Should sulfonylureas remain an acceptable first-line add-on to metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes? Yes, they continue to serve us well!

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

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

Clinical pharmacology of antidiabetic drugs: What can be expected of their use?

The pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has markedly evolved in the last two decades. Classical antidiabetic agents (sulphonylureas, metformin, insulin) are now in competition with new glucose-lowering medications. Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and thiazolidinediones (glitazones) were not able to replace older agents, because of insufficient efficacy and/or poor tolerability/safety. In contrast, incretin-based therapies, both dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is or gliptins, oral agents) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs, subcutaneous injections) are a major breakthrough in the management of T2DM. Because they are not associated with hypoglycaemia and weight gain, DPP-4is tend to replace sulphonylureas as add-on to metformin while GLP-1RAs tend to replace basal insulin therapy after failure of oral therapies. Furthermore, placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcome trials demonstrated neutrality for DPP-4is, but cardiovascular protection for GLP-1RAs in patients with T2DM at high cardiovascular risk. More recently sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is or gliflozins, oral agents) also showed cardiovascular protection, especially a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, as well as a renal protection in patients with and without T2DM, at high cardiovascular risk, with established heart failure and/or with chronic kidney disease. Thus, GLP-1RAs and SGLT2is are now considered as preferred drugs in T2DM patients with or at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease whereas SGLT2is are more specifically recommended in patients with or at risk of heart failure and renal (albuminuric) disease. The management of T2DM is moving from a glucocentric approach to a broader strategy focusing on all risk factors, including overweight/obesity, and to an organ-disease targeted personalized approach.

Chitosan-Encapsulated Nano-selenium Targeting TCF7L2, PPARγ, and CAPN10 Genes in Diabetic Rats

This study investigates the antidiabetic and antioxidant potential of chitosan-encapsulated selenium nanoparticles in streptozotocin-induced diabetic model. Glibenclamide was used as a reference antidiabetic drug. Forty-eight adult male Wistar rats were used along the study and divided equally into 6 groups of (I) normal control, (II) chitosan-encapsulated selenium nanoparticles (CTS-SeNPs), (III) glibenclamide, (IV) streptozotocin (STZ), (V) STZ + CTS-SeNPs, and (VI) STZ + Glib. The animals were sacrificed on the 35th day of the experiment. Serum glucose, insulin, IGF-1, ALT, AST, CK-MB, oxidative stress, lipid profile, and inflammatory parameters were subsequently assessed. Also, the expression level of TCF7L2, CAPN10, and PPAR-γ genes were evaluated using qPCR. In addition, histopathological studies on pancreatic tissue were carried out. The results revealed that STZ induced both diabetes and oxidative stress in normal rats, manifested by the significant changes in the studied parameters and in the physical structure of pancreatic tissue. Oral administration of CTS-SeNPs or Glib results in a significant amelioration of the levels of serum fasting blood glucose, insulin, IGF-1, AST, ATL, and CK-MB as compared with STZ-induced diabetic rats. CTS-SeNPs and Glib diminished the level of lipid peroxidation, increased total antioxidant capacity level, as well as possessed strong inhibition against serum α-amylase and α-glucosidase activities. Diabetic animals received CTS-SeNPs, or Glib demonstrated a significant (p < 0.05) decrease in the expression level of TCF7L2 and CAPN10 genes with a significant increase in the expression level of PPAR-γ gene, compared to STZ group. The above findings clarify the promising antidiabetic and antioxidant effect of CTS-SeNPs, recommending its inclusion in the currently used protocols for the treatment of diabetes and in the prevention of its related complications.

Associations between second-line glucose-lowering combination therapies with metformin and HbA1c, body weight, quality of life, hypoglycaemic events and glucose-lowering treatment intensification: The DISCOVER study

AIM

To explore the effects of second-line combination therapies with metformin on body weight, HbA1c and health-related quality of life, as well as the risks of hypoglycaemia and further treatment intensification in the DISCOVER study, a 3-year, prospective, global observational study of patients with type 2 diabetes initiating second-line glucose-lowering therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adjusted changes from baseline in weight, HbA1c and 36-item Short Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) summary scores at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months were assessed using linear mixed models. Risk of hypoglycaemia and further intensification were assessed using interval censored analyses.

