Preventing microalbuminuria with benazepril, valsartan, and benazepril-valsartan combination therapy in diabetic patients with high-normal albuminuria: A prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) study.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) prevent microalbuminuria in normoalbuminuric type 2 diabetic patients. We assessed whether combined therapy with the 2 medications may prevent microalbuminuria better than ACE inhibitor or ARB monotherapy. METHODS AND FINDINGS: VARIETY was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial evaluating whether, at similar blood pressure (BP) control, combined therapy with benazepril (10 mg/day) and valsartan (160 mg/day) would prevent microalbuminuria more effectively than benazepril (20 mg/day) or valsartan (320 mg/day) monotherapy in 612 type 2 diabetic patients with high-normal albuminuria included between July 2007 and April 2013 by the Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS and 8 diabetology or nephrology units in Italy. Time to progression to microalbuminuria was the primary outcome. Analyses were intention to treat. Baseline characteristics were similar among groups. During a median [interquartile range, IQR] follow-up of 66 [42 to 83] months, 53 patients (27.0%) on combination therapy, 57 (28.1%) on benazepril, and 64 (31.8%) on valsartan reached microalbuminuria. Using an accelerated failure time model, the estimated acceleration factors were 1.410 (95% CI: 0.806 to 2.467, P = 0.229) for benazepril compared to combination therapy, 0.799 (95% CI: 0.422 to 1.514, P = 0.492) for benazepril compared to valsartan, and 1.665 (95% CI: 1.007 to 2.746, P = 0.047) for valsartan compared to combination therapy. Between-group differences in estimated acceleration factors were nonsignificant after adjustment for predefined confounders. BP control was similar across groups. All treatments were safe and tolerated well, with a slight excess of hyperkalemia and hypotension in the combination therapy group. The main study limitation was the lower than expected albuminuria at inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Risk/benefit profile of study treatments was similar. Dual renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade is not recommended as compared to benazepril or valsartan monotherapy for prevention of microalbuminuria in normoalbuminuric type 2 diabetic patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2006-005954-62; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00503152.

Effects of valsartan, benazepril and their combination in overt nephropathy of type 2 diabetes: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

AIMS: To evaluate whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) combination therapy is more nephroprotective than ACE inhibitor or ARB monotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, open, blind-endpoint phase III trial sponsored by the Italian Drug Agency, 103 consenting patients with type 2 diabetes, aged >40 years, with serum creatinine levels 159 to 309 µmol/L, spot morning urinary albumin-creatinine ratio > 1000 mg/g (or > 500 mg/g in those on ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy at inclusion) were stratified by centre and randomized to 4.5-year treatment with valsartan 320 mg/d (n = 36), benazepril 20 mg/d (n = 34) or halved doses of both medications (n = 33). The primary endpoint was end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Modified intention-to-treat analyses were performed. RESULTS: Recruitment took place between June 2007 and February 2013 at 10 centres in Italy and one in Slovenia. A total of 77 participants completed the study and 26 were prematurely withdrawn. During a median (interquartile range) of 41 (18-54) months, 12 participants on benazepril (35.3%) and nine on combination therapy (27.3%) progressed to ESRD, versus five on valsartan (13.9%). Differences between benazepril (hazard ratio [HR] 3.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-10.30; P = 0.018) or combination therapy (HR 3.28, 95% CI 1.07-10.0; P = 0.038) and valsartan were significant, even after adjustment for age, gender and baseline serum creatinine, systolic blood pressure and 24-hour proteinuria (HR 5.16, 95% CI 1.50-17.75, P = 0.009 and HR 4.75, 95% CI 1.01-22.39, P = 0.049, respectively). Adverse events were distributed similarly among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In people with type 2 diabetes with nephropathy, valsartan (320 mg/d) safely postponed ESRD more effectively than benazepril (20 mg/d) or than halved doses of both medications.

COVID-19 vaccines and blood glucose control: Friend or foe?

