The efficacy of lowering glycated haemoglobin with a gliclazide modified release-based intensive glucose lowering regimen in the ADVANCE trial

Roadmap for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension in the Middle East: Review of the 2022 EVIDENT Summit

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension are leading risk factors for death and disability in the Middle East. Both conditions are highly prevalent, underdiagnosed and poorly controlled, highlighting an urgent need for a roadmap to overcome the barriers to optimal glycaemic and blood pressure management in this region. This review provides a summary of the Evidence in Diabetes and Hypertension Summit (EVIDENT) held in September 2022, which discussed current treatment guidelines, unmet clinical needs and strategies to improve treatment outcomes for patients with T2DM and hypertension in the Middle East. Current clinical guidelines recommend strict glycaemic and blood pressure targets, presenting several treatment options to achieve and maintain these targets and prevent complications. However, treatment targets are infrequently met in the Middle East, largely due to high clinical inertia among physicians and low medication adherence among patients. To address these challenges, clinical guidelines now provide individualised therapy recommendations based on drug profiles, patient preferences and management priorities. Efforts to improve the early detection of prediabetes, T2DM screening and intensive, early glucose control will minimise long-term complications. Physicians can use the T2DM Oral Agents Fact Checking programme to help navigate the wide range of treatment options and guide clinical decision-making. Sulfonylurea agents have been used successfully to manage T2DM; a newer agent, gliclazide MR (modified release formulation), has the advantages of a lower incidence of hypoglycaemia with no risk of cardiovascular events, weight neutrality and proven renal benefits. For patients with hypertension, single-pill combinations have been developed to improve efficacy and reduce treatment burden. In conjunction with pragmatic treatment algorithms and personalised therapies, greater investments in disease prevention, public awareness, training of healthcare providers, patient education, government policies and research are needed to improve the quality of care of patients with T2DM and/or hypertension in the Middle East.

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.

Comparison of gliclazide vs linagliptin on hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated cardiovascular safety of glimepiride (a sulfonylureas) against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin. Gliclazide (another newer sulfonylureas) has shown similar glycemic efficacy and 50% decreased risk of hypoglycemia compared to glimepiride.

AIM

Considering the absence of cardiovascular outcome trials for gliclazide, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the car-diovascular (CV) safety by assessing the risk for major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide vs linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This systematic review followed the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to analyze all the clinical studies published from 2008 that compared the two drugs in patients with T2D with no risk of CV disease (CVD). We included only evidence designated high quality by the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

Eight clinical studies were included in the narrative descriptive analysis (gliclazide: 5 and linagliptin: 3). The CV safety of gliclazide in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation trial and of linagliptin in the Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA) and CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin vs glimepiride in patients with T2D (CAROLINA) trials were excluded from the comparative analysis as these trials demonstrated CV and hypoglycemia benefits in patients at high risk of CVD. However, since these are landmark trials, they were discussed in brief to show the CV benefits and low hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide and linagliptin. We did not find any study comparing gliclazide with linagliptin. Hence, direct comparison of their major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk could not be carried out. However, the literature meeting the inclusion criteria showed that both drugs were effective in achieving the desired glycemic control and had low major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk in adult patients with no history of CVD.

CONCLUSION

Gliclazide can be considered an effective and safe glucose-lowering drug in T2D patients with no established CVD but at high risk of CVD due to their T2D status. Future randomized controlled trials comparing gliclazide with linagliptin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can confirm these findings.

Expert consensus on personalized initiation of glucose-lowering therapy in adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes without clinical cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease

Since it is difficult for clinicians to make a decision among the various types of antidiabetic medications due to their great discrepancy in mechanisms, pharmacological properties, and cardiovascular/renal protection, a relatively "precision" or personalized hypoglycemic treatment suggestion is practical for type 2 diabetes (T2D) management in adults. This expert consensus makes some recommendations based on the characteristics of adult T2D patients without clinical cardiovascular disease (CVD) or chronic kidney disease (CKD) by evidence from large-scale clinical trials. The main consideration for initiating antidiabetic medications is the safety and benefits for prevention of target organ damage, such as CVD and CKD. The choice of personalized glucose-lowering therapy regarding target organ protection is based on the various effects of antidiabetic medications, patients' clinical characteristics and their key risks, as well as the sociological factors. According to the effects on glucose reduction, cardiovascular protection, renal benefit, body weight change, hypoglycemic risk, and liver function impact, the antidiabetic medications are recategorized in this consensus. Combined with the glucose control target and the different effects of hypoglycemic agents, a significant body of recommendations have been developed for optimal T2D management according to the risk factors for atherosclerotic CVD, heart failure, CKD, primary fatty liver, and hypoglycemia. This consensus gives detailed guidance on personalized antidiabetic therapy initiation in newly diagnosed T2D adults, which attaches great importance to both glucose control and target organ protection.

Sulfonylureas in the Current Practice of Type 2 Diabetes Management: Are They All the Same? Consensus from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries Advisory Board on Sulfonylureas

Since their inception in the commercial market in the mid-twentieth century, sulfonylureas (SUs) have remained a therapeutic option in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Despite their established glucose-lowering effects, there is no consensus among global experts and modern guidelines regarding the priority of SUs in relation to other therapeutic options, given the lack of evidence that SUs are associated with a low risk of macrovascular events and excess mortality. However, findings from recent trials and real-time observations have resolved this contentious issue somewhat, albeit to varying degrees. The present consensus discusses the role of SUs in contemporary diabetes management in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Regional experts from these countries gathered virtually to formulate a consensus following presentations of topics relevant to SU therapy with an emphasis on gliclazide, including long-term efficacy, cost, end-organ benefits, and side effects, based on up-to-date evidence. The present narrative review reflects the conclusions of this assembly and provides a platform upon which future guidelines for the use of SUs in the GCC can be tailored.

The Position of Gliclazide in the Evolving Landscapes and Disease Continuum of T2DM: A Collaborative Delphi Survey-Based Consensus from India

INTRODUCTION

This Delphi study aims to provide evidence-based expert opinion on the usage and current position of gliclazide in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management in India.

METHODS

The single interaction modified Delphi-based methodology was used to collect opinions on gliclazide usage and its position in diabetes management from 338 endocrinologists/diabetologists who have had clinical experience with gliclazide. Participants, using a 9-point scale, were asked to rate eight statements comprising a total of 52 items on the related topics.

RESULTS

The Delphi consensus suggests that in drug-naïve patients with T2DM, intolerant to metformin or in whom metformin is contraindicated, dual therapy of gliclazide/gliclazide-modified release (MR) should be considered along with a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor if glycated hemoglobin A1c level is greater than 7.5% and with insulin if the A1c level is greater than 9%. If the patients are inadequately controlled with metformin (A1c greater than 6.5% after 3 months of therapy), gliclazide/gliclazide-MR shall be added on to the treatment regimen to achieve greater and sustained reductions in A1c levels. However, it was not preferred over other antidiabetic classes in such clinical settings except alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI). Early addition of gliclazide/gliclazide-MR shall be preferred over the up-titration of metformin beyond half-maximal dose for effective management of T2DM. Gliclazide/gliclazide-MR can be used safely in patients with diabetes and cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease. It can be used in older patients with T2DM as it does not have active metabolites and has a low risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The expert panel proposed consideration of monotherapy or dual therapy of gliclazide as an ideal choice in patients with T2DM because of its efficacy, long-term glycemic control, favorable renal outcomes, cardiovascular safety, and an optimal safety profile.

Dulaglutide reduces binge episodes in type 2 diabetic patients with binge eating disorder: A pilot study

AIMS

Binge eating disorder (BED) is the most common eating disorder in the United States and Europe and is associated with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Presence and severity of BED have been associated with worse metabolic control and greater BMI in T2D patients. Glucagon Like Peptide-1 (GLP1) receptors are present in central nervous system areas involved in appetite regulation and treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists modulates appetite and reward-related brain areas in humans. We evaluated the effects of treatment with dulaglutide on eating behavior in T2D outpatients with BED.

METHODS

This was a pilot open label, prospective controlled study. Inclusion criteria were: Age ≤65, HbA1c between 7.5 and 9% on metformin therapy alone, normal renal function and diagnosis of BED. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either Dulaglutide 1,5 mg/sett or Gliclazide 60 mg for 12 weeks. We evaluated baseline binge eating scale score (BES), weight, BMI, percentage fat mass, HbA1c and their changes after treatment. A multivariate linear regression model was used to verify the association between Δ BES from baseline with Δ Hba1c and variation of anthropometric parameters after treatment.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks patients treated with dulaglutide had grater reduction of binge eating behaviour (p < 0.0001), body weight (p < 0,0001), BMI (p < 0.0001), percentage fat mass (p < 0.0001) and HbA1c (p = 0.009) than patients treated with gliclazide. Reduction in BES was associated with reduction in body weight (p < 0.0001) and HbA1c (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

Dulaglutide treatment reduces binge eating behaviour in T2D patients with BED.

Efficacy and Safety of Ertugliflozin in Patients with Overweight and Obesity with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate ertugliflozin in patients with overweight and obesity with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Data from three placebo-controlled, randomized, Phase 3 studies were pooled. Patients with baseline BMI ≥ 25 (1,377/1,544; 89%) were assessed with a stratification by BMI subgroup.

RESULTS

At week 26, reductions from baseline in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose, body weight (BW), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were greater with ertugliflozin versus placebo. For placebo, ertugliflozin 5 mg, and ertugliflozin 15 mg, respectively, least squares mean change was 0.1%, -0.8%, and -0.9% for HbA1c and -1.2 kg, -3.1 kg, and -3.2 kg for BW. HbA1c reductions were consistent across BMI subgroups. For ertugliflozin 5 mg and 15 mg, least squares mean change (placebo adjusted) in absolute BW was -1.4 kg and -1.2 kg for BMI 25 to < 30, -1.8 kg and -1.9 kg for BMI 30 to < 35, and -2.5 kg and -2.9 kg for BMI ≥ 35. Percent BW changes were similar across BMI subgroups. Incidence of adverse events was 52.5%, 44.6%, and 50.1% with placebo, ertugliflozin 5 mg, and ertugliflozin 15 mg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Meaningful reductions in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, BW, and SBP were observed with ertugliflozin in patients with overweight and obesity with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ertugliflozin improved HbA1c and SBP and reduced BW across BMI subgroups. Ertugliflozin was generally well tolerated.

ADVANCE in context: The benefits, risks and feasibility of providing intensive glycaemic control based on gliclazide modified release

In the last 3 decades, four large multicentre, randomized clinical trials of patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS, ADVANCE, ACCORD and VADT) have studied different approaches to achieving near normal glycaemic targets. Each was designed against a background of international and national guidelines recommending glycaemic targets of 6.5% or less to prevent diabetic complications. Collectively, these clinical trials provide the most robust evidence of the potential vascular benefits and risks of more versus less glucose control and provide critical insights into how therapies are used. In this review, the glucose-lowering approach used by the ADVANCE trial is considered and compared with those used by the other trials.

Assessment of a Multidisciplinary Intervention in Patients With BMI ≥35 kg/m2 and Recently Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes

CONTEXT

Patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m2 have lower benefits with intensive treatments and metabolic control goals are more difficult to reach.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the effect of a comprehensive care program in patients with a BMI ≥35 kg/m2.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Comprehensive Care Center in a National Institute of Health.

PATIENTS

Patients with type 2 diabetes, ≤5 years of diagnosis, without disabling complications, nonsmokers, and a BMI <45 kg/m2.

INTERVENTIONS

Exercise and nutritional interventions are modified for patients with a higher BMI to achieve metabolic control.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Main outcome is achievement of treatment goals defined as HbA1c <7%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) <100 mg/dL, and blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg. Secondary measures were the percentage of patients achieving three metabolic goals.

RESULTS

A total of 587 patients with annual evaluation were included. Mean age was 55.3 ± 9.5 years, 56.6% women, time since diagnosis of 1 year (0 to 5). BMI <35 kg/m2 group included 521 patients and BMI ≥35 kg/m2 group included 66 patients. In the BMI ≥35 kg/m2 group, we observed a greater decrease in weight and fat mass at 3 months compared with <35 kg/m2 group, but the HbA1c, LDL-c, or blood pressure goals were similar at 3 months and 1 year between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive interventions are equally effective in patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes with BMI ≥35 kg/m2 compared with patients with a lower BMI.

Modern Sulfonylureas Strike Back - Exploring the Freedom of Flexibility

This editorial discusses the concept of flexibility in diabetes care. Flexibility of an oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) is defined as its ability to be used efficaciously and safely, in flexible, convenient doses and frequencies, at flexible timings of administration. This flexibility also includes OAD usage alone or in combination with a wide spectrum of drugs, in a wide spectrum of patients, irrespective of their age, gender, health status, or dietary patterns, with flexible dose titration, glucose monitoring and healthcare contact schedules. This editorial examines the flexibility of the modern sulfonylureas such as gliclazide extended (modified) release (MR) preparation in the management of diabetes. Using evidence-based rationale, we demonstrate that gliclazide MR is a flexible, and useful option for the management of type 2 diabetes.

