Hypoglycaemia when adding sulphonylurea to metformin: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Trends in antidiabetes medication use among hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective single-centre cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Novel antidiabetes medications with proven cardiovascular or renal benefit, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), have been introduced to the market. This study explored the 4-year trends of antidiabetes medication use among medical hospitalisations with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospital in Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

4695 adult hospitalisations with T2D and prevalent or incident use of one of the following antidiabetes medications (metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sulfonylureas, GLP-1 RA, SGLT-2i, short-acting insulin or long-acting insulin), identified using electronic health record data. Quarterly trends in use of antidiabetes medications were plotted overall and stratified by cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

RESULTS

We observed a stable trend in the proportion of hospitalisations with T2D who received any antidiabetes medication (from 77.6% during 2019 to 78% in 2022; p for trend=0.97). In prevalent users, the largest increase in use was found for SGLT-2i (from 7.4% in 2019 to 21.8% in 2022; p for trend <0.01), the strongest decrease was observed for sulfonylureas (from 11.4% in 2019 to 7.2% in 2022; p for trend <0.01). Among incident users, SGLT-2i were the most frequently newly prescribed antidiabetes medication with an increase from 26% in 2019 to 56.1% in 2022 (p for trend <0.01). Between hospital admission and discharge, SGLT-2i also accounted for the largest increase in prescriptions (+5.1%; p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

These real-world data from 2019 to 2022 demonstrate a significant shift in antidiabetes medications within the in-hospital setting, with decreased use of sulfonylureas and increased prescriptions of SGLT-2i, especially in hospitalisations with CVD or CKD. This trend aligns with international guidelines and indicates swift adaptation by healthcare providers, signalling a move towards more effective diabetes management.

Real-world evidence on health-related quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using sulphonylureas: An analysis of the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) Register

AIMS

To describe health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and identify associated factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs).

METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included adults with T2DM from 11 Asian countries/regions prospectively enrolled in the Joint Asian Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) Register (2007-2019) with available EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-3L) data.

RESULTS

Of 47,895 included patients, 42,813 were treated with OGLDs + lifestyle modifications (LSM) and 5,082 with LSM only. Among those treated with OGLDs, 60% received sulphonylureas (SUs), of whom 47% received gliclazide. The OGLD + LSM group had a lower mean EQ-5D-3L index score than the LSM-only group (p < 0.001). The most affected EQ-5D-3L dimensions in OGLD + LSM-treated patients were pain/discomfort (26.2%) and anxiety/depression (22.6%). On multivariate analysis, good HRQoL was positively associated with male sex, education level, balanced diet and regular exercise, and negatively with complications/comorbidities, self-reported hypoglycaemia, smoking, HbA1c, age, body mass index and disease duration. Patients receiving gliclazide vs non-gliclazide SUs had lower HbA1c and better HRQoL in all dimensions (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Demographic, physical and psychosocial-behavioural factors were associated with HRQoL in patients with T2DM. Our real-world data add to previous evidence that gliclazide is an effective OGLD, with most treated patients reporting good HRQoL. A plain language summary of this manuscript is available here.

Metformin-'BRAINS & AIMS' pharmacological/prescribing principles of commonly prescribed (Top 100) drugs: Education and discussion

We review pharmacological/prescribing principles relating to metformin according to our mnemonic framework: 'BRAINS & AIMS' (Benefits, Risks, Adverse Effects, Interactions, Necessary prophylaxis, Susceptibilities, Administering, Informing, Monitoring and Stopping): Benefits: Metformin's licensed uses: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment, reduction in risk or delay of onset. No clear evidence metformin influences patient-important outcomes [Cochrane Review (2020) of 18 RCTs (n = 10 680)]. Risks: Inexpensive, essential WHO list drug; use contraindicated/not tolerated in 15%: for example, contraindication: lactic acidosis in renal impairment (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m² ). Adverse effects: Common gastrointestinal (GI) side effects are dose-related and include abdominal pain, decreased appetite, diarrhoea (usually transient), nausea and vomiting, altered taste; vitamin B₁₂ deficiency. Rare: acute metabolic acidosis (lactic acidosis/diabetic ketoacidosis). Interactions (pharmacokinetic) occur with drugs impairing renal function and hence metformin excretion, and drugs inhibiting organic cation transporter 1 or 2 (OCT1, OCT2), and/or multidrug and toxin extrusion protein 1 (MATE1/2-K), such as cimetidine, ranolazine, trimethoprim and verapamil, and inducers such as rifampicin. The risk of hypoglycaemia may increase when metformin is used in combination with other medications for diabetes (pharmacodynamic interaction). Necessary prophylaxis: Detect/treat vitamin B₁₂ deficiency. Susceptible groups: Elderly/renal/liver impairment (lactic acidosis); safe in pregnancy/breastfeeding. Administering: Initially 500 mg once daily (morning) with breakfast; titrate only after 1 week. Informing (relevant BRAINS & A(I)MS principles). Monitoring: Renal function beforehand, and 6-12 monthly, HbA1c 3-6 monthly until controlled. Serum vitamin B₁₂ levels if deficiency is suspected/risk factors for. Stopping: Encourage patients to continue medication, unless deteriorating renal/liver function. Reasons for deprescribing: no harms from stopping suddenly.

