Initiating oral glucose-lowering therapy with metformin in tyape 2 diabetic patients: an evidence-based strategy to reduce the burden of late-developing diabetes complications

Cardiovascular Outcomes Comparison of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors versus Sulfonylurea as Add-on Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Meta-Analysis

Objective

Recent studies have raised concern about the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors. We performed a systematic review through meta-analysis to compare cardiovascular outcomes of sulfonylurea (SU) versus DPP4 inhibitors when used in combination with metformin.

Methods

After searching for trials using combination therapy of metformin with DPP4 inhibitor or SU in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, one prospective observation study and 15 randomized controlled studies were selected.

Results

Regarding the primary analysis endpoint, there were no significant differences in the risk of all-cause mortality between SU and DPP4 inhibitors as an add-on therapy to metformin (random-effect relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98–1.33; p=0.811; I²=0%). Cardiovascular death was also similar between the two drug classes in the five studies which reported outcomes (random-effect RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.83–1.27; p=0.517; I²=0%). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and heart failure. However, there were less hypoglycemic events and weight gain in the DPP4 inhibitor group as compared with the SU group (random-effect RR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.53–9.39; p<0.001; I²=98.2 and weighted mean difference, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.07–2.29; p<0.001; I²=94.7, respectively).

Conclusion

As add-on therapy to metformin, there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between DPP4 inhibitors and SUs.

Metformin Therapy Reduces Obesity Indices in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Purpose: Few studies have summarized findings for the effect of metformin on obesity indices. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of metformin on obesity indices among children and adolescents. Methods: Relevant articles published up to September 2018 were searched in SCOPUS, Medline, and Google Scholar using appropriate keywords. All clinical trials that examined the effect of metformin on obesity indices in children and adolescents were included. Results: Overall, 38 studies, including 2199 participants (39.75% male and 60.25% female), were included. The pooled results indicated that metformin significantly reduced BMI [weighted mean difference (WMD): -1.07 kg/m²; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.43 to -0.72]. Same findings were found for waist circumference (WC) (WMD: -1.93 cm; 95% CI: -2.69 to -1.16). Metformin also reduced body weight in all participants (WMD: -2.51 kg; 95% CI: -3.14 to -1.89). Moreover, it reduced body fat mass in patients with overweight or obesity (WMD: -1.90%; 95% CI: -3.25 to -0.56) and chronic diseases (WMD: -1.41%; 95% CI: -2.23 to -0.58), but not among those with growth problems. Metformin therapy did not affect lean body mass (LBM) in patients with overweight or obesity and growth problems; however, it reduced LBM in patients with chronic diseases (WMD: -1.49 kg; 95% CI: -2.69 to -0.30). Conclusions: We found a significant reduction in BMI, body weight, WC, and fat mass following administration with metformin. However, the effect of metformin on LBM was not significant. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Effectiveness of dapagliflozin on vascular endothelial function and glycemic control in patients with early-stage type 2 diabetes mellitus: DEFENCE study

Background

Recent studies reported that sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can potentially reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, there is little or no information on the therapeutic effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on the progression of atherosclerosis. This dapagliflozin effectiveness on vascular endothelial function and glycemic control (DEFENCE) study was designed to determine the effects of dapagliflozin, a SGLT2 inhibitor, on endothelial function in patients with early-stage T2DM.

Methods

DEFENCE is a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, parallel-group, comparative clinical trial. Between October 2015 and August 2016, 80 T2DM patients treated with 750 mg of metformin (hemoglobin A1c ≥6.0 and <8.0%, n = 80) were enrolled and randomized to receive either 1500 mg/day metformin (the metformin group, n = 40), or 750 mg/day metformin supplemented with 5 mg/day dapagliflozin (the dapagliflozin group, n = 40), for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was a change in flow-mediated dilation (FMD) from baseline to the end of the 16-week treatment period. The secondary outcomes include changes in indexes of glycemic control, lipid metabolism, and oxidative stress, body composition, and safety evaluation.

Results

Although FMD tended to improve only in the dapagliflozin group, ΔFMD was comparable between the two groups. Analysis of patients with HbA1c >7.0% showed significant improvement of FMD in the dapagliflozin group than metformin group (P < 0.05). HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, plasma glucagon, and body weight significantly decreased in both groups. Interestingly, urine 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosin, a biomarker of oxidative stress, was significantly lower in the dapagliflozin group than metformin group at 16 weeks (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Dapagliflozin add-on therapy to metformin for 16 weeks improved endothelial function, as assessed by FMD, in patients with inadequately controlled early-stage T2DM. Improvement in oxidative stress may contribute to the improvement in FMD.

Trial registration University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000018754)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12933-017-0564-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Linagliptin improves endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized study of linagliptin effectiveness on endothelial function

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

The present multicenter, prospective, controlled, open and randomized three-arm parallel study was designed to compare the effects of linagliptin with those of metformin on endothelial function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Type 2 diabetes patients treated with 750 mg of metformin (hemoglobin A1c ≥6.0% and <8.0%, n = 96) were randomized to continue metformin 750 mg/day (control group, n = 29), metformin at 1,500 mg/day (metformin group, n = 26) and metformin 750 mg/day supplemented with linagliptin 5 mg/day (linagliptin add-on group, n = 29) and treated for 16 weeks. Vascular endothelial function was evaluated by flow-mediated dilation. The primary end-point was changes in flow-mediated dilation at 16 weeks relative to baseline.

