| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update. Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases (IV).
Volume 55, Issue 08, August 2002
|
|
|
Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus: General Goals and Clinical Practice Management
Rafael Simóa; Cristina Hernándeza
a Sección de Endocrinología. Hospital General Vall d'Hebron. Barcelona.
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2002;55:845-60.
Diabetes mellitus is associated with a marked increased of cardiovascular events. The treatment strategy of diabetes has to be based on the knowledge of its pathophysiology. Thus, insulin is essential for treatment of type 1 diabetic patients because there is a defect in insulin secretion. However, treatment of type 2 diabetic patients is more complex because a defect in both insulin secretion and insulin action exists. Therefore, the treatment selection will depend on the stage of the disease and the individual characteristics of the patient. This article examines the general goals of the treatment and reviews the management of type 2 diabetes.
Keywords: Diabetes treatment. Oral drugs. Insulin.
INTRODUCTION
Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease with one of the highest
social and healthcare costs and is associated with a 3-fold to
4-fold increment in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In
fact, ischemic heart disease is the main cause of death in diabetic
patients.1,2 This article places special emphasis on the
therapeutic management of type 2 diabetes, which is the most
prevalent type and, consequently, the modality that will cause the
greatest cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in absolute
figures.
The treatment of diabetes must be based on an understanding of
its pathophysiology. Thus, in type 1 diabetes mellitus a severe
insulin secretion deficit exists and the only treatment, at
present, is the administration of insulin or insulin analog.
However, type 2 diabetes mellitus is a much more complex disease,
in which insulin resistance predominates in the early stages. In
more advanced stages, insulin resistance persists but the deficit
in insulin secretion is more evident. Therefore, the therapeutic
approach will depend on the stage of the disease and
characteristics of the patient.
GOALS OF TREATMENT
The general goals of the treatment of diabetes are to avoid
acute decompensation, prevent or delay the appearance of late
disease complications, decrease mortality, and maintain a good
quality of life. As for chronic complications of the disease, it is
clear that good control of glycemia makes it possible to reduce the
incidence of microvascular complications (retinopathy, nephropathy,
and neuropathy),3,4 whereas good control of glycemia
per se does not seem to be as determinant in the prevention of
macrovascular complications (ischemic heart disease,
cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arteriopathy).4 In
this sense, the treatment of hyperglycemia should be contemplated
as part of an integral approach to the combined risk factors
present in these patients (arterial hypertension [AHT],
dyslipidemia, smoking). Thus, a treatment designed to obtain
optimal glycemic control that neglects other cardiovascular risk
factors is not very rational. In fact, it will surely be more
beneficial to the diabetic patient to address cardiovascular risk
factors overall, even if goals are not strictly reached for any of
them. The therapeutic objectives are listed in Table
1.5-7 Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is the
best index of the control of diabetes, since it provides
information about the degree of glycemic control in the last two to
three months and should remain below 7%. Nevertheless, in older
patient or persons with a very limited life expectancy, it is not
necessary to reach this therapeutic target since it entails a high
risk of causing severe hypoglycemia. As for the target values for
the lipid profile and blood pressure, it should be remembered that
ischemic heart disease is the main cause of mortality in diabetic
patients1,2 and that the cardiovascular risk of diabetic
patients is similar to that of nondiabetic patients who already
have ischemic heart disease.8 Therefore, the target
values required in the diabetic population should be strict and
similar to those demanded in patients with established coronary
artery disease.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TREATMENT
Diet and exercise are fundamental in the treatment of diabetes.
Dietary recommendations must be customized for each individual to
achieve the general objectives of treatment. It should be
remembered that obesity is common in type 2 diabetics so one of the
main objectives should be weight reduction. The calorie content of
the diet should be adjusted in each individual in accordance with
the body mass index and regular physical activity. As far as the
nutrient proportions of the diet, it is recommended that proteins
should constitute 10%-20% of calorie intake and fats less than 30%,
with less than 10% saturated fats. With regard to carbohydrates,
emphasis should be placed on total intake rather than on their
origin, although rapidly absorbed carbohydrates should be
avoided.9
Physical exercise, aside from constituting a mainstay of the
treatment of diabetic patients, helps to prevent the development of
diabetes in adult life.10-14 In patients with type 2
diabetes, moderate regular exercise (30 min/day) is very
beneficial, since it reduces glycemia by increasing sensitivity to
insulin, improves the lipid profile, lowers blood pressure,
contributes to weight loss, and improves cardiovascular state
(decreased heart rate at rest, increased systolic volume, and
decreased cardiac work). In addition, it gives the patient a sense
of well being and better quality of life. The main disadvantage of
exercise in diabetic patients is hypoglycemia, which can occur
several hours later and should condition adjustments in the
therapeutic regimen. In addition, in patients with type 1 diabetes
and poor metabolic control, especially after anaerobic exercise,
hyperglycemic decompensation or even ketosis can take place. Aside
from disturbing glucose metabolism, physical exercise can entail
other risks, which are detailed in Table 2. Therefore, the
patient´s exercise program must be planned individually
taking into consideration physical capacity and potential
risks.15

The diabetological education that the patient receives from
qualified healthcare personnel is essential in achieving
therapeutic objectives. For example, self-testing of capillary
blood glucose informs the patient about the time of day when
glycemic control is worse and helps to identify undetected
hypoglycemia. Therefore, self-tests are fundamental for making
opportune modifications in therapy. In addition, the patient who
knows how to modify treatment based on capillary blood glucose
measurements and has received advice on how to handle various
situations, such as hypoglycemia or hyperglycemic-ketotic
decompensation, will require fewer hospital admissions and have a
better quality of life.
TREATMENT OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND
THERAPEUTIC APPROACH
The diet -which generally must be low-calorie due to the
frequency of associated obesity- and a program of regular
exercise are the basis of the treatment of type 2 diabetes
mellitus. When acceptable metabolic control is not achieved, either
because the patient does not adapt to changes in life style or
because, in spite of complying with the diet and exercising
regularly, therapeutic objectives are not attained, pharmacological
treatment must begin. Figure 1 shows a diagram of the therapeutic
approach to type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Fig. 1. Scheme of the therapeutic approach proposed for
type 2 diabetes mellitus. aFast action secretagogues are
repaglinide and nateglinide. bAt present, the thiazolidinediones
(TZD) cannot yet be prescribed in monotherapy. cBased on patient
characteristics. Thus, for example, if baseline hyperglycemia
predominates and the patient was treated with sulfonylureas (SU),
metformin (MET) can be added. However, if the patient follows
treatment with MET and poor control is at the expense of
postprandial hyperglycemic peaks, a secretagogue or
alpha-glycosidase inhibitor should be added. dIt is recommended
that insulin treatment begin with a single nocturnal dose.
Pharmacological treatment
Sulfonylureas
In the mid-1950s the first sulfonylureas (SU) were developed for
commercial use (carbutamide and tolbutamide). In the mid-1960s
there were already four SUs on the market (tolbutamide,
acetohexamide, tolazamide and chlorpropamide), which are currently
known as the first-generation SUs. At the end of the 1960s,
second-generation SUs were introduced (glibenclamide, glipizide,
gliquidone, and gliclazide). In 1970, the results of the University
Group Diabetes Program (UGDP)16 were published, where it
was concluded that tolbutamide was ineffective in the treatment of
the diabetes and also increased cardiovascular mortality. This
study had a major impact not only in the U.S., but also in various
European countries, and resulted in a considerable decrease in the
use of SUs. Nevertheless, since the results of the UGDP were much
criticized regarding the methodology of the study,17 and
there was evidence of its clinical effectiveness, in 1979 the
American Diabetes Society decided to end restrictions of the use of
SUs and they have been marketed in the U.S. since 1984. More
recently, a new long-acting SU has been introduced:
glimepiride.18
Mechanism of action. The SUs stimulate the second phase
of insulin secretion by pancreatic beta cells, that is to say, the
release of preformed insulin.19 Therefore, the SUs
require the presence of a critical mass of beta cells with insulin
secretory capacity in order to act. Therefore, the SUs will not be
effective in patients who are pancreatectomized or have type 1
diabetes mellitus. The SUs act through high-affinity receptors
located in the pancreatic beta cells.20 Binding to these
receptors inhibits the opening of ATP-sensitive potassium channels
and avoids potassium outflow from the cell, thus triggering cell
membrane depolarization. As a result, the calcium channels open,
increasing intracellular calcium content and calcium binding to
calmodulin, which produces microfilament contraction and the
exocytosis of insulin granules (Figure 2).

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the mechanism of
action of the sulfonylureas (SU). The SU receptor regulates the
opening and closing of K+ channels and contains specific binding
sites for ATP, SU, and repaglinide
In the heart and throughout the cardiovascular system there are
also SU receptors and ATP-sensitive potassium channels, which have
an important cardioprotective effect against ischemia. Closure of
these channels by SUs could contribute to ischemia.21
Nevertheless, although this possible harmful effect seems evident
in experimental studies in which high doses of SUs are administered
acutely,22 this does not seem to be clinically relevant,
as has been shown in the UKDPS study.4
Clinical pharmacology. The SU differ in potency, duration
of action, metabolism, undesirable effects, and other
pharmacological properties.23 Some of the main
pharmacological characteristics of the SUs are summarized in Table
3. The second-generation SUs are more potent and have less toxicity
than the first-generation SUs. All the SUs are absorbed quickly in
the digestive tract, reaching peak plasma level 2-4 h after
ingestion. They bind mainly to albumin, from which they can be
displaced by other drugs. The metabolism is fundamentally hepatic
and its metabolites are eliminated in urine and, to a lesser
extent, in bile. Gliquidone is eliminated mainly in bile, so it can
be used in cases of moderate kidney failure (creatinine <2
mg/dL).

Undesirable effects. SUs are generally well tolerated.
Hypoglycemia is the most frequent adverse effect and is directly
related with the potency and duration of the effect of the drug
administered.24 Thus, it is more frequent with
chlorpropamide or glibenclamide than with tolbutamide. Hypoglycemia
due to SU is less frequent than with insulin, but it is often more
prolonged and can require treatment with intravenous glucose
infusion for several days. Kidney and liver failure are risk
factors for SU-induced hypoglycemia. The decrease in intake and the
use of drugs can potentiate the action of SUs24 (e.g.,
aspirin, MAO inhibitors, pyrazolones, fibrates). All these factors
often coincide in diabetics of advanced age. In addition, in such
patients the typical symptoms of hypoglycemia may be absent and
manifested only by psychiatric or neurological symptoms. Other
undesirable effects are infrequent (<5%), generally
well-tolerated, and reversible25 (Table 4).

Indications, drug selection, and contraindications
SUs are considered drugs of first choice for the treatment of
type 2 diabetes mellitus when the patient is not overweight, as
long as the therapeutic objectives are not achieved by means of an
individualized program of diet and exercise. The second-generation
SUs are the most frequently used and there is none that clearly
surpasses the others, which is why it is more important that the
physician prescribe the preparation she is most experienced with.
Tolbutamide and glimepiride have been recommended for older persons
due to the lower risk of serious hypoglycemia. Treatment should
begin with small doses (generally half a tablet) to avoid
hypoglycemia and to increase the dose at weekly intervals until
good metabolic control has been achieved or the recommended maximum
dose has been reached. When an adequate response is obtained, the
possibility of reducing the doses should be reviewed. If a lower
dose can be given, it likely that good control will be obtained
with diet alone. If good glycemic control is not achieved with the
maximum dose of SU used, combined treatment with metformin can be
tried or the patient can be switched to insulin.
SUs are contraindicated in patients allergic to sulfonamides
and, of course, in type 1 diabetics and in pancreas-deficient
diabetes (e.g., after pancreatitis or pancreatectomy), since they
are only effective when the patient has some insulin-secreting
capacity. They cannot be prescribed during pregnancy and
breastfeeding because they can cross the placental barrier and be
secreted in maternal milk. Its use in situations that cause
important stress is not recommended since, in these cases, the SUs
will not be capable of meeting insulin needs. Thus, in situations
such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI), severe trauma, or
infectious processes of certain importance, it is preferable to
switch to insulin treatment and then reassess SU treatment after
overcoming the period of stress. They should not be used in the
case of major surgical interventions, which, aside from
constituting a stressful situation, also entails the need for
fasting. Therefore, patients should be switched to insulin
treatment and intravenous glucose infusion.
The presence of liver disease is a relative contraindication.
Most SUs are metabolized by the liver into compounds with little or
no activity. Therefore, when impaired liver function exists,
deactivation of the SUs decreases, the half-life becomes longer,
and the hypoglycemic action increases. Hypoalbuminemia is an
aggravating factor since a larger amount of SU will be present. If
the patient also consumes alcohol, the risk of hypoglycemia will
increase.
Kidney failure results in a decrease in the elimination of SUs
and their metabolites, prolonging their action and increasing the
risk of hypoglycemia. Therefore, their use in patients with kidney
disease is not recommended. As has been mentioned, gliquidone,
which is eliminated preponderantly in bile, could be an alternative
in the case of moderate kidney failure whenever therapeutic
objectives are strictly met; if not, patients should be passed
immediately to insulin treatment.24-26
Other secretagogue drugs: repaglinideand nateglinide
Repaglinide and nateglinide are new secretagogues characterized
by a selective action on the first phase of insulin secretion. From
the clinical vantage point, they have a shorter but more intense
action than the SUs, which produces into a smaller postprandial
glucose elevation and less intense later hypoglycemic action,
meaning that beta-cell stimulation is avoided during periods of
fasting.27,28 This is especially important in avoiding
nocturnal hypoglycemia. These fast-acting secretagogues, like the
SUs, are indicated in type 2 diabetes mellitus when therapeutic
objectives are not reached with diet and exercise.
Repaglinide. Repaglinide (Novonor m®) is a
derivative of carbamoyl methyl benzoic acid (meglitinide family).
It has a mechanism of action very similar to that of the SUs, but
differs in the specific binding site to the SU
receptor29 (Figure 2). Its insulin-releasing action
begins within the first 30 min of administration and the eff ect
disappears in approximately 4 h. Therefore, it should be taken
about 15-30 min before eating; it is fundamental to coordinate its
administration with the meal schedule. This adjustment reduces the
probability of hypoglycemia when meals are skipped or delayed, in
contrast with conventional SU treatment.30 The dose is
0.5-4 mg before each meal and can be adjusted in accordance with
the type of meal ingested. In general, it is a well tolerated drug
and its clinical effectiveness in monotherapy is similar to that of
SUs. It also has been shown to be very effective in combination
with metformin.31,32 It is metabolized by the liver and
90% is excreted in bile as inactive metabolites. Hepatic toxicity
has not been described, but the transaminases can rise temporarily.
Therefore, the dose would have to be reduced in patients with
clinically significant liver disease. It is not contraindicated in
the case of mild or moderate kidney failure, but in severe kidney
failure (creatinine clearance 20-40 mL/min) the dose should be
reduced.29,33
Nateglinide. Nateglinide (Starlix®) is a
derivative of D-phenylalanine that directly stimulates the beta
cell. Its action is based on the fact that although the response to
glucose is lost in the first phase of insulin secretion, the
response to certain amino acids like phenylalanine is conserved.
Its pharmacokinetics are very similar to those of repaglinide, but
with a still more rapid onset and disappearance of action, which
causes an earlier and intense peak insulin secretion that
disappears sooner. Therefore, the preprandial delay is shorter, as
are possible late hypoglycemic crises.28 Although
experience is limited, it has been shown to be effective at a dose
of 60-180 mg taken before each meal. The best dose-response
effectiveness is obtained with 120 mg.34,35
Biguanides
The history of the biguanides dates back to the Middle Ages,
when the legume Galega officinalis, whose active principle
is guanidine or galegin, was used for the treatment of diabetes
mellitus.36 Nevertheless, it was not until 1918 that its
utility as a hypoglycemic treatment was discovered.37
Three derivatives of guanidine have been identified: monoguanidines
(galegin), diguanidines (sintalin) and biguanides, formed by the
union of two guanidine molecules and the elimination of an amino
radical. Sintalin was introduced in Germany in 1926 but its toxic
effects made it unusable. Between 1957 and 1960, the biguanides
were introduced on the market (fenformin, buformin, and metformin)
and became very popular.38 Nevertheless, in 1976 these
drugs were discontinued in the U.S. and some European countries
(Germany, Scandinavia) due to their association with lactic
acidosis.39-41 Nonetheless, cases of lactic acidosis had
only been communicated with fenformin, so metformin and buformin
continued to be prescribed regularly in most European countries and
Canada. It should be noted that the incidence of lactic acidosis
with metformin use is three cases per 100 000 inhabitants/year, a
figure similar to the rate of deaths due to hypoglycemia attributed
to glibenclamide.42-44 Because of its effectiveness and
safety, metformin (Dianben®) is currently the only
biguanide recommended for therapeutic use. Since 1995 metformin has
again been made available on the U.S. market. At present it is one
of the drugs most used in the treatment of type 2
diabetes.42,25
Mechanism of action. The biguanides, unlike the SUs, do
not stimulate insulin secretion by the pancreatic beta cells.
Therefore, strictly speaking they cannot be considered hypoglycemic
agents because they only reduce glycemia in diabetic patients.
Their main mechanism of action is to reduce hepatic glucose
production by decreasing both glyconeogenesis and
glycogenolysis.42,46,47 They also increase glucose
uptake by the skeletal muscle. Thus, it has been demonstrated that
metformin favors the action of insulin in muscle tissue at
different levels: by increasing the number of receptors and the
affinity of insulin for its receptors, facilitating glucose
transport through an increase in the expression, or activity, of
GLUT-4, and stimulating non-oxidative glucose metabolism, which
translates into an increase in glycogen deposits. It is clear that
metformin improves sensitivity to insulin and is a drug of first
choice when insulin resistance is the predominant mechanism in the
etiopathogenesis of diabetes.
Aside from reducing glycemia levels, the biguanides exercise
other effects that are especially beneficial for diabetic patients.
Thus, it has been demonstrated that they reduce triglyceride
concentrations by 20%-25% and C-LDL by 5%-10%, whereas C-HDL levels
do not vary or rise discretely.42,46,48 Other effects
that have been reported are the improvement of various rheological
variables in blood (decreased platelet aggregability, increased
erythrocyte deformability, decreased blood viscosity) and increased
fibrinolytic activity.42 Finally, it has been
demonstrated that treatment with metformin is accompanied by weight
loss, especially compared with patients treated with insulin or
SU.49
Clinical pharmacology. The biguanides are absorbed
quickly in the small intestine and only fenformin binds to plasma
proteins and suffers partial hepatic metabolization. Buformin and
metformin do not bind to plasma proteins and are eliminated
unchanged by the kidney. Peak plasma metformin concentration is
reached 2-3 h after it is taken. Its plasma half-life ranges from 2
to 6 h and within 12 h 90% will be eliminated in urine. It can be
given two or three times a day.23,42
Undesirable effects and contraindications. The most
frequent adverse effect of the biguanides are gastrointestinal
disturbances, which occur in 30% of cases. These effects include
anorexia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal discomfort, and a metallic
taste, but undoubtedly the most frequent of them is
diarrhea.23,48,50 Symptoms generally appear when
treatment begins and are short-lived. A disorder in vitamin
B12 absorption has been reported in patients treated
during prolonged periods. However, it has scant clinical
repercussions.48 Lactic acidosis is the most feared
adverse effect of the biguanides since it is lethal in 30%-50% of
cases.38,42 Nevertheless, this effect is very rare with
metformin, being necessary an overdose of the drug and/or
coexistence of impaired elimination or situations that produce an
increase in lactic acid production for it to occur. Consequently,
it is better not to recommend metformin in patients with kidney
failure (creatinine >1.4 mg/dL), advanced liver disease, serious
respiratory and/or cardiac insufficiency, alcoholism, and
situations of major stress (AMI, severe trauma, or major infectious
processes). It is also prudent to discontinue the drug temporarily
when radiological contrast is injected, due to the risk of acute
kidney failure. Although no studies have demonstrated teratogenic
capacity or the ability to cross the placenta, its use is not
recommended during pregnancy or breastfeeding. Age is not a
limiting factor as long as creatinine clearance is >70
mL/min.42,48
Drug selection and indications. As has been mentioned,
the only biguanide recommended for clinical use is metformin. It is
the drug of choice in overweight type 2 diabetics, since insulin
resistance generally predominates over deficient insulin secretion
in such cases.6,51,52 Of course, it should only be
prescribed if therapeutic objectives are not achieved with a
suitable diet and exercise program. It is recommended that
treatment begin with a single low dose (500-850 mg) coinciding with
food intake, and that it be gradually increased at 2-week intervals
until therapeutic goals or a maximum dose of 2550 mg/day is reached
(3 tablets/day). This minimizes side effects, especially diarrhea
and other digestive problems, which are the main cause of
withdrawal from treatment. Even so, 5% of patients do not tolerate
it.48,50
The therapeutic effectiveness of metformin is unquestioned and
is comparable to that of the SUs.42,53 Metformin has a
series of advantages over SUs, such as the absence of hypoglycemia,
improvement of the lipid profile, and reduction of insulinemia
levels. In addition, it is not associated with weight gain. In the
UKDPS study, metformin was the only medication associated with a
reduction in mortality in diabetic patients. Aside from reducing
microangiopathic complications, it also significantly reduced the
risk of AMI and cerebrovascular accidents.54 If the
therapeutic objectives are not attained after reaching the maximum
dose, an SU or fast-acting secretagogue (repaglinide or
nateglinide) can be added. Although this association has been
demonstrated to be very effective,42,53,55,56 due to the
progressive nature of diabetes, the secretory capacity of the beta
cell will deteriorate with time and many patients will require
insulin. In these cases, as long as a certain insulin secretion
capacity persists, it is preferable to use combined therapy with
oral drugs and to add insulin as a nocturnal dose administered
before bedtime. Another option is to discontinue treatment with
secretagogues and to use treatment with metformin and
insulin.57
Thiazolidinediones
This group of drugs of recent appearance have an action based on
increasing sensitivity to insulin. In 1982 the first drug in this
group, ciglitazone, was discovered, but it was not marketed due to
its elevated toxicity. Since the mid-1990s, derivatives with a
better safety profile have been developed: troglitazone,
pioglitazone, and rosiglitazone.58 Nevertheless,
troglitazone has been withdrawn due to its
hepatotoxicity59 and in Spain pioglitazone
(Actos®) is not yet available on the market,
although its commercialization is imminent. Therefore,
rosiglitazone (Avandia®) is only thiazolidinedione
(TZD) that we can prescribe at present and, for the moment, its use
is only authorized in combination therapy.
Mechanism of action, indications, and clinical
effectiveness. The mechanism of action involves binding to
specific nuclear receptors called PPAR-γ (peroxisome
proliferator-activated gamma receptor), whose stimulation
regulates the transcription of specific genes that will lead to an
increase in the number and affinity of insulin receptors,
especially the glucose transporters GLUT-4. This causes an increase
in insulin-mediated peripheral uptake of glucose by muscle and
adipose tissue. PPAR-γ stimulation also causes the
transformation of preadipocytes into adipocytes with less capacity
to respond to the action of tumor necrosis factor alpha
(TNF-α). This reduces lipolysis and results in a decrease in
circulating free fatty acids, consequently improving insulin
resistance.60-63
Since they act as insulin-sensitizing agents or, w, reducers of
insulin resistance,64-66 their clinical effectiveness is
clearly related with the presence of an insulin reserve. They do
not reduce glucose levels in healthy subjects or in diabetics with
clear insulinopenia unless they are administered in association
with insulin.67 Therefore, like metformin, their main
indication will be patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in which
insulin resistance predominates.
The recommended dose of pioglitazone is 30 mg/day, whereas the
recommended dose of rosiglitazone is only 4-8 mg/day, since it has
more affinity for PPAR-γ receptors.63 As we have
mentioned, at present rosiglitazone is the only TZD that can be
prescribed in Spain. Its maximum concentration is reached within an
hour of intake, plasma half-life is 3.7 h, and it is metabolized in
liver.63 Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider that,
since its mechanism of action is through the activation of gene
transcription, metabolic effects are not fully reached until 3 to 6
weeks after beginning treatment.58 Its pharmacokinetics
are practically unchanged by kidney failure68 or
age.69 It can be given in one or two daily doses and it
does not matter if it is administered before or after
meals.70
Its hypoglycemic action is dose-dependent and, in theory, it can
be used in monotherapy or combined with secretagogues, metformin,
or insulin. Nevertheless, the European Agency for the Evaluation of
Medicinal Products so far has only approved its clinical use in
combination with metformin in obese patients, or with SUs in cases
in which metformin is contraindicated or not
tolerated.71 In fact, the effectiveness of TZDs is
superior when they are with SUs or metformin than when they are
used in monotherapy. Let us remember that the TZDs, metformin, and
SUs act through different mechanisms. The TZDs stimulate glucose
uptake by insulin-sensitive tissues, whereas the main mechanism of
action of metformin lies in the inhibition of hepatic glucose
production and that of the SUs is based on an increase in
endogenous insulin levels. Therefore, it is logical that the
combination of TZD with either metformin or SU has been shown to be
very effective.47,72-74 It also is used in association
with insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who
require high doses of insulin, improving metabolic control and
appreciably reducing insulin needs.75
Aside from significantly reducing baseline glycemia,
postprandial glycemia, insulinemia, and HbA1c, they
change the lipid profile. Thus, they reduce the mean value of free
fatty acids and triglycerides by 15%-20% and produce a slight
increase (5%-15%) in C-LDL and C-HDL.58 It is also known
that the TZDs can have potentially beneficial effects on the
development or progression of arteriosclerosis that are under
study.76,77
Side effects and contraindications. The most serious
toxic effect of the TZDs has been hepatoxicity. Thus, an increase
in transaminases was observed with troglitazone in around 2% of
patients. In sporadic cases, severe hepatocellular lesions that
caused the death of the patients was documented, so it was
withdrawn from the market.59,78 Severe hepatoxicity has
not been reported with pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, although
isolated cases of nonfatal hepatic lesion have been
communicated.79,80 Therefore, for the moment it seems
prudent not to prescribe them in patients with liver disease and it
is advisable to closely monitor liver enzymes when it is
administered to patients without liver disease. Mild decreases in
hematocrit and hemoglobin levels have been reported that do not
seem to be related to disturbances in erythropoiesis and could be
attributed to an increase in plasma volume.63 In this
sense, it has been demonstrated that troglitazone produces water
retention, which causes hemodilution and edema due to a vasodilator
effect. In addition, structural and functional cardiac disorders
have also been communicated, but these effects have not been
observed with rosiglitazone.81,82 In any case, until
more experience with the use of TZDs is available, it would be
prudent to avoid administering it to patients with anemia and/or
established heart disease. At present, studies in humans have not
included women who were pregnant or breastfeeding, or patients
under the age of 18 years; therefore, TZDs cannot be used in such
patients. However, since the metabolism of TZDs is hepatic, they
can be prescribed in cases of mild or moderate kidney failure.
Hypoglycemia is infrequent and it has been communicated in less
than 1% of cases with rosiglitazone in monotherapy.83
Finally, due to improvement in the use of glucose by adipose
tissue, these drugs are lipogenic and weight gain is another
undesirable effect that must be considered.
Alpha-glycosidase inhibitors
The inhibitors of the alpha-glycosidases (acarbose
-Glucobay®, Glumida®- and
miglitol -Diastabol®,
Plumarol®-) competitively and reversibly inhibit
intestinal alpha-glycosidases, thus delaying and partly impeding
carbohydrate absorption. Consequently, their main effect is to
reduce postprandial hyperglycemia. Their effectiveness in reducing
HbA1c is less than that obtained with the drugs
commented above, and would be especially indicated in patients with
an acceptable baseline glycemia and postprandial
hyperglycemia.57 In order to minimize side effects, it
is recommended that treatment begin with 25-50 mg (one-half or one
tablet), which should be swallowed without chewing before meals.
The dose can be increased weekly until it reaches 300 mg/day, which
is the usual dose, and its maximum effect is observed at 3
months.84 The most important side effects, which are
responsible for the largest number of withdrawals, are flatulence
(30%) and diarrhea. They are contraindicated in patients with
chronic intestinal disease, pregnancy, breastfeeding, liver
cirrhosis, and kidney failure.