Real-world usage of sulphonylureas in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes using the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) register

AIMS

To explore the patterns of use of oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs) in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), focusing on sulphonylureas (SUs), and to describe patient profiles according to treatment regimen.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from adults with T2D from 11 Asian countries/regions with structured assessment enrolled in the prospective Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) register between November 2007 and December 2019. Patients receiving insulin and/or injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists were excluded.

RESULTS

Amongst 62 512 patients (mean ± standard deviation age: 57.3 ± 11.8 years; 53.6% men), 54 783 (87.6%) were treated with OGLDs at enrolment. Most received one (37.5%) or two (44.2%) OGLDs. In the entire cohort, 59.4% of treated patients received SU-based therapy with variations amongst countries/regions. Overall, 79.5% of SU regimens were based on SUs plus metformin, and 22.1% on SUs plus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Among SU users, gliclazide was most commonly prescribed (46.7%), followed by glimepiride (40.0%) and glibenclamide (8.1%). More gliclazide users entered the cohort with glycated haemoglobin levels <53 mmol/mol (7%) than non-gliclazide SU users (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.17), with less frequent self-reported hypoglycaemia in the 3 months before registration (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.92; adjusted for sociodemographic factors, cardiometabolic risk factors, complications, use of other OGLDs, country/region and year of registration).

CONCLUSION

In Asia, SUs are a popular OGLD class, often combined with metformin. Good glycaemic control and safety profiles associated with the use of SUs, including gliclazide, support their position as a key treatment option in patients with T2D.

Vitamin C and the management of diabetic foot ulcers: a literature review

OBJECTIVE

The lifetime risk of developing a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) in people with diabetes is as high as 25%. A trio of factors constitute the diabetic foot syndrome that characterises DFUs, including neuropathy, vascular disease and infections. Vitamin C has important functions in the nervous, cardiovascular, and immune systems that are implicated in DFU development. Furthermore, vitamin C deficiency has been observed in individuals with DFUs, suggesting an important function of vitamin C in DFU management and treatment. Therefore, this literature review evaluates the role of vitamin C in the nervous, cardiovascular and immune systems in relation to wound healing and DFUs, as well as discussing vitamin C's lesser known role in depression, a condition that affects many individuals with a DFU.

METHOD

A literature search was done using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid, Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects, and NIH Clinical Center. Search terms included 'diabetic foot ulcer,' 'diabetic foot,' 'vitamin C,' and 'ascorbic acid.'

RESULTS

Of the 71 studies initially identified, seven studies met the inclusion criteria, and only three were human clinical trials. Overall, the literature on this subject is limited, with mainly observational and animal studies, and few human clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for additional human clinical trials on vitamin C supplementation in individuals with a DFU to fill the knowledge gap and guide clinical practice.

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.

Changing the approach to type 2 diabetes treatment: A comparison of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sulphonylureas across the continuum of care

Despite the importance of individualised strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the availability of alternative treatments, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), sulphonylureas are still widely used in practice. Clinical evidence shows that GLP-1 RAs may provide better and more durable glycaemic control than sulphonylureas, with lower risk of hypoglycaemia. Other reported benefits of GLP-1 RAs include weight loss rather than weight gain (as observed with sulphonylureas), blood pressure reduction and improvement in lipid profiles. In general, the main adverse events with GLP-1 RAs are gastrointestinal in nature. The respective modes of action of GLP-1 RAs and sulphonylureas contribute to differences in the durability of glycaemic control (related to effects on beta-cells) and effects on body weight. Moreover, the glucose-dependent mode of action of GLP-1 RAs, which favours a low incidence of hypoglycaemia, contrasts with the glucose-independent mode of action of sulphonylureas. Evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials indicates a consistent finding of cardiovascular safety across the GLP-1 RAs and suggests a class benefit for the long-acting GLP-1 RAs in reducing three-point major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. In contrast, potential concerns relating to an increased incidence of adverse cardiovascular events with sulphonylureas have yet to be fully resolved. Recent updates to management guidelines recommend that treatment selection for patients with T2DM should consider clinical trial evidence of cardiovascular safety. Available evidence suggests that this selection should give preference to GLP-1 RAs over sulphonylureas, especially for patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Epidemiology of hypoglycaemic episodes leading to hospitalisations in Denmark in 1998-2018

