Influence of sulfonylureas on the secretion, disposal and effect of insulin

Effect of exenatide, sitagliptin, or glimepiride on β-cell secretory capacity in early type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Agents that augment GLP-1 effects enhance glucose-dependent β-cell insulin production and secretion and thus are hoped to prevent progressive impairment in insulin secretion characteristic of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The purpose of this study was to evaluate GLP-1 effects on β-cell secretory capacity, an in vivo measure of functional β-cell mass, early in the course of T2D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 40 subjects with early T2D who received the GLP-1 analog exenatide (n = 14), the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor sitagliptin (n = 12), or the sulfonylurea glimepiride (n = 14) as an active comparator insulin secretagogue for 6 months. Acute insulin responses to arginine (AIRarg) were measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment with 5 days of drug washout under fasting, 230 mg/dL (glucose potentiation of arginine-induced insulin release [AIRpot]), and 340 mg/dL (maximum arginine-induced insulin release [AIRmax]) hyperglycemic clamp conditions, in which AIRmax provides the β-cell secretory capacity.

RESULTS

The change in AIRpot was significantly greater with glimepiride versus exenatide treatment (P < 0.05), and a similar trend was notable for the change in AIRmax (P = 0.1). Within each group, the primary outcome measure, AIRmax, was unchanged after 6 months of treatment with exenatide or sitagliptin compared with baseline but was increased with glimepiride (P < 0.05). α-Cell glucagon secretion (AGRmin) was also increased with glimepiride treatment (P < 0.05), and the change in AGRmin trended higher with glimepiride than with exenatide (P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

After 6 months of treatment, exenatide or sitagliptin had no significant effect on functional β-cell mass as measured by β-cell secretory capacity, whereas glimepiride appeared to enhance β- and α-cell secretion.

Pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To review the drug treatments and some of the popular, nontraditional remedies now available for type 2 diabetes mellitus, as well as selected investigational agents; to describe each medication's place in the overall approach to treatment.

DATA SOURCES

English-language journals, abstracts, review articles, and newspaper accounts.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In the past five years, there has been tremendous progress in the pharmacotherapy of diabetes, particularly type 2 diabetes. Several new agents have entered the clinical arena, and many more are in the late stages of investigation leading to approval. Sulfonylureas stimulate the production and release of insulin; these drugs must be used in patients with an intact pancreas. The meglitinides are nonsulfonylurea agents that are also insulin secretagogues. Unlike the sulfonylureas, repaglinide appears to require the presence of glucose to close the adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium channels and induce calcium influx. Metformin reduces hepatic glucose production in some patients and increases peripheral glucose utilization, but its use is hampered by a high percentage of adverse reactions. Disaccharidase inhibitors effectively compensate for the defective early-phase insulin release by slowing the production of sugars from carbohydrates. Thiazolidinediones appear to activate peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma, which is involved in the metabolism of lipids. Short-acting insulin and the role of weight-loss agents are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of new options for diabetes therapy provides a chance for successful therapy in a larger number of patients. However, it is important to consider how much true benefit these new forms of treatment will have on the diabetic community. The best choice for a patient remains controversial.

Glyburide increases the secretion, tissue uptake, and action of insulin in conscious normal dogs

The action of glyburide on glucose homeostasis involves pancreatic and extrapancreatic mechanisms. The relative importance of each of these processes in the hypoglycemic response to sustained administration of glyburide is unknown. In addition, the effect of this drug on the hepatic extraction of insulin is controversial. This investigation uses direct techniques in conscious normal dogs to examine the impact of glyburide therapy (2.5 mg twice daily for 4 weeks) on glucose homeostasis. Preparatory surgery included placement of Doppler flow probes on hepatic vessels and insertion of catheters in carotid artery, portal vein, hepatic vein, and renal vein. After recovery from surgery, animals underwent an intravenous glucose tolerance test ([IGTT] 0.3 g - kg (-1) intravenous glucose bolus) and an insulin infusion clamp test ([IICT] 2 mU - kg (-1) - min (-1) intravenous insulin during 150 minutes) followed by glyburide therapy. After 4 weeks, the IGTT and IICT were repeated. Glyburide increased the insulin secretory response during the late phase of the IGTT and augmented glucose clearance during the IICT. Hepatic extraction of insulin was also stimulated by glyburide. We conclude that the hypoglycemic action of long-term glyburide administration involves stimulation of both insulin secretion by the pancreas and glucose disposal by peripheral tissues. In addition, glyburide augments the extraction of insulin by the liver, and such an effect might prevent the development of sustained high levels of insulin in blood perusing peripheral tissues.

