Impact of type of preadmission sulfonylureas on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction

Glyburide use is associated with a greater likelihood of mortality or rehospitalization after acute coronary syndrome compared to gliclazide use in adults with type 2 diabetes: A cohort study

AIM

To examine the likelihood of mortality or rehospitalization following acute coronary syndrome with glyburide versus gliclazide use in adults with type 2 diabetes undergoing cardiac catheterization.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used clinical data linked with administrative health data from Alberta, Canada between April 2008 and March 2021. Three methods were used to define exposure to glyburide and gliclazide in the year before catheterization. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the likelihood of a composite outcome of 1-year mortality or rehospitalization with use of glyburide versus use of gliclazide.

RESULTS

A total of 11 140 individuals with type 2 diabetes had a cardiac catheterization for acute coronary syndrome. Their mean age was 66 years and 31% were female. In the year before catheterization, 5% used glyburide and 19% used gliclazide. Any glyburide or gliclazide exposure in the year before catheterization was associated with a similar likelihood of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.41; p = 0.20). However, current glyburide exposure (aOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.79; p = 0.018) and long exposure to glyburide (aOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.03-1.83; p = 0.030) were associated with a higher likelihood of the composite outcome compared to current and long exposure to gliclazide, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Current and long exposure to glyburide was associated with a greater likelihood of mortality or rehospitalization following cardiac catheterization for acute coronary syndrome, when compared to similar gliclazide exposure definitions. This study adds further evidence of the need to avoid using glyburide if a sulphonylurea is required for type 2 diabetes management.

Emerging opportunities to target inflammation: myocardial infarction and type 2 diabetes

After myocardial infarction (MI), patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased rate of adverse outcomes, compared to patients without. Diabetes confers a 1.5-2-fold increase in early mortality and, importantly, this discrepancy has been consistent over recent decades, despite advances in treatment and overall survival. Certain assumptions have emerged to explain this increased risk, such as differences in infarct size or coronary artery disease severity. Here, we re-evaluate that evidence and show how contemporary analyses using state-of-the-art characterization tools suggest that the received wisdom tells an incomplete story. Simultaneously, epidemiological and mechanistic biological data suggest additional factors relating to processes of diabetes-related inflammation might play a prominent role. Inflammatory processes after MI mediate injury and repair and are thus a potential therapeutic target. Recent studies have shown how diabetes affects immune cell numbers and drives changes in the bone marrow, leading to pro-inflammatory gene expression and functional suppression of healing and repair. Here, we review and re-evaluate the evidence around adverse prognosis in patients with diabetes after MI, with emphasis on how targeting processes of inflammation presents unexplored, yet valuable opportunities to improve cardiovascular outcomes in this vulnerable patient group.

Hypoglycemic Drugs in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure: A Narrative Review

Over the last few years, given the increase in the incidence and prevalence of both type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF), it became crucial to develop guidelines for the optimal preventive and treatment strategies for individuals facing these coexisting conditions. In patients aged over 65, HF hospitalization stands out as the predominant reason for hospital admissions, with their prognosis being associated with the presence or absence of T2DM. Historically, certain classes of glucose-lowering drugs, such as thiazolidinediones (rosiglitazone), raised concerns due to an observed increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular (CV)-related mortality. In response to these concerns, regulatory agencies started requiring CV outcome trials for all novel antidiabetic agents [i.e., dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is)] with the aim to assess the CV safety of these drugs beyond glycemic control. This narrative review aims to address the current knowledge about the impact of glucose-lowering agents used in T2DM on HF prevention, prognosis, and outcome.

Medications for Managing Preexisting and Gestational Diabetes in Pregnancy

Persons with gestational and pregestational diabetes during pregnancy may require pharmacologic agents to achieve pregnancy glycemic targets, and the available medications for use in pregnancy are limited. Insulin is the only FDA-approved medication for use in pregnancy and has the greatest evidence for safety and efficacy. Metformin and glyburide are the most commonly used oral agents in pregnancy. Understanding each medication's unique pharmacokinetics, potential side effects, fetal or childhood risks, gestational age of medication initiation and patient's diabetes care barriers are important aspects of shared decision-making and choosing a regimen that will achieve glycemic and pregnancy goals.

The Profile of Glucose Lowering Therapy in Persons with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in an Aging Russian Population

We aimed to analyze the profile of glucose lowering therapy (GLT) in persons with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) in an aging Russian population. A random population sample (n = 3898, men/women, 55−84) was examined in Novosibirsk, during 2015−2018 (HAPIEE Project). The design of the present work is a cross-sectional study. DM2 was defined in those with a history of DM2 receiving GLT, or at a level of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥7.0 mmol/L. The entire DM2 group was included in the analysis (n = 803); of these, 476 persons were taking GLT and were included in the analysis at stage 2. Regular GLT medication intake for 12 months was coded with ATC. In studied sample, the prevalence of DM2 was 20.8%. Among subjects with DM2, 59% of individuals received GLT, 32% did not. Glycemic control (FPG < 7.0 mmol/L) was achieved in every fifth participant with DM2 (35% in those receiving GLT). In frequency of GLT use, biguanides ranked in first place (75%), sulfonylurea derivatives in second (35%), insulins in third (12%), and iDPP-4 in fourth (5%). Among those receiving GLT, 24% used combined oral therapy, and 6% used insulin-combined therapy. In conclusion, in a population sample aged 55−84 examined in 2015−2018, glycemic control was achieved in every fifth participant with DM2, and in every third participant receiving GLT. The proportion of participants using new GLT drugs was small, and there was a lack of HbA1c monitoring for intensive glycemic control.

Sulfonylureas and the Risk of Ventricular Arrhythmias Among People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies

Previous studies have suggested an association between sulfonylureas and an increased risk of cardiovascular death among patients with type 2 diabetes. A potential mechanism involves sulfonylurea-induced ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). We conducted a systematic review of observational studies to determine whether the use of sulfonylureas, compared with the use of other antihyperglycemic drugs, is associated with the risk of VA (ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, and premature ventricular complexes), cardiac arrest, and sudden cardiac death among patients with type 2 diabetes. Two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to July 2021 for observational studies comparing sulfonylureas vs. other antihyperglycemic therapies or intraclass comparisons of sulfonylureas. Our systematic review included 17 studies (1,607,612 patients). Per Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS)-I, there were few high-quality studies (2 studies at moderate risk of bias; 4 at serious risk; and 11 at critical risk). All studies at a moderate or serious risk of bias reporting comparisons with other therapies were consistent with an increased risk of VA. Sulfonylureas were associated with a higher risk of arrhythmia vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27-1.80) and of VA vs. metformin (aHR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.10-2.13). One moderate quality study reported inconsistent results for a composite of cardiac arrest/VA in analyses of US Medicaid claims and Optum claims data. Our systematic review suggests that, among higher-quality observational studies, sulfonylureas are associated with an increased risk of VA. However, we identified few methodologically rigorous studies, underscoring the need for additional real-world studies.

Diabetes, obesity, and insulin resistance in COVID-19: molecular interrelationship and therapeutic implications

BACKGROUND

Our understanding of the pathophysiology of the COVID-19 manifestations and evolution has improved over the past 10 months, but the reasons why evolution is more severe in obese and diabetic patients are not yet completely understood.

MAIN TEXT

In the present review we discuss the different mechanisms that may contribute to explain the pathophysiology of COVID-19 including viral entrance, direct viral toxicity, endothelial dysfunction, thromboinflammation, dysregulation of the immune response, and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

CONCLUSIONS

We show that the viral infection activates an integrated stress response, including activations of serine kinases such as PKR and PERK, which induce IRS-1 serine phosphorylation and insulin resistance. In parallel, we correlate and show the synergy of the insulin resistance of COVID-19 with this hormonal resistance of obesity and diabetes, which increase the severity of the disease. Finally, we discuss the potential beneficial effects of drugs used to treat insulin resistance and diabetes in patients with COVID-19.

Effect of antidiabetic drugs on the risk of atrial fibrillation: mechanistic insights from clinical evidence and translational studies

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is an independent risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF), which is the most common sustained arrhythmia and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Advanced glycation end product and its receptor activation, cardiac energy dysmetabolism, structural and electrical remodeling, and autonomic dysfunction are implicated in AF pathophysiology in diabetic hearts. Antidiabetic drugs have been demonstrated to possess therapeutic potential for AF. However, clinical investigations of AF in patients with DM have been scant and inconclusive. This article provides a comprehensive review of research findings on the association between DM and AF and critically analyzes the effect of different pharmacological classes of antidiabetic drugs on AF.

Pharmacotherapeutic considerations for the management of diabetes mellitus among hospitalized COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent comorbidities identified in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This article aims to discuss the pharmacotherapeutic considerations for the management of diabetes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

AREAS COVERED

We discussed various aspects of pharmacotherapeutic management in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: (i) susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 among individuals with diabetes, (ii) glycemic goals for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes, (iii) pharmacological treatment considerations for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

The glycemic goals in patients with COVID-19 and concurrent type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are to avoid disruption of stable metabolic state, maintain optimal glycemic control, and prevent adverse glycemic events. Patients with T1DM require insulin therapy at all times to prevent ketosis. The management strategies for patients with T2DM include temporary discontinuation of certain oral antidiabetic agents and consideration for insulin therapy. Patients with T2DM who are relatively stable and able to eat regularly may continue with oral antidiabetic agents if glycemic control is satisfactory. Hyperglycemia may develop in patients with systemic corticosteroid treatment and should be managed upon accordingly.

Unravelling the utility of modern sulfonylureas from cardiovascular outcome trials and landmark trials: expert opinion from an international panel

AIM

The primary objective of this review is to develop practice-based expert group opinions on the cardiovascular (CV) safety and utility of modern sulfonylureas (SUs) in cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs).

BACKGROUND

The United States Food and Drug Administration issued new guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008 regarding the development of new antihyperglycemic drugs. The guidance expanded the scope for the approval of novel antihyperglycemic drugs by mandating CVOTs for safety. A few long-term CVOTs on dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have been completed, while others are ongoing. SUs, which constitute one of the key antihyperglycemic agents used for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), have been used as comparator agents in several CVOTs. However, the need for CVOTs on modern SUs remains debatable. In this context, a multinational group of endocrinologists convened for a meeting and discussed the need for CVOTs of modern SUs to evaluate their utility in the management of patients with T2DM. At the meeting, CVOTs of modern SUs conducted to date and the hypotheses derived from the results of these trials were discussed.

REVIEW RESULTS

The expert group analyzed the key trials emphasizing the CV safety of modern SUs and also reviewed the results of various CVOTs in which modern SUs were used as comparators. Based on literature evidence and individual clinical insights, the expert group opined that modern SUs are cardiosafe and that since they have been used as comparators in other CVOTs, CVOTs of SUs are not required.

CONCLUSION

Modern SUs can be considered a cardiosafe option for the management of patients with diabetes mellitus and CV disease; thus CVOTs among individuals with T2DM are not required.

