Agreement between fasting and postprandial LDL cholesterol measured with 3 methods in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) is a modifiable cardiovascular disease risk factor. We used 3 LDL-C methods to study the agreement between fasting and postprandial LDL-C in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients. METHODS: We served 74 T2DM patients a standardized meal and sampled blood at fasting and 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 h postprandially. We measured LDL-C by use of modified ß quantification (MBQ), the Friedewald equation (FE), and a direct homogeneous assay (DA). We evaluated agreement using 95% limits of agreement (LOA) within ±0.20 mmol/L (±7.7 mg/dL). RESULTS: LDL-C concentrations at all postprandial times disagreed with those at fasting for all methods. In 66 patients who had complete measurements with all LDL-C methods, maximum mean differences (95% LOA) in postprandial vs fasting LDL-C were -0.16 mmol/L (-0.51; 0.19) [-6.2 mg/dL (-19.7; 7.3)] with MBQ at 3 h; -0.36 mmol/L (-0.89; 0.17) [-13.9 mg/dL (-34; 6.6)] with FE at 4.5 h; and -0.24 mmol/L (-0.62; 0.05) [-9.3 mg/dL (-24; 1.9)] with DA at 6.0 h. In postprandial samples, FE misclassified 38% of patients (two-thirds of statin users) into lower Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) risk categories. Greater disagreement between fasting and postprandial LDL-C was observed in individuals with postprandial triglyceride concentrations >2.08 mmol/L (>184 mg/dL) and in women (interactions: P ≤ 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Differences up to 0.89 mmol/L (34 mg/dL) between fasting and postprandial LDL-C concentrations, with postprandial LDL-C concentrations usually being lower, were found in T2DM by 3 different LDL-C methods. Such differences are potentially relevant clinically and suggest that, irrespective of measurement method, postprandial LDL-C concentrations should not be used to assess cardiovascular disease risk.

Beneficial effects of adding spironolactone to recommended antihypertensive treatment in diabetic nephropathy: a randomized, double-masked, cross-over study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and short-term effect of adding spironolactone to conventional antihypertensive treatment including diuretics and maximally recommended doses of an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) on albuminuria and blood pressure in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty-one type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy were enrolled in a randomized, double-masked, cross-over study. Patients were treated in random order with spironolactone 25 mg once daily and matched placebo for 8 weeks, respectively, in addition to ongoing antihypertensive treatment including diuretics and maximally recommended doses of an ACE inhibitor and/or an ARB. At the end of each treatment period, albuminuria, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were determined. RESULTS: During the addition of placebo, values were as follows: albuminuria (geometric mean [range]) 1,566 [655-7,762] mg/24 h, ABP (mean +/- SE) 138 +/- 3/71 +/- 1 mmHg, and GFR (mean +/- SE) 74 +/- 6 ml/min per 1.73 m2. During the addition of spironolactone, albuminuria was reduced by 33% (95% CI 25-41) (P < 0.001), fractional clearance of albumin by 40% (24-53) (P < 0.001), and 24-h ABP by 6 mmHg (2-10) for systolic and 4 mmHg (2-6) for diastolic (P < 0.001 for both). The change in albuminuria did not correlate with the change in systolic 24-h ABP (r = 0.19, P = 0.42) or diastolic 24-h ABP (r = 0.01, P = 0.96). Spironolactone treatment induced an insignificant reversible reduction in GFR of 3 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (-0.3 to 6) (P = 0.08). One patient was excluded from the study due to hyperkalemia. Otherwise treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that spironolactone safely adds to the reno- and cardiovascular protective benefits of treatment with maximally recommended doses of ACE inhibitor and ARB by reducing albuminuria and blood pressure in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.

Impact of metformin versus the prandial insulin secretagogue, repaglinide, on fasting and postprandial glucose and lipid responses in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are characterized by predominant defective insulin secretion. However, in non-obese T2DM patients, metformin, targeting insulin resistance, is non-inferior to the prandial insulin secretagogue, repaglinide, controlling overall glycaemia (HbA1c). Whether the same apply for postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism is unknown. Here, we compared the effect of metformin versus repaglinide on postprandial metabolism in non-obese T2DM patients. DESIGN: Single-centre, double-masked, double-dummy, crossover study during 2x4 months involving 96 non-obese (body mass index < or = 27 kg/m2) insulin-naïve T2DM patients. At enrolment, patients stopped prior oral hypoglycaemic agents therapies and after a 1-month run-in period on diet-only treatment, patients were randomized to repaglinide (2 mg) thrice daily followed by metformin (1 g) twice daily or vice versa each during 4 months with 1-month washout between interventions. METHODS: Postprandial metabolism was evaluated by a standard test meal (3515 kJ; 54% fat, 13% protein and 33% carbohydrate) with blood sampling 0-6 h postprandially. RESULTS: Fasting levels and total area under the curve (AUC) for plasma glucose, triglycerides and free fatty acids (FFA) changed equally between treatments. In contrast, fasting levels and AUC of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol and serum insulin were lower during metformin than repaglinide (mean (95% confidence intervals), LDL cholesterol difference metformin versus repaglinide: AUC: -0.17 mmol/l (-0.26; -0.08)). AUC differences remained significant after adjusting for fasting levels. CONCLUSIONS: In non-obese T2DM patients, metformin reduced postprandial levels of glycaemia, triglycerides and FFA similarly compared to the prandial insulin secretagogue, repaglinide. Furthermore, metformin reduced fasting and postprandial cholesterolaemia and insulinaemia compared with repaglinide. These data support prescription of metformin as the preferred drug in non-obese patients with T2DM targeting fasting and postprandial glucose and lipid metabolism.

Impact of metformin versus repaglinide on non-glycaemic cardiovascular risk markers related to inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), biomarkers reflecting inflammation and endothelial dysfunction have been linked to cardiovascular disease (CVD biomarkers) and metabolic regulation. In T2DM patients, metformin and insulin secretagogues have demonstrated equal anti-hyperglycaemic potency. Here, we report the effect of metformin versus an insulin secretagogue, repaglinide, on CVD biomarkers in non-obese T2DM patients. DESIGN AND METHODS: Single-centre, double-masked, double-dummy, crossover study during 2x4 months involving 96 non-obese (body mass index< or =27 kg/m(2)) insulin-naïve T2DM patients. At enrolment, previous oral hypoglycaemic agents were stopped and the patients entered a 1-month run-in on diet-only treatment. Hereafter, patients were randomized to either 2 mg repaglinide thrice daily followed by 1 g metformin twice daily or vice versa each during 4 months with a 1-month washout between interventions. RESULTS: Levels of tumour necrosis factor-alpha, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 antigen, tissue-type plasminogen activator antigen, von Willebrand factor, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and soluble E-selectin were significantly lower during metformin versus repaglinide treatments. In contrast, Amadori albumin and heart rate were higher during metformin versus repaglinide. Levels of interleukin-6, fibrinogen, soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, asymmetric dimethylarginine and advanced glycation end products as well as glycaemic levels (previously reported) and 24-h blood pressure were similar between treatments. Adjustment for known macrovascular disease did not affect the between-treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: In non-obese T2DM patients, metformin was more effective in reducing selected biomarkers reflecting inflammation and endothelial dysfunction compared with repaglinide despite similar glycaemic levels between treatments.