Søren S Lund

Intensive glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials

Objective To assess the effect of targeting intensive glycaemic control versus conventional glycaemic control on all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, microvascular complications, and severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. Design Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised trials. Data sources Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and CINAHL to December 2010; hand search of reference lists and conference proceedings; contacts with authors, relevant pharmaceutical companies, and the US Food and Drug Administration. Study selection Randomised clinical trials comparing targeted intensive glycaemic control with conventional glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Published and unpublished trials in all languages were included, irrespective of predefined outcomes. Data extraction Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, risk of bias, and adverse events. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models. Results Fourteen clinical trials that randomised 28 614 participants with type 2 diabetes (15 269 to intensive control and 13 345 to conventional control) were included. Intensive glycaemic control did not significantly affect the relative risks of all cause (1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.13; 28 359 participants, 12 trials) or cardiovascular mortality (1.11, 0.92 to 1.35; 28 359 participants, 12 trials). Trial sequential analyses rejected a relative risk reduction above 10% for all cause mortality and showed insufficient data on cardiovascular mortality. The risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction may be reduced (relative risk 0.85, 0.76 to 0.95; P=0.004; 28 111 participants, 8 trials), but this finding was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis. Intensive glycaemic control showed a reduction of the relative risks for the composite microvascular outcome (0.88, 0.79 to 0.97; P=0.01; 25 600 participants, 3 trials) and retinopathy (0.80, 0.67 to 0.94; P=0.009; 10 793 participants, 7 trials), but trial sequential analyses showed that sufficient evidence had not yet been reached. The estimate of an effect on the risk of nephropathy (relative risk 0.83, 0.64 to 1.06; 27 769 participants, 8 trials) was not statistically significant. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia was significantly increased when intensive glycaemic control was targeted (relative risk 2.39, 1.71 to 3.34; 27 844 participants, 9 trials); trial sequential analysis supported a 30% increased relative risk of severe hypoglycaemia. Conclusion Intensive glycaemic control does not seem to reduce all cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Data available from randomised clinical trials remain insufficient to prove or refute a relative risk reduction for cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, composite microvascular complications, or retinopathy at a magnitude of 10%. Intensive glycaemic control increases the relative risk of severe hypoglycaemia by 30%.

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

OBJECTIVE 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. DESIGN AND METHODS 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS 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.

Comparison of metformin and insulin versus insulin alone for type 2 diabetes: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

Objectives To compare the benefits and harms of metformin and insulin versus insulin alone as reported in randomised clinical trials of patients with type 2 diabetes. Design Systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Data sources The Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature until March 2011. We also searched abstracts presented at the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes Congresses, contacted relevant trial authors and pharmaceutical companies, hand searched reference lists of included trials, and searched the US Food and Drug Administration website. Review methods Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for randomised clinical trials comparing metformin and insulin versus insulin alone (with or without placebo) in patients with type 2 diabetes, older than 18 years, and with an intervention period of at least 12 weeks. We included trials irrespective of language, publication status, predefined outcomes, antidiabetic interventions used before randomisation, and reported outcomes. Results We included 26 randomised trials with 2286 participants, of which 23 trials with 2117 participants could provide data. All trials had high risk of bias. Data were sparse for outcomes relevant to patients. Metformin and insulin versus insulin alone did not significantly affect all cause mortality (relative risk 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 2.99) or cardiovascular mortality (1.70, 0.35 to 8.30). Trial sequential analyses showed that more trials were needed before reliable conclusions could be drawn regarding these outcomes. In a fixed effect model, but not in a random effects model, severe hypoglycaemia was significantly more frequent with metformin and insulin than with insulin alone (2.83, 1.17 to 6.86). In a random effects model, metformin and insulin resulted in reduced HbA1c, weight gain, and insulin dose, compared with insulin alone; trial sequential analyses showed sufficient evidence for a HbA1c reduction of 0.5%, lower weight gain of 1 kg, and lower insulin dose of 5 U/day. Conclusions There was no evidence or even a trend towards improved all cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality with metformin and insulin, compared with insulin alone in type 2 diabetes. Data were limited by the severe lack of data reported by trials for patient relevant outcomes and by poor bias control.

Effect of Adjunct Metformin Treatment in Patients with Type-1 Diabetes and Persistent Inadequate Glycaemic Control. A Randomized Study

Background Despite intensive insulin treatment, many patients with type-1 diabetes (T1DM) have longstanding inadequate glycaemic control. Metformin is an oral hypoglycaemic agent that improves insulin action in patients with type-2 diabetes. We investigated the effect of a one-year treatment with metformin versus placebo in patients with T1DM and persistent poor glycaemic control. Methodology/Principal Findings One hundred patients with T1DM, preserved hypoglycaemic awareness and HaemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) ≥8.5% during the year before enrolment entered a one-month run-in on placebo treatment. Thereafter, patients were randomized (baseline) to treatment with either metformin (1 g twice daily) or placebo for 12 months (double-masked). Patients continued ongoing insulin therapy and their usual outpatient clinical care. The primary outcome measure was change in HbA1c after one year of treatment. At enrolment, mean (standard deviation) HbA1c was 9.48% (0.99) for the metformin group (n = 49) and 9.60% (0.86) for the placebo group (n = 51). Mean (95% confidence interval) baseline-adjusted differences after 12 months with metformin (n = 48) versus placebo (n = 50) were: HbA1c, 0.13% (−0.19; 0.44), p = 0.422; Total daily insulin dose, −5.7 U/day (−8.6; −2.9), p<0.001; body weight, −1.74 kg (−3.32; −0.17), p = 0.030. Minor and overall major hypoglycaemia was not significantly different between treatments. Treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions/Significance In patients with poorly controlled T1DM, adjunct metformin therapy did not provide any improvement of glycaemic control after one year. Nevertheless, adjunct metformin treatment was associated with sustained reductions of insulin dose and body weight. Further investigations into the potential cardiovascular-protective effects of metformin therapy in patients with T1DM are warranted. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00118937

THERAPY OF ENDOCRINE DISEASE: Insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: treatment guidelines, clinical evidence and patterns of use of basal vs premixed insulin analogues

This review addresses the apparent disconnect between international guideline recommendations, real-life clinical practice and the results of clinical trials, with regard to the initiation of insulin using basal (long-acting) or premixed insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). English language guidelines vary considerably with respect to recommended glycaemic targets, the selection of human vs analogue insulin, and choice of insulin regimen. Randomised trials directly comparing insulin initiation between basal and premixed analogues are scarce, and hard endpoint outcome data are inadequate. The evidence presented suggests that a major component of the HbA1c not being attained in every day clinical practice may be a result of factors that are not adequately addressed in forced titration trials of highly motivated patients, including failure to comply with complex treatment and monitoring regimens. Enforced intensification of unrealistic complex treatment regimens and glycaemic targets may theoretically worsen the psychological well-being in some patients. More simple and sustainable treatment regimens and guidelines are urgently needed. As for the use of insulin in T2D, there is limited evidence to convincingly support that initiation of insulin using basal insulin analogues is superior to initiation using premixed insulin analogues. While awaiting improved clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness data, practical guidance from national and international diabetes organisations should consider more carefully the importance of: i) being clear and consistent; and ii) the early implementation of sustainable and cost-effective insulin treatment regimens with an emphasis on optimising treatment ease of use and patient compliance.

Targeting hyperglycaemia with either metformin or repaglinide in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes: results from a randomized crossover trial

Aim:  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.

Effect of adjunct metformin treatment on levels of plasma lipids in patients with type 1 diabetes

Background: In addition to its glucose‐lowering effect, metformin treatment has been suggested to improve lipidaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. In contrast, in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), information about the effect of metformin treatment on lipidaemia is limited. In this study, we report the effect of a 1‐year treatment with metformin vs. placebo on plasma lipids in T1DM patients and persistent poor glycaemic control.

