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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin association on non-diabetic and diabetic patients with polygenic hypercholesterolemia or combined hyperlipidemia and previously intolerant to standard statin treatment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: One of the problems associated with reaching the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target during statin treatment is the emergence of laboratory or clinical side effects. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence of statin-associated adverse events in diabetic and non-diabetic patients affected by polygenic hypercholesterolemia or combined hyperlipidemia and the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg/day on the same subjects experiencing the adverse events. METHODS: Consecutively enrollment of patients affected by polygenic hypercholesterolemia or combined hyperlipidemia with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus. Each Centre used any of the available statins on the basis of current clinical judgement and monitored enrolled patients for adverse events during the following 2 years. Those patients with moderate adverse events suspended the current statin therapy for 1 month (washout period), and then were shifted to treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg/day and again monitored for adverse events in the following 6 months. We assessed body mass index, glycated haemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatinine phosphokinase and monitored adverse events such as asthenia and myalgia. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: All 1170 Caucasian patients affected by polygenic hypercholesterolemia obtained a significant reduction in LDL-C during the observation period (P < 0*05), while those with combined hyperlipidemia also showed a reduction in TG plasma level (P < 0*05) and a significant increase in HDL-C (P < 0*05). Patients affected by polygenic hypercholesterolemia experiencing adverse event under statin treatment obtained a significantly lower reduction than those tolerating the treatment (P < 0*001). The prevalence of adverse events under statin treatment was 4*9% in non-diabetic patients with polygenic hypercholesterolemia, 8*6% in those with combined hyperlipidemia, 7*1% in diabetic patients with polygenic hypercholesterolemia and 7*6% in those with combined hyperlipidemia. Six months after the shift to treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg, all patients experienced a significant improvement in LDL-C, TG and HDL-C plasma level. No adverse event was registered during the ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg treatment period. It seems that previous side effects observed with statins did not re-appear with the administration of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and adverse effect profile of the ezetimibe and simvastatin combination appear to be good for both diabetic and nondiabetic patients, and in both conditions.