Effect of dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors, thiazolidinedione, and sulfonylurea on osteoporosis in patients with type 2 diabetes: population-based cohort study

The association between anti-diabetic agents and osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and osteosarcopenia among Iranian older adults; Bushehr Elderly Health (BEH) program

PURPOSE

Various risk factors are mentioned for osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and osteosarcopenia. Our aim is to assess the impacts of anti-diabetic drugs on these disorders.

METHODS

To perform this study, the participants' data was extracted from the Bushehr Elderly Health (BEH) program in Iran. Afterward, the data were categorized into three subgroups: osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and osteosarcopenia, based on WHO and European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP-2) working group definitions. Demographic characteristics, anthropometric measures, past medical history, and current medications were recorded. Pearson chi-squared and simple/multiple logistic regression using Python (3.11.4) and R (4.3.1) programming software assessed the association between anti-diabetic agents and these bone disorders.

RESULTS

Out of 1995 participants, 820, 848, and 404 had osteoporosis, sarcopenia, or osteosarcopenia, respectively. Among all types of anti-diabetic drugs, a significant protective association between osteoporosis and consumption of second-generation sulfonylureas was found; Adjusted Odd Ratio (AOR) = 0.65 ([95% CI: 0.45-0.94], p-value = 0.023). No associations were found between sarcopenia and consumption of anti-diabetic agents. A significant association was observed between using Meglitinides and the risk of osteosarcopenia; AOR = 4.98 ([95% CI: 1.5-16.55], p-value = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, a protective association between consumption of second-generation sulfonylureas and osteoporosis was found. Moreover, a positive association was found between the consumption of meglitinides and osteosarcopenia. However, to support these findings, further studies are recommended.

In praise of pioglitazone: An economically efficacious therapy for type 2 diabetes and other manifestations of the metabolic syndrome

Pioglitazone improves glycaemic control, not only by lowering insulin resistance, but also by improving beta cell function. Because of the improved beta cell function the glycaemic control that occurs with pioglitazone is prolonged. Pioglitazone has positive effects not only on cardiac risk factors and surrogate measures of cardiovascular disease, it also lowers the incidence of cardiac events in patients with diabetes. The recurrence of transient ischaemic attack and ischaemic stroke is also reduced in non-diabetic, insulin-resistant subjects. Utilized at preclinical stages (but not later) of heart failure, pioglitazone improves diastolic function and avoids progression to heart failure. Pioglitazone, through suppression of atrial remodelling, also decreases the incidence of atrial fibrillation. The manifestations of diseases associated with insulin resistance (non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and polycystic ovary disease) are also improved with pioglitazone. Pioglitazone may possibly improve psoriasis and other dermopathies. Pioglitazone is therefore an inexpensive and efficacious drug for the insulin-resistant subject with diabetes that is underutilized because of biases that have evolved from the toxicities of other thiazolidinediones.

To do one and to get more: Part I. Diabetes and bone

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), is a chronic metabolic disease, characterized by the presence of hyperglycemia and insulin resistance. The key treatment strategies for T2DM include modification of lifestyle, medications, and continuous glucose monitoring. DM patients often have DM-associated morbidities and comorbidities; however, disorders of musculoskeletal system are often neglected, compared to other major systems in DM patients. Based on sharing similar pathophysiology of DM and osteoporosis, it is supposed that the use of antidiabetic agents (ADAs) may not only provide the lowering glucose level effect and the maintenance of the sugar homeostasis to directly delay the tissue damage secondary to hyperglycemia but also offer the benefits, such as the prevention of developing osteoporosis and fractures. Based on the current review, evidence shows the positive correlation between DM and osteoporosis or fracture, but the effectiveness of using ADA in the prevention of osteoporosis and subsequent reduction of fracture seems to be inconclusive. Although the benefits of ADA on bone health are uncertain, the potential value of "To do one and to get more" therapeutic strategy should be always persuaded. At least, one of the key treatment strategies as an establishment of healthy lifestyle may work, because it improves the status of insulin resistance and subsequently helps DM control, prevents the DM-related micro- and macrovascular injury, and possibly strengthens the general performance of musculoskeletal system. With stronger musculoskeletal system support, the risk of "fall" may be decreased, because it is associated with fracture. Although the ADA available in the market does not satisfy the policy of "To do one and to get more" yet, we are looking forward to seeing the continuously advanced technology of drug development on diabetic control, and hope to see their extra-sugar-lowering effects.

Secondary Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Diseases

Fragility fracture is a worldwide problem and a main cause of disability and impaired quality of life. It is primarily caused by osteoporosis, characterized by impaired bone quantity and or quality. Proper diagnosis of osteoporosis is essential for prevention of fragility fractures. Osteoporosis can be primary in postmenopausal women because of estrogen deficiency. Secondary forms of osteoporosis are not uncommon in both men and women. Most systemic illnesses and organ dysfunction can lead to osteoporosis. The kidney plays a crucial role in maintaining physiological bone homeostasis by controlling minerals, electrolytes, acid-base, vitamin D and parathyroid function. Chronic kidney disease with its uremic milieu disturbs this balance, leading to renal osteodystrophy. Diabetes mellitus represents the most common secondary cause of osteoporosis. Thyroid and parathyroid disorders can dysregulate the osteoblast/osteoclast functions. Gastrointestinal disorders, malnutrition and malabsorption can result in mineral and vitamin D deficiencies and bone loss. Patients with chronic liver disease have a higher risk of fracture due to hepatic osteodystrophy. Proinflammatory cytokines in infectious, autoimmune, and hematological disorders can stimulate osteoclastogenesis, leading to osteoporosis. Moreover, drug-induced osteoporosis is not uncommon. In this review, we focus on causes, pathogenesis, and management of secondary osteoporosis.

Association of metformin use with fracture risk in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

AIMS

Increasing evidence suggests that metformin can affect bone metabolism beyond its hypoglycemic effects in diabetic patients. However, the effects of metformin on fracture risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients remain unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in this study to evaluate the association between metformin application and fracture risk in T2DM patients based on previous studies published until June 2021.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to collect publications on metformin application in T2DM patients based on PubMed, Embase, Cochran, and Web of Science databases. Meta-analysis was performed by using a random-effects model to estimate the summary relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses based on cohort/case-control and ethnicity and sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results demonstrated metformin use was not significantly associated with a decreased risk of fracture (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81-1.02; I^{2 =} 96.8%). Moreover, metformin use also demonstrated similar results in subgroup analyses of seven cohort studies and four case-control studies, respectively (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76-1.07; I^{2 =} 98.0%; RR, 0.96; 96% CI, 0.89-1.03; I^{2 =} 53.7%). Sensitivity analysis revealed that there was no publication bias.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant correlation between fracture risk and metformin application in T2DM patients. Due to a limited number of existing studies, further research is needed to make a definite conclusion for clinical consensus.