Drugs frequently involved in inducing hypersensitivity reactions

Adverse drug reactions represent a major public health problem, both from an economic point of view and, mainly, from the point of view of the induced pathology (iatrogenic diseases), being difficult to differentiate from other pathological conditions or even from the treated disease. Thus, these aspects prevent the use of the first-choice drugs needed for a particular treatment, in different therapeutic classes: beta-lactam antibiotics; sulfonamides; macrolide antibiotics; quinolones; non-steroidal anti-inflammatories; corticosteroids; Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors; general anesthetics; biological drugs; antiepileptic drugs etc. On the other hand, adverse drug reactions represent a major problem for both clinical practice and preclinical research, in order to develop new drugs. Hypersensitivity reactions mainly refer to the adverse effects that can be harmful, disturbing, and sometimes fatal, that appear under the conditions of a normal immune system, including allergies and autoimmune reactions, both triggered by an immunological-allergic mechanism. The main purpose of this paper is to review the main classes of drugs involved in inducing hypersensitivity reactions.

Glucocrinology of Modern Sulfonylureas: Clinical Evidence and Practice-Based Opinion from an International Expert Group

AIM

The primary objective of this document is to develop practice-based expert group opinion on certain important but less discussed endocrine and metabolic effects of modern sulfonylureas (SUs) and their usage in the management of diabetes mellitus (DM).

BACKGROUND

Modern SUs may be considered a panacea in DM care with their beneficial extra-pancreatic, pleiotropic, and cardiovascular effects. Safe glycemic control with SUs could be achieved with appropriate patient selection, drug and dosage selection, and patient empowerment. Additionally, sulfonylureas also exhibit certain endocrine and metabolic effects, which could be considered beneficial in the management of DM. In this regard, a group of international clinical experts discussed the less known beneficial aspects of SUs and safe and smart prescription of modern SUs in DM care.

RESULTS

The concept of glucocrinology or the relationship of glycemia with the endocrine system was emphasized during the meetings. Clinical experts arrived at a consensus for the usage of modern SUs in the presence of other endocrine dysfunction and the impact of these drugs on endocrine health. The beneficial pleiotropic and cardiovascular effects of modern SUs were also discussed. The key discussion points were considered to develop clinical expert opinions for the use of modern SUs in persons with DM. Clinical expert opinions were developed for indications, pleiotropic benefits, cardiovascular outcomes, adherence, and safe use of modern SUs.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate clinical judgement coupled with a patient-centered approach is crucial to achieve the best outcome in persons with DM. Owing to their safety, efficacy, extra-pancreatic benefits including effects on endocrine and metabolic aspects, and low cost of therapy, modern SUs could be considered as drugs/agents of choice for the treatment of diabetes.

FUNDING

Sanofi India.

Glucose-lowering therapy and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and acute coronary syndrome

Diabetes is a common comorbidity in patients hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome event, and prevalence is increasing. Among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, diabetes can be an independent predictor of mortality and new cardiovascular events; both short- and long-term outcomes are worse for patients with diabetes relative to those without, and undiagnosed diabetes is associated with greater mortality. The impact of glycemic control on cardiovascular outcomes and the best approach to treat hyperglycemia upon hospital admission for acute coronary syndrome in patients with or without known diabetes remain open questions. This review assesses available evidence for hyperglycemia management at the time of admission for acute coronary syndrome and, thereafter, finds that (1) admission plasma glucose plays a role in predicting adverse events, especially in patients with unknown diabetes; (2) glycated haemoglobin is a likely predictor of events in patients with unknown diabetes; and (3) hypoglycemia at the time of acute myocardial infarction hospital admission is an important predictor for mortality in patients with and without diabetes. Whether glucose-targeted insulin and glucose infusion have advantages over glucose-insulin-potassium infusion remains controversial. Evidence for the effect of novel glucose-lowering agents used at the time of an acute cardiovascular event is limited and requires more dedicated studies.

The mechanism of mulberry leaves against renal tubular interstitial fibrosis through ERK1/2 signaling pathway was predicted by network pharmacology and validated in human tubular epithelial cells

Mulberry leaf was reported that it has antidiabetic activity, although the mechanisms underlying the function have not been fully elucidated. In the present study, the results of network pharmacology suggested that mulberry leaves could regulate key biological process in development of diabetes, and the process implicates multiple signaling pathways, such as JAK-STAT, MAPK, VEGF, PPAR, and Wnt. Then, the research in vitro indicated that mulberry leaves remarkably ameliorated high glucose-induced epithelial to mesenchymal transition, which was characterized with significant reduction of intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels as well as downregulation of NADPH oxidase subunits NOX1, NOX2, and NOX4, and it was found to be connected with the ERK1/2 signaling pathway in human tubular epithelial cells (HK-2). Moreover, the results of bioinformatics and the dual luciferase report showed that ZEB1 might be a target gene of miR-302a; decreased miR-302a and increased ZEB1 expressions could significantly promote epithelial to mesenchymal transition. However, mulberry leaves could reverse these modulations. Our results demonstrated that network pharmacology could provide a guidance role for traditional Chinese medicine research, and mulberry leaves could be of benefit in preventing high glucose-induced EMT in HK-2 cells, which proved that it was related to the upregulation of miR-302a by targeting ZEB1 and the inhibition of NADPH oxidase/ROS/ERK1/2 pathway.

Review of the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the clinical relevance of the CAROLINA trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) is a well-recognized complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and there is a clinical need for glucose-lowering therapies that do not further increase CV risk in this population. Although sulfonylureas (SUs) may be used as second-line therapy for patients requiring additional therapy after first-line metformin to improve glycemic control, their long-term effects on CV outcomes remain uncertain, and a wide range of alternative agents exist including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODS

Literature searches in PubMed (2013-2018) were conducted with terms for DPP-4 inhibitors combined with CV terms, with preference given to cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs). Reference lists from retrieved articles and diabetes guidelines were also considered.

