Long-term effects of pioglitazone versus gliclazide on hepatic and humoral coagulation factors in patients with type 2 diabetes

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor Prevents Stroke in Patients With Diabetes and Atrial Fibrillation

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increasing risk of thromboembolic or ischemic stroke. The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is a well-established predictor of AF stroke. Patients with AF have an increased risk of stroke if they have diabetes. Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) has been shown to be associated with favorable cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes. It was unknown whether use of SGLT2i decreased stroke risk in patients with AF who have diabetes. Methods and Results A total of 9116 patients with AF and diabetes from the National Taiwan University historical cohort were longitudinally followed up for 5 years (January 2016-December 2020). The risk of stroke related to SGLT2i use was evaluated by Cox model, adjusting CHA₂DS₂-VASc score in the propensity score-matched population with 474 SGLT2i users and 3235 nonusers. Adverse thromboembolic end points during follow-up were defined as ischemic stroke. The mean age was 73.2±10.5 years, and 61% of patients were men. There were no significant differences of baseline characteristics between users and nonusers of SGLT2i, including CHA₂DS₂-VASc score in the propensity score-matched population. The stroke rate was 3.4% (95% CI, 2.8-4.2) patient-years in SGLT2i users and 4.3% (95% CI, 4.0-4.6) in nonusers (P=0.021). SGLT2i users had a 20% reduction of stroke (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.64-0.99]; P=0.043) after adjustment for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. Conclusions Use of SGLT2i was associated with a lower stroke risk in patients with diabetes and AF, and it may be considered to escalate SGLT2i to the first-line treatment in patients with diabetes and AF.

Pioglitazone Use and Reduced Risk of Dementia in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus With a History of Ischemic Stroke

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Previous studies have reported the protective effect of pioglitazone on dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Recent studies have shown that pioglitazone also lowers the risk of primary and recurrent stroke. Understanding the characteristics of patients particularly associated with the benefits of pioglitazone would facilitate its personalized use by specifying subpopulations during routine clinical care. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of pioglitazone use on dementia in consideration of stroke occurrence.

METHODS

Using nationwide longitudinal data of patients with DM from the Korean National Health Insurance Service DM cohort (2002-2017), we investigated the association of pioglitazone use with incident dementia in patients with new-onset type 2 DM. The heterogeneity of the treatment effect was examined using exploratory analyses. Using a multistate model, we assessed the extent to which incident stroke affects the association between pioglitazone use and dementia.

RESULTS

Pioglitazone use was associated with a reduced risk of dementia, compared with nonuse (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.95); the risk reduction in dementia was greater among patients with a history of ischemic heart disease or stroke before DM onset (aHR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.90; aHR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.86, respectively). The incidence of stroke was also reduced by pioglitazone use (aHR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-1.00). However, when the stroke developed during the observation period of pioglitazone use, such lowered risk of dementia was not observed (aHR = 1.27, 95% CI 0.80-2.04).

DISCUSSION

Pioglitazone use is associated with a lower risk of dementia in patients with DM, particularly in those with a history of stroke or ischemic heart disease, suggesting the possibility of applying a personalized approach when choosing pioglitazone to suppress dementia in patients with DM.

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

AIM

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The 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.

