Comparison of fluvastatin + fenofibrate combination therapy and fluvastatin monotherapy in the treatment of combined hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and coronary heart disease: a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes risk is often complicated by a mixed hyperlipoproteinemia not sufficiently controlled by a single antihyperlipidemic drug; however, there are some concerns about the safety of combined statin and fibrate treatments. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of fluvastatin + fenofibrate combination therapy and those of fluvastatin monotherapy in the treatment of combined hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), and coronary heart disease (CHD) (ie, high risk for cardiovascular disease [CVD]). METHODS: This 12-month, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was conducted at the University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy. Patients aged 18 to 80 years with combined hyperlipidemia, type 2 DM, and CHD were randomly assigned to receive combination therapy with extended-release fluvastatin 80 mg + micronized fenofibrate 200 mg or monotherapy with extended-release fluvastatin 80 mg. All treatments were given in tablet form, once daily with the evening meal, for 12 months. Lipid variables (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], total cholesterol [TC], and triglycerides [TG]) at 6 and 12 months were the primary efficacy variables, and glycemic status (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)], fasting plasma glucose, and postprandial plasma glucose levels) at 6 and 12 months was the secondary efficacy variable. Tolerability was assessed using physical examination, including vital-sign assessment, body-weight measurement, electrocardiography, adverse events, and laboratory tests. A pharmacoeconomic analysis of both treatment regimens was also carried out using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: A total of 48 patients (24 men, 24 women; mean [SD] age, 60 [5] years) were enrolled. After 6 months, all primary efficacy variables, except for TG level, showed significant improvements from baseline only in the combination-therapy group (changes: LDL-C, -25%; HDL-C, +12%; and TC, -19%; all, P < 0.05 vs baseline). After 12 months, lipid variables showed significant improvements over baseline in both groups (all, P < 0.05), except for TG in the monotherapy group. Significant changes in LDL-C, HDL-C, and TG were found in the combination-therapy group (-35%, +34%, -32%, respectively) versus the monotherapy group (-25%, +14%, -17%, respectively; all, P < 0.05 between groups). The change from baseline in HbA(1c) level was significant with combination therapy (-12% vs -7%; P < 0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in the incidences of adverse events between the 2 groups. The ICER showed that each 1% decrease in LDL-C level achieved with the fenofibrate + fluvastatin combination added a cost of 14.97 Euros/y (US 12.25 US dollars/y), and each 1% increase in HDL-C level added a cost of 7.48 Euros/y (6.12/y US dollars), over the cost of monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this selected sample of patients with combined hyperlipidemia, type 2 DM, and CHD, the combination of extended-release fluvastatin + micronized fenofibrate was associated with a more improved lipid profile than fluvastatin monotherapy, and was a well-tolerated and cost-effective therapeutic choice to treat these patients at high risk for CVD

Comparison of the effects of telmisartan and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system on blood pressure control, glucose metabolism, and the lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild hypertension: a 12-month, randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) provide effective blood pressure control. Whereas none of the ARBs appear to affect glucose homeostasis, some ARBs have been associated with a decrease in cholesterolemia. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to evaluate blood pressure control glucose homeostasis, and the plasma lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild hypertension during 12 months of treatment with the ARB telmisartan or nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS). METHODS: In this double-blind trial, patients taking oral hypoglycemic agents were randomized to receive telmisartan 40 mg or nifedipine GITS 20 mg once daily for 12 months. At the time of enrollment, patients were given advice on diet (1400-1600 kcal/d) and exercise (stationary bicycle for > or =30 min, 4 d/wk). Assessments of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), fasting plasma glucose concentrations, glycosylated hemoglobin, fasting plasma insulin concentrations, the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, and the lipid profile were performed at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen patients were divided into 2 age- and sex-matched treatment groups (58 men, 58 women; mean [SD] age, 52.5 [5] years). All patients were in good general health at baseline; had achieved adequate glycemic control with diet and oral hypoglycemic agents; were taking antihypercholesterolemic drugs; and had no evidence of macroangiopathy, microalbuminuria, or neuropathy. There were significant reductions from baseline in seated trough SBP after 12 months of treatment with both telmisartan and nifedipine GITS (from 139 [4] to 132 [4] mm Hg and from 140 [4] to 130 [4] mm Hg, respectively; both, P < 0.01). No change in BMI or glucose metabolism was observed with either treatment. After 12 months, there were significant improvements in concentrations of total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with telmisartan (-9% and -11.5%, respectively; both, P < 0.01) compared with nifedipine GITS (-2% and -1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In this selected sample of patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hypertension, both telmisartan and nifedipine GITS produced significant reductions in blood pressure. Telmisartan was associated with a slight but statistically significant improvement in plasma TC and LDL-C concentrations compared with nifedipine GITS

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

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

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin association on non diabetic and diabetic patients with polygenic hypercholesterolemia or combined hyperlipidemia and previously intolerant to standard statin treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: One of the problems associated with reaching the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target during statin treatment is the emergence of laboratory or clinical side effects. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence of statin-associated adverse events in diabetic and non-diabetic patients affected by polygenic hypercholesterolemia or combined hyperlipidemia and the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg/day on the same subjects experiencing the adverse events. METHODS: Consecutively enrollment of patients affected by polygenic hypercholesterolemia or combined hyperlipidemia with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus. Each Centre used any of the available statins on the basis of current clinical judgement and monitored enrolled patients for adverse events during the following 2 years. Those patients with moderate adverse events suspended the current statin therapy for 1 month (washout period), and then were shifted to treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg/day and again monitored for adverse events in the following 6 months. We assessed body mass index, glycated haemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatinine phosphokinase and monitored adverse events such as asthenia and myalgia. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: All 1170 Caucasian patients affected by polygenic hypercholesterolemia obtained a significant reduction in LDL-C during the observation period (P < 0*05), while those with combined hyperlipidemia also showed a reduction in TG plasma level (P < 0*05) and a significant increase in HDL-C (P < 0*05). Patients affected by polygenic hypercholesterolemia experiencing adverse event under statin treatment obtained a significantly lower reduction than those tolerating the treatment (P < 0*001). The prevalence of adverse events under statin treatment was 4*9% in non-diabetic patients with polygenic hypercholesterolemia, 8*6% in those with combined hyperlipidemia, 7*1% in diabetic patients with polygenic hypercholesterolemia and 7*6% in those with combined hyperlipidemia. Six months after the shift to treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg, all patients experienced a significant improvement in LDL-C, TG and HDL-C plasma level. No adverse event was registered during the ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg treatment period. It seems that previous side effects observed with statins did not re-appear with the administration of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg/day

Metalloproteinase-2 and -9 in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Subjects during Acute Coronary Syndromes.

The authors hypothesized that matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, -9, and tissue inhibitor metalloproteinase (TIMP)-1, -2 would be abnormal in acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). MMP-2, -9, and TIMP-1, -2 plasma levels were measured in diabetic patients with ACSs compared to nondiabetic patients with ACSs. A total of 46 diabetic and 78 nondiabetic patients with ACSs were enrolled. The following parameters were measured: body mass index (BMI), glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment index (HOMA index), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (Tg), lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), homocysteine (Hct), fibrinogen (Fg), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and plasma levels of MMP-2, MMP-9, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2. Significant HbA1c, FPG, FPI, HOMA index, DBP, Tg, Hct, and Fg increases were present in the diabetic group with ACSs, whereas hs-CRP was lower in these patients compared to nondiabetic patients with ACSs. MMP-9, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 plasma levels were higher in diabetic patients with ACSs compared to nondiabetic patients with ACSs. MMP-9, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 plasma levels were increased in diabetic patients with ACSs, which may reflect abnormal extracellular matrix metabolism in diabetes during acute event

Pioglitazone Metabolic Effect in Metformin-Intolerant Obese Patients Treated with Sibutramine

Objective: Metformin is the drug of choice to treat obese type 2 diabetes patients because it reduces either insulin-resistance and body weight. We aimed to comparatively test the efficacy and tolerability of pioglitazone and sibutramine in metformin-intolerant obese type 2 diabetic patients treated with sibutramine. Materials and Methods: Five hundred and seventy-six consecutive Caucasian obese type 2 diabetic patients were evaluated during a 12-months period and fifty-two patients were resulted intolerant to metformin at maximum dosage (3,000 mg/day). All intolerant patients to metformin received a treatment with pioglitazone (45 mg/day) and sibutramine (10 mg/day) and they were compared with fifty-three patients treated with metformin (3,000 mg/day) and sibutramine (10 mg/day) for 6 months in a single-blind controlled trial. We assessed body mass index, waist circumference, glycated hemoglobin, Fasting Plasma glucose, postprandial plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin, postprandial plasma insulin, lipid profile, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate at baseline and after 3, and 6 months. Results: No body mass index change was observed at 3, and 6 months in pioglitazone + sibutramine group, while a significant reduction of body mass index and waist circumference was observed after 6 months in metformin + sibutramine group (p<0.05). A significant decrease of glycated hemoglobin, Fasting Plasma glucose, postprandial plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin, postprandial plasma insulin and HOMA index was observed after 3, and 6 months in both groups (p<0.05, and p<0.01, respectively). A significant Tg reduction was present after 6 months (p<0.05) in both groups respect to the baseline values. No systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate change was obtained after 3, and 6 months in both groups. Conclusion: Pioglitazone and sibutramine combination appears to be a short-term equally efficacious and well-tolerated therapeutic alternative respect to metformin-intolerant obese type 2 diabetic patients treated with sibutramine

Matrix metalloproteinase-2 and -9 levels in obese patients

The data reported in literature revealed a novel function for matrix metalloproteinases ( MMPs) as modulators of adipogenesis. However, their expression profile and role in the cellular microenvironment during obesity-mediated adipose tissue development remain poorly defined. The authors hypothesized that MMP-2 and MMP-9 levels might be abnormal in obesity, reflecting alterations in extracellular matrix (ECM) turnover. One hundred and sixty three obese patients and 165 controls were enrolled. The following were measured: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) index, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (Tg), lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), and plasma levels of MMP-2 and MMP-9. A significant increase of BMI and WC (p <.0001) was observed in obese patients. No FPG change was present in obese group, whereas FPI and HOMA index increases (p<.0001) were obtained in obese patients compared to control subjects. No SBP and DBP variations were observed in obese group. Significant TC and LDL- C increases (p<.0001) were present in obese patients, whereas no HDL-C, Tg, and Lp(a) changes were obtained in both groups. MMP-2 and MMP-9 levels were significantly higher in obese group (p<.0001). Plasma levels of MMP-2 and MMP-9 are increased in obese patients which may reflect abnormal ECM metabolism

Rosiglitazone therapy improves insulin resistance parameters in overweight and obese diabetic patients intolerant to metformin

BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared rosiglitazone and metformin effects on adipocytokines. The aim was to observe the possible effects of rosiglitazone and metformin on glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, plasma leptin (pL), adiponectin (ADN), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), and resistin (R) in overweight and obese diabetic patients intolerant to metformin. METHODS: Six hundred and ninety-four consecutive overweight and obese type 2 diabetic patients were evaluated and 56 patients were intolerant to metformin at maximum dosage. We added rosiglitazone to metformin in these intolerant patients (RM) and we compared them with 61 patients treated with metformin (M) in a single-blind placebo-controlled trial. We evaluated body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), pL, ADN, TNF-alpha, and R at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. Furthermore, we calculated insulin resistance index (HOMA-index) using FPG and FPI. RESULTS: Glycated hemoglobin, FPG, FPI, and HOMA-index results were lower than baseline values in RM and M groups. Glycated hemoglobin and HOMA-index values were significantly lower in RM group compared to M group at 6 months. Plasma leptin, ADN, TNF-alpha, and R were significantly improved in RM group compared to M group at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: No BMI change was observed, probably because rosiglitazone was added to metformin, that could mitigate the body increase of rosiglitazone. Rosiglitazone improved glycemic control and insulin resistance-correlated parameters when added to intolerant metformin patients. These data suggest that rosiglitazone may be the drug of choice for the treatment of overweight and obese type 2 diabetic patients

Telmisartan and irbesartan therapy in type 2 diabetic patients treated with rosiglitazone: effects on insulin-resistance, leptin and tumor necrosis factor-alpha.