RESULTS

This narrative review discusses current evidence for the CV safety of these agents, describes the long-term CV effects of DPP-4 inhibitors, including effects on CV events, mortality, the risk for heart failure hospitalization, and highlights the need for further research into the CV effects of SU therapy. Although SUs remain a treatment option for T2DM, the long-term effects of these agents on CV outcomes are unclear, and further long-term studies are required. For DPP-4 inhibitors, uncertainties have been raised about their long-term effect on hospitalization for heart failure in light of the results of SAVOR-TIMI 53, although the findings of other DPP-4 inhibitor CVOTs in T2DM and data analyses have suggested these agents do not increase the occurrence of adverse CV outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on recent CVOTs and guideline updates, the choice of add-on to metformin therapy for patients with T2DM and established CV disease should be a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist with proven CV benefit. Additional treatment options for those individuals who require therapy intensification, as well as in patients with T2DM and without established CVD include DPP-4 inhibitors and SUs. Since few head-to-head trials have compared the effects of different oral glucose-lowering agents on CV outcomes in T2DM, with most CVOTs using placebo as a comparator, the CAROLINA trial will provide important information on the comparative CV safety of a commonly prescribed SU and a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Treatment of Diabetes in Patients with Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize and discuss heart failure outcomes for current glucose-lowering agents in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current regulations require cardiovascular outcomes trials for new glucose-lowering therapies to establish that there is no unacceptable increase in cardiovascular risk prior to approval. These cardiovascular outcomes trials include glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Overall, 87,162 patients have been studied in 10 published cardiovascular outcomes trials. There was no significant increase in major adverse cardiovascular events including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke in any of these trials. Heart failure was a component of the secondary endpoint of all of these trials, but only two of these studies show a significant improvement in rates of hospitalization for heart failure. Expanded regulatory labeling for reduction in cardiovascular mortality (empagliflozin) and reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (liraglutide) has recently been established. Saxagliptin and to a lesser part alogliptin have been associated with an increased rate of hospitalization for heart failure. Canagliflozin and empagliflozin are the only two medications that have shown a clear benefit in rates of heart failure hospitalization in treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Management of hyperglycemia during and in the immediate follow-up of acute coronary syndrome

Diabetes is a serious, frequent, and insidious morbidity and mortality risk factor in patients with coronary artery disease. It has been shown that carbohydrate metabolism disorders are common in acute coronary syndromes (ACSs): 30-40% of patients have diabetes, 25-36% have an intolerance to carbohydrates, and only 30-40% have a normal carbohydrate profile. Hyperglycemia occurring either in diabetic or nondiabetic patients is strongly associated with a poor prognosis. It increases the extent of myocardial necrosis, and the risk of recurrence acute coronary syndrome and hemodynamic complications, particularly heart failure and cardiogenic shock, reflecting the importance of optimal management of glucose metabolism abnormalities. The objective of this article is to suggest a screening and management guide for carbohydrate metabolism disorders during and in the immediate follow-up of ACS in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Screening must be systematic in any patient admitted for ACS, and based on hemoglobin A1c and oral glucose tolerance testing. Treatment of hyperglycemia in the cardiology intensive care unit is recommended in any patient admitted with hyperglycemia >1.80 g/L or postfeeding blood glucose level >1.40 g/L, and should be based on intravenous insulin with concomitant infusion of glucose solution under strict monitoring. Once the patient is no longer in intensive care, intravenous insulin therapy is no longer recommended, and the passage to a fixed insulin therapy regimen or to oral antidiabetics should be considered in consultation with diabetologists. During the rehabilitation phase, good glycemic control improves both prognosis and survival.

The pathophysiology of acute myocardial infarction and strategies of protection beyond reperfusion: a continual challenge

The incidence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has decreased over the last two decades in developed countries, but mortality from STEMI despite widespread access to reperfusion therapy is still substantial as is the development of heart failure, particularly among an expanding older population. In developing countries, the incidence of STEMI is increasing and interventional reperfusion is often not available. We here review the pathophysiology of acute myocardial infarction and reperfusion, notably the temporal and spatial evolution of ischaemic and reperfusion injury, the different modes of cell death, and the resulting coronary microvascular dysfunction. We then go on to briefly characterize the cardioprotective phenomena of ischaemic preconditioning, ischaemic postconditioning, and remote ischaemic conditioning and their underlying signal transduction pathways. We discuss in detail the attempts to translate conditioning strategies and drug therapy into the clinical setting. Most attempts have failed so far to reduce infarct size and improve clinical outcomes in STEMI patients, and we discuss potential reasons for such failure. Currently, it appears that remote ischaemic conditioning and a few drugs (atrial natriuretic peptide, exenatide, metoprolol, and esmolol) reduce infarct size, but studies with clinical outcome as primary endpoint are still underway.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

Oral diabetes medication monotherapy and short-term mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether sulfonylurea use, compared with non-sulfonylurea oral diabetes medication use, was associated with 2-year mortality in individuals with well-controlled diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We studied 5352 US veterans with type 2 diabetes, obstructive CAD on coronary angiography, hemoglobin A1c ≤7.5% at the time of catheterization, and taking zero or one oral diabetes medication (categorized as no medications, non-sulfonylurea medication, or sulfonylurea). We estimated the association between medication category and 2-year mortality using inverse probability of treatment-weighted (IPW) standardized mortality differences and IPW multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

49%, 35%, and 16% of the participants were on no diabetes medications, non-sulfonylurea medications, and sulfonylureas, respectively. In individuals on no medications, non-sulfonylurea medications, and sulfonylureas, the unadjusted mortality rates were 6.6%, 5.2%, and 11.9%, respectively, and the IPW-standardized mortality rates were 5.9%, 6.5%, and 9.7%, respectively. The standardized absolute 2-year mortality difference between non-sulfonylurea and sulfonylurea groups was 3.2% (95% CI 0.7 to 5.7) (p=0.01). In Cox proportional hazards models, the point estimate suggested that sulfonylurea use might be associated with greater hazard of mortality than non-sulfonylurea medication use, but this finding was not statistically significant (HR 1.38 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.93), p=0.05). We did not observe significant mortality differences between individuals on no diabetes medications and non-sulfonylurea users.

CONCLUSIONS

Sulfonylurea use was common (nearly one-third of those taking medications) and was associated with increased 2-year mortality in individuals with obstructive CAD. The significance of the association between sulfonylurea use and mortality was attenuated in fully adjusted survival models. Caution with sulfonylurea use may be warranted for patients with well-controlled diabetes and CAD, and metformin or newer diabetes medications with cardiovascular safety data could be considered as alternatives when individualizing therapy.

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.

Sulfonylureas and the Risks of Cardiovascular Events and Death: A Methodological Meta-Regression Analysis of the Observational Studies

Recent randomized trials have compared the newer antidiabetic agents to treatments involving sulfonylureas, drugs associated with increased cardiovascular risks and mortality in some observational studies with conflicting results. We reviewed the methodology of these observational studies by searching MEDLINE from inception to December 2015 for all studies of the association between sulfonylureas and cardiovascular events or mortality. Each study was appraised with respect to the comparator, the outcome, and study design-related sources of bias. A meta-regression analysis was used to evaluate heterogeneity. A total of 19 studies were identified, of which six had no major design-related biases. Sulfonylureas were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in five of these studies (relative risks 1.16-1.55). Overall, the 19 studies resulted in 36 relative risks as some studies assessed multiple outcomes or comparators. Of the 36 analyses, metformin was the comparator in 27 (75%) and death was the outcome in 24 (67%). The relative risk was higher by 13% when the comparator was metformin, by 20% when death was the outcome, and by 7% when the studies had design-related biases. The lowest predicted relative risk was for studies with no major bias, comparator other than metformin, and cardiovascular outcome (1.06 [95% CI 0.92-1.23]), whereas the highest was for studies with bias, metformin comparator, and mortality outcome (1.53 [95% CI 1.43-1.65]). In summary, sulfonylureas were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in the majority of studies with no major design-related biases. Among studies with important biases, the association varied significantly with respect to the comparator, the outcome, and the type of bias. With the introduction of new antidiabetic drugs, the use of appropriate design and analytical tools will provide their more accurate cardiovascular safety assessment in the real-world setting.

Should Side Effects Influence the Selection of Antidiabetic Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are currently over 40 different drugs in 12 distinct classes approved in the USA to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This review summarizes our current knowledge about potential side effects of antidiabetic therapy and attempts to apply it to a clinical practice setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Given the heterogeneity of both the patients and the disease, it is mathematically impossible to test every available drug combination in long-term outcome, prospective, randomized blinded fashion before a clinician decides which agent(s) to prescribe to a specific patient in a given situation. To complicate the clinician's dilemma, there is lack of available tests to predict an individual's response or propensity to side effects. Further, the data available are derived from small, short-term registration trials and typically focus on relative rather than absolute risks of any given drug and do not address the potential adverse outcomes if a patient's diabetes remains untreated. Clinicians have to personalize their choice of antidiabetic therapy based both on the specific characteristics of the patient in front of them (stage of diabetes and its complications, overall health status, socioeconomic situation, other medications present, desire to improve control of diabetes, etc.) and the current knowledge about the relative and absolute balance of benefits and risks of any individual medication in that specific patient. It has to be recognized that this requires constant re-evaluation as database of our experience with antidiabetic therapy expands.

Cardiovascular effects of anti-diabetes drugs

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease remains the major contributor to morbidity and mortality in diabetes. From the need to reduce cardiovascular risk in diabetes and to ensure that such risk is not exacerbated by drug treatments, governmental regulators and drug manufacturers have focused on clinical trials evaluating cardiovascular outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

Findings from mechanistic and clinical trials of biguanides, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors will be reviewed. These drug classes will be compared within the context of available cardiovascular outcomes data. Clinical implications of new study regulations will be examined.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent cardiovascular studies provide a more comprehensive evaluation of specific anti-diabetes therapy in individuals with high cardiovascular risk. Long-term effects of anti-hyperglycemic agents in patients with lower cardiovascular risk are still speculative. Historical data supports continued use of metformin as a first-line agent. DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have neutral effects on cardiovascular outcomes. The significantly decreased cardiovascular risk associated with empagliflozin SGLT-2 inhibitor therapy is impressive and may change how practitioners prescribe add-on therapy to metformin.

Metformin and contrast-induced acute kidney injury in diabetic patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: Amulticenter study

AIM

To analyze the association between chronic metformin treatment and the development of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with PCI <24h in 2 coronary care units were included. Serum creatinine (Cr) was measured before and <48h after PCI. CI-AKI was defined as an increase in Cr>27μmol/l (0.3mg/dl) or >50% over baseline after PCI. Since PCI was urgent, metformin could not be withheld prior to PCI but was usually stopped after PCI.

RESULTS

Among the 372 patients included, 147 (40%) were using metformin, which had older diabetes, but had risk factors similar to patients without metformin. Baseline eGFR was better in patients under metformin therapy. After PCI, we observed an increase of ≈10% in Cr, for both groups. There was a trend toward a lower rate of CI-AKI in patients under metformin (16% vs 25%, p=0.051). In patients with chronic kidney disease, 31 (26%) were under metformin therapy, and the rate of CI-AKI was similar in both groups (41% vs 40%, p=0.915). By multivariate analysis, metformin showed a trend toward a reduced rate of CI-AKI, even when adjusted for confounding (OR (95% CI): 0.548 (0.276-1.087)). No case of lactic acidosis was reported during the hospital stay. Moreover, there was no increased rate of cardiogenic shock or death with metformin treatment.

