Addition of sulphonylurea to metformin does not relevantly change body weight: a prospective observational cohort study (ZODIAC-39)

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.

Is Gliclazide Associated with a Lower Obesity-Related Cancer Risk Compared to Other Sulfonylureas? A Long-term Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Gliclazide has been suspected to be associated with a lower obesity-related cancer risk; however, current evidence is limited by important methodologic shortcomings. This study aimed to evaluate whether gliclazide is preferred over other sulfonylureas regarding obesity-related cancer risk.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, an annual benchmarking database in Dutch primary care (Zwolle Outpatient Diabetes project Integrating Available CareZODIAC, 1998-2014) was linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Personal Record Database. Of the 71,648 patients with type 2 diabetes, we included 26,207 who used sulfonylureas and had no history of cancer or insulin use at baseline. Obesity-related cancer was defined using the latest definition of the World Cancer Research Fund. Cox regression analyses were used to estimate HRs, with both baseline sulfonylurea and cumulative exposure modeled and corrected for baseline covariates.

RESULTS

During follow-up for 167,692 person-years, there were 1,111 obesity-related cancer events. For males, the adjusted HRs [95% confidence interval (CI)] for baseline sulfonylurea compared with gliclazide were as follows: glibenclamide, 1.10 (0.92-2.69); glimepiride, 1.13 (0.68-1.84); and tolbutamide, 0.93 (0.59-1.48). For females, these were as follows: glibenclamide, 1.49 (0.72-3.13); glimepiride, 0.96 (0.59-1.54); and tolbutamide, 0.84 (0.54-1.28). The adjusted HRs (95% CI) for one more year of cumulative exposure compared with gliclazide were as follows: glibenclamide, 0.90 (0.71-1.14); glimepiride, 0.96 (0.87-1.06); and tolbutamide, 1.00 (0.92-1.09). For females, these were as follows: glibenclamide, 0.93 (0.77-1.13); glimepiride, 0.99 (0.90-1.10); and tolbutamide, 1.04 (0.96-1.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity-related cancer risk was comparable between gliclazide and other sulfonylureas.

IMPACT

Gliclazide is not preferred over other sulfonylureas regarding obesity-related cancer risk.

Effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on cisplatin-induced acute nephrotoxicity in cancer patients with diabetes mellitus: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin is a highly effective chemotherapeutic agent. However, acute kidney injury (AKI) limits its subsequent use, resulting in poor cancer prognosis. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have been reported to attenuate cisplatin-induced AKI in animal models, but the effect in human patients remains to be clarified. We hypothesized that DPP-4 inhibitors can prevent cisplatin-induced AKI in diabetic-cancer patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive cancer patients who were treated with a first cycle of cisplatin-containing regimen between January 2011 and October 2019. We analysed data of diabetic-cancer patients treated with high-dose cisplatin (> 50 mg/m2)-containing regimens. The change of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) within 2 weeks after cisplatin treatment was compared between the patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors and those treated without DPP-4 inhibitors.

RESULTS

A total of 455 patients were treated with cisplatin during the period. Of these, 34 patients were eligible for the analysis. The change of eGFR was significantly less in the patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors, compared to those without DPP-4 inhibitors [the percentages of eGFR decline (mean ± SD) was 23.6 ± 20.3% vs 43.1± 20.1%, respectively; P = 0.010]. Furthermore, the incidence of AKI was significantly less in the patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors (25% vs 64%, respectively; P = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

DPP-4 inhibitors may decrease the risk of cisplatin-induced AKI in diabetic patients.

Mechanisms and Characteristics of Sulfonylureas and Glinides

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex progressive endocrine disease characterized by hyperglycemia and life-threatening complications. It is the most common disorder of pancreatic cell function that causes insulin deficiency. Sulfonylurea is a class of oral hypoglycemic drugs. Over the past half century, these drugs, together with the subsequent non-sulfonylureas (glinides), have been the main oral drugs for insulin secretion.

OBJECTIVE

Through in-depth study, the medical profession considers it as an important drug for improving blood sugar control.

METHODS

The mechanism, characteristics, efficacy and side effects of sulfonylureas and glinides were reviewed in detail.

RESULTS

Sulfonylureas and glinides not only stimulated the release of insulin from pancreatic cells, but also had many extrapanular hypoglycemic effect, such as reducing the clearance rate of insulin in liver, reducing the secretion of glucagon, and enhancing the sensitivity of peripheral tissues to insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION

Sulfonylureas and glinides are effective first-line drugs for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Although they have the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain and cardiovascular disease, their clinical practicability and safety can be guaranteed as long as they are reasonably used.

