Dataset Information

Substantial Effects of Luseogliflozin Revealed by Analyzing Responses to Postprandial Hyperglycemia: Post Hoc Subanalyses of a Randomized Controlled Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In our previous study investigating effects of luseogliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, on 24-h glycemic variability by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), luseogliflozin elicited parallel downward shifts in fasting and postprandial glucose levels. However, further review of individual patients' data revealed that postprandial hyperglycemia was not reduced in some patients, while preprandial glucose was ameliorated in most patients. Therefore, we divided patients into two groups according to their postprandial glucose responses and conducted a post hoc subanalyses to elucidate which factors contributed to the differential effects of luseogliflozin.

Methods

Thirty-four Japanese type 2 diabetic patients in our previous randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study with 7-day luseogliflozin administration were divided into postprandial glucose responders (PGR, n = 23, ameliorated peak glucose) and postprandial glucose non-responders (PGNR; n = 11, non-ameliorated peak glucose). Baseline characteristics, variations in CGM-measured 24-h glucose levels, and other pharmacodynamic variabilities were compared.

Results

Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. Placebo-subtracted peak glucose was significantly lowered in PGR and significantly increased in PGNR (-43.8 and 17.9 mg/dL; both p < 0.05). Luseogliflozin significantly lowered "lowest glucose" (defined as the lowest level measured throughout a 24-h period) similarly in PGR and PGNR (-19.2 and -24.0 mg/dL; both p < 0.05), significantly reduced the mean amplitude of glucose excursions in PGR (-15.50 mg/dL; p < 0.05), and increased the area under the curve for plasma glucagon over 24 h in PGNR (median difference vs. placebo: 240 pg/mL h; p < 0.05). Luseogliflozin increased urinary glucose excretion (UGE) and decreased serum insulin by similar magnitudes in both groups.

Conclusions

Luseogliflozin diminished glucose fluctuations in most patients by lowering peak glucose to a greater extent than lowest glucose. Luseogliflozin may also lower lowest glucose in patients whose peak glucose was not ameliorated despite increasing UGE. The glucagon increase in PGNR might explain its hypoglycemic effect on postprandial glucose.

Funding

Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan.

Trial registration

JapicCTI-142548.

SUBMITTER: Samukawa Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4939154 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextPeople with prediabetes are at high risk of developing diabetes.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine the pathogenesis of fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia in prediabetes.DesignGlucose production, gluconeogenesis, glycogenolysis, and glucose disappearance were measured before and during a hyperinsulinemic clamp using [6,6-(2)H2]glucose and the deuterated water method corrected for transaldolase exchange.SettingThe study was conducted at the Mayo Clinic Clinical Research Unit.ParticipantsSubjects with impaired fasting glucose (IFG)/normal glucose tolerance (NGT) (n = 14), IFG/impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (n = 18), and normal fasting glucose (NFG)/NGT (n = 16) were studied.InterventionA hyperinsulinemic clamp was used.Outcome measuresGlucose production, glucose disappearance, gluconeogenesis, and glycogenolysis were measured.ResultsFasting glucose production was higher (P < .0001) in subjects with IFG/NGT than in those with NFG/NGT because of increased rates of gluconeogenesis (P = .003). On the other hand, insulin-induced suppression of glucose production, gluconeogenesis, glycogenolysis, and stimulation of glucose disappearance all were normal. Although fasting glucose production also was increased (P = .0002) in subjects with IFG/IGT, insulin-induced suppression of glucose production, gluconeogenesis, and glycogenolysis and stimulation of glucose disappearance were impaired (P = .005).ConclusionsFasting hyperglycemia is due to excessive glucose production in people with either IFG/NGT or IFG/IGT. Both insulin action and postprandial glucose concentrations are normal in IFG/NGT but abnormal in IFG/IGT. This finding suggests that hepatic and extrahepatic insulin resistance causes or exacerbates postprandial glucose intolerance in IFG/IGT. Elevated gluconeogenesis in the fasting state in IFG/NGT and impaired insulin-induced suppression of both gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis in IFG/IGT suggest that alteration in the regulation of these pathways occurs early in the evolution of type 2 diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundAnalysis of time-resolved postprandial metabolomics data can improve the understanding of metabolic mechanisms, potentially revealing biomarkers for early diagnosis of metabolic diseases and advancing precision nutrition and medicine. Postprandial metabolomics measurements at several time points from multiple subjects can be arranged as a subjects by metabolites by time points array. Traditional analysis methods are limited in terms of revealing subject groups, related metabolites, and temporal patterns simultaneously from such three-way data.ResultsWe introduce an unsupervised multiway analysis approach based on the CANDECOMP/PARAFAC (CP) model for improved analysis of postprandial metabolomics data guided by a simulation study. Because of the lack of ground truth in real data, we generate simulated data using a comprehensive human metabolic model. This allows us to assess the performance of CP models in terms of revealing subject groups and underlying metabolic processes. We study three analysis approaches: analysis of fasting-state data using principal component analysis, T0-corrected data (i.e., data corrected by subtracting fasting-state data) using a CP model and full-dynamic (i.e., full postprandial) data using CP. Through extensive simulations, we demonstrate that CP models capture meaningful and stable patterns from simulated meal challenge data, revealing underlying mechanisms and differences between diseased versus healthy groups.ConclusionsOur experiments show that it is crucial to analyze both fasting-state and T0-corrected data for understanding metabolic differences among subject groups. Depending on the nature of the subject group structure, the best group separation may be achieved by CP models of T0-corrected or full-dynamic data. This study introduces an improved analysis approach for postprandial metabolomics data while also shedding light on the debate about correcting baseline values in longitudinal data analysis.

Project description:IntroductionFew prospective clinical trials have investigated the role of fasting blood glucose (FBG) and/or postprandial glucose (PPG) in assessing overall glycemic control by using different insulin regimens. In the present post hoc analysis, we assessed the contribution of FBG and/or PPG in overall glycemic control in Chinese patients under insulin treatment.MethodsCLASSIFY is a phase IV, randomized, open-label, 26-week, parallel-arm, treat-to-target, multinational, controlled study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus to compare the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro mix 25 (LM25) and insulin lispro mix 50 (LM50) as starter insulins. Insulin was titrated with an aim to target pre-meal blood glucose (BG) levels at > 3.9 and ≤ 6.1 mmol/L before breakfast and dinner. The primary outcome assessed was the change in HbA1c from baseline.ResultsChinese patients contributed 38.7% (N = 156) of the total population. The majority of patients were male (52.6%). The mean (SD) body mass index was 24.54 (3.04) kg/m2 and mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.54 (1.10) % at baseline. At week 26, LM50 showed a significantly greater reduction from baseline in HbA1c (- 2.03% vs - 1.55%, P < 0.001), average daily BG (- 3.21 vs - 2.34 mmol/L, P < 0.001), average post-meal BG (- 3.58 vs - 2.39 mmol/L, P < 0.001), and average prandial BG excursion (- 1.01 vs - 0.22 mmol/L, P = 0.006) than the LM25 group. The reductions in average pre-meal BG (- 2.59 vs - 2.28 mmol/L, P = 0.137) were not significantly different between the groups. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7% or ≤ 6.5%) without nocturnal hypoglycemia or weight gain was greater (P < 0.05) with LM50 compared with LM25.ConclusionLM50 achieved better overall glycemic control than LM25 as a starter insulin in Chinese patients, which may be due to greater improvement in PPG levels.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identification number: NCT01773473.FundingEli Lilly and Company, Shanghai, China.