***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: AIM This study was design ed to compare effectiveness and remission rate between gliclazide and insulin as initial treatment in newly diagnosed , drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes . METHODS Newly diagnosed , drug-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes having mean fasting blood glucose > 200 mg/dL were enrolled into either of two groups ( gliclazide or insulin ) . The former received gliclazide modified-release 60 mg daily , while the insulin group received 16 units of premixed insulin as two divided doses along with medical nutrition therapy . Premeal blood glucose was monitored , and the dose was adjusted accordingly . Glycosylated hemoglobin ( HbA1c ) , lipid profile , and postmeal C-peptide were estimated at baseline and 6 months . Remission was defined as euglycemia off drug for a minimum duration of 1 month . RESULTS Baseline and 6-month blood glucose , HbA1c , and lipid profile were comparable between groups . Blood glucose levels normalized in 2 - 6 weeks in both groups . At 6 months , one of 30 ( 3.33 % ) in the gliclazide group and 24 of 30 ( 80 % ) in the insulin group were in remission . Ten of 16 ( 62.5 % ) in the insulin group and one of 20 ( .5 % ) in the gliclazide group continued to maintain euglycemia off all pharmacological treatment at 12 months . At 6 months , C-peptide increased in the insulin group ( 3.21+/-1.61 ng/mL at baseline vs. 5.82+/-2.23 ng/mL at 6 months ) , while it remained unchanged in the gliclazide group ( 3.4+/-1.87 ng/mL at baseline vs. 3.82+/-1.78 ng/mL at 6 months ) ( P=0.0003 ) . CONCLUSIONS Comparable glycemic control could be achieved with both insulin and oral hypoglycemic agent in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes subjects . Insulin treatment exceeded gliclazide in the remission ( drug-free ) rate Aims : Most treatments for type 2 diabetes  fail over time , necessitating combination therapy . We investigated the safety , tolerability and efficacy of liraglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride monotherapy over 2 years OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether simultaneous initial treatment of both insulin resistance and impaired beta-cell insulin secretion with glyburide/metformin tablets is superior to monotherapy with each component agent . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this r and omized , parallel-group , placebo-controlled , multicentre study , 806 patients with type 2 diabetes ( mean duration , 3 years ) who had failed diet and exercise were r and omly assigned to 4 weeks of therapy with placebo , glyburide 2.5 mg , metformin 500 mg , glyburide/metformin 1.25/250 mg , or glyburide/metformin 2.5/500 mg once daily . Doses were then titrated over 8 weeks based on glycaemic response . The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in mean HbA1c after 20 weeks . Changes in fasting plasma glucose , lipids and body weight were also assessed along with 2-h postpr and ial glucose and insulin values after a st and ardized meal . RESULTS At week 20 , patients taking glyburide/metformin 1.25/250 mg or 2.5/500 mg tablets had greater reductions in HbA1c levels ( -1.48 % and -1.53 % respectively ) compared with placebo ( -0.21 % ; both p < 0.001 ) , glyburide ( -1.24 % ; p = 0.016 and p = 0.004 respectively ) or metformin ( -1.03 % ; both p < 0.001 ) . Fasting plasma glucose concentrations were reduced more in both glyburide/metformin groups compared with placebo and metformin ( p < 0.001 ) ; patients in both combination therapy groups also had significantly lower postpr and ial glucose concentrations compared with placebo , glyburide and metformin . CONCLUSIONS Initial combination treatment with glyburide/metformin tablets produces greater improvements in glycaemic control than either glyburide or metformin monotherapy . The superiority of initial therapy with glyburide/metformin tablets may arise from simultaneous treatment of both pathophysiological defects of type 2 diabetes Abbreviations ACCORD Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes ADVANCE Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease : Preterax and Diamicron Modified-Release Controlled Evaluation AGI α-Glucosidase inhibitor  CAD Coronary artery disease CKD Chronic kidney disease CVD Cardiovascular disease DPP-4 Dipeptidyl peptidase IV GIP Glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide GLP-1 Glucagon-like peptide 1 NPH Neutral protamine Hagedorn TZD Thiazolidinedione UKPDS UK Prospect i ve Diabetes Study VADT Veterans Affairs Diabetes Medication compliance may be a problem in the management of patients with diabetes . Some physicians initially treat patients having non-insulin-dependent diabetes with oral sulfonylureas because they fear greater compliance problems with insulin therapy . We compared compliance with insulin and chlorpropamide in patients newly beginning medication for NIDDM . Seventy-seven adults with hyperglycemia despite diet therapy were r and omly assigned to chlorpropamide or insulin . Compliance was measured four times over 24 wk . Patients then crossed over to the other medication and were followed for 24 additional weeks . Overall , there were no differences in compliance with the two medications in terms of percent of prescription used , proportion taking at least 80 % of prescribed medication , self-report of medication or diet compliance , or protocol dropout rates . However , treatment satisfaction was higher with chlorpropamide , and most patients preferred chlorpropamide to insulin ( P < 0.0001 ) . While such differences in satisfaction may affect long-term compliance , physicians should not assume that their patients will be less compliant with insulin than with oral sulfonylureas BACKGROUND Optimal treatment for patients with both type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease has not been established . METHODS We r and omly assigned 2368 patients with both type 2 diabetes and heart disease to undergo either prompt revascularization with intensive medical therapy or intensive medical therapy alone and to undergo either insulin-sensitization or insulin-provision therapy . Primary end points were the rate of death and a composite of death , myocardial infa rct ion , or stroke ( major cardiovascular events ) . R and omization was stratified according to the choice of percutaneous coronary intervention ( PCI ) or coronary-artery bypass grafting ( CABG ) as the more appropriate intervention . RESULTS At 5 years , rates of survival did not differ significantly between the revascularization group ( 88.3 % ) and the medical-therapy group ( 87.8 % , P=0.97 ) or between the insulin-sensitization group ( 88.2 % ) and the insulin-provision group ( 87.9 % , P=0.89 ) . The rates of freedom from major cardiovascular events also did not differ significantly among the groups : 77.2 % in the revascularization group and 75.9 % in the medical-treatment group ( P=0.70 ) and 77.7 % in the insulin-sensitization group and 75.4 % in the insulin-provision group ( P=0.13 ) . In the PCI stratum , there was no significant difference in primary end points between the revascularization group and the medical-therapy group . In the CABG stratum , the rate of major cardiovascular events was significantly lower in the revascularization group ( 22.4 % ) than in the medical-therapy group ( 30.5 % , P=0.01 ; P=0.002 for interaction between stratum and study group ) . Adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar among the groups , although severe hypoglycemia was more frequent in the insulin-provision group ( 9.2 % ) than in the insulin-sensitization group ( 5.9 % , P=0.003 ) . CONCLUSIONS Overall , there was no significant difference in the rates of death and major cardiovascular events between patients undergoing prompt revascularization and those undergoing medical therapy or between strategies of insulin sensitization and insulin provision . ( Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00006305 . Abstract Aims / Introduction : We compared the safety and efficacy of liraglutide vs glibenclamide in patients with poorly controlled ( HbA1c , 7.4–10.4 % ) type 2 diabetes . Material s and Methods : Subjects were r and omly assigned at a 1:2 ratio to receive 1‐year treatment with glibenclamide 1.25–2.5 mg/day or liraglutide 0.9 mg/day . Other oral anti‐diabetic drugs ( OAD ) were prohibited during the trial . Adverse events ( AE ) were monitored . Results : A total of 400 patients ( liraglutide group , n = 268 ; glibenclamide group , n = 132 ) were r and omized and exposed to trial products . At week 52 vs baseline , HbA1c in the liraglutide and glibenclamide groups was reduced from 9.3 to 7.8 % and from 9.2 to 8.2 % , respectively . Treatment difference ( liraglutide – glibenclamide ) at the end of the study was −0.49 ( 95 % CI , −0.71 to −0.27 ) . In the liraglutide and glibenclamide groups , Japan Diabetes Society target HbA1c < 6.9 % was achieved by 22.1 and 8.5 % of patients , respectively . Fasting plasma glucose fell from 202.8 and 202.1 mg/dL , respectively , to 145.3 and 156.7 mg/dL , respectively . Mean plasma glucose and mean postpr and ial plasma glucose increment were lower in the liraglutide group . Mean bodyweight was reduced by −0.8 kg in the liraglutide group and increased by 1.0 kg in the glibenclamide group . The proportion of patients reporting at least one treatment‐emergent AE ( TEAE ) in the liraglutide and glibenclamide groups was 91.4 and 91.7 % , respectively . Most TEAE were mild in severity . No major hypoglycemic episode was observed . Conclusions : Once‐daily administration of liraglutide 0.9 mg for 52 weeks provides more favorable metabolic control and safety profile compared with glibenclamide . Patients on liraglutide lost bodyweight , whereas those on glibenclamide gained weight . This trial was registered with Clinical Trial.gov ( no. NCT00393718 ) . ( J Diabetes Invest , doi : 10.1111/j.2040‐1124.2011.00128.x , 2011 Metformin and glibenclamide were compared in a r and omized , double-blind trial in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus ( NIDDM ) using a parallel group design . The study was performed in primary health care , and the main purpose was to assess combination therapy with the two drugs as primary treatment versus conventional oral therapy . After a 2 months diet period patients were r and omized to commence treatment with either metformin , glibenclamide or the combination of both . Patients r and omized to monotherapy received the alternative drug in addition if the maximal dose i.e. 3 g metformin or 14 mg glibenclamide was insufficient to normalize the fasting blood glucose concentration ( FBG ) . R and omization and dose escalation occurred at FBG greater than or equal to 6.7 mmol/l . The titrated dose was continued for 6 months , whereafter placebo was given for 2 weeks . Seventy-two patients were r and omized to either the metformin group ( n = 38 ) or the glibenclamide group ( n = 34 ) . Fifty-six completed 6 months treatment , twenty-eight in each r and omized group . Glycaemic control was unchanged after diet alone in all groups . The improvement during drug treatment was highly significant ( p less than 0.001 ) , mean FBG difference ( + /- SEM ) 3.2 + /- 0.4 mmol/l and mean HbA1c difference ( + /- SEM ) 1.5 + /- 0.2 % ( n = 56 ) . There were no significant differences between patients treated solely with metformin ( n = 16 ) and glibenclamide ( n = 17 ) or between patients treated with a combination of glibenclamide added to metformin ( n = 12 ) and metformin added to glibenclamide ( n = 11 ) . ( ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS Aims /hypothesisObservational and mechanistic studies have suggested a possible relationship between treatment 
    Output:
    
SGS versus metformin ( RR 1.47 ; 95 % CI 0.54 to 4.01 ; P = 0.45 ; 6 trials ; 3528 participants ; HRB ) , thiazolidinediones ( RR 1.30 , 95 % CI 0.55 to 3.07 ; P = 0.55 ; 7 trials ; 4955 participants ; HRB ) , insulin ( RR 0.96 , 95 % CI 0.73 to 1.28 ; P = 0.80 ; 4 trials ; 1642 participants ; HRB ) or meglitinide ( RR 0.97 , 95 % CI 0.27 to 3.53 ; P = 0.97 ; 7 trials , 2038 participants , HRB ) showed no statistically significant effects regarding cardiovascular mortality .
SGS versus thiazolidinediones and meglitinides did not show statistically significant differences for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes .
SGS versus metformin , thiazolidinediones and meglitinides showed no statistical significance for non-fatal myocardial infa rct ion .
SGS versus placebo , metformin , thiazolidinediones , alpha-glucosidase inhibitors or meglitinides showed no statistical significance for adverse events .
TGS versus thiazolidinediones did not show any statistical significance for drop-outs due to adverse events .
There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support the decision as to whether to initiate sulphonylurea monotherapy .