Context Treatment with diet alone, insulin, sulfonylurea, or
metformin is known to improve glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes
mellitus, but which treatment most frequently attains target fasting
plasma glucose (FPG) concentration of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL)
or glycosylated hemoglobin A1c(HbA1c) below
7% is unknown.
Objective To assess how often each therapy can achieve the
glycemic control target levels set by the American Diabetes
Association.
Design Randomized controlled trial conducted between 1977 and
1997. Patients were recruited between 1977 and 1991 and were followed
up every 3 months for 3, 6, and 9 years after enrollment.
Setting Outpatient diabetes clinics in 15 UK hospitals.
Patients A total of 4075 patients newly diagnosed as having type 2
diabetes ranged in age between 25 and 65 years and had a median
(interquartile range) FPG concentration of 11.5 (9.0-14.4) mmol/L [207
(162-259) mg/dL], HbA1c levels of 9.1% (7.5%-10.7%),
and a mean (SD) body mass index of 29 (6) kg/m2.
Interventions After 3 months on a low-fat,
high-carbohydrate, high-fiber diet, patients were randomized to therapy
with diet alone, insulin, sulfonylurea, or metformin.
Main Outcome Measures Fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c
levels, and the proportion of patients who achieved target levels below
7% HbA1c or less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) FPG at 3, 6,
or 9 years following diagnosis.
Results The proportion of patients who maintained target
glycemic levels declined markedly over 9 years of follow-up. After 9
years of monotherapy with diet, insulin, or sulfonylurea, 8%, 42%,
and 24%, respectively, achieved FPG levels of less than 7.8 mmol/L
(140 mg/dL) and 9%, 28%, and 24% achieved HbA1c levels
below 7%. In obese patients randomized to metformin, 18% attained FPG
levels of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) and 13% attained
HbA1c levels below 7%. Patients less likely to achieve
target levels were younger, more obese, or more hyperglycemic than
other patients.
Conclusions Each therapeutic agent, as monotherapy, increased 2- to
3-fold the proportion of patients who attained HbA1c
below 7% compared with diet alone. However, the progressive
deterioration of diabetes control was such that after 3 years
approximately 50% of patients could attain this goal with monotherapy,
and by 9 years this declined to approximately 25%. The majority of
patients need multiple therapies to attain these glycemic target levels
in the longer term.
One of the
main goals of treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is to
produce near-normal glucose levels to prevent the development of
diabetic complications. The Diabetes Control and Complications
Trial1 and Stockholm studies2 in white patients
with type 1 diabetes mellitus, and the Kumamoto study3 in
nonobese Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and the UK Prospective
Diabetes Study (UKPDS)4 indicate that improved blood
glucose control will delay the progress of microvascular complications.
An epidemiological study of Pima Indians suggested that when the
fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level is less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL),
the risk of developing microvascular complications is
lower.5 This finding was corroborated by a similar study in
whites with 2-hour oral FPG tolerance data.6
More recent studies have shown the risk of retinopathy to increase at
FPG levels between 6.4 and 7.6 mmol/L (115-137 mg/dL) in Pima
Indians,7 between 6.0 and 7.2 mmol/L (108-130 mg/dL) in
Egyptians,8 and between 6.0 and 6.7 mmol/L (108-121 mg/dL)
in a US population sample.9 The level of glycosylated
hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) that is equivalent to
this level of
hyperglycemia is below 7.0% when measured by a
high-performance liquid chromatographic assay with a normal range of
4.5% to 6.2%, and this is in accord with the UKPDS, which showed that
the intensively treated group with HbA1c levels of 7% had
25% less incidence of microvascular end points than those with
HbA1c levels of 7.9%.4
Treatment with diet, insulin, sulfonylurea, or metformin is known
to improve glycemia,10 but how often these therapies can
attain glycemic target levels set by the American Diabetes
Association11 of FPG levels less than 7.8 mmol/L (140
mg/dL) or HbA1c below 7.0% in patients with type 2
diabetes has not been formally studied. The UKPDS recruited patients
newly diagnosed as having diabetes, who are likely to be representative
of newly presenting type 2 diabetes in the healthy population, directly
from primary care physicians in 23 centers.12 All were
initially treated by diet alone, with subsequent randomization to
continuing with diet alone, or with sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin
therapy. Since type 2 diabetes is characterized by steady deterioration
of glucose control due to progressive β-cell
dysfunction,13 it becomes increasingly more difficult to
attain near-normal glycemic control target levels. We report the
proportion of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes who could
attain these target levels with each of the agents as monotherapy after
3, 6, and 9 years of treatment, or conversely required more than 1
agent (ie, multiple therapies) to attain target levels.
