Comparative tolerability of sulphonylureas in diabetes mellitus

Insights from insulin resistance pathways: Therapeutic approaches against Alzheimer associated diabetes mellitus

Alzheimer Associated Diabetes Mellitus, commonly known as Type 3 Diabetes Mellitus (T3DM) is a distinct subtype of diabetes with a pronounced association with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Insulin resistance serves as a pivotal link between these two conditions, leading to diminished insulin sensitivity, hyperglycemia, and impaired glucose uptake. The brain, a vital organ in AD context, is also significantly impacted by insulin resistance, resulting in energy deficits and neuronal damage, which are hallmark features of the neurodegenerative disorder. To pave the way for potential therapeutic interventions targeting the insulin resistance pathway, it is crucial to comprehend the intricate pathophysiology of T3DM and identify the overlapped features between diabetes and AD. This comprehensive review article aims to explore various pathway such as AMPK, PPARγ, cAMP and P13K/Akt pathway as potential target for management of T3DM. Through the analysis of these complex mechanisms, our goal is to reveal their interdependencies and support the discovery of innovative therapeutic strategies. The review extensively discusses several promising pharmaceutical candidates that have demonstrated dual drug action mechanisms, addressing both peripheral and cerebral insulin resistance observed in T3DM. These candidates hold significant promise for restoring insulin function and mitigating the detrimental effects of insulin resistance on the brain. The exploration of these therapeutic options contributes to the development of innovative interventions that alleviate the burden of T3DM and enhance patient care.

Incident and recurrent hypoglycaemia with linagliptin and glimepiride over a median of 6 years in the CAROLINA cardiovascular outcome trial

AIM

The CAROLINA trial established non-inferiority of linagliptin versus glimepiride for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk. In pre-specified and post-hoc analyses, we investigated treatment effects on total hypoglycaemic burden in CAROLINA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized and treated with 5 mg linagliptin (n = 3014) or 1-4 mg glimepiride (n = 3000) once daily added to standard care. Hypoglycaemia captured from investigator-reported adverse events was analysed with Poisson and negative binomial regressions for the first and total (first plus recurrent) events, respectively. The influence of insulin initiation and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change on the treatment effect for hypoglycaemia was also explored.

RESULTS

Over 6.3 years median follow-up, average HbA1c over time did not differ between linagliptin versus glimepiride (weighted mean difference [95% confidence interval]: 0.00%, [-0.05, 0.05]), nor did insulin initiation (18.6% vs. 19.2% of patients, respectively), whereas body weight was lower with linagliptin (-1.54 kg, [-1.80, -1.28]). Hypoglycaemia frequency was lower with linagliptin across all hypoglycaemia categories, including severe episodes. Rate ratios (95% confidence interval) for first and total events for investigator-reported hypoglycaemia were 0.21 (0.19-0.24) and 0.12 (0.10-0.14), respectively, with 8.7 first and 60.8 total estimated events prevented/100 patient-years with linagliptin versus glimepiride. These differences occurred during night-time and daytime, and in subgroup analyses of total events. Treatment differences in hypoglycaemia were neither impacted by HbA1c changes nor insulin initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Across the severity spectrum, linagliptin substantially reduced the hypoglycaemic burden versus glimepiride in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk.

Der hepatogene Diabetes – aktueller Stand der Diagnostik und Therapie

Hintergrund

Patienten mit Leberzirrhose entwickeln häufig Störungen des Glukosemetabolismus wie Glukoseintoleranz oder einen hepatogenen Diabetes, welche neben der hepatozellulären Funktionseinschränkung durch die ausgeprägte Insulinresistenz als Folge der chronischen Lebererkrankung verursacht sind.

Diskussion

Empfehlungen mit Leitliniencharakter zur Diagnostik und Therapie des hepatogenen Diabetes fehlen bislang. Im Hinblick auf basistherapeutische Maßnahmen sollte eine ausreichende Deckung des Energie- und Proteinstoffwechsels gewährleistet sein, da ein Großteil der Zirrhosepatienten mangelernährt ist. Bei der medikamentösen Behandlung des hepatogenen Diabetes muss auf die erhöhte Hypoglykämiegefährdung geachtet werden. Aufgrund der Nebenwirkungen sind Biguanide sowie PPAR-gamma-Liganden bei Leberzirrhose kontraindiziert. Geeignete orale Antidiabetika sind insbesondere Sulfonylharnstoffanaloga und kurz wirksame Sulfonylharnstoffe. Wenn eine suffiziente Diabeteseinstellung mit oralen Antidiabetika nicht gelingt, sollte eine prandiale Insulintherapie mit Insulinen von kurzer Wirkdauer oder kurz wirksamen Insulinanaloga eingesetzt werden.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Optimierung einer diabetischen Stoffwechsellage hat neben der Vermeidung typischer diabetischer Spätkomplikationen eine wichtige Bedeutung für die Vermeidung und Reduzierung von Zirrhose-assoziierten Komplikationen wie z. B. gastrointestinalen Blutungsereignissen, hepatischer Enzephalopathie oder dem Auftreten eines hepatozellulären Karzinoms.

Clinical implications of diabetes in chronic liver disease: Diagnosis, outcomes and management, current and future perspectives

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is common in liver cirrhosis (LC). The pathophysiological association is bidirectional. DM is a risk factor of LC and LC is a diabetogenic condition. In the recent years, research on different aspects of the association DM and LC has been intensified. Nevertheless, it has been insufficient and still exist many gaps. The aims of this review are: (1) To discuss the latest understandings of the association of DM and LC in order to identify the strategies of early diagnosis; (2) To evaluate the impact of DM on outcomes of LC patients; and (3) To select the most adequate management benefiting the two conditions. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Ovid and Scopus engines for DM and LC, diagnosis, outcomes and management. The authors also provided insight from their own published experience. Based on the published studies, two types of DM associated with LC have emerged: Type 2 DM (T2DM) and hepatogenous diabetes (HD). High-quality evidences have determined that T2DM or HD significantly increase complications and death pre and post-liver transplantation. HD has been poorly studied and has not been recognized as a complication of LC. The management of DM in LC patients continues to be difficult and should be based on drug pharmacokinetics and the degree of liver failure. In conclusion, the clinical impact of DM in outcomes of LC patients has been the most studied item recently. Nevertheless many gaps still exist particularly in the management. These most important gaps were highlighted in order to propose future lines for research.

The role of diosgenin in diabetes and diabetic complications

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic and common metabolic disease that seriously endangers human health. Hyperglycemia and long-term metabolic disorders in diabetes will cause damage to the whole body tissues and organs, resulting in serious complications. Nowadays, drugs for treating diabetes on the market has strong side effects, new treatments thus are urgently needed. Natural therapy of natural ingredients is a promising avenue, this is because natural ingredients are safer and they also show strong activity in the treatment of diabetes. Diosgenin is such a very biologically active natural steroidal sapogenin. The research of diosgenin in the treatment of diabetes and its complications has been widely reported. This article reviews the effects of diosgenin through multiple targets and multiple pathways in diabetes and its complications which including diabetic nephropathy, diabetic liver disease, diabetic neuropathy, diabetic vascular disease, diabetic cardiomyopathy, diabetic reproductive dysfunction, and diabetic eye disease.

