Sulphonylureas versus metformin and the risk of ventricular arrhythmias among people with type 2 diabetes: A population-based cohort study.

AIM: To determine whether the use of sulphonylurea monotherapy, compared with metformin monotherapy, is associated with an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) among patients initiating pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using electronic health data extracted from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum. Using the active comparator, new-user cohort design, we compared rates of VA among patients aged 18 years or older using sulphonylurea monotherapy with those using metformin monotherapy as their initial pharmacological treatment for type 2 diabetes from April 1998 to December 2019. We used a Cox proportional hazards model with inverse probability of treatment weighting by propensity score to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and a corresponding bootstrap 95% confidence interval (CI) for VA with sulphonylurea monotherapy versus metformin monotherapy. RESULTS: The cohort included 92 638 new users of sulphonylurea and 506 882 new users of metformin. A total of 279 VA events occurred among sulphonylurea users (rate per 10 000 person-years: 25.5, 95% CI: 22.7 to 28.7) and 1537 VA events occurred among metformin users (rate per 10 000 person-years: 18.5, 95% CI: 17.6 to 19.5). Compared with metformin, sulphonylureas were associated with an increased risk of VA (aHR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Sulphonylureas are associated with an increased risk of VA when used as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes relative to metformin use. This increased risk should be considered when prescribing sulphonylureas as an initial treatment for type 2 diabetes.

Comparison of long-term effects of metformin on longevity between people with type 2 diabetes and matched non-diabetic controls.

BACKGROUND: Metformin, a medication for type 2 diabetes, has been linked to many non-diabetes health benefits including increasing healthy lifespan. Previous work has only examined the benefits of metformin over periods of less than ten years, which may not be long enough to capture the true effect of this medication on longevity. METHODS: We searched medical records for Wales, UK, using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage dataset for type 2 diabetes patients treated with metformin (N = 129,140) and sulphonylurea (N = 68,563). Non-diabetic controls were matched on sex, age, smoking, and history of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Survival analysis was performed to examine survival time after first treatment, using a range of simulated study periods. FINDINGS: Using the full twenty-year period, we found that type 2 diabetes patients treated with metformin had shorter survival time than matched controls, as did sulphonylurea patients. Metformin patients had better survival than sulphonylurea patients, controlling for age. Within the first three years, metformin therapy showed a benefit over matched controls, but this reversed after five years of treatment. INTERPRETATION: While metformin does appear to confer benefits to longevity in the short term, these initial benefits are outweighed by the effects of type 2 diabetes when patients are observed over a period of up to twenty years. Longer study periods are therefore recommended for studying longevity and healthy lifespan. EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS STUDY: Work examining the non-diabetes outcomes of metformin therapy has suggested that there metformin has a beneficial effect on longevity and healthy lifespan. Both clinical trials and observational studies broadly support this hypothesis, but tend to be limited in the length of time over which they can study patients or participants. ADDED VALUE OF THIS STUDY: By using medical records we are able to study individuals with Type 2 diabetes over a period of two decades. We are also able to account for the effects of cancer, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, deprivation, and smoking on longevity and survival time following treatment. IMPLICATIONS OF ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: We confirm that there is an initial benefit to longevity of metformin therapy, but this benefit does not outweigh the negative effect on longevity of diabetes. Therefore, we suggest that longer study periods are required for inference to be made about longevity in future research.

Effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas on cognitive and physical function in nursing home residents.

AIMS: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) may mitigate hypoglycaemia-mediated declines in cognitive and physical functioning compared with sulphonylureas (SUs), yet comparative studies are unavailable among older adults, particularly nursing home (NH) residents. We evaluated the effects of DPP4Is versus SUs on cognitive and physical functioning among NH residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This new-user cohort study included long-stay NH residents aged ≥65 years from the 2007-2010 national US Minimum Data Set (MDS) clinical assessments and linked Medicare claims. We measured cognitive decline from the validated 6-point MDS Cognitive Performance Scale, functional decline from the validated 28-point MDS Activities of Daily Living scale, and hospitalizations or emergency department visits for altered mental status from Medicare claims. We compared 180-day outcomes in residents who initiated a DPP4I versus SU after 1:1 propensity score matching using Cox regression models. RESULTS: The matched cohort (N = 1784) had a mean ± SD age of 80 ± 8 years and 73% were women. Approximately 46% had no or mild cognitive impairment and 35% had no or mild functional impairment before treatment initiation. Compared with SU users, DPP4I users had lower 180-day rates of cognitive decline [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-1.19], altered mental status events (HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.39-1.27), and functional decline (HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.51-1.56), but estimates were imprecise. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of cognitive and functional decline may be reduced among older NH residents using DPP4Is compared with SUs, but larger studies with greater statistical power should resolve the remaining uncertainty by providing more precise effect estimates.

Long-term clinical outcomes of oral antidiabetic drugs as fixed-dose combinations: A nationwide retrospective cohort study.

AIM: To compare treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of single-pill fixed-dose combination (FDC) and two-pill combination (TPC) therapies using real-world data. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study using South Korea's healthcare database (2002-2015). We identified two cohorts of incident patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated FDC or TPC therapy within 4 months of their first prescription for metformin or sulphonylurea. We examined persistence and adherence patterns and the clinical outcome of a composite endpoint of death or hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure or stroke and compared the differences in treatment patterns and clinical outcomes using Cox models. RESULTS: Of 5143 and 10 973 patients who initiated FDC and TPC therapy, respectively, we identified 5143 patient pairs after propensity score matching. The FDC group exhibited greater median time to treatment discontinuation (163 vs. 146 days), and proportion of days covered at 12 months (mean 0.60 vs. 0.57, P < .0001) and at 24 months (0.53 vs. 0.51, P = .014) than the TPC group. The FDC group, compared with the TPC group, had reduced risks of the composite clinical outcome (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence intervals 0.77-0.97) and hospitalization for stroke (0.80, 0.67-0.96). CONCLUSION: FDC therapy may provide favourable cardiovascular benefits, especially reducing the risk of hospitalization for stroke, and has better medication adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes.

Postprandial renal haemodynamic effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride in adults with type 2 diabetes (RENALIS): A predefined substudy of a randomized, double-blind trial.

AIM: To determine the effect of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin on postprandial glomerular hyperfiltration compared with the sulphonylurea glimepiride in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this predefined substudy within a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, intervention trial, overweight people with T2D without renal impairment were treated with once-daily linagliptin 5 mg (N = 10) or glimepiride 1 mg (N = 13) as an add-on to metformin for 8 weeks. After a standardized liquid protein-rich meal, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and effective renal plasma flow were determined by inulin and para-aminohippuric acid clearance, respectively, based on timed urine sampling. Intrarenal haemodynamics were estimated using the Gomez equations. Glucoregulatory/vasoactive hormones, urinary pH and fractional excretions (FE) of sodium, potassium and urea were measured. RESULTS: Compared with glimepiride, linagliptin increased the postprandial filtration fraction (FF; mean difference 2.1%-point; P = .016) and estimated glomerular hydraulic pressure (mean difference 3.0 mmHg; P = .050), and tended to increase GFR (P = .08) and estimated efferent renal arteriolar resistance (RE ; P = .08) from baseline to week 8. No differences in FE were noted. Glimepiride reduced HbA1c more than linagliptin (mean difference -0.40%; P = .004), without between-group differences in time-averaged postprandial glucose levels. In the linagliptin group, change in FF correlated with change in mean arterial pressure (R = 0.807; P = .009) and time-averaged mean glucagon (R = 0.782; P = .008), but not with changes in glucose, insulin, intact glucagon-like peptide-1, renin or FENa . Change in glucagon was associated with change in RE (R = 0.830; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to our hypothesis, compared with glimepiride, linagliptin does not reduce postprandial hyperfiltration, yet appears to increase FF after meal ingestion by increasing blood pressure or RE .

Pancreatic Islets Exhibit Dysregulated Adaptation of Insulin Secretion after Chronic Epinephrine Exposure.

