acid was 72.5%, 87.5%, 90%, and 75%, respectively (metformin group vs. CSII alone, P=0.045). The metformin group achieved euglycemia in a shorter time (2.6 ± 1.3 vs. 3.7 ± 1.8 days, P=0.020) with less daily insulin dosage and was more powerful in lowering total cholesterol, increasing AIR and HOMA β-cell function, whereas reduction of IMCL in the soleus was more obvious in the rosiglitazone group but not in the metformin group. The efficacy of combination with α-lipoic acid was similar to that of CSII alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term CSII in combination with rosiglitazone or metformin is superior to CSII alone, yet the efficacy of the two differs in some way, whereas that with α-lipoic acid might not have an additive effect.

Expansion of the homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function and insulin resistance to enable clinical trial outcome modeling through the interactive adjustment of physiology and treatment effects: iHOMA2

OBJECTIVE

To describe and make available an interactive, 24-variable homeostasis model assessment (iHOMA2) that extends the HOMA2 model, enabling the modeling of physiology and treatment effects, to present equations of the HOMA2 and iHOMA2 models, and to exemplify iHOMA2 in two widely differing scenarios: changes in insulin sensitivity with thiazolidinediones and changes in renal threshold with sodium glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibition.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

iHOMA2 enables a user of the available software to examine and modify the mathematical functions describing the organs and tissues involved in the glucose and hormonal compartments. We exemplify this with SGLT2 inhibition modeling (by changing the renal threshold parameters) using published data of renal effect, showing that the modeled effect is concordant with the effects on fasting glucose from independent data.

RESULTS

iHOMA2 modeling of thiazolidinediones effect suggested that changes in insulin sensitivity in the fasting state are predominantly hepatic. SGLT2 inhibition modeled by iHOMA2 resulted in a decrease in mean glucose of 1.1 mmol/L. Observed data showed a decrease in glucose of 0.9 mmol/L. There was no significant difference between the model and the independent data. Manipulation of iHOMA2's renal excretion threshold variable suggested that a decrease of 17% was required to obtain a 0.9 mmol/L decrease in mean glucose.

CONCLUSIONS

iHOMA2 is an extended mathematical model for the assessment of insulin resistance and β-cell function. The model can be used to evaluate therapeutic agents and predict effects on fasting glucose and insulin and on β-cell function and insulin sensitivity.

Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing health problem worldwide. Whether sulphonylureas show better, equal or worse therapeutic effects in comparison with other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sulphonylurea monotherapy versus placebo, no intervention or other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched publications in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS and CINAHL (all until August 2011) to obtain trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria for our review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials that randomised patients 18 years old or more with T2DM to sulphonylurea monotherapy with a duration of 24 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were other patient-important outcomes and metabolic variables. Where possible, we used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) to analyse the treatment effect of dichotomous outcomes. We used mean differences with 95% CI to analyse the treatment effect of continuous outcomes. We evaluated the risk of bias. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess whether firm evidence could be established for a 10% relative risk reduction (RRR) between intervention groups.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 72 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 22,589 participants; 9707 participants randomised to sulphonylureas versus 12,805 participants randomised to control interventions. The duration of the interventions varied from 24 weeks to 10.7 years. We judged none of the included trials as low risk of bias for all bias domains. Patient-important outcomes were seldom reported.First-generation sulphonylureas (FGS) versus placebo or insulin did not show statistical significance for all-cause mortality (versus placebo: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.45; P = 0.15; 2 trials; 553 participants; high risk of bias (HRB); versus insulin: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.59; P = 0.26; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus placebo showed statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality in favour of placebo (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.22; P = 0.006; 2 trials; 553 participants; HRB). FGS versus insulin did not show statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.71; P = 0.39; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of FGS for adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.76; P = 0.01; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB) and for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67; P = 0.004; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB).Second-generation sulphonylureas (SGS) versus metformin (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.58; P = 0.68; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.41; P = 0.70; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; P = 0.72; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB), meglitinides (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.42; P = 0.52; 7 trials; 2038 participants; HRB), or incretin-based interventions (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.68; P = 0.51; 2 trials; 1503 participants; HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding all-cause mortality in a random-effects model. SGS versus metformin (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.54 to 4.01; P = 0.45; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; P = 0.55; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.28; P = 0.80; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB) or meglitinide (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.53; P = 0.97; 7 trials, 2038 participants, HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding cardiovascular mortality. Mortality data for the SGS versus placebo were sparse. SGS versus thiazolidinediones and meglitinides did not show statistically significant differences for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes. SGS versus metformin showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; P = 0.02; 3018 participants; 3 trials; HRB). The definition of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes varied among the trials. SGS versus metformin, thiazolidinediones and meglitinides showed no statistical significance for non-fatal myocardial infarction. No meta-analyses could be performed for microvascular outcomes. SGS versus placebo, metformin, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors or meglitinides showed no statistical significance for adverse events. SGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96; P = 0.04; 9 trials; 870 participants; HRB). SGS versus meglitinides showed no statistical significance for the risk of severe hypoglycaemia. SGS versus metformin and thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance in favour of metformin (RR 5.64, 95% CI 1.22 to 26.00; P = 0.03; 4 trials; 3637 participants; HRB) and thiazolidinediones (RR 6.11, 95% CI 1.57 to 23.79; P = 0.009; 6 trials; 5660 participants; HRB) for severe hypoglycaemia.Third-generation sulphonylureas (TGS) could not be included in any meta-analysis of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes. TGS versus thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance regarding adverse events in favour of TGS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; P = 0.03; 3 trials; 510 participants; HRB). TGS versus thiazolidinediones did not show any statistical significance for drop-outs due to adverse events. TGS versus other comparators could not be performed due to lack of data.For the comparison of SGS versus FGS no meta-analyses of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes, or adverse events could be performed.Health-related quality of life and costs of intervention could not be meta-analysed due to lack of data.In trial sequential analysis, none of the analyses of mortality outcomes, vascular outcomes or severe hypoglycaemia met the criteria for firm evidence of a RRR of 10% between interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support the decision as to whether to initiate sulphonylurea monotherapy. Data on patient-important outcomes are lacking. Therefore, large-scale and long-term randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias, focusing on patient-important outcomes are required.

Evaluating Second-Line Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes: Focus on Secondary Effects of GLP-1 Agonists and DPP-4 Inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the controversy surrounding selection of second-line type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) therapy by reviewing available data regarding secondary effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which include low hypoglycemia risk, weight loss, and cardiovascular (CV) and β-cell function benefits.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search (1966–March 2013) was conducted using the following key terms: β-cell protection, blood pressure, DPP-4 inhibitors, exena tide, exenatide extended-release, GLP-1 agonists, hypoglycemia, lina glip tin, lipid, liraglutide, pancreatitis, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and type 2 diabetes.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Identified articles published in English were evaluated for inclusion, with priority given to randomized controlled trials in humans receiving incretin monotherapy or incretin combination therapy with metformin. References identified in these articles were reviewed for additional trials.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Most patients with T2DM use combination therapy; however, determination of the second-line agent that is most appropriate is debatable. Prior to the use of incretin therapies, traditional second-line agents included sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, and basal insulin, all of which demonstrate undesirable adverse effects. In addition to improving glycemic control, incretin therapies have demonstrated benefits concerning hypoglycemic risk and weight loss in addition to potential improvements in CV risk factors and β-cell function. While there are risks associated with using incretins, most patients with T2DM are good candidates for incretins and could benefit from their potential secondary effects. Cost remains a barrier to initiating these agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Demonstrated secondary benefits in addition to efficacy may make GLP-1 agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors a more favorable option than other second-line T2DM therapies.

