Comparison of Blood Glucose Variability Between Exenatide and Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Chinese Participants with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Metformin Monotherapy: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Trial

The Discovery and Development of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists

Diabetes mellitus has become a serious life-threatening disease. As one of the new drugs for the treatment of diabetes, GLP-1 receptor agonists have attracted a lot of attention. Compared with traditional hypoglycemic drugs, GLP-1 receptor agonists have good safety and tolerability. To a certain extent, they overcome the problem of the short half-life of natural GLP-1 in vivo and can exist stably in patients for a long time, achieving good results in the treatment of diabetes, as well as improving the symptoms of some complications. The GLP-1 receptor agonists in the market are all peptide drugs. Compared with peptide drugs, small molecule agonists have the advantages of low cost and oral administration. In this article, we review the recent research progress of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Comparative Analysis of Clinical Effects of Insulin Aspart Combined with Acarbose and Metformin in the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus

Objective

To investigate the clinical effect of Insulin aspart 30 combined with acarbose and metformin enteric-coated tablets in the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

Methods

90 diabetic patients admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were selected as the research subjects, and the patients were randomly divided into group A (n = 30, using insulin aspart 30 alone), group B (n = 30, using insulin aspart 30 combined with metformin enteric-coated tablets), and group C (n = 30, using insulin aspart 30 combined with acarbose). The blood glucose balance before meals and before going to bed was maintained in the three groups of patients, and the blood glucose fluctuations, time to target, hypoglycemia, insulin dosage, and daily consumption of the three groups were compared.

Results

There was no significant difference in blood glucose and average blood glucose at each time point before treatment in the 3 groups of patients (P > 0.05); compared with the blood glucose and average blood glucose at each time point after reaching the target in the three groups, the blood glucose after dinner in group A was significantly higher than that in groups B and C; at 2 : 00, the blood glucose of group A was significantly higher than that of group B (P < 0.05); there was no significant difference in blood glucose and average blood glucose at other time points (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in blood glucose standard deviation, LAGE, and PPGE at each point in the three groups before treatment (P > 0.05); the standard deviation of blood glucose, LAGE, and PPGE at each point of the three groups of patients after reaching the standard were compared with those in the same group before treatment, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05); there were statistically significant differences in blood glucose standard deviation, LAGE, and PPGE among the 3 groups after reaching the standard (P < 0.05). Compared among the three groups, the standard deviation of blood glucose and LAGE level at each point after reaching the standard, the difference between group B, group C, and group A was statistically significant (P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between the patients in group B and group C (P > 0.05); the level of PPGE in group A was higher than that in group B, which was higher than group C, and between group C and group A, the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The time of reaching the standard in 3 groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05); there was no significant difference in the time of reaching the standard between group B and group C (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypoglycemia among the 3 groups (P > 0.05); there were significant differences in the proportion of insulin twice a day among the three groups (P < 0.05); there were statistically significant differences in daily insulin dosage among the 3 groups after reaching the standard (P < 0.05). The daily consumption of the three groups of patients after reaching the standard was compared, the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group A and group B (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The effect of insulin aspart 30 alone in the treatment of diabetic patients is not good, it will lead to a large fluctuation of blood sugar in the patient's body, and the time required to reach the standard is relatively long; the use of insulin aspart 30 combined with metformin enteric-coated tablets or acarbose can effectively reduce the blood sugar fluctuation range of diabetic patients and reduce the number of insulin injections, and insulin aspart 30 combined with metformin en teric-coated tablets can also greatly reduce the daily insulin dosage and daily consumption cost of diabetic patients.

Glycaemic variability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with dulaglutide, with and without concomitant insulin: Post hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials

AIM

To investigate the association between treatment with dulaglutide and glycaemic variability (GV) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Post hoc analyses of six randomized, phase 3 studies were conducted to investigate the association between treatment with dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly and GV in adult patients with T2D. Using data from seven- and eight-point self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) profiles over up to 28 weeks of treatment, GV in within- and between-day SMPG, and between-day fasting glucose from SMPG (FSMPG) was assessed according to standard deviation and coefficient of variation.

RESULTS

Pooled data from five studies with dulaglutide as monotherapy or added to oral glucose-lowering medication, without concomitant insulin treatment, revealed clinically meaningful reductions in within- and between-day SMPG, and between-day FSMPG variability from baseline in the dulaglutide group. Comparisons between treatment groups in two studies demonstrated that reductions from baseline in within-day and between-day SMPG, and between-day FSMPG variability were greater for treatment with dulaglutide compared with insulin glargine, as well as for treatment with dulaglutide when added to insulin glargine compared with insulin glargine alone.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D, treatment with dulaglutide as monotherapy or added to oral glucose-lowering medication, without concomitant insulin treatment, was potentially associated with a reduction in GV. Treatment with dulaglutide was associated with a reduction in GV to a greater degree than insulin glargine. When added to insulin glargine, treatment with dulaglutide was associated with greater decreases in GV compared with insulin glargine alone. As reduced GV may be associated with better outcomes, these findings may have clinical relevance.

Type 2 Diabetes and the Use of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring

The role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) is well established in improving glycemic control and reducing hypoglycemia. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is more prevalent than T1D and management of T2D is more heterogeneous, requiring treatment ranging from lifestyle modification to oral medications to intensive insulin therapy. Recent randomized controlled trials in intensively insulin-treated T2D demonstrated the efficacy and safety of real-time CGM (rtCGM) in reducing glycated hemoglobin without increasing hypoglycemia. Although evidence is limited, early studies have indicated a role for rtCGM in selected patients with non-insulin requiring T2D to improve glycemic control and/or reduce hypoglycemia. Based on literature review, we summarized current data on the use of rtCGM in T2D management and provided future research direction to generate more evidence on the utility of CGM in this population.