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to investigate the nationwide trends in incidence and associated risk factors, with focus on blood glucose-lowering medication, for the first hypoglycaemic episode leading to hospitalisation in Denmark among people with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

A cohort study of all people with diabetes from 1977 to 2018 experiencing hypoglycaemic episodes leading to hospitalisation in 1998-2018 was established. Data were extracted from the Danish National Patient Registry. Trends in incidence rates were investigated with Poisson regression models and linear regressions, and risk factors were investigated with Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

A total of 66,438 hypoglycaemic episodes leading to hospitalisation in 1998-2018 was investigated among 641,402 people with type 1 (mean ± SD age 37 ± 22 years) and type 2 diabetes (mean ± SD age 61 ± 17 years). Between 2003 and 2018, the incidence rate fell by 66% for type 1 diabetes (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.34 [95% CI 0.31, 0.36], p < 0.0001) and 61% for type 2 diabetes (IRR 0.39 [95% CI 0.36, 0.42], p < 0.0001). With respect to hypoglycaemic episodes, insulin glargine (HR 1.20 [95% CI 1.05, 1.36], p = 0.0059), insulin detemir (HR 1.18 [95% CI 1.04, 1.32], p = 0.0077) and insulin degludec (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.81,1.33], p = 0.7706) seemed safer than human insulin (long-acting insulin HR 1.38 [95% CI 1.25, 1.52], p < 0.0001; combination insulins HR 1.84 [95% CI 1.65, 2.05], p < 0.0001) and, especially, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.33, 0.56], p < 0.0001), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (HR 0.51 [95% CI 0.44, 0.58], p < 0.0001) and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (HR 0.44 [95% CI 0.38, 0.49], p < 0.0001) seemed safer than sulfonylureas (HR 2.27 [95% CI 2.18, 2.37], p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Incidence rates of hypoglycaemic episodes leading to hospitalisation are declining in Denmark, and the advent of new treatment alternatives may play a significant role in this decline. From a safety perspective, these findings are important and should be considered by clinicians when assessing treatment options for patients.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus in older adults: clinical considerations and management

The past 50 years have seen a growing ageing population with an increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); now, nearly half of all individuals with diabetes mellitus are older adults (aged ≥65 years). Older adults with T2DM present particularly difficult challenges. For example, the accentuated heterogeneity of these patients, the potential presence of multiple comorbidities, the increased susceptibility to hypoglycaemia, the increased dependence on care and the effect of frailty all add to the complexity of managing diabetes mellitus in this age group. In this Review, we offer an update on the key pathophysiological mechanisms associated with T2DM in older people. We then evaluate new evidence relating particularly to the effects of frailty and sarcopenia, the clinical difficulties of age-associated comorbidities, and the implications for existing guidelines and therapeutic options. Our conclusions will focus on the effect of T2DM on an ageing society.

Essential diabetes medicines and health outcomes in 127 countries

AIM

Diabetes is the ninth leading cause of death. Improving access to diabetes medicines may decrease mortality. Diabetes medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) vary considerably. We examine the association between diabetes population health outcomes relating to mortality and the listing of diabetes medicines on national essential medicine lists for 127 countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study. We determined the number of diabetes medicines on NEMLs and used multiple linear regression to analyse the association between diabetes health outcomes and the number of medicines on NEMLs. We used linear regression to assess the association between diabetes health outcomes and the listing of or not listing of medicines that were listed by 25-75% of countries. Diabetes prevalence, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and mean expenditure per person with diabetes were controlled for in all analyses.

RESULTS

The total number of diabetes medicines listed on NEMLs ranged from 0 to 16 (median: 4; interquartile range: 3-6). Diabetes health outcome scores were associated with the number of diabetes medicines on NEMLs [1.3-point increase (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.5-2.1) for every additional medicine on NEMLs; P = .002] and GDP per capita [19.5-point increase (95% CI 5.4-33.6) for every 10-fold increase in GDP; P = .003]. Diabetes expenditure was not associated with health outcome scores (P = .23). Increases in diabetes health outcomes score were associated with the listing of glimepiride (7.9-point increase, 95% CI 2.3-13.5, P = .006) and glipizide (5.8-point increase, 95% CI 0.03-11.6, P = .049) on NEMLs.

