OBJECTIVE

Metformin is the first-line oral medication recommended for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We reviewed the literature to quantify the effect of metformin treatment on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in all types of diabetes and examine the impact of differing doses on glycemic control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1950 to June 2010 for trials of at least 12 weeks’ duration in which diabetic patients were treated with either metformin monotherapy or as an add-on therapy. Data on change in HbA1c were pooled in a meta-analysis. Data from dose-comparison trials were separately pooled.

RESULTS

A total of 35 trials were identified for the main analysis and 7 for the dose-comparison analysis. Metformin monotherapy lowered HbA1c by 1.12% (95% CI 0.92–1.32; I2 = 80%) versus placebo, metformin added to oral therapy lowered HbA1c by 0.95% (0.77–1.13; I2 = 77%) versus placebo added to oral therapy, and metformin added to insulin therapy lowered HbA1c by 0.60% (0.30–0.91; I2 = 79.8%) versus insulin only. There was a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c using higher doses of metformin compared with lower doses of metformin with no significant increase in side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence supports the effectiveness of metformin therapy in a clinically important lowering of HbA1c used as monotherapy and in combination with other therapeutic agents. There is potential for using higher doses of metformin to maximize glycemic control in diabetic patients without increasing gastrointestinal effects.

OBJECTIVE

To explore patients' and health professionals' experiences of initiating insulin as part of the Treating To Target in Type 2 Diabetes (4-T) randomized controlled trial.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Interviews were conducted with 45 trial participants and 21 health professionals and thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients were generally psychologically insulin receptive when approached to participate in the 4-T trial. Their receptiveness arose largely from their personal experiences observing intensifying prior treatments and deteriorating blood glucose control over time, which led them to engage with and accept the idea that their diabetes was progressive. Health professionals also fostered receptiveness by drawing on their clinical experience to manage patients' anxieties about initiating insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous studies may have overemphasized the problem of psychological insulin resistance and overlooked factors and treatment experiences that may promote insulin receptiveness among type 2 patients.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the optimal interval for rechecking A1C levels below the diagnostic threshold of 6.5% for healthy adults.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Participants were 16,313 apparently healthy Japanese adults not taking glucose-lowering medications at baseline. Annual A1C measures from 2005 to 2008 at the Center for Preventive Medicine, a community teaching hospital in Japan, estimated cumulative incidence of diabetes.

RESULTS

Mean age (±SD) of participants was 49.7 ± 12.3 years, and 53% were male. Mean A1C at baseline was 5.4 ± 0.5%. At 3 years, for those with A1C at baseline of <5.0%, 5.0–5.4%, 5.5–5.9%, and 6.0–6.4%, cumulative incidence (95% CI) was 0.05% (0.001–0.3), 0.05% (0.01–0.11), 1.2% (0.9–1.6), and 20% (18–23), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In those with an A1C <6.0%, rescreening at intervals shorter than 3 years identifies few individuals (∼≤1%) with an A1C ≥6.5%.

OBJECTIVE

Despite the clinical importance of an accurate diagnosis in individuals with monogenic forms of diabetes, restricted access to genetic testing leaves many patients with undiagnosed diabetes. Recently, common variation near the HNF1 homeobox A (HNF1A) gene was shown to influence C-reactive protein levels in healthy adults. We hypothesized that serum levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) could represent a clinically useful biomarker for the identification of HNF1A mutations causing maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Serum hs-CRP was measured in subjects with HNF1A-MODY (n = 31), autoimmune diabetes (n = 316), type 2 diabetes (n = 240), and glucokinase (GCK) MODY (n = 24) and in nondiabetic individuals (n = 198). The discriminative accuracy of hs-CRP was evaluated through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and performance was compared with standard diagnostic criteria. Our primary analyses excluded ∼11% of subjects in whom the single available hs-CRP measurement was >10 mg/l.

RESULTS

Geometric mean (SD range) hs-CRP levels were significantly lower (P ≤ 0.009) for HNF1A-MODY individuals, 0.20 (0.03–1.14) mg/l, than for any other group: autoimmune diabetes 0.58 (0.10–2.75) mg/l, type 2 diabetes 1.33 (0.28–6.14) mg/l, GCK-MODY 1.01 (0.19–5.33) mg/l, and nondiabetic 0.48 (0.10–2.42) mg/l. The ROC-derived C-statistic for discriminating HNF1A-MODY and type 2 diabetes was 0.8. Measurement of hs-CRP, either alone or in combination with current diagnostic criteria, was superior to current diagnostic criteria alone. Sensitivity and specificity for the combined criteria approached 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

Serum hs-CRP levels are markedly lower in HNF1A-MODY than in other forms of diabetes. hs-CRP has potential as a widely available, cost-effective screening test to support more precise targeting of MODY diagnostic testing.

Background

Trial research has predominantly focused on patient and staff understandings of trial concepts and/or motivations for taking part, rather than why treatment recommendations may or may not be followed during trial delivery. This study sought to understand why there was limited attainment of the glycaemic target (HbA1c ≤6.5%) among patients who participated in the Treating to Target in Type 2 Diabetes Trial (4-T). The objective was to inform interpretation of trial outcomes and provide recommendations for future trial delivery.

Methods

In-depth interviews were conducted with 45 patients and 21 health professionals recruited from 11 of 58 trial centres in the UK. Patients were broadly representative of those in the main trial in terms of treatment allocation, demographics and glycaemic control. Both physicians and research nurses were interviewed.

Results

Most patients were committed to taking insulin as recommended by 4-T staff. To avoid hypoglycaemia, patients occasionally altered or skipped insulin doses, normally in consultation with staff. Patients were usually unaware of the trial's glycaemic target. Positive staff feedback could lead patients to believe they had been 'successful' trial participants even when their HbA1c exceeded 6.5%. While some staff felt that the 4-T automated insulin dose adjustment algorithm had increased their confidence to prescribe larger insulin doses than in routine clinical practice, all described situations where they had not followed its recommendations. Staff regarded the application of a 'one size fits all' glycaemic target during the trial as contradicting routine clinical practice where they would tailor treatments to individuals. Staff also expressed concerns that 'tight' glycaemic control might impose an unacceptably high risk of hypoglycaemia, thus compromising trust and safety, especially amongst older patients. To address these concerns, staff tended to adapt the trial protocol to align it with their clinical practices and experiences.

Conclusions

To understand trial findings, foster attainment of endpoints, and promote protocol fidelity, it may be necessary to look beyond individual patient characteristics and experiences. Specifically, the context of trial delivery, the impact of staff involvement, and the difficulties staff may encounter in balancing competing 'clinical' and 'research' roles and responsibilities may need to be considered and addressed.

OBJECTIVE

Assignment of the correct molecular diagnosis in diabetes is necessary for informed decisions regarding treatment and prognosis. Better clinical markers would facilitate discrimination and prioritization for genetic testing between diabetes subtypes. Serum 1,5 anhydroglucitol (1,5AG) levels were reported to differentiate maturity-onset diabetes of the young due to HNF1A mutations (HNF1A-MODY) from type 2 diabetes, but this requires further validation. We evaluated serum 1,5AG in a range of diabetes subtypes as an adjunct for defining diabetes etiology.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

1,5AG was measured in U.K. subjects with: HNF1A-MODY (n = 23), MODY due to glucokinase mutations (GCK-MODY, n = 23), type 1 diabetes (n = 29), latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, n = 42), and type 2 diabetes (n = 206). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to assess discriminative accuracy of 1,5AG for diabetes etiology.

RESULTS

Mean (SD range) 1,5AG levels were: GCK-MODY 13.06 μg/ml (5.74–29.74), HNF1A-MODY 4.23 μg/ml (2.12–8.44), type 1 diabetes 3.09 μg/ml (1.45–6.57), LADA 3.46 μg/ml (1.42–8.45), and type 2 diabetes 5.43 (2.12–13.23). Levels in GCK-MODY were higher than in other groups (P < 10−4 vs. each group). HNF1A-MODY subjects showed no difference in unadjusted 1,5AG levels from type 2 diabetes, type 1 diabetes, and LADA. Adjusting for A1C revealed a difference between HNF1A-MODY and type 2 diabetes (P = 0.001). The discriminative accuracy of unadjusted 1,5AG levels was 0.79 for GCK-MODY versus type 2 diabetes and 0.86 for GCK-MODY versus HNF1A-MODY but was only 0.60 for HNF1A-MODY versus type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

In our dataset, serum 1,5AG performed well in discriminating GCK-MODY from other diabetes subtypes, particularly HNF1A-MODY. Measurement of 1,5AG levels could inform decisions regarding MODY diagnostic testing.

Background

Although some interventions have been shown to improve adherence to medication for diabetes, results are not consistent. We have developed a theory-based intervention which we will evaluate in a well characterised population to test efficacy and guide future intervention development and trial design.

Methods and Design

The SAMS (Supported Adherence to Medication Study) trial is a primary care based multi-centre randomised controlled trial among 200 patients with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c of 7.5% or above. It is designed to evaluate the efficacy of a two-component motivational intervention based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and volitional action planning to support medication adherence compared with standard care. The intervention is delivered by practice nurses. Nurses were trained using a workshop approach with role play and supervised using assessment of tape-recorded consultations. The trial has a two parallel groups design with an unbalanced three-to-two individual randomisation eight weeks after recruitment with twelve week follow-up. The primary outcome is medication adherence measured using an electronic medication monitor over 12 weeks and expressed as the difference between intervention and control in mean percentage of days on which the correct number of medication doses is taken. Subgroup analyses will explore impact of number of medications taken, age, HbA1c, and self-reported adherence at baseline on outcomes. The study also measures the effect of dispensing medication to trial participants packaged in the electronic medication-monitoring device compared with conventional medication packaging. This will be achieved through one-to-one randomisation at recruitment to these conditions with assessment of the difference between groups in self-report of medication adherence and change in mean HbA1c from baseline to eight weeks. Anonymised demographic data are collected on non-respondents. Central randomisation is carried out independently of trial co-ordination and practices using minimisation to adjust for selected confounders.

Discussion

The SAMS intervention and trial design address weaknesses of previous research by recruitment from a well-characterised population, definition of a feasible theory based intervention to support medication taking and careful measurement to estimate and interpret efficacy. The results will inform practice and the design of a cost-effectiveness trial [ISRCTN30522359].