Comparison of Pioglitazone vs Glyburide in Early Heart Failure: Insights From a Randomized Controlled Study of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Mild Cardiac Disease

Effects of pioglitazone on cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

In 2019, the Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists nominated an expert panel to develop guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. After identifying the effects of glucose-lowering agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) as critical outcomes, the experts decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of pioglitazone with this respect.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A MEDLINE database search was performed to identify RCTs, up to June 1st, 2021, with duration≥52 weeks, in which pioglitazone was compared with either placebo or active comparators. The principal endpoints were MACE and HHF (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their outcomes), all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified outcomes). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all the endpoints considered. Eight RCTs were included in the analysis for MACEs and HF (5048 and 5117 patients in the pioglitazone and control group, respectively), and 24 in that for all-cause mortality (10,682 and 9674 patients). Pioglitazone neither significantly increased nor reduced the risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF in comparison with placebo/active comparators (MH-OR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.78-1.03, 0.91, 95% CI 0.77, 1.09, and 1.16, 95% CI 0.73, 1.83, respectively). Pioglitazone was associated with a significant reduction of MACE in patients with prior cardiovascular events (MH-OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed no significant effects of pioglitazone on incident MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF.

The Role of the Inflammasome in Heart Failure

Inflammation promotes the development of heart failure (HF). The inflammasome is a multimeric protein complex that plays an essential role in the innate immune response by triggering the cleavage and activation of the proinflammatory cytokines interleukins (IL)-1β and IL-18. Blocking IL-1β with the monoclonal antibody canakinumab reduced hospitalizations and mortality in HF patients, suggesting that the inflammasome is involved in HF pathogenesis. The inflammasome is activated under various pathologic conditions that contribute to the progression of HF, including pressure overload, acute or chronic overactivation of the sympathetic system, myocardial infarction, and diabetic cardiomyopathy. Inflammasome activation is responsible for cardiac hypertrophy, fibrosis, and pyroptosis. Besides inflammatory cells, the inflammasome in other cardiac cells initiates local inflammation through intercellular communication. Some inflammasome inhibitors are currently being investigated in clinical trials in patients with HF. The current evidence suggests that the inflammasome is a critical mediator of cardiac inflammation during HF and a promising therapeutic target. The present review summarizes the recent advances in both basic and clinical research on the role of the inflammasome in HF.

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.

Diabetes and Heart Failure: Is it Hyperglycemia or Hyperinsulinemia?

The cardiac effects of exogenously administered insulin for the treatment of diabetes (DM) have recently attracted much attention. In particular, it has been questioned whether insulin is the appropriate treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure. While several old and some new studies suggested that insulin treatment has beneficial effects on the heart, recent observational studies indicate associations of insulin treatment with an increased risk of developing or worsening of pre-existing heart failure and higher mortality rates. However, there is actually little evidence that the associations of insulin administration with any adverse outcomes are causal. On the other hand, insulin clearly causes weight gain and may also cause serious episodes of hypoglycemia. Moreover, excess of insulin (hyperinsulinemia), as often seen with the use of injected insulin, seems to predispose to inflammation, hypertension, dyslipidemia, atherosclerosis, heart failure, and arrhythmias. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that most of the data concerning the effects of insulin on cardiac function derive from in vitro studies with isolated animal hearts. Therefore, the relevance of the findings of such studies for humans should be considered with caution. In the present review, we summarize the existing data about the potential positive and negative effects of insulin on the heart and attempt to answer the question whether any adverse effects of insulin or the consequences of hyperglycemia are more important and may provide a better explanation of the close association of DM with heart failure.

Assessing the need for pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of its risks and benefits from prospective trials

The safety and usefulness of pioglitazone (Pio) is repeatedly called into question due to the contradictory information available about it. A meta-analysis and risk benefit assessment was conducted to address the various points of debate regarding Pio. Electronic database search (Cochrane library, Embase & PubMed) resulted in 10 citations eligible for this meta-analysis (prospective, randomised studies), which was conducted using CMA software version 3 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA). The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019122403) and compared pioglitazone with a control (anti-hyperglycemic agents without pioglitazone) in patients with either established cardiovascular disease or having high cardiovascular risk. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis were conducted to differentiate the effect of Pio against active controls and placebo. The use of Pio compared to the control group that did not use Pio resulted in a 14% and 23% significant reduction in odds of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: MH-OR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.75–0.98), and stroke (MH-OR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.60–0.99), respectively. This reduction in stroke was not significant in comparison to placebo on subgroup analysis. However, Pio significantly increased odds of heart failure (HF) (MH-OR, 1.47; 95% CI 1.26–1.71) as well as hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) (MH-OR, 1.48; 95% CI 1.21–1.81). In addition, the use of Pio was associated with a significant increase in odds of fractures in women (MH-OR, 2.05; 95% CI 1.28–3.27) and anaemia (MH-OR, 2.56; 95% CI 1.55–4.21). Pio has no significant effect on bladder cancer nor macular oedema. Pio has salutary effects on MACE. The positive effects are completely offset by the harm they seem to cause by way of heart failure, fractures, and anaemia. Pio should therefore be reserved for treatment of T2D with high CV risk or established cardiovascular (CV) disease only in selected patients where other antidiabetics are precluded and not routinely.

Metabolic effects of antihyperglycemic agents and mortality: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The effects of antihyperglycemic medications on cardiovascular events and mortality are heterogeneous and their effects on intermediate factors might explain these differences. This systematic review explores the relationship between metabolic factors, mechanism of action, and mortality effects of antihyperglycemic medications in type 2 diabetes. Randomized trials assessing the effects of antihyperglycemic medications on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetes were included. Myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure were secondary outcomes. The effects of medications on HbA1c, severe hypoglycemia (SH), body weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and mechanism of action were evaluated. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed grouping studies according to the above-cited factors. All-cause mortality was lower for medications that reduced HbA1c, SH, body weight, and SBP. Decreased cardiovascular mortality was associated with lower HbA1c, SH, SBP. Myocardial infarction and stroke were also associated with favorable metabolic profile. These findings were not confirmed in meta-regression models. Medications associated with lower SH, body weight and SBP had a lower risk of heart failure. In conclusion, medications with better metabolic profile were associated with reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. These findings are based on indirect comparisons and must be applied cautiously.

Improving exercise capacity and quality of life using non-invasive heart failure treatments: evidence from clinical trials

Endpoints of large-scale trials in chronic heart failure have mostly been defined to evaluate treatments with regard to hospitalizations and mortality. However, patients with heart failure are also affected by very severe reductions in exercise capacity and quality of life. We aimed to evaluate the effects of heart failure treatments on these endpoints using available evidence from randomized trials. Interventions with evidence for improvements in exercise capacity include physical exercise, intravenous iron supplementation in patients with iron deficiency, and - with less certainty - testosterone in highly selected patients. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents have been reported to improve exercise capacity in anaemic patients with heart failure. Sinus rhythm may have some advantage when compared with atrial fibrillation, particularly in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation. Studies assessing treatments for heart failure co-morbidities such as sleep-disordered breathing, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease and depression have reported improvements of exercise capacity and quality of life; however, the available data are limited and not always consistent. The available evidence for positive effects of pharmacologic interventions using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists on exercise capacity and quality of life is limited. Studies with ivabradine and with sacubitril/valsartan suggest beneficial effects at improving quality of life; however, the evidence base is limited in particular for exercise capacity. The data for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are even less positive, only sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone have shown some effectiveness at improving quality of life. In conclusion, the evidence for state-of-the-art heart failure treatments with regard to exercise capacity and quality of life is limited and appears not robust enough to permit recommendations for heart failure. The treatment of co-morbidities may be important for these patient-related outcomes. Additional studies on functional capacity and quality of life in heart failure are required.

Exploration and Development of PPAR Modulators in Health and Disease: An Update of Clinical Evidence

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are nuclear receptors that govern the expression of genes responsible for energy metabolism, cellular development, and differentiation. Their crucial biological roles dictate the significance of PPAR-targeting synthetic ligands in medical research and drug discovery. Clinical implications of PPAR agonists span across a wide range of health conditions, including metabolic diseases, chronic inflammatory diseases, infections, autoimmune diseases, neurological and psychiatric disorders, and malignancies. In this review we aim to consolidate existing clinical evidence of PPAR modulators, highlighting their clinical prospects and challenges. Findings from clinical trials revealed that different agonists of the same PPAR subtype could present different safety profiles and clinical outcomes in a disease-dependent manner. Pemafibrate, due to its high selectivity, is likely to replace other PPARα agonists for dyslipidemia and cardiovascular diseases. PPARγ agonist pioglitazone showed tremendous promises in many non-metabolic disorders like chronic kidney disease, depression, inflammation, and autoimmune diseases. The clinical niche of PPARβ/δ agonists is less well-explored. Interestingly, dual- or pan-PPAR agonists, namely chiglitazar, saroglitazar, elafibranor, and lanifibranor, are gaining momentum with their optimistic outcomes in many diseases including type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and primary biliary cholangitis. Notably, the preclinical and clinical development for PPAR antagonists remains unacceptably deficient. We anticipate the future design of better PPAR modulators with minimal off-target effects, high selectivity, superior bioavailability, and pharmacokinetics. This will open new possibilities for PPAR ligands in medicine.

The influence of anti-hyperglycemic drug therapy on cardiovascular and heart failure outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) are at a substantially increased risk of heart failure (HF) and HF mortality. Despite the lack of evidence that tight glycemic control reduces the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) events, a growing body of evidence suggests that the choice of glucose-lowering agents may influence outcomes including HF. Thiazolidinediones are associated with a significant risk of HF. For metformin, sulphonylureas and insulin, little data is available to indicate the impact on HF. The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, liraglutide and semaglutide, have been shown to reduce major CV events, but did not affect rates of hospitalization for HF. Clinical trials have demonstrated diverse effects of Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors on HF; saxagliptin showed an increased risk of HF admissions, alogliptin was associated with higher rates of new HF admissions, while sitagliptin had a neutral effect. The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin, have been recently shown to reduce the incidence of HF and cardiovascular mortality in patients with and without a history of HF. This review will summarize key findings of the impact of glucose-lowering agents on CV safety and HF-associated outcomes, present available data on the underlying mechanisms for the benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitors on HF, and discuss strategies to improve outcomes in patients with DM and high CV risk.

Revisiting the Diabetes-Heart Failure Connection

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

To summarize current clinical data investigating the link between diabetes and heart failure pathophysiology, the association of glucose control with heart failure, and the impact of current antihyperglycemic drugs on heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although heart failure is one of the most prevalent outcomes occurring in real life and cardiovascular outcome trials, insufficient attention was given to this condition in diabetes research over the last decades. With both beneficial and detrimental findings for heart failure hospitalization in the health authority-mandated outcome trials for new antihyperglycemic agents, research on heart failure and its interplay with diabetes mellitus gained momentum. Diabetes mellitus and heart failure are both prevalent and intertwined conditions. While currently available heart failure therapies have a similar degree of effectiveness in patients with and without diabetes, the choice of glucose-lowering agents can substantially affect heart failure-related outcome.

Cardiovascular Mortality of Oral Antidiabetic Drugs Approved Before and After the 2008 US FDA Guidance for Industry: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Both diabetes and antidiabetic drugs (ADDs) increase the risk for cardiovascular (CV) diseases. Due to the increasing concern about CV safety associated with ADDs, the US FDA revised regulatory guidelines in 2008 to include CV safety as an endpoint.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the current study was to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare CV mortality of oral ADDs approved before and after the FDA's 2008 guidance.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and the Clinical Trial Registry) were searched to retrieve studies published up to 24 February 2017. Randomized clinical trials were included in this study if they (1) were published in the English language; (2) included adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus with or without CV risk factors, who were taking at least one oral antidiabetic drug; and (3) had at least one study outcome as CV mortality. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Small-study effects were accessed using funnel plot symmetry. The primary outcome was CV mortality.

RESULTS

We found that there was no significant increase in CV mortality for drugs approved before and after 2008. The overall odds ratio (OR) and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for all drugs approved after 2008 (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52-1.07) were lower than the overall OR for all drugs approved before 2008 (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.19). In addition, the upper bounds of the two-sided 95% CI for both groups of drugs before and after 2008 were below 1.3. Empagliflozin, which was approved after the guidance, was significantly associated with a reduction in CV mortality.

CONCLUSION

The 2008 FDA guidance appears to have a positive impact on CV risk assessment of recently marketed drugs for the management of diabetes.

Heart Failure: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Management of Heart Failure in Diabetes Mellitus

This article briefly discusses the epidemiology of heart failure and diabetes and summarizes the key findings from the recent cardiovascular outcome trials in patients with type 2 diabetes, with a focus on heart failure as an endpoint.

Korean Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is skyrocketing worldwide, and is closely associated with serious morbidity and mortality. In particular, HF is one of the main causes for the hospitalization and mortality in elderly individuals. Korea also has these epidemiological problems, and HF is responsible for huge socioeconomic burden. However, there has been no clinical guideline for HF management in Korea. 
The present guideline provides the first set of practical guidelines for the management of HF in Korea and was developed using the guideline adaptation process while including as many data from Korean studies as possible. The scope of the present guideline includes the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic HF with reduced/preserved ejection fraction of various etiologies.

