Comparison of nateglinide and gliclazide in combination with metformin, for treatment of patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on maximum doses of metformin alone

Efficacy and Safety of DPP-4 Inhibitors and Metformin Combinations in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

Several oral antidiabetic regimens are available for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) being one of them. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing DPP4i plus metformin (Met) combination with other Met-based oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) combinations used in treating patients with T2DM.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Embase from inception until 19th April, 2022 for phase II and phase III trials in patients with T2DM on Met-based traditional OADs. The primary outcome was assessed by change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-hour post-prandial blood glucose (2h-PPG). The secondary safety outcomes assessed were hypoglycemic events, serious adverse events (SAEs), cardiovascular (CV) events, and gastrointestinal (GI) events.

Results

Sixty-two trials were included in the analysis. The combination of DPP4i + Met revealed a comparable mean reduction in HbA1c levels to the glinides (Gli) + Met combination (mean difference [MD]: -0.03%, 95% CI: 0.69, -0.65), although the difference was not statistically significant. The mean HbA1c reduction with DPP4i + Met was greater than with sulfonylureas (SU) + Met (MD: -0.05, 95% CI: -0.29, 0.39), thiazolidinedione (TZD) + Met (MD: -0.69, 95% CI: -1.39, -0.02), and SU + TZD (MD: 0.21; 95% CI: -1.30, 1.71), with no statistical significance. DPP4i + Met demonstrated a non-significant lower incidence of CV events in comparison to TZD + Met (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.46, 2.45) and SU + Met (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.61, 2.06).

Conclusion

DPP4i in combination with Met was efficacious and had a well-tolerated safety profile compared with other traditional OADs. This combination can be considered as a suitable treatment option for patients with T2DM.

Design, Synthesis, Molecular Modeling and Anti-Hyperglycemic Evaluation of Quinazoline-Sulfonylurea Hybrids as Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor Gamma (PPARγ) and Sulfonylurea Receptor (SUR) Agonists

New quinazoline-sulfonylurea hybrids were prepared and examined for their in vivo anti-hyperglycemic activities in STZ-induced hyperglycemic rats using glibenclamide as a reference drug. Compounds VI-6-a, V, IV-4, VI-4-c, IV-6, VI-2-a, IV-1, and IV-2 were more potent than the reference glibenclamide. They induced significant reduction in the blood glucose levels of diabetic rats: 78.2, 73.9, 71.4, 67.3, 62, 60.7, 58.4, and 55.9%, respectively, while the reference glibenclamide had 55.4%. Compounds IV-1, VI-2-a, IV-2, V, and IV-6 showed more prolonged antidiabetic activity than glibenclamide. Moreover, molecular docking and pharmacokinetic studies were performed to examine binding modes of the prepared compounds against peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ). The highest active compounds exhibited good binding affinity with high free energy of binding against PPARγ. In silico absorption, distribution, metabolism, elimination and toxicity (ADMET) studies were performed to investigate pharmacokinetics and safety of the synthesized compounds. They showed considerable human intestinal absorption with low toxicity profile.

Mechanisms and Characteristics of Sulfonylureas and Glinides

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex progressive endocrine disease characterized by hyperglycemia and life-threatening complications. It is the most common disorder of pancreatic cell function that causes insulin deficiency. Sulfonylurea is a class of oral hypoglycemic drugs. Over the past half century, these drugs, together with the subsequent non-sulfonylureas (glinides), have been the main oral drugs for insulin secretion.

OBJECTIVE

Through in-depth study, the medical profession considers it as an important drug for improving blood sugar control.

METHODS

The mechanism, characteristics, efficacy and side effects of sulfonylureas and glinides were reviewed in detail.

RESULTS

Sulfonylureas and glinides not only stimulated the release of insulin from pancreatic cells, but also had many extrapanular hypoglycemic effect, such as reducing the clearance rate of insulin in liver, reducing the secretion of glucagon, and enhancing the sensitivity of peripheral tissues to insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION

Sulfonylureas and glinides are effective first-line drugs for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Although they have the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain and cardiovascular disease, their clinical practicability and safety can be guaranteed as long as they are reasonably used.