Sulfonylurea derivatives and cancer, friend or foe?

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with a higher risk of cancer and cancer-related mortality. Increased blood glucose and insulin levels in T2DM patients may be, at least in part, responsible for this effect. Indeed, lowering glucose and/or insulin levels pharmacologically appears to reduce cancer risk and progression, as has been demonstrated for the biguanide metformin in observational studies. Studies investigating the influence of sulfonylurea derivatives (SUs) on cancer risk have provided conflicting results, partly due to comparisons with metformin. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to within-class differences in systemic and off-target effects of the SUs. The aim of this systematic review is to discuss the available preclinical and clinical evidence on how the different SUs influence cancer development and risk. Databases including PubMed, Cochrane, Database of Abstracts on Reviews and Effectiveness, and trial registries were systematically searched for available clinical and preclinical evidence on within-class differences of SUs and cancer risk. The overall preclinical and clinical evidence suggest that the influence of SUs on cancer risk in T2DM patients differs between the various SUs. Potential mechanisms include differing affinities for the sulfonylurea receptors and thus differential systemic insulin exposure and off-target anti-cancer effects mediated for example through potassium transporters and drug export pumps. Preclinical evidence supports potential anti-cancer effects of SUs, which are of interest for further studies and potentially repurposing of SUs. At this time, the evidence on differences in cancer risk between SUs is not strong enough to guide clinical decision making.

Analysis of Patents Issued in China for Antihyperglycemic Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is prevalent, with a dramatic increase in recent years. Moreover, its microvascular and macrovascular complications cause significant societal issues. The demand for new and effective antidiabetic therapies grows with each passing day and motivates organizations and individuals to pay more attention to such products. In this article, we focused on oral antihyperglycemic drugs patented in China and introduced them according to their antihyperglycemic mechanisms. By searching the website of State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China (http://www.sipo.gov.cn), 2,500 antihyperglycemic patents for T2DM were identified and analyzed. These consisted of 4 patents for derivatives of herbal extracts (0.2%), 162 patents for herbal extracts (6.5%), 61 compositions for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) (2.4%), 2,263 patents for synthetic compounds (90.5%), and 10 (0.4%) patents of the combination of synthetic compounds and TCM. As the most common drugs for diabetes mellitus, synthetic compounds can also be classified into several categories according to their working mechanisms, such as insulin secretion promotor agents, insulin sensitizer agents, α-glucosidase inhibitors, and so forth. This article discussed the chemical structure, potential antihyperglycemic mechanism of these antihyperglycemic drugs in patents in China. Expert opinion: Insulin sensitivity and β-cell function could be improved by weight loss to prevent prediabetes into T2DM. However, 40-50% patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) still progress to T2DM, even after successful long-term weight loss. Antihyperglycemic remedies provide a treatment option to improve insulin sensitivity and maintain β-cell function. Combination therapy is the best treatment for diabetes. Combination therapy can reduce the dosage of each single drug option, and avoid the side effects. Drugs with different mechanisms are complementary, and are better adapted to patients with changing conditions. Classical combination therapies include combinations such as sulfonylureas plus biguanides or glucosidase inhibitors, biguanide plus glucosidase inhibitors or insulin sensitizers, insulin treatment plus biguanides or glucosidase inhibitors. The general principle of combination therapy is that two drugs with different mechanisms are selected jointly, and the combination of three types of hypoglycemic drugs is not recommended. After reading a large amount of literature, we have rarely found a case of three oral hypoglycemic agents, which may mean that the combination of three oral hypoglycemic agents is unnecessary and has unpredictable risks. There is no objection to the idea of multi-drug therapy. But multiple drugs can only be used when it shows a significant benefit to the patients. Combined use of multiple antidiabetic drugs poses a risk to patients due to drug interactions and overtreatment.

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.

Management of diabetes mellitus in patients undergoing liver transplantation

Diabetes is a common feature in cirrhotic individuals both before and after liver transplantation and negatively affects prognosis. Certain aetiological agents of chronic liver disease and loss of liver function per se favour the occurrence of pre-transplant diabetes in susceptible individuals, whereas immunosuppressant treatment, changes in lifestyle habits, and donor- and procedure-related factors contribute to diabetes development/persistence after transplantation. Challenges in the management of pre-transplant diabetes include the profound nutritional alterations characterizing cirrhotic individuals and the limitations to the use of drugs with liver metabolism. Special issues in the management of post-transplant diabetes include the diabetogenic potential of immunosuppressant drugs and the increased cardiovascular risk characterizing solid organ transplant survivors. Overall, the pharmacological management of cirrhotic patients undergoing liver transplantation is complicated by the lack of specific guidelines reflecting the paucity of data on the impact of glycaemic control and the safety and efficacy of anti-hyperglycaemic agents in these individuals.