RESULTS

At baseline, 7613 patients received metformin in combination with a sulphonylurea (SU; 40.9%), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (48.3%), a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor (8.3%) or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (2.4%). After 36 months, all combinations showed similar reductions in HbA1c (0.8%-1.0%), however, metformin plus a DPP-4 inhibitor, an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist was associated with greater weight loss (1.9, 2.9 and 5.0 kg, respectively) than metformin plus an SU (1.3 kg, P < .0001). Proportions of further treatment intensification were similar across combinations (19.9%-26.2%). Patients prescribed metformin plus an SU more often reported one or more hypoglycaemic events (11.9%) than other combinations (3.9%-6.4%, P < .0001). SF-36v2 summary scores were typically lowest among patients prescribed metformin and an SU.

CONCLUSIONS

Combinations of metformin with an SU were associated with the lowest weight reduction, highest risk of hypoglycaemia and lower SF-36v2 scores.

Efficacy and Safety of Ertugliflozin in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled by Sulfonylurea Monotherapy: a Substudy of VERTIS CV

INTRODUCTION

Sulfonylureas (SU) are commonly used antihyperglycemic agents. VERTIS CV was the cardiovascular outcome study for the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor ertugliflozin. Enrollment of patients in VERTIS CV occurred in two sequential cohorts (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2).

METHODS

This substudy assessed the efficacy and safety of adding ertugliflozin to SU monotherapy. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline at 18 weeks.

RESULTS

Among the 8246 patients who were randomized in VERTIS CV, 157 patients in Cohort 1 and 135 patients in Cohort 2 were on SU monotherapy at baseline. In the prespecified analysis (Cohort 1 only), the least squares (LS) mean HbA1c change from baseline for placebo, ertugliflozin 5 mg, and ertugliflozin 15 mg was -  0.56%, -  0.91%, and -  0.78%, respectively (placebo-adjusted LS mean [95% CI] change: - 0.35% [-  0.72%, 0.02%]; -  0.22% [-  0.60%, 0.16%] for ertugliflozin 5 and 15 mg, respectively; p > 0.05 for both). In a post-hoc analysis that included Cohorts 1 and 2 (N = 292), the LS mean HbA1c change from baseline at week 18 for placebo, ertugliflozin 5 mg, and ertugliflozin 15 mg was -  0.31%, - 0.77%, and -  0.68%, respectively (placebo-adjusted change: -  0.46% [-  0.73%, -  0.18%]; -  0.37% [-  0.66%, -  0.09%]; p = 0.001 and 0.01 for ertugliflozin 5 and 15 mg, respectively). In Cohort 1, adverse events were reported in 45.8%, 47.3%, and 25.9% of patients with placebo, ertugliflozin 5 mg, and ertugliflozin 15 mg. The incidence rates of symptomatic hypoglycemia were 0.0%, 5.5%, and 3.7%, respectively, with no cases of severe hypoglycemia. The safety profile was similar for Cohorts 1 and 2 combined.

CONCLUSION

The addition of ertugliflozin to SU monotherapy reduced HbA1c but did not result in significant placebo-adjusted reductions from baseline according to the prespecified primary analysis (n = 157); however, in a post-hoc analysis with a larger patient population (n = 292), significant and clinically relevant HbA1c reductions were observed. Ertugliflozin was generally well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01986881.

Pharmacoeconomic Analysis of Sitagliptin/Metformin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Effectiveness Study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of sitagliptin/metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus compared to those of glibenclamide/metformin in a semiprivate hospital and to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of sitagliptin/metformin in a semiprivate hospital to those in the public health system (PHS) of Ecuador in 2019.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness study considering the probability of cardiovascular death as the outcome and quality-adjusted life-year as a measure of utility, estimating direct medical costs in US dollars by a model case from the perspective of the third payer. The results will be presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. One-way and 2-way sensitivity analyses with tornado diagrams were performed.

RESULTS

Direct medical costs were lower at the hospital than from the PHS in Ecuador. Considering the drugs metformin/sitagliptin, the total cost was $35.69 less in the hospital ($880.38) than from the comparator ($916.07). The highest percentage of direct medical costs corresponded to drugs (between 63.94% and 84.65%). An ICER of -$19 131.61 was obtained at the Hospital Un Canto a la Vida and -$1621.85 at PHS. In addition, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year earned was $611.11. Sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of drug use and the relative risk of cardiovascular death associated with such prescription were parameters that most affected the model.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination therapy metformin/sitagliptin compared to metformin/glibenclamide was shown not to be cost-effective in the Hospital Un Canto a la Vida, and highly cost-effective in the PHS.

Associations of fear of hypoglycemia with second-line use of insulin secretagogues or insulin and subsequent glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: An analysis using data from the DISCOVER study

BACKGROUND

Associations of fear of hypoglycemia with prescription of second-line insulin secretagogues (IS) or insulin and subsequent glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes were analysed using data from the DISCOVER study-a large, prospective, observational study.

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes initiating a second-line treatment after a first-line oral therapy were enrolled. Fear of hypoglycemia was assessed using baseline Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS) worry score. Glycemic control was assessed using glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels at 6-month and 1-year follow-up, and HbA1c change from baseline was analysed. To examine the association of baseline HFS worry scores with second-line use of IS or insulin, a hierarchical logistic model with country as random effect was used.

RESULTS

A total of 6217 patients were analysed. The mean HFS worry score was 6.9 ± 11.4, while patients in the upper quartile had an HFS worry score ≥9. We divided patients into three groups according to their baseline HFS worry score (0, 1-8, ≥9). HFS worry score was associated with the use of first-line IS, but not the second-line treatment. Compared to treatments with no IS and insulin, a better HbA1c response to second-line IS or insulin was noted in patients with a baseline HFS worry score of 0 or 1-8, but not in patients with a baseline HFS worry score ≥9.

CONCLUSION

HFS worry score was associated with the use of first-line IS and glycemic response to second-line IS or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02322762. Registered 23 December 2014.

Review of Ongoing Activities and Challenges to Improve the Care of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Across Africa and the Implications for the Future

Background

There has been an appreciable increase in the number of people in Africa with metabolic syndrome and Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in recent years as a result of a number of factors. Factors include lifestyle changes, urbanisation, and the growing consumption of processed foods coupled with increasing levels of obesity. Currently there are 19 million adults in Africa with diabetes, mainly T2DM (95%), estimated to grow to 47 million people by 2045 unless controlled. This has a considerable impact on morbidity, mortality and costs in the region. There are a number of issues to address to reduce the impact of T2DM including improving detection rates and current access to services alongside addressing issues of adherence to prescribed medicines. There are also high rates of co-morbidities with infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis in patients in Africa with T2DM that require attention.

Objective

Document ongoing activities across Africa to improve the care of patients with T2DM especially around issues of identification, access, and adherence to changing lifestyles and prescribed medicines. In addition, discussing potential ways forward to improve the care of patients with T2DM based on ongoing activities and experiences including addressing key issues associated with co-morbidities with infectious diseases.

Our Approach

Contextualise the findings from a wide range of publications including internet based publications of national approaches coupled with input from senior level government, academic and other professionals from across Africa to provide future guidance.

Ongoing Activities

A number of African countries are actively instigating programmes to improve the care of patients with T2DM starting with improved diagnosis. This recognises the growing burden of non-communicable diseases across Africa, which has been neglected in the past. Planned activities include programmes to improve detection rates and address key issues with diet and lifestyle changes, alongside improving monitoring of care and activities to enhance adherence to prescribed medicines. In addition, addressing potential complexities involving diabetes patients with infectious disease co-morbidities. It is too early to fully assess the impact of such activities.

Conclusion

There are a number of ongoing activities across Africa to improve the management of patients with diabetes including co-morbidities. However, more needs to be done considering the high and growing burden of T2DM in Africa. Ongoing research will help further benefit resource allocation and subsequent care.

Reducing the Burden of Diabetes Treatment: A Review of Low-cost Oral Hypoglycemic Medications

BACKGROUND

The vast majority of individuals diagnosed with diabetes are low/middle income and may have access to only three of the 11 oral hypoglycemic medications (OHMs) due to cost: metformin intermediate release (IR) or extended release (ER), sulfonylureas (glimepiride, glipizide, glyburide), and pioglitazone. Sulfonylureas and pioglitazone have had significant controversy related to potential adverse events, but it remains unclear whether these negative outcomes are class, drug, or dose-related.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a narrative review of low-cost OHMs.

METHODS

We evaluated the maximum recommended (MAX) compared to the most effective (EFF) daily dose, time-to-peak change in HbA1c levels, and adverse events of low-cost oral hypoglycemic medications.

RESULTS

We found that the MAX was often greater than the EFF: metformin IR/ER (MAX: 2,550/2,000 mg, EFF: 1,500-2,000/1,500-2,000 mg), glipizide IR/ER (MAX: 40/20 mg, EFF: 20/5 mg), glyburide (MAX: 20 mg, EFF: 2.5-5.0 mg), pioglitazone (MAX: 45 mg, EFF: 45 mg). Time-to-peak change in HbA1c levels occurred at weeks 12-20 (sulfonylureas), 25-39 (metformin), and 25 (pioglitazone). Glimepiride was not associated with weight gain, hypoglycemia, or negative cardiovascular events relative to other sulfonylureas. Cardiovascular event rates did not increase with lower glyburide doses (p<0.05). Glimepiride and pioglitazone have been successfully used in renal impairment.

CONCLUSION

Metformin, glimepiride, and pioglitazone are safe and efficacious OHMs. Prescribing at the EFF rather than the MAX may avoid negative dose-related outcomes. OHMs should be evaluated as individual drugs, not generalized as a class, due to different dosing and adverse-event profiles; Glimepiride is the preferred sulfonylurea since it is not associated with the adverse events as others in its class.

Long-term comparative safety analysis of the risks associated with adding or switching to a sulfonylurea as second-line Type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment in a US veteran population

AIM

To examine the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events associated with adding vs switching to second-line therapies in a comparative safety study of people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using an as-treated analysis of people served by the Veterans Health Administration who were on metformin and subsequently augmented this treatment or switched to other oral glucose-lowering treatments between 1998 and 2012. This study included 145 250 people with long follow-up. Confounding was addressed through several strategies, involving weighted propensity score models with rich confounder adjustment and strict inclusion criteria, coupled with an incident-user design.

RESULTS

Second-line use of sulfonylureas was related to higher mortality (hazard ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.14, 1.70) and cardiovascular risks (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 1.09, 1.30) compared with thiazolidinedione therapy. Differential hazards were associated with discontinuing or not discontinuing metformin; switching to sulfonylurea therapy was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events compared with all other therapies. Furthermore, add-on sulfonylurea therapy was associated with an elevated risk for both outcomes when compared with thiazolidinedione add-on therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study may inform decisions on whether to augment or discontinue metformin; when considering the long-term risks, switching to a sulfonylurea appears unfavourable compared with other therapies. Instead, adding a thiazolidinedione to existing metformin therapy appears to be superior to adding or switching to a sulfonylurea.

A pharmacoeconomic analysis to compare cost-effectiveness of metformin plus teneligliptin with metformin plus glimepiride in patients of type-2 diabetes mellitus

Background

With the available evidence of early combined oral drug therapies being more effective in lowering blood glucose levels than maximal doses of a single drug, many clinicians are taking the aggressive approach of adding a sulfonylurea or a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor to metformin as the initial therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Pharmacotherapy for a chronic disease like diabetes has substantial economic implications for patients especially in a developing country like India. So it is important to scientifically evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these commonly practiced combination therapies in the management of T2DM.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective observational randomized comparative study conducted over 8 weeks on patients of T2DM who were prescribed either of the two therapies of metformin (500 mg) plus glimepiride (1 mg) or metformin (500 mg) plus teneligliptin (20 mg). Cost-effectiveness analysis was done by calculating the expense incurred on 0.1% reduction in HbA1 c and 1 mg/dl reduction in fasting plasma glucose (FPG)/post-prandial plasma glucose (PPG) levels after 8 weeks and compared for both the groups. The same was also evaluated for differences in BMI levels.

Results

The cost-effectiveness for per unit reduction in HbA1c and FPG was significant in metformin plus glimepiride group as compared to the metformin plus teneligliptin group though it was comparable for both the groups for per unit PPG reduction. There was no significant change in BMI levels between the groups.

Conclusion

Compared to metformin plus teneligliptin, metformin plus glimepiride is a significantly cost-effective therapy when used as an initial combination therapy in patients of T2DM in lowering HbA1c and FPG.

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

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

Meta-Analysis of Sulfonylurea Therapy on Long-Term Risk of Mortality and Cardiovascular Events Compared to Other Oral Glucose-Lowering Treatments

INTRODUCTION

Among the most pressing clinical decisions in type 2 diabetes treatments are which drugs should be used after metformin is no longer sufficient, and whether sulfonylureas (SUs) should remain as a suitable second-line treatment. In this article we summarize current evidence on the long-term safety risks associated with SU therapy relative to other oral glucose-lowering therapies.

METHODS

The MEDLINE database and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for observational and experimental studies comparing the safety of SUs to that of other diabetes medications in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus through December 15, 2015. Studies with at least 1 year of follow-up, which explicitly examined major cardiovascular events or death in patients who showed no evidence of serious conditions at baseline, were selected for inclusion in meta-analyses.

RESULTS

SU treatment was associated with an elevated risk relative to treatment with metformin (METF), thiazolidinedione (TZD), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4), and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist classes, either when compared alone (as a monotherapy) or when used in combination with METF. Significant findings were almost entirely derived from nontrial data and not confirmed by smaller, efficacy designed randomized controlled trials whose effects were in the same direction but much more imprecise.

CONCLUSION

Although much of the evidence is derived and will continue to come from observational studies, the methodological rigor of such studies is questionable. A key challenge for evaluators is the extent to which they should incorporate evidence from study designs that are quasi-experimental.

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

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

Effect of antihyperglycemic drug monotherapy to prevent the progression of mild hyperglycemia in early type 2 diabetic patients: the Japan Early Diabetes Intervention Study (JEDIS)

To effectively prevent the worsening of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus, it is of interest to see the clinical efficacy of early introduction of pharmacotherapy in addition to lifestyle intervention which is not always easy to continue throughout life. This is a randomized unblinded comparative clinical study on suppressive effects of lifestyle intervention alone and additional monotherapies for mild hyperglycemia at an early stage of treatment-naïve type 2 diabetic patients, whose fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) are less than 140 mg/dl and 7.4%, respectively. The control group (group N = arm N) received conventional lifestyle intervention assisted by routine facilities, while the pharmacological intervention group (group D composed of 4 arms) was additionally treated by monotherapy with one of four kinds of oral antihyperglycemic agents i.e., sulfonylurea (SU), α-glucosidase inhibitor, biguanide and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. The participants were scheduled to follow up for 3 years to maintain glycemic control below primary endpoint which was defined as the first occurrence of FPG ≥140 mg/dl and HbA1c ≥7.4% simultaneously even by increasing doses of oral drug in group D, if necessary. The outcomes of occurrences of primary endpoint were not different between group N and group D composed of 4 arms during 3 years by Kaplan-Meyer plots (p = 0.405). On the other hand, ΔFPG (Δ: incremental change from baseline) and ΔHbA1c in group D significantly decreased when compared to those of group N during 3 years (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively). Significant reductions of ΔBMI were seen similarly in both groups throughout the study (p < 0.05), but did not differ between two groups. Among these 5 arms, significant decreases of ΔHbA1c were observed in three monotherapy arms of group D compared to arm N for 3 years (p < 0.05 or p < 0.01), except for arm SU in which ΔBMI and ΔHbA1c tended to increase at the latter half of the study. The final achievement rates of target HbA1c less than 7.4, 7.0 and 6.5% in all the participants tended to be higher in group D than in group N (p < 0.047 for 7.4%, but not significant for others). In conclusion, the early introduction of pharmacological monotherapy in addition to lifestyle intervention seem to suppress mild hyperglycemia with small doses of antihyperglycemic agents for 3 years, except for the use of SU drug. Although a larger scale of trial will be necessary to conclude, the early treatment with suitable monotherapy could be effective to bring and keep "safe level of glycemia".

Comparative Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Glimepiride and Sitagliptin in Combination with Metformin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Indian Multicentric Randomized Trial - START Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Modern sulfonylureas like glimepiride offer effective glycemic control with extrapancreatic benefits and good tolerability. The objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare safety and efficacy of glimepiride and sitagliptin in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

In this open-label, randomized, comparative, multicenter study, a total of 305 T2DM patients who were either drug naïve or uncontrolled on metformin were randomized to glimepiride 1 or 2 mg/sustained-release metformin 1000 mg once daily (glimepiride group, n = 202) or sitagliptin 50 mg/metformin 500 mg twice daily (sitagliptin group, n = 103) for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary endpoints were change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), body mass index (BMI) and to assess overall safety profile.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean HbA1c reduction in glimepiride group (0.42%) as compared to sitagliptin group (0.30%) (P = 0.001). Mean reduction in FPG and PPG was also statistically significant in the glimepiride group as compared to the sitagliptin group (P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in terms of change in BMI (0.07 ± 0.39 kg/m² vs. 0.08 ± 0.31 kg/m²) in glimepiride and sitagliptin groups, respectively, (P = 0.644) between both the groups. The incidences of hypoglycemic events were also comparable among both the groups.

CONCLUSION

In T2DM patients, glimepiride/metformin combination exhibited significant reduction in glycemic parameters as compared to sitagliptin/metformin combination. Moreover, there was no significant difference between both the groups in terms of change in BMI and incidence of hypoglycemia.

Renal function preservation with pioglitazone or with basal insulin as an add-on therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

Clinical outcome may differ owing to the distinct pharmacological characteristics of insulin sensitizers and insulin. This study was performed to compare the metabolic and renal function changes with add-on pioglitazone treatment versus basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) in whom sulfonylurea and metformin regimens failed.

METHODS

Patients who were consecutively managed in the diabetes comprehensive program with add-on pioglitazone or detemir/glargine treatment for at least 2 years following sulfonylurea and metformin treatment failure were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1002 patients were enrolled (pioglitazone: 559, detemir: 264, glargine: 179). After propensity score matching, there were 105 patients with matchable baseline characteristics in each group. After a mean of 3.5 years of follow-up, the pioglitazone group showed a greater HbA1c reduction than the detemir group and the glargine group. Despite patients in all three groups exhibiting significant body weight gain, those in the pioglitazone group and the glargine group showed greater body weight increases than the patients in the detemir group (2.1, 1.6 and 0.8 kg, respectively, p < 0.05). Interestingly, Cox regression analysis indicated that patients under detemir or glargine treatment had a higher probability of CKD progression as compared with the pioglitazone group, with hazard ratios of 2.63 (95% CI 1.79-3.88) and 3.13 (95% CI 2.01-4.87), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study first showed that treatment with both pioglitazone and basal insulin improved glycemic control, while only pioglitazone treatment was observed to be advantageous in terms of preserving renal function when used as an add-on therapy for patients with type 2 DM in whom sulfonylurea and metformin regimens failed.

Comparative Effectiveness of Insulin versus Combination Sulfonylurea and Insulin: a Cohort Study of Veterans with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes patients often initiate treatment with a sulfonylurea and subsequently intensify their therapy with insulin. However, information on optimal treatment regimens for these patients is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and hypoglycemia between sulfonylurea initiators who switch to or add insulin.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort assembled using national Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Medicare, and National Death Index databases.

PARTICIPANTS

Veterans who initiated diabetes treatment with a sulfonylurea between 2001 and 2008 and intensified their regimen with insulin were followed through 2011.

MAIN MEASURES

The association between insulin versus sulfonylurea + insulin and time to CVD or hypoglycemia were evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort. CVD included hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction or stroke, or cardiovascular mortality. Hypoglycemia included hospitalizations or emergency visits for hypoglycemia, or outpatient blood glucose measurements <60 mg/dL. Subgroups included age < 65 and ≥ 65 years and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 60 and < 60 ml/min.

KEY FINDINGS

There were 1646 and 3728 sulfonylurea monotherapy initiators who switched to insulin monotherapy or added insulin, respectively. The 1596 propensity score-matched patients in each group had similar baseline characteristics at insulin initiation. The rate of CVD per 1000 person-years among insulin versus sulfonylurea + insulin users were 49.3 and 56.0, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.64, 1.12]. Rates of first and recurrent hypoglycemia events per 1000 person-years were 74.0 and 100.0 among insulin users compared to 78.9 and 116.8 among sulfonylurea plus insulin users, yielding HR (95 % CI) of 0.94 (0.76, 1.16) and 0.87 (0.69, 1.10), respectively. Subgroup analysis results were consistent with the main findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to sulfonylurea users who added insulin, those who switched to insulin alone had numerically lower CVD and hypoglycemia events, but these differences in risk were not statistically significant.

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.

[Sulfonylureas in today's blood glucose lowering therapy. New data on advantages and potential barriers of an "old" antidiabetic group]

Sulfonylurea compounds have been basic elements of antidiabetic treatment in type 2 diabetes for a long time. However, with the introduction of incretin type insulin secretagogues it is often arises, whether is still there a place for sulfonylureas in the today's therapy. To answer this question the author overviews general pharmaceutical characteristics of the sulfonylurea compounds as well as individual particularities of the second generation derivatives used at present in Hungary. The author details also the most important differences between incretin type drugs - first of all dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors - and sulfonylureas. On the basis of available data it can be concluded in accordance with the latest international guidelines, that sulfonylureas have still role in the blood glucose lowering therapy of type 2 diabetes, though they became somewhat pushed back among insulin secretagogue type drugs. If a sulfonylurea compound is the drug of choice, it is important to select the appropriate molecule (in case of normal renal function gliclazide or glimepiride). It is also important to re-educate the patient, as well as to apply the minimal dose providing the desired glycaemic effect.