A randomized, placebo-controlled study on the effects of a nutraceutical combination of red yeast rice, silybum marianum and octasonol on lipid profile, endothelial and inflammatory parameters.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a combination of red yeast rice, Silybum marianum and octasonol compared to placebo on lipid profile, endothelial, and inflammatory parameters in low risk dislipidemic patients. One hundred and thirty-four dislipidemic patients were randomised to take placebo or a patented nutraceutical association in tablet form (Zeta ColestRT), 1 tablet /day (immediately after the dinner), for three months in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. At baseline and after 3 months the following were evaluated: body weight, body mass index (BMI), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid profile, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1), soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1), soluble E-selectin (sE-selectin), metalloprotineases-2 and -9 (MMP-2 and MMP-9), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha). The nutraceutical combination decreased total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein cholesterol compared to baseline (p = 0.042, and p = 0.041, respectively) and to placebo (p = 0.039, and p = 0.037, respectively). Triglycerides were reduced by the active treatment (p = 0.039), but not by placebo, even if, in group to group comparison, no differences were recorded (p = 0.061). All adipocytokines were reduced by the nutraceutical combination, in particular p = 0.044 for sICAM-1, p = 0.045 for sVCAM-1, p = 0.040 for sE-selectin, p = 0.035 for MMP-2, p = 0.039 for MMP-9, p = 0.038 for Hs-CRP, p = 0.036 for TNF-α, and p = 0.036 for IL-6 compared to baseline, and p = 0.042 for sICAM-1, p = 0.043 for sVCAM-1, p = 0.042 for sE-selectin, p = 0.031 for MMP-2, p = 0.038 for MMP-9, p =0.038 for Hs-CRP, and p = 0.043 for TNF-alpha, espectively, compared to placebo. We can conclude that a combination of red yeast rice, Silybum marianum and octasonol was effective in improving lipid profile, endothelial, and inflammatory parameters in low risk dislipidemic patients.

Comparison of vildagliptin and glimepiride: effects on glycaemic control, fat tolerance and inflammatory markers in people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare the effects of vildagliptin with those of glimepiride on glycaemic control, fat tolerance and inflammatory markers in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving metformin treatment. METHODS: A total of 167 participants were randomized to vildagliptin 50 mg twice a day or glimepiride 2 mg three times a day, for 6 months. We evaluated the following variables: BMI; glycaemic control; fasting plasma insulin; homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance index; fasting plasma proinsulin; glucagon; lipid profile; adiponectin; high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; interleukin-6; and tumour necrosis factor-α. A euglycaemic-hyperinsulinaemic clamp procedure and an oral fat load test were also performed. RESULTS: Despite a similar decrease in HbA1c levels (P = 0.009, and P = 0.008, respectively), body weight increased with glimepiride (P = 0.048 vs baseline) and decreased with vildagliptin (P = 0.041 vs baseline and vs glimepiride). Fasting plasma insulin and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance index were significantly lower with vildagliptin compared with glimepiride (P = 0.035 and 0.047). M value, an index of insulin sensitivity, increased with vildagliptin, both compared with baseline and with glimepiride (P = 0.028 and 0.039, respectively). Vildagliptin improved all post-oral fat load peaks of lipid profile compared with glimepiride. Adiponectin levels were higher (P = 0.035) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels were lower (P = 0.038) with vildagliptin vs glimepiride. During the oral fat load test, interleukin-6, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and tumour necrosis factor-α peaks were lower and adiponectin peak was higher in the vildagliptin group than in the glimepiride group. There was a higher dropout rate as a result of hypoglycaemia in the glimepiride group than in the vildagliptin group. CONCLUSIONS: Vildagliptin was more effective than glimepiride in reducing post-oral fat load peaks of lipid-trafficking adipocytokines and inflammatory markers.

Effects of enalapril/lercanidipine combination on some emerging biomarkers in cardiovascular risk stratification in hypertensive patients.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: There is considerable interest in pharmacogenetic and molecular biomarkers. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of enalapril/lercanidipine combination on some emerging biomarkers for cardiovascular risk stratification of hypertensive patients, such as lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], soluble advanced glycation end products (sRAGE), soluble CD40 ligand (sCD40L) and serum myeloperoxidase (MPO). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Three hundred and forty-five patients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, clinical trial: 120 hypertensive patients were randomized to enalapril 20 mg, 110 to lercanidipine 10 mg and 115 to enalapril/lercanidipine 20/10 mg fixed combination. We measures the following markers at baseline and after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months: blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid profile, Lp(a), sRAGE, sCD40L and MPO. RESULTS: There was a decrease in blood pressure in all groups compared with baseline, even if, as expected, enalapril/lercanidipine combination was more effective in reducing blood pressure compared with the monotherapies. No variations in lipid profile or FPG were recorded in any of the groups. Lercanidipine, but not enalapril, improved Lp(a) levels compared with baseline. The combination enalapril/lercanidipine improved it more than the single therapies. All treatments increased sRAGE levels, and decreased sCD40L and MPO, with a better effect seen with the enalapril/lercanidipine combination compared with single monotherapies. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The combination enalapril/lercanidipine seems to be better than the single monotherapies in reducing not only blood pressure, but also the levels of some emerging biomarkers, potentially useful for cardiovascular risk stratification of hypertensive patients.

Effects of Berberis aristata/Silybum marianum association on metabolic parameters and adipocytokines in overweight dyslipidemic patients.

Nutraceuticals and functional foods have attracted considerable interest as potential alternative therapies for treatment of different cardiovascular disorders and insulin resistance. We evaluated the efficacy of a combination of Berberis Aristata/Silybum Marianum extract (Berberol®) in a sample of overweight, dyslipidemic patients at low cardiovascular risk. We enrolled 105 Caucasian, euglycemic, overweight, dyslipidemic patients, of either sex. At baseline all patients underwent a 6 months run-in period during which they followed an adequate diet and practiced physical activity. At the end of the run-in period, patients were randomised to take placebo or a combination of Berberis aristata/Silybum marianum, 1 tablet during the lunch and 1 tablet during the dinner, for three months, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled design. Berberis aristata/Silybum marianum and placebo were then interrupted for 2 months (wash-out period), and all patients continued with only diet and physical activity. At the end of the wash-out period, patients re-started Berberis aristata/Silybum marianum or placebo twice a day for further 3 months. We evaluated during the run-in period, at randomisation, before and after the wash-out period these parameters: body weight and BMI, fasting plasma glucose, lipid profile, insulin resistance, retinol binding protein-4 (RBP-4), adiponectin (ADN), resistin. Total cholesterol, LDL-C, and Tg decreased, and HDL-C increase after 3 months of Berberis aristata/Silybum marianum, both compared to baseline and placebo. Berberis aristata/Silybum marianum decreased fasting plasma insulin, and HOMA-IR, both compared to baseline and to placebo. Moreover, there was a decrease of RBP-4, and resistin, and an increase of ADN after 3 months of Berberis aristata/Silybum marianum. All these positive effects disappeared after the wash-out period, and re-appeared after the re-introduction of the drug. We observed a significant correlation between HOMA-index decrease and resistin, and RBP-4 decrease, and between HOMA-index decrease and ADN increase in Berberis aristata/Silybum marianum group, but not in placebo group. Berberis aristata/Silybum marianum fixed combination seems to be safe and effective in improving lipid profile, but also in improving insulin resistance and adipocytokines levels.

A comparison between sitagliptin or glibenclamide in addition to metformin + pioglitazone on glycaemic control and ß-cell function: the triple oral therapy.

AIMS: To evaluate which triple oral therapy between metformin + pioglitazone + sitagliptin and metformin + pioglitazone + glibenclamide can be more useful in improving glycaemic control and should be preferred in clinical practice. METHODS: During the 2-year run-in period, patients were instructed to take metformin monotherapy for the first year, then a combination of metformin and pioglitazone for the second year, then patients were randomized to add glibenclamide or sitagliptin to the dual combination of metformin and pioglitazone for another year. RESULTS: Body weight reached with sitagliptin at 36 months was lower than that reached with glibenclamide. Fasting plasma insulin and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance were significantly increased by triple therapy with glibenclamide and decreased by that with sitagliptin. While sitagliptin did not change homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function, this value was significantly increased by glibenclamide. Fasting plasma proinsulin was not influenced by triple oral therapy including glibenclamide, while it was decreased by the therapy including sitagliptin compared to glibenclamide. Triple oral therapy with sitagliptin better improved ß-cell function measures compared with the glibenclamide therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Sitagliptin should be preferred to glibenclamide as an addition to the metformin + pioglitazone combination for its better protection of ß-cell secretion and its neutral effect on body weight.

