Effect of adjunct metformin treatment on levels of plasma lipids in patients with type 1 diabetes

Metformin-Induced Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 Inhibition Further Decreases Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Following Statin Treatment in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and Without Diabetes

ABSTRACT

In vitro investigations have established metformin's capacity to downregulate proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) expression, suggesting a potential beneficial effect on atherogenic lipoprotein particles when combined with metformin therapy. Our objective was to assess whether metformin could mitigate statin-induced adverse effects on PCSK9, thereby improving lipid profiles in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but without diabetes. Employing an open-label, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, we randomized patients with CAD but without diabetes into CLA (cholesterol-lowering agents alone: atorvastatin ± ezetimibe, n = 38) and Met + CLA groups (metformin plus CLA, n = 33) in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point was the therapeutic impact of 1-month metformin combination treatment on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and PCSK9 levels. Baseline LDL-C and PCSK9 levels were 76.18 mg·dL -1 and 80.54 ng·mL -1 , respectively. After 1 month, metformin significantly reduced LDL-C (-20.81%, P < 0.001), enabling 72% of patients to attain guideline-recommended LDL-C goals. Noteworthy reductions in PCSK9 levels (-15.03%, P < 0.001) were observed. Moreover, Met + CLA markedly reduced LDL particle number more than CLA alone (-10.65% vs. 1.45%, P = 0.009), primarily due to diminished small-dense LDL particle count. Mechanistically, our study demonstrated metformin's inhibition of statin-induced PCSK9 expression in human hepatocellular cells. In summary, a 1-month metformin combination regimen reduced LDL-C levels in patients with CAD but without diabetes by inhibiting PCSK9 expression.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry identifier: ChiCTR1900026925 (26/10/2019).

Effect of metformin adjunct therapy on cardiometabolic parameters in Indian adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Insulin resistance is being increasingly reported in type-1 Diabetes (T1D) and is known to accelerate microvascular complications. The Asian Indian population has a higher risk of double diabetes development compared to Caucasians. Hence, we studied the effect of adding Metformin to standard insulin therapy on glycemic control, insulin sensitivity (IS), cardiometabolic parameters and body composition in Indian adolescents with T1D.

Methods

A Randomized controlled trial was conducted spanning 9 months (Registration number:CTRI/2019/11/022126). Inclusion: Age 10-19 years, T1D duration>1year, HbA1c>8% Exclusion: Uncontrolled vascular complications/comorbidities, Metformin intolerance, concomitant drugs affecting insulin sensitivity. Participants were randomized to Metformin/Placebo (n=41 each) groups and age, sex, duration-matched. Assessments were performed at baseline, 3 and 9 months.

Results

82 participants aged 14.7 ± 3years (40 females) were enrolled, with a mean diabetes duration of 5.2 ± 2.3 years. Over 9 months, HbA1c decreased significantly by 0.8 (95% confidence interval: -1.2 to -0.3) from 9.8 ± 1.8% to 9.1 ± 1.7% on Metformin but remained largely unchanged (difference of 0.2, 95% confidence interval: -0.7 to 0.2) i.e. 9.9 ± 1.6% and 9.7 ± 2.2% on placebo. HbA1c improvement correlated negatively with baseline IS (EGDR:r= -0.3;SEARCH:r = -0.24, p<0.05) implying better HbA1c-lowering in those with decreased initial IS. CGM-based glycemic variability (standard deviation) reduced by 6.3 mg/dL (95% confidence interval: -12.9 to 0.2) from 100.2 ± 19.1 mg/dL to 93.7 ± 19.9 mg/dL in those on Metformin (p=0.05) but not placebo (94.0 ± 20.5; 90.0 ± 22.6 mg/dL). Insulin sensitivity: CACTIexa & SEARCH scores demonstrated no change with Metformin but significant worsening on placebo. Significant increase in LDL-C(42%), total cholesterol(133.6 to 151.1 mg/dL), triglyceride (60.0 to 88.0 mg/dL) and carotid intima-media thickness was noted on placebo but not Metformin. Weight, BMI, fat Z-scores increased significantly on placebo but not Metformin. Adverse events (AE) were minor; AE, compliance and safety parameters were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

Metformin as an adjunct to insulin in Asian Indian adolescents with T1D demonstrated beneficial effect on glycemic control, glycemic variability, IS, lipid profile, vascular function, weight and body fat, with a good safety profile when administered for 9 months.

Insulin Resistance in Adolescents and Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: A Review of Problems and Solutions

Though insulin resistance (IR) was previously considered a feature of only type 2 Diabetes (T2DM), its development in type 1 Diabetes (T1DM) is not an uncommon occurrence, the causes of which are multifactorial (gender, pubertal status, diabetes duration, ethnicity, genetics, adiposity, glycemic control, chronic inflammation). Despite improvements in glucose, blood pressure and lipid profile, vascular complications (coronary artery disease and nephropathy) continue to remain common causes of morbidity and mortality in T1DM. Aggressive glycemic control reduces but does not eliminate the risk of IR. IR accelerates the development of micro and macrovascular complications, many of which can be potentially reversed if diagnosed and managed early. Lack of endogenous insulin production makes estimation of insulin sensitivity in T1DM difficult. As hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp studies are cumbersome and invasive, the use of prediction equations for calculating estimated insulin sensitivity may prove to be useful. Along with intensive insulin therapy, dietary modifications and increasing physical activity, the role of Metformin in managing IR in T1DM is becoming increasingly popular. Metformin adjunct therapy in T1DM has been shown to improve insulin sensitivity, glycemic control, lipid profile, body composition, vascular smooth muscle function, thereby reducing the risk of vascular complications, as well as reversal of early vascular dysfunction. However, further studies to assess long-term efficacy and safety of Metformin use in adolescents and youth with T1DM are needed. This review aims at revisiting the pathophysiology of IR in T1DM and techniques of identifying those at risk so as to put into action various strategies for management of the same.

