Changing the treatment paradigm for type 2 diabetes

Exploring HbA1c variation between Australian diabetes centres: The impact of centre-level and patient-level factors

Background

Increasing global diabetes incidence has profound implications for health systems and for people living with diabetes. Guidelines have established clinical targets but there may be variation in clinical outcomes including HbA1c, based on location and practice size. Investigating this variation may help identify factors amenable to systemic improvement interventions. The aims of this study were to identify centre-specific and patient-specific factors associated with variation in HbA1c levels and to determine how these associations contribute to variation in performance across diabetes centres.

Methods

This cross-sectional study analysed data for 5,872 people with type 1 (n = 1,729) or type 2 (n = 4,143) diabetes mellitus collected through the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA). A linear mixed-effects model examined centre-level and patient-level factors associated with variation in HbA1c levels.

Results

Mean age was: 43±17 years (type 1), 64±13 (type 2); median disease duration: 18 years (10,29) (type 1), 12 years (6,20) (type 2); female: 52% (type 1), 45% (type 2). For people with type 1 diabetes, volume of patients was associated with increases in HbA1c (p = 0.019). For people with type 2 diabetes, type of centre was associated with reduction in HbA1c (p <0.001), but location and patient volume were not. Associated patient-level factors associated with increases in HbA1c included past hyperglycaemic emergencies (type 1 and type 2, p<0.001) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (type 2, p<0.001). Being a non-smoker was associated with reductions in HbA1c (type 1 and type 2, p<0.001).

Conclusions

Centre-level and patient-level factors were associated with variation in HbA1c, but patient-level factors had greater impact. Interventions targeting patient-level factors conducted at a centre level including sick-day management, smoking cessation programs and culturally appropriate diabetes education for and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may be more important for improving glycaemic control than targeting factors related to the Centre itself.

Challenge of diabetes mellitus and researchers’ contributions to its control

The aim of this review study was to assess the past significant events on diabetes mellitus, transformations that took place over the years in the medical records of treatment, countries involved, and the researchers who brought about the revolutions. This study used the content analysis to report the existence of diabetes mellitus and the treatments provided by researchers to control it. The focus was mainly on three main types of diabetes (type 1, type 2, and type 3 diabetes). Ethical consideration has also helped to boost diabetic studies globally. The research has a history path from pharmaceuticals of organic-based drugs to metal-based drugs with their nanoparticles in addition to the impacts of nanomedicine, biosensors, and telemedicine. Ongoing and future studies in alternative medicine such as vanadium nanoparticles (metal nanoparticles) are promising.

Kidney Disease in Diabetic Patients: From Pathophysiology to Pharmacological Aspects with a Focus on Therapeutic Inertia

Diabetes mellitus represents a growing concern, both for public economy and global health. In fact, it can lead to insidious macrovascular and microvascular complications, impacting negatively on patients' quality of life. Diabetic patients often present diabetic kidney disease (DKD), a burdensome complication that can be silent for years. The average time of onset of kidney impairment in diabetic patients is about 7-10 years. The clinical impact of DKD is dangerous not only for the risk of progression to end-stage renal disease and therefore to renal replacement therapies, but also because of the associated increase in cardiovascular events. An early recognition of risk factors for DKD progression can be decisive in decreasing morbidity and mortality. DKD presents patient-related, clinician-related, and system-related issues. All these problems are translated into therapeutic inertia, which is defined as the failure to initiate or intensify therapy on time according to evidence-based clinical guidelines. Therapeutic inertia can be resolved by a multidisciplinary pool of healthcare experts. The timing of intensification of treatment, the transition to the best therapy, and dietetic strategies must be provided by a multidisciplinary team, driving the patients to the glycemic target and delaying or overcoming DKD-related complications. A timely nephrological evaluation can also guarantee adequate information to choose the right renal replacement therapy at the right time in case of renal impairment progression.

Pathophysiology of Type 2 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (DM) in children is disturbingly increasing in parallel with the increasing childhood obesity. Better knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of type 2 DM in children is paramount to devise an effective management plan.

OBJECTIVE

Discuss the pathophysiology of type 2 DM in children and adolescents.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a comprehensive review of the literature on this topic. Type 2 DM in childhood is viewed as a continuum of insulin resistance (IR) which is determined by an underlying genetic predisposition, intrauterine environment, excessive food consumption, continued rapid weight gain, and poor lifestyle. Besides IR, this is compounded by multiple metabolic defects including β-cell dysfunction and inadequate insulin secretion, α-cell dysfunction, hyperglucagonemia and increased hepatic glucose production, lipotoxicity, inflammation, deficiencies in incretin production and action, and increased renal glucose reabsorption. The confluence of genetic and environmental factors underscores the complexity in disease progression.