CONCLUSIONS

Listing of diabetes medicines on NEMLs has the potential to improve population health outcomes related to mortality in countries with diverse incomes and diabetes prevalence without necessarily increasing diabetes health expenditure.

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.

Gliclazide: Biopharmaceutics Characteristics to Discuss the Biowaiver of Immediate and Extended Release Tablets

The lists of essential medicines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and Brazil include gliclazide as an alternative to the oral antidiabetic drug of first choice, metformin, in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus because of its pharmacokinetic profile and few side effects. Thus, it is also considered by WHO and the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) as a drug candidate to biowaiver, which is the evaluation of how favorable the biopharmaceutics characteristics are in order to obtain waiver from the relative bioavailability/bioequivalence (RB/BE) studies to register new medicines. This paper presents a review about the solubility, permeability and dissolution of gliclazide. A critical analysis of the information allowed to identify gliclazide as a Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) Class II drug. Therefore, new drugs in immediate release dosage forms will not be eligible for biowaiver. Regarding the extended release dosage forms, besides the limited solubility, no information on the comparative dissolution profile was found, which would be necessary to analyze a possible biowaiver for a smaller dosage. It can be concluded that the registration of new medicines containing gliclazide must undergo RB/BE studies, since there is not enough evidence to recommend the replacement and waiver of such studies for immediate and extended release formulations.

Type 2 diabetes and cancer: problems and suggestions for best patient management

Diabetes and cancer are widespread worldwide and the number of subjects presenting both diseases increased over the years. The management of cancer patients having diabetes represents a challenge not only because of the complexity and heterogeneity of these pathologies but also for the lack of standardised clinical guidelines. The diagnosis of cancer is traumatizing and monopolizes the attention of both patients and caregivers. Thus, pre-existent or new-onset diabetes can be overshadowed thus increasing the risk for short- and long-term adverse events. Moreover, drugs used for each disease can interfere with the clinical course of the concomitant disease, making challenging the management of these patients. Over the years, this issue has become more relevant because of the increased patients’ life expectancy due to the improved efficacy of diabetes and cancer therapies. The purpose of this review is to highlight what is known and what should be taken into consideration to optimise the clinical management of patients with diabetes and cancer. Due to the complexity of these diseases, a multidisciplinary, shared approach, including all the protagonists involved, is necessary to improve patients’ quality of life and lifespan.

The Place of Sulfonylureas in Guidelines: Why Are There Differences?

This review describes a presentation at a recent symposium entitled "SUs in the treatment of T2DM: a fresh look and new insights" on Wednesday September 18, 2019 at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Barcelona, Spain. It examines the current role of sulfonylureas (SUs) in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and gives the author's personal perspective of how this therapeutic class has performed in both local and international guidelines. The place of SUs within current guidelines is highlighted, and a critical appraisal of the reasons for the differences between guidelines given. Finally, comparison of evidence-based guidelines and consensus reports is discussed.

Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events, Severe Hypoglycemia, and All-Cause Mortality for Widely Used Antihyperglycemic Dual and Triple Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes Management: A Cohort Study of All Danish Users

OBJECTIVE

The vast number of antihyperglycemic medications and growing amount of evidence make clinical decision making difficult. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of antihyperglycemic dual and triple therapies for type 2 diabetes management with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events, severe hypoglycemia, and all-cause mortality in a real-life clinical setting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Cox regression models were constructed to analyze 20 years of data from the Danish National Patient Registry with respect to effect of the antihyperglycemic therapies on the three end points.

RESULTS

A total of 66,807 people with type 2 diabetes were treated with metformin (MET) plus a combination of second- and third-line therapies. People on MET plus sulfonylurea (SU) had the highest risk of all end points, except for severe hypoglycemia, for which people on MET plus basal insulin (BASAL) had a higher risk. The lowest risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was seen for people on a regimen including a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist. People treated with MET, GLP-1, and BASAL had a lower risk of all three end points than people treated with MET and BASAL, especially for severe hypoglycemia. The lowest risk of all three end points was, in general, seen for people treated with MET, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and GLP-1.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study do not support SU as the second-line treatment choice for patients with type 2 diabetes. Moreover, the results indicate that adding a GLP-1 in people treated with MET and BASAL could be considered, especially if those people suffer from severe hypoglycemia.

Fasting insulin levels correlate with the frequency of hypoglycemic events in people with type 2 diabetes on treatment with sulfonylureas: A pilot study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

We aimed to explore whether fasting insulin levels correlate with the risk of hypoglycemia in people with Type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving sulfonylureas (SUs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Our study included 58 individuals with T2D who had been on treatment with SUs, but not insulin, for more than 2 years. Confirmed hypoglycemic episodes during the past year were self-reported by the patients, and a potential relationship of hypoglycemic event frequency with fasting insulin levels was investigated.

RESULTS:

Fasting insulin concentrations were found to have a low positive and statistically significant correlation with the number of cases of mild hypoglycemia per year (ρ = 0.279/P = 0.034) and a moderately positive and statistically significant correlation with the number of severe hypoglycemic events per month (ρ = 0.349/P = 0.007) and per year (ρ = 0.39/P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION:

Our results suggest that fasting insulin levels might be a predictor of the risk of hypoglycemia in people with T2D on treatment with SUs.

Hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents detected by continuous glucose monitoring: a multi-center prospective observational study in Croatia

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is still unsolved issue. The aim of this study was to investigate hypoglycemia in T2DM in participants treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents using different glucose cut-off values and to explore influence of different therapies.

METHODS

This multi-center prospective observational study included participant with T2DM from primary care offices across Croatia treated with antihyperglycemic agents who were monitored using professional continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device (iPro™2). Hypoglycemia was defined as at least 1% of the monitored period spent in the hypoglycemic range and/or area under the curve of glycemia registered ever under the defined cut-off value. The higher upper limit of blood glucose cut-off value was 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) and the lower one 3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL).

RESULTS

Study included 94 participants. Median hemoglobin A1C levels, age, T2DM duration, body mass index, and CGM use duration were 7 (5.8-11.5) %, 65 (40-86) years, 7 (1-36) years, 30.4 (21.3-41.5) kg/m² and 6 (1-7) days, respectively. Fifty participants were treated with sulfonylurea, primarily gliclazide (84%). The percentage of participant with hypoglycemia based on the higher cut-off value was 42.6% vs. 16% based on the higher cut-off value. The percentage of participant with nocturnal hypoglycemia (23 PM to 06 AM) was significantly lower among participant with hypoglycemia based on the higher cut-off value compared to lower one (7.8% vs. 22.9%). Sulfonylurea treatment did not influence the occurrence of hypoglycemia. Analysis of the data from participants having hypoglycemia based on the lower cut-off value pointed to other possible risk factors for hypoglycemia like prolonged overnight fasting, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and concomitant therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

In participant with T2DM treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents hypoglycemia based on the blood glucose cut-off value of 3.9 mmol/L was more prevalent, but with less nocturnal hypoglycemia. Sulfonylurea therapy was not risk factor for hypoglycemia regardless of cut-off value. In participants having hypoglycemia based on the blood glucose cut-off value of 3.0 mmol/L some other possible factors were identified related to concomitant therapy, nutrition and daily habits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03253237.

Management of Type 2 Diabetes in Developing Countries: Balancing Optimal Glycaemic Control and Outcomes with Affordability and Accessibility to Treatment

With the growing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, particularly in emerging countries, its management in the context of available resources should be considered. International guidelines, while comprehensive and scientifically valid, may not be appropriate for regions such as Asia, Latin America or Africa, where epidemiology, patient phenotypes, cultural conditions and socioeconomic status are different from America and Europe. Although glycaemic control and reduction of micro- and macrovascular outcomes remain essential aspects of treatment, access and cost are major limiting factors; therefore, a pragmatic approach is required in restricted-resource settings. Newer agents, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in particular, are relatively expensive, with limited availability despite potentially being valuable for patients with insulin resistance and cardiovascular complications. This review makes a case for the role of more accessible second-line treatments with long-established efficacy and affordability, such as sulfonylureas, in the management of type 2 diabetes, particularly in developing or restricted-resource countries.

Sulfonylurea derivatives and cancer, friend or foe?

