Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach. Position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The role of co-morbidity in the selection of antidiabetic pharmacotherapy in type-2 diabetes

Metformin is, if not contraindicated and if tolerated, usually preferred over other antidiabetic drugs for the first line treatment of type-2 diabetes. The particular decision on which antidiabetic agent to use is based on variables such as efficacy, cost, potential side effects, effects on weight, comorbidities, hypoglycemia, risk, and patient preferences. However, there is no guidance how to consider these in the selection of antidiabetic drug treatment. In this work, we aimed to summarize available evidence and tried to give pragmatic treatment recommendations from a clinical practice perspective.

There are clear contraindications for some drugs in those with impaired renal and liver function and precautions in those with heart failure for the use of metformin (NYHA III-IV) and glitazones. On the other hand, GLP-1 analogs, DPP-4 inhibitors and acarbose are generally less critical and can be used in the majority of patients. We identified the following gaps with respect to the selection of antidiabetic drug treatment in patients with co-morbid disease conditions: 1) Guidelines fail to give advice on the use of specific antidiabetic drugs in patients with co-morbidity. 2) The literature is deficient in studies documenting antidiabetic drug use in patients with severely impaired renal function, diabetic retinopathy, cerebrovascular disease and systolic heart failure. 3) Further there are no specific data on patients with multiple of these co-morbid disease conditions. We postulate that differential use of antidiabetic drugs in patients with co-morbid disease constellations will help to reduce treatment related complications and might improve prognosis.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin in type 2 diabetes subjects at high risk for renal and cardiovascular disease: a pooled analysis of six phase III clinical trials

BACKGROUND

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hypertension and microalbuminuria are predictive markers for increased renal and cardiovascular risk. This post hoc analysis of data from a global development program aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in a population with joint prevalence of these two vascular risk factors.

METHODS

Data for patients with baseline microalbuminuria (urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio 30-300 mg/g) and hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mm Hg and/or a history of hypertension; and/or an antihypertensive treatment at baseline) who participated in any of six randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trials were analyzed. Participants received linagliptin 5 mg daily (alone or in combination with other oral antidiabetic drugs) or placebo for 18 to 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Of 3,119 patients, 512 had both microalbuminuria and hypertension (linagliptin, 366; placebo, 146). Baseline mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.3 (0.9)% and 8.4 (0.9)%; median (range) urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio was 60 (30-292) mg/g and 64 (30-298) mg/g; mean (SD) systolic blood pressure was 138 (15) mm Hg and 135 (16) mm Hg; and mean (SD) diastolic blood pressure was 81 (10) mm Hg and 81 (10) mm Hg, for linagliptin and placebo, respectively. Placebo-corrected mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 18 and week 24 was -0.57% (95% CI: -0.75, -0.39; P < 0.0001) and -0.59% (95% CI: -0.80, -0.39; P < 0.0001), respectively. Placebo-corrected mean change in FPG from baseline to week 24 was -21.3 mg/dl (95% CI: -31.0, -11.6; P < 0.0001). The incidence of drug-related adverse events was similar for linagliptin and placebo (10.4% and 8.2%, respectively). Changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, cholesterol and triglyceride levels were similar between linagliptin and placebo.

CONCLUSION

In T2DM patients with the two common vascular risk factors of hypertension and microalbuminuria, linagliptin achieved significant improvements in glycemic control. In this vulnerable patient population at high risk for micro- and macrovascular complications, linagliptin was well tolerated.

GLP-1 receptor agonists or DPP-4 inhibitors: how to guide the clinician?

Pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes has been enriched during recent years, with the launch of incretin therapies targeting glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1). Such medications comprise either GLP-1 receptor agonists, with short (one or two daily injections: exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide) or long duration (one injection once weekly: extended-released exenatide, albiglutide, dulaglutide, taspoglutide); or oral compounds inhibiting dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), the enzyme that inactives GLP-1, also called gliptins (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, alogliptin). Although both pharmacological approaches target GLP-1, important differences exist concerning the mode of administration (subcutaneous injection versus oral ingestion), the efficacy (better with GLP-1 agonists), the effects on body weight and systolic blood pressure (diminution with agonists versus neutrality with gliptins), the tolerance profile (nausea and possibly vomiting with agonists) and the cost (higher with GLP-1 receptor agonists). Both agents may exert favourable cardiovascular effects. Gliptins may represent a valuable alternative to a sulfonylurea or a glitazone after failure of monotherapy with metformin while GLP-1 receptor agonists may be considered as a good alternative to insulin (especially in obese patients) after failure of a dual oral therapy. However, this scheme is probably too restrictive and modalities of using incretins are numerous, in almost all stages of type 2 diabetes. Physicians may guide the pharmacological choice based on clinical characteristics, therapeutic goals and patient's preference.

[Glycaemic control and complications of diabetes: what about?]

In France, 2.8 millions of patients have type 2 diabetes, which is a well-established risk factor for cardiovascular disease. In about 15 years, several large clinical trials tried to study the relationship between a tight glycaemic control and the occurrence of micro- and macroangiopathy. Meta-analyses of targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control focused on divergent results. In type 1 diabetes, a tight glycaemic control reduced the occurrence of microangiopathy whereas more time, at least 5 years is needed to reduce macroangiopathy. Conclusions drawn from studies are less clear for type 2 diabetes and depend on the caracteristics of the population studied, particularly for retinopathy. When microalbuminuria is the judgement criteria, its progression is lower in the intensive group than in the conventional one and it takes more than about 5 years to emerge; the impact on glomerular filtration rate is less clear. Worries about the excess of mortality observed in the ACCORD study in the intensive treatment group were not described in other studies. The decrease of mortality was not associated with an intensive glyceamic control. Intensified multifactorial intervention is finally needed to improve microangiopathy.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in a Bangladeshi subgroup of type 2 diabetic patients switched from biphasic human insulin 30: a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To determine the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) therapy in Bangladeshi type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients switched from biphasic human insulin (BHI) as a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Bangladeshi patients switched from BHI to BIAsp 30 at the discretion of their physicians were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycaemia. Secondary outcomes comprised changes from baseline to Week 24 in the number of hypoglycaemic events, glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), systolic blood pressure and body weight. Quality of life (QoL) was evaluated at baseline and Week 24 using the EQ-5D questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 82 patients (mean age ± SD: 52.3 ± 12.2 years; body mass index: 25.6 ± 3.3 kg/m(2)) with a mean diabetes duration of 9.5 ± 5.5 years and mean duration on insulin of 2.5 ± 2.4 years were included. The mean BIAsp 30 dose was 0.49 ± 0.20 U/kg at baseline and 0.47 ± 0.17 U/kg at Week 24. No SADRs were reported. No events of hypoglycaemia (overall, major, minor or nocturnal) were reported at Week 24. Mean HbA1c, FPG and PPPG levels improved by -2.5 ± 1.3%, -65.0 ± 31.8 mg/dL and -119.3 ± 48.7 mg/dL, respectively, over 24 weeks. QoL also improved (mean change from baseline: +28.5 ± 12.9 points).