CONCLUSION

A consistent single risk factor for type 2 DM is obesity and related IR and therefore it is essential to curtail the progression of obesity. It is important to investigate the role of stringent dietary and nutritional approaches, medications that enhance β-cell function and insulin sensitivity.

Integrating CHWs as Part of the Team Leading Diabetes Group Visits: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Study

Purpose The purpose of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of integrating Community Health Workers (CHWs) as part of the team leading diabetes group visits. Methods This was a randomized controlled study that integrated CHWs as part of the team leading diabetes group visits for low-income Hispanic adults (n = 50). Group visits met for 3 hours each month for a 6-month duration. Main measures included baseline and 6-month clinical outcomes (ie, A1C, lipids), concordance with 8 standard of care guidelines (ie, screens for cervical, breast, and colon cancer) from the US Preventive Task Force and American Diabetes Association, and participant acceptability. Results Compared to control participants, the intervention group resulted in significantly better clinical outcomes or guideline concordance for the following areas: target A1C levels, retinal eye exams, diabetes foot exams, mammograms, and urine microalbumin. Significantly more individuals in the control group gained weight, whereas a greater number of participants in the intervention group lost weight. Intervention participants found the group visits highly acceptable. Conclusions Integrating CHWs as part a comprehensive diabetes group visit program is a feasible and effective system-level intervention to improve glycemic control and achieve guideline concordance.

Effectiveness of the EMPOWER-PAR Intervention in Improving Clinical Outcomes of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The chronic care model was proven effective in improving clinical outcomes of diabetes in developed countries. However, evidence in developing countries is scarce. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of EMPOWER-PAR intervention (based on the chronic care model) in improving clinical outcomes for type 2 diabetes mellitus using readily available resources in the Malaysian public primary care setting.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, parallel, matched pair, controlled trial using participatory action research approach, conducted in 10 public primary care clinics in Malaysia. Five clinics were randomly selected to provide the EMPOWER-PAR intervention for 1 year and another five clinics continued with usual care. Patients who fulfilled the criteria were recruited over a 2-week period by each clinic. The obligatory intervention components were designed based on four elements of the chronic care model i.e. healthcare organisation, delivery system design, self-management support and decision support. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 6.5%. Secondary outcomes were the change in proportion of patients achieving targets for blood pressure, lipid profile, body mass index and waist circumference. Intention to treat analysis was performed for all outcome measures. A generalised estimating equation method was used to account for baseline differences and clustering effect.

RESULTS

A total of 888 type 2 diabetes mellitus patients were recruited at baseline (intervention: 471 vs.

CONTROL

417). At 1-year, 96.6 and 97.8% of patients in the intervention and control groups completed the study, respectively. The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of both groups were comparable. The change in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c target was significantly higher in the intervention compared to the control group (intervention: 3.0% vs.

CONTROL

-4.1%, P < 0.002). Patients who received the EMPOWER-PAR intervention were twice more likely to achieve HbA1c target compared to those in the control group (adjusted OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.34-3.50, P < 0.002). However, there was no significant improvement found in the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the EMPOWER-PAR intervention was effective in improving the primary outcome for type 2 diabetes in the Malaysian public primary care setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with: ClinicalTrials.gov.: NCT01545401 . Date of registration: 1st March 2012.

Linagliptin plus metformin in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycemia

OBJECTIVES

Few studies of oral glucose-lowering drugs exist in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with marked hyperglycemia, and insulin is often proposed as initial treatment. We evaluated the oral initial combination of metformin and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in this population.

METHODS

We performed a pre-specified subgroup analysis of a randomized study in which newly diagnosed T2D patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.5%-12.0% received linagliptin/metformin or linagliptin monotherapy. Subgroups of baseline HbA1c, age, body-mass index (BMI), renal function, race, and ethnicity were evaluated, with efficacy measured by HbA1c change from baseline after 24 weeks.

RESULTS

HbA1c reductions from baseline (mean 9.7%) at week 24 in the overall population were an adjusted mean -2.81% ± 0.12% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 132) and -2.02% ± 0.13% with linagliptin (n = 113); treatment difference -0.79% (95% CI -1.13 to -0.46, P < 0.0001). In patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9.5%, HbA1c reduction was -3.37% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 76) and -2.53% with linagliptin (n = 61); difference -0.84% (95% CI -1.32 to -0.35). In those with baseline HbA1c <9.5%, HbA1c reduction was -2.08% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 56) and -1.39% with linagliptin (n = 52); difference -0.69% (95% CI -1.23 to -0.15). Changes in HbA1c and treatment differences between the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups were of similar magnitudes to the overall population across patient subgroups based on age, BMI, renal function, and race. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.8% and 5.7% of linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin patients, respectively; no severe hypoglycemia occurred.