A novel mechanism of glipizide sulfonylurea action: decreased metabolic clearance rate of insulin

To examine whether sulfonylureas inhibit the metabolic clearance rate (MCR) of insulin, 19 healthy young subjects participated in two experiments. In the first protocol (n = 10), a 3-h oral glucose load was performed with and without 2 mg of glipizide given 30 min before glucose ingestion. The total insulin response was 60% greater with than without glipizide (5.9 +/- 0.6 vs 3.7 +/- 0.5 microU/ml; P < 0.001). However, the total C-peptide responses were virtually identical (4.7 +/- 0.5 vs 4.8 +/- 0.4 nmol/l) in both studies. In the second protocol (n = 9), the MCR of insulin was measured during 4-h euglycemic insulin clamps performed with and without glipizide. In the study with glipizide, the subjects ingested 5 mg of glipizide at 120 min. The steady-state plasma insulin concentration during the 4th h, i.e., 1-2 h after glipizide ingestion, was significantly higher than during the 2nd h, i.e., before glipizide ingestion (99 +/- 22 vs 78 +/- 17 microU/ml; P < 0.01). In addition, glucose uptake during the 4th h was greater (8.0 +/- 1.6 vs 6.4 +/- 1.5 mg/kg.min) and the MCR of insulin was reduced (503 +/- 126 vs 621 +/- 176 ml/m2.min; P < 0.01). We conclude that glipizide augments plasma insulin levels both by enhancing its secretion and by decreasing the MCR of insulin.

Does glibenclamide influence the clearance of insulin and glucose uptake in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?

Sulphonylureas have been proposed to decrease the clearance of insulin based on the finding that they increase peripheral insulin concentrations more than C-peptide concentrations. However, direct evidence for such an effect has so far been lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate whether glibenclamide affects clearance of insulin in Type 2 diabetic patients. Nine patients with Type-2 diabetes participated in the study. Insulin clearance and glucose metabolism was assessed with a 240 min euglycaemic insulin clamp in combination with infusion of somatostatin (400 micrograms h-1) to completely suppress endogenous insulin secretion. Either saline or glibenclamide was infused throughout the clamp in random order. During both the glibenclamide and the saline protocol the C-peptide level declined to < 0.07 nmol l-1 within 150 min, indicating that insulin secretion was completely suppressed. However, peripheral clamp insulin concentrations remained similar during both saline and glibenclamide protocols (3374 +/- 258 vs. 3350 +/- 265 pmol l-1 x 240 min, p = NS). There was no significant difference in the metabolic clearance rate of insulin during the glibenclamide compared to the saline experiment neither during the first 120 min (796 +/- 36 vs. 757 +/- 34 ml m-2min-1) nor during the last 2 h of the clamp (780 +/- 43 vs. 724 +/- 35 ml m-2min-1). Total glucose metabolism during the first two (14 +/- 2 vs. 15 +/- 2 mumol kg-1 min-1) and the last 2 h of the clamp was similar both during saline and glibenclamide infusions (27 +/- 4 vs. 28 +/- 4 mumol kg-1min-1).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The relationship between early insulin release and glucose tolerance in healthy subjects

Sulphonylureas improve glucose tolerance by stimulating insulin secretion. Whether improved glucose tolerance results from enhanced early insulin release or greater total insulin secretion is not clear. Therefore insulin and C-peptide responses to oral glucose were measured in healthy subjects with and without a single dose of oral and intravenous glipizide. The intravenous glipizide administration caused a marked early insulin response, whereas oral glipizide administration resulted in greater total and peak insulin concentration. Oral glipizide did not reduce plasma glucose until 45 min of the glucose load. In contrast, enhancement of the early insulin response with intravenous glipizide almost completely prevented postprandial glucose rise. In conclusion, early insulin release is a major factor determining oral glucose tolerance in healthy subjects.