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter observational study, chronic metformin treatment prior to primary PCI had no significant impact on CI-AKI.

Controversy about the relationship between sulfonylurea use and cardiovascular events and mortality

Among a number of classes of oral antihyperglycemic drugs, sulfonylureas (SUs) demonstrating the potential effect to reduce blood glucose level have been used in a majority of patients with type 2 diabetes for many years. The pathophysiological processes by which SUs adversely induce the risk of cardiovascular disease have not been fully clarified. We summarized about the relationship between SU use and cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Is gliclazide a sulfonylurea with difference? A review in 2016

Sulfonylureas (SUs) remain the most commonly prescribed drug after metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), despite the availability of several newer agents. The primary reason of SUs being most popular is their quick glycemic response, time-tested experience and least cost. Although SUs are one amongst the several other second line agents after metformin in all major guidelines, the new Dutch type 2 guidelines specifically advise gliclazide as the preferred second line drug instead of SUs as a class. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also included gliclazide in their Model List of Essential Medicines 2013 motivated by its safety data in elderly patients. Specifically advising gliclazide may have been based on emerging evidence suggesting cardiovascular neutrality of gliclazide over other SUs. This prompted us to do a literature review of gliclazide efficacy and safety data compared to other SUs as well as oral anti-diabetic drugs.

Risk of overall mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes on dual drug therapy including metformin: A large database study from the Cleveland Clinic

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to assess the risk of overall mortality, coronary artery disease (CAD), and congestive heart failure (CHF) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with metformin (MF) and an additional antidiabetic agent.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using an academic health center enterprise-wide electronic health record (EHR) system to identify 13,185 adult patients (>18 years) with T2DM from January 2008 to June 2013 and received a prescription for MF in combination with a sulfonylurea (SU; n = 9419), thiazolidinedione (TZD; n = 1846), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i; n = 1487), or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1a; n = 433). Multivariate Cox models with propensity analysis were used to compare cohorts, with MF+SU serving as the comparator group.

RESULTS

The mean (±SD) age was 60.6 ± 12.6 years, with 54.6% male and 75.8% Caucasians. The median follow-up was 4 years. There were 1077 deaths, 1733 CAD events, and 528 CHF events in 55,100 person-years of follow-up. A higher risk of CHF was observed with MF+DPP-4i use (hazard ratio [HR] 1.104; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.17; P = 0.001). A trend towards improved overall survival for users of MF+TZD (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.74-1.0; P = 0.05) and MF+GLP-1a (HR 0.569; 95% CI 0.30-1.07; P = 0.08) was observed. No significant differences in the risk of CAD were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with recent studies, our results raise concern for an increased risk of CHF with use of DPP-4i.

Trends in the treatment of risk factors for stroke in a Czech stroke unit

The goal of this study is to evaluate therapeutic trends for several diseases that represent risk factors for stroke. The relative frequency of therapy with compounds that influence the risk factors for stroke was monitored in a group of 3,290 patients who were hospitalised in the Stroke Unit at the University Hospital in Hradec Kralove between 2005 and 2012. For most drugs monitored, the reasons for the significant decrease or increase in use were causes other than the reduction of stroke risk. Despite this finding, the majority of statistically significant changes had, according to review of comparative studies, a positive effect on prevention of stroke. Motivation to change treatment of stroke risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia, was mainly aimed at sufficient disease management with a minimum of adverse effects. On the other hand, optimization of stroke recurrence and economic factors were motivations to treatment changes in prevention with antiplatelets. Antidiabetics were associated with an increase in metformin use and reduction in insulin use. For antihypertensives, the most significant reduction was associated with the use of diuretics, although calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers are also less used. Additionally, the use of the ACE inhibitor ramipril increased

Inhibiting the Inflammasome: A Chemical Perspective

Inflammasomes are high molecular weight complexes that sense and react to injury and infection. Their activation induces caspase-1 activation and release of interleukin-1β, a pro-inflammatory cytokine involved in both acute and chronic inflammatory responses. There is increasing evidence that inflammasomes, particularly the NLRP3 inflammasome, act as guardians against noninfectious material. Inappropriate activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome contributes to the progression of many noncommunicable diseases such as gout, type II diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. Inhibiting the inflammasome may significantly reduce damaging inflammation and is therefore regarded as a therapeutic target. Currently approved inhibitors of interleukin-1β are rilonacept, canakinumab, and anakinra. However, these proteins do not possess ideal pharmacokinetic properties and are unlikely to easily cross the blood-brain barrier. Because inflammation can contribute to neurological disorders, this review focuses on the development of small-molecule inhibitors of the NLRP3 inflammasome.

Place of sulfonylureas in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in South Asia: A consensus statement

Since their introduction in clinical practice in the 1950's, Sulfonylureas (SUs) have remained the main-stay of pharmacotherapy in the management of type 2 diabetes. Despite their well-established benefits, their place in therapy is inappropriately being overshadowed by newer therapies. Many of the clinical issues associated with the use of SUs are agent-specific, and do not pertain to the class as such. Modern SUs (glimepiride, gliclazide MR) are backed by a large body of evidence, experience, and most importantly, outcome data, which supports their role in managing patients with diabetes. Person-centred care, i.e., careful choice of SU, appropriate dosage, timing of administration, and adequate patient counseling, will ensure that deserving patients are not deprived of the advantages of this well-established class of anti-diabetic agents. Considering their efficacy, safety, pleiotropic benefits, and low cost of therapy, SUs should be considered as recommended therapy for the treatment of diabetes in South Asia. This initiative by SAFES aims to encourage rational, safe and smart prescription of SUs, and includes appropriate medication counseling.

