Efficacy and safety of linagliptin according to patient baseline characteristics: A pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to determine if patient baseline characteristics affect responses to linagliptin and identify relevant predictors of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were pooled from three 24-week, placebo-controlled trials of similar design (linagliptin, n = 1651; placebo, n = 607). Patients were categorized according to baseline characteristics: age, T2DM duration, gender, body mass index (BMI), Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), and metabolic syndrome (MetS). Changes from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks were assessed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The proportion of patients with baseline HbA1c >7% achieving HbA1c of ≤7% at week 24 were evaluated. Independent predictors of HbA1c response with linagliptin were analyzed in a multivariate analysis with ANCOVA. Linagliptin treatment led to significant mean (SE) placebo-corrected reductions from baseline in HbA1c across all subgroups (-0.42% [±0.11] to -0.79% [0.08]; all p < 0.001). Within subgroups, HbA1c reduction was more pronounced in patients without MetS (-0.74% [0.06]; treatment interaction p = 0.0489). The proportion of patients with baseline HbA1c >7% achieving a target HbA1c ≤7% was greater with linagliptin versus placebo (30.2% vs 11.5%; odds ratio 3.82; 95% CI 2.82 to 5.17; p < 0.001). Characteristics significantly predicting HbA1c reductions after 24 weeks were fasting plasma glucose and race (both p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This post-hoc analysis supports that linagliptin achieved clinically meaningful improvements in hyperglycemia in patients with diverse clinical characteristics. These improvements were more pronounced in patients without MetS.

Improved glucose control with reduced hypoglycaemic risk when linagliptin is added to basal insulin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To assess the efficacy, hypoglycaemia risk and other safety markers of linagliptin as an additional therapy in older patients (aged ≥70 years) inadequately controlled with basal insulin. METHODS: A prespecified safety analysis from the linagliptin trials programme was carried out to explore the hypoglycaemia risk when linagliptin was added to background basal insulin therapy in elderly patients (≥70 years). To do this, two eligible, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials (NCT00954447 and NCT01084005) of 24 and ≥52 weeks, respectively, were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 247 elderly individuals [mean ± standard deviation (s.d.) age 74 ± 4 years, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8.2 ± 0.8%] on basal insulin (mean ± s.d. baseline dose 36 ± 25 IU/day) were identified. Alongside placebo-adjusted change in HbA1c with linagliptin of -0.77% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.95 to 0.59; p < 0.0001] after 24 weeks, the hazard ratios (HRs) of both overall and confirmed hypoglycaemia [blood glucose ≤3.9 mmol/l (70 mg/dl)], were significantly lower with linagliptin than with placebo: HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.39-0.97) versus 0.59 (95% CI 0.37-0.94), respectively (both p < 0.05). Moreover, significantly less confirmed hypoglycaemia was present in linagliptin-treated patients with renal impairment [HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.27-0.76)], moderate hyperglycaemia [HbA1c 7.5 to <9.0%; HR 0.51 (95% CI 0.27-0.99)], lower fasting plasma glucose levels [<152 mg/dl; HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.28-0.86)] and those treated with higher insulin doses [insulin ≥35.6 IU/day; HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.23-0.91); p < 0.05 for all]. Severe hypoglycaemia was rare and the incidence was lower with linagliptin (0.8%) versus placebo (2.5%): HR 0.21 (95% CI 0.02-2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements in hyperglycaemia and no relevant on-trial insulin dose reductions, adding linagliptin to basal insulin appears to decrease hypoglycaemia risk. The biological basis of this phenomenon warrants further research but may involve counter-regulatory effects of incretin hormones.

Regardless of the degree of glycaemic control, linagliptin has lower hypoglycaemia risk than all doses of glimepiride, at all time points, over the course of a 2-year trial.

AIM: To evaluate the risk of documented hypoglycaemia with glimepiride versus linagliptin. METHODS: This was an exploratory analysis of data from a 2-year, randomized, double-blind study of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin 5 mg once daily (n = 764) versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride 1-4 mg once daily (n = 755) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled by metformin. Patients randomized to glimepiride started on 1 mg and after 4 weeks were allowed to be individually uptitrated stepwise to glimepiride 4 mg if a fasting plasma glucose concentration ≤6.1 mmol/l was not achieved. Investigator-reported hypoglycaemia was evaluated by dose, over time, and by the degree of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction. RESULTS: The percentages of patients with at least one hypoglycaemic event at the individual maximum glimepiride dose were: 1 mg, 45.0%; 2 mg, 50.8%; 3 mg, 36.1%; and 4 mg, 27.7%. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was higher with glimepiride than with linagliptin (36.1 vs. 7.5%; p < 0.0001); after performing sensitivity analyses by excluding events during dose escalation (weeks 0-16), this difference remained significant (weeks 16-104: 25.8 vs. 5.9%; p < 0.0001). Notably, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was higher with glimepiride than with linagliptin in each quartile of HbA1c change from baseline (all p < 0.0001); the incidence of hypoglycaemic episodes was not increased with greater reductions in HbA1c in either group. In all 4-week intervals across the 2-year study, the incidence of hypoglycaemia was lower with linagliptin than with glimepiride. CONCLUSION: Linagliptin was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia than glimepiride at all dose levels and time intervals, and regardless of change in HbA1c level.

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin compared with linagliptin monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia: a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel group, multinational clinical trial.

AIMS: To evaluate glucose-lowering treatment strategies with linagliptin and metformin in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, a prevalent population for which few dedicated studies of oral antidiabetes drugs have been conducted. METHODS: A total of 316 patients, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for ≤12 months and with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration in the range 8.5-12.0%, were randomized 1:1 to double-blind, free-combination treatment with linagliptin 5 mg once daily and metformin twice daily (uptitrated to 2000 mg/day maximum) or to linagliptin monotherapy. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c concentration from baseline at week 24 (per-protocol completers' cohort: n = 245). RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) age and HbA1c at baseline were 48.8 (11.0) years and 9.8 (1.1)%, respectively. At week 24, the mean ± standard error (s.e.) HbA1c decreased from baseline by -2.8 ± 0.1% with linagliptin/metformin and -2.0 ± 0.1% with linagliptin; a treatment difference of -0.8% (95% confidence interval -1.1 to -0.5; p <0.0001). Similar results were observed in a sensitivity analysis based on intent-to-treat principles: adjusted mean ± s.e. changes in HbA1c of -2.7 ± 0.1% and -1.8 ± 0.1%, respectively; treatment difference of -0.9% (95% CI -1.3 to -0.6; p <0.0001). A treatment response of HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 61 and 40% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively. Few patients experienced drug-related adverse events (8.8 and 5.7% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 1.9 and 3.2% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively (no severe episodes). Body weight decreased significantly with the combination therapy (-1.3 kg between-group difference; p =0.0033). CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin in initial combination with metformin in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, an understudied group, elicited significant improvements in glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia, weight gain or other adverse effects. These results support early combination treatment strategies and suggest that newly diagnosed patients with marked hyperglycaemia may be effectively managed with oral, non-insulin therapy.

Safety and efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a comprehensive analysis of data from 1331 individuals aged ≥ 65 years.

AIMS: To investigate individual patient data from a comprehensive trials programme to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin across a range of glucose-lowering regimens in a large elderly population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Data were pooled from individuals aged ≥ 65 years, who participated in seven phase III, placebo-controlled clinical trials of linagliptin (24-52 weeks). Safety was assessed by incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) with a focus on hypoglycaemia. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). RESULTS: In total, 841 subjects received linagliptin 5 mg once a day and 490 received placebo. At baseline, the population had a mean ± s.d. age of 71.0 ± 4.6 years and a mean HbA1c concentration of 8.0 ± 0.8%; 63.5% of subjects received ≥ 2 antidiabetes drugs. Overall AEs and drug-related AEs were experienced by similar proportions of patients (linagliptin 71.3, placebo 73.3; linagliptin 18.1, placebo 19.8%, respectively). The incidence of investigator-reported hypoglycaemia was 21.4% with linagliptin and 25.7% with placebo. Severe hypoglycaemic events were rare and there were fewer in the linagliptin group (1.0 vs. 1.8%). At week 24, the placebo-corrected adjusted mean ± s.e. reduction in HbA1c with linagliptin was -0.62 ± 0.06% (95% CI: -0.73, -0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this large cohort show that linagliptin is a well-tolerated and efficacious therapy for elderly patients with T2DM. Treatment with linagliptin may support individualized treatment goals, while effectively managing the risk of hypoglycaemia or drug-related side effects.

Linagliptin treatment in subjects with type 2 diabetes with and without mild-to-moderate renal impairment.

AIMS: Renal disease is a frequent comorbidity of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and an important factor complicating the choice of glucose-lowering drugs. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg/day) in mono, dual or triple oral glucose-lowering regimens in subjects with T2DM and mild or moderate renal impairment (RI). METHODS: In this pooled analysis of three 24-week, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials, subjects with mild (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60-<90 ml/min/1.73 m(2) , n = 838) or moderate RI (30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m(2), n = 93) were compared with subjects with normal renal function (≥90 ml/min/1.73 m(2), n = 1212). RESULTS: Subjects with RI were older, had longer duration of diabetes, and increased prevalence of diabetes-related comorbidities. After 24 weeks, linagliptin achieved consistent placebo-corrected mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) changes across the three renal function categories: normal (-0.63%; p < 0.0001), mild RI (-0.67%; p < 0.0001) and moderate RI (-0.53%; p < 0.01), with no inter-group difference (p = 0.74). Renal function with linagliptin remained stable across all categories. In linagliptin-treated subjects, overall adverse event (AE) rates and serious AE rates were similar to placebo. The incidence of hypoglycaemia with linagliptin and placebo was 11.1 versus 6.9%, 11.9 versus 9.0% and 15.9 versus 12.0% in the normal, mild RI and moderate RI categories, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis provides evidence that linagliptin is an effective, well-tolerated and convenient treatment in subjects with T2DM and mild or moderate RI.

Long-term safety of linagliptin monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: In a phase III study conducted among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), linagliptin 5 and 10 mg showed clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic parameters after 12 and 26 weeks compared with placebo and voglibose, respectively. This extension study assessed long-term tolerability of linagliptin over 52 weeks. METHODS: Japanese patients with T2DM who completed either phase of a 12-week/26-week study comparing linagliptin monotherapy with placebo or voglibose were eligible to enrol. In the extension study, the comparator groups switched to linagliptin 5 or 10 mg, while the linagliptin groups maintained dosage. RESULTS: In all, 540 patients received at least one dose of linagliptin 5 or 10 mg and 494 completed the extension. Long-term treatment with linagliptin was well tolerated; adverse events (AEs) of special interest and serious AEs occurred in small percentages of patients. Drug-related AEs occurred in 10.2 and 10.6% of patients in the linagliptin 5- and 10-mg groups, respectively, and discontinuations due to drug-related AEs occurred in 1.1 and 0.7%, respectively. Only one (0.4%) patient in each dose group experienced investigator-defined hypoglycaemia during the treatment period (both events were non-severe). Body weight was not clinically altered in either group. The glycated haemoglobin A1c profiles over time were similar with linagliptin 5 and 10 mg. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence for the safety and tolerability of oral linagliptin at either 5 or 10 mg for up to 52 weeks for the treatment of Japanese patients with T2DM, without clinically relevant increase in the risk of hypoglycaemia or weight gain.

Linagliptin is more effective than glimepiride at achieving a composite outcome of target HbA1c < 7% with no hypoglycaemia and no weight gain over 2 years.

Linagliptin treatment for 104 weeks was recently reported to achieve non-inferior glucose-lowering effects compared with glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. Additional analyses from this randomised, active-controlled, double-blind trial have been performed in individuals completing the study on study drug without requiring rescue therapy. In this population, significantly more patients receiving linagliptin achieved HbA1c < 7% without hypoglycaemia and without body weight gain after 2 years compared with those receiving glimepiride (54% and 23%, respectively; odds ratio of 3.9, 95% confidence interval 2.6-5.7, p < 0.0001).

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: efficacy and safety in a randomised, double-blind 1-year extension study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in initial combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This 1-year randomised, double-blind study was an extension of a 6-month randomised controlled trial, in which adults with type 2 diabetes received one of six treatment regimens (linagliptin 2.5 mg plus metformin 500 mg bid, linagliptin 2.5 mg plus metformin mg 1000 bid, metformin 1000 mg bid, metformin 500 mg bid, linagliptin 5 mg qd or placebo). In the extension, patients in the first three treatment groups continued their regimen (non-switched group, n = 333) while the metformin 500 mg bid, linagliptin 5 mg qd and placebo groups were re-randomised to one of the three continuing regimens (switched group, n = 233). RESULTS: All three non-switched groups maintained reductions in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c; mean ± standard deviation reductions across the 1.5-year period: linagliptin 2.5 plus metformin 1000 bid, -1.63 ± 1.05%; linagliptin 2.5 plus metformin 500 bid, -1.32 ± 1.06%; metformin 1000 bid, -1.25 ± 0.91%) while the switched groups showed additional HbA1c reductions. During the extension, there were no clinically meaningful changes in body weight in any group. Adverse event rates were similar between groups, with most events being mild or moderate, and the incidence of investigator-defined hypoglycaemia was low, with no severe events. DISCUSSION: Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin was well tolerated over the 1-year extension period, with low risk of hypoglycaemia, and improved glycaemic control vs. metformin alone. CONCLUSION: The initial combination of linagliptin and metformin appears to provide a useful treatment option in patients whose blood glucose levels are increased to an extent that metformin monotherapy may not achieve treatment targets.

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin improves glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus metformin versus linagliptin or metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial, 791 patients were randomized to one of six treatment arms. Two free combination therapy arms received linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily (bid) + either low (500 mg) or high (1000 mg) dose metformin bid. Four monotherapy arms received linagliptin 5 mg once daily, metformin 500 mg or 1000 mg bid or placebo. Patients with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥11.0% were not eligible for randomization and received open-label linagliptin + high-dose metformin. RESULTS: The placebo-corrected mean (95% confidence interval) change in HbA1c from baseline (8.7%) to week 24 was -1.7% (-2.0, -1.4) for linagliptin + high-dose metformin, -1.3% (-1.6, -1.1) for linagliptin + low-dose metformin, -1.2% (-1.5, -0.9) for high-dose metformin, -0.8% (-1.0, -0.5) for low-dose metformin and -0.6 (-0.9, -0.3) for linagliptin (all p < 0.0001). In the open-label arm, the mean change in HbA1c from baseline (11.8%) was -3.7%. Hypoglycaemia occurred at a similar low rate with linagliptin + metformin (1.7%) as with metformin alone (2.4%). Adverse event rates were comparable across treatment arms. No clinically significant changes in body weight were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus metformin was superior to metformin monotherapy in improving glycaemic control, with a similar safety and tolerability profile, no weight gain and a low risk of hypoglycaemia.

Linagliptin monotherapy in type 2 diabetes patients for whom metformin is inappropriate: an 18-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial with a 34-week active-controlled extension.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients for whom metformin was inappropriate. METHODS: This 1-year double-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00740051) enrolled T2DM patients with inadequate glycaemic control, treatment-naïve [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0-10.0%] or previously treated with one oral antidiabetes drug (HbA1c 6.5-9.0% before washout), ineligible for metformin because of contraindications (e.g. renal impairment) or previous intolerable side effects. Patients were randomized to monotherapy with linagliptin 5 mg once daily (n = 151) or placebo (n = 76) for 18 weeks, after which placebo patients switched to glimepiride 1-4 mg once daily and treatments continued for another 34 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c after 18 weeks (full-analysis set, last observation carried forward). RESULTS: At week 18, adjusted mean difference in change from baseline HbA1c (8.1%) was -0.60% (95% confidence interval -0.88, -0.32; p < 0.0001) (-0.39% with linagliptin, +0.21% with placebo). At week 52, mean HbA1c was decreased from baseline in both groups [linagliptin: -0.44%; placebo/glimepiride: -0.72% (observed cases)]. Adverse events occurred in 40.4 and 48.7% of linagliptin and placebo patients, respectively, during the initial 18 weeks. During the 34-week extension, patients receiving linagliptin experienced less hypoglycaemia (2.2% vs. 7.8%) and no weight gain (mean change from baseline of -0.2 and +1.3 kg, respectively) compared with glimepiride patients. CONCLUSIONS: In T2DM patients for whom metformin was inappropriate, linagliptin improved glycaemic control and was well tolerated, with less hypoglycaemia and relative weight loss compared with glimepiride.

Safety and tolerability of linagliptin: a pooled analysis of data from randomized controlled trials in 3572 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To assess the safety and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Data were pooled from eight randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trials lasting ≤24 weeks. Incidences were calculated with descriptive statistics for the overall population and for subgroups of elderly and renally impaired patients. RESULTS: A total of 2523 patients received linagliptin 5 mg once daily and 1049 patients received placebo. The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs with linagliptin was similar to placebo (AEs 55.8% vs. 55.0%; serious AEs 2.8% vs. 2.7%). Overall aggregated infection incidence was 19.5% for linagliptin and 21.4% for placebo. Similar or reduced incidence of AEs versus placebo were seen with linagliptin for upper respiratory tract infection (3.3% vs. 4.9%), headache (2.9% vs. 3.1%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 2.7%), blood and lymphatic disorders (1.0% vs. 1.2%), hypersensitivity (0.1% vs. 0.1%), hepatic enzyme increase (0.1% and 0.1%) and serum creatinine increase (0.0% and 0.1%). There was a slight increased frequency of nasopharyngitis (5.9% vs. 5.1%) and cough (1.7% vs. 1.0%) with linagliptin. Hypoglycaemia incidence was 8.2% for linagliptin and 5.1% for placebo; incidence was higher in patients with a background of sulphonylurea therapy (20.7% and 13.3%, respectively). In patients not receiving concomitant sulphonylurea, the hypoglycaemic incidence with linagliptin was very low in both the total population (<1%), and elderly and renally impaired patients (both <1%). CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis shows that linagliptin is well tolerated, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia.

Linagliptin monotherapy provides superior glycaemic control versus placebo or voglibose with comparable safety in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, placebo and active comparator-controlled, double-blind study.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin 5 and 10 mg vs. placebo and voglibose in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This study enrolled patients with inadequately controlled T2DM who were previously treated with one or two oral antidiabetics or were drug naÏve. After a 2 to 4-week washout and placebo run-in, 561 patients were randomized (2 : 2 : 2 : 1) to double-blind treatment with linagliptin 5 or 10 mg qd, voglibose 0.2 mg tid or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) with linagliptin vs. placebo after 12 weeks and vs. voglibose after 26 weeks. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced across treatment groups (overall mean HbA1c was 8.01%). The adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) treatment differences at week 12 were -0.87% (-1.04, -0.70; p < 0.0001) and -0.88% (-1.05, -0.71; p < 0.0001) for linagliptin 5 and 10 mg vs. placebo and at week 26 were -0.32% (-0.49, -0.15; p = 0.0003) and -0.39% (-0.56, -0.21; p < 0.0001) for linagliptin 5 and 10 mg vs. voglibose. At week 12, mean HbA1c was 7.58, 7.48 and 8.34% in patients receiving linagliptin 5 mg, linagliptin 10 mg and placebo, respectively. At week 26, mean HbA1c was 7.63% with linagliptin 5 mg, 7.50% with linagliptin 10 mg and 7.91% with voglibose. Drug-related adverse event rates were comparable across treatment groups over 12 weeks (9.4% linagliptin 5 mg, 8.8% linagliptin 10 mg and 10.0% placebo) and 26 weeks (11.3% linagliptin 5 mg, 10.6% linagliptin 10 mg and 18.5% voglibose). There were no documented cases of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin showed superior glucose-lowering efficacy and comparable safety and tolerability to both placebo and voglibose in Japanese patients with T2DM.

Urinary L-FABP and anaemia: distinct roles of urinary markers in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Urinary liver-type fatty acid binding protein (L-FABP) and kidney injury molecule (KIM)-1, novel urinary biomarkers of renal tubulointerstitial function, have previously been associated with acute ischaemic kidney injury. We studied the clinical significance of urinary L-FABP, KIM-1 and N-acetyl-beta-glucosaminidase (NAG) as potential markers of renal function and chronic ischaemic injury in patients with diabetic nephropathy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 130 type 2 diabetes patients with early diabetic nephropathy and 40 healthy controls were studied. Urinary L-FABP, KIM-1, NAG, albumin excretion rate (AER) and creatinine clearance were obtained from 24-h urine samples, and correlated with measures of red blood cell count, renal function and metabolic control. RESULTS: Urinary L-FABP was significantly increased in diabetes patients compared with healthy controls [8.1 (interquartile 0.6-11.6) vs. 2.4 (0.5-3.6) microg/g creatinine, P < 0.001] and correlated with AER (r = 0.276, P = 0.002), creatinine clearance (r = -0.189, P = 0.033) and haemoglobin levels (r = -0.190, P = 0.030). In multivariable linear regression analysis, haemoglobin (beta = -0.247, P = 0.015) and AER (beta = 0.198, P = 0.046) were significant predictors of urinary L-FABP. Prevalent anaemia was independently associated with a 6-fold risk for increased tubulointerstitial kidney damage (upper vs. lower two L-FABP tertiles: OR, 6.06; 95% CI: 1.65-22.23; P = 0.007). Urinary KIM-1 was not significantly associated with kidney function, AER, or measures of red blood cell count while urinary NAG was associated with parameters of glucose control and renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Different urinary biomarkers may reflect distinct pathophysiological mechanisms of tubulointerstitial damage in early diabetic nephropathy: Urinary L-FABP could be a novel biomarker for chronic intrarenal ischaemia.

Changes in adiponectin multimer distribution in response to atorvastatin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Multimeric high molecular weight (HMW) forms of adiponectin were previously shown to be inversely associated with the extent of atherosclerosis in males and are down-regulated in patients with the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. In this study, potential influences of atorvastatin therapy on adiponectin multimer distribution were studied in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN, PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: The effect of 40 mg atorvastatin on HMW, medium molecular weight (MMW), and low molecular weight (LMW) isoforms of adiponectin were investigated in 75 patients (23 females; 52 males) with type 2 diabetes in an 8-week-long, placebo-controlled and randomized study. Adiponectin multimeric isoforms were detected by Western blot analysis. RESULTS: After atorvastatin therapy the median serum concentration of HMW adiponectin increased significantly by 42.3% (1.68 vs. 2.39 microg/ml; P < 0.001), while concentrations of MMW adiponectin and LMW adiponectin significantly decreased by 20.8% and 23.2%, respectively (MMW: 3.31 vs. 2.62 microg/ml, P = 0.047; LMW: 0.56 vs. 0.43 microg/ml, P = 0.033). Median total adiponectin levels were not significantly altered by atorvastatin treatment (6.0 vs. 6.2 microg/ml, P = 0.898). Consequently, the HMW: total-adiponectin ratio significantly increased by 25.0% (0.40 vs. 0.50; P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Atorvastatin therapy is associated with significant changes in adiponectin multimer distribution in patients with type 2 diabetes. Since total adiponectin levels were not affected by intervention, atorvastatin may shift adiponectin size towards the HMW form.

Postprandial mononuclear NF-kappaB activation is independent of the AGE-content of a single meal.