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with a higher risk of cancer and cancer-related mortality. Increased blood glucose and insulin levels in T2DM patients may be, at least in part, responsible for this effect. Indeed, lowering glucose and/or insulin levels pharmacologically appears to reduce cancer risk and progression, as has been demonstrated for the biguanide metformin in observational studies. Studies investigating the influence of sulfonylurea derivatives (SUs) on cancer risk have provided conflicting results, partly due to comparisons with metformin. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to within-class differences in systemic and off-target effects of the SUs. The aim of this systematic review is to discuss the available preclinical and clinical evidence on how the different SUs influence cancer development and risk. Databases including PubMed, Cochrane, Database of Abstracts on Reviews and Effectiveness, and trial registries were systematically searched for available clinical and preclinical evidence on within-class differences of SUs and cancer risk. The overall preclinical and clinical evidence suggest that the influence of SUs on cancer risk in T2DM patients differs between the various SUs. Potential mechanisms include differing affinities for the sulfonylurea receptors and thus differential systemic insulin exposure and off-target anti-cancer effects mediated for example through potassium transporters and drug export pumps. Preclinical evidence supports potential anti-cancer effects of SUs, which are of interest for further studies and potentially repurposing of SUs. At this time, the evidence on differences in cancer risk between SUs is not strong enough to guide clinical decision making.

Type 2 diabetes treatment and progression of chronic kidney disease in Italian family practice

AIMS

Progressive chronic kidney disease represents a dreadful complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We tested the pattern of use and the renal effects of old glucose-lowering drugs in T2DM patients cared for by Italian general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS

Data of 2606 T2DM patients were extracted from the databases of GPs, who do not have access to the most recent glucose-lowering drugs in Italy. The rate of kidney function decline was calculated by CKD-EPI_cr, based on two consecutive creatinine values.

RESULTS

Metformin was used in 55% of cases, either alone or with sulfonylureas/repaglinide, across the whole spectrum of CKD (from 66% in stage G1 to only 8% in G4). Sulfonylurea use peaked at 21-22% in stage G2-G3a, whereas repaglinide use significantly increased from 8% in G1 to 22% in G4. The median rate of CKD decline was - 1.64 mL/min/1.73 m² per year; it was higher in G1 (- 3.22 per year) and progressively lower with CKD severity. 826 cases (31.7%) were classified as fast progressors (eGFR decline more negative than - 5 mL/min/1.73 m² per year). The risk of fast progressing CKD was associated with increasing BMI, albuminuria, and sulfonylurea use, alone (OR, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.85), or in association with metformin (OR, 1.40; 95% CI 1.04-1.88). No associations were demonstrated for metformin, cardiovascular and lipid lowering drug use.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of Italian family practice, sulfonylurea use is associated with progressive CKD in patients with T2DM. Metformin, at doses progressively reduced according to CKD stages, as recommended by guidelines, is not associated with fast progression.

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.

The Standard of Care in Type 2 Diabetes: Re-evaluating the Treatment Paradigm

There is currently a worldwide epidemic of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that is predicted to increase substantially in the next few years. With 80% of the global T2D population living in low to middle-income countries, there are issues with cost and of access to appropriate medicines. The objective of this symposium was to provide an overview of the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering drugs, focussing in particular on sulfonylureas (SUs) in patients with T2D using data taken from both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies, the application of strategies to ensure optimal patient adherence and clinical outcomes, and the optimal use of SUs in terms of dose adjustment and agent choice to ensure the best clinical outcome. The symposium began by exploring a profile of the typical patient seen in diabetes clinical practice and the appropriate management of such a patient in the real world, before moving on to an overview of the risks associated with T2D and how the currently available agents, including newer antidiabetic medications, mitigate or exacerbate those risks. The final presentation provided an overview of real-world studies, the gap between RCTs and the real world, and the use of available glucose-lowering agents in daily clinical practice. Clinical evidence was presented demonstrating that tight glucose control improved both microvascular and macrovascular outcomes, but that aggressive treatment in patients with a very high cardiovascular risk could lead to adverse outcomes. Real-world data suggest that older agents such as SUs and metformin are being used in a large proportion of patients with T2D with demonstrable effectiveness, indicating that they still have a place in modern T2D management. The symposium, while acknowledging the need for newer antidiabetic drugs in specific situations and patient groups, recommended the continuation of SUs and metformin as the primary oral antidiabetic agents in resource-constrained regions of the world.Funding:Servier.

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.

Ertugliflozin Compared with Glimepiride in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled on Metformin: The VERTIS SU Randomized Study

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the safety and efficacy of ertugliflozin (an oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor) vs. glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on metformin.