Evaluation of non-linear-mixed-effect modeling to reduce the sample sizes of pediatric trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Recruitment for pediatric trials in Type II Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is very challenging, necessitating the exploration of new approaches for reducing the sample sizes of pediatric trials. This work aimed at assessing if a longitudinal Non-Linear-Mixed-Effect (NLME) analysis of T2DM trial could be more powerful and thus require fewer patients than two standard statistical analyses commonly used as primary or sensitivity efficacy analysis: Last-Observation-Carried-Forward (LOCF) followed by (co)variance (AN(C)OVA) analysis at the evaluation time-point, and Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Standard T2DM efficacy studies were simulated, with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the main endpoint, 24 weeks' study duration, 2 arms, assuming a placebo and a treatment effect, exploring three different scenarios for the evolution of HbA1c, and accounting for a dropout phenomenon. 1000 trials were simulated, then analyzed using the 3 analyses, whose powers were compared. As expected, the longitudinal modeling MMRM analysis was found to be more powerful than the LOCF + ANOVA analysis at week 24. The NLME analysis gave slightly more accurate drug-effect estimations than the two other methods, however it tended to slightly overestimate the magnitude of the drug effect, and it was more powerful than the MMRM analysis only in some scenarios of slow HbA1c decrease. The gain in power afforded by NLME was more apparent when two additional assessments enriched the design; however, the gain was not systematic for all scenarios. Finally, this work showed that NLME analyses may help to reduce significantly the required sample sizes in T2DM pediatric studies, but only for enriched designs and slow HbA1c decrease.

Novel Gliclazide Electrosprayed Nano-Solid Dispersions: Physicochemical Characterization and Dissolution Evaluation

Purpose: In the current study, electrospraying was directed as a novel alternative approach to improve the physicochemical attributes of gliclazide (GLC), as a poorly water-soluble drug, by creating nanocrystalline/amorphous solid dispersions (ESSs). Methods: ESSs were formulated using Eudragit® RS100 and polyethylene glycol (PEG) 6000 as polymeric carriers at various drug: polymer ratios (i.e. 1:5 and 1:10) with different total solution concentrations of 10, 15, and 20% w/v. Morphological, physicochemical, and in-vitro release characteristics of the developed formulations were assessed. Furthermore, GLC dissolution behaviors from ESSs were fitted to various models in order to realize the drug release mechanism. Results: Field emission scanning electron microscopy analyses revealed that the size and morphology of the ESSs were affected by the drug: polymer ratios and solution concentrations. The polymer ratio augmentation led to increase in the particle size while the solution concentration enhancement yielded in a fiber establishment. Differential scanning calorimetry and powder X-ray diffraction investigations demonstrated that the ESSs were present in an amorphous state. Furthermore, the in vitro drug release studies depicted that the samples prepared employing PEG 6000 as carrier enhanced the dissolution rate and the model that appropriately fitted the release behavior of ESSs was Weibull model, where demonstrating a Fickian diffusion as the leading release mechanism. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy results showed a probability of complexation or hydrogen bonding, development between GLC and the polymers in the solid state. Conclusion: Hence the electrospraying system avails the both nanosizing and amorphization advantages, therefore, it can be efficiently applied to formulating of ESSs of BCS Class II drugs.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Hypoglycaemia when adding sulphonylurea to metformin: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

The risk of hypoglycaemia may differ among sulphonylureas (SUs), but evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse. Performing a network meta-analysis to use indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we compared the relative risk of hypoglycaemia with newer generation SUs when added to metformin.

METHODS

A systematic review identified RCTs lasting 12-52 weeks and evaluating SUs added to inadequate metformin monotherapy (≥1000 mg/day) in type 2 diabetes. Adding RCTs investigating the active comparators from the identified SU trials, we established a coherent network. Hypoglycaemia of any severity was the primary end point.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials of SUs and 14 of oral non-SU antihyperglycaemic agents (16 260 patients) were included. All reported hypoglycaemia only as adverse events. Producing comparable reductions in HbA1C of -0.66 to -0.84% (-7 to -9 mmol/mol), the risk of hypoglycaemia was lowest with gliclazide compared to glipizide (OR 0.22, CrI: 0.05 to 0.96), glimepiride (OR 0.40, CrI: 0.13 to 1.27), and glibenclamide (OR 0.21, CrI: 0.03 to 1.48). A major limitation is varying definitions of hypoglycaemia across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

When added to metformin, gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia between the newer generation SUs. Clinicians should consider the risk of hypoglycaemia agent-specific when selecting an SU agent.