Long-term effects of glipizide on insulin secretion and blood glucose control in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

Of 23 patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM), whose fasting blood glucose had not reached less than or equal to 6.0 mmol.l-1 after 10 weeks of dietary regulation, 15, who had had a weight reduction of -2.8 kg by dietary control, did achieve a fasting blood glucose less than or equal to 6.0 mmol.l-1 after addition of less than or equal to 20 mg glipizide daily. They had a sustained (greater than or equal to 2 years) increase in meal-induced insulin secretion (32% increase in postprandial C-peptide AUC), and a sustained reduction in postprandial hyperglycaemia (34% reduction in AUC). Ten of the patients took a mean daily dose less than 5 mg (4.8 mg) and had a sustained increase in insulin secretion rate (increased C-peptide slope). The 15 patients had no elevation of basal insulin secretion and no impairment of weight reduction. The remaining 8 subjects, who showed little or no weight reduction on dietary control, had little or no reduction in fasting blood glucose despite long-term treatment with 20 mg glipizide daily, a less sustained increase in meal-induced insulin secretion, a smaller reduction of postprandial hyperglycaemia, and an increase in body weight. On diagnosis the 8 subjects did not differ from the other 15 subjects in age, body weight, blood glucose, HbA1c, C-peptide or insulin, nor in their glucose and insulin responses to a test dose of glipizide; the main reason for the apparent drug failure appeared to be deficient compliance with dietary regulation rather than a primary inability to respond to sulphonylurea treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Management of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

The initial management of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) should include patient education, dietary counselling and, when feasible, individualised physical activity. It is only when such measures fail that drug therapy should be considered. Dietary management of NIDDM includes a restriction in calories, and these should be appropriately distributed as carbohydrates, lipids and proteins. Supplementation of the diet with soluble fibre and supplementation with magnesium salts if hypomagnesaemia is demonstrated, is recommended. However, supplementation with fish oils or with fish oil-derived omega-3 fatty acids is not currently recommended. Oral drug therapies used in NIDDM include sulphonylurea derivatives, which are a first-line treatment in patients who are not grossly obese, metformin, which is the treatment of choice for obese patients, and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors such as acarbose, which are used mainly to reduce postprandial blood glucose peaks. These types of drugs can be used alone or in combination. Insulin therapy may be required to achieve adequate control of blood glucose levels in some patients. In several instances, it is suggested that insulin therapy be combined with sulphonylureas (essentially when residual insulin secretion is present), with metformin, or with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors. The treatment of disorders associated with NIDDM, such as obesity, hypertension or hyperlipidaemia, requires particular attention in diabetic patients, since some drugs can adversely affect glycaemic control. Oral drugs for the treatment of NIDDM include sulphonylurea derivatives used in first-line treatment in patients who are not grossly obese, metformin, which is often the treatment of choice for obese patients and, more recently, the alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, such as acarbose, which are effective in reducing the postprandial rise in blood glucose.

Extrapancreatic insulin effect of glibenclamide

In eight patients with uncomplicated non insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, serum insulin levels, serum C-peptide levels and blood glucose levels were measured before and after oral administration of glibenclamide 0.1 mg/kg body weight and a test meal, or after a test meal alone. The rise in serum insulin levels persisted longer after glibenclamide. The initial rise in serum insulin was of the same magnitude in both situations, as was the rise in serum C-peptide levels during the entire 5 h study. It is concluded that glibenclamide is able to maintain a more prolonged increase in serum insulin levels by inhibiting the degradation of insulin in the vascular endothelial cells of the liver. The inhibition contributes to the blood glucose lowering effect of glibenclamide.

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships of oral hypoglycaemic agents. An update

Oral hypoglycaemic drugs, sulphonylureas and biguanides, occupy an important place in the treatment of Type II (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients who fail to respond satisfactorily to diet therapy and physical exercise. Although the precise mechanisms of action of these compounds are still poorly understood, there is sufficient agreement that sulphonylureas have both pancreatic and extrapancreatic effects, whereas biguanides have predominantly extrapancreatic actions. By using labelled compounds or measuring the circulating concentrations, the main pharmacokinetic properties of oral hypoglycaemic agents have been assessed and, in some cases, their pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships have been evaluated. A correlation between diabetes control and plasma sulphonylurea or biguanide concentrations is generally lacking at the steady-state, with the possible exception of long-acting agents; after either oral or intravenous dosing, the reduction of plasma glucose is usually related to the increased circulating drug concentrations. The toxic effects of oral hypoglycaemic drugs are more frequent in the elderly and in the presence of conditions that may lead to drug accumulation or potentiation (increased dosage, use of long-acting compounds, hepatic and renal disease, interaction with other drugs); however, a relationship between toxic effects and drug plasma levels has been reported only for biguanides.

