Strategies for the management of diabetic dyslipidaemia

A Study of Creatinine Level among Patients with Dyslipidemia and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus using Multilayer Perceptron and Multiple Linear Regression

Background and Objective:

Dyslipidemia is one of the most important risk factors for coronary heart disease with diabetes mellitus. Diabetic dyslipidemia is correlated with reduced concentrations of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, elevated concentrations of plasma triglycerides, and increased concentrations of dense small particles of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Furthermore, dyslipidemia is one of the factors that accelerate renal failure in patients with nephropathy that is observed to be higher in these patients. This paper aims to propose the variable selection using the multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural network methodology before performing the multiple linear regression (MLR) modeling. Dataset consists of patient with Dyslipidemia, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus was selected to illustrate the design-build methodology. According to clinical expert's opinion and based on their assessment, these variables were chosen, which comprises the level of creatinine, urea, total cholesterol, uric acid, sodium, and HbA1c.

Materials and Methods:

At the first stage, all the selected variables will be a screen for their clinical important point of view, and it was found that creatinine has a significant relationship to the level of urea reading, a total of cholesterol reading, and the level of uric acid reading. By considering the level of significance, α = 0.05, these three variables are being selected and used for the input of the MLP model. Then, the MLR is being applied according to the best variable obtained through MLP process.

Results:

Through the testing/out-sample mean squared error (MSE), the performance of MLP was assessed. MSE is an indication of the distance from the actual findings from our estimates. The smallest MSE of the MLP shows the best variable selection combination in the model.

Conclusion:

In this research paper, we also provide the R syntax for MLP better illustration. The key factors associated with creatinine were urea, total cholesterol, and uric acid in patients with dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Bile acid-based therapies for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and alcoholic liver disease

Bile acids are synthesized from cholesterol only in hepatocytes. Bile acids circulating in the enterohepatic system act as physiological detergent molecules to help solubilize biliary cholesterol and emulsify dietary lipids and fat-soluble vitamins in small intestine. Bile acids are signaling molecules that activate nuclear receptor farnesoid X receptor (FXR) and cell surface G protein-coupled receptor TGR5. FXR critically regulates bile acid homeostasis by mediating bile acid feedback inhibition of hepatic bile acid synthesis. In addition, bile acid-activated cellular signaling pathways regulate metabolic homeostasis, immunity, and cell proliferation in various metabolically active organs. In the small and large intestine, gut bacterial enzymes modify primary bile acids to generate secondary bile acids to help shape the bile acid pool composition and subsequent biological effects. In turn, bile acids exhibit anti-microbial properties and modulate gut microbiota to influence host metabolism and immunity. Currently, bile acid-based therapies including systemic and intestine-restricted FXR agonists, TGR5 agonists, fibroblast growth factor 19 analogue, intestine FXR antagonists, and intestine apical sodium-bile acid transporter (ASBT) inhibitors have been developed as promising treatments for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). These pharmacological agents improved metabolic and inflammatory disorders via distinct mechanisms of action that are subjects of extensive research interest. More recently, human and experimental alcoholic liver disease (ALD) has been associated with disrupted bile acid homeostasis. In additional, new findings showed that targeting bile acid metabolism and signaling may be promising therapeutic approaches for treating ALD.

Prevalence of dyslipidemia in adult Indian diabetic patients: A cross sectional study (SOLID)

CONTEXT

India leads the world with largest number of diabetic patients and is often referred to as the diabetes capital of the world. Diabetic dyslipidemia in India is one of the main cause for Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) mortality. Although diabetes continues to be a major lifestyle condition in India, there is a lack of studies in India on whether dyslipidemia in Indian diabetics is being adequately controlled. Our study provides critical insights into the insights into proportion of diabetes patients achieving lipid goal in India.

AIMS

The primary objective of our study was to assess the control of dyslipidemia in the Indian diabetic population treated with lipid lowering drugs (LLDs), as per American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2010 guidelines.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

The study was carried out in a real world Indian clinical setting involving 178 sites. This is a multicenter, noninterventional, and cross-sectional observational study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 5400 adult subjects with established type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and dyslipidemia were recruited for the study. Patients in the study were on LLD at a stable dose for at least last 3 months before the designated study visit. Routine lipid profile tests were conducted for all patients.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Descriptive statistics was used to analyze qualitative and discrete variables. Chi-square test and t-test were conducted to assess the existence of statistically significant association between the variables.

RESULTS

A total of 5400 patients with T2DM from 178 centers across India were recruited. Out of the total population, 56.75% (N = 3065) of them were males. Primary end-point of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level below ADA 2010 target was achieved in a total of 48.74% (N = 2632) patients. Gender was significantly associated with lipid levels and age was significantly (P < 0.05) correlated with all lipid levels. Control rates of other lipid parameters like high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and total cholesterol in the study were 60.48% (N = 3236), 57.54% (N = 3107), and 92.24% (N = 4981) respectively. Among those with overt cardiovascular disease (CVD), target LDL-C level of < 70 mg/dL was achieved in 22.87% (70 out of 306) patients. The LDL-C levels of 49.03% (N = 1768) patients who were on statin therapy were within target levels, while 53.46% (N = 634) patients who were on statin and their combinations with other LLDs had their LDL-C levels within the stipulated range.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has reveled that dyslipidemia control in Indian T2DM patients is very poor with almost half of them not reaching their LDL -C goal. Dyslipidemia being one of the main risk factors for CVD in T2DM patients there is a need to treat dyslipidemia aggressively to reduce risk of future CV events.

In vivo and In vitro Drug Interactions Study of Glimepride with Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin

Aim of this investigation was to study the in vivo and in vitro drug interaction of glimepride with atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. In vitro drug interaction of glimepride with atorvastatin and rosuvastatin was studied using human pooled liver microsomes and evaluated using high performance liquid chromatography. In vivo pharmacokinetic drug interaction of glimepride (6 mg/kg) in coadministration with atorvastatin (60 mg/kg) and rosuvastatin (60 mg/kg) were studied in rats and analyzed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). In in vitro study, atorvastatin decreased its own metabolism as well as the metabolism of glimepiride. Rosuvastatin coadministration with glimepride reduced the metabolism of glimepride and increased the metabolism of its own. In in vivo study, concentration in plasma, C(max), AUC((0-t)) and AUC((0-∞)) (area under the concentration-time curve, AUC) of glimepride was increased significantly in coadministration with atorvastatin whereas there was no significant change was observed in the case of coadministration with rosuvastatin. Half life (T(1/2)) and volume of distribution (V(d)) of glimepride decreased significantly with both atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Elimination rate constant, K(el) of glimepride increased significantly with both atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Clearance (Cl) of glimepride decreased significantly but the decrease was more with atorvastatin than with rosuvastatin. It is concluded that glimepride metabolism is little affected by rosuvastatin in vitro, which agreed with the negligible interaction in in vivo study. Thus, from safety point of view rosuvastatin is better to prescribe as a coadministration therapy with glimepiride. On the other hand, atorvastatin could cause an increase in the bioavailability of glimepride per oral and also significantly decrease the metabolism of glimerpride in in vitro study. This may pose a positive implication in clinical practice.

A comparative evaluation of safety and efficacy of rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and atorvastatin in patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus with dyslipidemia

AIM:

To evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and atorvastatin in patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus with dyslipidemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This open-label, randomized, parallel group, comparative, prospective study of 12-weeks duration included 60 patients of type-2 diabetes with dyslipidemia having good glycemic control with fixed dose combination of tablet glimepiride + metformin and divided into three groups of twenty each. Group-1 patients have received tablet rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily, group-2 received tablet atorvastatin 10 mg once daily, and group-3 received tablet simvastatin 10 mg once daily for 12 weeks each. The levels of serum cholesterol, serum triglyceride, LDL, VLDL, and HDL were assessed at baseline and at the end of 12 weeks.

RESULTS:

The mean serum cholesterol, serum triglyceride, LDLc, and VLDLc levels were significantly reduced on therapy (P<0.001). Simultaneously, the mean levels of HDL were highly significantly increased (P<0.001) after therapy for 12 weeks with rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin. Reduction of LDL levels in rosuvastatin group was statistically significant when compared with those of simvastatin group (P< 0.05) but was statistically nonsignificant when compared with atorvastatin group (P> 0.05). Conclusion: 10 mg of rosuvastatin was comparable to 10 mg of atorvastatin and more efficacious than 10 mg simvastatin in reducing LDL levels after 12 weeks of therapy in patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus with dyslipidemia.

Reducing plasma free fatty acids by acipimox improves glucose tolerance in high-fat fed mice

To study whether free fatty acids (FFAs) contribute to glucose intolerance in high-fat fed mice, the derivative of nicotinic acid, acipimox, which inhibits lipolysis, was administered intraperitoneally (50 mg kg(-1)) to C57BL/6J mice which had been on a high-fat diet for 3 months. Four hours after administration of acipimox, plasma FFA levels were reduced to 0.46 +/- 0.06 mmol L(-1) compared with 0.88 +/- 0.10 mmol L(-1) in controls (P < 0.001). At this point, the glucose elimination rate after an intravenous glucose load (1 g kg(-1)) was markedly improved. Thus, the elimination constant (KG) for the glucose disposal between 1 and 50 min after the glucose challenge was increased from 0.54 +/- 0.01% min-1 in controls to 0.66 +/- 0.01% min-1 by acipimox (P < 0.001). In contrast, the acute insulin response to glucose (1-5 min) was not significantly different between the groups, although the area under the insulin for the entire 50-min period after glucose administration was significantly reduced by acipimox from 32.1 +/- 2.9 to 23.9 +/- 1.2 nmol L(-1) x 50 min (P = 0.036). This, however, was mainly because of lower insulin levels at 20 and 50 min because of the lowered glucose levels. In contrast, administration of acipimox to mice fed a normal diet did not affect plasma levels of FFA or the glucose elimination or insulin levels after the glucose load. It is concluded that reducing FFA levels by acipimox in glucose intolerant high-fat fed mice improves glucose tolerance mainly by improving insulin sensitivity making the ambient islet function adequate, suggesting that increased FFA levels are of pathophysiological importance in this model of glucose intolerance.

Efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 and 10/40 mg compared with atorvastatin 20 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy of switching from atorvastatin (ATV) 10 mg to ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) 10/20 mg, EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg or doubling the dose of ATV from 10 to 20 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Eligible patients had haemoglobin A(1C)< or =10%, were aged > or =18 years and were on ATV 10 mg for > or =6 weeks before study entry. After a 4-week open-label ATV 10 mg run-in, patients were randomized to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (n = 220), EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg (n = 222) or ATV 20 g (n = 219) daily for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Greater (p < or = 0.001) reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (the primary end-point) were achieved by switching to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (26.2%) or 10/40 mg (30.1%) than by doubling the dose of ATV to 20 mg (8.5%). EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg and 10/40 mg produced greater (p < or = 0.001) reductions in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B relative to ATV 20 mg. A reduction (p < or = 0.050) in C-reactive protein was observed with EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg vs. ATV 20 mg. Similar reductions in triglycerides were observed across the three groups, and none of the treatments produced a significant change in HDL-C. A greater (p < or = 0.001) proportion of patients achieved LDL-C <2.5 mmol/l with EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (90.5%) and 10/40 mg (87.0%) than with ATV 20 mg (70.4%). Both EZE/SIMVA doses were generally well tolerated, with an overall safety profile similar to ATV 20 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

EZE/SIMVA 10/20 and 10/40 mg provided greater lipid-altering efficacy than doubling the dose of ATV from 10 to 20 mg and were well tolerated in patients with T2D.

Pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetic dyslipidemia

Patients with diabetes mellitus have a higher risk for cardiovascular heart disease (CHD) than does the general population, and once they develop CHD, mortality is higher. Good glycemic control will reduce CHD only modestly in patients with diabetes. Therefore, reduction in all cardiovascular risks such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking is warranted. The focus of this article is on therapy for dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients with the metabolic syndrome (insulin resistance) share similarities with patients with type 2 diabetes and may have a comparable cardiovascular risk profile. Diabetic patients tend to have higher triglyceride, lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), and similar low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) levels compared with those levels in nondiabetic patients. However, diabetic patients tend to have a higher concentration of small dense LDL particles, which are associated with higher CHD risk. Current recommendations are for an LDL goal of less than 100 mg/dl (an option of < 70 mg/dl in very high-risk patients), an HDL goal greater than 40 mg/dl for men and greater than 50 mg/dl for women, and a triglyceride goal less than 150 mg/dl. Nonpharmacologic interventions (diet and exercise) are first-line therapies and are used with pharmacologic therapy when necessary. Lowering LDL levels is the first priority in treating diabetic dyslipidemia. Statins are the first drug choice, followed by resins or ezetimibe, then fenofibrate or niacin. If a single agent is inadequate to achieve lipid goals, combinations of the preceding Drugs may be used. For elevated triglyceride levels, hyperglycemia must be controlled first. If triglyceride or HDL levels remain uncontrolled, pharmacologic agents should be considered. Fibrates are slightly more effective than niacin in lowering triglyceride levels, but niacin increases HDL levels appreciably more than do fibrates. Unlike gemfibrozil, niacin selectively increases subfraction Lp A-I, a cardioprotective HDL. Niacin is distinct in that it has a broad spectrum of beneficial effects on lipids and atherogenic lipoprotein subfraction levels. Niacin produces additive results when used in combination therapy. Recent data suggest that lower dosages and newer formulations of niacin can be used safely in diabetic patients with good glycemic control. Current evidence and guidelines mandate that diabetic dyslipidemia be treated aggressively, and lipid goals can be achieved in most patients with diabetes when all available products are considered and, if necessary, used in combination.

Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Diabetes mellitus and the Metabolic Syndrome

The basic principles of stroke prevention are the same in patients with diabetes and/or the metabolic syndrome as in those without. Blood-pressure lowering is highly effective in both primary and secondary prevention of stroke in diabetics, and there is no evidence to suggest that the benefits of lipid-lowering therapy are any less. Antiplatelet agents are effective in secondary prevention and may be indicated in asymptomatic diabetic patients, who have a substantially increased risk of acute vascular events. Uncertainty over optimal management of patients with diabetes, and possibly of those with metabolic syndrome, relates more to the thresholds for initiation of treatment. The decision to initiate treatment should depend on the balance between the absolute risk of potentially preventable events and the risks of any complications of treatment. The absolute risks of ischaemic stroke and acute coronary events are significantly increased in diabetics in population-based cohort studies and the recommended thresholds for instigating blood pressure lowering and lipid lowering are therefore lower than in the general population. Optimization of strategies to prevent vascular complications must be a priority, given the rapid rises in the incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome in most populations across the globe.

Comparison of glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk profile in patients with type 2 diabetes during treatment with either repaglinide or metformin

OBJECTIVE

To compare glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk profile in patients with type 2 diabetes following 12 months' treatment with either repaglinide or metformin.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an open uncontrolled randomised study in n=112 patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes not previously treated with oral hypoglycaemic agents. Patients beginning treatment with either repaglinide or metformin entered an 8-week titration period (to optimise dosage: repaglinide, 2-4 mg/day; metformin, 1500-2500 mg/day) followed by a 12-month treatment period. Glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factors were determined at baseline and at the end of the treatment period.

RESULTS

Mean (S.D.) final drug doses were 3 (+/-1) mg/day in the repaglinide group and 2000 (+/-500) mg/day in the metformin group. Significant improvements in glycaemic control [glycated haemoglobin, fasting and 2-h postprandial plasma glucose (PPG)] were demonstrated in both treatment groups. The decrease in PPG was significantly greater in the repaglinide group (P<0.05). During the treatment period, fasting plasma insulin (FPI) decreased significantly in both groups, more so with metformin (P<0.05). Two-hour postprandial plasma insulin (PPI) levels decreased only in the metformin group (P<0.05). Significant improvements between baseline and final visit were demonstrated in one or both groups in the following cardiovascular risk factors: total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides, plasminogen activator inhibitor, lipoprotein(a) and homocysteine. No changes were observed in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), apolipoprotein A-I, apolipoprotein B, fibrinogen, body mass index (BMI) or blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of repaglinide or metformin in drug therapy-nai;ve patients with type 2 diabetes over a 12-month period is associated with improvements in both glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk profile. The latter cannot necessarily be attributed to the pharmacotherapy per se, but provides reassurance in the context of initiating oral hypoglycaemic drug therapy with these agents.

Atorvastatin: an updated review of its pharmacological properties and use in dyslipidaemia

Atorvastatin is a synthetic hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor. In dosages of 10 to 80 mg/day, atorvastatin reduces levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, triglyceride and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL)-cholesterol and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol in patients with a wide variety of dyslipidaemias. In large long-term trials in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia. atorvastatin produced greater reductions in total cholesterol. LDL-cholesterol and triglyceride levels than other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. In patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), atorvastatin was more efficacious than lovastatin, pravastatin. fluvastatin and simvastatin in achieving target LDL-cholesterol levels and, in high doses, produced very low LDL-cholesterol levels. Aggressive reduction of serum LDL-cholesterol to 1.9 mmol/L with atorvastatin 80 mg/day for 16 weeks in patients with acute coronary syndromes significantly reduced the incidence of the combined primary end-point events and the secondary end-point of recurrent ischaemic events requiring rehospitalisation in the large. well-designed MIRACL trial. In the AVERT trial, aggressive lipid-lowering therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg/ day for 18 months was at least as effective as coronary angioplasty and usual care in reducing the incidence of ischaemic events in low-risk patients with stable CHD. Long-term studies are currently investigating the effects of atorvastatin on serious cardiac events and mortality in patients with CHD. Pharmacoeconomic studies have shown lipid-lowering with atorvastatin to be cost effective in patients with CHD, men with at least one risk factor for CHD and women with multiple risk factors for CHD. In available studies atorvastatin was more cost effective than most other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in achieving target LDL-cholesterol levels. Atorvastatin is well tolerated and adverse events are usually mild and transient. The tolerability profile of atorvastatin is similar to that of other available HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and to placebo. Elevations of liver transaminases and creatine phosphokinase are infrequent. There have been rare case reports of rhabdomyolysis occurring with concomitant use of atorvastatin and other drugs.

CONCLUSION

Atorvastatin is an appropriate first-line lipid-lowering therapy in numerous groups of patients at low to high risk of CHD. Additionally it has a definite role in treating patients requiring greater decreases in LDL-cholesterol levels. Long-term studies are under way to determine whether achieving very low LDL-cholesterol levels with atorvastatin is likely to show additional benefits on morbidity and mortality in patients with CHD.