Insulin secretagogues for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in persons at increased risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The projected rise in the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) could develop into a substantial health problem worldwide. Whether insulin secretagogues (sulphonylureas and meglitinide analogues) are able to prevent or delay T2DM and its associated complications in people at risk for the development of T2DM is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of insulin secretagogues on the prevention or delay of T2DM and its associated complications in people with impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting blood glucose, moderately elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or any combination of these.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials. The date of the last search of all databases was April 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 12 weeks or more comparing insulin secretagogues with any pharmacological glucose-lowering intervention, behaviour-changing intervention, placebo or no intervention in people with impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, moderately elevated HbA1c or combinations of these.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles/records, assessed quality and extracted outcome data independently. One review author extracted data which were checked by a second review author. We resolved discrepancies by consensus or the involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We carried out trial sequential analyses (TSAs) for all outcomes that could be meta-analysed. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs with 10,018 participants; 4791 participants with data on allocation to intervention groups were randomised to a second- or third-generation sulphonylurea or a meglitinide analogue as monotherapy and 29 participants were randomised to a second-generation sulphonylurea plus metformin. Three trials investigated a second-generation sulphonylurea, two trials investigated a third-generation sulphonylurea and one trial a meglitinide analogue. A total of 4873 participants with data on allocation to control groups were randomised to a comparator group; 4820 participants were randomised to placebo, 23 to diet and exercise, and 30 participants to metformin monotherapy. One RCT of nateglinide contributed 95% of all participants. The duration of the intervention varied from six months to five years. We judged none of the included trials as at low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains.All-cause and cardiovascular mortality following sulphonylurea (glimepiride) treatment were rarely observed (very low-quality evidence). The RR for incidence of T2DM comparing glimepiride monotherapy with placebo was 0.75; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.04; P = 0.08; 2 trials; 307 participants; very low-quality evidence. One of the trials reporting on the incidence of T2DM did not define the diagnostic criteria used. The other trial diagnosed T2DM as two consecutive fasting blood glucose values ≥ 6.1 mmol/L. TSA showed that only 4.5% of the diversity-adjusted required information size was accrued so far. No trial reported data on serious adverse events, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, congestive heart failure (HF), health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects.One trial with a follow-up of five years compared a meglitinide analogue (nateglinide) with placebo. A total of 310/4645 (6.7%) participants allocated to nateglinide died compared with 312/4661 (6.7%) participants allocated to placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.17; P = 0.98; moderate-quality evidence). The two main criteria for diagnosing T2DM were a fasting plasma glucose level ≥ 7.0 mmol/L or a 2-hour post challenge glucose ≥ 11.1 mmol/L. T2DM developed in 1674/4645 (36.0%) participants in the nateglinide group and in 1580/4661 (33.9%) in the placebo group (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.15; P = 0.05; moderate-quality evidence). One or more serious adverse event was reported in 2066/4602 (44.9%) participants allocated to nateglinide compared with 2089/4599 (45.6%) participants allocated to placebo. A total of 126/4645 (2.7%) participants allocated to nateglinide died because of cardiovascular disease compared with 118/4661 (2.5%) participants allocated to placebo (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.38; P = 0.60; moderate-quality evidence). Comparing participants receiving nateglinide with those receiving placebo for the outcomes MI, non-fatal stroke and HF gave the following event rates: MI 116/4645 (2.5%) versus 122/4661 (2.6%), stroke 100/4645 (2.2%) versus 110/4661 (2.4%) and numbers hospitalised for HF 85/4645 (1.8%) versus 100/4661 (2.1%) - (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.14; P = 0.27). The quality of the evidence was moderate for all these outcomes. Health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether insulin secretagogues compared mainly with placebo reduce the risk of developing T2DM and its associated complications in people at increased risk for the development of T2DM. Most trials did not investigate patient-important outcomes.

Comparison of the postprandial glucose and insulin profiles with nateglinide and gliclazide in type 2 diabetic patients

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare glucose, insulin and proinsulin profiles during nateglinide and gliclazide treatment over an extended postprandial period.

Materials and methods

This double-blind crossover trial was conducted in 23 type 2 diabetic patients (mean HbA1C 6.6%; range 6.0—7.4%) who received, for one week each, nateglinide 120 mg t.i.d., gliclazide 80 mg b.i.d. and placebo, with a one week wash out period between treatments.

Results

The 2-hour postprandial glucose concentration was markedly lower with nateglinide than with gliclazide (5.83 vs. 7.21 mmol/L; p<0.05), as was the post-meal peak glucose elevation (8.63 vs. 9.72 mmol/L; p=0.085), which was associated with earlier, higher and shorter-lived insulin and proinsulin secretory responses. However, 0—7-hour AUCs during standardised meal test for glucose and insulin between the two drugs did not statistically differ. No symptomatic hypoglycaemic events occurred during the 7-hour test period.

Conclusion

Nateglinide was more effective than gliclazide in controlling postprandial hyperglycaemia and showed a faster effect on insulin and proinsulin secretion.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Drug Interaction Study of Piragliatin, a Glucokinase Activator, and Glyburide, a Sulfonylurea, in Type 2 Diabetic Patients

A glucokinase activator and a sulfonylurea might be coprescribed to synergize treatment success for type 2 diabetes (T2D). This clinical pharmacology study was designed to investigate the potential glucose-lowering effect or pharmacodynamic (PD), pharmacokinetic (PK), and safety/tolerability interactions between piragliatin and glyburide in T2D patients already taking glyburide but not adequately controlled. This was an open-label, multiple-dose, 3-period, single-sequence crossover design: on days -1, 6, and 12, PD and PK samples were drawn with glyburide alone (period 0), piragliatin + glyburide (period 1), and piragliatin alone (period 2) treatments. The glucose-lowering effect, including fasting plasma glucose (FPG), of piragliatin was more pronounced when it was administered concomitantly with glyburide as compared to piragliatin or glyburide administered alone. However, this enhancement cannot be explained by a potential PK interaction between piragliatin and glyburide. Other than hypoglycemia, there were no clinically relevant safety findings. Thus, the enhanced PD effect warrants further investigation to define the optimal dose combination between glucokinase activators and sulfonylureas with regard to efficacy, safety, and tolerability.

Is gliclazide a sulfonylurea with difference? A review in 2016

Sulfonylureas (SUs) remain the most commonly prescribed drug after metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), despite the availability of several newer agents. The primary reason of SUs being most popular is their quick glycemic response, time-tested experience and least cost. Although SUs are one amongst the several other second line agents after metformin in all major guidelines, the new Dutch type 2 guidelines specifically advise gliclazide as the preferred second line drug instead of SUs as a class. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also included gliclazide in their Model List of Essential Medicines 2013 motivated by its safety data in elderly patients. Specifically advising gliclazide may have been based on emerging evidence suggesting cardiovascular neutrality of gliclazide over other SUs. This prompted us to do a literature review of gliclazide efficacy and safety data compared to other SUs as well as oral anti-diabetic drugs.

Pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus: an update on drug-drug interactions

The incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is increasing rapidly, as are the associated co-morbidities. Consequently, it has become necessary for a diabetic patient to take multiple medications at the same time to delay progression of the disease. This can put patients at an increased risk of moderate to severe drug interactions, which may threaten patients' life or may deteriorate the quality of their life. Hence, managing drug-drug interactions is the cornerstone of anti-diabetic therapy. Most of the clinically important drug-drug interactions of anti-diabetic agents are related to their metabolic pathways, but drugs that compete for renal excretion or impair renal status can also play an important role. In this review, we have examined the clinical implications and underlying mechanisms of drugs that are likely to alter the pharmacologic response of or cause adverse events with antidiabetic drugs, and we have outlined safe and efficacious treatment modalities.

WITHDRAWN: Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group withdrew this review as of Issue 7, 2015 because of the involvement of one author (SS Lund) being employed in a pharmaceutical company. The authors of the review and the Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group did not find that this was a breach of the rules of the Cochrane Collaboration at the time when it was published. However, after the publication of the review, the Cochrane Collaboration requested withdrawal of the review due to the employment of the author. A new protocol for a review to cover this topic will be published. This will have a new title and a markedly improved protocol fulfilling new and important developments and standards within the Cochrane Collaboration as well as an improved inclusion and search strategy making it necessary to embark on a completely new review project.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Counterregulatory responses to hypoglycemia differ between glimepiride and glyburide in non diabetic individuals

OBJECTIVE

Reported rates of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are lower with glimepiride as compared to glyburide. The aim of this study was to determine whether physiologic differences in counterregulatory neuroendocrine and metabolic mechanisms during hypoglycemia provide a basis for the observed clinical differences between glimepiride and glyburide.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Non-diabetic volunteers (age 38±2years, BMI 26±1kg/m(2)) were studied in a single-blind fashion during separate 2day randomized protocols consisting of 2h hyperinsulinemic (9pmol/kg/min) euglycemic (4.9±0.1mmol) and hypoglycemic (2.9±0.1mmol/L) clamps. Individuals received biologically equivalent doses of glimepiride (4mg) or glyburide (10mg) 1h prior to each glucose clamp (n=11) as well as a control group of placebo studies. Glucose kinetics were calculated using D-Glucose-6-6d2.