Sulphonylurea antidiabetic drugs. An update of their clinical pharmacology and rational therapeutic use

Apart from the amelioration of symptoms, a major aim of the treatment of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM, type 2 diabetes) should be the prevention of cardiovascular complications. These are associated with the chronic hyperglycaemia that is characteristic of NIDDM, and the risk of complications is already increased in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). For these reasons, and because hyperglycaemia appears to be a self-perpetuating condition, treatment should be introduced as early as possible and should be aimed at normalisation of blood glucose. To enable early detection and intervention, screening is necessary. As diet regulation alone rarely suffices to normalise blood glucose, addition of sulphonylurea drugs is indicated in many cases. If introduced in the IGT phase, sulphonylureas drugs combined with diet regulation may postpone the development of IGT to manifest NIDDM, and may reduce the increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Sulphonylureas stimulate insulin release, possibly via interaction with receptors in the pancreatic B cells. In addition, such treatment enhances the reduced insulin action. This might be a primary effect but is also a consequence of the increased access to insulin and the subsequent reduction of hyperglycaemia. Sulphonylureas may enhance insulin availability by reducing insulin clearance. Effects on blood lipids are probably secondary phenomena. Fast and short acting sulphonylureas may improve the impaired meal-induced acute insulin release. If combined with weight-reducing diet regulation and introduced early, such treatment can maintain (near) normal blood glucose levels and an improved insulin action for several years without increasing basal insulin secretion, without chronic hyperinsulinaemia, and without weight increase. If not combined with diet regulation, sulphonylurea therapy is likely to fail. If introduced when NIDDM is advanced, the efficacy of these drugs is limited, with secondary failures developing at a rate of 5 to 10% per year. Continuous (24-hour-a-day) exposure to drug treatment could possibly desensitise the B cell to sulphonylurea stimulation. 'Second-generation' sulphonylurea drugs have a higher potency than 'first-generation' drugs, but this need not signify a greater clinical efficacy. The effect of several of these drugs may be increased if they are ingested half an hour before meal(s). Short acting sulphonylureas may be safer than long acting ones, which seem more likely to cause long lasting and fatal hypoglycaemia, at least in elderly patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Clinical pharmacology of sulfonylureas

Sulfonylureas seem to have similar mechanisms of action, including an acceleration and increase of insulin secretion, an increase of the systemic availability of insulin, and probably indirectly, an increase of insulin action. Sulfonylureas may postpone the development of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) to manifest non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM), and all NIDDM subjects should benefit from sulfonylurea treatment except those in whom insulin secretion has been attenuated. The most effective use is the combination of diet restriction and sulfonylurea introduced in NIDDM subjects soon after transition from IGT to NIDDM. A simple screening procedure has been devised to find the subjects at this early stage. Newer sulfonylureas, such as glipizide and glyburide, are more potent than the older ones, such as tolbutamide and chlorpropamide. During chronic treatment, glipizide and glyburide seem to be equally effective in reducing blood glucose levels, and they do so without causing a chronic elevation of insulin secretion, signifying that they do not increase the risk of pancreatic B cell exhaustion. Glipizide has rapid and complete absorption, as well as a rapid distribution and elimination. This may explain why it is less liable than other sulfonylureas to provoke long-lasting hypoglycemia, which is the major danger when using sulfonylureas. Despite its rapid elimination, 7.5 to 15 mg glipizide can be administered once daily without loss of therapeutic efficacy. This may be due in part to enterohepatic recirculation of the drug in response to meals. The therapeutic efficacy is increased if glipizide is received half an hour before breakfast.

Lack of primary effect of sulphonylurea (glipizide) on plasma lipoproteins and insulin action in former type 2 diabetics with attenuated insulin secretion

A double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation has been made into the effects of 8 weeks of glipizide treatment in diabetics previously classified as Type 2 but with subsequent attenuation of insulin secretion and thence maintained on exogenous insulin. Although all patients were exposed to therapeutic plasma concentrations of glipizide, fasting blood glucose, haemoglobin A1 and plasma lipoproteins (HDL, LDL, total cholesterol and triglycerides) did not show any consistent improvement following this treatment. It appears unlikely that SU (glipizide) has any primary effect on insulin action or on plasma lipoproteins. Its primary action is to augment insulin release and availability, so, its use should be restricted to Type 2 diabetics who retain insulin secretion.