Addition of sulphonylurea to metformin does not relevantly change body weight: a prospective observational cohort study (ZODIAC-39)

AIM

To investigate changes in body weight trajectories after the addition of individual sulphonylureas (SUs) to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study, in a primary care setting in the Netherlands. Patients aged ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes who were included in the ZODIAC cohort between 1998 and 2012 and who received metformin monotherapy at inclusion (n = 29 195), and had used metformin as monotherapy for at least 1 year before receiving dual therapy through the addition of an SU for at least 1 year were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was within-drug yearly change in body weight after receiving add-on therapy with individual SUs during 5 years of follow-up. The secondary outcome was within-drug yearly change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Annual changes in weight and HbA1c were estimated with linear mixed models, adjusted for age, gender and diabetes duration.

RESULTS

A total of 2958 patients were included. No significant weight changes were observed within and between any of the individual SUs after treatment intensification (p = 0.24). In addition, no significant difference in weight between the add-on therapy combinations was observed (p = 0.26). The average HbA1c the year before intensification was 7.2% (55 mmol/mol) and dropped below 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) the year after.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes treated in primary care, strict glycaemic control can be maintained with SUs used as add-on therapy to metformin, without the offset of relevant weight changes.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and hypoglycemic safety of gliclazide versus other insulinotropic agents

AIMS

Sulfonylureas are well positioned in treating type 2 diabetes, after lifestyle modification and metformin. The sulfonylurea gliclazide was given preference over glibenclamide in older people with type 2 diabetes in the World Health Organization model list of essential medicines. Consequently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the efficacy and safety of gliclazide versus other oral insulinotropic agents (sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and glinides) was performed.

METHODS

Two reviewers searched MEDLINE for studies of ≥12 weeks duration in adults with type 2 diabetes. The key search word was "gliclazide", filtered with "randomized controlled trial", "human" and "19+ years". Differences were explored in mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline (primary outcome) and risk of hypoglycemia (secondary outcome) between gliclazide and other oral insulinotropic agents; and other sulfonylureas.

RESULTS

Nine out of 181 references reported primary outcomes, of which 7 reported secondary outcomes. Gliclazide lowered HbA1c more than other oral insulinotropic agents, with a weighted mean difference of -0.11% (95%, CI -0.19 to -0.03%, P=0.008, I(2)=60%), though not more than other sulfonylureas (-0.12%; 95%, CI -0.25 to 0.01%, P=0.07, I(2)=77%). Risk of hypoglycemia with gliclazide was not different to other insulinotropic agents (RR 0.85; 95%, CI 0.66 to 1.09, P=0.20, I(2)=61%) but significantly lower than other sulfonylureas (RR 0.47; 95%, CI 0.27 to 0.79, P=0.004, I(2)=0%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with other oral insulinotropic agents, gliclazide significantly reduced HbA1c with no difference regarding hypoglycemia risk. Compared with other sulfonylureas, HbA1c reduction with gliclazide was not significantly different, but hypoglycemia risk was significantly lower.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antidiabetic drug regimens added to metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis

Introduction

When first line therapy with metformin is insufficient for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the optimal adjunctive therapy is unclear. We assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antidiabetic agents in patients with inadequately controlled T2D on metformin alone.

Materials and Methods

A search of MEDLINE and CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, regulatory websites was performed. We included randomized controlled trials of 3–12 months duration, evaluating Food and Drug Administration or European Union approved agents (noninsulin and long acting, once daily basal insulins) in patients experiencing inadequate glycemic control with metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg daily or maximally tolerated dose for ≥4 weeks). Random-effects network meta-analyses were used to compare the weighted mean difference for changes from baseline in HbA1c, body weight (BW) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), and the risk of developing hypoglycemia, urinary (UTI) and genital tract infection (GTI).

Results

Sixty-two trials evaluating 25 agents were included. All agents significantly reduced HbA1c vs. placebo; albeit not to the same extent (range, 0.43% for miglitol to 1.29% for glibenclamide). Glargine, sulfonylureas (SUs) and nateglinide were associated with increased hypoglycemia risk vs. placebo (range, 4.00–11.67). Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs, miglitol and empagliflozin/linagliptin significantly reduced BW (range, 1.15–2.26kg) whereas SUs, thiazolindinediones, glargine and alogliptin/pioglitazone caused weight gain (range, 1.19–2.44kg). SGLT2 inhibitors, empagliflozin/linagliptin, liraglutide and sitagliptin decreased SBP (range, 1.88–5.43mmHg). No therapy increased UTI risk vs. placebo; however, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of GTI (range, 2.16–8.03).

Conclusions

Adding different AHAs to metformin was associated with varying effects on HbA1c, BW, SBP, hypoglycemia, UTI and GTI which should impact clinician choice when selecting adjunctive therapy.

Observational and clinical trial findings on the comparative effectiveness of diabetes drugs showed agreement

OBJECTIVES

This study compares an observational study of diabetes treatment effectiveness to randomized controlled trials to assess their convergent validity.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Multivariate models were developed using observational data to describe change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c; % unit) and weight (kilograms) after addition of a second-line oral diabetes drug to metformin monotherapy. Randomized trials of these scenarios were systematically identified. The models were used to simulate each trial, and simulated and actual results were compared by linear regression and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-two randomized trials of second-line diabetes oral therapy were identified. For all outcomes and drugs studied, simulation and actual results correlated (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between meta-analyzed randomized and simulated results for effect on HbA1c. For effect on weight, results were qualitatively comparable, but for sulfonylureas, the simulated weight gain was nominally greater than seen in the randomized controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

An observational study of diabetes drug effectiveness showed convergent validity with randomized data. This supports cautious use of the observational research to draw conclusions about drug effectiveness in populations not studied in clinical trials. This approach may be useful in other situations where observational and randomized data need integration.

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.

The role of nateglinide and repaglinide, derivatives of meglitinide, in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the most common chronic diseases worldwide, presenting a great challenge to the public health systems due to high morbidity and mortality, because of frequent micro-/macro-vascular complications. Many treatment options are now available, with different efficacy as well as mechanisms of action to improve deranged glucose metabolism. We review some of the available data on derivatives of meglitinide, namely nateglinide and repaglinide. These two compounds increase insulin secretion by a mechanism similar to the one of sulfonylureas, but with a shorter half-life. Nateglinide and repaglinide, derivatives of meglitinides, have characteristic pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties that, together with their proposed mechanism of action, make them useful for type 2 diabetes mellitus, especially when used in combination therapy.

Effect of antidiabetic agents added to metformin on glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and weight change in patients with type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis

AIM

Most guidelines recommend metformin as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, the choice of a second-line drug lacks consistent consensus. We aimed to assess available information of antidiabetic drugs added to metformin on the change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (A1C), risk of hypoglycaemia and change in body weight.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) written in English through December 2011. We analysed direct and indirect comparisons of different treatments using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine RCTs involving 17 860 individuals were included. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues resulted in greater decrease in A1C compared with sulfonylureas, glinides, thiazolidinediones, α-glucosidase inhibitors and DPP-4 inhibitors [-0.20% (95% CI -0.34 to -0.04%), -0.31% (95% CI -0.61 to -0.02%), -0.20% (95% CI -0.38 to -0.00), -0.36% (95% CI -0.64 to -0.07%), -0.32% (95% CI -0.47 to -0.17%), respectively] and was comparable with basal insulin and biphasic insulin. A1C decrease was greater for sulfonylureas compared with DPP-4 inhibitors [-0.12% (-0.23 to -0.03%)], and for biphasic insulin compared with glinides (-0.36%; 95% CI -0.82 to -0.11%). Compared with placebo, the risk of hypoglycaemia was increased in the sulfonylureas, glinides, basal insulin and biphasic insulin. Weight increase was seen with sulfonylureas, glinides, thiazolidinediones, basal insulin and biphasic insulin, and weight loss was seen with α-glucosidase inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic insulin, GLP-1 analogues and basal insulin were ranked the top three drugs in terms of A1C reduction. GLP-1 analogues did not increase the risk of hypoglycaemia and resulted in a significant decrease in body weight. Most oral antidiabetic drugs had similar effects on A1C, but some agents had a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and body weight gain.

Drug-induced hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Hypoglycaemia is a side effect caused by some therapies for type 2 diabetes, which can cause physical, social and psychological harm. Hypoglycaemia also prevents attainment of treatment goals and satisfactory glycaemic control.

AREAS COVERED

The risk of hypoglycaemia associated with commonly prescribed therapies, including metformin, sulphonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 enzyme (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists and thiazolidinediones, is reviewed in this paper (insulin-induced hypoglycaemia is not included). Other medications that are frequently co-prescribed in type 2 diabetes are also discussed, including anti-hypertensive drugs, antibiotics and fibrates, along with various important patient-related risk factors.

