Oral hypoglycaemic agents and the development of non-fatal cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Analysis of Reports Sent to the Portuguese Pharmacovigilance System and Published Literature Regarding the Safety of Metformin in the Elderly

The first line medication for the treatment of type 2 diabetes is metformin. This study aims to investigate the safety profile of metformin and metformin combination medications in older adults using pharmacovigilance data. A literature search was used to identify published clinical studies reporting safety of metformin in older patients (age ≥ 65 years old), which were then thoroughly evaluated. Additionally, a deep analysis was performed, taking into account suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports submitted to the Portuguese Pharmacovigilance System involving patients with 65 years old or older, with metformin or metformin combination as the suspected drug. The results suggest that metformin is safer when used in combination with other antidiabetics than when used in monotherapy. Metformin prolonged-release tablets have a lower incidence of adverse effects compared to treatment with immediate-release metformin tablets. The analysis of the reports showed that "gastrointestinal disorders" was one of the most common classes reported, and metformin alone was the drug most commonly associated with serious gastrointestinal reactions that resulted in hospitalization. In addition, it was the drug most commonly associated with the lactic acidosis ADR. Even though most ADRs in the reports were serious, the majority progressed to cure. According to the analysis performed, the results suggest that the patient's renal function should be considered in order to prevent ADRs associated with metformin, such as lactic acidosis. Therefore, monitoring the safety profile of metformin remains essential to prevent serious ADRs.

Can metformin use reduce the risk of stroke in diabetic patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Stroke and cardiovascular diseases are major causes of death and disability, especially among diabetic patients. Some studies have shown that metformin has been effective in preventing cardiovascular diseases. In this study, we aim to evaluate the effect of metformin on stroke in type 2 diabetic patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from their inception till 1st July 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) and cohort studies were included. Two independent researchers screened the records, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. Findings were reported as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). All statistical analyses were performed using the STATA 17.0 software package.

RESULTS

Analysis of 21 included studies with 1,392,809 patients demonstrated that metformin monotherapy was effective in reducing stroke risk in both RCTs (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.50, 0.87 p = 0.004) and cohort studies (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.81, p < 0.0001). However, combined administration of metformin with other antihyperglycemic agents had no significant effect on stroke risk reduction in either the RCTs (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.22 p = 0.558) or the cohort studies (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.59, 1.06, p = 0.122).

CONCLUSION

Low to moderate level of evidence in RCTs showed that metformin monotherapy could reduce stroke risk in type 2 diabetic patients. However, the preventive effect of metformin in stroke was not observed in patients who received a combination of metformin plus other hypoglycemic agents.

Efficacy and safety of metformin in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in older adults: a systematic review for the development of recommendations to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing

Background

Metformin is usually prescribed as first line therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). However, the benefits and risks of metformin may be different for older people. This systematic review examined the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of metformin in the management of DM2 in older adults. The findings were used to develop recommendations for the electronic decision support tool of the European project PRIMA-eDS.

Methods

The systematic review followed a staged approach, initially searching for systematic reviews and meta-analyses first, and then individual studies when prior searches were inconclusive. The target population was older people (≥65 years old) with DM2. Studies were included if they reported safety or efficacy outcomes with metformin (alone or in combination) for the management of DM2 compared to placebo, usual or no treatment, or other antidiabetics. Using the evidence identified, recommendations were developed using GRADE methodology.

Results

Fifteen studies were included (4 intervention and 11 observational studies). In ten studies at least 80% of participants were 65 years or older and 5 studies reported subgroup analyses by age. Comorbidities were reported by 9 studies, cognitive status was reported by 4 studies and functional status by 1 study. In general, metformin showed similar or better safety and efficacy than other specific or non-specific active treatments. However, these findings were mainly based on retrospective observational studies. Four recommendations were developed suggesting to discontinue the use of metformin for the management of DM2 in older adults with risk factors such as age > 80, gastrointestinal complaints during the last year and/or GFR ≤60 ml/min.

Conclusions

On the evidence available, the safety and efficacy profiles of metformin appear to be better, and certainly no worse, than other treatments for the management of DM2 in older adults. However, the quality and quantity of the evidence is low, with scarce data on adverse events such as gastrointestinal complaints or renal failure. Further studies are needed to more reliably assess the benefits and risks of metformin in very old (>80), cognitively and functionally impaired older people.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0574-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects on Subclinical Heart Failure in Type 2 Diabetic Subjects on Liraglutide Treatment vs. Glimepiride Both in Combination with Metformin: A Randomized Open Parallel-Group Study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the effect of liraglutide treatment on heart function in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with subclinical heart failure.

