The Association between Sulfonylurea Use and All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas on the top of metformin in patients with diabetes and acute myocardial infarction

Background

Recent trials have shown that both the extent of glycated hemoglobin reduction and the duration of enhanced glycemic control are major factors that may affect cardiovascular outcome results. We aimed to investigate the impact of metformin (MET) combined with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors or sulfonylureas (SU) on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).

Methods

This study was a prospective cohort trial. From November 2011 to December 2015, a total of 13,104 AMI patients were consecutively enrolled from the Korea AMI registry-National Institutes of Health. The patients were divided into the MET + DPP4 inhibitors group and the MET + SU group. The primary endpoint, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), was defined as the composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization up to 3-year follow-up. To adjust baseline potential confounders, an inverse probability weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed.

Results

Baseline well-matched two groups were generated (the MET + DPP4 inhibitors group, n=468 and the MET + SU group, n=468). During 3-year clinical follow-up, the cumulative incidence of MACE between the two groups was not significantly different after adjustment (16.8% for MET + DPP4 inhibitors group vs. 19.4% for MET + SU group, P=0.302). However, the MET + DPP4 inhibitors group was associated with reduced risk of MI [1.3% vs. 4.9%; hazard ratio (HR): 0.228, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.090-0.580, P=0.001] than the MET + SU group.

Conclusions

In patients with AMI and type 2 DM, the use of MET combined with DPP4 inhibitors was associated with reduced incidence of recurrent MI than MET combined with SU during 3-year follow-up.

Comparative effectiveness of second line glucose lowering drug treatments using real world data: emulation of a target trial

Objective

To build on the recently completed GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study) randomised trial examining the comparative effectiveness of second line glucose lowering drugs in achieving and maintaining glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Design

Emulation of a target trial.

Setting

Medical and pharmacy claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a de-identified US national dataset of beneficiaries of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage plans, 29 March 2013 to 30 June 2021.

Participants

Adults (≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes who first started taking glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, insulin glargine, or canagliflozin between 29 March 2013 and 30 June 2021. Participants were treatment naive or were receiving metformin monotherapy at the time of starting the study drug.

Main outcome measures

The main outcomes were time to primary and secondary metabolic failure of the assigned treatment, calculated as days to haemoglobin A1c levels of ≥7.0% and >7.5%, respectively. Secondary metabolic, cardiovascular, and microvascular outcomes were analysed as specified in the GRADE statistical analysis plan. Propensity scores were estimated with the gradient boosting method, and inverse propensity score weighting was used to emulate randomisation to the treatment groups, which were then compared with Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

The study cohort included participants starting treatment with glimepiride (n=20 511), liraglutide (n=5569), sitagliptin (n=13 039), insulin glargine (n=7262), and canagliflozin (n=5290). The insulin glargine arm was excluded because of insufficient control of confounding. Median times to primary metabolic failure were 439 (95% confidence interval 400 to 489) days in the canagliflozin arm, 439 (426 to 453) days in the glimepiride arm, 624 (567 to 731) days in the liraglutide arm, and 461 (442 to 482) days in the sitagliptin arm. Median time to secondary metabolic failure was also longest in the liraglutide arm. Adults receiving liraglutide had the lowest one year cumulative incidence rate of primary metabolic failure (0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.40) followed by sitagliptin (0.44, 0.43 to 0.45), glimepiride (0.45, 0.44 to 0.45), and canagliflozin (0.46, 0.44 to 0.48). Similarly, the one year cumulative incidence rate of secondary metabolic failure was 0.27 (0.25 to 0.29) in the canagliflozin arm, 0.28 (0.27 to 0.29) in the glimepiride arm, 0.23 (0.21 to 0.26) in the liraglutide arm, and 0.28 (0.27 to 0.29) in the sitagliptin arm. No differences were observed between the study arms in the rates of microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Conclusions

In this target trial emulation of an expanded GRADE study framework, liraglutide was more effective in achieving and maintaining glycaemic control as a second line glucose lowering drug than canagliflozin, sitagliptin, or glimepiride.

2023 UPDATE: Luso-Brazilian evidence-based guideline for the management of antidiabetic therapy in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The management of antidiabetic therapy in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) has evolved beyond glycemic control. In this context, Brazil and Portugal defined a joint panel of four leading diabetes societies to update the guideline published in 2020.

METHODS

The panelists searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) for the best evidence from clinical studies on treating T2D and its cardiorenal complications. The panel searched for evidence on antidiabetic therapy in people with T2D without cardiorenal disease and in patients with T2D and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), or diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

All people with T2D need to have their cardiovascular (CV) risk status stratified and HbA1c, BMI, and eGFR assessed before defining therapy. An HbA1c target of less than 7% is adequate for most adults, and a more flexible target (up to 8%) should be considered in frail older people. Non-pharmacological approaches are recommended during all phases of treatment. In treatment naïve T2D individuals without cardiorenal complications, metformin is the agent of choice when HbA1c is 7.5% or below. When HbA1c is above 7.5% to 9%, starting with dual therapy is recommended, and triple therapy may be considered. When HbA1c is above 9%, starting with dual therapyt is recommended, and triple therapy should be considered. Antidiabetic drugs with proven CV benefit (AD1) are recommended to reduce CV events if the patient is at high or very high CV risk, and antidiabetic agents with proven efficacy in weight reduction should be considered when obesity is present. If HbA1c remains above target, intensification is recommended with triple, quadruple therapy, or even insulin-based therapy. In people with T2D and established ASCVD, AD1 agents (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 RA with proven CV benefit) are initially recommended to reduce CV outcomes, and metformin or a second AD1 may be necessary to improve glycemic control if HbA1c is above the target. In T2D with HF, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce HF hospitalizations and mortality and to improve HbA1c. In patients with DKD, SGLT2 inhibitors in combination with metformin are recommended when eGFR is above 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. SGLT2 inhibitors can be continued until end-stage kidney disease.

