Managing diabetes in patients with chronic liver disease

EASL-EASD-EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD)

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), previously termed non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is defined as steatotic liver disease (SLD) in the presence of one or more cardiometabolic risk factor(s) and the absence of harmful alcohol intake. The spectrum of MASLD includes steatosis, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH, previously NASH), fibrosis, cirrhosis and MASH-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This joint EASL-EASD-EASO guideline provides an update on definitions, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment for MASLD. Case-finding strategies for MASLD with liver fibrosis, using non-invasive tests, should be applied in individuals with cardiometabolic risk factors, abnormal liver enzymes, and/or radiological signs of hepatic steatosis, particularly in the presence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) or obesity with additional metabolic risk factor(s). A stepwise approach using blood-based scores (such as FIB-4) and, sequentially, imaging techniques (such as transient elastography) is suitable to rule-out/in advanced fibrosis, which is predictive of liver-related outcomes. In adults with MASLD, lifestyle modification - including weight loss, dietary changes, physical exercise and discouraging alcohol consumption - as well as optimal management of comorbidities - including use of incretin-based therapies (e.g. semaglutide, tirzepatide) for T2D or obesity, if indicated - is advised. Bariatric surgery is also an option in individuals with MASLD and obesity. If locally approved and dependent on the label, adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and significant liver fibrosis (stage ≥2) should be considered for a MASH-targeted treatment with resmetirom, which demonstrated histological effectiveness on steatohepatitis and fibrosis with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. No MASH-targeted pharmacotherapy can currently be recommended for the cirrhotic stage. Management of MASH-related cirrhosis includes adaptations of metabolic drugs, nutritional counselling, surveillance for portal hypertension and HCC, as well as liver transplantation in decompensated cirrhosis.

EASL-EASD-EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD)

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), previously termed non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is defined as steatotic liver disease (SLD) in the presence of one or more cardiometabolic risk factor(s) and the absence of harmful alcohol intake. The spectrum of MASLD includes steatosis, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH, previously NASH), fibrosis, cirrhosis and MASH-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This joint EASL-EASD-EASO guideline provides an update on definitions, prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment for MASLD. Case-finding strategies for MASLD with liver fibrosis, using non-invasive tests, should be applied in individuals with cardiometabolic risk factors, abnormal liver enzymes, and/or radiological signs of hepatic steatosis, particularly in the presence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) or obesity with additional metabolic risk factor(s). A stepwise approach using blood-based scores (such as FIB-4) and, sequentially, imaging techniques (such as transient elastography) is suitable to rule-out/in advanced fibrosis, which is predictive of liver-related outcomes. In adults with MASLD, lifestyle modification - including weight loss, dietary changes, physical exercise and discouraging alcohol consumption - as well as optimal management of comorbidities - including use of incretin-based therapies (e.g. semaglutide, tirzepatide) for T2D or obesity, if indicated - is advised. Bariatric surgery is also an option in individuals with MASLD and obesity. If locally approved and dependent on the label, adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and significant liver fibrosis (stage ≥2) should be considered for a MASH-targeted treatment with resmetirom, which demonstrated histological effectiveness on steatohepatitis and fibrosis with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. No MASH-targeted pharmacotherapy can currently be recommended for the cirrhotic stage. Management of MASH-related cirrhosis includes adaptations of metabolic drugs, nutritional counselling, surveillance for portal hypertension and HCC, as well as liver transplantation in decompensated cirrhosis.

Management of type 2 diabetes in patients with compensated liver cirrhosis: Short of evidence, plenty of potential

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in patients with compensated cirrhosis is challenging due to hypoglycemic risk, altered pharmacokinetics, and the lack of robust evidence on the risk/benefit ratio of various drugs. Suboptimal glycemic control accelerates the progression of cirrhosis, while the frequent coexistence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) with T2D highlights the need for a multifactorial therapeutic approach.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in Medline, Google Scholar and Scopus databases till July 2023, using relevant keywords to extract studies regarding the management of T2D in patients with compensated cirrhosis.

RESULTS

Metformin, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are promising treatment options for patients with T2D and compensated liver cirrhosis, offering good glycemic control with minimal risk of hypoglycemia, while their pleiotropic actions confer benefits on NAFLD and body weight, and decrease cardiorenal risk. Sulfonylureas cause hypoglycemia, thus should be avoided, while in specific studies, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors have been correlated with increased risk of decompensation and variceal bleeding. Despite the benefits of thiazolidinediones in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, concerns about edema and weight gain limit their use in compensated cirrhosis. Insulin does not exert hepatotoxic effects and can be administered safely in combination with other drugs; however, the risk of hypoglycemia should be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of new hepatoprotective diabetes drugs into clinical practice, including tirzepatide, SGLT2i, and GLP-1 RA, sets the stage for future trials to investigate the ideal therapeutic regimen for people with T2D and compensated cirrhosis.

An Approach to the Management of Diabetes Mellitus in Cirrhosis: A Primer for the Hepatologist

The management of diabetes in cirrhosis and liver transplantation can be challenging. There is difficulty in diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes as fasting blood sugar values are low and glycosylated hemoglobin may not be a reliable marker. The challenges in the management of diabetes in cirrhosis include the likelihood of cognitive impairment, risk of hypoglycemia, altered drug metabolism, frequent renal dysfunction, risk of lactic acidosis, and associated malnutrition and sarcopenia. Moreover, calorie restriction and an attempt to lose weight in obese diabetics may be associated with a worsening of sarcopenia. Many commonly used antidiabetic drugs may be unsafe or be associated with a high risk of hypoglycemia in cirrhotics. Post-transplant diabetes is common and may be contributed by immunosuppressive medication. There is inadequate clinical data on the use of antidiabetic drugs in cirrhosis, and the management of diabetes in cirrhosis is hampered by the lack of guidelines focusing on this issue. The current review aims at addressing the practical management of diabetes by a hepatologist.

Clinical implications of diabetes in chronic liver disease: Diagnosis, outcomes and management, current and future perspectives

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is common in liver cirrhosis (LC). The pathophysiological association is bidirectional. DM is a risk factor of LC and LC is a diabetogenic condition. In the recent years, research on different aspects of the association DM and LC has been intensified. Nevertheless, it has been insufficient and still exist many gaps. The aims of this review are: (1) To discuss the latest understandings of the association of DM and LC in order to identify the strategies of early diagnosis; (2) To evaluate the impact of DM on outcomes of LC patients; and (3) To select the most adequate management benefiting the two conditions. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Ovid and Scopus engines for DM and LC, diagnosis, outcomes and management. The authors also provided insight from their own published experience. Based on the published studies, two types of DM associated with LC have emerged: Type 2 DM (T2DM) and hepatogenous diabetes (HD). High-quality evidences have determined that T2DM or HD significantly increase complications and death pre and post-liver transplantation. HD has been poorly studied and has not been recognized as a complication of LC. The management of DM in LC patients continues to be difficult and should be based on drug pharmacokinetics and the degree of liver failure. In conclusion, the clinical impact of DM in outcomes of LC patients has been the most studied item recently. Nevertheless many gaps still exist particularly in the management. These most important gaps were highlighted in order to propose future lines for research.

