Early combination therapy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis

A practical guide for assessing and managing cardiovascular risk during androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy among men worldwide, and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is a mainstay of treatment. There are observational data demonstrating an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients who receive ADT, particularly those who have an elevated baseline cardiovascular risk. Because, for most patients with prostate cancer, death is predominantly from noncancer-related causes, cardiovascular disease and its risk factors should be optimized during cancer treatment. This review provides an overview of the landscape of ADT treatment and serves as a guide for appropriate cardiovascular screening and risk-mitigation strategies. The authors emphasize the importance of shared communication between the multidisciplinary cancer team and primary care to improve baseline cardiovascular screening and treatment of modifiable risk factors within this higher risk population.

Two-Year Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Initial Triple Combination of Metformin, Sitagliptin, and Empagliflozin in Drug-Naïve Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients

BACKGRUOUND

We investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of initial triple therapy using metformin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, and a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We enrolled 170 drug-naïve patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level >7.5% who had started triple therapy (metformin, sitagliptin, and empagliflozin). Glycemic, metabolic, and urinary parameters were measured for 24 months.

RESULTS

After 24 months, HbA1c level decreased significantly from 11.0%±1.8% to 7.0%±1.7%. At 12 and 24 months, the rates of achievement of the glycemic target goal (HbA1c <7.0%) were 72.5% and 61.7%, respectively, and homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function and insulin resistance indices improved. Whole-body fat percentage decreased by 1.08%, and whole-body muscle percentage increased by 0.97% after 24 months. Fatty liver indices and albuminuria improved significantly. The concentration of ketone bodies was elevated at the baseline but decreased after 24 months. There were no serious adverse events, including ketoacidosis.

CONCLUSION

Initial triple combination therapy with metformin, sitagliptin, and empagliflozin led to achievement of the glycemic target goal, which was maintained for 24 months without severe hypoglycemia but with improved metabolic function and albuminuria. This combination therapy may be a good strategy for drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Efficacy and Safety of Evogliptin Add-on Therapy to Dapagliflozin/Metformin Combinations in Patients with Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A 24-Week Multicenter Randomized Placebo-Controlled Parallel-Design Phase-3 Trial with a 28-Week Extension

BACKGRUOUND

This study investigates the long-term efficacy and safety of evogliptin add-on therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) previously received dapagliflozin and metformin (DAPA/MET) combination.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels 7.0% to 10.5% (n=283) previously used DAPA 10 mg plus MET (≥1,000 mg) were randomly assigned to the evogliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo group (1:1). The primary endpoint was the difference in the HbA1c level from baseline at week 24, and exploratory endpoints included the efficacy and safety of evogliptin over 52 weeks (trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04170998).

RESULTS

Evogliptin add-on to DAPA/MET therapy was superior in HbA1c reduction compared to placebo at weeks 24 and 52 (least square [LS] mean difference, -0.65% and -0.55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.79 to -0.51 and -0.71 to -0.39; P<0.0001). The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% was higher in the triple combination group at week 52 (32.14% vs. 8.51% in placebo; odds ratio, 5.62; P<0.0001). Evogliptin significantly reduced the fasting glucose levels and mean daily glucose levels with improvement in homeostatic model assessment of β-cell function (LS mean difference, 9.04; 95% CI, 1.86 to 16.21; P=0.0138). Adverse events were similar between the groups, and no serious adverse drug reactions were reported in the evogliptin group.

CONCLUSION

Long-term triple combination with evogliptin added to DAPA/MET showed superior HbA1c reduction and glycemic control compared to placebo at 52 weeks and was well tolerated.

Glycaemic Control and Weight Reduction: A Narrative Review of New Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes

Early and intensive treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has been associated with lower risk of diabetes-related complications. Control of overweight and obesity, which are strongly associated with T2D and many of its complications, is also key in the management of the disease. New therapies allow for individualised glycaemic control targets with greater safety. Thus, in patients with a higher cardiovascular and renal risk profile, current guidelines encourage early treatment with metformin together with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors with proven cardiovascular benefit. GLP-1 RAs combine highly efficacious glucose-lowering activity with a reduced risk of hypoglycaemia. Recently, tirzepatide, a first-in-class drug that activates both glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptors, has demonstrated very high efficacy in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and weight reduction in clinical trials. Tirzepatide has the potential to help people with T2D reach recommended glycaemic and weight targets (HbA1c < 7% and > 5% weight reduction) and to allow some patients to reach HbA1c measurements close to normal physiological levels and substantial weight reduction. In 2022, tirzepatide was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for treatment of people with T2D and is currently in development for chronic weight management.

Echinacoside exerts its protective effects in a type 2 diabetes mellitus injury model via the AKT pathway

Echinacoside (ECH) is the main compound of Cistanche deserticola, which possesses antioxidant, antitumor, antifatigue, and anti-inflammatory properties. The present study investigated the protective effects of echinacoside on type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)-induced injury in T2DM injury db/db mice model and insulin-resistant LO2 cell model. The results demonstrated that ECH probably alleviated T2DM-induced injury by mediating the AKT pathway, which provided a new direction for the treatment of T2DM-induced injury.

Protective Effects of Imeglimin and Metformin Combination Therapy on β-Cells in db/db Male Mice

Imeglimin and metformin act in metabolic organs, including β-cells, via different mechanisms. In the present study, we investigated the impacts of imeglimin, metformin, or their combination (Imeg + Met) on β-cells, the liver, and adipose tissues in db/db mice. Imeglimin, metformin, or Imeg + Met treatment had no significant effects on glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, respiratory exchange ratio, or locomotor activity in db/db mice. The responsiveness of insulin secretion to glucose was recovered by Imeg + Met treatment. Furthermore, Imeg + Met treatment increased β-cell mass by enhancing β-cell proliferation and ameliorating β-cell apoptosis in db/db mice. Hepatic steatosis, the morphology of adipocytes, adiposity assessed by computed tomography, and the expression of genes related to glucose or lipid metabolism and inflammation in the liver and fat tissues showed no notable differences in db/db mice. Global gene expression analysis of isolated islets indicated that the genes related to regulation of cell population proliferation and negative regulation of cell death were enriched by Imeg + Met treatment in db/db islets. In vitro culture experiments confirmed the protective effects of Imeg + Met against β-cell apoptosis. The expression of Snai1, Tnfrsf18, Pdcd1, Mmp9, Ccr7, Egr3, and Cxcl12, some of which have been linked to apoptosis, in db/db islets was attenuated by Imeg + Met. Treatment of a β-cell line with Imeg + Met prevented apoptosis induced by hydrogen peroxide or palmitate. Thus, the combination of imeglimin and metformin is beneficial for the maintenance of β-cell mass in db/db mice, probably through direct action on β-cells, suggesting a potential strategy for protecting β-cells in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Longitudinal treatment patterns in patients recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Catalonia

AIM

To investigate initial and subsequent treatments prescribed to newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.

