Combined treatment with exercise training and acarbose improves metabolic control and cardiovascular risk factor profile in subjects with mild type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of exercise training and acarbose on glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and phenotype was investigated in mild type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixty-two men and women with type 2 diabetes were randomized to 12 weeks of structured exercise training with or without acarbose treatment or to acarbose alone. Glycemic control was determined by HbA(1c) (A1C), insulin sensitivity (M value) by euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp, and regional fat distribution by computerized tomography and dual X-ray absorptiometry. Physical fitness was determined as maximal oxygen uptake (Vo(2max)). All investigations were performed before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Forty-eight subjects completed the study. Exercise improved M value by 92% (P = 0.017) and decreased total and truncal fat (P = 0.002, 0.001) and systolic blood pressure (P = 0.01) but had no significant effect on Vo(2max) or A1C level. The combination of exercise and acarbose significantly decreased fasting plasma glucose, A1C, lipids, and diastolic blood pressure and increased Vo(2max), whereas effects on M value and body composition were comparable with that of exercise alone. Acarbose alone had no significant effect on either M value or A1C but decreased systolic (P = 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.001) and fasting proinsulin level (P = 0.009). Multiple regression analysis showed that addition of acarbose to exercise improved glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with mild type 2 diabetes, exercise training improved insulin sensitivity but had no effect on glycemic control. The addition of acarbose to exercise, however, was associated with significant improvement of glycemic control and possibly cardiovascular risk factors.

Gliclazide directly inhibits arginine-induced glucagon release.

Arginine-stimulated insulin and somatostatin release is enhanced by the sulfonylurea gliclazide. In contrast, gliclazide inhibits the glucagon response. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether this inhibition of glucagon release was mediated by a direct suppressive effect of gliclazide or was secondary to the paracrine effect of released somatostatin. To eliminate the paracrine effects of somatostatin, we first perfused isolated rat pancreata with a medium supplemented with 23% of the standard calcium content. Second, we perifused isolated rat islets with a novel and highly specific antagonist of type 2 somatostatin receptor, DC-41-33 (2 micro mol/l), which fully antagonizes the suppressive somatostatin effect on rat A cells. Gliclazide (30 micro mol/l) inhibited glucagon release by 54% in the perfusion experiments, whereas the somatostatin response was nearly abolished. In islet perifusions with DC-41-33, arginine-induced glucagon release was inhibited by 66%. We therefore concluded that gliclazide inhibits glucagon release by a direct action on the pancreatic A cell.