Key result
Mitiglinide/voglibose significantly reduced the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions compared to glimepiride (47.6 vs 100.6 mg/dL), but did not impact vascular endothelial function.
Why the study?
The study aimed to compare the effects of mitiglinide/voglibose versus glimepiride on glycemic variability and vascular endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Does mitiglinide/voglibose improve vascular endothelial function and glycemic variability compared to glimepiride in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes?
RCT (n=30)
Open-label
crossover
Yes
Does mitiglinide/voglibose improve vascular endothelial function and glycemic variability compared to glimepiride in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes?
In hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes, a short course of mitiglinide/voglibose significantly reduced glycemic variability and hypoglycemia compared to glimepiride, without affecting vascular endothelial function.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mitiglinide/voglibose may aid glycemic variability control in T2D; extends short-term RCT data without clarifying endothelial effects.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of mitiglinide/voglibose with those of glimepiride on glycemic variability and vascular endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, crossover study. Hospitalized patients received either mitiglinide/voglibose (three times daily administration of 10 mg mitiglinide and 0.2 mg voglibose) or glimepiride (once-daily 2 mg) in random order, each for 5 days. The reactive hyperemia index (RHI) and the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) were measured as co-primary endpoints using reactive hyperemia peripheral arterial tonometry and continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS: The analysis included 30 patients (15 in each group). The RHI was 1.670 ± 0.369 during treatment with mitiglinide/voglibose and 1.716 ± 0.492 during treatment with glimepiride, with no significant difference between the two. MAGE was significantly lower in the mitiglinide/voglibose group (47.6 ± 18.5 mg/dL) than in the glimepiride group (100.6 ± 32.2 mg/dL). Although the mean blood glucose levels over the entire 24 h period were comparable between the two groups, the use of mitiglinide/voglibose was associated with a lower standard deviation of mean glucose, coefficient of variation, and mean postprandial glucose excursion compared with glimepiride. The time below range (<70 mg/dL) and the time above range (>180, >200, and 250 mg/dL) were lower in the mitiglinide/voglibose group, while the time in range (70-180 mg/dL) was higher. CONCLUSIONS: In our short-duration randomized crossover study, although not impacting vascular endothelial function, mitiglinide/voglibose demonstrated potential benefits in reducing glycemic variability, postprandial hyperglycemia, and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tanaka et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in type 2 diabetes (n=30). mitiglinide/voglibose vs. glimepiride (2 mg once-daily) was evaluated on reactive hyperemia index (RHI) and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE). Mitiglinide/voglibose significantly reduced the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions compared to glimepiride (47.6 vs 100.6 mg/dL), but did not impact vascular endothelial function.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: