Hypoglycaemia is reduced with use of inhaled Technosphere® Insulin relative to insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of final HbA1c levels on the incidences of hypoglycaemia in participants with type 1 diabetes treated with inhaled Technosphere® Insulin or subcutaneous insulin aspart, reported in alignment with the International Hypoglycaemia Study Group recommendations. METHODS: In the randomized, phase 3, multicentre AFFINITY-1 study, adults (N = 375) who had type 1 diabetes for ≥ 12 months and an HbA1c level of 58-86 mmol/mol (7.5-10.0%) were randomized to receive basal insulin plus either inhaled Technosphere Insulin or subcutaneous insulin aspart. This was a post-hoc regression analysis on a subset (N = 279) of the randomized AFFINITY-1 cohort for whom baseline and end-of-treatment HbA1c values were reported. Primary outcome measures were incidence and event rates for levels 1, 2 and 3 hypoglycaemia, respectively defined as blood glucose levels of ≤ 3.9 mmol/l, < 3.0 mmol/l or requiring external assistance for recovery. RESULTS: Participants treated with Technosphere Insulin experienced statistically significantly fewer level 1 and 2 hypoglycaemic events and a lower incidence of level 3 hypoglycaemia than participants treated with insulin aspart. The lower rate of hypoglycaemia with Technosphere Insulin was observed across the range of end-of-treatment HbA1c levels. Technosphere Insulin was associated with higher rates of hypoglycaemia 30-60 min after meals, but significantly lower rates 2-6 h after meals. CONCLUSIONS: Participants using Technosphere Insulin experienced clinically non-inferior glycaemic control and lower hypoglycaemia rates across a range of HbA1c levels compared with participants receiving insulin aspart. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01445951.

Upper extremity impairments, pain and disability in patients with diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the severity of, and relationships between, upper extremity impairments, pain and disability in patients with diabetes mellitus, and to compare upper extremity impairments in patients with diabetes with non-diabetic controls. DESIGN: Case-control, cross-sectional design. SETTING: University-based, outpatient diabetes centre and physical therapy research clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and thirty-six patients with diabetes attending an outpatient diabetes clinic completed the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) questionnaire. A detailed shoulder and hand examination was conducted on a subgroup of 29 volunteers with type 2 diabetes, and 27 controls matched for age, sex and body mass index. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: SPADI score, passive shoulder range of motion (ROM) and strength, grip strength, hand sensation, dexterity and limited joint mobility of the hand. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent (149/236) of patients with diabetes reported shoulder pain and/or disability [median SPADI score 10.0 (interquartile range 0.0 to 39.6)]. Compared with the control group, the subgroup of patients with diabetes had substantial reductions in shoulder ROM, shoulder muscle strength, grip and key pinch strength (P<0.05). Patients with diabetes had a greater prevalence of decreased sensation (26/27 vs 14/27) and limited joint mobility of the hand (17/27 vs 4/27) compared with the control group. Total SPADI score was negatively correlated (P<0.05) with shoulder ROM (r=-0.42 to -0.74) and strength measures (r=-0.44 to -0.63) in patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Upper extremity impairments in this sample of patients with diabetes were common, severe and related to complaints of pain and disability. Additional research is needed to understand the unique reasons for upper extremity problems in patients with diabetes, and to identify preventative treatments.

Options for prandial glucose management in type 2 diabetes patients using basal insulin: addition of a short-acting GLP-1 analogue versus progression to basal-bolus therapy.

Integrating patient-centered diabetes care and algorithmic medicine poses particular challenges when optimized basal insulin fails to maintain glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Multiple entwined physiological, psychosocial and systems barriers to insulin adherence are not easily studied and are not adequately considered in most treatment algorithms. Moreover, the limited number of alternatives to add-on prandial insulin therapy has hindered shared decision-making, a central feature of patient-centered care. This article considers how the addition of a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogue to basal insulin may provide new opportunities at this stage of treatment, especially for patients concerned about weight gain and risk of hypoglycaemia. A flexible framework for patient-clinician discussions is presented to encourage development of decision-support tools applicable to both specialty and primary care practice.

Effect of gender on treatment outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of gender on clinical outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving antidiabetes therapy. METHODS: This is a pooled analysis from nine similarly designed phase 3 and 4 randomized, controlled studies evaluating insulin glargine and an active comparator (NPH insulin, insulin lispro, premixed insulin, oral antidiabetes drugs, dietary intervention) in adults with T2DM. Impact of gender on outcomes including HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), weight-adjusted insulin dose, and hypoglycemia incidence was evaluated after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 1651 male and 1287 female individuals were included; 49.8% and 50.2% were treated with insulin glargine or comparators, respectively. Females receiving insulin glargine were less likely than males to achieve a glycemic target of HbA1c≤7.0% (53mmol/mol) (54.3% vs 60.8%, respectively, p=0.0162); there was no difference between females and males receiving comparators (52.7% vs 51.3%, respectively, p=0.4625). Females had significantly greater reductions in FPG (3.1mg/dL, p=0.0458), required significantly higher insulin doses (0.03IU/kg, p=0.0071), and had significantly higher annual rates of symptomatic (p<0.0001), glucose-confirmed (<50 and <70mg/dL) symptomatic (p=0.0005 and p<0.0001), and severe hypoglycemia (p=0.0020) than males. CONCLUSIONS: Females in this analysis had smaller reductions in HbA1c and were less likely to reach glycemic goals despite higher insulin doses and more hypoglycemic events than males. Differences in gender responses to therapy should be considered when individualizing treatment for people with T2DM.

Addition of exenatide twice daily to basal insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: clinical studies and practical approaches to therapy.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease that requires stepwise additions of non-insulin and insulin therapies to meet recommended glycaemic goals. The final stage of intensification may require prandial insulin, adding complexity and increased risks of hypoglycaemia and weight gain. AIMS: This review assesses the benefits and risks of adding exenatide twice daily, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, in patients with type 2 diabetes who are currently treated with basal insulin, but have failed to reach their glycaemic goals. METHODS AND RESULTS: Based on data from published studies, exenatide has a number of actions that complement basal insulin therapy. Exenatide has been shown to increase glucose-dependent insulin production, suppress abnormal plasma glucagon production, slow gastric emptying, enhance liver uptake of glucose and promote satiety. A recently published randomised clinical trial reported that the addition of exenatide twice daily to titrated basal insulin provided greater glycaemic control than titrated basal insulin alone, and did so without an increase in hypoglycaemic events and with modest weight loss. Exenatide use was associated with gastrointestinal side effects. The recent randomised trial confirmed and extended data from a number of prior observational studies that demonstrated the efficacy and safety of insulin/exenatide combination therapy. Practical considerations for adding exenatide twice daily to ongoing basal insulin are discussed.

Liraglutide: effects beyond glycaemic control in diabetes treatment.

AIMS: To review the non-glycaemic effects of liraglutide, including potential improvements in body weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pancreatic beta-cell function. KEY FINDINGS: Liraglutide induced weight loss of around 2-3 kg compared with weight increases of 1-2 kg with active comparators such as insulin glargine, rosiglitazone and glimepiride. Exenatide demonstrated similar weight benefits to liraglutide, but the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sitagliptin, saxagliptin and vildagliptin, were weight neutral. Liraglutide was associated with decreases in SBP of 2-7 mmHg, whereas exenatide, vildagliptin and sitagliptin demonstrated SBP reductions of around 2-3 mmHg. Measures of pancreatic beta-cell function were improved with liraglutide vs. placebo, rosiglitazone and exenatide. However, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to have less effect on beta-cell function than glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to glycaemic control, liraglutide and the other incretin-based therapies offer additional non-glycaemic benefits to varying degrees. The ability of GLP-1 receptor agonists to provide modest, but clinically relevant improvements in body weight and SBP, and to potentially benefit beta-cell function make them an exciting therapeutic option for individuals with diabetes. In contrast, DPP-4 inhibitors are weight neutral and may have lesser benefits on beta-cell function.

Similar progression of diabetic retinopathy with insulin glargine and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a long-term, randomised, open-label study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This long-term study was designed to further characterise the retinal safety profile of insulin glargine and human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: An open-label, 5 year, randomised (1:1), multicentre, stratified, parallel-group study conducted in the USA and Canada enrolled individuals with type 2 diabetes and either no or non-proliferative retinopathy (less than severe; Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] level less than 53 in both eyes) who were treated with oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs) alone, insulin alone or OHAs with insulin for >/=3 months prior to study entry and a baseline HbA(1c) level of 6.0-12.0%. Patients were randomised by the investigator according to the centralised interactive voice response system to receive twice-daily NPH insulin (n = 509) or once-daily basal insulin glargine (n = 515). The investigator was not blinded to the treatment group to which each participant had been assigned. The main objective of this study was to compare the progression of diabetic retinopathy between treatment groups by analysing the percentage of patients with three or more step progression in the ETDRS retinopathy patient-level severity scale after treatment with either basal insulin. Masked, centralised grading of seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs was used. RESULTS: Similarly sustained glycaemic control was observed in both the insulin glargine and NPH insulin treatment groups. Despite a slightly greater severity of diabetic retinopathy for the insulin glargine group at baseline, three or more step progression in ETDRS score from baseline to end-of-study was similar between treatment groups (14.2% [53/374] of insulin glargine-treated patients vs 15.7% [57/363] of NPH-treated patients); the difference in the incidence of progression was -1.98% (95% CI -7.02, 3.06%). Other measures of retinopathy-the development of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and progression to clinically significant macular oedema-occurred to a similar degree in both treatment groups. No other safety issues, such as unexpected adverse events for either insulin emerged during the 5 year study. However, NPH insulin treatment was associated with a higher incidence of severe hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This study shows no evidence of a greater risk of the development or progression of diabetic retinopathy with insulin glargine vs NPH insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00174824 FUNDING: This study was sponsored by sanofi-aventis.

Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on serum lipid concentration in diabetic hypertensive patients.

CONTEXT: Vasoconstricting beta-blocker use is associated with a reduction in HDL cholesterol, higher triglyceride, total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol levels, whereas carvedilol, a vasodilating beta-blocker, has not been associated with these effects. OBJECTIVE: To compare in a randomized, double-blind study, the effects of the beta 1-blocker metoprolol tartrate with the combined alpha 1, beta-blocker carvedilol on serum lipid concentrations. METHODS: A prospective randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial compared the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on total cholesterol, triglycerides, calculated LDL, HDL and non-HDL cholesterol levels at baseline and after 5 months of therapy as a secondary objective in the Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensive (GEMINI) study. In this study, 1235 participants with type 2 diabetes and hypertension who were receiving renin-angiotensin system blockers were randomized either to carvedilol, receiving 6.25-25 mg twice daily, or to metoprolol tartrate, receiving 50-200 mg twice daily. If needed, hydrochlorothiazide and a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker were added to achieve blood pressure goals. RESULTS: In the metoprolol tartrate group, triglycerides and non-HDL cholesterol increased and both the LDL and the HDL cholesterol levels decreased. In the carvedilol group, total LDL and HDL cholesterol decreased, non-HDL cholesterol was unchanged and triglycerides increased. Comparing the carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate groups, there was no statistically significant difference in LDL and HDL cholesterol levels, but there was a significantly greater decreases with carvedilol in total cholesterol [-2.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.60 to -1.15, p < 0.001], triglycerides (-9.8%, 95% CI -13.7, -5.75%, p < 0.001) and non-HDL cholesterol (-4.03%, 95% CI -6.3 to -1.8, p < 0.0006). At the end of the study, significantly more participants in the metoprolol tartrate group had had initiation of statin therapy or the statin dose increased than those in the carvedilol group (11 vs. 32%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes currently receiving a renin-angiotensin blocker, compared with metoprolol tartrate, the addition of carvedilol for blood pressure control resulted in a significant decrease in triglyceride, total cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol levels. The use of metoprolol resulted in a significantly greater rate of initiation of statin therapy or an increase in the dose of existing statin therapy when compared with carvedilol utilization.

Differential effect of beta-blocker therapy on insulin resistance as a function of insulin sensitizer use: results from GEMINI.

AIMS: To determine whether the beneficial effects of carvedilol on insulin resistance (IR) are affected by the concomitant use of insulin sensitizers [thiazolidinediones (TZDs) and metformin]. METHODS: Changes in HbA1c and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were assessed over 5 months, comparing carvedilol with metoprolol tartrate according to insulin sensitizer (TZDs and metformin) use. RESULTS: In TZD/metformin users, carvedilol patients showed a 5.4% decrease [95% confidence interval (CI) -11.9, 1.6; P = 0.13] and metoprolol tartrate patients showed a 2.8% decrease (95% CI -8.5, 3.2; P = 0.35) in HOMA-IR. The -2.6% difference between treatments was not significant (95% CI -10.7, 6.2; P = 0.55). In contrast, those not taking TZD/metformin experienced a 13.2% increase in HOMA-IR on metoprolol tartrate (95% CI 3.2, 24.1; P < 0.01) and a 4.8% decrease in HOMA-IR on carvedilol (95% CI -14.6, 6.0; P = 0.37), with a significant treatment difference of -15.9% favouring carvedilol (95% CI -26.6, -3.6; P = 0.01). There was no significant treatment interaction for the use of TZD/metformin and HbA1c. A statistically significant treatment difference was observed for HbA1c after 5 months favouring carvedilol after adjusting for insulin sensitizer use (-0.11%, 95% CI -0.214, -0.009; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes and hypertension not taking insulin sensitizers, the use of metoprolol tartrate resulted in a worsening of insulin resistance, an effect not seen with carvedilol. However, in TZD/metformin users the difference between the beta-blockers was not statistically significant.

beta-blocker use and diabetes symptom score: results from the GEMINI study.

AIM: The Glycemic Effect in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives (GEMINI) trial compared the metabolic effects of two beta-blockers in people with type 2 diabetes and hypertension treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade and found differences in metabolic outcomes. In this paper, we report the results of a prespecified secondary analysis of GEMINI that sought to determine the effect of these two beta-blockers on commonly reported symptoms. METHODS: The Diabetes Symptom Checklist (DSC), a self-report questionnaire measuring the occurrence and perceived burden of diabetes-related symptoms, was completed by GEMINI participants at baseline and at the end of the study (maintenance month 5). The DSC assessed symptoms in eight domains: psychology (fatigue), psychology (cognitive), neuropathy (pain), neuropathy (sensory), cardiology, ophthalmology, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: Comparison of the mean change in self-reported diabetes-related symptoms indicated a significant treatment difference favouring carvedilol over metoprolol tartrate in overall symptom score (-0.08; 95% CI -0.15, -0.01; p = 0.02) and in the domains for hypoglycaemia symptoms (-0.12; 95% CI -0.23, -0.02; p = 0.02) and hyperglycaemia symptoms (-0.16; 95% CI -0.27, -0.05; p = 0.005). Carvedilol resulted in fewer perceived diabetes-related symptoms in patients with diabetes and hypertension. CONCLUSION: Carvedilol resulted in a lower perceived burden of diabetes-related symptoms in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. The addition of a well-tolerated beta-blocker to RAS blockade may improve hypertension treatment and quality of life in patients with diabetes.

Telmisartan plus hydrochlorothiazide versus telmisartan or hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy in patients with mild to moderate hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent surveys reveal continuing deficiencies in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension. In many cases, failure to achieve blood pressure targets may be attributable to the use of antihypertensive monotherapy. OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to identify combinations of telmisartan, a new oral angiotensin II type 1-receptor antagonist, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) that might provide greater antihypertensive efficacy than monotherapy with either agent in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. It also examined the dose-response surface for the 2 drugs alone and in combination. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study that employed all cells of a 4 x 5 factorial design. After a 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, men and women between 18 and 80 years of age with mild to moderate hypertension (defined as mean supine diastolic blood pressure [DBP] between 95 and 114 mm Hg during the last 2 weeks of the placebo run-in period and systolic blood pressure [SBP] between 114 and 200 mm Hg immediately before randomization) were eligible to enter the 8-week, double-blind, double-dummy treatment period. Study comparisons were between once-daily telmisartan monotherapy (20, 40, 80, or 160 mg), HCTZ monotherapy (6.25, 12.5, or 25 mg), 12 combinations of these telmisartan/HCTZ doses, and placebo. The focus was on 2 combinations: telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg and telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg. The primary efficacy variable was change in supine trough DBP from baseline to the last evaluable measurement during double-blind treatment. Plasma renin activity and safety parameters, including treatment-emergent adverse events, physical findings, electrocardiograms, and serum electrolyte levels (which are known to increase with HCTZ treatment), were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 1293 patients screened, 818 (63.3%) were enrolled at 47 centers. Of these 818, 749 (91.6%) completed the study. The intent-to-treat population (randomized with > or = 1 postrandomization blood pressure measurement) consisted of 807 patients (98.7%). Telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg significantly decreased mean supine trough SBP/DBP by 23.9/14.9 mm Hg, a benefit of 8.5/3.4 mm Hg compared with telmisartan 80 mg and of 17.0/7.6 mm Hg compared with HCTZ 12.5 mg (both comparisons, P < 0.01). Telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg significantly reduced mean supine SBP by 18.8 mm Hg, a benefit of 6.6 mm Hg compared with telmisartan 40 mg and 11.9 mm Hg compared with HCTZ 12.5 mg (both, P < 0.01). This same combination significantly reduced mean supine DBP by 12.6 mm Hg, a benefit of 5.3 mm Hg compared with HCTZ 12.5 mg (P < 0.01), but was not significantly different from telmisartan 40 mg. Telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg in reducing mean supine DBP and SBP (both, P < 0.05). The response surface and responder analyses confirmed the additive antihypertensive efficacy of the combination of telmisartan and HCTZ. All regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg was effective and well tolerated when used to reduce SBP and DBP in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In addition to enhancing efficacy, this combination protected against potassium depletion, a common side effect of thiazide monotherapy.