METHODS

Data from SIDIAP (Information System for Research in Primary Care) including all recorded incident T2DM patients in primary care between 2015 and 2020. We used descriptive statistics and different graphical techniques to describe the most frequent longitudinal patterns.

RESULTS

A total of 86,854 patients were included. 78.3% of the patients began treatment with a single metformin medication and 21.7% began with a combination therapy (CT). Metformin was the most frequent treatment as first and third-line therapy, while the CT of metformin with DPP4i or sulfonylurea was more prevalent as second-line. Most common first to third-line pattern was initial metformin for 15 months, adding a second antidiabetic in the second line, staying in CT for 6 months, and switching back to single metformin. Treatment patterns varied depending on HbA1c levels, with higher levels (>8%) being associated with changes to CT and lower levels with switches to monotherapy or temporary discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

The study described in detail the different treatment patterns in incident T2DM patients in Catalonia, its adherence to the guidelines, and how the changes are associated to the HbA1c dynamics.

Reduction in the Risk of Peripheral Neuropathy and Lower Decrease in Kidney Function with Metformin, Linagliptin or Their Fixed-Dose Combination Compared to Placebo in Prediabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of glucose-lowering drugs on peripheral nerve and kidney function in prediabetes.

METHODS

Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 658 adults with prediabetes treated for 1 year with metformin, linagliptin, their combination or placebo. Endpoints are small fiber peripheral neuropathy (SFPN) risk estimated by foot electrochemical skin conductance (FESC < 70 μSiemens) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

RESULTS

Compared to the placebo, the proportion of SFPN was reduced by 25.1% (95% CI:16.3-33.9) with metformin alone, by 17.3% (95% CI 7.4-27.2) with linagliptin alone, and by 19.5% (95% CI 10.1-29.0) with the combination linagliptin/metformin (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). eGFR remained +3.3 mL/min (95% CI: 0.38-6.22) higher with the combination linagliptin/metformin than with the placebo (p = 0.03). Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) decreased more with metformin monotherapy -0.3 mmol/L (95%CI: -0.48; 0.12, p = 0.0009) and with the combination metformin/linagliptin -0.2 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.37; -0.03) than with the placebo (p = 0.0219). Body weight (BW) decreased by -2.0 kg (95% CI: -5.65; -1.65, p = 0.0006) with metformin monotherapy, and by -1.9 kg (95% CI: -3.02; -0.97) with the combination metformin/linagliptin as compared to the placebo (p = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

in people with prediabetes, a 1 year treatment with metformin and linagliptin, combined or in monotherapy, was associated with a lower risk of SFPN, and with a lower decrease in eGFR, than treatment with placebo.

Effects of Initial Combinations of Gemigliptin Plus Metformin Compared with Glimepiride Plus Metformin on Gut Microbiota and Glucose Regulation in Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: The INTESTINE Study

The efficacy and safety of medications can be affected by alterations in gut microbiota in human beings. Among antidiabetic medications, incretin-based therapy such as dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors might affect gut microbiomes, which are related to glucose metabolism. This was a randomized, controlled, active-competitor study that aimed to compare the effects of combinations of gemigliptin−metformin vs. glimepiride−metformin as initial therapies on gut microbiota and glucose homeostasis in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Seventy drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (mean age, 52.2 years) with a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level ≥7.5% were assigned to either gemigliptin−metformin or glimepiride−metformin combination therapies for 24 weeks. Changes in gut microbiota, biomarkers linked to glucose regulation, body composition, and amino acid blood levels were investigated. Although both treatments decreased the HbA1c levels significantly, the gemigliptin−metformin group achieved HbA1c ≤ 7.0% without hypoglycemia or weight gain more effectively than did the glimepiride−metformin group (59% vs. 24%; p < 0.05). At the phylum level, the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio tended to decrease after gemigliptin−metformin therapy (p = 0.065), with a notable depletion of taxa belonging to Firmicutes, including Lactobacillus, Ruminococcus torques, and Streptococcus (all p < 0.05). However, regardless of the treatment modality, a distinct difference in the overall gut microbiome composition was noted between patients who reached the HbA1c target goal and those who did not (p < 0.001). Treatment with gemigliptin−metformin resulted in a higher achievement of the glycemic target without hypoglycemia or weight gain, better than with glimepiride−metformin; these improvements might be related to beneficial changes in gut microbiota.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Evaluating the safety and efficacy of the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast as adjuvant therapy in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common with obesity. Metformin is a first-line therapy for this condition. However, it has only a minor impact on weight loss in some patients. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of combining montelukast therapy with metformin in obese diabetic patients. Methods: One hundred obese diabetic adult patients were recruited and randomized into two equal groups. Group 1 received placebo plus metformin 2 g/d, and Group 2 received 2 g/d metformin plus 10 mg/d montelukast. Demographic, anthropometric measurements (e.g., body weight, body mass index [BMI], and visceral adiposity index), lipid profile, diabetes control measures (fasting blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance [HOMA-IR]), adiponectin, and inflammatory markers (e.g., TNF-α, IL-6, and leukotriene B4) were assessed and reported for each group at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. Results: Both interventions significantly reduced all the measured parameters, except for adiponectin and HDL-C, levels of which increased compared to baseline data (p < 0.001). The montelukast group significantly improved in all parameters compared to the placebo group (ANCOVA test p < 0.001). The percentage changes in BMI, HbA1c, HOMA-IR, and inflammatory markers were 5%, 9%, 41%, and 5%-30%, respectively, in the placebo group compared to 8%, 16%, 58%, and 50%-70%, respectively, in the montelukast group. Conclusion: Montelukast adjuvant therapy was superior to metformin-only therapy in diabetes control and weight loss, most likely due to its increased insulin sensitivity and anti-inflammatory properties. The combination was tolerable and safe throughout the study duration. Clinical Trial Registration: [Clinicaltrial.gov], identifier [NCT04075110].

Reconsidering the role of glycaemic control in cardiovascular disease risk in type 2 diabetes: A 21st century assessment

It is well known that the multiple factors contributing to the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) confer an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although the relationship between hyperglycaemia and increased microvascular risk is well established, the relative contribution of hyperglycaemia to macrovascular events has been strongly debated, particularly owing to the failure of attempts to reduce CVD risk through normalizing glycaemia with traditional therapies in high-risk populations. The debate has been further fuelled by the relatively recent discovery of the cardioprotective properties of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Further, as guidelines now recommend individualizing glycaemic targets, highlighting the importance of achieving glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) goals safely, the previously observed negative influences of intensive therapy on CVD risk might not present if trials were repeated using current-day treatments and individualized HbA1c goals. Emerging longitudinal data illuminate the overall effect of excess glucose, the impacts of magnitude and duration of hyperglycaemia on disease progression and risk of CVD complications, and the importance of glycaemic control at or early after diagnosis of T2D for prevention of complications. Herein, we review the role of glucose as a modifiable cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, the role of microvascular disease in predicting macrovascular risk, and the deleterious impact of therapeutic inertia on CVD risk. We reconcile new and old data to offer a current perspective, highlighting the importance of effective, early treatment in reducing latent CV risk, and the timely use of appropriate therapy individualized to each patient's needs.

Cardiovascular and renal outcomes of initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents versus a stepwise approach in newly diagnosed or treatment-naïve type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the initial combination therapy versus a stepwise approach in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and through search of bibliographies to January 2022. Study-specific risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

Eight articles including four unique RCTs (n = 5527 participants) and one observational cohort study (n = 200) that compared initial combination therapy versus stepwise therapy were included. The RR for myocardial infarction comparing initial combination therapy versus stepwise therapy was 1.21 (95% CI 0.74-2.00). Initial combination therapy reduced levels of fasting plasma glucose and glycated haemoglobin: mean differences -0.97 mmol/L (95% CI -1.41, -0.53) and -24.92 mmol/mol (95% CI -25.67, -24.27), respectively. Initial combination therapy versus stepwise therapy reduced lipid levels, blood pressure and intima media thickness, with no differences in body composition variables, neuropathy, retinopathy or adverse events. Single-study results showed that initial combination therapy reduced creatinine levels and urine albumin excretion rate. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for improving cardiometabolic and glycaemic variables, a limited number of studies characterized by small sample sizes show that initial combination therapy for newly diagnosed T2D may be similar in efficacy and safety to stepwise therapy with respect to cardio-renal outcomes. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to recommend initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents in newly diagnosed T2D with the aim of preventing cardio-renal outcomes. Definitive RCTs are warranted.

Metformin plus a low hypoglycemic risk antidiabetic drug vs. metformin monotherapy for untreated type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

The aim of the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to compare the effectiveness of glycemic control and hypoglycemia risk of combination therapy (metformin plus a low hypoglycemic risk antidiabetic drug) vs. standard metformin monotherapy, in patients with untreated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through October 31, 2021 to find relevant RCTs. Efficacy outcomes were changes in hemoglobulin A1c (HbA1c) and fast plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline as well as proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7%; the safety outcome was hypoglycemia risk.

RESULTS

We identified 14 RCTs comprising 5326 patients with untreated T2DM. Mean treatment duration was 28.1 weeks. Pooled results showed that compared to metformin monotherapy, combination therapy was associated with a reduction in HbA1c (mean difference: -0.48 %, -0.58 to - 0.38) and FPG (mean difference: -0.92 mmol/L, -1.14 to - 0.69), and more patients achieving HbA1c < 7% (odds ratio: 2.21, 1.87 to 2.60). Hypoglycemic events and people experiencing hypoglycemia were not different between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial combination of metformin plus a low hypoglycemic risk antidiabetic drug may achieve better glycemic control, without a rise in hypoglycemia, in patients with untreated T2DM.

Chlorogenic acid improves anti-lipogenic activity of metformin by positive regulating of AMPK signaling in HepG2 cells

Metformin improves lipid profile, however, combination therapy is developing to increase its effectiveness and reduce the deleterious effects of metformin. Chlorogenic acid (CGA) has exhibited lipid-lowering effects. This study aimed to investigate the combined effect of metformin and CGA on lipid accumulation, as well as to elucidate the engaged mechanism in HepG2 cells. To find the non-lethal doses of metformin and CGA, MTT assay was performed. High Glucose (HG) at 33 mM was used to induce lipogenesis in HepG2 cells. Following treatment with different concentrations of metformin and CGA, total lipid content (Oil Red O-staining), triglyceride level, the genes expression of SREBP-1c and FAS, and phosphorylation of AMPK and ACC were measured. Both Metformin and CGA decreased HG-induced lipid accumulation individually, by decreasing total lipid content and triglyceride level. The lowest effective doses of metformin and CGA were 0.25 mM and 5 μM, respectively, which significantly reduced SREBP-1c and FAS genes expression. The combination of these concentrations reinforced these effects. The phosphorylation of AMPK and ACC were more increased by metformin in combination with CGA than both individually. Our findings suggest that CGA synergistically enhances metformin lipid reducing action via the regulating of involved factors in fatty acid synthesis. Therefore, co-administration of metformin with CGA may have further medical value in treating lipid metabolism disorders.

New Hypoglycemic Drugs: Combination Drugs and Targets Discovery

New hypoglycemic drugs, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i), which brings more options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). They are generally well tolerated, although caution is required in rare cases. Clinical trials have show good glycemic control with combination therapy with new hypoglycemic drugs in prediabetes and T2DM (mostly traditional stepwise therapy), but early combination therapy appears to have faster, more, and longer-lasting benefits. With the widespread clinical application of oral semaglutide, it is time to develop combinations drugs containing new hypoglycemic drugs, especially SGLT-2i and/or GLP-1RA, to control the risk of prediabetes and newly diagnosed T2DM and its cardiovascular complications, while improving patient compliance. Clinical and preclinical studies support that SGLT-2i exerts its protective effect on heart failure through indirect and direct effects. How this comprehensive protective effect regulates the dynamic changes of heart genes needs further study. We provide ideas for the development of heart failure drugs from the perspective of “clinical drug-mechanism-intensive disease treatment.” This will help to accelerate the development of heart failure drugs, and to some extent guide the use of heart failure drugs.