Effects of an olmesartan/amlodipine fixed dose on blood pressure control, some adipocytokines and interleukins levels compared with olmesartan or amlodipine monotherapies.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of an olmesartan/amlodipine single pill combination compared with olmesartan or amlodipine monotherapies on blood pressure control, lipid profile, insulin sensitivity and some adipocytokines levels. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-six patients were enroled in the study and were randomly assigned to take olmesartan 20 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, or a single pill containing an olmesartan/amlodipine combination 20 mg/5 mg for 12 months. We evaluated at the baseline, and after 6 and 12 months: body weight, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), lipid profile, adiponectin (ADN), resistin (r), interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) and interleukin-5 (IL-5). At the baseline, and after 6 and 12 months, patients underwent an euglycemic, hyperinsulinemic clamp to assess insulin sensitivity (M value). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: There was a similar decrease in SBP and DBP after 6 and 12 months in all groups, even if olmesartan/amlodipine combination gave a major decrease in SBP and DPB compared with amlodipine and olmesartan monotherapies. Olmesartan/amlodipine combination decreased FPG after 12 months compared with amlodipine monotherapy. Olmesartan/amlodipine combination decreased FPI and HOMA index and increased M value both compared with baseline and compared with olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies. Both olmesartan and olmesartan/amlodipine increased ADN and reduced r, without significant differences between the two groups. Regarding interleukins, no differences emerged in group to group comparison. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Olmesartan/amlodipine combination resulted more effective than olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies in reducing blood pressure, and in increasing insulin sensitivity parameters, but not resulted more effective in improving adipocytokines and interleukins levels analysed, compared with amlodipine or olmesartan monotherapy in hypertensive patients in this double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

Evaluation of emerging biomarkers in cardiovascular risk stratification of hypertensive patients: a 2-year study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if there is a correlation between some new emerging biomarkers, such as lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]), apo(a) isoform phenotyping, soluble advanced glycation end products (sRAGE), soluble CD40 ligand (sCD40L), serum myeloperoxidase (MPO), and cardiovascular risk stratification. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Three hundred patients were enrolled in this open-label, case-control design trial: 156 hypertensive patients and 144 healthy subjects as control group. Hypertensive patients were treated according to the latest ESH/ESC guidelines, until the desirable goal of systolic blood pressure (SBP)<140 mmHg, and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)<90 mmHg was reached. We evaluated at baseline and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months: SBP, DBP, lipid profile, Lp(a), apo(a) isoform phenotyping, sRAGE, sCD40L, and MPO. RESULTS: Hypertensive patients presented higher levels of blood pressure, Lp(a), sCD40L, and MPO and lower levels of sRAGE compared with controls. We observed a decrease of blood pressure, Lp(a), sCD40L, and MPO and an increase of sRAGE after anti-hypertensive treatment. Moreover we observed moderate, but statistically significant, correlations between blood pressure decrease and Lp(a), MPO, and sCD40L decrease and between blood pressure decrease and sRAGE increase. There was also a modest, positive correlation between low molecular weight apo(a) isoforms and hypertension. A limitation of this study is that we cannot exclude a role for lifestyle measures. Furthermore the studied markers seem to improve with blood pressure lowering treatment, but we do not have enough statistical power to definitely state which drug used has a specific action on the various variables measured. CONCLUSION: Lp(a), sRAGE, MPO, sCD40L, and low molecular weight apo(a) isoforms are associated with hypertension and may represent an increased cardiovascular risk. Longer studies are needed to see if these parameters can be also used to predict specific complications linked to hypertension.

Exenatide plus metformin compared with metformin alone on ß-cell function in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To quantify how much exenatide added to metformin improves ß-cell function, and to evaluate the impact on glycaemic control, insulin resistance and inflammation compared with metformin alone. METHODS: A total of 174 patients with Type 2 diabetes with poor glycaemic control were instructed to take metformin for 8 ± 2 months, then they were randomly assigned to exenatide (5 µg twice a day for the first 4 weeks and forced titration to 10 µg twice a day thereafter) or placebo for 12 months. At 12 months we evaluated anthropometric measurements, glycaemic control, insulin resistance and ß-cell function variables, glucagon, adiponectin, high sensitivity-C reactive protein and tumour necrosis factor-α. Before and after 12 months, patients underwent a combined euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic and hyperglycaemic clamp, with subsequent arginine stimulation. RESULTS: Exenatide + metformin gave a greater decrease in body weight, glycaemic control, fasting plasma proinsulin and insulin and their ratio, homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and glucagon values and a greater increase in C-peptide levels, homeostasis model assessment ß-cell function index (HOMA-ß) and adiponectin compared with placebo + metformin. Exenatide + metformin decreased waist and hip circumference, and reduced concentrations of high sensitivity-C reactive protein and tumour necrosis factor-α. Exenatide + metformin gave a greater increase in M value (+34%), and disposition index (+55%) compared with placebo + metformin; first (+21%) and second phase (+34%) C-peptide response to glucose and C-peptide response to arginine (+25%) were also improved by exenatide + metformin treatment, but not by placebo + metformin. CONCLUSION: Exenatide is effective not only on glycaemic control, but also in protecting ß-cells and in reducing inflammation.

Effects of 1-year orlistat treatment compared to placebo on insulin resistance parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The behavioural approach is usually slow and not always sufficient to achieve optimal targets in weight and metabolic control in obese diabetic patients, and a pharmacological treatment is often necessary. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of orlistat and placebo on body weight, glycaemic and lipid profile and insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-four obese, diabetic patients were enrolled in this study and randomized to take orlistat 360mg or placebo for 1year. We evaluated at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12months body weight, waist circumference (WC), body mass index (BMI), glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c) ), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), post-prandial plasma glucose (PPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), lipid profile, retinol-binding protein-4 (RBP-4), resistin, visfatin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We observed a significant reduction in body weight, WC, BMI, lipid profile, RBP-4 and visfatin in the orlistat group but not in control group. Faster improvements in HbA(1c) , PPG, FPI, HOMA-IR, resistin and Hs-CRP were recorded with orlistat than with placebo. A similar decrease in FPG was seen in the two groups. Significant predictors of change in insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were RBP-4 and resistin concentration in the orlistat group (r=-0·53, P<0·05, and r=-0·59, P<0·01, respectively). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the effect of orlistat on insulin resistance and markers of inflammation. Orlistat improved lipid profile and led to faster glycaemic control and insulin resistance parameters than the control, without any serious adverse event. Orlistat also improved RBP-4 and visfatin, effects not observed with placebo.

Pioglitazone compared to glibenclamide on lipid profile and inflammation markers in type 2 diabetic patients during an oral fat load.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of pioglitazone and glibenclamide on lipid profile and inflammatory parameters during an oral fat load (OFL). A total of 201 type 2 diabetic patients on treatment with metformin were enrolled in the study; pioglitazone was titrated till 45 mg/day and glibenclamide till 15 mg/day, in association with metformin, respectively. The patients underwent an OFL at baseline and after 12 months. The OFL was given between 08.00 and 09.00 h after a 12-h fast. Blood samples were drawn before and 3, 6, 9, and 12 h after the OFL. We evaluated glycemic-metabolic parameters [glycated hemoglobin (HbA (1c)), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment (Homa) index], total cholesterol (TC), low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (Tgs), interleukin-6 (IL-6), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and adiponectin (ADN). Pioglitazone was better than glibenclamide in decreasing HbA (1c), FPG, FPI, lipid profile, and in improving inflammatory parameters such as Hs-CRP, and ADN. Comparing the OFL performed at baseline, and the OFL performed at the end of the study, pioglitazone, but not glibenclamide, improved all post-OFL peaks for all parameters. Comparing the 12 months OFL in the group treated with pioglitazone and in the group treated with glibenclamide, the values recorded with pioglitazone were significantly better than the ones obtained with glibenclamide. We can conclude that pioglitazone was better than glibenclamide in mitigating the variations of lipid components and inflammation parameters in type 2 diabetic patients.

Effect of pioglitazone and acarbose on endothelial inflammation biomarkers during oral glucose tolerance test in diabetic patients treated with sulphonylureas and metformin.

WHAT IS KNOWN: The increased risk of cardiovascular events in diabetic patients has been related to numerous metabolic and haemoreological factors. Some of these factors appear to be particularly evident during the post-prandial phases and to be related to peak plasma glucose level. AIM: To compare the effect of addition of pioglitazone and acarbose to sulphonylureas and metformin therapy on metabolic parameters and on markers of endothelial dysfunction and vascular inflammation in type 2 diabetic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled 473 caucasian type 2 diabetic patients. All patients underwent measurements of height and body weight, body mass index (BMI), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) , fasting plasma glucose (FPG), post-prandial plasma glucose (PPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), post-prandial plasma insulin (PPI), homeostasis model assessment (HOMA index), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), total cholesterol (TC), low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (Tg), sICAM-1, IL-6, high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP), sVCAM-1, sE-selectin and tumour necrosis factor (TNF-α). Assessments were made at start of titration, after 3 months [before a first oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)], after 6 months and at the study end (before a second OGTT). RESULTS: Two-hundred and seventy four patients completed the study: 138 were randomized to double-blind treatment with pioglitazone and 136 with acarbose. Significant BMI and weight increase were observed after full treatment in the pioglitazone group relative to the acarbose group. A decrease in glycated haemoglobin was observed after the titration period in the pioglitazone group compared to both baseline value and the acarbose group. A decrease in glycated haemoglobin was also obtained after full treatment in the pioglitazone group when compared to the end of titration period and to the acarbose group. Significant decrease in FPG was obtained in the pioglitazone group after full treatment compared to the end of titration period. Post-prandial plasma glucose decrease was observed in acarbose group compared to the baseline value and to the end of titration period. Fasting plasma insulin decreased in the pioglitazone group after both the titration period and the full treatment period compared to both the baseline value and the acarbose group. The HOMA index decreased significantly after the full treatment in pioglitazone group compared to the end of titration period and to the acarbose group. Interleukin-6 and tumour necrosis factor-α decreased after full treatment in the pioglitazone group relative to the end of titration period. Significant hsCRP decrease was obtained after the titration period when compared to the baseline value in the pioglitazone group. High-sensitivity C reactive protein decreased in the pioglitazone group after full treatment compared to the end of titration period and to the acarbose group. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Pioglitazone reduces the inflammatory response to a glucose challenge more than acarbose in type 2 diabetic patients, already treated with maximal doses of sulphonylureas and metformin.

Oral glucose tolerance test effects on endothelial inflammation markers in healthy subjects and diabetic patients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) on the level of endothelial dysfunction and vascular inflammation markers in healthy subjects (H) and diabetic overweight patients (D). We enrolled 256 healthy subjects and 274 type 2 diabetic patients. We evaluated blood glucose (BG), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP), soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1), soluble E-selectin (sE-selectin), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) at baseline and after OGTT. We observed that BG, sICAM-1, IL-6, hs-CRP, sVCAM-1, sE-selectin, and TNF-alpha values were higher in D group than in H group. In a large sample of adult healthy subjects and type 2 diabetics we observed that both answer to an OGTT with a significant increase in biomarkers of systemic low-grade inflammation and endothelial dysfunction such as hsCRP, IL-6, TNF-alpha, sICAM-1, sVCAM-1, and sE-selectin. Type 2 diabetics experienced, however, a more significant increase in TNF-alpha, and sE-selectin.

Effects of long chain omega-3 fatty acids on metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in combined dyslipidemia patients.

We evaluate the effect of a standardized dietary supplementation with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs) on the level of some markers of vascular remodeling in patients with combined dyslipidemia. Three hundred and thirty-three patients received placebo or n-3 PUFAs for 6 months. We evaluated body mass index, glycemic profile, blood pressure, lipid profile, lipoprotein(a), plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, homocysteine, fibrinogen, high-sensitivity C reactive protein, ADP, MMP-2 and MMP-9, and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase-1 and -2. A significant increase of high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and a significant decrease of triglycerides were present after 3 and 6 months with n-3 PUFAs intake. A significant plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, fibrinogen and high-sensitivity C reactive protein decrease was obtained after 3 and 6 months and a significant ADP increase was observed after 3 and 6 months of n-3 PUFAs. A significant MMP-2, MMP-9, tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase-1 and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase-2 decrease was obtained after 6 months compared to the baseline value with n-3 PUFAs intake. n-3 PUFAs give a better lipid profile and a better improvement of coagulation, fibrinolytic and inflammatory parameters than placebo. Furthermore, lowers levels of MMP-2, MMP-9 and their tissue inhibitors are obtained with n-3 PUFAs compared to placebo.