The aim of our study was to investigate the metabolic effect of telmisartan and irbesartan in subjects treated with rosiglitazone, a well-known insulin-sensitizing drug, in order to clarify the direct metabolic effects of the two former drugs. Patients were enrolled, evaluated, and followed at 3 Italian centers. We evaluated 188 type 2 diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome (94 males and 94 females in total; 49 males and 46 females, aged 56+/-5, treated with telmisartan; and 45 males and 48 females, aged 55+/-4, treated with irbesartan). All had been diabetic for at least 6 months, and glycemic control by the maximum tolerated dietary changes and maximum tolerated dose of oral hypoglycemic agents had been attempted and failed in all cases. All patients took a fixed dose of rosiglitazone, 4 mg/day. We administered telmisartan (40 mg/day) or irbesartan (150 mg/day) in a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical manner. We evaluated body mass index (BMI), glycemic control (HbA1c fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels [FPG, and FPI, respectively], and homeostasis model assessment [HOMA] index), lipid profile (total cholesterol [TC], low density lipoprotein-cholesterol [LDL-C], high density lipoprotein-cholesterol [HDL-C], and triglycerides [TG]), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), and leptin during the 12 months of this treatment. No BMI change was observed after 6 or 12 months in either group. Significant decreases in HbAlc and FPG were observed after 6 months in the telmisartan group, and after 12 months in both groups. The decrease in HbA1c and FPG at 12 months was statistically significant only in the telmisartan group. A significant decrease in FPI was observed at 12 months in both groups, and this decrease was significantly greater in the telmisartan group. Significant decreases in the HOMA index were observed at 6 and 12 months in both groups, and the decrease in the HOMA index after 12 months was significantly greater in the telmisartan group than in the irbesartan group. Significant changes in SBP, DBP, TC, and LDL-C were observed after 6 and 12 months in both groups. Significant decreases in TNF-alpha and leptin levels were observed after 6 months in the telmisartan group, and after 12 months in both groups. In conclusion, in this study of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome, telmisartan seemed to result in a greater improvement in glycemic and lipid control and metabolic parameters related to metabolic syndrome compared to irbesartan. These observed metabolic effects of different angiotensin type 1 receptor blockers could be relevant when choosing a therapy to correct metabolic derangement of patients affected by metabolic syndrome and diabetes

Effects of sitagliptin or metformin added to pioglitazone monotherapy in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of the addition of sitagliptin or metformin to pioglitazone monotherapy in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on body weight, glycemic control, beta-cell function, insulin resistance, and inflammatory state parameters. One hundred fifty-one patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (glycated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)] >7.5%) in therapy with pioglitazone 30 mg/d were enrolled in this study. We randomized patients to take pioglitazone 30 mg plus sitagliptin 100 mg once a day, or pioglitazone 15 mg plus metformin 850 mg twice a day. We evaluated at baseline and after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months these parameters: body weight, body mass index, HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), homeostasis model assessment beta-cell function index, fasting plasma proinsulin (Pr), Pr/FPI ratio, adiponectin, resistin (R), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. A decrease of body weight and body mass index was observed with metformin, but not with sitagliptin, at the end of the study. We observed a comparable significant decrease of HbA(1c), FPG, and PPG and a significant increase of homeostasis model assessment beta-cell function index compared with baseline in both groups without any significant differences between the 2 groups. Fasting plasma insulin, fasting plasma Pr, Pr/FPI ratio, and HOMA-IR values were decreased in both groups even if the values obtained with metformin were significantly lower than the values obtained with sitagliptin. There were no significant variations of ADN, R, or TNF-alpha with sitagliptin, whereas a significant increase of ADN and a significant decrease of R and TNF-alpha values were recorded with metformin. A significant decrease of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein value was obtained in both groups without any significant differences between the 2 groups. There was a significant correlation between HOMA-IR decrease and ADN increase, and between HOMA-IR decrease and R and TNF-alpha decrease in pioglitazone plus metformin group after the treatment. The addition of both sitagliptin or metformin to pioglitazone gave an improvement of HbA(1c), FPG, and PPG; but metformin led also to a decrease of body weight and to a faster and better improvement of insulin resistance and inflammatory state parameters, even if sitagliptin produced a better protection of beta-cell function