Prospective comparative study in NIDDM patients of metformin and glibenclamide with special reference to lipid profiles. Impact of metformin versus repaglinide on non-glycaemic cardiovascular risk markers related to inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Targeting hyperglycaemia with either metformin or repaglinide in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes: results from a randomized crossover trial. Metabolic variations with oral antidiabetic drugs in patients with Type 2 diabetes: comparison between glimepiride and metformin. Glimepiride versus metformin as monotherapy in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, single-blind comparative study. Improved glycaemic control by addition of glimepiride to metformin monotherapy in type 2 diabetic patients. [Gliclazide and metformin combination in patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary data]. Effect of metformin in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Effect of combination glipizide GITS/metformin on fibrinolytic and metabolic parameters in poorly controlled type 2 diabetic subjects. Metformin-glibenclamide versus metformin plus rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. Effects of short-term treatment with metformin on markers of endothelial function and inflammatory activity in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. [Efficacy and safety of glimepiride plus metformin in a single presentation, as combined therapy, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and secondary failure to glibenclamide, as monotherapy]. Long-term effects of metformin on metabolism and microvascular and macrovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Twenty-two NIDDM patients completed an open randomized cross-over study comparing metformin and glibenclamide over 1 year. The drugs had an equivalent effect on glycaemic control, but, in contrast to glibenclamide, metformin reduced body weight. Neither drug affected triglycerides, total- and LDL-cholesterol or C-peptide. Metformin caused a slight elevation of HDL-cholesterol (P less than 0.05). No serious adverse effects were observed. The results show that oral hypoglycaemic agents are not associated with undesirable effects on lipids and lipoproteins. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), biomarkers reflecting inflammation and endothelial dysfunction have been linked to cardiovascular disease (CVD biomarkers) and metabolic regulation. In T2DM patients, metformin and insulin secretagogues have demonstrated equal anti-hyperglycaemic potency. Here, we report the effect of metformin versus an insulin secretagogue, repaglinide, on CVD biomarkers in non-obese T2DM patients.
                Single-centre, double-masked, double-dummy, crossover study during 2x4 months involving 96 non-obese (body mass index< or =27 kg/m(2)) insulin-naïve T2DM patients. At enrolment, previous oral hypoglycaemic agents were stopped and the patients entered a 1-month run-in on diet-only treatment. Hereafter, patients were randomized to either 2 mg repaglinide thrice daily followed by 1 g metformin twice daily or vice versa each during 4 months with a 1-month washout between interventions.
                Levels of tumour necrosis factor-alpha, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 antigen, tissue-type plasminogen activator antigen, von Willebrand factor, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and soluble E-selectin were significantly lower during metformin versus repaglinide treatments. In contrast, Amadori albumin and heart rate were higher during metformin versus repaglinide. Levels of interleukin-6, fibrinogen, soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, asymmetric dimethylarginine and advanced glycation end products as well as glycaemic levels (previously reported) and 24-h blood pressure were similar between treatments. Adjustment for known macrovascular disease did not affect the between-treatment effects.
                In non-obese T2DM patients, metformin was more effective in reducing selected biomarkers reflecting inflammation and endothelial dysfunction compared with repaglinide despite similar glycaemic levels between treatments. Metformin is the 'drug-of-first-choice' in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) due to its antihyperglycaemic and cardiovascular protective potentials. In non-obese patients with T2DM, insulin secretagogues are empirically used as first choice. In this investigator-initiated trial, we evaluated the effect of metformin vs. an insulin secretagogue, repaglinide on glycaemic regulation and markers of inflammation and insulin sensitivity in non-obese patients with T2DM.
                A single-centre, double-masked, double-dummy, crossover study during 2 x 4 months involved 96 non-obese (body mass index < or = 27 kg/m(2)) insulin-naïve patients with T2DM. At enrolment, previous oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHA) were stopped and patients entered a 1-month run-in on diet-only treatment. Hereafter, patients were randomized to either repaglinide 2 mg thrice daily followed by metformin 1 g twice daily or vice versa each during 4 months with 1-month washout between interventions.
                End-of-treatment levels of haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), fasting plasma glucose, mean of seven-point home-monitored plasma glucose and fasting levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and adiponectin were not significantly different between treatments. However, body weight, waist circumference, fasting serum levels of insulin and C-peptide were lower and less number of patients experienced hypoglycaemia during treatment with metformin vs. repaglinide. Both drugs were well tolerated.
                In non-obese patients with T2DM, overall glycaemic regulation was equivalent with less hypoglycaemia during metformin vs. repaglinide treatment for 2 x 4 months. Metformin was more effective targeting non-glycaemic cardiovascular risk markers related to total and abdominal body fat stores as well as fasting insulinaemia. These findings may suggest the use of metformin as the preferred OHA also in non-obese patients with T2DM. Patients with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are at high risk of morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular complications, and hypoglycaemia increases this risk. Furthermore, other metabolic parameters exacerbate cardiovascular risk in these patients. The aim of the study was to compare the metabolic effects of glimepiride and metformin in patients with T2DM. We evaluated 164 patients with T2DM (80 males, 84 females) in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, parallel group study comparing glimepiride with metformin. Eighty-one patients (aged 56+/-10 yr) received glimepiride (3+/-1 mg/d); 83 patients (aged 58+/-9 yr) received metformin (2500+/-500 mg/d). Patients had been diagnosed for < or = 6 months; they were non-smokers; had no hypertension or coronary heart disease; were not taking hypolipidaemic drugs, diuretics, beta-blockers or thyroxin; and had normal renal function. Metabolic parameters were measured after 6 and 12 months of treatment. Glimepiride significantly lowered lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and homocysteine levels (HCT) at 6 and 12 months. Both glimepiride and metformin lowered plasminogen activator inhibitor Type 1 (PAI-1) at 12 months and significantly improved levels of glycosylated haemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose and post-prandial plasma glucose after 6 and 12 months. Metformin significantly lowered fasting plasma insulin and postprandial plasma insulin. Glimepiride and metformin also reduced levels of other metabolic parameters in patients with T2DM. In particular, glimepiride significantly reduced HCT, Lp(a), and PAI-1 levels, important metabolic risk factors for atherosclerotic vascular disease. These reductions may be owing to improved glucose metabolism, but it cannot be excluded that these drugs have a direct effect on additional metabolic parameters. To compare the efficacy and safety of glimepiride versus metformin in pediatric subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with diet and exercise alone or oral monotherapy.
                This 26-week, single-blind, active-controlled, multinational study randomized 285 subjects to receive glimepiride (1-8 mg once daily) or metformin (500-1000 mg twice daily) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was mean change in A1C from baseline to week 24. Safety was assessed by incidence of hypoglycemia and other adverse events.
                Significant reductions from baseline A1C were seen in both the glimepiride (-0.54%, P = 0.001) and metformin (-0.71%, P = 0.0002) groups. A total of 42.4% (56 of 132) and 48.1% (63 of 131) of subjects in the glimepiride and metformin groups, respectively, in the intent-to-treat population achieved A1C <7.0% at week 24. No significant differences were observed between groups in reductions in A1C and self-monitored blood glucose levels, changes in serum lipid concentrations, or hypoglycemia incidence. Significant differences were observed in mean changes from baseline in BMI between groups (0.26 kg/m(2) for glimepiride and -0.33 kg/m(2) for metformin; P = 0.003). The adjusted mean body weight increase was 1.97 kg for glimepiride and 0.55 kg for metformin (P = 0.005). A hypoglycemic episode with blood glucose <50 mg/dl (<2.8 mmol/l) was experienced by 4.9 and 4.2% of glimepiride- and metformin-treated subjects, respectively. A single severe hypoglycemic event occurred in each group.
                Glimepiride reduced A1C similarly to metformin with greater weight gain, and there was comparable safety over 24 weeks in the treatment of pediatric subjects with type 2 diabetes. To compare the effect of glimepiride in combination with metformin with monotherapy of each drug on glycaemic control in Type 2 diabetic patients.
                Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group multicentre study conducted in France. Type 2 diabetic patients aged 35-70 years inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy 2550 mg daily for at least 4 weeks were randomized to either metformin, glimepiride or metformin and glimepiride.
                Three hundred and seventy-two patients aged 56 +/- 8 years were treated for 5 months. Combination treatment was significantly more efficient in controlling HbA1c (% change + 0.07 +/- 1.20 for metformin, + 0.27 +/- 1.10 for glimepiride, -0.74 +/- 0.96 for combination treatment, P < 0.001), fasting blood glucose (FBG) (mmol/l change + 0.8 +/- 0.4 for metformin, + 0.7 +/- 3.1 for glimepiride and -1.8 +/- 2.2 for combination treatment, P < 0.001) and post-prandial blood glucose (PPBG) (mmol/l change + 1.1 +/- 5.9 for metformin, + 0.1 +/- 5.1 for glimepiride and -2.6 +/- 3.9 for combination treatment, P < 0.001) than either glimepiride or metformin alone. There was no significant difference between metformin or glimepiride monotherapy with respect to the change in HbA1c or FBG; however, glimepiride was significantly more effective than metformin in reducing PPBG. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was higher in the combination group than in either monotherapy group (P = 0.039).
                Addition of glimepiride to metformin in Type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled by metformin alone resulted in superior glycaemic control compared with glimepiride or metformin monotherapy. This preliminary study is aimed at the evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of combined therapy with gliclazide and metformin in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with maximal doses of gliclazide.
                A prospective, uncontrolled study, with a follow-up of 3 months, was performed in two Outpatient Diabetes Care Units. Fifty-seven patients affected by type 2 diabetes for at least 5 years, aged 61.0 +/- 3.4 years, with a duration of diabetes of 9.2 +/- 3.9 years, Body Mass Index (BMI) 30.5 +/- 3.7 kg/m2, previously treated with gliclazide 240 mg/day, and with HbA1c > 8.5%, were studied. The patients were treated with gliclazide 120 mg/day and metformin 1500 mg/day for 3 months; HbA1c, 24-hour glycosuria, and fasting and post-prandial glycaemia, were determined at the beginning and at the end of the study.
                After a 3-month treatment, a reduction of fasting and post-prandial glycaemia, glycosuria (15.0 +/- 5.3 versus 5.7 +/- 4.0 g/l, p < 0.01), and HbA1c (9.9 +/- 1.1 versus 8.4 +/- 1.0%, p < 0.01) was observed, while no significant changes occurred in body weight. The treatment was generally well tolerated.
                In conclusion, the combination of gliclazide and metformin, which could theoretically show some advantages over the association of glibenclamide and metformin with regards to lipid and haemorheologic profiles, resulted to be effective and well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sulphonylurea monotherapy. Metformin is the most commonly prescribed oral antidiabetic agent in the U.S. for adults with type 2 diabetes. The incidence of type 2 diabetes in children has increased dramatically over the past 10 years, and yet, metformin has never been formally studied in children with type 2 diabetes.
                This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of metformin at doses up to 1,000 mg twice daily in 82 subjects aged 10-16 years for up to 16 weeks in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial from September 1998 to November 1999. Subjects with type 2 diabetes were enrolled if they had a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels > or =7.0 and < or =13.3 mmol/l (> or =126 and < or =240 mg/dl), HbA(1c) > or =7.0%, stimulated C-peptide > or =0.5 nmol/l (> or =1.5 ng/ml), and a BMI > 50th percentile for age.
                Metformin significantly improved glycemic control. At the last double-blind visit, the adjusted mean change from baseline in FPG was -2.4 mmol/l (-42.9 mg/dl) for metformin compared with +1.2 mmol/l (+21.4 mg/dl) for placebo (P < 0.001). Mean HbA(1c) values, adjusted for baseline levels, were also significantly lower for metformin compared with placebo (7.5 vs. 8.6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Improvement in FPG was seen in both sexes and in all race subgroups. Metformin did not have a negative impact on body weight or lipid profile. Adverse events were similar to those reported in adults treated with metformin.
                Metformin was shown to be safe and effective for treatment of type 2 diabetes in pediatric patients. Epidemiological studies have implicated increased plasminogen-activated inhibitor 1 (PAI-1) as a marker or predictor of accelerated coronary atherosclerotic disease in type 2 diabetes. We sought to determine whether metabolic control, independent of its oral mode of implementation, affects PAI-1 in patients with marked hyperglycemia.
                A total of 91 subjects were screened, subjected to a 4-week drug washout, and randomized to daily treatment with glipizide GITS (maximum 20 mg, n = 46) or metformin (maximum 2,550 mg, n = 45) as monotherapy. After monotherapy, combination therapy was initiated by adding the second agent to the regimen. Plasma glucose (fasting and postprandial), HbA(1c), fructosamine, and PAI-1 were assayed before and after randomization and sequentially thereafter in all subjects; hepatic glucose output (HGO) and abdominal fat distribution were each measured in a subset of subjects.
                Glycemic control was markedly impaired at baseline (mean HbA(1c) 10.4 +/- 0.2% glipizide GITS; 10.0 +/- 0.2% metformin) but improved comparably with each agent as monotherapy and in combination (P < 0.0001 vs. baseline), as assessed with meal tolerance studies, fructosamine values, and HGO. Body weight and abdominal fat distribution did not change significantly in either group. PAI-1 concentrations were extraordinarily high (5- to 10-fold more than normal) at baseline (202 +/- 12 ng/ml glipizide GITS; 201 +/- 13 ng/ml metformin) but declined comparably, and significantly, after treatment with either agent as monotherapy and decreased further with combination therapy.
                When hyperglycemia is profound, increases in PAI-1 are also profound. Control of hyperglycemia with either glipizide GITS, an insulin secretagogue, or metformin as monotherapy comparably ameliorates elevated PAI-1. This double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of metformin-glibenclamide tablets vs. metformin plus rosiglitazone therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.
                After an open-label, metformin lead-in phase, 318 patients were randomly assigned to treatment based on metformin-glibenclamide 500/2.5 mg tablets (initial daily dose 1000/5 mg) or metformin 500 mg plus rosiglitazone 4 mg (initial daily dose 1000-2000 mg + 4 mg, depending on previous treatment) for 24 weeks. Doses were titrated to achieve the therapeutic glycaemic target. The primary efficacy variable was the change in HbA1C.
                At week 24, metformin-glibenclamide tablets resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1C (-1.5%) and fasting plasma glucose [-2.6 mmol/l (-46 mg/dl)] than metformin plus rosiglitazone [-1.1%, p < 0.001; -2 mmol/l (-36 mg/dl), p = 0.03]. More patients receiving metformin-glibenclamide attained HbA1C <7.0% than did those in the metformin plus rosiglitazone group (60 vs. 47%) and had fasting plasma glucose levels <7 mmol/l (<126 mg/dl) by week 24 (34 vs. 25%). Both treatments were well tolerated. Frequency of adverse gastrointestinal events was comparable between groups. Four per cent of patients receiving metformin-glibenclamide withdrew because of symptomatic hypoglycaemia contrasted with 3% of patients receiving metformin plus rosiglitazone who withdrew because of persistent hyperglycaemia. Hypoglycaemic events were mild or moderate in intensity and were easily self-managed.
                Metformin-glibenclamide tablets resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1C and fasting plasma glucose compared with metformin plus rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) showed that treatment with metformin decreases macrovascular morbidity and mortality independent of glycaemic control. We hypothesized that metformin may achieve this by improving endothelial function and chronic, low-grade inflammation. Data on this issue are scarce and we therefore tested, in the setting of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, whether metformin can affect endothelial function and low-grade inflammation.
                The Hyperinsulinaemia the Outcome of its Metabolic Effects (HOME) trial is a double-blind trial, in which all patients were randomized to receive either metformin or placebo in addition to insulin therapy. At the beginning and the end of a 16-week treatment period fasting blood samples were drawn and a physical examination was carried out.
                The trial was conducted in the outpatient clinics of three nonacademic hospitals (Hoogeveen, Meppel and Coevorden; the Netherlands).
                Patients were included if they were between 30 and 80 years of age; had received a diagnosis of diabetes after the age of 25; had never had an episode of ketoacidosis; and their blood glucose-lowering treatment previously consisted of oral agents but now only consisted of either insulin (n = 345) or insulin and metformin (n = 45). We excluded pregnant women and women trying to become pregnant, patients with a Cockroft-Gault-estimated creatinine clearance <50 mL min(-1), or low plasma cholinesterase (reference value <3.5 units L(-1)), patients with congestive heart failure (New York Heart Association class III/IV), or patients with other serious medical or psychiatric disease. A total of 745 eligible patients were approached; 390 gave informed consent and were randomized (196 metformin, 194 placebo). About 353 patients completed 16 weeks of treatment (171 metformin, 182 placebo).
                The HOME trial was designed to study the metabolic and cardiovascular effects of metformin during a follow-up of 4 years. Presented here are the results of an interim analysis after 16 weeks of treatment.
                When compared with placebo, metformin treatment was associated with an increase in urinary albumin excretion of 21% (-1 to +48; P = 0.06); a decrease in plasma von Willebrand factor of 6% (-10 to -2; P = 0.0007); a decrease in soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 of 4% (-7 to -2; P = 0.0002); a decrease in soluble E-selectin of 6% (-10 to -2; P = 0.008); a decrease in tissue-type plasminogen activator of 16% (-20 to -12; P < 0.0001); and a decrease in plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 of 20% (-27 to -10; P = 0.0001). These changes could not be explained by metformin-associated changes in glycaemic control, body weight or insulin dose. Markers of inflammation, i.e. C-reactive protein and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1, did not change with metformin treatment.
                In patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin, metformin treatment was associated with improvement of endothelial function, which was largely unrelated to changes in glycaemic control, but not with improvement of chronic, low-grade inflammation. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of glimepiride plus metformin in a single presentation, as combined therapy, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) with secondary failure to glibenclamide.
                A randomized, double-blind, multicentric trial was carried out in 104 obese patients with DM2, fasting glucose > 140 mg/dL and glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C) > 8%, in spite of treatment with glibenclamide at maximum doses and medical nutrition therapy for at least the 3 months previous to the study. After randomization, the patients received in titrated way during 3 months one of the following treatments: up to 4 mg of glimepiride, 2 g of metformin or 4 mg of glimepiride plus 2 g of metformin in a single presentation. Efficacy criteria were either a decrease in A1C of 1% or more, or a reduction in A1C of 7% or less. Adverse events were carefully monitored during the study.
                At the end of the study, the decrease in A1C concentration was -0.9 +/- 1.6% (CI 95%: -0.2 to -1.5) in the glimepiride group, -0.7 +/- 2.1% (CI 95%: 0.2 to -1.6) in the metformin group, and -1.3 +/- 1.8 mg/dL (CI 95%: -0.6 to -1.9) in the combined therapy group. The percentage of patients that showed a decrease in AIC of 1% or higher was 35.1, 21.2 and 47.0% in the glimepiride, in the metformin and in the combined therapy groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with decreased AIC of 7% or less was 18.9, 9.0 and 23.5% in the glimepiride, in the metformin and in the combined therapy groups, respectively (p = 0.01). The frequency of adverse events was similar for all the groups.
                The combined use of glimepiride plus metformin in a single presentation for 3 months showed to be efficacious and safe in patients with DM2 and secondary failure to glibenclamide. We investigated whether metformin hydrochloride has sustained beneficial metabolic and (cardio) vascular effects in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2).
                We studied 390 patients treated with insulin in the outpatient clinics of 3 hospitals in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a follow-up period of 4.3 years. Either metformin hydrochloride, 850 mg, or placebo (1-3 times daily) was added to insulin therapy. The primary end point was an aggregate of microvascular and macrovascular morbidity and mortality. The secondary end points were microvascular and macrovascular morbidity and mortality, as separate aggregate scores. In addition, effects on hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), insulin requirement, lipid levels, blood pressure, body weight, and body mass index were analyzed.
                Metformin treatment prevented weight gain (mean weight gain, -3.07 kg [range, -3.85 to -2.28 kg]; P < .001), improved glycemic control (mean reduction in HbA(1c) level, 0.4% percentage point [95% CI, 0.55-0.25]; P < .001) (where CI indicates confidence interval), despite the aim of similar glycemic control in both groups, and reduced insulin requirements (mean reduction, 19.63 IU/d [95% CI, 24.91-14.36 IU/d]; P < .001). Metformin was not associated with an improvement in the primary end point. It was, however, associated with an improvement in the secondary, macrovascular end point (hazard ratio, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.40-0.94; P = .02), which was partly explained by the difference in weight. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 macrovascular end point was 16.1 (95% CI, 9.2-66.6).
                Metformin, added to insulin in patients with DM2, improved body weight, glycemic control, and insulin requirements but did not improve the primary end point. Metformin did, however, reduce the risk of macrovascular disease after a follow-up period of 4.3 years. These sustained beneficial effects support the policy to continue metformin treatment after the introduction of insulin in any patient with DM2, unless contraindicated. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00375388.
Meglitinides may offer an alternative oral hypoglycaemic agent of similar potency to metformin, and may be indicated where side effects of metformin are intolerable or where metformin is contraindicated. However, there is no evidence available to indicate what effect meglitinides will have on important long-term outcomes, particularly mortality.