Nateglinide and glibenclamide metabolic effects in naïve type 2 diabetic patients treated with metformin.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Most antidiabetic agents target only one of several underlying causes of diabetes. The complementary actions of the glinides and the biguanides may give optimal glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of nateglinide plus metformin with glibenclamide plus metformin on glucose and lipid metabolism, and haemodynamic parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We enrolled 248 type 2 diabetic patients. Patients were randomly assigned to receive nateglinide (n = 124) or glibenclamide (n = 124), after 6 months of run-in, in which we titrated nateglinide (starting dose 180 mg/day), glibenclamide (starting dose 7.5 mg/day), and metformin (starting dose 1500 mg/day). The final doses were (mean +/- standard deviation), 300 +/- 60, 12.5 +/- 2.5, and 2500 +/- 500 mg/day, respectively. We followed these patients for 1 year after titration. We assessed body mass index (BMI), fasting (FPG) and post-prandial (PPG) plasma glucose, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting (FPI) and post-prandial (PPI) plasma insulin, homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) index, and lipid profile [total cholesterol (TC), low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (Tg), apolipoprotein A-I (Apo A-I), and apolipoprotein B (Apo B)], systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). All variables were evaluated at baseline and after 3 and 6 months in the run-in period, and at baseline, and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months for both treatment groups. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Body mass index did not show any significant change during the study. We observed a significant improvement from baseline to 1 year on HbA(1c) (P < 0.01 vs. baseline and vs. glibenclamide group, respectively), FPG (P < 0.01 vs. baseline), PPG (P < 0.01 vs. baseline), and on HOMA index (P < 0.05 vs. baseline) in the nateglinide group. In the glibenclamide group, we found significant changes in HbA(1c) (P < 0.05 vs. baseline), FPG (P < 0.01 vs. baseline), PPG (P < 0.05 vs. baseline), and HOMA index (P < 0.05 vs. baseline). No significant change was observed in TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, Tg, Apo A-I, Apo B, SBP, DBP and HR in either group after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. These effects of nateglinide and glibenclamide on insulin-resistance parameters are in agreement with previous reports. Contrarily to previous reports, we did not observe any significant BP change in patients treated with glibenclamide. Although both nateglinide and glibenclamide attenuated PPG and HOMA index, they did not have significant effects on lipid metabolism, as already shown in subjects with type 2 diabetes and good glycemic control. CONCLUSION: Nateglinide improved glycemic control better than glibenclamide in combination with metformin.

Metabolic effects of telmisartan and irbesartan in type 2 diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome treated with rosiglitazone.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Angiotensin II receptor blockers represent a class of effective and well-tolerated orally active antihypertensive drugs in the general hypertensive population and in diabetic patients. The aim of our study was to investigate the metabolic effects of telmisartan and irbesartan in diabetic subjects treated with rosiglitazone. METHODS: We evaluated 188 type 2 diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome. All patients took a fixed dose of 4 mg rosiglitazone/day. We administered 40 mg telmisartan/day or 150 mg irbesartan/day and evaluated their body mass index, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment-index (Homa-IR), total cholesterol (TC), low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, adiponectin and resistin during 12 months of this treatment. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In addition to a comparable antihypertensive effect for telmisartan and irbesartan after 6 and 12 months, both treatments were associated with a significant reduction in TC and LDL-C plasma levels compared with baseline. After 6 months of treatment, only the telmisartan group experienced a significant improvement in (HbA(1c)), FPG, Homa-IR, adiponectin and resistin compared with the baseline values, whereas both drug regimens were associated with a significant improvement in these parameters after 12 months. However, the improvements observed in the telmisartan group were significantly larger than that noted in the irbesartan group after 12 months of treatment. FPI significantly decreased only after 12 months of treatment in both groups, but again, the reduction was significantly larger in the telmisartan-treated subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan seemed to improve glycaemic and lipid control and metabolic parameters of the metabolic syndrome better than irbesartan. These differences could be relevant in the choice of therapy for this condition and diabetes.

Effect of valsartan addition to amlodipine on ankle oedema and subcutaneous tissue pressure in hypertensive patients.

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of valsartan addition to amlodipine on ankle foot volume (AFV) and pretibial subcutaneous tissue pressure (PSTP), two objective measures of ankle oedema. After a 4-week placebo period, 80 grade 1-2 hypertensive patients (diastolic blood pressure (DBP)>90 mm Hg and <110 systolic blood pressure (SBP)>140 mm Hg) were randomized to amlodipine 10 mg or valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg plus valsartan 160 mg for 6 weeks according to an open-label, blinded end point, crossover design. At the end of the placebo period and of each treatment period, blood pressure, AFV and PSTP were evaluated. AFV was measured using the principle of water displacement. PSTP was assessed connecting the subcutaneous pretibial interstitial environment with a water manometer. Both amlodipine and valsartan monotherapy significantly reduced SBP (-16.9 and -14.5 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.01 vs baseline), and DBP (-12.9 and -10.2 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.01 vs baseline) but the reduction was greater with the combination (-22.9 mm Hg for SBP, P<0.01 vs monotherapy; -16.8 mm Hg for DBP, P<0.01 vs monotherapy). Amlodipine monotherapy significantly increased both AFV (+23%, P<0.01 vs baseline) and PSTP (+75.5%, P<0.001 vs baseline) whereas valsartan monotherapy did not influence them. As compared to amlodipine alone, the combination produced a less marked increase in AFV (+6.8%, P<0.01 vs amlodipine) and PSTP (+23.2%, P<0.001 vs amlodipine). Ankle oedema was clinically evident in 24 patients with amlodipine and in six patients with the combination. These results suggest that angiotensin receptor blockers partially counteract the microcirculatory changes responsible for calcium channel blockers induced oedema formation.

