Possible interaction between gliclazide, fluconazole and sulfamethoxazole resulting in severe hypoglycaemia

Increased Frequency of Severe Hypoglycemia with the Modified-Release Gliclazide Compared to Glimepiride in Diabetic Older Adults; Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The main aim is to compare the risk of severe hypoglycemia associated with the modified-release (MR) gliclazide against glimepiride in diabetic older adults.

METHODS

All older adult diabetic patients who attended the emergency department (ED) between the 1st of Aug. 2017 and the end of Mar 2020 on gliclazide MR or glimepiride are included in two cohorts. We compared baseline differences between cohorts in demographics, lab results, diabetes complications, comorbidities, and drugs using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and unpaired t-test for continuous variables. All the baseline variables are used in a logistic regression to produce the propensity scores for receiving gliclazide MR. The primary outcome was Severe Hypoglycemia requiring Emergency Admission (SHEA). We used documented hypoglycemia, falls, fractures, Cardiovascular ED Admission (CVEA), and recurrent ED admissions as secondary outcomes. We used a univariate logistic regression followed by a propensity score-adjusted logistic regression to identify the adjusted odds ratio. We did a subgroup analysis for low and moderate-high doses users.

RESULTS

We included 2320 patients, 1786 were on gliclazide MR while 534 were on glimepiride. The risk of SHEA (Adjusted Odds Ratio AOR 6.74, p=0.002), falls (AOR 1.43, p=0.003), fractures (AOR 1.43, p=0.01), CVEA (AOR 1.66, p<0.001), recurrent ED admission (AOR 1.39, p=0.002) were significantly higher. At the same time, documented hypoglycemia was insignificantly higher (AOR 1.17, p= 0.444) with gliclazide MR compared to glimepiride. The low doses of both treatments did not show any SHEA cases, while the results with higher doses showed the same pattern of increased risk with gliclazide MR as the principle analysis.

CONCLUSION

Using gliclazide MR for older patients may not be a relatively safer alternative to avoid severe hypoglycemia and its possible consequences compared to glimepiride. It may be added to glimepiride in the Beers list of medications to be avoided in older adults.

Consensus guidelines for optimising antifungal drug delivery and monitoring to avoid toxicity and improve outcomes in patients with haematological malignancy, 2014

Antifungal agents may be associated with significant toxicity or drug interactions leading to sub-therapeutic antifungal drug concentrations and poorer clinical outcomes for patients with haematological malignancy. These risks may be minimised by clinical assessment, laboratory monitoring, avoidance of particular drug combinations and dose modification. Specific measures, such as the optimal timing of oral drug administration in relation to meals, use of pre-hydration and electrolyte supplementation may also be required. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antifungal agents is warranted, especially where non-compliance, non-linear pharmacokinetics, inadequate absorption, a narrow therapeutic window, suspected drug interaction or unexpected toxicity are encountered. Recommended indications for voriconazole and posaconazole TDM in the clinical management of haematology patients are provided. With emerging knowledge regarding the impact of pharmacogenomics upon metabolism of azole agents (particularly voriconazole), potential applications of pharmacogenomic evaluation to clinical practice are proposed.

Pharmacogenetics, drug-metabolizing enzymes, and clinical practice

The application of pharmacogenetics holds great promise for individualized therapy. However, it has little clinical reality at present, despite many claims. The main problem is that the evidence base supporting genetic testing before therapy is weak. The pharmacology of the drugs subject to inherited variability in metabolism is often complex. Few have simple or single pathways of elimination. Some have active metabolites or enantiomers with different activities and pathways of elimination. Drug dosing is likely to be influenced only if the aggregate molar activity of all active moieties at the site of action is predictably affected by genotype or phenotype. Variation in drug concentration must be significant enough to provide "signal" over and above normal variation, and there must be a genuine concentration-effect relationship. The therapeutic index of the drug will also influence test utility. After considering all of these factors, the benefits of prospective testing need to be weighed against the costs and against other endpoints of effect. It is not surprising that few drugs satisfy these requirements. Drugs (and enzymes) for which there is a reasonable evidence base supporting genotyping or phenotyping include suxamethonium/mivacurium (butyrylcholinesterase), and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine (thiopurine methyltransferase). Drugs for which there is a potential case for prospective testing include warfarin (CYP2C9), perhexiline (CYP2D6), and perhaps the proton pump inhibitors (CYP2C19). No other drugs have an evidence base that is sufficient to justify prospective testing at present, although some warrant further evaluation. In this review we summarize the current evidence base for pharmacogenetics in relation to drug-metabolizing enzymes.

Drug interactions of clinical importance with antihyperglycaemic agents: an update

Because management of type 2 diabetes mellitus usually involves combined pharmacological therapy to obtain adequate glucose control and treatment of concurrent pathologies (especially dyslipidaemia and arterial hypertension), drug-drug interactions must be carefully considered with antihyperglycaemic drugs. Additive glucose-lowering effects have been extensively reported when combining sulphonylureas (or the new insulin secretagogues, meglitinide derivatives, i.e. nateglinide and repaglinide) with metformin, sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives) with thiazolidinediones (also called glitazones) and the biguanide compound metformin with thiazolidinediones. Interest in combining alpha-glucosidase inhibitors with either sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives), metformin or thiazolidinediones has also been demonstrated. These combinations result in lower glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting glucose and postprandial glucose levels than with either monotherapy. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interferences have been reported with some combinations, they do not appear to have important clinical consequences. No significant adverse effects, except a higher risk of hypoglycaemic episodes that may be attributed to better glycaemic control, occur with any combination. Challenging the classical dual therapy with sulphonylurea plus metformin, there is a recent trend to use alternative dual combinations (sulphonylurea plus thiazolidinedione or metformin plus thiazolidinedione). In addition, triple therapy with the addition of a thiazolidinedione to the metformin-sulphonylurea combination has been recently evaluated and allows glucose targets to be reached before insulin therapy is considered. This triple therapy appears to be safe, with no deleterious drug-drug interactions being reported so far.Potential interferences may also occur between glucose-lowering agents and other drugs, and such drug-drug interactions may have important clinical implications. Relevant pharmacological agents are those that are widely coadministered in diabetic patients (e.g. lipid-lowering agents, antihypertensive agents); those that have a narrow efficacy/toxicity ratio (e.g. digoxin, warfarin); or those that are known to induce (rifampicin [rifampin]) or inhibit (fluconazole) the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system. Metformin is currently a key compound in the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes, used either alone or in combination with other antihyperglycaemics. There are no clinically relevant metabolic interactions with metformin, because this compound is not metabolised and does not inhibit the metabolism of other drugs. In contrast, sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones are extensively metabolised in the liver via the CYP system and thus, may be subject to drug-drug metabolic interactions. Many HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are also metabolised via the CYP system. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interactions may occur, it is not clear whether drug-drug interactions between oral antihyperglycaemic agents and statins may have clinical consequences regarding both efficacy and safety. In contrast, a marked pharmacokinetic interference has been reported between gemfibrozil and repaglinide and, to a lesser extent, between gemfibrozil and rosiglitazone. This leads to a drastic increase in plasma concentrations of each antihyperglycaemic agent when they are coadministered with the fibric acid derivative, and an increased risk of adverse effects. Some antihypertensive agents may favour hypoglycaemic episodes when co-prescribed with sulphonylureas or meglitinide derivatives, especially ACE inhibitors, but this effect seems to result from a pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction rather than from a pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction. No, or only modest, interferences have been described with glucose-lowering agents and other pharmacological compounds such as digoxin or warfarin. The effects of inducers or inhibitors of CYP isoenzymes on the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of the glucose-lowering agents of each pharmacological class has been tested. Significantly increased (with CYP inhibitors) or decreased (with CYP inducers) plasma levels of sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones have been reported in healthy volunteers, and these pharmacokinetic changes may lead to enhanced or reduced glucose-lowering action, and thus hypoglycaemia or worsening of metabolic control, respectively. In addition, some case reports have evidenced potential drug-drug interactions with various antihyperglycaemic agents that are usually associated with a higher risk of hypoglycaemia.

The role of sulphonylureas in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

The sulphonylureas act by triggering insulin release from the pancreatic beta cell. A specific site on the adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-sensitive potassium channels is occupied by sulphonylureas leading to closure of the potassium channels and subsequent opening of calcium channels. This results in exocytosis of insulin. The meglitinides are not sulphonylureas but also occupy the sulphonylurea receptor unit coupled to the ATP-sensitive potassium channel. Glibenclamide (glyburide), gliclazide, glipizide and glimepiride are the primary sulphonylureas in current clinical use for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Glibenclamide has a higher frequency of hypoglycaemia than the other agents. With long-term use, there is a progressive decrease in the effectiveness of sulphonylureas. This loss of effect is the result of a reduction in insulin-producing capacity by the pancreatic beta cell and is also seen with other antihyperglycaemic agents. The major adverse effect of sulphonylureas is hypoglycaemia. There is a theoretical concern that sulphonylureas may affect cardiac potassium channels resulting in a diminished response to ischaemia. There are now many choices for initial therapy of type 2 diabetes in addition to sulphonylureas. Metformin and thiazolidinediones affect insulin sensitivity by independent mechanisms. Disaccharidase inhibitors reduce rapid carbohydrate absorption. No single agent appears capable of achieving target glucose levels in the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes. Combinations of agents are successful in lowering glycosylated haemoglobin levels more than with a single agent. Sulphonylureas are particularly beneficial when combined with agents such as metformin that decrease insulin resistance. Sulphonylureas can also be given with a basal insulin injection to provide enhanced endogenous insulin secretion after meals. Sulphonylureas will continue to be used both primarily and as part of combined therapy for most patients with type 2 diabetes.