A total of 4075 patients newly diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes,
aged 25 to 65 years inclusive, were recruited between 1977 and 1991 in
the first 15 UKPDS centers established.12 The remaining
1027 UKPDS patients were from the last 8 centers whose protocol did
not include the randomization to metformin. The diagnostic criterion
was FPG concentration higher than 6.0 mmol/L (108 mg/dL) on 2
occasions. The median (interquartile range) FPG was 11.5 (9.0-14.4)
mmol/L [207 (162-259 mg/dL)] and HbA1c was 9.1%
(7.5%-10.7%). Of these patients, approximately 10% had positive test
results for the islet cell antibody and/or glutamic acid decarboxylase
antibody.14 The mean (SD) age of the patients was 53 (9)
years with a body mass index (BMI) of 29 (6) kg/m2.
Eighty-one percent of the patients were white, 10% Asian-Indian, and
9% Afro-Caribbean. Fifty-five percent had presented to their general
practitioners with symptoms due to hyperglycemia, 13% because of an
infection, 2% following detection of clinical complications, and 30%
were asymptomatic and had been diagnosed at a routine screening
evaluation (eg, a life insurance medical examination). The FPG levels
at diagnosis for these groups with different clinical presentations
were median (interquartile range) 12.2 (9.5-15.2) mmol/L [220
(171-274) mg/dL], 11.3 (9.0-14.0) mmol/L [204 (162-252) mg/dL], 12.0
(8.8-14.4) mmol/L [216 (159-261) mg/dL], and 9.9 (8.1-12.6) mmol/L
[178 (146-227) mg/dL], respectively, and HbA1c levels
were 9.8% (8.2%-11.2%), 9.2% (7.8%-10.5%), 9.0% (7.5%-10.3%),
and 8.0% (6.8%-9.7%), respectively.
All patients were initially prescribed, by a dietitian, a
low-fat, high-carbohydrate, high-fiber diet. After 3 months on this
diet, patients were stratified into 1 of the following therapies
according to the mean of FPG concentration taken on 3 separate days:
(1) those with an FPG concentration higher than 15 mmol/L (270 mg/dL),
or with continued symptoms due to hyperglycemia, termed primary
diet failure were randomized to either sulfonylurea (chlorpropamide
or glyburide) or insulin; obese patients (>120% ideal body weight)
were also randomized to monotherapy with metformin; (2) asymptomatic
patients with FPG concentrations of 6 to 15 mmol/L (108-270 mg/dL)
inclusive, termed main randomization, allocated as above but
with randomization to continuing on diet therapy alone as an additional
option, termed conventional therapy; (3) those with FPG
concentrations of less than 6 mmol/L (108 mg/dL) who initially were not
randomized but were maintained on diet alone, termed diet
satisfactory. If the mean of 3 consecutive FPG values in patients
in this latter group increased to more than 6 mmol/L (108 mg/dL) or
symptoms due to hyperglycemia developed, they were randomized to an
allocated therapy termed delayed randomization as in the main
randomization above. Computer-generated randomization schedules were
used, blocked by center, to ensure appropriate numbers in each
allocation.
Patients were seen at clinic visits every 3 months with
the aim of achieving an FPG level of less than 6 mmol/L (108 mg/dL)
with the allocated therapies, increasing to maximum doses of
sulfonylurea or metformin (chlorpropamide 500 mg/d, glyburide 20 mg/d,
and metformin 2550 mg/d). The initial insulin regimen consisted of a
once-daily dose of long-acting or isophane insulin. If the daily dose
was above 14 U or if premeal or prebedtime FPG concentration was higher
than 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL), regular insulin was added to the regimen.
Larger doses of insulin were used when FPG concentration was higher
than 6 mmol/L (108 mg/dL). The median insulin doses at 6 and 9 years
from diagnosis of type 2 diabetes were 28 U and 34 U, respectively. At
9 years, the median dose was 24 U in nonobese and 53 U in obese
subjects (BMI, <25 and >35 kg/m2, respectively). If
hypoglycemia occurred, the doses were reduced. Although patients
initially were treated with a basal insulin supply from long-acting
insulin, if home blood glucose monitoring or HbA1c levels
were unsatisfactory, patients (44%) were transferred to mixtures of
long- and short-acting insulin or a twice-daily mixture at 9 years.
When protocol-defined marked hyperglycemia, namely an FPG concentration
higher than 15 mmol/L (270 mg/dL), or symptoms due to hyperglycemia
occurred despite maximal doses, additional therapy was added. Metformin
was then added to maximum sulfonylurea doses or sulfonylurea was added
to maximum metformin. This article evaluates the proportion
of patients who, while continuing their
allocated monotherapy, could achieve FPG concentrations of less than
7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) or HbA1c levels below 7% or 8% at
3, 6, and 9 years after allocation to therapy. The loss to follow-up in
the study was 4%. The analyses at each 3-year interval were of
patients who attended, excluding those who had died, who were lost to
follow-up, or who had no data available for a particular visit.
An amendment was made to the protocol in April 1990 to assess the
effect of the early addition of metformin to sulfonylurea therapy in an
attempt to maintain improved blood glucose control in the patients
allocated to sulfonylurea. Patients who were asymptomatic, were taking
maximal doses of their allocated sulfonylurea therapy, and who had FPG
concentrations of 6 mmol/L (108 mg/dL) or higher but less than 15
mmol/L (270 mg/dL) were randomly allocated to take metformin in
addition to sulfonylurea or to continue with sulfonylurea alone, unless
protocol-defined marked hyperglycemia developed when metformin was
added.15 The addition of metformin to sulfonylurea in these
patients reduced the FPG concentration by 1.0 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) and
HbA1c by 0.4% compared with the corresponding group taking
sulfonylurea alone. Patients taking combined therapy with sulfonylurea
and metformin who developed hyperglycemia were transferred to insulin
therapy.
Levels of FPG were measured in each center at each visit. A monthly
trilevel quality assurance scheme run by the central laboratory ensured
consistency between centers with a 4% coefficient of variation. Blood
and urine samples were taken annually for determination of
HbA1c, plasma lipids and insulin, and urine
albumin.16
Levels of HbA1c were measured in the central
laboratory on heparinized whole blood samples transported overnight at
4°C. Since 1989, HbA1c has been assayed by
high-performance liquid chromatography on a Bio-Rad Diamat Automated
Analyser (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hemel Hempstead, England) with a normal
range in patients from age 25 to 65 years of 4.5% to
6.2%,16 which compares with 4.0% to 6.0% quoted by the
American Diabetes Association criteria.11 Levels of
HbA1c were measured by gel electrophoresis between 1979 and
1984 and by electroendosmosis between 1984 and 1989 (Corning,
Halstead, England). Comparability across time was ensured by
appropriate statistical techniques.17
In each baseline FPG stratification, the proportions of patients
allocated to each therapy (A%) were taken to be representative of all
patients in that randomization. The proportion of patients who at each
time point were taking the randomized therapy alone was calculated
(B%), and within that group the proportion who at each time point had
either an FPG concentration of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) (C%)
or HbA1c level below 7.0% (D%) was calculated. The
product of (A×B×C) or
(A×B×D) indicated the proportion of
patients within that stratification who maintained FPG control better
than these criteria.
For statistical analyses, patients who refused their allocated therapy
and continued on diet alone were included in the monotherapy group to
which they had been allocated. The proportion of patients with FPG
concentrations of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL), of 7.8 to less than
10 mmol/L (140-180 mg/dL), and 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) or higher and
HbA1c levels below 7% at baseline who achieved the target
levels was evaluated. Those who continued to have FPG concentrations of
less than 6 mmol/L (108 mg/dL) on diet therapy alone and were not
randomized (8%, 5%, and 4% at 3, 6, and 9 years, respectively) were
excluded from the analysis at each time point.
As an example, in the main randomization group after 3 years of
follow-up (66% of all patients) in those allocated to chlorpropamide,
97% had continued to take sulfonylurea alone, and of these, 62% had
FPG concentrations of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL). Thus
0.66×0.97×0.62 or 40% was the
proportion of the UKPDS population represented by this group who, when
treated with sulfonylurea alone for 3 years, attained an FPG
concentration of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL). This calculation was
also performed for the other stratifications, primary diet failure
group (14% of all patients), and delayed randomization group (12% of
all patients at 3 years). By combining these data it was possible to
estimate the proportion of the total number of newly diagnosed patients
with type 2 diabetes who, when treated by this monotherapy, could
attain these target levels. Conversely, the remainder required an
additional agent (ie, multiple therapies).
The randomization to continuing with sulfonylurea alone or to the
addition of metformin with the protocol amendment, introduced in 1990
and described above, occurred in 13%, 47%, and 86% of the main
randomization group of patients initially allocated to sulfonylurea by
3, 6, and 9 years, respectively. Similarly, 4%, 6%, and 19% of the
primary diet failure group and 4%, 12%, and 24% of the delayed
randomization group were included in this randomization. For the
assessment of the response to sulfonylurea alone, proportions were
adjusted to allow for the randomization of some sulfonylurea-treated
patients to additional metformin therapy. In subjects who were eligible
for this randomization, we assessed the proportion who, at 3 years
after allocation to additional metformin, attained the glycemic targets
when remaining on the allocated therapy.
Logistic regression analysis was performed using SAS18
software to assess whether the degree of glycemia, age, ethnic group,
sex, measures of obesity, plasma triglycerides, or mode of presentation
(symptomatic or secondary to complications or identification by
screening) predicted the probability of failing to achieve the target
levels for HbA1c or FPG. Analysis was also done to assess
the requirement for multiple therapies as a result of failing to attain
the target levels, and how these variables interacted with the therapy
allocations. When continuous variables were
included in the models, these were transformed so that 1 unit equated
to a clinically relevant change: age, 1 unit=10 years;
BMI, 1 unit=5 kg/m2; FPG, 1
unit=2 mmol/L (36 mg/dL); HbA1c, 1
unit=2%; waist circumference, 1
unit=10 cm; plasma triglycerides, 1
unit=1 mmol/L (89 mg/dL). For waist measurements the
values were adjusted for the effect of sex; P≥.05 was
considered not significant.
Figure 1 shows, in outline, the
stratification and randomization to different therapies of patients
within the UKPDS. Further details are given in previous
publications.12,13,19,20 Numbers of patients in each
therapy group in cohorts at 3, 6, and 9 years included in the analysis
are shown.
Proportions Attaining Goals
By 6 years, only 5% allocated to sulfonylurea were able
to maintain FPG concentrations of less than 6 mmol/L (108 mg/dL).
Table 1 and Figure
2 summarize the results for 3, 6, and 9
years for HbA1c levels below 7.0% and FPG concentrations
of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) for patients allocated and
remaining on allocated monotherapy. It is apparent that by 3 years,
less than 55% of patients who had been randomized to any single
pharmacological therapy could maintain FPG concentrations of less than
7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) or HbA1c levels below 7.0%.
However, each therapeutic agent, given as a monotherapy, approximately
doubled the proportion of patients who could attain HbA1c
levels below 7% compared with a policy of diet alone (conventional
therapy). By 9 years less than 25% of patients could maintain FPG
levels of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) or HbA1c levels
below 7.0% with sulfonylurea alone. Patients allocated to insulin
showed a similar response over the first 6 years, but by 9 years almost
twice as many achieved the FPG
target level as those taking sulfonylurea alone
(42% vs 24%, respectively). However, the response for
HbA1c after 9 years was similar for both therapies (for
HbA1c <7%: 28% vs 24%, respectively). Patients taking
chlorpropamide consistently achieved the target levels more often than
those taking glyburide.
Overweight patients allocated to metformin (Table 1) showed a similar
response to overweight patients allocated to sulfonylurea, with 39% of
those taking metformin achieving FPG concentrations of less than 7.8
mmol/L (140 mg/dL) compared with 41%
taking sulfonylurea at 3 years, and 18% compared
with 21%, respectively, after 9 years. In relation to the
HbA1c target levels, metformin compared well with
sulfonylurea at 6 years (34% vs 39% for HbA1c <7%,
respectively, P = .46), but not as well by 9 years (13% vs
27%; P<.001).
Univariate Analysis
of Predictors of Requirement
for
Additional Therapy
Table 2 shows the results of a
logistic regression analysis for 3 years of follow-up of the
probability of requiring multiple therapies due to HbA1c
levels of 7.0% or above or FPG concentrations of 7.8 mmol/L (140
mg/dL) or higher at 3 years. In this univariate analysis, a young age
at diagnosis, increased baseline obesity (assessed as either BMI or
waist circumference), increased baseline glycemia, and plasma
triglycerides were all significantly associated with the likelihood of
requiring multiple therapies. The islet cell antibody or glutamic acid
decarboxylase status of the patients was not associated with either of
the targets. There were no significant associations with ethnic or sex
differences, nor with reasons for presentation.
Randomization to intensive therapy with insulin or sulfonylurea gave
less likelihood of requiring additional therapy to attain an
HbA1c level below 7%, or an FPG concentration of less than
7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL), compared with conventional therapy with diet
alone (Table 2). In overweight patients randomized to metformin
therapy, the likelihood of requiring additional therapy was also less
compared with conventional therapy (Table 2). For overweight patients
allocated to sulfonylurea compared with conventional therapy, the
likelihood was also lower for an HbA1c level below 7%, and
for an FPG concentration of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) while for
those allocated to insulin, the likelihood was significantly lower for
an FPG concentration of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL), but lower was
not significantly different for an HbA1c level below 7% (Table 2). Figure 3 shows these odds
ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the therapy
comparisons for HbA1c levels below 7%.
Multivariate Analysis
of Response to Therapies
A multivariate logistic regression analysis for intensive therapy
with insulin or sulfonylurea compared with conventional therapy was
performed in relation to the requirement for additional therapy at 3
years, in which covariates for inclusion in the model were those
significant in the univariate analysis, with a stepwise selection
process to identify the final model.
Randomization to intensive therapy gave a lower likelihood of requiring
additional therapy for HbA1c levels below 7% (OR, 0.55;
95% CI, 0.43-0.69; P<.001), and for FPG concentrations of
less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.27-0.44;
P<.001) (Table 3). In
relation to the FPG goal, therapy allocation was the most important
factor entering into the model before other covariates. Higher baseline
levels of FPG or HbA1c gave a greater likelihood of
requiring multiple therapies to achieve the required levels after 3
years in both models. Younger age at diagnosis and greater obesity
(BMI) were also associated with greater requirement for multiple
therapies. Neither plasma triglycerides nor islet cell antibody and/or
glutamic acid decarboxylase status were predictive for multiple
therapies in these models.
In a similar analysis comparing insulin with sulfonylurea, insulin
therapy
gave an increased likelihood of requiring
additional therapy to achieve HbA1c levels below 7% (OR,
1.36; 95% CI, 1.08-1.72; P=.01) after
inclusion of baseline HbA1c level (OR, 1.35; 95% CI,
1.18-1.53; P<.001), age (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86;
P<.001), and BMI (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30;
P<.001) in the model.
In multivariate models in obese patients comparing metformin with diet
therapy, metformin reduced the likelihood of requiring multiple
therapies (n=343) with HbA1c levels below
7% (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.72; P<.001), with baseline
HbA1c (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.40-2.75; P≤.005),
high plasma triglycerides (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.24-3.27;
P<.001), and young age (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.72;
P<.001) also significantly predictive.
The increasing failure of monotherapy with sulfonylurea,
metformin, or insulin to achieve tight glycemic control over the first
9 years following diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is consistent with the
progressive decline of β-cell function.13 By 3 years
after diagnosis of diabetes, approximately 50% of patients will need
more than 1 pharmacological agent (ie, multiple therapies) because
monotherapy does not achieve the target values of HbA1c, and by 9 years approximately 75% of patients will need multiple
therapies to achieve FPG concentrations of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140
mg/dL) or HbA1c levels below 7%. In an intent-to-treat
analysis, the efficacy of early addition of metformin therapy to
maximum sulfonylurea therapy has been shown after 3 years to increase
the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c levels below 7%
from 21% with sulfonylurea alone to 33% with additional
metformin.15 It is apparent by 9 years after diagnosis that
even with this combination of oral agents a substantial number,
possibly the majority, of patients will need the addition of insulin
therapy to obtain an HbA1c level below 7%. Since improved
glucose control with insulin therapy is known to reduce the risk of
diabetes complications,4 the progressive decline in
β-cell function with greater hyperglycemia13 will require
considerably greater use of insulin therapy than that currently
prescribed. While thiazolidinediones are an additional oral agent that
can be used, in clinical practice they have similar efficacy to
sulfonylurea or metformin in reducing glycemia, which usually remains
supranormal,21,22 and these new agents are unlikely to
prevent the increasing glycemia or to postpone the need for insulin
therapy for more than a few years.
Although insulin therapy was better than sulfonylurea or metformin at
reducing FPG concentrations, it was not as effective in reducing
HbA1c as might have been anticipated. This is partly
because oral agents reduce the postprandial as well as fasting glucose
level, whereas a basal insulin supply only reduced the basal glucose
concentrations.23 Adding soluble insulin to cover the meals
can lead to hypoglycemic attacks that limit the degree to which
near-normal glycemia can be attained.20 According to
published reports, HbA1c levels below 7% have only been
achieved with high insulin doses, often well above 100 U/d, in small
groups of obese patients receiving detailed attention over a short-term
period.24-26 In studies in fewer obese patients taking
smaller insulin doses, mean HbA1c levels of 8% or above
were achieved.27-29 The UKPDS included patients who would
not comply with a complex insulin regimen so it is thus a real-life
study. While the American Diabetes Association guidelines suggest a
glycemic goal of HbA1c below 7%, monotherapies can achieve
this in only a minority of patients.30
This study shows that the initial severity of diabetes, assessed by the
degree of hyperglycemia, is a major factor in determining the
likelihood of achieving glucose target levels, and that it is also more
difficult to achieve the target levels in more obese patients.
Nevertheless, the allocation to therapy with sulfonylurea, basal
insulin, or metformin compared with diet alone more than doubled the
proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes who achieved the target
levels. This degree of improved glucose control is clinically effective
in preventing microvascular complications of diabetes.4
1.DCCT Research Group. The relationship of
glycemic exposure (HbA
1c) to the risk of development and
progression of retinopathy in the Diabetes Control and Complications
Trial.
Diabetes.1995;44:968-983.Google Scholar 2.Reichard P, Berglund B, Britz A, Cars I, Nilsson BY, Rosenqvist U. Intensified conventional insulin treatment retards the
microvascular complications of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus
(IDDM): the Stockholm Diabetes Intervention Study (SDIS) after 5 years.
J Intern Med.1991;230:101-108.Google Scholar 3.Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Araki E.
et al. Intensive insulin
therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular
complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes
mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study.
Diabetes Res Clin
Pract.1995;28:103-117.Google Scholar 4.UKPDS Group. Intensive blood glucose control with
sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk
of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33).
Lancet.1998;352:837-853.Google Scholar 5.Pettitt DJ, Knowler WC, Lisse JR, Bennett PH. Development of retinopathy and proteinuria in relation to plasma
glucose concentration in Pima Indians.
Lancet.1980;2:1050-1052.Google Scholar 6.Jarrett RI, Keen H, McCartney P. The Whitehall study:
10-year follow-up report on men with impaired glucose tolerance with
reference to worsening to diabetes and predictors of death.
Diabet
Med.1984;1:279-283.Google Scholar 7.McCance DR, Hanson RL, Charles MA.
et al. Comparison of
tests for glycated haemoglobin and fasting and two hour plasma glucose
concentrations as diagnostic methods for diabetes.
BMJ.1994;308:1323-1328.Google Scholar 8.Engelgau MM, Thompson TJ, Herman WH.
et al. Comparison of fasting and 2-hour glucose and HbA
1c levels
for diagnosing diabetes: diagnostic criteria and performance revisited.
Diabetes Care.1997;20:785-791.Google Scholar 9.American Diabetes Association. Report of the Expert
Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus.
Diabetes Care.1998;21(suppl 1):S5-S19.Google Scholar 10.Holman RR, Turner RC. Optimizing blood glucose control
in type 2 diabetes: an approach based on fasting blood glucose
measurements.
Diabet Med.1988;5:582-588.Google Scholar 11.American Diabetes Association. Clinical practice
recommendations 1995.
Diabetes Care.1995;18(suppl 1):S1-S96.Google Scholar 12.UKPDS Group. UK Prospective Diabetes Study VIII: study
design, progress and performance.
Diabetologia.1991;34:877-890.Google Scholar 13.UKPDS Group. UK Prospective Diabetes Study 16: overview
of six years' therapy of type 2 diabetes—a progressive disease.
Diabetes.1995;44:1249-1258.Google Scholar 14.UKPDS Group. UKPDS 25: clinical value of ICA and GADA
in predicting insulin requirement in patients with newly diagnosed
NIDDM at different ages.
Lancet.1997;350:1288-1293.Google Scholar 15.UKPDS Group. UKPDS 28: a randomised trial of efficacy
of early addition of metformin in sulphonylurea-treated non-insulin
dependent diabetes.
Diabetes Care.1998;21:87-92.Google Scholar 16.UKPDS Group. UK Prospective Diabetes Study XI:
biochemical risk factors in type 2 diabetic patients at diagnosis
compared with age-matched normal subjects.
Diabet Med.1994;11:534-544.Google Scholar 17.Cull CA, Manley SE, Stratton IM.
et al. Approach to
maintaining comparability of biochemical data during long-term clinical
trials.
Clin Chem.1997;43:1913-1918.Google Scholar 18.SAS Institute. Statistical Analysis System. 6th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 1990.
19.UKPDS Group. UK Prospective Diabetes Study 13: relative
efficacy of randomly allocated diet, sulphonylurea, insulin, or
metformin in patients with newly diagnosed non-insulin dependent
diabetes followed for three years.
BMJ.1995;310:83-88.Google Scholar 20.UKPDS Group. UK Prospective Diabetes Study 17: a
nine-year update of a randomized, controlled trial on the effect of
improved metabolic control on complications in non-insulin-dependent
diabetes mellitus.
Ann Intern Med.1996;124:136-145.Google Scholar 21.Kumar S, Boulton AJ, Beck-Nielsen H.
et al. for the
Troglitazone Study Group. Troglitazone, an insulin action enhancer,
improves metabolic control in NIDDM patients.
Diabetologia.1996;39:701-709.Google Scholar 22.Ghazzi MN, Perez JE, Antonucci TK.
et al. for the
Troglitazone Study Group. Cardiac and glycaemic benefits of
troglitazone treatment in NIDDM.
Diabetes.1997;46:433-439.Google Scholar 23.Holman RR, Turner RC. Basal normoglycaemia attained
with chlorpropamide in mild diabetes.
Metab Clin Exp.1978;27:539-547.Google Scholar 24.Abraira C, Colwell JA, Nuttall FQ. Veterans Affairs
Cooperative Study on glycemic control and complications in type II
diabetes (VACSDM): results of the Feasibility Trial.
Diabetes
Care.1995;18:1113-1123.Google Scholar 25.Cusi K, Cunningham GR, Comstock JP. Safety and efficacy
of normalizing fasting glucose with bedtime NPH insulin alone in NIDDM.
Diabetes Care.1995;18:843-851.Google Scholar 26.Henry RR, Gumbiner B, Ditzler T, Wallace P, Lyon R, Glauber HS. Intensive conventional insulin therapy for type II
diabetes: metabolic effects during a 6 month outpatient trial.
Diabetes Care.1993;16:21-31.Google Scholar 27.Birkeland KI, Rishaug U, Hanssen KE, Vaaler S. NIDDM: a
rapid progressive disease: results from a long-term, randomised,
comparative study of insulin or sulphonylurea treatment.
Diabetologia.1996;39:1629-1633.Google Scholar 28.Yki-Järvinen H, Kauppila M, Kujansuu E.
et al. Comparison of insulin regimens in patients with non-insulin-dependent
diabetes mellitus.
N Engl J Med.1992;327:1426-1433.Google Scholar 29.Chow CC, Tsang LWW, Sorensen JP. Comparison of insulin
with or without continuation of oral hypoglycaemic agents in the
treatment of secondary failure in NIDDM patients.
Diabetes
Care.1995;18:307-314.Google Scholar 30.Hayward RA, Manning WG, Kaplan SH, Wagner EH, Greenfield S. Starting insulin therapy in patients with type 2
diabetes.
JAMA.1997;278:1663-1700.Google Scholar