Effects of metformin on glycaemic variability in combination with insulin in overweight/obese patients with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of overweight and obesity in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) individuals is increasing. Overweight people with T1DM may be insulin resistant. Glycaemic variability (GV) is an emerging measure of glycaemic control. The aim of this study is to investigate whether metformin, in adjunct to insulin, would have any favourable effect on GV.

METHODS

This was a multi-centre, open-label randomised crossover study. Twenty-four overweight/obese T1DM patients aged ⩾18 years old with HbA1c ⩾ 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) were recruited and randomised into two study arms. For first 6-week, one arm remained on standard of care (SOC), the other arm received metformin, adjunctive to SOC. After 2-week washout, patients crossed over and continued for another 6 weeks. Glycaemic variability, other glycaemic parameters and metabolic profile were monitored.

RESULTS

There were significant reduction in metformin group for GV: mean (0.18 ± 1.73 vs -0.95 ± 1.24, p = 0.014), %CV (-15.84 (18.92) vs -19.08 (24.53), p = 0.044), glycemic risk assessment of diabetes equation (-0.69 (3.83) vs -1.61 (3.61), p = 0.047), continuous overlapping net glycaemic action (0.25 ± 1.62 vs -0.85 ± 1.22, p = 0.013), J-index (-0.75 (21.91) vs -7.11 (13.86), p = 0.034), time in range (1.13 ± 14.12% vs 10.83 ± 15.47%, p = 0.032); changes of systolic blood pressure (2.78 ± 11.19 mmHg vs -4.30 ± 9.81 mmHg, p = 0.027) and total daily dose (TDD) insulin (0.0 (3.33) units vs -2.17 (11.45) units, p = 0.012). Hypoglycaemic episodes were not significant in between groups.

CONCLUSION

Metformin showed favourable effect on GV in overweight/obese T1DM patients and reduction in systolic blood pressure, TDD insulin, fasting venous glucose and fructosamine.

A Pilot Study to Assess Effect of Metformin Therapy on Prevention of Double Diabetes in Indian Adolescents with Type-1 Diabetes

Introduction

Increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome in Indian adolescents owing to the obesity epidemic leads to double diabetes (DD), which is associated with an increased risk of complications in type-1 diabetes (T1D). Metformin may be a useful intervention for the prevention and treatment of insulin resistance in T1D. We conducted this pilot randomized controlled trial with the objective of investigating the effect of metformin on insulin sensitivity in Indian adolescents with T1D.

Method

This pilot randomized controlled trial was performed on 59 participants with T1D aged 10-19 years distributed uniformly by gender and puberty across two groups with a 3-month intervention period. The intervention group received metformin (weight less than 60 kg received 500 mg twice daily and more than 60 kg received 1 gm twice daily) and non-metformin group received standard of care for diabetes. Anthropometric, clinical details, biochemistry and insulin sensitivity indices (ISI) were evaluated using standard protocols at baseline and endline.

Result

22.2% of subjects from non-metformin group and 12.5% from metformin group were at the risk of the development of DD. The odds ratio and relative risk for the development of DD in non-metformin subjects were 2.0 and 1.4, respectively, as compared to participants in metformin group. The mean improvement in ISI ranged from 1.4% to 4.6% in participants on metformin as opposed to deterioration of -2% to -14.1% in non-metformin group. On performing the paired sample t-test, the reduction in ISI in non-metformin group was significant.

Conclusion

Metformin may prevent deterioration in insulin sensitivity in Indian adolescents with T1D.

A combination of metformin and insulin improve cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk factors in individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

This study aims to further clarify whether the addition of metformin to insulin treatment improve cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk factors in individuals with T1DM.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials in which the efficacy and safety of metformin were compared with those of a placebo for risk factors of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease among individuals with T1DM, and a meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Thirteen cardiovascular studies were identified. In the metformin group, mean carotid intimal media thickness was significantly reduced by 0.03 mm, ascending aortic pulse wave velocity by 6.3 m/s, descending aortic wall shear stress by 1.77 dyn/cm² (P = 0.02), insulin daily dose by 0.05 U/kg/d, body weight by 2.27 kg, fat-free mass by 1.32 kg, body mass index by 0.58 kg/m², hip circumference by 0.29 m, and low-density lipoprotein by 0.16 mmol/L, all above are P < 0.05. In the metformin group, flow-mediated dilation was increased by 1.29 %, glucose infusion rate/insulin by 18.22 mg/(kg⋅min)/μIU/μL, and waist-to-hip ratio by 0.02, all above are P < 0.00001. The metformin group showed no differences in blood pressure, reactive hyperemia index, waist circumference, triglyceride, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or body mass index Z score. For cerebrovascular studies were identified. But none of them had a risk factor assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin can ameliorate cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk factors through non-hypoglycemic multiple pathways in individuals with T1DM.

Glucose-Lowering Therapy beyond Insulin in Type 1 Diabetes: A Narrative Review on Existing Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials and Clinical Perspective

Background: In Type 1 diabetes (T1D), according to the most recent guidelines, the everyday glucose-lowering treatment is still restricted to the use of subcutaneous insulin, while multiple therapeutic options exist for Type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: For this narrative review we unsystematically screened PubMed and Embase to identify clinical trials which investigated glucose-lowering agents as an adjunct to insulin treatment in people with T1D. Published studies up to March 2022 were included. We discuss the safety and efficacy in modifying cardiovascular risk factors for each drug, the current status of research, and provide a clinical perspective. Results: For several adjunct agents, in T1D, the scientific evidence demonstrates improvements in HbA1c, reductions in the risk of hypoglycemia, and achievements of lower insulin requirements, as well as positive effects on cardiovascular risk factors, such as blood lipids, blood pressure, and weight. As the prevalence of obesity, the major driver for double diabetes, is rising, weight and cardiovascular risk factor management is becoming increasingly important in people with T1D. Conclusions: Adjunct glucose-lowering agents, intended to be used in T2D, bear the potential to beneficially impact on cardiovascular risk factors when investigated in the T1D population and are suggested to be more extensively considered as potentially disease-modifying drugs in the future and should be investigated for hard cardiovascular endpoints.

Benefits of metformin add-on insulin therapy (MAIT) for HbA1c and lipid profile in adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: preliminary report from a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Metabolic control during puberty is impaired in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) patients due to increased insulin resistance. Metformin is one of the oral medications typically used in type 2 diabetes mellitus to reduce insulin resistance. We aimed to examine the effect of metformin on glycemic indices and insulin daily dosage in adolescents with T1DM.

METHODS

The present clinical trial was carried out on 50 adolescents aged 10-20 years with T1DM referred to the Endocrinology Clinic of Mofid Children's Hospital in Tehran for nine months. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. In the first group, metformin was added to insulin therapy, while the second group continued routine insulin therapy combined with placebo. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), weight, BMI, insulin dosage, and blood pressure were measured at the beginning of the study and repeated every three months. Serum lipid profile, creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, and liver enzymes were also measured twice: At the beginning and end of the study (after nine months).

RESULTS

The HbA1c level (p<0.001) and insulin dosage (p=0.04) were lower in the metformin group than in the placebo group after nine months. Daily insulin dosage variability was significantly lower in the metformin recipient group (p=0.041). Serum triglyceride, cholesterol, and creatinine were significantly lower in the metformin arm than in the placebo arm (p<0.05). However, metformin did not affect LDL, HDL, liver enzymes, and BUN.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive metformin therapy reduces insulin dosage by inhibiting insulin resistance and weight gain. It helps decrease daily insulin dosage variability, which may prevent hypoglycemia. Also, metformin reduces creatinine, preventing renal failure in the long term.

Metformin and carotid intima-media thickness in never-smokers with type 1 diabetes: The REMOVAL trial

AIM

To determine whether metformin's effects on carotid artery intima-media thickness (cIMT) in type 1 diabetes differ according to smoking status.

METHODS

Regression model effect estimates for the effect of metformin versus placebo (double-blind) on carotid IMT were calculated as a subgroup analysis of the REMOVAL trial.

RESULTS

In 428 randomized participants (227 never-smokers, 201 ever-smokers), averaged mean carotid IMT progression (per year) was reduced by metformin versus placebo in never-smokers (-0.012 mm, 95% CI -0.021 to -0.002; p = .0137) but not in ever-smokers (0.003 mm, 95% CI -0.008 to 0.014; p = .5767); and similarly in non-current smokers (-0.008 mm, 95% CI -0.015 to -0.00001; p = .0497) but not in current smokers (0.013 mm, 95% CI -0.007 to 0.032; p = .1887). Three-way interaction terms (treatment*time*smoking status) were significant for never versus ever smoking (p = .0373, prespecified) and non-current versus current smoking (p = .0496, exploratory). Averaged maximal carotid IMT progression (per year) was reduced by metformin versus placebo in never-smokers (-0.020 mm, 95% CI -0.034 to -0.006; p = .0067) but not in ever-smokers (-0.006 mm, 95% CI -0.020 to 0.008; p = .4067), although this analysis was not supported by a significant three-way interaction term.

CONCLUSIONS

This subgroup analysis of the REMOVAL trial provides additional support for a potentially wider role of adjunct metformin therapy in cardiovascular risk management in type 1 diabetes, particularly for individuals who have never smoked cigarettes.

Age, sex, disease severity, and disease duration difference in placebo response: implications from a meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The placebo response in patients with diabetes mellitus is very common. A systematic evaluation needs to be updated with the current evidence about the placebo response in diabetes mellitus and the associated factors in clinical trials of anti-diabetic medicine.

METHODS

Literature research was conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published between the date of inception and June 2019. Randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in type 1and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) were included. Random-effects model and meta-regression analysis were accordingly used. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42014009373.

RESULTS

Significantly weight elevation (effect size (ES) = 0.33 kg, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.61 kg) was observed in patients with placebo treatments in T1DM subgroup while significantly HbA1c reduction (ES = - 0.12%, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.07%) and weight reduction (ES = - 0.40 kg, 95% CI, - 0.50 to - 0.29 kg) were observed in patients with placebo treatments in T2DM subgroup. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in patients with injectable placebo treatments (ES = - 0.22%, 95% CI, - 0.32 to - 0.11%) versus oral types (ES = - 0.09%, 95% CI, - 0.14 to - 0.04%) in T2DM (P = 0.03). Older age (β = - 0.01, 95% CI, - 0.02 to - 0.01, P < 0.01) and longer diabetes duration (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.03 to - 0.21 × 10^-2, P = 0.03) was significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T1DM. However, younger age (β = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.01), lower male percentage (β = 0.01, 95% CI, 0.22 × 10^-2, 0.01, P < 0.01), higher baseline BMI (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.04 to - 0.26 × 10^-2, P = 0.02), and higher baseline HbA1c (β = - 0.09, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.01, P = 0.02) were significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T2DM. Shorter diabetes duration (β = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01) was significantly associated with more weight reduction by placebo in T2DM. However, the associations between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response were insignificant after the adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The placebo response in diabetes mellitus was systematically outlined. Age, sex, disease severity (indirectly reflected by baseline BMI and baseline HbA1c), and disease duration were associated with placebo response in diabetes mellitus. The association between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response may be the result of regression to the mean.

Current status of metformin in addition to insulin therapy in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: An analysis from the Guangdong Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Translational Medicine Study

BACKGROUND

Limited data on the efficacy of the additional metformin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) under real-life conditions have been available so far.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years with a duration of T1DM for at least 1 year were included in this multicenter observational study. Patients with insulin combined with metformin therapy (MET group) were compared with those with insulin therapy only (INS group).

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients in the MET group were compared with 655 patients in the INS group. At baseline, patients with dyslipidemia were more prevalent in the MET group (17.6% vs 9.0%; P = .006), and they also had a higher body mass index (BMI) (21.7 ± 3.2 kg/m² vs 20.4 ± 2.6 kg/m² ; P < .001) than those in the INS group. But glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and daily insulin dose were not significantly different between the two groups. After 1-year follow-up, HbA1c decreased in both groups, while the daily insulin dose decreased in the MET group, but did not change in the INS group (-0.02 IU/kg [-0.16, 0.09] vs 0 IU/kg [-0.09, 0.09]; P = .029). The additional metformin therapy led to no change of BMI and weight in the MET group, while the body weight increased from 53.7 ± 8.6 kg to 55.0 ± 7.9 kg in the INS group (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin is initiated more in T1DM patients with dyslipidemia or higher BMI in current practice in China. The addition of metformin is effective in maintaining weight and reducing the insulin dosage without improving glycemic control in patients with T1DM.

Adjunct therapies in treatment of type 1 diabetes

In spite of developments with novel insulin preparations, novel modes of insulin delivery with insulin infusion pumps, and the facility of continuous glucose monitoring, only 20% of patients with type 1 diabetes are under adequate control. The need for innovation is clear, and, therefore, the use of adjunct therapies with other pharmacological agents currently in use for type 2 diabetes, has been tried. Currently, pramlintide is the only agent licensed for use in this condition in addition to insulin. Global trials have been conducted with liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), dapagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and sotagliflozin, an inhibitor of both SGLT1 and SGLT2 transporters. While dapagliflozin and sotagliflozin have now been licensed for clinical use in this condition in Europe and Japan, they have hitherto not been licensed in the United States due to a small increase in the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis. However, these agents reduce glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) by 0.4%, reduce glycemic oscillations, and do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia. Liraglutide, on the other hand, induced a smaller reduction in HbA1c and thus was not considered for a license. However, further trials are currently being conducted with a combination of semaglutide, the most potent GLP-1RA, and dapagliflozin to determine whether this approach would yield better outcomes.

Vascular and metabolic effects of metformin added to insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is increasing among youth worldwide, translating to an increased risk ofearly-onset cardiovascular disease (CVD). Mounting studies have shown that metformin may reduce maximal carotidintima-media thickness (cIMT), improve insulin resistance and metabolic control in subjects with T1DM, and thus, may extend cardioprotective benefits. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of metformin added to insulin therapy on reducing CVD risks and improving metabolism in T1DM.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared metformin and insulin combination (duration ≥3 months) to insulin treatment alone in T1DM. Data were expressed as weighted/standardized mean differences (MDs/SMDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs (n = 1540) met the eligibility criteria. Metformin treatment significantly reduced carotid artery intima-media thickness (MD -0.06 mm [95% CI -0.88, -0.28], P < .001). Though no significant difference was found in insulin sensitivity (SMD 2.21 [95% CI -1.88, 6.29], P = .29), the total daily insulin dosage (SMD -0.81 [95% CI -1.25, -0.36], P < .001) along with traditional CVD risk factors showed improvement by better glycaemic control, partial lipid profiles, diastolic blood pressure, and limited weight gain, with neutral effect on diabetic ketoacidosis, lactic acidosis, and hypoglycaemia. However, metformin therapy increased the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin with insulin has the potential to retard the progression of atherosclerosis and provides better metabolic control in patients with T1DM, and thus, providing a potential therapeutic strategy for patients with T1DM on reducing CVD risks.

Effect of metformin on glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

For type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients, adding metformin to insulin therapies is thought to improve blood glucose levels, but current evidence does not support this clinical benefit. Additional data from large clinical trials are now available; therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies on assessing the efficacy and adverse effects of metformin.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for data from randomized controlled trials. We performed statistical analyses by using Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials that compared metformin versus placebo met our inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The final meta-analysis included a total of 1183 participants with T1D. Metformin was associated with reductions in BMI (-1.14, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.24, P = .01), insulin requirements (-0.47, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.23, P = .0001), total cholesterol (-0.23, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.12, P < .0001), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.20, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.11, P < .0001) in T1D patients. No clear evidence indicated that metformin improved HbA1c, triglyceride, or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. A safety analysis showed that metformin slightly increased the risk of severe hypoglycaemia (1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.52, P = .05) and mainly gastrointestinal adverse events (2.67, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.45, P < .00001). No evidence showed that metformin increased diabetic ketoacidosis events.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, metformin was not associated with glycaemic control in T1D patients. Although it exhibited other benefits, such as lower BMI and reduced insulin requirements, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, negative outcomes, such as gastrointestinal adverse effects and severe hypoglycaemia, should also be considered in the use of metformin for T1D patients.

A Review of Insulin Resistance in Type 1 Diabetes: Is There a Place for Adjunctive Metformin?

There is a rising trend of overweight and obesity among individuals with type 1 diabetes. This is often associated with insulin resistance, increased insulin dose requirements and poor glycemic control. Insulin resistance is also seen during puberty and is strongly related to increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The role of metformin as an adjunct to ongoing intensive insulin therapy in type 1 diabetics has been evaluated in several randomized trials, including the recently concluded T1D Exchange Network trial in adolescents and the REMOVAL trial in adults. Metformin reduces the insulin dose requirement, insulin-induced weight gain, and total and LDL cholesterol, but results in an increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects and a minor increase in the risk of hypoglycemia. In addition, metformin has been shown to reduce maximal carotid intima media thickness and therefore may extend cardioprotective benefits in type 1 diabetes. The role of metformin as adjunctive therapy in type 1 diabetes needs to be explored further in outcome trials.

Recent Updates on Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Management for Clinicians

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a chronic autoimmune condition that requires life-long administration of insulin. Optimal management of T1DM entails a good knowledge and understanding of this condition both by the physician and the patient. Recent introduction of novel insulin preparations, technological advances in insulin delivery and glucose monitoring, such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring and improved understanding of the detrimental effects of hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia offer new opportunities and perspectives in T1DM management. Evidence from clinical trials suggests an important role of structured patient education. Our efforts should be aimed at improved metabolic control with concomitant reduction of hypoglycaemia. Despite recent advances, these goals are not easy to achieve and can put significant pressure on people with T1DM. The approach of physicians should therefore be maximally supportive. In this review, we provide an overview of the recent advances in T1DM management focusing on novel insulin preparations, ways of insulin administration and glucose monitoring and the role of metformin or sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in T1DM management. We then discuss our current understanding of the effects of hypoglycaemia on human body and strategies aimed at mitigating the risks associated with hypoglycaemia.

The effects of metformin in type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study investigated the effect of adding metformin to pharmacologic insulin dosing in type 1 diabetics on insulin therapy 1 year after treatment compared with patients on insulin therapy alone.

METHODS

Twenty-nine adults with type 1 diabetes who had metformin added to their insulin therapy for 12 months were compared with 29 adults with type 1 diabetes who remained on insulin-alone therapy.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients with C peptide negative-type 1 diabetics (26 females, mean age: 29.01 ± 7.03 years, BMI: 24.18 ± 3.16 kg/m2) were analyzed. Age, sex, body weight, insulin dose requirement, plasma glucose (PG), blood pressure (BP), and lipids did not differ between groups before treatment (p > 0.05). Metabolic syndrome (44.8 vs 41.4%, p > 0.05) did not differ between the metformin-insulin and insulin alone groups before treatment. Metabolic syndrome was more decreased in the metformin-insulin group than in the insulin alone group after treatment (-8.9 ± 1.3 vs. 2.5 ± 0.6%, p = 0.028). Insulin dose requirement was lower in the metformin-insulin group than in the insulin alone group (-0.03 vs. 0.11 IU/kg/d, p = 0.006). Fasting PG (-26.9 ± 54.2 vs. 0.7 ± 29.5 mg/dL, p = 0.022) and postprandial PG (-43.1 ± 61.8 mg/dL vs. -3.1 ± 40.1 mg/dL, p = 0.010) was more decreased in the metformin-insulin group than in the insulin alone group. Body weight, lipids, and HbA1c did not differ between the groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin decreased glucose concentrations, reduced metabolic syndrome, as well as insulin dose requirement more than insulin therapy alone, 1 year after treatment. These results were independent of blood lipid improvement or weight loss, although on average weight remained decreased with metformin-insulin therapy, whereas the average weight increased with insulin therapy alone.

Pharmacological Treatment in Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 - Insulin and What Else?

The basis of treatment in autoimmune diabetes is insulin therapy; however, many clinical cases have proven that this method does not solve all problems. Trials of causal treatment including blocking the autoimmune processes and insulin-producing cells transplants were carried out. Those methods require more research to be concerned as efficient and safe ways of treatment in type 1 diabetes. The use of non-insulin adjunct treatment is a new trend. It has been successfully used in laboratories as well as clinical trials. Metformin is the most widely used drug, together with sodium-glucose co-transporters 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, amylin analogues, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The results of administration of these medicaments give good outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus type 1. Most likely, in the near future, they will progressively be used in both adult and adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes. Further multicenter, randomized studies are required to evaluate the efficacy of treatment and long term safety of these drugs.

A new perspective on metformin therapy in type 1 diabetes

Metformin is quite frequently used off-label in type 1 diabetes to limit insulin dose requirement. Guidelines recommend that it can improve glucose control in those who are overweight and obese but evidence in support of this is limited. Recently-published findings from the REducing with MetfOrmin Vascular Adverse Lesions (REMOVAL) trial suggest that metformin therapy in type 1 diabetes can reduce atherosclerosis progression, weight and LDL-cholesterol levels. This provides a new perspective on metformin therapy in type 1 diabetes and suggests a potential role for reducing the long-term risk of cardiovascular disease.

Cardiovascular and metabolic effects of metformin in patients with type 1 diabetes (REMOVAL): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Metformin might reduce insulin requirement and improve glycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes, but whether it has cardiovascular benefits is unknown. We aimed to investigate whether metformin treatment (added to titrated insulin therapy) reduced atherosclerosis, as measured by progression of common carotid artery intima-media thickness (cIMT), in adults with type 1 diabetes at increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

REMOVAL was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial undertaken at 23 hospital diabetes clinics in five countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK). Adults aged 40 years and older with type 1 diabetes of at least 5 years' duration and at least three of ten specific cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned (via an interactive voice response system) to oral metformin 1000 mg twice daily or placebo. Participants and site staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was averaged mean far-wall cIMT, quantified annually for 3 years, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants with post-randomisation data available for the outcome of interest at any given timepoint, irrespective of subsequent adherence or study participation), using repeated measures regression. Secondary outcomes were HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), incident microalbuminuria (not reported), incident retinopathy, bodyweight, insulin dose, and endothelial function, also analysed in all participants with post-randomisation data available for the outcome of interest at any given timepoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01483560.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 14, 2011, and June 24, 2014, 493 participants entered a 3 month run-in to optimise risk factor and glycaemic control (single-blind placebo in the final month). Of 428 randomly assigned patients, 219 were allocated to metformin and 209 to placebo. Progression of mean cIMT was not significantly reduced with metformin (-0·005 mm per year, 95% CI -0·012 to 0·002; p=0·1664), although maximal cIMT (a prespecified tertiary outcome) was significantly reduced (-0·013 mm per year, -0·024 to -0·003; p=0·0093). HbA1c (mean 8·1% [SD 0·9] for metformin and 8·0% [0·8] for placebo at baseline) was reduced on average over 3 years by metformin (-0·13%, 95% CI -0·22 to -0·037; p=0·0060), but this was accounted for by a reduction at the 3-month timepoint (-0·24%, -0·34 to -0·13; p<0·0001) that was not sustained thereafter (p=0·0163 for visit-by-treatment interaction). Bodyweight (-1·17 kg, 95% CI -1·66 to -0·69; p<0·0001) and LDL cholesterol (-0·13 mmol/L, -0·24 to -0·03; p=0·0117) were reduced with metformin over 3 years of treatment, and eGFR was increased (4·0 mL/min per 1·73m2, 2·19 to 5·82; p<0·0001). Insulin requirement was not reduced on average over 3 years (-0·005 units per kg, 95% CI -0·022 to 0·012; p=0·545), but there was a significant visit-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0018). There was no effect on endothelial function as measured by reactive hyperaemia index, or on retinopathy. Discontinuation of treatment in 59 (27%) participants on metformin versus 26 (12%) on placebo (p=0·0002) was mainly due to an excess of gastrointestinal adverse effects, and there was no increase in hypoglycaemia with metformin. Five deaths occurred among patients allocated to metformin and two occurred among those allocated to placebo; none were judged by site principal investigators to be related to study medication.

INTERPRETATION

These data do not support use of metformin to improve glycaemic control in adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes as suggested by current guidelines, but suggest that it might have a wider role in cardiovascular risk management.

FUNDING

JDRF.

Klein B, Klein R, Ooi TC, Rossing P, Sattar N, Stehouwer CDA, Colhoun HM. Metformin in adults with type 1 diabetes: Design and methods of REducing with MetfOrmin Vascular Adverse Lesions (REMOVAL): An international multicentre trial

AIMS

Cardiovascular (CV) disease is a major cause of reduced life expectancy in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Intensive insulin therapy prevents CV complications but is constrained by hypoglycaemia and weight gain. Adjunct metformin reduces insulin dose requirement and stabilizes weight but there are no data on its cardiovascular effects. We have therefore initiated an international double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (REMOVAL: REducing with MetfOrmin Vascular Adverse Lesions in type 1 diabetes) to examine whether metformin reduces progression of atherosclerosis in adults with T1D. Individuals ≥40 years of age with T1D for ≥5 years are eligible if they have ≥3 of 10 specified CV risk factors. The enrolment target is 500 participants in 17 international centres.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After 12 weeks of single-blind placebo-controlled run-in, participants with ≥ 70% adherence are randomized to metformin or matching placebo for 3 years with insulin titrated towards HbA1c 7.0% (53 mmol/mol). The primary endpoint is progression of averaged mean far wall common carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) measured by ultrasonography at baseline, 12, 24 and 36 months. This design provides 90% power to detect a mean difference of 0.0167 mm in cIMT progression between treatment arms (α = 0.05), assuming that up to 20% withdraw or discontinue treatment. Other endpoints include HbA1c, weight, LDL cholesterol, insulin requirement, progression of retinopathy, endothelial function and frequency of hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSION

REMOVAL is the largest clinical trial of adjunct metformin therapy in T1D to date and will provide clinically meaningful information on its potential to impact CV disease and other complications.

Insulin resistance, role of metformin and other non-insulin therapies in pediatric type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in youth is a challenging chronic medical condition. Its management should address not only the glycemic control but also insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease risk factors which are increasingly recognized to be present in youth with TID. Current knowledge on the mechanisms of insulin resistance in T1DM is reviewed. The use of adjunctive therapies that are beneficial to achieve adequate glycemic control while mitigating the effects of insulin resistance are discussed with a focus on metformin therapy and an overview of other new pharmacologic agents.

Combined therapy with metformin and insulin attenuates systemic and hepatic alterations in a model of high-fat diet-/streptozotocin-induced diabetes

In this study we have explored the pathogenesis of the hepatic alterations which occur in diabetes and the modulation of these complications by the combination of metformin adjunct treatment and insulin monotherapy. For this purpose, diabetic rats were treated with insulin (DM + Ins) or metformin plus insulin (DM + Met + Ins). Biochemical and cardiometabolic parameters were analysed by spectrophotometry. Intravital microscopy was used to study the hepatic microcirculation. In the liver tissue, real-time PCR was used to analyse oxidative stress enzymes, inflammatory markers and receptors for advanced glycation end products (AGE) (RAGE) gene expression. Lipid peroxidation was assessed by thiobarbituric acid reactive species (TBARs) analyses. AGE deposition and RAGE protein expression were studied by fluorescence spectrophotometry and Western blot respectively. Body weight, %HbA1c , urea, total proteins and oxidative stress parameters were found to be similarly improved by insulin or Met + Ins treatments. On the other hand, Met + Ins treatment showed a more pronounced effect on fasting blood glucose level than insulin monotherapy. Fructosamine, uric acid, creatinine, albumin and amylase levels and daily insulin dose requirements were found to be only improved by the combined Met + Ins treatment. Liver, renal and pancreatic dysfunction markers were found to be more positively affected by metformin adjunct therapy when compared to insulin treatment. Liver microcirculation damage was found to be completely protected by Met + Ins treatment, while insulin monotherapy showed no effect. Our results suggest that oxidative stress, microcirculatory damage and glycated proteins could be involved in the aetiology of liver disease due to diabetes. Additionally, metformin adjunct treatment improved systemic and liver injury in induced diabetes and showed a more pronounced effect than insulin monotherapy.

Lipid effects and cardiovascular disease risk associated with glucose-lowering medications

Diabetes is a global epidemic, associated with a high burden of complications and 4.6 million deaths annually worldwide. As a result of decreasing levels of physical activity and increasing rates of obesity, diabetes is shifting from a disease affecting the elderly to one that affects younger patients or even children. Thus, aggressive treatment and optimal control of risk factors is the key to improve outcomes in those patients. Accumulating evidence of the cardiovascular and lipid effects of glucose-lowering medications suggest that treatment efficacy in diabetes can be further improved. This review provides an overview of the lipid effects and cardiovascular disease risk of current anti-diabetic medications and highlights opportunities and challenges in clinical practice.

Current use of metformin in addition to insulin in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: an analysis based on a large diabetes registry in Germany and Austria

BACKGROUND

With increasing obesity in childhood and adolescence, weight gain, and insulin resistance become also more frequent in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Especially during puberty, insulin therapy often has to be intensified and higher insulin doses are necessary. Some studies point to a beneficial effect of metformin in addition to insulin in these patients. In order to describe current practice and possible benefits, we compared pediatric T1DM patients with insulin plus metformin (n = 525) to patients with insulin therapy only (n = 57 487) in a prospective multicenter analysis.

METHODS

Auxological and treatment data from 58 012 patients aged <21 yr with T1DM in the German/Austrian Diabetes Patienten Verlaufsdokumentation (DPV) registry were analyzed by multivariable mixed regression modeling.