Chronic adrenergic stimulation is the dominant factor in impairment of the ß-cell function. Sustained adrenergic exposure generates dysregulated insulin secretion in fetal sheep. Similar results have been shown in Min6 under the elevated epinephrine condition, but impairments after adrenergic removal are still unknown and a high rate of proliferation in Min6 has been ignored. Therefore, we incubated primary rats' islets with half maximal inhibitory concentrations of epinephrine for three days, then determined their insulin secretion responsiveness and related signals two days after removal of adrenaline via radioimmunoassay and qPCR. Insulin secretion was not different between the exposure group (1.07 ± 0.04 ng/islet/h) and control (1.23 ± 0.17 ng/islet/h), but total islet insulin content after treatment (5.46 ± 0.87 ng/islet/h) was higher than control (3.17 ± 0.22 ng/islet/h, p < 0.05), and the fractional insulin release was 36% (p < 0.05) lower after the treatment. Meanwhile, the mRNA expression of Gαs, Gαz and Gß1-2 decreased by 42.8% 19.4% and 24.8%, respectively (p < 0.05). Uncoupling protein 2 (Ucp2), sulphonylurea receptor 1 (Sur1) and superoxide dismutase 2 (Sod2) were significantly reduced (38.5%, 23.8% and 53.8%, p < 0.05). Chronic adrenergic exposure could impair insulin responsiveness in primary pancreatic islets. Decreased G proteins and Sur1 expression affect the regulation of insulin secretion. In conclusion, the sustained under-expression of Ucp2 and Sod2 may further change the function of ß-cell, which helps to understand the long-term adrenergic adaptation of pancreatic ß-cell.

Dorothy Hodgkin Lecture 2021: Drugs, genes and diabetes.

Glycaemic response to metformin and sulphonylureas is heritable - with ~34%-37% of variation explainable by common genetic variation. The premise of this review is that by understanding how genetic variation contributes to drug response we can gain insights into the mechanisms of action of diabetes drugs. Here, I focus on two old drugs, metformin and sulphonylureas, where I would suggest we still have a lot to learn about their mechanism of action or their optimal use in clinical care. The fact that reduced function variants of the key transporter that takes metformin into the liver (OCT1) do not alter glycaemic response to metformin suggests that metformin does not need to get into the liver to work. A subsequent GWAS of metformin response identifies a robust variant that alters GLUT2 expression - which may support increasing evidence that metformin works primarily in the gut. For sulphonylureas, observation from patients with neonatal diabetes due to activating KATP channel mutations treated with sulphonylureas identified a novel role for sulphonylureas to enable ß-cell incretin response. This work led to recent studies of low-dose sulphonylurea (20 mg gliclazide) in T2DM, which identified that at this dose sulphonylureas augment the incretin effect and increase ß-cell glucose sensitivity, without increasing hypoglycaemia risk. This work, prompted by studies in monogenic diabetes, suggests that we have historically been using sulphonylureas at too high a dose. With increasing availability of genetic data pharmacogenomic studies in patients with diabetes should reveal mechanistic insights into old and new diabetes drugs, with the potential for optimized use and novel therapies.

Treatment implications of a delayed diagnosis of maturity-onset diabetes of the young.

Maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) is a rare form of monogeneic diabetes that classically presents as non-insulin requiring diabetes with evidence of autosomal dominant inheritance in individuals who are typically young and lean. However, these criteria do not capture all cases and can also overlap with other types of diabetes. The hepatocyte nuclear factor-1 alpha (HNF1A) mutation is a common cause of MODY and is highly sensitive to sulphonylureas, which should be first-line therapy. Our case represents the diagnostic challenges of HNF1A MODY and the implications of a delayed diagnosis, which can lead to reduced success of sulphonylurea treatment.

Glucose Lowering Treatment Modalities of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

This chapter gives an overview of present knowledge and clinical aspects of antidiabetic drugs according to the recently available research evidence and clinical expertise.Many agents are acting on eight groups of pathophysiological mechanisms, which is commonly called as "Ominous Octet" by DeFronzo. The muscle, liver and ß-cell, the fat cell, gastrointestinal tract, α-cell, kidney, and brain play essential roles in the development of glucose intolerance in type 2 diabetic individuals (Defronzo, Diabetes 58:773-795, 2009).A treatment paradigm shift is seen in the initiation of anti-hyperglycemic agents from old friends (meglitinides or sulphonylürea) to newer agents effecting on GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2 inhibitors. It is mostly about the other protective positive effects of these agents for kidney, heart, etc. Although there are concerns for the long term safety profiles; they are used widely around the World. The delivery of patient-centered care, facilitating medication adherence, the importance of weight loss in obese patients, the importance of co-morbid conditions are the mainstays of selecting the optimal agent.

Selectivity of metsulfuron applied to soybean before sowing in different intervals and soils.

This work aimed to evaluate the selectivity of the herbicide metsulfuron applied at different times on the development of soybeans grown in soils with different characteristics. The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design, in a factorial scheme (4 x 4), with four replicates. Factor A was application time (0, 15, 30, and 45 days before sowing, DBS) and factor B was soil type (Erechim, Itaqui, Piratini, and Santa Maria). Soybean plants cultivated in the Erechim soil showed moderate phytotoxicity, with greater damage to the leaf area and plant dry matter, mainly after application at 30 DBS. Those cultivated in Itaqui soil showed gradual phytotoxicity between 14 and 28 days after emergence (DAE). Soybean plants grown in the Piratini and Santa Maria soils showed the highest phytotoxicity and photosynthetic reduction, mainly at 15 and 0 DBS. Metsulfuron application at 45 DBS caused reduced plant growth by up to 40%, and reduced shoot development (30%) in soybean plants grown in Piratini and Santa Maria soils, respectively. There were gradual changes in phytotoxicity and the morphophysiological traits of soybean plants exposed to the residual effect of metsulfuron in different soils, which indicates that soybeans should be sown more than 45 days after the application of metsulfuron, regardless of soil characteristics.

[Which place to be reserved to sulphonylureas and which precautions to be taken ?] / Comment je traite Quelle place encore réserver aux sulfamides hypoglycémiants et avec quelles précautions ?

Sulphonylureas (SU) for a long time occupied an essential role in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the launch of new oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD), firstly DPP-4 inhibitors (gliptins) and more recently SGLT2 inhibitors (gliflozins), has markedly changed the scene. Indeed, in contrast to SU, these new OAD (of course more expensive) offer the advantage of a very low risk of hypoglycaemia and a beneficial impact on bodyweight. Furthermore, gliflozins have proven to exert a cardiovascular and renal protection in patients at high risk. SU keep a place in the management of T2D, yet it becomes more and more limited. For sure, SU should be avoided among elderly frailty people and patients at high risk of hypoglycaemia.

: Les sulfamides hypoglycémiants (SU) ont longtemps occupé une place essentielle dans le traitement du diabète de type 2 (DT2). La commercialisation de nouveaux antidiabétiques oraux, d'abord les inhibiteurs de la DPP-4 (gliptines) puis les inhibiteurs des SGLT2 (gliflozines), a modifié la donne. En effet, contrairement aux SU, ces médicaments, certes plus coûteux, offrent l'avantage d'être associés à un risque minimal d'hypoglycémies et de ne pas faire prendre du poids. De plus, les gliflozines ont démontré une protection cardio-rénale chez les patients à haut risque. Les SU gardent une place dans le traitement du DT2, mais force est de constater qu'elle devient de plus en plus limitée. Les SU doivent certainement être évités chez les personnes âgées fragiles et chez les patients à risque hypoglycémique.

Effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus sulphonylurea glimepiride on systemic haemodynamics in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes: A secondary analysis of an 8-week, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial.

AIM: To determine the glucose-independent effect of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride on systemic haemodynamics in the fasting and postprandial state in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prespecified secondary analysis of a phase IV, double-blind trial, 46 metformin-treated, overweight patients with T2D were included and randomly assigned (1:1) to once-daily linagliptin (5 mg) or glimepiride (1 mg) for 8 weeks. In a sub-study involving 26 patients, systemic haemodynamics were also assessed following a standardized liquid meal (Nutridrink Yoghurt style). Systemic haemodynamics (oscillometric device and finger photoplethysmography), arterial stiffness (applanation tonometry) and cardiac sympathovagal balance (heart rate variability [HRV]) were measured in the fasting state and repetitively following the meal. Ewing tests were performed in the fasting state. RESULTS: From baseline to week 8, linagliptin compared with glimepiride did not affect systemic haemodynamics, arterial stiffness or HRV in the fasting state. Linagliptin increased parasympathetic nervous activity, as measured by the Valsalva manoeuvre (P = .021) and deep breathing test (P = .027) compared with glimepiride. Postprandially, systolic blood pressure (SBP) dropped an average of 7.6 ± 1.6 mmHg. Linagliptin reduced this decrease to 0.7 ± 2.3 mmHg, which was significant to glimepiride (P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with glimepiride, linagliptin does not affect fasting blood pressure. However, linagliptin blunted the postprandial drop in SBP, which could benefit patients with postprandial hypotension.

Sulphonylureas monotherapy and risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A population-based cohort study in China.

PURPOSE: The risk of heart failure associated with sulphonylureas is unclear. We evaluated the association between sulphonylureas and hospitalization of heart failure (HHF) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in China. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was implemented using the Yinzhou Regional Health Care Database (YRHCD). We identified 15 752 adult patients with T2DM who were newly exposed to sulphonylurea monotherapy (N = 12 487) or acarbose monotherapy (N = 3265) from January 2010 to September 2016. Cox proportional hazards models weighted by inverse probability of treatment weights were used to compare the risk of HHF between initiators of sulphonylurea and acarbose. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 0.55 (0.49, 1.11) and 0.49 (0.35, 0.70) years for sulphonylureas and acarbose initiators separately, 320 patients developed HHF, with 279 events in sulphonylureas group, and 41 events in acarbose group. The incidence rates of HHF among sulphonylureas initiators and acarbose initiators were 22.2 (95% CI 19.6-24.9) and 18.3 (95% CI 13.2-24.9) per 1000 person-years, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of HHF for sulphonylureas vs acarbose was 1.61 (95% CI 1.14-2.27). When stratified by history of heart failure, aHR was 1.55 (95% CI 0.79-3.06) in patients with a history of heart failure, and 1.64 (95% CI 1.10-2.45) in patients with no history of heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that use of sulphonylureas monotherapy compared with acarbose monotherapy for initial treatment of T2DM for approximately 0.5 years are significantly associated with a higher risk of HHF.

No significant association of type 2 diabetes-related genetic risk scores with glycated haemoglobin levels after initiating metformin or sulphonylurea derivatives.

AIM: To explore the added value of diabetes-related genetic risk scores (GRSs) to readily available clinical variables in the prediction of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels after initiation of glucose-regulating drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cohort study in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the Groningen Initiative to Analyse Type 2 Diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) database who initiated metformin (MET) or sulphonylurea derivatives (SUs) and for whom blood samples were genotyped. The primary outcome was HbA1c level at 6 months, adjusted for baseline HbA1c. GRSs were based on single nucleotide polymorphisms linked to insulin sensitivity, ß-cell activity, and T2DM risk in general. Associations were analysed using multiple linear regression to assess whether adding the GRSs increased the explained variance in a prediction model that included age, gender, diabetes duration and cardio-metabolic biomarkers. RESULTS: We included 282 patients initiating MET and 89 patients initiating SUs. In the MET prediction model, diabetes duration of >3 months when starting MET was associated with 2.7-mmol/mol higher HbA1c level. For SUs, no significant clinical predictors were identified. Addition of the GRS linked to insulin sensitivity (for MET), ß-cell activity (for SUs) and T2DM risk (for both) to the models did not improve the explained variance significantly (22% without vs. 22% with GRS) for the MET and (14% without vs. 14% with GRS) for the SUs model, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study did not indicate a significant effect of GRS related to T2DM in general or to the drugs' mechanism of action for prediction of inter-individual HbA1c variability in the short term after initiation of MET or SU therapy.

All-cause and cardiovascular mortality associated with sulphonylurea and metformin therapy in type 2 diabetes.

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that cumulative exposure to sulphonylurea (SU) or metformin (MET) have different effects on mortality when taken as a replacement or add-on of one for the other. METHODS: All consecutive diabetes patients aged over 20 years were screened at their first diabetes outpatient visit between 2001 and 2008 (n = 79869). Only patients on MET (n = 11374) or SU (n = 18502) monotherapy were retained. All patients were followed up for death until December 31, 2011, but censored at first exposure to anything else besides MET/SU. Adjusted time-dependent Cox regression and competing risk regression analysis, with daily updates of treatment modalities were performed. RESULTS: Mean age was 62.1 ± 11.2 years and follow-up was 4.6 ± 3.2 years (138496 person-years). Adjusted all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were significantly higher in MET as compared with SU group. All-cause mortality hazard ratios (HR) for cumulative time exposure were as follows: HR 0.956 (95%CI 0.951-0.962, p < 0.001) for SU added to MET, HR 1.092 (95%CI 1.087-1.096, p < 0.001) for SU replacing MET, HR 0.979 (95%CI 0.975-0.983, p < 0.001) for MET added to SU, and HR 1.127 (95%CI 1.118-1.136, p < 0.001) for MET replacing SU. CONCLUSION(S): The effect on all-cause mortality was beneficial for MET+SU combined therapy, but deleterious for either SU replacing MET, or MET replacing SU. There were no major outcome differences when analyzing individual SU, or specific mortality.

A randomised, active- and placebo-controlled, three-period crossover trial to investigate short-term effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin on macro- and microvascular endothelial function in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Studies of dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors report heterogeneous effects on endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study assessed the effects of the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride and placebo on measures of macro- and microvascular endothelial function in patients with T2D who represented a primary cardiovascular disease prevention population. METHODS: This crossover study randomised T2D patients (n = 42) with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤7.5%, no diagnosed macro- or microvascular disease and on stable metformin background to linagliptin 5 mg qd, glimepiride 1-4 mg qd or placebo for 28 days. Fasting and postprandial macrovascular endothelial function, measured using brachial flow-mediated vasodilation, and microvascular function, measured using laser-Doppler on the dorsal thenar site of the right hand, were analysed after 28 days. RESULTS: Baseline mean (standard deviation) age, body mass index and HbA1c were 60.3 (6.0) years, 30.3 (3.0) kg/m2 and 7.41 (0.61)%, respectively. After 28 days, changes in fasting flow-mediated vasodilation were similar between the three study arms (treatment ratio, gMean [90% confidence interval]: linagliptin vs glimepiride, 0.884 [0.633-1.235]; linagliptin vs placebo, 0.884 [0.632-1.235]; glimepiride vs placebo, 1.000 [0.715-1.397]; P = not significant for all comparisons). Similarly, no differences were seen in postprandial flow-mediated vasodilation. However, under fasting conditions, linagliptin significantly improved microvascular function as shown by a 34% increase in hyperaemia area (P = 0.045 vs glimepiride), a 34% increase in resting blow flow (P = 0.011 vs glimepiride, P = 0.003 vs placebo), and a 25% increase in peak blood flow (P = 0.009 vs glimepiride, P = 0.003 vs placebo). There were no significant differences between treatments in postprandial changes. Linagliptin had no effect on heart rate or blood pressure. Rates of overall adverse events with linagliptin, glimepiride and placebo were 27.5, 61.0 and 35.0%, respectively. Fewer hypoglycaemic events were seen with linagliptin (5.0%) and placebo (2.5%) than with glimepiride (39.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin had no effect on macrovascular function in T2D, but significantly improved microvascular function in the fasting state. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier-NCT01703286; registered October 1, 2012.

The Infamous, Famous Sulfonylureas and Cardiovascular Safety: Much Ado About Nothing?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sulfonylureas (SUs) are one of the most commonly used glucose-lowering agents worldwide. While their efficacy is undisputed, their cardiovascular safety has been debated since the 1970's. RECENT FINDINGS: With no dedicated cardiovascular studies to definitively answer this question, observational studies and meta-analyses abound and have reported divergent results, fueling the controversy. Studies that compared SUs to metformin or newer agents, like GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, suggest a difference in cardiovascular events, yet this is likely the result of beneficial effects of the latter. Studies comparing SUs to other agents have been reassuring. SUs remain a common choice of treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes due to their exceptional value. They are effective at lowering glucose and thus contributing to the prevention of microvascular complications. Weight gain and hypoglycemia are their main side effects, although less severe when compared to insulin treatment. Their cardiovascular safety will remain a controversial topic due to lack of conclusive data, but there is no definitive evidence of harm with the second-generation agents.

PATIENTS TREATED WITH INSULIN AND SULPHONYLUREA ARE AT INCREASED MORTALITY RISK AS COMPARED WITH THOSE TREATED WITH INSULIN PLUS METFORMIN.

AIMS: To investigate the effect of sulphonylurea (SU) treatment on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality as compared with metformin (MET), when used in combination with insulin (INS) in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: All type 2 diabetes patients aged ≥40 years were included at their first prescription of INS+MET or INS+SU, during 2001-2008. They were considered at risk until death or December 31st, 2011. Mortality rates were calculated per 1000 person-years. Crude and adjusted rate ratios (RR) were calculated using time dependent analysis with INS+MET as reference. RESULTS: There were 7122 patients (60.8% women) included in the analysis, with a mean age at baseline of 62.0±9.9 years. During the 11 years of study, patients on INS+MET contributed 13620 person-years and 330 deaths (mortality rate 24, CI95% 22-27), while those on INS+SU contributed 8720 person-years and 393 deaths (mortality rate 45, CI95% 41-50). Adjusted all-cause mortality RR were: SU 1.6 (CI95% 1.21-2.11, p<0.001), glimepiride 1.18 (CI95% 0.73-1.91, p=0.51), gliclazide 1.78 (CI95% 1.07-2.95, p=0.024), glibenclamide 1.66 (CI95% 0.71-3.88, p=0.23), glipizide 1.24 (CI95% 0.68-2.27, p=0.49), and gliquidonum 2.32 (CI95% 1.54-3.50, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When combined with insulin as dual therapy, patients treated with SU were at increased mortality risk as compared with insulin + MET.

Switching from sulphonylurea to a sodium-glucose cotransporter2 inhibitor in the fasting month of Ramadan is associated with a reduction in hypoglycaemia.

The aim of the present study was to assess the hypoglycaemia risk and safety of dapagliflozin compared with sulphonylurea during the fasting month of Ramadan. In this 12-week, randomized, open-label, two-arm parallel group study, 110 patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving sulphonylurea and metformin were randomized either to receive 10 mg (n = 58) of dapagliflozin daily or to continue receiving sulphonylurea (n = 52). The primary outcome was to compare the effects of dapagliflozin and sulphonylurea on the proportions of patients with at least one episode of hypoglycaemia during Ramadan, as well as to assess the safety of dapagliflozin when used to treat patients observing Ramadan. A lower proportion of patients had reported or documented hypoglycaemia in the dapagliflozin group than in the sulphonylurea group: 4 (6.9%) versus 15 (28.8%); p = 0.002. The relative risk of any reported or documented hypoglycaemia in the 4th week of Ramadan was significantly lower in the dapagliflozin group: RR=0.24, 95%CI: 0.09, 0.68; p=0.002. No significance differences were observed between the two groups regarding postural hypotension (13.8 vs 3.8%; p = 0.210) or urinary tract infections (10.3 vs 3.8%; p = 0.277). In conclusion, fewer patients exhibited hypoglycaemia in the dapagliflozin group than in the sulphonylurea group.

Sulphonylurea receptor-1, sulphonylureas and amplification of insulin secretion by Epac activation in ß cells.

Amplification of insulin secretion by cyclic AMP involves activation of protein kinase A (PKA) and Epac2 in pancreatic ß cells. Recent hypotheses suggest that sulphonylurea receptor-1 (SUR1), the regulatory subunit of ATP-sensitive potassium channels, is implicated in Epac2 effects and that direct activation of Epac2 by hypoglycaemic sulphonylureas contributes to the stimulation of insulin secretion by these drugs. In the present experiments, using islets from Sur1KO mice, we show that dibutyryl-cAMP and membrane-permeant selective activators of Epac or PKA normally amplify insulin secretion in ß cells lacking SUR1. In contrast to Epac activator, sulphonylureas (glibenclamide and tolbutamide) did not increase insulin secretion in Sur1KO islets, as would be expected if they were activating Epac2 directly. Furthermore, glibenclamide and tolbutamide did not augment the amplification of insulin secretion produced by Epac activator or dibutyryl-cAMP. Collectively, the results show that SUR1 is dispensable for amplification of insulin secretion by Epac2 activation and that direct activation of Epac2 is unimportant for the action of therapeutic concentrations of sulphonylureas in ß cells.