Search

Aims/introduction: We compared the satisfaction levels of patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing combination therapy with lixisenatide (LIX) and basal insulin with that of patients undergoing multiple daily insulin injection (MDI) therapy., Materials and Methods: The study was a 12-week open-label, randomized, multicenter, controlled trial. Participants were Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes receiving MDI for >3 months. Patients were randomly assigned to each treatment cohort: (i) a group that continued MDI (MDI group); and (ii) a group that switched from MDI to combination therapy with LIX and basal insulin (LIX group). The primary outcome was change in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores from baseline to 12 weeks between these two groups. Key secondary outcomes were glycated hemoglobin and body weight changes., Results: A total of 31 patients were initially enrolled in the study, and 26 of them completed the study. The change in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores in the LIX group was significantly greater compared with that in the MDI group. Mean changes in glycated hemoglobin levels were -0.05 ± 0.37% in the MDI group and 0.04 ± 0.38% in the LIX group (P = 0.36). Mean changes in body weight were +0.6 ± 1.8 kg in the MDI group and -2.5 ± 1.8 kg in the LIX group (P < 0.01)., Conclusions: Switching from MDI to combination therapy with LIX and basal insulin improved satisfaction levels while maintaining glycemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes., (© 2017 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Aim: To evaluate the contribution of body fat mass and serum adiponectin concentration to glucose variability (GV) stability in people with type 2 diabetes with impaired versus preserved endogenous insulin secretion. Materials and methods: This multicentre prospective observational study included 193 people with type 2 diabetes who underwent ambulatory continuous glucose monitoring, abdominal computed tomography and fasting blood sampling. A fasting C‐peptide (FCP) concentration >2 ng/mL was defined as preserved endogenous insulin secretion. The participants were divided into high (FCP > 2 ng/mL) and low FCP subgroups (FCP ≤ 2 ng/mL). Multivariate regression analysis was performed in each subgroup. Results: In the high FCP subgroup, the coefficient of variation (CV) in GV was unrelated to abdominal fat area. In the low FCP subgroup, a high CV was significantly related to small abdominal visceral fat area (β = –0.11, standard error 0.03; P < 0.05) and to small subcutaneous fat area (β = –0.09, standard error 0.04; P < 0.05). No significant relationship between serum adiponectin concentration and continuous glucose monitoring‐related variables was found. Conclusions: The contribution of body fat mass to GV depends on the endogenous insulin secretion residue. A small body fat area has independent adverse effects on GV in people with type 2 diabetes and impaired endogenous insulin secretion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pemafibrate, a novel selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor modulator, has beneficial effects on lipid metabolism. However, its effects on glucose metabolism in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) remain to be fully clarified. This was a subanalysis of the PARM-T2D study, a multicenter prospective observational study on the use of pemafibrate versus conventional therapy for 52 weeks in subjects with T2DM complicated with hypertriglyceridemia. The subanalysis included participants who did not change their treatment for diabetes and did not receive insulin or insulin secretagogues during the study period. Changes in glucose metabolism markers, including homeostatic model assessment (HOMA2) scores and disposition index, were assessed. A total of 279 participants (141 in the pemafibrate group; 138 in the control group) met the criteria for the subanalysis. There were no significant changes in HbA1c during the 52-week study period in both groups. However, the pemafibrate group showed significant improvements versus the control group for insulin resistance assessed by HOMA2-R (−0.15 versus 0.08; estimated treatment difference −0.23 (95% confidence interval −0.44, −0.02); p = 0.03) and maintenance of β-cell function assessed by disposition index (0.015 versus −0.023; estimated treatment difference 0.037 (95% confidence interval 0.005, 0.069); p = 0.02). Correlation analyses showed that improvements in HOMA2-R and disposition index were significantly associated with improvements in lipid abnormalities and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase. In conclusion, pemafibrate reduced insulin resistance and maintained β-cell function in subjects with T2DM and hypertriglyceridemia, presumably by improving lipid profiles and lipid-related hepatocyte stress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Incretins reduce glycemic variability (GV) in patients with type 2 diabetes, but it is unknown whether switching from a combination of basal insulin and a DPP-4 inhibitor to insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) improves GV. We performed an exploratory prospective observational study to compare the effect of IDegLira and the combination on GV. We recruited hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes who had stable glycemic control with insulin degludec (≤16 units/day) and taking a DPP-4 inhibitor. GV was analyzed using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) before and after switching the medication to IDegLira. The principal endpoint was the change in mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE). Other indices of GV and CGM parameters were analyzed as the secondary endpoints. Fifteen participants were enrolled and 12 completed the study. In these participants, the DPP-4 inhibitor and insulin degludec were discontinued, and the equivalent dose of IDegLira was commenced. Switching to IDegLira significantly improved MAGE from 74.9 (60.3, 97.7) mg/dL to 64.8 (52.0, 78.2) mg/dL (P < 0.05), as well as other indices of GV and 24-hour mean blood glucose concentration. Analysis of the ambulatory glucose profile showed marked reductions in postprandial glucose concentration. Nocturnal glucose concentration was similar under the two treatment regimens. IDegLira improved GV as well as the mean and the postprandial glucose concentration by switching from insulin degludec plus DPP-4 inhibitor combination. IDegLira might be beneficial for patients being treated with low-dose basal insulin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/Introduction: To identify the effect of combination therapy with a dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor and a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor compared with switching from a dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor to a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor on improving the glucose variability in patients with or without impaired endogenous insulin secretion. Materials and Methods: A secondary analysis regarding the relationship between endogenous insulin secretion and the change in mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (ΔMAGE) was carried out in a multicenter, prospective, randomized, parallel‐group comparison trial that enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes who had been taking teneligliptin and were treated by switching to canagliflozin (SWITCH) or adding canagliflozin (COMB). Participants were categorized into the following four subgroups: SWITCH or COMB and high or low fasting C‐peptide (CPR) divided at baseline by the median. Results: ΔMAGE in the COMB group was greatly improved independent of a high or low CPR (−29.2 ± 28.3 vs −20.0 ± 24.6, respectively; P = 0.60). However, ΔMAGE was not ameliorated in the low CPR SWITCH group, and the ΔMAGE was significantly smaller than that in the high CPR COMB group (P < 0.01). Conclusions: COMB would be a better protocol rather than switching teneligliptin to canagliflozin to improve daily glucose variability in patients with impaired endogenous insulin secretion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/Introduction: To identify the coefficient of variation (CV) threshold for unstable glucose variability (GV) and hypoglycemia, and to characterize a patient population with unstable GV and hypoglycemia. Materials and Methods: This was an observational study that enrolled 284 Japanese outpatients with type 2 diabetes who underwent continuous glucose monitoring. The C‐peptide index (CPI = [(fasting serum C‐peptide) / (plasma glucose)] × 100) was used as a marker of endogenous insulin secretion. The CV threshold between stable and unstable GV was defined as the upper limit of the CV distribution in the subgroup of patients who did not receive insulin nor insulin secretagogues (relatively stable GV subgroup, n = 104). The optimal CV range corresponding to time below target range ≥4% was determined for all patients using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Various characteristics of patients with unstable GV and hypoglycemia were extracted using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: The upper limit of the CV in the relatively stable GV subgroup was 40. The optimal CV range corresponding to time below target range ≥4% was also defined as CV ≥40 (area under the curve 0.85) for all patients. The CPI was an independent risk for CV ≥40 (odds ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.04–0.50, P < 0.01). The optimal cut‐off point for CPI to predict a CV cut‐off value of 40 was equivalent to 0.81 (area under the curve 0.80). Conclusions: A CV of 40 discriminates unstable GV and hypoglycemia from stable GV in Japanese outpatients with type 2 diabetes. Impaired insulin secretion might affect the stability of GV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]