Antithrombotic Effects of Rosiglitazone-Metformin versus Glimepiride-Metformin Combination Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Syndrome

The Cumulative Incidence and Risk Factors of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in the Elderly

Background

Incidence and outcomes of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the elderly are still not fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and identify the risk factors of VTE recurrence in this population.

Methods

A prospective cohort study of a one-year follow-up of 277 patients aged ≥65 years with primary VTE was performed at King Abdulaziz Medical City, a tertiary care teaching hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Demographic data, risk factors, and the consequences of VTE (recurrence, bleeding, and mortality) were recorded.

Results

Of the 277 VTE patients, 39 (14%) were diagnosed with recurrent VTE over a median follow-up period of 12 months. The cumulative incidence of recurrent VTE was 12.75 per hundred patient-year (95% CI, 8.24–17.36). In multivariate Cox regression, malignancy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.87, 95% CI, 1.32–6.24, p=0.008) and surgery (HR 2.78, 95% CI, 1.36–5.67, p=0.005) were identified as independent risk factors for recurrent VTE. Metformin had a significant independent protection effect (HR, 0.16, 95% CI, 0.08–0.33, p<0.001). During follow-up, two patients in the recurrent VTE group and five patients in the group with no recurrent VTE, all of whom were minor bleeding cases, reported no major bleeding. Seven (18%) patients in the recurrent VTE group and nine (4%) patients in the group with no recurrent VTE died (p<0.001).

Conclusion

The findings of this study show that elderly patients with initial VTE have a recurrent rate (14%), with a cumulative incidence rate of 12.75 per hundred patient-year. Malignancy and surgery were the most important clinical risk factors to impact significantly the development of recurrent VTE in our elderly population. Metformin may have a protective effect against recurrent VTE in the elderly population, and a larger study is needed to validate our findings.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus with orally administered agents: advances in combination therapy

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the effects and clinical benefit provided by combining various orally administered antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and to examine the advantages of single-tablet combinations with respect to targeting hyperglycemia and adherence.

METHODS

A review of randomized controlled trials that studied OAD combinations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes was conducted by using search terms in PubMed.

RESULTS

Reported data have documented that OAD combination therapies have additional benefits over monotherapy in terms of glycemic efficacy. Results from randomized controlled trials on a range of OAD combinations have demonstrated differences in safety and efficacy. The use of single-tablet OAD combinations has been shown to improve adherence in patients.

CONCLUSION

The development of single-tablet OAD combinations that can address all aspects of glycemia with a favorable tolerability profile has the potential to help patients manage their glycemic control more effectively and to minimize the risk of long-term diabetes-related complications. In addition, single-tablet combinations of agents offer improved convenience for patients as well as potential cost benefits. Thus, they represent an important treatment option for type 2 diabetes.

Pleiotropic effects of thiazolidinediones on traditional and non-traditional atherosclerotic risk factors

BACKGROUND

The thiazolidinediones pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have established efficacy in improving insulin sensitivity, glycaemic control, dyslipidaemia, hypertension and microalbuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes. As specific agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma, thiazolidinediones have also demonstrated protective effects on a variety of atherosclerosis biomarkers and surrogate measures of cardiovascular disease.

AIM

This paper reviews the evidence for pleiotropic effects on a variety of non-traditional atherosclerotic risk factors.

DISCUSSION

Thiazolidinediones attenuate circulating levels of pro-inflammatory mediators in patients with type 2 diabetes, including C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, CD40L, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and metalloproteinase-9. These agents also increase levels of the vascular protective adipokine, adiponectin. The clinical significance of these findings is supported by evidence of improved endothelial dysfunction, reduced carotid intima media thickness and improvements in stenosis following coronary artery stent implantation in patients treated with thiazolidinediones. Limited data suggest that thiazolidinediones might also improve the circulating levels and functional activity of angiogenic endothelial progenitor cells, which independently predict the incidence of cardiovascular events and death. It should be noted that the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have requested changes to the prescribing information for rosiglitazone to highlight the possibility of an increased risk with this agent in patients with ischaemic heart disease; on review, no such amendment was required for the pioglitazone prescribing information. Both agencies continue to suggest that the benefits of both thiazolidinediones outweight any possible detrimental effects. Further research remains to be conducted to elucidate the potentially differential vascular protective effects of thiazolidinediones. In the US, there are black box heart failure warnings for both agents.

CONCLUSION

In light of the established importance of reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes, current evidence continues to support the use of pioglitazone within multifactorial risk management strategies.

Assessment on the Prevention of Progression by Rosiglitazone on Atherosclerosis in diabetes patients with Cardiovascular History (APPROACH): study design and baseline characteristics

BACKGROUND

Rosiglitazone, a thiazolidinedione, has effects on insulin sensitivity and cardiovascular risk factors that may favorably impact the progression of coronary atherosclerosis.