RESULTS

Linagliptin significantly improved flow-mediated dilation from baseline (4.9 ± 2.7%) to 16 weeks (6.3 ± 2.7%, P < 0.05), whereas the other groups did not show any changes. Hemoglobin A1c at 16 weeks was significantly lower in the metformin and linagliptin add-on groups compared with the control (6.6 ± 0.6%, 6.5 ± 0.5% and 7.0 ± 0.6%, respectively). Single and multiple regression analyses showed that apolipoprotein B correlated significantly with change in flow-mediated dilation, and apolipoprotein B was decreased only in the linagliptin add-on group (-6.0 ± 11.3 mg/dL, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin for 16 weeks improved endothelial function with a modest improvement in glycemic control. This effect was mediated, at least in part, by reduction in apolipoprotein B. Linagliptin has a protective role on endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes with moderate hyperglycemia.

Effects of body mass index or dosage on gastrointestinal disorders associated with extended-release metformin in type 2 diabetes: Sub-analysis of a Phase IV open-label trial in Chinese patients

AIM

To determine whether gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability of metformin monotherapy varies according to baseline BMI or at doses >1500mg/day in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We performed a sub-analysis of the safety population from a prospective, multicenter, Phase IV open-label study in which 371 Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes received extended-release metformin monotherapy for 16 weeks. The incidence, severity and duration of GI adverse events (AEs) were compared between normal-weight (BMI<25kg/m(2), n=155) and overweight/obese (BMI≥25kg/m(2), n=216) patients. The primary objective was to determine whether baseline BMI affect the incidence, severity and duration of GI AEs, using Fisher's exact test and Student's t-test. Secondary objectives were to compare these factors according to final metformin dose (≤1500mg/day versus 2000mg/day).

RESULTS

The proportion of patients who reported ≥1 GI AE did not differ significantly between BMI groups (25.2% of the normal-weight group versus 21.3% of the overweight/obese group; p=0.3840). Patients who reported GI AEs in the two BMI groups experienced similar GI AE severity (p=0.5410), mean duration (p=0.3572) and duration distribution (p=0.1347). There was no significant difference in GI AE severity and duration between metformin dosage groups (≤1500mg/day versus 2000mg/day).

CONCLUSIONS

Newly-diagnosed Chinese type 2 diabetes patients of normal weight are no more likely than overweight/obese patients to suffer from increased incidence rates, severity or duration of GI AEs when treated with first-line extended-release metformin monotherapy. Doses of 2000mg/day did not increase the severity or duration of GI AEs.

Metformin inhibits hepatocellular glucose, lipid and cholesterol biosynthetic pathways by transcriptionally suppressing steroid receptor coactivator 2 (SRC-2)

The ability of the anti-diabetic drug metformin to inhibit anabolic processes including gluconeogenesis and lipogenesis is partly attributable to activation of the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathway. The p160 steroid receptor coactivator 2 (SRC-2) is a key regulator of cellular metabolism and drives expression of the gluconeogenic enzyme glucose-6-phosphatase (G6Pc). Here, we uncovered a role for SRC-2 in the metabolic reprogramming imposed by metformin. In FaO cells, metformin dose-dependently reduced mRNA expression of SRC-2. Microarray analysis of metformin-treated cells revealed an overrepresentation of downregulated genes involved in biosynthesis of lipids and cholesterol. Several metformin-regulated genes including fatty acid synthase (FASN) were validated as transcriptional targets of SRC-2 with promoters characterized by sterol regulatory element (SRE) binding protein (SREBP) recognition sequences. Transactivation assays of the FASN promoter confirmed that SRC-2 is a coactivator of SREBP-1. By suppressing SRC-2 at the transcriptional level, metformin impeded recruitment of SRC-2 and RNA polymerase II to the G6Pc promoter and to SREs of mutual SRC-2/SREBP-1 target gene promoters. Hepatocellular fat accretion was reduced by metformin or knock-down of both SRC-2 and SREBP-1. Accordingly we propose that metformin inhibits glucose and lipid biosynthesis partly by downregulating SRC-2 gene expression.

Effects on Clinical Outcomes of Adding Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors Versus Sulfonylureas to Metformin Therapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Recent studies concluded that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors provide glycemic control but also raised concerns about the risk for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, large-scale studies of the effects on cardiovascular outcomes of adding DPP-4 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas to metformin therapy remain scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical outcomes of adding DPP-4 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas to metformin therapy in patients with T2DM.

DESIGN

Nationwide study using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database.

SETTING

Taiwan.

PATIENTS

All patients with T2DM aged 20 years or older between 2009 and 2012. A total of 10,089 propensity score-matched pairs of DPP-4 inhibitor users and sulfonylurea users were examined.

MEASUREMENTS

Cox models with exposure to sulfonylureas and DPP-4 inhibitors included as time-varying covariates were used to compare outcomes. The following outcomes were considered: all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (including ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction), hospitalization for heart failure, and hypoglycemia. Patients were followed until death or 31 December 2013.

RESULTS

DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with lower risks for all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.72]), MACEs (HR, 0.68 [CI, 0.55 to 0.83]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.64 [CI, 0.51 to 0.81]), and hypoglycemia (HR, 0.43 [CI, 0.33 to 0.56]) compared with sulfonylureas as add-on therapy to metformin but had no effect on risks for myocardial infarction and hospitalization for heart failure.

LIMITATION

Observational study design.

CONCLUSION

Compared with sulfonylureas, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with lower risks for all-cause death, MACEs, ischemic stroke, and hypoglycemia when used as add-ons to metformin therapy.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Treatment escalation options for patients with type 2 diabetes after failure of exenatide twice daily or glimepiride added to metformin: results from the prospective European Exenatide (EUREXA) study

AIMS

To evaluate third-line thiazolidinedione (TZD) or glimepiride therapy in patients inadequately controlled on metformin + exenatide twice daily, and third-line exenatide twice daily in patients inadequately controlled on metformin + glimepiride.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, multicentre trial, 144 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >9% (75 mmol/mol) after 3 months' treatment or >7% (53 mmol/mol) at two consecutive visits 3 months apart, after 6 months' treatment] on metformin + exenatide twice daily were re-randomized to add-on TZD or glimepiride, and 166 patients inadequately controlled on metformin + glimepiride received add-on exenatide twice daily. Changes in HbA1c, body mass index (BMI), lipids, hypoglycaemia and vital signs were evaluated.

RESULTS

The median duration of triple therapy was ∼2 years. In patients inadequately controlled on metformin + exenatide twice daily, add-on TZD decreased HbA1c levels significantly better than add-on glimepiride: 130-week difference 0.48% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.77] or 5.2 mmol/mol (95% CI 2.1-8.4; p = 0.001), but with significantly increased BMI and systolic blood pressure. The ratio of documented symptomatic (blood glucose ≤70 mg/dl [3.9 mmol/l]) hypoglycaemia rates for add-on glimepiride to add-on TZD was 8.48 (p < 0.0001). Add-on exenatide twice daily after metformin + glimepiride significantly reduced HbA1c levels: mean [standard deviation (s.d.)] change from baseline -0.35 (0.89)% [-3.8 (9.7) mmol/mol] and BMI: mean (s.d.) change from baseline -0.82 (1.9) kg/m(2) at 130 weeks, with a slightly increased rate of documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia from metformin + glimepiride (ratio 1.49).

CONCLUSIONS

TZD, but not glimepiride, was an effective and well tolerated third-line therapy in patients without glycaemic control after long-term therapy with metformin + exenatide twice daily. Exenatide twice daily was an effective and well tolerated third-line therapy in patients inadequately controlled on metformin + glimepiride.

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.

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

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

Impact of baseline BMI on glycemic control and weight change with metformin monotherapy in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients: phase IV open-label trial

Background

Differences exist between treatment recommendations regarding the choice of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes patients according to body mass index (BMI). This study compared the efficacy of metformin monotherapy among normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

Methods

In this prospective, multicenter, open-label study in China, patients aged 23–77 years were enrolled 1∶1:1 according to baseline BMI: normal-weight (BMI 18.5−23.9 kg/m²; n = 125); overweight (BMI 24.0−27.9 kg/m²; n = 122) or obese (BMI ≥28 kg/m²; n = 124). Extended-release metformin was administered for 16 weeks (500 mg/day, up-titrated weekly to a maximum 2,000 mg/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was the effect of baseline BMI on glycemic control with metformin monotherapy, measured as the change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) at week 16 compared among BMI groups using ANCOVA. Other endpoints included comparisons of metformin’s effects on fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid levels and body weight.

Results

Mean HbA_1c decreases at week 16, adjusted for baseline values, were –1.84%, –1.78% and –1.78% in normal-weight, overweight and obese patients, (P = 0.664); body weight decreased by 2.4%, 3.9% and 3.5%, respectively. FPG levels decreased similarly over time in all BMI groups (P = 0.461) and changes from baseline in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) did not differ significantly among BMI groups at week 16 (P = 0.143 and 0.451, respectively).

Conclusions

Baseline BMI had no impact on glycemic control, weight change or other efficacy measures with metformin monotherapy. These data suggest that normal-weight type 2 diabetes patients would derive the same benefits from first-line treatment with metformin as overweight and obese patients, and are not at increased risk of excess weight loss.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00778622

Contribution of insulin deficiency and insulin resistance to the development of type 2 diabetes: nature of early stage diabetes

At the time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D), patients already have varying degrees of beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance and the defects continue to deteriorate despite treatment. We examined insulin secretion impairment and insulin resistance in overweight patients with T2D who had metformin failure, with elevated HbA1c at maximal metformin dose. Patients (N = 1,039) were examined at entry to the European Exenatide (EUREXA) clinical trial of add-on exenatide versus sulphonylurea. Mean (±SD) age was 57 ± 10 years, and BMI was 32.4 ± 4.1 kg/m(2). All patients underwent an oral glucose tolerance test; HOMA-IR, HOMA-B, ∆I(30)/∆G(30), disposition index and pro-insulin/insulin ratio were evaluated in relation to stratified HbA1c levels (≤7.3, >7.3-8.2, >8.2%) and duration of diabetes (<3, ≥3-<6, ≥6 years) using non-parametric analysis of variance. Patients overall had a wide range of impaired insulin secretion (HOMA-B: median 50.4, interquartile range 32.8-78.8) and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR: 4.8, 3.0-7.4). With increasing HbA1c levels, there was a statistically significant decrease in HOMA-B (P < 0.001), ∆I(30)/∆G(30) (P = 0.003) and disposition index (P < 0.001), and increase in pro-insulin/insulin (P < 0.001) and HOMA-IR (P < 0.001). With increasing duration since diabetes diagnosis, there was a significant decrease in HOMA-B (P < 0.001), but no significant trend in HOMA-IR, ∆I(30)/∆G(30), disposition index or pro-insulin/insulin. Metformin failure in these patients was associated with beta-cell dysfunction to a greater extent than insulin resistance. Loss of the first-phase insulin release, indicated by a low ∆I(30)/∆G(30), would indicate that this patient cohort requires add-on therapy that can maintain beta-cell function.

Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in clinical practice-results of the PROVIL-study

AIM: To investigate efficacy and safety of vildagliptin compared to other oral antidiabetics in clinical practice in Germany.

METHODS: In this prospective, open, observational study, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) previously on oral monotherapy were selected by their treating physician to receive either vildagliptin add-on to metformin (cohort 1), vildagliptin + metformin single-pill combination (SPC) (cohort 2) or another dual combination therapy with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) (cohort 3). According to routine clinical practice, interim examinations occurred every 3 mo: at baseline, after approximately 3 mo and after approximately 6 mo. Parameters documented in the study included demographic and diagnostic data, history of T2DM, data on diabetes control, vital signs, relevant prior and concomitant medication and disease history. Efficacy was assessed by changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 3 mo and 6 mo after initiation of dual combination therapy. Safety was assessed by adverse event reporting and measurement of specific laboratory values (serum creatinine, total bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatine kinase).

RESULTS: Between October 2009 and January 2011, a total of 3881 patients were enrolled in this study. Since 47 patients were withdrawn due to protocol violations, 3834 patients were included in the statistical analysis. There were no relevant differences between the three cohorts concerning age, body weight and body mass index. Average diabetes duration was approximately 6 years and mean HbA1c was between 7.6% and 7.9% at baseline. Antidiabetic treatment was recorded in 3648 patients. Patients were treated with vildagliptin add-on to metformin (n = 603), vildagliptin + metformin (SPC) (n = 2198), and other oral OADs including combinations of metformin with sulfonylurea (n = 370), with glitazones (n = 123), other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (n = 99). After 6 mo of treatment, the absolute decrease in HbA1c (mean ± SE) was significantly more pronounced in patients receiving vildagliptin add-on to metformin (-0.9% ± 0.04%) and vildagliptin + metformin (SPC) (-0.9% ± 0.03%) than in patients receiving other OADs (-0.6% ± 0.04%; P < 0.0001). In addition, significant cohort differences were observed for the improvement in FPG after 6 mo treatment (vildagliptin add-on to metformin: -291 mg/L ± 18.3 mg/L; vildagliptin +metformin (SPC): -305 mg/L ± 9.6 mg/L; other antidiabetic drugs: -209 mg/L ± 14.0 mg/L for (P < 0.0001). Moderate decreases in body weight (absolute difference between last control and baseline: mean ± SE) were observed for patients in all cohorts (vildagliptin add-on to metformin: -1.4 kg ± 0.17 kg; vildagliptin + metformin (SPC): -1.7 kg ± 0.09 kg; other OADs: -0.8 kg ± 0.13 kg). No significant differences in adverse events (AEs) and other safety measures were observed between the cohorts. When performing an additional analysis by age (patients < 65 years vs patients ≥ 65 years), there was no relevant difference in the most common AEs between the two age groups and the AE profile was similar to that of the overall patient population.

CONCLUSION: Clinical practice confirms that vildagliptin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment in combination with metformin in T2DM patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin.

METHODS

This was a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with T2DM (N = 438) with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.0-10.0% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <15 mmol/l (<270 mg/dl) were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to vildagliptin 50 mg bid, vildagliptin 50 mg qd or placebo in addition to metformin.

RESULTS

The treatment groups were well balanced at baseline [mean HbA1c, 8.0%, FPG, 8.8 mmol/l (158 mg/dl); body mass index, 25.5 kg/m(2) ]. The adjusted mean change (AMΔ) in HbA1c at endpoint was -1.05 ± 0.08%, -0.92 ± 0.08% and -0.54 ± 0.08% in patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg bid, 50 mg qd and placebo, respectively. The between-treatment difference (vildagliptin 50 mg bid-placebo) was -0.51 ± 0.11%, p < 0.001. A greater proportion of vildagliptin-treated patients met at least one responder criterion (82.1 and 70.7%) compared to placebo-treated patients (60.4%). The AMΔ at endpoint for FPG with vildagliptin 50 mg bid, -0.95 mmol/l (-17.1 mg/dl); 50 mg qd, -0.84 mmol/l (-15.1 mg/dl) was significantly different compared with the placebo -0.26 mmol/l (-4.68 mg/dl) (p ≤ 0.001). Adverse events (AEs) were reported as 34.2, 36.5 and 37.5% for patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg bid, 50 mg qd or placebo, respectively. Two patients in the vildagliptin 50 mg qd and one in the placebo group reported serious AEs, which were not considered to be related to the study drug; one incidence of hypoglycaemic event was reported in the vildagliptin 50 mg bid group.

CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin improved glycaemic control and was well tolerated in Chinese patients who were inadequately controlled by metformin only.

Saxagliptin plus metformin combination therapy

Metformin is considered to be the first-line drug therapy for the management of Type 2 diabetes. Incretin-based therapies, and especially dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, offer new opportunities after failure of metformin. An extensive literature search was performed to analyze all clinical trials combining saxagliptin with metformin. Saxagliptin and metformin may be administered together, either separately or in fixed-dose combination, as saxagliptin added to metformin or as an initial combination. Saxagliptin and metformin are not prone to pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions and fixed-dose combination allows dosing of one single pill (Kombiglyze^® XR) or two pills (Komboglyze^®) per day. Both compounds exert pharmacodynamic complementary actions. Their coadministration improves blood glucose control (fasting plasma glucose, postprandial glucose and glycated hemoglobin) more potently than either compound separately. Tolerance is good without hypoglycemia, weight gain and further increase in metformin-related gastrointestinal adverse events. The combination saxagliptin plus metformin may be used as first-line or second-line therapy in the management of Type 2 diabetes.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of sitagliptin plus metformin

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Type 2 diabetes is an increasingly prevalent disease resulting from various complex combinations of defects in insulin secretion and insulin action. Adequate blood glucose control is necessary to minimize complications. DPP IV inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin) offer new options for combined pharmacological therapy.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

An extensive literature search was performed to analyze the potential pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) interactions between metformin (first-line drug for the management of type 2 diabetes) and sitagliptin (first commercialized DPP IV inhibitor). Metformin and sitagliptin may be administered together, either separately or in fixed-dose combination.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Updated information about PK/PD data on metformin alone, sitagliptin alone and sitagliptin plus metformin. Metformin and sitagliptin are not prone to PK drug-drug interactions. Their co-administration, either separately or in a fixed-dose combination, improves blood glucose control more potently than either compound separately, without hypoglycemia and without increasing metformin-related gastrointestinal side effects.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

The combination sitagliptin plus metformin may be used as a first- or second-line therapy in the management of type 2 diabetes.

A comparison of efficacy and safety of vildagliptin and gliclazide in combination with metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin alone: a 52-week, randomized study

AIM

To demonstrate non-inferiority of vildagliptin compared with gliclazide, as an add-on therapy, in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin in a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study.

METHODS

Patients receiving a stable dose of metformin (> or = 1500 mg) were randomized (1 : 1) to receive vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily; n = 513) or gliclazide (up to 320 mg/day; n = 494).

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of vildagliptin was demonstrated (95% confidence interval -0.11%, 0.20%) with a mean change (se) from baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) (approximately 8.5% in both groups) to a 52-week endpoint of -0.81% (0.06) with vildagliptin and -0.85% (0.06) with gliclazide. Although a similar proportion of patients reached HbA(1c) < 7.0%, the total number of hypoglycaemic events was lower in the vildagliptin group (6 vs. 11 events). Vildagliptin was non-inferior (margin 0.6 mmol/l) to gliclazide in reducing fasting plasma glucose (1.31 vs. 1.52 mmol/l, P = 0.257). The overall incidence of any adverse events was similar in both groups (approximately 61%), but the number of serious adverse events was higher in the gliclazide group (8.7 vs. 6.7%). The number of patients who discontinued as a result of an unsatisfactory effect was higher in the vildagliptin group (n = 22 vs. 13, respectively) compared with gliclazide, but vildagliptin did not induce weight gain.

CONCLUSION

In patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin, addition of vildagliptin provided similar HbA(1c)-lowering efficacy compared with gliclazide after 52 weeks of treatment. Although both treatments were well tolerated, vildagliptin-treated patients had fewer hypoglycaemic events and did not gain weight.

The European Exenatide study of long-term exenatide vs. glimepiride for type 2 diabetes: rationale and patient characteristics

AIM

To describe the rationale for the European Exenatide (EUREXA) clinical study and describe the characteristics of the patient cohort.

METHODS

EUREXA is a multinational study of long-term effects of add-on exenatide vs. glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes and failure of diet/lifestyle plus metformin monotherapy. Metformin failure was defined as hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > or = 6.5% and patients were overweight/obese (BMI > or = 25 to < 40 kg/m(2)). The primary end point is time to failure of combination treatment, defined from HbA1c concentration according to current criteria. At baseline, an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed, fasting blood was taken for lipid profile and patients were randomized to add-on exenatide (5 microg b.i.d. for 4 weeks then 10 microg b.i.d.) or glimepiride (1 mg/day titrated to maximum dose).

RESULTS

A total of 1039 patients were entered in the study, with mean (+/- s.d.) age 57.2 +/- 9.6 years, body mass index (BMI) 32.4 +/- 4.1 kg/m(2), duration of diabetes 5.6 +/- 4.5 years and HbA1c 7.4 +/- 0.7%. A history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) was present for 64.8% of patients overall and duration of diabetes was statistically significantly longer for patients with CVD than without (p = 0.010). Lipid abnormalities were reported for 48.9% of patients and 40.9% were taking at least one lipid-lowering medication.

CONCLUSION

Patients included in the EUREXA study had early failure of glucose control with metformin and presented typical features of type 2 diabetes: overweight/obesity and high prevalence of lipid abnormalities and CVD. In this population, the effects of exenatide vs. glimepiride will be evaluated over at least 2.5 years.

Combining insulin with metformin or an insulin secretagogue in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes: 12 month, randomised, double blind trial

OBJECTIVES

To study the effect of insulin treatment in combination with metformin or an insulin secretagogue, repaglinide, on glycaemic regulation in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Randomised, double blind, double dummy, parallel trial.

SETTING

Secondary care in Denmark between 2003 and 2006.

PARTICIPANTS

Non-obese patients (BMI </=27) with preserved beta cell function.

INTERVENTIONS

After a four month run-in period with repaglinide plus metformin combination therapy, patients with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) concentration of 6.5% or more were randomised to repaglinide 6 mg or metformin 2000 mg. All patients also received biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (30% soluble insulin aspart and 70% intermediate acting insulin aspart) 6 units once a day before dinner for 12 months. Insulin dose was adjusted aiming for a fasting plasma glucose concentration of 4.0-6.0 mmol/l. The target of HbA(1c) concentration was less than 6.5%. Treatment was intensified to two or three insulin injections a day if glycaemic targets were not reached.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

HbA(1c) concentration.

RESULTS

Of the 459 patients who were eligible, 102 were randomised, and 97 completed the trial. Patients had had type 2 diabetes for approximately 10 years. At the end of treatment, HbA(1c) concentration was reduced by a similar amount in the two treatment groups (insulin plus metformin: mean (standard deviation) HbA(1c) 8.15% (1.32) v 6.72% (0.66); insulin plus repaglinide: 8.07% (1.49) v 6.90% (0.68); P=0.177). Total daily insulin dose and risk of hypoglycaemia were also similar in the two treatment groups. Weight gain was less with metformin plus biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 than with repaglinide plus biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (difference in mean body weight between treatments -2.51 kg, 95% confidence interval -4.07 to -0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

In non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes and poor glycaemic regulation on oral hypoglycaemic agents, overall glycaemic regulation with insulin in combination with metformin was equivalent to that with insulin plus repaglinide. Weight gain seemed less with insulin plus metformin than with insulin plus repaglinide.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00118963.

Vildagliptin plus metformin combination therapy provides superior glycaemic control to individual monotherapy in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin and metformin initial combination therapy with individual monotherapies in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This was a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study. Treatment-naive patients with T2DM who had a glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) of 7.5-11% (N = 1179) were randomized equally to receive vildagliptin plus high-dose metformin combination therapy (50 mg + 1000 mg twice daily), vildagliptin plus low-dose metformin combination therapy (50 mg + 500 mg twice daily), vildagliptin monotherapy (50 mg twice daily) or high-dose metformin monotherapy (1000 mg twice daily). The primary objective was to demonstrate that HbA(1c) reduction from baseline with either combination therapy is superior to both monotherapies at the week 24 endpoint. Patients who failed glycaemic-screening criteria [HbA(1c )>11% or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) >15 mmol/l (270 mg/dl)] could enter a 24-week, single-arm substudy. These patients (N = 94) received open-label vildagliptin plus high-dose metformin combination therapy (100 mg + 1000 mg twice daily).

RESULTS

From comparable baseline values (8.6-8.7%), HbA(1c) decreased in all four treatment groups, to the greatest extent with vildagliptin plus high-dose metformin combination therapy. Mean (SE) HbA(1c) change from baseline was -1.8% (0.06%), -1.6% (0.06%), -1.1% (0.06%) and -1.4% (0.06%) with vildagliptin plus high-dose metformin combination therapy, vildagliptin plus low-dose metformin combination therapy, and vildagliptin and metformin monotherapies respectively. The between-group difference was superior with vildagliptin plus high-dose metformin combination therapy (p < 0.001 vs. both monotherapies) and vildagliptin plus low-dose metformin combination therapy (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, vs. vildagliptin and metformin monotherapies, respectively). Higher baseline HbA(1c) values were linked to greater HbA(1c) reductions, with changes of -3.2% (0.22%), -2.7% (0.22%), -1.5% (0.24%) and -2.6% (0.26%) respectively, occurring in patients with baseline HbA(1c)>or=10%. Reductions in FPG were superior with vildagliptin plus high-dose metformin combination therapy [change from baseline -2.63 (0.13) mmol/l] compared with both monotherapies [-1.26 (0.13) mmol/l and -1.92 (0.13) mmol/l, respectively; p < 0.001]. There was no incidence of hypoglycaemia or severe hypoglycaemia with either combination therapy, and neither was associated with weight gain. All treatments were well tolerated and displayed a comparable incidence of adverse events overall. Despite superior HbA(1c) lowering, the vildagliptin plus low-dose metformin combination therapy group demonstrated a favourable gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability profile compared with metformin monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In treatment-naive patients, combinations of vildagliptin and both high-dose and low-dose metformin provide superior efficacy to monotherapy treatments with a comparable overall tolerability profile and low risk of hypoglycaemia. The potential dose-sparing effect of adding vildagliptin to low-dose metformin in preference to the up-titration of metformin may allow patients to achieve equivalent or superior HbA(1c) lowering without the GI tolerability issues associated with higher doses of metformin.

The metabolic syndrome in East Asians

The metabolic syndrome is an emerging epidemic in developing nations, including East Asian countries such as China, Japan, and Korea. Studies examining the metabolic syndrome have used different definitions, with prevalence often highly dependent on the cut points for abdominal obesity utilized, which have been recommended by the International Diabetes Federation to be lower than standards used in Caucasians and other ethnic groups. Prevalence rates have generally varied from 8% to 13% in men and 2% to 18% in women, depending on ethnic group and definition used, and are consistently lower than most Western Caucasian populations. While recent dramatic changes in lifestyle from Westernization of dietary habits and reduced physical activity present challenges, an emphasis on healthful lifestyle changes remains the cornerstone for metabolic syndrome management. In addition, clinical management focusing on control of obesity, elevated blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and hyperglycemia, with consideration of pharmacologic therapy issues unique to certain Asian populations, remains important for reducing associated cardiometabolic risks.

Novel combination treatment of type 2 diabetes DPP-4 inhibition + metformin

Inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) as a novel therapy for type 2 diabetes is based on prevention of the inactivation process of bioactive peptides, the most important in the context of treatment of diabetes of which is glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1). Most clinical experience with DPP-4 inhibition is based on vildagliptin (GalvusR, Novartis) and sitagliptin (JanuviaR, Merck). These compounds improve glycemic control both in monotherapy and in combination with other oral hyperglycemic agents. Both have also been shown to efficiently improve glycemic control when added to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with inadequate glycemic control. Under that condition, they reduce HbA1C levels by 0.65%-1.1% (baseline HbA1C 7.2-8.7%) in studies up to 52 weeks of duration in combination versus continuous therapy with metformin alone. Sitagliptin has also been examined in initial combination therapy with metformin have; HbA1 was reduced by this combination by 2.1% (baseline HbA1C 8.8%) after 24 weeks of treatment. Both fasting and prandial glucose are reduced by DPP-4 inhibition in combination with metformin in association with improvement of insulin secretion and insulin resistance and increase in concentrations of active GLP-1. The combination of DPP-4 inhibition and metformin has been shown to be highly tolerable with very low risk of hypoglycemia. Hence, DPP-4 inhibition in combination with metformin is an efficient, safe and tolerable combination therapy for type 2 diabetes.

Combination treatment in the management of type 2 diabetes: focus on vildagliptin and metformin as a single tablet

Vildagliptin is a potent and selective inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4), orally active, that improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) primarily by enhancing pancreatic (alpha and beta) islet function. Thus vildagliptin has been shown both to improve insulin secretion and to suppress the inappropriate glucagon secretion seen in patients with T2DM. Vildagliptin reduces HbA(1c) when given as monotherapy, without weight gain and with minimal hypoglycemia, or in combination with the most commonly prescribed classes of oral hypoglycemic drugs: metformin, a sulfonylurea, a thiazolidinedione, or insulin. Metformin, with a different mode of action not addressing beta-cell dysfunction, has been used for about 50 years and still represents the universal first line therapy of all guidelines. However, given the multiple pathophysiological abnormalities in T2DM and the progressive nature of the disease, intensification of therapy with combinations is typically required over time. Recent guidelines imply that patients will require pharmacologic combinations much earlier to attain and sustain the increasingly stringent glycemic targets, with careful drug selection to avoid unwanted adverse events, especially hypoglycemia. The combination of metformin and vildagliptin offers advantages when compared to currently used combinations with additive efficacy and complimentary mechanisms of action, since it does not increase the risk of hypoglycemia and does not promote weight gain. Therefore, by specifically combining these agents in a single tablet, there is considerable potential to achieve better blood glucose control and to improve compliance to therapy.

Metformin and body weight

Most patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, overweight or obesity increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and obesity per se is strongly associated with multiple cardiometabolic risk factors. However, many antidiabetic treatments increase body weight. The oral antidiabetic agent, metformin, has been evaluated in hundreds of clinical studies in diverse patient populations during approximately five decades of clinical use. This review summarizes the effects of metformin on body weight, with special reference to studies of longer duration (>/=6 months) as both diabetes and obesity are long-term conditions. Approximately half of studies in drug-naive type 2 diabetic patients demonstrated significant weight loss with metformin compared with baseline or comparator drugs, although pooled analyses have suggested no significant effect versus placebo. Similarly, metformin has been shown to induce weight loss in obese nondiabetic populations, although studies of long duration in this population are scarce. Metformin does appear to mitigate the adverse effects of insulin on body weight. The weight-neutral or weight-sparing effects of metformin constitute a therapeutic advantage in diabetes management where other first-line oral antidiabetic treatments often promote clinically significant weight gain.

Activation of 5'-AMP-activated kinase with diabetes drug metformin induces casein kinase Iepsilon (CKIepsilon)-dependent degradation of clock protein mPer2

Metformin is one of the most commonly used first line drugs for type II diabetes. Metformin lowers serum glucose levels by activating 5'-AMP-activated kinase (AMPK), which maintains energy homeostasis by directly sensing the AMP/ATP ratio. AMPK plays a central role in food intake and energy metabolism through its activities in central nervous system and peripheral tissues. Since food intake and energy metabolism is synchronized to the light-dark (LD) cycle of the environment, we investigated the possibility that AMPK may affect circadian rhythm. We discovered that the circadian period of Rat-1 fibroblasts treated with metformin was shortened by 1 h. One of the regulators of the period length is casein kinase Iepsilon (CKIepsilon), which by phosphorylating and inducing the degradation of the circadian clock component, mPer2, shortens the period length. AMPK phosphorylates Ser-389 of CKIepsilon, resulting in increased CKIepsilon activity and degradation of mPer2. In peripheral tissues, injection of metformin leads to mPer2 degradation and a phase advance in the circadian expression pattern of clock genes in wild-type mice but not in AMPK alpha2 knock-out mice. We conclude that metformin and AMPK have a previously unrecognized role in regulating the circadian rhythm.

Targeting hyperglycaemia with either metformin or repaglinide in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes: results from a randomized crossover trial

AIM

Metformin is the 'drug-of-first-choice' in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) due to its antihyperglycaemic and cardiovascular protective potentials. In non-obese patients with T2DM, insulin secretagogues are empirically used as first choice. In this investigator-initiated trial, we evaluated the effect of metformin vs. an insulin secretagogue, repaglinide on glycaemic regulation and markers of inflammation and insulin sensitivity in non-obese patients with T2DM.

METHODS

A single-centre, double-masked, double-dummy, crossover study during 2 x 4 months involved 96 non-obese (body mass index < or = 27 kg/m(2)) insulin-naïve patients with T2DM. At enrolment, previous oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHA) were stopped and patients entered a 1-month run-in on diet-only treatment. Hereafter, patients were randomized to either repaglinide 2 mg thrice daily followed by metformin 1 g twice daily or vice versa each during 4 months with 1-month washout between interventions.

RESULTS

End-of-treatment levels of haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), fasting plasma glucose, mean of seven-point home-monitored plasma glucose and fasting levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and adiponectin were not significantly different between treatments. However, body weight, waist circumference, fasting serum levels of insulin and C-peptide were lower and less number of patients experienced hypoglycaemia during treatment with metformin vs. repaglinide. Both drugs were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In non-obese patients with T2DM, overall glycaemic regulation was equivalent with less hypoglycaemia during metformin vs. repaglinide treatment for 2 x 4 months. Metformin was more effective targeting non-glycaemic cardiovascular risk markers related to total and abdominal body fat stores as well as fasting insulinaemia. These findings may suggest the use of metformin as the preferred OHA also in non-obese patients with T2DM.

Role of metformin in the initiation of pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes: an Asian-Pacific perspective

Increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes of 30-60% will occur in many Asian-Pacific countries by 2025, driven by urbanisation, sedentary habits and energy-rich diets. Obesity, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and diabetes are closely interrelated. Optimal control of diabetes and associated risk factors has reduced the risk of diabetes-related complications. In the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), metformin reduced the risk of macrovascular complications and retrospective analyses have confirmed the efficacy of metformin in improving clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetic patients with a history of cardiovascular disease. This growing body of evidence has led to the recommendation of metformin as optimum initial pharmacotherapy in overweight type 2 diabetic patients. Obesity is less prevalent in the Asian-Pacific population than in Caucasian populations. Nevertheless, metformin has multiple beneficial metabolic effects, which provide sufficient rationale for it to be recommended as the initial oral anti-diabetic pharmacotherapy, alone or in combination, irrespective of body mass index. This recommendation is consistent with global guidelines and regional recommendations for the Asian-Pacific region from the International Diabetes Federation. These recommendations can serve as templates for development of local guidelines for Asian people with diabetes, given the ethnic and cultural diversity within the region.

Antidiabetic agents in subjects with mild dysglycaemia: prevention or early treatment of type 2 diabetes?

Besides lifestyle, various pharmacological treatments have proven their efficacy to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals, especially in those with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and/or impaired fasting glucose (IFG). Major placebo-controlled clinical trials demonstrated favourable effects of various glucose-lowering drugs generally used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, i.e. metformin, acarbose and thiazolidinediones (glitazones). These trials showed a lower rate of progression to overt diabetes and a higher regression rate to a normal glucose status with active treatment as compared to placebo after a follow up of several years. Ongoing trials should confirm such a favourable effect with those drugs and may demonstrate a similar protective effect with other pharmacological approaches such as glinides or even basal insulin regimen. However, the reported favourable effects were generally observed while the subjects were still on treatment, and partially vanished after a rather short period of wash-out of several weeks. Therefore, the distinction between a true preventing effect and simply a masking effect is difficult with glucose-lowering drugs. In addition, as type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease, it is still questionable whether the effect corresponds to a prevention effect or only to a postponing of the development of the disease. Owing to the pathophysiology of the disease, the only way to block the progression of type 2 diabetes is probably to avoid the progressive loss of beta-cell function and/or mass. Whatsoever, these data obtained in large clinical trials bring further argument to support early treatment of diabetes, even at a prediabetic state, in order to stop the vicious circle leading to an inevitable deterioration of glycaemia in predisposed subjects.

Nouvelles stratégies thérapeutiques dans le diabète de type 2?

Earlier guidelines for type 2 diabetes (Afssaps 1999 and Anaes 2000) were based on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study, published in 1998. These guidelines recommended treatment according to HbA1c value (< 6.5%, between 6.5 and 8% and > 8%): an oral antidiabetic agent for levels > 6.5% despite diet and exercise; combined metformin + sulfonylurea) if HbA1c >8%; and insulin if the latter failed. Blood pressure goals were < 130/80 mmHg, with the antihypertensives necessary to achieve it. The LDL-cholesterol target value was < 1 g/L (for primary prevention in the case of high cardiovascular risk or for secondary prevention) or between 1.3 and 1.6 g/l (primary prevention in the absence of elevated risk). Another reading of the UK study, associated with the arrival of glitazones led to a revision of these objectives with a more aggressive treatment approach ("earlier and stronger"): screen patients for type 2 diabetes earlier, set stricter goals (HbA1c < 6%), and promptly prescribe dual therapy (metformin + sulfonylurea). Should this fail, either glitazone should be added or insulin treatment begun. For most people with type 2 diabetes, the target blood pressure remains 130/80 mmHg, regardless of the type and number of antihypertensive agents necessary. The target drops to 125/75 mmHg for patients with > 300 mg/day microalbuminuria; in these cases, treatment with agents that block the renin-angiotensin system (ACE inhibitors or sartans) is recommended. The LDL cholesterol target value is 1.0 or 1.6 g/L, depending on the cardiovascular risk level. But these guidelines are applied insufficiently, especially in terms of clinical and laboratory follow-up of patients and choice of treatment. All health professionals must participate in the more effective diffusion and application of these guidelines. Patient education is fundamental. The establishment of care networks for these patients seems to us to be the best tool for meeting the objectives of these guidelines.