RETRACTED: Acarbose on insulin resistance after an oral fat load: a double-blind, placebo controlled study

The effect of acarbose on lipid profiles in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

Dyslipidemia, characterized by elevated levels of triglycerides (TG), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), total cholesterol (TC), and reduced levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL), is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Several studies have shown the potential of acarbose in improving serum lipid markers. However, there have been conflicting results on the topic in adults. Therefore, a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of acarbose on lipid profiles.

METHODS

The random-effects approach was used to combine the data, and the results were provided as weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included a total of 74 studies with a combined sample size of 7046 participants. The results of the analysis showed that acarbose resulted in a reduction in levels of TG (WMD = - 13.43 mg/dl, 95% CI: - 19.20, - 7.67; P < 0.001) and TC (WMD = - 1.93 mg/dl, 95% CI: - 3.71, - 0.15; P = 0.033), but did not affect other lipid markers. When conducting a nonlinear dose-response analysis, we found that acarbose was associated with an increase in levels of HDL (coefficients = 0.50, P = 0.012), with the highest increase observed at a dosage of 400 mg/d. Furthermore, our findings suggested a non-linear relationship between the duration of the intervention and TC (coefficients = - 18.00, P = 0.032), with a decline observed after 50 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that acarbose can reduce serum levels of TG and TC. However, no significant effects were observed on LDL or HDL levels.

The effects of acarbose treatment on cardiovascular risk factors in impaired glucose tolerance and diabetic patients: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Acarbose (ACB) seems to be an effective drug in the management of cardiovascular risk factors. However, no previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been done to evaluate the effects of ACB on cardiovascular risk factors on impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). We comprehensively searched electronic databases including Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for RCTs for related keywords up to September 2022. A random-effects model was used to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled analysis demonstrated that ACB treatment had a significant effect on fasting blood glucose (FBG) (WMD = -3.55 mg/dL; 95%CI: -6.29, -0.81; p = 0.011), fasting insulin (WMD = -6.73 pmoL/L; 95%CI: -10.37, -3.10; p < 0.001), HbA1c [WMD = -0.32%; 95%CI: -0.45, -0.20; p < 0.001], body weight (WMD = -1.25 kg; 95%CI: -1.79, -0.75; p < 0.001), body mass index (BMI) (WMD = -0.64 kg/m2; 95%CI: -0.92, -0.37; p < 0.001), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) (WMD = -2.70 pg/mL, 95%CI: -5.25, -0.16; p = 0.037), leptin (WMD = -1.58 ng/mL; 95%CI: -2.82, -0.35; p = 0.012), alanine transaminase (ALT) (WMD = 0.71 U/L; 95%CI: -0.31, 1.85; p = 0.164), triglyceride (TG) (WMD = -13.89 mg/dL; 95%CI: -20.69, -7.09; p < 0.001), total cholesterol (TC) (WMD = -2.26 mg/dL; 95%CI: -4.18, -0.34; p = 0.021), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (WMD = -1.29 mmHg; 95%CI: -2.44, -0.15; p = 0.027), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD = 0.02 mmHg; 95%CI: -0.41, 0.45; p = 0.925) in an intervention group, compared with a placebo group. The non-linear dose-response analysis showed that ACB reduces the TC in trial duration by >50 weeks, and 180 mg/day is more effective for the decrement of CRP. ACB can improve lipid profiles, glycemic indices, anthropometric indices, and inflammatory markers in T2D, T1D, and IGT patients.

Effects of acarbose and metformin on the inflammatory state in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients: a one-year randomized clinical study

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the changes in inflammatory biomarkers between newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients under one-year acarbose treatments and those under metformin managements.

Methods

Seventy patients with newly diagnosed T2DM and 32 volunteers with normal glucose tolerance (normal controls, NCs) were enrolled. Seventy patients with T2DM were randomly assigned to two subgroups and treated with acarbose (n=34) or metformin (n=36) for 1 year. Blood glucose, insulin, glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C), triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and inflammatory biomarker levels (interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-2 (IL-2), and ferritin) were detected at 0, 6 and 12 months.