The place of gliclazide MR in the evolving type 2 diabetes landscape: A comparison with other sulfonylureas and newer oral antihyperglycemic agents

The sulfonylureas are effective oral glucose-lowering agents with a long history of clinical use. While all have the same general mechanism of action, their pharmacokinetic properties are influenced by factors such as dosage, rate of absorption, duration of action, route of elimination, tissue specificity, and binding affinity for pancreatic β-cell receptor. The result is a class of agents with similar HbA1c-lowering efficacy, but well-documented differences in terms of effects on hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and renal safety. This review examines the differences between currently available sulfonylureas with a focus on how gliclazide modified release (MR) differs from other members of this class and from newer oral antihyperglycemic agents in the form of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) and sodium- glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The first part focuses on major outcome trials that have been conducted with the sulfonylureas and new oral agents. Consideration is then given to factors important for day-to-day prescribing including efficacy and durability, weight changes, hypoglycemia, renal effects and cost. Based on current evidence, third-generation sulfonylureas such as gliclazide MR possess many of the properties desired of a type 2 diabetes drug including high glucose-lowering efficacy, once-daily oral administration, few side effects other than mild hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular safety.

Determination of gliclazide minimum concentration in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a worldwide health problem. Many drugs can be used in its treatment. One of them is gliclazide - the sulfonylurea derivative. It is dosed in modified release tablets. The study aimed to determine the minimum steady-state concentration of gliclazide at patients taking modified release tablets. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin level, and glycated hemoglobin were also assayed in this study. Ten patients of the primary care physician clinic took 30-90 mg of gliclazide daily. The statistical analysis proved that there is a statistically significant correlation between insulin level and body weight (p = 0.044) as well as between the dose and gliclazide concentrations (p = 0.015) and also between insulin level and minimum concentration of the drug (p = 0.0074). The linear correlation between dose and gliclazide's minimum steady state concentration proved its linear pharmacokinetics. The correlation between the minimum concentration of gliclazide and insulin level might be a potential predictor of patients compliance.

Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin monotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight, so initial treatment is aimed at reducing weight and increasing physical activity. Even modest weight loss can improve control of blood glucose. If drug treatment is necessary, the drug of first choice is metformin. However, some people cannot tolerate metformin, which causes diarrhoea in about 10%, and it cannot be used in people with renal impairment. This review appraises three of the newest class of drugs for monotherapy when metformin cannot be used, the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Luton, UK), canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen, High Wycombe, UK) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Merck & Co., Darmstadt, Germany), in monotherapy in people who cannot take metformin.

SOURCES

MEDLINE (1946 to February 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to February 2015) for randomised controlled trials lasting 24 weeks or more. For adverse events, a wider range of studies was used. Three manufacturers provided submissions.

METHODS

Systematic review and economic evaluation. A network meta-analysis was carried out involving the three SGLT2 inhibitors and key comparators. Critical appraisal of submissions from three manufacturers.

RESULTS

We included three trials of dapagliflozin and two each for canagliflozin and empagliflozin. The trials were of good quality. The canagliflozin and dapagliflozin trials compared them with placebo, but the two empagliflozin trials included active comparators. All three drugs were shown to be effective in improving glycaemic control, promoting weight loss and lowering blood pressure (BP).

LIMITATIONS

There were no head-to-head trials of the different flozins, and no long-term data on cardiovascular outcomes in this group of patients. Most trials were against placebo. The trials were done in patient groups that were not always comparable, for example in baseline glycated haemoglobin or body mass index. Data on elderly patients were lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin, canagliflozin and empagliflozin are effective in improving glycaemic control, with added benefits of some reductions in BP and weight. Adverse effects are urinary and genital tract infections in a small proportion of users. In monotherapy, the three drugs do not appear cost-effective compared with gliclazide or pioglitazone, but may be competitive against sitagliptin (Januvia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK).

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Effectiveness of gliclazide MR 60 mg in the management of type 2 diabetes: analyses from the EASYDia trial

BACKGROUND

Although the number of antihyperglycemic agents has expanded significantly, sulfonylureas (in particular gliclazide) remain an important option because of a variety of patient and health system factors. The large, real world, observational, and international EASYDia trial evaluated the effectiveness of gliclazide modified release (MR) 60 mg in individuals with type 2 diabetes with a broad range of diabetes history, body mass index (BMI) and background antihyperglycemic treatment.

METHODS

A total of 7170 participants from eight countries, age ≥ 35 years with HbA1c ≥ 7.5% and not treated with insulin, were prescribed 30-120 mg of gliclazide MR 60 mg once daily. HbA1c goals were individualized and dosing uptitrated, as required, over the 6-month long study. In this post hoc subanalysis, efficacy endpoints were analyzed according to stratified baseline HbA1c levels, weight and glucose-lowering regimens. Episodes of hypoglycemia requiring assistance were documented.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean age was 58.9 years, HbA1c 8.8%, BMI 30.1 kg/m², and diabetes duration 5.1 years. At study end, clinically significant HbA1c improvements (mean change - 1.78%) were noted across all baseline HbA1c strata (> 7.0 to ≤ 8.0%, > 8.0 to ≤ 9.0%, > 9.0 to ≤ 10.0%, and > 10.0%), BMI classifications (18.5 to < 25.0, 25.0 to < 30.0, and ≥ 30.0 kg/m²), and regardless of the original diabetes treatment regimen (P < 0.001 in all cases). In contrast to the subgroups with BMI 25.0-30.0 and ≥ 30.0 kg/m² that registered weight losses of 0.9 and 2.2 kg, respectively (P < 0.001 vs. baseline weight); the BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m² subgroup gained a mean 0.5 kg (P < 0.02 vs. baseline weight). Severe hypoglycemic events were rare (0.06%).

CONCLUSIONS

Progressive gliclazide MR 60 mg uptitration was well tolerated and lowered HbA1c across a broad range of HbA1c, BMI and background glucose-lowering therapy. Weight loss was noted when BMI was ≥ 25.0 kg/m². Individuals with the highest baseline HbA1c and BMI experienced the greatest HbA1c and weight improvements.Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN00943368 on 1st July 2011.

Long-term studies of treatments for type 2 diabetes

There is a relative lack of long-term data for individual glucose-lowering therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. A systematic search of published literature reporting data of approximately ≥3 years of follow-up from randomized controlled trials and their extensions was conducted. Trials to evaluate the efficacy and/or safety of glucose-lowering drugs currently approved for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes were included. Search results included long-term published data for traditional oral glucose-lowering drugs, insulin, α-glucosidase inhibitors, and incretin-based therapies. In general, results indicated that the short-term risk/benefit profile of these therapies is in line with longer-term evaluations. Individual results from these trials are reviewed in this report. These findings support the use of approved drug classes for longer-term treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Baseline Body Mass Index and the Efficacy of Hypoglycemic Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis

AIM

The aim of this study is to compare the effects of hypoglycemic treatments in groups of patients categorized according to the mean baseline body mass indexes (BMIs).

METHODS

Studies were identified by a literature search and all the studies were double blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials in type 2 diabetes patients; study length of ≥12 weeks with the efficacy evaluated by changes in HbA1c from baseline in groups. The electronic search was first conducted in January 2015 and repeated in June 2015.

RESULTS

227 studies were included. Treatment with sulfonylureas was compared with placebo in overweight patients and resulted in a significantly greater change in the HbA1c levels (weighted mean difference (WMD), -1.39%) compared to obese patients (WMD, -0.77%)(p<0.05). Treatment with metformin in overweight patients resulted in a comparable change in the HbA1c levels (WMD, -0.99%) compared to obese patients (WMD, -1.06%)(p>0.05). Treatment with alpha glucosidase inhibitors in normal weight patients was associated with a HbA1c change (WMD, -0.94%) that was comparable that in overweight (WMD, -0.72%) and obese patients (WMD, -0.56%)(p>0.05). Treatment with thiazolidinediones in normal weight patients was associated with a HbA1c change (WMD, -1.04%) that was comparable with that in overweight (WMD, -1.02%) and obese patients (WMD, -0.88%)(p>0.05). Treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors in normal weight patients was associated with a HbA1c change (WMD, -0.93%) that was comparable with that in overweight (WMD, -0.66%) and obese patients (WMD, -0.61%)(p>0.05). In total, of the seven hypoglycemic agents, regression analysis indicated that the mean baseline BMI was not associated with the mean HbA1c changes from baseline.

CONCLUSION

In each kind of hypoglycemic therapy in type 2 diabetes, the baseline BMI was not associated with the efficacy of HbA1c changes from baseline.

Estimation of individual beneficial and adverse effects of intensive glucose control for patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Intensive glucose control reduces the risk of vascular complications while increasing the risk of severe hypoglycaemia at a group level. We sought to estimate individual beneficial and adverse effects of intensive glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial, a randomised controlled trial evaluating standard vs intensive glucose control (HbA_1c target ≤6.5% [48 mmol/mol]). In 11,140 participants, we estimated the individual 5 year absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the composite outcome of major micro- and macrovascular events and absolute risk increase (ARI) for severe hypoglycaemia for intensive vs standard glucose control. Predictions were based on competing risks models including clinical characteristics and randomised treatment.

RESULTS

Based on these models, 76% of patients had a substantial estimated 5 year ARR for major vascular events (>1%, 5 year number-needed-to-benefit [NNTB₅] <100) and 1% had a small ARR (<0.5%, NNTB₅ >200). Similarly, 36% of patients had a substantial estimated ARI for severe hypoglycaemia (5 year number-needed-to-harm [NNTH₅] <100) and 29% had a small ARI (NNTH₅ >200). When assigning similar or half the weight to severe hypoglycaemia compared with a major vascular event, net benefit was positive in 85% or 99% of patients, respectively. Limiting intensive treatment to the 85% patient subgroup had no significant effect on the overall incidence of major vascular events and severe hypoglycaemia compared with treating all patients.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Taking account of the effects of intensive glucose control on major micro- and macrovascular events and severe hypoglycaemia for individual patients, the estimated net benefit was positive in the majority of the participants in the ADVANCE trial. The estimated individual effects can inform treatment decisions once individual weights assigned to positive and adverse effects have been specified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00145925.

Efficacy of hypoglycemic treatment in type 2 diabetes stratified by age or diagnosed age: a meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the effects of blood glucose lowering regimens in groups of patients categorized by baseline age and diagnosed age.

METHODS

Placebo-controlled randomized trials in type 2 diabetes patients with a study length ≥12 weeks were included.

RESULTS

A total of 246 trials were included. HbA1c changes from baseline corrected by placebo were comparable in sulfonylurea treatment between older and younger patients' groups (weighted mean difference (WMD), -1.28% vs -0.92%, p > 0.05). Treatment with metformin between groups resulted in a comparable change in HbA1c levels (WMD, -0.97% vs -1.23%, p > 0.05). Treatment with α-glucosidase inhibitor (WMD, -0.68% vs -0.67%, p > 0.05), treatment with thiazolidinedione (WMD, -0.74% vs -1.01%, p > 0.05), treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors (WMD, -0.67% vs -0.67%, p > 0.05), and treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors (WMD, -0.54% vs -0.67%, p > 0.05) between groups also resulted in comparable HbA1c changes. Treatment with GLP-1 analogs between groups in HbA1c changes were also comparable (p > 0.05). Regression analysis indicated that the baseline age or diagnosed age was not associated with the HbA1c changes from baseline.

CONCLUSION

In each hypoglycemic treatment, the baseline age or diagnosed age was not associated with the HbA1c changes from baseline.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and hypoglycemic safety of gliclazide versus other insulinotropic agents

AIMS

Sulfonylureas are well positioned in treating type 2 diabetes, after lifestyle modification and metformin. The sulfonylurea gliclazide was given preference over glibenclamide in older people with type 2 diabetes in the World Health Organization model list of essential medicines. Consequently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the efficacy and safety of gliclazide versus other oral insulinotropic agents (sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and glinides) was performed.

METHODS

Two reviewers searched MEDLINE for studies of ≥12 weeks duration in adults with type 2 diabetes. The key search word was "gliclazide", filtered with "randomized controlled trial", "human" and "19+ years". Differences were explored in mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline (primary outcome) and risk of hypoglycemia (secondary outcome) between gliclazide and other oral insulinotropic agents; and other sulfonylureas.

RESULTS

Nine out of 181 references reported primary outcomes, of which 7 reported secondary outcomes. Gliclazide lowered HbA1c more than other oral insulinotropic agents, with a weighted mean difference of -0.11% (95%, CI -0.19 to -0.03%, P=0.008, I(2)=60%), though not more than other sulfonylureas (-0.12%; 95%, CI -0.25 to 0.01%, P=0.07, I(2)=77%). Risk of hypoglycemia with gliclazide was not different to other insulinotropic agents (RR 0.85; 95%, CI 0.66 to 1.09, P=0.20, I(2)=61%) but significantly lower than other sulfonylureas (RR 0.47; 95%, CI 0.27 to 0.79, P=0.004, I(2)=0%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with other oral insulinotropic agents, gliclazide significantly reduced HbA1c with no difference regarding hypoglycemia risk. Compared with other sulfonylureas, HbA1c reduction with gliclazide was not significantly different, but hypoglycemia risk was significantly lower.

Glargine insulin/gliclazide MR combination therapy is more effective than premixed insulin monotherapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin glargine plus gliclazide modified release combination therapy versus twice-daily premixed insulin monotherapy in Chinese type 2 diabetic patients insufficiently controlled by oral antidiabetic agents.

METHODS

In a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial, patients with poor glycaemic control (fasting plasma glucose ≥ 7.0 mmol/L and 7.5% < haemoglobin A1c  ≤ 10%) on oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized to the treatment groups for combination therapy (n = 52) or monotherapy (n = 53). Continuous glucose monitoring was carried out over two 72-h periods, at the beginning and the end of the study, and the data were used to calculate the 24-h mean blood glucose, mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions, standard deviation of blood glucose, and the mean of daily differences.

RESULTS

The mean haemoglobin A1c decrease from baseline to study end was significant for both treatment groups (combination therapy: -1.23 ± 0.92%; insulin monotherapy: -1.02 ± 1.04%); moreover, the combination therapy group showed a significantly more robust haemoglobin A1c decrease (p = 0.0308). Both therapies significantly reduced the 24-h mean blood glucose (both, p < 0.001), but neither produced a significant effect on glycaemic variability, calculated as mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions, standard deviation of blood glucose, and mean of daily differences. In addition, the effects on rates of hypoglycaemic episodes were similar between the two therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic agents attained greater benefit from once-daily insulin glargine plus gliclazide modified release regimen than from a twice-daily premixed insulin regimen.

Glycemic control and antidiabetic drugs in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal complications

BACKGROUND

Good glycemic control can delay the progression of kidney diseases in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with renal complications. To date, the association between antidiabetic agents and glycemic control in this specific patient population is not well established.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify antidiabetic regimens as well as other factors that associated with glycemic control in T2DM patients with different stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional study involved 242 T2DM inpatients and outpatients with renal complications from January 2009 to March 2014 and was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital in Malaysia. Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was used as main parameter to assess patients' glycemic status. Patients were classified to have good (A1C <7%) or poor glycemic control (A1C ≥7%) based on the recommendations of the American Diabetes Association.

RESULTS

Majority of the patients presented with CKD stage 4 (43.4%). Approximately 55.4% of patients were categorized to have poor glycemic control. Insulin (57.9%) was the most commonly prescribed antidiabetic medication, followed by sulfonylureas (43%). Of all antidiabetic regimens, sulfonylureas monotherapy (P<0.001), insulin therapy (P=0.005), and combination of biguanides with insulin (P=0.038) were found to be significantly associated with glycemic control. Other factors including duration of T2DM (P=0.004), comorbidities such as anemia (P=0.024) and retinopathy (P=0.033), concurrent medications such as erythropoietin therapy (P=0.047), α-blockers (P=0.033), and antigouts (P=0.003) were also correlated with A1C.

CONCLUSION

Identification of factors that are associated with glycemic control is important to help in optimization of glucose control in T2DM patients with renal complication.

[Sulfonylureas in today's blood glucose lowering therapy. New data on advantages and potential barriers of an "old" antidiabetic group]

Sulfonylurea compounds have been basic elements of antidiabetic treatment in type 2 diabetes for a long time. However, with the introduction of incretin type insulin secretagogues it is often arises, whether is still there a place for sulfonylureas in the today's therapy. To answer this question the author overviews general pharmaceutical characteristics of the sulfonylurea compounds as well as individual particularities of the second generation derivatives used at present in Hungary. The author details also the most important differences between incretin type drugs - first of all dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors - and sulfonylureas. On the basis of available data it can be concluded in accordance with the latest international guidelines, that sulfonylureas have still role in the blood glucose lowering therapy of type 2 diabetes, though they became somewhat pushed back among insulin secretagogue type drugs. If a sulfonylurea compound is the drug of choice, it is important to select the appropriate molecule (in case of normal renal function gliclazide or glimepiride). It is also important to re-educate the patient, as well as to apply the minimal dose providing the desired glycaemic effect.

Vildagliptin more effectively achieves a composite endpoint of HbA₁c < 7.0% without hypoglycaemia and weight gain compared with glimepiride after 2 years of treatment

This post hoc analysis reports that overall proportion of patients achieving a composite endpoint of HbA1c<7.0% (<53.0 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia and weight gain was higher with vildagliptin than glimepiride after 2 years in type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy, regardless of age and duration of diabetes.

Avoiding hypoglycemia: a key to success for glucose-lowering therapy in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes carries a risk for hypoglycemia, particularly in patients on an intensive glucose control plan as a glucose-lowering strategy, where hypoglycemia may be a limitation for the therapy and also a factor underlying clinical inertia. Glucose-lowering medications that increase circulating insulin in a glucose-independent manner, such as insulin and sulfonylurea therapy, are the most common cause of hypoglycemia. However, other factors such as a delayed or missed meal, physical exercise, or drug or alcohol consumption may also contribute. Specific risk factors for development of hypoglycemia are old age, long duration of diabetes, some concomitant medication, renal dysfunction, hypoglycemia unawareness, and cognitive dysfunction. Hypoglycemia is associated with acute short-term symptoms related to either counterregulation, such as tachycardia and sweating, or to neuroglycopenia, such as irritability, confusion, and in severe cases stupor, coma, and even death. However, there are also long-term consequences of hypoglycemia such as reduced working capacity, weight gain, loss of self-confidence with reduced quality of life, and increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. For both the patients, the health care system, and the society at large, hypoglycemia carries a high cost. Strategies to mitigate the risk of hypoglycemia include awareness of the condition; education of patients, relatives, and health care providers; and selecting appropriate glucose-lowering medication that also judges the risk for hypoglycemia to prevent this complication. This article summarizes the current knowledge of hypoglycemia and its consequences with a special emphasis on its consequences for the choice of glucose-lowering therapy.

Tolerability and efficacy of glycemic control with saxagliptin in older patients (aged ≥ 65 years) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus

Purpose

To assess safety and efficacy of saxagliptin in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Patients and methods

This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from older patients (≥65 years of age) from five 24-week phase III trials: three studies of saxagliptin versus placebo as an add-on therapy to metformin, glyburide, or a thiazolidinedione; and two studies of saxagliptin versus placebo as monotherapy in drug-naïve patients. Separate analyses were conducted on one study of initial combination therapy with saxagliptin plus metformin versus metformin monotherapy in drug-naïve patients. The safety analysis population for the five-study pool included 428 patients ≥ 65 years of age with baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) 7.0% to 10.5% who received saxagliptin 2.5 or 5 mg or placebo, and for the study of initial combination therapy included 69 patients ≥ 65 years of age with baseline HbA_1c 8.0% to 12.0% who received saxagliptin 5 mg in combination with metformin or metformin monotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline HbA_1c.

Results

In the five-study pool, the differences in the adjusted mean change from baseline HbA_1c among older patients receiving saxagliptin versus placebo were −0.60% (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.99% to −0.21%) for saxagliptin 2.5 mg and −0.55% (−0.97% to −0.14%) for saxagliptin 5 mg; in the initial combination study, the difference was −1.22% (−2.27% to −0.17%) among older patients receiving saxagliptin 5 mg plus metformin versus metformin monotherapy. The results were generally similar in older and younger patients. Saxagliptin was well tolerated; the incidence and types of adverse events were similar for saxagliptin and comparators. Hypoglycemia was reported in 3.0% to 9.4% of patients receiving saxagliptin (0%–8.0% for comparators) and was confirmed (finger stick glucose ≤ 50 mg/dL, with associated symptoms) in 0% to 0.7% (0%–0.7% for comparators); hypoglycemic episodes did not vary by age category and did not require medical intervention.

Conclusion

Saxagliptin was effective and well tolerated, with a low risk of hypoglycemia, when used as monotherapy, add-on therapy, or initial combination therapy with metformin in older patients with T2DM.