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

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 Evidence and Practice-Based Guidelines on the Utility of Basal Insulin Combined Oral Therapy (Metformin and Glimepiride) in the Current Era

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Basal insulin combined oral therapy consisting of insulin and oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) is recommended for type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on OADs. There is a lack of clear evidence and recommendations on the combined use of basal insulin analogues to more than one OADs (glimepiride plus metformin) in effective control of glycemic parameters and its safety in terms of reduced hypoglycemic events, weight gain and cardiovascular risk. In this context, a group of clinical experts discussed the utility of basal insulin combined oral therapy with metformin and glimepiride in the current era.

METHODS

The clinical experts discussed and provided their inputs virtually. The expert panel included clinical experts comprising endocrinologists and diabetologists from India and Nepal.

RESULTS

The panel thoroughly reviewed existing literature on the subject and proposed clinical evidence and practice-based guidelines.

CONCLUSION

These current clinical practice guidelines highlight the efficacy and safety of basal insulin combination therapy with various available basal insulins including neutral protamine hagedorn, detemir, glargine and degludec in addition to metformin and glimepiride therapy.

Influence of glimepiride plus sitagliptin on treatment outcome, blood glucose, and oxidative stress in diabetic patients

OBJECTIVE

This research sets out to investigate the influence of glimepiride (GLIM) plus sitagliptin (SITA) on the treatment outcome, blood glucose (BG), and oxidative stress (OS) in diabetic patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 189 patient cases of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) admitted from July 2017 to July 2021 to the Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University were selected, of whom 99 cases treated with GLIM + SITA were assigned to the research group (RG) and 90 cases receiving GLIM monotherapy were set as the control group (CG). The two cohorts of patients were compared in terms of treatment outcomes, BG, islet function, OS, inflammatory responses (IRs), and safety. The BG indexes detected mainly included fasting blood glucose (FBG), 2-hour postprandial blood glucose (2hPG) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Islet function was mainly measured by Homeostasis Model Assessment of β-cell Function (HOMA-β) and Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR). The OS parameters measured primarily included malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-PX). Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-6, and IL-18 were the inflammatory factors measured.

RESULTS

A statistically higher excellent or good rate of treatment was determined in the RG compared to the CG. After treatment, FBG, 2hPG, HbA1c, HOMA-IR, MDA, TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-18 were lower in the RG while HOMA-β, SOD, and GSH-PX were higher, compared to the levels before treatment and the CG. A non-significantly different incidence of adverse reactions between groups was determined.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrated high efficacy of GLIM + SITA in the treatment of T2DM patients, which can effectively improve the BG and OS of patients and reduce inflammation without increasing the incidence of adverse reactions. This should have high clinical application value.

Type 2 diabetics followed up by family physicians: Treatment sequences and changes over time in weight and glycated hemoglobin

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is based on preventive hygiene and dietary measures (HDM), oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), and insulin. The objective of the present study was to reuse general practice data from electronic health records and describe changes over time among patients with T2DM in primary care.

METHODS

We analyzed data on patients with T2DM collected by three family physicians in Tourcoing (France) from 2006 to 2018.

RESULTS

403 patients, 1030 treatment sequences, 39,042 appointments, 2440 glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurements, and 9722 wt measurements were included. On inclusion, the mean age was 57.0, the mean weight was 84.4 kg, the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m², and the median HbA1c level was 6.8 % (51 mmol/mol). The patients were following appropriate HDM (40.7 %) and/or were being treated with OADs (54.1 %) or insulin (5.2 %). The median length of follow-up was 3.51 years. Overall, bodyweight was stable for two years during HDM and then increased. The HbA1c level decreased and then increased during HDM, was stable on OADs, and then decreased on insulin.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The present descriptive results may be of value in helping to predict changes over time in bodyweight and HbA1c in T2DM.

Glucodynamics and glucocracy in type 2 diabetes mellitus: clinical evidence and practice-based opinion on modern sulfonylurea use, from an International Expert Group (South Asia, Middle East & Africa) via modified Delphi method

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global epidemic. According to international guidelines, the management protocol of T2DM includes lowering of blood glucose, along with preventing disease-related complications and maintaining optimal quality of life. Further, the guidelines recommend the use of a patient-centric approaches for the management of T2DM; however, Asian population is underrepresented in landmark cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs). There are several guidelines available today for the diagnosis and management of T2DM, and hence there is much confusion among practitioners about which guidelines to follow. A group of thirty international clinical experts comprising of endocrinologists, diabetologists and cardiologist from South Asia, Middle East and Africa met at New Delhi, India on February 8 and 9, 2020 and developed an international expert opinion statements via a structured modified Delphi method on the glucodynamic properties of OADs and the glucocratic treatment approach for the management of T2DM. In this modified Delphi consensus report, we document the glucodynamic properties of Modern SUs in terms of glucoconfidence, glucosafety, and gluconomics. According to glucodynamics theory, an ideal antidiabetic drug should be efficacious, safe, and affordable. Modern SUs as a class of OADs that have demonstrated optimal glucodynamics in terms of glucoconfidence, glucosafety, and gluconomics. Hence, modern SUs are most suitable second line drug after metformin for developing countries. Based on the current evidence, we recommend a glucocratic approach for the treatment of T2DM, where an individualized treatment plan with phenotype, lifestyle, environmental, social, and cultural factors should be considered for persons with T2DM in the South Asian, Middle Eastern and African regions.

Fixed-dose combination in management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: Expert opinion from an international panel

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive disease with multifactorial etiology. The first-line therapy includes monotherapy (with metformin), which often fails to provide effective glycemic control, necessitating the addition of add-on therapy. In this regard, multiple single-dose agents formulated as a single-dose form called fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) have been evaluated for their safety, efficacy, and tolerability. The primary objective of this review is to develop practice-based expert group opinion on the current status and the causes of concern regarding the irrational use of FDCs, in Indian settings. After due discussions, the expert group analyzed the results from several clinical evidence in which various fixed combinations were used in T2DM management. The panel opined that FDCs (double or triple) improve patient adherence, reduce cost, and provide effective glycemic control and, thereby, play an important role in the management of T2DM. The expert group strongly recommended that the irrational metformin FDC's, banned by Indian government, should be stopped and could be achieved through active participation from the government, regulatory bodies, and health ministry, and through continuous education of primary care physicians and pharmacists. In T2DM management, FDCs play a crucial role in achieving glycemic targets effectively. However, understanding the difference between rational and irrational FDC combinations is necessary from the safety, efficacy, and tolerability perspective. In this regard, primary care physicians will have to use a multistep approach so that they can take informed decisions.

The effect of proton pump inhibitors on glycaemic control in diabetic patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of proton pump inhibitors on glycaemic control amongst diabetic patients taking anti-diabetic medications.

METHODS

This randomised interventional clinical study was conducted in Basic Medical Sciences Institute, Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, Karachi. Eighty patients of either sex (aged 30-60 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus and without any known comorbidities were equally divided into two groups (i.e., n = 40 for each group) and were included in this study. Group A received metformin and glimepiride, while Group B, metformin and glimepiride plus omeprazole. The efficacy of the combination medications was evaluated based on fasting blood sugar (FBS) and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. Serum creatinine and liver function tests were reviewed to evaluate patients' safety profile at the initial visit and after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks of omeprazole therapy, we observed a more significant improvement in glycaemic control in group B compared to group A based on the patients' FBS (108 ± 2.37 vs. 126 ± 2.9, P = 0.001) and HbA1c levels (7.29 ± 0.07 vs. 7.47 ± 0.04, P = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

The addition of a proton pump inhibitor along with anti-diabetic medications was considered effective in achieving better glycaemic control.

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.