WITHDRAWN: Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

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

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

Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing health problem worldwide. Whether sulphonylureas show better, equal or worse therapeutic effects in comparison with other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sulphonylurea monotherapy versus placebo, no intervention or other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched publications in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS and CINAHL (all until August 2011) to obtain trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria for our review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials that randomised patients 18 years old or more with T2DM to sulphonylurea monotherapy with a duration of 24 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were other patient-important outcomes and metabolic variables. Where possible, we used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) to analyse the treatment effect of dichotomous outcomes. We used mean differences with 95% CI to analyse the treatment effect of continuous outcomes. We evaluated the risk of bias. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess whether firm evidence could be established for a 10% relative risk reduction (RRR) between intervention groups.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 72 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 22,589 participants; 9707 participants randomised to sulphonylureas versus 12,805 participants randomised to control interventions. The duration of the interventions varied from 24 weeks to 10.7 years. We judged none of the included trials as low risk of bias for all bias domains. Patient-important outcomes were seldom reported.First-generation sulphonylureas (FGS) versus placebo or insulin did not show statistical significance for all-cause mortality (versus placebo: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.45; P = 0.15; 2 trials; 553 participants; high risk of bias (HRB); versus insulin: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.59; P = 0.26; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus placebo showed statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality in favour of placebo (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.22; P = 0.006; 2 trials; 553 participants; HRB). FGS versus insulin did not show statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.71; P = 0.39; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of FGS for adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.76; P = 0.01; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB) and for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67; P = 0.004; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB).Second-generation sulphonylureas (SGS) versus metformin (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.58; P = 0.68; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.41; P = 0.70; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; P = 0.72; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB), meglitinides (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.42; P = 0.52; 7 trials; 2038 participants; HRB), or incretin-based interventions (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.68; P = 0.51; 2 trials; 1503 participants; HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding all-cause mortality in a random-effects model. SGS versus metformin (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.54 to 4.01; P = 0.45; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; P = 0.55; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.28; P = 0.80; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB) or meglitinide (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.53; P = 0.97; 7 trials, 2038 participants, HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding cardiovascular mortality. Mortality data for the SGS versus placebo were sparse. SGS versus thiazolidinediones and meglitinides did not show statistically significant differences for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes. SGS versus metformin showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; P = 0.02; 3018 participants; 3 trials; HRB). The definition of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes varied among the trials. SGS versus metformin, thiazolidinediones and meglitinides showed no statistical significance for non-fatal myocardial infarction. No meta-analyses could be performed for microvascular outcomes. SGS versus placebo, metformin, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors or meglitinides showed no statistical significance for adverse events. SGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96; P = 0.04; 9 trials; 870 participants; HRB). SGS versus meglitinides showed no statistical significance for the risk of severe hypoglycaemia. SGS versus metformin and thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance in favour of metformin (RR 5.64, 95% CI 1.22 to 26.00; P = 0.03; 4 trials; 3637 participants; HRB) and thiazolidinediones (RR 6.11, 95% CI 1.57 to 23.79; P = 0.009; 6 trials; 5660 participants; HRB) for severe hypoglycaemia.Third-generation sulphonylureas (TGS) could not be included in any meta-analysis of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes. TGS versus thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance regarding adverse events in favour of TGS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; P = 0.03; 3 trials; 510 participants; HRB). TGS versus thiazolidinediones did not show any statistical significance for drop-outs due to adverse events. TGS versus other comparators could not be performed due to lack of data.For the comparison of SGS versus FGS no meta-analyses of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes, or adverse events could be performed.Health-related quality of life and costs of intervention could not be meta-analysed due to lack of data.In trial sequential analysis, none of the analyses of mortality outcomes, vascular outcomes or severe hypoglycaemia met the criteria for firm evidence of a RRR of 10% between interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support the decision as to whether to initiate sulphonylurea monotherapy. Data on patient-important outcomes are lacking. Therefore, large-scale and long-term randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias, focusing on patient-important outcomes are required.

Coagulation and fibrinolysis in diabetes

Atherothrombotic complications are the main cause of mortality in subjects with diabetes. Premature atherosclerosis, increased platelet reactivity and activation of coagulation factors with associated hypofibrinolysis all contribute to increased cardiovascular risk in this population. Blood clot formation represents the last step in the atherothrombotic process, and the structure of the fibrin network has a role in determining predisposition to cardiovascular disease. In this review, we discuss alterations in coagulation factor plasma levels and/or activity in diabetes and clarify their role in predisposition to cardiovascular events. The effect of diabetes on fibrin network structure/fibrinolysis is reviewed and potential mechanisms that modify clot properties are discussed. Finally, modulation of clotting potential by the various therapeutic agents used in diabetes is examined. Understanding the mechanisms by which diabetes influences the coagulation pathway will help to develop more effective treatment strategies to reduce thrombotic events in subjects with this condition.

Improving cardiovascular risk--applying evidence-based medicine to glucose-lowering therapy with thiazolidinediones in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The management of patients with type 2 diabetes aims to reduce the elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by addressing established risk factors including hyperglycaemia, dyslipidaemia and hypertension. The thiazolidinediones are equally effective in improving glycaemic control when used in combination regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes, but have differing effects on the diabetic dyslipidaemia.

AIMS

To compare the effects of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone on inflammatory mediators associated with atherosclerosis and CVD, surrogate cardiovascular endpoints, and hard cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of the PubMed database plus manual search of referenced papers for other relevant citations.

RESULTS

Both glitazones reduce inflammatory markers and other circulating markers of CV disease. Available data suggest that pioglitazone can delay progression of atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes, as shown by the PERISCOPE and CHICAGO studies, and that it can reduce the rate of clinical CV events as shown by PROactive. Clinical end-point data for rosiglitazone are inconclusive, providing no evidence of benefit and a possible increase in myocardial infarction.

DISCUSSION

There is a consistency of benefit with pioglitazone on markers, surrogate cardiovascular outcomes and clinical end-point trials.

CONCLUSION

Pioglitazone is the preferred thiazolidinedione to reduce cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes.