Comparison of insulin sensitivity, glucose sensitivity, and first phase insulin secretion in patients treated with repaglinide or gliclazide

Gliclazide

Gliclazide is a second-generation oral hypoglycemic drug used for the treatment of noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. It belongs to the sulfonylurea class that stimulates insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells by inhibiting ATP-dependent potassium channels. Gliclazide also possesses unique antioxidant properties and other beneficial hemobiological effects. This profile represents a comprehensive description of the physical properties, chemical synthesis, spectroscopic characterization (FTIR, ¹H NMR, ¹³C NMR, UV, and single-crystal X-ray), methods of analysis, pharmacological actions, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the title drug.

The Initial Assessment of Daily Insulin Dose in Chinese Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

It has been well accepted that insulin therapy is the ideal treatment for newly diagnosed diabetic patients. However, there was no study about assessment of the initial insulin dosage in new onset Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

65 newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes (39 males/26 females; HbA1c ≥ 11.80 ± 0.22%) were investigated. All patients had random hyperglycaemia (at 21.8 ± 3.9 mmol/L) on the first day of admission and received insulin infusion intravenously (5 U/per hour). When the blood glucose level dropped to around 10 mmol/L, patients were then transferred to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). The reduction of blood glucose levels in response to per unit of insulin (RBG/RI) was recorded. The target glucose level was achieved in about 3 days. The total daily insulin dose (TDD) and basal insulin dose (TBD) were calculated.

RESULTS

TDD was 45.97 ± 1.28 units and TBD was 19.00 ± 0.54 units. TBD was about 40% of the total daily insulin requirement. There was a negative correlation between the ratio of RBG/RI and TDD.

CONCLUSIONS

TDD was correlated with blood glucose reduction in response to intravenous insulin infusion in Chinese new onset patients with type 2 diabetes.

WITHDRAWN: Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group withdrew this review as of Issue 7, 2015 because of the involvement of one author (SS Lund) being employed in a pharmaceutical company. The authors of the review and the Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group did not find that this was a breach of the rules of the Cochrane Collaboration at the time when it was published. However, after the publication of the review, the Cochrane Collaboration requested withdrawal of the review due to the employment of the author. A new protocol for a review to cover this topic will be published. This will have a new title and a markedly improved protocol fulfilling new and important developments and standards within the Cochrane Collaboration as well as an improved inclusion and search strategy making it necessary to embark on a completely new review project.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Comparison of repaglinide and metformin monotherapy as an initial therapy in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the effect of repaglinide and metformin monotherapy as an initial therapy in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this 15-week, open-labelled, parallel-controlled, randomised study, 60 Chinese drug-naive patients with newly diagnosed T2DM were randomised (2:1) to receive repaglinide or metformin monotherapy. Primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of the trial. Secondary endpoints included changes in glycaemic variability, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function.

RESULTS

Patients in both repaglinide and metformin groups achieved significant reductions in HbA1c (-1.8 ± 1.5 vs -1.6 ± 1.5%), FPG (fasting blood glucose) (-1.7 ± 1.7 vs -2.1 ± 1.7  mmol/l) and 2-h PPG (post-prandial glucose) (-3.8 ± 3.1 vs -3.8 ± 3.6  mmol/l), with no statistical differences between the groups. Glycaemic variability, glucose infusion rate and β-cell function were all significantly improved from baseline in the two groups (all P<0.05), without any statistical differences in the improvement between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Repaglinide and metformin achieved comparable efficacy in improving glycaemic control, reducing glycaemic variability, enhancing insulin sensitivity and ameliorating β-cell function. Therefore, repaglinide is an optional agent for initial therapy in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed T2DM.

Comparison of metformin and repaglinide monotherapy in the treatment of new onset type 2 diabetes mellitus in China

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to compare the effects of metformin and repaglinide on the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes in China.

METHODS

A total of 107 newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients (46 women and 61 men) participated in the study. All patients received 3-month treatment of metformin or repaglinide. Fasting blood glucose and HbA1c were determined at baseline and at the end of the 3-month of treatment.

