GUIDE study: double-blind comparison of once-daily gliclazide MR and glimepiride in type 2 diabetic patients

Current Treatment Options for Diabetic Retinal Disease

The global incidence of diabetes is rising steadily and with it the number of people living with diabetic retinal disease (DRD) is increasing. Like diabetes, DRD can be treated but not cured. In response, therapies to address DRD include targeted ocular and systemic medications. This review discusses diabetes and DRD in terms of current screening recommendations, treatments, and considerations related to those therapies and future drug targets and trials on the horizon. This discourse is targeted at all members of the diabetes care team, including primary care providers, optometrists, and ophthalmologists. The dynamic landscape of diabetic retinopathy treatment is promising for the prevention and improvement of visually significant disease.

Current Position of Gliclazide and Sulfonylureas in the Contemporary Treatment Paradigm for Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review

The increasing burden of type 2 diabetes (T2D), in relation to alarming rise in the prevalence; challenges in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment; as well as the substantial impact of disease on longevity and quality of life, is a major concern in healthcare worldwide. Sulfonylureas (SUs) have been a cornerstone of T2D pharmacotherapy for over 60 years as oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), while the newer generation SUs, such as gliclazide modified release (MR), are known to be associated with low risk of hypoglycemia in addition to the cardiovascular neutrality. This scoping review aimed to specifically address the current position of gliclazide MR among other SUs in the contemporary treatment paradigm for T2D and to provide a practical guidance document to assist clinicians in using gliclazide MR in real-life clinical practice. The main topics addressed in this paper include the role of early and sustained glycemic control and use of SUs in T2D management, the properties of gliclazide MR in relation to its effectiveness and safety, the use of gliclazide therapy in special populations, and the place of SUs as a class and gliclazide MR specifically in the current T2D treatment algorithm.

Real-world evidence on the effectiveness and safety of gliclazide MR 60 mg in Bangladeshi patients with Type II diabetes during fasting: a sub-analysis from the global DIA-RAMADAN study

Aim: Many Muslims with Type II diabetes (T2DM) fast during Ramadan, which can put them at increased risk of hypoglycemia. This sub-analysis of the global DIA-RAMADAN study assessed the effectiveness and safety of gliclazide modified release (MR) 60 mg in the Bangladeshi cohort. Materials & methods: DIA-RAMADAN was an international, prospective, observational study conducted in adult T2DM patients intending to fast and receiving gliclazide MR 60 mg once daily for ≥90 days before Ramadan. Dosing was switched from morning to evening at the start of Ramadan. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ≥1 symptomatic hypoglycemic event. Secondary outcomes included changes between inclusion (V0) and end of study visit (V1) in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Results: Among the 98 Bangladeshi patients, 80 (81.6%) were at moderate/low-risk (category 3) for fasting and 18 (18.4%) were high-risk (category 2), as per International Diabetes Federation and Diabetes and Ramadan International Alliance (IDF-DAR) guidelines. Gliclazide MR was being prescribed as monotherapy to 59 (60.2%) patients and in combination with metformin to 39 (39.8%). There was no incidence of severe hypoglycemic events. Mean (±SD) HbA1c change from V0 was -0.1 ± 0.8% (p = 0.159). Mean (±SD) changes in FPG and body weight were -0.8 ± 39.7 mg/dl (p = 0.876) and -0.0 ± 1.5 kg (p = 0.810), respectively. Conclusion: In a real-world setting, this sub-analysis in Bangladeshi patients shows that patients with T2DM treated with gliclazide MR 60 mg can fast safely during Ramadan with a very low risk of hypoglycemia, while maintaining glycemic control and body weight.

The Role of Real-World Evidence in Treatment Decision-Making, Regulatory Assessment, and Understanding the Perspectives of People with Type 2 Diabetes: Examples with Gliclazide MR

Real-world evidence (RWE) plays an important role in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). It provides data about the effectiveness and safety of an intervention from outside the randomised controlled trial (RCT) setting and allows healthcare professionals (HCPs) to determine if RCT data are applicable to their patients in routine clinical practice. This review provides a discussion of the value of RWE in T2D management in day-to-day clinical practice, with a focus on RWE with sulfonylureas (SUs), and presents two examples of a new generation of international real-world studies in people with T2D managed in routine clinical practice. RWE plays a valuable role in advising HCPs in the day-to-day management of T2D, informing regulatory authorities with regard to pharmacovigilance and post-approval updates, and providing insights with regard to patients' treatment adherence and preference. RWE should be used alongside RCTs to increase HCP awareness and understanding of their patients' perspectives, potentially allowing for improvements in treatment adherence, glycaemic control and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In addition, real-world studies must be conducted in a way that generates robust RWE by limiting the risks of bias and confounding as much as possible. A growing body of RWE is emerging from Asia. For example, in a preliminary HRQoL analysis of the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) Register, Asian people with T2D had better HRQoL with gliclazide-based treatment than with other SU agents, despite being older and having more diabetes-related complications.

2023 UPDATE: Luso-Brazilian evidence-based guideline for the management of antidiabetic therapy in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The management of antidiabetic therapy in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) has evolved beyond glycemic control. In this context, Brazil and Portugal defined a joint panel of four leading diabetes societies to update the guideline published in 2020.

