ABSTRACT
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive disease with multifactorial etiology. The first-line therapy includes monotherapy (with metformin), which often fails to provide effective glycemic control, necessitating the addition of add-on therapy. In this regard, multiple single-dose agents formulated as a single-dose form called fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) have been evaluated for their safety, efficacy, and tolerability. The primary objective of this review is to develop practice-based expert group opinion on the current status and the causes of concern regarding the irrational use of FDCs, in Indian settings. After due discussions, the expert group analyzed the results from several clinical evidence in which various fixed combinations were used in T2DM management. The panel opined that FDCs (double or triple) improve patient adherence, reduce cost, and provide effective glycemic control and, thereby, play an important role in the management of T2DM. The expert group strongly recommended that the irrational metformin FDC's, banned by Indian government, should be stopped and could be achieved through active participation from the government, regulatory bodies, and health ministry, and through continuous education of primary care physicians and pharmacists. In T2DM management, FDCs play a crucial role in achieving glycemic targets effectively. However, understanding the difference between rational and irrational FDC combinations is necessary from the safety, efficacy, and tolerability perspective. In this regard, primary care physicians will have to use a multistep approach so that they can take informed decisions.
ABSTRACT
AIM: The primary objective of this review is to develop practice-based expert group opinions on the cardiovascular (CV) safety and utility of modern sulfonylureas (SUs) in cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs). BACKGROUND: The United States Food and Drug Administration issued new guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008 regarding the development of new antihyperglycemic drugs. The guidance expanded the scope for the approval of novel antihyperglycemic drugs by mandating CVOTs for safety. A few long-term CVOTs on dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have been completed, while others are ongoing. SUs, which constitute one of the key antihyperglycemic agents used for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), have been used as comparator agents in several CVOTs. However, the need for CVOTs on modern SUs remains debatable. In this context, a multinational group of endocrinologists convened for a meeting and discussed the need for CVOTs of modern SUs to evaluate their utility in the management of patients with T2DM. At the meeting, CVOTs of modern SUs conducted to date and the hypotheses derived from the results of these trials were discussed. REVIEW RESULTS: The expert group analyzed the key trials emphasizing the CV safety of modern SUs and also reviewed the results of various CVOTs in which modern SUs were used as comparators. Based on literature evidence and individual clinical insights, the expert group opined that modern SUs are cardiosafe and that since they have been used as comparators in other CVOTs, CVOTs of SUs are not required. CONCLUSION: Modern SUs can be considered a cardiosafe option for the management of patients with diabetes mellitus and CV disease; thus CVOTs among individuals with T2DM are not required.