Pleiotropic effects of thiazolidinediones: implications for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are insulin-sensitizing antidiabetes agents that act through the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ to cause a durable improvement in glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although less well recognized, TZDs also exert a protective effect on β-cell function. In addition to their beneficial effects on glucose homeostasis, TZDs-especially pioglitazone-exert a number of other pleiotropic effects that make them ideal agents as monotherapy or in combination with other oral agents, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs, or insulin. Pioglitazone improves endothelial dysfunction, reduces blood pressure, corrects diabetic dyslipidemia, and reduces circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines and prothrombotic factors. Pioglitazone also redistributes fat and toxic lipid metabolites in muscle, liver, β cells, and arteries, and deposits the fat in subcutaneous adipocytes where it cannot exert its lipotoxic effects. Consistent with these antiatherogenic effects, pioglitazone reduced major adverse cardiac event endpoints (ie, mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke) in the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events and in a meta-analysis of all other published pioglitazone trials. Pioglitazone also mobilizes fat out of the liver, improving liver function and histologic abnormalities in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Pioglitazone also reduces proteinuria, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with a reduced glomerular filtration rate. These benefits must be weighed against the side effects of the drug, including weight gain, fluid retention, atypical fractures, and, possibly, bladder cancer. When low doses of pioglitazone are used (eg, 7.5-30 mg/d) with gradual titration, and physician recognition of the potential side effects are applied, the risk-to-benefit ratio is very favorable. Despite having similar effects on glycemic control, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone appear to have different effects on cardiovascular outcomes. Rosiglitazone has been associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction, and its use in the United States is restricted because of cardiovascular safety concerns.

Effect of pill burden on dosing preferences, willingness to pay, and likely adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes

PURPOSE

To quantify willingness-to-pay (WTP) for reducing pill burden and dosing frequency among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and to examine the effect of dosing frequency and pill burden on likely medication adherence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants were US adults with T2DM on oral antihyperglycemic therapy. Each patient completed an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) with eight choice questions, each including a pair of hypothetical medication profiles. Each profile was defined by reduction in average glucose (AG), daily dosing, chance of mild-to-moderate stomach problems, frequency of hypoglycemia, weight change, incremental risk of congestive heart failure (CHF), and cost. Patients were asked to rate their likely adherence to the profiles presented in each question. Choice questions were based on a predetermined experimental design. Choice data were analyzed using random-parameters logit. Likely treatment adherence was analyzed using a Heckman two-stage model.

RESULTS

Of the 1,114 patients who completed the survey, 90 had lower dosing burden (<5 pills/day taken once/day or as needed) for all medications, and 1,024 had higher dosing burden (≥5 pills/day or more than once/day). Reduction in AG was valued most highly by patients. Hypoglycemia, chance of mild-to-moderate stomach problems, weight change, incremental risk of CHF, and daily dosing were less valued. Patients with higher current dosing burden had lower WTP for more convenient dosing schedules than patients with lower current dosing burden. Changes in dosing and cost impacted likely adherence. The magnitude of the impact of dosing on likely adherence was higher for patients with lower current dosing burden than for patients with higher current dosing burden.

CONCLUSION

Patients with T2DM were willing to pay for improvements in efficacy, side effects, and dosing. Patients' WTP for more convenient dosing depended on current dosing burden, as did the effect of these attributes on likely adherence.

Future detection and monitoring of diabetes may entail analysis of both β-cell function and volume: how markers of β-cell loss may assist

Disease heterogeneity is as major issue in Type II Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM), and this patient inter-variability might not be sufficiently reflected by measurements of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c).Β-cell dysfunction and β-cell death are initiating factors in development of T2DM. In fact, β-cells are known vanish prior to the development of T2DM, and autopsy of overt T2DM patients have shown a 60% reduction in β-cell mass.As the decline in β-cell function and mass have been proven to be pathological traits in T2DM, methods for evaluating β-cell loss is becoming of more interest. However, evaluation of β-cell death or loss is currently invasive and unattainable for the vast majority of diabetes patients. Serological markers, reflecting β-cell loss would be advantageous to detect and monitor progression of T2DM. Biomarkers with such capacities could be neo-epitopes of proteins with high β-cell specificity containing post translational modifications. Such tools may segregate T2DM patients into more appropriate treatment groups, based on their β-cell status, which is currently not possible. Presently individuals presenting with adequately elevated levels of both insulin and glucose are classified as T2DM patients, while an important subdivision of those is pending, namely those patients with sufficient β-cell capacity and those without. This may warrant two very different treatment options and patient care paths.Serological biomarkers reflecting β-cell health status may also assist development of new drugs for T2DM and aid physicians in better characterization of individual patients and tailor individual treatments and patient care protocols.

Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin used as monotherapy in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-4): a 26-week double-blind study

OBJECTIVE

To test the safety and efficacy of exenatide once weekly (EQW) compared with metformin (MET), pioglitazone (PIO), and sitagliptin (SITA) over 26 weeks, in suboptimally treated (diet and exercise) drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to subcutaneous (SC) EQW 2.0 mg + oral placebo (n = 248), MET 2,000 mg/day + SC placebo (n = 246), PIO 45 mg/day + SC placebo (n = 163), or SITA 100 mg/day + SC placebo (n = 163) for 26 weeks. MET and PIO therapies were increased to maximum-tolerated dosages. Injections with EQW or placebo were administered weekly, while oral medication or placebo was administered daily.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were as follows: 59% men, 67% Caucasian, mean age 54 years, HbA(1c) 8.5%, fasting serum glucose 9.9 mmol/L, body weight 87.0 kg, and diabetes duration 2.7 years. HbA(1c) reductions (%) at 26 weeks (least-squares means) with EQW versus MET, PIO, and SITA were -1.53 vs. -1.48 (P = 0.620), -1.63 (P = 0.328), and -1.15 (P < 0.001), respectively. Weight changes (kg) were -2.0 vs. -2.0 (P = 0.892), +1.5 (P < 0.001), and -0.8 (P < 0.001), respectively. Common adverse events were as follows: EQW, nausea (11.3%) and diarrhea (10.9%); MET, diarrhea (12.6%) and headache (12.2%); PIO, nasopharyngitis (8.6%) and headache (8.0%); and SIT, nasopharyngitis (9.8%) and headache (9.2%). Minor (confirmed) hypoglycemia was rarely reported. No major hypoglycemia occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

EQW was noninferior to MET but not PIO and superior to SITA with regard to HbA(1c) reduction at 26 weeks. Of the agents studied, EQW and MET provided similar improvements in glycemic control along with the benefit of weight reduction and no increased risk of hypoglycemia.

Which is the eligible patient to be treated with pioglitazone? The expert view

Pioglitazone has an important role in the treatment of patients with Type 2 diabetes. The drug can help patients to achieve sustained glycemic control and may delay the requirement for insulin. Pioglitazone may provide benefits beyond its effects on glycemia, with data suggesting it may confer anti-atherosclerotic and cardioprotective properties. Attention should be given to possible side effects relating to class effects of TZD, and selection of appropriate patients to be prescribed pioglitazone will enable optimum benefits to be derived from pioglitazone treatment.

Management of patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The number of treatment options in the diabetes arena has grown dramatically in a short period of time, with a corresponding increase in the breadth and depth of literature from which physicians and diabetes organizations make evidence-based decisions. Thus, the purpose of this article is to provide an up-to-date review of the literature describing current treatment options and guidelines available for the management of type 2 diabetes and prevention of its complications.

METHODS

Pubmed searches were conducted for recent literature pertaining to the prevention of complications in type 2 diabetes. Comprehensive search terms were devised to identify articles describing micro- and macrovascular complications including nephropathy, neuropathy, retinopathy, and cardiovascular disease associated with type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

The current body of literature demonstrates that a significant reduction in the incidence of diabetic complications is achievable with early initiation and long-term maintenance of controlled blood glucose and cardiovascular risk factors. Screening for diabetic complications should be initiated early and continued at regular intervals to ensure early pharmacological intervention.