Sulfonylureas as second line therapy for type 2 diabetes among veterans: Results from a National Longitudinal Cohort Study.

AIMS: To assess if switching to or adding sulfonylureas increases major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or severe hypoglycemia versus remaining on metformin alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal cohort utilizing United States Veterans Health Administration and Medicare data. Veterans with type 2 diabetes on metformin monotherapy between 2004 and 2006 were identified. Follow-up occurred through 2016. Those treated with either metformin plus a second-generation sulfonylurea (N = 45,305) or converted from metformin to a second-generation sulfonylurea (N = 2813) were compared to those receiving metformin monotherapy (N = 65,550). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95%CI from longitudinal competing risk Cox models were used to measure the association between sulfonylureas and outcomes. RESULTS: Switching to or adding a sulfonylurea to metformin was associated with 3 times the risk of severe hypoglycemia versus metformin monotherapy (HR:3.44, 95% CI: 3.06,3.85 and HR: 3.08, 95% CI: 2.77,3.42, respectively). Switching to or adding a sulfonylurea to metformin was associated with a 7-19% higher risk of MACE versus metformin monotherapy (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.00,1.14 and HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.13,1.25, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to and adding second-generation sulfonylureas was associated an increase in severe hypoglycemia and MACE versus remaining on metformin alone. In an era where guidelines recommend diabetes therapies based on compelling indications, safety outcomes should be a key consideration when selecting therapy.

Risk of Severe Hypoglycemia With Newer Second-line Glucose-lowering Medications in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Stratified by Known Indicators of Hypoglycemia Risk.

BACKGROUND: Severe hypoglycemia is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. We evaluated the risk of severe hypoglycemia in older adults initiating newer glucose-lowering medications overall and across strata of known indicators of high hypoglycemia risk. METHODS: We conducted a comparative-effectiveness cohort study of older adults aged >65 years with type 2 diabetes initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) or SGLT2i versus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) using Medicare claims (3/2013-12/2018) and Medicare-linked-electronic health records. We identified severe hypoglycemia requiring emergency or inpatient visits using validated algorithms. After 1:1 propensity score matching, we estimated hazard ratios (HR) and rate differences (RD) per 1,000 person-years. Analyses were stratified by baseline insulin, sulfonylurea, cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and frailty. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 7 (interquartile range: 4-16) months, SGLT2i was associated with a reduced risk of hypoglycemia versus DPP-4i (HR 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]; RD -3.21 [-4.29, -2.12]), and versus GLP-1RA (HR 0.90 [0.82, 0.98]; RD -1.33 [-2.44, -0.23]). RD for SGLT2i versus DPP-4i was larger in patients using baseline insulin than in those not, although HRs were similar. In patients using baseline sulfonylurea, the risk of hypoglycemia was lower in SGLT2i versus DPP-4i (HR 0.57 [0.49, 0.65], RD -6.80 [-8.43, -5.16]), while the association was near-null in those without baseline sulfonylurea. Results stratified by baseline CVD, CKD and frailty were similar to the overall cohort findings. Findings for the GLP-1RA comparison were similar. CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2i was associated with a lower hypoglycemia risk versus incretin-based medications, with larger associations in patients using baseline insulin or sulfonylurea.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors Used Concomitantly with Insulin Secretagogues and the Risk of Serious Hypoglycemia.

Serious hypoglycemia is a major adverse event associated with insulin secretagogues. Previous studies have suggested a potential relationship between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) used with sulfonylureas and serious hypoglycemia, and widely used drug compendia warn of this potential drug-drug interaction. We investigated the association between serious hypoglycemia and concomitant use of ACEIs in patients receiving insulin secretagogues, using the self-controlled case series design and Medicaid claims data from 5 US states linked to Medicare claims from 1999-2011. The exposure of interest was active prescription for ACEIs during insulin secretagogue or metformin (negative control object drug) episodes. The outcome was hospital presentation for serious hypoglycemia, identified by discharge diagnosis codes in inpatient and emergency department claims (positive predictive value ~ 78-89%). We calculated confounder-adjusted rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence internals (CIs) of outcome occurrence during ACEI-exposed vs. ACEI-unexposed time using conditional Poisson regression. The RRs for ACEIs were not statistically elevated during observation time of glipizide (RR, 1.06; CI, 0.98-1.15), glyburide (RR, 1.05; CI, 0.96-1.15), repaglinide (RR, 1.15; CI, 0.94-1.41), or metformin (RR, 1.02; CI, 0.97-1.06); but was modestly elevated with glimepiride (RR, 1.23; CI, 1.11-1.37) and modestly reduced with nateglinide (RR, 0.73; CI, 0.56-0.96). The overall pattern of results do not suggest that ACEIs used with insulin secretagogues were associated with increased rates of serious hypoglycemia, with the possible exception of glimepiride.

Deintensification of Treatment With Sulfonylurea and Insulin After Severe Hypoglycemia Among Older Adults With Diabetes.

Importance: Practice guidelines recommend deintensification of hypoglycemic agents among older adults with diabetes who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, yet real-world treatment deintensification practices are not well characterized. Objective: To examine the incidence of sulfonylurea and insulin deintensification after a hypoglycemia-associated emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization among older adults with diabetes and to identify factors associated with deintensification of treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included a random sample of 20% of nationwide fee-for-service US Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with concurrent Medicare parts A, B, and D coverage between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2017. Individuals with diabetes who had at least 1 hypoglycemia-associated ED visit or hospitalization were included. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2020, to August 1, 2021. Exposures: Baseline medication for the treatment of diabetes (sulfonylurea, insulin, or both). Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of treatment deintensification (yes or no) in the 100 days after a severe hypoglycemic episode requiring an ED visit or hospitalization, with treatment deintensification defined as (1) a decrease in sulfonylurea dose, (2) a change from long-acting to short-acting sulfonylurea (glipizide), (3) discontinuation of sulfonylurea, or (4) discontinuation of insulin based on pharmacy dispensing claims. Results: Among 76 278 distinct Medicare beneficiaries who had a hypoglycemia-associated ED visit or hospitalization, the mean (SD) age was 76.6 (7.6) years. Of 106 293 total hypoglycemic episodes requiring hospital attention, 69 084 (65.0%) occurred among women, 26 056 (24.5%) among Black individuals; 4761 (4.5%) among Hispanic individuals; 69 704 (65.6%) among White individuals; and 5772 (5.4%) among individuals of other races and ethnicities (comprising Asian, North American Native, unknown race or ethnicity, and unspecified race or ethnicity). A total of 32 074 episodes (30.2%) occurred among those receiving sulfonylurea only, 60 350 (56.8%) occurred among those receiving insulin only, and 13 869 (13.0%) occurred among those receiving both sulfonylurea and insulin. Treatment deintensification rates were highest among individuals receiving both sulfonylurea and insulin therapies at the time of their hypoglycemic episode (6677 episodes [48.1%]), followed by individuals receiving sulfonylurea only (14 192 episodes [44.2%]) and insulin only (14 495 episodes [24.0%]). Treatment deintensification rates increased between 2007 and 2017 (sulfonylurea only: from 41.4% to 49.7%; P < .001 for trend; insulin only: from 21.3% to 25.9%; P < .001 for trend; sulfonylurea and insulin: from 45.9% to 49.6%; P = .005 for trend). Lower socioeconomic status (as indicated by the receipt of low-income subsidies) was associated with lower odds of deintensification, regardless of baseline hypoglycemic regimen (sulfonylurea only: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.70-0.78]; insulin only: AOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.68-0.75]; sulfonylurea and insulin: AOR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.78]). A number of patient factors were associated with higher odds of treatment deintensification: higher frailty (eg, ≥40% probability of needing assistance with activities of daily living among those receiving sulfonylurea and insulin: AOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.32-1.71), chronic kidney disease (eg, sulfonylurea and insulin: AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.19-1.40), a history of falls (eg, sulfonylurea and insulin: AOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33), and depression (eg, sulfonylurea and insulin: AOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.20). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, deintensification of sulfonylurea and/or insulin therapy within 100 days after a hypoglycemia-associated ED visit or hospitalization occurred in fewer than 50% of older adults with diabetes; however, these deintensification rates may be increasing over time, and deintensification of insulin was likely underestimated because of challenges in capturing changes to insulin dosing using administrative claims data. These results suggest that greater efforts are needed to identify individuals at high risk of hypoglycemia to encourage appropriate treatment deintensification in accordance with current evidence.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes, without cardiovascular or renal disease.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors (DPP-4i) in patients without cardiovascular or renal disease, a majority of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes often excluded from clinical trials on this association, is poorly understood. Thus, we investigate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) associated with DPP-4i in low-risk patients with diabetes. METHODS: Using a new-user retrospective cohort derived from IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters (2010-2015), we identified patients aged 35-65 with type 2 diabetes, without cardiovascular or renal disease, initiating DPP-4i, sulfonylureas, or metformin. Primary composite outcome of time to first MACE was defined as the first of any of the following: myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, coronary artery bypass graft, coronary angioplasty, heart failure, and stroke. Secondary outcomes were time to first heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke. We compared outcomes for DPP-4i versus sulfonylurea and DPP-4i versus metformin using propensity score weighted Cox proportional hazards, adjusting for demographics, baseline comorbidities, concomitant medications, and cumulative exposure. RESULTS: Of 445,701 individuals, 236,431 (53.0%) were male, median age was 51 (interquartile range: [44, 57]), 30,267 (6.79%) initiated DPP-4i, 52,138 (11.70%) initiated sulfonylureas, and 367,908 (82.55%) initiated metformin. After adjustment, DPP-4i was associated with lower risk of MACE than sulfonylurea (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.98), and similar risk to metformin (aHR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.18). Risk for acute myocardial infarction (aHR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96), stroke (aHR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79), and heart failure (aHR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79) with DPP-4i was lower compared to sulfonylureas. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that for this cohort of low-risk patients newly treated for type 2 diabetes, DPP-4i exhibited 13% lower risk for MACE compared to sulfonylureas and similar risk for MACE compared to metformin, suggesting DPP-4i is a low cardiovascular risk option for low-risk patients initiating antihyperglycemic treatment.

Evaluation of Risk of Bullous Pemphigoid With Initiation of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor vs Second-generation Sulfonylurea.

Importance: Despite several recent reports on the elevated risk of bullous pemphigoid in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, evidence on the absolute risk and comparative safety against other antidiabetics is limited. Objective: To characterize the incidence rate of bullous pemphigoid associated with DPP-4 inhibitor use compared with second-generation sulfonylureas. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from 2 large commercial insurance claims databases (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart from October 17, 2006, to December 31, 2018, and IBM MarketScan Research Database from October 17, 2006, to December 31, 2017) and Medicare data from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2016. Patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors or second-generation sulfonylurea were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the study was bullous pemphigoid, identified using diagnosis codes. After 1:1 propensity score matching, the incidence rates of bullous pemphigoid and the hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs comparing patients who initiated DPP-4 inhibitor and second-generation sulfonylurea therapy were estimated. Subgroup analyses by age, sex, race, and individual DPP-4 agents were performed. The results from each database were pooled using inverse-variance fixed-effects meta-analysis. Results: A total of 1 664 880 patients who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors (51.0% female; mean [SD] age, 63.9 [9.7] years) and sulfonylurea (50.4% female; mean [SD] age, 63.9 [9.9] years) were included. The incidence rate of bullous pemphigoid per 1000 person-years was 0.42 in the DPP-4 inhibitor group vs 0.31 in the sulfonylurea group (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.72). Higher rates per 1000 person-years for DPP-4 inhibitor vs sulfonylurea groups were seen in those who were 65 years or older (0.79 vs 0.49; HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.32-1.99), white (0.93 vs 0.54; HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.30-2.24), and treated with linagliptin (1.20 vs 0.55; HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.16-2.43). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that patients who initiated DPP-4 inhibitor therapy had higher risk of bullous pemphigoid than those who initiated second-generation sulfonylurea therapy. Clinicians should be aware of this rare adverse effect of DPP-4 inhibitors in subgroups of patients who are older, white, and linagliptin users.

Risk of severe hypoglycemic events from amiodarone-sulfonylureas interactions: A population-based nested case-control study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether concomitant use of amiodarone and sulfonylureas is associated with an increased risk of serious hypoglycemia. METHODS: We conducted two nested case-control studies by analyzing the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database from 2008 to 2013 among diabetic patients continuously receiving sulfonylureas. Cases were defined as patients with severe hypoglycemia and those with a composite outcome of severe hypoglycemia, altered consciousness, and fall-related fracture in the first and second study, respectively. In both studies, each case was individually matched up to 10 randomly-selected controls. Conditional logistic regressions were employed to estimate odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: We identified 1343 cases and 11 597 controls as well as 2848 cases of composite events and 24 808 controls among 46 317 sulfonylurea users. Concurrent use of amiodarone with sulfonylureas was associated with a 1.56-fold (95% CI: 0.98-2.46) increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, despite not statistically significant. Notably, an approximately 2-fold increased risk of severe hypoglycemia was observed with amiodarone therapy lasting for >180 days (adjusted OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.01-4.30) or at a daily dose greater than 1 defined daily dose (adjusted OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.25-3.91) when concurrently administrating sulfonylureas. A significantly increased risk of hypoglycemia-related composite events was also found with amiodarone concurrently used with sulfonylureas (adjusted OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.13-2.24). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent use of amiodarone and sulfonylureas is associated with an increased risk of serious hypoglycemia among diabetic patients, with an elevated risk for amiodarone used in a long-term or at a high daily dose.

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

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

Metformin monotherapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM. Despite this, the effects of metformin on patient-important outcomes are still not clarified. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of metformin monotherapy in adults with T2DM. SEARCH METHODS: We based our search on a systematic report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and topped-up the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews, as well as health technology assessment reports and medical agencies. The date of the last search for all databases was 2 December 2019, except Embase (searched up 28 April 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year's duration comparing metformin monotherapy with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with T2DM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles/records, assessed risk of bias, and extracted outcome data independently. We resolved discrepancies by 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 assessed the overall certainty of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs with multiple study arms (N = 10,680). The percentage of participants finishing the trials was approximately 58% in all groups. Treatment duration ranged from one to 10.7 years. We judged no trials to be at low risk of bias on all 'Risk of bias' domains. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), non-fatal myocardial infarction (NFMI), non-fatal stroke (NFS), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Two trials compared metformin (N = 370) with insulin (N = 454). Neither trial reported on all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI, NFS or ESRD. One trial provided information on HRQoL but did not show a substantial difference between the interventions. Seven trials compared metformin with sulphonylureas. Four trials reported on all-cause mortality: in three trials no participant died, and in the remaining trial 31/1454 participants (2.1%) in the metformin group died compared with 31/1441 participants (2.2%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on SAE: in two trials no SAE occurred (186 participants); in the other trial 331/1454 participants (22.8%) in the metformin group experienced a SAE compared with 308/1441 participants (21.4%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on CVM: in one trial no CVM was observed and in the other trial 4/1441 participants (0.3%) in the metformin group died of cardiovascular reasons compared with 8/1447 participants (0.6%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred, and in the other trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 15/1441 participants (1.0%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). One trial reported no NFS occurred (very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Seven trials compared metformin with thiazolidinediones (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Five trials reported on all-cause mortality: in two trials no participant died; the overall RR was 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P = 0.57; 5 trials; 4402 participants). Four trials reported on SAE, the RR was 0,95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09; P = 0.49; 3208 participants. Four trials reported on CVM, the RR was 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.39; P = 0.58; 3211 participants. Three trial reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred and in one trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 25/1456 participants (1.7%) in the thiazolidinedione group. One trial reported no NFS occurred. No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Three trials compared metformin with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (one trial each with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin with altogether 1977 participants). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI and NFS (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). One trial compared metformin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue (very low-certainty evidence for all reported outcomes). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, CVM, NFMI and NFS. One or more SAEs were reported in 16/268 (6.0%) of the participants allocated to metformin compared with 35/539 (6.5%) of the participants allocated to a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue. HRQoL or ESRD were not reported. One trial compared metformin with meglitinide and two trials compared metformin with no intervention. No deaths or SAEs occurred (very low-certainty evidence) no other patient-important outcomes were reported. No trial compared metformin with placebo or a behaviour changing interventions. Four ongoing trials with 5824 participants are likely to report one or more of our outcomes of interest and are estimated to be completed between 2018 and 2024. Furthermore, 24 trials with 2369 participants are awaiting assessment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence whether metformin monotherapy compared with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs influences patient-important outcomes.

