-
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.
Pioglitazone Randomised Italian Study on Metabolic Syndrome (PRISMA): effect of pioglitazone with metformin on HDL-C levels in Type 2 diabetic patients.
Genovese, S, Passaro, A, Brunetti, P, Comaschi, M, Cucinotta, D, , , Egan, CG, Chinea, B, Bravi, F, Di Pietro, C
Journal of endocrinological investigation. 2013;(8):606-16
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous evidence indicates that pioglitazone may improve dyslipidemia in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). AIM: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of either pioglitazone or placebo with metformin on levels of serum HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) in patients with T2DM. A secondary objective evaluated changes in metabolic syndrome (MS)-specific parameters. SUBJECTS AND METHODS This multicenter, double-blind, randomized study was performed in patients with T2DM treated with metformin and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels between 6-8%, central obesity and reduced HDL-C. MS was evaluated from global changes in parameter values and expressed as a single factorial score following multivariate analysis of each parameter. 213 patients (110 in the pioglitazone group and 103 in the placebo group) were available for intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS Pioglitazone-treated patients showed a significant increase in HDL-C compared to placebo group (6.3 mg/dl vs 3.0 mg/dl; p<0.01) in addition to a greater reduction in the extent of MS (-13.2 vs -4.9; p=0.0055). Upon study completion, patients treated with pioglitazone had lower levels of HbA1c (6.41±0.65 vs 6.96±0.74%; p<0.001) and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (2.88±1.95 vs 4.68±3.63; p=0.013) and a reduction of the atherogenic LDL subfraction (pattern B) (-5.7%). CONCLUSIONS The beneficial effects observed in pioglitazone-treated patients in the present study, (i.e. the increase in HDL-C and the reduction of insulin resistance and atherogenic LDL subfractions), support findings from the PROactive trial, where pioglitazone showed pleiotropic effects and reduced death, fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and non-fatal MI in T2DM patients with MS. Furthermore, medication used in this study showed good tolerability.
-
3.
Metabolic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in patients with diabetes and metabolic syndrome treated with metformin.
Derosa, G, D'Angelo, A, Ragonesi, PD, Ciccarelli, L, Piccinni, MN, Pricolo, F, Salvadeo, SA, Montagna, L, Gravina, A, Ferrari, I, et al
Internal medicine journal. 2007;(2):79-86
Abstract
BACKGROUND Metformin is considered the gold standard for type 2 diabetes treatment as monotherapy and in combination with sulphonylureas and insulin, whereas the combination of metformin with thiazolidinediones is relatively less studied. The aim of the present study was to assess the differential effect on glycaemic metabolism and lipid variables of the combination of metformin plus pioglitazone or metformin plus rosiglitazone in diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome. METHODS All patients began metformin and were randomized to receive pioglitazone or rosiglitazone for 12 months. We assessed body mass index, glycated haemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, postprandial plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin, postprandial plasma insulin, homeostasis model assessment index, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein A-I, and apolipoprotein B. RESULTS Significant decreases in glycated haemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, postprandial plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin, and postprandial plasma insulin were seen after 9 and 12 months in both groups. Homeostasis model assessment index improved at 12 months in both groups. Significant total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein A-I, and apolipoprotein B improvement was observed in pioglitazone group after 12 months, but not in the rosiglitazone group. These variations were significant between groups. CONCLUSION The combination of metformin plus thiazolidinediones was able to improve glycaemic control compared with previous therapy. Pioglitazone was associated with a significant improvement in lipid and lipoprotein variables.
-
4.
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.
-
5.
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.
-
6.
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.
-
7.
Long-term effect of glimepiride and rosiglitazone on non-conventional cardiovascular risk factors in metformin-treated patients affected by metabolic syndrome: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial.
Derosa, G, Gaddi, AV, Ciccarelli, L, Fogari, E, Ghelfi, M, Ferrari, I, Cicero, AF
The Journal of international medical research. 2005;(3):284-94
Abstract
We evaluated the effect of glimepiride plus metformin and rosiglitazone plus metformin on glucose, and on cardiovascular risk parameters such as lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) and homocysteine (HCT) in patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Ninety-nine patients in the multicentre, randomized, double-blind study took metformin (1500 mg/day) plus glimepiride (2 mg/day) or rosiglitazone (4 mg/day) for 12 months. Changes in body mass index, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), Lp(a) and HCT were primary efficacy variables. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), post-prandial plasma glucose (PPG) and homeostasis model assessment index were also used to assess efficacy. On average, HbA1c decreased by 9.1% and 8.1%, FPG decreased by 7.3% and 10.9%, and PPG decreased by 7.6% and 10.5%, respectively, in the glimepiride and rosiglitazone groups after 12 months. Patients receiving rosiglitazone experienced more rapid improvement in glycaemic control than those on glimepiride, and showed a significant improvement in insulin resistance-related parameters. There was a statistically significant decrease in basal homocysteinaemia in glimepiride-treated patients (-27.3%), but not in rosiglitazone-treated patients. Rosiglitazone plus metformin significantly improved long-term control of insulin resistance-related parameters compared with glimepiride plus metformin, although glimepiride treatment was associated with a slight improvement in cholesterolaemia, not observed in the rosiglitazone-treated patients, and with significant improvements in non-traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as basal homocysteinaemia and plasma Lp(a) levels.