Cardiovascular safety of sulphonylureas: over 40 years of continuous controversy without an answer.

More than 40 years after publication of the University Group Diabetes Program trial, the cardiovascular safety of sulphonylureas is still contentious. Although several hypotheses linking sulphonylureas to adverse cardiovascular effects exist, none provide conclusive evidence. Adding to the controversy, current clinical trials and observational studies provide inconsistent, and sometimes conflicting, evidence for the cardiovascular effects of sulphonylureas. Overall, observational evidence suggests that an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes is associated with sulphonylureas; however, these data may be subject to residual confounding and bias. Although evidence from randomized controlled trials has suggested a neutral effect, the majority of these studies were not specifically designed to assess the effect of sulphonylureas on adverse cardiovascular event risk. Current ongoing large clinical trials may provide some clarity on the cardiovascular safety of sulphonylureas, but the results are not expected for several years. With the continued uncertainties concerning the cardiovascular safety of all antidiabetic drugs, a clear answer with regard to sulphonylureas is warranted. The objectives of the present article were to provide an overview of the controversy surrounding sulphonylurea-related cardiovascular effects, to discuss the limitations of the current literature, and to provide recommendations for future studies aiming to elucidate the true relationship between sulphonylureas and adverse cardiovascular effects in people with type 2 diabetes.

Risk of acute coronary events associated with glyburide compared with gliclazide use in patients with type 2 diabetes: a nested case-control study.

AIM: Sulfonylureas might increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events; however, emerging evidence suggests there may be important differences amongst these drugs. Some, like glyburide, inhibit KATP channels in the heart and pancreas, while others, like gliclazide, are more likely to selectively inhibit KATP channels in the pancreas. We hypothesized that the risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events would be higher in patients using glyburide compared with gliclazide. METHODS: This nested case-control study used administrative health data from Alberta, Canada. New users of glyburide or gliclazide aged ≥66 years between 1998 and 2010 were included. Cases were individuals with an ACS-related hospitalization or death. Up to four controls were matched based on birth year, sex, cohort-entry year and follow-up time. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR), controlling for baseline drug use and co-morbidities. RESULTS: Our cohort included 7441 gliclazide and 13 884 glyburide users; 51.4% men, mean (s.d.) age 75.5 (6.6) years and mean (s.d.) duration of follow-up 5.5 (4.0) years. A total of 4239 patients had an ACS-related hospitalization or death and were matched to 16 723 controls. Compared with gliclazide use, glyburide use was associated with a higher risk (adjusted OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.06-1.23) of ACS-related hospitalization or death over 5.5 years (number needed to harm: 50). CONCLUSION: In this observational study, glyburide use was associated with a 14% higher risk of ACS events compared with gliclazide use. Although the difference is small and probably to have implications at the population level rather than the individual patient or clinician, any causal inferences regarding sulfonylurea use and adverse cardiovascular risk should be tested in a large-scale randomized controlled trial.

Variations in tissue selectivity amongst insulin secretagogues: a systematic review.

AIM: Insulin secretagogues promote insulin release by binding to sulfonylurea receptors on pancreatic ß-cells (SUR1). However, these drugs also bind to receptor isoforms on cardiac myocytes (SUR2A) and vascular smooth muscle (SUR2B). Binding to SUR2A/SUR2B may inhibit ischaemic preconditioning, an endogenous protective mechanism enabling cardiac tissue to survive periods of ischaemia. This study was designed to identify insulin secretagogues that selectively bind to SUR1 when given at therapeutic doses. METHODS: Using accepted systematic review methods, three electronic databases were searched from inception to 13 June 2011. Original studies measuring the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC(50)) for an insulin secretagogue on K(ATP) channels using standard electrophysiological techniques were included. Steady-state concentrations (C(SS)) were estimated from the usual oral dose and clearance values for each drug. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 27 studies meeting all inclusion criteria. IC(50) values for SUR1 were below those for SUR2A/SUR2B for all insulin secretagogues and addition of C(SS) values identified three distinct patterns. The C(SS) for gliclazide, glipizide, mitiglinide and nateglinide lie between IC(50) values for SUR1 and SUR2A/SUR2B, suggesting that these drugs bind selectively to pancreatic receptors. The C(SS) for glimepiride and glyburide (glibenclamide) was above IC(50) values for all three isoforms, suggesting these drugs are non-selective. Tolbutamide and repaglinide may have partial pancreatic receptor selectivity because IC(50) values for SUR1 and SUR2A/SUR2B overlapped somewhat, with the C(SS) in the midst of these values. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin secretagogues display different tissue selectivity characteristics at therapeutic doses. This may translate into different levels of cardiovascular risk.