Results

After adjusting for sex, the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and body mass index (BMI), higher fasting plasma glucose (FPG), standard meal test 1/2 hr and 2 hr glucose, TG, TC, LDL-C, IL-6, TNF-α, IL-2 and ferritin levels were observed in T2DM group than in NCs (P<0.05). After 6 months of treatment, TNF-α levels were significantly decreased in both subgroups, and IL-6 and ferritin levels were significantly decreased after 12 months (P<0.05). However, no significant differences in the IL-6, TNF-α and ferritin levels were observed between the two subgroups. Moreover, significantly higher IL-6 and TNF-α levels were detected in the T2DM group than in NCs after 12 months of treatment (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Patients with newly diagnosed T2DM exhibited a marked chronic inflammatory state characterized by increased IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-2 and ferritin levels. After 1 year of treatment with acarbose or metformin, IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1β and ferritin levels were significantly decreased compared with the baseline. The anti-inflammatory effects of acarbose and metformin were comparable and required a long-term treatment (1 year), but the characteristics were different. Further investigations are needed to determine whether this effect was independent of the hypoglycemic effects.

Correlation between Insulin Resistance and Thyroid Nodule in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

The present study explored the association between insulin resistance (IR) and the clinical characteristics of thyroid nodules in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

All the patients were newly diagnosed with T2DM. 201 patients with thyroid nodule disease and 308 patients without the nodular thyroid disease. The participants were evaluated by relevant examination. Correlation analyses and regression analyses were performed to examine the relationships between the two groups.

RESULTS

HOMA-IR values, serum FT4 (free thyroxine) levels, and age were higher in the thyroid nodule group than in the control group. The proportion of women in the thyroid nodule group is greater than the proportion of women in the control group. Logistic regression analysis showed that age, sex, FT4, and HOMA-IR were positive factors for thyroid nodule. The volume and size of the thyroid nodule were positively correlated with HOMA-IR, irrespective of gender. The thyroid nodule volume and size and the TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone) were greater in females than in males, whereas FT3 (free triiodothyronine) was lower in females.

CONCLUSION

IR might be a risk factor for thyroid nodule. Whether alleviating the IR might slow the growth, or diminish the volume and size of the thyroid nodules, is yet to be elucidated.

Hypoglycemic agents and potential anti-inflammatory activity

Current literature shows an association of diabetes and secondary complications with chronic inflammation. Evidence of these immunological changes include altered levels of cytokines and chemokines, changes in the numbers and activation states of various leukocyte populations, apoptosis, and fibrosis during diabetes. Therefore, treatment of diabetes and its complications may include pharmacological strategies to reduce inflammation. Apart from anti-inflammatory drugs, various hypoglycemic agents have also been found to reduce inflammation that could contribute to improved outcomes. Extensive studies have been carried out with thiazolidinediones (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ agonist), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and metformin (AMP-activated protein kinase activator) with each of these classes of compounds showing moderate-to-strong anti-inflammatory action. Sulfonylureas and alpha glucosidase inhibitors appeared to exert modest effects, while the injectable agents, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, may improve secondary complications due to their anti-inflammatory potential. Currently, there is a lack of clinical data on anti-inflammatory effects of sodium–glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors. Nevertheless, for all these glucose-lowering agents, it is essential to distinguish between anti-inflammatory effects resulting from better glucose control and effects related to intrinsic anti-inflammatory actions of the pharmacological class of compounds.

Acarbose: safe and effective for lowering postprandial hyperglycaemia and improving cardiovascular outcomes

α-Glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs) are a class of oral glucose-lowering drugs used exclusively for treatment or prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus. AGIs act by altering the intestinal absorption of carbohydrates through inhibition of their conversion into simple sugars (monosaccharides) and thus decrease the bioavailability of carbohydrates in the body, significantly lowering blood glucose levels. The three AGIs used in clinical practice are acarbose, voglibose and miglitol. This review will focus on the cardiovascular properties of acarbose. The current available data suggest that AGIs (particularly acarbose) may be safe and effective for the treatment of prediabetes and diabetes.

How do high glycemic load diets influence coronary heart disease?

Background

Diet has a significant relationship with the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Traditionally the effect of diet on CHD was measured with the biomarker for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. However, LDL is not the only or even the most important biomarker for CHD risk. A suitably integrated view of the mechanism by which diet influences the detailed CHD pathogenetic pathways is therefore needed in order to better understand CHD risk factors and help with better holistic CHD prevention and treatment decisions.

Methods

A systematic review of the existing literature was conducted. From this an integrated CHD pathogenetic pathway system was constructed. CHD biomarkers, which are found on these pathways, are the only measurable data to link diet with these CHD pathways. They were thus used to simplify the link between diet and the CHD mechanism. Data were systematically analysed from 294 cohort studies of CHD biomarkers constituting 1 187 350 patients.