Pharmacokinetics and metabolic effects of glibenclamide and glipizide in type 2 diabetics

Fifteen Type 2 diabetics were treated for 4-week periods with once daily (10 mg) glibenclamide, glipizide and placebo according to a double-blind cross-over protocol. Post-dose glipizide concentrations were three times higher than those of glibenclamide, due to the incomplete bioavailability of the latter. On the other hand, pre-dose drug levels were similar, as an expression of the slower absorption and/or elimination of glibenclamide. Both active treatments reduced postprandial blood glucose concentrations and 24-hour urinary glucose excretion to a similar degree, but fasting blood glucose concentrations were slightly lower during glibenclamide treatment. Both active treatments enhanced fasting and postprandial insulin and C-peptide concentrations, the C-peptide response being greater after glipizide than after glibenclamide. Plasma glucagon and GIP concentrations were not significantly affected. Insulin sensitivity was increased by glibenclamide but not by glipizide. Neither therapy affected insulin binding to erythrocytes. It appears that both glibenclamide and glipizide improved glucose metabolism by sustained stimulation of insulin secretion, which was most pronounced with glipizide. Only glibenclamide improved insulin sensitivity and was slightly more active than glipizide on fasting blood glucose levels. The differences may be consequences of the pharmacokinetics, but differences in pharmacodynamics cannot be excluded.

Glipizide increases plasma insulin but not C-peptide level after a standardized breakfast in type 2 diabetic patients

Peripheral blood glucose, plasma insulin and C-peptide levels were investigated after giving a standardized breakfast (500 kcal, 60 g carbohydrates) to 10 nonobese Type 2 diabetic patients previously treated by diet alone. Each patient received at random, at 1 week intervals, either 5 mg glipizide (meal + glipizide) or a placebo (meal alone) 30 min before breakfast. Basal values of blood glucose, plasma insulin and C-peptide were similar on both occasions. After meal + glipizide, the blood glucose increase was sharply limited whereas the rise in plasma insulin was steeper and reached twice as high a level. In contrast, the rise in plasma C-peptide was similar in both conditions. Consequently, the areas under the curves (0-300 min) showed a marked reduction in blood glucose after meal + glipizide (2289 +/- 149 versus 3101 +/- 169 mmol X min/1; 2p less than 0.001), associated with a significant increase in plasma insulin (14219 +/- 3261 versus 7591 +/- 1173 microU X min/ml; 2p less than 0.025) but no significant change in plasma C-peptide (342 +/- 45 versus 326 +/- 34 pmol X min/ml; N.S.). The insulin/C-peptide molar ratio was thus significantly increased after meal + glipizide (0.41 +/- 0.06 versus 0.23 +/- 0.04 at the 60th min; 2p less than 0.02). The dissociation between the responses of insulin and C-peptide suggests that a single dose of 5 mg glipizide in Type 2 diabetic subjects may enhance availability of peripheral insulin by extrapancreatic mechanism(s). This phenomenon may result in a higher circulating level of the hormone and therefore represent a further mode of action of sulphonylureas.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Impaired effect of sulfonylurea following increased dosage

Ten Type 2 diabetics were examined during long-term treatment, at two dosage levels, with chlorpropamide once daily and glipizide t.i.d. Drug concentrations were measured by gas chromatography and high-pressure liquid chromatography, respectively, plasma insulin (IRI) by radio-immunoassay, and blood glucose enzymatically. Both drugs gave continuous sulfonylurea exposure, even at the lower dosage, and the mean plasma concentrations were almost doubled after the increase in dose. Neither the IRI nor the glucose response to meals showed any therapeutic improvement following the increase in chlorpropamide dosage. The lower dosage of glipizide produced better glucose utilization than chlorpropamide. On the other hand, the increased dose of glipizide led to impairment instead of further improvement. As this was associated with enhanced rather than reduced IRI levels, the impairment might have been due to increased peripheral insulin resistance. Thus, glipizide offers a therapeutic advantage over chlorpropamide, but its effectiveness may be restricted not only by limitations set by the disease, but also by counter-regulatory mechanisms that develop during continuous exposure to sulfonylureas at high levels.