Search

Background: Both sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) may have neuroprotective effects in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, their comparative effectiveness in preventing dementia remains uncertain., Objective: To compare the risk for dementia between SGLT2 inhibitors and dulaglutide (a GLP-1 RA)., Design: Target trial emulation study., Setting: Nationwide health care data of South Korea obtained from the National Health Insurance Service between 2010 and 2022., Patients: Patients aged 60 years or older who have T2D and are initiating treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors or dulaglutide., Measurements: The primary outcome was the presumed clinical onset of dementia. The date of onset was defined as the year before the date of dementia diagnosis, assuming that the time between the onset of dementia and diagnosis was 1 year. The 5-year risk ratios and risk differences comparing SGLT2 inhibitors with dulaglutide were estimated in a 1:2 propensity score-matched cohort adjusted for confounders., Results: Overall, 12 489 patients initiating SGLT2 inhibitor treatment (51.9% dapagliflozin and 48.1% empagliflozin) and 1075 patients initiating dulaglutide treatment were included. In the matched cohort, over a median follow-up of 4.4 years, the primary outcome event occurred in 69 participants in the SGLT2 inhibitor group and 43 in the dulaglutide group. The estimated risk difference was -0.91 percentage point (95% CI, -2.45 to 0.63 percentage point), and the estimated risk ratio was 0.81 (CI, 0.56 to 1.16)., Limitation: Residual confounding is possible; there was no adjustment for hemoglobin A 1c levels or duration of diabetes; the study is not representative of newer drugs, including more effective GLP-1 RAs; and the onset of dementia was not measured directly., Conclusion: Under conventional statistical criteria, a risk for dementia between 2.5 percentage points lower and 0.6 percentage point greater for SGLT2 inhibitors than for dulaglutide was estimated to be highly compatible with the data from this study. However, whether these findings generalize to newer GLP-1 RAs is uncertain. Thus, further studies incorporating newer drugs within these drug classes and better addressing residual confounding are required., Primary Funding Source: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of South Korea., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-3220.

For type 2 diabetic patients, short acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) is often prescribed with frequent needled injections. Long-acting GLP-1 RA for less frequent injections do not mimic physiologic secretion of GLP-1. Therefore, an implantable pump is proposed in this work, which can deliver a short-acting GLP-1 RA, exenatide, without needles and batteries. The implanted pump can infuse an accurate amount of exenatide bolus only when a noninvasive magnetic force is applied from outside the body. The pump includes a safety feature of patterned magnets for actuation to prevent accidental infusion possibly caused by a general household magnet. The reservoir for exenatide is made of a flexible biomaterial and thus, a negative pressure build-up in the reservoir can be prevented even after multiple actuations and almost all drug consumption (~ 94%). This allows a reproducible drug dose for a longer period after implantation, hence less frequent replenishment procedures. The pump is also equipped with an intermediate container with two distinct check-valves and thus, the reservoir of exenatide can be further separated and better prevented from infiltration of the bodily fluid surrounding the implanted pump. When tested in Goto-Kakizaki rats, the pump demonstrates the efficacy of exenatide similar to conventional subcutaneous injections. Therefore, the pump can be promising for patient-friendly, optimal delivery of short-acting GLP-1 RA that better follows the physiologic secretion profile of GLP-1., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of adding basal insulin to initiating dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and metformin and/or sulfonylurea (SU) in achieving the target glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Methods: This was a single-arm, multicenter, 24-week, open-label, phase 4 study in patients with inadequately controlled (HbA1c ≥7.5%) T2DM despite the use of DPP-4 inhibitor and metformin. A total of 108 patients received insulin glargine while continuing oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c ≤7.0%. Other glycemic profiles were also evaluated, and the safety endpoints were adverse events (AEs) and hypoglycemia., Results: The median HbA1c at baseline (8.9%; range, 7.5% to 11.1%) decreased to 7.6% (5.5% to 11.7%) at 24 weeks. Overall, 31.7% subjects ( n =33) achieved the target HbA1c level of ≤7.0%. The mean differences in body weight and fasting plasma glucose were 1.2±3.4 kg and 56.0±49.8 mg/dL, respectively. Hypoglycemia was reported in 36 subjects (33.3%, 112 episodes), all of which were fully recovered. There was no serious AE attributed to insulin glargine. Body weight change was significantly different between SU users and nonusers (1.5±2.5 kg vs. -0.9±6.0 kg, P =0.011)., Conclusion: The combination add-on therapy of insulin glargine, on metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors with or without SU was safe and efficient in reducing HbA1c levels and thus, is a preferable option in managing T2DM patients exhibiting dysglycemia despite the use of OADs., Competing Interests: Sponsorship for this study and article processing charges was funded by Sanofi-Aventis Korea. Dol Mi Kim is an employee at Sanofi-Aventis Korea. No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported except for her., (Copyright © 2019 Korean Diabetes Association.)

