Research Article| Volume 118, ISSUE 5, SUPPLEMENT , 4-13, May 2005

How to select and combine oral agents for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

  • Stuart R. Chipkin
    Requests for reprints should be addressed to Stuart R. Chipkin, MD, Department of Exercise Science, Totman 25, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, 30 Eastman Lane, Amherst, Massachusetts 01103.
    Department of Exercise Science, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA.
    Search for articles by this author
      The increased number of oral agents available to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) has presented clinicians with choices about how to combine them when monotherapy is not adequate to achieve glycemic targets. Initial studies focused on whether a combination of 2 active drugs was better than a single active agent plus placebo. Several factors need to be considered before results of combination regimens from a given protocol can be compared with results from a different study regimen. Some of these factors include population characteristics, baseline control and prior therapies, length of study, and outcomes (glycemic and nonglycemic). Additional factors to be considered are costs and side effects. These studies generally demonstrate that combination therapy is more likely than monotherapy to achieve glucose control in patients not at glycemic targets. The data also demonstrate that inadequate glucose control with a given medication does not necessarily indicate drug failure; indeed, adding a new agent to an existing regimen is typically better than using the new agent as monotherapy. More recent studies have begun to compare regimens each containing 2 drugs (usually with 1 medication in common). Outcomes beyond glycemic control have been measured, including traditional (e.g., lipid profiles, albuminuria) and nontraditional (e.g., high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, plasminogen activator inhibitor type–1) markers. However, modifying traditional markers with these medications has not yet been shown to improve outcomes; modifying nontraditional markers is even less certain. None of these trials have been extended long enough to report on hard clinical end points. Nonetheless, certain combinations may end up being preferable because they have better impact on nonglycemic end points while maintaining equivalent degrees of glucose control. Finally, the costs of multiple medications for DM need to be weighed in the decision-making process faced by clinicians.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to The American Journal of Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • UK Prospective Diabetes Study 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
        • Inzucchi S.E.
        Oral antihyperglycemic therapy for type 2 diabetes.
        JAMA. 2002; 287: 360-372
        • American Diabetes Association
        Standards of medical care in diabetes.
        Diabetes Care. 2005; 28: S4-S36
        • Garber A.J.
        • Duncan T.G.
        • Goodman A.M.
        • et al.
        Efficacy of metformin in type II diabetes.
        Am J Med. 1997; 103: 491-497
        • Rendell M.S.
        • Glazer N.B.
        • Ye Z.
        Combination therapy with pioglitazone plus metformin or sulfonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes.
        J Diabetes Complications. 2000; 17: 211-217
        • Diabetes Medical Guidelines Task Force
        • American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
        • American College of Endocrinology
        Medical guidelines for the management of diabetes mellitus.
        Endocr Pract. 2002; 8: 40-65
        • Koshiyama H.
        • Shimono D.
        • Kuwamura N.
        • et al.
        Rapid communication.
        J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001; 86: 3452-3456
        • Parulkar A.A.
        • Pendergrass M.L.
        • Granda-Ayala R.
        • et al.
        Nonhypoglycemic effects of thiazolidinediones.
        Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134: 61-71
        • UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group
        Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes.
        Lancet. 1998; 352: 854-865
        • Neeser K.
        • Lubben G.
        • Siebert U.
        • Schramm W.
        Cost effectiveness of combination therapy with pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus from a German statutory healthcare perspective.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2004; 22: 321-344
        • Drummond R.
        Thyroid storm [editorial].
        JAMA. 1997; 277: 1238-1243
        • Garfield S.A.
        • Malozowski S.
        • Chin M.H.
        • et al.
        • Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee Translation Conference Working Group
        Considerations for diabetes translational research in real-world settings.
        Diabetes Care. 2003; 26: 2670-2674
        • DeFronzo R.A.
        • Goodman A.M.
        • Multicenter Metformin Study Group
        Efficacy of metformin in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus.
        N Engl J Med. 1995; 333: 541-549
        • UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group
        UK prospective study of therapies of maturity-onset diabetes. I. Effect of diet, sulphonylurea insulin or biguanide therapy on fasting plasma glucose and body weight over one year.
        Diabetologia. 1983; 24: 404-411
        • Inzucchi S.E.
        • Maggs D.G.
        • Spollett G.R.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and metabolic effects of metformin and troglitazone in type II diabetes mellitus.
        N Engl J Med. 1998; 338: 867-872
        • Willms B.
        • Ruge D.
        Comparison of acarbose and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus insufficiently controlled with diet and sulphonylureas.
        Diabet Med. 1999; 16 ([published correction appears in Diabet Med. 2000;17:332]): 755-761
        • Raskin P.
        • Klaff L.
        • McGill J.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and safety of combination therapy.
        Diabetes Care. 2003; 26: 2063-2068
        • Hanefield M.M.
        • Brunetti P.
        • Scherthaner G.H.
        • et al.
        One-year glycemic control with a sulfonylurea plus pioglitazone versus a sulfonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.
        Diabetes Care. 2004; 27: 141-147
        • Moules I.
        • Edwards G.
        • Mariz S.
        • et al.
        Two-year efficacy of the addition of pioglitazone to sulfonylurea therapy in patients with T2DM.
        Diabetes. 2004; 53 (Abstract 584-P): A139
        • Mariz S.
        • Urquhart R.
        • Moules I.
        • et al.
        Effects of pioglitazone addition to metformin or sulfonylurea therapy on serum lipids in patients with T2DM—2-year data.
        Diabetes. 2004; 53 (Abstract 578-P): A137
        • Edwards G.
        • Urquhart R.
        • Moules I.
        • et al.
        Two-year efficacy of pioglitazone versus gliclazide addition to metformin therapy in T2DM.
        Diabetes. 2004; 53 (Abstract 1986-PO): A475
        • Rosenstock J.
        • Goldstein B.J.
        • Wooddell M.J.
        • et al.
        Greater benefits of rosiglitazone (RSG) added to submaximal dose of metformin (MET) compared to maximizing metformin dose in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.
        Diabetes. 2004; 53 (Abstract 608-P): A144
        • Weissman P.N.
        • Goldstein B.J.
        • Campbell J.C.
        • et al.
        Rosiglitazone plus metformin combination effects on CV risk markers suggest potential CV benefits in type 2 diabetic patients.
        Diabetes. 2004; 53 (Abstract 121-OR): A28
      1. Drug cost data for 2004. Available at: Accessed June 2004.