Combined treatment with oral antidiabetics
In up to 30% of cases, an insufficient response to any of the
above mentioned drugs takes place within 3 months of initiating
treatment; this is known as primary failure.7,57 It is
more frequent in diabetics with high baseline hyperglycemia and the
main causes are the lack of compliance with diet and/or a scant
insulin reserve due to a severe disturbance in insulin secretion
capacity by pancreatic beta cells. On other occasions, patients
stop responding after enjoying good metabolic control for at least
6 months; this is called secondary therapeutic failure. Every year
5% to 10% of patients cease to respond favorably. This reflects the
progressive deterioration of the capacity for insulin secretion by
the beta cell and forms part of the natural evolution of type 2
diabetes mellitus. It is important to distinguish between true
secondary failure and a transitory loss in the effectiveness of
oral drugs due to an intercurrent disease. In the latter case, good
control can return with oral therapy after temporary insulin
treatment.
In the case of primary or secondary failure, the option of
combined therapy with other oral antidiabetics or insulin exists.
The basis for this treatment is to take advantage of the synergic
or complementary effects of their mechanisms of action. Asides from
improving glycemic control, combined treatment makes it possible to
reduce the doses of drugs used in monotherapy, which can help to
minimize side effects. The choice of the second oral drug must be
made after analyzing the main causes that condition poor metabolic
control after considering the patient´s individual
characteristics. The pathophysiological bases for combined therapy
and the clinical effectiveness found in the most representative
studies are summarized in Tables 5 and
6.6,7,31,53,55,57,72-74,85-97


TREATMENT OF TYPE 1 DIABETES MELLITUS
Insulin administration is the fundamental treatment of type 1
diabetes mellitus. Although insulin has been available for more
than 75 years, in the last two decades there have been important
changes due to the generalized use of reflectometers by patients to
self-monitor capillary blood glucose. Control of blood glucose
levels by patients includes adjustment by the patient of insulin
doses based on algorithms prepared by the endocrinologist and
allows patients more flexibility in their habits and, without a
doubt, an improved quality of life. As mentioned, this article
focuses on the therapeutic management of patients with type 2
diabetes mellitus, which is why we will not discuss specific
aspects of the treatment of type 1 diabetics in detail. Therefore,
the information given below on insulin treatment is applicable to
patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
Types of insulin and administration pathways
At present, in Spain the only insulins used are biosynthetic
human insulins that are obtained by genetic recombination
techniques from cultures of bacteria (Escherichia coli) or
yeasts. Insulin is administered subcutaneously using «pen
syringes» with refillable cartridges, disposable pens, or
infusion pumps. Nevertheless, in situations of severe metabolic
decompensation insulin can be administered intramuscularly or
intravenously. According to their action profile, the various types
of insulin can be classified into the three large groups specified
in Table 7.

In recent years fast-acting insulin analogs have begun to be
used (lispro insulin), which are obtained by changing an amino acid
in the insulin sequence.98 These analogs have the same
hypoglycemic potency as regular insulin, but they are absorbed
faster and have an earlier (1 h), higher, and briefer (4 h)
insulinemia peak than is observed with regular insulin, which is
why they can be administered immediately before eating. Due to the
brief duration of their action, they produce less delayed
hypoglycemia but, for the same reason, it will often be necessary
to give an additional dose of intermediate action insulin. There
are also premixed insulins with established percentages of
fast-acting and intermediate action insulin on the market. They are
especially useful and convenient for type 2 diabetic patients but,
in general, do not adapt to the changing insulin needs of patients
with type 1 diabetes. In addition to the insulins that are
currently available, in the near future new subcutaneous analogs
will be marketed, including both fast-acting (aspart,
Novorapid®, glulisin) and slow acting (glargin,
Lantus®) products, as well as inhaled fast-acting
insulin.
Guidelines for insulin therapy
Generally speaking, insulin therapy can be divided into
conventional and intensive therapy. Conventional insulin therapy
includes the use of one or two injections of insulin (sometimes
more), sporadic blood sugar self-testing and occasional
modifications by patients in the insulin regimen depending on blood
glucose measurements, variations in the diet, or physical
activity.
Intensive insulin therapy includes diet and an individualized
physical exercise program, multiple doses of insulin (3-4
injections/day), frequent blood sugar readings (4-7 self-tests/day)
and, especially, changes in the insulin dose in relation to
variations in blood glucose, diet, and physical activity. This
intensive treatment requires a highly motivated patient, good
diabetological training, and the possibility of frequent contacts
with the healthcare team. This type of treatment is indicated
especially in patients with type 1 diabetes without advanced
diabetic complications and during pregnancy. Some examples of
multiple insulin injection regimens are outlined in Table 8. Strict
blood glucose control is associated with more frequent hypoglycemia
but, despite this and the greater effort dedicated to metabolic
control, the quality of life of the patients seems to be as good or
better in patients with intensive treatment than in patients
undergoing conventional treatment.

The mean dose of insulin used varies widely (0.2-1 U/kg/day)
since it depends on endogenous insulin secretion (which is
practically null in patients with type 1 diabetes and variable in
type 2 patients) and the presence of insulin resistance. It is
recommended that treatment begin with low doses (0.3-0.5 U/kg/day)
administered in one or two injections/day of intermediate action
insulin. The total dose is increased and/or the type of insulin is
modified in accordance with the glycemic profile. In type 1
diabetic patients, a regimen of 3-4 insulin injections/day
combining fast and intermediate action insulin is recommended from
the beginning. In hospitalized patients who do not know that they
are diabetics or in known diabetics with poor glycemic control,
often motivated by circumstances that increase their insulin demand
(e.g., AMI, surgery, infections, corticoid treatment, emotional
stress, etc.), a good therapeutic approach is to administer
subcutaneous insulin regularly in relation to blood glucose
readings obtained every 6 h, together with a meal containing 50 g
of carbohydrates. Depending on the amount of insulin required every
6 h, the units/day that the patient requires can be estimated and
the total dose can be administered in a single dose or divided it
into several insulin injections (intermediate action or
intermediate associated with fast action).
TREATMENT IN SPECIAL SITUATIONS
Treatment in acute myocardial infarction or unstable
angina
As a result of metabolic response to stress and the elevation in
counter-regulatory hormones (e.g., cortisol, catecholamines) that
takes place immediately after an AMI, hyperglycemic decompensation
often occurs in a known diabetic patient, or diabetes may even be
diagnosed for the first time. The stress-induced hyperglycemia that
accompanies AMI is associated with an increment in intrahospital
mortality in both diabetics and nondiabetics.99 The
therapeutic approach should aim at achieving glycemia values of
100-150 mg/dL (5.5-8.3 mmol/L). Hypoglycemia must be avoided
because of the important cardiovascular risks in the period
immediately after AMI. The catecholamine discharges caused by
insulin-induced hypoglycemia have an arrhythmogenic potential that
can be fatal during the phase of increased myocardial irritability
that accompanies infarction.
In a prospective study (DIGAMI Study Group) it has been
demonstrated that the energy control of glycemia achieved by
infusing glucose, insulin and ClK (GIK) in the period immediately
after AMI significantly improves long-term
survival.100,101 Similar results have been communicated
in nondiabetic patients,102 so this beneficial effect of
GIK perfusion cannot be attributed to an improvement in glycemic
control. The pathophysiological mechanisms by which GIK infusion
improves post-AMI survival are not exactly known. Nevertheless, it
should be noted that free fatty acids, the substrate of choice for
the healthy myocardium, are toxic for the ischemic myocardium. Free
fatty acids can injure the membrane of cardiac cells and cause a
calcium overload and arrhythmias.103 In addition, in
studies of experimental animals it has been demonstrated that free
fatty acids increase oxygen demand by the ischemic myocardium and
reduce myocardial contractility.104 Insulin
administration reduces circulating free fatty acid levels and
facilitates myocardial glucose uptake. In addition, it reduces
protein degradation of the myocardium and coagulability by reducing
thromboxane A2 production and PAI-I activity.105,106
Evidently, all of this would be beneficial for the myocardium and
could explain why patients treated with an intravenous infusion of
GIK have a better evolution, but studies confirming the mechanisms
involved in this cardioprotective effect are lacking.
Treatment during surgery
The treatment to be applied during the perioperative period will
depend on the type of diabetes, degree of previous glycemic
control, treatment that the patient is receiving, and type of
surgery.107 Patients with previous insulin treatment
will always be given glucose and fast-acting insulin. Nevertheless,
in patients not treated with insulin it is not usually necessary to
administer insulin for minor surgery or noninvasive diagnostic
processes, although it may be required for major surgery. In major
surgery, when insulin treatment is needed, the most advisable
approach is continuous intravenous insulin administration, which
allows more exact and faster glycemia adjustments. Nevertheless,
this requires hourly capillary blood glucose determinations to
regulate the rate of infusion of glucose and insulin. Another
alternative that could be indicated in patients with acceptable
metabolic control before surgery, especially when strict monitoring
cannot be guaranteed, is to administer subcutaneous insulin every
4-6 h in combination with the infusion of glucose solution. In any
case, it should be remembered that the aim of treatment is not to
achieve normoglycemia, and target blood glucose levels of 125 to
200 mg/dL are recommended in the perioperative period. Examples of
protocols for major and minor surgery are shown in Tables 9 and
10.


Recently, it has been demonstrated that intensive treatment with
insulin (GIK infusion to maintain a blood glucose level of 80-110
mg/dL) significantly reduces the morbidity and mortality of
critically ill surgical patients.108 Nevertheless, the
mechanisms implicated in this beneficial effect of GIK treatment,
which is unrelated to the existence of a previous history of
diabetes, still have to be clarified.
Section sponsored by Laboratorio Dr. Esteve.
Correspondence: Dr. Rafael Simó.
Sección de Endocrinología. Hospital General Vall
d'Hebron.
P.o Vall d'Hebron, 119-129. 08035 Barcelona.
España.
E-mail:
rsimo@hg.vhebron.es
References
1. Nathan DM, Meigs J, Singer DE. The epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus: how sweet it is... or is it? Lancet 1997;350(Suppl 1):4-9. 2. Laakso M, Lehto S. Epidemiology of risk factors for cardiovascular disease in diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. Atherosclerosis 1998;137(Suppl):65-73. 3. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes and development and progression of long term complications. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977-86.[Medline] 4. United Kingdom Prospective Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional teatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352: 837-53.[Medline] 5. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus (Position statment). Diabetes Care 2000;23(Suppl 1):32-42. 6. European Diabetes Policy Group 1998-1999. A desktop guide to type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Med 1999;16:716-30.[Medline] 7. Goday Arnó A, Franch Nadal J, Mata Cases M. Criterios y pautas de terapia combinada en la diabetes tipo II. Documento de consenso. Av Diabetol 2001;17:17-40. 8. Haffner SM, Lehto S, Ronnemaa T, Pyorala K, Laakso M. Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1998;339:229-34.[Medline] 9. American Diabetes Association. Nutrition recommendations and principles for people with diabetes mellitus (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 2000;23(Suppl 1):43-6. 10. Pan XR, Li GW, Hu YH, Wang JX, Yang WY, An ZX, et al. Effects of diet and exercise in preventing NIDDM in people with impaired glucose tolerance. The Da Qing IGT and Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care 1997;20:537-44.[Medline] 11. Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hamalainen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1343-50.[Medline] 12. Hu FB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz G, Liu S, Solomon CG, et al. Diet, lifestyle, and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. N Engl J Med 2001;345:790-7.[Medline] 13. Manson JE, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Krolewski AS, et al. Physical activity and incidence of NIDDM in women. Lancet 1991;338:774-8.[Medline] 14. Helmrich SP, Ragland DR, Leung RW, Paffenberger RS. Physical activity and reduced occurrence of NIDDM. N Engl J Med 1991;324:147-52. 15. Zinman B, Ruderman N, Campaigne BN, Devlin JT, Schneider SH. Diabetes mellitus and exercise (technical review). Diabetes Care 2000;23(Suppl 1):50-4. 16. University Group Diabetes Program. A study of the effects of hypoglycemic agents on vascular complications in patients with adult-onset diabetes mellitus: II. Mortality results. Diabetes 1970;19(Suppl 2):785-830. 17. Seltzer H. A summary of criticisms of the findings and conclusions of the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP). Diabetes 1972;21:976-9.[Medline] 18. Draeger KE, Wernicke-Panten K, Lomp H-J, Schüler E, Robkamp R. Long term treatment of type 2 diabetic patients with the new oral antidiabetic agent glimepiride (Amaryl): a double-blind comparison with glibenclamide. Horm Metab Res 1996; 28:419-25.[Medline] 19. Malaisse WJ, Lebrun P. Mechanisms of sulfonylurea-induced insulin release. Diabetes Care 1990;13(Suppl 3):9-17. 20. Aguilar-Bryan L, Nichols CG, Wechles SW, Clement JL IV, Boyd AE III, González G, et al. Cloning of the B cell high-affinity sulfonylurea receptor: a regulator of insulin secretion. Science 1995;268:423-6.[Medline] 21. Lebowitz G, Cerasi E. Sulphonilurea treatment of NIDDM patients with cardiovascular disease: a mixed blessing? Diabetologia 1996;39:503-14.[Medline] 22. Bijlstra PJ, Russel FGM, Thien T, Lutterman JA, Smits P. Effects of tolbutamide on vascular ATP-sensitive potasium channels in humans. Horm Metab Res 1996;28:512-5.[Medline] 23. Beck-Nielsen H. Treatment of NIDDM patients with peroral antidiabetic drugs-sulfonylureas, biguanides and new pharmacological approaches. En: Mogensen CE, Standl E, editors. Pharmacology of diabetes: present and practice and future prespectives. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1991;p. 75-92. 24. Lebovitz HE, Melander A. Sulfonylureas: basic aspects and clinical uses. En: Alberti KGMM, De Fronzo RA, Keen H, Zimmet P, editors. International textbook of diabetes mellitus. New York: J. Wiley, 1992; p. 745-72. 25. Groop LC. Drug tratment of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. En: Pickup J, Williams G, editors. Textbook of diabetes. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1998;38: p. 1-18. 26. Marks V, Teale JD. Drug-induced hypoglucemia. Endocr Met Clin N Am 1999;28:555-77. 27. Malaisse WJ. Stimulation of insulin release by non-sulphonylurea hypoglycaemic agents: the meglitinide family. Horm Metab Res 1995;27:263-6.[Medline] 28. Walter YH, Brookman L, Ma P, Gerich JE, McLeod JF. Reduced risk of delayed hypoglycemia with nateglinida and repaglinide in healthy subjects. Diabetes 1999;48(Suppl 1):128. 29. Lebovitz H. Insulin secretagoges: old and new. Diabetes Reviews 1999;7:139-53. 30. Damsbo P, Marbury TC, Clauson P, Windfeld K. A double-blind randomized comparison of meal-related glycemic control by repaglinide and glyburide in well-controlled type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999;22:789-94.[Medline] 31. Moses R, Slobodniuk R, Boyages S, Colagiuri S, Kidson W, Carter J, et al. Effect of repaglinide addition to metformin monotherapy on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999;22:119-24.[Medline] 32. Massi-Benedetti M, Damsbo P. Pharmacology and clinical experience with repaglinide. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2000;9: 885-98.[Medline] 33. Schumacher S, Abasi I, Weise D, Hatorp V, Sattler K, Sieber J, et al. Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of repaglinide in patients with type 2 diabetes and renal impairment. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001;57:147-52.[Medline] 34. Keilson L, Mather S, Walter YH, Subramanian S, McLeod J. Synergistic effects of nateglinide and meal administration on insulin secretion in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000;85:1081-6.[Medline] 35. Hanefeld M, Bouter KP, Dickinson S, Guitard C. Rapid and short-acting mealtime insulin secretion with nateglinide controls both prandial and mean glycemia. Diabetes Care 2000;23:202-6.[Medline] 36. Bailey CJ, Day C. Traditional plants medicines as treatments for diabetes. Diabetes Care 1989;12:553-64.[Medline] 37. Watanabe K. Studies in the metabolic changes induced by administration of guanidine bases. Influence of injected guanidine hydrochloride upon sugar content. J Biol Chem 1918;33:253-65. 38. Schafer G. Biguanides. A review of history, pharmacodynamics and therapy. Diabetes Metab 1983;9:148-63. 39. Fulop M, Hoberban H. Phenformin-associated lactic acidosis. Diabetes 1976;25:292-6.[Medline] 40. Misbin R. Phenformin-associated lactic acidosis: pathogenesis and treatment. Ann Intern Med 1977;87:591-5.[Medline] 41. Luft D, Schulling R, Eggstein M. Lactic acidosis in biguanide-treated diabetics: a review of 330 cases. Diabetología 1978;14: 75-87. 42. Cusi K, De Fronzo RA. Metformin: a review of its metabolic effects. Diabetes Rev 1998;6:89-131. 43. Misbin R, Green L, Stadel B, Gueriguian J, Gubi A, Flemming G. Lactic acidosis in patients with diabetes treated with metformin. N Engl J Med 1998;338:265-6.[Medline] 44. Campbell IW. Metformin and glibenclamide: comparative risks. BMJ 1984;289:289.[Medline] 45. Campbell I, Howlett H. Worldwide experience of metformine as an effective glucose-lowering agent: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Rev 1995;11:S57-S62.[Medline] 46. Cusi K, Consoli A, De Fronzo R. Metabolic effects of metformin on glucose and lactate metabolism in NIDDM. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996;81:4059-67.[Medline] 47. Inzucchi S, Maggs D, Spollet G, Page S, Rife F, Walton V, et al. Efficacy and metabolic effects of metformin and troglitazone in type II diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1998;338:867-72.[Medline] 48. De Fronzo R, Goodman AM. The multicenter Metformin Study Group: efficacy of metformin in NIDDM patients poorly controlled on diet alone or diet plus sulfonylurea. N Engl J Med 1995;333:541-9.[Medline] 49. Johansen K. Efficacy of metformin in the treatment of NIDDM. Meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 1999;22:33-7.[Medline] 50. Garber A, Duncan T, Goodman A, Mills D, Rohlf J. Efficacy of metformin in type II diabetes: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-response trial. Am J Med 1997;102:491-7. 51. Clark CM Jr. Conclusion. American Diabetes Association: Therapeutic Approaches to type 2 Diabetes. Proceedings from a Conference. Diabetes Care 1999;22(Suppl 3):79. 52. Scheen AJ, Lefèbvre PJ. Oral antidiabetic agents: a guide to selection. Drugs 1998;55:225-36.[Medline] 53. United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group: UKPDS 28: a randomized trial of efficacy of early addition or metformin in sulfonylurea-treated type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998;21:87-92. 54. United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKDPS 34). Lancet 1998;363:854-65. 55. Avilés-Santa OL, Sinding J, Raskin P. Effects of metformin in patients with poorly controlled, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus. A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:182-8.[Medline] 56. Horton ES, Clinkingbeard C, Gatlin M, Foley J, Mallows S, Shen S. Nateglinide alone and in combination with metformin improves glycemic control by reducing mealtime glucose levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000;23: 1660-5.[Medline] 57. De Fronzo RA. Pharmacologic therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:281-303.[Medline] 58. Lebovitz HE. Thiazolidinediones. En: Lebovitz HE, editor. Theraphy for diabetes mellitus and related disorders. 3rd ed. Alexandria: American Diabetes Association. Clinical Education Series, 1998; p. 181-5. 59. Plosker GL, Faulds D. Troglitazone. A review of its use in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Drugs 1999;57:408-38. 60. Vamecq J, Latruffe N. Medical significance of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors. Lancet 1999;354:141-8.[Medline] 61. Spiegelman BM. PPAR gamma: adipogenic regulator and thiazolidinedione receptor. Diabetes 1998;47:507-14.[Medline] 62. Souza SC, Yamamoto MT, Franciosa MD, Lien P, Greenberg AS. BRL 49653 blocks the lipolytic actions of tumor necrosis factor-alpha: a potential new insulin-sensitizing mechanism for thiazolidinediones. Diabetes 1998;47:691-5.[Medline] 63. Balfour JB, Plosker GL. Rosiglitazone. Drugs 1999;57:921-32.[Medline] 64. Maggs D, Buchanan TA, Burant C, Cline G, Gumbiner B, Hsueh WA, et al. Metabolic effects of troglitazone monotherapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 1998;128: 176-85.[Medline] 65. Yu J, Krusynska YT, Mulford MI, Olefsky JM. A comparison of troglitazone and metformin on insulin requirements in euglycemic intensively insuline-trated type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes 1999;48:2411-21. 66. Patel J, Miller E, Parwardhan R. Rosiglitazone improves glycaemic control when used as a monotheraphy in type 2 diabetic patients [resumen]. Diabetic Med 1998;15(Suppl 2):37-8. 67. Saltiel AR, Olefsky JM. Thiazolidindiones in the treatment of insulin resistance and type II diabetes. Diabetes 1996;45: 1661-9.[Medline] 68. Chapelsky MC, Thompson K, Miller A. Effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone (RSG). Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999;65:185. 69. DiCicco R, Freed M, Allen A. A study of the effect of age on the pharmacokinetics of BRL 49653 C in healthy volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol 1995;35:926. 70. Freed MI, Allen A, Jorkasky DK, DiCicco RA. Systemic exposure to rosiglitazone is unaltered by food. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999;55:53-6.[Medline] 71. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products European Publish Assessment Report. CPMP 2000; p. 1043. 72. Fonseca V, Rosenstock J, Patwardhan R, Salzman A. Effect of metformin and rosiglitazone combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2000;283:1695-702.[Medline] 73. Iwamoto Y, Kosaka K, Kuyuza T, Akanuma, Y, Shigeta Y, Kaneko T. Effect of combination therapy of troglitazone and sulphonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes who where poorly controlled by sulphonylurea therapy alone. Diabetic Med 1996; 13:365-70.[Medline] 74. Wolffenbuttel BHR, Gomis R, Squatrito S, Jones NP, Patwardhan RN. Addition of low-dose rosiglitazone to sulphonylurea theraphy improves glycaemic in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabet Med 2000;17:40-7.[Medline] 75. Schwartz J, Raskin PH, Fonseca J, Graveline MJ. Effect of troglitazone in insulintreated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1998;38:861-6. 76. Pineda Torra I, Gervois P, Staels B. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha in metabolic disease, inflammation, atherosclerosis and aging. Curr Opin Lipidol 1999;10:151-9.[Medline] 77. Hsueh W, Jackson S, Law R. Control of vascular cell proliferation and migration by PPAR-γ. Diabetes Care 2001;24: 392-7.[Medline] 78. Vella A, De Groen PC, Dinneen SF. Fatal hepatotoxicity associated with troglitazone. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:1080. 79. Forman LM, Simmons DA, Diamond RH. Hepatic failure in a patient taking rosiglitazone. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:118-21.[Medline] 80. Al-Salman J, Arjomand H, Kemp DG, Mittal M. Hepatocellular injury in a patient receiving rosiglitazone. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:118-20.[Medline] 81. St John Sutton M, Dole JF, Rappaport EB. Rosiglitazone does not adversely affect cardiac structure or function in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 1999;48(Suppl 1):102. 82. Walker AB, Naderali EK, Chattington PD. Differential vasoactive effects of the insulin sensitizers rosiglitazone (BRL 49653) and troglitazone on human small arteries in vitro. Diabetes 1998;47:810-4.[Medline] 83. Beebe KL, Patel J. Rosiglitazone is effective and well tolerated in patients > 65 years with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 1999;48(Suppl 1):111. 84. Scheen AJ. Clinical efficacy of acarbose in diabetes mellitus: a critical review of controlled trials. Diabetes Metab 1998;24:311-20.[Medline] 85. Hermann LS, Schersten B, Bitzen PO, Kjellström T, Lindgärde F, Melander A. Therapeutic comparison of metformin and sulfonylurea, alone and in various combinations. Diabetes Care 1994;17:1100-9.[Medline] 86. Horton ES, Whitehouse F, Ghazzi MN, Vennable TC, Whitcomb RW. The Troglitazone Study Group. Troglitazone in combination with sulfonylurea restores glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998;21:1462-9.[Medline] 87. Peters AL, Davidson MB. Insulin plus sulfonylurea agent for treating type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med 1991;115:45-53.[Medline] 88. Johnson JL, Wolf SL, Kabadi UM. Efficacy of insulin and sulphonylurea combination therapy in type 2 diabetes. A meta-analysis of the randomized placebo-controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:259-64.[Medline] 89. Yki-Jarvinen H, Kauppila M, Kjansuu E, Lathi J, Marjanen T, Niskanen L, et al. Comparison of insulin regimens in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1426-33.[Medline] 90. Riddle MC, Schneider J. Beginning insulin treatment of obese patients with evening 70/30 insulin plus glymepiride versus insulin alone. Glymepiride Combination Group. Diabetes Care 1998;21:1052-7.[Medline] 91. Giugliano D, Quatraro A, Consoli G, Minel A, Ceriello A, De Rosa N, et al. Metformin for obese, insulin-treated diabetic patients: improvement in glycaemic control and reduction of metabolics risk factors. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1993;44: 107-12.[Medline] 92. Yki-Jarviven H, Ryysy L, Nikkila K, Tolukas T, Vanamo R, Heikkila M. Comparison of bedtime insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:389-96.[Medline] 93. Makimattila S, Nikkila K, Yki-Jarvinen H. Causes of weight gain during insulin therapy with and without metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 1999;42:406-12.[Medline] 94. Relimpio F, Pumar A, Losada F, Mangas MA, Acosta D, Astorga R. Adding metformin versus insulin dose increase in insulin-treated but poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus. An open-label randomized trial. Diabetic Med 1998;15:997-1002.[Medline] 95. Rosenstock J, Brown A, Fischer J, Jain A, Littlejohn T, Nadeau D, et al. Efficacy and safety of acarbose in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998;21:2050-5.[Medline] 96. Chiasson JL, Naditch L. The synergistic effect of miglitol plus metformin combination therapy in the treatment of type 2. Diabetes Care 2001;24:989-94.[Medline] 97. Yki-Jarvinen H. Combination therapies with insulin in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001;24:758-67.[Medline] 98. Holleman F, Hoekstra JBL. Insulin lispro. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:176-83.[Medline] 99. Capes SE, Hunt D, Malberg K, Gerstein HC. Stress hyperglycaemia and increased risk of death after myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes: a systematic overview. Lancet 2000;355:773-8.[Medline] 100. Malmberg K, Ryden L, Efendic S, Herlitz J, Nicol P, Waldenstrom A, et al. A randomized trial of insulin-glucose infusion followed by subcutaneous insulin treatment in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction: effects on one year mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;26:57-65.[Medline] 101. Malmberg K for the DIGAMI (Diabetes Mellitus, Insulin Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction) Study Group. Prospective randomized study of intensive insulin treatment on long term survival after acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus. BMJ 1997;31 4:1512-5. 102. Díaz R, Paolasso E, Piegas LS, Tajer CD, Moreno MG, Corvalán R, et al. Metabolic modulation of acute myocardial infarction. The ECLA Glucose-Insulin-Potassium Pilot Trial. Circulation 1998;98:2227-34.[Medline] 103. Oliver MF, Opie LH. Effects of glucose and fatty acids in myocardial ischaemia and arrhythmias. Lancet 1994;343: 155-8.[Medline] 104. Mjos OD. Effect of free fatty acids on myocardial function and oxygen consumption in intact dogs. J Clin Invest 1971;50:1386-9.[Medline] 105. Davi G, Catalano I, Averna M, Notarbartolo A, Strano A, Ciabattoni G, et al. Thromboxane biosynthesis and platelet function in type II diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1990;322:1769-74.[Medline] 106. Jain SK, Nagi DK, Slavin BM, Lumb PJ, Yudkin JS. Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetic patients suppress plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI-1) activity and proinsulin-like molecules independently of glycaemic control. Diabet Med 1993;10:27-32.[Medline] 107. Avilés-Santa L, Raskin P. Cirugía y anestesia. En: Lebovitz H, editor. Tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus y sus complicaciones. American Diabetes Association 1998; p. 179-86. 108. Van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, Verwaest C, Bruyninckx F, Schetz M, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1359-67.[Medline]
|
|
|
| |
(c) Copyright 1997 -
Spanish Society of Cardiology
We recommend viewing this site in:
MS Explorer v6.0, Firefox v2.0 or higher. |
|