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI to BIAsp 30 therapy improved blood glucose control and was well-tolerated in this Bangladeshi subgroup.

Safety and effectiveness of insulin detemir in type 2 diabetes: results from the ASEAN cohort of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To determine the safety and effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) in type 2 diabetes patients from the ASEAN cohort of the A1chieve study.

METHODS

Patients from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore prescribed IDet at the discretion of their physicians were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions including major hypoglycaemia over 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included changes in the frequency of hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events and effectiveness assessments.

RESULTS

This sub-analysis included 1540 patients (insulin-naive, 1239; insulin-experienced, 301) with mean age ± SD 56.4 ± 10.9 years, BMI 25.4 ± 4.6 kg/m(2) and diabetes duration 6.9 ± 5.3 years. Insulin-naive patients received a baseline IDet dose of 0.24 ± 0.11 U/kg titrated up to 0.37 ± 0.21 U/kg by Week 24. The pre-study insulin dose in insulin-experienced patients was 0.41 ± 0.25 U/kg and baseline IDet dose was 0.31 ± 0.24 U/kg titrated up to 0.40 ± 0.20 U/kg by Week 24. Overall hypoglycaemia decreased from 1.73 to 0.46 events/patient-year from baseline to Week 24 (change in proportion of patients affected, p < 0.0001). At Week 24, 1 major hypoglycaemic event was reported in 1 insulin-experienced patient. IDet significantly improved glucose control (p < 0.001) at Week 24. The lipid profile and systolic blood pressure improved (p < 0.001) and body weight did not change significantly. Quality of life was positively impacted (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

IDet was well-tolerated and improved glycaemic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia or weight gain.

Quality of life in diabetes mellitus assessed on the basis of Hungarostudy Health Panel survey

Introduction: Examining the quality of life has a great importance in the treatment of chronic patients. Aim: The aim of the authors was to assess the national status on the basis of the database of the Hungarostudy Health Panel using statistical evaluation. Methods: Three validated questionnaries in the test-battery served as instruments: the shortened version of the WHO Well-being Questionnaire, the Shortened Beck’s Depression Scale Rating and the Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale. Results: It was found that in accordance with international data, the quality of life index of Hungarian diabetic patients was significantly worse than that of the non-diabetic population. Conclusions: International data also show that the decline in quality of life is correlated with a decline of cooperation and life expectancy of diabetic patients. This explains why methods of behavioral medicine focusing on improving life quality are of great importance, that have not yet been considered currently in psychoeducation. Referring to international examples the authors make a proposal on an extensive survey among Hungarian diabetic patients with the help of validated disease-specific questionnaires and using Transtheoretical Model in order to make education more efficient. Orv. Hetil., 2013, 154, 531–537.

Safety and effectiveness of insulin aspart in type 2 diabetic patients: results from the ASEAN cohort of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To examine the clinical safety and effectiveness of insulin aspart (IAsp) therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients from the ASEAN cohort of the international, 24-week, non-interventional A₁chieve study.

METHODS

T2D patients from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore, who started IAsp therapy with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs, were included. The primary endpoint was the incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycaemic events. Secondary endpoints included hypoglycaemia, glycated haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c], fasting plasma glucose [FPG], postprandial plasma glucose [PPPG], systolic blood pressure [SBP], body weight and lipids. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed using the EQ-5D questionnaire.

RESULTS

Overall, 312 T2D patients (222 insulin-naive and 90 insulin-experienced) with a mean ± SD age of 56.6 ± 11.2 years, BMI of 24.2 ± 3.9 kg/m(2) and diabetes duration of 7.0 ± 5.7 years were included. The mean daily IAsp dose was 0.51 ± 0.31 U/kg at baseline titrated up to 0.60 ± 0.29 U/kg at Week 24. No SADRs or major hypoglycaemic events were reported in the entire subgroup. The proportion of patients who reported overall hypoglycaemia decreased from baseline to Week 24 (7.1% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.0001). The mean HbA1c improved from 9.5 ± 1.6% at baseline to 7.6 ± 1.3% after 24 weeks (p < 0.001). The mean FPG, post-breakfast PPPG and SBP also improved (p < 0.001). Health-related QoL scores increased in the entire subgroup (mean increase: 9.8 ± 14.6 points, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Starting IAsp therapy was well-tolerated and was associated with significantly improved overall glycaemic control in the ASEAN cohort.

Practical approach to management of inpatient hyperglycemia in select patient populations

Hospitalized patients frequently transition between various levels of care and changing clinical situations. Optimal management of hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia includes awareness of situations that may significantly affect glucose and/or insulin metabolism. A review of published clinical trials reveals practical approaches to the management of hyperglycemia in select patient populations that may prove useful for the hospital clinician. We outline approaches to the management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients receiving glucocorticoids, patients with severe or end-stage renal disease undergoing hemo- or peritoneal dialysis, and patients receiving total parenteral or enteral feeding, in addition to patients transitioning from intravenous insulin infusion to subcutaneously administered insulin. Key considerations underlying these management methods include a proactive approach, frequent blood glucose monitoring, daily review of blood glucose patterns, and daily reassessment of the insulin regimen and associated orders.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: results from the ASEAN cohort of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To determine the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in the ASEAN cohort of the A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Type 2 diabetes patients from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore prescribed BIAsp 30 therapy were included. The primary outcome was evaluation of serious adverse drug reactions including major hypoglycaemia over 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were changes in hypoglycaemic events, serious adverse events (SAEs) and effectiveness parameters.

RESULTS

This sub-analysis included 2798 patients (insulin-naive, 1903; insulin-experienced, 895) with mean age ± SD, 55.3 ± 10.8 years, BMI, 24.9 ± 4.6 kg/m(2) and diabetes duration, 7.5 ± 5.9 years. Baseline HbA1c in the entire cohort was poor (9.9%, 85 mmol/mol). A total of 15 SAEs were reported in 7 insulin-experienced patients (1 moderate event was related to BIAsp 30). Overall hypoglycaemia at Week 24 was 0.88 events/patient-year compared to 1.71 events/patient-year reported at baseline (change in proportion of patients affected, p < 0.0001). No major hypoglycaemia was reported at Week 24. BIAsp 30 significantly improved glucose control (HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose, p < 0.001) at Week 24. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% at Week 24 was 35.3% compared to 3.5% at baseline. The lipid profile and systolic blood pressure also improved significantly (p < 0.001). Quality of life was positively impacted (mean change in visual analogue scores from EQ-5D = 10.6 ± 13.8 points, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

BIAsp 30 was well-tolerated and improved glucose control while decreasing the risk of hypoglycaemia.