Results and discussion

The resulting integrated analysis provides insight into the higher-order interactions underlying CHD and high-glycemic load (HGL) diets. A novel “connection graph” illustrates the measurable relationship between HGL diets and the relative risks attributed to the important CHD serological biomarkers.

The “connection graph” vividly shows that HGL diets not only influence the lipid and metabolic biomarkers, but also the inflammation, coagulation and vascular function biomarkers in an important way.

Conclusion

A focus primarily on the low density lipoprotein cholesterol biomarker for CHD risk has led to the traditional guidelines of CHD dietary recommendations. This has however inadvertently led to HGL diets. The influence of HGL diets on the other CHD biomarkers is not always fully appreciated. Thus, new diets or other interventions which address the full integrated CHD impact, as shown in this paper, are required.

Comparison of vildagliptin and glimepiride: effects on glycaemic control, fat tolerance and inflammatory markers in people with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To compare the effects of vildagliptin with those of glimepiride on glycaemic control, fat tolerance and inflammatory markers in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving metformin treatment.

METHODS

A total of 167 participants were randomized to vildagliptin 50 mg twice a day or glimepiride 2 mg three times a day, for 6 months. We evaluated the following variables: BMI; glycaemic control; fasting plasma insulin; homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance index; fasting plasma proinsulin; glucagon; lipid profile; adiponectin; high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; interleukin-6; and tumour necrosis factor-α. A euglycaemic-hyperinsulinaemic clamp procedure and an oral fat load test were also performed.

RESULTS

Despite a similar decrease in HbA1c levels (P = 0.009, and P = 0.008, respectively), body weight increased with glimepiride (P = 0.048 vs baseline) and decreased with vildagliptin (P = 0.041 vs baseline and vs glimepiride). Fasting plasma insulin and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance index were significantly lower with vildagliptin compared with glimepiride (P = 0.035 and 0.047). M value, an index of insulin sensitivity, increased with vildagliptin, both compared with baseline and with glimepiride (P = 0.028 and 0.039, respectively). Vildagliptin improved all post-oral fat load peaks of lipid profile compared with glimepiride. Adiponectin levels were higher (P = 0.035) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels were lower (P = 0.038) with vildagliptin vs glimepiride. During the oral fat load test, interleukin-6, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and tumour necrosis factor-α peaks were lower and adiponectin peak was higher in the vildagliptin group than in the glimepiride group. There was a higher dropout rate as a result of hypoglycaemia in the glimepiride group than in the vildagliptin group.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin was more effective than glimepiride in reducing post-oral fat load peaks of lipid-trafficking adipocytokines and inflammatory markers.

Vildagliptin compared to glimepiride on post-prandial lipemia and on insulin resistance in type 2 diabetic patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of vildagliptin compared to glimepiride on glycemic control, insulin resistance and post-prandial lipemia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

167 type 2 diabetic patients, not adequately controlled by metformin, were randomized to vildagliptin 50 mg twice a day or glimepiride 2 mg three times a day for 6 months, in a double blind, randomized clinical trial. We evaluated: body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), fasting plasma proinsulin (FPPr), glucagon, lipid profile, resistin, retinol binding protein-4 (RBP-4), visfatin and vaspin. Furthermore, at the randomization and at the end of the study all patients underwent an euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp to evaluate M value and an oral fat load.

RESULTS

Despite a similar decrease of glycated hemoglobin, there were an increase of body weight with glimepiride + metformin and a decrease with vildagliptin + metformin. Fasting plasma insulin increased with glimepiride + metformin, while it did not change with vildagliptin + metformin. Vildagliptin + metformin improved lipid profile. Regarding insulin sensitivity, vildagliptin + metformin increased M value. Resistin, RBP-4, vaspin and visfatin were decreased by vildagliptin + metformin, but in group to group comparison, only vaspin reduction resulted statistically significant. Vildagliptin + metformin reduced post-prandial lipemia and insulinemia compared to glimepiride + metformin.

CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin, in addition to metformin, was more effective than glimepiride + metformin in reducing insulin resistance and post-prandial lipemia.

Comparisons of the efficacy of alpha glucosidase inhibitors on type 2 diabetes patients between Asian and Caucasian

Background

To compare the efficacy of glycemic control and insulin secretion of alpha glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) on type 2 diabetes patients between Asian and Caucasian.

