OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the efficacy of acute premeal administration of glipizide versus nateglinide in controlling postprandial hyperglycemia in subjects with non-insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 20 subjects (10 female, 10 male) with non-insulin-requiring type2 diabetes were admitted overnight to the General Clinical Research Center on four occasions. In random order, 10 mg glipizide (30 min premeal), 120 mg nateglinide (15 min premeal), 10 mg glipizide plus nateglinide (30 and 15 min premeal, respectively), or placebo pills (30 and 15 min premeal) were administered in a double-blind fashion before a standardized breakfast. Blood was drawn for analysis of glucose, insulin, and C-peptide at -0.05, 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 h relative to the meal. RESULTS: The subjects were aged 56 +/- 2 years and were moderately obese (BMI 31 +/- 1 kg/m(2)), with a mean HbA(1c) of 7.4 +/- 0.4%. The peak postprandial glucose excursion above baseline was higher with placebo (6.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/l) than glipizide (4.3 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, P = 0.002), nateglinide (4.2 +/- 0.4 mmol/l, P = 0.001), or glipizide plus nateglinide (4.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, P = 0.001). The area under the curve for the glucose excursion above baseline was also higher with placebo (14.1 +/- 1.8 mmol/h. l) compared with glipizide (6.9 +/- 2.4 mmol/h. l, P = 0.002), nateglinide (9.7 +/- 2 mmol/h. l, P = 0.004), or glipizide plus nateglinide (5.6 +/- 2.2 mmol/h. l, P < 0.001). Peak and integrated glucose excursions did not differ significantly between glipizide and nateglinide. However, by 4 h postmeal, plasma glucose levels were significantly higher with nateglinide (9 +/- 0.9 mmol/l) compared with the premeal baseline (7.8 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, P = 0.04) and compared with the 4-h postprandial glucose level after administration of glipizide (7.6 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, P = 0.02). Integrated postprandial insulin levels were higher with glipizide (1,556 +/- 349 pmol/h. l) than nateglinide (1,364 +/- 231 pmol/h. l; P = 0.03). Early insulin secretion, as measured by insulin levels at 30 min postmeal, did not differ between glipizide and nateglinide. CONCLUSIONS: Acute premeal administration of nateglinide or glipizide has equal efficacy in controlling postbreakfast hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes when each drug is administered at the optimum time before the meal. Glipizide causes a more pronounced and sustained postmeal insulin secretory response compared with nateglinide. Glipizide facilitates the return to near-fasting glucose levels at 4 h postmeal, but with the possible risk of increased frequency of postmeal hypoglycemia in drug-naive patients. The clinical decision to use glipizide versus nateglinide should be based on factors other than the control of postprandial hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the efficacy of acute premeal administration of glipizide versus nateglinide in controlling postprandial hyperglycemia in subjects with non-insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 20 subjects (10 female, 10 male) with non-insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes were admitted overnight to the General Clinical Research Center on four occasions. In random order, 10 mg glipizide (30 min premeal), 120 mg nateglinide (15 min premeal), 10 mg glipizide plus nateglinide (30 and 15 min premeal, respectively), or placebo pills (30 and 15 min premeal) were administered in a double-blind fashion before a standardized breakfast. Blood was drawn for analysis of glucose, insulin, and C-peptide at -0.05, 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 h relative to the meal. RESULTS: The subjects were aged 56 +/- 2 years and were moderately obese (BMI 31 +/- 1 kg/m(2)), with a mean HbA(1c) of 7.4 +/- 0.4%. The peak postprandial glucose excursion above baseline was higher with placebo (6.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/l) than glipizide (4.3 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, P = 0.002), nateglinide (4.2 +/- 0.4 mmol/l, P = 0.001), or glipizide plus nateglinide (4.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, P = 0.001). The area under the curve for the glucose excursion above baseline was also higher with placebo (14.1 +/- 1.8 mmol/h. l) compared with glipizide (6.9 +/- 2.4 mmol/h. l, P = 0.002), nateglinide (9.7 +/- 2 mmol/h. l, P = 0.004), or glipizide plus nateglinide (5.6 +/- 2.2 mmol/h. l, P < 0.001). Peak and integrated glucose excursions did not differ significantly between glipizide and nateglinide. However, by 4 h postmeal, plasma glucose levels were significantly higher with nateglinide (9 +/- 0.9 mmol/l) compared with the premeal baseline (7.8 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, P = 0.04) and compared with the 4-h postprandial glucose level after administration of glipizide (7.6 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, P = 0.02). Integrated postprandial insulin levels were higher with glipizide (1,556 +/- 349 pmol/h. l) than nateglinide (1,364 +/- 231 pmol/h. l; P = 0.03). Early insulin secretion, as measured by insulin levels at 30 min postmeal, did not differ between glipizide and nateglinide. CONCLUSIONS: Acute premeal administration of nateglinide or glipizide has equal efficacy in controlling postbreakfast hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes when each drug is administered at the optimum time before the meal. Glipizide causes a more pronounced and sustained postmeal insulin secretory response compared with nateglinide. Glipizide facilitates the return to near-fasting glucose levels at 4 h postmeal, but with the possible risk of increased frequency of postmeal hypoglycemia in drug-naive patients. The clinical decision to use glipizide versus nateglinide should be based on factors other than the control of postprandial hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes.