Effects of combined insulin-sulfonylurea therapy in type II patients

Age, sex, disease severity, and disease duration difference in placebo response: implications from a meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The placebo response in patients with diabetes mellitus is very common. A systematic evaluation needs to be updated with the current evidence about the placebo response in diabetes mellitus and the associated factors in clinical trials of anti-diabetic medicine.

METHODS

Literature research was conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published between the date of inception and June 2019. Randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in type 1and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) were included. Random-effects model and meta-regression analysis were accordingly used. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42014009373.

RESULTS

Significantly weight elevation (effect size (ES) = 0.33 kg, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.61 kg) was observed in patients with placebo treatments in T1DM subgroup while significantly HbA1c reduction (ES = - 0.12%, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.07%) and weight reduction (ES = - 0.40 kg, 95% CI, - 0.50 to - 0.29 kg) were observed in patients with placebo treatments in T2DM subgroup. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in patients with injectable placebo treatments (ES = - 0.22%, 95% CI, - 0.32 to - 0.11%) versus oral types (ES = - 0.09%, 95% CI, - 0.14 to - 0.04%) in T2DM (P = 0.03). Older age (β = - 0.01, 95% CI, - 0.02 to - 0.01, P < 0.01) and longer diabetes duration (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.03 to - 0.21 × 10^-2, P = 0.03) was significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T1DM. However, younger age (β = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.01), lower male percentage (β = 0.01, 95% CI, 0.22 × 10^-2, 0.01, P < 0.01), higher baseline BMI (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.04 to - 0.26 × 10^-2, P = 0.02), and higher baseline HbA1c (β = - 0.09, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.01, P = 0.02) were significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T2DM. Shorter diabetes duration (β = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01) was significantly associated with more weight reduction by placebo in T2DM. However, the associations between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response were insignificant after the adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The placebo response in diabetes mellitus was systematically outlined. Age, sex, disease severity (indirectly reflected by baseline BMI and baseline HbA1c), and disease duration were associated with placebo response in diabetes mellitus. The association between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response may be the result of regression to the mean.

Insulin Monotherapy Versus Insulin Combined with Other Glucose-Lowering Agents in Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review

CONTEXT

Insulin can be prescribed as a monotherapy or a combined therapy with other anti-diabetic medications. In this narrative review, the authors aimed to gather data related to comparison of insulin monotherapy versus combination of insulin and other anti-diabetic treatments with regards to different outcome measures in type 2 diabetes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This study searched and focused on the most recently published systematic reviews and their references investigating issues related to the primary aim.

RESULTS

The current data available on this topic is heterogeneous and suffers from low quality with respect to most combination treatments. Considering the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of insulin with older hypoglycemic agents, in general metformin and pioglitazone have the best and worst profiles, respectively. Compared to insulin monotherapy, combination of insulin and metformin is associated with better glycemic control, reduced daily insulin dose, less hypoglycemia, and weight gain; combination of insulin and pioglitazone results in greater hypoglycemia and weight gain and is associated with increased risk of edema and heart failure. Regarding sulphonylurea, there is some concern regarding hypoglycemia and weight gain. Addition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors to insulin seems to be beneficial with respect to glycemic control without any significant adverse effects. New drugs, including glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, have acceptable profiles with significant benefits regarding weight reduction when added on insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the quality and longevity of evidence, compared to insulin monotherapy, insulin combined with metformin and pioglitazone has the best and worst profiles, respectively. New anti-diabetic medications have acceptable profiles yet are expensive. It is important for clinicians to meticulously weigh the advantages of combination therapy against the possible adverse effects with each drug class in every patient, individually.

Insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on insulin monotherapy who do not achieve adequate glycaemic control should continue insulin as monotherapy or can benefit from adding oral glucose-lowering agents to the insulin therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin monotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of articles. The date of the last search was November 2015 for all databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials of at least two months' duration comparing insulin monotherapy with combinations of insulin with one or more oral glucose-lowering agent in people with type 2 diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated overall quality of the evidence using GRADE. We summarised data statistically if they were available, sufficiently similar and of sufficient quality. We performed statistical analyses according to the statistical guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 trials with 40 treatment comparisons involving 3227 participants. The duration of the interventions ranged from 2 to 12 months for parallel trials and two to four months for cross-over trials.The majority of trials had an unclear risk of bias in several risk of bias domains. Fourteen trials showed a high risk of bias, mainly for performance and detection bias. Insulin monotherapy, including once-daily long-acting, once-daily intermediate-acting, twice-daily premixed insulin, and basal-bolus regimens (multiple injections), was compared to insulin in combination with sulphonylureas (17 comparisons: glibenclamide = 11, glipizide = 2, tolazamide = 2, gliclazide = 1, glimepiride = 1), metformin (11 comparisons), pioglitazone (four comparisons), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (four comparisons: acarbose = 3, miglitol = 1), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) (three comparisons: vildagliptin = 1, sitagliptin = 1, saxagliptin = 1) and the combination of metformin and glimepiride (one comparison). No trials assessed all-cause mortality, diabetes-related morbidity or health-related quality of life. Only one trial assessed patients' treatment satisfaction and showed no substantial differences between the addition of either glimepiride or metformin and glimepiride to insulin compared with insulin monotherapy.Insulin-sulphonylurea combination therapy (CT) compared with insulin monotherapy (IM) showed a MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of -1% (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 316 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. Insulin-metformin CT compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.9% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 698 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. We could not pool the results of adding pioglitazone to insulin. Insulin combined with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.2); P < 0.01; 448 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). Insulin combined with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.4); P < 0.01; 265 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence. In most trials the participants with CT needed less insulin, whereas insulin requirements increased or remained stable in participants with IM.We did not perform a meta-analysis for hypoglycaemic events because the included studies used different definitions.. In most trials the insulin-sulphonylurea combination resulted in a higher number of mild episodes of hypoglycaemia, compared to the IM group (range: 2.2 to 6.1 episodes per participant in CT versus 2.0 to 2.6 episodes per participant in IM; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT also resulted in more mild to moderate hypoglycaemic episodes compared with IM (range 15 to 90 episodes versus 9 to 75 episodes, respectively; low-quality evidence. The trials that reported hypoglycaemic episodes in the other combinations found comparable numbers of mild to moderate hypoglycaemic events (low-quality evidence).The addition of sulphonylureas resulted in an additional weight gain of 0.4 kg to 1.9 kg versus -0.8 kg to 2.1 kg in the IM group (220 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT caused more weight gain compared to IM: MD 3.8 kg (95% CI 3.0 to 4.6); P < 0.01; 288 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence. Metformin CT was associated with weight loss: MD -2.1 kg (95% CI -3.2 to -1.1), P < 0.01; 615 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors CT showed weight gain of -0.7 to 1.3 kg versus 0.6 to 1.1 kg in the IM group (362 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). Alpha-glucosidase CT compared to IM showed a MD of -0.5 kg (95% CI -1.2 to 0.3); P = 0.26; 241 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence.Users of metformin CT (range 7% to 67% versus 5% to 16%), and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors CT (14% to 75% versus 4% to 35%) experienced more gastro-intestinal adverse effects compared to participants on IM. Two trials reported a higher frequency of oedema with the use of pioglitazone CT (range: 16% to 18% versus 4% to 7% IM).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of all oral glucose-lowering agents in people with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control who are on insulin therapy has positive effects on glycaemic control and insulin requirements. The addition of sulphonylureas results in more hypoglycaemic events. Additional weight gain can only be avoided by adding metformin to insulin. Other well-known adverse effects of oral glucose-lowering agents have to be taken into account when prescribing oral glucose-lowering agents in addition to insulin therapy.

Estimating the effect of sulfonylurea on HbA1c in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Sulfonylureas are widely prescribed glucose-lowering medications for diabetes, but the extent to which they improve glycaemia is poorly documented. This systematic review evaluates how sulfonylurea treatment affects glycaemic control.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and clinical trials registries were searched to identify double-blinded randomised controlled trials of fixed-dose sulfonylurea monotherapy or sulfonylurea added on to other glucose-lowering treatments. The primary outcome assessed was change in HbA1c, and secondary outcomes were adverse events, insulin dose and change in body weight.

RESULTS

Thirty-one trials with a median duration of 16 weeks were included in the meta-analysis. Sulfonylurea monotherapy (nine trials) lowered HbA1c by 1.51% (17 mmol/mol) more than placebo (95% CI, 1.25, 1.78). Sulfonylureas added to oral diabetes treatment (four trials) lowered HbA1c by 1.62% (18 mmol/mol; 95% CI 1.0, 2.24) compared with the other treatment, and sulfonylurea added to insulin (17 trials) lowered HbA1c by 0.46% (6 mmol/mol; 95% CI 0.24, 0.69) and lowered insulin dose. Higher sulfonylurea doses did not reduce HbA1c more than lower doses. Sulfonylurea treatment resulted in more hypoglycaemic events (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.41, 4.10) but did not significantly affect the number of other adverse events. Trial length, sulfonylurea type and duration of diabetes contributed to heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Sulfonylurea monotherapy lowered HbA1c level more than previously reported, and we found no evidence that increasing sulfonylurea doses resulted in lower HbA1c. HbA1c is a surrogate endpoint, and we were unable to examine long-term endpoints in these predominately short-term trials, but sulfonylureas appear to be associated with an increased risk of hypoglycaemic events.

Effect of Pramlintide on Weight in Overweight and Obese Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Patients

OBJECTIVE

Several randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes have shown that adjunctive therapy with pramlintide reduces hemoglobin (Hb)A1c with concomitant weight loss. This analysis further characterizes the weight-lowering effect of pramlintide in this patient population.

RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This pooled post hoc analysis of two long-term trials included all patients who were overweight/obese at baseline (BMI > 25 kg/m2), and who were treated with either 120 microg pramlintide BID (n = 254; HbA1c 9.2%; weight, 96.1 kg) or placebo (n = 244; HbA1c 9.4%; weight, 95.0 kg). Statistical endpoints included changes from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c, body weight, and insulin use.

RESULTS

Pramlintide treatment resulted in significant reductions from baseline to week 26, compared with placebo, in HbA1c and body weight (both, p < 0.0001), for placebo-corrected reductions of -0.41% and -1.8 kg, respectively. Approximately three times the number of patients using pramlintide experienced a > or = 5% reduction of body weight than with placebo (9% vs. 3%, p = 0.0005). Patients using pramlintide also experienced a proportionate decrease in total daily insulin use (r = 0.39, p < 0.0001). The greatest placebo-corrected reductions in weight at week 26 were observed in pramlintide-treated patients with a BMI >40 kg/m2 and in those concomitantly treated with metformin (both, p < 0.001), for placebo-corrected reductions of -3.2 kg and -2.5 kg, respectively.

DISCUSSION

These findings support further evaluation of the weight-lowering potential of pramlintide in obese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Sulfonylureas: do we need to introspect safety again?

INTRODUCTION

Sulfonylureas (SUs) are the most commonly prescribed medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus worldwide. Differences among SUs for kinetic and adenosine triphosphate sensitive potassium (KATP) channels selectivity and consequential extrapancreatic effects, although recognized in literature, are not considered by treatment guidelines.

AREAS COVERED

The roles of SUs in various system-related adverse effects have not been well understood. Inconsistencies in the literature and lack of clinical trials assessing the long-term effects of monotherapy or combination therapy with SUs add to the concern. This review provides insights in issues concerning safety of SUs based on literature published between 1980 and 2011. A comprehensive search was carried out on PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases using the search terms: sulfonylureas, sulfonylureas and KATP channels, sulfonylureas and cardiovascular (CV) effects and sulfonylureas side effects.

EXPERT OPINION

SUs have been linked to CV events, growth hormone (GH) disorder, malignancy, weight gain, erectile dysfunction and central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects. These adverse effects generally get masked as they are thought to be related to diabetes per se. The current article will allow the fraternity to ponder and undertake further research on the ill effects of largely prescribed antidiabetic medication.

