Self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes mellitus: arguments for an individualized approach.

BACKGROUND: The utility of glucose self-monitoring in different types and stages of diabetes is controversial, as there is only sparse relevant evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials. In this analysis, the authors aim to develop individualized recommendations based on clinical needs and the available literature. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for articles that appeared up to 30 September 2008 containing the terms "measurement," "control","monitoring," and "hypoglycemia"; the retrieved articles were supplemented by other articles that were cited in them. A directed search was also made for the recommendations of the German, European, American, and international diabetological societies. Conclusions were then drawn about the useful modalities and extent of glucose self-monitoring on the basis of the clinical features of the major types of diabetes and the main treatment strategies for them. RESULTS: With the exception of intensified treatment strategies (which rely on blood-sugar regulation with insulin), only a few evidence-based recommendations can be derived from randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses. Nonetheless, a strategy for self-monitoring according to the patient's individual needs can be derived from the characteristics of therapeutic regimens: depending on the type of diabetes from which the patient suffers, the predicted number of glucometer strips required for self-monitoring will vary from almost none to roughly 400 per month. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to use glucose self-monitoring, as well as the type and extent of self-monitoring that will be used, should be based on the individual patient's type of diabetes, treatment regimen, and clinical characteristics. Like any other type of therapeutic intervention, self-monitoring should have a well-documented, rational justification.

The dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor vildagliptin does not accentuate glibenclamide-induced hypoglycemia but reduces glucose-induced glucagon-like peptide 1 and gastric inhibitory polypeptide secretion.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 by vildagliptin enhances the concentrations of the active form of the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP). The present study asked whether vildagliptin accentuates glibenclamide-induced hypoglycemia or affects endogenous secretion of GLP-1 and GIP after an oral glucose tolerance test. METHODS: There were 16 healthy male subjects studied on four occasions after an overnight fast in a double-blind, four-way crossover study. In random order, vildagliptin (100 mg) or placebo, with and without glibenclamide (5 mg), was administered 30 min before 75 g oral glucose. Blood was sampled to measure glucose, and total (sum of active and inactive) GLP-1 and GIP. Statistical evaluation was done using repeated-measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Glibenclamide provoked hypoglycemia (

Secretion of incretin hormones (GIP and GLP-1) and incretin effect after oral glucose in first-degree relatives of patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Since insulin secretion in response to exogenous gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) is diminished not only in patients with type 2 diabetes, but also in their normal glucose-tolerant first-degree relatives, it was the aim to investigate the integrity of the entero-insular axis in such subjects. METHODS: Sixteen first-degree relatives of patients with type 2 diabetes (4 male, 12 female, age 50+/-12 years, BMI 26.1+/-3.8 kg/m(2)) and 10 matched healthy controls (negative family history, 6 male, 4 female, 45+/-13 years, 26.1+/-4.2 kg/m(2)) were examined with an oral glucose load (75 g) and an "isoglycaemic" intravenous glucose infusion. Blood was drawn over 240 min for plasma glucose (glucose oxidase), insulin, C-peptide, GIP and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1; specific immunoassays). RESULTS: The pattern of glucose concentrations could precisely be copied by the intravenous glucose infusion (p=0.99). Insulin secretion was stimulated significantly more by oral as compared to intravenous glucose in both groups (p<0.0001). The percent contribution of the incretin effect was similar in both groups (C-peptide: 61.9+/-5.4 vs. 64.4+/-5.8%; p=0.77; insulin: 74.2+/-3.3 vs. 75.8+/-4.9; p=0.97; in first-degree relatives and controls, respectively). The individual responses of GIP and GLP-1 secretion were significantly correlated with each other (p=0.0003). The individual secretion of both GIP and GLP-1 was identified as a strong predictor of the integrated incremental insulin secretory responses as well as of the incretin effect. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Despite a lower insulin secretory response to exogenous GIP, incretin effects are similar in first-degree relatives of patients with type 2 diabetes and control subjects. This may be the result of a B cell secretory defect that affects stimulation by oral and intravenous glucose to a similar degree. Nevertheless, endogenous secretion of GIP and GLP-1 is a major determinant of insulin secretion after oral glucose.

Blood glucose control in healthy subject and patients receiving intravenous glucose infusion or total parenteral nutrition using glucagon-like peptide 1.

AIMS: It was the aim of the study to examine whether the insulinotropic gut hormone GLP-1 is able to control or even normalise glycaemia in healthy subjects receiving intravenous glucose infusions and in severely ill patients hyperglycaemic during total parenteral nutrition. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight healthy subjects and nine patients were examined. The volunteers received, in six separate experiments in randomised order, intravenous glucose at doses of 0, 2 and 5mg kg(-1) min(-1), each with intravenous GLP-1 or placebo for 6 h. Patients were selected on the basis of hyperglycaemia (>150 mg/dl) during complete parenteral nutrition with glucose (3.2+/-1.4 mg kg(-1) min(-1)), amino acids (n=8; 0.9+/-0.2 mg kg(-1) min(-1)), with or without lipid emulsions. Four hours (8 a.m. to 12 a.m. on parenteral nutrition plus NaCl as placebo) were compared to 4 h (12 a.m. to 4 p.m.) with additional GLP-1 administered intravenously. The dose of GLP-1 was 1.2 pmol kg(-1) min(-1). Blood was drawn for the determination of glucose, insulin, C-peptide, GLP-1, glucagon, and free fatty acids. RESULTS: Glycaemia was raised dose-dependently by glucose infusions in healthy volunteers (p<0.0001). GLP-1 ( approximately 100-150 pmol/l) stimulated insulin and reduced glucagon secretion and reduced glucose concentrations into the normoglycaemic fasting range (all p<0.05). In hyperglycaemic patients, glucose concentrations during the placebo period averaged 211+/-24 mg/dl. This level was reduced to 159+/-25 mg/dl with GLP-1 (p<0.0001), accompanied by a rise in insulin (p=0.0002) and C-peptide (p<0.0001), and by trend towards a reduction in glucagon (p=0.08) and free fatty acids (p=0.02). GLP-1 was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperglycaemia during parenteral nutrition can be controlled by exogenous GLP-1, e.g. the natural peptide (available today), whereas the chronic therapy of Type 2 diabetes requires GLP-1 derivatives with longer duration of action.