Differential effect of glimepiride and rosiglitazone on metabolic control of type 2 diabetic patients treated with metformin: a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial.

AIM: Accumulating evidence suggests that combination therapy using oral antidiabetic agents with different mechanisms of action may be highly effective in achieving and maintaining target blood glucose levels. The aim of our study is to evaluate the differential effect on glucose and lipid parameters of the association between glimepiride plus metformin and rosiglitazone plus metformin in patients affected by type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. METHODS: Patients were enroled, evaluated and followed at two Italian centres. We evaluated 99 type 2 diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome (48 males and 47 females; 23 males and 24 females, aged 52 +/- 5 with glimepiride; 25 males and 23 females, aged 54 +/- 4 with cglitazone). All were required to have been diagnosed as being diabetic for at least 6 months and did not have glycaemic control with diet and oral hypoglycaemic agents such as sulphonylureas or metformin, both to the maximum tolerated dose. All patients took a fixed dose of metformin, 1500 mg/day. We administered glimepiride (2 mg/day) or rosiglitazone (4 mg/day) in a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical study. We evaluated body mass index (BMI), glycaemic control, lipid profile [total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and triglycerides] and lipoprotein parameters [apolipoprotein A-I and apolipoprotein B (Apo B)] during 12 months of this treatment. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients completed the study. Significant BMI decrease was observed at 12 months in glimepiride and rosiglitazone group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively) as well as of glycated haemoglobin decrease (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively), mean fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose levels (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively). A decrease in fasting plasma insulin and postprandial plasma insulin at 12 months (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively) compared with the baseline value in rosiglitazone group was observed. Furthermore, homeostasis model assessment index improvement was obtained only at 9 and 12 months (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively) compared with the baseline value in rosiglitazone group. Significant TC, LDL-C and Apo B improvement (p < 0.05 respectively) was present in glimepiride group after 12 months compared with the baseline values, and these variations were significant (p < 0.05) between groups. Of the 95 patients who completed the study, 8.5% of patients in glimepiride group and 12.5% of patients in rosiglitazone group had side-effects (p = not significant). Four patients had transient side-effects in glimepiride group and six patients in rosiglitazone group. Altogether, we did not have statistically significant changes in transaminases. CONCLUSIONS: The rosiglitazone-metformin association significantly improve the long-term control of all insulin-resistance-related parameters in comparison with the glimepiride-metformin-treated group. On the other side, glimepiride treatment is associated to a slight improvement in cholesterolaemia, not observed in the rosiglitazone-treated patients.

Long-term effect of glimepiride and rosiglitazone on non-conventional cardiovascular risk factors in metformin-treated patients affected by metabolic syndrome: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

We evaluated the effect of glimepiride plus metformin and rosiglitazone plus metformin on glucose, and on cardiovascular risk parameters such as lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) and homocysteine (HCT) in patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Ninety-nine patients in the multicentre, randomized, double-blind study took metformin (1500 mg/day) plus glimepiride (2 mg/day) or rosiglitazone (4 mg/day) for 12 months. Changes in body mass index, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), Lp(a) and HCT were primary efficacy variables. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), post-prandial plasma glucose (PPG) and homeostasis model assessment index were also used to assess efficacy. On average, HbA1c decreased by 9.1% and 8.1%, FPG decreased by 7.3% and 10.9%, and PPG decreased by 7.6% and 10.5%, respectively, in the glimepiride and rosiglitazone groups after 12 months. Patients receiving rosiglitazone experienced more rapid improvement in glycaemic control than those on glimepiride, and showed a significant improvement in insulin resistance-related parameters. There was a statistically significant decrease in basal homocysteinaemia in glimepiride-treated patients (-27.3%), but not in rosiglitazone-treated patients. Rosiglitazone plus metformin significantly improved long-term control of insulin resistance-related parameters compared with glimepiride plus metformin, although glimepiride treatment was associated with a slight improvement in cholesterolaemia, not observed in the rosiglitazone-treated patients, and with significant improvements in non-traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as basal homocysteinaemia and plasma Lp(a) levels.

