Gaps and barriers in the control of blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control is suboptimal in a large proportion of people with type 2 diabetes who are consequently at an increased and avoidable risk of potentially severe complications. We sought to explore attitudes and practices among healthcare professionals that may contribute to suboptimal glycaemic control through a review of recent relevant publications in the scientific literature. METHODS: An electronic search of the PubMed database was performed to identify relevant publications from January 2011 to July 2015. The electronic search was complemented by a manual search of abstracts from key diabetes conferences in 2014/2015 available online. RESULTS: Recently published data indicate that glycaemic control is suboptimal in a substantial proportion (typically 40%-60%) of people with diabetes. This is the case across geographic regions and in both low- and higher-income countries. Therapeutic inertia appears to be an important contributor to poor glycaemic control in up to half of people with type 2 diabetes. In particular, prescribers are often willing to tolerate extended periods of 'mild' hyperglycaemia as well as having low expectations for their patients. There are often delays of 3 years or longer in initiating or intensifying glucose-lowering therapy when needed. CONCLUSION: Many people with type 2 diabetes are failed by current management, with approximately half not achieving or maintaining appropriate target blood glucose levels, leaving these patients at increased and avoidable risk of serious complications. Review criteria: The methodology of this review article is detailed in the 'Methods' section.

Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Triple Therapy With Saxagliptin Add-on to Dapagliflozin Plus Metformin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with saxagliptin add-on versus placebo add-on to dapagliflozin plus metformin in adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients on stable metformin (≥1,500 mg/day) for ≥8 weeks with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 8.0-11.5% (64-102 mmol/mol) at screening received open-label dapagliflozin (10 mg/day) plus metformin immediate release (IR) for 16 weeks. Patients with inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c 7-10.5% [53-91 mmol/mol]) were then randomized to receive placebo (n = 153) or saxagliptin 5 mg/day (n = 162) in addition to background dapagliflozin plus metformin IR. The primary efficacy end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: There was a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c at 24 weeks with saxagliptin add-on (-0.51% [-5.6 mmol/mol]) versus placebo (-0.16% [-1.7 mmol/mol]) add-on to dapagliflozin plus metformin (difference, -0.35% [95% CI -0.52% to -0.18%] and -3.8 [-5.7 to -2.0 mmol/mol], respectively; P < 0.0001). Reductions in fasting plasma glucose and 2-h postprandial glucose were similar between treatment arms. A larger proportion of patients achieved HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) with saxagliptin add-on (35.3%) versus placebo add-on (23.1%) to dapagliflozin plus metformin. Adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Episodes of hypoglycemia were infrequent in both treatment arms, and there were no episodes of major hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with the addition of saxagliptin to dapagliflozin plus metformin was well tolerated and produced significant improvements in HbA1c in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with dapagliflozin plus metformin.

Dapagliflozin improves glycemic control and reduces body weight as add-on therapy to metformin plus sulfonylurea: a 24-week randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and sulfonylurea. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with HbA1c of 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) to 10.5% (91 mmol/mol) receiving sulfonylurea and metformin were randomized to receive dapagliflozin 10 mg/day (n = 109) or placebo (n = 109) for 24 weeks. RESULTS: HbA1c (baseline: dapagliflozin 8.08% [65 mmol/mol]; placebo 8.24% [67 mmol/mol]) and fasting plasma glucose (baseline: dapagliflozin 167.4 mg/dL [9.29 mmol/L]; placebo 180.5 mg/dL [10.02 mmol/L]) significantly improved from baseline with dapagliflozin (placebo-subtracted change -0.69% [-7.5 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001; -33.5 mg/dL [-1.86 mmol/L], P < 0.0001, respectively). More patients achieved a therapeutic glycemic response (HbA1c <7.0% [53 mmol/mol]) with dapagliflozin (31.8%) versus placebo (11.1%) (P < 0.0001). Body weight and systolic blood pressure were significantly reduced from baseline over 24 and 8 weeks, respectively, with dapagliflozin (placebo-subtracted change -2.1 kg, P < 0.0001; -3.8 mmHg, P = 0.0250). Patients receiving dapagliflozin showed placebo-subtracted increases in total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol (11.4 mg/dL, P = 0.0091; 11.4 mg/dL, P = 0.0030; 2.2 mg/dL, P = 0.0172, respectively) with no change in LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio (0.1; P = 0.2008) or triglycerides (-16.5 mg/dL; P = 0.1755). Adverse events occurred in 48.6% of patients receiving dapagliflozin and 51.4% receiving placebo. Significantly more patients with dapagliflozin compared with placebo experienced hypoglycemia (12.8 vs. 3.7%; P = 0.024) and genital infections (5.5 vs. 0%; P = 0.029). Events of urinary tract infection were reported by 6.4% of patients in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin was well tolerated and effective over 24 weeks as add-on to metformin plus sulfonylurea. Adverse effects included hypoglycemia and genital infections.