Diabetes medications and body weight

Tight diabetes control sometimes comes with a price: weight gain and hypoglycemia. Two of the three major recent trials that looked at the relationship between intensive diabetes control and cardiovascular events reported significant weight gain among the intensively treated groups. There is a growing concern that the weight gain induced by most diabetes medications diminishes their clinical benefits. On the other hand, there is a claim that treating diabetes with medications that are weight neutral or induces weight loss or less weight gain while minimizing those that increase body weight may emerge as the future direction for treating overweight and obese patients with diabetes. This review clarifies the weight effect of each of the currently available diabetes medications, and explains the mechanism of action behind this effect. Despite the great variability among reviewed clinical trials, the currently available evidence is quite sufficient to demonstrate the change in body weight in association with most of the currently available medications. This review also provides some guidelines on using diabetes medications during weight management programs.

Prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes: current role of lifestyle, natural product, and pharmacological interventions

Common complications of type 2 diabetes (T2D) are eye, kidney and nerve diseases, as well as an increased risk for the development of cardiovascular disease and cancer. The overwhelming influence of these conditions contributes to a decreased quality of life and life span, as well as significant economic consequences. Although obesity once served as a surrogate marker for the risk of T2D, we know now that excess adipose tissue secretes inflammatory cytokines that left unchecked, accelerate the progression to insulin resistance and T2D. In addition, excess alcohol consumption may also increase the risk of T2D. From a therapeutic standpoint, lifestyle interventions such as dietary modification and/or exercise training have been shown to improve glucose homeostasis but may not normalize the disease process unless weight loss is achieved and increased physical activity patterns are established. Furthermore, utilization of natural products may serve as a significant adjunct in the fight against insulin resistance but further research is needed to ascertain their validity. Since it is clear that pharmaceutical therapy plays a significant role in the treatment of insulin resistance, this review will also discuss some of the newly developed pharmaceutical therapies that may work in conjunction with lifestyle interventions, and lessen the burden of behavioral change as the only strategy against the development of T2D.

Insulin monotherapy versus combinations of insulin with oral hypoglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether patients with type 2 diabetes who have poor glycaemic control despite maximal oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs) should be commenced on insulin as monotherapy, or insulin combined with oral hypoglycaemic agents (insulin-OHA combination therapy).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of insulin monotherapy versus insulin-OHA combinations therapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Eligible studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. Date of last search: May 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 months minimum follow-up duration comparing insulin monotherapy (all schemes) with insulin-OHA combination therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of study quality were undertaken by three reviewers in pairs.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty RCTs (mean trial duration 10 months) including 1,811 participants, with mean age 59.8 years and mean known duration of diabetes 9.6 years. Overall, study methodological quality was low. Twenty-eight comparisons in 20 RCTs were ordered according to clinical considerations. No studies assessed diabetes-related morbidity, mortality or total mortality. From 13 studies (21 comparisons), sufficient data were extracted to calculate pooled effects on glycaemic control. Insulin-OHA combination therapy had statistically significant benefits on glycaemic control over insulin monotherapy only when the latter was applied as a once-daily injection of NPH insulin. Conversely, twice-daily insulin monotherapy (NPH or mixed insulin) provided superior glycaemic control to insulin-OHA combination therapy regimens where insulin was administered as a single morning injection. In more conventional comparisons, regimens utilising OHAs with bedtime NPH insulin provided comparable glycaemic control to insulin monotherapy (administered as twice daily, or multiple daily injections). Overall, insulin-OHA combination therapy was associated with a 43% relative reduction in total daily insulin requirement compared to insulin monotherapy. Of the 14 studies (22 comparisons) reporting hypoglycaemia, 13 demonstrated no significant difference in the frequency of symptomatic or biochemical hypoglycaemia between insulin and combination therapy regimens. No significant differences in quality of life related issues were detected. Combination therapy with bedtime NPH insulin resulted in statistically significantly less weight gain compared to insulin monotherapy, provided metformin was used +/-sulphonylurea. In all other comparisons no significant differences with respect to weight gain were detected.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Bedtime NPH insulin combined with oral hypoglycaemic agents provides comparable glycaemic control to insulin monotherapy and is associated with less weight gain if metformin is used.

The role of sulphonylurea in combination therapy assessed in a trial of sulphonylurea withdrawal. Scandinavian Insulin-Sulphonylurea Study Group Research Team

AIMS

To evaluate the effect of adding insulin to sulphonylurea (SU) and the effect of SU withdrawal on glycaemic control in Type 2 diabetic patients who failed on treatment with SU alone.

METHOD

One hundred and seventy-five patients were included in a placebo-controlled multicentre study. During phase I (4 months), premixed insulin was added to glibenclamide therapy; during phase II (1-4 months, depending on response) the insulin dose was fixed, while placebo or glibenclamide replaced the open SU therapy. Insulin sensitivity (KITT), beta-cell function (C-peptide) and metabolic control (HbA1c) were monitored.

RESULTS

HbA1c improved from 9.65% to 7.23% (P < 0.0001) during phase I. A high HbA1c value (P < 0.0001) and a high KITT-value (P = 0.045) at baseline were associated with a beneficial response to combination treatment. During phase II, glycaemic control was unchanged in the control (glibenclamide) group. In the placebo group, after SU withdrawal, fasting blood glucose (FBG) increased by 10% or more within 4 weeks in 79% of the patients. Patients (67 of 112) with an FBG increase > or =40% during phase II were defined as 'SU responders' by protocol. In a multivariate analysis only a long duration of diabetes was associated with SU response. There were more GAD-antibody-positive patients among non-responders (18% vs. 4%, P = 0.0263).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor glycaemic control in combination with preserved insulin sensitivity and lack of GAD antibodies predicts a beneficial response to combination therapy, which can be achieved in 75% of patients with SU failure.

Combination insulin and sulfonylurea therapy in insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes mellitus

PURPOSE

To determine the effect(s) on glucose control, insulin dose, and circulating insulin levels of the addition of a sulfonylurea (glipizide) to the treatment regimen of patients with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes mellitus.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty seven patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus taking insulin for at least 1 year prior to study and treated with > or = 40 U of insulin per day were recruited for a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Patients were treated with 3 months of insulin + placebo (I + P) and 3 months of insulin + glipizide (I + G), with an intermediate 1 month washout period using insulin therapy alone. Adjustments were made initially to the maximum dose of glipizide (40 mg/day), followed by insulin dose adjustments. Twenty-nine of the 37 patients demonstrated a significant C-peptide response to Ensure and were selected for analysis.

RESULTS

The fasting plasma glucose in the I + G arm was 6.8 (121.8 mg/dl) vs. 8.7 mmol/L (156.0 mg/dl) in the I + P arm, P < 0.001. Mean plasma glucose over 24 hours was 9.8 (176.9 mg/dl) for I + G vs. 11.3 mmol/L (203.8 mg/dl) for I + P, P < 0.001. Glycated hemoglobin was significantly different (9.8 I + G vs. 11.4% I + P, P < 0.008). The total daily insulin dose required was significantly lower with I + G (69.1 vs. 87.3 U, P < 0.0005). However, there were no significant differences in free insulin levels.

CONCLUSION

The addition of a sulfonylurea (glipizide) to insulin therapy in patients with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes mellitus taking large doses of insulin results in a rapid and substantial improvement in glucose control despite a significant reduction in insulin dose. Therefore, this form of combination therapy should be considered for patients with the above characteristics whose diet and exercise programs are correct but whose response to insulin therapy is inadequate.

Remission of active diabetic hepatitis after correction of hyperglycemia

A 60-year-old obese woman with type II diabetes mellitus and hepatomegaly exhibited progression of steatosis to hepatitis and cirrhosis. The patient was treated with large amounts of insulin combined with sulfonylurea, resulting in correction of the hyperglycemia. In the subsequent 9 months, weight loss did not occur, whereas insulin therapy could be discontinued. The liver decreased in size, and liver tests normalized. We suggest that intensive treatment of hyperglycemia may result in reversal of insulin resistance in patients with diabetic liver disease, while correction of hyperglycemia can lead to resolution of the hepatic abnormalities associated with diabetes mellitus.

Effects of the combination of insulin and gliclazide compared with insulin alone in type 2 diabetic patients with secondary failure to oral hypoglycemic agents

Twenty non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients on insulin therapy for more than 2 months due to secondary failure to oral hypoglycemic agents (OHA) were additionally treated with gliclazide, 80 mg b.i.d., for 1 month and 160 mg b.i.d. for a further 2 months, while reducing insulin dose gradually according to glycemic control. At the end of the first month, fasting blood glucose had decreased from 12.8 +/- 0.7 to 9 +/- 0.8 mM (mean +/- standard error; P < 0.005) and thereafter remained stable. Insulin requirements decreased from 34.2 +/- 2.5 to 18.3 +/- 3.2 U/day (P < 0.001). Three patients were able to cease insulin treatment altogether. A direct correlation was found between final insulin dose and previous duration of infusion monotherapy (r = 0.52; P < 0.05). C-peptide/glucose score (fasting C-peptide/fasting BG x 100) increased from 0.11 +/- 0.03 to 0.21 +/- 0.05 (P < 0.05). We conclude that combined therapy reduces insulin requirement by increasing endogenous secretion, which may mainly affect hepatic glucose production as indicated by greater improvement in fasting vs. post-prandial blood glucose. This therapy could avoid hyperinsulinemia, which has been reported to be involved in macrovascular complications, and the additional haemovascular properties of gliclazide could make it more effective in such a combination.

Combining insulin and sulfonylurea. A therapeutic option for type II diabetes

Non-insulin-dependent (type II) diabetes mellitus is a progressive disease that requires sequential therapy to achieve optimal control. When diet and sulfonylurea fail to maintain glycemic control, the addition of a single daily injection of insulin may be indicated. The best candidates for this combined therapy are patients with typical adult-onset disease that has been present less than 10 to 15 years.

Current status of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (type II): management with gliclazide

Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with a prevalence of 3-7% in most Western countries. Decreased insulin secretion and diminished tissue insulin sensitivity are both implicated in the pathogenesis of the disease; both may be exacerbated by persistent hyperglycemia and improved by normalization of blood sugar levels. Measures to control hyperglycemia, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia are important in the management of NIDDM and prevention of its long-term complications. The effects of dietary modification, exercise, and antihypertensive and antiplatelet therapy, as well as of pharmacologic control of blood sugar, on the vascular and renal complications of NIDDM have been investigated. Gliclazide is a second-generation sulfonylurea drug whose efficacy in the treatment of NIDDM, alone or in combination with insulin, has been widely demonstrated. Studies of the use of gliclazide, reported at recent symposia, are summarized in this review.

A case of insulin allergy: the crystalline human insulin may mask its antigenicity

We report an unusual case of insulin allergy. A 48-year-old man with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus receiving biosynthetic isophane human insulin (Humulin N) developed itchy wheal-and-flare reactions at the sites of injection. When Humulin N was changed to a semi-synthetic crystalline human insulin zinc (Novolin U), the allergic reactions completely disappeared. Evaluation of his serum showed a high level of insulin-specific IgE. Skin testing with all commercially available insulins showed immediate local reactions to all agents tested except for Novolin U. In addition, decrystallized Novolin U prepared by lowering the pH with acetic acid also induced a positive reaction. These observations suggest that the crystallized structure of human insulin may mask its antigenicity for allergic reactions.

