PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

André J Scheen

Publications and source records attributed to André J Scheen.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Pharmacokinetic interactions with thiazolidinediones.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex disease combining defects in insulin secretion and insulin action. New compounds called thiazolidinediones or glitazones have been developed for reducing insulin resistance. After the withdrawal of troglitazone because of liver toxicity, two compounds are currently used in clinical practice, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. These compounds are generally used in combination with other pharmacological agents. Because they are metabolised via cytochrome P450 (CYP), glitazones are exposed to numerous pharmacokinetic interactions. CYP2C8 and CYP3A4 are the main isoenzymes catalysing biotransformation of pioglitazone (as with troglitazone), whereas rosiglitazone is metabolised by CYP2C9 and CYP2C8. For both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, the most relevant interactions have been described in healthy volunteers with rifampicin (rifampin), which results in a significant decrease of area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC] (54-65% for rosiglitazone, p<0.001; 54% for pioglitazone, p<0.001), and with gemfibrozil, which results in a significant increase of AUC (130% for rosiglitazone, p<0.001; 220-240% for pioglitazone, p<0.001). The relevance of such drug-drug interactions in patients with type 2 diabetes remains to be evaluated. However, in the absence of clinical data, it is prudent to reduce the dosage of each glitazone by half in patients treated with gemfibrozil. Conversely, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone do not seem to significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of other compounds. Although some food components have also been shown to potentially interfere with drugs metabolised with the CYP system, no published study deals specifically with these possible CYP-mediated food-drug interactions with glitazones.

Diabetes Mellitus↗
PubMed2006

Efficacy and tolerability of rimonabant in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Rimonabant, a selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor blocker, reduces bodyweight and improves cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors in non-diabetic overweight or obese patients. The aim of the RIO-Diabetes trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of rimonabant in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled by metformin or sulphonylureas. METHODS: 1047 overweight or obese type 2 diabetes patients (body-mass index 27-40 kg/m2) with a haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) concentration of 6.5-10.0% (mean 7.3% [SD 0.9] at baseline) already on metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy were given a mild hypocaloric diet and advice for increased physical activity, and randomly assigned placebo (n=348), 5 mg/day rimonabant (360) or 20 mg/day rimonabant (339) for 1 year. Two individuals in the 5 mg/day group did not receive double-blind treatment and were thus not included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint was weight change from baseline after 1 year of treatment. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00029848. FINDINGS: 692 patients completed the 1 year follow-up; numbers in each group after 1 year were much the same. Weight loss was significantly greater after 1 year in both rimonabant groups than in the placebo group (placebo: -1.4 kg [SD 3.6]; 5 mg/day: -2.3 kg [4.2], p=0.01 vs placebo; 20 mg/day: -5.3 kg [5.2], p<0.0001 vs placebo). Rimonabant was generally well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events that led to discontinuation was slightly greater in the 20 mg/day rimonabant group, mainly due to depressed mood disorders, nausea, and dizziness. INTERPRETATION: These data indicate that 20 mg/day rimonabant, in combination with diet and exercise, can produce a clinically meaningful reduction in bodyweight and improve HbA1c and a number of cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin or sulphonylureas.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Drug interactions of clinical importance with antihyperglycaemic agents: an update.

