Experimental observation of asymmetrical microwave jets and far-field distribution generated by a dual-material system.

In this paper, we report the experimental and numerical investigation of plane wave diffraction by an all-dielectric dual-material cuboid. Edge diffraction by a cuboid leads to the generation of a narrow, high intensity beam in the near-field region called a photonic jet. We examine the dependence of the jet behavior and orientation on the materials and dimensions of constitutive parts in the microwave frequency domain. The possibility to shift and deviate the resultant microwave jet in the near-field region of such a structure depending on the size of constitutive parts is demonstrated numerically. Experimentally, we observe a shift in the spatial position of the jet. The experimental asymmetric electric field profile observed in the far-field region is attributed to the input of multiple edge waves generated by the dual-material cuboid. The presented results may be scaled at different frequency bands such as optical frequencies for designing nanostructures enabling the focusing and deviation functionality and creation of new optical devices which would satisfy the needs of emerging nanophotonic applications.

Hypoglycaemia is reduced with use of inhaled Technosphere® Insulin relative to insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of final HbA1c levels on the incidences of hypoglycaemia in participants with type 1 diabetes treated with inhaled Technosphere® Insulin or subcutaneous insulin aspart, reported in alignment with the International Hypoglycaemia Study Group recommendations. METHODS: In the randomized, phase 3, multicentre AFFINITY-1 study, adults (N = 375) who had type 1 diabetes for ≥ 12 months and an HbA1c level of 58-86 mmol/mol (7.5-10.0%) were randomized to receive basal insulin plus either inhaled Technosphere Insulin or subcutaneous insulin aspart. This was a post-hoc regression analysis on a subset (N = 279) of the randomized AFFINITY-1 cohort for whom baseline and end-of-treatment HbA1c values were reported. Primary outcome measures were incidence and event rates for levels 1, 2 and 3 hypoglycaemia, respectively defined as blood glucose levels of ≤ 3.9 mmol/l, < 3.0 mmol/l or requiring external assistance for recovery. RESULTS: Participants treated with Technosphere Insulin experienced statistically significantly fewer level 1 and 2 hypoglycaemic events and a lower incidence of level 3 hypoglycaemia than participants treated with insulin aspart. The lower rate of hypoglycaemia with Technosphere Insulin was observed across the range of end-of-treatment HbA1c levels. Technosphere Insulin was associated with higher rates of hypoglycaemia 30-60 min after meals, but significantly lower rates 2-6 h after meals. CONCLUSIONS: Participants using Technosphere Insulin experienced clinically non-inferior glycaemic control and lower hypoglycaemia rates across a range of HbA1c levels compared with participants receiving insulin aspart. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01445951.

Improvement in glycated haemoglobin evaluated by baseline body mass index: a meta-analysis of the liraglutide phase III clinical trial programme.

In the liraglutide clinical trial programme, liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg were found to effectively lower glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). It is unknown whether baseline body mass index (BMI) is a predictor of change in HbA1c observed during a clinical trial with liraglutide or placebo treatment. The present meta-analysis of patient-level data, using pooled data from seven phase III trials [LEAD-1-6 and the liraglutide versus sitagliptin trial (LIRA-DPP-4)] for liraglutide 1.2, 1.8 mg and placebo (n = 3222), identified no significant correlation between baseline BMI (<20 kg/m(2) up to 45 kg/m(2) ) and HbA1c reduction for placebo or liraglutide 1.2 mg, and a modest, clinically non-relevant, association for liraglutide 1.8 mg [-0.010 (95% confidence interval -0.020, -0.001)], whereby a 10 kg/m(2) increase in baseline BMI corresponded to 0.10%-point (1.1 mmol/mol) greater HbA1c reduction. In summary, reductions in HbA1c obtained during clinical trials with liraglutide or placebo treatment were independent of baseline BMI.

Progression to insulin therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sitagliptin or sulphonylurea plus metformin dual therapy.

AIM: To assess time to insulin initiation among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with sitagliptin versus sulphonylurea as add-on to metformin. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used GE Centricity electronic medical records and included patients aged ≥18 years with continuous medical records and an initial prescription of sitagliptin or sulphonylurea (index date) with metformin for ≥90 days during 2006-2013. Sitagliptin and sulphonylurea users were matched 1 : 1 using propensity score matching, and differences in insulin initiation were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. We used conditional logistic regression to examine the likelihood of insulin use 1-6 years after the index date for each year. RESULTS: Propensity score matching produced 3864 matched pairs. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that sitagliptin users had a lower risk of insulin initiation compared with sulphonylurea users (p = 0.003), with 26.6% of sitagliptin users initiating insulin versus 34.1% of sulphonylurea users over 6 years. This finding remained significant after adjusting for baseline characteristics (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.90). Conditional logistic regression analyses confirmed that sitagliptin users were less likely to initiate insulin compared with sulphonylurea users [odds ratios for years 1-6: 0.77, 0.79, 0.81, 0.57, 0.29 and 0.75, respectively (p < 0.05 for years 4 and 5)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world matched cohort study, patients with T2DM treated with sitagliptin had a significantly lower risk of insulin initiation compared with patients treated with sulphonylurea, both as add-on to metformin.

Comparison of liraglutide versus other incretin-related anti-hyperglycaemic agents.

The two classes of incretin-related therapies, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), have become important treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes. Sitagliptin, saxagliptin, vildagliptin and linagliptin, the available DPP-4 inhibitors, are oral medications, whereas the GLP-1 RAs-twice-daily exenatide, once-weekly exenatide and once-daily liraglutide-are administered subcutaneously. By influencing levels of GLP-1 receptor stimulation, these medications lower plasma glucose levels in a glucose-dependent manner with low risk of hypoglycaemia, affecting postprandial plasma glucose more than most other anti-hyperglycaemic medications. Use of GLP-1 RAs has been shown to result in greater glycaemic improvements than DPP-4 inhibitors, probably because of higher levels of GLP-1 receptor activation. GLP-1 RAs can also produce significant weight loss and may reduce blood pressure and have beneficial effects on other cardiovascular risk factors. Although both classes are well tolerated, DPP-4 inhibitors may be associated with infections and headaches, whereas GLP-1 RAs are often associated with gastrointestinal disorders, primarily nausea. Pancreatitis has been reported with both DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs, but a causal relationship between use of incretin-based therapies and pancreatitis has not been established. In clinical trials, liraglutide has shown efficacy and tolerability and resulted in certain significant benefits when compared with exenatide and sitagliptin.

Patient-reported outcomes following treatment with the human GLP-1 analogue liraglutide or glimepiride in monotherapy: results from a randomized controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: As weight gain and hypoglycaemia associated with glimepiride therapy can negatively impact weight perceptions, psychological well-being and overall quality of life in type 2 diabetes, we investigated whether liraglutide treatment could improve these factors. METHODS: Seven hundred and thirty-two patients with type 2 diabetes completed a 77-item questionnaire during a randomized, 52-week, double-blind study with liraglutide 1.2 mg (n = 245) or 1.8 mg (n = 242) compared with glimepiride 8 mg (n = 245). RESULTS: Mean (SE) decreases in glycated haemoglobin levels were greater with liraglutide 1.2 mg [-0.84 (0.08)%] and 1.8 mg [-1.14 (0.08)%] than glimepiride [-0.51 (0.08)%; p = 0.0014 and p < 0.0001, respectively]. Patients gained weight on glimepiride [mean (SE), 1.12 (0.27) kg] but lost weight on liraglutide [1.2 mg: -2.05 (0.28) kg; 1.8 mg: -2.45 (0.28) kg; both p < 0.0001]. Patient weight assessment was more favourable with liraglutide 1.8 mg [mean (SE) score: 40.0 (2.0)] than glimepiride [48.7 (2.0); p = 0.002], and liraglutide 1.8 mg patients were 52% less likely to feel overweight [odds ratio (OR) 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.331-0.696]. Mean (SE) weight concerns were less with liraglutide [1.2 mg: 30.0 (1.2); 1.8 mg: 32.8 (1.2)] than glimepiride [38.8 (1.2); p < 0.0001 and p < 0.001, respectively], with liraglutide groups 45% less likely to report weight concern (OR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.41-0.73). Mean (SE) mental and emotional health and general perceived health improved more with liraglutide 1.8 mg [476.1 (2.8) and 444.2 (3.2), respectively] than glimepiride [466.3 (2.8) and 434.5 (3.2), respectively; p = 0.012 and p = 0.033, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Improved glycaemic control and decreased weight with liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. glimepiride can improve psychological and emotional well-being and health perceptions by reducing anxiety and worry associated with weight gain.

The safety and efficacy of liraglutide with or without oral antidiabetic drug therapy in type 2 diabetes: an overview of the LEAD 1-5 studies.

Liraglutide is a new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and a true GLP-1 analogue. After successful phase 2 studies, liraglutide was assessed in a series of phase 3 trials [(Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes (LEAD)] designed to demonstrate efficacy and safety across the continuum of type 2 diabetes antihyperglycaemic care, both as monotherapy and in combination with commonly used oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). The LEAD programme also compared liraglutide with other OADs. As a monotherapy, liraglutide demonstrated significant improvements in glycaemic control in comparison with glimepiride. When combined with one or two OADs, reductions in haemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose and postprandial glucose were generally greater with liraglutide than with comparators. Throughout the trials, liraglutide was associated with weight reduction; in most instances, the reduction from baseline was significantly greater than that seen with comparators. Improvements in assessments of beta-cell function were consistently shown with liraglutide treatment across all trials. Furthermore, reductions in systolic blood pressure were reported. Liraglutide was associated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia and was generally well tolerated. The majority of adverse effects were gastrointestinal, the most frequent of which was nausea.

Comparison of vildagliptin and thiazolidinedione as add-on therapy in patients inadequately controlled with metformin: results of the GALIANT trial--a primary care, type 2 diabetes study.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin compared with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) as an add on to metformin treatment in a primary care patient population with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was a randomized, 12-week, open-label study comparing vildagliptin (100 mg, n = 1653) and TZD (agent and dose at the investigators' discretion, n = 825) add-on therapy in patients inadequately controlled [haemoglobin A(1C) (HbA(1c)): 7-10%] on a stable dose of metformin (> or =1000 mg/day). The primary objective was to test non-inferiority of vildagliptin to TZDs for the difference in change in HbA(1c) from baseline [established if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not exceed 0.4%]. RESULTS: Mean (+/- s.e.) change in HbA(1c) from baseline to study endpoint was -0.68 +/- 0.02% in the vildagliptin group and -0.57 +/- 0.03% in the TZD group. The difference between groups was -0.11% (95% CI: -0.17% and -0.04%), establishing the non-inferiority of vildagliptin (p = 0.001) after 3 months of treatment. Vildagliptin was non-inferior to TZDs for subgroups of race, age and body mass index. Body weight increased in the TZD group (0.33 +/- 0.11 kg) and decreased in the vildagliptin group (mean: -0.58 +/- 0.09 kg; p < 0.001 for difference). Adverse events occurred in similar proportions of patients in both groups (vildagliptin: 39.5% and TZD: 36.3%) Hypoglycaemia and abnormal changes in liver enzymes were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: This short-term study suggests that vildagliptin is as effective as TZDs after 3-month treatment as an add-on to metformin in a primary care population that included diverse patient subgroups.

Patient-directed titration for achieving glycaemic goals using a once-daily basal insulin analogue: an assessment of two different fasting plasma glucose targets - the TITRATE study.

AIMS: To compare efficacy and safety of two fasting plasma glucose (FPG) titration targets [4.4-6.1 mmol/l (80-110 mg/dl) and 3.9-5.0 mmol/l (70-90 mg/dl)] using a patient-directed, treat-to-target algorithm for once-daily basal insulin in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes suboptimally treated with oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs). METHODS: In this 20-week, randomized, controlled, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target study, 244 insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes, HbA(1c)>or=7.0 and

The effect of the availability of inhaled insulin on glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes failing on oral therapy: the evaluation of Exubera as a therapeutic option on insulin initiation and improvement in glycaemic control in clinical practice (EXPERIENCE) trial.

