Chlorpropamide-alcohol flush: a critical reappraisal

Fact versus Fiction: a Review of the Evidence behind Alcohol and Antibiotic Interactions

Many antibiotics carry caution stickers that warn against alcohol consumption. Data regarding concurrent use are sparse. An awareness of data that address this common clinical scenario is important so health care professionals can make informed clinical decisions and address questions in an evidence-based manner. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the evidence behind alcohol warnings issued for many common antimicrobials. The search was conducted from inception of each database to 2018 using PubMed, Medline via Ovid, and Embase. It included studies that involved interactions, effects on efficacy, and toxicity/adverse drug reactions (ADR) due to concomitant alcohol consumption and antimicrobials. All interactions were considered in terms of three components: (i) alteration in pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of antimicrobials and/or alcohol, (ii) change in antimicrobial efficacy, and (iii) development of toxicity/ADR. Available data support that oral penicillins, cefdinir, cefpodoxime, fluoroquinolones, azithromycin, tetracycline, nitrofurantoin, secnidazole, tinidazole, and fluconazole can be safely used with concomitant alcohol consumption. Data are equivocal for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Erythromycin may have reduced efficacy with alcohol consumption, and doxycycline may have reduced efficacy in chronic alcoholism. Alcohol low in tyramine may be consumed with oxazolidinones. The disulfiram-like reaction, though classically associated with metronidazole, occurs with uncertain frequency and with varied severity. Cephalosporins with a methylthiotetrazole (MTT) side chain or a methylthiodioxotriazine (MTDT) ring, ketoconazole, and griseofulvin have an increased risk of a disulfiram-like reaction. Alcohol and antimicrobial interactions are often lacking evidence. This review questions common beliefs due to poor, often conflicting data and identifies important knowledge gaps.

Technology literature review: quantitative sensory testing

The development of the personal computer has simplified the process of quantitating sensory thresholds using various testing algorithms. We reviewed the technical aspects and reproducibility of different methods to determine threshold for light touch-pressure, vibration, thermal, and pain stimuli. Clinical uses and limitations of quantitative sensory testing (QST) were also reviewed. QST is a reliable psychophysical test of large- and small-fiber sensory modalities. The results of QST are highly dependent on methodology and the full cooperation of the subject. QST has been shown to be reasonably reproducible over a period of days or weeks in normal subjects. The use of QST in research and patient care should be limited to instruments and their corresponding methodologies that have been shown to be reproducible. Literature data do not allow conclusions regarding the relative merits of individual QST instruments.

Comparative tolerability of sulphonylureas in diabetes mellitus

The sulphonylurea drugs have been the mainstay of oral treatment for patients with diabetes mellitus since they were introduced. In general, they are well tolerated, with a low incidence of adverse effects, although there are some differences between the drugs in the incidence of hypoglycaemia. Over the years, the drugs causing the most problems with hypoglycaemia have been chlorpropamide and glibenclamide (glyburide), although this is a potential problem with all sulphonylureas because of their action on the pancreatic beta cell, stimulating insulin release. Other specific problems have been reported with chlorpropamide that occur only rarely, if at all, with other sulphonylureas. Hyponatraemia secondary to inappropriate antidiuretic hormone activity, and increased flushing following the ingestion of alcohol, have been well described. The progressive beta cell failure with time results in eventual loss of efficacy, as these agents depend on a functioning beta cell and are ineffective in the absence of insulin-producing capacity. Differences in this secondary failure rate have been reported, with chlorpropamide and gliclazide having lower failure rates than glibenclamide or glipizide. The reasons for this are unclear, but the more abnormal pattern of insulin release produced by glibenclamide may be partly responsible and, indeed, may explain the increased risk of hypoglycaemia with this agent. Previously reported increased mortality associated with tolbutamide therapy has not been substantiated, and more recent data have shown no increased mortality from sulphonylurea treatment. Indeed, benefit from glycaemic control, regardless of the agent used--insulin or sulphonylurea--was reported by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study. Nevertheless, there is still ongoing controversy in view of the experimental evidence, mainly from animal studies, of potential adverse effects on the heart from sulphonylureas, but these are difficult to extrapolate into clinical situations. Most of these studies have been carried out with glibenclamide, which makes comparison of possible risk difficult. Other cardiovascular risk factors may be modified by gliclazide, which seems unique among the sulphonylureas in this respect. Its reported haemobiological and free radical scavenging activity probably resides in the azabicyclo-octyl ring structure in the side chain. Reduced progression or improvement in retinopathy has been reported in comparative trials with other sulphonylureas, and the effect is unrelated to improvements in glycaemia. There are differences between the sulphonylureas in some adverse effects, risk of hypoglycaemia, failure rates and actions on vascular risk factors. As a group of drugs, they are very well tolerated, but differences in overall tolerability can be identified.

Good metabolic and safety profile of troglitazone alone and following alcohol in NIDDM subjects

Drinking alcohol is associated with a recognised risk of hypoglycaemia. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study was designed to determine whether alcohol taken with the evening meal alters the gluco-regulatory response to troglitazone, (TR), an insulin action enhancer, in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) subjects to increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. In vitro studies conducted prior to the clinical study presented here showed no evidence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between the two drugs. A total of 23, diet-treated, NIDDM subjects received either TR, 200 mg once daily (n = 11) or placebo (PL) (n = 12) for 45 days. On days 42 and 45 subjects were given, on separate days, an alcohol challenge (AC), 0.6 mg/kg ethanol in orange juice and a control challenge, CC, orange juice alone, with the evening meal. Serum glucose, insulin, proinsulin-like molecules, C-peptide and lipids were measured during the study, for the 4 h after each challenge and the following morning (fasting). The over-night urine cortisol/creatinine ratio (an index of hypoglycaemia) was also determined. For the TR treated group, fasting serum glucose the next morning (adjusted geometric mean: 6.8 mmol/l for AC) and weighted mean were not statistically significantly different following AC compared to CC. Mean trough glucose for TR after the evening meal was 5.7 mmol/l following both the AC and CC. Analysis of the other parameters showed no symptomatic or pharmacodynamic evidence of an acute interaction between TR and alcohol. It can be concluded that occasional drinking of alcohol, with a meal, by TR-treated NIDDM patients is unlikely to be associated with an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.

Antihyperglycaemic agents. Drug interactions of clinical importance

Non-insulin-dependent (type 2) diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) affects middle-aged or elderly people who frequently have several other concomitant diseases, especially obesity, hypertension, dyslipidaemias, coronary insufficiency, heart failure and arthropathies. Thus, polymedication is the rule in this population, and the risk of drug interactions is important, particularly in elderly patients. The present review is restricted to the interactions of other drugs with antihyperglycaemic compounds, and will not consider the mirror image, i.e. the interactions of antihyperglycaemic agents with other drugs. Oral antihyperglycaemic agents include sulphonylureas, biguanides--essentially metformin since the withdrawn of phenformin and buformin--and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, acarbose being the only representative on the market. These drugs can be used alone or in combination to obtain better metabolic control, sometimes with insulin. Drug interactions with antihyperglycaemic agents can be divided into pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions. Most pharmacokinetic studies concern sulphonylureas, whose action may be enhanced by numerous other drugs, thus increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Such an effect may result essentially from protein binding displacement, inhibition of hepatic metabolism and reduction of renal clearance. Reduction of the hypoglycaemic activity of sulphonylureas due to pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs appears to be much less frequent. Drug interactions leading to an increase in plasma metformin concentrations, mainly by reducing the renal excretion or the hepatic metabolism of the biguanide, should be avoided to limit the risk of hyperlactaemia. Owing to its mode of action, pharmacokinetic interferences with acarbose are limited to the gastrointestinal tract, but have not been extensively studied yet. Pharmacodynamic interactions are quite numerous and may result in a potentiation of the hypoglycaemic action or, conversely, in a deterioration of blood glucose control. Such interactions may be observed whatever the type of antidiabetic treatment. They result from the intrinsic properties of the coprescribed drug on insulin secretion and action, or on a key step of carbohydrate metabolism. Finally, a combination of 2 to 3 antihyperglycaemic agents is common for treating patients with NIDDM to benefit from the synergistic effect of compounds acting on different sites of carbohydrate metabolism. Possible pharmacokinetic interactions between alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and classical antidiabetic oral agents should be better studied in the diabetic population.

[Facial vasomotor flushing due to alcohol-chlorpropamide. Prevalence in diabetic and non-diabetic patients]

Using a standard test (sherry 40 ml 12 hours and 36 hours after 250 mg chlorpropamide), chlorpropamide-alcohol flush (CPAF) prevalence was 34 p. 100 (19/56) in non insulin-dependent diabetics (NIDD), 10 p. 100 (3/30) in insulin-dependent diabetics and 7 p. 100 (2/27) in controls. Family history of diabetes was not associated with CPAF trait. Conflicting results in the literature might be explained by bias in patients selection or methodology.