Sulfonylureas and Metformin Were Not Associated With an Increased Rate of Serious Bleeding in Warfarin Users: A Self-Controlled Case Series Study.

Drug interactions between warfarin and sulfonylureas are suggested by pharmacokinetic information and prior studies. However, clinical evidence on the association of such interactions and the risk of bleeding is lacking. Using healthcare claims data from 5 US Medicaid programs from 1999-2011 and a self-controlled case series design with warfarin as an object drug, we calculated confounder-adjusted rate ratios (RRs) for concomitant use of sulfonylureas and metformin for 3 outcomes separately: (i) serious bleeding as a composite outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH); (ii) GIB; and (iii) ICH. In 6,463 warfarin users experiencing serious bleeding, an increased rate of serious bleeding was not associated with concomitant use of glimepiride (RR: 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.15), glipizide (RR: 0.97; 95% CI 0.84-1.13), glyburide (RR: 0.89; 95% CI 0.76-1.06), or metformin (RR: 0.85; 95% CI 0.76-0.96), nor was the occurrence of the component outcomes of GIB or ICH. These results suggest that use of sulfonylureas or metformin was not associated with an increased rate of serious bleeding in warfarin users.

Changes in incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes from 2006 to 2016: analysis based on health insurance data in Germany considering the anti-hyperglycaemic medication.

AIM: To investigate the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia over the past 10 years, taking into account changes in anti-hyperglycaemic therapy. METHODS: This retrospective population-based study used German health insurance data. All adults diagnosed with documented type 2 diabetes (extrapolated to the German population: 6.6 million in 2006; 7.9 million in 2011; 8.86 million in 2016) were screened for severe hypoglycaemia. Anti-hyperglycaemic agents were identified by Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) code. RESULTS: The event rate for severe hypoglycaemia was 460 per 100 000 people in 2006, 490 per 100 000 in 2011 and 360 per 100 000 in 2016. The proportion of people with severe hypoglycaemia receiving sulfonylureas, as well as receiving combination therapy of metformin and sulfonylureas decreased from 2006 to 2016 (23.6% vs. 6.2%) Among those with severe hypoglycaemia in 2006, there were no prescriptions for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) agonists. The proportions of people with severe hypoglycaemia receiving DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 agonists in 2011 and 2016 were low. The proportion of people receiving human insulin also decreased (from 11.3% in 2006 to 10.3% in 2011 and 4.3% in 2016); the proportion of people receiving insulin analogues increased from 5.4% in 2006 to 11.5% in 2016. Therapy with mixed insulins was used by 19.7% of people with severe hypoglycaemia in 2006, by 14.0% in 2011 and by 7.3% in 2016. People undergoing therapy with insulin analogues have the highest risk of severe hypoglycaemia adjusted by age, gender, nephropathy diagnosis and year of survey [odds ratio (OR) 14.4, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 13.5-15.5]. CONCLUSION: The incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events in Germany increased between 2006 and 2011, and decreased in 2016.

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.

A Safety Comparison of Metformin vs Sulfonylurea Initiation in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety of metformin vs sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes by chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adults in Manitoba, Canada, with type 2 diabetes, an incident monotherapy prescription for metformin or a sulfonylurea, and a serum creatinine measurement from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2017. Patients were stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) into the following groups: eGFR of 90 or greater, 60 to 89, 45 to 59, 30 to 44, or less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and major hypoglycemic episodes. Baseline characteristics were used to calculate propensity scores and perform inverse probability of treatment weights analysis, and eGFR group was examined as an effect modifier for each outcome. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 21,996 individuals (19,990 metformin users and 2006 sulfonylurea users). Metformin use was associated with lower risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40-0.58; P<.001), cardiovascular events (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.86; P=.002), and major hypoglycemic episodes (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.09-0.20; P<.001) when compared with sulfonylureas. CKD was a significant effect modifier for all-cause mortality (P=.002), but not for cardiovascular events or major hypoglycemic episodes. CONCLUSION: Sulfonylurea monotherapy is associated with higher risk for all-cause mortality, major hypoglycemic episodes, and cardiovascular events compared with metformin. Although the presence of CKD attenuated the mortality benefit, metformin may be a safer alternative to sulfonylureas in patients with CKD.

Assessment of pharmacogenomic SLCO1B1 assay for prediction of neuromuscular pain in type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular patients: preliminary results.

OBJECTIVE: At present, several strategies for preventing neuromuscular pain in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) have been investigated. Recently, findings on genetic variants associated with adverse events to statin-based therapy have been reported. The study aimed at measuring whether Pharmacogenomics (PGx) profile can affect neuromuscular pain in patients carrying T2DM and cardiovascular diseases. An extensive panel of 5 polymorphisms on 4 candidate genes, previously validated as significant markers related to Sulphonylureas and Glitinides (SU-G) plus Simvastatin neuromuscular toxicity, is herein analyzed and discussed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We genotyped 76 T2DM patients carrying cardiovascular dyscrasia undergone anti-diabetic and anti-cholesterolemic polypharmacy. 35 subjects out of the total received concurrent SU-G and Statin-based therapy. Candidate variants consisted of drug transporters, such as Solute Carrier Organic 1B1 (SLCO1B1) Val174Ala ATP-binding cassette subfamily B member (ABCB1), subfamily C member 8 (ABCC8), and drug biotransformers of Cytochrome P450 Family (CYP) including CYP2C9*2 CYP2C9*3 CYP2C8*3, and CYP3A4*22. Moreover, we also focused on an early outline evaluation of the genotyping costs and benefits. RESULTS: 6 out of 35 patients treated with SU-G plus statins (17.1% experienced adverse neuropathy events). Pharmacogenomics analysis showed a lack of any correlation between candidate gene polymorphisms and toxicity, except for the SLCO1B1 T521C allele; 14.3% of patients had a high risk for grade >2 neuromuscular pain (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.61.95% CI 0.90-7.61, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical polymorphism effectiveness outlined therein will be assured by diagnostic improvements suitable for driving treatment decisions. In light of our experimental results and literature data, the analysis of the SLCO1B1 T521C variant will allow clinicians to take advantage from a better treatment planned for their patients in order to minimize neuromuscular pain and maximize benefits.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors and Risk of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Real-world Evidence in U.S. Adults.

OBJECTIVE: A recent study raises concerns that dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) are associated with increased risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We evaluated the association between new use of DPP4i and IBD risk compared with other second-line antihyperglycemics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We implemented an active-comparator, new-user cohort design using two U.S. administrative claims databases for commercially insured (MarketScan) and older adult (Medicare fee-for-service, 20% random sample) patients from January 2007 to December 2016. We identified patients, aged ≥18 years, who initiated DPP4i versus sulfonylureas (SUs) or initiated DPP4i versus thiazolidinediones (TZDs) and were without prior diagnosis, treatment, or procedure for IBD. The primary outcome was incident IBD, defined by IBD diagnosis preceded by colonoscopy and biopsy and followed by IBD treatment. We performed propensity score weighting to control for measured baseline confounding, estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs [95% CI]) using weighted Cox proportional hazards models, and used random-effects meta-analysis models to pool aHRs across cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 895,747 eligible patients initiating DPP4i, SU, or TZD; IBD incidence rates ranged from 11.6 to 32.3/100,000 person-years. Over a median treatment duration of 1.09-1.69 years, DPP4i were not associated with increased IBD risk across comparisons. The pooled aHRs for IBD were 0.82 (95% CI 0.41-1.61) when comparing DPP4i (n = 161,612) to SU (n = 310,550) and 0.76 (0.46-1.26) when comparing DPP4i (n = 205,570) to TZD (n = 87,543). CONCLUSIONS: Our population-based cohort study of U.S. adults with diabetes suggests that short-term DPP4i treatment does not increase IBD risk.

Serious Hypoglycemia and Use of Warfarin in Combination With Sulfonylureas or Metformin.

Prior research suggests that warfarin, when given concomitantly with some sulfonylureas, may increase the risk of serious hypoglycemia. However, the clinical significance remains unclear. We examined rate ratios (RRs) for the association between serious hypoglycemia and concomitant use of warfarin with either sulfonylureas or metformin using a self-controlled case series design and US Medicaid claims (supplemented with Medicare claims) from 1999 to 2011. Across all risk windows combined, warfarin was associated with an elevated rate of serious hypoglycemia when given concomitantly with glimepiride (RR, 1.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-2.02) and metformin (RR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.38-2.16). Particularly in the late risk window (>120 days since beginning concomitancy), most of the RRs for warfarin were elevated: glipizide (RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.29), glyburide (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.15-2.15), metformin (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.67-3.05), and glimepiride (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.97-2.50). These results are consistent with a previously hypothesized hypoglycemic effect of warfarin in patients with type 2 diabetes through inhibition of the carboxylation of osteocalcin.

Prevalence of hypoglycemia among a sample of sulfonylurea-treated patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus in Argentina: The real-life effectiveness and care patterns of diabetes management (RECAP-DM) study.

AIM: Strict blood glucose control in the treatment of diabetes can sometimes lead to hypoglycemia. The main aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of hypoglycemia among patients receiving sulfonylureas alone, or in combination with metformin, for the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) in Argentina. METHODS: This is a real life, multi-center, retrospective, and cross-sectional study based on clinical chart reviews including cross-sectional data, and evaluation of patient questionnaires of T2DM patients (>30 years), treated with sulfonylureas alone or in combination with metformin, during a routine clinic visit in 16 medical centers across Argentina. Socio-demographic and clinical parameters were collected from medical records, as well as hypoglycemic events from both the medical records and the patient questionnaires. The glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were obtained from medical records as well as a blood test. RESULTS: The study included a total of 397 patients with a mean age of 62.5 years, diagnosed for 9.9 years, and 54.2% male. Mean HbA1c levels were 8.1%, (65mmol/mol) at enrolment, with 36.4% being in control (HbA1c<7%, (53mmol/mol). Patients with HbA1c<7%, (53mmol/mol) were significantly older, diagnosed at older age, and had lower triglyceride levels. Almost 50% reported hypoglycemic episodes that were mostly mild, and with women more likely to report them. The large majority (86%) were on combined metformin and sulfonylureas, most commonly Glibenclamide (48.6%). Patients on combined therapy were significantly younger and more likely to have uncontrolled diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that out of a sample of 397 patients with T2DM treated with sulfonylureas alone or in combination with metformin in Argentina, around 50% of them reported symptoms of hypoglycemia induced by sulfonylureas, and one third of them achieved target HbA1c<7% levels.

Patient and prescriber characteristics among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus continuing or discontinuing sulfonylureas following insulin initiation: data from a large commercial database.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patient and provider characteristics for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) initiating basal insulin and describe basal insulin's impact on sulfonylurea (SU) discontinuation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Patients had ≥12 months of continuous coverage prior to initiating insulin, and were utilizing at least one anti-hyperglycemic drug at the time of insulin initiation. Predictors for SU discontinuation were evaluated utilizing Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among the 74,334 individuals aged ≥18 years with T2DM who initiated basal insulin from 2006-2015, 30% were taking metformin (MET) and SU when initiating insulin. Among the 22,418 MET/SU patients, 31% discontinued SU within 3 months of insulin initiation and, by 12 months, 55% had discontinued SU. Sulfonylurea discontinuation was similar among many patient and provider characteristics, while being modestly positively associated (p < .05; HRs <1.5) with female gender, more co-morbidities, cardiac revascularization, chronic liver disease, hospitalizations with a T2DM diagnosis, and hypoglycemia prior to insulin initiation. SU discontinuation was modestly inversely associated with receiving an insulin prescription from an endocrinologist (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.85-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Roughly half of commercially-insured T2DM patients discontinued SU within 1 year after insulin initiation, and SU discontinuation was not strongly associated with a range of patient and provider characteristics.

Comparative safety of pioglitazone versus clinically meaningful treatment alternatives concerning the risk of bladder cancer in older US adults with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare bladder cancer incidence between patients initiating pioglitazone treatment and patients initiating treatment with dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors [DPP-4s] or sulfonylureas. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries aged >65 years who initiated treatment with pioglitazone (N = 38 700), DPP-4s (N = 82 552) or sulfonylureas (N = 126 104) between 2007 and 2014 after at least 6 months without prescriptions for these drug classes. Patients were followed from second prescription until bladder cancer outcome (2 claims within 60 days) using a 6-month induction/latency period, censoring for treatment change, death or end of 2014. We used propensity score-weighted Cox proportional-hazards models to obtain adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and their 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Overall mean age of participants was 75 years and 41% were men. Over a median of 1.2 treatment years, 727 beneficiaries developed bladder cancer. Pioglitazone initiators had an increased incidence of bladder cancer (308 vs 204 [DPP-4s] or 231 [sulfonylureas] per 100 000 person-years; aHR, 1.57 [1.23-2.00] vs DPP-4s and 1.32 [1.02-1.70] vs sulfonylureas). The increased risk emerged within the first 2 years of treatment (aHR, 1.63 [1.22-2.17] vs DPP-4s and 1.32 [0.98-1.78] vs sulfonylureas). If treatment was discontinued within the first 2 years, the risk after 2 years post initiation was attenuated (aHR, 0.89 [0.61-1.28]) compared with patients treated for more than 2 years (aHR, 1.45 [0.93-2.26]) both vs DPP-4s. Findings were consistent across secondary and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone was associated with an elevated risk of bladder cancer compared with DPP-4s and sulfonylureas. The elevated risk emerged within the first 2 years of treatment and was attenuated after discontinuing. Pioglitazone's relative effectiveness should be weighed against a small absolute increase in risk of bladder cancer.

Diabetes Treatments and Risks of Adverse Breast Cancer Outcomes among Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

The widely prescribed diabetes medicine metformin has been reported to lower the risk of incident breast cancer, but it is unclear whether it affects malignant progression after diagnosis. In this study, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Women were included in the study if they were aged 66 to 80 years, newly diagnosed with stage I or II breast cancer, and enrolled in Medicare Parts A, B, and D during 2007 to 2011. Information on dispensed diabetes-related medications was obtained from Medicare Part D claims data. Our primary outcomes were second breast cancer events (SBCE), breast cancer recurrence, and breast cancer death. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate HRs and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 14,766 women included in the study, 791 experienced SBCE, 627 had a recurrence, and 237 died from breast cancer. Use of metformin (n = 2,558) was associated with 28% (95% CI, 0.57-0.92), 31% (95% CI, 0.53-0.90), and 49% (95% CI, 0.33-0.78) lower risks of an SBCE, breast cancer recurrence, and breast cancer death. Use of sulfonylureas or insulin was associated with 1.49- (95% CI, 1.00-2.23) and 2.58-fold (95% CI, 1.72-3.90) higher risks of breast cancer death. Further research may be warranted to determine whether metformin is a preferred treatment for diabetes among breast cancer survivors and whether it benefits breast cancer patients without diabetes. Cancer Res; 77(21); 6033-41. ©2017 AACR.