BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare glucose variability in patients given the α-glucosidase inhibitors miglitol and acarbose using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). METHODS: Ten type 2 diabetes patients were hospitalized for 4 days, and their glucose levels were measured using CGM. Patients were given miglitol (50 mg) or acarbose (100 mg) before each meal on Day 2, and vice versa on Day 3, in a randomized crossover design. The patients had three identical test meals on Days 2 and 3. The CGM data were used to compare each parameter for glycemic variability after each of the three meals. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between miglitol treatment or acarbose treatment in regard to the range of increase in glucose levels from baseline to peak, time to peak postprandial glucose levels from the preprandial period, and area under the curve for glycemic variability from the preprandial period to 3 h after each meal. However, the range of increase in glucose levels at 30 min (0.4 vs. 30.7 mg/dL, P < 0.0001) and 60 min (32.8 vs. 67.5 mg/dL, P <0.0001) after lunch and 30, 60, and 90 min after dinner (3.3 vs. 22.2 mg/dL, P = 0.0249; 36.6 vs. 67.5 mg/dL, P < 0.0001; and 60.5 vs. 81.6 mg/dL, P = 0.0073, respectively) was significantly smaller in miglitol treatment compared with acarbose treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In a pilot study with a crossover design in 10 type 2 diabetes patients, it was shown that although there was no significant difference in glucose variability with miglitol or acarbose after a fat-rich diet, glucose increases was significantly reduced with miglitol after a meal comprising typical Japanese diet 60-90 min postprandially.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare glucose variability in patients given the α-glucosidase inhibitors miglitol and acarbose using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). METHODS: Ten type 2 diabetespatients were hospitalized for 4 days, and their glucose levels were measured using CGM. Patients were given miglitol (50 mg) or acarbose (100 mg) before each meal on Day 2, and vice versa on Day 3, in a randomized crossover design. The patients had three identical test meals on Days 2 and 3. The CGM data were used to compare each parameter for glycemic variability after each of the three meals. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between miglitol treatment or acarbose treatment in regard to the range of increase in glucose levels from baseline to peak, time to peak postprandial glucose levels from the preprandial period, and area under the curve for glycemic variability from the preprandial period to 3 h after each meal. However, the range of increase in glucose levels at 30 min (0.4 vs. 30.7 mg/dL, P < 0.0001) and 60 min (32.8 vs. 67.5 mg/dL, P <0.0001) after lunch and 30, 60, and 90 min after dinner (3.3 vs. 22.2 mg/dL, P = 0.0249; 36.6 vs. 67.5 mg/dL, P < 0.0001; and 60.5 vs. 81.6 mg/dL, P = 0.0073, respectively) was significantly smaller in miglitol treatment compared with acarbose treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In a pilot study with a crossover design in 10 type 2 diabetespatients, it was shown that although there was no significant difference in glucose variability with miglitol or acarbose after a fat-rich diet, glucose increases was significantly reduced with miglitol after a meal comprising typical Japanese diet 60-90 min postprandially.