0
selected
-
1.
Metabolic syndrome components and their response to lifestyle and metformin interventions are associated with differences in diabetes risk in persons with impaired glucose tolerance.
Florez, H, Temprosa, MG, Orchard, TJ, Mather, KJ, Marcovina, SM, Barrett-Connor, E, Horton, E, Saudek, C, Pi-Sunyer, XF, Ratner, RE, et al
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2014;(4):326-33
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the association of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components with diabetes risk in participants with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and whether intervention-related changes in MetS lead to differences in diabetes incidence. METHODS We used the National Cholesterol Education Program/Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP/ATP III) revised MetS definition at baseline and intervention-related changes of its components to predict incident diabetes using Cox models in 3234 Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) participants with IGT over an average follow-up of 3.2 years. RESULTS In an intention-to-treat analysis, the demographic-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for diabetes in those with MetS (vs. no MetS) at baseline were 1.7 (1.3-2.3), 1.7 (1.2-2.3) and 2.0 (1.3-3.0) for placebo, metformin and lifestyle groups, respectively. Higher levels of fasting plasma glucose and triglycerides at baseline were independently associated with increased risk of diabetes. Greater waist circumference (WC) was associated with higher risk in placebo and lifestyle groups, but not in the metformin group. In a multivariate model, favourable changes in WC (placebo and lifestyle) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (placebo and metformin) contributed to reduced diabetes risk. CONCLUSIONS MetS and some of its components are associated with increased diabetes incidence in persons with IGT in a manner that differed according to DPP intervention. After hyperglycaemia, the most predictive factors for diabetes were baseline hypertriglyceridaemia and both baseline and lifestyle-associated changes in WC. Targeting these cardiometabolic risk factors may help to assess the benefits of interventions that reduce diabetes incidence.
-
2.
Characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating insulin therapy: baseline data from the INSTIGATE study.
Jones, S, Benroubi, M, Castell, C, Goday, A, Liebl, A, Timlin, L, Nicolay, C, Simpson, A, Tynan, A
Current medical research and opinion. 2009;(3):691-700
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the characteristics at baseline of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are initiating insulin. METHODS Prospective, observational multi-centre, open-label study in five European countries of patients with type 2 diabetes who were initiating insulin as part of their usual care. RESULTS A total of 1172 patients were enrolled, with mean age 63.3 years and body mass index 29.9 kg/m(2). The majority (90%) of patients were taking one or more oral anti-diabetic agents; the percentage not taking anti-diabetic medication in the previous four weeks was highest in Germany (23.4%) and Spain (15.1%). The prevalence of microvascular diseases (range: 16.1%-36.1%) varied considerably between countries but for macrovascular (30.4%-38.6%) and other diabetes-related diagnoses (72.6%-76.6%) such as hypertension and dyslipidaemia the differences were less pronounced. In Germany, reported use of lipid-lowering (26.7%) and anti-platelet (27.1%) therapies was much less than in other countries (ranges: 53.2%-78.1% and 48.3%-61.1%, respectively). The majority of evaluable patients in each country had demonstrated poor control over a long period of time. Prior to initiating insulin, the most recent mean (+/-SD) HbA1(c) was 9.58 +/- 1.81%, fasting plasma glucose was 12.18 +/- 4.32 mmol/L and 78.5% had metabolic syndrome. IDF targets for HDL- and LDL-cholesterol, and blood pressure were met in 76.8%, 33.1% and 18.9% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Insulin treatment was only initiated after HbA1(c) values were considerably higher than recommended in treatment guidelines for a sustained period of time.
-
3.
Moxonidine improves glycaemic control in mildly hypertensive, overweight patients: a comparison with metformin.
Chazova, I, Almazov, VA, Shlyakhto, E
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2006;(4):456-65
Abstract
AIM: To compare the effects of moxonidine and metformin on glycaemic control in patients with impaired glucose tolerance and signs of the metabolic syndrome. METHODS A multicentre, prospective, randomized, open-label study design was adopted with blinded endpoint evaluation. Patients > or =40 years old, with impaired glucose tolerance (or diabetes mellitus treated with diet alone) and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m2 were treated twice daily with moxonidine 0.2 mg or metformin 500 mg for 16 weeks. Oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed at baseline and end-of-study; plasma insulin and plasma glucose levels were measured at 0, 60, 120 and 180 min after administration. RESULTS With regard to effects on insulin [mean area under the curve (AUC) for insulin], the primary efficacy endpoint of the study, both drugs did not show equivalence. On the contrary, in the per protocol (PP) population, moxonidine statistically significantly (p = 0.025) decreased the AUC for insulin from baseline in the PP population; for metformin, the treatment effect on insulin was a small, net increase resulting in a statistically significant between-group difference of 16.2% (95% CI = 0.1-35.0). The change in mean insulin AUC was most marked in the subgroup of patients with higher sympathetic activity (heart rate >80 bpm). Mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels and HbA1c levels were largely unchanged by moxonidine treatment but significantly decreased by metformin treatment. The difference between the groups was 14.7% (p = 0.0523) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) sample. By study end, both treatments had significantly increased the Matsuda Insulin Sensitivity Index (ISI) from baseline to a comparable extent: moxonidine by reducing plasma insulin after a glucose challenge, metformin by reducing FPG. BMI fell significantly in both groups and blood pressure normalized; both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Moxonidine improved insulin sensitivity in response to glucose challenge in patients with evidence of metabolic syndrome. This improvement resulted from a reduction in plasma insulin levels and was most marked in patients with high sympathetic drive at baseline. By enhancing insulin sensitivity, moxonidine treatment may help prevent the development of diabetes and thereby ameliorate the risk for cardiovascular disease.
-
4.
Differential effect of glimepiride and rosiglitazone on metabolic control of type 2 diabetic patients treated with metformin: a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial.
Derosa, G, Gaddi, AV, Piccinni, MN, Salvadeo, S, Ciccarelli, L, Fogari, E, Ghelfi, M, Ferrari, I, Cicero, AF
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2006;(2):197-205
Abstract
AIM: Accumulating evidence suggests that combination therapy using oral antidiabetic agents with different mechanisms of action may be highly effective in achieving and maintaining target blood glucose levels. The aim of our study is to evaluate the differential effect on glucose and lipid parameters of the association between glimepiride plus metformin and rosiglitazone plus metformin in patients affected by type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. METHODS Patients were enroled, evaluated and followed at two Italian centres. We evaluated 99 type 2 diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome (48 males and 47 females; 23 males and 24 females, aged 52 +/- 5 with glimepiride; 25 males and 23 females, aged 54 +/- 4 with cglitazone). All were required to have been diagnosed as being diabetic for at least 6 months and did not have glycaemic control with diet and oral hypoglycaemic agents such as sulphonylureas or metformin, both to the maximum tolerated dose. All patients took a fixed dose of metformin, 1500 mg/day. We administered glimepiride (2 mg/day) or rosiglitazone (4 mg/day) in a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical study. We evaluated body mass index (BMI), glycaemic control, lipid profile [total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and triglycerides] and lipoprotein parameters [apolipoprotein A-I and apolipoprotein B (Apo B)] during 12 months of this treatment. RESULTS A total of 95 patients completed the study. Significant BMI decrease was observed at 12 months in glimepiride and rosiglitazone group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively) as well as of glycated haemoglobin decrease (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively), mean fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose levels (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively). A decrease in fasting plasma insulin and postprandial plasma insulin at 12 months (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively) compared with the baseline value in rosiglitazone group was observed. Furthermore, homeostasis model assessment index improvement was obtained only at 9 and 12 months (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively) compared with the baseline value in rosiglitazone group. Significant TC, LDL-C and Apo B improvement (p < 0.05 respectively) was present in glimepiride group after 12 months compared with the baseline values, and these variations were significant (p < 0.05) between groups. Of the 95 patients who completed the study, 8.5% of patients in glimepiride group and 12.5% of patients in rosiglitazone group had side-effects (p = not significant). Four patients had transient side-effects in glimepiride group and six patients in rosiglitazone group. Altogether, we did not have statistically significant changes in transaminases. CONCLUSIONS The rosiglitazone-metformin association significantly improve the long-term control of all insulin-resistance-related parameters in comparison with the glimepiride-metformin-treated group. On the other side, glimepiride treatment is associated to a slight improvement in cholesterolaemia, not observed in the rosiglitazone-treated patients.
-
5.
A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT): baseline characteristics of Type 2 diabetic patients in North America and Europe.
Viberti, G, Lachin, J, Holman, R, Zinman, B, Haffner, S, Kravitz, B, Heise, MA, Jones, NP, O'Neill, MC, Freed, MI, et al
Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association. 2006;(12):1289-94
Abstract
AIMS: To examine baseline characteristics of patients recruited into ADOPT, a multinational trial comparing three oral glucose-lowering monotherapies. METHODS Between April 2000 and June 2002, 4360 patients aged 30-75 years with Type 2 diabetes diagnosed for < 3 years and remaining on diet therapy alone with fasting plasma glucose levels (FPG) between 7.0 and 10.0 mmol/l were enrolled by 488 North American and European centres. Medical histories, anthropometric data and laboratory measurements were determined using common methodologies. RESULTS The mean (SD) age of the patients was 57 (10) years, body mass index 32.2 (6.4) kg/m(2), HbA(1c) 7.4 (0.9)%; 58% were male, 88% Caucasian and 15% smoked. North American Caucasians (NAC) were younger, more obese, and more insulin resistant than European Caucasians (EUC), but had better pancreatic B-cell function. NAC had lower total, low-density lipoprotein- and high-density liporpotein-cholesterol concentrations with higher triglyceride concentrations and were more often on lipid-lowering treatment. They had lower blood pressure levels but were equally likely to be on antihypertensive treatment. Metabolic syndrome was more frequent and microalbuminuria less frequent in NAC. Within North America, NAC had lower HbA(1c) concentrations than Blacks, Hispanics and Asians despite similar or higher FPG and 30-min postchallenge glucose concentrations. CONCLUSIONS Caucasian North American and European ADOPT patients differ with respect to adiposity, insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome prevalence. North American Blacks, Hispanics and Asians had lower HbA(1c) concentrations than NAC despite similar or higher glucose concentrations. These phenotypic differences may influence the progression of Type 2 diabetes and the response to initial oral glucose-lowering monotherapy.