Both glimepiride and high-dose metformin are important for sustained glucose lowering in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients on glimepiride-sitagliptin-metformin therapy: subanalysis of a single-center, open-label, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: In a previous single-center, open-label randomized 3-month study of triple oral antidiabetes drug (OAD) therapy, we investigated factors affecting the glycemic control afforded by sitagliptin, high-dose metformin, and low-dose glimepiride. Patients were prospectively assigned to either Group 1 (50% reduction in metformin) or Group 2 (discontinuation of glimepiride) and compared. The results showed that the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of patients in Group 2 deteriorated more than those in Group 1, whereas HbA1c levels were maintained in some patients in both groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the factors associated with maintenance of HbA1c under this triple OAD regimen, data from the prospective study were further analyzed. RESULTS: In both Groups 1 and 2, the baseline HbA1c level was higher in patients with HbA1c ≥7.0% after 3 months of treatment than those with an HbA1c level of <7.0%. A generalized linear model revealed that high-dose metformin was associated with a deterioration of HbA1c levels in Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Together, the findings indicate that glimepiride and high-dose metformin are important for sustained glycemic control in triple OAD therapy with sitagliptin, metformin, and sulfonylurea.

Glimepiride strongly enhances the glucose-lowering effect in triple oral antidiabetes therapy with sitagliptin and metformin for Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: After approval of sitagliptin and >750 mg of metformin in Japan, a triple oral antidiabetes drug (OAD) regimen including sulfonylurea, metformin, and sitagliptin was sometimes described. However, in the real world of clinical practice, the daily dose of sulfonylurea tended to be decreased according to the warning from the Japan Diabetes Society for avoiding hypoglycemia, instead of increasing the dose of metformin for maintaining hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels with this regimen. This study examined the impact of either a small dose of glimepiride or a high dose of metformin on HbA1c in triple OAD therapy with sitagliptin in a 3-month, single-center, open-label, randomized controlled study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-six type 2 diabetes mellitus patients who had been treated with 50 mg of sitagliptin, ≥ 1,000 mg of metformin, and ≤ 1 mg of glimepiride with an HbA1c level of <7.4% during at least 3 months were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly assigned to two treatment groups who either received a 50% reduced dose of metformin (n = 27) or discontinued glimepiride (n = 29), while sitagliptin administration continued in both groups. Twenty-six patients from the reduced metformin group and 27 patients from the discontinued glimepiride group completed the study. RESULTS: Significantly greater changes were observed in HbA1c and glycated albumin levels in patients who discontinued glimepiride than in patients with a 50% reduced metformin dose, during the 2-3-month period than in the 1-3-month period. CONCLUSIONS: Glimepiride is important for good glycemic control in triple OAD therapy with sitaglitpin and metformin. This regimen may be useful for those patients who do not achieve satisfactory glycemic control with dual combination therapy.

Short duration of diabetes and disuse of sulfonylurea have any association with insulin cessation of the patients with type 2 diabetes in a clinical setting in Japan (JDDM 30).

Insulin therapy is often required to achieve good glycemic control for the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), while protraction of glycemic control without insulin therapy may be preferable for patients. To determine the characteristics of and therapeutic regimen in outpatients with T2DM who were able to stop insulin therapy with satisfactory glycemic control in a real clinical practice setting in Japan by a case-control study. The present study was performed on 928 patients with T2DM who started insulin therapy in 2007. Data regarding age, sex, body mass index, duration of diabetes, HbA1c, postprandial plasma glucose, plasma fasting C-peptide immunoreactivity and treatment modality were compared between patients who were able to stop insulin therapy and those who continued with insulin. Of the 928 patients, 37 had stopped insulin therapy within 1 year. In the patients who stopped insulin therapy, the duration of diabetes was significantly shorter and the daily insulin dosage at initiation and the prevalence of sulfonylurea pretreatment significantly lower compared with patients who continued on insulin. In conclusion, almost 4% of T2DM patients were able to stop insulin therapy with satisfactory glycemic control in a real clinical practice setting in Japan. Shorter duration of diabetes and disuse of sulfonylureas prior to insulin may associate with stopping insulin therapy as a near-normoglycemic remission in outpatients with T2DM in Japan.

Present status of insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes treated by general practitioners and diabetes specialists in Japan: Third report of a cross-sectional survey of 15,652 patients.

UNLABELLED: Aims/Introduction: Insulin therapy is often required to achieve good glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, some providers, particularly general practitioners (GPs), are reluctant to prescribe insulin to their patients. The aim of the present study was to clarify any differences in, as well as any problems associated with, insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated by either a GP or a diabetes specialist in Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 15,652 patients across 721 clinics and hospitals, 15,350 were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (14,312 by GPs and 1038 by specialists). Data regarding glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, age, height, bodyweight and treatment modality were collected for each patient. RESULTS:   Of the patients with type 2 diabetes, 9.1 and 22.9% had been prescribed insulin monotherapy, and 38.8 and 37.0% were also receiving insulin with an oral antidiabetic (OAD) by GPs or specialists, respectively. Diabetes specialists prescribed analog insulin more frequently than did GPs. GPs chose premixed insulin more frequently than did specialists, and this factor correlated with higher HbA1c levels. A younger age and daily insulin dose in groups being treated by both providers were correlated with high HbA1c levels on insulin monotherapy. Neither type of insulin nor OAD was correlated with HbA1c on insulin plus OAD therapy. CONCLUSIONS:   To achieve better glycemic control with insulin therapy, sufficient insulin dose and intensive treatment regimen, in addition to lifestyle interventions, might be necessary. (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040-1124.2012.00198.x, 2012).

Combination Therapy with a Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor, Sulfonylurea, and Metformin Markedly Improves HbA1c Levels in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Combination therapy with a dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor and metformin or sulfonylurea results in substantial and additive glucose-lowering effects in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, it is not known whether triple combination therapy with a DPP-4 inhibitor, metformin, and sulfonylurea has greater additive effects or synergic effects. In the present report, we investigated the effect of addition of sitagliptin, the first-in-class DPP-4 inhibitor, to ongoing metformin and sulfonylurea therapy in three female Japanese patients with T2DM who refused insulin therapy. Combined treatment with all three drugs resulted in marked improvements in HbA1c. In the first patient, HbA1c levels decreased from 11.1% to 6.1% after the addition of sitagliptin to metformin 1000 mg, glibenclamide, and miglitol, even though the dose of glibenclamide was decreased. HbA1c levels decreased similarly in the second patient, who was being treated with metformin and glibenclamide, from 7.9% to 6.0% after addition of sitagliptin and an increase in metformin to 2250 mg; this patient ceased glibenclamide because of hypoglycemia and instead was started on low-dose glimepiride. In the third patient, HbA1c levels decreased from 8.6% to 7.1% after addition of glimepiride to ongoing sitagliptin and metformin therapy. All three patients had refused insulin therapy, despite the fact that ongoing combination therapy had failed to achieve satisfactory glycemic control. Based on these results, it is likely that the addition of sitagliptin to metformin and at least a small dose of sulfonylurea may be effective in reducing HbA1c levels without weight gain. This triple combination therapy may prove useful in at least some patients who need initiation of insulin therapy.

Present status of sulfonylurea treatment for type 2 diabetes in Japan: second report of a cross-sectional survey of 15,652 patients.

Sulfonylureas are commonly used for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, some clinical concerns regarding their use have grown over the past decade. Thus, results of a previous Japan-wide cross-sectional survey of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were analyzed to determine the present status and problems associated with the use of sulfonylureas in the treatment of T2DM by general practitioners (GPs) and diabetes specialists. Of 15,652 patients across 721 clinics and hospitals from the previous survey, 15,350 were diagnosed as T2DM (14,312 by GPs and 1,038 by specialists). For each patient, data were collected for HbA1c levels, age, height, body weight, and treatment modality. Of T2DM patients being treated by GPs, 35.4% and 60.0% received sulfonylureas in entire oral drugs or as monotherapy, respectively, compared with 29.2% and 61.2% of patients, respectively, treated by specialists. Of the patients treated with sulfonylurea monotherapy, 1335 patients (35.2%) achieved HbA1c <6.5%, whereas HbA1c was >or=8.0% in 531 patients (14.0%). Patients with HbA1c levels >or=8.0% had a higher body mass index, used glibenclamide more frequently, and used higher doses of sulfonylureas than patients in whom HbA1c levels were <6.5%. In conclusion, the present study shows that sulfonylureas are central in the treatment of T2DM in Japan. However, careful consideration of suitable patients, agents, and doses is necessary to achieve appropriate glycemic control.

The status of glycemic control by general practitioners and specialists for diabetes in Japan: a cross-sectional survey of 15,652 patients with diabetes mellitus.

To determine the status of diabetes care by general practitioners and diabetes specialists in Japan, we conducted a nation-wide cross-sectional survey. We asked 8112 clinics and hospitals randomly, from throughout Japan, to participate in this study and 721 facilities agreed. A total of 15,652 patients aged from 15 to 97 with type 1 and type 2 diabetes were enrolled. Of these, 14,560 (93.0%) and 1092 (7.0%) patients were cared for by general practitioners and diabetes specialists, respectively. HbA1c levels were measured by a latex agglutination method, and age, height, body weight, type of diabetes and treatment modality were obtained from each patient. Mean HbA1c level for all patients treated by general practitioners was significantly lower than for those treated by the diabetes specialists (6.8+/-1.2% vs. 7.0+/-1.2%, p=0.0002). Mean HbA1c level for patients without insulin therapy was lower than for those treated with insulin, irrespective of caring physician. The proportion of patients treated with insulin therapy by diabetes specialists was higher (17.7%) than that by general practitioners (6.5%). This study showed that average HbA1c levels in Japanese patients treated by either general practitioners or specialists was acceptable, regardless of study limitations or bias.

Six-month multicentric, open-label, randomized trial of twice-daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 30 versus multiple daily injections of insulin aspart in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients (JDDM 11).

To evaluate glycemic control using convenience-oriented biphasic insulin analog compared with intensified insulin therapy, we conducted a 6-month multicentric, open-label, randomized trial in Japanese insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A total of 160 adult patients at 19 centers were randomized into two groups: those who received twice-daily injections of biphasic insulin aspart 30 and those on three-times-daily injections of insulin aspart with or without NPH insulin (multiple daily injections). At 6 months, mean HbA(1c) decreased by approximately 2.5% in both groups. Reduction of HbA(1c) on both regimens was better in patients whose prior therapy before starting the study was only diet and exercise (-5.0%) than in patients who were previously taking oral antidiabetic agents (-1.0%). No incidence of major hypoglycemia was observed in either regimen. These results suggest that convenience-oriented insulin therapy using biphasic insulin analog is as useful as intensified insulin therapy with insulin analog for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus over 6 months. Furthermore, early induction of insulin therapy in individuals hitherto using only diet and exercise may provide good glycemic control. This study suggests that convenience-oriented biphasic insulin aspart 30 might be a useful option for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, especially for insulin-naive patients over 6 months, although it should be changed to another regimen when expected efficacy is not obtained.

Current status of antihypertensive prescription and associated blood pressure control in Japan.