Efficacy and safety comparative evaluation of orlistat and sibutramine treatment in hypertensive obese patients.

AIM: The aim of our study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of orlistat and sibutramine treatment in obese hypertensive patients, with a specific attention to cardiovascular effects and to side effects because of this treatment. METHODS: Patients were enrolled, evaluated and followed at three Italian Centres of Internal Medicine. We evaluated 115 obese and hypertensive patients. (55 males and 60 females; 26 males and 29 females, aged 50 +/- 4 with orlistat; 28 males and 30 females, aged 51 +/- 5 with sibutramine). All patients took antihypertensive therapy for at least 6 months before the study. We administered orlistat or sibutramine in a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical study. We evaluated anthropometric variables, blood pressure and heart rate (HR) during 12 months of this treatment. RESULTS: A total of 113 completed the 4 weeks with controlled energy diet and were randomized to double-blind treatment with orlistat (n = 55) or sibutramine (n = 58). Significant body mass index (BMI) improvement was present after 6 (p < 0.05), 9 (p < 0.02), and 12 (p < 0.01) months in both groups, and body weight (BW) improvement was obtained after 9 (p < 0.05) and 12 (p < 0.02) months in both groups. Significant waist circumference (WC), hip circumference (HC) and waist/hip ratio (W/H ratio) improvement was observed after 12 months (p < 0.05, respectively) in both groups. Significant systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) improvement (p < 0.05) was present in orlistat group after 12 months. Lipid profile [total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides] reduction (p < 0.05, respectively) was observed in orlistat group and triglyceride reduction (p < 0.05) in sibutramine group after 12 months. No significant change was observed in sibutramine group during the study. No significant HR variation was obtained during the study in both groups. Of the 109 patients who completed the study, 48.1% of patients in the orlistat group and 17.5% of patients in the sibutramine group had side effects (p < 0.05 vs. orlistat group). Side-effect profiles were different in the two treatment groups. All orlistat side effects were gastrointestinal events. Sibutramine caused an increase in blood pressure (both SBP and DBP) in two patients, but it has been controlled by antihypertensive treatment. The vitamin changes were small and all mean vitamin and beta-carotene values stayed within reference ranges. No patients required vitamin supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Both orlistat and sibutramine are effective on anthropometric variables during the 12-month treatment; in our sample, orlistat has been associated to a mild reduction in blood pressure, while sibutramine assumption has not be associated to any cardiovascular effect and was generically better tolerated than orlistat.

Effect of delapril-manidipine combination vs irbesartan-hydrochlorothiazide combination on fibrinolytic function in hypertensive patients with type II diabetes mellitus.

The aim of this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study was to compare the effects of delapril-manidipine combination vs a irbesartan-hydrochlorothiazide combination on plasma tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) and plasmogen activator inhibitor type I (PAI-l) activities in hypertensive patients with type II diabetes mellitus. After a 4-week run-in placebo period, 80 patients (37 male and 43 female), aged 41-65 years, were randomly allocated to an 8-week treatment with delapril 30 mg once daily or irbesartan 150 mg once daily. Thereafter, manidipine l0 mg once daily was added to delapril treatment and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg to irbesartan treatment for a further 8 weeks. Blood pressure (BP), plasma t-PA and PAI-l activities were evaluated at the end of the run-in period, after 4-week monotherapy treatments, and at the end of the combination treatment periods. Both combination treatments, delapril-manidipine and irbesartan-hydrochlorothiazide, produced a greater reduction in systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) values (-27.6/21.8 mmHg and -26.4/20.2 mmHg, respectively) than the respective monotherapies (-15.2/11.7 mmHg with delapril and -16.3/11.3 mmHg with irbesartan). Delapril monotherapy significantly decreased plasma PAI-l activity (-10.4 IU/mI; P<0.05). The addition of manidipine produced a significant increase in t-PA activity (+0.27 IU/mI); P<0.05). Irbesartan monotherapy did not significantly affect the fibrinolytic balance, whereas the addition of hydrochlorothiazide worsened it, producing a significant increase in PAI-l activity (+9.5 IU/ml; P<0.05). In hypertensive patients with type II diabetes mellitus, the combination delapril-manidipine may determine a greater improvement of the fibrinolytic function than the respective monotherapy, while the association irbesartan-hydrochlorothiazide may worsen it.