Cancer and bone fractures in observational follow-up of the RECORD study

Omega-3 fatty acid-rich fish oil supplementation prevents rosiglitazone-induced osteopenia in aging C57BL/6 mice and in vitro studies

Rosiglitazone is an effective insulin-sensitizer, however associated with bone loss mainly due to increased bone resorption and bone marrow adiposity. We investigated the effect of the co-administration of fish oil rich in omega-3 fatty acids (FAs) on rosiglitazone-induced bone loss in C57BL/6 mice and the mechanisms underlying potential preventive effect. Mice fed the iso-caloric diet supplemented with fish oil exhibited significantly higher levels of bone density in different regions compared to the other groups. In the same cohort of mice, reduced activity of COX-2, enhanced activity of alkaline phosphatase, lower levels of cathepsin k, PPAR-γ, and pro-inflammatory cytokines, and a higher level of anti-inflammatory cytokines were observed. Moreover, fish oil restored rosiglitazone-induced down-regulation of osteoblast differentiation and up-regulation of adipocyte differentiation in C3H10T1/2 cells and inhibited the up-regulation of osteoclast differentiation of RANKL-treated RAW264.7 cells. We finally tested our hypothesis on human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells differentiated to osteocytes and adipocytes confirming the beneficial effect of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) omega-3 FA during treatment with rosiglitazone, through the down-regulation of adipogenic genes, such as adipsin and FABP4 along the PPARγ/FABP4 axis, and reducing the capability of osteocytes to switch toward adipogenesis. Fish oil may prevent rosiglitazone-induced bone loss by inhibiting inflammation, osteoclastogenesis, and adipogenesis and by enhancing osteogenesis in the bone microenvironment.

Type 2 diabetes and bone fragility- An under-recognized association

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Diabetes and osteoporosis are common chronic disorders with growing prevalence in the aging population. Skeletal fragility secondary to diabetes increases the risk of fractures and is underestimated by currently available diagnostic tools like fracture risk assessment (FRAX) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). In this narrative review we describe the relationship and pathophysiology of skeletal fragility and fractures in Type 2 diabetes (T2DM), effect of glucose lowering medications on bone metabolism and the approach to diagnosing and managing osteoporosis and bone fragility in people with diabetes (PWD).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed for articles in English that focused on T2DM and osteoporosis or bone/skeletal fragility. Articles considered to be of direct clinical relevance to physicians practicing diabetes were included.

RESULTS

T2DM is associated with skeletal fragility secondary to compromised bone remodeling and bone turnover. Long duration, poor glycemic control, presence of chronic complications, impaired muscle function, and anti-diabetic medications like thiazolidinediones (TZD) are risk factors for fractures among PWD. Conventional diagnostic tools like DXA and FRAX tool underestimate fracture risk in diabetes. Presence of diabetes does not alter response to anti-osteoporotic treatment in post-menopausal women.

CONCLUSION

Estimation of fragility fracture risk should be included in standard of care for T2DM along with screening for traditional complications. Physicians should proactively screen for and manage osteoporosis in people with diabetes. It is important to consider effects on bone health when selecting glucose lowering agents in people at risk for fragility fractures.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Diabetes pharmacotherapy and effects on the musculoskeletal system

Persons with type 1 or type 2 diabetes have a significantly higher fracture risk than age-matched persons without diabetes, attributed to disease-specific deficits in the microarchitecture and material properties of bone tissue. Therefore, independent effects of diabetes drugs on skeletal integrity are vitally important. Studies of incretin-based therapies have shown divergent effects of different agents on fracture risk, including detrimental, beneficial, and neutral effects. The sulfonylurea class of drugs, owing to its hypoglycemic potential, is thought to amplify the risk of fall-related fractures, particularly in the elderly. Other agents such as the biguanides may, in fact, be osteo-anabolic. In contrast, despite similarly expected anabolic properties of insulin, data suggests that insulin pharmacotherapy itself, particularly in type 2 diabetes, may be a risk factor for fracture, negatively associated with determinants of bone quality and bone strength. Finally, sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk of atypical fractures in select populations, and possibly with an increase in lower extremity amputation with specific SGLT2I drugs. The role of skeletal muscle, as a potential mediator and determinant of bone quality, is also a relevant area of exploration. Currently, data regarding the impact of glucose lowering medications on diabetes-related muscle atrophy is more limited, although preclinical studies suggest that various hypoglycemic agents may have either aggravating (sulfonylureas, glinides) or repairing (thiazolidinediones, biguanides, incretins) effects on skeletal muscle atrophy, thereby influencing bone quality. Hence, the therapeutic efficacy of each hypoglycemic agent must also be evaluated in light of its impact, alone or in combination, on musculoskeletal health, when determining an individualized treatment approach. Moreover, the effect of newer medications (potentially seeking expanded clinical indication into the pediatric age range) on the growing skeleton is largely unknown. Herein, we review the available literature regarding effects of diabetes pharmacotherapy, by drug class and/or by clinical indication, on the musculoskeletal health of persons with diabetes.

Sex and BMI Alter the Benefits and Risks of Sulfonylureas and Thiazolidinediones in Type 2 Diabetes: A Framework for Evaluating Stratification Using Routine Clinical and Individual Trial Data

OBJECTIVE

The choice of therapy for type 2 diabetes after metformin is guided by overall estimates of glycemic response and side effects seen in large cohorts. A stratified approach to therapy would aim to improve on this by identifying subgroups of patients whose glycemic response or risk of side effects differs markedly. We assessed whether simple clinical characteristics could identify patients with differing glycemic response and side effects with sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We studied 22,379 patients starting sulfonylurea or thiazolidinedione therapy in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify features associated with increased 1-year HbA_1c fall with one therapy class and reduced fall with the second. We then assessed whether prespecified patient subgroups defined by the differential clinical factors showed differing 5-year glycemic response and side effects with sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones using individual randomized trial data from ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial) (first-line therapy, n = 2,725) and RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes) (second-line therapy, n = 2,222). Further replication was conducted using routine clinical data from GoDARTS (Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland) (n = 1,977).

RESULTS

In CPRD, male sex and lower BMI were associated with greater glycemic response with sulfonylureas and a lesser response with thiazolidinediones (both P < 0.001). In ADOPT and RECORD, nonobese males had a greater overall HbA_1c reduction with sulfonylureas than with thiazolidinediones (P < 0.001); in contrast, obese females had a greater HbA_1c reduction with thiazolidinediones than with sulfonylureas (P < 0.001). Weight gain and edema risk with thiazolidinediones were greatest in obese females; however, hypoglycemia risk with sulfonylureas was similar across all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient subgroups defined by sex and BMI have different patterns of benefits and risks on thiazolidinedione and sulfonylurea therapy. Subgroup-specific estimates can inform discussion about the choice of therapy after metformin for an individual patient. Our approach using routine and shared trial data provides a framework for future stratification research in type 2 diabetes.

Thiazolidinedione therapy and breast cancer risk in diabetic women: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Rising experimental evidence suggests that thiazolidinediones (TZDs) exert a protective effect on breast cancer. However, studies concerning this issue were inconsistent and limited. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis with data from currently available studies to evaluate the effect of TZDs on breast cancer risk among diabetic women. We comprehensively searched for all pertinent studies addressing TZDs use and breast cancer risk published before January 1, 2016, in PubMed, Clinical Trials, and Cochrane Library. Data synthesis was performed in a random-effects model using Stata version 12.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas). Fourteen independent studies were eventually selected in this meta-analysis, including 5 randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), 7 cohort studies, and 2 case-control studies. No significant associations of TZD use and risk of breast cancer were observed in the RCTs (pooled risk ratio [RR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39-1.53, I²  = 26%) or case-control studies (pooled odds ratio, 0.99, 95% CI, 0.76-1.28, I²  = 31%). A 19% reduction in breast cancer risk (pooled RR: 0.81, 95% CI, 0.66-0.99, I²  = 72%) was found in the cohort studies. However, after removing the study with the smallest event number and the greatest effect size, the association became nonsignificant with greatly decreased heterogeneity (pooled RR: 0.94, 95% CI, 0.86-1.03, I²  = 16%). This meta-analysis did not find any significant association between TZDs use and risk of breast cancer among diabetic women.

Thiazolidinedione drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: past, present and future

Thiazolidinedione (TZD) drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have proven effective in improving insulin sensitivity, hyperglycemia, and lipid metabolism. Though well tolerated by some patients, their mechanism of action as ligands of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) results in the activation of several pathways in addition to those responsible for glycemic control and lipid homeostasis. These pathways, which include those related to inflammation, bone formation, and cell proliferation, may lead to adverse health outcomes. As treatment with TZDs has been associated with adverse hepatic, cardiovascular, osteological, and carcinogenic events in some studies, the role of TZDs in the treatment of T2DM continues to be debated. At the same time, new therapeutic roles for TZDs are being investigated, with new forms and isoforms currently in the pre-clinical phase for use in the prevention and treatment of some cancers, inflammatory diseases, and other conditions. The aims of this review are to provide an overview of the mechanism(s) of action of TZDs, a review of their safety for use in the treatment of T2DM, and a perspective on their current and future therapeutic roles.

Long-term studies of treatments for type 2 diabetes

There is a relative lack of long-term data for individual glucose-lowering therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. A systematic search of published literature reporting data of approximately ≥3 years of follow-up from randomized controlled trials and their extensions was conducted. Trials to evaluate the efficacy and/or safety of glucose-lowering drugs currently approved for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes were included. Search results included long-term published data for traditional oral glucose-lowering drugs, insulin, α-glucosidase inhibitors, and incretin-based therapies. In general, results indicated that the short-term risk/benefit profile of these therapies is in line with longer-term evaluations. Individual results from these trials are reviewed in this report. These findings support the use of approved drug classes for longer-term treatment of type 2 diabetes.