EXPERT OPINION

Hypoglycaemia is a common and potentially dangerous side effect of some medications used for type 2 diabetes. The risk of hypoglycaemia should always be considered when selecting and implementing a therapy, with a focus on the individual. Future research into new therapies should measure the frequency of hypoglycaemia prospectively and accurately. Hypoglycaemia has been shown to be a potentially life-threatening metabolic stress; therefore therapies that effectively manage diabetes without the risk of hypoglycaemia are likely to be favoured in the future.

Second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although there is general agreement that metformin should be used as first-line pharmacotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes, uncertainty remains regarding the choice of second-line therapy once metformin is no longer effective. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of all available classes of antihyperglycemic therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English from 1980 to October 2009. Additional citations were obtained from grey literature and conference proceedings and through stakeholder feedback. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Key outcomes of interest were hemoglobin A1c, body weight, hypoglycemia, quality of life, long-term diabetes-related complications, serious adverse drug events and mortality. Mixed-treatment comparison and pairwise meta-analyses were conducted to pool trial results, when appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 49 active and non-active controlled randomized trials that compared 2 or more of the following classes of antihyperglycemic agents and weight-loss agents: sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues, insulins, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, sibutramine and orlistat. All classes of second-line antihyperglycemic therapies achieved clinically meaningful reductions in hemoglobin A1c (0.6% to 1.0%). No significant differences were found between classes. Insulins and insulin secretagogues were associated with significantly more events of overall hypoglycemia than the other agents, but severe hypoglycemia was rarely observed. An increase in body weight was observed with the majority of second-line therapies (1.8 to 3.0 kg), the exceptions being DPP-4 inhibitors, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues (0.6 to -1.8 kg). There were insufficient data available for diabetes complications, mortality or quality of life.

INTERPRETATION

DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues achieved improvements in glycemic control similar to those of other second-line therapies, although they may have modest benefits in terms of weight gain and overall hypoglycemia. Further long-term trials of adequate power are required to determine whether newer drug classes differ from older agents in terms of clinically meaningful outcomes.

Evaluation of efficacy and tolerability of gliclazide and metformin combination: a multicentric study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on monotherapy with sulfonylurea or metformin

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of gliclazide/metformin on glycemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on monotherapy with sulfonylurea or metformin. This was a prospective, open-labeled, multicentric study over 12 weeks. Patients who were diagnosed of Type 2 diabetes and were uncontrolled on monotherapy with oral hypoglycemic agents, including gliclazide and metformin, characterized by HbA1c 7% or greater and 10% or less and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 140 mg/dL or greater were enrolled in this study. The treatment regimen was started at 80 mg gliclazide plus 500 mg metformin once a day and was titrated to the next dose level depending on the clinician's judgment, not exceeding a total daily dose of 320 mg gliclazide and 2000 mg metformin. Changes from baseline HbA1c, FPG, and postprandial glucose were examined. After 12-weeks treatment, the gliclazide + metformin combination showed improvement in metabolic control as assessed by changes in HbA1c, FPG, and postprandial glucose. The primary efficacy parameter, HbA1c, was significantly reduced to 7.35 ± 1.10 at the end of treatment from the baseline value (8.51 ± 0.77) (P < 0.001). A total of 84.35% of patients showed a 0.5% or greater reduction in HbA1c and 37.39% of patients reported less than 7% HbA1c at the end of therapy. FPG and postprandial glucose were significantly reduced at the end of therapy as compared with baseline values (P < 0.001). Moreover, the lipid profile was also improved during the treatment period. The addition of gliclazide to metformin is an effective treatment for patients inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea or metformin alone. A combination of gliclazide with metformin achieves good glycemic control and improves lipid levels with better tolerability profile.

Updated review: improved glycemic control with repaglinide-metformin in fixed combination for patients with type 2 diabetes

As the prevalence of type 2 diabetes continues to rise, new drug therapies will need to be explored to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes as well as growing health care costs. Type 2 diabetes is characterized by decreased insulin secretion and sensitivity. Numerous oral medications are currently approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. A treat-to-failure approach has traditionally been adopted with step-wise additions of oral medications; however, a growing frequency of treatment failures with monotherapy has led to the use of combination therapies earlier in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. One such combination regimen is repaglinide (a prandial glucose optimizer that increases insulin release) plus metformin (an insulin sensitizer that inhibits hepatic glucose output and increases peripheral glucose uptake while minimizing weight gain). Findings from several clinical trials have shown repaglinide plus metformin combination therapy to be superior to either monotherapy with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1C and fasting glucose values. Repaglinide used in combination also has shown less incidence of hypoglycemia compared with other combination therapies such as sulphonylureas plus metformin. Repaglinide plus metformin combination therapy appears to be a valuable therapeutic option for type 2 diabetic patients seeking a less complex drug regimen while potentially achieving better glucose control if currently inadequately controlled on monotherapy.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus with orally administered agents: advances in combination therapy

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the effects and clinical benefit provided by combining various orally administered antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and to examine the advantages of single-tablet combinations with respect to targeting hyperglycemia and adherence.

METHODS

A review of randomized controlled trials that studied OAD combinations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes was conducted by using search terms in PubMed.

RESULTS

Reported data have documented that OAD combination therapies have additional benefits over monotherapy in terms of glycemic efficacy. Results from randomized controlled trials on a range of OAD combinations have demonstrated differences in safety and efficacy. The use of single-tablet OAD combinations has been shown to improve adherence in patients.

CONCLUSION

The development of single-tablet OAD combinations that can address all aspects of glycemia with a favorable tolerability profile has the potential to help patients manage their glycemic control more effectively and to minimize the risk of long-term diabetes-related complications. In addition, single-tablet combinations of agents offer improved convenience for patients as well as potential cost benefits. Thus, they represent an important treatment option for type 2 diabetes.

Nateglinide versus repaglinide for type 2 diabetes mellitus in China

The purpose of this study is to evaluate efficacy and safety of nateglinide tablet administration in comparison with those of repaglinide tablet as control on treating type 2 diabetes mellitus in China. Pooled-analysis with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was applied to assess the efficacy and safety based on original data collected from four independent randomized clinical trials with similar research protocols. However meta-analysis was applied based on the outcomes of the four studies. The results by meta-analysis were comparable to those obtained by pooled-analysis. The means of HbA(1c), and fasting blood glucose in both the nateglinide and repaglinide groups were reduced significantly after 12 weeks duration but no statistical differences in reduction between the two groups. The adverse reaction rates were 9.89 and 6.51% in the nateglinide and repaglinide groups respectively, with the rate difference showing no statistical significance, and the Odds Ratio of adverse reaction rate (95% confidence interval) was 1.59 (0.99, 2.55). Both nateglinide and repaglinide administration have similarly significant effects on reducing HbA(1c) and FBG. However, the adverse reaction rate in the nateglinide group is higher than that in the latter using repaglinide but no statistical significance difference as revealed in the four clinical trials detailed below.

Combination of nateglinide with thiazolidinediones in Type 2 diabetes

Insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion are reciprocally related such that insulin resistance is adapted by increased insulin secretion to maintain normal glucose and lipid homeostasis. Treatment of Type 2 diabetes should aim to restore and sustain the normal relationship between insulin sensitivity and secretion. Nateglinide is a rapid-onset, short-acting insulin-secretion enhancer that restores early-phase insulin secretion, reduces postprandial glucose excursions and prevents long-term hyperinsulinemia. Given its mechanism of action, it is evident that nateglinide would be more effective when used in combination with an insulin sensitizer, such as the thiazolidinediones. Thiazolidinediones do not stimulate insulin release and, therefore, are potentially suitable candidates for combination therapy with an insulin-secretion enhancer, such as nateglinide. Combination therapy of thiazolidinediones with nateglinide is effective, carries low risk of hypoglycemia and is suitable for patients with moderate renal impairment, although weight gain and edema are common side effects. Further studies are needed to determine whether nateglinide in combination with thiazolidinediones will help clinicians better achieve their treatment goals in targeting Type 2 diabetes. Moreover, comparative studies between nateglinide and medications targeting postprandial glycemia, such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, are necessary. This article summarizes data concerning the mechanism of action, efficacy and safety of therapy with nateglinide and thiazolidinediones as monotherapy and in combination treatment, and aims at a better understanding of the substrate defects their synergy hopes to defy.

Safety and efficacy of nateglinide/metformin combination therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes provides impetus for both development of new drugs to improve glycemic control and for reconsideration of treatment strategies with existing agents. Combination therapy with complementary drug classes that act on different aspects of glycemic control has been a particularly effective strategy. This work reviews the published literature reporting efficacy and safety/tolerability of nateglinide, a rapid-onset insulinotropic agent with a predominant effect to reduce postprandial glucose, when combined with metformin, a first-line agent that suppresses hepatic glucose production and thereby reduces fasting plasma glucose. The nateglinide/metformin combination has consistently been found to be both efficacious and well tolerated, whether given as initial combination therapy in drug-naïve patients or when added to metformin monotherapy. Maximum efficacy (Δ glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA_1c]= −1.4% to −1.9%, sustained for up to 2 years of treatment) was seen in studies of drug-naïve patients in whom pharmacotherapy was initiated with the combination of nateglinide and metformin, and modest reductions in HbA_1c (Δ = −0.5% to −1.2%, sustained for up to 24 weeks) were found when nateglinide was added to ongoing metformin monotherapy.

Conclusion: the combination of nateglinide and metformin provides a sustained degree of glycemic control not achievable with either agent given as monotherapy.

Oral combination therapy: repaglinide plus metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is characterized by decreases in insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity. Several classes of oral antidiabetic medications are currently approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. A stepwise treatment approach from monotherapy to combination therapy is traditionally used; however, the frequency of treatment failure with monotherapy has resulted in a move towards earlier treatment with combination therapies that target the two principal defects in glycaemic control. One such combination regimen is repaglinide (a prandial glucose regulator that increases insulin release) plus metformin (an insulin sensitizer that inhibits hepatic glucose output, increases peripheral glucose uptake and utilization and minimizes weight gain). Findings from several clinical trials have shown that combination therapy with repaglinide plus metformin is well tolerated and results in greater reductions of haemoglobin A(1c) and fasting plasma glucose values compared with either monotherapy. Repaglinide may also provide a more suitable alternative to combination therapy with sulphonylureas and metformin because of its reduced propensity for hypoglycaemia. The combination regimen of repaglinide plus metformin should therefore be considered as a valuable option in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes when monotherapy is no longer adequate.

Glycaemic control and adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin + sulphonylurea: a meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of a sulphonylurea on glycaemic control and the risk adverse events when incorporated into the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials of sulphonylurea therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycaemic control was inadequate after maximal treatment with metformin. Data on reductions in haemoglobin A(1C) (HbA(1C)), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and risk of hypoglycaemic events were extracted from each study and pooled in meta-analyses. Data on weight change were also extracted and tabulated.

RESULTS

Six studies including 1364 patients were identified. Based on random effects meta-analysis, the pooled estimate of change in HbA(1C) from baseline was 0.9% (95% CI 0.7-1.1, p = 0.00011 vs. baseline) and for change in FPG from baseline was 1.8 mmol/l (95% CI 1.1-2.5, p = 0.0026 vs. baseline). The odds of experiencing a hypoglycaemic event was significantly higher in sulphonylurea-treated patients than in those on comparator treatments (OR = 5.3, 95% CI 1.7-16.3, p = 0.03). Mean weight change ranged from +2.5 to -0.1 kg, depending on the comparator treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis has demonstrated that, in patients with type 2 diabetes whose control is inadequate on metformin monotherapy, the magnitude of incremental HbA(1C) reduction achieved by the addition of a sulphonylurea is unlikely to exceed 1%, even after titration to maximum tolerated doses. Additionally, clinically relevant side-effects such as symptomatic hypoglycaemia and weight gain may be experienced.

A review of nateglinide in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes

Impaired insulin secretion occurs early in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and is chronic and progressive, resulting initially in impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and eventually in T2DM. As most patients with T2DM have both insulin resistance and insulin deficiency, therapy for T2DM should aim to control not only fasting, but also postprandial plasma glucose levels. While oral glucose-lowering treatment with metformin and thiazolidinediones corrects fasting plasma glucose, these agents do not address the problem of mealtime glucose spikes that have been shown to trigger atherogenic processes. Nateglinide is a derivative of the amino acid D-phenylalanine, which acts directly on the pancreatic beta-cells to stimulate insulin secretion. Nateglinide monotherapy controls significantly mealtime hyperglycemia and results in improved overall glycemic control in patients with T2DM by reducing glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. The combination of nateglinide with insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin and thiazolidinediones, targets both insulin deficiency and insulin resistance and results in reductions in HbA1c that could not be achieved by monotherapy with other antidiabetic agents. In prediabetic subjects with IGT, nateglinide restores early insulin secretion and reduces postprandial hyperglycemia. Nateglinide has an excellent safety and tolerability profile and provides a lifetime flexibility that other antidiabetic agents could not accomplish. The aim of this review is to identify nateglinide as an effective "gate-keeper" in T2DM, since it restores early-phase insulin secretion and prevents mealtime glucose spikes throughout the day and to evaluate the results of ongoing research into its potential role in delaying the progression to overt diabetes and reducing its complications and mortality.

Effects of early use of pioglitazone in combination with metformin in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes is characterised by a progressive decline in HbA1c control over time. Early combination therapy, rather than sequential introduction of individual oral glucose-lowering agents, has been proposed to prevent this gradual rise in HbA1c. This observational study assessed the effect of early dual combination oral glucose-lowering therapies within 6 months of diagnosis in newly diagnosed, drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was an observational, open-label, non-randomised study in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes, aged 35-70 years, with HbA1c levels > 8.0% at diagnosis or > 7.0% at the 3-6-month follow-up. Patients were allocated to dietary management alone if the HbA1c level was 7.0-8.0% at diagnosis. Metformin combined with gliclazide, repaglinide, or pioglitazone was given at diagnosis if the HbA1c was > 8.0%. Similar treatments were introduced at 3-6 months if the HbA1c was > 7.0%. Over a 3-year period, HbA1c was measured at 3-monthly intervals. All patients underwent regular dietetic review. Target HbA1c was < or = 7.0%.

RESULTS

416 patients were considered eligible for inclusion, with a mean (+/- SD) age of 54.1 +/- 9.2 years, BMI of 33.5 +/- 6.1 kg/m2, and baseline HbA1c of 8.6 +/- 1.7%. A mixed model analysis of variance on the 178 patients who started with combination therapy, either immediately or after a 3-6 month period on diet, showed that metformin plus gliclazide, repaglinide, or pioglitazone was associated with a gradual increase in HbA1c values. Amongst those patients treated with the metformin/pioglitazone combination there was an estimated 0.1% increase in HbA1c/year. This was much less pronounced than the rises seen in HbA1c/year of 0.5% with the metformin/gliclazide and metformin/repaglinide combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary analysis of an observational, non-randomised, open-label ongoing study has shown that early use of combination therapy at time of diagnosis or within the first 3-6 months following diagnosis with metformin plus pioglitazone in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes results in a slower deterioration in glycaemic control than that with metformin combined with either gliclazide or repaglinide. This may be due to the beta-cell protective properties of pioglitazone. These results need to be confirmed by further studies with a more robust design and methodology.

Nateglinide or gliclazide in combination with metformin for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on maximum doses of metformin alone: 1-year trial results

AIM

To compare long-term efficacy and safety of nateglinide plus metformin with those of gliclazide plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

Double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study extended to a total of 52 weeks. Patients with inadequate glucose control on maximal doses of metformin were randomized to nateglinide (N = 133) or gliclazide (N = 129) add-on treatment. After the initial 6-month study, the majority of patients in the nateglinide group [n = 112 (93.3%)] and in the gliclazide group [n = 101 (92.7%)] entered a 6-month, double-blind, extension study.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between treatment regimens in haemoglobin Alc (HbA1c) change from baseline to 52 weeks (-0.14% for nateglinide vs. -0.27% for gliclazide; p = 0.396). Proportions of patients achieving an endpoint HbA1c of <7% were similar (40 vs. 47.4%) for nateglinide and gliclazide groups. There was no significant between-treatment difference in fasting plasma glucose change from baseline to 52 weeks (nateglinide: -0.2 mmol/l and gliclazide: -0.7 mmol/l; p = 0.096). The decreases in prandial plasma glucose area under the curve(0-4 h) from baseline were -3.26 and -1.86 h x mmol/l in the nateglinide and the gliclazide groups respectively, and the change was statistically significant in the nateglinide group only (p = 0.006). Initial insulin response to a meal was augmented with nateglinide treatment only, without between-treatment difference in 2-h insulin response. The overall rate of hypoglycaemic events was similar with nateglinide and gliclazide combinations with metformin. Nateglinide plus metformin treatment was not associated with weight gain.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was seen between nateglinide plus metformin and gliclazide plus metformin in terms of HbA1c. Treatment with nateglinide plus metformin for up to 12 months was not associated with weight gain.