Management of hyperglycaemia in people with obesity

Diabetes and obesity are closely interlinked. Obesity is a major risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus and appears to be an important risk factor for diabetic micro- and macrovascular complications. Management of hyperglycaemia in people with diabetes is important to reduce diabetes-related complications. Previously, there was a significant tension between management of hyperglycaemia and mitigating weight gain. Older drugs, such as sulfonylureas, glitazones, and insulin, although effective antihyperglycaemic agents, tend to induce weight gain. There is now an increasing recognition in people with obesity and diabetes that the focus should be on aiding weight loss, initially with improvements in diet and physical activity, possibly with the use of low-calorie diet programmes. Subsequent addition of metformin and newer agents, such as sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, will aid glucose control and weight reduction, and offer cardiovascular and renal protection. These drugs are now much higher in the therapeutic pathway in many national and international guidelines. Bariatric surgery may also be an effective way to manage hyperglycaemia or induce remission in individuals with both obesity and diabetes.

Sulphonylureas versus metformin and the risk of ventricular arrhythmias among people with type 2 diabetes: A population-based cohort study

AIM

To determine whether the use of sulphonylurea monotherapy, compared with metformin monotherapy, is associated with an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) among patients initiating pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study using electronic health data extracted from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum. Using the active comparator, new-user cohort design, we compared rates of VA among patients aged 18 years or older using sulphonylurea monotherapy with those using metformin monotherapy as their initial pharmacological treatment for type 2 diabetes from April 1998 to December 2019. We used a Cox proportional hazards model with inverse probability of treatment weighting by propensity score to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and a corresponding bootstrap 95% confidence interval (CI) for VA with sulphonylurea monotherapy versus metformin monotherapy.

RESULTS

The cohort included 92 638 new users of sulphonylurea and 506 882 new users of metformin. A total of 279 VA events occurred among sulphonylurea users (rate per 10 000 person-years: 25.5, 95% CI: 22.7 to 28.7) and 1537 VA events occurred among metformin users (rate per 10 000 person-years: 18.5, 95% CI: 17.6 to 19.5). Compared with metformin, sulphonylureas were associated with an increased risk of VA (aHR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Sulphonylureas are associated with an increased risk of VA when used as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes relative to metformin use. This increased risk should be considered when prescribing sulphonylureas as an initial treatment for type 2 diabetes.

Association of glucose-lowering drugs with incident stroke and transient ischaemic attacks in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes: disease analyzer database

AIMS

Previous observational studies on glucose-lowering drugs and risk of stroke in type 2 diabetes yielded conflicting results. The aim was to examine the association of glucose-lowering drugs with incident stroke and transient ischaemic attacks (TIA) in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of the disease analyzer, which comprises a representative panel of 1248 general and internal medicine practices throughout Germany (01/2000-12/2019: 9.8 million patients). Incident non-fatal stroke/TIA was defined based on ICD-10 codes (I63, I64; G45) in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Cox regression models were fitted to obtain hazard ratios (HR; 95%CI) for stroke/TIA adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, health insurance, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, heart failure, polyneuropathy, blood pressure, eGFR) and anthropometric and metabolic intermediators (BMI, HbA1c, HDL- and LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, lipid-lowering drugs).

RESULT

312,368 persons with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes without previous stroke/TIA (mean age: 64 years; 52% males) were included. There were 16,701 events of non-fatal stroke/TIA corresponding to an incidence rate of 9.3 (95%CI 9.1-9.4) per 1000 person-years. Using Cox regression, adjusted HR for stroke/TIA (per 1 year of treatment) of 0.59 (0.54-0.64) for SGLT2 inhibitors and of 0.79 (0.74-0.85) for GLP-1 receptor agonists were estimated. DPP-4 inhibitors (0.84; 0.82-0.86), metformin (0.90; 0.89-0.91), insulin (0.92; 0.91-0.93) and sulfonylureas (0.98; 0.96-0.99) also showed moderately reduced HR for stroke/TIA. Sex-specific regression analyses yielded similar results (HR).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists might reduce non-fatal stroke/TIA in persons with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head trials comparing sulfonylureas and low hypoglycaemic risk antidiabetic drugs

BACKGROUND

Safety of sulfonylurea drugs in the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes is still under debate. The aim of this study was to compare the all-cause mortality and cardiovascular adverse events of sulfonylureas and drugs with a low risk for hypoglycaemia in adults with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (PubMed, OVID), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, WOS and Lilacs.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled head-to-head trials that compared sulfonylureas with active control with low hypoglycaemic potential in adults (≥ 18 years old) with type 2 diabetes published up to August 2015. The drug classes involved in the analysis were metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists.

OUTCOMES

The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were MACE, cardiovascular events and severe hypoglycaemia.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Two reviewers checked study eligibility, independently extracted data and assessed quality with disagreements resolved through discussion. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials v2. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were estimated by using fixed effects model. The study is registered on PROSPERO (26/05/2016 CRD42016038780).

RESULTS

Our final analysis comprised 31 studies (26,204 patients, 11,711 patients given sulfonylureas and 14,493 given comparator drugs). In comparison to drugs with low hypoglycaemic potential, sulfonylureas had higher odds for all-cause mortality (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00-1.75), MACE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07-1.61), myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fatal) (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.17-2.38) and hypoglycaemia (OR 5.24, 95% CI 4.20-6.55). Subsequent sensitivity analysis revealed differences in the effect of sulfonylureas, with an increased risk of all-cause mortality with glipizide but not the other molecules.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis raises concern about the safety of SUs compared to alternative drugs involved in current analysis. Important differences may exist within the drug class, and glimepiride seems to have best safety profile.

A calibration approach to transportability and data-fusion with observational data

Two important considerations in clinical research studies are proper evaluations of internal and external validity. While randomized clinical trials can overcome several threats to internal validity, they may be prone to poor external validity. Conversely, large prospective observational studies sampled from a broadly generalizable population may be externally valid, yet susceptible to threats to internal validity, particularly confounding. Thus, methods that address confounding and enhance transportability of study results across populations are essential for internally and externally valid causal inference, respectively. These issues persist for another problem closely related to transportability known as data-fusion. We develop a calibration method to generate balancing weights that address confounding and sampling bias, thereby enabling valid estimation of the target population average treatment effect. We compare the calibration approach to two additional doubly robust methods that estimate the effect of an intervention on an outcome within a second, possibly unrelated target population. The proposed methodologies can be extended to resolve data-fusion problems that seek to evaluate the effects of an intervention using data from two related studies sampled from different populations. A simulation study is conducted to demonstrate the advantages and similarities of the different techniques. We also test the performance of the calibration approach in a motivating real data example comparing whether the effect of biguanides vs sulfonylureas-the two most common oral diabetes medication classes for initial treatment-on all-cause mortality described in a historical cohort applies to a contemporary cohort of US Veterans with diabetes.