PURPOSE: To overview the recent literature regarding the relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and glycemic control. METHODS: Data were extracted from text and tables of all available articles published up to September 2023 in PubMed Database describing glucose homeostasis data in subjects exposed to COVID-19 vaccines, focusing on patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). RESULTS: It is debated if the immune system impairment observed in diabetic patients makes them susceptible to lower efficacy of vaccines, but evidence suggests a possible improvement in immune response in those with good glycemic control. Despite their proven protective role lowering infection rates and disease severity, COVID-19 vaccines can result in diabetic ketoacidosis, new-onset diabetes, or episodes of hyper- or hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence with COVID-19 vaccines highlights the strong relationship existing between DM and immune system function. Clinicians should strive to achieve optimal glucose control before vaccination and promptly manage possible glucose homeostasis derangement following vaccine exposure.

Long-term kidney and systemic effects of calorie restriction in overweight or obese type 2 diabetic patients (C.Re.S.O. 2 randomized controlled trial).

AIMS: In type 2 diabetic patients with obesity, hyperfiltration is a risk factor for accelerated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline and is ameliorated by calorie restriction (CR). We assessed whether CR-induced amelioration of hyperfiltration could translate into slower long-term GFR decline in this population. METHODS: In this academic, single-center, parallel-group, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint trial, consenting >40-year-old patients with type 2 diabetes, BMI ≥27 kg/m2, creatinine <1.2 mg/dL and albuminuria ≤300 mg/24 h were randomized (1:1) to two-year 25% CR (n = 53) or standard diet (SD, n = 50). Primary outcome was 6-month measured GFR. Analyses were by modified intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 6 months GFR decreased by 5.16 ± 10.03 mL/min (P = 0.001) with CR, and by 0.98 ± 9.71 mL/min (P = 0.497) with SD. Between-group difference was significant (P = 0.044). GFR decline from 6 to 24 months was significant with SD (P < 0.01), but not with CR (P = 0.075). Between-group difference, however, was not significant (P = 0.414). Body weight, BMI, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, blood glucose, serum triglycerides decreased and ApoA-I concentration increased with CR. No changes were observed with SD. Between-group differences were significant. CR was tolerated well. CONCLUSIONS: In obese type 2 diabetic patients, CR ameliorated glomerular hyperfiltration and several cardiovascular risk factors, and blunted long-term GFR decline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01930136.

ANDREW: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes on Persistent Treatment with Dulaglutide.