CONCLUSION

Linagliptin/metformin combination in newly diagnosed T2D patients with marked hyperglycemia was well tolerated and elicited substantial improvements in glycemic control regardless of baseline HbA1c, age, BMI, renal function, or race. Thus, newly diagnosed, markedly hyperglycemic patients may be effectively treated by combinations of oral agents.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT01512979.

Effectiveness of insulin therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System

AIMS

To identify HbA1c trajectories after the start of insulin treatment and to identify clinically applicable predictors of the response to insulin therapy.

METHODS

The study population comprised 1203 people with Type 2 diabetes included in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System (n = 9849). Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 40 years; initiation of insulin during follow-up after failure to reach HbA1c levels ≤ 53 mmol/mol (7%) with oral glucose-lowering agents; and a follow up ≥ 2 years after initiating insulin. Latent class growth modelling was used to identify trajectories of HbA1c . Subjects considered to be 'off target' had HbA1c levels ≥ 53 mmol/mol (7.0%) during one-third or more of the follow-up time, and those considered to be 'on target' had HbA1c levels ≥ 53 mmol/mol (7.0%) during less than one-third of the follow-up time.

RESULTS

Four HbA1c trajectories were identified. Most people (88.7%) were classified as having a stable HbA1c trajectory of ~57 mmol/mol (7.4%). Only 24.4% of the people were on target in response to insulin; this was associated with lower HbA1c levels and a higher age at the start of insulin treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Using latent class growth modelling, four HbA1c trajectories were identified. A quarter of the people starting insulin were on target. Low HbA1c levels and advanced age at the start of insulin therapy were associated with better response to insulin therapy. Initiating insulin earlier improves the likelihood of achieving and sustaining glycaemic control.

Impact of telephonic interviews on persistence and daily adherence to insulin treatment in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients: dropout study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of sequential telephonic interviews on treatment persistence and daily adherence to insulin injections among insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes patients initiated on different insulin regimens in a 3-month period.

METHODS

A total of 1,456 insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (mean [standard deviation, SD] age: 56.0 [12.0] years, 49.1% were females) initiated on insulin therapy and consecutively randomized to sequential (n=733) and single (n=723) telephonic interview groups were included. Data on insulin treatment and self-reported blood glucose values were obtained via telephone interview. Logistic regression analysis was performed for factors predicting increased likelihood of persistence and skipping an injection.

RESULTS

Overall, 76.8% patients (83.2% in sequential vs 70.3% in single interview group, (P<0.001) remained on insulin treatment at the third month. Significantly higher rate for skipping doses was noted in basal bolus than in other regimens (27.0% vs 15.0% for premixed and 15.8% basal insulin, respectively, P<0.0001). Logistic regression analysis revealed sequential telephonic interview (odds ratio [OR], 1.531; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.093-2.143; P=0.013), higher hemoglobin A1c levels (OR, 1.090; 95% CI, 0.999-1.189; P=0.049), and less negative appraisal of insulin therapy as significant predictors of higher persistence. Basal bolus regimen (OR, 1.583; 95% CI, 1.011-2.479; P=0.045) and higher hemoglobin A1c levels (OR, 1.114; 95% CI, 1.028-1.207; P=0.008) were the significant predictors of increased likelihood of skipping an injection.

CONCLUSION

Our findings revealed positive influence of sequential telephonic interview, although including no intervention in treatment, on achieving better treatment persistence in type 2 diabetes patients initiating insulin.

Development of a Cell-Based Fluorescence Polarization Biosensor Using Preproinsulin to Identify Compounds That Alter Insulin Granule Dynamics

Diabetes currently affects 9.3% of the U.S. population totaling $245 billion annually in U.S. direct and indirect healthcare costs. Current therapies for diabetes are limited in their ability to control blood glucose and/or enhance insulin sensitivity. Therefore, innovative and efficacious therapies for diabetes are urgently needed. Herein we describe a fluorescent insulin reporter system (preproinsulin-mCherry, PPI-mCherry) that tracks live-cell insulin dynamics and secretion in pancreatic β-cells with utility for high-content assessment of real-time insulin dynamics. Additionally, we report a new modality for sensing insulin granule packaging in conventional high-throughput screening (HTS), using a hybrid cell-based fluorescence polarization (FP)/internal FRET biosensor using the PPI-mCherry reporter system. We observed that bafilomycin, a vacuolar H(+) ATPase inhibitor and inhibitor of insulin granule formation, significantly increased mCherry FP in INS-1 cells with PPI-mCherry. Partial least squares regression analysis demonstrated that an increase of FP by bafilomycin is significantly correlated with a decrease in granularity of PPI-mCherry signal in the cells. The increased FP by bafilomycin is due to inhibition of self-Förster resonant energy transfer (homo-FRET) caused by the increased mCherry intermolecular distance. FP substantially decreases when insulin is tightly packaged in the granules, and the homo-FRET decreases when insulin granule packaging is inhibited, resulting in increased FP. We performed pilot HTS of 1782 FDA-approved small molecules and natural products from Prestwick and Enzo chemical libraries resulting in an overall Z'-factor of 0.52 ± 0.03, indicating the suitability of this biosensor for HTS. This novel biosensor enables live-cell assessment of protein-protein interaction/protein aggregation in live cells and is compatible with conventional FP plate readers.

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Purpose

The purpose of this review article is to provide guidance to clinicians and diabetes educators regarding the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as a therapeutic option for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

The PubMed database was searched through February 2015 to identify clinical trials and meta-analyses evaluating the use of the SGLT2 inhibitors canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin administered as monotherapy or in combination with other oral antidiabetes drugs or with insulin.

Results

SGLT2 inhibitors reduce hyperglycemia in an insulin-independent manner by inhibiting the reabsorption of glucose into the systemic circulation by the kidneys. In patients with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors provide consistent reductions in glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma and postprandial glucose, body weight, and blood pressure when used as monotherapy or in combination with other oral antidiabetes agents or with insulin. SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia, except when used with agents known to be associated with a higher risk of hypoglycemia, such as sulfonylureas or insulin.

Conclusions

The unique renal-specific mechanism of action and favorable efficacy and safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors support consideration of these antidiabetes agents as a treatment option for patients with T2DM.

China type 2 diabetes treatment status survey of treatment pattern of oral drugs users

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to investigate the current status of oral anti-diabetic drug (OAD) therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and influencing factors in a real-world setting in China.

METHODS

A total of 9872 outpatients with type 2 diabetes, who had received OADs (monotherapy or combination therapy) for at least 3 months were recruited in this study. Current antidiabetic treatment regimen and related clinical data were collected from medical records and analyzed.

RESULTS

The most common OADs in use were insulin secretagogues (70.2%) such as sulfonylureas (SUs; 42.7%) or glinides (27.5%), followed by metformin (53.7%), α-glucosidase inhibitors (35.9%), thiazolidinediones (17.2%), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (0.8%). Dual-drug combination therapy was more common (45.4%) than monotherapy (35.8%) and combination therapy with at least three drugs (17.0%). Patients on SU or glinide monotherapy were more likely to alter their treatment frequently (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% CI, 1.38-2.08; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The status of OAD use in China is varied with a majority of the patients altering their treatment regimen citing poor effectiveness. These observations from a real-world setting may serve as guidance for improving diabetes management in China.

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin compared with linagliptin monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia: a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel group, multinational clinical trial

AIMS

To evaluate glucose-lowering treatment strategies with linagliptin and metformin in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, a prevalent population for which few dedicated studies of oral antidiabetes drugs have been conducted.

METHODS

A total of 316 patients, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for ≤12 months and with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration in the range 8.5-12.0%, were randomized 1:1 to double-blind, free-combination treatment with linagliptin 5 mg once daily and metformin twice daily (uptitrated to 2000 mg/day maximum) or to linagliptin monotherapy. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c concentration from baseline at week 24 (per-protocol completers' cohort: n = 245).

RESULTS

The mean (standard deviation) age and HbA1c at baseline were 48.8 (11.0) years and 9.8 (1.1)%, respectively. At week 24, the mean ± standard error (s.e.) HbA1c decreased from baseline by -2.8 ± 0.1% with linagliptin/metformin and -2.0 ± 0.1% with linagliptin; a treatment difference of -0.8% (95% confidence interval -1.1 to -0.5; p <0.0001). Similar results were observed in a sensitivity analysis based on intent-to-treat principles: adjusted mean ± s.e. changes in HbA1c of -2.7 ± 0.1% and -1.8 ± 0.1%, respectively; treatment difference of -0.9% (95% CI -1.3 to -0.6; p <0.0001). A treatment response of HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 61 and 40% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively. Few patients experienced drug-related adverse events (8.8 and 5.7% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 1.9 and 3.2% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively (no severe episodes). Body weight decreased significantly with the combination therapy (-1.3 kg between-group difference; p =0.0033).

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin in initial combination with metformin in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, an understudied group, elicited significant improvements in glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia, weight gain or other adverse effects. These results support early combination treatment strategies and suggest that newly diagnosed patients with marked hyperglycaemia may be effectively managed with oral, non-insulin therapy.

Adherence to insulin treatment in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients initiated on different insulin regimens

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate adherence to insulin treatment in terms of treatment persistence and daily adherence to insulin injections among insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients initiating insulin therapy with basal (long acting), basal-bolus, and premixed insulin regimens in a tertiary endocrinology outpatient clinic.

METHODS

A total of 433 (mean age of 55.5±13.0 years; 52.4% females) insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients initiated on insulin therapy were included in this questionnaire-based phone interview survey at the sixth month of therapy. Via the telephone interview questions, patients were required to provide information about persistence to insulin treatment, self-reported blood glucose values, and side effects; data on demographics and diabetes characteristics were obtained from medical records.

RESULTS

Self-reported treatment withdrawal occurred in 20.1% patients, while 20.3% patients were nonadherent to daily insulin. Negative beliefs about insulin therapy (24.1%) and forgetting injections (40.9%) were the most common reasons for treatment withdrawal and dose skipping, respectively. Younger age (49.5±15.0 vs 56.4±12.0 years) (P=0.001) and shorter duration of diabetes (4.8±4.3 vs 8.8±6.3 years) (P=0.0008) and treatment duration (5.2±2.4 vs 10.7±2.4 months) (P=0.0001) were noted, respectively, in discontinuers vs continuers. Basal bolus was the most commonly prescribed insulin regimen (51.0%), while associated with higher likelihood of skipping a dose than regular use (61.3% vs. 46.0%, P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Persistence to insulin therapy was poorer than anticipated but appeared to be higher in patients with the basal bolus regimen. Negative perceptions about insulin therapy seemed to be the main cause for poor adherence in our cohort.

Adherence to premixed insulin in a prefilled pen compared with a vial/syringe in people with diabetes in Singapore

BACKGROUND

The real-world clinical effectiveness of exogenous insulin is limited by nonadherence. Various insulin delivery systems have been developed to help improve adherence, with prefilled pens gaining popularity among adult Singaporeans with diabetes. However, adherence to insulin in people with diabetes in Singapore and most of Asia has not been studied.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare adherence to premixed insulin formulated in a prefilled pen versus a vial/syringe and to identify predictors of adherence in 955 patients managed at the outpatient clinics of the largest acute care hospital in Singapore.

METHODS

In this retrospective longitudinal study, electronic medical and pharmacy refill records were used to determine adherence to insulin over 24 months, measured in terms of compliance and persistence. Compliance is expressed as the medication possession ratio (used as continuous and categorical variables), and persistence is reported as a dichotomous variable with a permissible refill gap of 30 days before discontinuation of therapy is considered. Multivariate linear or logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of adherence.

RESULTS

Compared with prefilled pen users, vial/syringe users were older (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [10.6] vs 62.4 [11.9] years; P = 0.032), and more were undergoing polypharmacy (69.6% vs 54.1%; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) medication possession ratio was comparable in vial/syringe versus prefilled pen users (83.8% [26.9%] vs 86.0% [23.2%]; P = 0.266). Prefilled pen users were more persistent with therapy compared with vial/syringe users (odds ratio = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.86) after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical covariates. Median time to discontinuation of therapy was comparable (vial/syringe vs prefilled pen: 409 vs 532 days; P = 0.076). Being managed by an endocrinologist and not receiving government subsidies were significant predictors of persistence.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other studies that found strong associations between adherence and insulin devices, the findings of this study suggest that persistence but not compliance varies by insulin device. The willingness to pay for health care, in addition to affordability, may affect insulin therapy adherence. Patients with uncontrolled diabetes due to suspected nonadherence may benefit from referral to a multidisciplinary care team comprising endocrinologists, diabetes nurse educators, dietitians, and allied health professionals. These findings are applicable to outpatients with similar demographic features managed at other acute care hospitals in Singapore. The impact of insulin devices on glycemic control needs to be investigated in future larger studies.

Physical exercise as therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Many studies have highlighted the importance of physical activity (PA) for health, and recent evidence now points to the positive improvements associated with exercise in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, few physicians are willing to prescribe exercise as a therapy for diabetic patients. In addition, there is a lack of information on how to implement exercise therapy especially in long-term exercise regimens. The purpose of this manuscript is to summarize standards of exercise therapy for patients with T2DM, both in terms of prescribing and monitoring, according to the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Diabetes Association guidelines. We present details of the exercise therapies used in long-term studies, describing how the parameters for exercise prescription were applied in clinical practice. These parameters are described in terms of frequency, intensity, duration, mode and rate of progression in long-term therapeutic prescriptions. Individual responses to exercise dose are discussed, and critical issues to be considered in patients with underlying disease and in T2DM patients are highlighted.