Reenvisioning Traditional to Regenerative Therapeutic Advances in Managing Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Diabetes Mellitus

Reports indicate the increasing prevalence of liver disorders in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. Clinically, it has also been revealed that the existence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) enhances the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), while T2DM exacerbates NAFLD to extremely severe forms of steatohepatitis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. This implies the coexistence and bidirectional nature of NAFLD and T2DM, which function synergistically to drive adverse consequences in clinical practice. For treatment of such comorbid state, though the existing practices such as lifestyle management, traditional Chinese medicines (TCM), and pharmaceuticals have offered somewhat relief, the debate continues about the optimal therapeutic impacts. Recent developments in the field of tissue engineering have led to a renewed interest in novel biomaterial alternatives such as stem cells. This might be attributable to their differentiation potential towards hepatic and pancreatic lineage. These cellular therapies could be further complemented by platelet-derived biomaterials, TCM formulations, or any specific drug. Based on these abovementioned approaches, we aimed to comprehensively analyze various preclinical and clinical studies from traditional to regenerative therapeutic approaches in managing concomitant NAFLD and T2DM.

Effect of type 2 diabetic mellitus in the prognosis of acute-on-chronic liver failure patients in China

BACKGROUND

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) patients have a high short-term mortality rate, and the severity evaluation of ACLF is necessary for prognostication. Therefore, it was meaningful to evaluate the association between type 2 diabetic mellitus (DM) and ACLF and further explore the feasibility of using DM as a prognostic indicator in ACLF patients. The association between type 2 DM and the prognosis of patients with severe liver disease remains unclear.

AIM

To examine the effect of type 2 DM on the prognosis of patients with ACLF.

METHODS

Clinical data from 222 ACLF patients were collected and analyzed. The patients were categorized into two groups depending on whether they had DM or not, and the clinical data of ACLF patients were measured within 48 h after admission. Complications of ACLF were documented during treatment, such as hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and spontaneous peritonitis (SBP). Values of laboratory parameters, complication rates, and hospital mortality rates were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Among 222 ACLF patients, 38 cases were categorized into DM groups, the mean age was 56.32 years and 73.68% were male. The prognosis of ACLF patients was significantly correlated with DM in univariate [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) =1.5-3.7, P < 0.001] and multivariable analysis (HR = 3.17, 95%CI =1.82-5.523, P < 0.001). The incident of SBP (34.21% vs 13.59%, P = 0.038) and other infections like lung, urinary, blood, and cholecyst (44.74% vs 28.26%, P = 0.046) were higher in DM patients than non-DM counterparts. In addition, the ACLF patients with DM tended to have a high mortality rate (P < 0.001). Cumulative survival time was also significantly shorter in the ACLF patients with DM than non-DM.

CONCLUSION

A significant association between DM and the prognosis of ACLF patients was found in China. The ACLF patients with DM had higher incidence of hospital mortality and infection than those without DM.

Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus increases risk of infection in patients with advanced cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is common in patients with cirrhosis and is associated with increased risk of infection.

AIM

To analyze the impact of uncontrolled DM on infection and mortality among inpatients with advanced cirrhosis.

METHODS

This study utilized the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 1998 to 2014. We defined advanced cirrhosis using a validated ICD-9-CM algorithm requiring a diagnosis of cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension or decompensation. The primary outcome was bacterial infection. Secondary outcomes included inpatient mortality stratified by elderly age (age≥70). Multivariable logistic regression analyzed outcomes.

RESULTS

906,559 (29.2%) patients had DM and 109,694 (12.1%) were uncontrolled. Patients who had uncontrolled DM were younger, had less ascites, but more encephalopathy. Bacterial infection prevalence was more common in uncontrolled DM (34.2% vs. 28.4%, OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.29-1.37, p<0.001). Although uncontrolled DM was not associated with mortality, when stratified by age, elderly patients with uncontrolled DM had a significantly higher risk of inpatient mortality (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.46-1.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled DM is associated with increased risk of infection, and when combined with elderly age is associated with increased risk of inpatient mortality. Glycemic control is a modifiable target to improve morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced cirrhosis.

Clinical implications, diagnosis, and management of diabetes in patients with chronic liver diseases

Diabetes mellitus (DM) negatively affects the development and progression of chronic liver diseases (CLD) of various etiologies. Concurrent DM and CLD are also associated with worse clinical outcomes with respect to mortality, the occurrence of hepatic decompensation, and the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Unfortunately, early diagnosis and optimal treatment of DM can be challenging, due to the lack of established clinical guidelines as well as the medical complexity of this patient population. We conducted an exploratory review of relevant literature to provide an up-to-date review for internists and hepatologists caring for this patient population. We reviewed the epidemiological and pathophysiological associations between DM and CLD, the impact of insulin resistance on the progression and manifestations of CLD, the pathogenesis of hepatogenic diabetes, as well as the practical challenges in diagnosis and monitoring of DM in this patient population. We also reviewed the latest clinical evidence on various pharmacological antihyperglycemic therapies with an emphasis on liver disease-related clinical outcomes. Finally, we proposed an algorithm for managing DM in patients with CLD and discussed the clinical and research questions that remain to be addressed.

Clinical Performance of Flash Glucose Monitoring System in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis and Diabetes Mellitus

Flash glucose monitoring system (FGMS) is an improved subset of continuous glucose monitoring with a recognized effectiveness on glycemic control, though validation in patients with Liver Cirrhosis (LC) is lacking. To evaluate the accuracy of FGMS in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and LC, a prospective, case-control study was performed in 61 ambulatory patients with LC and DM (LC group, n = 31) or DM (Control group, n = 30). During 14 days, patients performed 4 assessments per day of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG, reference value) followed by FGMS scanning. There were 2567 paired SMBG and FGMS values used in the accuracy analysis, with an overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of 12.68% in the LC group and 10.55% in the control group (p < 0,001). In patients with LC, the percentage of readings within Consensus Consensus Error Grid analysis Zone A and A + B were 80.36% and 99,26%, respectively. Sensor clinical accuracy was not affected by factors such as body mass index, age, gender, Child-Pugh score or edematoascitic decompensation. This is the first study to approach FGMS clinical accuracy in LC, revealing a potential usability of this system to monitor glycemic control in this population.

[Diabetes mellitus and chronic liver diseases. Literature review (part 2): treatment features]

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic liver disease (CLD) are pathological conditions associated with each other and reaching epidemic proportions. There is a strong pathogenetic relationship of carbohydrate metabolism disorders and a number of CLD. Common mechanisms that provoke metabolic and autoimmune disorders in the development of various CLD, leading to steatosis, insulin resistance (IR), impaired glucose tolerance and the development of DM are described. Effective glycemic control can have a beneficial effect on the treatment of these patients, and, conversely, there is evidence of a positive effect of CLD therapy on carbohydrate metabolism. This review discusses the correction of carbohydrate metabolism in patients with CLD, the main groups of modern hypoglycemic drugs, mechanisms of their action, the impact on the physiology of the liver, the possibility of using each of these pharmacological groups in patients with impaired liver function. The modern approaches and possibilities of drug effects on the process of fibrogenesis in CLD, the effect of these drugs on carbohydrate metabolism are listed.

[Diabetes mellitus and chronic liver diseases. Part 1: general mechanisms of etiology and pathogenesis]

In recent years there has been an active discussion about the relationship between diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic liver diseases (CLD). On the one hand, patients with diabetes have an increased risk of developing CLD. On the other hand, patients with CLD very often identify abnormal glucose metabolism which ultimately leads to impaired glucose tolerance and the development of diabetes. This review outlines potential causal relationships between some CLD and DM. Common mechanisms that provoke metabolic and autoimmune disorders in the development of various nosologies of the CKD group, leading to steatosis, insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance and the development of diabetes are described. Certain features of the assessment of carbohydrate metabolism compensation in patients with hepatic dysfunction, anemia and protein metabolism disorders are described.

Antidiabetic agents in patients with hepatic impairment

Chronic liver disease (CLD) often coexists with type 2 diabetes mellitus, making diabetes management a challenge to the clinician. It is well known that liver is the major site of drug metabolism, and, therefore, its impairment affects hepatic metabolism of many antidiabetic agents. Furthermore, patients with CLD have serious comorbidities such as impaired renal function, hypoalbuminemia, lactic acidosis, hypoglycemia and malnutrition, making their treatment even more difficult. On the other hand, most of the antidiabetic agents, with the exception of insulin, need dosage titration due to alterations to their pharmacokinetics in patients with CLD. For well-established antidiabetic treatments, like metformin and sulfonylureas there are studies regarding their dosage chance in these patients. However, despite the growing problem of management of diabetes in patients with CLD the existing literature data, especially on newer antidiabetic agents, are limited and, furthermore, no direct guidelines exist. Therefore, in the present review article we try to summarize the existing literature data regarding management of diabetes in patients with CLD.

Management of diabetes mellitus in patients undergoing liver transplantation

Diabetes is a common feature in cirrhotic individuals both before and after liver transplantation and negatively affects prognosis. Certain aetiological agents of chronic liver disease and loss of liver function per se favour the occurrence of pre-transplant diabetes in susceptible individuals, whereas immunosuppressant treatment, changes in lifestyle habits, and donor- and procedure-related factors contribute to diabetes development/persistence after transplantation. Challenges in the management of pre-transplant diabetes include the profound nutritional alterations characterizing cirrhotic individuals and the limitations to the use of drugs with liver metabolism. Special issues in the management of post-transplant diabetes include the diabetogenic potential of immunosuppressant drugs and the increased cardiovascular risk characterizing solid organ transplant survivors. Overall, the pharmacological management of cirrhotic patients undergoing liver transplantation is complicated by the lack of specific guidelines reflecting the paucity of data on the impact of glycaemic control and the safety and efficacy of anti-hyperglycaemic agents in these individuals.

Consensus Statement on Dose Modifications of Antidiabetic Agents in Patients with Hepatic Impairment

Liver disease is an important cause of mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). It is estimated that diabetes is the most common cause of liver disease in the United States. Virtually, entire spectrum of liver disease is seen in T2DM including abnormal liver enzymes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and acute liver failure. The treatment of diabetes mellitus (DM) in cirrhotic patients has particular challenges as follows: (1) about half the patients have malnutrition; (2) patients already have advanced liver disease when clinical DM is diagnosed; (3) most of the oral antidiabetic agents (ADAs) are metabolized in the liver; (4) patients often have episodes of hypoglycemia. The aim of this consensus group convened during the National Insulin Summit 2015, Puducherry, was to focus on the challenges with glycemic management, with particular emphasis to safety of ADAs across stages of liver dysfunction. Published literature, product labels, and major clinical guidelines were reviewed and summarized. The drug classes included are biguanides (metformin), the second- or third-generation sulfonylureas, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and currently available insulins. Consensus recommendations have been drafted for glycemic targets and dose modifications of all ADAs. These can aid clinicians in managing patients with diabetes and liver disease.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients with self-reported hepatic disorders: A retrospective pooled analysis of 17 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials

AIMS

Liver disease is highly prevalent among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We evaluated the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in subjects with T2DM and hepatic disorders.

METHODS

Data were pooled from 17 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of linagliptin in T2DM subjects that included individuals with self-reported history of hepatic disorders at baseline. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

Of the 7009 participants (56% white, 39% Asian), 574 had hepatic disorders, most commonly hepatic steatosis (60%). At week 24, adjusted mean±standard error (SE) change in HbA1c from baseline in those with hepatic disorders was -0.75%±0.05 with linagliptin and -0.20%±0.08 with placebo [treatment difference: -0.54% (95% confidence interval-0.72 to -0.36); P<.0001]. There was no significant difference in HbA1c reduction between subjects with or without baseline hepatic disorders (P=.4042). Among subjects with hepatic disorders, 13.5% and 14.8% of the linagliptin and placebo groups, respectively, reported drug-related adverse events while 10.4% and 15.9%, respectively, reported hypoglycemia. Overall, adverse event rates were similar in individuals with or without hepatic disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

This large pooled analysis suggests that linagliptin is effective and well tolerated in people with T2DM and liver disease.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Diabetes Mellitus in Patients with Autoimmune Hepatitis

OBJECTIVE

The administration of corticosteroids is a standard treatment for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), but it can occasionally induce various adverse effects. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major complication of chronic liver diseases. We investigated the prevalence and risk factors of DM in patients with AIH.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 118 Japanese patients diagnosed with AIH from 1990 to 2014 at our institution. The prognosis of patients with and without DM was also compared.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine (24.5%) patients had DM and 21 (72.4%) received corticosteroids. The annual cumulative incidence rate of newly diagnosed DM was 1.2%. Multivariate analysis showed that DM occurred in older patients [OR=6.290; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.230-32.100; p=0.018] with higher serum immunoglobulin G levels (OR=12.400; 95% CI=2.560-60.400; p=0.002). A Cox hazard regression analysis revealed that predictive factors for DM were absence of other autoimmune diseases (OR=0.171; 95% CI=0.036-0.805; p=0.025), use of corticosteroids (OR=6.693; 95% CI=1.391-32.210; p=0.049) and lower platelet counts (OR=3.873; 95% CI=1.021-14.690; p=0.046). The 10 year survival rates of the DM and non-DM groups were 94.1% and 94.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference between these groups (p=0.293).

CONCLUSION

DM occurred in 24.5% of patients with AIH; older age, absence of other autoimmune diseases and higher serum immunoglobulin G levels are risk factors. Taking corticosteroids and a lower platelet count are risk factors for a new onset of DM. DM did not influence the prognosis of AIH patients.

The treatment of diabetes mellitus of patients with chronic liver disease

About 80% of patients with liver cirrhosis may have glucose metabolism disorders, 30% show overt diabetes mellitus (DM). Prospective studies have demonstrated that DM is associated with an increased risk of hepatic complications and death in patients with liver cirrhosis. DM might contribute to liver damage by promoting inflammation and fibrosis through an increase in mitochondrial oxidative stress mediated by adipokines. Based on the above mentioned the effective control of hyperglycemia may have a favorable impact on the evolution of these patients. However, only few therapeutic studies have evaluated the effectiveness and safety of antidiabetic drugs and the impact of the treatment of DM on morbidity and mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis. In addition, oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin may produce hypoglycemia and lactic acidosis, as most of these agents are metabolized by the liver. This review discusses the clinical implications of DM in patients with chronic liver disease. In addition the effectiveness and safety of old, but particularly the new antidiabetic drugs will be described based on pharmacokinetic studies and chronic administration to patients. Recent reports regarding the use of the SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the new incretin-based therapies such as injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and oral inhibitors of dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP-4) will be discussed. The establishment of clear guidelines for the management of diabetes in patients with CLD is strongly required.

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.

Pharmacokinetics in patients with chronic liver disease and hepatic safety of incretin-based therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have an increased risk of chronic liver disease (CLD) such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis, and about one-third of cirrhotic patients have diabetes. However, the use of several antidiabetic agents, such as metformin and sulphonylureas, may be a concern in case of hepatic impairment (HI). New glucose-lowering agents targeting the incretin system are increasingly used for the management of type 2 diabetes. Incretin-based therapies comprise oral inhibitors of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) (gliptins) or injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. This narrative review summarises the available data regarding the use of both incretin-based therapies in patients with HI. In contrast to old glucose-lowering agents, they were evaluated in specifically designed acute pharmacokinetic studies in patients with various degrees of HI and their hepatic safety was carefully analysed in large clinical trials. Only mild changes in pharmacokinetic characteristics of DPP-4 inhibitors were observed in patients with different degrees of HI, presumably without major clinical relevance. GLP-1 receptor agonists have a renal excretion rather than liver metabolism. Specific pharmacokinetic data in patients with HI are only available for liraglutide. No significant changes in liver enzymes were reported with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists, alone or in combination with various other glucose-lowering agents, in clinical trials up to 2 years in length. On the contrary, preliminary data suggested that incretin-based therapies may be beneficial in patients with CLD, more particularly in the presence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Nevertheless, caution should be recommended, especially in patients with advanced cirrhosis, because of a lack of clinical experience with incretin-based therapies in these vulnerable patients.