INTRODUCTION: Dulaglutide, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), became available in Italy in April 2016. The aim of ANDREW (Active Notes on Dulaglutide in the REal World), a multicenter, prospective, observational study, was to evaluate glycemic control and weight (co-primary outcomes) for up to 24 months in the real-life setting in consecutive outpatients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated dulaglutide. Co-secondary outcomes were durability of treatment effects on both glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight. METHODS: Overall, 1584 subjects (696 women, 888 men) with T2D (mean age [± standard deviation] 61.7 ± 10.2 years; mean T2D duration 9.9 ± 6.9 years) were treated with dulaglutide (0.75 or 1.5 mg once weekly) between April 2016 and December 2019. RESULTS: A total of 1130 patients completed 12 months of follow-up, while 170 patients interrupted treatment before the 12-month endpoint. At 12 months, average HbA1c and average fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were significantly lower compared to baseline levels (- 10 mmol/mol and - 24.9 mg/dL, respectively), as were body weight (- 3.4 kg) and waist circumference (- 3.3 cm) values (all p < 0.0001). Among subjects that completed 24 months of follow-up (n = 270), the rapid decline in HbA1c and FPG values in the first 12 months was followed by stabilization in the following 12 months (p value for 12-24 months trend: 0.4 and 0.6, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide is an effective drug for the treatment of T2D that is administered once weekly using a simple auto-injector device. Real-life data confirm the observations in randomized controlled trials that persistent treatment with dulaglutide may help patients with T2D achieve an improvement in some metabolic features and in body weight. It is important that the benefits of therapy with dulaglutide, i.e., the effects of the "glycemic" and the so-called "extra-glycemic" actions of GLP-1RAs, are supported by diabetes care teams emphasizing the need for patients to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Moderate salt restriction with or without paricalcitol in type 2 diabetes and losartan-resistant macroalbuminuria (PROCEED): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Macroalbuminuria predicts renal and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to assess the albuminuria-lowering effects of salt restriction, paricalcitol therapy, or both, in this population. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, we recruited adult patients with type 2 diabetes from six diabetology outpatient clinics in northern Italy, with 24 h albuminuria of more than 300 mg despite 100 mg per day losartan therapy, blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg, serum creatinine concentration of less than 2 mg/dL, stable renal function on stable renin-angiotensin system inhibitor therapy with a fixed dose of losartan, parathyroid hormone concentration of 20 pg/mL to <110 pg/mL, serum calcium concentration of less than 9·5 mg/dL, and serum phosphate concentration of less than 5 mg/dL, who had been more than 80% compliant with placebo treatment during a 1 month placebo run-in. We allocated patients 1:1 with computer-generated randomisation to an open-label 3 month high-sodium (>200 mEq [4·8 g] per day) or low-sodium (<100 mEq [2·4 g] per day) diet and, within each diet group, to a 1 month double-blind treatment period of oral paricalcitol (2 µg per day) or placebo, followed by 1 month of placebo washout and then a further 1 month double-blind treatment period of paricalcitol or placebo in which patients crossed over to the opposite treatment period. The primary outcome was 24 h albuminuria (median of three consecutive measurements). Analyses were modified intention-to-treat (including all randomly allocated patients who took at least one dose of study drug and had an efficacy measurement after the first treatment period). Patients and investigators were masked to paricalcitol and placebo assignment. Those assessing outcomes were masked to both study drug and diet assignment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01393808, and the European Union Clinical Trials Register, number 2011-001713-14. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2011, and Feb 17, 2015, we randomly allocated 57 (50%) patients to a low-sodium diet (28 [49%] to paricalcitol then placebo and 29 [51%] to placebo then paricalcitol) and 58 (50%) to a high-sodium diet (29 [50%] to paricalcitol then placebo and 29 [50%] to placebo then paricalcitol). In the low-sodium group (30 mEq of daily sodium intake reduction, equivalent to approximately 1·7-1·8 g per day), 24 h albuminuria was reduced by 36·6% (95% CI 28·5-44·9) from 724 mg (441-1233) at baseline to 481 mg (289-837) at month 3 (p<0·0001), but no significant change occurred in the high-sodium group (from 730 mg [416-1227] to 801 mg [441-1365]; 2·9% [-16·8 to 16·4] increase; p=0·50). Changes between diet groups differed by 32·4% (17·2-48·8; p<0·0001) and correlated with changes in natriuresis (r=0·43; p<0·0001). On the high-sodium diet, paricalcitol reduced the salt-induced albuminuria increase by 17·8% (3·9-32·3) over the month of treatment compared with placebo (p=0·02), whereas on the low-sodium diet, paricalcitol did not have a significant effect versus placebo (increase of 4·1% [-9·3 to 21·6]; p=0·59). During placebo treatment, albuminuria decreased with the low-sodium diet (p=0·0002) and did not significantly change with the high-sodium diet, but changes were significantly different between diet groups (p=0·0004). Treatment was well tolerated and no patients withdrew from the study because of treatment-related effects. 67 adverse events occurred in 52 (45%) patients during paricalcitol treatment and 44 events occurred in 36 (31%) patients during placebo treatment. During paricalcitol therapy, 14 cases of hypercalciuria, six cases of hypercalcaemia, and five cases of hyperphosphataemia were reported in one patient each, all of which were possibly treatment related. One case of hypercalciuria was reported in one patient during the placebo treatment period. One stroke and one coronary event occurred during paricalcitol therapy. No patients died during the study. INTERPRETATION: In patients with macroalbuminuria and type 2 diabetes, moderate salt restriction enhances the antialbuminuric effect of losartan, an effect that could be nephroprotective and cardioprotective in the long term. The finding that paricalcitol prevents a sodium-induced increase in albuminuria provides support for trials to test the long-term risk-benefit profile of paricalcitol add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and macroalbuminuria refractory to dietary salt restriction, including patients refractory to even moderate salt restriction. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Blood Pressure and Metabolic Effects of Acetyl-l-Carnitine in Type 2 Diabetes: DIABASI Randomized Controlled Trial.

CONTEXT: Acetyl-l-carnitine (ALC), a mitochondrial carrier involved in lipid oxidation and glucose metabolism, decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP), and ameliorated insulin sensitivity in hypertensive nondiabetic subjects at high cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of ALC on SBP and glycemic and lipid control in patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), and dyslipidemia on background statin therapy. DESIGN: After 4-week run-in period and stratification according to previous statin therapy, patients were randomized to 6-month, double-blind treatment with ALC or placebo added-on simvastatin. SETTING: Five diabetology units and one clinical research center in Italy. PATIENTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients with hypertension and dyslipidemic T2D >40 years with stable background antihypertensive, hypoglycemic, and statin therapy and serum creatinine <1.5 mg/dL. INTERVENTIONS: Oral ALC 1000 mg or placebo twice daily on top of stable simvastatin therapy. OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was SBP. Secondary outcomes included lipid and glycemic profiles. Total-body glucose disposal rate and glomerular filtration rate were measured in subgroups by hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp and iohexol plasma clearance, respectively. RESULTS: SBP did not significantly change after 6-month treatment with ALC compared with placebo (-2.09 mm Hg vs -3.57 mm Hg, P = 0.9539). Serum cholesterol, triglycerides, and lipoprotein(a), as well as blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin, fasting insulin levels, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance index, glucose disposal rate, and glomerular filtration rate did not significantly differ between treatments. Adverse events were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Six-month oral ALC supplementation did not affect blood pressure, lipid and glycemic control, insulin sensitivity and kidney function in hypertensive normoalbuminuric and microalbuminuric T2D patients on background statin therapy.

Effects on the incidence of cardiovascular events of the addition of pioglitazone versus sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin (TOSCA.IT): a randomised, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: The best treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes in whom treatment with metformin alone fails to achieve adequate glycaemic control is debated. We aimed to compare the long-term effects of pioglitazone versus sulfonylureas, given in addition to metformin, on cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: TOSCA.IT was a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic clinical trial, in which patients aged 50-75 years with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy (2-3 g per day) were recruited from 57 diabetes clinics in Italy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by permuted blocks randomisation (block size 10), stratified by site and previous cardiovascular events, to add-on pioglitazone (15-45 mg) or a sulfonylurea (5-15 mg glibenclamide, 2-6 mg glimepiride, or 30-120 mg gliclazide, in accordance with local practice). The trial was unblinded, but event adjudicators were unaware of treatment assignment. The primary outcome, assessed with a Cox proportional-hazards model, was a composite of first occurrence of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or urgent coronary revascularisation, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants with baseline data available and without any protocol violations in relation to inclusion or exclusion criteria). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00700856. FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2008, and Jan 15, 2014, 3028 patients were randomly assigned and included in the analyses. 1535 were assigned to pioglitazone and 1493 to sulfonylureas (glibenclamide 24 [2%], glimepiride 723 [48%], gliclazide 745 [50%]). At baseline, 335 (11%) participants had a previous cardiovascular event. The study was stopped early on the basis of a futility analysis after a median follow-up of 57·3 months. The primary outcome occurred in 105 patients (1·5 per 100 person-years) who were given pioglitazone and 108 (1·5 per 100 person-years) who were given sulfonylureas (hazard ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·74-1·26, p=0·79). Fewer patients had hypoglycaemias in the pioglitazone group than in the sulfonylureas group (148 [10%] vs 508 [34%], p<0·0001). Moderate weight gain (less than 2 kg, on average) occurred in both groups. Rates of heart failure, bladder cancer, and fractures were not significantly different between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: In this long-term, pragmatic trial, incidence of cardiovascular events was similar with sulfonylureas (mostly glimepiride and gliclazide) and pioglitazone as add-on treatments to metformin. Both of these widely available and affordable treatments are suitable options with respect to efficacy and adverse events, although pioglitazone was associated with fewer hypoglycaemia events. FUNDING: Italian Medicines Agency, Diabete Ricerca, and Italian Diabetes Society.