RESULTS

Insulin and C-peptide levels were increased (p<0.05) during euglycemia in both sulfonylurea groups as compared to placebo. However, despite equivalent hypoglycemia, insulin and C-peptide levels were higher (p<0.05) only after glyburide. Glucagon responses and endogenous glucose production (EGP) were decreased (p<0.05) during hypoglycemia following glyburide administration as compared to glimepiride. Glyburide reduced (p<0.05) norepinephrine responses during euglycemic clamps. In addition combined epinephrine and norepinephrine responses during hypoglycemia were reduced (p<0.05) following glyburide as compared to placebo. Leptin levels fell by a greater amount (p<0.05) during hypoglycemia with both sulfonylureas as compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, glimepiride and glyburide can both similarly increase insulin and C-peptide levels during hyperinsulinemic euglycemia. However, during moderate hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia (2.9mmol/L) glyburide resulted in increased C-peptide and insulin, but blunted glucagon, sympathetic nervous system and EGP responses. We conclude that glyburide can acutely reduce key neuroendocrine and metabolic counterregulatory defenses during hypoglycemia in healthy individuals.

Effectiveness and safety of glimepiride and iDPP4, associated with metformin in second line pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Our review analyses the studies that have specifically compared the association iDPP4/metformin with glimepiride/metformin, both in second line pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2).

METHODS

Systematic literature review with a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing glimepiride with any iDPP4, both used together with metformin as a second line treatment of DM2. The effectiveness variables used were as follows: %HbA1c variation, fasting plasma glucose variation, patients achieving the therapeutic objective of HbA1c <7%, treatment dropouts due to lack of effectiveness and rescue treatments needed. The safety variables included were as follows: weight variation at the end of treatment; presentation of any type of adverse event; presentation of serious adverse events; patients who experienced any type of hypoglycaemia; patients who experienced severe hypoglycaemia; treatments suspended due to adverse effects; and deaths for any reason.

RESULTS

Four studies met the inclusion criteria. The group treated with glimepiride showed better results in all effectiveness variables. Regarding safety variables, the main differences observed were in the greater number of cases with hypoglycaemia in the group treated with glimepiride, and the serious adverse events or treatment discontinuations due to these which occurred in slightly over 2% more cases in this group compared to the iDPP4 group. The remaining adverse events, including mortality, did not show any differences between both groups. The variation in the weight difference between groups (2.1 kg) is not considered clinically relevant.

CONCLUSIONS

A greater effectiveness is seen in the glimepiride/metformin association, which should not be diminished by slight differences in adverse effects, with absence of severe hypoglycaemia in over 98% of patients under treatment. The association of glimepiride/metformin, both due to cost as well as effectiveness and safety, may be the preferential treatment for most DM2 patients, and it offers a potential advantage in refractory hyperglycemic populations, tolerant to treatment.

In vitro biological evaluation of glyburide as potential inhibitor of collagenases

In tissues with upregulated MMP activity, MMP inhibition remains one of the key strategies. Potential inhibitors of MMPs have been tested for almost 30 years, but none have reached clinical utility due to bioavailability issues and adverse effects. This study utilized the approach of drug repurposing for exploring glyburide as a potential inhibitor against collagenases. In silico molecular docking studies were carried out to probe the interactions of glyburide with the active site Zn. Collagenase enzyme activity measurements and zymography analyses using conditioned medium from lung fibroblasts, rheumatoid synovial fibroblasts, and osteoblasts were carried out to confirm the inhibitory activity. Glyburide binds and interacts with the catalytic Zn residues of the collagenases, as evidenced by in silico molecular docking studies. Fluorescence enzyme activity measurements reveal that glyburide inhibits peptide substrate cleavage by all three collagenases in a dose-dependent manner. Collagen zymography studies validated inhibition of these collagenases by glyburide. These results identify glyburide as a potential inhibitor of collagenases and provide an insight into the mechanism of action of this small molecule. Thus, glyburide may offer additional advantages in diabetics, in controlling MMP activation and collagen degradation and could aid in the treatment of diseases with aberrant MMP activity.

Update on Safety Issues Related to Antihyperglycemic Therapy

The American Diabetes Association emphasizes the importance of individualized patient care in the management of diabetes. One of the important considerations in choosing an antihyperglycemic agent is its side-effect and safety profile. This article reviews the common and clinically significant side effects of each class of agents, including ways to prevent and overcome their occurrence.

[The use of gliclazide in individualized sulfonylurea therapy]

In addition to the common blood glucose lowering effect, sulfonylurea compounds are different in many aspects from each other. Based on earlier findings the second generation gliclazide has special advantages within this group. Although the number of experimental and clinical observations on gliclazide is continuously increasing, these novel findings are not in the focus anymore due to the appearance of new antidiabetics. This article reviews recent experimental (effect on receptors, the absence of Epac2 activation, antioxidant properties, possible incentive of factors participating in beta-cell differentiation) and pharmacogenomic data, and compares them with clinical observations obtained from gliclazide treatment (hypoglycemias, parameters of cardiovascular outcome). The data underline the advantages of gliclazide, the highly pancreas-selective nature, preservation of the ischemic precondition, favourable hemodynamic properties and potential reduction of the beta-cell loss as compared to other compounds of the group. However, gliclazide is not free from disadvantages characteristic to sulfonylureas in general (blood glucose independent insulin stimulation, beta-cell depletion). Comparing gliclazide with other derivatives of the group, the above data indicate individual benefits for the application when sulfonylurea compound is the drug of choice.

Commonly used endocrine drugs

Endocrine drugs are agents directed to a malfunctioning endocrine path. Several agents are secreted in or target the nervous system, and are thus more prone to cause neurologic adverse events (AEs). This chapter focuses on commonly used endocrine agents directed to the hypothalamus-pituitary axis, thyroid, and antidiabetic agents. The therapeutic agents are discussed in terms of indication, mechanism of action, description, and frequency of AEs, and risk factors for occurrence where available.