Heart Failure in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Patients with diabetes mellitus have >2× the risk for developing heart failure (HF; HF with reduced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fraction). Cardiovascular outcomes, hospitalization, and prognosis are worse for patients with diabetes mellitus relative to those without. Beyond the structural and functional changes that characterize diabetic cardiomyopathy, a complex underlying, and interrelated pathophysiology exists. Despite the success of many commonly used antihyperglycemic therapies to lower hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus the high prevalence of HF persists. This, therefore, raises the possibility that additional factors beyond glycemia might contribute to the increased HF risk in diabetes mellitus. This review summarizes the state of knowledge about the impact of existing antihyperglycemic therapies on HF and discusses potential mechanisms for beneficial or deleterious effects. Second, we review currently approved pharmacological therapies for HF and review evidence that addresses their efficacy in the context of diabetes mellitus. Dysregulation of many cellular mechanisms in multiple models of diabetic cardiomyopathy and in human hearts have been described. These include oxidative stress, inflammation, endoplasmic reticulum stress, aberrant insulin signaling, accumulation of advanced glycated end-products, altered autophagy, changes in myocardial substrate metabolism and mitochondrial bioenergetics, lipotoxicity, and altered signal transduction such as GRK (g-protein receptor kinase) signaling, renin angiotensin aldosterone signaling and β-2 adrenergic receptor signaling. These pathophysiological pathways might be amenable to pharmacological therapy to reduce the risk of HF in the context of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Successful targeting of these pathways could alter the prognosis and risk of HF beyond what is currently achieved using existing antihyperglycemic and HF therapeutics.

Do sulphonylureas still have a place in clinical practice?

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.

The Infamous, Famous Sulfonylureas and Cardiovascular Safety: Much Ado About Nothing?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sulfonylureas (SUs) are one of the most commonly used glucose-lowering agents worldwide. While their efficacy is undisputed, their cardiovascular safety has been debated since the 1970's.

RECENT FINDINGS

With no dedicated cardiovascular studies to definitively answer this question, observational studies and meta-analyses abound and have reported divergent results, fueling the controversy. Studies that compared SUs to metformin or newer agents, like GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, suggest a difference in cardiovascular events, yet this is likely the result of beneficial effects of the latter. Studies comparing SUs to other agents have been reassuring. SUs remain a common choice of treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes due to their exceptional value. They are effective at lowering glucose and thus contributing to the prevention of microvascular complications. Weight gain and hypoglycemia are their main side effects, although less severe when compared to insulin treatment. Their cardiovascular safety will remain a controversial topic due to lack of conclusive data, but there is no definitive evidence of harm with the second-generation agents.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Modern sulfonylureas like glimepiride offer effective glycemic control with extrapancreatic benefits and good tolerability. The objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare safety and efficacy of glimepiride and sitagliptin in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

In this open-label, randomized, comparative, multicenter study, a total of 305 T2DM patients who were either drug naïve or uncontrolled on metformin were randomized to glimepiride 1 or 2 mg/sustained-release metformin 1000 mg once daily (glimepiride group, n = 202) or sitagliptin 50 mg/metformin 500 mg twice daily (sitagliptin group, n = 103) for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary endpoints were change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), body mass index (BMI) and to assess overall safety profile.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean HbA1c reduction in glimepiride group (0.42%) as compared to sitagliptin group (0.30%) (P = 0.001). Mean reduction in FPG and PPG was also statistically significant in the glimepiride group as compared to the sitagliptin group (P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in terms of change in BMI (0.07 ± 0.39 kg/m² vs. 0.08 ± 0.31 kg/m²) in glimepiride and sitagliptin groups, respectively, (P = 0.644) between both the groups. The incidences of hypoglycemic events were also comparable among both the groups.

CONCLUSION

In T2DM patients, glimepiride/metformin combination exhibited significant reduction in glycemic parameters as compared to sitagliptin/metformin combination. Moreover, there was no significant difference between both the groups in terms of change in BMI and incidence of hypoglycemia.

Addition of sulphonylurea to metformin does not relevantly change body weight: a prospective observational cohort study (ZODIAC-39)

AIM

To investigate changes in body weight trajectories after the addition of individual sulphonylureas (SUs) to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study, in a primary care setting in the Netherlands. Patients aged ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes who were included in the ZODIAC cohort between 1998 and 2012 and who received metformin monotherapy at inclusion (n = 29 195), and had used metformin as monotherapy for at least 1 year before receiving dual therapy through the addition of an SU for at least 1 year were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was within-drug yearly change in body weight after receiving add-on therapy with individual SUs during 5 years of follow-up. The secondary outcome was within-drug yearly change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Annual changes in weight and HbA1c were estimated with linear mixed models, adjusted for age, gender and diabetes duration.

RESULTS

A total of 2958 patients were included. No significant weight changes were observed within and between any of the individual SUs after treatment intensification (p = 0.24). In addition, no significant difference in weight between the add-on therapy combinations was observed (p = 0.26). The average HbA1c the year before intensification was 7.2% (55 mmol/mol) and dropped below 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) the year after.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes treated in primary care, strict glycaemic control can be maintained with SUs used as add-on therapy to metformin, without the offset of relevant weight changes.