RESULTS

Patients with additional metformin were older [median (interquartile range)]: [16.1 (14.1-17.6) vs. 15.2 (11.5-17.5) yr] with female preponderance (61.0 vs. 47.2%, p < 0.01). They had higher body mass index-standard deviation score (BMI-SDS) [+2.03 (+1.29 to +2.56) vs. +0.51 (-0.12 to +1.15); p < 0.01] and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (9.0 vs. 8.6%, p < 0.01). Hypertension (43.7 vs. 24.8%) and dyslipidemia (58.4 vs. 40.6%) were significantly more prevalent. Adjusted insulin dose was significantly higher (0.98 vs. 0.93 IU/kg bodyweight). In a subgroup of 285 patients followed-up longitudinally (average treatment period 1.42 yr), addition of metformin resulted in a slight reduction of BMI-SDS [-0.01 (-2.01 to +1.40)], but did not improve HbA1c or insulin requirement.

CONCLUSION

Additional metformin therapy in T1DM is primarily used in obese females. Additional therapy with metformin was associated with minor benefits.

Effects of low dose metformin in adolescents with type I diabetes mellitus: a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Insulin resistance increases during adolescence in those with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), complicating glycemic control and potentially increasing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Metformin, typically used in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), is a possible adjunct therapy in T1DM to help improve glycemic control and insulin sensitivity.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that metformin would improve metabolic parameters in adolescents with T1DM.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial included 74 pubertal adolescents (ages: 13-20 yr) with T1DM. Participants were randomized to receive either metformin or placebo for 6 months. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), insulin dose, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), and blood pressure were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months, with fasting lipids measured at baseline and 6 months.

RESULTS

Total daily insulin dose, BMI z-score and waist circumference significantly decreased at 3 and 6 months compared to baseline within the metformin group, even among normal-weight participants. In the placebo group, total insulin dose and systolic blood pressure increased significantly at 3 months and total insulin dose increased significantly at 6 months. No significant change was observed in HbA1c at any time point between metformin and placebo groups or within either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose metformin likely improves BMI as well as insulin sensitivity in T1DM adolescents, as indicated by a decrease in total daily insulin dose. The decrease in waist circumference indicates that fat distribution is also likely impacted by metformin in T1DM. Further studies with higher metformin doses and more detailed measurements are needed to confirm these results, their underlying mechanisms, and potential impact on CVD in T1DM youth.

Efficacy and safety of metformin for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Insulin is an essential therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). With the progression of the disease, many patients with T1DM may have an increased prevalence of insulin resistance; thus the common standard insulin therapy requires a high insulin dosage (>1 unit/kg/day) and is usually associated with many side effects. Studies have shown that metformin may benefit those insulin-resistant individuals with T1DM. This meta-analysis was performed to provide the evidence of clinical efficacy and safety of metformin in T1DM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a search on Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published before May 2014 based on "metformin" and "diabetes mellitus, type 1." The following outcomes were evaluated: hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid metabolism, weight, insulin dosage, hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs). The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.2 software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark).

RESULTS

In total, eight randomized controlled trials were included. Metformin was associated with a reduction in daily insulin dosage, body weight, total cholesterol level, low-density lipoprotein level, and high-density lipoprotein level but an increase in risk of gastrointestinal AEs compared with placebo treatment in T1DM patients. No significant difference was found between the metformin group and the placebo group in HbA1c level, FPG level, or triglycerides level. No significant difference was found between the metformin group and the placebo group in the risk of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin may decrease the daily insulin dosage, body weight, and lipid levels in T1DM. However, metformin does not increase the incidence of hypoglycemia and ketoacidosis. High-quality, large-sample, and long-term follow-up clinical trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.

Alternative Agents in Type 1 Diabetes in Addition to Insulin Therapy: Metformin, Alpha-Glucosidase Inhibitors, Pioglitazone, GLP-1 Agonists, DPP-IV Inhibitors, and SGLT-2 Inhibitors

Insulin is the mainstay of current treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Due to increasing insulin resistance, insulin doses are often continually increased, which may result in weight gain for patients. Medications currently approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes offer varying mechanisms of action that can help to reduce insulin resistance and prevent or deter weight gain. A MEDLINE search was conducted to review literature evaluating the use of metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, pioglitazone, glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase, and sodium-dependent glucose transporter 2 inhibitors, in patients with T1DM. Varying results were found with some benefits including reductions in hemoglobin A1c, decreased insulin doses, and favorable effects on weight. Of significance, a common fear of utilizing multiple therapies for diabetes treatment is the risk of hypoglycemia, and this review displayed limited evidence of hypoglycemia with multiple agents.

The role of genetic factors and kidney and liver function in glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients on long-term metformin and sulphonylurea cotreatment

This study investigated the influence of genetic polymorphisms of metformin transporters on long-term glycemic control and lipid status in type 2 diabetes patients in the everyday clinical setting. In total 135 patients treated with combination of metformin and sulphonylurea for at least 6 months were genotyped for SLC22A1 rs628031 and SLC47A1 rs2289669 polymorphisms. Relatively good blood glucose control with median HbA1c 6.9 (6.4–7.6) % was achieved on prescribed metformin dosage of 2550 (2000–2550) mg per day. Only 28 (20.7%) patients experienced mild hypoglycemia events, while no severe hypoglycemia events were observed. Most patients had normal or mildly impaired renal function. Parameters indicating renal function were not correlated with fasting glucose, HbA1c, or lipid parameters. Rs628031 and rs2289669 had minor allele frequencies of 0.385 and 0.355, respectively, and were not associated with HbA1c levels. Rs628031 was marginally associated with risk for hypoglycemia events (P = 0.046; OR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.26–0.99), while significant correlation was observed between rs2289669 and total cholesterol levels (P = 0.018). In conclusion, in patients on long-term metformin and sulphonylurea combination treatment, metformin transporters polymorphisms do not play a major role in glycemic control; however, they may influence lipid status.

Metformin improves endothelial function in type 1 diabetic subjects: a pilot, placebo-controlled randomized study

AIMS

Several studies have investigated the effects of metformin treatment in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). No study has hitherto examined its effects on endothelial function in these patients. In this study we sought to evaluate the effect of metformin on endothelial function in type 1 diabetic patients.

METHODS

Forty-two uncomplicated T1DM patients were randomized in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, 6-month trial to treatment with either metformin or placebo. Glycometabolic and clinical parameters as well as flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and nitrate-mediated dilation (NMD) of the right brachial artery were measured at baseline and at the end of the study. Glycaemic variability (GV, calculated from continuous glucose monitoring data) and a biomarker of oxidative stress [urinary 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α (PGF2α)] were also assessed.

RESULTS

Baseline data were similar in the two groups. Compared with placebo, metformin significantly reduced body weight [-2.27 kg (95% confidence interval: -3.99; -0.54); p = 0.012] whilst improved FMD [1.32% (0.30; 2.43); p = 0.013] and increased PGF2α [149 pg/mg creatinine (50; 248); p = 0.004]. Notably, the improvement of FMD did not correlate with the decrease of body weight (r(2)  < 1%). NMD, haemoglobin A1c, GV, daily insulin dose and other parameters did not significantly change after the treatment comparing the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our pilot trial showed that, in uncomplicated type 1 diabetic subjects, metformin improved FMD and increased PGF2α, a marker of oxidative stress, irrespective of its effects on glycaemic control and body weight. Randomized, blinded clinical trials are needed to evaluate the benefits and risks of metformin added to insulin in type 1 diabetes.

Sitagliptin as add-on therapy in insulin deficiency: biomarkers of therapeutic efficacy respond differently in type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Background

Sitagliptin has been proven to be effective and safe as add-on to insulin in adult patients with type 2 diabetes and absolute insulin deficiency. Recently, it has been suggested to extend the use of dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors to type 1 diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of a long-term, fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin as add-on to insulin on body mass index, fasting plasma glucose, fructosamine, HbA_1c, lipids, and daily dose of insulin in both type 1 diabetes and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

Methods

We recruited 25 patients with type 1 diabetes (mean age 51 ± 10 years, mean disease duration 26 ± 13 years) and 31 insulin-treated type 2 diabetic patients (mean age 66 ± 8 years, mean disease duration 19 ± 9 years), who received sitagliptin with metformin as a fixed-dose combination (50/1000 mg once or twice daily) or sitagliptin (100 mg once daily, if intolerant to metformin) in addition to ongoing insulin therapy for 46 ± 19 weeks and 56 ± 14 weeks, respectively.

Results

After 21 ± 9 weeks, patients with type 1 diabetes had a significantly lower body mass index, fasting plasma glucose, fructosamine, HbA_1c, and daily insulin requirement. After 49 ± 17 weeks, they maintained their weight loss and total daily insulin dose and showed a significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, whereas their HbA_1c had returned to baseline values. In patients with type 2 diabetes, long-term treatment remained weight-neutral but had persistent beneficial effects on short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term biomarkers of metabolic control, as well as on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and insulin requirement.

Conclusion

Clinical outcomes differed according to type of diabetes in terms of quality and over time. In type 2 diabetes, the combination therapy significantly improved metabolic control and the lipid profile, and decreased insulin requirements, even in the absence of clinically significant weight loss. In type 1 diabetes, the combined therapy only temporarily improved metabolic control, but significantly decreased body weight, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and insulin requirements.

Effects of insulin and other antihyperglycaemic agents on lipid profiles of patients with diabetes

Increased morbidity and mortality risk due to diabetes-associated cardiovascular diseases is partly associated with hyperglycaemia as well as dyslipidaemia. Pharmacological treatment of diabetic hyperglycaemia involves the use of the older oral antidiabetic drugs [OADs: biguanides, sulphonylureas (SUs), α-glucosidase inhibitors and thiazolidinediones], insulin (human and analogues) and/or incretin-based therapies (glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors). Many of these agents have also been suggested to improve lipid profiles in patients with diabetes. These effects may have benefits on cardiovascular risk beyond glucose-lowering actions. This review discusses the effects of OADs, insulins and incretin-based therapies on lipid variables along with the possible mechanisms and clinical implications of these findings. The effects of intensive versus conventional antihyperglycaemic therapy on cardiovascular outcomes and lipid profiles are also discussed. A major conclusion of this review is that agents within the same class of OADs can have different effects on lipid variables and that contrary to the findings in experimental models, insulin has been shown to have beneficial effects on lipid variables in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to understand the precise effect and the mechanisms of these effects of insulin on lipids.

The use of metformin in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review of efficacy

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

As adding metformin to insulin therapy has been advocated in type 1 diabetes, we conducted a systematic review of published clinical trials and clinical trial databases to assess the effects on HbA(1c), weight, insulin-dose requirement and adverse effects.

METHODS

We constructed evidence tables and fitted a fixed-effects model (inverse variance method) in order to assess heterogeneity between studies and give a crude measure of each overall treatment effect.

RESULTS

Of 197 studies identified, nine involved randomisation with informed consent of patients with type 1 diabetes to metformin (vs placebo or comparator) in either a parallel or crossover design for at least 1 week. We noted marked heterogeneity in study design, drug dose, age of participants and length of follow-up. Metformin was associated with reductions in: (1) insulin-dose requirement (5.7-10.1 U/day in six of seven studies); (2) HbA(1c) (0.6-0.9% in four of seven studies); (3) weight (1.7-6.0 kg in three of six studies); and (4) total cholesterol (0.3-0.41 mmol/l in three of seven studies). Metformin was well tolerated, albeit with a trend towards increased hypoglycaemia. Formal estimates of combined effects from the five trials which reported appropriate data indicated a significant reduction in insulin dose (6.6 U/day, p < 0.001) but no significant reduction in HbA(1c) (absolute reduction 0.11%, p = 0.42). No reported trials included cardiovascular outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Metformin reduces insulin-dose requirement in type 1 diabetes but it is unclear whether this is sustained beyond 1 year and whether there are benefits for cardiovascular and other key clinical outcomes.