Review: Glycation of human serum albumin

Glycation involves the non-enzymatic addition of reducing sugars and/or their reactive degradation products to amine groups on proteins. This process is promoted by the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations in diabetes and occurs with various proteins that include human serum albumin (HSA). This review examines work that has been conducted in the study and analysis of glycated HSA. The general structure and properties of HSA are discussed, along with the reactions that can lead to modification of this protein during glycation. The use of glycated HSA as a short-to-intermediate term marker for glycemic control in diabetes is examined, and approaches that have been utilized for measuring glycated HSA are summarized. Structural studies of glycated HSA are reviewed, as acquired for both in vivo and in vitro glycated HSA, along with data that have been obtained on the rate and thermodynamics of HSA glycation. In addition, this review considers various studies that have investigated the effects of glycation on the binding of HSA with drugs, fatty acids and other solutes and the potential clinical significance of these effects.

Development of affinity microcolumns for drug-protein binding studies in personalized medicine: interactions of sulfonylurea drugs with in vivo glycated human serum albumin

This report used high-performance affinity microcolumns to examine the changes in binding by sulfonylurea drugs to in vivo glycated HSA that had been isolated from individual patients with diabetes. An immunoextraction approach was developed to isolate HSA and glycated HSA from clinical samples, using only 20 μL of plasma or serum and 6-12 nmol of protein to prepare each affinity microcolumn. It was found that the affinity microcolumns could be used in either frontal analysis or zonal elution studies, which typically required only 4-8 min per run. The microcolumns had good stability and allowed data to be obtained for multiple drugs and experimental conditions over hundreds of sample application cycles. Both the overall binding, as measured by frontal analysis, and site-specific interactions, as examined by zonal elution, showed good agreement with previous data that had been obtained for in vitro glycated HSA with similar levels of modification. It was also possible to directly compare the changes in site-specific binding that occurred between sulfonylurea drugs or as the level of HSA glycation was varied. This method is not limited to clinical samples of glycated HSA but could be adapted for work with other modified proteins of interest in personalized medicine.

Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing health problem worldwide. Whether sulphonylureas show better, equal or worse therapeutic effects in comparison with other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sulphonylurea monotherapy versus placebo, no intervention or other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched publications in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS and CINAHL (all until August 2011) to obtain trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria for our review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials that randomised patients 18 years old or more with T2DM to sulphonylurea monotherapy with a duration of 24 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were other patient-important outcomes and metabolic variables. Where possible, we used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) to analyse the treatment effect of dichotomous outcomes. We used mean differences with 95% CI to analyse the treatment effect of continuous outcomes. We evaluated the risk of bias. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess whether firm evidence could be established for a 10% relative risk reduction (RRR) between intervention groups.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 72 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 22,589 participants; 9707 participants randomised to sulphonylureas versus 12,805 participants randomised to control interventions. The duration of the interventions varied from 24 weeks to 10.7 years. We judged none of the included trials as low risk of bias for all bias domains. Patient-important outcomes were seldom reported.First-generation sulphonylureas (FGS) versus placebo or insulin did not show statistical significance for all-cause mortality (versus placebo: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.45; P = 0.15; 2 trials; 553 participants; high risk of bias (HRB); versus insulin: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.59; P = 0.26; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus placebo showed statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality in favour of placebo (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.22; P = 0.006; 2 trials; 553 participants; HRB). FGS versus insulin did not show statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.71; P = 0.39; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of FGS for adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.76; P = 0.01; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB) and for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67; P = 0.004; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB).Second-generation sulphonylureas (SGS) versus metformin (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.58; P = 0.68; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.41; P = 0.70; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; P = 0.72; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB), meglitinides (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.42; P = 0.52; 7 trials; 2038 participants; HRB), or incretin-based interventions (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.68; P = 0.51; 2 trials; 1503 participants; HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding all-cause mortality in a random-effects model. SGS versus metformin (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.54 to 4.01; P = 0.45; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; P = 0.55; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.28; P = 0.80; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB) or meglitinide (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.53; P = 0.97; 7 trials, 2038 participants, HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding cardiovascular mortality. Mortality data for the SGS versus placebo were sparse. SGS versus thiazolidinediones and meglitinides did not show statistically significant differences for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes. SGS versus metformin showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; P = 0.02; 3018 participants; 3 trials; HRB). The definition of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes varied among the trials. SGS versus metformin, thiazolidinediones and meglitinides showed no statistical significance for non-fatal myocardial infarction. No meta-analyses could be performed for microvascular outcomes. SGS versus placebo, metformin, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors or meglitinides showed no statistical significance for adverse events. SGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96; P = 0.04; 9 trials; 870 participants; HRB). SGS versus meglitinides showed no statistical significance for the risk of severe hypoglycaemia. SGS versus metformin and thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance in favour of metformin (RR 5.64, 95% CI 1.22 to 26.00; P = 0.03; 4 trials; 3637 participants; HRB) and thiazolidinediones (RR 6.11, 95% CI 1.57 to 23.79; P = 0.009; 6 trials; 5660 participants; HRB) for severe hypoglycaemia.Third-generation sulphonylureas (TGS) could not be included in any meta-analysis of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes. TGS versus thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance regarding adverse events in favour of TGS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; P = 0.03; 3 trials; 510 participants; HRB). TGS versus thiazolidinediones did not show any statistical significance for drop-outs due to adverse events. TGS versus other comparators could not be performed due to lack of data.For the comparison of SGS versus FGS no meta-analyses of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes, or adverse events could be performed.Health-related quality of life and costs of intervention could not be meta-analysed due to lack of data.In trial sequential analysis, none of the analyses of mortality outcomes, vascular outcomes or severe hypoglycaemia met the criteria for firm evidence of a RRR of 10% between interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support the decision as to whether to initiate sulphonylurea monotherapy. Data on patient-important outcomes are lacking. Therefore, large-scale and long-term randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias, focusing on patient-important outcomes are required.

Gene networks modified by sulphonylureas in beta cells: a pathway-based analysis of insulin secretion and cell death

Sulphonylureas (SUs) used in the treatment for type 2 diabetes have been shown to result in different clinical outcome. This study hypothesized that three widely used SUs, glibenclamide, glimepiride and gliclazide, may affect function and survival of insulin-producing cells differently. To evaluate differences between SUs, insulin secretion and cell death were measured, and genome-wide gene expression patterns were compared using a bioinformatics approach focusing on functional relationships between molecules. Insulin-producing INS-1E cells exposed to SUs for 6 and 24 hr were assayed using GeneChip. Cluster and pathway analyses were used to identify differentially expressed genes and patterns of potential biological functions associated with SU treatment. Cell death was measured using acridine orange/Hoechst 33342 staining. Short-term treatment (6 hr) yielded up-regulation of insulin secretion and genes associated with insulin secretion for all three SUs applied. While long-term treatment (24-72 hr) with gliclazide did not change gene expression or cell survival, treatment with glibenclamide or glimepiride up-regulated genes associated with oxidative stress and hypoxia, but did not induce cell death. Short-term treatment with SUs initiates gene regulation that can be attributed to insulin secretion with few differences between individual SUs. This regulation was temporal and returned to baseline after 24 hr. Individual differences observed after 24-72 hr indicate that glibenclamide and glimepiride induce potentially harmful cell signalling insufficient for triggering beta cell death.

Drug-drug Interaction between Pravastatin and Gemfibrozil (Antihyperlipidemic) with Gliclazide (Antidiabetic) in Rats

Diabetes mellitus is a condition of increased blood glucose level in the body. Antihyperlipidemic drugs like statins and fibrates are widely used for prophylactic treatment in dyslipideamia and atherosclerosis. Diabetic dislipidemia exists with increased triglycerides, low HDL and high LDL levels. Hence, with oral hypoglycemic drugs, the addition of a lipid-lowering drug is necessary for controlling dislipidemia. In such a situation, there may be chances of drug–drug interactions between antidiabetic and antihyperlipidemic drugs. The present study is planned to evaluate the safety of gliclazide (antidiabetic) in the presence of pravastatin and gemfibrozil (antihyperlpidemic) in rats. Studies in normal and alloxan-induced diabetic rats were conducted with oral doses of gliclazide and their combination with pravastatin and gemfibrozil, with an adequate washout period in between the treatments. Blood samples were collected in rats by retroorbital puncture at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h. All the blood samples were analyzed for glucose by GOD –POD. Gliclazide (½ TD) produced hypoglycemic activity in normal and diabetic rats, with peak activity at 2 and 8 h. Pravastatin (TD) + gemfibrozil (TD) combination treatment increased the hypoglycemic effect of gliclazide in normal rats or diabetic rats when administered together. The interaction observed due to inhibition of both the enzymes (CYP 450 2C9 and CYP 450 3A4) responsible for the metabolism of gliclazide showed increased half-life, which was seen in the present study. Because concomitant administration of gliclazide with provastatin and gemfibrozil in diabetes is associated with atherosclerosis, it should be contraindicated or used with caution.

Drug-induced hypoglycaemia: an update

Drugs are the most frequent cause of hypoglycaemia in adults. Although hypoglycaemia is a well known adverse effect of antidiabetic agents, it may occasionally develop in the course of treatment with drugs used in everyday clinical practice, including NSAIDs, analgesics, antibacterials, antimalarials, antiarrhythmics, antidepressants and other miscellaneous agents. They induce hypoglycaemia by stimulating insulin release, reducing insulin clearance or interfering with glucose metabolism. Several drugs may also potentiate the hypoglycaemic effect of antidiabetic agents. Administration of these agents to individuals with diabetes mellitus is of most concern. Many of these drugs, and depending on clinical setting, may also induce hyperglycaemia. Drug-induced hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity may lead in certain circumstances to hypoglycaemia. Some drugs may also induce hypoglycaemia by causing pancreatitis. Drug-induced hypoglycaemia is usually mild but may be severe. Effective clinical management can be handled through awareness of this drug-induced adverse effect on blood glucose levels. Herein, we review pertinent clinical information on the incidence of drug-induced hypoglycaemia and discuss the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and prevention and management.

Glimepiride-Induced Hypoglycemia with Ciprofloxacin, Metronidazole, and Acute Kidney Injury

A 79-year-old white male presented to the emergency room with altered mental status and a blood glucose of 28 mg/dL. He was taking glimepiride 1 mg by mouth daily prior to admission and had recently been prescribed ciprofloxacin and metronidazole for diverticulitis. The patient was also found to have acute-on-chronic renal failure upon presentation. Escalated dextrose infusion with repeated doses of D50W and glucagon failed to sustain his blood glucose, which remained in the range of 30 to 50 mg/dL. Salvage treatment with intravenous octreotide was implemented successfully; only one dose of D50W was required after octreotide initiation and blood glucose normalized within several hours. In the presence of this patient's complex medication therapy, we explore the contributing causes of hypoglycemia. Fluoroquinolones are widely associated with dysglycemias, particularly in diabetic patients receiving hypoglycemic agents. Similarly, renal insufficiency has been implicated to precipitate hypoglycemia with sulfonylureas, with dosage adjustment being required almost class-wide. We also recognize a theoretical drug interaction mediated by metronidazole-induced CYP 2C9 inhibition of glimepiride metabolism. Sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia can be serious and refractory to traditional therapy and can be exacerbated by multiple factors, such as drug interactions or impaired renal function. In the era of complex medication therapy for patient populations with multiple disease states, we present a severe episode of glimepiride-induced hypoglycemia with multiple causative factors.

Effects of oral glucose-lowering drugs on long term outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus following myocardial infarction not treated with emergent percutaneous coronary intervention--a retrospective nationwide cohort study

Background

The optimum oral pharmacological treatment of diabetes mellitus to reduce cardiovascular disease and mortality following myocardial infarction has not been established. We therefore set out to investigate the association between individual oral glucose-lowering drugs and cardiovascular outcomes following myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus not treated with emergent percutaneous coronary intervention.

Materials and methods

All patients aged 30 years or older receiving glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) and admitted with myocardial infarction (MI) not treated with emergent percutaneous coronary intervention in Denmark during 1997-2006 were identified by individual-level linkage of nationwide registries of hospitalizations and drug dispensing from pharmacies. Multivariable Cox regression models adjusted for age, sex, calendar year, comorbidity, and concomitant pharmacotherapy were used to assess differences in the composite endpoint of non-fatal MI and cardiovascular mortality between individual GLDs, using metformin monotherapy as reference.

Results

The study comprised 9876 users of GLDs admitted with MI. The mean age was 72.3 years and 56.5% of patients were men. A total of 3649 received sulfonylureas and 711 received metformin at admission. The average length of follow-up was 2.2 (SD 2.6) years. A total of 6,171 patients experienced the composite study endpoint. The sulfonylureas glibenclamide, glimepiride, glipizide, and tolbutamide were associated with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality and/or nonfatal MI with hazard ratios [HRs] of 1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.46), 1.19 (1.06-1.32), 1.25 (1.11-1.42), and 1.18 (1.03-1.34), respectively, compared with metformin. Gliclazide was the only sulfonylurea not associated with increased risk compared with metformin (HR 1.03 [0.88-1.22]).

Conclusions

In patients with diabetes mellitus admitted with MI not treated with emergent percutaneous coronary intervention, monotherapy treatment with the sulfonylureas glibenclamide, glimepiride, glipizide, and tolbutamide was associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared with metformin monotherapy.

Influence of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (efavirenz and nevirapine) on the pharmacodynamic activity of gliclazide in animal models

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes may occur as a result of HIV infection and/or its treatment. Gliclazide is a widely used drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Efavirenz and nevirapine are widely used non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors for the treatment of HIV infection. The role of Efavirenz and nevirapine on the pharmacodynamic activity of gliclazide is not currently known. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of oral administration of efavirenz and nevirapine on blood glucose and investigate their effect on the activity of gliclazide in rats (normal and diabetic) and rabbits to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the combination.

