Long-term therapy with addition of pioglitazone to metformin compared with the addition of gliclazide to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, comparative study

[Diabetic kidney disease (update 2023) : Position paper of the Austrian Diabetes Association and the Austrian Society for Nephrology]

Epidemiological investigations have shown that approximately 2-3% of all Austrians have diabetes mellitus with renal involvement, leaving 250,000 people in Austria affected. The risk of occurrence and progression of this disease can be attenuated by lifestyle interventions as well as optimization of blood pressure, blood glucose control and special drug classes. The present article represents the joint recommendations of the Austrian Diabetes Association and the Austrian Society of Nephrology for the diagnostic and treatment strategies of diabetic kidney disease.

Effects of pioglitazone on cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

In 2019, the Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists nominated an expert panel to develop guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. After identifying the effects of glucose-lowering agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) as critical outcomes, the experts decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of pioglitazone with this respect.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A MEDLINE database search was performed to identify RCTs, up to June 1st, 2021, with duration≥52 weeks, in which pioglitazone was compared with either placebo or active comparators. The principal endpoints were MACE and HHF (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their outcomes), all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified outcomes). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all the endpoints considered. Eight RCTs were included in the analysis for MACEs and HF (5048 and 5117 patients in the pioglitazone and control group, respectively), and 24 in that for all-cause mortality (10,682 and 9674 patients). Pioglitazone neither significantly increased nor reduced the risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF in comparison with placebo/active comparators (MH-OR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.78-1.03, 0.91, 95% CI 0.77, 1.09, and 1.16, 95% CI 0.73, 1.83, respectively). Pioglitazone was associated with a significant reduction of MACE in patients with prior cardiovascular events (MH-OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed no significant effects of pioglitazone on incident MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF.

An overview of alogliptin + pioglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive condition, and sequential additions of therapy are usually required to maintain glycemic control. The options for glucose lowering therapies have increased considerably in recent years. Fixed-dose combinations such as alogliptin with pioglitazone provide a convenient choice which can improve medication adherence.

AREAS COVERED

The authors performed a literature search to identify publications describing the efficacy and safety of alogliptin and pioglitazone when used separately and in combinations.

EXPERT OPINION

Pioglitazone activates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma which improves insulin sensitivity and helps to preserve β-cell function with a durable improvement in glycemic control. Pioglitazone can retard the progression of atherosclerosis and reduce cardiovascular events, but it is associated with adverse events including weight gain, fluid retention, and increased risk of fractures. Alogliptin improves glycemic control and appears neutral in terms of cardiovascular events. It does not appear to increase the adverse events associated with pioglitazone and use of the combination may permit the use of lower doses of pioglitazone with reduced adverse effects. There are no cardiovascular outcome studies with the combination but the cardiovascular benefits of pioglitazone and additional glucose lowering effects of alogliptin provide a useful combination with convenient once daily dosing.

Comparative Efficacy of Lobeglitazone Versus Pioglitazone on Albuminuria in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lobeglitazone on albuminuria at 24 weeks of follow-up in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) compared with pioglitazone using data from a randomized, double-blinded phase III trial.

METHODS

In the phase III trial, patients who were inadequately controlled with metformin received 0.5 mg of lobeglitazone or 15 mg of pioglitazone for 24 weeks. Post hoc, exploratory analysis was used to investigate mean changes from baseline in the urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) between the lobeglitazone (N = 104) and pioglitazone (N = 101) treatment groups.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks of treatment, UACR was slightly decreased in the lobeglitazone group (- 4.3 mg/g creatinine [Cr]) compared to baseline and slightly increased in the pioglitazone group (5.2 mg/g Cr), with no change in the estimated glomerular filtration rate in either group; this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.476). The incidence of new-onset microalbuminuria (2.4%) and the progression of albuminuria by > 1 stage (2.9%) in the lobeglitazone group were lower than the respective values in the pioglitazone group (6.8 and 6.1%, respectively). Of the patients in the lobeglitazone group, 50% exhibited regression to normoalbuminuria, compared to 39.3% of the patients in the pioglitazone. In subjects in the lobeglitazone group with micro- and macroalbuminuria, UACR tended to be more decreased and HbA1c was more reduced compared to those with normoalbuminuria (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Lobeglitazone had a tendency to improve albuminuria in patients with T2DM and had comparable effects on albuminuria as pioglitazone which has demonstrated beneficial effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01106131.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Saxagliptin/Dapagliflozin Versus Gliclazide and Insulin Glargine: Economic Implications of the Outcomes of the CVD-Real Studies I and II

Diabetes treatment cost represents an ever-growing problem. The adoption of new drugs in therapy, although they can guarantee an improvement in patient’s quality of life, can meet obstacles when it involves an increase in costs. We decided to compare the costs and benefits of the new saxagliptin and dapagliflozin combination versus traditional therapies. Bodyweight loss and the sharp reduction in hypoglycemic episodes were the 2 main clinical outcomes that emerged from registered studies of saxagliptin and dapagliflozin compared with the sulfonylureas. These results, combined with the good cardiovascular risk profile, led to develop a cost-utility analysis. We aimed to show the economic value of this new association therapy. We carried out a cost-utility analysis from the Italian National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective, focused on direct costs related to the treatment and management of main diabetes complications. Utility scores adopted have been measured based on the patient’s perception of weight changes. In light of the better durability profile of saxagliptin/dapagliflozin compared with gliclazide, we also considered a simulation scenario to assess the impact on costs of switching to basal insulin, starting from gliclazide and the fixed combination, respectively, and based on the related probabilities to switch. To assess the robustness of the results, a 1-way sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the main parameters by ±20%. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the results was tested considering the addition of a percent discount, because the purchase costs of drugs are usually subject to hidden discounts. We calculated the total direct annual cost per patient of saxagliptin/dapagliflozin versus gliclazide and insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not achieving glycemic control on metformin plus saxagliptin alone, dapagliflozin alone, or gliclazide at a lower dosage. Total treatment costs have been obtained adding the direct cost of the drug, needles, glycemic self-monitoring, hypoglycemic events, cardiovascular complications, and effect on consumption of other drugs. The total direct cost of saxagliptin/dapagliflozin fixed dose combination was €414.62 higher than gliclazide (€1.067.72 vs €653.10), and greater than basal insulin, with a difference of €166.99 (€1067.72 vs €900.72). Despite the higher annual direct total cost, the additional cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, compared with gliclazide, has been €11 517, and €4639, when compared with insulin glargine in the base-case scenario, and the robustness of the results has been shown in the sensitivity analysis. The results of our cost-utility analysis, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, were fully compliant with the threshold adopted for Italy. Then, saxagliptin/dapagliflozin can be considered a cost-effective oral hypoglycemic agent. The positive effect of this drug on the quality of life, induced by the bodyweight loss, has allowed this outcome, despite the higher annual cost per patient, mainly determined by the drug purchase cost.

Pioglitazone for the Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Patients with or at High Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

The goal of the meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of pioglitazone on the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and renal adverse events in patients with or at high risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pioglitazone with any control were identified through PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Cardiovascular outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs, defined as the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death), hospitalization for heart failure, and all-cause mortality. Renal outcomes included change in urinary albumin to creatinine ratio and 24-hour urinary protein excretion. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies with 19 645 participants were enrolled. Pioglitazone reduced the risk of MACE (RR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.7-0.9]), with benefit only seen in patients with a history of established CVDs (0.8 [0.7-0.9]) and not in those without (1.0 [0.7-1.3]). Regarding the individual components, pioglitazone reduced the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction (0.8 [0.6-1.0]) and nonfatal stroke (0.8 [0.7-0.9]), which was confined to patients with a history of established CVDs, whereas no treatment effect was found on cardiovascular death (1.0 [0.7-1.2]) regardless of the presence of established CVDs. Pioglitazone increased the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (1.3 [1.1-1.6]) and had no treatment effect on all-cause mortality (1.0 [0.8-1.1]). Pioglitazone reduced albuminuria by 18.5% (WMD 18.5% [95% CI, 21.1-16.0]), with a similar benefit in patients with different renal function categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Pioglitazone should be considered in patients with or at high risk of T2DM for the prevention of cardiovascular endpoints, especially in those with a history of established CVD who might benefit the most. Robust reductions in progression of renal disease are seen regardless of baseline renal function degree.

Long-term comparative safety analysis of the risks associated with adding or switching to a sulfonylurea as second-line Type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment in a US veteran population

AIM

To examine the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events associated with adding vs switching to second-line therapies in a comparative safety study of people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using an as-treated analysis of people served by the Veterans Health Administration who were on metformin and subsequently augmented this treatment or switched to other oral glucose-lowering treatments between 1998 and 2012. This study included 145 250 people with long follow-up. Confounding was addressed through several strategies, involving weighted propensity score models with rich confounder adjustment and strict inclusion criteria, coupled with an incident-user design.

RESULTS

Second-line use of sulfonylureas was related to higher mortality (hazard ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.14, 1.70) and cardiovascular risks (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 1.09, 1.30) compared with thiazolidinedione therapy. Differential hazards were associated with discontinuing or not discontinuing metformin; switching to sulfonylurea therapy was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events compared with all other therapies. Furthermore, add-on sulfonylurea therapy was associated with an elevated risk for both outcomes when compared with thiazolidinedione add-on therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study may inform decisions on whether to augment or discontinue metformin; when considering the long-term risks, switching to a sulfonylurea appears unfavourable compared with other therapies. Instead, adding a thiazolidinedione to existing metformin therapy appears to be superior to adding or switching to a sulfonylurea.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Insulin and glucose-lowering agents for treating people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is the commonest cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Both conditions commonly co-exist. Glucometabolic changes and concurrent dialysis in diabetes and CKD make glucose-lowering challenging, increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Glucose-lowering agents have been mainly studied in people with near-normal kidney function. It is important to characterise existing knowledge of glucose-lowering agents in CKD to guide treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of insulin and other pharmacological interventions for lowering glucose levels in people with diabetes and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 February 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at head-to-head comparisons of active regimens of glucose-lowering therapy or active regimen compared with placebo/standard care in people with diabetes and CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and quality of data and performed data extraction. Continuous outcomes were expressed as post-treatment mean differences (MD). Adverse events were expressed as post-treatment absolute risk differences (RD). Dichotomous clinical outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four studies (128 records, 13,036 participants) were included. Nine studies compared sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to placebo; 13 studies compared dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors to placebo; 2 studies compared glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists to placebo; 8 studies compared glitazones to no glitazone treatment; 1 study compared glinide to no glinide treatment; and 4 studies compared different types, doses or modes of administration of insulin. In addition, 2 studies compared sitagliptin to glipizide; and 1 study compared each of sitagliptin to insulin, glitazars to pioglitazone, vildagliptin to sitagliptin, linagliptin to voglibose, and albiglutide to sitagliptin. Most studies had a high risk of bias due to funding and attrition bias, and an unclear risk of detection bias.Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 1092 participants: MD -0.29%, -0.38 to -0.19 (-3.2 mmol/mol, -4.2 to -2.2); I2 = 0%), fasting blood glucose (FBG) (5 studies, 855 participants: MD -0.48 mmol/L, -0.78 to -0.19; I2 = 0%), systolic blood pressure (BP) (7 studies, 1198 participants: MD -4.68 mmHg, -6.69 to -2.68; I2 = 40%), diastolic BP (6 studies, 1142 participants: MD -1.72 mmHg, -2.77 to -0.66; I2 = 0%), heart failure (3 studies, 2519 participants: RR 0.59, 0.41 to 0.87; I2 = 0%), and hyperkalaemia (4 studies, 2788 participants: RR 0.58, 0.42 to 0.81; I2 = 0%); but probably increase genital infections (7 studies, 3086 participants: RR 2.50, 1.52 to 4.11; I2 = 0%), and creatinine (4 studies, 848 participants: MD 3.82 μmol/L, 1.45 to 6.19; I2 = 16%) (all effects of moderate certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce weight (5 studies, 1029 participants: MD -1.41 kg, -1.8 to -1.02; I2 = 28%) and albuminuria (MD -8.14 mg/mmol creatinine, -14.51 to -1.77; I2 = 11%; low certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may have little or no effect on the risk of cardiovascular death, hypoglycaemia, acute kidney injury (AKI), and urinary tract infection (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether SGLT2 inhibitors have any effect on death, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), hypovolaemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.62%, -0.85 to -0.39 (-6.8 mmol/mol, -9.3 to -4.3); I2 = 59%) but may have little or no effect on FBG (low certainty evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular death (2 studies, 5897 participants: RR 0.93, 0.77 to 1.11; I2 = 0%) and weight (2 studies, 210 participants: MD 0.16 kg, -0.58 to 0.90; I2 = 29%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may have little or no effect on heart failure, upper respiratory tract infections, and liver impairment (low certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether DPP-4 inhibitors have any effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.53%, -1.01 to -0.06 (-5.8 mmol/mol, -11.0 to -0.7); I2 = 41%; moderate certainty evidence) and may reduce weight (low certainty evidence). GLP-1 agonists may have little or no effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether GLP-1 agonists reduce FBG, increase gastrointestinal symptoms, or affect the risk of pancreatitis (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether glitazones have any effect on HbA1c, FBG, death, weight, and risk of hypoglycaemia (very low certainty evidence).Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin probably reduces hypoglycaemia (2 studies, 551 participants: RR 0.40, 0.23 to 0.69; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin may have had little or no effect on HbA1c, FBG, weight, and eGFR (low certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, it is uncertain if sitagliptin has any effect on death or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty).For types, dosages or modes of administration of insulin and other head-to-head comparisons only individual studies were available so no conclusions could be made.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents in diabetes and CKD is limited. SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are probably efficacious for glucose-lowering and DPP-4 inhibitors may be efficacious for glucose-lowering. Additionally, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce BP, heart failure, and hyperkalaemia but increase genital infections, and slightly increase creatinine. The safety profile for GLP-1 agonists is uncertain. No further conclusions could be made for the other classes of glucose-lowering agents including insulin. More high quality studies are required to help guide therapeutic choice for glucose-lowering in diabetes and CKD.

A systematic review comparing the evidence for kidney function outcomes between oral antidiabetic drugs for type 2 diabetes

Background: The development of kidney disease is a serious complication among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, associated with substantially increased morbidity and mortality.  We aimed to summarise the current evidence for the relationship between treatments for type 2 diabetes and long-term kidney outcomes, by conducting a systematic search and review of relevant studies. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase and Web of Science, between 1st January 1980 and 15th May 2018 for published clinical trials and observational studies comparing two or more classes of oral therapy for type 2 diabetes. We included people receiving oral antidiabetic drugs. Studies were eligible that; (i) compared two or more classes of oral therapy for type 2 diabetes; (ii) reported kidney outcomes as primary or secondary outcomes; (iii) included more than 100 participants; and (iv) followed up participants for 48 weeks or more. Kidney-related outcome measures included were Incidence of chronic kidney disease, reduced eGFR, increased creatinine, 'micro' and 'macro' albuminuria. Results: We identified 15 eligible studies, seven of which were randomised controlled trials and eight were observational studies. Reporting of specific renal outcomes varied widely. Due to variability of comparisons and outcomes meta-analysis was not possible. The majority of comparisons between treatment with metformin or sulfonylurea indicated that metformin was associated with better renal outcomes. Little evidence was available for recently introduced treatments or commonly prescribed combination therapies. Conclusions: Comparative evidence for the effect of treatments for type 2 diabetes on renal outcomes, either as monotherapy or in combination is sparse.

Rahim AA, Eliana F, Shrestha HK, Chaudhary S, Ngugi N, Mbanya JC, Aye TT, Latt TS, Akanov ZA, Syed AR, Tandon N, Unnikrishnan AG, Madhu SV, Jawa A, Chowdhury S, Bajaj S, Das AK. Consensus Recommendations on Sulfonylurea and Sulfonylurea Combinations in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - International Task Force

For decades, sulfonylureas (SUs) have been important drugs in the antidiabetic therapeutic armamentarium. They have been used as monotherapy as well as combination therapy. Focus on newer drugs and concerns about the risk of severe hypoglycemia and weight gain with some SUs have led to discussion on their safety and utility. It has to be borne in mind that the adverse events associated with SUs should not be ascribed to the whole class, as many modern SUs, such as glimepiride and gliclazide modified release, are associated with better safety profiles. Furthermore, individualization of treatment, using SUs in combination with other drugs, backed with careful monitoring and patient education, ensures maximum benefits with minimal side effects. The current guidelines, developed by experts from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, promote the safe and smart use of SUs in combination with other glucose-lowering drugs.

Network meta-analysis of lorcaserin and oral hypoglycaemics for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity

In addition to weight loss, randomized controlled trials have shown improvement in glycaemic control in patients taking lorcaserin. The aim of this study aim was to compare adding lorcaserin or other glucose lowering medications to metformin on weight and glycaemic control. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were conducted. Included studies (published 1990-2014) were of lorcaserin or glucose lowering medications in type 2 diabetic patients compared to placebo or different active treatments. Studies had to report ≥1 key outcome (change in weight or HbA1c, % HbA1c <7, hypoglycaemia). Direct meta-analysis was performed using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models, and network meta-analysis with Bayesian Markov-chain Monte Carlo random effects models; 6552 articles were screened and 41 included. Lorcaserin reduced weight significantly more than thiazolidinediones, glinides, sulphonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, some of which may have led to weight gain. There were no significant differences in weight change between lorcaserin and alpha-glucoside inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Network meta-analysis showed lorcaserin was non-inferior to all other agents on HbA1c reduction and % achieving HbA1c of <7%. The risk of hypoglycaemia was not significantly different among studied agents except that sulphonylureas were associated with higher risk of hypoglycaemia than lorcaserin. Although additional studies are needed, this analysis suggests in a population of patients with a body mas index of ≥27 who do not achieve glycaemic control on a single agent, lorcaserin may be added as an alternative to an add-on glucose lowering medication.

Thiazolidinedione drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: past, present and future

Thiazolidinedione (TZD) drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have proven effective in improving insulin sensitivity, hyperglycemia, and lipid metabolism. Though well tolerated by some patients, their mechanism of action as ligands of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) results in the activation of several pathways in addition to those responsible for glycemic control and lipid homeostasis. These pathways, which include those related to inflammation, bone formation, and cell proliferation, may lead to adverse health outcomes. As treatment with TZDs has been associated with adverse hepatic, cardiovascular, osteological, and carcinogenic events in some studies, the role of TZDs in the treatment of T2DM continues to be debated. At the same time, new therapeutic roles for TZDs are being investigated, with new forms and isoforms currently in the pre-clinical phase for use in the prevention and treatment of some cancers, inflammatory diseases, and other conditions. The aims of this review are to provide an overview of the mechanism(s) of action of TZDs, a review of their safety for use in the treatment of T2DM, and a perspective on their current and future therapeutic roles.

The role of various peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors and their ligands in clinical practice

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are ligand-activated transcription factors involved in several physiological processes including modulation of cellular differentiation, development, metabolism of carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and tumorigenesis. The aim of this review is to examine how different PPAR ligands act, and discuss their use in clinical practice. PPAR ligands have a lot of effects and applications in clinical practice. Some PPAR ligands such as fibrates (PPAR-α ligands) are currently used for the treatment of dyslipidemia, while pioglitazone and rosiglitazone (PPAR-γ ligands) are anti-diabetic and insulin-sensitizing agents. Regarding new generation drugs, acting on both α/γ, β/δ, or α/δ receptors simultaneously, preliminary data on PPAR-α/γ dual agonists revealed a positive effect on lipid profile, blood pressure, atherosclerosis, inflammation, and anti-coagulant effects, while the overexpression of PPAR-β/δ seems to prevent obesity and to decrease lipid storage in cardiac cells. Finally, PPAR-α/δ dual agonist induces resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without fibrosis worsening.

Pioglitazone and risk of mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from a European multidatabase cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Estimate and compare the risk of mortality in patients whose antidiabetic therapy is modified to include pioglitazone compared with an alternative antidiabetic medication at the same stage of disease progression.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Pooled analysis of clinical data collected from primary and/or secondary care settings in four European countries: Finland, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK .

PARTICIPANTS

56 337 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus first prescribed pioglitazone between 2000 and 2011, and 56 337 patients never prescribed pioglitazone matched by treatment stage, history of diabetes, diabetes complications and cardiovascular disease, and year of cohort entry using exact and propensity score matching. Patients were followed-up for a mean of 2.90 (SD 2.21) and 2.83 (SD 2.37) years in the pioglitazone-exposed and non-pioglitazone-exposed groups, respectively.

OUTCOMES

All-cause mortality ascertained from clinical or registry data. Mortality was a planned secondary outcome in a study primarily studying the association of pioglitazone use with bladder cancer risk.

RESULTS

The crude overall mortality rate per 10 000 patient years was 206 (95% CI 199 to 213) in the pioglitazone-exposed group and 448 (95% CI 438 to 458) in the non-pioglitazone-exposed group. The crude HR comparing pioglitazone to alternative antidiabetic exposure was 0.46 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.48). This reduced in magnitude to 0.67 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.70) following further adjustment for matching variables, propensity scores, age, gender and time-dependent variables representing use of alternative antidiabetic drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large observational cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes, pioglitazone exposure was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality across four European countries. Results should be interpreted with caution due to the potential for residual confounding.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance.

Cost-effectiveness of a risk-based secondary screening programme of type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to develop a long-term economic model for type 2 diabetes to describe the entire spectrum of the disease over a wide range of healthcare programmes. The model evaluates a public health, risk-based screening programme in a country specific setting.

METHODS

The lifespan of persons and important phases of the disease and related interventions are recorded in a Markov model, which first simulates the effect of screening, then replicates important complications of diabetes, follows the progression of individuals through physiological variables and finally calculates outcomes in monetary and naturalistic units.

RESULTS

The introduction of the screening programme nearly doubled the proportion of diagnosed patients at the age of 50 and prolonged life expectancy. Three-yearly screening gained 0.0229 quality adjusted life years for an additional €83 per person compared with no screening and resulted an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €3630/quality adjusted life years.

CONCLUSION

From the economic perspective introduction of the 3-yearly screening programme is justifiable and it provides a good value for money. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cerebrovascular Safety of Sulfonylureas: The Role of KATP Channels in Neuroprotection and the Risk of Stroke in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Sulfonylureas are ATP-sensitive potassium (KATP) channel blockers commonly used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Activation of KATP channels plays a neuroprotective role in ischemia; thus, whether sulfonylureas affect the outcomes of stroke in patients with T2DM needs to be further studied. In our study, streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic mice subjected to transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) showed larger areas of brain damage and poorer behavioral outcomes. Blocking the KATP channel by tolbutamide increased neuronal injury induced by oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) in vitro and permanent MCAO (pMCAO) in vivo. Activating the KATP channel by diazoxide reduced the effects of both the OGD and pMCAO. Western blot analysis in STZ mouse brains indicated an early increase in protein levels of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor 2B and postsynaptic density protein-95, followed by a decrease in phosphorylation of glycogen synthase kinase 3β. Our systematic meta-analysis indicated that patients with T2DM treated with sulfonylureas had a higher odds ratio for stroke morbidity than those who received comparator drugs. Taken together, these results suggest that sulfonylurea treatment in patients with T2DM may inhibit the neuroprotective effects of KATP channels and increase the risk of stroke.

Pioglitazone — an oral antidiabetic agent and metabolic syndrome modulator. Can theory translate into practice?

The metabolic syndrome, associated with insulin resistance, is a cluster of cardiovascular risk factors which results in premature morbidity and mortality from atherosclerotic vascular disease. Pioglitazone, a peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) agonist, is an insulin sensitiser with the ability to address key features of the metabolic syndrome: glucose intolerance including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, the pro-coagulant state, endothelial dysfunction, inflammation and atherosclerosis. The greatest potential benefit of pioglitazone is to influence atherogenesis itself through its pleiotrophic effects on vascular risk factors. This has been tested by the PROactive study, results of which are published in September 2005.

Hypoglycaemia when adding sulphonylurea to metformin: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

The risk of hypoglycaemia may differ among sulphonylureas (SUs), but evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse. Performing a network meta-analysis to use indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we compared the relative risk of hypoglycaemia with newer generation SUs when added to metformin.

METHODS

A systematic review identified RCTs lasting 12-52 weeks and evaluating SUs added to inadequate metformin monotherapy (≥1000 mg/day) in type 2 diabetes. Adding RCTs investigating the active comparators from the identified SU trials, we established a coherent network. Hypoglycaemia of any severity was the primary end point.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials of SUs and 14 of oral non-SU antihyperglycaemic agents (16 260 patients) were included. All reported hypoglycaemia only as adverse events. Producing comparable reductions in HbA_1C of -0.66 to -0.84% (-7 to -9 mmol/mol), the risk of hypoglycaemia was lowest with gliclazide compared to glipizide (OR 0.22, CrI: 0.05 to 0.96), glimepiride (OR 0.40, CrI: 0.13 to 1.27), and glibenclamide (OR 0.21, CrI: 0.03 to 1.48). A major limitation is varying definitions of hypoglycaemia across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

When added to metformin, gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia between the newer generation SUs. Clinicians should consider the risk of hypoglycaemia agent-specific when selecting an SU agent.

Is gliclazide a sulfonylurea with difference? A review in 2016

Sulfonylureas (SUs) remain the most commonly prescribed drug after metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), despite the availability of several newer agents. The primary reason of SUs being most popular is their quick glycemic response, time-tested experience and least cost. Although SUs are one amongst the several other second line agents after metformin in all major guidelines, the new Dutch type 2 guidelines specifically advise gliclazide as the preferred second line drug instead of SUs as a class. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also included gliclazide in their Model List of Essential Medicines 2013 motivated by its safety data in elderly patients. Specifically advising gliclazide may have been based on emerging evidence suggesting cardiovascular neutrality of gliclazide over other SUs. This prompted us to do a literature review of gliclazide efficacy and safety data compared to other SUs as well as oral anti-diabetic drugs.

Polemics of pioglitazone: an appraisal in 2015

Pioglitazone is an inexpensive and effective oral drug for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes. It addresses insulin resistance, one of the core pathophysiological defects in Type 2 diabetes, at both the adipose tissue and skeletal muscle level. As a majority of Type 2 diabetics classically exhibit higher insulin resistance, pioglitazone may strike exactly at the Achilles heel in this core pathogenesis. However, with the emerging association of bladder cancer with pioglitazone, French and German regulators were the first to ban or restrict pioglitazone use in 2011. The Indian regulators also suspended pioglitazone, although this ban was revoked within a month. Recently, a 10-year longitudinal study commissioned by US FDA found no association between bladder cancer and pioglitazone. Nevertheless, this controversy created a huge outcry in the medical fraternity. This review article is an overview of the development of this topic and an attempt to provide perspective on this contemporary issue.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antidiabetic drug regimens added to metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis

Introduction

When first line therapy with metformin is insufficient for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the optimal adjunctive therapy is unclear. We assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antidiabetic agents in patients with inadequately controlled T2D on metformin alone.

Materials and Methods

A search of MEDLINE and CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, regulatory websites was performed. We included randomized controlled trials of 3–12 months duration, evaluating Food and Drug Administration or European Union approved agents (noninsulin and long acting, once daily basal insulins) in patients experiencing inadequate glycemic control with metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg daily or maximally tolerated dose for ≥4 weeks). Random-effects network meta-analyses were used to compare the weighted mean difference for changes from baseline in HbA1c, body weight (BW) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), and the risk of developing hypoglycemia, urinary (UTI) and genital tract infection (GTI).

Results

Sixty-two trials evaluating 25 agents were included. All agents significantly reduced HbA1c vs. placebo; albeit not to the same extent (range, 0.43% for miglitol to 1.29% for glibenclamide). Glargine, sulfonylureas (SUs) and nateglinide were associated with increased hypoglycemia risk vs. placebo (range, 4.00–11.67). Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs, miglitol and empagliflozin/linagliptin significantly reduced BW (range, 1.15–2.26kg) whereas SUs, thiazolindinediones, glargine and alogliptin/pioglitazone caused weight gain (range, 1.19–2.44kg). SGLT2 inhibitors, empagliflozin/linagliptin, liraglutide and sitagliptin decreased SBP (range, 1.88–5.43mmHg). No therapy increased UTI risk vs. placebo; however, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of GTI (range, 2.16–8.03).

Conclusions

Adding different AHAs to metformin was associated with varying effects on HbA1c, BW, SBP, hypoglycemia, UTI and GTI which should impact clinician choice when selecting adjunctive therapy.

Should sulfonylureas remain an acceptable first-line add-on to metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes? No, it's time to move on!

Since their introduction to clinical practice in the 1950s, sulfonylureas have been widely prescribed for use in patients with type 2 diabetes. Of all the other medications currently available for clinical use, only metformin has been used more frequently. However, several new drug classes have emerged that are reported to have equal glucose-lowering efficacy and greater safety when added to treatment of patients in whom metformin monotherapy is no longer sufficient. Moreover, current arguments also suggest that the alternative drugs may be superior to sulfonylureas with regard to the risk of cardiovascular complications. Thus, while there is universal agreement that metformin should remain the first-line pharmacologic therapy for those in whom lifestyle modification is insufficient to control hyperglycemia, there is no consensus as to which drug should be added to metformin. Therefore, given the current controversy, we provide a Point-Counterpoint on this issue. In the preceding point narrative, Dr. Abrahamson provides his argument suggesting that avoiding use of sulfonylureas as a class of medication as an add-on to metformin is not appropriate as there are many patients whose glycemic control would improve with use of these drugs with minimal risk of adverse events. In the counterpoint narrative below, Dr. Genuth suggests there is no longer a need for sulfonylureas to remain a first-line addition to metformin for those patients whose clinical characteristics are appropriate and whose health insurance and/or financial resources make an alternative drug affordable.

Observational and clinical trial findings on the comparative effectiveness of diabetes drugs showed agreement

OBJECTIVES

This study compares an observational study of diabetes treatment effectiveness to randomized controlled trials to assess their convergent validity.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Multivariate models were developed using observational data to describe change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c; % unit) and weight (kilograms) after addition of a second-line oral diabetes drug to metformin monotherapy. Randomized trials of these scenarios were systematically identified. The models were used to simulate each trial, and simulated and actual results were compared by linear regression and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-two randomized trials of second-line diabetes oral therapy were identified. For all outcomes and drugs studied, simulation and actual results correlated (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between meta-analyzed randomized and simulated results for effect on HbA1c. For effect on weight, results were qualitatively comparable, but for sulfonylureas, the simulated weight gain was nominally greater than seen in the randomized controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

An observational study of diabetes drug effectiveness showed convergent validity with randomized data. This supports cautious use of the observational research to draw conclusions about drug effectiveness in populations not studied in clinical trials. This approach may be useful in other situations where observational and randomized data need integration.

Achieving glycemic control in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a critical comparison of current options

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing in the elderly. Because of the unique characteristics of elderly people with T2DM, therapeutic strategy and focus should be tailored to suit this population. This article reviews the guidelines and studies related to older people with T2DM worldwide. A few important themes are generalized: 1) the functional and cognitive status is critical for older people with T2DM considering their life expectancy compared to younger counterparts; 2) both severe hypoglycemia and persistent hyperglycemia are deleterious to older adults with T2DM, and both conditions should be avoided when determining therapeutic goals; 3) recently developed guidelines emphasize the avoidance of hypoglycemic episodes in older people, even in the absence of symptoms. In addition, we raise the concern of glycemic variability, and discuss the rationale for the selection of current options in managing this patient population.

A double-blind, randomized trial, including frequent patient-physician contacts and Ramadan-focused advice, assessing vildagliptin and gliclazide in patients with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan: the STEADFAST study

Background

Several observational studies were conducted with vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) fasting during Ramadan, showing significantly lower incidences of hypoglycemia with vildagliptin versus sulfonylureas, including gliclazide. It was of interest to complement the existing real-life evidence with data from a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial.

Clinical Trials Identifier

NCT01758380.

Methods

This multiregional, double-blind study randomized 557 patients with T2DM (mean glycated hemoglobin [HbA_1c], 6.9%), previously treated with metformin and any sulfonylurea to receive either vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) or gliclazide plus metformin. The study included four office visits (three pre-Ramadan) and multiple telephone contacts, as well as Ramadan-focused advice. Hypoglycemic events were assessed during Ramadan; HbA_1c and weight were analyzed before and after Ramadan.

Results

The proportion of patients reporting confirmed (<3.9 mmol/L and/or severe) hypoglycemic events during Ramadan was 3.0% with vildagliptin and 7.0% with gliclazide (P=0.039; one-sided test), and this was 6.0% and 8.7%, respectively, for any hypoglycemic events (P=0.173). The adjusted mean change pre- to post-Ramadan in HbA_1c was 0.05%±0.04% with vildagliptin and −0.03%±0.04% with gliclazide, from baselines of 6.84% and 6.79%, respectively (P=0.165). In both groups, the adjusted mean decrease in weight was −1.1±0.2 kg (P=0.987). Overall safety was similar between the treatments.

Conclusion

In line with the results from previous observational studies, vildagliptin was shown in this interventional study to be an effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment in patients with T2DM fasting during Ramadan, with a consistently low incidence of hypoglycemia across studies, accompanied by good glycemic and weight control. In contrast, gliclazide showed a lower incidence of hypoglycemia in the present interventional than the previous observational studies. This is suggested to be linked to the specific circumstances of this study, including frequent patient–physician contacts, Ramadan-focused advice, a recent switch in treatment, and very well-controlled patients, which is different from what is often seen in real life.

Dapagliflozin compared with other oral anti-diabetes treatments when added to metformin monotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

Indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was used to estimate the effect of dapagliflozin, a new agent with a novel mechanism of action (SGLT-2 inhibition), relative to other anti-diabetes therapies after 1 year of treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs involving anti-diabetes treatments added to metformin were conducted. RCTs enrolling subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy were included. Comparators included dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), sulphonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues and dapagliflozin. Outcomes of interest were mean change from baseline HbA1c, weight and systolic blood pressure, and incidence of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

From 4270 abstracts, six RCTs were included in the primary analysis; no RCTs involving GLP-1 analogues met primary inclusion criteria. All RCTs were actively controlled with sulphonylureas. The mean change in HbA1c from baseline was similar across comparators. The treatment effect (95% credible interval) of dapagliflozin on HbA1c was -0.08% (-0.25, 0.10) relative to DPP-4 inhibitors, -0.02% (-0.24, 0.21) relative to TZDs and 0.00% (-0.16, 0.16) relative to sulphonylureas. Non-sulphonylureas showed significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia relative to sulphonylureas. Dapagliflozin had a significant effect on weight change: the relative difference was -2.74 kg (-5.35, -0.10) compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, and -4.67 kg (-7.03, -2.35) compared with sulphonylureas. Systolic blood pressure was not meta-analysed due to infrequent reporting.

CONCLUSION

Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, TZDs and sulphonylureas, dapagliflozin offers similar HbA1c control after 1 year, with similar or reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and the additional benefit of weight loss, when added to metformin.

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists in a battle against the aging kidney

As aging is a complex phenomenon characterized by intraindividual and interindividual diversities in the maintenance of the homeostatic condition of cells and tissues, changes in renal function are not uniform and depend on associated diseases and environmental factors. Multiple studies have investigated the possible underlying mechanisms of age-related decline in kidney function. Evolutionary, molecular, cellular and systemic theories have been postulated to explain the primary disease independent age-related changes and adaptive responses. As peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are involved in a broad spectrum of biological processes, PPAR activation might have an effect on the prevention of cell senescence. In this review, we will focus on the experimental and clinical evidence of PPAR agonists in a battle against the aging kidney.

Safety and efficacy of gliclazide as treatment for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Objective and Design

Gliclazide has been associated with a low risk of hypoglycemic episodes and beneficial long-term cardiovascular safety in observational cohorts. The aim of this study was to assess in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials the safety and efficacy of gliclazide compared to other oral glucose-lowering agents (PROSPERO2013:CRD42013004156)

Data Sources

Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Trialregister.nl, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu and the Cochrane database.

Selection

Included were randomized studies of at least 12 weeks duration with the following outcomes: HbA1c change, incidence of severe hypoglycemia, weight change, cardiovascular events and/or mortality when comparing gliclazide with other oral blood glucose lowering drugs. Bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The inverse variance random effects model was used.

Results

Nineteen trials were included; 3,083 patients treated with gliclazide and 3,155 patients treated with other oral blood glucose lowering drugs. There was a considerable amount of heterogeneity between and bias in studies. Compared to other glucose lowering agents except metformin, gliclazide was slightly more effective (−0.13% (95%CI: −0.25, −0.02, I² 55%)). One out of 2,387 gliclazide users experienced a severe hypoglycemic event, whilst also using insulin. There were 25 confirmed non-severe hypoglycemic events (2.2%) in 1,152 gliclazide users and 22 events (1.8%) in 1,163 patients in the comparator group (risk ratio 1.09 (95% CI: 0.20, 5.78, I² 77%)). Few studies reported differences in weight and none were designed to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes.

Conclusions

The methodological quality of randomized trials comparing gliclazide to other oral glucose lowering agents was poor and effect estimates on weight were limited by publication bias. The number of severe hypoglycemic episodes was extremely low, and gliclazide appears at least equally effective compared to other glucose lowering agents. None of the trials were designed for evaluating cardiovascular outcomes, which warrants attention in future randomized trials.

Pioglitazone: an antidiabetic drug with cardiovascular therapeutic effects

The antidiabetic compound pioglitazone, an activator of the intracellular peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma, and decreases metabolic and vascular insulin resistance. The drug is well tolerated, and its metabolic effects include improvements in blood glucose and lipid control. Vascular effects consist of improvements in endothelial function and hypertension, and a reduction in surrogate markers of artherosclerosis. In a large, placebo-controlled, outcome study in secondary prevention, PROactive study, the use of pioglitazone in addition to an existing optimized macrovascular risk management resulted in a significant reduction of macrovascular endpoints within a short observation period that was comparable to the effect of statins and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in other trials. These results underline the value of pioglitazone for managing the increased cardiovascular risk of patients with a metabolic syndrome or Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Cardiovascular safety of sulfonylureas: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIM

Cardiovascular safety of sulfonylurea has been questioned by some authors. This article aims at collecting all available data on this issue from randomized trials.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed including all trials with a duration of at least 6 months, comparing a sulfonylurea with a non-sulfonylurea agent in type 2 diabetes. Major cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality were retrieved and combined to calculate Mantel-Haenzel odds ratio (MH-OR).

RESULTS

Of the 115 selected trials, 62 reported information on MACE, and 30 reported at least one event. MH-OR for sulfonylurea was 1.08 [0.86-1.36], p = 0.52 (1.85 [1.20-2.87], p = 0.005, in the five trials vs. DPP4 inhibitors, no significant differences vs. other comparators). The MH-OR for myocardial infarction and stroke was 0.88 [0.75-1.04], p = 0.13 and 1.28 [1.03-1.60], p = 0.026, respectively. Mortality was significantly increased with sulfonylureas (MH-OR: 1.22 [1.01-1.49], p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetes, the use of sulfonylureas is associated with increased mortality and a higher risk of stroke, whereas the overall incidence of MACE appears to be unaffected. Significant differences in cardiovascular risk could be present in direct comparisons with specific classes of glucose-lowering agents, such as DPP4 inhibitors, but this hypothesis needs to be confirmed in long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials. The results of this meta-analysis need to be interpreted with caution, mainly because of limitations in trial quality and under-reporting of information on cardiovascular events and mortality. However, the cardiovascular safety of sulfonylureas cannot be considered established unless it is evaluated in long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials.

Effect of addition of either sitagliptin or pioglitazone in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus on metformin: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare and study the dipeptidy1 peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in combination with metformin against established combination therapies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This 16-week study was designed to compare sitagliptin versus pioglitazone as add-on therapy in patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin alone. Fifty-two patients were randomized into two groups to receive either sitagliptin 100 mg (group 1) or pioglitazone 30 mg (group 2) in addition to metformin. The primary efficacy end point was change in HbA1c. Secondary end points included change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight and lipid profile. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. Both the groups had a significant decrease in HbA1c.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between mean reductions in FPG in both the groups. There was a significant decrease in the mean body weight and body mass index in group 1 in contrast to the significant increase in the same in group 2. Both the treatment groups reported a significant decrease in High-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) and Triglyceride.

CONCLUSION

Sitagliptin was well tolerated without any incidence of hypoglycemia. It was concluded that sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin is as effective and well tolerated as pioglitazone.

Methodology for quantifying fasting glucose homeostasis in type 2 diabetes: observed variability and lability

BACKGROUND

Increased glycemic variability is associated with an increase risk of adverse clinical outcomes in diabetes. Central to the understanding of diabetes is glucose homeostasis. "Good" homeostasis is equated to low glycemic variability, and "poor" homeostasis is linked to greater glycemic variability. We have, therefore, developed a method with the aim to objectively quantify the domain of glucose-insulin homeostasis. We have termed this method as Observed Variability And Lability (OVAL).

METHOD

Blood samples for the measurement of glucose and insulin concentrations were acquired every 2 min for 120 min from 12 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM; median (range) age 35 (25-47) years and duration of diabetes 7 (2-9) years receiving oral hypoglycemic treatment] and 27 controls [aged 38(30-53) years] with an equal split of genders and equal distribution of body mass indexes. The insulin-glucose time variant data form the boundaries of OVAL, defined as the ellipse enclosing the 95% confidence intervals of the insulin and glucose concentrations plotted on an x-y scatter graph and normalized to ensure equal weighting of insulin and glucose.

RESULTS

Less precise OVAL homeostasis was observed in subjects with T2DM, by a factor of 4, in comparison with controls [OVAL, T2DM 7.8(3.8) versus controls 1.9(1.0); p = .0003]. The assessment remained statistically robust (p < .001) with increased sampling intervals up to 8 min.

CONCLUSION

The OVAL model is a robust method for measuring glucose-insulin homeostasis in controls and T2DM subjects (available online at http://www.oval-calc.co.uk). Deranged glucose-insulin homeostasis is the hallmark of diabetes and OVAL has the capacity to quantify in the fasting state.

Pleiotropic effects of thiazolidinediones: implications for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are insulin-sensitizing antidiabetes agents that act through the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ to cause a durable improvement in glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although less well recognized, TZDs also exert a protective effect on β-cell function. In addition to their beneficial effects on glucose homeostasis, TZDs-especially pioglitazone-exert a number of other pleiotropic effects that make them ideal agents as monotherapy or in combination with other oral agents, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs, or insulin. Pioglitazone improves endothelial dysfunction, reduces blood pressure, corrects diabetic dyslipidemia, and reduces circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines and prothrombotic factors. Pioglitazone also redistributes fat and toxic lipid metabolites in muscle, liver, β cells, and arteries, and deposits the fat in subcutaneous adipocytes where it cannot exert its lipotoxic effects. Consistent with these antiatherogenic effects, pioglitazone reduced major adverse cardiac event endpoints (ie, mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke) in the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events and in a meta-analysis of all other published pioglitazone trials. Pioglitazone also mobilizes fat out of the liver, improving liver function and histologic abnormalities in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Pioglitazone also reduces proteinuria, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with a reduced glomerular filtration rate. These benefits must be weighed against the side effects of the drug, including weight gain, fluid retention, atypical fractures, and, possibly, bladder cancer. When low doses of pioglitazone are used (eg, 7.5-30 mg/d) with gradual titration, and physician recognition of the potential side effects are applied, the risk-to-benefit ratio is very favorable. Despite having similar effects on glycemic control, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone appear to have different effects on cardiovascular outcomes. Rosiglitazone has been associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction, and its use in the United States is restricted because of cardiovascular safety concerns.

Oral Antidiabetic Drugs: Bioavailability Assessment of Fixed-Dose Combination Tablets of Pioglitazone and Metformin. Effect of Body Weight, Gender, and Race on Systemic Exposures of Each Drug

Bioavailability of pioglitazone and metformin, in 2 dose strengths, given either as a fixed-dose combination tablet or as coadministration of commercial tablets (coad), was studied in young healthy subjects in 2 separate studies. In study I (n = 63), single oral doses of 15-mg pioglitazone/500-mg metformin fixed-dose combination tablets or equivalent doses of commercial tablets were administered, in a fasting state, in an open-label, randomized, crossover study with a 7-day washout period between treatments. Study II (n = 61) was similar in design to study I, except the 15/850-mg fixed-dose combination tablet and coad treatments were evaluated. Least squares mean (fixed-dose combination/coad) ratios and 90% confidence intervals of the ratios for the 15/500-mg dose strength for the maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax) and area under the serum concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC(infinity)) were 0.95 (0.86-1.05) and 1.02 (0.98-1.08), respectively, for pioglitazone and 0.99 (0.95-1.03) and 1.03 (0.98-1.08), respectively, for metformin. Bioequivalency for pioglitazone and metformin between fixed-dose combination tablets and coad treatments was met for both strengths of fixed-dose combination tablets. In a post hoc meta-analysis of combined data from the 2 studies (n = 124), there was considerable overlapping in AUC(infinity) values between gender and race (Caucasians, Blacks, and Hispanics), making neither gender- nor racial-based dosing of pioglitazone or metformin necessary.

Efficacy and tolerability of taspoglutide versus pioglitazone in subjects with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with sulphonylurea or sulphonylurea-metformin therapy: a randomized, double-blind study (T-emerge 6)

AIMS

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of taspoglutide versus pioglitazone in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sulphonylurea ± metformin.

METHODS

In this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial, 760 subjects (49% male, age 56.4 years, diabetes duration 8.8 years, body mass index 32.7 kg/m(2) and haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] 8.3%) were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to subcutaneous injections of taspoglutide 10 or 20 mg once weekly or oral pioglitazone 45 mg daily. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Mean (±s.e.) HbA1c reductions with taspoglutide 10 (-1.18 ± 0.08%) and 20 mg (-1.36 ± 0.08%) were non-inferior to pioglitazone (-1.30 ± 0.08%) (p = 0.21 and 0.37, respectively); mean treatment differences were 0.12 (95% confidence interval: -0.03, -0.26) and -0.06 (-0.20, 0.08) for taspoglutide 10 and 20 mg versus pioglitazone. Mean (±s.e.) changes in body weight (kg) were -0.8 ± 0.3, -1.0 ± 0.3 and 3.6 ± 0.3 for taspoglutide 10 and 20 mg and pioglitazone, respectively; 8, 11 and 1% of patients achieved ≥5% weight loss. A higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) occurred with taspoglutide, predominantly gastrointestinal disturbances and injection-site reactions, resulting in higher rates of discontinuation versus pioglitazone. No treatment differences in serious AEs were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Taspoglutide offered good glycaemic control similar to pioglitazone, while achieving beneficial weight loss rather than weight gain, but was associated with more AEs. Due to the higher than expected discontinuation rates, mainly because of gastrointestinal intolerability, the taspoglutide clinical programme was stopped.

Exenatide once weekly for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: clinical results in subgroups of patients using different concomitant medications

OBJECTIVE

In this pooled analysis, the efficacy and tolerability of exenatide once weekly (EQW) in patients categorized by baseline concomitant glucose-lowering therapy were evaluated.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis included data from the intent-to-treat populations of 7 randomized controlled trials in which patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were treated with EQW for 24 to 30 weeks. Patients were classified into subgroups on the basis of their baseline glucose-lowering therapy: diet and exercise only, metformin (MET) only, MET + sulfonylurea (SU), SU ± other (thiazolidinedione [TZD] only or MET + TZD), or TZD ± MET. Changes from baseline in key efficacy endpoints and tolerability were analyzed by baseline concomitant glucose-lowering therapy group.

RESULTS

A total of 1719 patients were included. Treatment with EQW was associated with significant improvements from baseline in glycated hemoglobin levels, fasting glucose levels, and body weight in all of the groups. There were significant decreases from baseline for both systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in the MET and MET + SU groups, and a significant decrease in systolic blood pressure in the diet and exercise group. Lipid profiles generally improved in the diet and exercise, MET only, MET + SU, and TZD ± MET groups. Overall, the most frequent adverse events with EQW treatment, other than hypoglycemia, were nausea (14.7%), diarrhea (10.9%), and nasopharyngitis (7.2%). There was a higher incidence of hypoglycemia when EQW was added to regimens that included an SU.

CONCLUSION

The addition of EQW for 24 to 30 weeks to regimens that included a wide variety of background glucose-lowering therapies was associated with significant improvements in glycemic control and weight loss. The tolerability profile of EQW appeared to be similar regardless of background therapy, except for a higher incidence of minor hypoglycemia when EQW was added to regimens that included an SU.

Effect of antidiabetic agents added to metformin on glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and weight change in patients with type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis

AIM

Most guidelines recommend metformin as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, the choice of a second-line drug lacks consistent consensus. We aimed to assess available information of antidiabetic drugs added to metformin on the change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (A1C), risk of hypoglycaemia and change in body weight.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) written in English through December 2011. We analysed direct and indirect comparisons of different treatments using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine RCTs involving 17 860 individuals were included. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues resulted in greater decrease in A1C compared with sulfonylureas, glinides, thiazolidinediones, α-glucosidase inhibitors and DPP-4 inhibitors [-0.20% (95% CI -0.34 to -0.04%), -0.31% (95% CI -0.61 to -0.02%), -0.20% (95% CI -0.38 to -0.00), -0.36% (95% CI -0.64 to -0.07%), -0.32% (95% CI -0.47 to -0.17%), respectively] and was comparable with basal insulin and biphasic insulin. A1C decrease was greater for sulfonylureas compared with DPP-4 inhibitors [-0.12% (-0.23 to -0.03%)], and for biphasic insulin compared with glinides (-0.36%; 95% CI -0.82 to -0.11%). Compared with placebo, the risk of hypoglycaemia was increased in the sulfonylureas, glinides, basal insulin and biphasic insulin. Weight increase was seen with sulfonylureas, glinides, thiazolidinediones, basal insulin and biphasic insulin, and weight loss was seen with α-glucosidase inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic insulin, GLP-1 analogues and basal insulin were ranked the top three drugs in terms of A1C reduction. GLP-1 analogues did not increase the risk of hypoglycaemia and resulted in a significant decrease in body weight. Most oral antidiabetic drugs had similar effects on A1C, but some agents had a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and body weight gain.

Use of concomitant glucose-lowering therapies and associated treatment results observed in clinical trials of twice-daily exenatide

OBJECTIVE

To explore, by post hoc analyses of pooled data, the efficacy and safety of the use of exenatide twice daily (BID) in patients stratified by baseline glucose-lowering therapies.

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes from long-term randomized controlled trials who were treated with exenatide BID were classified into concomitant medication groups on the basis of background treatment (diet and exercise only, metformin only, sulfonylurea only, thiazolidinedione only, metformin + sulfonylurea, metformin + thiazolidinedione, or insulin with or without other oral antihyperglycemic medications). Seventeen studies were included in the analyses (N = 2,096).

RESULTS

In these analyses of patients treated with exenatide BID for 12 to 30 weeks, there were significant decreases from baseline in hemoglobin A(1c) (A1C) and fasting glucose levels in all groups and significant decreases from baseline in body weight in all groups except the thiazolidinedione-only group. The decrease in A1C appeared to be greater in the insulin group than in the other groups, likely because the insulin dose was titrated whereas doses of concomitant antihyperglycemic medications were generally not titrated. Overall, changes in blood pressure and lipids were small. Across all groups, the most common adverse effects were gastrointestinal events. Hypoglycemia was more common in the sulfonylurea-only, metformin + sulfonylurea, and insulin groups than it was in the other concomitant medication groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of exenatide BID across a wide range of background therapies was associated with reductions in A1C, fasting glucose, and body weight. Gastrointestinal adverse events were common.

Pioglitazone is a valid alternative to rosiglitazone

In 2000, two new thiazolidinediones, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, were approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Administered as monotherapy or in combination with other antihyperglycemic agents, they represented an effective option for achieving or maintaining good glycemic control in patients with T2DM. Despite their efficacy, there was increasing concern regarding the potential of an increased cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone. This resulted in the suspension of rosiglitazone from the European market by the European Medicines Agency in September 2010. This article focuses on the various steps that led to this important decision, and discusses a possible alternative for the treatment of patients receiving rosiglitazone.

Glitazones in chronic kidney disease: potential and concerns

AIMS

Glitazones rank now among the most used hypoglycemic agents in patients with type-2 diabetes. This systematic review focuses on the cardiovascular and renal outcomes in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients treated with these drugs.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data from randomized clinical trials and a meta-analysis indicate that glitazones (particularly rosiglitazone) may increase the risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure and cardiovascular death in type-2 diabetics. Observational studies looking at survival and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients with kidney failure show controversial results. Studies in experimental models and clinical studies suggest that glitazones may have favorable effects on renal disease progression, because these drugs coherently reduce urinary albumin excretion and proteinuria in diabetic and non-diabetic nephropathies. No clinical trial based on clinical end-points like kidney failure has until now tested the effect of glitazones on the evolution of chronic renal failure in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether the use of glitazones has a positive or a negative impact upon major cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetic patients remains an open, unanswered question. Specific studies are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of glitazones in a high risk population like type-2 diabetics with chronic kidney disease.

PIOfix-study: effects of pioglitazone/metformin fixed combination in comparison with a combination of metformin with glimepiride on diabetic dyslipidemia

OBJECTIVE

Dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes is characterized by elevated triglyceride levels, decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and a predominance of small dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. Also, patients suffer from β-cell dysfunction, chronic systemic inflammation, increased hormonal visceral adipose tissue activity, and an increased risk of cardiovascular events. The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of a fixed pioglitazone + metformin (PM) combination (vs. glimepiride + metformin [GM]) on diabetic dyslipidemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 288 type 2 diabetes patients completed this double-blind parallel study (187 men, 101 women; age [mean ± SD], 59 ± 10 years; body mass index, 32.6 ± 5.1 kg/m(2); hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c], 7.3 ± 0.8%). They were randomized to PM or GM for 6 months. Observation parameters at baseline and end point included HDL, LDL, triglycerides, fasting insulin, fasting glucose, total adiponectin, intact proinsulin, and high-sensitivity C-reactive peptide (hsCRP).

RESULTS

HDL increased in the PM group by 0.08 ± 0.25 mmol/L (GM, -0.01 ± 0.2.8 mmol/L; P < 0.001 vs. PM), whereas LDL increased in both groups (GM, 0.25 ± 0.90 mmol/L; PM, 0.29 ± 0.66 mmol/L; difference not significant between groups). Improvements were seen for triglycerides (PM, -0.47 ± 1.30; GM, -0.19 ± 1.39 mmol/L), HbA1c (PM, -0.8 ± 0.9%; GM, -1.0 ± 0.9%), and glucose (PM, -1.2 ± 2.1; GM, -1.2 ± 2.2 mmol/L). Decreases in fasting insulin (PM, -5.2 ± 11.9; GM, -0.1 ± 9.8 μU/mL; P < 0.001 between groups), hsCRP (PM, -0.9 ± 1.9; GM, 0.0 ± 1.8 mg/L; P < 0.001), and fasting intact proinsulin (PM, -5.5 ± 11.1; GM, -0.1 ± 10.0 pmol/L; P < 0.001) and an increase in adiponectin (PM, +6.8 ± 6.4 mg/L; GM, +0.7 ± 2.7 mg/L; P < 0.001) were seen in the PM arm, only.

CONCLUSIONS

With comparable glycemic control, the fixed PM combination was more efficacious on HDL cholesterol improvement than the GM combination. Additional positive effects were observed for biomarkers of lipid metabolism, β-cell function, activity of the visceral adipose tissue, and chronic systemic inflammation.