Background and Objectives: Lilly insulin glargine (LY IGlar; Basaglar ® ) and the reference insulin glargine product (IGlar; Lantus ® ) are basal insulin glargine analogs with identical amino acid sequence and similar pharmacological profiles. ELEMENT 5, a Phase 3, prospective, randomized, multinational, two-arm, active-controlled, open-label, parallel-design study in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients (N = 493) showed similar efficacy and safety profiles with LY IGlar and IGlar. This study reports results from India (N = 100) and East Asia (N = 134) subpopulations., Methods: Patients from India and East Asia (Korea and Taiwan) with T2DM who were insulin naïve (glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 7.0% and ≤ 11.0%) or on basal insulin (HbA1c ≤ 11.0%) were randomized to receive LY IGlar or IGlar along with oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs) for 24 weeks. Patients were instructed to self-titrate from the starting dose by 1 unit/day until fasting blood glucose (FBG) ≤ 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) was achieved. The key outcome was HbA1c change from baseline to Week 24., Results: Within-group least-squares mean (LSM) decrease (baseline to Week 24) in HbA1c was similar between treatments. The upper limit of confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference was below the defined 0.4% noninferiority margin in India (LY IGlar: - 0.83%; IGlar: - 0.62%; difference [95% CI] - 0.21 [- 0.70, 0.28]) and East Asia (LY IGlar: - 1.28%; IGlar: - 1.26%; difference [95% CI] - 0.02 [- 0.34, 0.30]) subpopulations. Results of other efficacy and safety endpoints at Week 24 were similar between treatments in both subpopulations. LSM self-monitored FBG levels were similar between treatments at all visits in both subpopulations except at Week 24 in the India subpopulation (LY IGlar: 5.65 [0.10] mmol/L or 101.8 [1.86] mg/dL; IGlar: 5.18 [0.10] mmol/L or 93.3 [1.75] mg/dL; p = 0.002)., Conclusion: Efficacy and safety profiles of LY IGlar and IGlar, in combination with OAMs, were similar in India and East Asia subpopulations. This was consistent with the ELEMENT 5 total population., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02302716.

Background: Oral semaglutide is the first oral formulation of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of flexible dose adjustments of oral semaglutide with sitagliptin 100 mg., Methods: In this 52-week, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3a trial, we recruited patients with type 2 diabetes from 81 sites in ten countries. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older (19 years or older in South Korea), had type 2 diabetes (diagnosed ≥90 days before screening), HbA 1c of 7·5-9·5% (58-80 mmol/mol), and were inadequately controlled on stable daily doses of one or two oral glucose-lowering drugs (for 90 days or more before screening). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive web-response system, stratified by background glucose-lowering medication at screening, to oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustments to 3, 7, or 14 mg once daily or sitagliptin 100 mg once daily. To approximate treatment individualisation in clinical practice, oral semaglutide dose could be adjusted on the basis of prespecified HbA 1c and tolerability criteria. Two efficacy-related estimands were prespecified: treatment policy (regardless of treatment discontinuation or use of rescue medication) and trial product (on treatment and without use of rescue medication) for participants randomly assigned to treatment. The primary endpoint was achievement of HbA 1c of less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) at week 52 and the confirmatory secondary efficacy endpoint was change in bodyweight from baseline to week 52. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02849080, and European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT number 2015-005593-38, and an open-label extension is ongoing., Findings: Between Sept 20, 2016, and Feb 7, 2017, of 804 patients assessed for eligibility, 504 were eligible and randomly assigned to oral semaglutide (n=253) or sitagliptin (n=251). Most participants were male (285 [57%] of 504) with a mean age of 57·4 years (SD 9·9). All participants were given at least one dose of their allocated study drug except for one participant in the sitagliptin group. From a mean baseline HbA 1c of 8·3% (SD 0·6%; 67 mmol/mol [SD 6·4]), a greater proportion of participants achieved an HbA 1c of less than 7% with oral semaglutide than did with sitagliptin (treatment policy estimand: 58% [134 of 230] vs 25% [60 of 238]; and trial product estimand: 63% [123 of 196] vs 28% [52 of 184]). The odds of achieving an HbA 1c of less than 7% was significantly better with oral semaglutide than sitagliptin (treatment policy estimand: odds ratio [OR] 4·40, 95% CI 2·89-6·70, p<0·0001; and trial product estimand: 5·54, 3·54-8·68, p<0·0001). The odds of decreasing mean bodyweight from baseline to week 52 were higher with oral semaglutide than with sitagliptin (estimated mean change in bodyweight, treatment policy estimand: -2·6 kg [SE 0·3] vs -0·7 kg [SE 0·2], estimated treatment difference [ETD] -1·9 kg, 95% CI -2·6 to -1·2; p<0·0001; and trial product estimand: -2·9 kg [SE 0·3] vs -0·8 kg [SE 0·3], ETD -2·2 kg, -2·9 to -1·5; p<0·0001). Adverse events occurred in 197 (78%) of 253 participants in the oral semaglutide group versus 172 (69%) of 250 in the sitagliptin group, and nausea was the most common adverse event with oral semaglutide (53 [21%]). Two deaths occurred in the sitagliptin group during the trial., Interpretation: Oral semaglutide, with flexible dose adjustment, based on efficacy and tolerability, provided superior glycaemic control and weight loss compared with sitagliptin, and with a safety profile consistent with subcutaneous GLP-1 receptor agonists., Funding: Novo Nordisk A/S., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg with glimepiride in East-Asian patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D)., Materials and Methods: In this phase III, multinational, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel-arm, 26-week study, patients with inadequate glycaemic control were randomized 1:1:1 to once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 or 0.75 mg or daily glimepiride (1-3 mg/d). The primary endpoint was assessment of the non-inferiority of dulaglutide (1.5 mg), as measured by change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), compared with glimepiride using a 0.4% non-inferiority margin., Results: A total of 737 patients were randomized (dulaglutide 1.5 mg, n = 244; dulaglutide 0.75 mg, n = 248; glimepiride, n = 245). At week 26, both doses of dulaglutide were non-inferior and also superior to glimepiride for HbA1c reduction from baseline with a least squares mean difference of -6.34 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.31, -4.26) or -0.58% (95% CI -0.76, -0.39) for dulaglutide 1.5 mg and -3.50 mmol/mol (95% CI -5.47, -1.42) or -0.32% (95% CI -0.50, -0.13) for dulaglutide 0.75 mg (P < .001). A greater proportion of patients in the dulaglutide 1.5 mg group achieved the HbA1c target of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) compared with the glimepiride group (74.1% vs 57.4%; P < .001). The mean body weight decreased (P < .005) and total hypoglycaemia rates were lower (P < .001) in the dulaglutide groups compared with the glimepiride group. The most common drug-related adverse events in both dulaglutide groups (≥5% of patients) included diarrhoea, nausea, increased lipase, decreased appetite, abdominal distension and vomiting., Conclusions: Dulaglutide (both doses) demonstrated superior glycaemic control vs glimepiride, with a favourable tolerability and safety profile in East-Asian patients with T2D., (© 2018 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims/introduction: The combination of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors and α-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs) might provide an additive or synergistic glucose-lowering effect, as they have a complementary mode of action. In the present study, we examined the efficacy and safety of the addition of a DPP4 inhibitor to patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with an AGI., Materials and Methods: We carried out an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov through October 2016. Randomized controlled trials written in English that compared DPP4 inhibitors plus AGI (DPP4i/AGI) and placebo plus AGI (PCB/AGI) in patients with type 2 diabetes were selected. Data on the study characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted, and the risk of potential biases was assessed. The efficacy and safety of DPP4i/AGI and PCB/AGI were compared., Results: Of 756 potentially relevant published articles and 40 registered trials, five studies including 845 patients randomized to DPP4i/AGI and 832 patients randomized to PCB/AGI were included for meta-analysis. Compared with PCB/AGI, DPP4i/AGI showed a greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin (weighted mean difference -1.2%, 95% confidence interval -1.6 to -0.8), fasting plasma glucose and 2-h postprandial plasma glucose levels, with no increase in bodyweight. The risks of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were similar between DPP4i/AGI and PCB/AGI., Conclusions: The addition of a DPP4 inhibitor to patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with an AGI achieved better glycemic control without further increasing the risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia., (© 2017 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors have complementary mode of action. For the meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety between SGLT2 inhibitor plus DPP4 inhibitor (SGLT2i/DPP4i) and placebo plus DPP4 inhibitor (PCB/DPP4i) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), we selected randomized controlled trials from electronic databases by predefined criteria. The primary outcome of interest was the change in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline. Of 605 potentially relevant studies, 7 eligible RCTs comprising 2,082 patients were included.SGLT2i/DPP4i showed a greater reduction in HbA1c (weighted mean difference -0.6%, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.5%), fasting plasma glucose, 2 h postprandial plasma glucose, and body weight compared to PCB/DPP4i. The risk of hypoglycemia increased in SGLT2i/DPP4i compared to that in PCB/DPP4i only when insulin or sulfonylureas were included as a background therapy. The risk of urinary tract infection was not increased in SGLT2i/DPP4i; however, the risk of genital infection increased upon adding SGLT2 inhibitors to pre-existing DPP4 inhibitors. In conclusion, compared to PCB/DPP4i, SGLT2i/DPP4i achieved better glycemic control and greater weight reduction without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia and urinary tract infection in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM.

We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), or thiazolidinedione (TZD) as an adjunctive treatment in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on insulin therapy. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through April 2016. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed with covariate adjustment. The primary outcome was the change in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline. Fifty randomized controlled trials covering 15,494 patients were included. GLP-1RA showed the greatest HbA1c-lowering effect compared to the control (-0.84%; 95% credible interval, -1.00% to -0.69%), followed by TZD (-0.73%; -0.93 to -0.52%), SGLT2i (-0.66%; -0.84% to -0.48%), and DPP4i (-0.54%; -0.68% to -0.39%). SGLT2i showed the greatest fasting plasma glucose reduction. GLP-1RA and SGLT2i showed greater body weight reduction, whereas TZD increased body weight. TZD was ranked the highest in terms of insulin dose reduction. The risk of hypoglycemia was increased with TZD or GLP-1RA. The study provides the best available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of non-insulin anti-diabetic agents on top of pre-existing insulin therapy for inadequately controlled T2DM patients.

Aims/introduction: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors might have pleiotropic protective effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD), in contrast to sulfonylureas. Therefore, we compared various CVD risk factors between vildagliptin and glimepiride., Materials and Methods: We carried out a randomized, prospective and crossover trial. A total of 16 patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycated hemoglobin was >7% were randomized to add vildagliptin or glimepiride. After 12-week treatment, each drug was replaced with the other for another 12 weeks. Before and after each treatment, glucose homeostasis and CVD risk factors were assessed, and the continuous glucose monitoring system was applied to calculate glycemic variability., Results: The mean age of the participants was 60 years, 31% were men, body mass index 25.5 kg/m 2 and HbA1c 8.41%. Both vildagliptin and glimepiride significantly decreased glycated hemoglobin and glycemic variability indices. Despite the improved glucose homeostasis, favorable change of CVD markers was not prominent in both the arms, along with significant weight gain. Only plasma stromal cell-derived factor (SDF)-1α decreased by 30% in the vildagliptin arm. According to regression analyses, the reduction of SDF-1α was independently associated with vildagliptin usage and serum interleukin-6 changes, but white blood cells were not related with the SDF-1α changes., Conclusion: Compared with glimepiride, vildagliptin arrestingly decreased plasma SDF-1α, and its clinical implications should be further investigated., (© 2016 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Despite the rapidly increasing prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in type 2 diabetes (T2D), few treatment modalities are currently available. We investigated the hepatic effects of the novel thiazolidinedione (TZDs), lobeglitazone (Duvie) in T2D patients with NAFLD. We recruited drug-naïve or metformin-treated T2D patients with NAFLD to conduct a multicenter, prospective, open-label, exploratory clinical trial. Transient liver elastography (Fibroscan®; Echosens, Paris, France) with controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) was used to non-invasively quantify hepatic fat contents. Fifty patients with CAP values above 250 dB/m were treated once daily with 0.5 mg lobeglitazone for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was a decline in CAP values, and secondary endpoints included changes in components of glycemic, lipid, and liver profiles. Lobeglitazone-treated patients showed significantly decreased CAP values (313.4 dB/m at baseline vs. 297.8 dB/m at 24 weeks; P = 0.016), regardless of glycemic control. Lobeglitazone improved HbA(1C) values (7.41% [57.5 mM] vs. 6.56% [48.2 mM]; P < 0.001), as well as the lipid and liver profiles of the treated patients. Moreover, multivariable linear regression analysis showed that hepatic fat reduction by lobeglitazone was independently associated with baseline values of CAP, liver stiffness, and liver enzymes, and metformin use. Lobeglitazone treatment reduced intrahepatic fat content, as assessed by transient liver elastography, and improved glycemic, liver, and lipid profiles in T2D patients with NAFLD. Further randomized controlled trials using liver histology as an end point are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of lobeglitazone for NAFLD treatment., Competing Interests: Dr. Young Min Cho received a lecture fee and consultation fee from Astra-Zeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp and Dohme K.K., LG Life Sciences Ltd., and Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Background: Both sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors can be used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that is inadequately controlled with insulin therapy, and yet there has been no direct comparison of these two inhibitors., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2015. Randomized controlled trials published in English that compare SGLT2 inhibitor plus insulin (SGLT2i/INS) with placebo plus insulin or DPP4 inhibitor plus insulin (DPP4i/INS) with placebo plus insulin in patients with T2DM were selected. Data on the study characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted. We compared the efficacy and safety between SGLT2i/INS and DPP4i/INS indirectly with covariates adjustment. Risk of potential bias was assessed., Results: Fourteen eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 6980 patients were included (five SGLT2 inhibitor studies and nine DPP4 inhibitor studies). Covariate-adjusted indirect comparison using meta-regression analyses revealed that SGLT2i/INS achieved greater reduction in HbA 1c [weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.24%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.43 to -0.05%], fasting plasma glucose (WMD -18.0 mg/dL, 95% CI -28.5 to -7.6 mg/dL) and body weight (WMD -2.38 kg, 95% CI -3.18 to -1.58 kg) from baseline than DPP4i/INS without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia (relative risks 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.82)., Conclusions: Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors achieved better glycaemic control and greater weight reduction than DPP4 inhibitors without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia in patients with T2DM that is inadequately controlled with insulin. There has been no direct comparison of SGLT2 inhibitors and DPP4 inhibitors in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with insulin therapy. In this study, we performed indirect meta-analysis comparing SGLT2 inhibitors and DPP4 inhibitors added to insulin therapy. Without increasing hypoglycaemia, SGLT2 inhibitors showed better glycaemic control and greater weight reduction than DPP4 inhibitors in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with insulin. The results of the current study could serve as the best available evidence in selecting oral agents to improve glycaemic control in insulin-treated T2DM patients. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of the addition of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor or a placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with insulin., Methods: We searched randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the ClinicalTrials.gov online registry. Studies of at least 12week treatment duration were eligible if they were RCTs in patients with type 2 diabetes comparing addition of a DPP-4 inhibitor to insulin therapy (INS/DPP4i) with addition of a placebo to insulin therapy (INS/PCB) and contained information on the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline., Results: Of 3105 potentially relevant published articles and 206 registered trials, 9 studies were included for meta-analysis. Compared to INS/PCB, INS/DPP4i exhibited a greater reduction in HbA1c (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.58%; 95% CI -0.70, -0.46) and fasting plasma glucose (WMD -0.59mmol/L; 95% CI -0.79, -0.40) with less daily insulin doses (WMD -1.86IU; 95% CI -3.27, -0.45) and with no difference in weight gain (WMD -0.04kg; 95% CI -0.25, 0.16). The risk of hypoglycaemia was similar between INS/DPP-4i and INS/PCB (the RR in favour of INS/PCB was 0.94; 95% CI 0.84, 1.05)., Conclusions: Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors exhibit a better glycaemic control without further increasing the risk of weight gain and hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with insulin., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Although various basal-bolus insulin therapy (BBIT) protocols have been used in the clinical environment, safer and more effective BBIT protocols are required for glucose control in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Modeling approaches could provide an evaluation environment for developing the optimal BBIT protocol prior to clinical trials at low cost and without risk of danger. In this study, an in-silico model was proposed to evaluate subcutaneous BBIT protocols in hospitalized patients with T2D. The proposed model was validated by comparing the BBIT protocol and sliding-scale insulin therapy (SSIT) protocol. The model was utilized for in-silico trials to compare the protocols of adjusting basal-insulin dose (BBIT1) versus adjusting total-daily-insulin dose (BBIT2). The model was also used to evaluate two different initial total-daily-insulin doses for various levels of renal function. The BBIT outcomes were superior to those of SSIT, which is consistent with earlier studies. BBIT2 also outperformed BBIT1, producing a decreased daily mean glucose level and longer time-in-target-range. Moreover, with a standard dose, the overall daily mean glucose levels reached the target range faster than with a reduced-dose for all degrees of renal function. The in-silico studies demonstrated several significant findings, including that the adjustment of total-daily-insulin dose is more effective than changes to basal-insulin dose alone. This research represents a first step toward the eventual development of an advanced model for evaluating various BBIT protocols.

Previous observational studies have suggested that metformin in diabetes patients may reduce breast cancer risk more than the reductions from other anti-diabetes medications. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy of metformin for controlling physical and metabolic profiles related to prognosis and adverse events in non-diabetic breast cancer patients. Female breast cancer patients (N = 105), at least 6 months post-mastectomy, with obesity (≥25 kg/m(2)) and/or pre-diabetes (fasting blood sugar levels ≥100 mg/dL), were randomly assigned to three groups (placebo, metformin 500 mg, and metformin 1000 mg) stratified by tamoxifen use. A linear mixed model for repeated measurements among three groups and ANOVA for profile differences during 6 months of treatment were used for the intention-to-treat analysis. The metformin 1000 mg group had a significantly greater decline in glucose and HbA1c levels between treatment weeks 0 and 6 month (p = 0.008 and 0.009, respectively), and the declines increased with an increase in body mass index (BMI) level (p interaction with BMI = 0.007 and 0.067, respectively). A marginally significant different effect from the metformin 1000 mg treatment was detected for glucose and HbA1c levels (p interaction = 0.084 and 0.063, respectively) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Metformin 1000 mg treatment had a favorable effect on controlling glucose and HbA1C levels in obese non-diabetic breast cancer patients, indicating prognostic importance. Further trials are needed to elucidate the risk-benefit ratio of long-term use of metformin.

Objectives: We investigated the efficacy of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes for 4 years in clinical practice., Methods: Between 2009 and 2010, we reviewed 1,178 patients with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥7.5% or 58 mmol/mol) prescribed initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin. After excluding 288 patients without a second follow-up, 890 individuals (age, 58.0 ± 12.5 years; BMI, 25.4 ± 3.5 kg/m2; HbA1c, 8.6 ± 1.1%) were followed up with every 3-6 months for 4 years. Homeostasis model assessments for insulin resistance and β-cell function (HOMA-β) were recorded at baseline. The response criterion was HbA1c reduction by ≥0.8% from baseline or attainment of the target HbA1c (≤7.0% or 53 mmol/mol). At the end of every year of treatment, changes in HbA1c from the baseline were assessed., Results: After 1 year, 72.2% of patients with initial combination therapy had responded, defined as HbA1c reduction ≥0.8% or attainment of the target HbA1c ≤7.0%. After 4 years, 35.4% of the patients still showed a response, with an HbA1c level of 7.0 ± 0.9%. A high HbA1c level at baseline was the most significant independent predictor of the long-term response (P<0.001). In addition, low HOMA-β was a significant predictor of a greater reduction in HbA1c. This treatment was generally well tolerated over the 4-year follow-up period, without any serious adverse events., Conclusions: This real-world follow-up study shows a persistent glucose-reducing effect of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin for up to 4 years.

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of lobeglitazone and pioglitazone as add-ons to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients who were inadequately controlled by metformin were randomized and treated once daily with either lobeglitazone (0.5 mg, n = 128) or pioglitazone (15 mg, n = 125) for 24 weeks, with a 28-week extension trial of lobeglitazone treatment in patients who consented. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration from baseline to week 24. At week 24, the mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.74% for the lobeglitazone group and -0.74% for the pioglitazone group, with a mean difference of 0.01% [95% confidence interval (CI) of difference, -0.16 to 0.18]. The effects of lobeglitazone on lipid variables and the adverse events associated with lobeglitazone were similar to those observed with pioglitazone. Lobeglitazone was not inferior to pioglitazone as an add-on to metformin in terms of their efficacy and safety., (© 2015 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Objective: Gemigliptin is a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study evaluated possible pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions between gemigliptin and metformin and investigated their tolerability., Methods: A randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, three-treatment, three-period, three-sequence crossover study was conducted in healthy male subjects. Twenty-seven subjects received gemigliptin (50 mg once daily), metformin (1,000 mg twice a day), or both drugs for 7 days per dosing period. Blood samples were drawn over 24 h on the seventh day of each period for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluations, including plasma DPP-4 activity and total/active glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels. Meal tolerance tests were conducted for pharmacodynamic assessment on the eighth day. Safety and tolerability were evaluated using adverse events, vital signs, ECGs, and clinical laboratory tests., Results: Coadministration of gemigliptin and metformin had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of gemigliptin or metformin. The inhibition of DPP-4 by gemigliptin was not affected by coadministration with metformin. Co-therapy of gemigliptin and metformin showed additional effects by increasing plasma active GLP-1 concentrations and lowering serum glucose levels. The plasma glucagon level was lower in co-therapy than with metformin monotherapy. The coadministration of gemigliptin and metformin was well-tolerated without serious adverse events., Conclusions: Coadministration of gemigliptin and metformin showed beneficial anti-diabetic effects without pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions.

Objective: We assessed the predictive parameters for therapeutic efficacy of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin in drug-naïve type 2 diabetic patients. DeSIGN, PATIENTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: In this 52-week treatment study, 150 patients (mean age, 54·9 ± 12·5 years) with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c of 7·0-10% were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg once and metformin 500 mg twice daily. To assess the predictive parameters for therapeutic efficacy, a multivariate regression analysis was performed with baseline fasting glucose, insulin, C-peptide, and glucagon levels, homoeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and β-cell function (HOMA-B), insulinogenic index (IGI, defined as 30-0 min insulin/30-0 min glucose), and area under the curve for glucose, insulin, and C-peptide obtained after 75-g oral glucose tolerance test., Results: After 52 weeks, mean HbA1c levels and fasting and postload 2-h glucose were significantly decreased from 8·7 ± 1·4% to 7·2 ± 1·3%, 9·2 ± 3·0 to 7·2 ± 1·8 mm, and 17·5 ± 5·1 to 10·9 ± 3·6 mm, respectively (P < 0·01). HOMA-B and IGI increased significantly from 50·3 ± 33·5 to 75·1 ± 32·8 and from 11·3 ± 1·3 to 35·0 ± 6·3 at 52 weeks, respectively (P < 0·01). Multivariate regression analysis indicated that the reduction in HbA1c was significantly associated with high baseline HbA1c, low IGI, and short duration of diabetes after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, blood pressure, triglycerides, creatinine, high-sensitivity CRP, glucagon, C-peptide, HOMA-B, and HOMA-IR. No severe adverse events were observed., Conclusion: These results suggest that drug-naïve type 2 diabetic patients with low β-cell function would benefit the most from early initial combination therapy of sitagliptin and metformin., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Aims/hypothesis: IL-6 is a proinflammatory cytokine associated with the pathogenesis of hepatic diseases. Metformin is an anti-diabetic drug used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and orphan nuclear receptor small heterodimer partner (SHP, also known as NR0B2), a transcriptional co-repressor, plays an important role in maintaining metabolic homeostasis. Here, we demonstrate that metformin-mediated activation of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) increases SHP protein production and regulates IL-6-induced hepatic insulin resistance., Methods: We investigated metformin-mediated SHP production improved insulin resistance through the regulation of an IL-6-dependent pathway (involving signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 [STAT3] and suppressor of cytokine signalling 3 [SOCS3]) in both Shp knockdown and Shp null mice., Results: IL-6-induced STAT3 transactivation and SOCS3 production were significantly repressed by metformin, adenoviral constitutively active AMPK (Ad-CA-AMPK), and adenoviral SHP (Ad-SHP), but not in Shp knockdown, or with the adenoviral dominant negative form of AMPK (Ad-DN-AMPK). Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP), co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) and protein localisation studies showed that SHP inhibits DNA binding of STAT3 on the Socs3 gene promoter via interaction and colocalisation within the nucleus. Upregulation of inflammatory genes and downregulation of hepatic insulin signalling by acute IL-6 treatment were observed in wild-type mice but not in Shp null mice. Finally, chronic IL-6 exposure caused hepatic insulin resistance, leading to impaired insulin tolerance and elevated gluconeogenesis, and these phenomena were aggravated in Shp null mice., Conclusions/interpretation: Our results demonstrate that SHP upregulation by metformin may prevent hepatic disorders by regulating the IL-6-dependent pathway, and that this pathway can help to ameliorate the pathogenesis of cytokine-mediated metabolic dysfunction.

The two major deficits in type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance and impaired beta cell function, are often treated with metformin and incretin-based drugs, respectively. However, there may be unappreciated benefits of this combination of therapies. In this issue of Diabetologia, Maida et al. (doi: 10.1007/s00125-010-1937-z) report that metformin acutely increases plasma levels of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) in mice. Moreover, they show that metformin enhances the expression of the genes encoding the receptors for both GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) in mouse islets and also increases the effects of GIP and GLP-1 on insulin secretion from beta cells. Interestingly, these incretin-sensitising effects of metformin appear to be mediated by a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α-dependent pathway, as opposed to the more commonly ascribed pathway of metformin action involving AMP-activated protein kinase. These provocative findings by Maida et al. extend our understanding of the mechanism of action of metformin and provide further insights into the benefits of combining metformin with incretin-based drugs to combat diabetes.

O-GlcNAcylation is a kind of post-translational modification and many nuclear and cytoplasmic proteins are O-GlcNAcylated. In this study, we demonstrated that thiazolidinediones (TZDs), which are used as insulin sensitizer, specifically inhibited the O-GlcNAcylation of Sp1 but did not affect the O-GlcNAcylation of the total proteins in cell culture systems and mouse models. This effect was mediated by peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma) activation and probably by synthesis of a specific protein induced by PPARgamma activation. In addition, we demonstrated that the O-GlcNAcylation sites in the zinc-finger domain were involved in the transcriptional activation of Sp1 and that rosiglitazone, a member of TZDs, affected Sp1 transcriptional activity partially by regulating the O-GlcNAcylation level of these sites. Considering the role of hexosamine biosynthesis pathway in hyperglycemia-induced insulin resistance and Sp1 in the hyperglycemia-induced gene expression, the regulation of Sp1 O-GlcNAcylation by TZDs may help to explain the function of TZDs as a treatment for insulin resistance and diabetes.

Resistin is a protein secreted from adipose tissue that is thought to play a role in insulin sensitivity. We examined the effects of rosiglitazone and metformin on the plasma resistin levels in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who showed poor glycemic control with glimepiride (4 mg/d) were randomized to rosiglitazone (4 mg/d) and metformin (500 mg bid) treatment groups. All subjects continued glimepiride treatment as well. The plasma concentrations of resistin were measured at baseline and at 6 months of treatment for both groups. The anthropometric parameters, fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, total cholesterol, triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, free fatty acids, and adiponectin concentrations were also measured. After 6 months of treatment, the reduction in plasma glucose levels was similar between the 2 groups. There were no significant changes in the lipid profiles of either group during the study period. The plasma resistin levels decreased in the rosiglitazone group (2.49 +/- 1.93 vs 1.95 +/- 1.59 ng/ml; P < .05) but increased in the metformin group (2.61 +/- 1.69 vs 5.13 +/- 2.81 ng/ml; P < .05). The plasma adiponectin concentrations were increased in the rosiglitazone group (2.91 +/- 1.46 vs 4.23 +/- 1.77 microg/ml; P < .05) but were unchanged in the metformin group. In summary, rosiglitazone treatment decreased the plasma resistin levels whereas metformin treatment increased them in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus showing poor glycemic control with sulfonylurea therapy. These results suggest that the observed changes in plasma resistin levels are not the consequences of improved insulin resistance, nor are they consequences of glycemic control. Considering the potential role of resistin in insulin resistance, decrease in resistin levels may contribute to improving insulin action with rosiglitazone treatment.