Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Glycemic Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering medications for use with metformin to maintain target glycated hemoglobin levels in persons with type 2 diabetes is uncertain. METHODS: In this trial involving participants with type 2 diabetes of less than 10 years' duration who were receiving metformin and had glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.8 to 8.5%, we compared the effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications. We randomly assigned participants to receive insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), the sulfonylurea glimepiride, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, or sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary metabolic outcome was a glycated hemoglobin level, measured quarterly, of 7.0% or higher that was subsequently confirmed, and the secondary metabolic outcome was a confirmed glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5%. RESULTS: A total of 5047 participants (19.8% Black and 18.6% Hispanic or Latinx) who had received metformin for type 2 diabetes were followed for a mean of 5.0 years. The cumulative incidence of a glycated hemoglobin level of 7.0% or higher (the primary metabolic outcome) differed significantly among the four groups (P<0.001 for a global test of differences across groups); the rates with glargine (26.5 per 100 participant-years) and liraglutide (26.1) were similar and lower than those with glimepiride (30.4) and sitagliptin (38.1). The differences among the groups with respect to a glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5% (the secondary outcome) paralleled those of the primary outcome. There were no material differences with respect to the primary outcome across prespecified subgroups defined according to sex, age, or race or ethnic group; however, among participants with higher baseline glycated hemoglobin levels there appeared to be an even greater benefit with glargine, liraglutide, and glimepiride than with sitagliptin. Severe hypoglycemia was rare but significantly more frequent with glimepiride (in 2.2% of the participants) than with glargine (1.3%), liraglutide (1.0%), or sitagliptin (0.7%). Participants who received liraglutide reported more frequent gastrointestinal side effects and lost more weight than those in the other treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: All four medications, when added to metformin, decreased glycated hemoglobin levels. However, glargine and liraglutide were significantly, albeit modestly, more effective in achieving and maintaining target glycated hemoglobin levels. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Microvascular and Cardiovascular Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the comparative effectiveness of commonly used glucose-lowering medications, when added to metformin, with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease outcomes in persons with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We assessed the comparative effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications, added to metformin, in achieving and maintaining a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% in participants with type 2 diabetes. The randomly assigned therapies were insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin. Prespecified secondary outcomes with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease included hypertension and dyslipidemia, confirmed moderately or severely increased albuminuria or an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, diabetic peripheral neuropathy assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], hospitalization for heart failure, or an aggregate outcome of any cardiovascular event), and death. Hazard ratios are presented with 95% confidence limits that are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: During a mean 5.0 years of follow-up in 5047 participants, there were no material differences among the interventions with respect to the development of hypertension or dyslipidemia or with respect to microvascular outcomes; the mean overall rate (i.e., events per 100 participant-years) of moderately increased albuminuria levels was 2.6, of severely increased albuminuria levels 1.1, of renal impairment 2.9, and of diabetic peripheral neuropathy 16.7. The treatment groups did not differ with respect to MACE (overall rate, 1.0), hospitalization for heart failure (0.4), death from cardiovascular causes (0.3), or all deaths (0.6). There were small differences with respect to rates of any cardiovascular disease, with 1.9, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.0 in the glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin groups, respectively. When one treatment was compared with the combined results of the other three treatments, the hazard ratios for any cardiovascular disease were 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.3) in the glargine group, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4) in the glimepiride group, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) in the liraglutide group, and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) in the sitagliptin group. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with type 2 diabetes, the incidences of microvascular complications and death were not materially different among the four treatment groups. The findings indicated possible differences among the groups in the incidence of any cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Food Insecurity and Hypoglycemia among Older Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Insulin or Sulfonylureas: The Diabetes & Aging Study.

