Mortality and Cardiovascular Risk of Sulfonylureas in South Asian, Chinese and Other Canadians with Diabetes

Antidiabetic effect of sciadonic acid on type 2 diabetic mice through activating the PI3K-AKT signaling pathway and altering intestinal flora

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a metabolic disease characterized by hyperglycemia. The aim of this work was to investigate the effect of sciadonic acid (SA) on disorders of glucolipid metabolism and intestinal flora imbalance and to further investigate its potential molecular mechanism of anti-diabetes. The experimental data indicated that SA could alleviate hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance, oxidative stress, the inflammatory response, repair liver function damage, and promote glycogen synthesis caused by T2DM. SA could also activate the PI3K/AKT/GLUT-2 signaling pathway, promote glucose metabolism gene expression, and maintain glucose homeostasis. Furthermore, 16S rRNA analysis revealed that SA could reduce the Firmicutes/Bacteroidota (F/B) ratio; promote norank_f__Muribaculaceae, Allobaculum, Akkermansia, and Eubacterium_siraeum_group proliferation; increase the levels of major short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), such as acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid; and maintain the homeostasis of the intestinal flora. In conclusion, these results suggested that SA could reshape the structural composition of intestinal microbes, activate the PI3K/AKT/GLUT2 pathway, improve insulin resistance, and decrease blood glucose levels.

Metformin-Insulin versus Metformin-Sulfonylurea Combination Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes: A Comparative Study of Glycemic Control and Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare glycemic control and risk of cardiovascular outcomes of metformin-insulin versus metformin-sulfonylurea combination therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative cross-sectional study in five tertiary level hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. We enrolled 321 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were on continuous treatment follow-up on either metformin-insulin or metformin-sulfonylurea combination therapy. We interviewed the participants and reviewed their medical records to investigate medication efficacy, safety, and adherence. The primary outcome measure was glycemic control and the secondary outcome measures were composite cardiovascular outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the total participants enrolled, 50.5% (n = 162) were those who received metformin-insulin and 49.5% (n = 159) metformin-sulfonylurea combination therapies for a median of 48 months follow-up. The reduction of Hb1Ac levels was comparable between the metformin-insulin (-1.04 ± 0.96%) and metformin-sulfonylurea (-1.02 ± 1.03%), p = 0.912. Patients who received metformin-sulfonylurea had 4.3 times more likely to have achieved target HbA1c level compared to those who received metformin-insulin, p < 0.001, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% CI = 4.31[1.79-10.32]. Risk of composite cardiovascular outcomes was higher in metformin-insulin group (40.5% versus 34.0%), p = 0.021. Co-morbidities, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and HbA1c had a significant association with composite cardiovascular outcomes. Reductions of bodyweight, HDL-C, LDL-C, triglycerides levels, and microvascular complications were different between the two groups, p < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

High proportion of patients who received metformin-sulfonylurea achieved target HbA1c level and had less composite cardiovascular outcomes compared to those who received metformin-insulin. However, these findings have to be confirmed with randomized control trials to determine risks associated with insulin use, while efficacy is maintained as second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Cardiovascular safety and efficacy of metformin-SGLT2i versus metformin-sulfonylureas in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Diabetes is a serious threat to global health and among the top 10 causes of death, with nearly half a billion people living with it worldwide. Treating patients with diabetes tend to become more challenging due to the progressive nature of the disease. The role and benefits of combination therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes are well-documented, while the comparative safety and efficacy among the different combination options have not been elucidated. We aimed to systematically synthesize the evidence on the comparative cardiovascular safety and efficacy of combination therapy with metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus metformin-sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 15 August 2019 without restriction in the year of publication. We included randomized controlled trials of patients with type 2 diabetes who were on metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors or metformin-sulphonylureas combination therapy at least for a year. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events, and the secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hypoglycemia, and changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We used a random-effects meta-analysis model to estimate mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We followed PICOS description model for defining eligibility and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines for reporting results. Of 3,190 citations, we included nine trials involving 10,974 participants. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (risk ration [RR] = 0.93, 95% CI [0.52, 1.67]), serious adverse events (RR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.79, 1.17]) and adverse events (RR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.02]) between the two, but in hypoglycemia (RR = 0.13, 95% CI [0.10, 0.17], P < 0.001). Participants taking metformin-sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors showed a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c (mean difference [MD] = − 0.10%, 95% CI [− 0.17, − 0.03], body weight (MD = − 4.57 kg, 95% CI [− 4.74, − 4.39], systolic blood pressure (MD = − 4.77 mmHg, 95% CI [− 5.39, − 4.16]), diastolic blood pressure (MD = − 2.07 mmHg, 95% CI [− 2.74, − 1.40], and fasting plasma glucose (MD = − 0.55 mmol/L, 95% CI [− 0.69, − 0.41]), p < 0.001. Combination therapy of metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors is a safe and efficacious alternative to combination therapy of metformin and sulphonylureas for patients with type 2 diabetes who are at risk of cardiovascular comorbidity. However, there remains a need for additional long-term randomized controlled trials as available studies are very limited and heterogeneous.