The importance of tight blood pressure (BP) control has been established. We performed cross-sectional studies on the current status of BP control and the prescription and efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in hypertensive patients in Japan. The data were also evaluated in subgroups with or without diabetes mellitus (DM) and in winter and summer. Analyses were performed on the collected data of 12,437 treated hypertensive patients in winter and 5,972 in summer 2002. In winter, 50.3% of patients received calcium channel blockers (CCBs), 15.3% received angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and 11.0% received angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). In the patients receiving monotherapy, 69% of patients received a CCB, 13% an ACEI and 11.0% an ARB. A total of 2,918 patients received combination therapy, and CCBs were the most frequently (89.6%) prescribed component of such therapy. Prescriptions of beta-blockers (BBs) decreased and those of CCBs and diuretics (D) increased with age (p<0.001). The rate of patients with adequately controlled BP less than 140/90 mmHg was 40.3% in the CCB group, 37.6% in the D group, and 36.9% in the BB group (p<0.001). In patients receiving combination therapy, those with CCB+D had the best rate of BP control (40.7%). The rate of patients with adequately controlled BP was lower in winter than in summer at both a target BP of 140/90 mmHg (36.2% vs. 43.8%, p<0.001) and a target BP of 130/85 mmHg in patients younger than 60 years old (15.5% vs. 18.6%, p<0.02). In diabetic patients, the target BP (130/80 mmHg) was achieved in only 11.3%, which was lower (p<0.05) than the rate in non-diabetic patients (13.1%). In conclusion, the present cross-sectional study showed that CCBs were the most frequently prescribed agent for the treatment of hypertension in Japan. The rate of adequate BP control was less than 50% and was even worse in patients with DM and in winter. Our results indicate that physicians should treat hypertension more intensively to achieve the target BP.

The status of diabetes control and antidiabetic drug therapy in Japan--a cross-sectional survey of 17,000 patients with diabetes mellitus (JDDM 1).

The number of diabetic patients has been increasing in Japan and consequently diabetic complications are the most important target to be prevented through improving glycemic control. In order to describe the glycemic control status and treatment of diabetic patients by specialists in Japan over three years, from 2000 to 2002, we examined HbA1c, other laboratory data and the modality of drug therapy in the study population, 8170 in 2000, 11,831 in 2001, and 16,934 in 2002. Patients were registered at clinics and hospitals that were members of the Japan Diabetes Clinical Data Management Study Group (JDDM). HbA1c levels, other laboratory data, and details of drug therapy were collected and analyzed using SPSS and MS Access. The mean HbA1c levels were essentially unchanged during the study periods, ranging from 7.9% to 7.8%, and from 7.1% to 7.0%, in type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients, respectively. In type 2 diabetes, the frequency of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHA) use increased from 44.9% to 51.4%, while the use of diet-only therapy decreased from 29.9% to 25.4% over the study period. Although the systolic blood pressure was slightly above target, the mean blood pressure and the mean lipid profile were mostly within the treatment goals set by the Japan Diabetes Society. This first report from a large scale study of the daily management of diabetes in Japan revealed that the average HbA1c level was superior to most of the results reported from other countries. Nonetheless, 66% of the patients still had HbA1c levels and half of the patients had other laboratory parameters including blood pressure and lipid profile that were greater than those recommended by the Japan Diabetes Society. The nature of diabetes drug therapy in Japan has gradually changed as new drugs have appeared in the market.

How does deep breathing affect office blood pressure and pulse rate?

Little is known about the relation between deep breathing (DB) and blood pressure (BP). We studied the relationship between DB and BP in a large Japanese population. The subjects were recruited from randomly selected clinics and hospitals that were members of a medical association, and divided into two groups. In one group, BP was measured before and after taking 6 DB over a period of 30 s, and in the other group BP was measured before and after a 30-s rest in a sitting position without DB. Before these measurements, all patients rested 10 min or more in the waiting room and another 2 min or more in the doctor's office. Analyses were performed on data collected from 21,563 subjects. In both groups, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and pulse rate (PR) were significantly reduced after DB or a 30-s rest compared with the baseline measurements (p < 0.001). SBP reductions were greater in the DB group than in the 30-s rest group (normotensives: -6.4 +/- 8.3 vs. -3.0 +/- 7.4 mmHg, p < 0.001; untreated hypertensives: -9.6 +/- 10.2 vs. -5.9 +/- 9.1 mmHg, p < 0.001; treated hypertensives: -8.3 +/- 9.6 vs. -4.4 +/- 8.3 mmHg, p < 0.001). Greater BP reductions were found in patients with a higher baseline BP in both the DB and 30-s rest groups. In conclusion, the present study showed a baseline BP-dependent BP reduction by DB, suggesting that BP measurement should be done without DB in the office because DB lowers BP.