The Infamous, Famous Sulfonylureas and Cardiovascular Safety: Much Ado About Nothing?

Clinical and Pharmacotherapeutic Profile of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Admitted to a Hospital Emergency Department

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is closely associated with other pathologies, which may require complex therapeutic approaches. We aim to characterize the clinical and pharmacological profile of T2DM patients admitted to an emergency department. Patients aged ≥65 years and who were already using at least one antidiabetic drug were included in this analysis. Blood glycemia, creatinine, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and hemoglobin were analyzed for each patient, as well as personal pathological history, diagnosis(s) at admission, and antidiabetic drugs used before. Outcome variables were analyzed using Pearson's Chi-Square, Fisher's exact test, and linear regression test. In total, 420 patients were randomly selected (48.6% male and 51.4% female). Patients with family support showed a lower incidence of high glycemia at admission (p = 0.016). Higher blood creatinine levels were associated with higher blood glycemia (p = 0.005), and hyperuricemia (HU) (p = 0.001), as well as HU, was associated with a higher incidence of acute cardiovascular diseases (ACD) (p = 0.007). Hemoglobin levels are lower with age (p = 0.0001), creatinine (p = 0.009), and female gender (p = 0.03). The lower the AST/ALT ratio, the higher the glycemia at admission (p < 0.0001). Obese patients with (p = 0.021) or without (p = 0.027) concomitant dyslipidemia had a higher incidence of ACD. Insulin (p = 0.003) and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1 RA) (p = 0.023) were associated with a higher incidence of decompensated heart failure, while sulfonylureas (p = 0.009), metformin-associated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) (p = 0.029) or to a sulfonylurea (p = 0.003) with a lower incidence. Metformin, in monotherapy or associated with DPP4i, was associated with a lower incidence of acute kidney injury (p = 0.017) or acute chronic kidney injury (p = 0.014). SGLT2i monotherapy (p = 0.0003), associated with metformin (p = 0.026) or with DPP4i (p = 0.007), as well as insulin and sulfonylurea association (p = 0.026), were associated with hydroelectrolytic disorders, unlike GLP1 RA (p = 0.017), DPP4i associated with insulin (p = 0.034) or with a GLP1 RA (p = 0.003). Insulin was mainly used by autonomous and institutionalized patients (p = 0.0008), while metformin (p = 0.003) and GLP1 RA (p < 0.0001) were used by autonomous patients. Sulfonylureas were mostly used by male patients (p = 0.027), while SGLT2 (p = 0.0004) and GLP1 RA (p < 0.0001) were mostly used by patients within the age group 65-85 years. Sulfonylureas (p = 0.008), insulin associated with metformin (p = 0.040) or with a sulfonylurea (p = 0.048), as well as DPP4i and sulfonylurea association (p = 0.031), were associated with higher blood glycemia. T2DM patients are characterized by great heterogeneity from a clinical point of view presenting with several associated comorbidities, so the pharmacotherapeutic approach must consider all aspects that may affect disease progression.

Comparison of Mitochondrial Adenosine Triphosphate-Sensitive Potassium Channel High- vs Low-Affinity Sulfonylureas and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Metformin

IMPORTANCE

Sulfonylureas are frequently used as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes (T2D), and individual sulfonylurea agents carry different risks of cardiovascular disease. Sulfonylureas' different affinities to cardiac mitochondrial adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium (mitoKATP) channels have been speculated to account for the intraclass difference in cardiovascular risk from in vitro and ex vivo studies; however, this hypothesis has not been assessed in a general population with diabetes receiving sulfonylureas added to metformin.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with T2D treated with mitoKATP channel high-affinity sulfonylureas and low-affinity sulfonylureas as add-on to metformin.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This is a new-user, active-comparator, and propensity score-matched cohort study with analysis of the Taiwanese Diabetes Mellitus Health Database from 2006, to 2017. Data analysis was performed from August 2020 to July 2021.

EXPOSURES

Cardiac mitoKATP channel high-affinity (glyburide and glipizide) and low-affinity (gliclazide and glimepiride) sulfonylureas combined with metformin.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for either MI or ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included individual MACE components, heart failure, arrhythmia, all-cause mortality, and severe hypoglycemia. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs).

RESULTS

Each sulfonylurea group comprised 53 714 patients (mean [SD] age, 54.7 [12.1] years; 31 962 men [59.5%]). MitoKATP channel high-affinity sulfonylureas vs low-affinity sulfonylureas when combined with metformin were associated with an increased risk of MACE (aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34), MI (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.73), all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03-1.57), and severe hypoglycemia (aHR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58-2.10), but not with increased risks of ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death, arrhythmia, and heart failure. The duration analyses revealed the highest MACE risk during 1 to 90 days after initiation of mitoKATP channel high-affinity sulfonylureas (aHR, 6.06; 95% CI, 4.86-7.55).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Use of mitoKATP channel high-affinity sulfonylureas vs low-affinity sulfonylureas was associated with an increased MACE risk in patients with T2D concomitantly receiving metformin, suggesting that high-affinity blockage of the mitoKATP channels could account for sulfonylurea-associated MACEs.

2022 update to the position statement by Primary Care Diabetes Europe: a disease state approach to the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes in primary care

Type 2 diabetes and its associated comorbidities are growing more prevalent, and the complexity of optimising glycaemic control is increasing, especially on the frontlines of patient care. In many countries, most patients with type 2 diabetes are managed in a primary care setting. However, primary healthcare professionals face the challenge of the growing plethora of available treatment options for managing hyperglycaemia, leading to difficultly in making treatment decisions and contributing to treatment and therapeutic inertia. This position statement offers a simple and patient-centred clinical decision-making model with practical treatment recommendations that can be widely implemented by primary care clinicians worldwide through shared-decision conversations with their patients. It highlights the importance of managing cardiovascular disease and elevated cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes and aims to provide innovative risk stratification and treatment strategies that connect patients with the most effective care.

Trends in Antidiabetic Drug Discovery: FDA Approved Drugs, New Drugs in Clinical Trials and Global Sales

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) continues to be a substantial medical problem due to its increasing global prevalence and because chronic hyperglycemic states are closely linked with obesity, liver disease and several cardiovascular diseases. Since the early discovery of insulin, numerous antihyperglycemic drug therapies to treat diabetes have been approved, and also discontinued, by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). To provide an up-to-date account of the current trends of antidiabetic pharmaceuticals, this review offers a comprehensive analysis of the main classes of antihyperglycemic compounds and their mechanisms: insulin types, biguanides, sulfonylureas, meglitinides (glinides), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs), thiazolidinediones (TZD), incretin-dependent therapies, sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and combinations thereof. The number of therapeutic alternatives to treat T2DM are increasing and now there are nearly 60 drugs approved by the FDA. Beyond this there are nearly 100 additional antidiabetic agents being evaluated in clinical trials. In addition to the standard treatments of insulin therapy and metformin, there are new drug combinations, e.g., containing metformin, SGLT2 inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, that have gained substantial use during the last decade. Furthermore, there are several interesting alternatives, such as lobeglitazone, efpeglenatide and tirzepatide, in ongoing clinical trials. Modern drugs, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, DPP4 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors have gained popularity on the pharmaceutical market, while less expensive over the counter alternatives are increasing in developing economies. The large heterogeneity of T2DM is also creating a push towards more personalized and accessible treatments. We describe several interesting alternatives in ongoing clinical trials, which may help to achieve this in the near future.

Sulfonylureas in the Current Practice of Type 2 Diabetes Management: Are They All the Same? Consensus from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries Advisory Board on Sulfonylureas

Since their inception in the commercial market in the mid-twentieth century, sulfonylureas (SUs) have remained a therapeutic option in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Despite their established glucose-lowering effects, there is no consensus among global experts and modern guidelines regarding the priority of SUs in relation to other therapeutic options, given the lack of evidence that SUs are associated with a low risk of macrovascular events and excess mortality. However, findings from recent trials and real-time observations have resolved this contentious issue somewhat, albeit to varying degrees. The present consensus discusses the role of SUs in contemporary diabetes management in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Regional experts from these countries gathered virtually to formulate a consensus following presentations of topics relevant to SU therapy with an emphasis on gliclazide, including long-term efficacy, cost, end-organ benefits, and side effects, based on up-to-date evidence. The present narrative review reflects the conclusions of this assembly and provides a platform upon which future guidelines for the use of SUs in the GCC can be tailored.

A disease state approach to the pharmacological management of Type 2 diabetes in primary care: A position statement by Primary Care Diabetes Europe

Type 2 diabetes and its associated comorbidities are growing more prevalent, and the complexity of optimising glycaemic control is increasing, especially on the frontlines of patient care. In many countries, most patients with type 2 diabetes are managed in a primary care setting. However, primary healthcare professionals face the challenge of the growing plethora of available treatment options for managing hyperglycaemia, leading to difficultly in making treatment decisions and contributing to therapeutic inertia. This position statement offers a simple and patient-centred clinical decision-making model with practical treatment recommendations that can be widely implemented by primary care clinicians worldwide through shared-decision conversations with their patients. It highlights the importance of managing cardiovascular disease and elevated cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes and aims to provide innovative risk stratification and treatment strategies that connect patients with the most effective care.

Research Progress of Herbal Medicines on Drug Metabolizing Enzymes: Consideration Based on Toxicology

The clinical application of herbal medicines is increasing, but there is still a lack of comprehensive safety data and in-depth research into mechanisms of action. The composition of herbal medicines is complex, with each herb containing a variety of chemical components. Each of these components may affect the activity of metabolizing enzymes, which may lead to herb-drug interactions. It has been reported that the combined use of herbs and drugs can produce some unexpected interactions. Therefore, this study reviews the progress of research on safety issues caused by the effects of herbs on metabolizing enzymes with reference to six categories of drugs, including antithrombotic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-diabetic drugs, statins lipid-lowering drugs, immunosuppressants, and antineoplastic drugs. Understanding the effects of herbs on the activity of metabolizing enzymes could help avoid the toxicity and adverse drug reactions resulting from the co-administration of herbs and drugs, and help doctors to reduce the risk of prescription incompatibility.

Toxicity of Metformin and Hypoglycemic Therapies

Metformin along with other antidiabetic medications provide benefit to patients in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, but caution is advised in certain scenarios to avoid toxicity in kidney disease. Renal dosing, monitoring of kidney function, and evaluating the risk of developing serious side effects are warranted with some agents. The available literature with regard to incidence of adverse events and toxicity of hypoglycemic therapies is reviewed.

TRPV1 Antagonists as Novel Anti-Diabetic Agents: Regulation of Oral Glucose Tolerance and Insulin Secretion Through Reduction of Low-Grade Inflammation?

With a global prevalence among adults over 18 years of age approaching 9%, Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has reached pandemic proportions and represents a major unmet medical need. To date, no disease modifying treatment is available for T2DM patients. Accumulating evidence suggest that the sensory nervous system is involved in the progression of T2DM by maintaining low-grade inflammation via the vanilloid (capsaicin) receptor, Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid-1 (TRPV1). In this study, we tested the hypothesis that TRPV1 is directly involved in glucose homeostasis in rodents. TRPV1 receptor knockout mice (Trpv1^−/−) and their wild-type littermates were kept on high-fat diet for 15 weeks. Moreover, Zucker obese rats were given the small molecule TRPV1 antagonist, N-(4-Tertiarybutylphenyl)-4-(3-cholorphyridin-2-yl)tetrahydropyrazine-1(2H)-carbox-amide (BCTC), per os twice-a-day or vehicle for eight days. Oral glucose tolerance and glucose-stimulated insulin secretion was improved by both genetic inactivation (Trpv1^−/− mice) and pharmacological blockade (BCTC) of TRPV1. In the obese rat, the improved glucose tolerance was accompanied by a reduction in inflammatory markers in the mesenteric fat, suggesting that blockade of low-grade inflammation contributes to the positive effect of TRPV1 antagonism on glucose metabolism. We propose that TRPV1 could be a promising therapeutic target in T2DM by improving glucose intolerance and correcting dysfunctional insulin secretion.

Do sulphonylureas still have a place in clinical practice?

Sulphonylureas have been commercially available since the 1950s, but their use continues to be associated with controversy. Although adverse cardiovascular outcomes in some observational studies have raised concerns about sulphonylureas, findings from relatively recent, robust, and high-quality systematic reviews have indicated no increased risk of all-cause mortality associated with sulphonylureas compared with other active treatments. Results from large, multicentre, randomised controlled trials such as the UK Prospective Diabetes Study and ADVANCE have confirmed the microvascular benefits of sulphonylureas, a reduction in the incidence or worsening of nephropathy and retinopathy, and no increase in all-cause mortality, although whether these benefits were due to sulphonylurea therapy and not an overall glucose-lowering effect could not be confirmed. A comparison of sulphonylureas and pioglitazone in the TOSCA.IT trial also confirmed the efficacy and cardiovascular safety of sulphonylureas. Investigators of randomised controlled trials have reported an increased risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain with sulphonylureas, but data from observational studies suggest that the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia is lower in people taking sulphonylurea than in people taking insulin, and weight gain with sulphonylureas has been relatively modest in large cohort studies. 80% of people with diabetes live in low-to-middle income countries, so the effectiveness, affordability, and safety of sulphonylureas are particularly important considerations when prescribing glucose-lowering therapy. Results of ongoing head-to-head studies with new drugs, such as the comparison of glimepiride with linagliptin in the CAROLINA study and the comparison of various therapies (including sulphonylureas) for glycaemic control in the GRADE study, will determine the place of sulphonylureas in glucose-lowering therapy algorithms for patients with type 2 diabetes.

The place of gliclazide MR in the evolving type 2 diabetes landscape: A comparison with other sulfonylureas and newer oral antihyperglycemic agents

The sulfonylureas are effective oral glucose-lowering agents with a long history of clinical use. While all have the same general mechanism of action, their pharmacokinetic properties are influenced by factors such as dosage, rate of absorption, duration of action, route of elimination, tissue specificity, and binding affinity for pancreatic β-cell receptor. The result is a class of agents with similar HbA1c-lowering efficacy, but well-documented differences in terms of effects on hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and renal safety. This review examines the differences between currently available sulfonylureas with a focus on how gliclazide modified release (MR) differs from other members of this class and from newer oral antihyperglycemic agents in the form of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) and sodium- glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The first part focuses on major outcome trials that have been conducted with the sulfonylureas and new oral agents. Consideration is then given to factors important for day-to-day prescribing including efficacy and durability, weight changes, hypoglycemia, renal effects and cost. Based on current evidence, third-generation sulfonylureas such as gliclazide MR possess many of the properties desired of a type 2 diabetes drug including high glucose-lowering efficacy, once-daily oral administration, few side effects other than mild hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular safety.

Cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with sulphonylureas: Results of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

After failure of metformin monotherapy, another glucose-lowering agent should be added to improve glucose control. The clinician has several pharmacological choices, including the addition of a sulphonylurea (SU) or a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i). While the cardiovascular safety of SUs remains a matter of controversy, DPP-4is have proven their non-inferiority vs placebo in recent cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials. In the absence of a head-to-head CV outcome trial-the CAROLINA, comparing linagliptin with glimepiride, is still ongoing-only indirect information can be found in the literature to compare CV outcomes (major CV events, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, CV death and all-cause mortality) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with SUs or DPP-4is. Thus, this comprehensive review summarizes the CV outcomes (excluding heart failure) reported in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SUs vs placebo or other glucose-lowering agents, DPP-4is vs placebo or other glucose-lowering agents and SUs vs DPP-4is in phase-II/III studies. Also, the results of observational studies reporting CV events in patients treated with either SUs or DPP-4is have been carefully examined. Overall, the CV safety of SUs appears to be poorer than that of DPP-4is in both RCTs and cohort studies. However, the results are somewhat disparate, and such heterogeneity may be explained by different patient characteristics across studies, but also perhaps by differences between various molecules in each pharmacological class. In particular, some doubt about a class effect affecting SU CV safety has been raised. The results of CAROLINA are expected to shed more light on SU CV concerns, especially compared with DPP-4is.