The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec given in variable once-daily dosing intervals compared with insulin glargine and insulin degludec dosed at the same time daily: a 26-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The requirement to inject current basal insulin analogs at a fixed time each day may complicate adherence and compromise glycemic control. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of varying the daily injection time of insulin degludec (IDeg), an ultra-long-acting basal insulin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target trial enrolled adults (≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes who were either insulin naïve and receiving oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) (HbA(1c) = 7-11%) or previously on basal insulin ± OAD(s) (HbA(1c) = 7-10%). Participants were randomized to 1) once-daily (OD) IDeg in a prespecified dosing schedule, creating 8-40-h intervals between injections (IDeg OD Flex; n = 229); 2) once-daily IDeg at the main evening meal (IDeg OD; n = 228); or 3) once-daily insulin glargine at the same time each day (IGlar OD; n = 230). The primary outcome was noninferiority of IDeg OD Flex to IGlar OD in HbA(1c) reduction after 26 weeks.

RESULTS

After 26 weeks, IDeg OD Flex, IDeg OD, and IGlar OD improved HbA(1c) by 1.28, 1.07, and 1.26% points, respectively (estimated treatment difference [IDeg OD Flex - IGlar OD]: 0.04% points [-0.12 to 0.20], confirming noninferiority). No statistically significant differences in overall or nocturnal hypoglycemia were found between IDeg OD Flex and IGlar OD. Comparable glycemic control and rates of hypoglycemia were seen with IDeg OD Flex and IDeg OD. Adverse event profiles were similar across groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of extreme dosing intervals of 8-40 h demonstrates that the daily injection time of IDeg can be varied without compromising glycemic control or safety.

Optimal treatment of diabetic retinopathy

Diabetic retinopathy (DRP) is a common complication caused by multiple biochemical abnormalities of the underlying metabolic disease. While the incidence of DRP appears to decline due to evidence-based changes in diabetes management, the predicted increase in patients affected in particular by type 2 diabetes may outweigh the positive trend. The diagnosis is based on the alterations of the vessels, usually indicating abnormalities of the blood-retinal barrier and increased vasoregression, but the neuroglial elements appear equally vulnerable to the diabetic condition. Control of blood glucose, blood pressure and timely identification of coincident nephropathy are important to prevent progression to vision-threatening stages. Guidelines give specific indications for laser photocoagulation, in particular when euglycemia is no longer effective in preventing progression to advanced stages. Intravitreal administration of antibodies directed against the single best characterized propagator of clinically significant macular edema, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), has become popular despite uncertainty about the patient subgroups which benefit best and the optimum administration schedule. Multifactorial intervention beyond glycemic control includes antihypertensive, lipid-lowering and antiaggregatory and is effective in type 2 diabetic patients with high-risk profiles, in particular coincident nephropathy.

Switching from biphasic human insulin to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes: results from the ASEAN subgroup of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in ASEAN type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients switched from biphasic human insulin (BHI) in the non-interventional 24-week A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Indonesian, Malaysian, Filipino and Singaporean patients switched from BHI to BIAsp 30 at their physicians' discretion were included. The incidence of serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs), including major hypoglycaemia was the primary endpoint. Changes in hypoglycaemia, glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), lipids, body weight and systolic blood pressure were also evaluated. Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the EQ-5D questionnaire.

RESULTS

For the 465 patients included (mean ± SD age: 56 ± 10.3 years, diabetes duration: 9.7 ± 7.1 years, baseline HbA1c: 9.4 ± 1.8%), the mean pre-study BHI dose was 0.62 ± 0.28 IU/kg and 63.4% were dosing BHI twice daily (bid). The mean baseline BIAsp 30 dose was 0.65 ± 0.27 U/kg, titrated up to 0.71 ± 0.28 U/kg over 24 weeks, and most patients continued bid dosing. No SADRs or major hypoglycaemic episodes were reported. The proportion of patients reporting overall hypoglycaemia decreased significantly from 10.8% at baseline to 3.4% at Week 24 (p < 0.0001). Significant improvements in glycaemic control were noted (HbA1c: -1.4 ± 1.7%, FPG: -56.7 ± 72.5 mg/dL, post-breakfast PPPG: -84.8 ± 82.8 mg/dL, p < 0.001). Mean QoL improved by +6.6 ± 14.6 points (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

BIAsp 30 was well-tolerated and significantly increased glycaemic control in this ASEAN subgroup poorly controlled on BHI.

Safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes patients switched from biphasic human insulin 30: results from the Filipino cohort of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Filipino patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30).

METHODS

Safety and effectiveness outcomes were measured in all patients switching from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 in the Filipino cohort of the 24-week, multinational, prospective, non-interventional A₁chieve study.

RESULTS

A total of 111 Filipino patients (mean age ± SD, 57.4 ± 12.8 years; BMI, 25.8 ± 5.6 kg/m(2)) with mean diabetes duration of 9.9 ± 7.1 years switched therapy from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30. The mean pre-study BHI 30 dose was 0.65 ± 0.28 IU/kg and the baseline BIAsp 30 dose was 0.65 ± 0.26 U/kg titrated up to 0.70 ± 0.26 U/kg by Week 24. No serious adverse drug reactions were reported. Overall hypoglycaemia was reduced from 5.62 to 1.98 events/patient-year. Minor and nocturnal hypoglycaemia decreased and no major hypoglycaemia was reported at Week 24. Glucose control improved from baseline to Week 24 (HbA1c, -2.2 ± 2.1% [24 ± 23 mmol/mol]; FPG, -72.0 ± 71.8 mg/dL; PPPG, -145.5 ± 125.4 mg/dL). A total of 24 patients achieved HbA1c levels <7.0% at Week 24 compared to 6 patients reporting this target at baseline. Quality of life was positively impacted at Week 24 (change in visual analogue scores, 15.3 ± 16.9 points).

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 improved glycaemic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia.

Clinical experience with BIAsp 30: results from the Indonesian cohort of the international A₁chieve study

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Indonesian patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) as part of the 24-week, international, prospective, non-interventional A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Indonesian patients who started BIAsp 30 were included. Safety and efficacy was measured as part of routine clinical practice at baseline, Week 12 and Week 24.

RESULTS

Overall, 1324 patients having a mean ± SD age, duration of diabetes and body mass index of 55.2 ± 9.9 yrs, 6.8 ± 5.2 yrs and 24.1 ± 3.6 kg/m(2), respectively, were enrolled. 67% of patients were insulin-naive and 33% were prior insulin users. Glycaemic control was poor at baseline. After 24 weeks, significant reductions from baseline were observed in the mean glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (-2.6%), fasting plasma glucose (-93.8 mg/dL) and postprandial plasma glucose (-134.8 mg/dL) levels in the entire cohort (p < 0.001). Significant reductions were also seen in insulin-naive patients and prior insulin users. At Week 24, 29.9% of patients in the entire cohort achieved target HbA1c level of <7.0%, while 26.7% and 39.2% achieved this target among insulin-naive patients and prior insulin users, respectively. The proportion of patients reporting overall hypoglycaemia significantly decreased in the entire cohort after 24 weeks of BIAsp 30 therapy. A small significant increase in body weight was noted in the entire cohort, insulin-naive patients and prior insulin users.

CONCLUSION

The current study suggests that BIAsp 30 can be considered as a safe and effective option for initiating as well as intensifying insulin therapy in Indonesian patients with T2D.

Clinical safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes patients switched from biphasic human insulin 30: results from the Indonesian cohort of the A₁chieve study

AIM

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in Indonesian type 2 diabetes patients switched from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30) as a sub-analysis of the A₁chieve study.

METHODS

Clinical safety and effectiveness over 24 weeks was evaluated in Indonesian patients who switched from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 at the discretion of their physician.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients with mean age ± SD 55.6 ± 9.5 years, BMI 24.6 ± 3.8 kg/m(2), and mean diabetes duration 7.8 ± 5.7 years were included. The mean pre-study BHI 30 dose was 0.56 ± 0.25 IU/kg and the baseline BIAsp 30 dose was 0.60 ± 0.26 U/kg titrated up to 0.65 ± 0.25 U/kg by Week 24. No serious adverse drug reactions were reported throughout the study. Overall hypoglycaemia decreased from 2.18 to 0.06 events/patient-year with a significant decrease in the proportion of patients affected (p < 0.0001). No nocturnal or major hypoglycaemia was reported at Week 24. HbA1c improved from 8.8 ± 1.2% at baseline to 7.3 ± 0.8% at Week 24. A total of 45 patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% as compared to 5 patients with HbA1c <7.0% at baseline. FPG and PPPG improved significantly after 24 weeks (p < 0.001). Quality of life was positively impacted (change in visual analogue scores, 3.0 ± 11.6 points, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Switching from BHI 30 to BIAsp 30 in this Indonesian cohort was well-tolerated and improved glycaemic control with a decreased risk of hypoglycaemia.

Metformin revisited: a critical review of the benefit-risk balance in at-risk patients with type 2 diabetes

Metformin is unanimously considered a first-line glucose-lowering agent. Theoretically, however, it cannot be prescribed in a large proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes because of numerous contraindications that could lead to an increased risk of lactic acidosis. Various observational data from real-life have shown that many diabetic patients considered to be at risk still receive metformin and often without appropriate dose adjustment, yet apparently with no harm done and particularly no increased risk of lactic acidosis. More interestingly, recent data have suggested that type 2 diabetes patients considered at risk because of the presence of traditional contraindications may still derive benefit from metformin therapy with reductions in morbidity and mortality compared with other glucose-lowering agents, especially sulphonylureas. The present review analyzes the benefit-risk balance of metformin therapy in special populations, namely, patients with stable coronary artery disease, acute coronary syndrome or myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, renal impairment or chronic kidney disease, hepatic dysfunction and chronic respiratory insufficiency, all conditions that could in theory increase the risk of lactic acidosis. Special attention is also paid to elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, a population that is growing rapidly, as older patients can accumulate several comorbidities classically considered contraindications to the use of metformin. A review of the recent scientific literature suggests that reassessment of the contraindications of metformin is now urgently needed to prevent physicians from prescribing the most popular glucose-lowering therapy in everyday clinical practice outside of the official recommendations.

Insulin and atherosclerosis: how are they related?

The relationship between insulin and atherosclerosis is complex. People with type 2 diabetes are affected by three main glycaemic disorders: chronic hyperglycaemia; glycaemic variability; and iatrogenic hypoglycaemia. In addition to this triumvirate, the diabetic condition is characterized by lipid disorders, chronic low-grade inflammation and activation of oxidative stress. All these associated disorders reflect the insulin-resistant nature of type 2 diabetes and contribute to the development and progression of cardiovascular (CV) diseases. By both lowering plasma glucose and improving the lipid profile, insulin exerts beneficial effects on CV outcomes. In addition, insulin has several pleiotropic effects such as anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic and antioxidant properties. Insulin per se exerts an inhibitory effect on the activation of oxidative stress and seems able to counteract the pro-oxidant effects of ambient hyperglycaemia and glycaemic variability. However, insulin actions remain a subject of debate with respect to the risk of adverse CV events, which can increase in individuals exposed to high insulin doses. Evidence from the large-scale, long-term ORIGIN trial suggests that early implementation of insulin supplementation therapy in the course of glycaemic disorders, including type 2 diabetes, has a neutral impact on CV outcomes compared with standard management. Thus, the answer to the question "What impact does insulin have on atherosclerosis?" remains unclear, even though it is logical to deduce that insulin should be initiated as soon as possible and that small doses of insulin early on are better than higher doses later in the disease process.

Pharmacokinetic considerations for the treatment of diabetes in patients with chronic kidney disease

INTRODUCTION

People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) of stages 3 - 5 (creatinine clearance < 60 ml/min) represent ≈ 25% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the problem is underrecognized or neglected in clinical practice. However, most oral antidiabetic agents have limitations in case of renal impairment (RI), either because they require a dose adjustment or because they are contraindicated for safety reasons.

AREAS COVERED

The author performed an extensive literature search to analyze the influence of RI on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of glucose-lowering agents and the potential consequences for clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

As a result of PK interferences and for safety reasons, the daily dose should be reduced according to glomerular filtration rate (GFR) or even the drug is contraindicated in presence of severe CKD. This is the case for metformin (risk of lactic acidosis) and for many sulfonylureas (risk of hypoglycemia). At present, however, the exact GFR cutoff for metformin use is controversial. New antidiabetic agents are better tolerated in case of CKD, although clinical experience remains quite limited for most of them. The dose of DPP-4 inhibitors should be reduced (except for linagliptin), whereas both the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors are questionable in presence of CKD.

A network meta-analysis to compare glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide once weekly or liraglutide once daily in comparison with insulin glargine, exenatide twice daily or placebo

AIMS

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) exenatide once weekly (ExQW) and liraglutide once daily (QD) are indicated to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Although glycaemic control with ExQW versus liraglutide QD 1.8 mg has been directly compared, no studies have compared ExQW with liraglutide QD 1.2 mg or determined the probable relative efficacies of various injectable therapies for glycaemic control; therefore, a network meta-analysis was performed to address these questions.

METHODS

A systematic review identified randomized controlled trials of ≥24 weeks that compared ExQW, liraglutide QD (1.2 mg, 1.8 mg), insulin glargine, exenatide twice daily (ExBID), or placebo. Twenty-two studies evaluating 11 049 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. Mean differences in HbA1c relative to placebo or each other and probability rankings were estimated.

RESULTS

Estimated mean differences in HbA1c versus placebo were -1.15% (95% CrI: -1.31 to -1.00) for ExQW, -1.01% (95% CrI: -1.18 to -0.85) for liraglutide 1.2 mg, and -1.18% (95% CrI: -1.32 to -1.04) for liraglutide 1.8 mg. HbA1c differences for ExQW versus liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg were -0.14% (95% CrI: -0.34 to 0.06) and 0.03% (95% CrI: -0.14 to 0.18), respectively. The estimated mean difference in HbA1c between liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg was 0.17% (95% CrI: 0.02-0.30). Results were consistent when adjusted for background antihyperglycaemic medications and diabetes duration.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis did not identify meaningful differences in HbA1c lowering between ExQW and both liraglutide doses, suggesting that these GLP-1 RAs have similar glycaemic effects.

