Twelve-week monotherapy with the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin improves glycemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes. The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor PHX1149 improves blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes. Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Intervention Study. Multi-intervention trial in newly diagnosed NIDDM. Improved glycaemic control with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition in patients with type 2 diabetes: vildagliptin (LAF237) dose response. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Early lifestyle intervention in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose tolerance. [Intensive basic therapy decreases the need for drug treatment and improves glucose control: an important result of the diabetes intervention study]. Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in NIDDM (ABCD) Trial. Long-term (12 months) treatment with an anti-oxidant drug (silymarin) is effective on hyperinsulinemia, exogenous insulin need and malondialdehyde levels in cirrhotic diabetic patients. A long-term, randomized, comparative study of insulin versus sulfonylurea therapy in type 2 diabetes. A randomized trial of the effects of rosiglitazone and metformin on inflammation and subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes. Efficacy and safety comparison between the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin and the sulfonylurea gliclazide after two years of monotherapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Lifestyle intervention by group care prevents deterioration of Type II diabetes: a 4-year randomized controlled clinical trial. Treatment of arterial hypertension in diabetic humans: importance of therapeutic selection. Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin added to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin alone. Factors associated with results and conclusions of trials of thiazolidinediones. Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study. One-year outcome of a combination of weight loss therapies for subjects with type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. Evaluation of a structured teaching and treatment programme for type 2 diabetes in general practice in a rural area of Austria. Hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes. A comparison between an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a calcium antagonist.
Inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 enhances the activity of incretin hormones, improving glycemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes. This twelve-week randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of the specific and potent oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin (25 mg, bid, n=70) VS. placebo (bid, n=28) in previously diet-treated subjects with type 2 diabetes. Standardized meal tests were performed at baseline and endpoint. The between-group difference in adjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was - 0.6 +/- 0.2 % (p=0.0012) for the whole cohort (baseline 8.0 %) and -1.2 % for subjects with baseline HbA1c 8.0 - 9.5 %. Fasting glucose and mean prandial glucose were reduced by 1.1 +/- 0.4 (p=0.0043) and 1.9 +/- 0.5 mmol/l (p <0.0001), respectively. The between-group differences in corrected insulin response at peak glucose and mean prandial C-peptide were + 0.06 +/- 0.02 (p=0.0258) and + 0.10 +/- 0.03 nmol/l (p=0.0031), respectively. Vildagliptin had no effect on fasting lipid levels or body weight. The incidence of adverse events was similar in subjects receiving placebo (71.4 %) and vildagliptin (55.7 %).
                monotherapy with vildagliptin is well tolerated and improves glycemic control in diet-treated subjects with type 2 diabetes. Concomitant improvements in beta-cell function were also observed. Subjects with higher baseline HbA1c levels showed greater response. To determine the efficacy and tolerability of PHX1149, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes.
                This is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-week study in patients with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal metabolic control. Patients with a baseline haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) of 7.3 to 11.0% were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 to receive once-daily oral therapy with either PHX1149 (100, 200 or 400 mg) or placebo; patients were on a constant background therapy of either metformin alone or metformin plus a glitazone.
                Treatment with 100, 200 or 400 mg of PHX1149 significantly decreased postprandial glucose area under the curve AUC(0-2 h) by approximately 20% (+0.11 +/- 0.50, -2.08 +/- 0.51, -1.73 +/- 0.49 and -1.88 +/- 0.48 mmol/l x h, respectively, for placebo and 100, 200 and 400 mg (p = 0.002, 0.008 and 0.004 vs. placebo). Postprandial AUC(0-2 h) of intact glucagon-like peptide-1, the principal mediator of the biological effects of DPP4 inhibitors, was increased by 3.90 +/- 2.83, 11.63 +/- 2.86, 16.42 +/- 2.72 and 15.75 +/- 2.71 pmol/l x h, respectively, for placebo and 100, 200 and 400 mg (p = 0.053, 0.001 and 0.002 vs. placebo). Mean HbA(1c) was lower in all dose groups; the placebo-corrected change in the groups receiving 400 mg PHX1149 was -0.28% (p = 0.02). DPP4 inhibition on day 28 was 53, 73 and 78% at 24 h postdose in the groups receiving 100, 200 and 400 mg PHX1149, respectively. There were no differences in adverse events between PHX1149-treated and placebo subjects.
                Addition of the DPP4 inhibitor PHX1149 to a stable regimen of metformin or metformin plus a glitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes was well tolerated and improved blood glucose control. Intensified multifactorial intervention - with tight glucose regulation and the use of renin-angiotensin system blockers, aspirin, and lipid-lowering agents - has been shown to reduce the risk of nonfatal cardiovascular disease among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria. We evaluated whether this approach would have an effect on the rates of death from any cause and from cardiovascular causes.
                In the Steno-2 Study, we randomly assigned 160 patients with type 2 diabetes and persistent microalbuminuria to receive either intensive therapy or conventional therapy; the mean treatment period was 7.8 years. Patients were subsequently followed observationally for a mean of 5.5 years, until December 31, 2006. The primary end point at 13.3 years of follow-up was the time to death from any cause.
                Twenty-four patients in the intensive-therapy group died, as compared with 40 in the conventional-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.89; P=0.02). Intensive therapy was associated with a lower risk of death from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.94; P=0.04) and of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.67; P<0.001). One patient in the intensive-therapy group had progression to end-stage renal disease, as compared with six patients in the conventional-therapy group (P=0.04). Fewer patients in the intensive-therapy group required retinal photocoagulation (relative risk, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.86; P=0.02). Few major side effects were reported.
                In at-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, intensive intervention with multiple drug combinations and behavior modification had sustained beneficial effects with respect to vascular complications and on rates of death from any cause and from cardiovascular causes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00320008.)
                Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. Cardiovascular morbidity is a major burden in patients with type 2 diabetes. In the Steno-2 Study, we compared the effect of a targeted, intensified, multifactorial intervention with that of conventional treatment on modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.
                The primary end point of this open, parallel trial was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and amputation. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to receive conventional treatment in accordance with national guidelines and 80 to receive intensive treatment, with a stepwise implementation of behavior modification and pharmacologic therapy that targeted hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and microalbuminuria, along with secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with aspirin.
                The mean age of the patients was 55.1 years, and the mean follow-up was 7.8 years. The decline in glycosylated hemoglobin values, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels measured after an overnight fast, and urinary albumin excretion rate were all significantly greater in the intensive-therapy group than in the conventional-therapy group. Patients receiving intensive therapy also had a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.73), nephropathy (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.87), retinopathy (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.86), and autonomic neuropathy (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.79).
                A target-driven, long-term, intensified intervention aimed at multiple risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria reduces the risk of cardiovascular and microvascular events by about 50 percent.
                Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society In a randomized 5-yr multi-intervention trial, we tested the efficacy of intensified health education (IHE) in improving metabolic control and reducing the level of coronary risk factors and incidence of ischemic heart disease (IHD).
                Within the intervention group, the benefit of clofibric acid was evaluated in a double-blind study. One thousand one hundred thirty-nine newly diagnosed middle-aged (30- to 55-yr-old) patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) entered the study. They were classified as diet controlled after a 6-wk screening phase with conventional dietary treatment. During the follow-up, the control group (n = 378) was cared for at different diabetes outpatient clinics with a standardized surveillance. The intervention group (n = 761) had a structured IHE that included dietary advice, antismoking and antialcohol education, and ways to enhance physical activity.
                Randomly, 379 of the IHE patients received 1.6 g clofibric acid/day, and the others received placebo. IHE resulted in improved glucose control (adjusted fasting blood glucose) levels after 5 yr (control subjects 9.27 mM, IHE group 8.71 mM, and IHE plus clofibric acid group 8.60 mM, P less than 0.01). The better glycemic control was achieved with fewer antidiabetic drugs. After 5 yr, antidiabetic drugs were prescribed to 47% of the control subjects, 28% of the IHE group, and 34% of the IHE plus clofibric acid group (cutoff limit for drug application was postprandial blood glucose of greater than or equal to 13.87 mM). The ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fatty acids (0.26 vs. 0.40, P less than 0.01) and physical activity (174 vs. 327 scores, P less than 0.01) were increased, and blood pressure, tobacco, and alcohol consumption were significantly reduced by IHE. However, IHE had no effect on calorie intake, percentage of fat in the diet (45%), and body weight. The most important finding was the significant increase of blood cholesterol in all three groups (+0.47, +0.36, and +0.34 mM, respectively). Clofibric acid only prevented the increase of triglyceride levels (+0.56, +0.24, and +0.05 mM, respectively). The incidence rate per 1000 for myocardial infarction was 30.3 for control subjects, 53.6 for the IHE group, and 55.6 for the IHE plus clofibric acid group. The corresponding rates for IHD incidence were 90.9, 97.8, and 98.8, respectively. Men suffered more frequently from myocardial infarction, whereas women developed ECG criteria for IHD more frequently. Among the 35 cases of death, besides cardiovascular diseases, liver cirrhosis and neoplasia were the predominant causes. The death rate per 1000 in control subjects was 46.2, 30.6 in the IHE group, and 27 among patients with IHE plus clofibric acid.
                IHE was of substantial benefit for the control of glycemia, significantly diminished the need for antidiabetic drugs, and reduced a cluster of risk factors but had no effect on the control of blood lipids. This could be one major reason for the failure of IHE, effective lowering of blood pressure, and clofibric acid to prevent cardiovascular complications. Clofibric acid was only effective in reducing triglycerides. A novel treatment option for diabetic patients is the enhancement of incretin hormone activity by inhibition of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4). This study was designed to establish a dose of the DPP-4-inhibitor vildagliptin (LAF237) that was effective in reducing HbA1c levels and was safe and well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes.
                The study of 279 patients with type 2 diabetes consisted of a 4-week run-in phase where patients received placebo and a 12-week active treatment phase where they received one of the following dosages of vildagliptin: 25 mg twice daily, 25, 50 or 100 mg once daily (qd), or placebo.
                There was a statistically significant reduction in HbA1c levels in the vildagliptin 50 mg qd (p=0.003) and 100 mg qd groups (p=0.004) compared with the placebo group. The mean 4-h postprandial glucose level was significantly reduced from placebo in the vildagliptin 50 mg qd group (p = 0.012) and mean 4-h postprandial insulin was significantly increased from baseline vs. placebo in the vildagliptin 100 mg qd group (p=0.022). The assessment of beta-cell function (HOMA-B) was significantly increased in the vildagliptin 100 mg qd treatment group (p=0.007). The incidence of adverse events was similar in all treatment groups including placebo.
                Vildagliptin, at 50 and 100 mg qd, was effective in reducing HbA1c levels compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. Vildagliptin at dosages up to 100 mg qd appeared safe and well tolerated. Improved blood-glucose control decreases the progression of diabetic microvascular disease, but the effect on macrovascular complications is unknown. There is concern that sulphonylureas may increase cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and that high insulin concentrations may enhance atheroma formation. We compared the effects of intensive blood-glucose control with either sulphonylurea or insulin and conventional treatment on the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes in a randomised controlled trial.
                3867 newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes, median age 54 years (IQR 48-60 years), who after 3 months' diet treatment had a mean of two fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations of 6.1-15.0 mmol/L were randomly assigned intensive policy with a sulphonylurea (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or glipizide) or with insulin, or conventional policy with diet. The aim in the intensive group was FPG less than 6 mmol/L. In the conventional group, the aim was the best achievable FPG with diet alone; drugs were added only if there were hyperglycaemic symptoms or FPG greater than 15 mmol/L. Three aggregate endpoints were used to assess differences between conventional and intensive treatment: any diabetes-related endpoint (sudden death, death from hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, stroke, renal failure, amputation [of at least one digit], vitreous haemorrhage, retinopathy requiring photocoagulation, blindness in one eye, or cataract extraction); diabetes-related death (death from myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, renal disease, hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia, and sudden death); all-cause mortality. Single clinical endpoints and surrogate subclinical endpoints were also assessed. All analyses were by intention to treat and frequency of hypoglycaemia was also analysed by actual therapy.
                Over 10 years, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 7.0% (6.2-8.2) in the intensive group compared with 7.9% (6.9-8.8) in the conventional group--an 11% reduction. There was no difference in HbA1c among agents in the intensive group. Compared with the conventional group, the risk in the intensive group was 12% lower (95% CI 1-21, p=0.029) for any diabetes-related endpoint; 10% lower (-11 to 27, p=0.34) for any diabetes-related death; and 6% lower (-10 to 20, p=0.44) for all-cause mortality. Most of the risk reduction in the any diabetes-related aggregate endpoint was due to a 25% risk reduction (7-40, p=0.0099) in microvascular endpoints, including the need for retinal photocoagulation. There was no difference for any of the three aggregate endpoints between the three intensive agents (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or insulin). Patients in the intensive group had more hypoglycaemic episodes than those in the conventional group on both types of analysis (both p<0.0001). The rates of major hypoglycaemic episodes per year were 0.7% with conventional treatment, 1.0% with chlorpropamide, 1.4% with glibenclamide, and 1.8% with insulin. Weight gain was significantly higher in the intensive group (mean 2.9 kg) than in the conventional group (p<0.001), and patients assigned insulin had a greater gain in weight (4.0 kg) than those assigned chlorpropamide (2.6 kg) or glibenclamide (1.7 kg).
                Intensive blood-glucose control by either sulphonylureas or insulin substantially decreases the risk of microvascular complications, but not macrovascular disease, in patients with type 2 diabetes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED) Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) is preceded by impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) lasting for years before manifesting as overt hyperglycaemia. Both genetic and environmental factors contribute to the development of IGT and NIDDM. Obesity, physical inactivity and high-fat diet have been found to predict IGT and NIDDM. Therefore, a diet and exercise intervention from diagnosis of NIDDM could improve the treatment outcome and prognosis of patients with NIDDM. Furthermore, because subjects with IGT are at increased risk for diabetes and atherosclerotic vascular disease, it is reasonable to assume that in terms of reducing the incidence and longterm consequences of NIDDM an intervention at this phase is more effective than in overt diabetes. Although the nonpharmacological approach is generally accepted as the first-line treatment of NIDDM its efficacy has often been questioned. Therefore, it is important to carry out long-term controlled studies to find out to what extent lifestyle modification could improve the metabolic control and level of major cardiovascular risk factors known to be associated with poor outcome in NIDDM. This kind of study also gave relevant experience in planning studies aiming at primary prevention of NIDDM. One-year dietary and exercise intervention on newly diagnosed NIDDM patients in Kuopio, Finland resulted in a better metabolic control and a moderate reduction in cardiovascular risk factors as compared to the conventional treatment group. After the second year of follow-up only 12.5% in the intervention group were receiving oral antidiabetic drugs vs. 34.8% in the conventional treatment group. Weight reduction and a reduced use of saturated fats appeared to be the main determinants of successful treatment results. Good aerobic capacity was associated with an increase in HDL cholesterol. A multicentre primary prevention study on IGT patients is continuing in Finland applying the same principles of intervention as used in the study on newly diagnosed NIDDM patients. Pilot results show that glucose tolerance can be improved by lifestyle changes. In a period of five years in the diabetes intervention study (DIS), 1,139 diabetics aged 30-55 years, who in a 6-week screening phase had been classified as dietetically manageable, were treated in a controlled randomized study with intensified non-medicamentous basic therapy and--in a double blind trial--with 1,6 g clofibric acid. The essential components of the basic therapy were a fat-modified diet (so-called prudent diet) and recommendations for endurance training. Thus in comparison to the control group we succeeded in performing a ca. 40% decrease of the application of oral antidiabetic drugs. The fasting blood values were, nevertheless, with 155 mg% significantly lower than in the control group (169 mg%). Clofibric acid had no influence neither on the necessity to use insulin or oral antidiabetic drugs nor to the control of glycaemia. The ABCD (Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes) Trial is a large, prospective, randomized clinical trial of 950 patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) designed to compare the effects of intensive blood pressure control with moderate control on the prevention and progression of diabetic nephropathy, retinopathy, cardiovascular disease, and neuropathy in NIDDM. The secondary objective is to determine equivalency of the effects of a calcium channel blocker (nisoldipine) and an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (enalapril) as a first-line antihypertensive agent in the prevention and/or progression of these diabetic vascular complications. The study consists of two study populations aged 40-74 years, 470 hypertensive patients (diastolic blood pressure of > or = 90.0 mmHg at time of randomization) and 480 normotensive patients (diastolic blood pressure of 80.0 mmHg at time of randomization). The study duration is 5 years and is scheduled to end in May of 1998. Patients are randomized to receive either intensive antihypertensive drug therapy or moderate antihypertensive drug therapy. Patients are also randomized to nisoldipine or enalapril, with open-label medications added if further blood pressure control is necessary. The primary outcome measure is glomerular filtration rate as assessed by 24-h creatinine clearance. Secondary outcome measures are urinary albumin excretion, left ventricular hypertrophy, retinopathy, and neuropathy. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality will also be evaluated. Given the data showing the impact of hypertension on complications in NIDDM, the ABCD Trial is designed to determine if intensive antihypertensive therapy will be more efficacious than moderate antihypertensive therapy on the outcome of diabetic complications in NIDDM. Several studies have demonstrated that diabetic patients with cirrhosis require insulin treatment because of insulin resistance. As chronic alcoholic liver damage is partly due to the lipoperoxidation of hepatic cell membranes, anti-oxidizing agents may be useful in treating or preventing damage due to free radicals. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether long-term treatment with silymarin is effective in reducing lipoperoxidation and insulin resistance in diabetic patients with cirrhosis.
                A 12-month open, controlled study was conducted in two well-matched groups of insulin-treated diabetics with alcoholic cirrhosis. One group (n=30) received 600 mg silymarin per day plus standard therapy, while the control group (n=30) received standard therapy alone. The efficacy parameters, measured regularly during the study, included fasting blood glucose levels, mean daily blood glucose levels, daily glucosuria levels, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and malondialdehyde levels.
                There was a significant decrease (p<0.01) in fasting blood glucose levels, mean daily blood glucose levels, daily glucosuria and HbA1c levels already after 4 months of treatment in the silymarin group. In addition, there was a significant decrease (p<0.01) in fasting insulin levels and mean exogenous insulin requirements in the treated group, while the untreated group showed a significant increase (p<0.05) in fasting insulin levels and a stabilized insulin need. These findings are consistent with the significant decrease (p<0.01) in basal and glucagon-stimulated C-peptide levels in the treated group and the significant increase in both parameters in the control group. Another interesting finding was the significant decrease (p<0.01) in malondialdehyde/levels observed in the treated group.
                These results show that treatment with silymarin may reduce the lipoperoxidation of cell membranes and insulin resistance, significantly decreasing endogenous insulin overproduction and the need for exogenous insulin administration. To study the effect of insulin and sulfonylurea (SU) therapy on glycaemic control, insulin resistance and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetic subjects.
                A prospective, parallel, randomized, controlled, long-term study.
                Outpatient clinic in tertiary referral centre.
                Thirty-six type 2 diabetic subjects treated with diet and SU, aged 44-69 years and a duration of diabetes of between 2 and 14 years.
                Individually adjusted doses of insulin and glibenclamide.
                Glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), insulin resistance (euglycaemic glucose clamp), levels of lipids, lipoproteins and blood pressure.
                Glycaemic control improved during insulin treatment, but deteriorated on SU; HbA1c levels differed significantly between groups after 12 months of therapy (mean +/- SEM 7.9 +/- 0.3 vs. 9.5 +/- 0.4%, P = 0.004). Body mass index increased significantly during insulin treatment (26.4 +/- 0.7 to 27.8 +/- 0.7 kg/m2, P = 0.0001) and 30% of this increase was a result of an increase in lean body mass. The total glucose disposal rate showed a small increase in the insulin group. Levels of triglycerides and apolipoprotein B were significantly reduced during insulin treatment (1.8 +/- 0.2 to 1.5 +/- 0.2 mmol L-1, P = 0.03 and 1.58 +/- 0.1 to 1.40 +/- 0.08 g L-1, P = 0.003), and insulin prevented a reduction in the levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-1 and an increase in Lp(a) lipoprotein observed in the SU group. Blood pressure levels did not change during therapy.
                Insulin therapy was superior to SU treatment in achieving good metabolic control. Despite a modest improvement in cardiovascular risk factors in the insulin-treated group, no significant differences were observed between the groups after 1 year's treatment. Metformin and rosiglitazone both improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus, however may possess different anti-inflammatory and anti-atherosclerotic properties. We investigated the effects of these medications on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and carotid artery intima-media thickness (CIMT) to determine their relative potential to reduce cardiovascular risk independent of their antihyperglycemic actions.
                Ninety-two subjects with suboptimally controlled diabetes mellitus (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] >7.0%) were assigned to therapy with either rosiglitazone 4 mg once daily or metformin 850 mg twice daily for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the change in hsCRP after 24 weeks. The change in CIMT was prespecified as a secondary end point.
                Metformin and rosiglitazone treatment led to similar significant improvements in glycemic control (HbA1c -1.08% in the rosiglitazone group and -1.18% in the metformin group, P = nonsignificant). High-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels decreased by an average of 68% in the rosiglitazone group (5.99 +/- 0.88 to 1.91 +/- 0.28 mg/L, P < .001), compared with a nonsignificant 4% reduction in hsCRP with metformin (5.69 +/- 0.83 to 5.46 +/- 0.92 mg/L; P = nonsignificant). Maximal CIMT progressed in the metformin group (+0.084 +/- 0.038 mm), whereas regression of maximal CIMT was observed in the rosiglitazone group (-0.037 +/- 0.031 mm; P = .02 for the between group comparison). Similar changes were observed for mean CIMT. The change in hsCRP and maximal CIMT were related in a multivariable model controlling for changes in HbA1c and lipid parameters (r = .31; P = .01).
                Rosiglitazone, compared to metformin, induced a prompt and profound reduction in hsCRP levels independent of its effect on glycemia. This change was associated with regression of CIMT after 24 weeks. This report is part of the overall evaluation of using vildagliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Here the results of a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled study designed to compare the efficacy and safety of two years of monotherapy with vildagliptin 50 mg bid and gliclazide up to 320 mg/day in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes are reported. A total of 546 patients were randomized and approximately 74% of patients completed the study in each group. HbA (1c) values were slightly higher in the gliclazide group (HbA (1c) of 8.7+/-0.1% vs. 8.5+/-0.1% in the vildagliptin group). The mean reduction in HbA (1c) from baseline to Week 104 was -0.5% in the vildagliptin group and -0.6% in the gliclazide group. The associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-group difference (0.13%) in mean change was (-0.06%, 0.33%). Thus, noninferiority based on an upper limit of the CI of 0.3% was not met. In the vildagliptin group, weight increased by 0.8+/-0.2 kg compared to 1.6+/-0.2 kg in the gliclazide group (p<0.01). Mild hypoglycemia was recorded in 0.7% of patients in the vildagliptin group and in 1.7% in the gliclazide group. Both drugs were well tolerated. In summary, vildagliptin monotherapy resulted in improved glycemic control in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Although the hypothesis of noninferiority to gliclazide was not borne out statistically, the reductions in HbA (1c) were similar over a two year period and vildagliptin had significant benefits in terms of less weight gain and less hypoglycemia.
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart. New York. Metabolic control worsens progressively in Type II (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus despite intensified pharmacological treatment and lifestyle intervention, when these are implemented on a one-to-one basis. We compared traditional individual diabetes care with a model in which routine follow-up is managed by interactive group visits while individual consultations are reserved for emerging medical problems and yearly checks for complications.
                A randomized controlled clinical trial of 56 patients with non-insulin-treated Type II diabetes managed by systemic group education and 56 control patients managed by individual consultations and education.
                Observation times were 51.2+/-2.1 months for group care and 51.2+/-1.8 for control subjects. Glycated haemoglobin increased in the control group but not in the group of patients ( p<0.001), in whom BMI decreased ( p<0.001) and HDL-cholesterol increased ( p<0.001). Quality of life, knowledge of diabetes and health behaviours improved with group care ( p<0.001, all) and worsened among the control patients ( p=0.004 to p<0.001). Dosage of hypoglycaemic agents decreased ( p<0.001) and retinopathy progressed less ( p<0.009) among the group care patients than the control subjects. Diastolic blood pressure ( p<0.001) and relative cardiovascular risk ( p<0.05) decreased from baseline in group patients and control patients alike. Over the study period, group care required 196 min and 756.54 US dollars per patient, compared with 150 min and 665.77 US dollars for the control patients, resulting in an additional 2.12 US dollars spent per point gained in the quality of life score.
                Group care by systemic education is feasible in an ordinary diabetes clinic and cost-effective in preventing the deterioration of metabolic control and quality of life in Type II diabetes without increasing pharmacological treatment. This study was undertaken to test the hypothesis that, given equal arterial pressure reductions, the combination of an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and calcium antagonist slows declines in renal function and yields greater reductions in albuminuria over either agent alone. This hypothesis was evaluated in four groups of hypertensive, non-insulin dependent, diabetic subjects with renal insufficiency (N = 30). Renal hemodynamics, albuminuria and metabolic parameters were evaluated for a period of one year. Subjects were all placed on a 90 mEq sodium, 0.8 g/kg protein, 1500 calorie American Diabetes Association diet for the entire length of the study. Subjects were followed for two weeks off antihypertensive medications and were subsequently randomized to either lisinopril, alone (group I), sustained release verapamil, alone (group II), reduced doses of both lisinopril and sustained release verapamil (group III), and hydrochlorothiazide with guanfacine (group IV). At the end of one year group III had the greatest reduction in albuminuria (78 +/- 7%, group III vs. 59% +/- 4, group I: P less than 0.05). In addition, the decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was the lowest in this group (0.28 +/- 0.07, group III vs. 0.69 +/- 0.12, group I; P less than 0.05) although there was no significant difference between groups II and IV. The highest side effect profiles were noted in group IV, the least in group III. The greatest reductions in renal hemodynamics occurred in all groups within the first month; however, striking differences between groups were noted (7.4 +/- 2%, group I vs. 1.4 +/- 2%, group III; P less than 0.05). We conclude that the combination of reduced doses of an ACE inhibitor and calcium antagonist attenuate both albuminuria and the rate of decline in glomerular filtration rate. Furthermore, the combination of these classes of agents appear to yield the lowest side effect profile over either agent alone. Lastly, high doses of ACE inhibition alone may be detrimental to renal function in late stage diabetics with renal insufficiency. The efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, added to ongoing metformin therapy, were assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control (HbA(1c) [A1C] >or=7 and <or=10%) with metformin alone.
                After a screening diet/exercise run-in period, a metformin dose titration/stabilization period, and a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 701 patients, aged 19-78 years, with mild to moderate hyperglycemia (mean A1C 8.0%) receiving ongoing metformin (>or=1,500 mg/day) were randomly assigned to receive the addition of placebo or sitagliptin 100 mg once-daily in a 1:2 ratio for 24 weeks. Patients exceeding specific glycemic limits were provided rescue therapy (pioglitazone) until the end of the study. The efficacy analyses were based on an all-patients-treated population using an ANCOVA and excluded data obtained after glycemic rescue.
                At week 24, sitagliptin treatment led to significant reductions compared with placebo in A1C (-0.65%), fasting plasma glucose, and 2-h postmeal glucose. Fasting insulin, fasting C-peptide, fasting proinsulin-to-insulin ratio, postmeal insulin and C-peptide areas under the curve (AUCs), postmeal insulin AUC-to-glucose AUC ratio, homeostasis model assessment of beta-cell function, and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index were significantly improved with sitagliptin relative to placebo. A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved an A1C <7% with sitagliptin (47.0%) than with placebo (18.3%). There was no increased risk of hypoglycemia or gastrointestinal adverse experiences with sitagliptin compared with placebo. Body weight decreased similarly with sitagliptin and placebo.
                Sitagliptin 100 mg once-daily added to ongoing metformin therapy was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control with metformin alone. When a sponsor funds a study of two competing drugs in a head-to-head comparison, the results and conclusions are likely to favor the sponsor's drug. Thiazolidinediones, oral medications used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, are one of the most costly choices of oral anti-diabetic medications, yet they do not demonstrate clinically relevant differences in achieving lower glycosylated hemoglobin levels compared to other oral antidiabetic drugs. Our aim is to examine associations between research funding source, study design characteristics aimed at reducing bias, and other factors with the results and conclusions of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of thiazolidinediones compared to other oral hypoglycemic agents.
                This is a cross-sectional study of 61 published RCTs comparing a thiazolidinedione (glitazone) to another anti-diabetic drug or placebo for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Data on study design characteristics, funding source, author's financial ties, results for primary outcomes, and author conclusions were extracted. Univariate logistic regression identified associations between independent variables and results and conclusions that favored the glitazone. Of the RCTs, 59% (36/61) were funded by industry, 39% (24/61) did not disclose any funding. Common study design weaknesses included inadequate blinding and lack of concealment of allocation. Trials that reported favorable glycemic control results for the glitazone were more likely to have adequate blinding (OR (95% CI) = 5.42 (1.46, 21.19), p = 0.008) and have a corresponding author with financial ties to the glitazone manufacturer (OR (95% CI) = 4.12 (1.05, 19.53); p = 0.04). Trials with conclusions favoring the glitazone were less likely to be funded by a comparator drug company than a glitazone company (OR (95% CI) = 0.026 (0, 0.40), p = 0.003) and less likely to be published in journals with higher impact factors (OR (95% CI) = 0.79 (0.62, 0.97), p = 0.011). One limitation of our study is that we categorized studies as funded by industry based on each article's disclosure which could underestimate the number of industry sponsored studies and personal ties of investigators. Additionally, our study did not include any head-to-head comparisons of one glitazone to another.
                Published RCT comparisons of glitazones with other anti-diabetic drugs or placebo are predominantly industry supported and this support, as well as the financial ties of study authors, appears to be associated with favorable findings. To examine whether intensive glycemic control could decrease the frequency or severity of diabetic microvascular complications, we performed a prospective study of Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) treated with multiple insulin injection treatment. A total of 110 patients with NIDDM was randomly assigned to multiple insulin injection treatment group (MIT group) or to conventional insulin injection treatment group (CIT group). Fifty-five NIDDM patients who showed no retinopathy and urinary albumin excretions < 30 mg/24 h at the baseline were evaluated in the primary-prevention cohort, and the other 55 NIDDM patients who showed simple retinopathy and urinary albumin excretions < 300 mg/24 h were evaluated in the secondary-intervention cohort. The appearance and the progression of retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy were evaluated every 6 months over a 6-year period. The worsening of complications in this study was defined as an increase of 2 or more steps in the 19 stages of the modified ETDRS interim scale for retinopathy and an increase of one or more steps in 3 stages (normoalbuminuria, microalbuminuria and albuminuria) for nephropathy. The cumulative percentages of the development and the progression in retinopathy after 6 years were 7.7% for the MIT group and 32.0% for the CIT group in the primary-prevention cohort (P = 0.039), and 19.2% for MIT group and 44.0% for CIT group in the secondary-intervention cohort (P = 0.049). The cumulative percentages of the development and the progression in nephropathy after 6 years were 7.7% for the MIT group and 28.0% for the CIT group in the primary-prevention cohort (P = 0.032), and 11.5% and 32.0%, respectively, for the MIT and CIT groups in the secondary-intervention cohort (P = 0.044). In neurological tests after 6 years, MIT group showed significant improvement in the nerve conduction velocities, while the CIT group showed significant deterioration in the median nerve conduction velocities and vibration threshold. Although both postural hypotension and the coefficient of variation of R-R interval tended to improve in the MIT group, they deteriorated in the CIT group. In conclusion, intensive glycemic control by multiple insulin injection therapy can delay the onset and the progression of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy in Japanese patients with NIDDM. From this study, the glycemic threshold to prevent the onset and the progression of diabetic microangiopathy is indicated as follows; HbA1c < 6.5%, FBG < 110 mg/dl, and 2-h post-prandial blood glucose concentration < 180 mg/dl. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a combination weight loss program using intermittent low-calorie diets, energy-controlled meal replacement products, and sibutramine on weight loss, diabetes control, and cardiovascular risk factors in overweight or obese subjects with type 2 diabetes.
                Overweight or obese individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with diet or oral medication were randomly assigned to either a standard therapy or combination therapy group. Both groups received a standardized program to facilitate weight loss. The combination therapy group also received 10-15 mg sibutramine daily, low-calorie diets using meal replacement products for 1 week every 2 months, and between low-calorie diet weeks, once daily use of meal replacement product and snack bars to replace one usual meal and snack. Primary outcome measures were changes in body weight, glycemic control, plasma lipids, blood pressure, pulse, and body composition at 1 year.
                At 1 year, combination therapy, compared with standard therapy, resulted in significantly more weight loss (-7.3 +/- 1.3 kg vs. -0.8 +/- 0.9 kg, P < 0.001) and reduction in HbA(1c) (-0.6 +/- 0.3 vs. 0.0 +/- 0.2%, P = 0.05). Combination therapy resulted in reduced requirement for diabetes medications and decreased fat mass and lean body mass. A 5-kg decrease in weight at 1 year was associated with a decrease of 0.4% in HbA(1c) (P = 0.006). Changes in fasting glucose, lipids, pulse, and blood pressure did not differ between groups.
                This combination weight loss program resulted in greater weight loss and improved diabetes control compared with a standard weight loss program in overweight or obese subjects with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy of a treatment and teaching programme for non-insulin-treated Type 2 diabetic patients in general practice was evaluated in a prospective, controlled study. In a rural area in southern Austria, 53 patients from seven general practices participated in a structured programme (intervention group) and 55 patients from seven general practices without the programme served as the control group. After 6 months the weight reduction in the intervention group was 2.6 kg (1.6-3.7 kg, p < 0.001) and the difference in HbA1c between the groups was 0.92% (0.23-1.61%, p < 0.01) at follow-up. Systolic (-16.6 mmHg) and diastolic (-11.1 mmHg) blood pressure, serum triglycerides (-0.63 mmol I-1), and serum cholesterol (-0.40 mmol I-1) were reduced significantly in the intervention group (p < 0.006). The number of patients with callus formation and poor nail care decreased significantly after participating in the teaching programme (p < 0.001). In the control group no reduction in body weight, metabolic control or in risk factors for diabetic foot complications were observed. Calculated health care costs per patient and year decreased in the intervention group (-33 pounds) and increased in the control group (+ 30 pounds) mainly due to changes in prescription of oral hypoglycaemic agents in both groups. This programme may be an efficient and helpful model to increase overall quality of diabetes care according to the St Vincent Declaration. The effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme lisinopril were compared with those of the calcium antagonist nifedipine in 162 non-insulin-dependent diabetic hypertensive patients for a 24-week period. In 83 and 79 patients, respectively, lisinopril and slow-release nifedipine produced similar reductions in blood pressure (systolic/diastolic: -16/-13 mmHg supine and -14/-11 mmHg standing after lisinopril; -15/-12 mmHg supine and -14/-11 mmHg standing nifedipine). Fasting and post-prandial plasma glucose, glycosylated haemoglobin and plasma lipids appeared to be unaffected by either agent. Also, 28% of the patients on lisinopril and 30% of those on nifedipine presented microalbuminuria. Both drugs induced a reduction in the albumin excretion rate (AER). The geometric mean x:tolerance factor of the reduction in AER among the 23 microalbuminuric patients on lisinopril (-10.0 x:1.3 micrograms/min) was greater, though not significantly so, than that observed in the 26 on nifedipine (-0.9 x 1.2 micrograms/min). Moreover, lisinopril appeared to be better tolerated than nifedipine in our study population. Microalbuminuria is an important risk factor for cardiovascular mortality in non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients as well as in the general population. To what extent a reduction in the AER could ameliorate diabetic patients is, at present, unknown. Finally, both lisinopril and nifedipine showed a similar antihypertensive effect in these patients which was not associated with significant differences in plasma glucose, insulin or lipid concentrations. The clinical consequences of the insignificant differences in AER remain unclear.
DPP-4 inhibitors have some theoretical advantages over existing therapies with oral antidiabetic compounds but should currently be restricted to individual patients. Long-term data especially on cardiovascular outcomes and safety are urgently needed before widespread use of these new agents. More information on the benefit-risk ratio of DPP-4 inhibitor treatment is necessary especially analysing adverse effects on parameters of immune function. Also, long-term data are needed investigating patient-oriented parameters like health-related quality of life, diabetic complications and all-cause mortality.