METHODS

APPROACH is a double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of the insulin sensitizer rosiglitazone with the insulin secretagogue glipizide on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. Patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease undergoing clinically indicated coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention are randomized to receive rosiglitazone or glipizide for 18 months using a titration algorithm designed to provide comparable glycemic control between treatment groups. The primary end point is change in percent atheroma volume from baseline to study completion in a nonintervened coronary artery, as measured by intravascular ultrasound. Cardiovascular events are adjudicated by an end point committee.

RESULTS

A total of 672 patients were randomized. The mean age was 61 years, hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) 7.2%, body mass index 29.5 kg/m(2), and median duration of diabetes 4.8 years. At baseline, approximately half of the participants were receiving oral antidiabetic monotherapy (53.9%) with 27.5% receiving dual combination therapy and 17.9% treated with diet and exercise alone. Approximately two thirds of the participants (68%) had dyslipidemia, 79.9% hypertension, and 24% prior myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

APPROACH has fully enrolled a high-risk patient population and will compare the glucose-independent effects of rosiglitazone and glipizide on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis, as well as provide additional data on the cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.

Hypercoagulation and thrombophilia in liver disease

A complex balance exists between endogenous procoagulants and the anticoagulant system in liver disease patients. Hypercoagulable events occur in cirrhosis patients despite the well-known bleeding diathesis of liver disease. These events may be clinically evident, such as in portal vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, but these conditions may also be a silent contributor to certain disease states, such as portopulmonary hypertension or parenchymal extinction with liver atrophy as well as thrombosis of extracorporeal circuits in dialysis or liver assist devices. Moreover, liver disease-related hypercoagulability may contribute to vascular disease in the increasingly common condition of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Despite the incidence of these problems, there are few widely accessible and practical laboratory tests to evaluate the risk of a hypercoagulable event in cirrhosis patients. Furthermore, there is little research on the use of commonly accepted anticoagulants in patients with liver disease. This article is a result of an international symposium on coagulation disorders in liver disease and addresses several areas of specific interest in hypercoagulation in liver disease. Critical areas lacking clinical information are highlighted and future areas of research interest are defined with an aim to foster clinical research in this field.

Review of the pleiotropic effects of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonists on platelet function

The primary target receptor for thiazolidinediones (TZDs) or peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma) agonists is a transcription factor in the nucleus of adipocytes and other metabolically active cells, where they improve insulin sensitivity and glucose utilization. TZDs are also able to modify gene expression in macrophages, smooth muscle cells, and endothelial cells. Although PPARgamma is considered to be a nuclear receptor, enucleate platelets also highly express this receptor. The aim of this review is to present the current understanding of a direct or indirect effect of TZDs on platelet function. By means of a comprehensive literature search (January 1990-June 2006), publications were obtained that contained specific information about in vitro and in vivo effects of TZDs on platelet function. The effects were studied for different risk biochemical markers, i.e., proteins found to be elevated in the state of procoagulant inflammation and endothelial dysfunction. Improvement of platelet function was reported for all TZDs-troglitazone, pioglitazone, and rosiglitazone. The described effects included reduction of platelet aggregation, suppression of thrombin-induced protein kinase C-alpha and -beta activation, decrease in plasma P-selectin and platelet P-selectin expression, increase in nitric oxide production, inhibition of the Rho/Rho kinase pathway, and inhibition of tissue factor- and platelet-activating factor-induced morphological changes in macrophages. These findings appeared in parallel with reduction of the plasma concentrations of pro-inflammatory risk markers. TZDs seem to have a direct pleiotropic positive influence on platelet function and coagulation and may be helpful in treating the prothrombotic state observed in patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.

Pioglitazone: update on an oral antidiabetic drug with antiatherosclerotic effects

Pioglitazone, a member of the PPAR-gamma agonist drug family, has been demonstrated to improve both metabolic and vascular insulin resistance when applied to patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. The drug is well tolerated with fluid retention and weight gain being the most frequently described side effects. The observed effects (e.g., improvements in glucose and lipid metabolism, improvements of endothelial function and microcirculation, reduction of surrogate markers of atherosclerosis and inflammation and an improvement in hypertension) have made pioglitazone one of the frequently prescribed antidiabetic drugs in the US and Europe. Several trials have shown its potency to reduce carotid intima-media thickness, and outcome studies with pioglitazone have shown its potential to delay the progression of Type 2 diabetes and atherosclerosis and even reduce cardiovascular mortality. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview about recently published clinical results with pioglitazone. They underline the value of this drug when used alone or in combination with other antidiabetic drugs for a successful management of Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Rosiglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Diabetes has long been recognised as a strong, independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, a problem which accounts for approximately 70% of all mortality in people with diabetes. Prospective studies show that compared to their non-diabetic counterparts, the relative risk of cardiovascular mortality for men with diabetes is two to three and for women with diabetes is three to four. The two biggest trials in type 2 diabetes, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) study did not reveal a reduction of cardiovascular endpoints through improved metabolic control. Theoretical benefits of the peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPAR-gamma) activator rosiglitazone on endothelial function and cardiovascular risk factors might result in fewer macrovascular disease events in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of rosiglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were obtained from computerised searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials in adult people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and had a trial duration of at least 24 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pooling of studies by means of fixed-effects meta-analysis could be performed for adverse events only.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials which randomised 3888 people to rosiglitazone treatment were identified. Longest duration of therapy was four years with a median of 26 weeks. Published studies of at least 24 weeks rosiglitazone treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus did not provide evidence that patient-oriented outcomes like mortality, morbidity, adverse effects, costs and health-related quality of life are positively influenced by this compound. Metabolic control measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a surrogate endpoint did not demonstrate clinically relevant differences to other oral antidiabetic drugs. Occurrence of oedema was significantly raised (OR 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 2.81). The single large RCT (ADOPT - A Diabetes Outcomes Progression Trial) indicated increased cardiovascular risk. New data on raised fracture rates in women reveal extensive action of rosiglitazone in various body tissues.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

