Trial reportEndocrine2020
A time to revisit the two oldest prandial anti-diabetes agents: acarbose and repaglinide.
Trial report in Endocrine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conventional and Shared Genetic Association Analysis Between Diabetes Mellitus and Sensorineural Hearing Loss.Human mutation · 2026Article
- Therapeutic potential of repaglinide-embedded chitosan hydrogel in promoting wound healing.Regenerative therapy · 2025Article
- Heterocyclic compounds as a magic bullet for diabetes mellitus: a review.RSC advances · 2022Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCompared with newer prandial anti-diabetes agents, repaglinide and acarbose are unique in being globally available in generic versions, being oral, and being the cheapest of all. The aim of this study was to compare their efficacy when used alone or in combination.
methodsIn a randomized, double-blind, prospective study, 358 recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients, who on a combined therapy with metformin and insulin glargine had a fasting plasma glucose (FGP) of <7.2 mmol/L but a 2-h postprandial plasma glucose (2hPPG) >10 mmol/L, were assigned to three groups of additional treatment with either repaglinide, acarbose, or repaglinide-plus-acarbose for 4 months.
resultsWith intention-to-treat analysis, 63% of repaglinide group, 45.4 percent of acarbose group, and 75.7% of repaglinide-plus-acarbose group reached the primary endpoint of 2hPPG < 10 mmol/L while maintaining FPG < 7.2 mmol/L. Treatment adherence rate was 75.6% with repaglinide, 61.4% with acarbose, and 81.3% with repaglinide-plus-acarbose (p = 0.001). Among the groups, weight was significantly lower in acarbose group (p < 0.05). Twenty-one percent of repaglinide patients, 4.9% of acarbose subjects, and 10.3% of repaglinide-plus-acarbose cases reported at least one episode of hypoglycemia (p < 0.005). HbA1C and basal insulin requirement were significantly lower in repaglinide group (p = 0.004, p = 0.0002). Triglycerides were lowest in acarbose group (p = 0.005).
conclusionsBoth acarbose and repaglinide were vastly effective in lowering postprandial hyperglycemia of recently diagnosed T2D. When combined, they were even more efficacious and the disease had a better outcome. Compared with newer peers, these two are particularly useful where and when cost consideration in diabetes treatment is a prime concern.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.