A Prospective Study for Introducing Insulin Pens and Safety Needles in a Hospital Setting. The SANITHY Study.

BACKGROUND: to assess costs and safety of insulin pen devices and safety needles as compared to vial/syringes in hospitalized patients requiring insulin therapy in a General Hospital in Northern Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: in a prospective 9-month study, consecutive patients admitted to three Hospital Units received insulin therapy through either a traditional disposable syringe method, or pen/safety needles with dual-ended protection, or disposable safety syringes. We compared the median direct (insulin and devices) and indirect (insulin supply at discharge, insulin wastage) costs of a 10-day in-hospital insulin treatment in the 3 study groups, additionally accounting for the costs related to the observed needlestick injury rate. Patients' safety during in-hospital stay (hypo- and hyperglycemia episodes) and satisfaction were also assessed. RESULTS: N=360 patients (55% men, mean age 75.6 years, 57% with DM since ≥10 years) were recruited in the study. Insulin pens had higher median direct cost than both traditional syringes (43 vs. 18 ε/patient, p<.0001) and safety syringes (21.5 ε/patient, p<.0001). However, when also indirect and injuries costs were taken into account, the estimated savings for using pens over traditional syringes were as high as 32 ε/patient (45.8 vs. 77.6 ε/patient, p-value <.0001). No differences in patients' safety were observed. 74% and 12% of patients using pens and syringes would like to continue the method at home, respectively (p<0.0001). DISCUSSION: A selective use of individual pre-filled pens/safety needles for patients who are likely to continue insulin therapy at home may strongly reduce hospital diabetes treatment related costs.

PERS&O (PERsistent Sitagliptin treatment & Outcomes): observational retrospective study on cardiovascular risk evolution in patients with type 2 diabetes on persistent sitagliptin treatment.

OBJECTIVES: The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Risk Engine (RE) provides the best risk estimates available for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), so it was applied to patients on persistent sitagliptin treatment. DESIGN: A 'real-world' retrospective, observational, single-center study. SETTING: The study was performed in a general hospital in Northern Italy in order: (1) to validate UKPDS RE in a cohort of Italian participants with T2D without prespecified diabetes duration, with/without cardiovascular (CV) disease, treated with sitagliptin; (2) to confirm CV risk gender difference; (3) to evaluate the effect on metabolic control and on CV risk evolution obtained by 'add-on' persistent sitagliptin treatment. PARTICIPANTS: Sitagliptin 100 mg once a day was taken by 462 participants with T2D: 170 of them (males: 106; age: 63.6±8.8; T2D duration: 11.58±7.33; females: 64; age: 65.6±7.95; T2D duration 13.5±7.9) were treated for 48 months with the same dosage. INTERVENTIONS: An analysis of normality was performed both for continuous, and for groups variables on UKPDS RE percentage values, defining the requirement of a base log10 transformation to normalize risk factor values for analysis validation. RESULTS: The evaluation of CV risk evolution by gender (t-test) confirmed the expected statistical difference (p<0.0001). Sitagliptin obtained significant results after 12 months, and at the end of the observation, both on metabolic control (expressed by glycated hemoglobin) and on UKPDS RE. Analysis of variance test revealed a significant effect on CV risk after 12 months (p=0.003), and after 48 months (p=0.04). A bivariate correlation analysis revealed a correlation index (r)=0.2 between the two variables (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These 'real-world' data obtained applying UKPDS RE may reflect patients' and clinicians' interest in realizing individual CV risk, and its evolution. Sitagliptin-persistent treatment for a medium-long period obtained an improvement on metabolic control, as well as a reduction on CV risk.

Determinants of nurse satisfaction using insulin pen devices with safety needles: an exploratory factor analysis.