Clinical inertia in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study of more than 80,000 people

OBJECTIVE

To determine time to treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes treated with one, two, or three oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) and associated levels of glycemic control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study based on 81,573 people with type 2 diabetes in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink between January 2004 and December 2006, with follow-up until April 2011.

RESULTS

In people with HbA1c ≥7.0, ≥7.5, or ≥8.0% (≥53, ≥58, or ≥64 mmol/mol), median time from above HbA1c cutoff to intensification with an additional OAD was 2.9, 1.9, or 1.6 years, respectively, for those taking one OAD and >7.2, >7.2, and >6.9 years for those taking two OADs. Median time to intensification with insulin was >7.1, >6.1, or 6.0 years for those taking one, two, or three OADs. Mean HbA1c at intensification with an OAD or insulin for people taking one, two, or three OADs was 8.7, 9.1, and 9.7%. In patients taking one, two, or three OADs, median time from treatment initiation to intensification with an OAD or insulin exceeded the maximum follow-up time of 7.2 years. The probability of patients with poor glycemic control taking one, two, or three OADs, intensifying at end of follow-up with an OAD, was 21.1-43.6% and with insulin 5.1-12.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

There are delays in treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes despite suboptimal glycemic control. A substantial proportion of people remain in poor glycemic control for several years before intensification with OADs and insulin.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin versus metformin up-titration in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: study design and rationale of the vision study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Limitations of the currently recommended stepwise treatment pathway for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), especially the failure of monotherapies to maintain good glycemic control, have prompted use of early, more aggressive combination therapies.The VISION study is designed to explore the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as an add-on to metformin therapy compared with up-titration of metformin monotherapy in Chinese patients with T2DM.

METHODS

VISION, a 24-week, phase 4, prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group study, will include 3312 Chinese T2DM patients aged ≥18 years who are inadequately controlled (6.5% >HbA1c ≤9%) by metformin (750-1000 mg/day). Eligible patients will be randomized to receive either vildagliptin plus metformin or up-titration of metformin monotherapy (5:1). Patients will also be subgrouped (1:1:1:1) based on their age and body mass index (BMI): <60 years and <24 kg/m²; <60 years and ≥24 kg/m²; ≥60 years and <24 kg/m²; and ≥60 years and ≥24 kg/m².

CONCLUSION

The VISION study will test the hypothesis that early use of combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin will provide good glycemic control and will be better tolerated than up-titration of metformin monotherapy. The study will also correlate these benefits with age and BMI.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily versus 5 mg once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is often not achieved or not sustained using monotherapy such as metformin, necessitating the addition of other antihyperglycaemic agents. Linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is licensed for 5 mg once-daily dosing. As metformin is administered twice daily, a fixed-dose combination of these compounds would require twice-daily administration of linagliptin. This study evaluated whether 2.5 mg twice-daily dosing of linagliptin has comparable efficacy and safety to 5 mg once-daily dosing when given in addition to metformin twice daily in patients with inadequate glycaemic control.

METHODS

A total of 491 T2DM patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0-10.0% were randomised (5:5:1) to double-blind treatment with linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily, 5 mg once daily or placebo, respectively, in addition to continuing metformin twice daily (≥1500 mg/day or maximally tolerated dose). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c after 12 weeks. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01012037.

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA1c for all patients was 7.97%. After 12 weeks, linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily and 5 mg once daily both significantly reduced HbA1c (placebo-adjusted changes from baseline -0.74% (95% CI -0.97, -0.52) and -0.80% (95% CI -1.02, -0.58), respectively, both p<0.0001). The treatment difference (twice daily-once daily) between the linagliptin regimens was 0.06 (95% CI -0.07, 0.19), the upper bound of which was less than the predefined noninferiority margin (0.35%). The overall incidence of adverse events with linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily, 5 mg once daily and placebo was 43.0%, 34.8%, and 38.6% respectively. Hypoglycaemia was rare (3.1% with linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily, 0.9% with 5 mg once daily, 2.3% with placebo) with no severe episodes. Study limitations include duration, patient population (mainly white) and absence of postprandial glucose data.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily had non-inferior HbA1c-lowering effects after 12 weeks compared to 5 mg once daily, with comparable safety and tolerability, in T2DM patients inadequately controlled with metformin.

Acute and chronic administration of SHR117887, a novel and specific dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, improves metabolic control in diabetic rodent models

AIM

Dipeptidyl deptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a new class of anti-diabetic agents. The purpose of this study was to assess the acute and chronic effects of SHR117887, a novel DPP-4 inhibitor, on metabolic control and pancreatic β-cell function in normal or diabetic rodent models.

METHODS

In the acute experiments, ICR mice, diet-induced obese (DIO) rats and ob/ob mice were subjected to an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) following a single oral administration of SHR117887 (0.1, 0.3, 1 or 3 mg/kg). Blood samples were collected to measure glucose, insulin, DPP-4 activity and active GLP-1 level. In the chronic experiments, ob/ob mice was administered SHR117887 (3, 10 or 30 mg/kg) twice daily for 33 d to assess the effects on metabolic control and pancreatic β-cell function. Vildagliptin (LAF237) was used as a positive control in all the experiments.

RESULTS

Acute oral administration of SHR117887 dose-dependently decreased the serum DPP-4 activity and improved glucose tolerance in ICR mice, DIO rats and ob/ob mice. This was accompanied by significant increases in the serum active GLP-1 and insulin levels. Chronic administration of SHR117887 significantly decreased fasting blood glucose level and improved the lipid profiles in ob/ob mice by reducing the serum triglyceride and free fatty acid levels, and its efficacy was comparable with that of vildagliptin at the same molarity. Moreover, chronic administration of SHR117887 increased the insulin staining of islet cells, which is suggestive of improved β-cell function.

CONCLUSION

SHR117887 is a potent DPP-4 inhibitor that improves metabolic control and β-cell function in diabetic rodent models, suggesting that it could be a new therapeutic agent for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin improves glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus metformin versus linagliptin or metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial, 791 patients were randomized to one of six treatment arms. Two free combination therapy arms received linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily (bid) + either low (500 mg) or high (1000 mg) dose metformin bid. Four monotherapy arms received linagliptin 5 mg once daily, metformin 500 mg or 1000 mg bid or placebo. Patients with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥11.0% were not eligible for randomization and received open-label linagliptin + high-dose metformin.

RESULTS

The placebo-corrected mean (95% confidence interval) change in HbA1c from baseline (8.7%) to week 24 was -1.7% (-2.0, -1.4) for linagliptin + high-dose metformin, -1.3% (-1.6, -1.1) for linagliptin + low-dose metformin, -1.2% (-1.5, -0.9) for high-dose metformin, -0.8% (-1.0, -0.5) for low-dose metformin and -0.6 (-0.9, -0.3) for linagliptin (all p < 0.0001). In the open-label arm, the mean change in HbA1c from baseline (11.8%) was -3.7%. Hypoglycaemia occurred at a similar low rate with linagliptin + metformin (1.7%) as with metformin alone (2.4%). Adverse event rates were comparable across treatment arms. No clinically significant changes in body weight were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus metformin was superior to metformin monotherapy in improving glycaemic control, with a similar safety and tolerability profile, no weight gain and a low risk of hypoglycaemia.

Insulin adherence behaviours and barriers in the multinational Global Attitudes of Patients and Physicians in Insulin Therapy study

AIMS

To examine patient and physician beliefs regarding insulin therapy and the degree to which patients adhere to their insulin regimens.

METHODS

Internet survey of 1250 physicians (600 specialists, 650 primary care physicians) who treat patients with diabetes and telephone survey of 1530 insulin-treated patients (180 with Type 1 diabetes, 1350 with Type 2 diabetes) in China, France, Japan, Germany, Spain, Turkey, the UK or the USA.

RESULTS

One third (33.2%) of patients reported insulin omission/non-adherence at least 1 day in the last month, with an average of 3.3 days. Three quarters (72.5%) of physicians report that their typical patient does not take their insulin as prescribed, with a mean of 4.3 days per month of basal insulin omission/non-adherence and 5.7 days per month of prandial insulin omission/non-adherence. Patients and providers indicated the same five most common reasons for insulin omission/non-adherence: too busy; travelling; skipped meals; stress/emotional problems; public embarrassment. Physicians reported low patient success at initiating insulin in a timely fashion and adjusting insulin doses. Most physicians report that many insulin-treated patients do not have adequate glucose control (87.6%) and that they would treat more aggressively if not for concern about hypoglycaemia (75.5%). Although a majority of patients (and physicians) regard insulin treatment as restrictive, more patients see insulin treatment as having positive than negative impacts on their lives.

CONCLUSIONS

Glucose control is inadequate among insulin-treated patients, in part attributable to insulin omission/non-adherence and lack of dose adjustment. There is a need for insulin regimens that are less restrictive and burdensome with lower risk of hypoglycaemia.

Factors associated with initiation of antihyperglycaemic medication in UK patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes

AIM

To assess the factors associated with antihyperglycaemic medication initiation in UK patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were identified during the index period of 2003-2005. Eligible patients were ≥ 30 years old at the date of the first observed diabetes diagnosis (referred to as index date) and had at least 2 years of follow-up medical history (N = 9,158). Initiation of antihyperglycaemic medication (i.e., treatment) was assessed in the 2-year period following the index date. Adjusted Cox regression models were used to examine the association between time to medication initiation and patient age and other factors.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) HbA1c at diagnosis was 8.1% (2.3). Overall, 51% of patients initiated antihyperglycaemic medication within 2 years (65%, 55%, 46% and 40% for patients in the 30- < 45, 45- < 65, 65- < 75, 75+ age groups, respectively). Among the treated patients, median (25th, 75th percentile) time to treatment initiation was 63 (8, 257) days. Of the patients with HbA1c ≥ 7.5% at diagnosis, 87% initiated treatment within 2 years. These patients with a higher HbA1c also had shorter time to treatment initiation (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.44 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.61, 3.70]; p < 0.0001). Increasing age (in years) was negatively associated with time to treatment initiation (HR = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.97, 0.99]; p < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with shorter time to treatment initiation included female gender and use of cardiovascular medications at baseline or initiated during follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this UK cohort of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, only 51% had antihyperglycaemic medication initiated over a 2-year period following diagnosis. Older patients were significantly less likely to have been prescribed antihyperglycaemic medications. Elevated HbA1c was the strongest factor associated with initiating antihyperglycaemic medication in these patients.

Pharmacology of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: similarities and differences

The dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors, which enhance glucose-dependent insulin secretion from pancreatic β cells by preventing DPP-4-mediated degradation of endogenously released incretin hormones, represent a new therapeutic approach to the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The 'first-in-class' DPP-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, was approved in 2006; it was followed by vildagliptin (available in the EU and many other countries since 2007, although approval in the US is still pending), saxagliptin (in 2009), alogliptin (in 2010, presently only in Japan) and linagliptin, which was approved in the US in May 2011 and is undergoing regulatory review in Japan and the EU. As the number of DPP-4 inhibitors on the market increases, potential differences among the different members of the class become important when deciding which agent is best suited for an individual patient. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive and updated comparison of the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of DPP-4 inhibitors, and to pinpoint pharmacological differences of potential interest for their use in therapy. Despite their common mechanism of action, these agents show significant structural heterogeneity that could translate into different pharmacological properties. At the pharmacokinetic level, DPP-4 inhibitors have important differences, including half-life, systemic exposure, bioavailability, protein binding, metabolism, presence of active metabolites and excretion routes. These differences could be relevant, especially in patients with renal or hepatic impairment, and when considering combination therapy. At the pharmacodynamic level, the data available so far indicate a similar glucose-lowering efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other hypoglycaemic drugs, a similar weight-neutral effect, and a comparable safety and tolerability profile. Data on nonglycaemic parameters are scant at present and do not allow a comparison among DPP-4 inhibitors. Several phase III trials of DPP-4 inhibitors are currently ongoing; these trials, along with post-marketing surveillance data, will hopefully increase our knowledge about the long-term efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibitor therapy, the effect on pancreatic cell function and peripheral glucose metabolism, and the effect on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Trends in the prevalence of chronic kidney disease, other chronic diseases and health-related behaviors in an adult Korean population: data from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES)

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an increasing public health problem. However, there have been limited data on the trend of CKD prevalence, along with the changes of health-related behaviors and other chronic diseases in an adult Korean population.

METHODS

Data from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2005 and 2007 were analyzed. The study subjects comprised 8400 participants aged ≥ 20 years with creatinine data. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 mL/min/1.73m(2). GFR was estimated by the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation.

RESULTS

The CKD prevalence was significantly decreased from 2005 to 2007 (8.8 versus 7.2%; P = 0.010). The prevalence of hypertension was stable but that of diabetes was increased. The proportion of blood pressure (BP) <130/80 mmHg in the whole population, and HbA1c <7% in the diabetic participants was increased from 2005 to 2007. Participants in 2007 walked more than those in 2005. The proportion of current smoking and sodium/energy/protein excess was decreased from 2005 to 2007. In subgroup analysis, only hypertensive participants without diabetes revealed a decreasing trend of CKD.

CONCLUSIONS

The CKD prevalence was decreased from 2005 to 2007. Since increased diabetes and improved diabetic control neutralized their impact on CKD, improved BP was the fundamental reason for the decrease. Various health-related behaviors may have indirectly affected the decrease of CKD through their effect in controlling BP and diabetes.