Combined insulin-glibenclamide therapy of NIDDM patients in primary health care. A follow-up study of its compliance and efficacy and a review of the literature

Twenty non-insulin-dependent diabetic (NIDDM) patients with secondary failure to sulphonylureas were given combined insulin-glibenclamide therapy. After discharge they were followed for the following 12 months at different primary care centres. In the 19 patients who completed the combined therapy, the mean glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level decreased from 11.2 +/- 0.5% to 9.1 +/- 0.3% at 2 months (p less than 0.001), and remained at 9.1 +/- 0.4% at 12 months. The reduction of HbA1c was positively correlated with the HbA1c value and inversely with the initial body weight (both p less than 0.05). There was a slight rise in the body mass index (BMI) from 26.9 +/- 0.9 to 28.2 +/- 0.7 at 12 months (p less than 0.001), which was inversely correlated with the BMI value at 0 month (p less than 0.05). The insulin doses were similar at 2 and 12 months. A review of the literature since 1985 identified ten double-blind, controlled studies on combined insulin-sulphonylurea therapy, comprising 156 NIDDM patients followed for 8-52 weeks. Improved glycaemic control and endogenous insulin secretion were documented in nine of these studies in parallel with a decrease of insulin requirement in six studies. We conclude from our own experience and the literature that combined insulin-glibenclamide therapy is an efficient and compliant therapeutic regimen.

Effects of glyburide on in vivo insulin-mediated glucose disposal

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of glyburide on peripheral (muscle) and hepatic insulin sensitivity in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) as well as in healthy control subjects. In protocol 1, 10 patients with NIDDM and seven young healthy control subjects were studied. Changes in insulin sensitivity (40 mU/m2.min euglycemic insulin clamp), hepatic glucose production (3-[3H]glucose turnover), and insulin secretion (+125 mg/dL hyperglycemic clamp) were measured before and after 3 months (in patients with NIDDM) and 6 weeks (in young control subjects) of glyburide therapy. In protocol 2, five patients with IDDM and eight patients with insulin-treated NIDDM were evaluated before and after two months of glyburide therapy (20 mg per day). Changes in daily insulin requirements, 24-hour plasma glucose profiles, glycohemoglobin, glucagon-stimulated C-peptide secretion, insulin sensitivity, and hepatic glucose production were measured. In protocol 1, glyburide significantly improved insulin sensitivity (p less than 0.01) and insulin secretion (p less than 0.01) in the NIDDM patients. The elevated rates of hepatic glucose production (2.4 +/- 0.3 mg/kg.min) were reduced after glyburide therapy (1.7 +/- 0.2 mg/kg.min; p less than 0.01) and were highly correlated with an improvement in fasted plasma glucose levels (r = 0.92; p less than 0.001). Insulin sensitivity also improved in the young healthy control subjects after glyburide therapy (6.5 +/- 0.5 to 7.6 +/- 0.7 mg/kg.min; p less than 0.05). In protocol 2, glyburide treatment produced no change in daily insulin requirement (54 +/- 8 versus 53 +/- 7 units per day), mean 24-hour glucose levels (177 +/- 20 versus 174 +/- 29 mg/dL), glycohemoglobin (10.1 +/- 1.0 percent versus 9.5 +/- 7 percent), C-peptide secretion, insulin sensitivity, or basal hepatic glucose production (p values not significant) in the IDDM patients. In contrast, the insulin-treated NIDDM patients had significant reductions in mean daily insulin requirement (72 +/- 6 versus 58 +/- 9 units per day; p = 0.05), mean 24-hour plasma glucose levels (153 +/- 10 to 131 +/- 5 mg/dL; p less than 0.05), and glycohemoglobin levels (10.3 +/- 0.7 percent to 8.0 +/- 0.4 percent; p less than 0.05) and an improvement in C-peptide secretion (0.24 +/- 0.07 to 0.44 +/- 0.09 pmol/mL; p = 0.08). Stimulated C-peptide levels were highly correlated with a reduction in insulin dose observed during the 2-month treatment period (r = 0.93; p less than 0.001). Insulin sensitivity improved slightly but not significantly after glyburide treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Advances in the management of diabetes mellitus

This article shall highlight several areas where recent developments have made, and may make in the future, practical advances to diabetes care. These advances have been in the areas of insulin therapy, glucose monitoring, identifying pre-diabetics and using immunosuppressive agents in pre-diabetes and early diabetes, pancreatic transplantation, and managing acute and chronic complications of diabetes.