Development and validation of algorithms to classify type 1 and 2 diabetes according to age at diagnosis using electronic health records

BACKGROUND

Validated algorithms to classify type 1 and 2 diabetes (T1D, T2D) are mostly limited to white pediatric populations. We conducted a large study in Hong Kong among children and adults with diabetes to develop and validate algorithms using electronic health records (EHRs) to classify diabetes type against clinical assessment as the reference standard, and to evaluate performance by age at diagnosis.

METHODS

We included all people with diabetes (age at diagnosis 1.5-100 years during 2002-15) in the Hong Kong Diabetes Register and randomized them to derivation and validation cohorts. We developed candidate algorithms to identify diabetes types using encounter codes, prescriptions, and combinations of these criteria ("combination algorithms"). We identified 3 algorithms with the highest sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and kappa coefficient, and evaluated performance by age at diagnosis in the validation cohort.

RESULTS

There were 10,196 (T1D n = 60, T2D n = 10,136) and 5101 (T1D n = 43, T2D n = 5058) people in the derivation and validation cohorts (mean age at diagnosis 22.7, 55.9 years; 53.3, 43.9% female; for T1D and T2D respectively). Algorithms using codes or prescriptions classified T1D well for age at diagnosis < 20 years, but sensitivity and PPV dropped for older ages at diagnosis. Combination algorithms maximized sensitivity or PPV, but not both. The "high sensitivity for type 1" algorithm (ratio of type 1 to type 2 codes ≥ 4, or at least 1 insulin prescription within 90 days) had a sensitivity of 95.3% (95% confidence interval 84.2-99.4%; PPV 12.8%, 9.3-16.9%), while the "high PPV for type 1" algorithm (ratio of type 1 to type 2 codes ≥ 4, and multiple daily injections with no other glucose-lowering medication prescription) had a PPV of 100.0% (79.4-100.0%; sensitivity 37.2%, 23.0-53.3%), and the "optimized" algorithm (ratio of type 1 to type 2 codes ≥ 4, and at least 1 insulin prescription within 90 days) had a sensitivity of 65.1% (49.1-79.0%) and PPV of 75.7% (58.8-88.2%) across all ages. Accuracy of T2D classification was high for all algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our validated set of algorithms accurately classifies T1D and T2D using EHRs for Hong Kong residents enrolled in a diabetes register. The choice of algorithm should be tailored to the unique requirements of each study question.

Glucose-Lowering Therapies and Heart Failure in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Mechanistic Links, Clinical Data, and Future Directions

Diabetes mellitus independently increases the risk of and mortality from heart failure in a manner that is well established but inadequately understood. Glycemic optimization does not eliminate this risk, and measures of glycemic control are insufficient markers of cardiovascular risk. In response to a regulatory guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, glucose-lowering agents are now routinely evaluated in large cardiovascular outcome trials. These recent trial experiences of novel and established glucose-lowering therapies have shown variable risks and benefits with respect to heart failure. Cardiovascular outcome trials have increasingly included heart failure events as either a component of the primary end point or a secondary adjudicated end point. We comprehensively review each established and novel currently marketed glucose-lowering therapy, their biological targets, mechanisms of action, and relationships with heart failure. We then highlight gaps in available evidence and directions for future research regarding the ascertainment of heart failure-related data in the evaluation of emerging glucose-lowering therapies.

Exploring heart failure events in contemporary cardiovascular outcomes trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart failure (HF) are closely related, with the onset of one serving as an independent risk factor for the development or progression of the other. The true impact of their relationship is poorly understood. Since various classes of glucose-lowering therapies have been shown to have differing impact on cardiovascular outcomes, cardiovascular effects of such therapies have been increasingly formally evaluated. Areas covered: With the increasing prevalence of concomitant HF and type 2 DM, HF outcomes serve as important endpoints in trials of glucose-lowering therapies. A thorough literature search of recent cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies was performed. The authors focus on the availability and extent of ascertainment of data related to HF outcomes in these contemporary clinical trial experiences. Expert commentary: Although early cardiovascular outcome trials did not focus on HF events, these outcomes have been increasingly recognized as meaningful end points in cardiovascular outcome trials. The ascertainment of HF end point data needs to become routine and standardized.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sulfonylureas (SUs) are one of the most commonly used glucose-lowering agents worldwide. While their efficacy is undisputed, their cardiovascular safety has been debated since the 1970's.

RECENT FINDINGS

With no dedicated cardiovascular studies to definitively answer this question, observational studies and meta-analyses abound and have reported divergent results, fueling the controversy. Studies that compared SUs to metformin or newer agents, like GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, suggest a difference in cardiovascular events, yet this is likely the result of beneficial effects of the latter. Studies comparing SUs to other agents have been reassuring. SUs remain a common choice of treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes due to their exceptional value. They are effective at lowering glucose and thus contributing to the prevention of microvascular complications. Weight gain and hypoglycemia are their main side effects, although less severe when compared to insulin treatment. Their cardiovascular safety will remain a controversial topic due to lack of conclusive data, but there is no definitive evidence of harm with the second-generation agents.