Exenatide and insulin glargine achieved similar improvements in overall glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes that was suboptimally controlled with oral combination therapy. Exenatide was associated with weight reduction and had a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects than insulin glargine.

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this 52-week, open-label, noninferiority trial was to compare the safety and efficacy of exenatide (an incretin mimetic) with that of biphasic insulin aspart. Materials and methods Patients on metformin and a sulfonylurea were randomised to exenatide (n=253; 5 μg twice daily for 4 weeks, 10 μg thereafter) or biphasic insulin aspart (n=248; twice-daily doses titrated for optimal glucose control), while continuing with metformin and sulfonylurea treatment.Results Glycaemic control achieved with exenatide was non-inferior to that achieved with biphasic insulin aspart (mean±SEM, HbA 1c change: exenatide −1.04± 0.07%, biphasic insulin aspart −0.89±0.06%; difference −0.15 [95% CI −0.32 to 0.01]%). Exenatide-treated patients lost weight, while patients treated with biphasic insulin aspart gained weight [between-group difference −5.4 (95% CI −5.9 to −5.0) kg]. Both treatments reduced fasting serum glucose (exenatide −1.8±0.2 mmol/l, p<0.001; biphasic insulin aspart −1.7±0.2 mmol/l, p<0.001). Greater reductions in postprandial glucose excursions following morning (p < 0.001), midday (p = 0.002) and evening meals (p<0.001) were observed with exenatide. The withdrawal rate was 21.3% (54/253) for exenatide and 10.1% (25/248) for biphasic insulin aspart. Nausea (33% incidence, 3.5% discontinuation) was the most common adverse event observed with exenatide. Conclusions/interpretation Exenatide treatment resulted in HbA 1c reduction similar to biphasic insulin aspart and provided better postprandial glycaemic control, making it a potential alternative for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Treatment with biphasic insulin aspart was associated with weight gain and lower risk of adverse gastrointestinal events. Although the availability of glucose-lowering agents associated with weight reduction may be considered a therapeutic advance, the long-term implications of progressive weight reduction observed with exenatide have yet to be defined.

No abstract

Pioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione, improves glycemic control primarily by increasing peripheral insulin sensitivity in patients with type 2 diabetes, whereas metformin, a biguanide, exerts its effect primarily by decreasing hepatic glucose output. In the first head-to-head, double-blind clinical trial comparing these two oral antihyperglycemic medications (OAMs), we studied the effect of 32-wk monotherapy on glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in 205 patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes who were naive to OAM therapy. Subjects were randomized to either 30 mg pioglitazone or 850 mg metformin daily with titrations upward to 45 mg (77% of pioglitazone patients) and 2550 mg (73% of metformin patients), as indicated, to achieve fasting plasma glucose levels of less than 7.0 mmol/liter (126 mg/dl). Pioglitazone was comparable to metformin in improving glycemic control as measured by hemoglobin A1C and fasting plasma glucose. At endpoint, pioglitazone was significantly more effective than metformin in improving indicators of insulin sensitivity, as determined by reduction of fasting serum insulin (P = 0.003) and by analysis of homeostasis model assessment for insulin sensitivity (HOMA-S; P = 0.002). Both OAM therapies were well tolerated. Therefore, pioglitazone and metformin are equally efficacious in regard to glycemic control, but they exert significantly different effects on insulin sensitivity due to differing mechanisms of action. The more pronounced improvement in indicators of insulin sensitivity by pioglitazone, as compared with metformin monotherapy in patients recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes who are OAM-naive, may be of interest for further clinical evaluation.

Background: Insulin resistance is often associated with increased triglyceride (TG) and decreased HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) concentrations and increased small LDL particles. The Atherogenic Index of Plasma (AIP), defined as log(TG/HDL-C), has recently been proposed as a marker of plasma atherogenicity because it is increased in people at higher risk for coronary heart disease and is inversely correlated with LDL particle size. We studied the effect of pioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione that reduces insulin resistance, on the AIP of patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: The data for the analysis of AIP in this report were obtained from four randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Pioglitazone was used as monotherapy in one study and in combination therapy in three studies.