BACKGROUND: A paucity of data exists to examine nurses' satisfaction with the use of insulin pens with safety needles in hospitalized patients with diabetes. We investigated major determinants of nurses' preference of the method of insulin administration in the context of a General Hospital in Northern Italy. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted to three hospital units of different care intensity requiring insulin received insulin therapy through either the vial/syringe method (October to December 2012) or pen/safety needles with dual-ended protection method (January to March 2013). Before the implementation of insulin pens, floor nurses received a specific training program for proper insulin pen injection technique including individual testing of the devices (pen/safety needles). At the end of the study, nurses completed the Nursing Satisfaction Survey Questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the internal consistency and reliability of the questionnaire. Major determinants of satisfaction were investigated through an exploratory factor analysis. The association between each retained factor and time spent to teach patients how to self-inject insulin with pen devices was also investigated. RESULTS: Fifty-three out of 60 nurses (mean age ± SD 36.2 ± 8.5 years, 85 % women, 57 % with 10+ years of working experience) returned the questionnaire. Internal consistency of the questionnaire was satisfactory (Cronbach's alpha > 0.9). Three months after their introduction, about 92 % of nurses considered pen devices an "improvement" over the vial/syringe method. Two factors explained 85 % of nurses' satisfaction, one related to convenience and ease of use, and the other to satisfaction/time spent for dose preparation and administration. The latter factor was inversely correlated with time spent on patients' training tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' satisfaction with pen devices was higher than previously reported, possibly reinforced by safety needles with dual-ended protection. Perceived workload was a major determinant of nurse satisfaction using pen devices with safety needles. To facilitate the introduction of insulin pens in the hospital setting, it should be specifically addressed during training programs in the switch-over period.

Exenatide or glimepiride added to metformin on metabolic control and on insulin resistance in type 2 diabetic patients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of exenatide compared to glimepiride on body weight, glycemic control and insulin resistance in type 2 diabetic patients taking metformin. One hundred and eleven patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus and intolerant to metformin at the highest dosages (2500-3000 mg/day) were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized to receive exenatide 5 µg twice a day or glimepiride 1mg three times a day and titrated after 1 month to exenatide 10 µg twice a day or glimepiride 2mg three times a day for 12 months in a randomized, single-blind, controlled study. We evaluated at the baseline and after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months these parameters: body weight, body mass index (BMI), HbA(1c), glycemic control, fasting plasma insulin, homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) index, adiponectin, tumor necrosis factor-α, and high sensitivity-C reactive protein. Both treatments gave a similar improvement of glycemic control, without any differences between the two groups. Only exenatide gave a decrease of BMI, insulin resistance parameters such as fasting plasma insulin, HOMA-IR, and adiponectin and a decrease of inflammatory parameters such as tumor necrosis factor-α, and high sensitivity-C reactive protein. Furthermore, the values obtained with exenatide were significantly better than the values recorded with glimepiride. We can conclude that exenatide was better than glimepiride in improving insulin resistance and inflammatory state. Furthermore, adiponectin increase, and tumor necrosis factor-α reduction seem to be related to weight loss obtained with exenatide.

Effects of combined ezetimibe and simvastatin therapy as compared with simvastatin alone in patients with type 2 diabetes: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of inhibited gastrointestinal cholesterol absorption in statin-treated dyslipidemic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a multicenter prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, we primarily compared by ANCOVA the effect of 2-month ezetimibe (10 mg/day) or placebo therapy on LDL cholesterol serum levels in 108 type 2 diabetic patients with albuminuria <200 microg/min and total cholesterol concentrations >135 mg/dl despite simvastatin treatment (40 mg/day). RESULTS: Unlike placebo, ezetimibe decreased LDL cholesterol from 99 +/- 31 to 66 +/- 22 mg/dl, total cholesterol from 162 +/- 36 to 124 +/- 30 mg/dl, and apolipoprotein B from 83 +/- 22 to 64 +/- 18 mg/dl (P < 0.0001 for all changes versus placebo). A total of 72 and 17% of patients on ezetimibe or placebo achieved LDL levels <70 mg/dl, respectively (P < 0.0001). Treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Adding ezetimibe to simvastatin therapy helps to improve the pro-atherogenic lipoprotein profile in type 2 diabetic patients who fail to reach recommended lipid targets with statin therapy alone.