The efficacy of single pharmacist medication review among type II diabetic patients who take six chronic medications or more: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Pharmacist medication review has been implemented in many health organizations throughout the world in an attempt to alleviate the underlying risk of polypharmacy in elderly patients. These consultations are often frequent and prolonged, and are thus associated with increased costs. To date, data regarding the most effective way to utilize pharmacist consultations for the improvement of health status is scant.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of a single pharmacist consultation on changes in chronic medication regimes and on selected outcomes of diabetes 1-year after the consultation.

METHODS

A case-control study included an intervention group of 740 patients who had pharmacist consultations and a reference group of 1476 matched patients who did not have a pharmacist consultation. 1-year outcome measures were compared including changes in medications, improved safety, and objective variables such as Hba1c, blood pressure, and lipid profile.

RESULTS

In the pharmacist consultation group, there were significantly more treatment changes ([mean 1.5 vs. 0.7, p < 0.001 medications were stopped], and [mean 1.3 vs. 0.4, p < 0.05 medications were started]). Patient safety improved with a general reduction in opiates and benzodiazepines ([50.0% vs. 31.6%, p < 0.05 opioids were stopped] and [58.8% vs 43.8%, p < 0.001 benzodiazepines were stopped]). Sulfonylurea treatment reduced (10.7% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.05 patients who stopped Sulfonylurea) and Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1) increased (16.4% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.001 patients who started GLP-1). Additionally, HbA1c levels showed a small decrease in the pharmacist consultation group ([- 0.18 ± 1.11] vs. [- 0.051 ± 0.80], p = 0.0058) but no significant differences were found regarding blood pressure or lipids profile.

CONCLUSION

A single pharmacist consultation beneficially impacted specific clinical and patient safety outcomes. Pharmacist consultations may thus help resolve polypharmacy complexities in primary care.

Contrasting Three Non-hypoglycemic Antidiabetic Drug Effects on Glycemic Control in Newly Diagnosed Type II Diabetes Mellitus: An Experimental Study

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) type 2 is the most public chronic, metabolic illness whose prevalence is quickly becoming high international. Insulin resistance, the essential metabolic problem leads to the development of DM type 2, is seen in about 90% of patients. AIM: The study’s aim was to compare the efficacy of three antidiabetic drugs on glycated hemoglobin. METHOD: A cross-sectional comparative study for newly diagnosed type II diabetic patients were assigned randomly into one of three conditions: Group I: Metformin consuming patients, Group II: Pioglitazone consuming patients, and Group III: Vildagliptin consuming patients. All patients were newly diagnosed. For all of them, baseline glycated hemoglobin was requested. After that, random assignment was carried out. After 3 months, glycated hemoglobin was checked and compared. RESULTS: Participants were distributed randomly into 27.9% metformin taking participants, 31.1% pioglitazone taking, and 41% vildagliptin taking patient. Findings suggested significant difference between Groups I and III (p =). Likewise, significant difference was seen between Groups II and III (p =). However, Groups I and II have comparable effects (p =). Indeed, all groups had shown significant efficacy on HbA1c. CONCLUSION: Metformin, pioglitazone, and vildagliptin had shown significant impact on HbA1c with variable degree: Metformin and pioglitazone had shown comparably similar efficacy that was exerted more significant impact on HbA1c than vildagliptin does.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Are There Different Viewpoints About the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Comorbidities? A Multidisciplinary Spanish Qualitative Research

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to explore the vision of a large multidisciplinary group of physicians treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Spain, with a special focus on controversial management aspects. The perceptions of primary care (PC) physicians and hospital care (HC) specialists were compared.

METHODS

This was a mixed survey that included Delphi-like statements and opinion, attitude and behaviour (OAB) questions. The Delphi-like statements were assessed on the basis of the degree of agreement among respondents, and a descriptive analysis was performed on the answers to the OAB questions.

RESULTS

A total of 296 participants responded to the first wave of the survey, of whom 293 responded to the second wave (211 from PC and 80 from HC, with two respondents for whom there were no data on specialty). A high degree of consensus (CNS ≥ 0.8) was obtained in all the statements. A proactive approach to detect prediabetes or T2DM in asymptomatic people was highly supported (80.4% of agreement). Introducing early treatment intensification was considered to favour the durability of glycaemic control and to delay the progression of the disease (80.4%). There was agreement on the statement that glycaemic variability constitutes a risk factor for chronic complications, although differences in the perceptions of HC physicians and PC specialists were identified (86.3 vs. 80.1%, respectively). More HC physicans than PC specialists considered comorbidities to affect the ability to self-care (95 vs. 82.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The survey revealed that there was a high, albeit not universal, degree of agreement amongst PC physicians and HC specialists in relation to prevention, screening and diagnosis of T2DM; early treatment intensification; dysglycaemias; and the management of patients with comorbidities. The statement on the management of patients with comorbidities elicited the highest difference between PC physicans and HC specialists. The results of this survey indicate that there is room for improvement in terms of implementing strategies in these areas.

Differential Cost-Sharing Undermines Treatment Adherence to Combination Therapy: Evidence from Diabetes Treatment

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to measure the influence of differences in out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) medications on within-patient adherence behavior towards combination drug therapy regimens.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, paired sample study in patients with T2D using longitudinal pharmacy data from the 2009-2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) augmented with socio-demographic factors. We took a within-patient approach to minimize confounding effects by including patients who maintained the same number of diabetes drug classes over 2 years of MEPS. For each patient, we selected the most and least costly drug classes in the second year and examined their corresponding adherence behavior measured by medication possession ratio. The primary hypothesis tested the significance of the correlation between magnitude of the OOP cost difference and behavioral response in adherence.

RESULTS

Analysis included 1189 patients representing over 4.2 million US residents with T2D. A significant negative correlation (p < 0.001) was observed between the differences of OOP costs and adherence to the most and least costly medications compared within patients. Reduction in adherence to the most costly medication was generally observed when the difference in OOP costs was greater than $33/month. A greater variability in adherence was observed when the cost difference exceeded $2.39/month as compared to other cost difference ranges (p < 0.001), indicative of choices being made.

CONCLUSIONS

As OOP costs increased, adherence variability increased initially until a cost threshold, beyond which the adherence to the more costly medication decreased. In addition to OOP cost, adherence was also influenced by type of medication and self-perception of health. Given the complex correlation between OOP costs and adherence to medication, we suggest a careful approach to cost-sharing in the current insurance drug design and relevant insurance policies.

Diabetes Monotherapies versus Metformin-Based Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

Step-wise addition of antihyperglycemic agents (AHA) after the initiation of metformin monotherapy has been the traditional approach for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) world-wide. Emerging evidence increasingly suggests that metformin-based combination therapy, especially with the newer AHA that lowers HbA1c glucose-dependently and do not potentiate hypoglycemia, could be a potentially better option for durable glycemic control with good tolerability compared to diabetes monotherapy. In this review, we descriptively analyzed the evidence available from the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized head-to-head trials that reported the efficacy and safety outcomes of diabetes monotherapy, metformin-based combination therapies, and monotherapy versus metformin-based combination therapies.

Formulation and design optimization of nano-transferosomes using pioglitazone and eprosartan mesylate for concomitant therapy against diabetes and hypertension

Hypertension, a form of cardiovascular diseases, is considered a major risk factor associated with deaths in type 2 diabetes patients. The current medication systems for treating such chronic coexisting diseases are limited and challenging due to the difficulties in overcoming the side effects from complex therapeutic and treatment regimen. The objective of the present study is to design and optimize pioglitazone (PIO) and eprosartan mesylate (EM)-loaded nano-transferosomes (NTs) using Design-Expert software, aiming its transdermal delivery as a novel combination therapy for concomitant treatment of hypertensive diabetic patients. The developed formulations were characterized for various parameters, including in-vitro skin permeation, skin irritation, in-vivo antidiabetic, and antihypertensive activities. NTs were prepared using PIO and EM as the two model drugs and optimized using Box-Behnken design by considering phospholipid (X1), surfactant (X2), ratio of solvents (X3), and sonication time (X4), as independent variables, each at three levels. Entrapment efficiency (Y1 and Y2) and flux (Y3 and Y4) of PIO and EM, respectively, were selected as dependent variables. Among all the prepared formulations, one optimized formulation was chosen by the point prediction method and evaluated for drug-polymer compatibility, particle size, and surface charge analysis, followed by skin permeation and pharmacodynamic studies. The optimized nano-transferosomal gel (ONTF) showed all responses which confirm with the values predicted by the design. Pharmacodynamic studies showed improved and prolonged management of diabetes and hypertension in Wistar rats after the ONTF was applied, compared to oral and drug-loaded NT formulations. Results of the current study suggest that the development of such combinational delivery system can result in a rational therapeutic regimen for effective treatment of concomitant disease conditions of diabetic hypertensive patients.

Optimization of bilayer tablet manufacturing process for fixed dose combination of sustained release high-dose drug and immediate release low-dose drug based on quality by design (QbD)

A fixed dose combination (FDC) bilayer tablet, consisting of high-dose metformin HCl in a sustained release layer and low-dose evogliptin tartrate in an immediate release layer, was developed based on a quality by design (QbD) approach. To implement QbD approach, the bilayer tableting process parameters judged as high risk through risk analysis were optimized by a central composite face-centered design as a design of experiment (DOE) methodology. Using DOE, the optimized conditions of the tableting process for drug products that satisfy the established quality target product profiles were obtained. The content uniformity of low-dose evogliptin tartrate in the optimized bilayer tablet prepared on a large scale was confirmed by at-line transmittance Raman spectroscopy as a process analytical technology. In addition, the in vitro drug release and in vivo pharmacokinetic studies showed that metformin HCl and evogliptin tartrate in the bilayer tablet is bioequivalent to those of the respective reference drugs. Furthermore, the physicochemical stability of the optimized bilayer tablet during storage under long-term and accelerated conditions was also confirmed. Therefore, it can be concluded that the QbD approach is an effective way to develop a new FDC bilayer tablet that is easy to scale up for successful commercialization.

The "Early Treatment" Approach Reducing Cardiovascular Risk in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus From an Expert Panel Using the Delphi Technique

INTRODUCTION

There is no consensus on the optimal therapeutic approach to adopt in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study aimed to gather an expert consensus on the hypoglycemic treatment and CV risk management in patients with newly diagnosed T2DM through the Delphi methodology.

METHODS

To address this issue, a list of 30 statements concerning the definition of "early T2DM patient", early treatment, CV risk in T2DM, treat-to-benefit approach, and indications for treatment with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors was developed. Using a two-round Delphi methodology, the survey was distributed to 80 Italian diabetes specialists who rated their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was predefined as more than 66% of the panel agreeing/disagreeing with any given statement.

RESULTS

A total of 27/30 statements achieved consensus. A patient was defined as "early" according to pathophysiological or clinical interpretation, and/or the timing of the diagnosis. There was agreement on the importance to reach the lowest possible HbA1c level, since diagnosis, also using combination therapy with hypoglycemic drugs with a proven CV benefit. There was a consensus that a treat-to-benefit approach involves the addition of a glucose-lowering agent with proven CV benefits to metformin since diagnosis. The use of GLP-1RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors was considered a key strategy in this approach and the benefits were recognized also for patients with T2DM without established CVD. GLP-1RAs should be used at an earlier stage than SGLT2 inhibitors to prevent CVD, especially in patients with evidence of subclinical atherosclerotic disease.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi consensus recognized the importance to adopt a tailored hypoglycemic treatment of patients with T2DM according to their CVD risk and the key role of glucose-lowering agents with proven CV efficacy, GLP-1RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors, in the context of an early treat-to-benefit approach.

From glucose lowering agents to disease/diabetes modifying drugs: a "SIMPLE" approach for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

During the last decade we experienced a surge in the number of glucose lowering agents that can be used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes. Especially important are the discoveries that sodium glucose co-transporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) improve patients’ cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Accordingly, various medical associations have updated their guidelines for the treatment of diabetes in this new era. Though not agreeing on every issue, these position-statements generally share a detailed and often complex workflow that may be too complicated for the busy and overworked primary care setting, where the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes are managed in many countries. Other guidelines, generally those from the cardiology associations focus primarily on the population of patients with high risk for or pre-existing cardiovascular disease, which represent only the minority of patients with type 2 diabetes. We believe that we should re-define SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA as diabetes/disease modifying drugs (DMDs) given the recent evidence of their cardiovascular and renal benefits. Based on this definition we have designed a SIMPLE approach in order to assist primary care teams in selecting the most appropriate therapy for their patients. We believe that most subjects newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes should initiate early combination therapy with metformin and a prognosis changing DMD. The decision whether to use GLP-1 RA or SGLT2i should be made based on specific patient’s risk factors and preferences. Importantly, DMDs are known to have a generally safe side-effect profile, with lower risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, further promoting their wider usage. Early combination therapy with DMDs may improve the multiple pathophysiological abnormalities responsible for type 2 diabetes and its complications, thus resulting in the greatest long term benefits.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Early combination versus initial metformin monotherapy in the management of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: An East Asian perspective

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the East Asian population is characterized by phenotypes such as low body mass index, an index of β-cell dysfunction, and higher percentage of body fat, an index of insulin resistance. These phenotypes/pathologies may predispose people to early onset of diabetes with increased risk of stroke and renal disease. Less than 50% of patients with T2D in East Asia achieve glycaemic targets recommended by national or regional guidelines, which may be attributable to knowledge and/or implementation gaps. Herein, we review the latest evidence with special reference to East Asian patients with T2D and present arguments for the need to use early combination therapy to intensify glycaemic control. This strategy is supported by the 5-year worldwide VERIFY study, which reported better glycaemic durability in newly diagnosed patients with T2D with a mean HbA1c of 6.9% treated with early combination therapy of vildagliptin plus metformin versus those treated with initial metformin monotherapy followed by addition of vildagliptin only with worsening glycaemic control. This paradigm shift of early intensified treatment is now recommended by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. In order to translate these evidence to practice, increased awareness and strengthening of the healthcare system are needed to diagnose and manage patients with T2D early for combination therapy.

Efficacy of a Combination of Metformin and Vildagliptin in Comparison to Metformin Alone in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Multicentre, Retrospective, Real-World Evidence Study

BACKGROUND

Early use of combination therapy in diabetes patients may lead to sustained glycemic control and thereby reduce the progression of diabetic complications. Given the limitation of the traditional stepwise intensification strategy, early combination therapy can be an effective approach. Therefore, this study aims to assess the real-world efficacy of a combination of metformin and vildagliptin in comparison to metformin alone in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in India.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, non-interventional study based on electronic medical records (EMRs) of 2740 T2DM patients, retrieved from 2010 onwards from 22 diabetes centres across India. Adult drug naïve patients with a 5-year history of T2DM treated with either metformin or a combination of metformin and vildagliptin for at least 3 months were considered for this study. Efficacy assessment was done to evaluate the post-treatment HbA1c levels and patients requiring additional oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) at the time of follow-up visit. Patients were also analyzed for the occurrence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Out of the total, 2452 patients were in metformin only arm, and 288 patients were in metformin plus vildagliptin treatment arm. A more significant reduction in HbA1c level was observed in metformin plus vildagliptin arm than metformin only arm (median: -0.5% vs 0%, respectively; p<0.001). Patients requiring additional OAD at follow-up were significantly lesser in the metformin plus vildagliptin arm than the metformin only arm (15.6% vs 35.2%, respectively; p<0.001). The adverse events were comparable across the two arms, and commonly reported adverse events were giddiness, fatigue and gastric discomfort.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this EMR-based real-world study emphasizes the need for early initiation of combination therapy (metformin plus vildagliptin) over metformin monotherapy for achieving better glycemic control.

Amaranth, quinoa and chia bioactive peptides: a comprehensive review on three ancient grains and their potential role in management and prevention of Type 2 diabetes

Worldwide prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) has become a major concern with several implications for public health, economy, and social well-being, especially in developing countries. Conventional pharmacological management of T2D have proved effective, but possess underlying side effects, leading the scientific community to research alternative compounds that exert beneficial effects on current therapeutic targets of T2D. Bioactive peptides (BAPs) from food sources, have shown relative advantages in this matter, moreover, BAPs have proved to impart anti-diabetic activity through one or more mechanisms such as enzymatic inhibition of α-glucosidase, α-amylase and DPP-IV. Several plants and animal have been used as protein sources of anti-diabetic BAPs, in the sense of this matter, the pseudo-cereals amaranth and quinoa, along with the ancestral grain chia, have gained attention. Due, to their high protein content and balanced amino-acid composition, along with proved anti-diabetic features, the three seeds are top choices for the obtention of anti-diabetic BAPs. With a comprehensive overview of the most recent reported in silico and in vitro anti-diabetic studies in relation to biomarkers α-glucosidase, α-amylase and DPP-IV, the present review aims to examine the current knowledge of amaranth, quinoa and chia derived anti-diabetic BAPs and their effects on T2D therapeutic markers.

Evaluating the Evidence behind the Novel Strategy of Early Combination from Vision to Implementation

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex and progressive chronic disease characterised by elevating hyperglycaemia and associated need to gradually intensify therapy in order to achieve and maintain glycaemic control. Treating hyperglycaemia with sequential therapy is proposed to allow holistic assessment of the efficacy and risk-to-benefit ratio of each added component. However, there is an array of evidence supporting the scientific rationale for using synergistic, earlier, modern drug combinations to achieve glycaemic goals, delay the deterioration of glycaemic control, and, therefore, potentially preserve or slow down the declining β-cell function. Additionally, implementation of early combination(s) may lead to opportunities to combat clinical inertia and other hurdles to optimised disease management outcomes. This review aims to discuss the latest empirical evidence for long-term clinical benefits of this novel strategy of early combination in people with newly diagnosed T2DM versus the current widely-implemented treatment paradigm, which focuses on control of hyperglycaemia using lifestyle interventions followed by sequentially intensified (mostly metformin-based) monotherapy. The recent reported Vildagliptin Efficacy in combination with metfoRmin For earlY treatment of T2DM (VERIFY) study results have provided significant new evidence confirming long-term glycaemic durability and tolerability of a specific early combination in the management of newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients worldwide. These results have also contributed to changes in clinical treatment guidelines and standards of care while clinical implementation and individualised treatment decisions based on VERIFY results might face barriers beyond the existing scientific evidence.

Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Synopsis of the 2020 American Diabetes Association's Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes Clinical Guideline

DESCRIPTION

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) updates the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes annually to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested parties with evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

METHODS

To develop the 2020 Standards, the ADA Professional Practice Committee, comprising physicians, adult and pediatric endocrinologists, diabetes educators, registered dietitians, epidemiologists, pharmacists, and public health experts, continuously searched MEDLINE (English language only) from 15 October 2018 through August-September 2019 for pertinent studies, including high-quality trials that addressed pharmacologic management of type 2 diabetes. The committee selected and reviewed the studies, developed the recommendations, and solicited feedback from the larger clinical community.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This synopsis focuses on guidance relating to the pharmacologic treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes. Recommendations address oral and noninsulin injectable therapies, insulin treatment, and combination injectable therapies. Results of recent large trials with cardiovascular and renal outcomes are emphasized.

Xiaokeyinshui extract combination, a berberine-containing agent, exerts anti-diabetic and renal protective effects on rats in multi-target mechanisms

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Xiaokeyinshui (XKYS) formula, an anti-diabetic formula, was recorded in many ancient Chinese medical books. Xiaokeyinshui extract combination (XEC) originated from this ancient formula, consisting extracts of four herbal drugs, namely, Coptidis Rhizoma, Liriopes Radix, bitter melon, and Cassiae Semen.

OBJECTIVE

Therapeutic effects of Xiaokeyinshui extract combination (XEC) were assessed on diabetic rats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Herb extracts were prepared and mixed, yielding XEC. XEC were intragastrically given at doses of 260, 380 and 500 mg/kg/d to diabetic rats for 60 days. Anti-diabetic effects of XEC were studied, with measurement of body weight, and assessment of both glycemic control and lipid management. Measurement of oxidative stress and inflammatory cytokines were conducted in accordance to protocols of commercial kits. Parameters related to renal functions were also measured. Western blot (WB) analysis was performed to explore the anti-diabetic and renal protective mechanisms of XEC.

RESULTS

Compared to diabetic control, XEC exhibited significant effects in both glucose-lowering and lipid management (p < 0.01). Both oxidative stress and inflammatory cytokines were reduced after treatment of XEC for two months. In addition, XEC exhibited renal protective effects. WB analysis of liver tissue demonstrated that XEC achieved anti-diabetic effects through up-regulation of InsRα/IRS-1/PI3K/Akt/GLUT4 signaling pathway and phosphorylation of AMPK. In addition, renal protective effects were also achieved with down-regulation of RAGE and VEGF expressions in kidney.

CONCLUSIONS

XEC exerts promising anti-diabetic and renal protective effects on diabetic rats in multi-target mechanisms. XEC could be a satisfying alternative treating T2DM and preventing diabetic nephropathy.

Pharmacological treatment initiation for type 2 diabetes in Australia: are the guidelines being followed?

AIM

To determine the patterns and predictors of pharmacological treatment initiation for type 2 diabetes and whether treatment initiation is consistent with Australian clinical practice guidelines that recommend metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

Individuals aged 40-99 years initiating a non-insulin type 2 diabetes medication between July 2013 and February 2018 were identified from a 10% random national sample of pharmacy dispensing data. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the predictors of initiating sulfonylurea monotherapy, non-guideline monotherapy and combination therapy compared with metformin monotherapy. Predictors included age, sex, initiation year and comorbidities determined using the Rx-Risk comorbidity index.

RESULTS

Of the 47 860 initiators, [47% women, mean age 60.7 (sd 12.1) years], 85.8%, 4.6%, 1.9% and 7.7% received metformin monotherapy, sulfonylurea monotherapy, non-guideline monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. Increasing age was associated with increasing odds of initiating sulfonylurea monotherapy and non-guideline monotherapy. Combination therapy initiation was less likely in women (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69-0.79) and people with more comorbidities (e.g. OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.29-0.44 for seven or more comorbidities vs. no comorbidities) but more likely in congestive heart failure (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22-1.65), cerebrovascular disease (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.32-1.69) and dyslipidaemia (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.19-1.40).

CONCLUSION

Treatment initiation in Australia is largely consistent with clinical practice guidelines, with 86% of individuals initiating metformin monotherapy. Initiation on combination therapy was more common in men and in those with fewer comorbidities.

A statistical model to identify determinants of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes with different pharmacotherapeutic profiles

AIM

To develop a statistical model to identify determinants of glycemic control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A database was extracted from patients' records with at least one glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) analysis and with antidiabetic therapy established and stabilized. A logistic regression model was designed to identify the statistical significance of factors associated with glycemic control.

RESULTS

Higher probability of success (HbA1c ≤8% [64 mmol/mol]) was found for those who were older in age, those who were men, and those with higher education levels. Increased values for the following variables were associated with the poorest glycemic control: number of years of T2DM since diagnosis, number of antidiabetic medicines, body mass index, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure and number of diabetes consultations in the last twelve months. The following pharmacotherapeutic treatments were associated with glycemic control (in decreasing order of the results): oral antidiabetic drugs; oral antidiabetic drugs and insulin; insulin. Patients using metformin and a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors have a higher probability of success than do patients using metformin and a sulfonylurea, and patients using insulin and metformin have a higher probability of success than do patients using insulin alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Sociodemographic, clinical and therapeutic parameters can strongly affect glycemic control. Studies based on real-life patient data provide important information on the development of more effective glycemic control.

Intelligent therapeutic decision support for 30 days readmission of diabetic patients with different comorbidities

The significance of medication therapy in managing comorbid diabetes is vital for maintaining the overall wellness of patients and reducing the cost of healthcare. Thus, using appropriate medication or medication combinations will be necessary for improved person-centred care and reduce complications associated with diagnosis and treatment. This study explains an intelligent decision support framework for managing 30 days unplanned readmission (30_URD) of comorbid diabetes using the Random Forest (RF) algorithm and Bayesian Network (BN) model. After the analysis of the medical records of 101,756 de-identified diabetic patients treated with 21 medications for 28 comorbidity combinations, the optimal medications for minimizing the likelihood of early readmissions were determined. This approach can help for identifying and managing most vulnerable patients thereby giving room to enhance post-discharge monitoring through clinical specialist supports to build critical-self management skills that will minimize the cost of diabetes care.

Early Combination Therapy with Linagliptin and Metformin in People with Type 2 Diabetes Improves Glycemic Control to HbA1c ≤ 6.5% without Increasing Hypoglycemia: Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Clinical guidelines suggest a glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target of ≤ 6.5% for type 2 diabetes patients with short duration of disease, few comorbidities and/or long life expectancy-provided this goal can be achieved safely. We explored whether initial combination treatment with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin and metformin could provide better glycemic control (HbA1c ≤ 6.5%) than metformin alone without increasing hypoglycemia.

METHODS

We pooled and analyzed individual patient data from two randomized clinical trials of early combination therapy with linagliptin and metformin versus metformin monotherapy. The primary outcome in both trials was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. We evaluated the percentage of patients who achieved HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at week 24 and the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Most (> 70%) of the 1160 patients analyzed were treatment naive, and more than half had had diabetes for ≤ 1 year; mean baseline HbA1c was approximately 8.7%. Combination therapy with linagliptin and metformin resulted in more patients achieving HbA1c ≤ 6.5% than metformin alone, both for a metformin dose of 500 mg (40.1 vs. 22.9%, respectively, odds ratio [OR] 2.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-4.32) and 1000 mg (49.5 vs. 35.4%, respectively, OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.54-3.40). Hypoglycemia occurred in < 3% of patients, with a comparable incidence between treatment groups. Other adverse events were also balanced between groups.

CONCLUSION

Early combination treatment with linagliptin and metformin can improve the chances of achieving tight glycemic control (HbA1c ≤ 6.5%) without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or other adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00798161 and NCT01708902.

When does diabetes start? Early detection and intervention in type2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) is a progressive disease whose pathophysiological changes occur several years before its detection. An approach based on the pathophysiological development of DM2 and its complications emphasises the importance of early and intensive intervention, not only to prevent beta-cell dysfunction but also to act on the potential associated cardiovascular risk factors before reaching the blood glucose thresholds currently set for diagnosing DM2. In the field of recently diagnosed DM2, the VERIFY study has shown that early treatment combined with metformin-vildagliptin provides relevant improvements in long-term glycaemic control and can positively affect the disease's progression.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Therapeutic efficacy and safety of initial triple combination of metformin, sitagliptin, and lobeglitazone in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: initial triple study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of an initial triple therapy using metformin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor, and thiazolidinedione with a stepwise approach using sulfonylurea and metformin in new-onset, drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Among drug-naïve patients with 9.0%-12.0% glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) but no hyperglycemic symptoms, 100 subjects who started triple medications (metformin 1000 mg/day, sitagliptin 100 mg/day, and lobeglitazone 0.5 mg/day) were selected as an initial triple therapy group. Age and body mass index-matched subjects (n=100) who started glimepiride (≥2 mg/day with uptitration) and metformin (≥1000 mg/day with uptitration) were selected as a conventional therapy group. We investigated changes in HbA1c level, dynamic indexes for insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, and hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

After 12 months of treatment, HbA1c levels decreased significantly in both groups: from 10.7%±1.0% to 6.7%±1.3% in the triple group, and from 10.5%±1.0% to 7.3%±1.2% in the conventional therapy group. At 12 months, achievement of the HbA1c target (<7.0%) was higher in the triple group than in the conventional group (70% vs 52%, p<0.01). Dynamic indexes related to β-cell function and insulin sensitivity improved, and albuminuria reduced significantly only in the triple group. Hypoglycemia was more common in the conventional group.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial triple combination therapy with the DPP4 inhibitor, metformin, and thiazolidinedione showed a higher achievement of the target HbA1c goal with a lower risk of hypoglycemia, better restoration of β-cell function, and multiple metabolic benefits, implying durable glycemic control. This strategy may be useful for patients presenting with type 2 diabetes and high HbA1c levels.

Glycaemic durability of an early combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin versus sequential metformin monotherapy in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (VERIFY): a 5-year, multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Early treatment intensification leading to sustained good glycaemic control is essential to delay diabetic complications. Although initial combination therapy has been suggested to offer more opportunities than a traditional stepwise approach, its validity remains to be determined.

METHODS

Vildagliptin Efficacy in combination with metfoRmIn For earlY treatment of type 2 diabetes (VERIFY) was a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes conducted in 254 centres across 34 countries. The study consisted of a 2-week screening visit, a 3-week metformin-alone run-in period, and a 5-year treatment period, which was further split into study periods 1, 2, and 3. Patients aged 18-70 years were included if they had type 2 diabetes diagnosed within 2 years prior to enrolment, and centrally confirmed glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA_1c) of 48-58 mmol/mol (6·5-7·5%) and a body-mass index of 22-40 kg/m². Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio either to the early combination treatment group or to the initial metformin monotherapy group, with the help of an interactive response technology system and simple randomisation without stratification. Patients, investigators, clinical staff performing the assessments, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. In study period 1, patients received either the early combination treatment with metformin (stable daily dose of 1000 mg, 1500 mg, or 2000 mg) and vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily, or standard-of-care initial metformin monotherapy (stable daily dose of 1000 mg, 1500 mg, or 2000 mg) and placebo twice daily. If the initial treatment did not maintain HbA_1c below 53 mmol/mol (7·0%), confirmed at two consecutive scheduled visits which were 13 weeks apart, patients in the metformin monotherapy group received vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily in place of the placebo and entered study period 2, during which all patients received the combination therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time from randomisation to initial treatment failure, defined as HbA_1c measurement of at least 53 mmol/mol (7·0%) at two consecutive scheduled visits, 13 weeks apart from randomisation through period 1. The full analysis set included patients who received at least one randomised study medication and had at least one post-randomisation efficacy parameter assessed. The safety analysis set included all patients who received at least one dose of randomised study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01528254.

FINDINGS

Trial enrolment began on March 30, 2012, and was completed on April 10, 2014. Of the 4524 participants screened, 2001 eligible participants were randomly assigned to either the early combination treatment group (n=998) or the initial metformin monotherapy group (n=1003). A total of 1598 (79·9%) patients completed the 5-year study: 811 (81·3%) in the early combination therapy group and 787 (78·5%) in the monotherapy group. The incidence of initial treatment failure during period 1 was 429 (43·6%) patients in the combination treatment group and 614 (62·1%) patients in the monotherapy group. The median observed time to treatment failure in the monotherapy group was 36·1 (IQR 15·3-not reached [NR]) months, while the median time to treatment failure time for those receiving early combination therapy could only be estimated to be beyond the study duration at 61·9 (29·9-NR) months. A significant reduction in the relative risk for time to initial treatment failure was observed in the early combination treatment group compared with the monotherapy group over the 5-year study duration (hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·45-0·58]; p<0·0001). Both treatment approaches were safe and well tolerated, with no unexpected or new safety findings, and no deaths related to study treatment.

INTERPRETATION

Early intervention with a combination therapy of vildagliptin plus metformin provides greater and durable long-term benefits compared with the current standard-of-care initial metformin monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

FUNDING

Novartis.