Because management of type 2 diabetes mellitus usually involves combined pharmacological therapy to obtain adequate glucose control and treatment of concurrent pathologies (especially dyslipidaemia and arterial hypertension), drug-drug interactions must be carefully considered with antihyperglycaemic drugs. Additive glucose-lowering effects have been extensively reported when combining sulphonylureas (or the new insulin secretagogues, meglitinide derivatives, i.e. nateglinide and repaglinide) with metformin, sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives) with thiazolidinediones (also called glitazones) and the biguanide compound metformin with thiazolidinediones. Interest in combining alpha-glucosidase inhibitors with either sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives), metformin or thiazolidinediones has also been demonstrated. These combinations result in lower glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting glucose and postprandial glucose levels than with either monotherapy. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interferences have been reported with some combinations, they do not appear to have important clinical consequences. No significant adverse effects, except a higher risk of hypoglycaemic episodes that may be attributed to better glycaemic control, occur with any combination. Challenging the classical dual therapy with sulphonylurea plus metformin, there is a recent trend to use alternative dual combinations (sulphonylurea plus thiazolidinedione or metformin plus thiazolidinedione). In addition, triple therapy with the addition of a thiazolidinedione to the metformin-sulphonylurea combination has been recently evaluated and allows glucose targets to be reached before insulin therapy is considered. This triple therapy appears to be safe, with no deleterious drug-drug interactions being reported so far.Potential interferences may also occur between glucose-lowering agents and other drugs, and such drug-drug interactions may have important clinical implications. Relevant pharmacological agents are those that are widely coadministered in diabetic patients (e.g. lipid-lowering agents, antihypertensive agents); those that have a narrow efficacy/toxicity ratio (e.g. digoxin, warfarin); or those that are known to induce (rifampicin [rifampin]) or inhibit (fluconazole) the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system. Metformin is currently a key compound in the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes, used either alone or in combination with other antihyperglycaemics. There are no clinically relevant metabolic interactions with metformin, because this compound is not metabolised and does not inhibit the metabolism of other drugs. In contrast, sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones are extensively metabolised in the liver via the CYP system and thus, may be subject to drug-drug metabolic interactions. Many HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are also metabolised via the CYP system. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interactions may occur, it is not clear whether drug-drug interactions between oral antihyperglycaemic agents and statins may have clinical consequences regarding both efficacy and safety. In contrast, a marked pharmacokinetic interference has been reported between gemfibrozil and repaglinide and, to a lesser extent, between gemfibrozil and rosiglitazone. This leads to a drastic increase in plasma concentrations of each antihyperglycaemic agent when they are coadministered with the fibric acid derivative, and an increased risk of adverse effects. Some antihypertensive agents may favour hypoglycaemic episodes when co-prescribed with sulphonylureas or meglitinide derivatives, especially ACE inhibitors, but this effect seems to result from a pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction rather than from a pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction. No, or only modest, interferences have been described with glucose-lowering agents and other pharmacological compounds such as digoxin or warfarin. The effects of inducers or inhibitors of CYP isoenzymes on the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of the glucose-lowering agents of each pharmacological class has been tested. Significantly increased (with CYP inhibitors) or decreased (with CYP inducers) plasma levels of sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones have been reported in healthy volunteers, and these pharmacokinetic changes may lead to enhanced or reduced glucose-lowering action, and thus hypoglycaemia or worsening of metabolic control, respectively. In addition, some case reports have evidenced potential drug-drug interactions with various antihyperglycaemic agents that are usually associated with a higher risk of hypoglycaemia.

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2↗
PubMed2004

Combined thiazolidinedione-insulin therapy: should we be concerned about safety?

Thiazolidinediones, also called glitazones, are insulin sensitisers that act as agonists of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors-gamma (PPARgamma). After the withdrawal of troglitazone due to hepatotoxicity, only pioglitazone and rosiglitazone can be used for treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, either as monotherapy or in combination with metformin or with sulphonylureas (or glinides). The combination of glitazones with insulin is also appealing, as it allows improvement of glycaemic control while decreasing the daily insulin requirement. Insulin dosage has to be adjusted regularly to avoid hypoglycaemic episodes. However, some concerns have been raised about such combined glitazone-insulin therapy because it may favour weight gain due to both enhanced adipogenesis and fluid retention. Such adverse effects are commonly observed in all diabetic individuals receiving glitazones, whatever the mode of use, but they appear to be exacerbated in insulin-treated patients. Body fat gain is a major drawback of treatment with adipogenic compounds such as glitazones. However, some evidence suggests that the fat is redistributed in a favourable direction, that is, from visceral to subcutaneous depots, although no long-term follow-up is yet available. An estimated 2-5% of patients receiving glitazone monotherapy and 5-15% receiving concomitant insulin therapy experience peripheral oedema. Some anecdotal cases of pulmonary oedema have also been reported, especially in insulin-treated patients, although the actual incidence of this complication is unknown. All glitazones increase the intravascular volume by approximately 6-7% in a dose-dependent manner. Rather than a direct effect on cardiac or renal function, fluid retention and tissue oedema seem to be part of a vascular 'leak' syndrome. Such a phenomenon may have greater consequences in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin because such patients are usually older, have had the disease long-term and have worse cardiac or renal function. Additionally, glitazones may potentiate the renal effects of insulin on sodium and water retention. Regardless of the mechanism, it is conceivable that additional fluid retention caused by glitazones may alter the already precarious volume status in patients with underlying cardiac or renal dysfunction, thus leading to oedema and congestive heart failure. Thus, it is prudent to either avoid glitazones or use them cautiously in individuals with impaired cardiac function. Further studies are clearly needed to define the mechanisms of fluid retention associated with glitazone use and to determine the safety of cautious use of these new insulin sensitisers in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2004

Tolerability profile of metformin/glibenclamide combination tablets (Glucovance): a new treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

It is important to manage blood glucose intensively in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in order to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Oral combination therapy that addresses insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction is a proven means of improving glycaemic control when monotherapy becomes insufficiently effective. Metformin/glibenclamide (glyburide) combination tablets were developed to provide a means of applying this strategy while minimising polypharmacy. This review examines the tolerability profile of this treatment from four double-blind, randomised clinical trials in a total of 2342 type 2 diabetic patients with hyperglycaemia despite treatment with diet and exercise, a sulphonylurea or metformin. Treatment with combination tablets was associated with markedly superior blood glucose control, at lower doses of metformin and glibenclamide, compared with monotherapies. The incidence of symptoms of hypoglycaemia varied between dosages and trials, though the incidence of severe or biochemically confirmed hypoglycaemia or withdrawals from clinical trials for this reason was consistently low and comparable with glibenclamide alone. No patient required third-party assistance for hypoglycaemia. Significantly fewer diet-failed patients receiving low-dose combination tablets reported gastrointestinal adverse effects compared with metformin alone, with a comparable incidence between metformin and combination tablets in post-monotherapy studies. The incidence of other adverse events, including serious adverse events, was similar for combination tablets and monotherapies. The lower doses of metformin and glibenclamide with the combination tablet approach, and the design of the combination tablets themselves, may underlie the beneficial tolerability profile of this treatment.

Body Weight↗
PubMed2004

Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus through inhibition of the Renin-Angiotensin system.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is becoming a major health problem associated with excess morbidity and mortality. As the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is rapidly increasing, prevention of the disease should be considered as a key objective in the near future. Besides lifestyle changes, various pharmacological treatments have proven their efficacy in placebo-controlled clinical trials, including antidiabetic drugs such as metformin, acarbose and troglitazone, or antiobesity agents such as orlistat. Arterial hypertension, a clinical entity in which insulin resistance is common, is strongly associated with type 2 diabetes and may precede the disease by several years. While antihypertensive agents such as diuretics or beta-adrenoceptor antagonists may worsen insulin resistance and impair glucose tolerance, newer antihypertensive agents exert neutral or even slightly positive metabolic effects. Numerous clinical trials have investigated the effects of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARAs) on insulin sensitivity in hypertensive patients, with or without diabetes, with no consistent results. Almost half of the studies with ACE inhibitors in hypertensive nondiabetic individuals demonstrated a slight but significant increase in insulin sensitivity as assessed by insulin-stimulated glucose disposal during a euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic clamp, while the other half failed to reveal any significant change. The effects of ARAs on insulin sensitivity are neutral in most studies. Mechanisms of improvement of glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity through the inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) are complex. They may include improvement of blood flow and microcirculation in skeletal muscles and, thereby, enhancement of insulin and glucose delivery to the insulin-sensitive tissues, facilitating insulin signalling at the cellular level and improvement of insulin secretion by the beta cells. Six recent large-scale clinical studies reported a remarkably consistent reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes in hypertensive patients treated with either ACE inhibitors or ARAs for 3-6 years, compared with a thiazide diuretic, beta-adrenoceptor antagonist, the calcium channel antagonist amlodipine or even placebo. The relative risk reduction averaged 14% (p = 0.034) in the CAPPP (Captopril Prevention Project) with captopril compared with a thiazide or beta1-adrenoceptor antagonist, 34% (p < 0.001) in the HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) study with ramipril compared with placebo, 30% (p < 0.001) in the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) with lisinopril compared with chlortalidone, 25% (p < 0.001) in the LIFE (Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study) with losartan compared with atenolol, and 25% (p = 0.09) in the SCOPE (Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly) with candesartan cilexetil compared with placebo, and 23% (p < 0.0001) in the VALUE (Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation) trial with valsartan compared with amlodipine. All these studies considered the development of diabetes as a secondary endpoint, except the HOPE trial where it was a post hoc analysis. These encouraging observations led to the initiation of two large, prospective, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials whose primary outcome is the prevention of type 2 diabetes: the DREAM (Diabetes REduction Approaches with ramipril and rosiglitazone Medications) trial with the ACE inhibitor ramipril and the NAVIGATOR (Nateglinide And Valsartan in Impaired Glucose Tolerance Outcomes Research) trial with the ARA valsartan. Finally, ONTARGET (ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial) will also investigate as a secondary endpoint whether it is possible to prevent the development of type 2 diabetes by blocking the RAS with either an ACE inhibitor or an ARA or a combination of both. Thus, the recent consistent observations of a 14-34% reduction of the development of diabetes in hypertensive patients receiving ACE inhibitors or ARAs are exciting. From a theoretical point of view, they emphasise that there are many aspects of the pathogenesis, prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes that still need to be uncovered. From a practical point of view, they may offer a new strategy to reduce the ongoing epidemic and burden of type 2 diabetes.

Angiotensin II Type 2 Receptor Blockers↗
PubMed2003

Is there a role for alpha-glucosidase inhibitors in the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus?

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a major health problem associated with excess morbidity and mortality. As the prevalence of this metabolic disorder is rapidly increasing and current treatment fails to stabilise the disease in most patients, prevention should be considered as a key objective in the near future. People who develop type 2 diabetes pass through a phase of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). Defects in the action and/or secretion of insulin are the two major abnormalities leading to development of glucose intolerance. Any intervention in the impaired glucose tolerance phase that reduces resistance to insulin or protects the beta-cells, or both, should prevent or delay progression to diabetes.Acarbose, miglitol and voglibose act by competitively inhibiting the alpha-glucosidases, a group of key intestinal enzymes involved in the digestion of carbohydrates. They decrease both postprandial hyperglycaemia and hyperinsulinaemia, and thereby may improve sensitivity to insulin and release the stress on beta-cells. These compounds do not induce hypoglycaemia and have a good safety profile, although gastrointestinal adverse effects may limit long-term compliance to therapy. The recent placebo-controlled prospective STOP-noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (STOP-NIDDM) trial demonstrated that acarbose 100mg three times daily reduces the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in patients with IGT (relative risk reduction of 25% after a mean follow-up of 3.3 years). The 6-year Early Diabetes Intervention Trial (EDIT), comparing the effect of acarbose 50mg three times daily to that of metformin, showed a trend to a positive effect of acarbose compared with placebo, in a mid-term 3-year analysis, which should be confirmed in the final analysis. To our knowledge, no such prevention intervention trials have been or are currently being performed with miglitol or voglibose. In conclusion, because of its absence of toxicity and its particular mechanism of action on gastrointestinal tract and indirect consequences on both insulin action and beta-cell function, acarbose may be used to prevent type 2 diabetes. If the ongoing EDIT trial confirms the positive results of the recent STOP-NIDDM trial, acarbose could be used, either as an alternative or in addition to changes in lifestyle, to delay development of diabetes in patients with IGT. However, the best dosage of acarbose for this specific indication remains to be specified, especially when all three important parameters, efficacy, tolerance and cost, are taken into consideration.

1-Deoxynojirimycin↗
PubMed2002

Hepatic insulin resistance in obese non-diabetic subjects and in type 2 diabetic patients.

OBJECTIVE: Obese non-diabetic patients are characterized by an extra-hepatic insulin resistance. Whether obese patients also have decreased hepatic insulin sensitivity remains controversial. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: To estimate their hepatic insulin sensitivity, we measured the rate of exogenous insulin infusion required to maintain mildly elevated glycemia in obese patients with type 2 diabetes, obese non-diabetic patients, and lean control subjects during constant infusions of somatostatin and physiological low-glucagon replacement infusions. To account for differences in insulin concentrations among the three groups of subjects, an additional protocol was also performed in healthy lean subjects with higher insulin infusion rates and exogenous dextrose infusion. RESULTS: The insulin infusion rate required to maintain glycemia at 8.5 mM was increased 4-fold in obese patients with type 2 diabetes and 1.5-fold in obese non-diabetic patients. The net endogenous glucose production (measured with 6,6-(2)H(2)-glucose) and total glucose output (measured with 2-(2)H(1)-glucose) were approximately 30% lower in the patients than in the lean subjects. Net endogenous glucose production and total glucose output were both markedly increased in both groups of obese patients compared with lean control subjects during hyperinsulinemia. DISCUSSION: Our data indicate that both obese non-diabetic and obese type 2 diabetic patients have a blunted suppressive action of insulin on glucose production, indicating hepatic and renal insulin resistance.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Obesity and liver disease.

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a disease of emerging identity and importance. It is frequently associated with obesity, especially visceral fat, and is intimately related to fatty liver and markers of the insulin resistance syndrome. Both the prevalence and the severity of liver steatosis are related to body mass index, waist circumference, hyperinsulinaemia, hypertriglyceridaemia and impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes. The identification of obese patients who may progress from steatosis to NASH and from NASH to fibrosis/cirrhosis is an important clinical challenge. Substantial weight loss is accompanied by a marked attenuation of insulin resistance and related metabolic syndrome and, concomitantly, by a remarkable regression of liver steatosis in most patients, although increased inflammation may be detected in some subjects. Thus, NASH may be considered as another disease of affluence, as is the insulin resistance syndrome, and perhaps being part of it, especially in obese patients.

Cytokines↗
PubMedDate not supplied

VALUE: analysis of results.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors↗