-
1.
Unravelling the utility of modern sulfonylureas from cardiovascular outcome trials and landmark trials: expert opinion from an international panel.
Kalra, S, Ghosh, S, Das, AK, Nair, T, Bajaj, S, Priya, G, Mehrotra, RN, Das, S, Shah, P, Deshmukh, V, et al
Indian heart journal. 2020;(1):7-13
Abstract
AIM: The primary objective of this review is to develop practice-based expert group opinions on the cardiovascular (CV) safety and utility of modern sulfonylureas (SUs) in cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs). BACKGROUND The United States Food and Drug Administration issued new guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008 regarding the development of new antihyperglycemic drugs. The guidance expanded the scope for the approval of novel antihyperglycemic drugs by mandating CVOTs for safety. A few long-term CVOTs on dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have been completed, while others are ongoing. SUs, which constitute one of the key antihyperglycemic agents used for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), have been used as comparator agents in several CVOTs. However, the need for CVOTs on modern SUs remains debatable. In this context, a multinational group of endocrinologists convened for a meeting and discussed the need for CVOTs of modern SUs to evaluate their utility in the management of patients with T2DM. At the meeting, CVOTs of modern SUs conducted to date and the hypotheses derived from the results of these trials were discussed. REVIEW RESULTS The expert group analyzed the key trials emphasizing the CV safety of modern SUs and also reviewed the results of various CVOTs in which modern SUs were used as comparators. Based on literature evidence and individual clinical insights, the expert group opined that modern SUs are cardiosafe and that since they have been used as comparators in other CVOTs, CVOTs of SUs are not required. CONCLUSION Modern SUs can be considered a cardiosafe option for the management of patients with diabetes mellitus and CV disease; thus CVOTs among individuals with T2DM are not required.
-
2.
Pharmacogenetics of Type 2 Diabetes-Progress and Prospects.
Nasykhova, YA, Tonyan, ZN, Mikhailova, AA, Danilova, MM, Glotov, AS
International journal of molecular sciences. 2020;(18)
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a chronic metabolic disease resulting from insulin resistance and progressively reduced insulin secretion, which leads to impaired glucose utilization, dyslipidemia and hyperinsulinemia and progressive pancreatic beta cell dysfunction. The incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is increasing worldwide and nowadays T2D already became a global epidemic. The well-known interindividual variability of T2D drug actions such as biguanides, sulfonylureas/meglitinides, DPP-4 inhibitors/GLP1R agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors may be caused, among other things, by genetic factors. Pharmacogenetic findings may aid in identifying new drug targets and obtaining in-depth knowledge of the causes of disease and its physiological processes, thereby, providing an opportunity to elaborate an algorithm for tailor or precision treatment. The aim of this article is to summarize recent progress and discoveries for T2D pharmacogenetics and to discuss the factors which limit the furthering accumulation of genetic variability knowledge in patient response to therapy that will allow improvement the personalized treatment of T2D.
-
3.
Oral antidiabetes agents for the management of inpatient hyperglycaemia: so far, yet so close.
Koufakis, T, Mustafa, OG, Zebekakis, P, Kotsa, K
Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association. 2020;(9):1418-1426
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hyperglycaemia is an ongoing challenge in hospital settings and is associated with poor outcomes. Current recommendations for the management of inpatient hyperglycaemia suggest insulin as the main glucose-lowering treatment choice and limit the administration of oral antidiabetes agents to a small proportion of cases because of safety concerns. AIM: To present and critically appraise the available evidence on the use of oral antidiabetes agents in the hospital setting and the risk-benefit balance of such an approach in the era of cardiovascular outcomes trials. METHODS PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify relevant published work. Available evidence on the efficacy and the safety profile of oral agents in the context of their use in hospitalized individuals are summarized and discussed in this narrative review. RESULTS There is no robust evidence to suggest the use of metformin, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in the hospital setting, although some of their effects on acute outcomes deserve further evaluation in future studies. However, the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in inpatients with type 2 diabetes is supported by a few, well-designed, randomized controlled trials. These trials have demonstrated good safety and tolerability profiles, comparable to insulin glucose-lowering efficacy, and a reduction in insulin dose when dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are co-administered with insulin, in individuals with mild to moderate hyperglycaemia and a stable clinical condition. CONCLUSION The administration of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors to specific groups of inpatients might be a safe and effective alternative to insulin.
-
4.
Do sulphonylureas still have a place in clinical practice?
Khunti, K, Chatterjee, S, Gerstein, HC, Zoungas, S, Davies, MJ
The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology. 2018;(10):821-832
Abstract
Sulphonylureas have been commercially available since the 1950s, but their use continues to be associated with controversy. Although adverse cardiovascular outcomes in some observational studies have raised concerns about sulphonylureas, findings from relatively recent, robust, and high-quality systematic reviews have indicated no increased risk of all-cause mortality associated with sulphonylureas compared with other active treatments. Results from large, multicentre, randomised controlled trials such as the UK Prospective Diabetes Study and ADVANCE have confirmed the microvascular benefits of sulphonylureas, a reduction in the incidence or worsening of nephropathy and retinopathy, and no increase in all-cause mortality, although whether these benefits were due to sulphonylurea therapy and not an overall glucose-lowering effect could not be confirmed. A comparison of sulphonylureas and pioglitazone in the TOSCA.IT trial also confirmed the efficacy and cardiovascular safety of sulphonylureas. Investigators of randomised controlled trials have reported an increased risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain with sulphonylureas, but data from observational studies suggest that the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia is lower in people taking sulphonylurea than in people taking insulin, and weight gain with sulphonylureas has been relatively modest in large cohort studies. 80% of people with diabetes live in low-to-middle income countries, so the effectiveness, affordability, and safety of sulphonylureas are particularly important considerations when prescribing glucose-lowering therapy. Results of ongoing head-to-head studies with new drugs, such as the comparison of glimepiride with linagliptin in the CAROLINA study and the comparison of various therapies (including sulphonylureas) for glycaemic control in the GRADE study, will determine the place of sulphonylureas in glucose-lowering therapy algorithms for patients with type 2 diabetes.
-
5.
Successful off-label sulfonylurea treatment of neonatal diabetes mellitus due to chromosome 6 abnormalities.
Garcin, L, Kariyawasam, D, Busiah, K, Fauret-Amsellem, AL, Le Bourgeois, F, Vaivre-Douret, L, Cavé, H, Polak, M, Beltrand, J
Pediatric diabetes. 2018;(4):663-669
Abstract
Chromosome 6 abnormalities such as paternal uniparental isodisomy, paternal 6q24 duplication, and maternal DMR (differentially methylated region) hypomethylation are a common cause of transient neonatal diabetes mellitus (TNDM). Oral sulfonylurea (SU) is used off-label to treat permanent neonatal diabetes mellitus owing to potassium channel mutation but has not been evaluated in TNDM. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SU therapy in chromosome 6-related TNDM. Description of 3 case reports and literature review was the subject of the study. SU therapy was successful in 2 patients (initiated during neonatal life in 1 patient and during relapse in the other) but failed in the other despite the use of high dosage. The literature review identified 11 cases of patients with chromosome 6-related TNDM treated with SU, including 4 treated before remission and 7 after the relapse. SU therapy was consistently effective, although 4 patients treated after the relapse required multiple oral medications. None of the patients needed associated insulin therapy. No side effects of SU or complications of diabetes were reported. SU seems effective and safe in chromosome 6-related TNDM treatment when used to treat the initial episode of diabetes or the relapse. It improves patients' and families' quality of life. SU is available only as oral tablets. A pediatric dosage form would facilitate the treatment of neonates and infants.
-
6.
Genetic causes and treatment of neonatal diabetes and early childhood diabetes.
Barbetti, F, D'Annunzio, G
Best practice & research. Clinical endocrinology & metabolism. 2018;(4):575-591
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus and impaired fasting glucose associated with single gene mutations are less rare than previously thought and may account for more than 6% of patients attending a pediatric diabetes clinic. The number of loci involved in monogenic diabetes exceed 25, and appropriate genetic diagnosis is crucial to direct therapy, for genetic counseling and for prognosis of short- and long-term complications. Among patients with neonatal diabetes (i.e. with onset within first 6 months of life) and patients with Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY; an autosomal dominant form of diabetes), those carrying mutations in KCNJ11, ABCC8, HNF1A and HNF4A genes usually respond to oral therapy with sulphonylurea, while those bearing GCK mutations do not necessitate any treatment. Sensor-augmented continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion has been successfully employed in neonatal diabetes, and long-lasting effectiveness of sulfonylurea in KCNJ11 mutation carriers with neonatal diabetes well documented.
-
7.
Cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality associated with sulphonylureas compared with other antihyperglycaemic drugs: A Bayesian meta-analysis of survival data.
Bain, S, Druyts, E, Balijepalli, C, Baxter, CA, Currie, CJ, Das, R, Donnelly, R, Khunti, K, Langerman, H, Leigh, P, et al
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2017;(3):329-335
Abstract
AIM: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality associated with sulphonylureas (SUs) vs other glucose lowering drugs in patients with T2DM (T2DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for studies comparing SUs with placebo or other antihyperglycaemic drugs in patients with T2DM. A cloglog model was used in the Bayesian framework to obtain comparative hazard ratios (HRs) for the different interventions. For the analysis of observational data, conventional fixed-effect pairwise meta-analyses were used. RESULTS The systematic review identified 82 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 26 observational studies. Meta-analyses of RCT data showed an increased risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular-related mortality for SUs compared with all other treatments combined (HR 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.44 and HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.21-1.77, respectively). The risk of myocardial infarction was significantly higher for SUs compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.14-6.57 and HR 41.80, 95% CI 1.64-360.4, respectively). The risk of stroke was significantly higher for SUs than for DPP-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, thiazolidinediones and insulin. CONCLUSIONS The present meta-analysis showed an association between SU therapy and a higher risk of major cardiovascular disease-related events compared with other glucose lowering drugs. Results of ongoing RCTs, which should be available in 2018, will provide definitive results on the risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality associated with SUs vs other antihyperglycaemic drugs.
-
8.
Diabetes Update: New Pharmacotherapy for Type 2 Diabetes.
Choby, B
FP essentials. 2017;:27-35
Abstract
Multiple new drugs for managing type 2 diabetes have entered the market in the past 5 years. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association recommend metformin for initial therapy, followed by a second drug if A1c goals are not met or initially for patients with A1c levels greater than 9%. Conversely, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommends initial management with two drugs if the A1c level is greater than 7.5%. The risk of lactic acidosis associated with metformin has been shown to be less than previously thought, with newer guidelines permitting use with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 45 to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Newer studies provide a better understanding of the mechanisms of and indications for use of sodium-dependent glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and inhaled insulin.
-
9.
Oral antihyperglycemic treatment options for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Brietzke, SA
The Medical clinics of North America. 2015;(1):87-106
Abstract
Table 3 provides an overview of the oral antihyperglycemic drugs reviewed in this article. A 2011 meta-analysis by Bennett and colleagues found low or insufficient quality of evidence favoring an initial choice of metformin, SUs, glinides, TZDs, or (table see text) DPP-4 inhibitors (alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, bromocriptine mesylate, and SGLT2 inhibitors were not included in this meta-analysis) with regard to the outcomes measures of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and mortality, and incidence of microvascular disease (retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy) in previously healthy individuals with newly diagnosed T2DM. Likewise, the Bennett and colleagues meta-analysis judged these drugs to be of roughly equal efficacy with regard to reduction of HbA1c (1%–1.6%) from the pretreatment baseline. The ADOPT clinical trial of 3 different and, at the time, popular, oral monotherapies for T2DM provides support for the consensus recommendation of metformin as first-line therapy. The ADOPT trial showed slightly superior HbA1c reduction for rosiglitazone compared with metformin, which was in turn superior to glyburide. However, significant adverse events, including edema, weight gain, and fractures, were more common in the rosiglitazone-treated patients. The implication of this trial is that the combination of low cost, low risk, minimal adverse effects, and efficacy of metformin justifies use of this agent as the cornerstone of oral drug treatment of T2DM. Judicious use of metformin in groups formerly thought to be at high risk for lactic acidosis (ie, those with CHF, chronic kidney disease [eGFR >30 mL/min/1.73 m2], and the elderly) may be associated with mortality benefit rather than increased risk. Secondary and tertiary add-on drug therapy should be individualized based on cost, personal preferences, and overall treatment goals, taking into account the wishes and priorities of the patient.
-
10.
Myocardial Injury without Electrocardiographic Changes after a Suicide Attempt by an Overdose of Glimepiride and Zolpidem: A Case Report and Literature Review.
Chou, S, Ayabe, S, Sekine, N
Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan). 2015;(21):2727-33
Abstract
A 40-year-old diabetic man was admitted to our hospital for poor glycemic control. During hospitalization, he took 42 mg glimepiride and 50 mg zolpidem as a suicide attempt. The following day, the creatine kinase-MB fraction and troponin I levels were elevated to 112 IU/L and 8.77 ng/mL, respectively, without any electrocardiographic abnormalities. The patient recovered completely without any complications. Four weeks later, coronary computed tomography angiography and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy revealed moderate one-vessel coronary disease without the evidence of myocardial ischemia or old infarction. Cardiac-specific markers must be considered in sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemic patients, particularly when the patient is unconscious and does not exhibit any clinical manifestations.