Glucose-lowering effect and glycaemic variability of insulin glargine, insulin detemir and insulin lispro protamine in people with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To compare, using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, the effect on glycaemic variability of insulin glargine, detemir and lispro protamine. METHODS: A total of 49 white people with type 1 diabetes, not well controlled by three times daily insulin lispro, taken for at least 2 months before study and on a stable dose, were enrolled. The study participants were randomized to add insulin glargine, detemir or lispro protamine, once daily, in the evening. We used a CGM system, the iPro Digital Recorder (Medtronic MiniMed, Northridge, CA, USA) for 1 week. Glycaemic control was assessed according to mean blood glucose values, the area under the glucose curve above 3.9 mmol/l (AUC(>3.9)) or above 10.0 mmol/l (AUC(>10.0)), and the percentage of time spent with glucose values >3.9 or >10.0 mmol/l. Intraday glycaemic variability was assessed using standard deviation (s.d.) values, the mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions and continuous overlapping of net glycaemic action. Day-to-day glycaemic variability was assessed using the mean of daily differences. RESULTS: The s.d. was found to be significantly lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with insulin detemir. AUC(>3.9) was higher and AUC(>10.0) was lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with detemir. The mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions and continuous overlapping net glycaemic action values were lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with detemir. In addition, the mean of daily differences was significantly lower with insulin lispro protamine and glargine compared with detemir. Fewer hypoglycaemic events were recorded during the night-time with insulin lispro protamine compared with glargine and detemir. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that insulin lispro protamine and glargine are more effective than detemir in reducing glycaemic variability and improving glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. Insulin lispro protamine seems to lead to fewer hypoglycaemic events than other insulin regimens.

Analysis of the prevalence of cataracts and glaucoma in systemic lupus erythematosus and evaluation of the rheumatologists' practice for the monitoring of glucocorticoid eye toxicity.

Chronic glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is associated with an increased risk of developing cataracts and glaucoma, and recommendations have been developed for monitoring these side effects in patients with rheumatic diseases. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of cataracts and glaucoma and the adherence to the existing recommendations for monitoring eye toxicity of chronic GC therapy among systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients in routine clinical practice. Clinical charts of 170 patients were examined, and 34 (20%) of them never underwent an eye assessment. The remaining 136 underwent an eye assessment with an interval of 75 ± 61.7 months. Only 45 (33%) had received an evaluation during the previous 12 months. All these 170 patients were taking chronic CG therapy at a mean daily dose of 5.4 ± 2.4 mg prednisone and a mean cumulative dose of 27.6 ± 20.5 g. Out of the 136 patients with at least one eye assessment, cataracts were observed in 39 patients (29%) and glaucoma in 4 patients (3%). Cataracts were diagnosed at a mean age of 46.5 ± 10 years; the development of cataracts was associated with age, disease duration, and cumulative GC dose. Glaucoma was diagnosed at a mean age of 40.5 ± 16 years; due to the small number of patients, no correlations were made. The prevalence of cataracts and glaucoma is higher than in the general population, and these conditions occur early in the life of SLE patients. An association between GC and cataracts is confirmed. The adherence to recommendations is suboptimal as only 33% of patients underwent an eye assessment over the previous 12 months. These data reinforce the need to improve adherence to recommendations for eye monitoring among SLE patients under chronic therapy with GC.

A comparison between sitagliptin or glibenclamide in addition to metformin + pioglitazone on glycaemic control and ß-cell function: the triple oral therapy.

AIMS: To evaluate which triple oral therapy between metformin + pioglitazone + sitagliptin and metformin + pioglitazone + glibenclamide can be more useful in improving glycaemic control and should be preferred in clinical practice. METHODS: During the 2-year run-in period, patients were instructed to take metformin monotherapy for the first year, then a combination of metformin and pioglitazone for the second year, then patients were randomized to add glibenclamide or sitagliptin to the dual combination of metformin and pioglitazone for another year. RESULTS: Body weight reached with sitagliptin at 36 months was lower than that reached with glibenclamide. Fasting plasma insulin and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance were significantly increased by triple therapy with glibenclamide and decreased by that with sitagliptin. While sitagliptin did not change homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function, this value was significantly increased by glibenclamide. Fasting plasma proinsulin was not influenced by triple oral therapy including glibenclamide, while it was decreased by the therapy including sitagliptin compared to glibenclamide. Triple oral therapy with sitagliptin better improved ß-cell function measures compared with the glibenclamide therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Sitagliptin should be preferred to glibenclamide as an addition to the metformin + pioglitazone combination for its better protection of ß-cell secretion and its neutral effect on body weight.

Effects of an olmesartan/amlodipine fixed dose on blood pressure control, some adipocytokines and interleukins levels compared with olmesartan or amlodipine monotherapies.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of an olmesartan/amlodipine single pill combination compared with olmesartan or amlodipine monotherapies on blood pressure control, lipid profile, insulin sensitivity and some adipocytokines levels. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-six patients were enroled in the study and were randomly assigned to take olmesartan 20 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, or a single pill containing an olmesartan/amlodipine combination 20 mg/5 mg for 12 months. We evaluated at the baseline, and after 6 and 12 months: body weight, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), lipid profile, adiponectin (ADN), resistin (r), interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) and interleukin-5 (IL-5). At the baseline, and after 6 and 12 months, patients underwent an euglycemic, hyperinsulinemic clamp to assess insulin sensitivity (M value). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: There was a similar decrease in SBP and DBP after 6 and 12 months in all groups, even if olmesartan/amlodipine combination gave a major decrease in SBP and DPB compared with amlodipine and olmesartan monotherapies. Olmesartan/amlodipine combination decreased FPG after 12 months compared with amlodipine monotherapy. Olmesartan/amlodipine combination decreased FPI and HOMA index and increased M value both compared with baseline and compared with olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies. Both olmesartan and olmesartan/amlodipine increased ADN and reduced r, without significant differences between the two groups. Regarding interleukins, no differences emerged in group to group comparison. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Olmesartan/amlodipine combination resulted more effective than olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies in reducing blood pressure, and in increasing insulin sensitivity parameters, but not resulted more effective in improving adipocytokines and interleukins levels analysed, compared with amlodipine or olmesartan monotherapy in hypertensive patients in this double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

Exenatide plus metformin compared with metformin alone on ß-cell function in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To quantify how much exenatide added to metformin improves ß-cell function, and to evaluate the impact on glycaemic control, insulin resistance and inflammation compared with metformin alone. METHODS: A total of 174 patients with Type 2 diabetes with poor glycaemic control were instructed to take metformin for 8 ± 2 months, then they were randomly assigned to exenatide (5 µg twice a day for the first 4 weeks and forced titration to 10 µg twice a day thereafter) or placebo for 12 months. At 12 months we evaluated anthropometric measurements, glycaemic control, insulin resistance and ß-cell function variables, glucagon, adiponectin, high sensitivity-C reactive protein and tumour necrosis factor-α. Before and after 12 months, patients underwent a combined euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic and hyperglycaemic clamp, with subsequent arginine stimulation. RESULTS: Exenatide + metformin gave a greater decrease in body weight, glycaemic control, fasting plasma proinsulin and insulin and their ratio, homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and glucagon values and a greater increase in C-peptide levels, homeostasis model assessment ß-cell function index (HOMA-ß) and adiponectin compared with placebo + metformin. Exenatide + metformin decreased waist and hip circumference, and reduced concentrations of high sensitivity-C reactive protein and tumour necrosis factor-α. Exenatide + metformin gave a greater increase in M value (+34%), and disposition index (+55%) compared with placebo + metformin; first (+21%) and second phase (+34%) C-peptide response to glucose and C-peptide response to arginine (+25%) were also improved by exenatide + metformin treatment, but not by placebo + metformin. CONCLUSION: Exenatide is effective not only on glycaemic control, but also in protecting ß-cells and in reducing inflammation.

Effects of one year treatment of vildagliptin added to pioglitazone or glimepiride in poorly controlled type 2 diabetic patients.

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of vildagliptin added to pioglitazone or glimepiride on metabolic and insulin resistance related-indices in poorly controlled type 2 diabetic patients (T2DM). 168 patients with T2DM were randomized to take either pioglitazone 30 mg once a day plus vildagliptin 50 mg twice a day or glimepiride 2 mg 3 times a day plus vildagliptin 50 mg twice a day. We evaluated body weight, body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), homeostasis model assessment beta-cell function index (HOMA-beta), fasting plasma proinsulin (FPPr), proinsulin/fasting plasma insulin ratio (Pr/FPI ratio), adiponectin (ADN), resistin (R), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP) at their baseline values, and after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of treatment. We observed a similar improvement of HbA1c, FPG, PPG, and Hs-CRP compared to baseline in the 2 groups. Fasting plasma insulin, FPPr, Pr/FPI ratio, R, and TNF-alpha were significantly decreased and ADN was significantly increased with pioglitazone plus vildagliptin, but not with glimepiride plus vildagliptin. HOMA-IR, and HOMA-beta values obtained with pioglitazone plus vildagliptin were significantly better than the values obtained with glimepiride plus vildagliptin. Pioglitazone plus vildagliptin were found to be more effective in preserving beta-cell function, and in reducing insulin resistance, and inflammatory state parameters.

Exenatide versus glibenclamide in patients with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Incretin-based therapies have provided additional options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of exenatide compared to glibenclamide on body weight, glycemic control, beta-cell function, insulin resistance, and inflammatory state in patients with diabetes. METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving therapy with metformin were randomized to take exenatide 5 microg twice a day or glibenclamide 2.5 mg three times a day and titrated to exenatide 10 microg twice a day or glibenclamide 5 mg three times a day. We evaluated body weight, body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index, homeostasis model assessment beta-cell function (HOMA-beta) index, plasma proinsulin (PPr), PPr/FPI ratio, resistin, retinol binding protein-4 (RBP-4), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP) at baseline and after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. RESULTS: Body weight and BMI decreased with exenatide and increased with glibenclamide. A similar improvement of HbA(1c), FPG, and PPG was obtained in both groups, whereas FPI decreased with exenatide and increased with glibenclamide. The HOMA-IR index decreased and the HOMA-beta index increased with exenatide but not with glibenclamide. A decrease of PPr was reported in both groups, but only glibenclamide decreased the PPr/FPI ratio. Resistin and RBP-4 decreased with exenatide and increased with glibenclamide. A decrease of Hs-CRP was obtained with exenatide, whereas no variations were observed with glibenclamide. CONCLUSIONS: Both exenatide and glibenclamide gave a similar improvement of glycemic control, but only exenatide gave improvements of insulin resistance and beta-cell function, giving also a decrease of body weight and of inflammatory state.

Effects of a somatostatin derivative (SMS 201-995) on postprandial hyperglycemia in insulin-dependent diabetics studied by means of a closed-loop device.

We studied the effects of a premeal sc injection of an analog of somatostatin (SMS 201-995, Sandoz) on the postprandial glycemic excursions, insulin requirement and hormone profiles (GH, glucagon and C-peptide) in 8 IDDM patients (diabetes duration 14.0 +/- 6.5 yr, daily insulin requirement 36 +/- 6.4 U) maintained normoglycemic by connecting them to a closed-loop insulin infusion system (Betalike, Genoa). The morning of the test the patients were connected to the Betalike and their glucose levels stabilized for at least 4 h. At 13:00 h the study was begun with a sc injection of 50 micrograms of SMS 201-995 or placebo (randomly) and a standardized mixed meal (800 Kcal) was given. Blood samples were obtained 0, 15, 30, 60, 120 and 180 min after the injection. Each patient was tested both with SMS 201-995 and placebo. Postmeal glycemic peaks were decreased after SMS 201-995 (119.6 +/- 5.4 mg/dl vs 149.1 +/- 4.2; p less than 0.05) as well as insulin requirements (3.2 +/- 0.8 U vs 13.3 +/- 1.9; p less than 0.01) for the 180 min postprandial period. Similarly, glucagon level was reduced 30 min postprandially (24 +/- 6 pg/ml vs 59 +/- 24; p less than 0.05) and so GH level only 180 min after lunch (p less than 0.05). The premeal injection of SMS decreases postprandial glycemic excursions and the corresponding insulin requirement. The action of SMS 201-995 may be mainly mediated by the suppression of postprandial glucagon peak.

Empty sella syndrome and growth deficiency in childhood.

We describe four cases of empty sella syndrome in childhood associated with growth and neuroendocrine disorders. We note that empty sella syndrome probably presents with endocrine disorders more often in childhood than in adults and that its frequency seems to be underestimated.