RESULTS

FPG and HbA1c decreased in both metformin and repaglinide groups after 3 months treatment (P < 0.01). The reduction of HbA1c was significantly greater in the repaglinide group (P < 0.01). Metformin decreases fasting insulin concentration and HOMA-IR (P < 0.01), and repaglinide improves HOMA-β(P < 0.01). Triglycerides (TG) were reduced in both groups (P < 0.01 in metformin group; P < 0.05 in repaglinide group), but total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) were decreased only after metformin treatment (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both repaglinide and metformin were effective in glycaemic control in new onset patients with type 2 diabetes in China. Repaglinide had no effect on insulin sensitivity, but it improved β-cell function.

Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing health problem worldwide. Whether sulphonylureas show better, equal or worse therapeutic effects in comparison with other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sulphonylurea monotherapy versus placebo, no intervention or other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched publications in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS and CINAHL (all until August 2011) to obtain trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria for our review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials that randomised patients 18 years old or more with T2DM to sulphonylurea monotherapy with a duration of 24 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were other patient-important outcomes and metabolic variables. Where possible, we used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) to analyse the treatment effect of dichotomous outcomes. We used mean differences with 95% CI to analyse the treatment effect of continuous outcomes. We evaluated the risk of bias. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess whether firm evidence could be established for a 10% relative risk reduction (RRR) between intervention groups.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 72 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 22,589 participants; 9707 participants randomised to sulphonylureas versus 12,805 participants randomised to control interventions. The duration of the interventions varied from 24 weeks to 10.7 years. We judged none of the included trials as low risk of bias for all bias domains. Patient-important outcomes were seldom reported.First-generation sulphonylureas (FGS) versus placebo or insulin did not show statistical significance for all-cause mortality (versus placebo: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.45; P = 0.15; 2 trials; 553 participants; high risk of bias (HRB); versus insulin: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.59; P = 0.26; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus placebo showed statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality in favour of placebo (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.22; P = 0.006; 2 trials; 553 participants; HRB). FGS versus insulin did not show statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.71; P = 0.39; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of FGS for adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.76; P = 0.01; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB) and for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67; P = 0.004; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB).Second-generation sulphonylureas (SGS) versus metformin (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.58; P = 0.68; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.41; P = 0.70; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; P = 0.72; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB), meglitinides (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.42; P = 0.52; 7 trials; 2038 participants; HRB), or incretin-based interventions (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.68; P = 0.51; 2 trials; 1503 participants; HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding all-cause mortality in a random-effects model. SGS versus metformin (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.54 to 4.01; P = 0.45; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; P = 0.55; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.28; P = 0.80; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB) or meglitinide (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.53; P = 0.97; 7 trials, 2038 participants, HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding cardiovascular mortality. Mortality data for the SGS versus placebo were sparse. SGS versus thiazolidinediones and meglitinides did not show statistically significant differences for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes. SGS versus metformin showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; P = 0.02; 3018 participants; 3 trials; HRB). The definition of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes varied among the trials. SGS versus metformin, thiazolidinediones and meglitinides showed no statistical significance for non-fatal myocardial infarction. No meta-analyses could be performed for microvascular outcomes. SGS versus placebo, metformin, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors or meglitinides showed no statistical significance for adverse events. SGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96; P = 0.04; 9 trials; 870 participants; HRB). SGS versus meglitinides showed no statistical significance for the risk of severe hypoglycaemia. SGS versus metformin and thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance in favour of metformin (RR 5.64, 95% CI 1.22 to 26.00; P = 0.03; 4 trials; 3637 participants; HRB) and thiazolidinediones (RR 6.11, 95% CI 1.57 to 23.79; P = 0.009; 6 trials; 5660 participants; HRB) for severe hypoglycaemia.Third-generation sulphonylureas (TGS) could not be included in any meta-analysis of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes. TGS versus thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance regarding adverse events in favour of TGS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; P = 0.03; 3 trials; 510 participants; HRB). TGS versus thiazolidinediones did not show any statistical significance for drop-outs due to adverse events. TGS versus other comparators could not be performed due to lack of data.For the comparison of SGS versus FGS no meta-analyses of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes, or adverse events could be performed.Health-related quality of life and costs of intervention could not be meta-analysed due to lack of data.In trial sequential analysis, none of the analyses of mortality outcomes, vascular outcomes or severe hypoglycaemia met the criteria for firm evidence of a RRR of 10% between interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support the decision as to whether to initiate sulphonylurea monotherapy. Data on patient-important outcomes are lacking. Therefore, large-scale and long-term randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias, focusing on patient-important outcomes are required.