METHODS

This phase III, double-blind, non-inferiority study (NCT01999218) randomized patients with HbA1c ≥ 7.0% and ≤ 9.0% on stable metformin ≥ 1500 mg/day 1:1:1 to ertugliflozin 15 or 5 mg once-daily (QD), or glimepiride (titrated from 1 mg QD). The primary hypothesis was that ertugliflozin 15 mg was non-inferior to glimepiride on HbA1c (non-inferiority criterion: upper bound of the 95% confidence interval [CI] about the treatment difference < 0.3%).

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA1c of randomized patients (N = 1326) was 7.8%. Mean and median doses of glimepiride were 3.0 mg/day throughout the study. At week 52, the least squares mean change (95% CI) from baseline in HbA1c was - 0.6% (- 0.7, - 0.5), - 0.6% (- 0.6, - 0.5), and - 0.7% (- 0.8, - 0.7) in the ertugliflozin 15 mg, ertugliflozin 5 mg, and glimepiride groups, respectively. The between-group difference for ertugliflozin 15 mg and glimepiride of 0.1% (- 0.0, 0.2) met the pre-specified non-inferiority criterion. Relative to glimepiride, greater body weight and systolic blood pressure (SBP) reductions were observed with ertugliflozin. The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar across groups. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia and genital mycotic infection (GMI) were, respectively, lower and higher with ertugliflozin relative to glimepiride. The incidences of urinary tract infection and hypovolemia AEs were not meaningfully different among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ertugliflozin 15 mg was non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA1c when added to metformin in patients with T2DM. Ertugliflozin had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in less hypoglycemia and more GMIs than glimepiride.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01999218.

Rahim AA, Eliana F, Shrestha HK, Chaudhary S, Ngugi N, Mbanya JC, Aye TT, Latt TS, Akanov ZA, Syed AR, Tandon N, Unnikrishnan AG, Madhu SV, Jawa A, Chowdhury S, Bajaj S, Das AK. Consensus Recommendations on Sulfonylurea and Sulfonylurea Combinations in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - International Task Force

For decades, sulfonylureas (SUs) have been important drugs in the antidiabetic therapeutic armamentarium. They have been used as monotherapy as well as combination therapy. Focus on newer drugs and concerns about the risk of severe hypoglycemia and weight gain with some SUs have led to discussion on their safety and utility. It has to be borne in mind that the adverse events associated with SUs should not be ascribed to the whole class, as many modern SUs, such as glimepiride and gliclazide modified release, are associated with better safety profiles. Furthermore, individualization of treatment, using SUs in combination with other drugs, backed with careful monitoring and patient education, ensures maximum benefits with minimal side effects. The current guidelines, developed by experts from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, promote the safe and smart use of SUs in combination with other glucose-lowering drugs.

Estimating the risk of severe hypoglycemic event related to glucose-lowering treatment among Italian patients with diabetes: the HYPOTHESIS database

The primary objective of this study was to estimate 1) the annual risk of undergoing a severe hypoglycemic event in Italian patients with diabetes and 2) the risk of hospitalization following such event. From the HYPOTHESIS database, powered by 46 emergency departments covering a 12-million-odd population, data were extracted of 1,922 hypoglycemic events occurring in patients with diabetes in 2011. The mean age was 71.5 (standard deviation 16.8) years, 50.1% were men, and blood glucose at the time of the event was 44.2 (26.5) mg/dL. Patients were being treated with insulin alone (55%) or in combination with oral hypoglycemic agents (OHA, 15%), or with OHA alone, either in monotherapy (14%) or in multiple therapy (16%). Comorbidities were recorded in 71.8% of the patients. Based on the rates of glucose-lowering drug use in Italian patients with diabetes, the annual risk of undergoing a serious hypoglycemic event was estimated at 1.27% for subjects treated with insulin alone, the highest (p<0.00001) as compared with insulin + OHA (0.41%) or OHA alone, either in monotherapy or in multiple therapy (0.1% and 0.17%, respectively). The risk of being hospitalized following the hypoglycemic event was the least (27.6%) for subjects treated with insulin alone (p<0.0083). Subjects treated with insulin + OHA showed a lower risk (34.2%) as compared with that for subjects treated with OHA (p<0.02). Death occurs in 7% of hospitalized patients. Older age (p<0.0001) and comorbidities (p<0.0001) were risk factors for hypoglycemia-related hospitalization. Treatments with insulin alone (p<0.005) or in combination (p<0.049) were negatively associated with hospital admission. Severe hypoglycemic events associated with the use of oral glucose-lowering agents carry the highest risk of hospital treatment. As such, they are also likely to generate higher tangible and intangible costs.