Methodology/Principal Findings

The MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, CENTRAL were searched and qualified studies in Asian and Caucasian population comparing AGI treatment with placebo or other oral anti-diabetic drugs in type 2 diabetic patients were included. Totally 58 qualified studies were included. When AGI treatment was compared with placebo, a significant difference in HbA1c decline from baseline favoring AGI treatment was found in Asian (weighted mean difference (WMD), −0.50%; 95% CI, −0.66% to −0.34%) and in Caucasian a significant difference in HbA1c decline favoring AGI treatment was also found (WMD, −0.68%; 95% CI, −0.76% to −0.60%). In Asian, fasting plasma glucose was reduced with AGI treatment compared with placebo (WMD, −0.53 mmol/L; 95% CI, −0.91 to −0.14 mmol/L) and in Caucasian there was also a significant difference in FPG changes favoring AGI therapy (WMD, −0.88 mmol/L; 95% CI, −1.00 to −0.77 mmol/L). Studies in Asian showed a significant difference in fasting insulin changes favoring AGI treatment (WMD, −0.78 uU/ml; 95% CI, −0.96 to −0.59 uU/ml). While in Caucasian fasting insulin was decreased without significance with AGI treatment (WMD-1.24 uU/ml; 95% CI, −2.51 to 0.04 uU/ml). Body weight was decreased with AGI treatment in Asian (WMD, −1.00 kg; 95% CI, −1.69 to −0.31 kg) and was also decreased with AGI treatment in Caucasian (WMD, −0.73 kg; 95% CI, −1.13 to −0.33 kg).

Conclusions/Significance

According to results from this meta-analysis, the efficacy in glucose lowering, body weight reduction and insulin secretion decreasing of AGI treatment in Asian were comparable with those in Caucasian.

α-Glucosidase inhibitors and their use in clinical practice

Post-prandial hyperglycemia still remains a problem in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Of all available anti-diabetic drugs, α-glucosidase inhibitors seem to be the most effective in reducing post-prandial hyperglycemia. We conducted a review analyzing the clinical efficacy and safety of α-glucosidase inhibitors, both alone and in combination with other anti-diabetic drugs, with respect to glycemic control, inflammation and atherosclerosis. α-Glucosidase inhibitors proved to be effective and safe both in monotherapy and as an add-on to other anti-diabetic drugs. Compared to miglitol and voglibose, acarbose seems to have some additive effects such as stabling carotid plaques, and reducing inflammation. Acarbose also proved to reverse impaired glucose tolerance to normal glucose tolerance.

Efficacy and safety profile evaluation of acarbose alone and in association with other antidiabetic drugs: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Epidemiologic studies have revealed that postprandial hyperglycemia significantly contributes to high glycated hemoglobin concentrations and could be linked to the development of chronic diabetic complications.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our review was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety profile of treatment with acarbose alone and combined with other antidiabetic drugs.

METHODS

A systematic search strategy was developed to identify randomized controlled trials included in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. The terms acarbose, α-glucosidase inhibitors, type 2 diabetes, adverse events, combination therapy, and postprandial glucose were incorporated into an electronic search strategy that included the Dickersin filter for randomized controlled trials. To qualify for inclusion, clinical trials had to be randomized trials comparing treatment with acarbose at any dosage with any other antidiabetic drug in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance. Eligible trials had to present results on glycemic control or adverse events. Trial participants needed to be affected by type 2 diabetes mellitus or have impaired glucose tolerance, and the intervention had to include acarbose at any dosage as monotherapy or combined with other antidiabetic drugs. A validated 3-item scale was used to evaluate the overall reporting quality of the trials selected for inclusion in the present review. Nineteen trials were included.

RESULTS

Treatment with acarbose significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin levels when given as monotherapy and as an add-on to other antidiabetic drug treatment (P < 0.0001). Acarbose treatment was effective in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes and in patients with apparently good metabolic control owing to its positive effect on postprandial hyperglycemia (P < 0.0001). Treatment with acarbose seemed to improve the lipid profile (P < 0.05), reduce circulating levels of cell adhesion molecules (P < 0.05), reduce intima-media thickness progression (P = 0.01), and reverse impaired glucose tolerance to normal glucose tolerance (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

When current therapy is not adequate to obtain glycemic control, acarbose could be an option as monotherapy and as an add-on to other antidiabetic drug treatment, especially when postprandial hyperglycemia is the main concern. Long-term studies are needed to determine whether the effects observed with acarbose use are maintained over the years.