METHODS

Randomized open parallel-group trial. 62 T2D patients (45 male) with subclinical heart failure were randomized to either once daily liraglutide 1.8 mg, or glimepiride 4 mg, both add on to metformin 1 g twice a day. Mitral annular systolic (s') and early diastolic (e') velocities were measured at rest and during bicycle ergometer exercise, using tissue Doppler echocardiography. The primary endpoint was 18-week treatment changes in longitudinal functional reserve index (LFRI_{diastolic/systolic}).

RESULTS

Clinical characteristics between groups (liraglutide = 33 vs. glimepiride = 29) were well matched. At baseline left ventricle ejection fraction (53.7 vs. 53.6%) and global longitudinal strain (-15.3 vs. -16.5%) did not differ between groups. There were no significant differences in mitral flow velocities between groups. For the primary endpoint, there was no treatment change [95% confidence interval] for: LFRI_diastolic (-0.18 vs. -0.53 [-0.28, 2.59; p = 0.19]), or LFRI_systolic (-0.10 vs. -0.18 [-1.0, 1.7; p = 0.54]); for the secondary endpoints, there was a significant treatment change in respect of body weight (-3.7 vs. -0.2 kg [-5.5, -1.4; p = 0.001]), waist circumference (-3.1 vs. -0.8 cm [-4.2, -0.4; p = 0.019]), and heart rate (HR) (6.3 vs. -2.3 bpm [-3.0, 14.2; p = 0.003]), with no such treatment change in hemoglobin A1c levels (-11.0 vs. -9.2 mmol/mol [-7.0, 2.6; p = 0.37]), between groups.

CONCLUSION

18-week treatment of liraglutide compared with glimepiride did not improve LFRI_{diastolic/systolic}, but however increased HR. There was a significant treatment change in body weight reduction in favor for liraglutide treatment.

Comparative risk of major cardiovascular events associated with second-line antidiabetic treatments: a retrospective cohort study using UK primary care data linked to hospitalization and mortality records

AIMS

To examine the risk of major cardiovascular events associated with second-line diabetes therapies, in patients with type 2 diabetes, after adjusting for known cardiovascular risk factors.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients prescribed second-line regimens between 1998 and 2011 after first-line metformin. The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, with linked national hospitalization and mortality data, for the period up to December 2013, was used. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted time-varying Cox regression models was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for developing a major cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute coronary syndrome, unstable angina, or coronary revascularization) associated with second-line therapies. Analyses adjusted for patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, glycated haemoglobin, socio-economic status, ethnicity, smoking status and concurrent medications.

RESULTS

A total of 10 118 initiators of a second-line add-on to metformin of either a sulphonylurea (n = 6740), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (n = 1030) or thiazolidinedione (n = 2348) were identified. After a mean (standard deviation) of 2.4 (1.9) years of follow-up, 386, 36 and 95 major cardiovascular events occurred in sulphonylurea-, DPP-4 inhibitor- and thiazolidinedione-initiators, respectively. In comparison with the metformin-sulphonylurea regimen, adjusted HRs were 0.78 (95% CI 0.55; 1.11) for the metformin-DPP-4 inhibitor regimen and 0.68 (95% CI 0.54; 0.85) for the metformin-thiazolidinedione regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Thiazolidinedione add-on treatments to metformin were associated with lower risks of major cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular death compared with sulphonylurea add-on treatment to metformin. Lower, but non-statistically significant, risks were also found with DPP-4 inhibitor add-on therapies.

Impact of glucose-lowering drugs on cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterized by multiple pathophysiologic abnormalities. With time, multiple glucose-lowering medications are commonly required to reduce and maintain plasma glucose concentrations within the normal range. Type 2 diabetes mellitus individuals also are at a very high risk for microvascular complications and the incidence of heart attack and stroke is increased two- to three-fold compared with non-diabetic individuals. Therefore, when selecting medications to normalize glucose levels in T2DM patients, it is important that the agent not aggravate, and ideally even improve, cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) and reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In this review, we examine the effect of oral (metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones, DPP4 inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and α-glucosidase inhibitors) and injectable (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and insulin) glucose-lowering drugs on established CVRFs and long-term studies of cardiovascular outcomes. Firm evidence that in T2DM cardiovascular disease can be reversed or prevented by improving glycaemic control is still incomplete and must await large, long-term clinical trials in patients at low risk using modern treatment strategies, i.e., drug combinations designed to maximize HbA1c reduction while minimizing hypoglycaemia and excessive weight gain.