Efficacy and safety of lixisenatide in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review of Phase III clinical data

Lixisenatide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist developed for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In its clinical development program, once-daily lixisenatide has been associated with significant improvements in HbA_1c (change from baseline to week 24: up to -0.92%) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG; change from baseline to week 24 as add-on to basal insulin: up to -7.96 mmol/l) with beneficial weight effects (change from baseline to week 24: up to -2.0 kg as add-on to oral antidiabetic agents and -1.8 kg as add-on to basal insulin) and a low incidence of severe hypoglycemia (from 0 to 1.2% over 24 weeks). Pharmacodynamic data highlight differences between lixisenatide and other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, demonstrating more pronounced effects on PPG than liraglutide, with less frequent dosing and a better tolerability profile than exenatide. Lixisenatide has recently been evaluated in a comprehensive Phase III clinical trial program in patients with T2DM, which included three large-scale studies of once-daily lixisenatide in combination with basal insulin. Lixisenatide has been studied as a monotherapy or oral agent combination, or with insulin. It may become a treatment option for certain patient groups in the near future, including those that are unable to reach target HbA_1c goals despite treatment with basal insulin and a fairly well-controlled fasting plasma glucose, indicating that additional PPG control could be needed. This article reviews clinical data for lixisenatide to date, both as monotherapy and in combination with basal insulin, and discusses the implications of lixisenatide for the management of T2DM.

Does pen help? A real-world outcomes study of switching from vial to disposable pen among insulin glargine-treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

The study was designed to evaluate real-world data on clinical and economic outcome differences between patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who use insulin glargine with vial-and-syringe delivery and those who switch to pen administration.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed medical and pharmacy claims information from the national managed-care IMPACT(®) database (Ingenix Inc., Salt Lake City, UT). Adults with T2DM treated with insulin glargine were evaluated. Clinical and economic outcomes over 1 year were compared between individuals who had converted from administering glargine via vial-and-syringe to the SoloSTAR(®) (sanofi-aventis U.S., Bridgewater, NJ) pen (Switchers) and patients who continued to use vial-and-syringe administration (Continuers). Patients from each cohort were matched using propensity score matching for a comparison sample.

RESULTS

In total, 3,893 eligible patients were identified (665 Switchers and 3,228 Continuers), with a matched cohort with 603 patients in each group. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. One-year treatment persistence was significantly higher with Switchers versus Continuers (65.3% vs. 49.8%; P<0.0001). Medication possession ratio was also significantly higher among Switchers (0.79 vs. 0.76; P=0.0173). Insulin use and glycemic control were similar between groups. Healthcare utilization and total costs were also similar between groups. Higher prescription costs among Switchers were offset by lower overall and diabetes-related outpatient and inpatient costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from insulin glargine vial-and-syringe administration to pen delivery resulted in improved treatment adherence and persistence, with comparable clinical and economic outcomes.

Long-term efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride and placebo, all in combination with metformin in type 2 diabetes: 2-year results from the LEAD-2 study

AIMS

To investigate efficacy and safety of dual therapy with liraglutide and metformin in comparison to glimepiride and metformin, and metformin monotherapy over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In the 26-week the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes (LEAD)-2 core trial, patients (n = 1091) were randomized (2 : 2 : 2 : 1: 2) to liraglutide (0.6, 1.2 or 1.8 mg once-daily), placebo or glimepiride; all with metformin. Patients were enrolled if they were 18-80 years old with HbA1c 7.0-11.0% (previous monotherapy ≥3 months), or 7.0-10.0% (previous combination therapy ≥3 months), and body mass index ≤40 kg/m(2) . Patients completing the 26-week double-blinded phase could enter an 18-month open-label extension.

RESULTS

HbA1c decreased significantly with liraglutide (0.4% with 0.6 mg, 0.6% with 1.2 and 1.8 mg) versus 0.3% increase with metformin monotherapy (p < 0.0001). HbA1c decrease with liraglutide was non-inferior versus 0.5% decrease with glimepiride. Liraglutide groups experienced significant weight loss (2.1, 3.0 and 2.9 kg with 0.6, 1.2 and 1.8 mg, respectively) compared to weight gain (0.7 kg) with glimepiride (p < 0.0001). Weight loss with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg was significantly greater than with metformin monotherapy (1.8 kg; p = 0.0185 and p = 0.0378 for 1.2 and 1.8 mg, respectively). The occurrence of minor hypoglycaemia was <5.0% in all liraglutide groups, significantly less than with glimepiride (24.0%; p < 0.0001). Liraglutide was well tolerated overall: gastrointestinal events were more common than with glimepiride or metformin monotherapy, but occurrence decreased with time.

CONCLUSIONS

Liraglutide provided sustained glycaemic control over 2 years comparable to that provided by glimepiride. Liraglutide was well tolerated, and was associated with weight loss and a low rate of hypoglycaemia.

Improved glycaemic control with vildagliptin added to insulin, with or without metformin, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin 50 mg bid as add-on therapy to insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This is a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, clinical trial in T2DM patients inadequately controlled by stable insulin therapy, with or without metformin. Patients received treatment with vildagliptin 50 mg bid or placebo for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

In all, 449 patients were randomized to vildagliptin (n = 228) or placebo (n = 221). After 24 weeks, the difference in adjusted mean change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between vildagliptin and placebo was -0.7 ± 0.1% (p < 0.001) in the overall study population, -0.6 ± 0.1% (p < 0.001) in the subgroup also receiving metformin and -0.8 ± 0.2% (p < 0.001) in the subgroup without metformin. Vildagliptin therapy was well tolerated and had a similarly low incidence of hypoglycaemia compared with placebo (8.4 vs. 7.2%, p = 0.66) in spite of improved glycaemic control, and was not associated with weight gain. (+0.1 vs. -0.4 kg).

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin 50 mg bid added to insulin significantly reduced HbA1c in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by insulin, with or without metformin. Vildagliptin was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo. These results were achieved without weight gain or an increase in hypoglycaemia incidence or severity in spite of improved glycaemic control.

Clinical evidence and mechanistic basis for vildagliptin's effect in combination with insulin

Due to the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes, many patients need insulin as add-on to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in order to maintain adequate glycemic control. Insulin therapy primarily targets elevated fasting glycemia but is less effective to reduce postprandial hyperglycemia. In addition, the risk of hypoglycemia limits its effectiveness and there is a concern of weight gain. These drawbacks may be overcome by combining insulin with incretin-based therapies as these increase glucose sensitivity of both the α- and β-cells, resulting in improved postprandial glycemia without the hypoglycemia and weight gain associated with increasing the dose of insulin. The dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitor vildagliptin has also been shown to protect from hypoglycemia by enhancing glucagon counterregulation. The effectiveness of combining vildagliptin with insulin was demonstrated in three different studies in which vildagliptin decreased A1C levels when added to insulin therapy without increasing hypoglycemia. This was established with and without concomitant metformin therapy. Furthermore, the effectiveness of vildagliptin appears to be greater when insulin is used as a basal regimen as opposed to being used to reduce postprandial hyperglycemia, since improvement in insulin secretion likely plays a minor role when relatively high doses of insulin are administered before meals. This article reviews the clinical experience with the combination of vildagliptin and insulin and discusses the mechanistic basis for the beneficial effects of the combination. The data support the use of vildagliptin in combination with insulin in general and, in line with emerging clinical practice, suggest that treating patients with vildagliptin, metformin, and basal insulin could be an attractive therapeutic option.

Cardiovascular disease and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: now that the dust is settling from large clinical trials

The relationship between glucose control and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes has been a matter of controversy over the years. Although epidemiological evidence exists in favor of an adverse role of poor glucose control on cardiovascular events, intervention trials have been less conclusive. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study, the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease (ADVANCE) study, and the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) have shown no beneficial effect of intensive glucose control on primary cardiovascular endpoints in type 2 diabetes. However, subgroup analysis has provided evidence suggesting that the potential beneficial effect largely depends on patients’ characteristics, including age, diabetes duration, previous glucose control, presence of cardiovascular disease, and risk of hypoglycemia. The benefit of strict glucose control on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality may be indeed hampered by the extent and frequency of hypoglycemic events and could be enhanced if glucose-lowering medications, capable of exerting favorable effects on the cardiovascular system, were used. This review examines the relationship between intensive glucose control and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes, addressing the need for individualization of glucose targets and careful consideration of the benefit/risk profile of antidiabetes medications.

Worse glycaemic control in LADA patients than in those with type 2 diabetes, despite a longer time on insulin therapy

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Our aim was to study whether glycaemic control differs between individuals with latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) and patients with type 2 diabetes, and whether it is influenced by time on insulin therapy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 372 patients with LADA (205 men and 167 women; median age 54 years, range 35-80 years) from Swedish cohorts from Skåne (n = 272) and Västerbotten (n = 100). Age- and sex-matched patients with type 2 diabetes were included as controls. Data on the use of oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs), insulin and insulin-OHA combination therapy was retrieved from the medical records. Poor glycaemic control was defined as HbA(1c) ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) at follow-up.

RESULTS

The individuals with LADA and with type 2 diabetes were followed for an average of 107 months. LADA patients were leaner than type 2 diabetes patients at diagnosis (BMI 27.7 vs 31.0 kg/m(2); p < 0.001) and follow-up (BMI 27.9 vs 30.2 kg/m(2); p < 0.001). Patients with LADA had been treated with insulin for longer than those with type 2 diabetes (53.3 vs 28.8 months; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the patient groups with regard to poor glycaemic control at diagnosis, but more patients with LADA (67.8%) than type 2 diabetes patients (53.0%; p < 0.001) had poor glycaemic control at follow-up. Patients with LADA had worse glycaemic control at follow-up compared with participants with type 2 diabetes (OR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.2, 2.7), adjusted for age at diagnosis, HbA(1c), BMI at diagnosis, follow-up time and duration of insulin treatment.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Individuals with LADA have worse glycaemic control than patients with type 2 diabetes despite a longer time on insulin therapy.

Pharmacogenomic association between a variant in SLC47A1 gene and therapeutic response to metformin in type 2 diabetes

Pharmacogenetic studies revealed that variants in genes related to the pharmacokinetics of metformin were associated with glucose-lowering effect of metformin. The aim of this study was to investigate possible associations of the variants in genes encoding organic cationic transporters-solute carrier family 22, members A1, A2 (SLC22A1, SLC22A2) and solute carrier family 47, member A1 (SLC47A1) with response to metformin in type 2 diabetes. One hundred forty-eight drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were included in the study. Genotyping for SLC22A1 rs622342, SLC22A2 rs316019 and SLC47A1 rs2289669 variants was performed using real-time PCR with subsequent melting-curve analysis. SLC47A1 rs2289669 genotype was significantly associated with the reduction in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) after 6 months. Twenty percentage of patients with diabetes that are homozygous for A-allele of SLC47A1 had twofold reduction in HbA1c in comparison with the patients carrying G-allele (GG + GA: 0.55 ± 0.09% vs. AA: 1.10 ± 0.18%, p = 0.018). In conclusion, the results of this study might have in future practical implication in personalised treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy of vildagliptin in combination with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of vildagliptin 50 mg once daily in patients with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m²) and longstanding type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled with insulin therapy, which is a difficult-to-treat population, with limited therapeutic options and a high susceptibility to hypoglycemia.

Methods

This was a post hoc subanalysis of data obtained during a previously described randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week study comparing the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin 50 mg once daily versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate or severe renal impairment. The present data derive from 178 patients with severe renal impairment (baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate approximately 21 mL/min/1.73 m², 100 randomized to vildagliptin, 78 randomized to placebo), all of whom were receiving insulin therapy (alone or in combination with an oral antidiabetic agent) for longstanding type 2 diabetes (mean approximately 19 years).

Results

With vildagliptin in combination with insulin, the adjusted mean change (AMΔ) in HbA_1c from baseline (7.7% ± 0.1%) was −0.9% ± 0.4% and the between-treatment difference (vildagliptin – placebo) was −0.6% ± 0.2% (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients achieving endpoint HbA_1c < 7.0% was significantly higher with vildagliptin than placebo (45.2% versus 22.8%, P = 0.008). When added to insulin, vildagliptin and placebo had comparable hypoglycemic profiles and did not cause weight gain. Both treatments were similarly well tolerated, with comparable incidences of adverse events, serious adverse events, and deaths.

Conclusion

When added to insulin therapy in patients with severe renal impairment and longstanding type 2 diabetes, vildagliptin 50 mg once daily was efficacious, eliciting HbA_1c reductions consistent with those previously reported for a patient population with much more recent onset of type 2 diabetes and normal renal function, and had a hypoglycemic profile comparable with placebo. Accordingly, vildagliptin is a suitable treatment option for patients with advanced type 2 diabetes and impaired renal function who require insulin therapy and present a serious therapeutic challenge in clinical practice.

Linagliptin: a review of its use in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Linagliptin (Trajenta®, Tradjenta™, Trazenta™, Trayenta™) is an oral, highly selective inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 and is the first agent of its class to be eliminated predominantly via a nonrenal route. Linagliptin is indicated for once-daily use for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and a twice-daily fixed-dose combination of linagliptin/metformin (Jentadueto®) is also available. In this article, the pharmacological, clinical efficacy and tolerability data relevant to the use of linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes are reviewed. The efficacy of oral linagliptin in the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes has been investigated in several double-blind, multicentre trials. Following 12-24 weeks of treatment, improvements in glycaemic control parameters, including glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c); primary endpoint in all trials), were seen with linagliptin relative to placebo when used as monotherapy, initial combination therapy (with metformin or pioglitazone) or add-on therapy to other oral antihyperglycaemia agents (metformin and/or a sulfonylurea) or basal insulin (with or without metformin and/or pioglitazone). In terms of lowering HbA(1c), linagliptin was more effective than voglibose in a 26-week monotherapy trial and noninferior to glimepiride when used as add-on therapy to metformin in a 104-week study. Additional trials and subgroup analyses of pooled data suggest that linagliptin improves glycaemic control regardless of factors such as age, duration of type 2 diabetes, ethnicity and renal function, and as linagliptin is eliminated primarily via a nonrenal route, it can be used without dosage adjustment in patients with renal impairment of any degree. Oral linagliptin was generally well tolerated and was associated with a low likelihood of hypoglycaemia (except when used in combination with a sulfonylurea) and had little effect on bodyweight. Further long-term and comparative efficacy and tolerability data are required to help position linagliptin more definitively with respect to other antihyperglycaemia agents. However, clinical data currently available indicate that linagliptin is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment option for use in patients with type 2 diabetes, including those with renal impairment for whom other antihyperglycaemia agents require dosage adjustment or are not suitable.

Cardiovascular effects of gliptins

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (commonly referred to as gliptins) are a novel class of oral antihyperglycaemic agents with demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Preclinical data and mechanistic studies have indicated a possible beneficial action on blood vessels and the heart, via both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1)-dependent and GLP-1-independent effects. DPP-4 inhibition increases the concentration of many peptides with potential vasoactive and cardioprotective effects. Clinically, DPP-4 inhibitors improve several risk factors in patients with T2DM. They improve blood glucose control (mainly by reducing postprandial glycaemia), are weight neutral (or even induce modest weight loss), lower blood pressure, improve postprandial lipaemia, reduce inflammatory markers, diminish oxidative stress, and improve endothelial function. Some positive effects on the heart have also been described in patients with ischaemic heart disease or congestive heart failure, although their clinical relevance requires further investigation. Post-hoc analyses of phase II-III, controlled trials suggest a possible cardioprotective effect with a trend for a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events with gliptins than with placebo or active agents. However, the actual relationship between DPP-4 inhibition and cardiovascular outcomes remains to be proven. Major prospective clinical trials with predefined cardiovascular outcomes and involving various DPP-4 inhibitors are now underway in patients with T2DM and a high-risk cardiovascular profile.

Testing a peer support intervention for people with type 2 diabetes: a pilot for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

People with Type 2 diabetes face various psycho-social, self-management and clinical care issues and evidence is mixed whether support from others with diabetes, 'peer support', can help. We now describe a 2 month pilot study of different peer support interventions.

METHODS

The intervention was informed by formative evaluation using semi-structured interviews with health professionals, community support groups and observation of diabetes education and support groups. Invitations to participate were mailed from 4 general practices and included a survey of barriers to care. Participants were randomized by practice to receive individual, group, combined (both individual and group) or no peer support. Evaluation included ethnographic observation, semi-structured interviews and questionnaires at baseline and post-intervention.

RESULTS

Of 1,101 invited, 15% expressed an interest in participating in the pilot. Sufficient numbers volunteered to become peer supporters, although 50% of these (8/16) withdrew. Those in the pilot were similar to other patients, but were less likely to feel they knew enough about diabetes (60.8% vs 44.6% p = 0.035) and less likely to be happy with the diabetes education/care to date (75.4% vs 55.4% p = 0.013). Key issues identified were the need to recruit peer supporters directly rather than through clinicians, to address participant diabetes educational needs early and the potential for group sessions to have lower participation rates than 1:1 sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment to a full trial of peer support within the existing study design is feasible with some amendments. Attendance emerged as a key issue needing close monitoring and additional intervention during the trial.

Renal Effects of DPP-4 Inhibitors: A Focus on Microalbuminuria

Incretin-based therapies represent one of the most promising options in type 2 diabetes treatment owing to their good effectiveness with low risk of hypoglycemia and no weight gain. Other numerous potential beneficial effects of incretin-based therapies have been suggested based mostly on experimental and small clinical studies including its beta-cell- and vasculo-protective actions. One of the recently emerged interesting features of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors is its possible protective effect on the diabetic kidney disease. Here, we review the renal effects of DPP-4 inhibitors with special focus on its influence on the onset and progression of microalbuminuria, as presence of microalbuminuria represents an important early sign of kidney damage and is also associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia and cardiovascular complications. Mechanisms underlying possible nephroprotective properties of DPP-4 inhibitors include reduction of oxidative stress and inflammation and improvement of endothelial dysfunction. Effects of DPP-4 inhibitors may be both glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) dependent and independent. Ongoing prospective studies focused on the nephroprotective effects of DPP-4 inhibitors will further clarify its possible role in the prevention/attenuation of diabetic kidney disease beyond its glucose lowering properties.

Determinants and consequences of insulin initiation for type 2 diabetes in France: analysis of the National Health and Wellness Survey

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to identify the intrinsic patient characteristics and extrinsic environmental factors predicting prescription and use and, more specifically, early initiation (up to 5 years of disease duration) of insulin for type 2 diabetes in France. A secondary objective was to evaluate the impact of insulin therapy on mental and physical quality of life and patient adherence.

METHODS

The data used in this study were derived from the 2008, 2010, and 2011 France National Health and Wellness Survey. This survey is an annual, cross-sectional, self-administered, Internet-based questionnaire among a nationwide representative sample of adults (aged 18 years or older). Of the total of 45,958 persons recruited in France, 1,933 respondents (deduped) were identified as diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. All unique respondents from the three waves, currently using insulin or oral bitherapy or tritherapy at the time of assessment, were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

Early (versus late) initiation of insulin therapy was 9.9 times more likely to be prescribed by an endocrinologist or diabetologist than by a primary care physician (P < 0.0001). Younger age at diagnosis and current smoking habits were significant predictors of early (versus late) insulin initiation (odds ratio [OR] 1.031, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.005-1.059, P = 0.0196, and OR 2.537, 95% CI 1.165-5.524, P = 0.0191, respectively). Patients with a yearly income ≥€50,000 were less likely to be put on insulin early (P = 0.0399). A link between insulin prescription and complications was shown only in univariate analysis. Mental quality of life was lower in patients on early (versus late) insulin, but only in patients with diabetes-related complications. Insulin users (versus oral bitherapy or tritherapy users) had 3.0 times greater odds of being adherent than uncontrolled oral bitherapy or tritherapy users (OR 2.983, 95% CI 1.37-6.495, P = 0.0059).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the role of specialists in early initiation of insulin, and the data presented herein reflect the fact that early initiation is more frequent in younger patients, patients with diabetes-related complications, and current smokers, and less frequent in patients with a higher income. Moreover, we observed that being treated with insulin was not associated with deterioration in quality of life, and insulin-treated patients were more often adherent than uncontrolled oral bitherapy or tritherapy users. These data suggest that doctors' concerns about patient adherence and detrimental effects on quality of life should not be a barrier to their decision regarding early initiation of insulin therapy. Due to the nature of this cross-sectional survey (eg, inability to assess treatment flow), further research is needed to confirm its findings.