OBJECTIVE: Dietary uptake of Advanced Glycation Endproducts (AGE) is supposed to potentially contribute to inflammatory reactions linked to vascular dysfunction and late diabetic complications. One mechanism by which dietary AGE might exert these effects is by activation of the proinflammatory transcription factor NF-kappa-B. The aim of this study was to analyze the postprandial effects of a casein meal with low or high AGE content on postprandial NF-kappaB activation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (pBMC) of healthy volunteers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Casein was heated for 40 h at 50 degrees C in the presence of sorbitol or glucose, resulting in either minimal (Sorbitol [S]-casein) or large (glucose [G]-casein) amounts of AGE-modified casein. Nine healthy volunteers ate 250 g of both types of casein, whereas both meals were separated at least by 2 weeks. Plasma and pBMC were taken before and 2 h after each meal. Thereafter, the defined AGE carboxymethyllysine (CML) was determined by ELISA and Western blot. NF-kappaB activation in pBMC was assayed using Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays (EMSA) and Western blot analysis. RESULTS: S-casein contained only minor amounts of CML and no pentosidine, while G-casein contained large amounts of both. 2 h after ingestion, the S-casein or the G-casein-meal, both, resulted in a non-significant increase in plasma CML and in the intracellular CML-content of pBMC. This was paralleled by a highly significant increase in postprandial mononuclear NF-kappaB-binding activity. Remarkably, neither the extent of NF-kappaB induction (178% for S-casein, 188% for G-casein), nor composition of the NF-kappaB heterodimer (mainly consisting of NF-kappaB p50/p65) were significantly different after intake of S-casein or G-casein. Consistently, Western blots confirmed an increased NF-kappaBp65 nuclear translocation and a decrease of NF-kappaBp65 in the cytoplasm, while no difference in postprandial NF-kappaB nuclear translocation was observed following intake of S-casein or G-casein. CONCLUSION: Postprandial mononuclear NF-kappaB activation after a single meal is independent of the AGE-content of the ingested protein.

Urinary n-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase excretion: an indicator of neuropathy in type 2 diabetes.

The established marker for tubular damage, urinary n-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase is significantly increased in type 1 and 2 diabetes patients and is related to albuminuria and other diabetic complications. In this cross sectional study of type 2 diabetes patients with a history of albuminuria, we studied the relationship between excretion of n-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase in urine and diabetic neuropathy.160 type 2 diabetes patients were screened for diabetic peripheral neuropathy and cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy. N-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase excretion was detected in 24 h urine samples.Urinary excretion of n-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase correlated significantly with -glucose control (fasting glucose r=0.18; p=0.04; HbA1c r=0.20; p=0.02) and urine albumin excretion (r=0.22; p=0.01). Binary regression analyses showed that increased urinary n-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase concentration is an independent predictor for presence of clinical symptoms of peripheral neuropathy (OR 1.8 [95%CI 1.2-2.74] and vibration deficiency [OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.2-2.66]. There was also a significant negative association between urinary n-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase and E/I-Ratio (r=-0.21, p<0.02) as well as the 30:15-Ratio (r=-0.24; p<0.01) of heart rate variability. Furthermore, increased n-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase excretion independently predicted cardiovascular autonomic diabetic neuropathy with an OR for decreased E/I-Ratio of 1.7 [95%CI 1.1-2.75]; (p<0.02) and 30:15-Ratio:OR 2.4 [95% CI 1.26-4.45]; (p<0.01).Urinary n-acetyl-beta-d-glucosami-nidase excretion is an independent marker for diabetic peripheral and cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in type 2 diabetic patients.

Fisher-Lewis kidney transplantation model as a tool for investigation of transplantation-induced cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of death after kidney transplantation; thus, cardiovascular protection is a major concern in transplant recipients. Data about cardiac characteristics from animal models after kidney transplantation are lacking. Therefore, we investigated cardiac structure and function in a model of chronic allograft injury. METHODS: Kidneys from Fisher 344 rats were orthotopically transplanted into Lewis rats. Eight recipient rats were treated with placebo or an angiotensin II type-1 receptor blocker (AT1RB; candesartan cilexitil, 5 mg/kg/d) for 24 weeks posttransplantation, and 8 untreated matched Lewis rats were used as healthy controls. Echocardiography was performed at 24 weeks posttransplantation to measure ejection fraction, fractional shortening, and left ventricular mass, in triplicate. Proteinuria at 24 hours was determined, and after harvesting, the heart weight-body weight ratio (HW/BW) was measured. RESULTS: At 24 weeks posttransplantation, renal transplant-recipient rats demonstrated a significantly decreased ejection fraction (mean [SD], 58.9% [3.2%] vs 70.7% [2.1%]) and fractional shortening (29.8% [2.0%] vs 38.3% [2.0%]) and increased HW/BW and left ventricular mass (7.7 [0.2] cm(3) vs 6.7 [0.2] cm(3)) compared with healthy control rats. The HW/BW and left ventricular mass were significantly ameliorated by AT1RB compared with placebo-treated transplant-recipient rats (6.8 [0.2] cm(3) vs 7.7 [0.2] cm(3)). In addition, decreased proteinuria was evident after AT1RB. CONCLUSION: The Fisher-Lewis rat kidney transplantation model resulted in cardiac hypertrophy and decreased cardiac function. AT1RB normalized cardiac hypertrophy without improving function. These findings demonstrate that the Fisher-Lewis rat renal transplantation model can be used to investigate transplantation-induced cardiomyopathy.

The proline 12 alanine substitution in the PPARgamma2 gene is associated with increased extent of coronary artery disease in men.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is an independent association between the Pro12Ala polymorphism in the peroxisome proliferator-activated-receptor gamma2 (PPARgamma2)-gene and the extent of coronary artery disease in men. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We determined the Pro12Ala polymorphism in the PPARgamma2 gene in 240 male patients undergoing elective coronary angiograpy, and quantitated the degree of CAD by evaluating the extent-score which better correlates with known risk factors than other measures of CAD. RESULTS: The presence of the 12Ala allele was significantly associated with higher CAD extent (r=0.27, p<0.01). CAD extent was also correlated with the extent of insulin resistance (HOMA, r=0.22, p<0.01), and age (r=0.16, p<0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed an independent association between the 12Ala allele PPARgamma2 with extent-score (beta=0.32, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The 12Ala allele in PPARgamma2 correlates with a significantly increased CAD extent in men, which suggest that lower activity of the transcription factor PPARgamma2 is associated with more severe CAD.

Retinol-binding protein 4 is associated with components of the metabolic syndrome, but not with insulin resistance, in men with type 2 diabetes or coronary artery disease.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Retinol-binding protein 4 (RBP4) has recently been reported to be associated with insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome. This study tested the hypothesis that RBP4 is a marker of insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes or coronary artery disease (CAD) or in non-diabetic control subjects without CAD. METHODS: Serum RBP4 was measured in 365 men (126 with type 2 diabetes, 143 with CAD and 96 control subjects) and correlated with the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), components of the metabolic syndrome and lipoprotein metabolism. RBP4 was detected by ELISA and validated by quantitative Western blotting. RESULTS: RBP4 concentrations detected by ELISA were shown to be strongly associated with the results gained in quantitative Western blots. There were no associations of RBP4 with HOMA-IR or HbA(1c) in any of the groups studied. In patients with type 2 diabetes there were significant positive correlations of RBP4 with total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, VLDL-cholesterol, plasma triacylglycerol and hepatic lipase activity. In patients with CAD, there were significant associations of RBP4 with VLDL-cholesterol, plasma triacylglycerol and hepatic lipase activity, while non-diabetic control subjects without CAD showed positive correlations of RBP4 with VLDL-cholesterol and plasma triacylglycerol. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: RBP4 does not seem to be a valuable marker for identification of the metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance in male patients with type 2 diabetes or CAD. Independent associations of RBP4 with pro-atherogenic lipoproteins and enzymes of lipoprotein metabolism indicate a possible role of RBP4 in lipid metabolism.