Combination treatment with telmisartan and hydrochlorothiazide in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) is commonly used to treat black patients with hypertension. To avoid the metabolic disturbances associated with high-dose HCTZ, blood pressure control may be achieved by combining low doses with another antihypertensive. HYPOTHESIS: The study was undertaken to assess the tolerability and antihypertensive dose-response efficacy of telmisartan and HCTZ and their combination in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension (mean supine blood pressure 140/95-200/114 mmHg). METHODS: Following a 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 222 black patients were randomized to once-daily treatment with one of 20 different double-blind combinations of telmisartan (0, 20, 40, 80, 160 mg) and HCTZ (0, 6.25, 12.5, 25 mg) for 8 weeks. Blood pressure was measured at baseline and after 2, 4, and 8 weeks. RESULTS: Telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg reduced supine trough diastolic blood pressure (DBP)--primary efficacy parameter--by 13.3 mmHg, and supine trough systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 21.5 mmHg. These reductions represented benefits of 13.7/8.7 mmHg over telmisartan 80 mg and 12.3/8.1 mmHg over HCTZ 12.5 mg (p < 0.01). Telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg reduced supine trough SBP/DBP by 14.3/10.0 mmHg, amounting to 12.3/3.3 mmHg more than telmisartan 40 mg and 5.1/4.8 mmHg more than HCTZ 12.5 mg. This reached significance for the comparisons with telmisartan 40 mg for SBP and HCTZ 12.5 mg for DBP (p<0.05). A response surface analysis and therapeutic response rates confirmed the additive antihypertensive effects of telmisartan and HCTZ. All treatments were well tolerated, with side-effect profiles comparable with placebo. Adverse events were mainly transient and of mild to moderate severity. CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan 80 mg combined with HCTZ 12.5 mg is effective and well tolerated in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension, providing greater antihypertensive activity than the corresponding monotherapies.

The losartan renal protection study--rationale, study design and baseline characteristics of RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan).

The RENAAL Study is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the renal protective effects of losartan in Type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy. The study has enrolled 1513 patients and is expected to continue for 3.5 years after the last patient has been entered. Eligible patients must have a urinary albumin:creatinine ratio of at least 300 mg/g and serum creatinine between 1.3 to 3.0 mg/dL. Eligible hypertensive or normotensive patients are randomised to receive either losartan or placebo, in addition to their existing antihypertensive therapy. Medications that block angiotensin production or action, are excluded. The primary endpoint is a composite of the time to first event of doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease, or death; secondary endpoints include cardiovascular events, progression of renal disease, and changes in proteinuria; tertiary endpoints include quality of life, healthcare resource utilisation, and amputations. Patients include Caucasians (48.6%), Blacks (15.2%), Asians (16.7%), and Hispanics (18.2%). Baseline urinary albumin:creatinine ratio and serum creatinine levels average 1867 mg/g and 1.9 mg/dL, respectively. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures are 153 and 82 mmHg, respectively. RENAAL will document whether blockade of the AII receptor with losartan produces clinical benefits in patients with Type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.

Effects of nortriptyline on depression and glycemic control in diabetes: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Depression is a prevalent and chronic condition in diabetes and is associated with poor glucose regulation and poor compliance with diabetes treatment. This investigation evaluated the effects of nortriptyline on depression and glycemic control to see whether depression in diabetes is treatable and whether restoring mental health contributes to improved medical outcome. METHOD: Sixty-eight diabetic patients with poor glycemic control, 28 of whom had active major depression (DSM-IIIR), completed a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involving 8 weeks of treatment with nortriptyline targeted to therapeutic plasma levels (50-150 ng/ml). Depression improvement was determined with the Beck Depression Inventory; glucose control was measured by glycated hemoglobin levels. Compliance behavior was assessed using medication dispensing devices and glucometers equipped with electronic memory. RESULTS: The reduction in depression symptoms was significantly greater in depressed patients treated with nortriptyline compared with those receiving placebo (-10.2 vs -5.8, p = .03). Nortriptyline was not statistically superior to placebo in reducing glycated hemoglobin of the depressed subjects (p = .5). However, path analysis indicated that the direct effect of nortriptyline was to worsen glycemic control whereas depression improvement had an independent beneficial effect on glycated hemoglobin. These findings were not explained by the relationships of nortriptyline treatment to weight change (r = -0.21, p = .31) or depression improvement to compliance with the protocol for self-monitoring of blood glucose (r = 0.01, p = .97). CONCLUSIONS: Major depression in diabetic patients can be effectively treated with nortriptyline at the expense of a direct hyperglycemic effect. Path analysis demonstrated a treatment-independent effect of depression improvement on glycemic control, suggesting that a more ideal antidepressant agent may both restore mental health and improve medical outcome.

Major decrements in glycated hemoglobin levels between 1978 and 1989 in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial has shown that intensive treatment can deter the development and progression of diabetic complications. Integral to intensive treatment is improved glycemic control. To describe the trend in glycemic control for subjects with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, we examined the medical records of 662 subjects seen between 1978 and 1989 at the Model Demonstration Unit of the Diabetes Research and Training Center (Washington University School of Medicine). Mean value of glycated hemoglobin showed steady decline from a peak of 11.5% in 1979 to 9.0% in 1989. This decline was observed both in subjects evaluated only once (annual rate of decline estimated from linear regression, -0.17 +/1 0.03; p = 0.0001) and in subjects evaluated more than once (annual rate of decline estimated from growth curves, -0.18 +/- 0.06; p = 0.0001). These results suggest that substantial lowering of glycated hemoglobin has occurred during the last decade. This reduction should result in a lowered risk of diabetic complications.

The beneficial effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition with captopril on diabetic nephropathy in normotensive IDDM patients with microalbuminuria. North American Microalbuminuria Study Group.

PURPOSE: To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition with captopril reduces the progression of microalbuminuria to overt proteinuria in normotensive patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 26 centers in the United States and Canada. One hundred forty-three subjects, 14 to 57 years of age, with IDDM for 4 to 33 years, blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg in the absence of antihypertensive therapy, and persistent albumin excretion 20 to 200 micrograms/min were randomized to double-blind treatment with captopril 50 mg or placebo BID. Albumin excretion rate (AER), blood pressure, and glycohemoglobin were determined every 3 months, and creatinine clearance (CrCl) and urea excretion were measured every 6 months. RESULTS: Within 24 months, 6.0% (4/67) of captopril-treated subjects and 18.6% (13/70) of placebo-treated subjects progressed to clinical proteinuria, defined as AER > 200 micrograms/min and at least 30% above baseline (risk reduction = 67.8%, P = 0.037). AER increased at an annual rate of 11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.3% to 29.1%) in the placebo group, while it declined by 17.9% (CI -29.6% to -4.3%) in the captopril group (P = 0.004). CrCl decreased by 4.9 mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year in the placebo group, while it remained stable in the captopril group (0.9 mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year, P = 0.039 between groups). Ten subjects required treatment for hypertension; 8 in the placebo group and 2 in the captopril group. There was little correlation between the 24-month changes in mean arterial blood pressure and AER in either group. Glycohemoglobin and urinary urea excretion did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: After 24 months of therapy with captopril, compared with placebo, normotensive subjects with IDDM experienced significantly less progression of microalbuminuria to clinical proteinuria, reduced albumin excretion, and preserved CrCl rate. The ACE inhibitor, captopril, was well tolerated.

Effects of alprazolam on glucose regulation in diabetes. Results of double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of alprazolam on glucose regulation in anxious and nonanxious patients with poor glycemic control and establish whether regulatory benefits are related to anxiolytic effects of the medication. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with poor glycemic control, 16 (27.6%) of whom had a symptomatic generalized anxiety disorder, were entered into a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial using alprazolam (up to 2 mg/day) as the active agent. Generalized anxiety disorder was determined in accordance with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria, and anxiety symptoms were measured using the Hopkins Symptom Checklist. Glycated hemoglobin levels were used to determine glucose regulation. Compliance behavior was assessed using glucometers and medication monitors equipped with electronic memory. RESULTS: A statistically significant reduction in glycated hemoglobin level was observed in patients treated with alprazolam compared with those receiving placebo (-1.1 vs. -0.3%, P = 0.04). This treatment effect was not a function of differences in compliance behaviors. Anxiety symptoms decreased in both alprazolam- and placebo-treated patients with generalized anxiety disorder, but reduction in glycated hemoglobin level was not dependent on alleviation of anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: A short course of alprazolam improved glucose regulation in patients with a history of poor diabetes control. This effect was not directly related to concomitant changes in anxiety. Alprazolam treatment of anxious patients with poorly controlled diabetes may result in decreased anxiety and improved glucose regulation through independent mechanisms.

Reduction of glycosylated hemoglobin and postprandial hyperglycemia by acarbose in patients with NIDDM. A placebo-controlled dose-comparison study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of three doses of acarbose (100, 200, and 300 mg three times daily) with placebo for the treatment of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) in patients maintained on dietary therapy alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled trial was 22 weeks in duration. The trial consisted of a 2-week screening period, a 4-week placebo run-in period, and a 16-week double-blind treatment period. The primary measure of drug efficacy was the mean change from baseline in HbA1c levels. Additional efficacy variables included the mean change from baseline in fasting and postprandial plasma glucose and serum insulin levels. RESULTS: After 16 weeks of treatment, acarbose-treated patients had statistically significant reductions in mean HbA1c levels of 0.78, 0.73, and 1.10% (relative to placebo) in the 100-, 200-, and 300-mg t.i.d. groups, respectively. Significant reductions in fasting and postprandial plasma glucose levels, glucose area under the time-concentration curve, and maximum glucose concentration were also observed in acarbose-treated patients. Although there were no statistically significant differences among the 100-, 200-, and 300-mg treatment groups, there was a trend toward a dose-response relationship for most plasma glucose variables that were measured. Gastrointestinal side effects (e.g., abdominal pain, flatulence, and diarrhea) and serum transaminase elevations (e.g., aspartate aminotransferase [AST] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT] were more frequently reported in the acarbose-treated patients than in the placebo-treated control patients. Transaminase elevations occurred only at the 200-, and 300-mg dosages and were readily reversible on discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Acarbose at doses of 100, 200, and 300 mg administered three times daily for 16 weeks significantly reduced HbA1c levels and postprandial hyperglycemia. Treatment with acarbose is a safe and effective adjunct to dietary therapy for the treatment of NIDDM.

Quantitative assessment of myocardial ultrasound tissue characterization through receiver operating characteristic analysis of Bayesian classifiers.

OBJECTIVES: This work proposes a self-consistent assessment methodology for quantitative evaluation of any combination of diagnostic features, with the immediate goal of quantitatively assessing the discriminating power in diabetic patients of features derived from ultrasound backscatter from myocardium. BACKGROUND: Four features from analysis of left ventricular myocardial ultrasound backscatter have previously been shown to be sensitive to potentially cardiomyopathic changes in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus who have no overt heart disease. The measured features were significantly different between such patients and normal control subjects, as well as among groups of such patients with and without systemic complications of the disease. The quantitative discriminating potential of the features was not assessed. METHODS: Multivariate classifier functions were constructed and analyzed by using the methodology of the receiver operating characteristic curve, which allows quantitative assessment of the discriminating power of these features, alone or in combination. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve--the true positive rate averaged over all false positive rates--was used as a summary measure of performance. RESULTS: In distinguishing patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus from normal control subjects, the most discriminating combination of ultrasound features for the detection of such changes in these patients yielded receiver operating characteristic curves with area measures of approximately 0.80; for such patients with retinopathy the measure increased to 0.90. This performance is comparable to that of many commonly used diagnostic tests. CONCLUSIONS: A self-consistent set of evaluation methodologies has quantitatively demonstrated the sensitivity of four ultrasound backscatter features to otherwise latent changes in myocardial structure that accompany the evolution of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The results are remarkable in themselves and suggest the potential of the features for the general field of cardiac ultrasound tissue characterization.