[Cardiovascular preventive recommendations. PAPPS 2022 thematic updates. Working groups of the PAPPS]

The recommendations of the semFYC's Program for Preventive Activities and Health Promotion (PAPPS) for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are presented. The following sections are included: epidemiological review, where the current morbidity and mortality of CVD in Spain and its evolution as well as the main risk factors are described; cardiovascular (CV) risk and recommendations for the calculation of CV risk; main risk factors such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, describing the method for their diagnosis, therapeutic objectives and recommendations for lifestyle measures and pharmacological treatment; indications for antiplatelet therapy, and recommendations for screening of atrial fibrillation, and recommendations for management of chronic conditions. The quality of testing and the strength of the recommendation are included in the main recommendations.

The complex interplay between diabetes mellitus and atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

: A growing body of evidence suggests that diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with an increased risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) and contributes to suboptimal arrhythmia control and poor prognosis in patients with AF. The high prevalence of AF among patients with DM is primarily attributed to common risk factors, shared pathophysiological mechanisms, and associated atrial remodeling and autonomic dysfunction.

AREAS COVERED

: This comprehensive review covers the current data on the role of DM in the development and prognosis of AF. In addition, we review the impact of anti-DM medications on AF prevention and the role of anticoagulation in patients with coexisting DM and AF.

EXPERT OPINION

: DM is independently associated with new-onset AF, and the coexistence of these two conditions contributes to poor outcomes, from reduced quality of life to increased risks of thromboembolic events, heart failure, and mortality. Despite this strong link, the current evidence is insufficient to recommend routine screening for AF in patients with DM. Although some observations exist on preventing AF with anti-DM medications, randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore the proposed benefits of novel anti-DM medicines in reducing the risk of incident AF.

Extra-Glycemic Effects of Anti-Diabetic Medications: Two Birds with One Stone?

The world is suffering from a rapid increase in the number of people with diabetes due to the increased prevalence of obesity and lengthened life span. Since the development of insulin thanks to the efforts of Prof. Banting and Dr. Best in 1922, for which they won the Nobel Prize, remarkable developments in anti-diabetic medications have dramatically lengthened the lifespan of patients with diabetes. However, the control rate of hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes remains unsatisfactory, since glycemic control requires both medication and lifestyle modifications to slow the deterioration of pancreatic beta-cell function and prevent diabetic complications. From the initial "triumvirate" to the "ominous octet," and now the "egregious eleven," the number of organs recognized as being involved in hyperglycemia and diabetes has increased with the development of anti-diabetic medications. Recent unexpected results from outcome trials of anti-diabetic medications have enabled anti-diabetic medications to be indicated for the prevention of chronic kidney disease and heart failure, even in patients without diabetes. In this review, I would like to summarize the extra-glycemic effects of anti-diabetic medications.

Glucose-Lowering Medications and Post-Dementia Survival in Patients with Diabetes and Dementia

Background:

The effectiveness of glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) is unknown among patients with dementia.

Objective:

To analyze all-cause mortality among users of six GLDs in dementia and dementia-free subjects, respectively.

Methods:

This was a longitudinal open-cohort registry-based study using data from the Swedish Dementia Registry, Total Population Register, and four supplemental registers providing data on dementia status, drug usage, confounders, and mortality. The cohort comprised 132,402 subjects with diabetes at baseline, of which 11,401 (8.6%) had dementia and 121,001 (91.4%) were dementia-free. Subsequently, comparable dementia – dementia-free pairs were sampled. Then, as-treated and intention-to-treat exposures to metformin, insulin, sulfonylurea, dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues (GLP-1a), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) were analyzed in the parallel dementia and dementia-free cohorts. Confounding was addressed using inverse-probability weighting and propensity-score matching, and flexible parametric survival models were used to produce hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the association between GLDs and all-cause mortality.

Results:

In the as-treated models, increased mortality was observed among insulin users with dementia (HR 1.34 [95%CI 1.24–1.45]) as well as in dementia-free subjects (1.54 [1.10–1.55]). Conversely, sulfonylurea was associated with higher mortality only in dementia subjects (1.19 [1.01–1.42]). GLP-1a (0.44 [0.25–0.78]) and SGLT-2i users with dementia (0.43 [0.23–0.80]) experienced lower mortality compared to non-users.

Conclusion:

Insulin and sulfonylurea carried higher mortality risk among dementia patients, while GLP-1a and SGLT-2i were associated with lower risk. GLD-associated mortality varied between dementia and comparable dementia-free subjects. Further studies are needed to optimize GLD use in dementia patients.

Association of clinical characteristics, antidiabetic and cardiovascular agents with diabetes mellitus and COVID-19: a 7-month follow-up cohort study

BACKGROUND

The prognostic factors of long-term outcomes in hospitalized patients with diabetes mellitus and COVID-19 are lacking.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated patients aged ≥ 18-years-old with the COVID-19 diagnosis who were hospitalized between Feb 20 and Oct 29, 2020, in the Sina Hospital, Tehran, Iran. 1323 patients with COVID-19 entered in the final analysis, of whom 393 (29.7%) patients had diabetes. We followed up patients for incurring in-hospital death, severe COVID-19, in-hospital complications, and 7-month all-cause mortality. By doing univariate analysis, variables with unadjusted P-value < 0.1 in univariate analyses were regarded as the confounders to include in the logistic regression models. We made adjustments for possible clinical (model 1) and both clinical and laboratory (model 2) confounders.

RESULTS

After multivariable regression, it was revealed that preadmission use of sulfonylureas was associated with a borderline increased risk of severity in both models [model 1, OR (95% CI):1.83 (0.91-3.71), P-value: 0.092; model 2, 2.05 (0.87-4.79), P-value: 0.099] and major adverse events (MAE: each of the severe COVID-19, multi-organ damage, or in-hospital mortality) in model 1 [OR (95% CI): 1.86 (0.90-3.87), P-value: 0.094]. Preadmission use of ACEIs/ARBs was associated with borderline increased risk of MAE in the only model 1 [OR (95% CI):1.83 (0.96-3.48), P-value: 0.066].

CONCLUSIONS

Preadmission use of sulfonylureas and ACEIs/ARBs were associated with borderline increased risk of in-hospital adverse outcomes.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-021-00901-4.

The role of sulfonylureas in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasingly prevalent and associated with increased risk for cardiovascular and renal disease. After lifestyle modification, metformin is usually the first-line pharmacotherapy and sulfonylureas are traditionally added after metformin failure. However, with newer glucose lowering drugs that may have less risk of hypoglycemia or that may reduce cardiovascular and renal events, the position of sulfonylureas is being reevaluated.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, the authors review relevant publications related to the use of sulfonylureas.

EXPERT OPINION

Sulfonylureas are potent glucose lowering drugs. The risk of hypoglycemia varies with different drugs within the class and can be minimized by using the safer drugs, possibly in lower doses. Cardiovascular events do not appear to be increased with some of the newer generation drugs. The durability of glycemic control also appears comparable to other newer agents. Sulfonylureas are the preferred treatment for some types of monogenic diabetes and selection of T2D patients who may have greater benefit from sulfonylureas based on certain phenotypes and genotypes is likely to be refined further by precision medicine. Sulfonylureas are inexpensive and readily available everywhere and they are still the most frequently used second-line treatment for T2D in many parts of the world.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Dapagliflozin Compared to Sulfonylureas for Type 2 Diabetes as Second-Line Treatment in Indian Healthcare Payer's Perspective

Background

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a leading health issue, causing economic burden in India. Pharmacotherapy is a major cost driver in diabetic care usually funded through out of pocket expenditure; however, there has been a very limited economic evaluation evidence to guide the choice of diabetes pharmacotherapy in India. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitor) compared to commonly used sulfonylureas as second-line drugs in Indian patients with T2DM.

Methods

Cost-utility analysis was employed to estimate the costs and health outcomes using a Markov model with 1-year cycle length during a lifetime horizon based on an Indian payer’s perspective. A treatment pathway with dapagliflozin as second-line therapy was compared to sulfonylureas after failure of initial metformin therapy. Clinical and cost data were collected from literature reviews and available secondary data sources. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3% annual discount rate. The results were presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test parameter uncertainties.

Results

Compared to sulfonylurea, dapagliflozin was estimated to incur an additional cost of ₹182,632 (US$2,446) with an expected 3.49 life years (LY) or 1.72 quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, resulting in an ICER of ₹52,270 (US$699) per LY gained, or ₹106,133 (US$1,421) per QALY gained. Uncertainty analyses showed that the ICER values were not sensitive to changes in most parameters.

Conclusion

Dapagliflozin would be cost-effective compared to sulfonylureas as the second line added to metformin for T2DM patients based on an Indian payer’s perspective.

Changing the approach to type 2 diabetes treatment: A comparison of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sulphonylureas across the continuum of care

Despite the importance of individualised strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the availability of alternative treatments, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), sulphonylureas are still widely used in practice. Clinical evidence shows that GLP-1 RAs may provide better and more durable glycaemic control than sulphonylureas, with lower risk of hypoglycaemia. Other reported benefits of GLP-1 RAs include weight loss rather than weight gain (as observed with sulphonylureas), blood pressure reduction and improvement in lipid profiles. In general, the main adverse events with GLP-1 RAs are gastrointestinal in nature. The respective modes of action of GLP-1 RAs and sulphonylureas contribute to differences in the durability of glycaemic control (related to effects on beta-cells) and effects on body weight. Moreover, the glucose-dependent mode of action of GLP-1 RAs, which favours a low incidence of hypoglycaemia, contrasts with the glucose-independent mode of action of sulphonylureas. Evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials indicates a consistent finding of cardiovascular safety across the GLP-1 RAs and suggests a class benefit for the long-acting GLP-1 RAs in reducing three-point major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. In contrast, potential concerns relating to an increased incidence of adverse cardiovascular events with sulphonylureas have yet to be fully resolved. Recent updates to management guidelines recommend that treatment selection for patients with T2DM should consider clinical trial evidence of cardiovascular safety. Available evidence suggests that this selection should give preference to GLP-1 RAs over sulphonylureas, especially for patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Protocol for an observational cohort study investigating personalised medicine for intensification of treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the PERMIT study

INTRODUCTION

For people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require an antidiabetic drug as an add-on to metformin, there is controversy about whether newer drug classes such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduce the risk of long-term complications compared with sulfonylureas (SU). There is widespread variation across National Health Service Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in drug choice for second-line treatment in part because National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not specify a single preferred drug class, either overall or within specific patient subgroups. This study will evaluate the relative effectiveness of the three most common second-line treatments in the UK (SU, DPP4i and SGLT2i as add-ons to metformin) and help target treatments according to individual risk profiles.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study includes people with T2DM prescribed one of the second-line treatments-of-interest between 2014 and 2020 within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics. We will use an instrumental variable (IV) method to estimate short-term and long-term relative effectiveness of second-line treatments according to individuals' risk profiles. This method minimises bias from unmeasured confounders by exploiting the natural variation in second-line prescribing across CCGs as an IV for the choice of prescribed treatment. The primary outcome to assess short-term effectiveness will be change in haemoglobin A1c (%) 12 months after treatment initiation. Outcome measures to assess longer-term effectiveness (maximum ~6 years) will include microvascular and macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality and hospital admissions during follow-up.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (20-064) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (21395). Results, codelists and other analysis code will be made available to patients, clinicians, policy-makers and researchers.

Platelet Effects of Anti-diabetic Therapies: New Perspectives in the Management of Patients with Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease

In type 2 diabetes, anti-thrombotic management is challenging, and current anti-platelet agents have demonstrated reduced efficacy. Old and new anti-diabetic drugs exhibited—besides lowering blood glucose levels—direct and indirect effects on platelet function and on thrombotic milieu, eventually conditioning cardiovascular outcomes. The present review summarizes existing evidence on the effects of glucose-lowering agents on platelet properties, addressing pre-clinical and clinical research, as well as drug–drug interactions with anti-platelet agents. We aimed at expanding clinicians’ understanding by highlighting new opportunities for an optimal management of patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease. We suggest how an improvement of the thrombotic risk in this large population of patients may be achieved by a careful and tailored combination of anti-diabetic and anti-platelet therapies.

Cardiovascular Safety and Benefits of Noninsulin Antihyperglycemic Drugs for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus-Part 1

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to the morbidity and mortality associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). With T2DM growing in pandemic proportions, there will be profound healthcare implications of CVD in person with diabetes. The ideal drugs to improve outcomes in T2DM are those having antiglycemic efficacy in addition to cardiovascular (CV) safety, which has to be determined in appropriately designed CV outcome trials as mandated by regulatory agencies. Available evidence is largely supportive of metformin's CV safety and potential CVD risk reduction effects, whereas sulfonylureas are either CV risk neutral or are associated with variable CVD risk. Pioglitazone was also associated with improved CVD risk in patients with diabetes. The more recent antihyperglycemic medications have shown promise with regards to CVD risk reduction in T2DM patients at a high CV risk. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, a type of incretin-based therapy, were associated with better CV outcomes and mortality in T2DM patients, leading to the Food and Drug Administration approval of liraglutide to reduce CVD risk in high-risk T2DM patients. Ongoing and planned randomized controlled trials of the newer drugs should clarify the possibility of class effects, and of CVD risk reduction benefits in low-moderate CV risk patients. While metformin remains the first-line antiglycemic therapy in T2DM, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists should be appropriately prescribed in T2DM patients with baseline CVD or in those at a high CVD risk to improve CV outcomes. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are discussed in the second part of this review.

Diabetic Agents, From Metformin to SGLT2 Inhibitors and GLP1 Receptor Agonists: JACC Focus Seminar

Given the intersection between diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease (CVD), pharmacologic agents used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus must show cardiovascular safety. Comorbid conditions, including heart failure and chronic kidney disease, are increasingly prevalent in patients with diabetes; therefore, they also play a large role in drug safety. Although biguanides, sulfonylurea, glitazones, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors have variable effects on cardiovascular events, sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists have consistently shown safety and reduction in cardiovascular events in patients with established CVD. These medications are becoming essential tools for cardioprotection for patients with diabetes and CVD. They may also have roles in primary prevention and renal protection. This paper will review the cardiovascular impact, adverse effects, and possible mechanisms of action of pharmacologic agents used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes.

Sulfonylureas may be useful for glycemic management in patients with diabetes and liver cirrhosis

This study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of sulfonylurea (SU) use in patients with T2DM and compensated liver cirrhosis. From January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2012, we selected the data of 3781 propensity-score-matched SU users and nonusers from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database. The mean follow-up time for this study was 5.74 years. Cox proportional hazards models with robust sandwich standard error estimates were used to compare the risks of main outcomes between SU users and nonusers. The incidence of mortality during follow-up was 3.24 and 4.09 per 100 person-years for SU users and nonusers, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, and decompensated cirrhosis in SU users relative to SU nonusers were 0.79 (0.71–0.88), 0.69 (0.61–0.80), and 0.82 (0.66–1.03), respectively. The SU-associated lower risks of death and cardiovascular events seemed to have a dose–response trend. This population-based cohort study demonstrated that SU use was associated with lower risks of death and major cardiovascular events compared with SU non-use in patients with T2DM and compensated liver cirrhosis. SUs may be useful for glycemic management for patients with liver cirrhosis.

Cardiovascular safety of Glimepiride: An indirect comparison from CAROLINA and CARMELINA

BACKGROUND

Despite having unquestionable glucose lowering efficacy, current guidelines no more favour the uses of sulphonylureas for CV safety concern, except when cost is an issue. However, formal cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) is not available.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed an indirect treatment comparison to find the hazard ratio for 3-point MACE, all-cause death, CV death and non-CV death between glimepiride and placebo based on two large CVOTs which established the CV safety of linagliptin (CARMELINA and CAROLINA).

RESULTS

Glimepiride was shown to have a non-inferior risk compared to placebo for 3-point MACE (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.850, 1.274), all-cause mortality (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.880, 1.317), CV death (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.732, 1.259), and non-CV death (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.893, 1.733).

CONCLUSION

Cardiovascular safety of glimepiride is re-assuring and may help patients with type 2 diabetes world-over to avail the benefit of this affordable efficacious medication.

[Cardiovascular preventive recommendations. PAPPS 2020 update]

The recommendations of the semFYC's Program for Preventive Activities and Health Promotion (PAPPS) for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are presented. The following sections are included: Epidemiological review, where the current morbidity and mortality of CVD in Spain and its evolution as well as the main risk factors are described; Cardiovascular (CV) risk tables and recommendations for the calculation of CV risk; Main risk factors such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, describing the method for their diagnosis, therapeutic objectives and recommendations for lifestyle measures and pharmacological treatment; Indications for antiplatelet therapy, and recommendations for screening of atrial fibrillation. The quality of testing and the strength of the recommendation are included in the main recommendations.

Risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia with sulfonylureas: An experience with conceptual replication in two independent populations

Sulfonylureas are commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite awareness of their effects on cardiac physiology, a knowledge gap exists regarding their effects on cardiovascular events in real-world populations. Prior studies reported sulfonylurea-associated cardiovascular death but not serious arrhythmogenic endpoints like sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) or ventricular arrhythmia (VA). We assessed the comparative real-world risk of SCA/VA among users of second-generation sulfonylureas: glimepiride, glyburide, and glipizide. We conducted two incident user cohort studies using five-state Medicaid claims (1999–2012) and Optum Clinformatics commercial claims (2000–2016). Outcomes were SCA/VA events precipitating hospital presentation. We used Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for high-dimensional propensity scores, to generate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR). We identified 624,406 and 491,940 sulfonylurea users, and 714 and 385 SCA/VA events, in Medicaid and Optum, respectively. Dataset-specific associations with SCA/VA for both glimepiride and glyburide (vs. glipizide) were on opposite sides of and could not exclude the null (glimepiride: aHR_Medicaid 1.17, 95% CI 0.96–1.42; aHR_Optum 0.84, 0.65–1.08; glyburide: aHR_Medicaid 0.87, 0.74–1.03; aHR_Optum 1.11, 0.86–1.42). Database differences in data availability, populations, and documentation completeness may have contributed to the incongruous results. Emphasis should be placed on assessing potential causes of discrepancies between conflicting studies evaluating the same research question.

Meta-analysis of noninferiority and equivalence trials: ignoring trial design leads to differing and possibly misleading conclusions

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to examine the analytic approach of meta-analyses that include noninferiority or equivalence (NI/EQ) trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used Scopus to identify meta-analyses including NI/EQ trials. We extracted data from the meta-analyses and their included randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We used the RCT's NI/EQ margins to reinterpret the results of the meta-analyses, assessed for risk of biases unique to NI/EQ trials, and evaluated the consistency of the meta-analysis interpretation when using NI/EQ margins.

RESULTS

We identified 38 unique meta-analyses including 515 RCTs, of which 125 (24.3%) were NI/EQ trials. Fourteen meta-analyses (36.8%) reported the study design of their included trials, but only one (2.6%) interpreted their pooled estimates using NI/EQ margins and none assessed for risks of bias unique to NI/EQ trials. Nearly all NI/EQ trials (n = 116, 92.8%) included in the meta-analyses reported NI/EQ margins. The meta-analyses of 30 outcomes were reinterpreted using the NI/EQ margins; reinterpretations conflicted with the conclusion of the meta-analyses in most cases (n = 20, 66.7%).

CONCLUSION

Most meta-analyses including NI/EQ trials ignore trial design and do not assess risks of bias unique to NI/EQ studies. Meta-analyses addressing questions previously explored as NI/EQ should conduct an NI/EQ meta-analysis or use clear language when performing standard (i.e., superiority) meta-analyses.

Genetics Insights in the Relationship Between Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Heart Disease

Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). The major form of diabetes mellitus is type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), which is thus largely responsible for the CHD association in the general population. Recent years have seen major advances in the genetics of T2D, principally through ever-increasing large-scale genome-wide association studies. This article addresses the question of whether this expanding knowledge of the genomics of T2D provides insight into the etiologic relationship between T2D and CHD. We will investigate this relationship by reviewing the evidence for shared genetic loci between T2D and CHD; by examining the formal testing of this interaction (Mendelian randomization studies assessing whether T2D is causal for CHD); and then turn to the implications of this genetic relationship for therapies for CHD, for therapies for T2D, and for therapies that affect both. In conclusion, the growing knowledge of the genetic relationship between T2D and CHD is beginning to provide the promise for improved prevention and treatment of both disorders.

Portuguese-Brazilian evidence-based guideline on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

In current management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), cardiovascular and renal prevention have become important targets to be achieved. In this context, a joint panel of four endocrinology societies from Brazil and Portugal was established to develop an evidence-based guideline for treatment of hyperglycemia in T2DM.

METHODS

MEDLINE (via PubMed) was searched for randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies related to diabetes treatment. When there was insufficient high-quality evidence, expert opinion was sought. Updated positions on treatment of T2DM patients with heart failure (HF), atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and patients with no vascular complications were developed. The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In non-pregnant adults, the recommended HbA_1c target is below 7%. Higher levels are recommended in frail older adults and patients at higher risk of hypoglycemia. Lifestyle modification is recommended at all phases of treatment. Metformin is the first choice when HbA_1c is 6.5-7.5%. When HbA_1c is 7.5-9.0%, dual therapy with metformin plus an SGLT2i and/or GLP-₁RA (first-line antidiabetic agents, AD1) is recommended due to cardiovascular and renal benefits. If an AD1 is unaffordable, other antidiabetic drugs (AD) may be used. Triple or quadruple therapy should be considered when HbA_1c remains above target. In patients with clinical or subclinical atherosclerosis, the combination of one AD1 plus metformin is the recommended first-line therapy to reduce cardiovascular events and improve blood glucose control. In stable heart failure with low ejection fraction (< 40%) and glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min/1.73 m², metformin plus an SGLT-2i is recommended to reduce cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalizations and improve blood glucose control. In patients with diabetes-associated chronic kidney disease (CKD) (eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m² or eGFR 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m² with albuminuria > 30 mg/g), the combination of metformin and an SGLT2i is recommended to attenuate loss of renal function, reduce albuminuria and improve blood glucose control. In patients with severe renal failure, insulin-based therapy is recommended to improve blood glucose control. Alternatively, GLP-₁RA, DPP4i, gliclazide MR and pioglitazone may be considered to reduce albuminuria. In conclusion, the current evidence supports individualizing anti-hyperglycemic treatment for T2DM.

Reducing the Burden of Diabetes Treatment: A Review of Low-cost Oral Hypoglycemic Medications

BACKGROUND

The vast majority of individuals diagnosed with diabetes are low/middle income and may have access to only three of the 11 oral hypoglycemic medications (OHMs) due to cost: metformin intermediate release (IR) or extended release (ER), sulfonylureas (glimepiride, glipizide, glyburide), and pioglitazone. Sulfonylureas and pioglitazone have had significant controversy related to potential adverse events, but it remains unclear whether these negative outcomes are class, drug, or dose-related.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a narrative review of low-cost OHMs.

METHODS

We evaluated the maximum recommended (MAX) compared to the most effective (EFF) daily dose, time-to-peak change in HbA1c levels, and adverse events of low-cost oral hypoglycemic medications.

RESULTS

We found that the MAX was often greater than the EFF: metformin IR/ER (MAX: 2,550/2,000 mg, EFF: 1,500-2,000/1,500-2,000 mg), glipizide IR/ER (MAX: 40/20 mg, EFF: 20/5 mg), glyburide (MAX: 20 mg, EFF: 2.5-5.0 mg), pioglitazone (MAX: 45 mg, EFF: 45 mg). Time-to-peak change in HbA1c levels occurred at weeks 12-20 (sulfonylureas), 25-39 (metformin), and 25 (pioglitazone). Glimepiride was not associated with weight gain, hypoglycemia, or negative cardiovascular events relative to other sulfonylureas. Cardiovascular event rates did not increase with lower glyburide doses (p<0.05). Glimepiride and pioglitazone have been successfully used in renal impairment.

CONCLUSION

Metformin, glimepiride, and pioglitazone are safe and efficacious OHMs. Prescribing at the EFF rather than the MAX may avoid negative dose-related outcomes. OHMs should be evaluated as individual drugs, not generalized as a class, due to different dosing and adverse-event profiles; Glimepiride is the preferred sulfonylurea since it is not associated with the adverse events as others in its class.

Adverse Effects of Glycemia-Lowering Medications in Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is focused on preventing the occurrence and delaying the development of macro- and micro-vascular complications. Glycemic control can help prevent these complications, but there is concern about the adverse effects of glycemia-lowering medications. A rational approach is to balance the desired low risk of adverse events against the unwanted higher risk of major complications resulting from suboptimal glucose control.

RECENT FINDINGS

Using the above approach, approved glucose-lowering agents have favorable benefit-to-risk profiles for use in most patients with type 2 diabetes. We first briefly review the mechanism of actions and benefits of the different commonly used classes of glycemia-lowering medications and then discuss adverse effects and safety concern associated with their use. Our overall assessment is that if used appropriately, the different classes of glycemia-lowering medications offer beneficial outcomes with relatively modest and, in some instances, preventable adverse events.

Personalized Management of Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Our goal is to discuss how to personalize the management of patients with type 2 diabetes by adjusting glycemic targets and tailoring medical therapy to account for unique patient characteristics.

RECENT FINDINGS

We review the pharmacotherapeutic options for the management of type 2 diabetes, focusing on potential advantages and disadvantages of each class of agents. We also discuss how to approach specific patient subpopulations and propose a conceptual framework for incorporating these factors into clinical practice. As the diabetes treatment landscape rapidly expands, physicians have the exciting opportunity to offer patients increasingly individualized care.

The right place for Sulphonylureas today

The place of Sulphonylurea based insulin secretagogues in the management of Type 2 diabetes appears as controversial today as it was fifty years ago. Newer therapies are associated with less hypoglycaemia and weight gain than Sulphonylureas but currently cost more and lack assurances which come with long-term exposure. Emergence of recent CVOT data for SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists is likely to influence therapeutic choices and guidance is now supportive of their earlier use in cases at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Meta-analyses of Sulphonylurea trials have failed to indicate a consistent effect (positive or negative) on cardiovascular disease or mortality, although are limited by the relative scarcity of studies directly reporting these outcomes. The CAROLINA trial is reassuring in demonstrating cardiovascular safety for the Sulphonylurea Glimepiride when compared directly with the DPP-4 inhibitor Linagliptin, suggesting either of these agents would be relatively safe second line options after Metformin in the majority of patients. This review provides a balanced assessment of available Sulphonylurea treatments in the context of current cardiovascular outcome trial data (CVOT) data and hopefully assists informed decision making about the place of these drugs in contemporary glucose lowering practice.

Glucocrinology of Modern Sulfonylureas: Clinical Evidence and Practice-Based Opinion from an International Expert Group

AIM

The primary objective of this document is to develop practice-based expert group opinion on certain important but less discussed endocrine and metabolic effects of modern sulfonylureas (SUs) and their usage in the management of diabetes mellitus (DM).

BACKGROUND

Modern SUs may be considered a panacea in DM care with their beneficial extra-pancreatic, pleiotropic, and cardiovascular effects. Safe glycemic control with SUs could be achieved with appropriate patient selection, drug and dosage selection, and patient empowerment. Additionally, sulfonylureas also exhibit certain endocrine and metabolic effects, which could be considered beneficial in the management of DM. In this regard, a group of international clinical experts discussed the less known beneficial aspects of SUs and safe and smart prescription of modern SUs in DM care.

RESULTS

The concept of glucocrinology or the relationship of glycemia with the endocrine system was emphasized during the meetings. Clinical experts arrived at a consensus for the usage of modern SUs in the presence of other endocrine dysfunction and the impact of these drugs on endocrine health. The beneficial pleiotropic and cardiovascular effects of modern SUs were also discussed. The key discussion points were considered to develop clinical expert opinions for the use of modern SUs in persons with DM. Clinical expert opinions were developed for indications, pleiotropic benefits, cardiovascular outcomes, adherence, and safe use of modern SUs.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate clinical judgement coupled with a patient-centered approach is crucial to achieve the best outcome in persons with DM. Owing to their safety, efficacy, extra-pancreatic benefits including effects on endocrine and metabolic aspects, and low cost of therapy, modern SUs could be considered as drugs/agents of choice for the treatment of diabetes.

FUNDING

Sanofi India.

Managing Cardiovascular Risk in Type 2 Diabetes: What Do the Cardiovascular Outcome Trials Mean for Australian Practice?

Understanding the implications of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes data of glucose-lowering agents on the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus can be challenging for many primary practitioners. Amongst different classes of diabetes medications assessed for CV safety, several agents within the sodium-glucose transport protein-2 inhibitor and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists classes have demonstrated CV risk reduction. Applying the trial findings to patients typically seen in clinical practice, such as those with established CV disease and those with multiple CV risk factors without established CV disease, requires further clarity. To bridge this gap in our current knowledge, the aim of this review was to utilise expert-driven opinions on common case scenarios and practical recommendations on the most appropriate choice of agents, according to an individual patient's clinical risk profile (CV and kidney disease), treatment preference and reimbursement environment from an Australian perspective.Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim Australia.

Predictors of seizure recurrence in patients with surgery for focal cortical dysplasia: pairwise and network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

OBJECT

The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of seizure recurrence in surgery for focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) by conducting a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Publications that met the pre-stated inclusion criteria were selected from PubMed and CNKI databases. Two authors extracted data independently about prognostic factors, surgical outcome, and clinical characteristics of participants. A fixed-effects model was used to calculate the summary of odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies were included in our meta-analysis. Three predictors of seizure recurrence (Engel class III/IV)-histological FCD type I, incomplete resection, and extratemporal location were determined; combined OR with 95% CI were 1.94 (95%CI 1.53-2.46), 12.06 (95%CI 7.32-19.88), and 1.91 (95%CI 1.06-3.44), respectively. Trial sequential analysis revealed that the outcomes had a sufficient sample size to reach firm conclusions. Furthermore, seizure location was not substantially modified by geographic region, while histological FCD type I and incomplete resection showed a significant association with seizure recurrence in different continents except Asia for incomplete resection. Sensitivity analyses restricted to studies for each variable yielded robust results. Little evidence of publication bias was observed. Meanwhile, the difference in the standard for outcome failed to influence the results for prognosis. Network meta-analysis including 13 trials comparing subtypes of FCD found the FCD IIb had the lowest seizure recurrence rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that histological FCD type I, incomplete resection, and extratemporal location are recurrence factors in patients with epilepsy surgery for FCD. In addition, FCD IIb is associated with the highest rates of postoperative seizure control among the subtypes of FCD, type I and type II.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Update on Management of Type 2 Diabetes for Cardiologists

The management of type 2 diabetes mellitus has evolved over the last several years as new antidiabetic agents continue to arrive and change the goals of diabetes care. In 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandated that all new antidiabetic agents must demonstrate cardiovascular (CV) safety, which has led to a series of CV outcome trials. In this article, we review the key findings from these CV outcome trials and their impact on diabetes care guidelines.