AIM: To examine the impact of inhaled human insulin (Exubera, EXU) on patient or physician willingness to adopt insulin after oral glucose-lowering agent failure. METHODS: During a randomized controlled trial in primary, secondary and tertiary care in Europe and North America, 739 patients using >or= 2 oral glucose-lowering agents with glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) >or= 8.0% were assigned to two treatment groups: Group 1 (standard care with the option of EXU) or Group 2 (standard care only). Standard care included adjusting oral therapy (optimizing current regimen or adding/omitting agents) and/or initiating subcutaneous (s.c.) insulin. The primary endpoint was difference in HbA(1c) between randomized groups at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes included differences in the rate of uptake of insulin therapy, proportion achieving satisfactory glycaemic control, treatment satisfaction and safety outcomes. RESULTS: At baseline, insulin was initiated by more [odds ratio 6.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.2 to 8.8; P < 0.0001] patients in Group 1 (86.2%; 76.7% EXU plus 9.5% s.c.) than Group 2 (50.7%; s.c. insulin only). At 26 weeks, mean (sd) changes in HbA(1c) from baseline were -2.0% (1.2%) and -1.7% (1.3%) in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, a difference of -0.2% (95% CI: -0.1% to -0.4%; P = 0.004). In Group 1, 45% of patients achieved an HbA(1c)

Does home-based exercise improve body mass index in patients with type 2 diabetes? Results of a feasibility trial.

AIMS: This feasibility trial evaluated the use, safety, and short-term benefits of a home-based exercise intervention designed to increase physical activity among adults with diabetes. METHODS: Participants with type 2 diabetes in a group practice were recruited and randomly assigned to the home-based exercise intervention or usual care. Participants were given diabetes self-management education, instructed to exercise 30 min 5 days/week, and were followed for 3 months. The intervention contained three exercise routines (aerobic and resistance exercises). Outcomes included changes from baseline at 3 months between groups in body mass index (BMI), quality of life, A1C, and blood pressure. RESULTS: Seventy-six sedentary adults completed the study: 49% intervention group, 68% women, 47% black, mean age 56.6+/-9.6 years. Using intention to treat analysis, a trend towards improvement between groups for BMI (mean change -0.4 versus 0.1, respectively; P=0.06) was identified. Thirty-eight percent of the intervention group adhered to 80% of the exercise recommendation and significantly improved BMI (-1.07; P<0.05). No other differences were detected between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based exercise interventions have potential to reduce BMI in patients with diabetes. The results provide variance estimates necessary to power a larger study of longer duration.

Partnering with governments and other institutions: driving change in diabetes care.

The human and material cost of type 2 diabetes is a cause of increasing concern for health professionals, representative organisations and governments worldwide. The scale of morbidity and mortality has led the United Nations to issue a resolution on diabetes, calling for national policies for prevention, treatment and care. There is clearly an urgent need for a concerted response from all interested parties at the community, national and international level to work towards the goals of the resolution and create effective, sustainable treatment models, care systems and prevention strategies. Action requires both a 'bottom-up' approach of public awareness campaigns and pressure from healthcare professionals, coupled with a 'top-down' drive for change, via partnerships with governments, third sector (non-governmental) organisations and other institutions. In this review, we examine how existing collaborative initiatives serve as examples for those seeking to implement change in health policy and practice in the quest to alleviate the health and economic burden of diabetes. Efforts are underway to provide continuous and comprehensive care models for those who already have type 2 diabetes; in some cases, national plans extend to prevention strategies in attempts to improve overall public health. In the spirit of partnership, collaborations with governments that incorporate sustainability, long-term goals and a holistic approach continue to be a driving force for change. It is now critical to maintain this momentum and use the growing body of compelling evidence to educate, inform and deliver a long-term, lasting impact on patient and public health worldwide.

Interim analysis of the effects of exenatide treatment on A1C, weight and cardiovascular risk factors over 82 weeks in 314 overweight patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: Exenatide, an incretin mimetic for the adjunct treatment of type 2 diabetes (DM2), reduced A1C and weight in 30-week placebo-controlled trials. This analysis examined the effects of exenatide on glycaemic control and weight over an 82-week period in patients with DM2 unable to achieve adequate glycaemic control with sulphonylurea (SU) and/or metformin (MET). METHODS: This interim analysis is of 314 patients who received exenatide in the 30-week placebo-controlled trials and subsequently in 52 weeks of open-label uncontrolled extension studies for 82 weeks of exenatide in total. Patients continued their SU and/or MET regimens throughout. RESULTS: Patients completed 82 weeks of exenatide treatment [n = 314, 63% M, age 56 +/- 10 years, weight 99 +/- 21 kg, body mass index 34 +/- 6 kg/m2, A1C 8.3 +/- 1.0% (mean +/- SD)]. Reduction in A1C from baseline to week 30 [-0.9 +/- 0.1% (mean +/- SE)] was sustained to week 82 (-1.1 +/- 0.1%), with 48% of patients achieving A1C < or = 7% at week 82. At week 30, exenatide reduced body weight (a secondary endpoint) from baseline (-2.1 +/- 0.2 kg), with progressive reduction at week 82 (-4.4 +/- 0.3 kg). Similar results were observed for the intent-to-treat population (n = 551), with reductions in A1C and weight at week 82 of -0.8 +/- 0.1% and -3.5 +/- 0.2 kg respectively. The 82-week completer cohort showed statistically significant improvement in some cardiovascular risk factors. The most frequent adverse events were generally mild-to-moderate nausea and hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSION: In summary, 82 weeks of adjunctive exenatide treatment in patients with DM2 treated with SU and/or MET resulted in sustained reduction in A1C and progressive reduction in weight, as well as improvement in some cardiovascular risk factors.

Durable efficacy of metformin/glibenclamide combination tablets (Glucovance) during 52 weeks of open-label treatment in type 2 diabetic patients with hyperglycaemia despite previous sulphonylurea monotherapy.

Oral anti-diabetic combinations that address insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction (e.g. metformin and glibenclamide) represent a rational therapeutic option for patients uncontrolled on monotherapy. A 52-week, open-label extension to a double-blind study evaluated metformin-glibenclamide combination tablets (Glucovance) in 477 patients with hyperglycaemia despite sulphonylurea therapy. Reductions in HbA1C were maintained, with a mean reduction of -1.7% after 52 weeks, compared with the baseline value for the double-blind trial. Eighty-five patients receiving 4 x 500 mg/2.5 mg tablets daily displayed a marked improvement in HbA1c following up-titration to a regimen of 2 x 500 mg/2.5 mg + 3 x 500 mg/5 mg tablets. Lipid profiles improved significantly. The combination tablets were well tolerated: 11.1% of patients reported hypoglycaemic symptoms (all either mild or moderate severity). No patient withdrew or required pharmacologic intervention for hypoglycaemia. Metformin-glibenclamide combination tablets are an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for intensifying oral anti-diabetic therapy.

Greater reductions in A1C in type 2 diabetic patients new to therapy with glyburide/metformin tablets as compared to glyburide co-administered with metformin.

BACKGROUND: A cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes, prescribed glyburide/metformin tablets, experienced significantly greater improvements in glycaemic control compared to patients receiving glyburide co-administered with metformin. AIM: To compare the change in A1C for type 2 diabetic patients new to combination therapy with fixed-dose glyburide/metformin tablets vs. glyburide co-administered with metformin in a usual-care setting. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analysed medication usage via an administrative pharmacy claims database and the patients' corresponding laboratory results. Patients were new to antidiabetic combination therapy with glyburide/metformin tablets or glyburide co-administered with metformin between August 2000 and July 2001 and had A1C measurements at baseline and within 76-194 days of initiating combination therapy. The change from baseline in A1C was analysed using statistical regression to adjust for significant covariates (baseline A1C and dosage). Adherence with therapy was also compared. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 950 patients who received glyburide/metformin tablets and 471 taking glyburide co-administered with metformin. Glyburide/metformin patients were younger (mean age = 56 vs. 60 years, p < 0.0001) and received lower doses of each drug than patients taking glyburide co-administered with metformin (glyburide mean final dose = 6 vs. 10 mg/day, p < 0.0001; metformin = 893 vs. 1297 mg/day, p < 0.0001). The mean decrease from baseline A1C, adjusted for baseline A1C and dosage, of 2.02% for glyburide/metformin tablets was significantly (p < 0.0001) greater than the decrease of 1.49% for glyburide co-administered with metformin. Glyburide/metformin patients with baseline A1C >/= 8 experienced a significantly (p < 0.0001) greater decrease in A1C of 2.93% compared to 1.92% for glyburide co-administered with metformin. For patients with baseline A1C < 8%, the difference between the A1C responses remained significant, even though the reductions in A1C were smaller for both glyburide/metformin tablets and glyburide co-administered with metformin (0.54% and 0.23%, p = 0.0017). Patients were more adherent with glyburide/metformin tablets (84% vs. 76%, p < 0.0001), though regression analysis indicated that adherence was not a significant predictor of change in A1C. CONCLUSIONS: The lower medication doses delivered by glyburide/metformin tablets provided a significantly greater reduction in A1C than did glyburide co-administered with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes, especially when baseline A1C >/= 8%.

Influence of initial hyperglycaemia, weight and age on the blood glucose lowering efficacy and incidence of hypoglycaemic symptoms with a single-tablet metformin-glibenclamide therapy (Glucovance) in type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and incidence of hypoglycaemic symptoms associated with fixed combinations of metformin and glibenclamide (glyburide in the USA) formulated within a single tablet (tablet strengths 250 mg/1.25 mg, 500 mg/2.5 mg and 500 mg/5 mg), in comparison with metformin 500 mg and glibenclamide 2.5-5 mg monotherapy, in clinically important patient subgroups within the type 2 diabetic population. METHODS: A total of 1856 patients from three randomized, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group clinical trials were stratified at baseline according to HbA1C (< 8% or > or = 8%), age (< 65 years or > or = 65 years) and body mass index (BMI; < 28 kg/m2 or > or = 28 kg/m2). The effects of study treatments on HbA1C and the incidence of hypoglycaemic symptoms were determined in each subgroup. RESULTS: The combination treatments were more effective than either monotherapy irrespective of baseline HbA1C, age or BMI in each trial. Antihyperglycaemic effects were greater in patients with HbA1C > or = 8% at baseline, especially with the combinations. The majority of hypoglycaemic symptoms with glibenclamide-containing treatments occurred in patients with HbA1C < 8% at baseline. Neither age nor BMI had a marked effect on the efficacy of the combination treatments, and there was no increase in hypoglycaemic symptoms in older patients. CONCLUSIONS: Single-tablet metformin-glibenclamide combination treatment is more effective than metformin or glibenclamide monotherapy, and is well tolerated in patients with hyperglycaemia inadequately controlled by diet and exercise or antidiabetic monotherapy, irrespective of their severity of hyperglycaemia at baseline, age or weight.

Glyburide/metformin combination product is safe and efficacious in patients with type 2 diabetes failing sulphonylurea therapy.

AIM: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of a fixed combination glyburide/metformin preparation with those of glyburide or metformin alone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by sulphonylurea, diet and exercise. METHODS: In this 16-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel group study, 639 patients with inadequate glycaemic control on at least half-maximal dose of sulphonylurea were randomly assigned to: glyburide 10 mg b.i.d. (n = 164); metformin 500 mg (n = 153); glyburide/metformin 2.5 mg/500 mg (n = 160); or glyburide/metformin 5 mg/500 mg (n = 162). Titration was allowed to maximum doses of 2000 mg for metformin or 10 mg/2000 mg and 20 mg/2000 mg for glyburide/metformin 2.5 mg/500 mg and 5 mg/500 mg respectively. The primary outcome measure was HbA1c level after 16 weeks; secondary end-points included fasting and 2-h post-prandial plasma glucose. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded and summarized by treatment group. RESULTS: Both strengths of glyburide/metformin equally reduced mean HbA1c by 1.7% more than did glyburide alone (p < 0.001), and by 1.9% more than did metformin alone (p < 0.001). Final mean fasting plasma glucose concentrations were also lower in both glyburide/metformin groups than in the glyburide (-2.8 mmol/l, -51.3 mg/dl; p < 0.001) and metformin groups (-3.6 mmol/l, -64.2 mg/dl; p < 0.001). Safety and tolerability were similar across all treatment groups, except for a higher incidence of gastrointestinal AEs in the metformin monotherapy group, and more patients reporting mild or moderate symptoms of hypoglycaemia while taking glyburide/metformin. CONCLUSIONS: Both glyburide/metformin tablet strengths produced, with equal efficacy, significantly better glycaemic control than monotherapy with either agent. These data also confirm that glycaemic efficacy does not require maximal sulphonylurea doses in combination with metformin.

Classification of diabetes mellitus.

Diabetes mellitus affects almost 16 million Americans. It has become a major public health problem and the number one cause of adult blindness, end-stage renal disease, and nontraumatic amputations in the United States. It also markedly increases the risk for cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and peripheral artery disease. The resultant increased morbidity and mortality results in a cost from diabetes of almost $100 billion annually in the United States. Studies like the UK Prospective Diabetes Study have noted that a substantial percentage of patients with newly diagnosed diabetes already have evidence of microvascular and macrovascular complications of the disease. This indicates that diabetes began in these individuals many years before it was diagnosed. By reducing the diagnostic glycemic threshold for diabetes and recommending regular screening of individuals at increased risk, the ADA hopes that patients will have diabetes diagnosed earlier, before the occurrence of complications and at a time when appropriate treatment can reduce the long-term complications, adverse clinical outcomes, and impaired quality of life that today afflict so many diabetic individuals.

Epidemiology, costs, consequences, and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes: an american epidemic.

The prevalence of diabetes in the United States increased by 33% from 4.9% in 1990 to 6.5% in 1998. Presently almost 16 million Americans have diabetes mellitus, and the prevalence of diabetes is doubling every 10-15 years. More than 90% of diabetic patients have type 2 diabetes; about one third of patients with type 2 diabetes are not yet diagnosed. Diabetes is the number one cause of adult blindness, end-stage renal disease, and nontraumatic amputations in the US and is associated with a marked increase in atherosclerotic disease.Diabetes is one of the most costly of medical conditions. In the US, 1 in every 7 health care dollars and 25% of the Medicare budget is spent on patients with diabetes. In 1997, total direct and indirect costs attributed to diabetes in the US were estimated at $98 billion. Substantial data suggest that glycemic control reduces morbidity and mortality as well as health care costs and improves quality of life and productivity.Relatively new diagnostic criteria for diabetes lower the threshold for diagnosis from 140 to 126 mg/dL. The pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes must be considered in the formulation of treatment strategies. The majority of patients with type 2 diabetes have both insulin resistance and an insulin secretory deficit. While medical nutrition therapy and carefully prescribed exercise remain the cornerstones of treatment, most patients will require pharmacologic agents to achieve treatment goals. In fact, studies indicate that most patients will require combinations of antidiabetic agents with complementary mechanisms of action. Fortunately, many new antidiabetic agents available during the past several years provide more options for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Long-term cholesterol-lowering effects of psyllium as an adjunct to diet therapy in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Hypercholesterolemia is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease and nutrition management is the initial therapeutic approach. OBJECTIVE: This multicenter study evaluated the long-term effectiveness of psyllium husk fiber as an adjunct to diet in the treatment of persons with primary hypercholesterolemia. DESIGN: Men and women with hypercholesterolemia were recruited. After following an American Heart Association Step I diet for 8 wk (dietary adaptation phase), eligible subjects with serum LDL-cholesterol concentrations between 3.36 and 4.91 mmol/L were randomly assigned to receive either 5.1 g psyllium or a cellulose placebo twice daily for 26 wk while continuing diet therapy. RESULTS: Serum total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations were 4.7% and 6.7% lower in the psyllium group than in the placebo group after 24-26 wk (P < 0.001). Other outcome measures did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with 5.1 g psyllium twice daily produces significant net reductions in serum total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations in men and women with primary hypercholesterolemia. Psyllium therapy is an effective adjunct to diet therapy and may provide an alternative to drug therapy for some patients.