Emerging DPP-4 inhibitors: focus on linagliptin for type 2 diabetes

The first dipeptidyl-peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes became available in 2006. Since then, the number of DPP-4 inhibitors has increased and DPP-4 inhibitors have developed into an important drug class. DPP-4 inhibitors act by increasing endogenous GLP-1 and GIP concentrations. Via this mechanism, insulin secretion is glucose-dependently stimulated and glucagon secretion inhibited. This results in a low risk for hypoglycemia. Furthermore, DPP-4 inhibitors are weight-neutral. Linagliptin is a novel DPP-4 inhibitor that, in contrast to the other members of this drug class, is eliminated by a biliary/hepatic route rather than by renal elimination. This property allows the use of linagliptin in type 2 diabetic patients with normal kidney function as well as in patients with renal insufficiency without dose adjustments. In comparative clinical studies, linagliptin was noninferior to other established antidiabetic agents, especially to metformin and sulfonylurea. It showed a superior safety profile over glimepiride regarding hypoglycemia, weight gain, a composite cardiovascular endpoint, and stroke. This review gives an overview on the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in comparison to the classical oral antidiabetic drugs as well as to the other DPP-4 inhibitors.

Glucose lowering therapeutic strategies for type 2 diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease in primary care setting in france: a cross-sectional study

Aim. To understand glucose lowering therapeutic strategies of French general practitioners (GPs) in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods. A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted from March to June 2011 among a sample of French GPs who contribute to the IMS Lifelink Disease Analyzer database. Eligible patients were those with T2DM and moderate-to-severe CKD who visited their GPs at least once during the study period. Data were collected through electronic medical records and an additional questionnaire. Results. 116 GPs included 297 patients: 86 with stage 3a (Group 1, GFR = 45-60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and 211 with stages 3b, 4, or 5 (Group 2, GFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Patients' mean age was approximately 75 years. Insulin was used in 19% of patients, and was predominant in those with severe CKD. More than two-thirds of patients were treated with glucose lowering agents which were either contraindicated or not recommended for CKD. Conclusion Physicians most commonly considered the severity of diabetes and not CKD in their therapeutic decision making, exposing patients to potential iatrogenic risks. The recent patient oriented approach and individualization of glycemic objectives according to patient profile rather than standard HbA1c would improve this situation.

Pioglitazone ameliorates endothelial dysfunction in those with impaired glucose regulation among the first-degree relatives of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

OBJECTIVE

To study the effects of pioglitazone on endothelial dysfunction of subjects with impaired glucose regulation (IGR) among the first-degree relatives of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The first-degree relatives of T2DM patients were screened with oral glucose test and IGR was diagnosed. IGR subjects whose blood glucose was still above the level after 1-month exercise were randomized to receive pioglitazone (15 mg/day) or vehicle for 12 weeks. Endothelial function was assessed as endothelium-dependent and -independent vasodilation. Blood nitric oxide (NO), blood pressure, body mass index, insulin and serum lipids were also measured. Area under the curve of glucose (AUC(glu)) and insulin (AUC(INS)), homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), HOMA of β-cell function (HOMA-β) and early insulin secretion index (ΔI(30)/ΔG(30)) were calculated.

RESULTS

After pioglitazone treatment, fasting plasma, 2-hour plasma glucose, triglyceride (TG), fasting insulin, AUC(glu), HOMA-β and HOMA-IR, 2-hour insulin, AUC(INS) and ΔI(30)/ΔG(30) decreased. Endothelium-dependent vasodilation and NO were significantly improved in the treatment group. Furthermore, the changes of endothelium-dependent vasodilation were negatively correlated with changes in AUC(INS) but positively with NO and HOMA-β. Stepwise multivariate regression analysis showed that changes in NO and HOMA-β were both independent parameters for improvement of endothelial dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Pioglitazone decreased blood glucose and TG, increased insulin sensitivity, and ameliorated endothelial dysfunction of IGR subjects among the first-degree relatives of T2DM patients. Increased NO production may be associated with the improvement of endothelial dysfunction.

Real world outcomes of adding rapid-acting insulin versus switching to analog premix insulin among US patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin glargine

INTRODUCTION

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often require intensification of basal insulin therapy. This retrospective, observational study compared real-world outcomes in US patients with T2DM treated with insulin glargine who added a rapid-acting insulin (RAI) (basal-bolus approach) with those who switched to premixed insulin (PMX).

METHODS

The national US IMPACT® database was used to identify data from adult patients (≥18 years of age) with T2DM who added bolus RAI to insulin glargine (GLA + RAI) or who switched from GLA to PMX between 2001 and 2009. A stringent 1:1 propensity score-matching method was used to address the selection bias by matching GLA + RAI patients and PMX patients. Clinical and economic outcomes were determined for 1 year after the initial pharmacy claim for RAI or for PMX. Outcomes included treatment persistence and adherence, average insulin doses, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels, the prevalence and incidence of hypoglycemia, and health care costs/utilization. Analysis was carried out using an intent-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

The study included data from 746 propensity-matched patients (n = 373 in each cohort). Treatment persistence and adherence were higher in the GLA + RAI cohort. There was no significant difference in A1C reduction from baseline and the number of patients achieving target A1C levels of <7% in each cohort. The incidence of hypoglycemic events was also similar in both groups. However, during follow-up, many patients (48.8%) who initially switched from insulin glargine to PMX crossed back over to use GLA and/or RAI as part of their regimen. Health care costs and utilization levels were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Clinical and economic outcomes were similar in T2DM patients who added RAI to GLA and in those who switched to PMX, but a basal-bolus strategy appears to be associated with better treatment persistence and adherence.

[Antihyperglycemic Treatment Guidelines for diabetes mellitus type 2]

Hyperglycemia significantly contributes to micro- and macrovascular complications in patients with diabetes mellitus. While lifestyle interventions remain cornerstones of disease prevention and treatment, most patients with type 2 diabetes will eventually require pharmacotherapy for glycemic control. The definition of individual targets in regard of optimal therapeutic efficacy and high therapeutic safety is of great importance. In this guideline we present the best and most current evidence-based clinical practice data for healthcare professionals.

Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in youth

The rising rates of obesity in youth have concurrently led to an increase in the rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in this age group. However, there are limited data on the efficacy of different antidiabetic agents in youth. In this context, the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth trial recently reported that the majority of obese children and adolescents 10-17-years old with newly diagnosed T2DM (T2DM duration less than 2 years) could not achieve HbA1c levels < 8% for more than 1 year with metformin monotherapy, metformin plus rosiglitazone combination, or metformin and lifestyle changes. These findings suggest that, in the majority of youth with T2DM, tight long-term glycemic control with oral agents is an elusive goal and that most patients will require treatment with insulin within a few years of diagnosis to achieve HbA1c targets and reduce the risk of macro- and microvascular complications. Therefore, reducing the incidence of T2DM by preventing pediatric obesity through the implementation of lifestyle changes in the community should be the primary objective of healthcare systems.