New studies should focus on patient-oriented outcomes to clarify the benefit-risk ratio of rosiglitazone therapy. Safety data and adverse events of all investigations (published and unpublished) should be made available to the public.

Effects of nateglinide and glibenclamide on prothrombotic factors in naïve type 2 diabetic patients treated with metformin: a 1-year, double-blind, randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect on coagulation and fibrinolysis parameters and on non-conventional cardiovascular risk factors of metformin plus nateglinide or glibenclamide in naïve type 2 diabetes patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 248 type 2 diabetic patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive nateglinide or glibenclamide, and metformin for 12 months. We assessed body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), postprandial plasma insulin (PPI), homeostasis model assessment index (HOMA index), lipid profile with lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)], fibrinogen (Fg), plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA), homocysteine (Hcy), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP).

RESULTS

After 9 months of treatment, both tested drug combinations were similarly associated with a significant reduction in FPG (nateglinide, -17.2%; glibenclamide, -16.9%, both p<0.05) compared to the baseline, while HbA1c (-17.3%, p<0.05) and PPG (-15.2%, p<0.05) significantly decreased only in the nateglinide group. After one year of treatment, compared to the baseline the nateglinide group showed a significant reduction in HbA1c (-21%, p<0.01), FPG (-20.7%), p<0.01, PPG (-21.5%, p<0.05), HOMA index (-25.4%, p<0.05); the glibenclamide group, showed a significant reduction in HbA1c (-11%, p<0.05), FPG (-23.2%, p<0.05), PPG (-11.2%, p<0.05), and HOMA index (-23.9%, p<0.05) but to a minor extent. Moreover, the HbA1c difference value from baseline observed in the nateglinide-treated group was significantly higher than that observed in the glibenclamide group. Therefore the nateglinide-treated patients showed a significant reduction in some prothrombotic parameters (PAI-1=-19%, Lp(a)=-31%, and Hcy=-32.3%, all p<0.05), whereas the glibenclamide-treated patients did not.

CONCLUSION

Nateglinide appears to improve glycemic control as well as the levels of some prothrombotic parameters compared to glibenclamide when administered in combination with metformin.

The Metabolic Syndrome and Cardiometabolic Risk: Scope of the Problem and Current Standard of Care

The metabolic syndrome is a public health concern because its prevalence is increasing in the United States, and it is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We discuss epidemiologic trends in and causes of the metabolic syndrome. The relationships among the cardiometabolic risk factors that contribute to the metabolic syndrome-obesity, insulin resistance, proinflammatory and prothrombotic states, atherogenic dyslipidemia, and hypertension-and between these risk factors and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are explained. Currently available interventions to modify these risk factors and the importance of preventive strategies and early detection efforts are also addressed.

Rosiglitazone/Metformin

The thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone and the biguanide metformin are effective antihyperglycaemic agents with different modes of action; rosiglitazone primarily increases insulin sensitivity, whereas metformin primarily reduces hepatic glucose output. Antihyperglycaemic combination therapy is often required to achieve effective glycaemic control. A fixed-dose formulation of rosiglitazone/metformin was recently approved in the EU and the US for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in patients inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. Bioequivalence between the fixed-dose combination tablet and coadministration of rosiglitazone with metformin at the same dosage has been established in a pharmacokinetic study. Fixed-dose rosiglitazone/metformin 8 mg/2g per day reduced glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels to a significantly greater extent than metformin 3 g/day in patients with type 2 diabetes in a 24-week, randomised, double-blind study. Rosiglitazone plus metformin was significantly more effective than metformin alone at reducing HbA1c and FPG levels in patients with type 2 diabetes in three 26-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Rosiglitazone plus metformin was generally well tolerated in all studies and had a tolerability profile similar to that of metformin monotherapy. Mild or moderate symptomatic hypoglycaemia was reported in <or=4.4% of rosiglitazone plus metformin recipients.