Glimepiride: evidence-based facts, trends, and observations (GIFTS). [corrected]

A Review on Affordable Combinations in Type 2 Diabetes Care: Exploring the Cost-Effective Potential of Glipizide + Metformin and Glimepiride + Metformin + Pioglitazone

Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) largely relies on medication adherence of individuals with diabetes to achieve optimal glycemic control. The economic burden of diabetes could impede adherence, leading to a reduction in treatment efficacy and increased risk of complications. Furthermore, monotherapy in diabetes is losing traction due to its ineffectiveness in achieving early and sustained optimal glycemic control in a significant proportion of the population. Hence, clinicians prefer combination treatment due to their improved efficacy and safety. Considering these factors, the current review highlights the safety and efficacy of the affordable combination therapies, a dual therapy, glipizide + metformin, and a triple-drug combination of glimepiride + metformin + pioglitazone and its applicability in the management of T2DM among individuals with diabetes in India.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) during Ramadan: Narrative Review of the Published Literature

Ramadan fasting, a religious practice observed by Muslims worldwide, involves abstaining from eating, drinking, smoking, and using oral medications from dawn to dusk during the ninth lunar month. Studies have demonstrated that fasting during Ramadan has been shown to increase HDL cholesterol, leptin, adiponectin, and insulin sensitivity, as well as lower several hemostatic risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. Additionally, it may result in a drop in blood sugar levels, especially in diabetics who are also on blood sugar-lowering medicine. Hypoglycemia, characterized by low blood sugar levels, could also result from fasting during Ramadan. The GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) hormone plays a significant role in regulating glucose metabolism and insulin secretion, and Ramadan fasting can affect its production and release in the gut. Research contributes to our understanding of the utilization of GL-1 medications during Ramadan among patients, broadening therapy alternatives and offering insightful information for well-informed decision-making. Therefore, this narrative review aims to explore the current evidence that studies the safety and efficacy of GLP-1 agonists during Ramadan for nondiabetic and diabetic patients to ensure healthy fasting during Ramadan.

Effect of coadministration of omega-3 fatty acids with glimepiride on glycemic control, lipid profile, irisin, and sirtuin-1 in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is caused by insulin resistance or tissue insensitivity to insulin, as well as relative insulin insufficiency. Diabetes that is uncontrolled for an extended period of time is linked to substantial comorbidities and organ damage. The purpose of the current study is to assess the effect of coadministration of omega-3 fatty acids with glimepiride on blood glucose, lipid profile, serum irisin, and sirtuin-1 levels in T2DM patients.

METHODS

This clinical trial involved 70 type 2 diabetic patients randomly assigned to glimepiride 3 mg with either omega-3 capsules contained fish oil 1000 mg, 13% of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and 9% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (omega-3 group, n = 35) or placebo capsules contained corn oil and linoleic acid (control group, n = 35) daily for three months. Blood samples were obtained at the start of the study and 12 weeks later for biochemical examination of HbA1c%, FBG, fasting insulin, and lipid profile. In addition, the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) was calculated. Human enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits were utilized for assessing serum irisin and sirtuin-1 levels before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

Compared to the control group, omega-3 fatty acids decreased serum fasting blood glucose (FBG, p < 0.001), glycated hemoglobin percent (HbA1C%, p < 0.001), total cholesterol (TC, p < 0.001), triglycerides (TGs, p = 0.006), low density lipoprotein (LDL, p = 0.089), and Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR, p = 0.021) after three months of intervention. However, a significant increase was reported in serum irisin and high density lipoprotein (HDL) between both groups after intervention (p = 0.026 and p = 0.007, respectively). The atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) increased in the control group but decreased in the omega-3 group, with significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present study found that supplementing with omega-3 fatty acids might dramatically enhance blood irisin levels, as well as improve glycemic control and lipid profile in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients using glimepiride.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT03917940 . (The registration date: April 17, 2019).

Explicit mechanistic insights of Prosopis juliflora extract in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats at the molecular level

Background

The Ancient system of medicine showed the limelight on the use of herbal remedies and was found to possess minimal side effects and acceptable therapeutic outcomes. In this context, Prosopis juliflora gained importance in managing chronic diseases such as cancer, dermatological diseases, and chronic inflammatory disorders. Hence, P. juliflora was selected for further investigation associated with diabetes and inflammation.

Aim

The present study aimed to evaluate the anti-diabetic activity in chemically induced experimental rats and explore the nature of phytocomponents that may produce this activity.

Methods

Experimentally, diabetes was induced by a single administration of streptozotocin at 50 mg/kg intraperitoneally in Wistar rats. The animals were treated orally with P. juliflora at low and high doses (200 and 400 mg/kg) for 10 days. Blood collected from the retro-orbital plexus was analyzed for parameters like blood glucose levels, insulin, adiponectin, Keap1 and Nrf2. PPAR-γ, AMPK and GLUT 2 levels were analyzed in the pancreatic tissue. Besides, at the end of the experiment, animals were sacrificed, and the pancreatic tissue sections were subjected for histopathological, morphometrical and immune histochemical exploration. The phytochemical composition of the plant was investigated by GC-MS.

Results

The administration of P. juliflora higher dose showed a significant decrease (**p< 0.001) in blood glucose levels with a rise in adiponectin, PPARγ, Keap1, Nrf2, Glut 2, and AMPK significantly (**p< 0.001). The inflammatory cytokine TNFα was also estimated and was found to be lowered significantly (**p< 0.001) in test drug-treated animals. Furthermore, in the pancreatic tissue, the number of Islets, the area, and the number of β-cells were improved significantly with the sub-chronic treatment of P. juliflora extract. The structure and function of β-cells were also revamped.

Conclusion

The study results demonstrated a significant effect of P. juliflora on glycemic status, inflammatory condition, and the architecture of pancreatic tissue. In the identification and isolation process by GC MS, it was noticed that P. juliflora contained few phytochemical constituents from which it might be considered a promising drug for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Clinical Evidence and Practice-Based Guidelines on the Utility of Basal Insulin Combined Oral Therapy (Metformin and Glimepiride) in the Current Era

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Basal insulin combined oral therapy consisting of insulin and oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) is recommended for type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on OADs. There is a lack of clear evidence and recommendations on the combined use of basal insulin analogues to more than one OADs (glimepiride plus metformin) in effective control of glycemic parameters and its safety in terms of reduced hypoglycemic events, weight gain and cardiovascular risk. In this context, a group of clinical experts discussed the utility of basal insulin combined oral therapy with metformin and glimepiride in the current era.

METHODS

The clinical experts discussed and provided their inputs virtually. The expert panel included clinical experts comprising endocrinologists and diabetologists from India and Nepal.

RESULTS

The panel thoroughly reviewed existing literature on the subject and proposed clinical evidence and practice-based guidelines.

CONCLUSION

These current clinical practice guidelines highlight the efficacy and safety of basal insulin combination therapy with various available basal insulins including neutral protamine hagedorn, detemir, glargine and degludec in addition to metformin and glimepiride therapy.

The Effects of 6 Common Antidiabetic Drugs on Anti-PD1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor in Tumor Treatment

Diabetes and cancer are common diseases and are frequently diagnosed in the same individual. These patients need to take antidiabetic drugs while receiving antitumor drugs therapy. Recently, immunotherapy offers significant advances for cancer treatment. However, it is unclear whether antidiabetic drugs affect immunotherapy. Here, by employing syngeneic mouse colon cancer model and melanoma model, we studied the effects of 6 common antidiabetic drugs on anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitor in tumor treatment, including acarbose, sitagliptin, metformin, glimepiride, pioglitazone, and insulin. We found that acarbose and sitagliptin enhanced the tumor inhibition of anti-PD1, and metformin had no effect on the tumor inhibition of anti-PD1, whereas glimepiride, pioglitazone, and insulin weakened the tumor inhibition of anti-PD1. Our study suggests that cancer patients receiving anti-PD1 antibody therapy need serious consideration when choosing antidiabetic drugs. In particular, acarbose significantly inhibited tumor growth and further enhanced the therapeutic effect of anti-PD1, which can be widely used in tumor therapy. Based on this study, further clinical trials are expected.

Glimepiride mitigates tauopathy and neuroinflammation in P301S transgenic mice: role of AKT/GSK3β signaling

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Tauopathy is a group of neurodegenerative diseases in which the pathogenesis processes are related to tau protein. The imbalances between the activities of kinases and phosphatases of tau protein lead to tau hyperphosphorylation and subsequent neurodegeneration. Numerous studies suggest a strong linkage between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and neurodegenerative diseases. Therefore, finding a drug with a dual therapeutic activity against T2D and neuroprotective will be a promising idea. Hence, the potential neuroprotective effect of Glimepiride (GPD) against tauopathy was evaluated in the current study.

METHODS

P301S mice model was employed for tauopathy and C57BL/6 wild type mice (WT) was used as control. Phosphorylated and acetylated tau protein levels was assessed in cortex and hippocampus by western blot. Effect of GPD on tauopathy related enzymes, neuroinflammation, apoptotic markers were evaluated. Furthermore, the neuroprotective effects against anxiety like behavior and motor impairment was analyzed using Parallel rod floor and Open field tests.

RESULTS

GPD significantly ameliorates motor impairment, anxiety like behavior and neurodegeneration in P301S mice. Phosphorylated tau and acetylated tau were significantly decreased in both cortex and hippocampus of P301S mice via decreasing GSK3β, increasing ratio of phosphorylated-AKT to total-AKT, increasing PP2A and normalization of CDK5 levels. Furthermore, GPD treatment also decreased neuroinflammation and apoptosis by reducing NF-kB, TNF-α and caspase 3 levels.

CONCLUSION

The current data suggests that GPD exerts a protective effect against tauopathy, behavioural consequences, neurodegeneration, neuroinflammation and apoptosis. GPD is therefore a promising agent for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases associated with tauopathy.

Downregulated CLIP3 induces radioresistance by enhancing stemness and glycolytic flux in glioblastoma

Background

Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) is a malignant primary brain tumor in which the standard treatment, ionizing radiation (IR), achieves a median survival of about 15 months. GBM harbors glioblastoma stem-like cells (GSCs), which play a crucial role in therapeutic resistance and recurrence.

Methods

Patient-derived GSCs, GBM cell lines, intracranial GBM xenografts, and GBM sections were used to measure mRNA and protein expression and determine the related molecular mechanisms by qRT-PCR, immunoblot, immunoprecipitation, immunofluorescence, OCR, ECAR, live-cell imaging, and immunohistochemistry. Orthotopic GBM xenograft models were applied to investigate tumor inhibitory effects of glimepiride combined with radiotherapy.

Results

We report that GSCs that survive standard treatment radiation upregulate Speedy/RINGO cell cycle regulator family member A (Spy1) and downregulate CAP-Gly domain containing linker protein 3 (CLIP3, also known as CLIPR-59). We discovered that Spy1 activation and CLIP3 inhibition coordinately shift GBM cell glucose metabolism to favor glycolysis via two cellular processes: transcriptional regulation of CLIP3 and facilitating Glucose transporter 3 (GLUT3) trafficking to cellular membranes in GBM cells. Importantly, in combination with IR, glimepiride, an FDA-approved medication used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, disrupts GSCs maintenance and suppresses glycolytic activity by restoring CLIP3 function. In addition, combining radiotherapy and glimepiride significantly reduced GBM growth and improved survival in a GBM orthotopic xenograft mouse model.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that radioresistant GBM cells exhibit enhanced stemness and glycolytic activity mediated by the Spy1-CLIP3 axis. Thus, glimepiride could be an attractive strategy for overcoming radioresistance and recurrence by rescuing CLIP3 expression.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13046-021-02077-4.

A Telehealth-supported, Integrated care with CHWs, and MEdication-access (TIME) Program for Diabetes Improves HbA1c: a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Many individuals with diabetes live in low- or middle-income settings. Glycemic control is challenging, particularly in resource-limited areas that face numerous healthcare barriers.

OBJECTIVE

To compare HbA1c outcomes for individuals randomized to TIME, a Telehealth-supported, Integrated care with CHWs (Community Health Workers), and MEdication-access program (intervention) versus usual care (wait-list control).

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Low-income Latino(a) adults with type 2 diabetes.

INTERVENTIONS

TIME consisted of (1) CHW-participant telehealth communication via mobile health (mHealth) for 12 months, (2) CHW-led monthly group visits for 6 months, and (3) weekly CHW-physician diabetes training and support via telehealth (video conferencing).

MAIN MEASURES

Investigators compared TIME versus control participant baseline to month 6 changes of HbA1c (primary outcome), blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), weight, and adherence to seven American Diabetes Association (ADA) standards of care. CHW assistance in identifying barriers to healthcare in the intervention group were measured at the end of mHealth communication (12 months).

KEY RESULTS

A total of 89 individuals participated. TIME individuals compared to control participants had significant HbA1c decreases (9.02 to 7.59% (- 1.43%) vs. 8.71 to 8.26% (- 0.45%), respectively, p = 0.002), blood pressure changes (systolic: - 6.89 mmHg vs. 0.03 mmHg, p = 0.023; diastolic: - 3.36 mmHg vs. 0.2 mmHg, respectively, p = 0.046), and ADA guideline adherence (p < 0.001) from baseline to month 6. At month 6, more TIME than control participants achieved > 0.50% HbA1c reductions (88.57% vs. 43.75%, p < 0.001). BMI and weight changes were not significant between groups. Many (54.6%) TIME participants experienced > 1 barrier to care, of whom 91.7% had medication issues. CHWs identified the majority (87.5%) of barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

TIME participants resulted in improved outcomes including HbA1c. CHWs are uniquely positioned to identify barriers to care particularly related to medications that may have gone unrecognized otherwise. Larger trials are needed to determine the scalability and sustainability of the intervention.

CLINICAL TRIAL

NCT03394456, accessed at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03394456.

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.

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.

The Impact of Glycemic Status and Metformin Administration on Red Blood Cell Indices and Oxidative Stress in Type 2 Diabetic Patients

BACKGROUND

Most guidelines all over the world recommended metformin as the first-line treatment for in type 2 diabetic patients. Therefore, the present study was suggested to assess the outcome of metformin administration and glycemic status on alterations in red blood cell (RBCs) indices as well as the oxidative stress in type 2 diabetic patients.

METHODS

Between December 2016 and October of 2017, a total of 158 eligible individuals were classified as 50 healthy subjects and 108 diabetic patients who were subdivided into six groups according to the type of anti-diabetic treatments.

RESULTS

Overall, the results elucidated that hemoglobin concentration was markedly diminished, while red cell distribution width (RDW) value was significantly (P < 0.001) elevated in all diabetic groups as compared to control. Moreover, in all diabetic groups, malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration was elevated noticeably (P < 0.001), while reduced glutathione (GSH) revealed a lower concentration (P < 0.001) than that of control.

CONCLUSION

The present study exhibited the amelioration effect of metformin administration on oxidative stress and glycemic status which reflected on some RBCs indices. However, hemoglobin concentration showed a noticeable diminution in all metformin-treated groups in spite of the improvement in glycemic and oxidative stress status which indicated that the metformin-induced anemia is independently from diabetic complications.

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.

Should sulfonylurea be discontinued or maintained at the lowest dose when starting ipragliflozin? A multicenter observational study in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We investigated the difference in efficacy and safety between discontinuation and maintaining of sulfonylurea when adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the present multicenter, prospective observational study, 200 patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sulfonylurea and with a need to add ipragliflozin were enrolled and divided into two groups: discontinued sulfonylurea (Discontinuation group) or maintained sulfonylurea, but at the lowest dose (Low-dose group) when adding ipragliflozin. We compared the two groups after 24 weeks using propensity score matching to adjust for differences between the groups.

RESULTS

In the matched cohort (58 patients in each group), baseline characteristics of both groups were balanced. The primary outcome of the proportion of patients with non-exacerbation in glycated hemoglobin after 24 weeks was 91.4% in the Low-dose group and 75.9% in the Discontinuation group, a significant difference (P = 0.024). However, bodyweight was significantly decreased in the Discontinuation group compared with the Low-dose group (-4.4 ± 2.1 kg vs -2.9 ± 1.9 kg, P < 0.01). Similarly, liver enzyme improvement was more predominant in the Discontinuation group. A logistic regression analysis showed that high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, age and sulfonylurea dose were independent factors associated with non-exacerbation of glycated hemoglobin in the Discontinuation group.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of using ipragliflozin should be considered when making the decision to discontinue or maintain sulfonylurea at the lowest dose. Furthermore, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, low dose of sulfonylurea and younger age were possible markers to not show worsening of glycemic control by discontinuing sulfonylurea.

Reduction in glucose fluctuations in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes using repaglinide: A randomized controlled trial of repaglinide vs sulfonylurea

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Glinides are antidiabetic drugs that enhance the early phase of insulin secretion, but have been considered to be less effective at lowering blood glucose than sulfonylureas. However, glinides show a lower risk of hypoglycemia and a greater effect on postprandial hyperglycemia, and are particularly recommended for use in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. We investigated the efficacy and safety of repaglinide compared with sulfonylurea for the treatment of elderly patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the present multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, controlled trial, 57 elderly lean patients with type 2 diabetes who were being treated with sulfonylureas were studied. They were either switched to repaglinide (Repa group) or continued a sulfonylurea (SU group) for 12 weeks. The primary outcome comprised the change in glycemic control, and among the secondary outcomes was the presence of hypoglycemia and drug compliance.

RESULTS

Although glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was not significantly different between the two groups (SU +0.02% vs Repa -0.07%), greater improvements in the glycated albumin (GA) and GA to HbA1c ratio (GA/HbA1c) were observed in the Repa group (ΔGA, SU +0.12% vs Repa -1.15%; ΔGA/HbA1c, SU +0.01 vs Repa -0.13; each P < 0.01) without increasing hypoglycemia. When the Repa group was subdivided according to whether GA improved, the SU dose before switching to repaglinide was significantly smaller and the homeostatic model assessment of β-cell function was significantly higher in the GA improvement subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from SU to Repa improved GA and GA/HbA1c, and had favorable effects on glucose fluctuation in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.

A high-throughput chemical-genetics screen in murine adipocytes identifies insulin-regulatory pathways

Pathways linking activation of the insulin receptor to downstream targets of insulin have traditionally been studied using a candidate gene approach. To elucidate additional pathways regulating insulin activity, we performed a forward chemical-genetics screen based on translocation of a glucose transporter 4 (Glut4) reporter expressed in murine 3T3-L1 adipocytes. To identify compounds with known targets, we screened drug-repurposing and natural product libraries. We identified, confirmed, and validated 64 activators and 65 inhibitors that acutely increase or rapidly decrease cell-surface Glut4 in adipocytes stimulated with submaximal insulin concentrations. These agents were grouped by target, chemical class, and mechanism of action. All groups contained multiple hits from a single drug class, and several comprised multiple structurally unrelated hits for a single target. Targets include the β-adrenergic and adenosine receptors. Agonists of these receptors increased and inverse agonists/antagonists decreased cell-surface Glut4 independently of insulin. Additional activators include insulin sensitizers (thiazolidinediones), insulin mimetics, dis-inhibitors (the mTORC1 inhibitor rapamycin), cardiotonic steroids (the Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase inhibitor ouabain), and corticosteroids (dexamethasone). Inhibitors include heterocyclic amines (tricyclic antidepressants) and 21 natural product supplements and herbal extracts. Mechanisms of action include effects on Glut4 trafficking, signal transduction, inhibition of protein synthesis, and dissipation of proton gradients. Two pathways that acutely regulate Glut4 translocation were discovered: de novo protein synthesis and endocytic acidification. The mechanism of action of additional classes of activators (tanshinones, dalbergiones, and coumarins) and inhibitors (flavonoids and resveratrol) remains to be determined. These tools are among the most sensitive, responsive, and reproducible insulin-activity assays described to date.

Glimepiride Administered in Chow Reversibly Impairs Glucose Tolerance in Mice

Sulfonylureas are a class of antidiabetes medications prescribed to millions of individuals worldwide. Rodents have been used extensively to study sulfonylureas in the laboratory. Here, we report the results of studies treating mice with a sulfonylurea (glimepiride) in order to understand how the drug affects glucose homeostasis and tolerance. We tested the effect of glimepiride on fasting blood glucose, glucose tolerance, and insulin secretion, using glimepiride sourced from a local pharmacy. We also examined the effect on glucagon, gluconeogenesis, and insulin sensitivity. Unexpectedly, glimepiride exposure in mice was associated with fasting hyperglycemia, glucose intolerance, and decreased insulin. There was no change in circulating glucagon levels or gluconeogenesis. The effect was dose-dependent, took effect by two weeks, and was reversed within three weeks after removal. Glimepiride elicited the same effects in all strains evaluated: four wild-type strains, as well as the transgenic Grn-/- and diabetic db/db mice. Our findings suggest that the use of glimepiride as a hypoglycemic agent in mice should proceed with caution and may have broader implications about mouse models as a proxy to study the human pharmacopeia.

Rahim AA, Eliana F, Shrestha HK, Chaudhary S, Ngugi N, Mbanya JC, Aye TT, Latt TS, Akanov ZA, Syed AR, Tandon N, Unnikrishnan AG, Madhu SV, Jawa A, Chowdhury S, Bajaj S, Das AK. Consensus Recommendations on Sulfonylurea and Sulfonylurea Combinations in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - International Task Force

For decades, sulfonylureas (SUs) have been important drugs in the antidiabetic therapeutic armamentarium. They have been used as monotherapy as well as combination therapy. Focus on newer drugs and concerns about the risk of severe hypoglycemia and weight gain with some SUs have led to discussion on their safety and utility. It has to be borne in mind that the adverse events associated with SUs should not be ascribed to the whole class, as many modern SUs, such as glimepiride and gliclazide modified release, are associated with better safety profiles. Furthermore, individualization of treatment, using SUs in combination with other drugs, backed with careful monitoring and patient education, ensures maximum benefits with minimal side effects. The current guidelines, developed by experts from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, promote the safe and smart use of SUs in combination with other glucose-lowering drugs.

Cardiovascular outcomes and safety with antidiabetic drugs

Type 2 diabetes is a debilitating disease that impacts the life expectancy, quality of life, and health of an individual. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a common diabetes-associated complication and a principal cause for death in diabetic patients. This review aims to investigate and summarize the effect of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medications on CVD issues. A comprehensive literature review mainly from level 1 evidence was performed. Thirty-seven articles were extracted from Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, and PubMed Database using a combination of keywords. The findings suggest that different glucose-lowering agents have been tested for their efficacy and safety in T2DM with CVD. Some of the recent trials such as the "United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study," "Empagliflozin (EMPA) Cardiovascular (CV) Outcome Event Trial in T2DM Patients-Removing Excess Glucose" (EMPA-REG OUTCOME), "Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of CV Outcome Results," and "Trial to Evaluate CV and Other Long-term Outcomes with Semaglutide in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes" (SUSTAIN6) have shed important light on this vital clinical concern, thus demonstrating a convincing effect of liraglutide, semaglutide, and EMPA on CVD outcomes, while metformin is thought to be the first-line optimal oral agent to manage Type 2 diabetics. Some classes of drugs demonstrate CV protection, some of them may be a result of a class effect, and some differences might be based on the population enrolled individually. Most of the trials failed to show a significant benefit with regard to mortality and morbidity in spite of intensive glycemic control. This study, therefore, enabled us to develop a guide of potential antidiabetic medication that can influence or promote CV health. Health professionals in future should weigh the CV risk against possible advantages while prescribing antidiabetic medications.

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.

Comparative safety for cardiovascular outcomes of DPP-4 inhibitors versus glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

Concerns about the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors persist. This study sought to determine whether there is a differential risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) between DPP-4 inhibitors and glimepiride.We conducted this retrospective cohort study by using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database from December 1, 2008, to December 31, 2013. The study subjects were new users of DPP-4 inhibitors or glimepiride for type 2 diabetes. Outcome was defined as hospitalization for CVDs, including angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, transient cerebral ischemic attack, heart failure, or cerebrovascular disease or any procedure involving coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention. We used a Cox proportional hazard model to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), to assess the risk of CVDs associated with the use of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with glimepiride.The cohort consisted of 1,045,975 patients, with 6504 in the DPP-4 inhibitors group and 13,447 in the glimepiride group. No significant increased risk of total CVDs was found (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.01) in the DPP-4 inhibitors versus glimepiride group. A decreased risk of hospitalization for CVDs was found among patients with a history of visit for CVDs (aHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.97) or with >2.5 years' duration of type 2 diabetes (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91) in the DPP-4 inhibitors versus glimepiride group.DPP-4 inhibitors did not increase cardiovascular risk compared with glimepiride regardless of CVD history and diabetes duration.

Efficacy, Safety and Treatment Satisfaction of Glimepiride vs Sitagliptin in Combination with Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Metformin is a preferred drug for starting treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus. But, eventually most of the patients need additional drug to control blood sugar level. The choice of drug depends upon several factors including patient specific criteria, economical factors and treatment satisfaction.

AIM

The aim of the present study is to investigate the effects of adding sitagliptin or glimepiride on efficacy, safety and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

It was a retrospective observational study on 50 patients each in sitagliptin and glimepiride group, who are receiving treatment for at least 12 weeks and are stable on respective treatment regimen. Glycated haemoglobin (HBA1c) was the primary measure of efficacy. Safety was assessed by checking weight gain/loss, hypoglycaemia episodes and other laboratory investigations. Patient satisfaction was assessed by Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire.

RESULTS

The HbA1c level after 12-24 weeks of treatment was not found to be significant compared to each other or from baseline. Compared to baseline fasting plasma glucose & postprandial plasma glucose were lower in glimepiride group. Sitagliptin was associated with less episodes of hypoglycaemia. Weight gain was associated with glimepiride but it was non-significant (p=0.08). Overall treatment satisfaction score were better for sitagliptin but were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of sitagliptin was comparable. Sitagliptin had superior adverse effect profile with less chances of hypoglycaemia and weight gain. Questionnaire scores were higher for sitagliptin indicating better treatment satisfaction compared to glimepiride.

Place of sulfonylureas in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in South Asia: A consensus statement

Since their introduction in clinical practice in the 1950's, Sulfonylureas (SUs) have remained the main-stay of pharmacotherapy in the management of type 2 diabetes. Despite their well-established benefits, their place in therapy is inappropriately being overshadowed by newer therapies. Many of the clinical issues associated with the use of SUs are agent-specific, and do not pertain to the class as such. Modern SUs (glimepiride, gliclazide MR) are backed by a large body of evidence, experience, and most importantly, outcome data, which supports their role in managing patients with diabetes. Person-centred care, i.e., careful choice of SU, appropriate dosage, timing of administration, and adequate patient counseling, will ensure that deserving patients are not deprived of the advantages of this well-established class of anti-diabetic agents. Considering their efficacy, safety, pleiotropic benefits, and low cost of therapy, SUs should be considered as recommended therapy for the treatment of diabetes in South Asia. This initiative by SAFES aims to encourage rational, safe and smart prescription of SUs, and includes appropriate medication counseling.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Second-Line Therapy with Vildagliptin Versus Other Oral Agents in Type 2 Diabetes (EDGE): Post Hoc Sub-Analysis of Bulgarian Data

OBJECTIVES

Metformin is an established first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients but intensification of oral anti-diabetic therapy is usually required over time. The effectiveness of diabetes control with vildaGliptin and vildagliptin/mEtformin (EDGE) study compared effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin and other oral anti-diabetic drugs (OAD) in 45,868 patients worldwide with inadequately controlled T2DM by monotherapy under real-life conditions. Here, we present effectiveness results for patients receiving vildagliptin (vildagliptin cohort) or another OAD (comparator cohort) add-on to monotherapy in Bulgaria.

METHODS

The eligible diabetes patients inadequately controlled with current monotherapy were assigned to add-on treatment, which was chosen by the physician based on patient's need. Effectiveness was assessed by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) drop and by means of a composite endpoint assessing the proportion of patients responding to treatment (HbA1c <7%) without proven hypoglycemic event and significant weight gain (>5%) after 12 months of treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 754 patients were enrolled in Bulgaria, 384 in the vildagliptin cohort and 369 in the comparator cohort. Mean HbA1c change from baseline was significantly higher with vildagliptin compared to the comparator (-1.35% in the vildagliptin cohort and -0.55% in the comparator cohort, P < 0.001). In the vildagliptin cohort, a higher proportion of patients reached the composite endpoint (HbA1c <7%, no hypoglycemic events, no weight gain) when compared to the comparator cohort (vildagliptin: 32.3%; comparator: 8.4%; P < 0.001). Overall, vildagliptin was well tolerated with similarly low incidences of total adverse events (3.4% versus 1.9% in the comparator group) and serious adverse events (2.3% versus 1.1% in the comparator group).

CONCLUSIONS

In real-life clinical practice in Bulgaria, vildagliptin is associated with a greater HbA1c drop, and a higher proportion of patients reaching target HbA1c without hypoglycemia and weight gain compared to comparator.

Sulfonylureas: a new look at old therapy

Sulfonylurea compounds were the first available oral antidiabetic agents and they remain an important tool in our quest for optimal glucose control. The sulfonylureas stimulate the release of insulin from pancreatic β-cells and have a number of extrapancreatic effects, including decreasing hepatic insulin clearance and reducing glucagon secretion in patients with type 2 diabetes. Although these agents have been the mainstay of pharmacotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), their safety and clinical utility has been a matter of active debate in recent years, as their use is associated with risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain. We review the discovery and mechanisms of action of sulfonylureas, and the results of clinical trials to provide practical information on the pros and cons of their use in clinical practice. This review addresses advances in our understanding of mechanisms of action of sulfonylurea agents, their efficacy in T2DM, side effects, and impact on cardiovascular disease outcomes.

Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a 4-year (208-week) phase III trial of empagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with insufficient glycemic control

BACKGROUND

Sulfonylureas (SUs) are commonly used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), usually as second-line treatment after the failure of metformin. However, SUs are associated with poor durability, hypoglycemia and weight gain. Empagliflozin is a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in development for the treatment of T2DM. In Phase II/III trials, empagliflozin reduced hyperglycemia, body weight and blood pressure, with a low incidence of hypoglycemia. The aim of this Phase III study is to compare the effects of empagliflozin and the SU glimepiride as second-line therapy in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin immediate release (IR) and diet/exercise.

METHOD

After a 2-week placebo run-in, patients were randomized to receive empagliflozin 25 mg once daily (qd) or glimepiride 1-4 mg qd double-blind for 2 years, in addition to metformin IR. Patients who participate in the initial 2-year randomization period will be eligible for a 2-year double-blind extension. The primary endpoint is change from baseline in HbA1c. Secondary endpoints are change from baseline in body weight, the incidence of confirmed hypoglycemia and changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Exploratory endpoints include markers of insulin secretion, body composition and responder analyses. Safety endpoints include the incidence of adverse events (AEs) (including macro- and microvascular adverse events) and changes from baseline in clinical laboratory parameters.

RESULTS

Between August 2010 and June 2011, 1549 patients were randomized and 1545 patients were treated. At baseline, mean (SD) age was 55.9 (10.4) years, HbA1c was 7.92 (0.84)%, body mass index was 30.11 (5.59) kg/m², systolic blood pressure was 133.5 (15.9) mmHg and diastolic blood pressure was 79.5 (9.4) mmHg.

DISCUSSION

This is the largest study to compare the efficacy and safety of an SGLT2 inhibitor with an SU in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin to date. In addition to determining the effects of these treatments on glycemic control over the long term, this study will investigate effects on beta-cell function, cardiovascular risk factors and markers of renal function/damage. The results will help to inform the choice of second-line treatment in patients with T2DM who have failed on metformin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01167881.