Nonglycemic Outcomes of Antidiabetic Medications

IN BRIEF The number of medications used to treat diabetes has increased dramatically in the past 15 years. With so many options that have shown significant A1C improvement, it is important to consider side effects, precautions, and additional benefits these agents may offer. This article is a review of some of the most compelling literature available on the nonglycemic benefits of sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, biguanides, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Other classes of antihyperglycemic agents, such as dopamine agonists, meglitinides, and amylin agonists, are not discussed in this article.

Review of the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the clinical relevance of the CAROLINA trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) is a well-recognized complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and there is a clinical need for glucose-lowering therapies that do not further increase CV risk in this population. Although sulfonylureas (SUs) may be used as second-line therapy for patients requiring additional therapy after first-line metformin to improve glycemic control, their long-term effects on CV outcomes remain uncertain, and a wide range of alternative agents exist including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODS

Literature searches in PubMed (2013-2018) were conducted with terms for DPP-4 inhibitors combined with CV terms, with preference given to cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs). Reference lists from retrieved articles and diabetes guidelines were also considered.

RESULTS

This narrative review discusses current evidence for the CV safety of these agents, describes the long-term CV effects of DPP-4 inhibitors, including effects on CV events, mortality, the risk for heart failure hospitalization, and highlights the need for further research into the CV effects of SU therapy. Although SUs remain a treatment option for T2DM, the long-term effects of these agents on CV outcomes are unclear, and further long-term studies are required. For DPP-4 inhibitors, uncertainties have been raised about their long-term effect on hospitalization for heart failure in light of the results of SAVOR-TIMI 53, although the findings of other DPP-4 inhibitor CVOTs in T2DM and data analyses have suggested these agents do not increase the occurrence of adverse CV outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on recent CVOTs and guideline updates, the choice of add-on to metformin therapy for patients with T2DM and established CV disease should be a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist with proven CV benefit. Additional treatment options for those individuals who require therapy intensification, as well as in patients with T2DM and without established CVD include DPP-4 inhibitors and SUs. Since few head-to-head trials have compared the effects of different oral glucose-lowering agents on CV outcomes in T2DM, with most CVOTs using placebo as a comparator, the CAROLINA trial will provide important information on the comparative CV safety of a commonly prescribed SU and a DPP-4 inhibitor.

The Standard of Care in Type 2 Diabetes: Re-evaluating the Treatment Paradigm

There is currently a worldwide epidemic of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that is predicted to increase substantially in the next few years. With 80% of the global T2D population living in low to middle-income countries, there are issues with cost and of access to appropriate medicines. The objective of this symposium was to provide an overview of the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering drugs, focussing in particular on sulfonylureas (SUs) in patients with T2D using data taken from both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies, the application of strategies to ensure optimal patient adherence and clinical outcomes, and the optimal use of SUs in terms of dose adjustment and agent choice to ensure the best clinical outcome. The symposium began by exploring a profile of the typical patient seen in diabetes clinical practice and the appropriate management of such a patient in the real world, before moving on to an overview of the risks associated with T2D and how the currently available agents, including newer antidiabetic medications, mitigate or exacerbate those risks. The final presentation provided an overview of real-world studies, the gap between RCTs and the real world, and the use of available glucose-lowering agents in daily clinical practice. Clinical evidence was presented demonstrating that tight glucose control improved both microvascular and macrovascular outcomes, but that aggressive treatment in patients with a very high cardiovascular risk could lead to adverse outcomes. Real-world data suggest that older agents such as SUs and metformin are being used in a large proportion of patients with T2D with demonstrable effectiveness, indicating that they still have a place in modern T2D management. The symposium, while acknowledging the need for newer antidiabetic drugs in specific situations and patient groups, recommended the continuation of SUs and metformin as the primary oral antidiabetic agents in resource-constrained regions of the world.Funding:Servier.

Consensus document of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis (SEA) for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus

A consensus document of the Diabetes working group of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis (SEA) is presented, based on the latest studies and conceptual changes that have appeared. It presents the cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the action guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with T2DM. The importance of lipid control, based on the objective of LDL-C and non-HDL-C when there is hypertriglyceridemia, and the blood pressure control in the prevention and treatment of CVD is evaluated. The new hypoglycemic drugs and their effects on CVD are reviewed, as well as the treatment and control guidelines of hyperglycemia. Likewise, the use of antiplatelet agents is considered. Emphasis is placed on the importance of global and simultaneous action on all risk factors to achieve a significant reduction in cardiovascular events. This supplement is sponsored by Laboratorios Esteve, S.A.

Assessing use of patient-focused pharmacotherapy in glycemic management through the Diabetes Collaborative Registry (DCR)

BACKGROUND

Although practice guidelines stress individualization of glucose management in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the extent to which providers take patient factors into account when selecting medications is not well known.

METHODS

Diabetes Collaborative Registry (DCR) is an outpatient diabetes registry including primary care, cardiology, and endocrinology practices. T2D medications were grouped as those which may be suboptimal for key patient subgroups, and we examined patient factors associated with use of these agents using hierarchical, multivariable Poisson models.

RESULTS

In DCR, 157,551 patients from 374 US practices were prescribed a glucose-lowering medication. Patients with morbid obesity were more likely treated with medications prone to cause weight gain (relative rate [RR] 1.09, 95% CI 1.07-1.11). Older patients were more likely to be treated with medications with increased risk of hypoglycemia (RR 1.04 per 5 years, 95% CI 1.04-1.05). Patients with CKD 4/5 were less likely to be treated with agents with known risk in patients with advanced CKD (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.77). Patients with coronary artery disease were no more or less likely to be treated with medications with potential cardiovascular safety issues (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed some targeted use of glucose-lowering therapies in certain subgroups but also identified potential opportunities for better personalization of treatment. Data sources such as the DCR can highlight potential areas for improving targeted approaches to pharmacologic therapy in order to optimize selection of patients most likely to benefit (and least likely to be harmed) from treatments.

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.