METHODS

The panelists searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) for the best evidence from clinical studies on treating T2D and its cardiorenal complications. The panel searched for evidence on antidiabetic therapy in people with T2D without cardiorenal disease and in patients with T2D and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), or diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

All people with T2D need to have their cardiovascular (CV) risk status stratified and HbA1c, BMI, and eGFR assessed before defining therapy. An HbA1c target of less than 7% is adequate for most adults, and a more flexible target (up to 8%) should be considered in frail older people. Non-pharmacological approaches are recommended during all phases of treatment. In treatment naïve T2D individuals without cardiorenal complications, metformin is the agent of choice when HbA1c is 7.5% or below. When HbA1c is above 7.5% to 9%, starting with dual therapy is recommended, and triple therapy may be considered. When HbA1c is above 9%, starting with dual therapyt is recommended, and triple therapy should be considered. Antidiabetic drugs with proven CV benefit (AD1) are recommended to reduce CV events if the patient is at high or very high CV risk, and antidiabetic agents with proven efficacy in weight reduction should be considered when obesity is present. If HbA1c remains above target, intensification is recommended with triple, quadruple therapy, or even insulin-based therapy. In people with T2D and established ASCVD, AD1 agents (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 RA with proven CV benefit) are initially recommended to reduce CV outcomes, and metformin or a second AD1 may be necessary to improve glycemic control if HbA1c is above the target. In T2D with HF, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce HF hospitalizations and mortality and to improve HbA1c. In patients with DKD, SGLT2 inhibitors in combination with metformin are recommended when eGFR is above 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. SGLT2 inhibitors can be continued until end-stage kidney disease.

Time to reposition sulfonylureas in type 2 diabetes management in Indian context: A pragmatic practical approach

Sulfonylureas (SU) continue to be a vital therapeutic category of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Physicians consider modern SU (gliclazide and glimepiride) as "safe and smart" choices for T2DM management. The presence of multiple international guidelines and scarcity of a national guideline may contribute to the challenges faced by few physicians in choosing the right therapeutic strategy. The role of SU in diabetes management is explicit, and the present consensus aims to emphasize the benefits and reposition SU in India. This pragmatic, practical approach aims to define expert recommendations for the physicians to improve caregivers' knowledge of the management of T2DM, leading to superior patient outcomes.

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.

Comparison of gliclazide vs linagliptin on hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated cardiovascular safety of glimepiride (a sulfonylureas) against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin. Gliclazide (another newer sulfonylureas) has shown similar glycemic efficacy and 50% decreased risk of hypoglycemia compared to glimepiride.

AIM

Considering the absence of cardiovascular outcome trials for gliclazide, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the car-diovascular (CV) safety by assessing the risk for major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide vs linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This systematic review followed the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to analyze all the clinical studies published from 2008 that compared the two drugs in patients with T2D with no risk of CV disease (CVD). We included only evidence designated high quality by the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

Eight clinical studies were included in the narrative descriptive analysis (gliclazide: 5 and linagliptin: 3). The CV safety of gliclazide in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation trial and of linagliptin in the Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA) and CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin vs glimepiride in patients with T2D (CAROLINA) trials were excluded from the comparative analysis as these trials demonstrated CV and hypoglycemia benefits in patients at high risk of CVD. However, since these are landmark trials, they were discussed in brief to show the CV benefits and low hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide and linagliptin. We did not find any study comparing gliclazide with linagliptin. Hence, direct comparison of their major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk could not be carried out. However, the literature meeting the inclusion criteria showed that both drugs were effective in achieving the desired glycemic control and had low major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk in adult patients with no history of CVD.

CONCLUSION

Gliclazide can be considered an effective and safe glucose-lowering drug in T2D patients with no established CVD but at high risk of CVD due to their T2D status. Future randomized controlled trials comparing gliclazide with linagliptin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can confirm these findings.

Management of Diabetes and Hypertension within the Gulf Region: Updates on Treatment Practices and Therapies

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally, driven by the high rates of risk factors, such as diabetes and hypertension. As the prevalence of these risk factors is particularly high in the Gulf region, better diagnosis and management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and hypertension has the potential to dramatically reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes for individuals in that part of the world. This article provides a summary of presentations made during the EVIDENT summit, a virtual symposium on Evidence in Diabetes and Hypertension, held in September 2021, including a review of the various guidelines for both T2D and hypertension, as well as recent findings relevant to the safety and efficacy for therapies relating to these conditions. Of relevance to the Gulf region, the risk of hypoglycaemia with sulfonylureas during Ramadan was reviewed. For the management of T2D, sulfonylureas have been a long-standing medication used to achieve glycaemic control; however, differences have emerged between early and later generations, with recent studies suggesting improvements in the safety profiles of late-generation sulfonylureas. For patients with hypertension, incremental therapy changes are recommended to reduce the risk of cardiovascular complications that are associated with increasing blood pressure. For first-line therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), such as perindopril, have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The addition of calcium channel blockers and diuretics to ACEi has been shown to be effective in patients with poorly controlled hypertension. The different renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors are reviewed, and the benefit of combination therapies, including amlodipine and indapamide in patients with difficult-to-control hypertension, is investigated. The benefits of lifestyle modifications for these patients are also discussed, with important clinical considerations that are expected to inform patient management in daily clinical practice.

KCNQ1 rs2237895 polymorphism is associated with the therapeutic response to sulfonylureas in Iranian type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

Background and Aims

Sulfonylureas are the most secondary prescribed oral anti-diabetic drug. Understanding its genetic role in pharmacodynamics can elucidate a considerable knowledge about personalized treatment in type 2 diabetes patients. This study aimed to assess the impact of KCNQ1 variants on sulfonylureas response among type 2 diabetes Iranian patients.

Methods and Results

100 patients were recruited who were under sulfonylureas therapy for six months. 50 responder and 50 non-responder patients were selected. KCNQ1 variants were determined by the RFLP method, and their role in treatment response was assessed retrospectively. Patients with rs2237895 CC and AC genotypes demonstrated a significant decrement in FBS and HbA1c after treatment over patients with AA genotypes (All P < 0.001). Compared to the A allele, the odds ratio for treatment success between carriers with rs2237895 C allele was 4.22-fold (P < 0.001). Patients with rs2237892 CT heterozygous genotype exhibit a higher reduction rate in HbA1c and FBS than CC homozygotes (P=0.064 and P=0.079, respectively). The rs2237892 T allele carriers showed an odds ratio equals to 2.83-fold over C allele carriers in the responder group compared to the non-responder group (p=0.081).

Conclusion

Findings suggest that the KCNQ1 rs2237895 polymorphism is associated with the sulfonylureas response on Iranian type 2 diabetes patients.

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.

The role of sulfonylureas in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasingly prevalent and associated with increased risk for cardiovascular and renal disease. After lifestyle modification, metformin is usually the first-line pharmacotherapy and sulfonylureas are traditionally added after metformin failure. However, with newer glucose lowering drugs that may have less risk of hypoglycemia or that may reduce cardiovascular and renal events, the position of sulfonylureas is being reevaluated.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, the authors review relevant publications related to the use of sulfonylureas.

EXPERT OPINION

Sulfonylureas are potent glucose lowering drugs. The risk of hypoglycemia varies with different drugs within the class and can be minimized by using the safer drugs, possibly in lower doses. Cardiovascular events do not appear to be increased with some of the newer generation drugs. The durability of glycemic control also appears comparable to other newer agents. Sulfonylureas are the preferred treatment for some types of monogenic diabetes and selection of T2D patients who may have greater benefit from sulfonylureas based on certain phenotypes and genotypes is likely to be refined further by precision medicine. Sulfonylureas are inexpensive and readily available everywhere and they are still the most frequently used second-line treatment for T2D in many parts of the world.

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.

Diabetes and Frail Older Patients: Glycemic Control and Prescription Profile in Real Life

(1) Background: The latest recommendations for diabetes management adapt the objectives of glycemic control to the frailty profile in older patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proportion of older patients with diabetes whose treatment deviates from the recommendations. (2) Methods: This cross-sectional observational study was conducted in older adults with known diabetes who underwent an outpatient frailty assessment in 2016. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target is between 6% and 7% for nonfrail patients and between 7% and 8% for frail patients. Frailty was evaluated using the Fried criteria. Prescriptions of glucose-lowering drugs were analyzed based on explicit and implicit criteria. (3) Results: Of 110 people with diabetes with an average age of 81.7 years, 67.3% were frail. They had a mean HbA1c of 7.11%. Of these patients, 60.9% had at least one drug therapy problem in their diabetes management and 40.9% were potentially overtreated. The HbA1c distribution in relation to the targets varied depending on frailty status (p < 0.002), with overly strict control in frail patients (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: Glycemic control does not seem to be routinely adjusted to the health of frail patients. Several factors can lead to overtreatment of these patients.

The Impact of Low-dose Gliclazide on the Incretin Effect and Indices of Beta-cell Function

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Studies in permanent neonatal diabetes suggest that sulphonylureas lower blood glucose without causing hypoglycemia, in part by augmenting the incretin effect. This mechanism has not previously been attributed to sulphonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We therefore aimed to evaluate the impact of low-dose gliclazide on beta-cell function and incretin action in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

Paired oral glucose tolerance tests and isoglycemic infusions were performed to evaluate the difference in the classical incretin effect in the presence and absence of low-dose gliclazide in 16 subjects with T2DM (hemoglobin A1c < 64 mmol/mol, 8.0%) treated with diet or metformin monotherapy. Beta-cell function modeling was undertaken to describe the relationship between insulin secretion and glucose concentration.

RESULTS

A single dose of 20 mg gliclazide reduced mean glucose during the oral glucose tolerance test from 12.01 ± 0.56 to 10.82 ± 0.5mmol/l [P = 0.0006; mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM)]. The classical incretin effect was augmented by 20 mg gliclazide, from 35.5% (lower quartile 27.3, upper quartile 61.2) to 54.99% (34.8, 72.8; P = 0.049). Gliclazide increased beta-cell glucose sensitivity by 46% [control 22.61 ± 3.94, gliclazide 33.11 ± 7.83 (P = 0.01)] as well as late-phase incretin potentiation [control 0.92 ± 0.05, gliclazide 1.285 ± 0.14 (P = 0.038)].

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Low-dose gliclazide reduces plasma glucose in response to oral glucose load, with concomitant augmentation of the classical incretin effect. Beta-cell modeling shows that low plasma concentrations of gliclazide potentiate late-phase insulin secretion and increase glucose sensitivity by 50%. Further studies are merited to explore whether low-dose gliclazide, by enhancing incretin action, could effectively lower blood glucose without risk of hypoglycemia.

Descriptive Regional Subanalysis of a Real-World Study in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Gliclazide MR During Fasting: DIA-RAMADAN

INTRODUCTION

To analyse the safety and effectiveness of gliclazide modified release (MR) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in Ramadan from three geographically and culturally different regions of the world included in the DIA-RAMADAN study.

METHODS

DIA-RAMADAN was a real-world, observational, international, non-comparative study. The global study population was divided into three regional subgroups, with data gathered at inclusion 6-8 weeks prior to Ramadan (V0), during Ramadan (4.5 weeks) and 4-6 weeks after Ramadan (V1). Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reporting ≥ 1 symptomatic hypoglycaemic events (HE), which were collected using a patient diary along with other adverse events.

RESULTS

Patient numbers from the three regions were n = 564 (46.5%; Indian sub-continent), n = 354 (29.1%; Middle East) and n = 296 (24.4%; South-East Asia). Patient baseline characteristics, demographics, fasting habits and antidiabetic treatments varied between regions. There were similar proportions of symptomatic HE between regions, with no severe HE. Significant weight reductions were observed in all regions following Ramadan, along with reductions in HbA_1c and fasting plasma glucose.

CONCLUSION

These real-world study data indicate that gliclazide MR is safe and effective for management of type 2 diabetes during Ramadan in all three regions studied as part of DIA-RAMADAN.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT04132934. INFOGRAPHIC.

The Position of Gliclazide in the Evolving Landscapes and Disease Continuum of T2DM: A Collaborative Delphi Survey-Based Consensus from India

INTRODUCTION

This Delphi study aims to provide evidence-based expert opinion on the usage and current position of gliclazide in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management in India.

METHODS

The single interaction modified Delphi-based methodology was used to collect opinions on gliclazide usage and its position in diabetes management from 338 endocrinologists/diabetologists who have had clinical experience with gliclazide. Participants, using a 9-point scale, were asked to rate eight statements comprising a total of 52 items on the related topics.

RESULTS

The Delphi consensus suggests that in drug-naïve patients with T2DM, intolerant to metformin or in whom metformin is contraindicated, dual therapy of gliclazide/gliclazide-modified release (MR) should be considered along with a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor if glycated hemoglobin A1c level is greater than 7.5% and with insulin if the A1c level is greater than 9%. If the patients are inadequately controlled with metformin (A1c greater than 6.5% after 3 months of therapy), gliclazide/gliclazide-MR shall be added on to the treatment regimen to achieve greater and sustained reductions in A1c levels. However, it was not preferred over other antidiabetic classes in such clinical settings except alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI). Early addition of gliclazide/gliclazide-MR shall be preferred over the up-titration of metformin beyond half-maximal dose for effective management of T2DM. Gliclazide/gliclazide-MR can be used safely in patients with diabetes and cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease. It can be used in older patients with T2DM as it does not have active metabolites and has a low risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The expert panel proposed consideration of monotherapy or dual therapy of gliclazide as an ideal choice in patients with T2DM because of its efficacy, long-term glycemic control, favorable renal outcomes, cardiovascular safety, and an optimal safety profile.

Glucodynamics and glucocracy in type 2 diabetes mellitus: clinical evidence and practice-based opinion on modern sulfonylurea use, from an International Expert Group (South Asia, Middle East & Africa) via modified Delphi method

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global epidemic. According to international guidelines, the management protocol of T2DM includes lowering of blood glucose, along with preventing disease-related complications and maintaining optimal quality of life. Further, the guidelines recommend the use of a patient-centric approaches for the management of T2DM; however, Asian population is underrepresented in landmark cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs). There are several guidelines available today for the diagnosis and management of T2DM, and hence there is much confusion among practitioners about which guidelines to follow. A group of thirty international clinical experts comprising of endocrinologists, diabetologists and cardiologist from South Asia, Middle East and Africa met at New Delhi, India on February 8 and 9, 2020 and developed an international expert opinion statements via a structured modified Delphi method on the glucodynamic properties of OADs and the glucocratic treatment approach for the management of T2DM. In this modified Delphi consensus report, we document the glucodynamic properties of Modern SUs in terms of glucoconfidence, glucosafety, and gluconomics. According to glucodynamics theory, an ideal antidiabetic drug should be efficacious, safe, and affordable. Modern SUs as a class of OADs that have demonstrated optimal glucodynamics in terms of glucoconfidence, glucosafety, and gluconomics. Hence, modern SUs are most suitable second line drug after metformin for developing countries. Based on the current evidence, we recommend a glucocratic approach for the treatment of T2DM, where an individualized treatment plan with phenotype, lifestyle, environmental, social, and cultural factors should be considered for persons with T2DM in the South Asian, Middle Eastern and African regions.

The Safety of Pharmacological and Surgical Treatment of Diabetes in Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy-A Review

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a non-infectious pandemic of the modern world; it is estimated that in 2045 it will affect 10% of the world's population. As the prevalence of diabetes increases, the problem of its complications, including diabetic retinopathy (DR), grows. DR is a highly specific neurovascular complication of diabetes that occurs in more than one third of DM patients and accounts for 80% of complete vision loss cases in the diabetic population. We are currently witnessing many groundbreaking studies on new pharmacological and surgical methods of treating diabetes.

AIM

The aim of the study is to assess the safety of pharmacological and surgical treatment of DM in patients with DR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An analysis of the data on diabetes treatment methods currently available in the world literature and their impact on the occurrence and progression of DR.

RESULTS

A rapid decrease in glycaemia leads to an increased occurrence and progression of DR. Its greatest risk accompanies insulin therapy and sulfonylurea therapy. The lowest risk of DR occurs with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors; the use of DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues is also safe. Patients undergoing pancreatic islet transplants or bariatric surgeries require intensive monitoring of the state of the eye, both in the perioperative and postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

It is of utmost importance to individualize therapy in diabetic patients, in order to gradually achieve treatment goals with the use of safe methods and minimize the risk of development and progression of DR.

Diabetes and Genetics: A Relationship Between Genetic Risk Alleles, Clinical Phenotypes and Therapeutic Approaches

Unveiling human genome through successful completion of Human Genome Project and International HapMap Projects with the advent of state of art technologies has shed light on diseases associated genetic determinants. Identification of mutational landscapes such as copy number variation, single nucleotide polymorphisms or variants in different genes and loci have revealed not only genetic risk factors responsible for diseases but also region(s) playing protective roles. Diabetes is a global health concern with two major types - type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Great progress in understanding the underlying genetic predisposition to T1D and T2D have been made by candidate gene studies, genetic linkage studies, genome wide association studies with substantial number of samples. Genetic information has importance in predicting clinical outcomes. In this review, we focus on recent advancement regarding candidate gene(s) associated with these two traits along with their clinical parameters as well as therapeutic approaches perceived. Understanding genetic architecture of these disease traits relating clinical phenotypes would certainly facilitate population stratification in diagnosing and treating T1D/T2D considering the doses and toxicity of specific drugs.

Comparative effectiveness of gliclazide modified release versus sitagliptin as second-line treatment after metformin monotherapy in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness and safety of gliclazide modified release (MR) to sitagliptin as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) treatments in a real-world patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The cohort consisted of adult patients with T2D newly treated with either gliclazide MR or sitagliptin as second-line treatment added to metformin and with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level of ≥7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Patients were 1:1 matched using high-dimensional propensity score matching and followed to determine the time taken to reach an HbA1c <7.0%. Secondary outcomes included time to HbA1c ≤6.5% (48 mmol/mol), time to ≥1% (11 mmol/mol) HbA1c reduction from baseline, treatment persistence and durability, and hypoglycaemic events.

RESULTS

Among the 1986 patients included, those on gliclazide MR more likely achieved an HbA1c <7.0% [hazard ratio (HR): 1.35; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-1.57], HbA1c ≤6.5% (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.19-1.92) or had an HbA1c reduction ≥1% from baseline (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.00-1.24) compared with patients on sitagliptin. Durability (log-rank P = .135) and persistence (P = .119) were similar between the two groups. Hypoglycaemic events were uncommon (23 total severe and non-severe events; incidence rate, 3.7 per 1000 patient years), with 4.7 and 2.6 events per 1000 patient years with gliclazide MR and sitagliptin treatment, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study, second-line gliclazide MR was more effective than sitagliptin in reducing HbA1c, with similar durability and persistence and low rates of hypoglycaemic events, in individuals with T2D on metformin treatment and HbA1c above the target of 7.0%.

Positioning sulphonylureas in a modern treatment algorithm for patients with type 2 diabetes: Expert opinion from a European consensus panel

The large number of pharmacological agents available to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) makes choosing the optimal drug for any given patient a complex task. Because newer agents offer several advantages, whether and when sulphonylureas (SUs) should still be used to treat T2D is controversial. Published treatment guidelines and recommendations should govern the general approach to diabetes management. However, expert opinions can aid in better understanding local practices and in formulating individual choices. The current consensus paper aims to provide additional guidance on the use of SUs in T2D. We summarize current local treatment guidelines in European countries, showing that SUs are still widely proposed as second-line treatment after metformin and are often ranked at the same level as newer glucose-lowering medications. Strong evidence now shows that sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are associated with low hypoglycaemia risk, promote weight loss, and exert a positive impact on vascular, cardiac and renal endpoints. Thus, using SUs in place of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs may deprive patients of key advantages and potentially important cardiorenal benefits. In subjects with ascertained cardiovascular disease or at very high cardiovascular risk, SGLT-2is and/or GLP-1RAs should be used as part of diabetes management, in the absence of contraindications. Routine utilization of SUs as second-line agents continues to be acceptable in resource-constrained settings.

Role of Gliclazide MR in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Report of a Symposium on Real-World Evidence and New Perspectives

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require additional glucose-lowering on top of first-line metformin monotherapy, sulfonylureas are the most common choice for second-line therapy followed by dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitors (DPP-4i). This article summarises presentations at a symposium entitled "Real-World Evidence and New Perspectives with Gliclazide MR" held at the International Diabetes Federation Congress in Busan, South Korea on 4 December 2019. Although guideline recommendations vary between countries, the guidelines with the highest quality ratings include sulfonylureas as one of the preferred choices as second-line therapy for T2DM. Data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have consistently demonstrated that sulfonylureas are effective glucose-lowering agents and that the risk of severe hypoglycaemia with these agents is low. In addition, both RCTs and real-world observational studies have shown no increased risk of mortality or cardiovascular disease with the use of newer-generation sulfonylureas compared with other classes of glucose-lowering treatments. However, differences between sulfonylureas do exist, with gliclazide being associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality or cardiovascular mortality compared with glibenclamide, as well as the lowest incidence of severe hypoglycaemia compared with other agents in this class. Recent real-world studies into the effectiveness and safety of gliclazide appear to confirm these findings, and publication of new data from these studies in patients with T2DM in the UK, and in Muslim patients who are fasting during Ramadan, are awaited with interest. Another study being undertaken with gliclazide is a pan-India study in patients with maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) subtypes 1, 3 and 12. Patients with these MODY subtypes respond particularly well to sulfonylurea treatment, and sulfonylureas are the first-line agents of choice in these patients. These new and ongoing studies will add to the cumulative data on the efficacy and safety of certain sulfonylureas in patients with diabetes.

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.

The Place of Sulfonylureas in the Evolving Landscape of Combination Therapy

This article summarizes a presentation from a recent symposium entitled "SUs in the treatment of T2DM: a fresh look and new insights" held on 18 September 2019 during the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Barcelona, Spain, and discusses whether sulfonylureas (SUs) are a good 'team player.' It examines the likely impact of using SUs early in the course of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), either alone or in combination with other agents, on glycemic outcomes and net side effects. The management of patients with T2DM and cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease is discussed, highlighting how glycemic control and cardio-renal effects are equally important in these patients and chronic exposure to hyperglycemia should be minimized. The role of SU-based combination therapy in this patient group is explored, demonstrating how later-generation SUs, either as monotherapy or combined with other antidiabetic drugs, help to ensure maximum benefits with minimal side effects. Evidence regarding the combination of SUs with a sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitor shows that this might prove to be a good clinical option, especially in patients with renal impairment.

Latest Evidence on Sulfonylureas: What's New?

This review addresses the question of the cardiovascular (CV) safety of sulfonylureas (SUs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) when directly tested against comparator agents in CV outcome trials. Presented at a recent symposium entitled "SUs in the treatment of T2DM: a fresh look and new insights" held on Wednesday September 18, 2019 during the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Barcelona Spain, this review discusses the initial evidence that sparked concerns over the CV safety of SUs as well as more recent findings from large studies of SUs (i.e. ADVANCE, TOSCA.IT and CAROLINA trials), highlighting the differences in CV and hypoglycaemia risks among the various SUs. Finally, the impact of glycaemic control on CV outcomes is also discussed, where the data suggest that the recent positive CV outcomes with some antihyperglycaemic agents may have been driven in part by improved glycaemic control.

Radix pseudostellariae of Danzhi Jiangtang capsule relieves oxidative stress of vascular endothelium in diabetic macroangiopathy

AIM

Medicinal plants act as an alternative source of anti-diabetic agents. Recently, Danzhi Jiangtang capsule (DJC) has been clinically used for treatment of diabetes, but the effect of DJC on diabetic macroangiopathy remained unclear. The present study investigates the therapeutic role of DJC in diabetic macroangiopathy and elucidates the underlying mechanisms.

METHODS

Diabetes patients were treated with DJC for 20 weeks. Blood glucose and serum parameters (insulin, FFA, SOD, GSH-Px, MDA, NO) were determined before and after treatment. Streptozotocin -induced diabetic rat model and human HUVECs cells were applied to assess the anti-oxidative capacity of DJC and its bioactive constituents. The expression levels of eNOS, JNK, GRP78, CHOP, Bcl2, and BAX were measured by qPCR and/or immunoblotting.

RESULTS

Diabetic macroangiopathy were ameliorated by DJC administration. Radix pseudostellariae (RP) mediated the anti-oxidative stress capacity of DJC, which improved insulin resistance (p < 0.01) and relieved oxidative stress (p < 0.01) of vascular endothelium through oxidative stress signaling and apoptosis pathway. The ability of DJC to ameliorate diabetic macroangiopathy and relieve oxidative stress was mainly mediated by its bioactive constituent RP.

CONCLUSION

This study would provide experimental evidence for DJC in the prevention and treatment of diabetes and diabetic macroangiopathy.

Portuguese-Brazilian evidence-based guideline on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

In current management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), cardiovascular and renal prevention have become important targets to be achieved. In this context, a joint panel of four endocrinology societies from Brazil and Portugal was established to develop an evidence-based guideline for treatment of hyperglycemia in T2DM.

METHODS

MEDLINE (via PubMed) was searched for randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies related to diabetes treatment. When there was insufficient high-quality evidence, expert opinion was sought. Updated positions on treatment of T2DM patients with heart failure (HF), atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and patients with no vascular complications were developed. The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In non-pregnant adults, the recommended HbA1c target is below 7%. Higher levels are recommended in frail older adults and patients at higher risk of hypoglycemia. Lifestyle modification is recommended at all phases of treatment. Metformin is the first choice when HbA1c is 6.5-7.5%. When HbA1c is 7.5-9.0%, dual therapy with metformin plus an SGLT2i and/or GLP-1RA (first-line antidiabetic agents, AD1) is recommended due to cardiovascular and renal benefits. If an AD1 is unaffordable, other antidiabetic drugs (AD) may be used. Triple or quadruple therapy should be considered when HbA1c remains above target. In patients with clinical or subclinical atherosclerosis, the combination of one AD1 plus metformin is the recommended first-line therapy to reduce cardiovascular events and improve blood glucose control. In stable heart failure with low ejection fraction (< 40%) and glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, metformin plus an SGLT-2i is recommended to reduce cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalizations and improve blood glucose control. In patients with diabetes-associated chronic kidney disease (CKD) (eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or eGFR 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m2 with albuminuria > 30 mg/g), the combination of metformin and an SGLT2i is recommended to attenuate loss of renal function, reduce albuminuria and improve blood glucose control. In patients with severe renal failure, insulin-based therapy is recommended to improve blood glucose control. Alternatively, GLP-1RA, DPP4i, gliclazide MR and pioglitazone may be considered to reduce albuminuria. In conclusion, the current evidence supports individualizing anti-hyperglycemic treatment for T2DM.

A real-world study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with gliclazide modified-release during fasting: DIA-RAMADAN

AIMS

To explore the real-world safety and effectiveness of gliclazide modified release (MR) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) fasting during Ramadan.

METHODS

DIA-RAMADAN (NCT04132934) was a prospective, international, observational study conducted in nine countries. Patients >18 years of age with T2DM (N = 1244) were examined at an inclusion visit (V0) occurring 6-8 weeks before the start of Ramadan. Patients received a diary to report treatment changes, hypoglycaemic events (HEs), and other adverse events. Gliclazide MR was taken once daily for 14-18 weeks. A second visit (V1) was conducted 4-6 weeks after the end of Ramadan. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reporting ≥1 symptomatic HE. Changes in HbA_1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and body weight were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients reporting ≥1 symptomatic HE during Ramadan was low (2.2%) with no reported severe HEs. There was a significant reduction in HbA_1c (-0.3%), FPG (-9.7 mg/dL), body weight (-0.5 kg) and body mass index (-0.2 kg/m²) between V0 and V1 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with T2DM treated with gliclazide MR during Ramadan have a low risk of hypoglycaemia and maintain glycaemic control and weight while fasting.

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.

Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Abdominal Obesity: An Asian Perspective and Expert Recommendations

The prevalence of obesity in Asia is of epidemic proportions, with an estimated 1 billion overweight/obese individuals in the region. The majority of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are overweight/obese, which increases the risk of cardiorenal outcomes in these patients; hence, sustained reductions in body weight and visceral adiposity are important management goals. However, most of the glucose-lowering therapies such as insulin, sulfonylureas, glinides, and thiazolidinediones induce weight gain, which makes the management of overweight/obese T2DM patients challenging. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors are the only oral glucose-lowering agents that have been shown to reduce body weight and visceral adiposity. In addition, SGLT-2 inhibitors therapy reduces ectopic fat deposition and improves adipose tissue function and weight-related quality of life. In this article, we aim to consolidate the existing literature on the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors in Asian patients with T2DM and to produce clinical recommendations on their use in overweight or obese patients with T2DM. Recommendations from international and regional guidelines, as well as published data from clinical trials in Asian populations and cardiovascular outcomes trials are reviewed. Based on the available data, SGLT-2 inhibitors represent an evidence-based therapeutic option for the management of overweight/obese patients with T2DM.

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.

Adverse Effects of Glycemia-Lowering Medications in Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is focused on preventing the occurrence and delaying the development of macro- and micro-vascular complications. Glycemic control can help prevent these complications, but there is concern about the adverse effects of glycemia-lowering medications. A rational approach is to balance the desired low risk of adverse events against the unwanted higher risk of major complications resulting from suboptimal glucose control.

RECENT FINDINGS

Using the above approach, approved glucose-lowering agents have favorable benefit-to-risk profiles for use in most patients with type 2 diabetes. We first briefly review the mechanism of actions and benefits of the different commonly used classes of glycemia-lowering medications and then discuss adverse effects and safety concern associated with their use. Our overall assessment is that if used appropriately, the different classes of glycemia-lowering medications offer beneficial outcomes with relatively modest and, in some instances, preventable adverse events.

Attitude and safety of patients with diabetes observing the Ramadan fast

AIMS

To describe the attitude of type 2 diabetes patients toward Ramadan fasting. A Secondary purpose was to describe rates of hypoglycemia during Ramadan according to type of treatment.

METHODS

A prospective, non-randomized study for 2 years. Participants with type 2 diabetes attending Dammam Diabetes Center, Saudi Arabia were stratified for fasting according to ADA recommendations. Results are presented using mean, standard deviation and percentages.

RESULTS

Total of 360 participants with type 2 diabetes. Mean ± SD glycosylated hemoglobin was 8.9 ± 2.1. More than 80% of individuals were in the ADA higher risk group however, they all fasted Ramadan. The mean non-fasting days was 2.6 days and overall rate of hypoglycaemia was 24.7%. Both parameters were directly proportionate to the risk stratification level (P-value <0.05). Despite hypoglycaemia, 29.3% continued fasting. Hypoglycemia was highest in patients treated with insulin (P-value <0.05) followed by those treated with oral agents including sulphonylurea as compared to oral agents excluding sulfonylurea (P-value = 0.002). Those who experienced hypoglycemia prior to Ramadan had the highest rate of hypoglycemia during Ramadan (53.3%) (P-value = 0.0065).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite medical advice, the vast majority of type 2 diabetes participants categorized as high risk, fasted Ramadan. Approximately one quarter of people with type 2 diabetes in our cohort experience hypoglycaemia and this was directly related to their fasting risk level. A sizeable proportion continued the fast despite hypoglycemic. Insulin therapy with or without oral agents and previous episodes of hypoglycemia before Ramadan predicted hypoglycemia risk during Ramadan. HbA1c and weight showed some clinical improvements post Ramadan fasting. This is a single center study of mostly high risk fasting patients and hence, these results should not be generalized.

Reflections on the sulphonylurea story: A drug class at risk of extinction or a drug class worth reviving?

The role of sulphonylureas (SUs) in modern clinical practice poses ongoing clinical debate. With the advent of newer agents in diabetes management, there is an increasing shift away from the prescribing of SUs, but not necessarily to more effective agents. This review provides a different perspective on the debate, reflecting in depth upon the physiology of SUs, drawing on insights gained from monogenic diabetes to highlight the potential benefit of lower doses of SUs, and the probable benefit of gliclazide over most other, if not all SUs, in terms of sulphonylurea failure and cardiovascular outcomes.

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.

Long-Term Patterns of Antidiabetic Medication Use in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Background

This study aimed to investigate the patterns of use of antidiabetic medication among patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), focusing on the comparison in glycemic control between sulfonylureas and metformin.

Material/Methods

Data from patients newly diagnosed and treated for T2DM between 2011 and 2014, who were ≥18 years of age were obtained from the Yinzhou Regional Health Care Database, and patterns of medication and glycemic control were analyzed. The Poisson probability distribution was used to determine the rate ratio (incidence density ratio) of uncontrolled hyperglycemia between sulfonylureas and metformin. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the association between initial treatment with sulfonylureas and metformin and the requirement for additional medications.

Results

Of the 4,017 patients included in the study, 33.58% began treatment with sulfonylureas and 20.41% began treatment with metformin, and during follow-up, 21.13% and 22.68%, respectively were treated with a second drug. After adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and fasting blood glucose (FBG), the rate ratio of uncontrolled blood glucose for sulfonylurea monotherapy compared with metformin monotherapy was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.17–1.45). Patients who began treatment with sulfonylureas were 18% less likely to progress to dual medication compared with metformin (HR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.68–0.99).

Conclusions

Sulfonylurea monotherapy was the most common initial treatment for patients with newly diagnosed T2DM and was associated with an increased risk of uncontrolled hyperglycemia, but patients were less likely to receive additional drugs when compared with patients initially treated with metformin monotherapy.

Managing diabetes and liver disease association

There is strong association between liver diseases and diabetes (DM) which is higher than expected by a chance association of two very common disorders. It can be classified into three categories: Liver disease related to diabetes, hepatogenous diabetes (HD), and liver disease occurring coincidentally with DM. The criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes associating liver disease are the same for primary diabetes. Two hours post glucose load is a better screening test for HD. HbA1c may not be suitable for diagnosis or monitoring of diabetes associating advanced liver disease. Apart from the increased cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 DM (T2 DM) and NAFLD, the cardiovascular and retinopathy risk is low in HD. Patients with metabolic derangement should be screened for NAFLD which in turn may predict T2 DM development. Similarly, patients with established T2 DM should also be screened for NAFLD which further contributes to diabetes worsening. Diabetes is a significant risk factor for progression of the chronic liver disease. It is associated with poor patient survival. Treatment of diabetes associating liver disease appears beneficial. Metformin, if tolerated and not contraindicated, is recommended as a first-line therapy for patients with diabetes and chronic liver disease (CLD). If the hepatic disease is severe, insulin secretagogues should be avoided because of the increased risk of hypoglycaemia. Pioglitazone may be useful in patients with fatty liver disease. DPP-4 inhibitors showed effectiveness and safety for the treatment of T2 DM in CLD patients up to those with child B stage. GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors exhibit positive effects on weight and are associated with minimal risk of hypoglycaemia. Insulin must be used with caution, as hypoglycaemia may be a problem. Insulin analogues are preferred in the context of hypoglycaemia Statins can be used to treat dyslipidaemia in NAFLD, also the use of angiotensin II receptor antagonist for hypertension is safe and beneficial Given the clear association between diabetes mellitus and hepatocellular carcinoma, the strict control of glycaemia with insulin sensitizers can be essential in its prevention. The addition of DM to the currently used scores (Child-Pugh and MELD scores) may enhance the sensitivity and the specificity for prediction of morbidity and mortality rates in cirrhotic patients. In the new era of directly acting antiviral agents (DAAs) for HCV treatment, it is recommended to follow up lipid profile and blood sugar levels following SVR in order to adjust doses of medications used in diabetic (SVR is associated with reduction in insulin requirements) and dyslipidaemic patients (rebound increase in the lipid profile after clearing the virus may increase risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)). The issues of post liver transplant diabetes and relation between DM and chronic HBV are highlighted. This narrative review and Consensus-based practice guidance (under revision and criticism) are based on a formal review and analysis of the recently published world literature on the topic (Medline search up to September 2017); and the experience of the authors and independent reviewers.

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.