METHODS

Studies in normal and alloxan induced diabetic rats were conducted with oral doses of 2 mg/kg bd. wt. of gliclazide, 54 mg/kg bd. wt. of efavirenz or 18 mg/kg bd. wt. of nevirapine and their combination with adequate washout periods in between treatments. Studies in normal rabbits were conducted with 5.6 mg/1.5 kg bd. wt. of gliclazide, 42 mg/1.5 kg bd. wt. of efavirenz or 14 mg/1.5 kg bd. wt. of nevirapine and their combination given orally. Blood samples were collected at regular time intervals in rats from retro orbital puncture and by marginal ear vein puncture in rabbits. All the blood samples were analysed for blood glucose by GOD/POD method.

RESULTS

Efavirenz and nevirapine alone have no significant effect on the blood glucose level in rats and rabbits. Gliclazide produced hypoglycaemic/antidiabetic activity in normal and diabetic rats with peak activity at 2 h and 8 h and hypoglycaemic activity in normal rabbits at 3 h. In combination, efavirenz reduced the effect of gliclazide in rats and rabbits, and the reduction was more significant with the single dose administration of efavirenz than multiple dose administration. In combination, nevirapine has no effect on the activity of gliclazide in rats and rabbits.

CONCLUSION

Thus, it can be concluded that the combination of efavirenz and gliclazide may need dose adjustment and care should be taken when the combination is prescribed for their clinical benefit in diabetic patients. The combination of nevirapine and gliclazide was safe. However, further studies are warranted.

BLX-1002, a novel thiazolidinedione with no PPAR affinity, stimulates AMP-activated protein kinase activity, raises cytosolic Ca2+, and enhances glucose-stimulated insulin secretion in a PI3K-dependent manner

BLX-1002 is a novel small thiazolidinedione with no apparent affinity to peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPAR) that has been shown to reduce glycemia in type 2 diabetes without adipogenic effects. Its precise mechanisms of action, however, remain elusive, and no studies have been done with respect to possible effects of BLX-1002 on pancreatic beta-cells. We have investigated the influence of the drug on beta-cell function in mouse islets in vitro. BLX-1002 enhanced insulin secretion stimulated by high, but not low or intermediate, glucose concentrations. BLX-1002 also augmented cytoplasmic free Ca2+ concentration ([Ca2+](i)) at high glucose, an effect that was abolished by pretreatment with the Ca2+-ATPase inhibitor thapsigargin. In contrast, BLX-1002 did not interfere with voltage-gated Ca2+ channel or ATP-sensitive K+ channel activities. In addition, cellular NAD(P)H stimulated by glucose was not affected by the drug. The stimulatory effect of BLX-1002 on insulin secretion at high glucose was completely abolished by treatment with the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors wortmannin or LY-294002. Stimulation of the beta-cells with BLX-1002 also induced activation of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) at high glucose. Our study suggests that BLX-1002 potentiates insulin secretion only at high glucose in beta-cells in a PI3K-dependent manner. This effect of BLX-1002 is associated with an increased [Ca2+](i) mediated through Ca2+ mobilization, and an enhanced activation of AMPK. The glucose-sensitive stimulatory impact of BLX-1002 on beta-cell function may translate into substantial clinical benefits of the drug in the management of type 2 diabetes, by avoidance of hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients treated with antihyperglycemic agents

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence and manifestations of hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients receiving antihyperglycemic therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was a 3-month prospective review of consecutive medical records of all adult, nonpregnant hospitalized patients at a 675-bed university hospital who experienced at least 1 blood glucose (BG) <or= 60 mg/dL within 48 hours of receiving an antihyperglycemic agent.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Of 2174 patients receiving antihyperglycemic agents, 206 (9.5%) experienced 484 hypoglycemic episodes. Of these episodes, 29% occurred in patients with type 1 diabetes, 23% in the ICU, and 72% in patients receiving only insulin for hyperglycemia. More than 1 episode was experienced by 44% of the 206 patients. Furthermore, 4% (20 of 484) of the hypoglycemic episodes were associated with a hypoglycemia-related adverse event, defined as symptoms, signs, or injury. The mean BG of these episodes was 43.0 mg/dL, significantly lower than the mean BG of 50.9 mg/dL for the 464 episodes without adverse events (P = .01). One-third of the adverse events occurred with a BG between 50 and 60 mg/dL; half the adverse events, 10 episodes or 2% of all hypoglycemic episodes, were serious, involving seizures or an unresponsive patient. A decrease in enteral intake accounted for 40% of the episodes; none was attributed to medication error. Less than half the hypoglycemic patients had documented euglycemia within 2 hours. Sulfonylurea agents were associated with higher rates of hypoglycemia than were other oral agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients taking antihyperglycemic agents is common; 1 in 25 episodes is associated with an adverse event. Opportunities exist to improve care, particularly around discontinuation of feeding.

Differential effects of oral hypoglycemic agents on glucose control and cardiovascular risk

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden remains the predominant cause of mortality and morbidity in the United States and in most of the developed world. The ongoing twin epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus provide a groundswell source for sustaining this trend for the foreseeable future (increasing the prevalence of CVD by 2-4 times), unless radical changes are made in public health policy. Oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) remain a mainstay for management of type 2 diabetes in most practice settings. Although these agents are primarily prescribed to achieve better glycemic control, it is important to evaluate what effects they have on cardiovascular risk and whether there are significant differences in effects among the different OHAs. This review presents the available data on the effects of the various OHAs on cardiovascular risk surrogates and actual events in retrospective and prospective study design settings.

Inpatient management of diabetes and hyperglycemia: implications for nutrition practice and the food and nutrition professional

Although numerous guidelines and standards address the management of diabetes in outpatient settings, only recently has evidence been provided to issue standards of care to guide clinicians in optimal inpatient glycemic control for hospitalized individuals with diabetes or illness-induced hyperglycemia. Both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Endocrinology recommend critically ill patients keep their blood glucose level as close to 110 mg/dL (6.1 mmol/L) as possible. In the noncritically ill patient, the American Diabetes Association recommends to keep pre-meal blood glucose as close to 90 to 130 mg/dL (5.0 to 7.2 mmol/L) as possible, whereas the American College of Endocrinology recommends pre-meal blood glucose be kept at 110 mg/dL (6.1 mmol/L) or less. Both organizations agree that peak post-prandial blood glucose should be 180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) or less. Recent evidence has also led the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations to develop standards for a voluntary certification in the management of the patient with diabetes in the inpatient setting. It is important that food and nutrition professionals familiarize themselves with these recommendations and implement nutrition interventions in collaboration with other members of the health care team to achieve these new glycemic control targets. Food and nutrition professionals have a key role in developing screening tools, and in implementing nutrition care guidelines, nutrition interventions, and medical treatment protocols needed to improve inpatient glycemic control.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events: a comparison of glyburide with other secretagogues and with insulin

OBJECTIVE

Glyburide is the most widely used sulfonylurea but has unique pharmacodynamic properties that may increase harm. We hypothesized that glyburide causes more hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events than other secretagogues or insulin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data sources were Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and three other web-based clinical trial registers (1966-2005). Parallel, randomized, controlled trials in people with type 2 diabetes comparing glyburide monotherapy with monotherapy using secretagogues or insulin were selected. Outcomes were hypoglycemia, glycemic control, cardiovascular events, body weight, and death. Titles and abstracts of 1,806 publications were reviewed in duplicate and 21 relevant articles identified. Data on patient characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and validity were extracted in duplicate using predefined criteria.

RESULTS

Glyburide was associated with a 52% greater risk of experiencing at least one episode of hypoglycemia compared with other secretagogues (relative risk 1.52 [95% CI 1.21-1.92]) and with 83% greater risk compared with other sulfonylureas (1.83 [1.35-2.49]). Glyburide was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events (0.84 [0.56-1.26]), death (0.87 [0.70-1.07]), or end-of-trial weight (weighted mean difference 1.69 kg [95% CI -0.41 to 3.80]) compared with other secretagogues. Limitations included suboptimal reporting of original trials. Loss to follow-up exceeded 20% in some studies, and major hypoglycemia was infrequently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Glyburide caused more hypoglycemia than other secretagogues and other sulfonylureas. Glyburide was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, death, or weight gain.

Effects of Pioglitazone Hydrochloride on Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

AIM

The effects of pioglitazone hydrochloride monotherapy on abnormal lipid control were evaluated in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, comparing with glibenclamide monotherapy.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive, once daily, pioglitazone hydrochloride, at 15 mg or 30 mg (n=46), or glibenclamide, at 1.25 mg or 2.5 mg (n=46). The 24-week study included patients with type 2 diabetes having high levels of triglyceride (TG).

RESULTS

Pioglitazone hydrochloride produced beneficial effects on dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with the baseline and the glibenclamide group, as demonstrated by increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) particle size, a fall in TG levels, and an increased ratio of visceral to subcutaneous fat volumes (V/S). Pioglitazone hydrochloride reduced fasting serum insulin levels, with low fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and glycohemoglobin levels, compared to the baseline, suggesting an improvement of insulin resistance.

CONCLUSION

As expected, glibenclamide reduced FPG levels through increased insulin secretion. Pioglitazone hydrochloride and glibenclamide were well tolerated. Pioglitazone hydrochloride improved dyslipidemia related to insulin resistance, whereas glibenclamide enhanced insulin secretion, with only a minor effect on lipid control, in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

The flushing patient: Differential diagnosis, workup, and treatment

Cutaneous flushing-a common presenting complaint to dermatologists, allergists, internists, and family practitioners-results from changes in cutaneous blood flow triggered by multiple conditions. Most cases are caused by very common, benign diseases, such as rosacea or climacterum, that are readily apparent after a thorough taking of history and physical examination. However, in some cases, accurate diagnosis requires further laboratory, radiologic, or histopathologic studies to differentiate several important clinicopathologic entities. In particular, the serious diagnoses of carcinoid syndrome, pheochromocytoma, mastocytosis, and anaphylaxis need to be excluded by laboratory studies. If this work-up is unrevealing, rare causes, such as medullary carcinoma of the thyroid, pancreatic cell tumor, renal carcinoma, and others, should be considered.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

At the completion of this learning activity, participants should be familiar with the mechanisms of flushing, its clinical differential diagnosis, the approach to establish a definitive diagnosis, and management of various conditions that produce flushing.

Influence of nicorandil on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of gliclazide in rats and rabbits

Chronic diabetes precipitates ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and many other disorders. IHD inturn is shown in the form of angina initially. According to EUROPA study, the incidence of angina is high in type II diabetics. Gliclazide, a second generation sulphonylurea derivative is widely used in the treatment of type-II diabetes and is known to release insulin by K(+) channel inhibition. Nicorandil, a newer antianginal drug widely used now a days acts by opening potassium channels in the cardiac muscle cell and also by releasing nitric oxide. However its action on pancreatic cell K(+) channel is not known. Since there is possibility for drug interaction leading to decreased activity of gliclazide the present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of the combination. Studies in normal and alloxan induced diabetic rats were conducted with oral doses of 2 mg/kg bd. wt. of gliclazide, 1.8 mg/kg bd. wt. of nicorandil and their combination with adequate washout periods in between treatments. Studies in normal rabbits were conducted with 5.6 mg/1.5 kg bd. wt. of gliclazide, 1.4 mg/1.5 kg bd. wt. of nicorandil and their combination given orally. Blood samples were collected in rats from retro orbital puncture at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h and by marginal ear vein puncture in rabbits at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 h. All the blood samples were analysed for glucose by GOD/POD method. The blood samples of rabbits were analysed by HPLC for gliclazide. Gliclazide produced hypoglycaemic/antidiabetic activity in normal and diabetic rats with peak activity at 1 h and 8 h and hypoglycaemic activity in normal rabbits at 3 h, while nicorandil alone produced significant hyperglycaemia at 4 h and reduced the effect of gliclazide with no significant change in pharmacokinetics when administered in combination. The interaction observed appears to be pharmacodynamic at the receptor level as expected.

Risk and Short-Term Prognosis of Myocardial Infarction Among Users of Antidiabetic Drugs

Old sulphonylureas have been linked with adverse cardiovascular effects; however, data on the clinical implications are sparse. We examined the association between use of sulphonylureas and other antidiabetic drugs and the risk and case fatality rate (CFR) of myocardial infarction (MI) in a population-based case-control and follow-up study, respectively. A total of 6738 cases of first-time MI and 67,374 age- and gender-matched population controls were identified from the Hospital Discharge Registry and the Civil Registration System of North Jutland County, Denmark, in the period 1994 through 2002. Prescriptions for antidiabetic drugs before the index date were retrieved from a prescription database. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) of MI (case-control study) and 30-day CFR (follow-up study) associated with antidiabetic drug use adjusted for possible confounding factors and using nondiabetic subjects as the reference group. The risk of MI appeared higher among users of old sulphonylureas (adjusted OR, 2.07; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.81-2.37) than among users of new sulphonylureas (adjusted OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.84). The adjusted ORs among users of nonsulphonylurea oral antidiabetic drugs, insulin, and patients with diabetes not receiving pharmacotherapy were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.90-2.11), 2.56 (95% CI, 2.16-3.03), and 3.51 (95% CI, 2.92-4.22), respectively. The overall 30-day CFR was 24.6%, but varied between 9.5% and 37.0% among the different categories. New sulphonylureas may be associated with a lower risk of MI than old sulphonylureas. Furthermore, the 30-day CFR may vary according to type of antidiabetic drug. These differences indicate the need for further examination of the cardiovascular safety of antidiabetic drugs.