Sulfonylurea use is associated with larger infarct size in patients with diabetes and ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Animal models have demonstrated that sulfonylureas increase the size of myocardial infarction; however, data in humans is scarce. This study evaluated the association between sulfonylurea use and infarct size in diabetes patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

Consecutive STEMI patients admitted in Edmonton, Canada between 2006 and 2011 were enrolled in a regional prospective registry program. Patients with type 2 diabetes were identified from this group and the maximum recorded troponin I (max cTnI) within the first 48 h of chest pain onset was used as the primary outcome to quantify infarct size. The relationship between preadmission sulfonylurea use and max cTnI was assessed using multivariable linear regression to adjust for patient demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, clinical data on admission, ischemia time, reperfusion therapy and preadmission drugs.

RESULTS

There were 560 STEMI patients with type 2 diabetes; mean (standard deviation; SD) age was 63.3 (12.8) years, 395 (70.5%) were male, 216 (38.6%) received primary percutaneous intervention, and 211 (37.7%) received thrombolysis. The max cTnI was higher in 146 sulfonylurea users compared to 414 non-sulfonylurea users (mean (SD): 49.8 (74.3) ng/mL versus 39.9 (50.4) ng/mL, respectively; adjusted between-group difference: 12.9 ng/mL; 95% CI 0.3-25.5; p=0.044).

CONCLUSION

This study adds further evidence to the proposed causal relationship between sulfonylureas and adverse cardiovascular events by observing a significant difference in infarct size among type 2 diabetes patients presenting with STEMI. Clinicians should consider this association when prescribing sulfonylureas to manage patients with type 2 diabetes.

Sulfonylureas and their use in clinical practice

Many anti-diabetic drugs with different mechanisms of action are now available for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Sulfonylureas have been extensively used for treatment of type 2 diabetes for nearly 50 years and, even in our times, are widely used for treatment of this devastating chronic illness. Here, we review some of the available data on sulfonylureas, evaluating their mechanism of action and their effects on glycemic control. We can conclude that sulfonylureas are still the most used anti-diabetic agents: maybe this is due to their lower cost, to the possibility of mono-dosing and to the presence of an association with metformin in the same tablet. However, sulfonylureas, especially the older ones, are linked to a greater prevalence of hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular risk; newer prolonged-release preparations of sulfonylureas are undoubtedly safer, mainly due to reducing hypoglycemia, and for this reason should be preferred.

Cardiovascular safety of sulphonylureas: over 40 years of continuous controversy without an answer

More than 40 years after publication of the University Group Diabetes Program trial, the cardiovascular safety of sulphonylureas is still contentious. Although several hypotheses linking sulphonylureas to adverse cardiovascular effects exist, none provide conclusive evidence. Adding to the controversy, current clinical trials and observational studies provide inconsistent, and sometimes conflicting, evidence for the cardiovascular effects of sulphonylureas. Overall, observational evidence suggests that an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes is associated with sulphonylureas; however, these data may be subject to residual confounding and bias. Although evidence from randomized controlled trials has suggested a neutral effect, the majority of these studies were not specifically designed to assess the effect of sulphonylureas on adverse cardiovascular event risk. Current ongoing large clinical trials may provide some clarity on the cardiovascular safety of sulphonylureas, but the results are not expected for several years. With the continued uncertainties concerning the cardiovascular safety of all antidiabetic drugs, a clear answer with regard to sulphonylureas is warranted. The objectives of the present article were to provide an overview of the controversy surrounding sulphonylurea-related cardiovascular effects, to discuss the limitations of the current literature, and to provide recommendations for future studies aiming to elucidate the true relationship between sulphonylureas and adverse cardiovascular effects in people with type 2 diabetes.

Cardiovascular safety of linagliptin in type 2 diabetes: a comprehensive patient-level pooled analysis of prospectively adjudicated cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND

The cardiovascular (CV) safety of linagliptin was evaluated in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

Pre-specified patient-level pooled analysis of all available double-blind, randomized, controlled trials, ≥ 12 weeks' duration (19 trials, 9459 subjects) of linagliptin versus placebo/active treatment. Primary end point: composite of prospectively adjudicated CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina (4P-MACE). Hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF) was also evaluated; adjudication of CHF was introduced during the phase 3 program (8 trials; 3314 subjects). 4P-MACE was assessed in placebo-controlled trials (subgroup of 18 trials; 7746 subjects). Investigator-reported events suggestive of CHF from 24 placebo-controlled trials (including trials <12 weeks' duration, 8778 subjects) were also analyzed.

RESULTS

5847 patients received linagliptin (5 mg: 5687, 10 mg: 160) and 3612 comparator (glimepiride: 775, voglibose: 162, placebo: 2675); cumulative exposure, 4421.3 and 3254.7 patient-years, respectively. 4P-MACE incidence rates: 13.4 per 1000 patient-years, linagliptin (60 events), 18.9, total comparators (62 events); overall hazard ratio (HR), 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.12). HR for adjudicated hospitalization for CHF (n = 21): 1.04 (0.43-2.47). For placebo-controlled trials, 4P-MACE incidence rates: 14.9 per 1000 patient-years, linagliptin (43 events), 16.4, total comparators (29 events); overall HR, 1.09 (95% CI, 0.68-1.75). Occurrence of investigator-reported events suggestive of CHF was low for linagliptin- (26 events, 0.5%; serious: 16 events, 0.3%) and placebo-treated (8 events, 0.2%; serious: 6 events, 0.2%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin is not associated with increased CV risk versus pooled active comparators or placebo in patients with T2DM.

Myocardial Injury without Electrocardiographic Changes after a Suicide Attempt by an Overdose of Glimepiride and Zolpidem: A Case Report and Literature Review

A 40-year-old diabetic man was admitted to our hospital for poor glycemic control. During hospitalization, he took 42 mg glimepiride and 50 mg zolpidem as a suicide attempt. The following day, the creatine kinase-MB fraction and troponin I levels were elevated to 112 IU/L and 8.77 ng/mL, respectively, without any electrocardiographic abnormalities. The patient recovered completely without any complications. Four weeks later, coronary computed tomography angiography and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy revealed moderate one-vessel coronary disease without the evidence of myocardial ischemia or old infarction. Cardiac-specific markers must be considered in sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemic patients, particularly when the patient is unconscious and does not exhibit any clinical manifestations.

Metformin in combination with various insulin secretagogues in type 2 diabetes and associated risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality--a retrospective nationwide study

AIMS

Metformin is the first-line treatment for most patients with type 2 diabetes but many patients need additional treatment with insulin secretagogues (IS) to achieve glycemic control. We aimed to compare mortality and cardiovascular risk among users of metformin in combination with pharmacologically different ISs.

METHODS

Using nationwide administrative Danish registries, we followed all individuals without prior stroke or myocardial infarction who initiated metformin and an IS from 1997 through 2009. Rate ratios (RR) of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death were compared between user groups using time-dependent multivariable Poisson regression models. The most common combination, glimepiride+metformin, was used as reference.

RESULTS

A total of 56,827 patients were included, 56% male, the mean age was 61 ± 12.5 years, and median duration of prior monotherapy was 2.2 (inter quartile range 0.5-4.5) years. Crude incidence rates of mortality for combinations of ISs with metformin were; 15.4 (repaglinide), 28.1 (glipizide), 23.7 (glibenclamide), 21.1 (gliclazide), 20.7 (glimepiride), 27.7 (tolbutamide) deaths per 1000 person years. In adjusted analysis, the associated mortality risk was similar for users of gliclazide+metformin (RR=1.01 [0.88-1.15]), repaglinide+metformin (RR=0.81 [0.62-1.05]), glibenclamide+metformin (RR=0.98 [0.87-1.10]), and tolbutamide+metformin (RR=1.04 [0.85-1.28]). Users of glipizide+metformin was associated with increased all-cause mortality (RR=1.16 [1.02-1.32], p=0.02), cardiovascular death (RR=1.21 [1.01-1.46], p=0.04), and the combined endpoint (RR=1.20 [1.06-1.36, p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

Most ISs in combination with metformin were associated with similar mortality and cardiovascular risk. Whether glipizide is associated with increased risk compared with other ISs when used in combinations with metformin warrants further study.

Oral antihyperglycemic treatment options for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Table 3 provides an overview of the oral antihyperglycemic drugs reviewed in this article. A 2011 meta-analysis by Bennett and colleagues found low or insufficient quality of evidence favoring an initial choice of metformin, SUs, glinides, TZDs, or (table see text) DPP-4 inhibitors (alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, bromocriptine mesylate, and SGLT2 inhibitors were not included in this meta-analysis) with regard to the outcomes measures of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and mortality, and incidence of microvascular disease (retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy) in previously healthy individuals with newly diagnosed T2DM. Likewise, the Bennett and colleagues meta-analysis judged these drugs to be of roughly equal efficacy with regard to reduction of HbA1c (1%–1.6%) from the pretreatment baseline. The ADOPT clinical trial of 3 different and, at the time, popular, oral monotherapies for T2DM provides support for the consensus recommendation of metformin as first-line therapy. The ADOPT trial showed slightly superior HbA1c reduction for rosiglitazone compared with metformin, which was in turn superior to glyburide. However, significant adverse events, including edema, weight gain, and fractures, were more common in the rosiglitazone-treated patients. The implication of this trial is that the combination of low cost, low risk, minimal adverse effects, and efficacy of metformin justifies use of this agent as the cornerstone of oral drug treatment of T2DM. Judicious use of metformin in groups formerly thought to be at high risk for lactic acidosis (ie, those with CHF, chronic kidney disease [eGFR >30 mL/min/1.73 m2], and the elderly) may be associated with mortality benefit rather than increased risk. Secondary and tertiary add-on drug therapy should be individualized based on cost, personal preferences, and overall treatment goals, taking into account the wishes and priorities of the patient.

Contemporary treatment strategies for Type 2 diabetes-related macrovascular disease

Type 2 diabetes mellitus poses a major challenge to healthcare providers in the coming years as its prevalence increases across the globe. The disease doubles the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with 70% of sufferers dying from a cardiac cause. Large clinical trials of current glucose-lowering therapies for Type 2 diabetes have shown no benefit in reducing the risk of macrovascular events. Blood pressure control, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy and improvement of dyslipidemia with statins have proven benefit in reducing cardiovascular risk in Type 2 diabetes. A growing understanding of the importance of pathological processes including endothelial dysfunction, abnormal growth factor biology, oxidative stress, dysregulation of adipokines and deficient vascular repair and regeneration in insulin-resistant states promises new treatments to combat the problem.

Mortality risk with sulphonylureas compared to metformin

Current clinical guidelines in the USA and the UK recommend first-line glucose-lowering treatment with metformin monotherapy for glucose control in type 2 diabetes, where not contraindicated. Consequently, the proportion of people treated with sulphonylureas is decreasing. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the risks and benefits associated with sulphonylurea monotherapy versus metformin monotherapy and the evidence that, in comparison with metformin, sulphonylureas cause increased harm to people with type 2 diabetes.