Rationale and design of the DARWIN-T2D (DApagliflozin Real World evIdeNce in Type 2 Diabetes): A multicenter retrospective nationwide Italian study and crowdsourcing opportunity

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of diabetes have limitations inherent to the fact that design, setting, and patient characteristics may be poorly transferrable to clinical practice. Thus, evidence from studies using routinely accumulated clinical data are increasingly valued.

AIMS

We herein describe rationale and design of the DARWIN-T2D (DApagliflozin Real World evIdeNce in Type 2 Diabetes), a multicenter retrospective nationwide study conducted at 50 specialist outpatient clinics in Italy and promoted by the Italian Diabetes Society.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The primary objective of the study is to describe the baseline clinical characteristics (particularly HbA1c) of patients initiated on dapagliflozin from marketing authorization approval to the end of 2016. Secondary and exploratory objectives will evaluate the changes in glycaemic and extraglycaemic efficacy parameters after initiation of dapagliflozin or after initiation of comparator glucose lowering medications (DPP-4 inhibitors, gliclazide extended release, and long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists). An automated software will extract relevant data from the same electronic chart system at all centres, thereby minimizing data treatment and human intervention.

CONCLUSION

The study is expected to collect an enormous dataset of information on dapagliflozin- and comparator-using patients. After study completion, the Italian Diabetes Society will launch an open crowdsourcing call on the DARWIN-T2D database, challenging diabetes researchers to apply their ideas and approaches to address new unmet needs and knowledge gaps in diabetes. We believe this will move DARWIN-T2D to the next generation of real world studies.

The Real-Life Effectiveness and Care Patterns of Diabetes Management Study for Balkan Region (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria): A Multicenter, Observational, Cross-Sectional Study

INTRODUCTION

Recent large randomized controlled trials highlighted the clinical significance of hypoglycemic episodes in the treatment of diabetes. The present survey was conducted to provide information from real-life practice on the incidence of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetic patients treated with sulfonylureas.

METHODS

This multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study collected data on incidence of side effects of sulfonylurea-based therapy in type 2 diabetic patients in four countries of the Balkan region (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria) from October 2014 to June 2015.

RESULTS

Of the 608 who participated in the study, 573 patients (mean age 67.2 years, mean body mass index 29.9 kg/m²) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. More than 90% of the patients were treated with the newer generation sulfonylureas-gliclazide or glimepiride-either as monotherapy or as dual therapy in combination with metformin. In total, 210 patients (36.6%) reported hypoglycemic episode(s) in the last 6 months. Mild episodes were reported by 132 patients (62.8%), moderate by 66 (31.2%), severe by 8 patients (4.0%), and very severe by 4 patients (2%), respectively. Overall, 171 patients (28.2%) reported body weight increase during the previous year. The mean reported body weight gain in this group of patients was 4.2 kg (SD 2.7, median 3). Among them, 68.1% gained less than 5 kg, 25.0% gained 5-9 kg, and the rest gained more than 10 kg.

CONCLUSION

Although newer generation sulfonylureas are generally considered safe in terms of hypoglycemia, our data indicates their use is associated with substantial risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. Clinicians should be mindful of these findings when prescribing SUs and inform patients about the risk of hypoglycemia.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Hypoglycaemia when adding sulphonylurea to metformin: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

The risk of hypoglycaemia may differ among sulphonylureas (SUs), but evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse. Performing a network meta-analysis to use indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we compared the relative risk of hypoglycaemia with newer generation SUs when added to metformin.

METHODS

A systematic review identified RCTs lasting 12-52 weeks and evaluating SUs added to inadequate metformin monotherapy (≥1000 mg/day) in type 2 diabetes. Adding RCTs investigating the active comparators from the identified SU trials, we established a coherent network. Hypoglycaemia of any severity was the primary end point.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials of SUs and 14 of oral non-SU antihyperglycaemic agents (16 260 patients) were included. All reported hypoglycaemia only as adverse events. Producing comparable reductions in HbA_1C of -0.66 to -0.84% (-7 to -9 mmol/mol), the risk of hypoglycaemia was lowest with gliclazide compared to glipizide (OR 0.22, CrI: 0.05 to 0.96), glimepiride (OR 0.40, CrI: 0.13 to 1.27), and glibenclamide (OR 0.21, CrI: 0.03 to 1.48). A major limitation is varying definitions of hypoglycaemia across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

When added to metformin, gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia between the newer generation SUs. Clinicians should consider the risk of hypoglycaemia agent-specific when selecting an SU agent.