BACKGROUND: Severe hypoglycemia is a serious adverse drug event associated with hypoglycemia-prone medications; older patients with diabetes are particularly at high risk. Economic food insecurity (food insecurity due to financial limitations) is a known risk factor for hypoglycemia; however, less is known about physical food insecurity (due to difficulty cooking or shopping for food), which may increase with age, and its association with hypoglycemia. OBJECTIVE: Study associations between food insecurity and severe hypoglycemia. DESIGN: Survey based cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Survey responses were collected in 2019 from 1,164 older (≥ 65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin or sulfonylureas. MAIN MEASURES: Risk ratios (RR) for economic and physical food insecurity associated with self-reported severe hypoglycemia (low blood glucose requiring assistance) adjusted for age, financial strain, HbA1c, Charlson comorbidity score and frailty. Self-reported reasons for hypoglycemia endorsed by respondents. KEY RESULTS: Food insecurity was reported by 12.3% of the respondents; of whom 38.4% reported economic food insecurity only, 21.1% physical food insecurity only and 40.5% both. Economic food insecurity and physical food insecurity were strongly associated with severe hypoglycemia (RR = 4.3; p = 0.02 and RR = 4.4; p = 0.002, respectively). Missed meals ("skipped meals, not eating enough or waiting too long to eat") was the dominant reason (77.5%) given for hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoglycemia prevention efforts among older patients with diabetes using hypoglycemia-prone medications should address food insecurity. Standard food insecurity questions, which are used to identify economic food insecurity, will fail to identify patients who have physical food insecurity only.

Glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists and the risk of skin cancer among patients with type 2 diabetes: Population-based cohort study.

AIMS: The objective of this study was to determine whether the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is associated with an increased risk of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer, separately, compared with the use of sulfonylureas among patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Using the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2007-2019), we assembled two new-user active comparator cohorts. In the first cohort assessing melanoma as the outcome, 11,786 new users of GLP-1 RAs were compared with 208,519 new users of sulfonylureas. In the second cohort assessing nonmelanoma skin cancer as the outcome, 11,774 new users of GLP-1 RAs were compared with 207,788 new users of sulfonylureas. Cox proportional hazards models weighted using propensity score fine stratification were fit to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer, respectively. RESULTS: Compared with sulfonylureas, GLP-1 RAs were not associated with an increased risk of either melanoma (42.6 vs. 43.9 per 100,000 person-years, respectively; HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53-1.75) or nonmelanoma skin cancer (243.9 vs. 229.9 per 100,000 person-years, respectively; HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80-1.33). There was no evidence of an association between cumulative duration of use with either melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer. Consistent results were observed in secondary and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cohort study, GLP-1 RAs were not associated with an increased risk of melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer, compared with sulfonylureas.

Fluoroquinolones and the risk of severe hypoglycaemia among sulphonylurea users: Population-based cohort study.

AIM: Fluoroquinolone-related hypoglycaemia is rare but may become clinically relevant in individuals at high baseline hypoglycaemic risk, such as patients with diabetes using sulphonylureas. Our population-based cohort study assessed whether fluoroquinolones are associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia compared with amoxicillin among patients treated with sulphonylureas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum linked to hospitalization and vital statistics data, we assembled a base cohort of patients who initiated second-generation sulphonylureas (1998-2020). The study cohort included patients initiating either fluoroquinolones or amoxicillin while on sulphonylureas. Using an intent-to-treat exposure definition, we assessed the 30-day risk of severe hypoglycaemia (hospitalization with or death because of hypoglycaemia) associated with fluoroquinolones compared with amoxicillin. Cox models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of severe hypoglycaemia after 1:5 matching on previous sulphonylurea use and propensity scores. Secondary analyses were stratified by demographics and glycated haemoglobin. RESULTS: Overall, 143 417 patients initiated fluoroquinolones (n = 13 123) or amoxicillin (n = 130 294) while on sulphonylureas. Compared with amoxicillin, fluoroquinolones were not associated with the risk of severe hypoglycaemia (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.50). Fluoroquinolones were associated with an increased risk in patients <65 years (HR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.41-5.97) but not in those ≥65 years (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79-1.35) in stratified analyses. There was no evidence of effect modification by sex or glycated haemoglobin. CONCLUSIONS: In patients using second-generation sulphonylureas, fluoroquinolones were not associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia compared with amoxicillin. An increased risk among younger adults is possible.

Diabetes, antidiabetic medications and risk of dementia: A systematic umbrella review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The objective of this umbrella review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of diabetes on risk of dementia, as well as the mitigating effect of antidiabetic treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic umbrella review on diabetes and its treatment, and a meta-analysis focusing on treatment. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the risk of cognitive decline/dementia in individuals with diabetes until 2 July 2023. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to obtain risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals estimating the association of metformin, thiazolidinediones, pioglitazone, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, meglitinides, insulin, sulphonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) with risk of dementia from cohort/case-control studies. The subgroups analysed included country and world region. Risk of bias was assessed with the AMSTAR tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: We included 100 reviews and 27 cohort/case-control studies (N = 3 046 661). Metformin, thiazolidinediones, pioglitazone, GLP1RAs and SGLT2is were associated with significant reduction in risk of dementia. When studies examining metformin were divided by country, the only significant effect was for the United States. Moreover, the effect of metformin was significant in Western but not Eastern populations. No significant effect was observed for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, or insulin, while meglitinides and sulphonylureas were associated with increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin, thiazolidinediones, pioglitazone, GLP1RAs and SGLT2is were associated with reduced risk of dementia. More longitudinal studies aimed at determining their relative benefit in different populations should be conducted.

Incretin-based therapy and the risk of diabetic foot ulcers and related events.

AIM: To investigate the effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-Is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) on diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and DFU-related outcomes (lower limb amputation [LLA], DFU-related hospitalization and mortality). METHODS: We performed a cohort study with data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database with linkage to hospital data. We included people with type 2 diabetes starting treatment with metformin. Then we propensity score matched new users of DPP4-Is and sulphonylureas (N = 98 770), and new users of GLP1-RAs and insulin (N = 25 422). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for the outcomes. RESULTS: We observed a lower risk of DFU with both DPP4-I use versus sulphonylurea use (HR 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.97) and GLP1-RA use versus insulin use (HR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.32-0.60) for short-term exposure (≤ 400 days) and HR 0.74 (95% CI: 0.60-0.92) for long-term exposure (>400 days). Furthermore, the risks of hospitalization and mortality were lower with both DPP4-I use and GLP1-RA use. The risk of LLA was lower with GLP1-RA use. The results remained consistent across several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Incretin-based therapy was associated with a lower risk of DFU and DFU-related outcomes. This suggests benefits for the use of this treatment in people at risk of DFU.

Efficacy and tolerability of initial triple combination therapy with metformin, dapagliflozin and saxagliptin compared with stepwise add-on therapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (TRIPLE-AXEL study): A multicentre, randomized, 104-week, open-label, active-controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of an initial triple combination therapy (TCT) compared with conventional stepwise add-on therapy (SAT) in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicentre, randomized, 104-week, open-label trial randomized 105 patients with drug-naïve T2D (with HbA1c level ≥ 8.0%, < 11.0%) to the TCT (1000 mg of metformin, 10 mg of dapagliflozin and 5 mg of saxagliptin once daily) or SAT (initiated with metformin, followed by glimepiride and sitagliptin) groups. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved an HbA1c level of less than 6.5% without hypoglycaemia, weight gain of 5% or higher, or discontinuation of drugs because of adverse events at week 104. RESULTS: HbA1c reduction from baseline at week 104 was similar between the groups (the least squares mean change was -2.56% in the TCT group vs. -2.75% in the SAT group). The primary outcome was achieved in 39.0% and 17.1% of the TCT and SAT groups, respectively, with a risk difference of 22.0 (95% confidence interval 3.0, 40.8; P = .027). HbA1c level less than 6.5% at week 104 was 46.3% in both the TCT and SAT groups, whereas the incidence of hypoglycaemia, weight gain, or discontinuation of drugs was 16.7% and 62.0% in the TCT and SAT groups, respectively (P < .001). TCT was well-tolerated and had fewer adverse events than SAT. CONCLUSIONS: Among newly diagnosed patients with T2D, initial TCT effectively lowered HbA1c levels with higher tolerability and safety than SAT for 104 weeks, suggesting a novel strategy for initial combination therapy in T2D patients.

Long-Term Sulfonylurea Use and Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycemia Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Taiwan.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to investigate the relationship between duration of medication use and prevalence of impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) among patients with insulin-treated or sulfonylurea-treated type 2 diabetes in Taiwan. METHODS: A total of 898 patients (41.0% insulin users, 65.1% sulfonylurea users; mean [SD] age = 59.9 [12.3] years, 50.7% female) were enrolled in pharmacies, clinics, and health bureaus of Tainan City, Taiwan. Presence of IAH was determined with Chinese versions of the Gold questionnaire (Gold-TW) and Clarke questionnaire (Clarke-TW). Sociodemographics, disease and treatment histories, diabetes-related medical care, and health status were collected. We used multiple logistic regression models to assess the relationship between duration of medication use and IAH. RESULTS: Overall IAH prevalence was 41.0% (Gold-TW) and 28.2% (Clarke-TW) among insulin users, and 65.3% (Gold-TW) and 51.3% (Clarke-TW) among sulfonylurea users. Prevalence increased with the duration of sulfonylurea use, whereas it decreased with the duration of insulin use. After controlling for potential confounders, 5 or more years of sulfonylurea use was significantly associated with 3.50-fold (95% CI, 2.39-5.13) and 3.06-fold (95% CI, 2.11-4.44) increases in the odds of IAH based on the Gold-TW and Clarke-TW criteria, respectively. On the other hand, regular blood glucose testing and retinal examinations were associated with reduced odds in both insulin users and sulfonylurea users. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of IAH was high among patients using sulfonylureas long term, but the odds of this complication were attenuated for those who received regular diabetes-related medical care. Our study suggests that long-term sulfonylurea use and irregular follow-up increase risk for IAH. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the observed associations.Annals Early Access article.

The Prevalent New-User Design to Study Drug-Drug Interactions: The Example of Sulfonylureas and Warfarin Interaction on the Risk of Severe Hypoglycemia.

PURPOSE: The optimal design for pharmacoepidemiologic drug-drug interactions (DDIs) studies is unclear. Using the association between concomitant use of sulfonylureas and warfarin and the risk of severe hypoglycemia as a case study, a DDI with little or no clinical impact, we tested whether the prevalent new-user design can be applied in the area. METHODS: Among all patients initiating sulfonylureas in the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (1998-2020), we identified those adding-on warfarin while on a sulfonylurea. For each co-exposed patient, we defined a prescription-based exposure set including other sulfonylurea users not adding-on warfarin (comparators). Within each exposure set, we matched each co-exposed patient to five comparators on time-conditional propensity scores (TCPS) and followed them using an as-treated approach. Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of severe hypoglycemia associated with concomitant use of sulfonylureas and warfarin compared to use of sulfonylureas alone. Sensitivity analyses addressed the impact of different potential sources of bias. RESULTS: The study cohort included 17 890 patients co-exposed to sulfonylureas and warfarin and 88 749 matched comparators. After TCPS matching, patient characteristics were well-balanced between groups. Compared to use of sulfonylureas alone, concomitant use of sulfonylureas and warfarin was not associated with the risk of severe hypoglycemia (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92-1.17). Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis (HRs ranging from 1.01 to 1.15, all not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the prevalent new-user design could be used for the assessment of clinical effects of DDIs.

Risk of acute pancreatitis among new users of empagliflozin compared to sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes: A post-authorization safety study.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the potential risk of acute pancreatitis with empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) newly initiating empagliflozin. METHODS: Data from two large US claims databases were analyzed in an observational study of patients with T2D receiving metformin who were newly prescribed empagliflozin versus sulfonylurea (SU). Because dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists have been associated with the risk of acute pancreatitis in some studies, patients on these agents were excluded. Using pooled analyses of data from the two databases (2014-2021), patients initiating empagliflozin were matched 1:1 within database to patients initiating SU using propensity scores (PS) that incorporated relevant demographic and clinical characteristics. Prespecified sensitivity analyses were performed for design parameters. RESULTS: The analyses identified 72 661 new users of empagliflozin and 422 018 new users of SUs, with both patient groups on concurrent metformin therapy. Baseline characteristics within treatment groups appeared to be similar across the 72 621 matched pairs. After mean follow-up of ~6 months, incidence rates of acute pancreatitis in the pooled matched cohort were 10.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.29-11.39) events per 1000 patient-years (PY) for empagliflozin and 11.65 (95% CI 10.59-12.77) events per 1000 PY for SUs. On a background of metformin, patients newly initiating empagliflozin did not have an increased risk of acute pancreatitis compared with those initiating an SU (pooled PS matched hazard ratio 0.88 [0.76-1.02]) across 75621.42 PY of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this voluntary post-approval safety study provide additional evidence that the use of empagliflozin for the treatment of T2D is not associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis.

Effect of Drugs Used in Pharmacotherapy of Type 2 Diabetes on Bone Density and Risk of Bone Fractures.

This review summarizes the complex relationship between medications used to treat type 2 diabetes and bone health. T2DM patients face an increased fracture risk despite higher bone mineral density; thus, we analyzed the impact of key drug classes, including Metformin, Sulphonylureas, SGLT-2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and Thiazolidinediones. Metformin, despite promising preclinical results, lacks a clear consensus on its role in reducing fracture risk. Sulphonylureas present conflicting data, with potential neutral effects on bone. SGLT-2 inhibitors seem to have a transient impact on serum calcium and phosphorus, but evidence on their fracture association is inconclusive. DPP-4 inhibitors emerge as promising contributors to bone health, and GLP-1 agonists exhibit positive effects on bone metabolism, reducing fracture risk. Thiazolidinediones, however, demonstrate adverse impacts on bone, inducing loss through mesenchymal stem cell effects. Insulin presents a complex relationship with bone health. While it has an anabolic effect on bone mineral density, its role in fracture risk remains inconsistent. In conclusion, a comprehensive understanding of diabetes medications' impact on bone health is crucial. Further research is needed to formulate clear guidelines for managing bone health in diabetic patients, considering individual profiles, glycemic control, and potential medication-related effects on bone.

Glucose-Lowering Agents and the Risk of Hypoglycemia: a Real-world Study.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) are increasingly recommended in type 2 diabetes. Hypoglycemia is a serious adverse effect of glucose-lowering agents. Real-world comparison of hypoglycemic risks among SGLT2i, GLP1RA, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i), and sulfonylureas is limited. OBJECTIVE: Quantify the risk of hypoglycemia associated with SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i, and sulfonylureas (the primary reference group). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study conducted using electronic health records from Geisinger Health, Pennsylvania (2015-2019). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 10,713 patients with type 2 diabetes who newly received SGLT2i (n=1487), GLP1RA (n=1241), DPP4i (n=2938), or sulfonylureas (n=5047). Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance patient characteristics across four treatment groups simultaneously. MAIN MEASURES: Hypoglycemia was defined as capillary blood glucose <70 mg/dL; severe hypoglycemia was defined as capillary blood glucose <54 mg/dL. A weighted Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the risk of outcomes for pairwise comparisons of SGTL2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i, and sulfonylureas. KEY RESULTS: Median follow-up was 21.3 months. Compared with sulfonylureas, the risk of hypoglycemia was lower with SGLT2i (hazard ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval 0.48-0.75]), GLP1RA (0.49 [0.34-0.69]), and DPP4i (0.60 [0.48-0.78]). The risk of severe hypoglycemia was also lower with SGLT2i (0.43 [0.35-0.74]), GLP1RA (0.50 [0.28-0.87]), and DPP4i (0.64 [0.46-0.90]) compared to sulfonylureas. The risks of hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia were similar across the SGLT2i, GLP1RA, and DPP4i groups (SGLT2i vs. DPP4i: 0.95 [0.67-1.34]; GLP1RA vs. DPP4i: 0.81 [0.55-1.19]; SGLT2i vs. GLP1RA: 1.17 [0.76-1.82] for hypoglycemia). CONCLUSION: SGLT2i and GLP1RA confer a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared with sulfonylureas and similar risk compared with DPP4i. Given the known cardiovascular benefits associated with SGLT2i and GL1PRA, our results suggesting the safety of SGLT2i and GL1PRA further support their use.

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.

Contemporary trends in the utilization of second-line pharmacological therapies for type 2 diabetes in the United States and the United Kingdom.

AIM: To examine trends of second-line glucose-lowering therapies among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating first-line metformin in the United States and the United Kingdom, overall and by subgroups of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and calendar time. METHODS: Using the US Optum Clinformatics and the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified adults with T2D who initiated first-line metformin or sulphonylurea monotherapy, separately, from 2013 to 2019. Within both cohorts, we identified patterns of second-line medications through June 2021. We stratified patterns by CVD and calendar time to investigate the impact of rapidly evolving treatment guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 148 511 and 169 316 patients initiating treatment with metformin monotherapy in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively. Throughout the study period, sulphonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were the most frequently initiated second-line medications in the United States (43.4% and 18.2%, respectively) and the United Kingdom (42.5% and 35.8%, respectively). After 2018, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists were more commonly used as second-line agents in the United States and the United Kingdom, although these agents were not preferentially prescribed among patients with CVD. Initiation of first-line sulphonylureas was much less common, and most sulphonylurea initiators had metformin added as the second-line agent. CONCLUSIONS: This international cohort study shows that sulphonylureas remain the most common second-line medications prescribed following metformin in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Despite recommendations, the use of newer glucose-lowering therapies with cardiovascular benefits remains low.

Do oral antidiabetic medications alter the risk of Parkinson's disease? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a known risk factor for Parkinson's disease (PD), but does this risk vary with antidiabetic medications is still unclear. This meta-analysis aims to compile evidence from the literature to assess the risk of idiopathic PD with various oral antidiabetic medications. METHODS: Databases PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched till 5th April 2023. Adjusted outcomes were pooled to generate a hazard ratio (HR) on the risk of PD with different antidiabetic medications. RESULTS: Fifteen studies with 2,910,405 diabetic patients were eligible. Pooled analysis failed to show any significant difference in the risk of PD among users of metformin (HR: 1.05 95% CI: 0.91, 1.22 I2 = 81%), glitazones (HR: 0.84 95% CI: 0.68, 1.05 I2 = 91%), glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (HR: 0.63 95% CI: 0.26, 1.55 I2 = 33%), and sulfonylureas (HR: 1.13 95% CI: 0.96, 1.32 I2 = 76%). However, a meta-analysis of four studies showed that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor use was associated with reduced risk of PD in diabetics (HR: 0.69 95% CI: 0.56, 0.86 I2 = 46%). Insufficient data was available on sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, and glinides. CONCLUSIONS: Limited retrospective evidence indicates that DPP4i may reduce the risk of idiopathic PD in diabetics. Metformin, sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, and glitazones were not associated with any change in the risk of PD. Further studies taking into confounding factors and using a common comparator group are needed to strengthen present evidence.

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.

The use of metformin, sulfonylurea compounds and insulin and the risk of hip fractures in diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is a major health problem that occurs more often in the elderly, especially in diabetic patients. Some studies have been conducted regarding the effect of anti- diabetic drugs on fractures. But so far, no meta-analysis study has been conducted to investigate the effect of diabetic drugs on hip fractures. Therefore, this study investigated the relationship between anti-diabetic drugs (Metformin, Sulfonylurea, and insulin) with hip fractures. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta analysis study, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases were searched with specific keywords to find relevant studies. Two researchers included related studies after screening based on the title and full text. Cochran's Q and I2 tests were used to assess heterogeneity between studies. Publication bias between studies was evaluated for each drug using Egger's test. A 95% confidence interval was used for effect size significance. Overall, 49 studies, including 6,631,297 participants, were reviewed. RESULTS: The results showed that metformin significantly reduced the risk of hip fracture (HR: 0.833, 95% CI: 0.759, 0.914, P:0.001). Consumption of sulfonylurea compounds was significantly associated with an increased risk of hip fracture. (HR: 1.175, 95% CI:1.068,1.293, P:0.001), The risk of hip fracture in patients receiving insulin was significantly higher than in diabetic patients who did not receive insulin. (HR:1.366, 95% CI:1.226,1.522, P:0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that taking metformin reduces the risk of hip fracture, and insulin and Sulfonylurea increase the risk of hip fracture.

Risk of Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes After Addition of SGLT2 Inhibitors Versus Sulfonylureas to Baseline GLP-1RA Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Several glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have demonstrated cardiovascular benefit in type 2 diabetes in large randomized controlled trials in patients with established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors. However, few trial participants were on both agents, and it remains unknown whether the addition of SGLT2i to GLP-1RA therapy has further cardiovascular benefits. METHODS: Patients adding either SGLT2i or sulfonylureas to baseline GLP-1RA were identified within 3 US claims datasets (2013-2018) and were 1:1 propensity score-matched, adjusting for >95 baseline covariates. The primary outcomes were a composite cardiovascular end point (comprising myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality) and heart failure hospitalization. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated in each dataset and pooled through fixed-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Among 12 584 propensity score-matched pairs (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [10.9] years; 48.2% male) across the 3 datasets, there were 107 composite cardiovascular end point events (incidence rate per 1000 person-years, 9.9 [95% CI, 8.1-11.9]) among SGLT2i initiators compared with 129 events (incidence rate, 13.0 [95% CI, 10.9-15.3]) among sulfonylurea initiators, corresponding to an adjusted pooled HR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.98); this decrease in composite cardiovascular end point was driven by numeric decreases in the risk of myocardial infarction (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.51-1.003]) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.40-1.14]) but not stroke (HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.62-1.79]). For the outcome of heart failure hospitalization, there were 141 events (incidence rate, 13.0 [95% CI, 11.0-15.2]) among SGLT2i initiators versus 206 events (incidence rate, 20.8 [95% CI, 18.1-23.8]) among sulfonylurea initiators, corresponding to an adjusted pooled HR of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Risk of residual confounding cannot be fully excluded. Individual therapeutic agents within each class may have different magnitudes of effect. In this large real-world cohort of patients with diabetes already on GLP-1RA, addition of SGLT2i conferred greater cardiovascular benefit compared with addition of sulfonylurea. The magnitude of the cardiovascular risk reduction was comparable with the benefit seen in cardiovascular outcome trials of SGLT2i versus placebo, where baseline GLP-1RA use was minimal.

Association of Metformin Use With Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A General-Population-Based Cohort Study.

Metformin is hypothesized to protect against the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE); however, there is a paucity of data supporting this hypothesis. Among individuals aged 40-90 years with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in the Health Improvement Network database (2000-2019), we compared the risks of incident VTE, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein thrombosis among metformin initiators with those among sulfonylurea initiators. Individuals were followed from their first prescription refill to an incident VTE, drug discontinuation, switching or augmenting, plan disenrollment, or the end of the study, whichever occurred first. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the Cox model, adjusting for confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Among 117,472 initiators of metformin and 13,835 initiators of sulfonylureas, 555 (1.3/1,000 person-years) and 75 (2.1/1,000 person-years) VTE cases occurred in each group, respectively. The multivariable-adjusted HR was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.51, 0.84). The corresponding risks for pulmonary embolism (adjusted HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.01) and deep vein thrombosis (adjusted HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.87) were also lower in metformin initiators than in sulfonylurea initiators. Our study provided empirical evidence to support a lower risk of VTE after initiation of metformin as compared with sulfonylureas among patients with type 2 diabetes.