Empagliflozin reduces body weight and indices of adipose distribution in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Aims: To determine the effects of empagliflozin on adiposity indices among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: Changes in weight, waist circumference, estimated total body fat, index of central obesity and visceral adiposity index were assessed using analysis of covariance and testing of treatment by strata for age, sex and baseline waist circumference in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus randomized to blinded treatment with empagliflozin versus placebo in clinical trials of 12 weeks (cohort 1) or 24 weeks (cohort 2) duration. Results: This study comprised 3300 patients (cohort 1, N = 823; cohort 2, N = 2477). Empagliflozin reduced weight, waist circumference and adiposity indices versus placebo in both cohorts. Adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) change from baseline in empagliflozin versus placebo was −1.7 kg (−2.1 to −1.4 kg) and −1.9 kg (−2.1 to −1.7 kg) for body weight (p < 0.001); −1.3 cm (−1.8 to −0.7 cm) and −1.3 cm (−1.7 to −1.0 cm) for waist circumference (p < 0.001); −0.2% (−0.7% to 0.3%; p = 0.45) and −0.3% (−0.7% to 0.0%; p = 0.08) for estimated total body fat; −0.007 (−0.011 to −0.004) and −0.008 (−0.010 to −0.006) for index of central obesity (p < 0.001); and −0.3 (−0.5 to 0.0; p = 0.07) and −0.4 (−0.7 to −0.1; p = 0.003) for visceral adiposity index in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Adipose reductions were seen across most age, sex and waist circumference subgroups. Conclusion: Empagliflozin significantly reduced weight and adiposity indices with the potential to improve cardiometabolic risk among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Combining insulin with metformin or an insulin secretagogue in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes: 12 month, randomised, double blind trial

Objectives To study the effect of insulin treatment in combination with metformin or an insulin secretagogue, repaglinide, on glycaemic regulation in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Design Randomised, double blind, double dummy, parallel trial. Setting Secondary care in Denmark between 2003 and 2006. Participants Non-obese patients (BMI ≤27) with preserved beta cell function. Interventions After a four month run-in period with repaglinide plus metformin combination therapy, patients with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 6.5% or more were randomised to repaglinide 6 mg or metformin 2000 mg. All patients also received biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (30% soluble insulin aspart and 70% intermediate acting insulin aspart) 6 units once a day before dinner for 12 months. Insulin dose was adjusted aiming for a fasting plasma glucose concentration of 4.0-6.0 mmol/l. The target of HbA1c concentration was less than 6.5%. Treatment was intensified to two or three insulin injections a day if glycaemic targets were not reached. Main outcome measure HbA1c concentration. Results Of the 459 patients who were eligible, 102 were randomised, and 97 completed the trial. Patients had had type 2 diabetes for approximately 10 years. At the end of treatment, HbA1c concentration was reduced by a similar amount in the two treatment groups (insulin plus metformin: mean (standard deviation) HbA1c 8.15% (1.32) v 6.72% (0.66); insulin plus repaglinide: 8.07% (1.49) v 6.90% (0.68); P=0.177). Total daily insulin dose and risk of hypoglycaemia were also similar in the two treatment groups. Weight gain was less with metformin plus biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 than with repaglinide plus biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (difference in mean body weight between treatments −2.51 kg, 95% confidence interval −4.07 to −0.95). Conclusions In non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes and poor glycaemic regulation on oral hypoglycaemic agents, overall glycaemic regulation with insulin in combination with metformin was equivalent to that with insulin plus repaglinide. Weight gain seemed less with insulin plus metformin than with insulin plus repaglinide. Trial registration NCT00118963

Pharmacodynamic Effects of Single and Multiple Doses of Empagliflozin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE Our aim was to investigate the effects of the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin on urinary and serum glucose and electrolytes, urinary volume, osmolality, and the renin-angiotensin system in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS In an open-label study, 22 patients receiving metformin (median age 56 years; range 40-65 years) received empagliflozin 25 mg once daily for 5 days. Food, fluid, and sodium intake were standardized for 3 days before and during treatment. FINDINGS Twenty patients completed treatment. After single and multiple doses of empagliflozin, mean (SE) changes from baseline in 24-hour urinary glucose excretion were 463.3 (57.3) mmol/d and 599.5 (60.0) mmol/d, respectively (83.5 [10.3] g/d and 108.0 [10.8] g/d, respectively) (both P < 0.001), and in fasting serum glucose concentration were -1.8 (0.4) mmol/L and -1.1 (0.3) mmol/L, respectively (both P < 0.001). After a single dose, mean (SE) change from baseline in urine sodium excretion was 45.3 (9.6) mmol/d (P < 0.001), and in urine volume was 341.0 (140.5) g/d (P = 0.025), but there were no changes compared with baseline in either parameter after multiple doses. There were no changes in plasma renin or serum aldosterone with single or multiple doses of empagliflozin. There was a nonsignificant reduction in weight after a single dose of empagliflozin and a mean (SE) change of -1.4 (0.5) kg after multiple doses (P = 0.020). IMPLICATIONS Empagliflozin 25 mg increased urinary glucose excretion and decreased serum glucose and weight with transient natriuresis and increases in urine volume, without significant changes in the renin-angiotensin system. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01276288.