Management of diabetes mellitus type-2 in the geriatric population: Current perspectives

The prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) has increased exponentially throughout the world and there is rapid increase in elderly diabetics. DM is associated with increased mortality and considerable morbidity including stroke, heart disease, and diminished quality of life in the elderly. However, the unique features of geriatric diabetes have not been given due a prominence in medical literature. Hypoglycemia remains the biggest complicating factor and needs to be avoided in the elderly. Most people in the geriatric age group have some degree of renal insufficiency and medications need to be adjusted wisely with changing renal profile. Because safer and more effective pharmacological therapy is available, an individual approach to DM in the elderly is essential.

Risk factors for adverse symptoms during dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor therapy: a questionnaire-based study carried out by the Japan Pharmaceutical Association Drug Event Monitoring project in Kumamoto Prefecture

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials have reported that dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-4) inhibitors are well tolerated and that the incidence of hypoglycemia with the use of DPP-4 inhibitors is similar to that observed with placebos. However, in general, provider-oriented methods using medical record reviews offer lower rates of non-serious, symptomatic adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than patient-oriented methods. Moreover, severe hypoglycemia occurred in three clinical trials using sitagliptin, but in two of these trials this phenomenon has been previously described only in the drug application data in the US.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the profile of patient-reported symptomatic ADRs under DPP-4 inhibitor therapy and to detect risk factors for hypoglycemic and non-hypoglycemic adverse symptoms in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

We analyzed a subpopulation of participants in the Drug Event Monitoring (DEM) project of the Japan Pharmaceutical Association. An anonymous survey was conducted in February 2012 to assess the self-perception of adverse symptoms during a median 28 (4-88) days after the last prescription of DPP-4 inhibitors by means of interviews of pharmacists using structured questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 864 males and 686 females were included. The prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors included sitagliptin (75.4 %), alogliptin (15.5 %), vildagliptin (8.8 %) and linagliptin (0.3 %). Mild hypoglycemic symptoms were reported by 34 individuals (2.2 %) receiving monotherapy of sitagliptin (10/402) or alogliptin (3/65), or combination therapy of sitagliptin (15/767) or alogliptin (6/176) with other hypoglycemic agents. In the multiple regression model, hypoglycemic symptoms were found to be significantly associated with liver disease, female sex and alcohol consumption more than three times per week. Non-hypoglycemic symptoms were reported by 57 individuals (3.7 %), the most common symptoms of which were gastrointestinal symptoms (2.1 %). Combination therapy was only found to be associated with nonhypoglycemic symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggested that hypoglycemic symptoms under therapy with sitagliptin or alogliptin may be associated with liver disease, female sex and alcohol consumption, all of which are potentially capable of leading to poor gluconeogenesis because they decrease the counter-regulatory hormonal responses to hypoglycemia.

Pharmacokinetic and toxicological considerations for the treatment of diabetes in patients with liver disease

INTRODUCTION

Patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of chronic liver disease (CLD) such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis and about one-third of cirrhotic patients have diabetes. However, the use of several antidiabetic agents may be a cause for concern in the case of hepatic impairment (HI).

AREAS COVERED

An extensive literature search was performed to analyze the influence of HI on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of glucose-lowering agents and the potential consequences for clinical practice as far as the efficacy/safety balance of their use in diabetic patients with CLD is concerned.

EXPERT OPINION

Almost no PK studies have been published regarding metformin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones and α-glucosidase inhibitors in patients with HI. Only mild changes in PK of glinides, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sodium glucose cotransporters type 2 inhibitors were observed in dedicated PK studies in patients with various degrees of HI, presumably without major clinical relevance although large clinical experience is lacking. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists have a renal excretion rather than liver metabolism. Rare anecdotal case reports of hepatotoxicity have been described with various glucose-lowering agents contrasting with numerous reassuring data. Nevertheless, caution should be recommended, especially in patients with advanced cirrhosis, including with the use of metformin.

Exenatide improves hepatic steatosis by enhancing lipid use in adipose tissue in nondiabetic rats

AIM: To investigate the metabolic changes in skeletal muscle and/or adipose tissue in glucagon-like peptide-1-induced improvement of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

METHODS: Male Wistar rats were fed either a control diet (control group) or a high-fat diet (HFD). After 4 wk, the HFD-fed rats were subdivided into two groups; one group was injected with exenatide [HFD-Ex(+) group] and the other with saline [HFD-Ex(-) group] every day for 12 wk. The control group received saline and were fed a control diet. Changes in weight gain, energy intake, and oxygen consumption were analyzed. Glucose tolerance tests were performed after 8 wk of treatment. Histological assessments were performed in liver and adipose tissue. RNA expression levels of lipid metabolism related genes were evaluated in liver, skeletal muscle, and adipose tissue.

RESULTS: Exenatide attenuated weight gain [HFD-Ex(-) vs HFD-Ex(+)] and reduced energy intake, which was accompanied by an increase in oxygen consumption and a decrease in the respiratory exchange ratio [HFD-Ex(-) vs HFD-Ex(+)]. However, exenatide did not affect glucose tolerance. Exenatide reduced lipid content in the liver and adipose tissue. Exenatide did not affect the expression of lipid metabolism-related genes in the liver or skeletal muscle. In adipose tissue, exenatide significantly upregulated lipolytic genes, including hormone-sensitive lipase, carnitine palmitoyltransferase-1, long-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase, and acyl-CoA oxidase 1 [HFD-Ex(-) vs HFD-Ex(+)]. Exenatide also upregulated catalase and superoxide dismutase 2 [HFD-Ex(-) vs HFD-Ex(+)].

CONCLUSION: In addition to reducing appetite, enhanced lipid use by exenatide in adipose tissue may reduce hepatic lipid content in NAFLD, most likely by decreasing lipid influx into the liver.

The role of co-morbidity in the selection of antidiabetic pharmacotherapy in type-2 diabetes

Metformin is, if not contraindicated and if tolerated, usually preferred over other antidiabetic drugs for the first line treatment of type-2 diabetes. The particular decision on which antidiabetic agent to use is based on variables such as efficacy, cost, potential side effects, effects on weight, comorbidities, hypoglycemia, risk, and patient preferences. However, there is no guidance how to consider these in the selection of antidiabetic drug treatment. In this work, we aimed to summarize available evidence and tried to give pragmatic treatment recommendations from a clinical practice perspective.

There are clear contraindications for some drugs in those with impaired renal and liver function and precautions in those with heart failure for the use of metformin (NYHA III-IV) and glitazones. On the other hand, GLP-1 analogs, DPP-4 inhibitors and acarbose are generally less critical and can be used in the majority of patients. We identified the following gaps with respect to the selection of antidiabetic drug treatment in patients with co-morbid disease conditions: 1) Guidelines fail to give advice on the use of specific antidiabetic drugs in patients with co-morbidity. 2) The literature is deficient in studies documenting antidiabetic drug use in patients with severely impaired renal function, diabetic retinopathy, cerebrovascular disease and systolic heart failure. 3) Further there are no specific data on patients with multiple of these co-morbid disease conditions. We postulate that differential use of antidiabetic drugs in patients with co-morbid disease constellations will help to reduce treatment related complications and might improve prognosis.