Patient-reported outcomes among patients using exenatide twice daily or insulin in clinical practice in six European countries: the CHOICE prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in the clinical condition of patients with type 2 diabetes are often accompanied by improvements in health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but data assessing injectable treatment initiation from the patient's perspective in routine clinical practice are lacking. We examined PROs in patients initiating injectable treatment in the CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective observational study conducted in six European countries. Patients initiated exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin based on a physician's clinical judgement. Clinical and PRO data were collected at baseline (injectable therapy initiation) and after approximately 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The two treatment cohorts had different baseline characteristics; therefore, no statistical comparisons of endpoints between main cohorts were conducted. RESULTS: There were 2388 patients eligible for analysis (exenatide BID cohort, n = 1114; insulin cohort, n = 1274). Mean positive changes in Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) total score and EuroQoL5-Dimension (EQ-5D) index and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were observed in both cohorts with most changes observed during the first 6 months after injectable therapy initiation. Patients who experienced weight loss (≥ 1 kg) at 24 months appeared to have higher mean improvements in IWQOL-Lite total score than did patients with weight gain or no weight change. Patients who met the composite clinical endpoint of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, no weight gain (≤ 1 kg) and no hypoglycaemia generally experienced higher mean improvements in EQ-5D index and VAS scores (compared with patients who did not meet this endpoint) and Diabetes Health Profile-18 scores (versus the main cohorts). High levels of missing data were observed for all PRO measures in both cohorts compared with those for clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These data from a clinical practice study support those from clinical trials, suggesting that PROs are not adversely affected, and may be improved, by injectable therapy initiation. PRO data may aid appropriate treatment selection for individual patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00635492.

Using Exenatide Twice Daily or Insulin in Clinical Practice: Results from CHOICE.

INTRODUCTION: CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy; NCT00635492) assessed, as its primary objective, the time to a 'significant treatment change' (defined within this paper) after patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiated their first injectable, glucose-lowering therapy [exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin] in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Patients were invited to participate in CHOICE only after their treating physician had made the clinical decision to initiate first injectable therapy with either exenatide BID or insulin. Clinical data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and after approximately 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 2,515 patients were recruited; 1,114 patients in the exenatide BID cohort and 1,274 patients in the insulin cohort were eligible for the 24-month analysis. During the study, 42.2% and 36.0% of patients from each cohort, respectively, had a significant treatment change. By 24 months, improved mean glycated hemoglobin (p < 0.001 for both cohorts) and reduced severity of several cardiovascular risk factors were observed in both cohorts; additionally, mean weight was reduced in the exenatide BID cohort (p < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (p < 0.001). Hypoglycemia was reported by 18.4% of the exenatide BID cohort and 36.8% of the insulin cohort; 25.9% of the exenatide BID cohort and 10.0% of the insulin cohort had met the secondary endpoint of glycated hemoglobin <7.0%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: CHOICE provided data on exenatide BID and insulin usage patterns and 24-month outcomes in clinical practice. On average, improved glycemic control and reduced severity of cardiovascular risk factors were observed in both cohorts, and those in the exenatide BID cohort also had mean weight loss.

Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study.

PURPOSE: CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) assessed patterns of exenatide bid and initial insulin therapy usage in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study. METHODS: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Clinical and resource use data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide bid or insulin) and at regular intervals for 24 months. Costs were evaluated from the national health care system perspective at 2009 prices. RESULTS: A total of 2515 patients were recruited. At the 24-month analysis, significant treatment change had occurred during the study in 42.2% of 1114 eligible patients in the exenatide bid cohort and 36.0% of 1274 eligible patients in the insulin cohort. Improvements in glycemic control were observed over the course of the study in both cohorts (P < 0.001 for both), but mean weight was reduced in the exenatide bid cohort (P < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (P < 0.001) by 24 months. Across all countries, total per patient health care costs for the 24 months post baseline were €3997.9 in the exenatide bid cohort and €3265.5 in the insulin cohort (€1791.9 versus €2465.5 due to costs other than those of injectable therapy). When baseline direct cost and patients' and disease characteristics were controlled for, mean direct costs differed by country (P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment initiated, and the mean cost difference between treatments varied by country (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Much of the higher mean cost of exenatide bid, compared with insulin, therapy was compensated for by lower mean costs of other health service utilization. Costs associated with exenatide bid or insulin initiation varied across countries, highlighting the need to avoid generalization of resource use and cost implications of a particular therapy when estimated in specific country settings.

Treatment outcomes after initiation of exenatide twice daily or insulin in clinical practice: 12-month results from CHOICE in six European countries.

OBJECTIVE: The CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy (CHOICE) study assessed time to, and reasons for, significant treatment change after patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) initiated their first injectable glucose-lowering therapy (exenatide twice daily [BID] or insulin) in routine clinical practice, and these patients' clinical outcomes, in six European countries. This paper reports interim data from the first 12 months of the study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CHOICE (NCT00635492) is a prospective, noninterventional, observational study. Clinical data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and after approximately 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Of 2497 patients enrolled in CHOICE, 1096 in the exenatide BID and 1239 in the insulin cohorts had ≥1 post-baseline assessment and were included in this analysis. Overall, 32.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 29.1% of the insulin cohort (Kaplan-Meier estimates) had significant treatment change during the first 12 months, most commonly discontinuing injectable therapy or adding new T2DM therapy, respectively. Glycemic control improved in both cohorts, but weight loss occurred only in the exenatide BID cohort (mean change -3.3 kg). Hypoglycemia occurred in 13.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 28.6% of the insulin cohort (82.8% and 55.6% of these patients, respectively, received sulfonylureas). The post hoc endpoint of glycated hemoglobin < 7%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia was attained at 12 months by 24.3% and 10.3% of patients who had data at 12 months and who were receiving exenatide BID and insulin, respectively. CONCLUSION: About 30% of patients in CHOICE changed treatment in the first 12 months after initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide BID or insulin). Overall, both cohorts achieved improved glycemic control, which was accompanied by a mean weight loss in the exenatide BID cohort.

Individualized glycaemic targets and pharmacotherapy in type 2 diabetes.

The Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management, established to provide practical guidance to improve patient outcomes in diabetes, has developed and modified recommendations to improve glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes. The Global Partnership advocates an individualized therapeutic approach and, as part of the process to customize therapy, has previously identified specific type 2 diabetes patient subgroups that require special consideration. This article builds on earlier publications, expanding the scope of practical guidance to include newly diagnosed individuals with complications and women with diabetes in pregnancy. Good glycaemic control remains the cornerstone of managing type 2 diabetes, and plays a vital role in preventing or delaying the onset and progression of diabetic complications. Individualizing therapeutic goals and treatments to meet glycaemic targets safely and without delay remains paramount, in addition to a wider programme of care to reduce cardiovascular risk factors and improve patient outcomes.

Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Exenatide Twice Daily or Insulin in Clinical Practice: CHOICE Study.

INTRODUCTION: Changes to Treatment and Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Injectable Therapy (CHOICE) is a European prospective, observational cohort study assessing time to, and factors associated with, a significant change in therapy after type 2 diabetes patients initiate their first injectable glucose-lowering therapy, and these patients' clinical outcomes over 24 months. The authors report baseline data and factors associated with the injectable treatment regimen. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and healthcare resource-use data were collected at initiation of injectable therapy and analyzed using univariate tests between cohorts and multivariate logistic regression analysis for treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 1,177 patients initiated exenatide twice daily (b.i.d.) and 1,315 initiated insulin. Most patients were recruited by secondary-care physicians. Univariate analyses revealed statistically significant differences between the characteristics of patients who initiated exenatide b.i.d. and patients who initiated insulin. On multivariate analysis, higher body mass index [BMI; 5 kg/m(2) higher: odds ratio (OR) 2.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.84-2.40], lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c); 1% higher: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86), and lower age (5 years older: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.88) were the variables most strongly associated with increased probability of receiving exenatide b.i.d. (P < 0.0001). Patients initiating exenatide b.i.d. had a mean BMI of 35.3 ± 6.5 kg/m(2), HbA(1c) of 8.4 ± 1.4%, and age of 58 ± 10 years, compared with 29.7 ± 5.4 kg/m(2), 9.2 ± 1.9%, and 64 ± 11 years, respectively, in patients initiating insulin (P < 0.0001). Other characteristics significantly associated with exenatide b.i.d. initiation were "disinhibited eating" (Diabetes Health Profile-18), lower random blood glucose, less blood glucose self-monitoring, lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and receipt of diet/exercise advice. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who initiated exenatide b.i.d. were on average younger and more obese with lower HbA(1c) than those initiating insulin.

Ramipril-based versus diuretic-based antihypertensive primary treatment in patients with pre-diabetes (ADaPT) study.

BACKGROUND: Previous randomized controlled trials demonstrated a protective effect of renin angiotensin system blocking agents for the development of type-2 diabetes in patients with pre-diabetes. However, there are no real-world data available to illustrate the relevance for clinical practice. METHODS: Open, prospective, parallel group study comparing patients with an ACE inhibitor versus a diuretic based treatment. The principal aim was to document the first manifestation of type-2 diabetes in either group. RESULTS: A total of 2,011 patients were enrolled (mean age 69.1±10.3 years; 51.6% female). 1,507 patients were available for the per-protocol analysis (1,029 ramipril, 478 diuretic group). New-onset diabetes was less frequent in the ramipril than in the diuretic group over 4 years. Differences were statistically different at a median duration of 3 years (24.4% vs 29.5%; p<0.05). Both treatments were equally effective in reducing BP (14.7±18.0/8.5±8.2 mmHg and 12.7±18.1/7.0±8.3 mmHg) at the 4 year follow-up (p<0.001 vs. baseline; p=n.s. between groups). In 38.6% and 39.7% of patients BP was below 130/80 mmHg (median time-to-target 3 months). There was a significant reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in favour of ramipril (p=0.033). No significant differences were found for a change in HbA1c as well as for fasting blood glucose levels during follow-up. The rate of adverse events was higher in diuretic treated patients (SAE 15.4 vs. 12.4%; p<0.05; AE 26.6 vs. 25.6%; p=n.s). CONCLUSIONS: Ramipril treatment is preferable over diuretic based treatment regimens for the treatment of hypertension in pre-diabetic patients, because new-onset diabetes is delayed.

First-line antihypertensive treatment in patients with pre-diabetes: rationale, design and baseline results of the ADaPT investigation.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trials reported conflicting results on the reduction of new-onset diabetes using RAS blocking agents. Therefore the role of these agents in preventing diabetes is still not well defined. Ramipril is an ACE inhibitor (ACEi), that has been shown to reduce cardiovascular events in high risk patients and post-hoc analyses of the HOPE trial have provided evidence for its beneficial action in the prevention of diabetes. METHODS: The ADaPT investigation ("ACE inhibitor-based versus diuretic-based antihypertensive primary treatment in patients with pre-diabetes") is a 4-year open, prospective, parallel group phase IV study. It compares an antihypertensive treatment regimen based on ramipril versus a treatment based on diuretics or betablockers. The primary evaluation criterion is the first manifestation of type 2 diabetes. The study is conducted in primary care to allow the broadest possible application of its results. The present article provides an outline of the rationale, the design and baseline characteristics of AdaPT and compares these to previous studies including ASCOT-BLPA, VALUE and DREAM. RESULTS: Until March 2006 a total of 2,015 patients in 150 general practices (general physicians and internists) throughout Germany were enrolled. The average age of patients enrolled was 67.1 +/- 10.3 years, with 47% being male and a BMI of 29.9 +/- 5.0 kg/m2. Dyslipidemia was present in 56.5%. 37.8% reported a family history of diabetes, 57.8% were previously diagnosed with hypertension (usually long standing). The HbA1c value at baseline was 5.6 %. Compared to the DREAM study patients were older, had more frequently hypertension and patients with cardiovascular disease were not excluded. CONCLUSION: Comparing the ADaPT design and baseline data to previous randomized controlled trial it can be acknowledged that AdaPT included patients with a high risk for diabetes development. Results are expected to be available in 2010. Data will be highly valuable for clinical practice due to the observational study design.

Impact of rosiglitazone on beta-cell function, insulin resistance, and adiponectin concentrations: results from a double-blind oral combination study with glimepiride.

Addition of rosiglitazone to sulfonylurea has been shown to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with sulfonylurea monotherapy alone. This investigation was performed to assess the specific impact of rosiglitazone on insulin resistance, beta-cell function, cardiovascular risk markers, and adiponectin secretion in this treatment concept. One hundred two patients from a double-blind, 3-arm comparator trial (group 0, glimepiride + placebo, n = 30; group 4, glimepiride + 4 mg rosiglitazone, n = 31; group 8, glimepiride + 8 mg rosiglitazone, n = 41; 48 women, 54 men; age [mean +/- SD], 62.8 +/- 9.1 years; body mass index, 28.7 +/- 4.5 kg/m2; diabetes duration, 6.4 +/- 4.8 years; HbA1c, 8.1% +/- 1.5%) were analyzed after 0 and 16 weeks of treatment. Observation parameters were HbA1c, glucose, homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance score, insulin, intact proinsulin, and adiponectin. Insulin resistance was defined by elevated intact proinsulin values or homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance score of more than 2. All parameters were comparable in the 3 groups at baseline. Substantial and significant dose-dependent improvements were observed after addition of rosiglitazone for fasting glucose (group 0, -9 +/- 48 mg/dL; group 4, -38 +/- 47 mg/dL; group 8, -46 +/- 53 mg/dL), HbA1c (-0.1% +/- 0.7%, -1.1% +/- 1.2%, -1.3% +/- 1.2%), insulin (1.4 +/- 6.2, -1.2 +/- 5.3, -3.7 +/- 9.9 microU/mL), intact proinsulin (1.6 +/- 7.1, -2.0 +/- 4.6, -3.1 +/- 6.1 pmol/L), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (0.2 +/- 2.6, -1.7 +/- 3.5, -2.1 +/- 3.5 mg/L). After adjustment for changes in body weight, significant increases in adiponectin were detected with rosiglitazone, whereas glimepiride alone did not induce a comparable effect (-0.5 +/- 5.8, 8.8 +/- 22.9, 14.3 +/- 19.9 mg/L). The number of insulin-resistant patients decreased in both rosiglitazone treatment groups, whereas no change was seen with glimepiride alone. Next to the reported effects on glucose control, rosiglitazone provided an additional beneficial effect on insulin resistance, beta-cell function, and cardiovascular risk markers. In conclusion, our short-term investigation of rosiglitazone action provides further experimental support for the rationale of combining rosiglitazone with sulfonylurea drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes.

[National practice guidelines. New aspects in therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus]. / Nationale Versorgungsleitlinien. Neue Aspekte zur Therapie des Typ 2 Diabetes mellitus.

Sequelae of type 2 diabetes can often be prevented by applying rigorous countermeasures. To optimize this approach, guidelines have been established. The first measure should be to teach the diabetic how to change his/her life-style (more exercise, changes in diet). If this does not succeed in achieving the target HbA1c of 6.5%, oral treatment should be initiated. The choice of antidiabetic is determined largely by the BMI, but other factors such as lifestyle, age, and concomitant diseases should also be taken into account. Unfortunately, monotherapy often becomes ineffective within a few years, so that combination treatment has to be initiated. If this also fails to accomplish optimal control, individualized insulin treatment should be started. A simple start is continuation of the oral treatment in conjunction with a bedtime oral insulin. Also available are prandial, conventional and flexibly intensified insulin therapy. During insulin therapy, treatment of the insulin resistance with an oral antidiabetic, mostly metformin, and the lifestyle changes must be continued.

A randomized clinical trial comparing breakfast, dinner, or bedtime administration of insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin glargine (Lantus), a long-acting human insulin analog, provides effective glycemic control when administered at bedtime. This open-label, randomized, parallel group, multicenter study investigated whether insulin glargine is equally effective if administered before breakfast, before dinner, or at bedtime. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with type 1 diabetes on basal-bolus therapy (n = 378, 18-68 years, HbA(1c) 5.5-9.8%) were treated with once-daily individually titrated insulin glargine in combination with prandial insulin lispro for 24 weeks. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the three groups (overall age 40.9 +/- 11.9 years, diabetes duration 17.3 +/- 11.5 years). Median total daily insulin dose was similar at baseline (0.65, 0.65, and 0.66 IU/kg for breakfast, dinner, and bedtime, respectively) and remained relatively constant over the study period; however, the insulin glargine-to-total insulin dose ratio increased more in the breakfast group than in the dinner and bedtime groups. A similar reduction of adjusted mean HbA(1c) from baseline to end point occurred in all patients (7.6-7.4, 7.6-7.5, and 7.6-7.5% for breakfast, dinner, and bedtime, respectively), and a similar percentage achieved HbA(1c) <7.0% at end point in all groups (29.5, 29.8, and 25.8%, respectively). The 24-h blood glucose profiles in relation to injection time were similar in all groups. The incidences of total symptomatic and severe hypoglycemia did not differ between the three treatment groups; however, nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred in significantly fewer patients in the breakfast group (59.5%) compared with the dinner (71.9%) and bedtime (77.5%) groups (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that insulin glargine, in combination with insulin lispro, is safe and effective when administered before breakfast, before dinner, or at bedtime.

Effect of glimepiride on insulin-stimulated glycogen synthesis in cultured human skeletal muscle cells: a comparison to glibenclamide.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of glimepiride on insulin-stimulated glycogen synthesis in cultured human skeletal muscle cells in comparison with glibenclamide. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Myotubes derived from glucose-tolerant subjects were incubated with glimepiride or glibenclamide (0-100 micro mol/l) for 4 h and with or without insulin (100 nmol/l) for 2 h, and subsequently glycogen synthesis was determined. RESULTS: Glimepiride had no significant effect on basal glycogen synthesis; in contrast, glimepiride caused a dose-dependent increase of insulin-stimulated glycogen synthesis, with a maximal effect of 39.97 +/- 8.4% (mean +/- SEM, n = 4, P < 0,02). The time course of this glimepiride effect on insulin-stimulated glycogen synthesis showed a peak after 12 h incubation with a half maximal effect after 4 h. Preincubation of the myotubes with wortmannin (100 nmol/l), an inhibitor of phosphatidylinositol (PI)- 3 kinase, caused an inhibition of this glimepiride effect on insulin-stimulated glycogen synthesis. In contrast to glimepiride, incubation of myotubes with glibenclamide (0-100nmol/l), a second generation sulfonylurea, had no significant effect on basal or insulin-stimulated glycogen synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Incubation of cultured human skeletal muscle cells derived from glucose-tolerant subjects with glimepiride caused a dose-dependent increase of insulin-stimulated glycogen synthesis using therapeutic glimepiride concentrations. This glimepiride effect seems to be mediated via the PI3 kinase pathway. In contrast to glimepiride, glibenclamide had no significant effect on basal or insulin-stimulated glycogen synthesis. These results suggest that glimepiride, beside its well-known effect to stimulate insulin secretion, possess an insulin-sensitizing action in cultured human skeletal muscle cells in support of the concept of an extrapancreatic action of glimepiride.