IntroductionType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a metabolic disorder due to defects in insulin secretion or insulin resistance leading to the dysfunction and damage of various organs. To improve the clinical evaluation of short-term blood glycemic variability monitoring, it is critical to identify another blood cell status and nutritional status biomarker that is less susceptible to interference. This study identifies the significance of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level among T2DM patients treated in outpatient clinics and investigates the relationship of LDH level with other variables.MethodsThis study comprised 72 outpatients with T2DM over 20 years of age. Blood samples were collected followed by a hematological analysis of serum glycated albumin (GA), LDH, fasting blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, C-peptide, and insulin antibodies (insulin Ab).ResultsSerum LDH level was significantly correlated with GA (p < 0.001), C-peptide (p = 0.04), insulin Ab (p = 0.03), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels (p = 0.04). Hence, we performed a linear regression analysis of hematological markers. GA (p < 0.001, r2 = 0.45) and insulin Ab (p < 0.001, r2 = 0.40) were significantly associated with LDH level. Then, we classified patients into low (<200 U/L) and high (≥200 U/L) serum LDH level groups, respectively. GA (p < 0.001), C-peptide (p = 0.001), and TSH (p = 0.03) showed significant differences in patients with high LDH levels compared with those in patients with low LDH levels.ConclusionIn conclusion, we suggested that LDH level was independent of long-term but associated with short-term blood glucose monitoring. The results indicated that changes in serum GA induced cell damage and the abnormal elevation of the serum level of LDH may occur simultaneously with glycemic variability. It has been reported that many biomarkers are being used to observe glucose variability in T2DM. However, LDH could provide a more convenient and faster evaluation of glycemic variability in T2DM.

BackgroundIn this study, we aimed to compare the effects of metformin-based dual therapy versus triple therapy on glycemic control and lipid profile changes in Taiwanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsIn total, 60 patients were eligible for participation in this study. Patients received at least 24 months of metformin monotherapy, dual therapy, or triple therapy with metformin plus linagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor) or dapagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor). Blood samples were collected from each patient, followed by evaluation of changes in their blood glucose control and lipid profile-related markers.ResultsA combination of metformin and DPP4 and SGLT2 inhibitor therapy more effectively reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (p = 0.016) than metformin monotherapy. A combination of metformin and DPP4 and SGLT2 inhibitor therapy more effectively improved total cholesterol (Chol, p = 0.049) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) than metformin monotherapy (p = 0.037). Metformin plus linagliptin dual therapy was more effective than metformin monotherapy in reducing glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C, p = 0.011). Patients who received a combination of linagliptin and empagliflozin showed a significant reduction in their fasting blood glucose (p = 0.019), HbA1c (p = 0.036), and Chol (p = 0.010) compared with those who received linagliptin dual therapy. Furthermore, patients who received metformin plus dapagliflozin and saxagliptin showed significantly reduced Chol (p = 0.011) and LDL-C (p = 0.035) levels compared with those who received metformin plus dapagliflozin.ConclusionIn conclusion, dual therapy with metformin and linagliptin yields similar glycemic control ability to triple therapy. Among metformin combination triple therapy, triple therapy of empagliflozin and linagliptin might have a better glycemic control ability than dual therapy of linagliptin. Moreover, Triple therapy of dapagliflozin and saxagliptin might have a better lipid control ability than dual therapy of dapagliflozin.