Thiazolidinedione drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: past, present and future

Thiazolidinedione (TZD) drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have proven effective in improving insulin sensitivity, hyperglycemia, and lipid metabolism. Though well tolerated by some patients, their mechanism of action as ligands of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) results in the activation of several pathways in addition to those responsible for glycemic control and lipid homeostasis. These pathways, which include those related to inflammation, bone formation, and cell proliferation, may lead to adverse health outcomes. As treatment with TZDs has been associated with adverse hepatic, cardiovascular, osteological, and carcinogenic events in some studies, the role of TZDs in the treatment of T2DM continues to be debated. At the same time, new therapeutic roles for TZDs are being investigated, with new forms and isoforms currently in the pre-clinical phase for use in the prevention and treatment of some cancers, inflammatory diseases, and other conditions. The aims of this review are to provide an overview of the mechanism(s) of action of TZDs, a review of their safety for use in the treatment of T2DM, and a perspective on their current and future therapeutic roles.

Dose Modification of Antidiabetic Agents in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure

Heart failure is the most common comorbidity of diabetes. The incidence of heart failure in patients with diabetes is about 9%-22%, which is four times higher Than that in patients without diabetes. Heart failure and diabetes are collectively associated with increased morbidity and mortality compared to either condition alone. Several epidemiological studies have demonstrated an increased risk of heart failure in patients with diabetes; moreover, poor glycemic control accounts for the increased risk of heart failure. At present, several oral (metformin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, etc.) as well as injectable (insulins, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists) antidiabetic agents are available. However, optimal treatment strategy to achieve adequate glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure has not been well studied. In the view of rising prevalence of heart failure in patients with diabetes mellitus, clinicians need to understand the potential implications of antidiabetic agents in patients with heart failure. A group of experts from across India were involved in a consensus meeting in Pondicherry during the National Insulin Summit in November 2015. They evaluated agents currently available for the treatment of diabetes looking at existing scientific evidence relevant to each class of therapy. In addition, the existing guidelines and prescribing literature available with all these agents were also reviewed. Findings from the expert evaluations were then factored into the national context incorporating personal experience and common clinical practices in India. The purpose of this consensus document is to assist the clinicians while treating patients with T2DM and heart failure.

The Association between Sulfonylurea Use and All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Sulfonylureas are an effective and inexpensive treatment for type 2 diabetes. There is conflicting data about the safety of these drugs regarding mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the safety of the sulfonylureas most frequently used and to use trial sequential analysis (TSA) to analyze whether the available sample was powered enough to support the results.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Electronic databases were reviewed from 1946 (Embase) or 1966 (MEDLINE) up to 31 December 2014. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of at least 52 wk in duration evaluating second- or third-generation sulfonylureas in the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes and reporting outcomes of interest were included. Primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Additionally, myocardial infarction and stroke events were evaluated. Data were summarized with Peto odds ratios (ORs), and the reliability of the results was evaluated with TSA. Forty-seven RCTs with 37,650 patients and 890 deaths in total were included. Sulfonylureas were not associated with all-cause (OR 1.12 [95% CI 0.96 to 1.30]) or cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.12 [95% CI 0.87 to 1.42]). Sulfonylureas were also not associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.92 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.12]) or stroke (OR 1.16 [95% CI 0.81 to 1.66]). TSA could discard an absolute difference of 0.5% between the treatments, which was considered the minimal clinically significant difference. The major limitation of this review was the inclusion of studies not designed to evaluate safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Sulfonylureas are not associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Current evidence supports the safety of sulfonylureas; an absolute risk of 0.5% could be firmly discarded.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42014004330.

Oral hypoglycemic agents and the heart failure conundrum: Lessons from and for outcome trials

AIM

Type 2 diabetes is not only an independent risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease but is also associated with a greater incidence of heart failure (HF). The aim of this review is to examine the effects of oral antidiabetic drugs on CV disease and HF.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Trials of anti-diabetic agents are now designed to assess CV safety, but frequently HF is not included as a primary endpoint. However, HF in patients with diabetes is more frequent than other CV events and seems to be underestimated. A burning question is therefore if the most used trial design to monitor CV safety, i.e. non-inferiority, allows clinical translation of trial findings. Available data further suggest that the CV effects of anti-diabetic drugs may be rather class-specific and are only partly due to their glucose-lowering actions. Metformin, recommended as first line in most guidelines, shows positive CV effects while other classes like thiazolidinediones may precipitate HF. Experimental results on the relatively novel dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP IV) inhibitors imply CV protective effects, but the non-inferiority trials published to date show an overall neutral CV outcome and a potential increase in HF by saxagliptin. However, results on sitagliptin of the recently released TECOS indicate that HF is not a class-dependent effect of DPP IV inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Further basic research and long-term outcome studies to clarify the effects of antidiabetic agents on CV and HF are required so that we can select the optimal antidiabetic therapy for our patients.

WITHDRAWN: Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group withdrew this review as of Issue 7, 2015 because of the involvement of one author (SS Lund) being employed in a pharmaceutical company. The authors of the review and the Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group did not find that this was a breach of the rules of the Cochrane Collaboration at the time when it was published. However, after the publication of the review, the Cochrane Collaboration requested withdrawal of the review due to the employment of the author. A new protocol for a review to cover this topic will be published. This will have a new title and a markedly improved protocol fulfilling new and important developments and standards within the Cochrane Collaboration as well as an improved inclusion and search strategy making it necessary to embark on a completely new review project.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Polemics of pioglitazone: an appraisal in 2015

Pioglitazone is an inexpensive and effective oral drug for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes. It addresses insulin resistance, one of the core pathophysiological defects in Type 2 diabetes, at both the adipose tissue and skeletal muscle level. As a majority of Type 2 diabetics classically exhibit higher insulin resistance, pioglitazone may strike exactly at the Achilles heel in this core pathogenesis. However, with the emerging association of bladder cancer with pioglitazone, French and German regulators were the first to ban or restrict pioglitazone use in 2011. The Indian regulators also suspended pioglitazone, although this ban was revoked within a month. Recently, a 10-year longitudinal study commissioned by US FDA found no association between bladder cancer and pioglitazone. Nevertheless, this controversy created a huge outcry in the medical fraternity. This review article is an overview of the development of this topic and an attempt to provide perspective on this contemporary issue.

Sulphonylureas and risk of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Sulphonylurea use has been linked with increased cardiovascular disease risk; however, previous studies have been inconsistent. Type 2 diabetes independently increases risk for cardiovascular disease, so understanding the link between longer-term use of anti-diabetic medications and cardiovascular disease has important clinical implications.

METHODS

Literature search in MEDLINE and CENTRAL was conducted throughout December 2011 for clinical and observational studies that reported the association between sulphonylurea and cardiovascular disease events. Ratios (relative risk, odds ratios or hazard ratios) adjusted for potential confounders (concomitant medications, baseline cardiovascular risk, diabetes severity) were pooled using a random-effects model to yield relative risks and associated 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 33 studies (n = 1,325,446 patients), followed for a range of 0.46-10.4 years. In all studies, compared with other oral diabetes drugs, sulphonylurea use was associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death (relative risk 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.34, n = 27 comparisons) and composite cardiovascular event (including myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular-related hospitalization or cardiovascular death) (relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.16, n = 43 comparisons). In studies comparing sulphonylurea vs. metformin, these relative risks were 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.17-1.35, n = 17 comparisons) and 1.18 (95%confidence interval 1.13-1.24, n = 16 comparisons), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that sulphonylurea use may elevate the risk of cardiovascular disease among patients with diabetes. This meta-analysis expands the pool of studies evaluating cardiovascular mortality compared with prior observations while using adjusted estimates, and assessing an additional outcome of a composite cardiovascular event. This finding warrants consideration in clinical practice when other treatment options may be available.

Cardiovascular safety of sulfonylureas: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIM

Cardiovascular safety of sulfonylurea has been questioned by some authors. This article aims at collecting all available data on this issue from randomized trials.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed including all trials with a duration of at least 6 months, comparing a sulfonylurea with a non-sulfonylurea agent in type 2 diabetes. Major cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality were retrieved and combined to calculate Mantel-Haenzel odds ratio (MH-OR).

RESULTS

Of the 115 selected trials, 62 reported information on MACE, and 30 reported at least one event. MH-OR for sulfonylurea was 1.08 [0.86-1.36], p = 0.52 (1.85 [1.20-2.87], p = 0.005, in the five trials vs. DPP4 inhibitors, no significant differences vs. other comparators). The MH-OR for myocardial infarction and stroke was 0.88 [0.75-1.04], p = 0.13 and 1.28 [1.03-1.60], p = 0.026, respectively. Mortality was significantly increased with sulfonylureas (MH-OR: 1.22 [1.01-1.49], p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetes, the use of sulfonylureas is associated with increased mortality and a higher risk of stroke, whereas the overall incidence of MACE appears to be unaffected. Significant differences in cardiovascular risk could be present in direct comparisons with specific classes of glucose-lowering agents, such as DPP4 inhibitors, but this hypothesis needs to be confirmed in long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials. The results of this meta-analysis need to be interpreted with caution, mainly because of limitations in trial quality and under-reporting of information on cardiovascular events and mortality. However, the cardiovascular safety of sulfonylureas cannot be considered established unless it is evaluated in long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials.