Cardiovascular Safety in Type 2 Diabetes With Sulfonylureas as Second-line Drugs: A Nationwide Population-Based Comparative Safety Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world cardiovascular (CV) safety for sulfonylureas (SU), in comparison with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) and thiazolidinediones (TZD), through development of robust methodology for causal inference in a whole nation study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cohort study was performed including people with type 2 diabetes diagnosed in Scotland before 31 December 2017, who failed to reach HbA1c 48 mmol/mol despite metformin monotherapy and initiated second-line pharmacotherapy (SU/DPP4i/TZD) on or after 1 January 2010. The primary outcome was composite major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including hospitalization for myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, heart failure, and CV death. Secondary outcomes were each individual end point and all-cause death. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and an instrumental variable (IV) approach were used to control confounding in a similar way to the randomization process in a randomized control trial. RESULTS: Comparing SU to non-SU (DPP4i/TZD), the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.91-1.09) from the multivariable Cox regression and 1.02 (0.91-1.13) and 1.03 (0.91-1.16) using two different IVs. For all-cause death, the HR from Cox regression and the two IV analyses was 1.03 (0.94-1.13), 1.04 (0.93-1.17), and 1.03 (0.90-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings contribute to the understanding that second-line SU for glucose lowering are unlikely to increase CV risk or all-cause mortality. Given their potent efficacy, microvascular benefits, cost effectiveness, and widespread use, this study supports that SU should remain a part of the global diabetes treatment portfolio.

The Impact of Low-dose Gliclazide on the Incretin Effect and Indices of Beta-cell Function.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Studies in permanent neonatal diabetes suggest that sulphonylureas lower blood glucose without causing hypoglycemia, in part by augmenting the incretin effect. This mechanism has not previously been attributed to sulphonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We therefore aimed to evaluate the impact of low-dose gliclazide on beta-cell function and incretin action in patients with T2DM. METHODS: Paired oral glucose tolerance tests and isoglycemic infusions were performed to evaluate the difference in the classical incretin effect in the presence and absence of low-dose gliclazide in 16 subjects with T2DM (hemoglobin A1c < 64 mmol/mol, 8.0%) treated with diet or metformin monotherapy. Beta-cell function modeling was undertaken to describe the relationship between insulin secretion and glucose concentration. RESULTS: A single dose of 20 mg gliclazide reduced mean glucose during the oral glucose tolerance test from 12.01 ±â€…0.56 to 10.82 ±â€…0.5mmol/l [P = 0.0006; mean ±â€…standard error of the mean (SEM)]. The classical incretin effect was augmented by 20 mg gliclazide, from 35.5% (lower quartile 27.3, upper quartile 61.2) to 54.99% (34.8, 72.8; P = 0.049). Gliclazide increased beta-cell glucose sensitivity by 46% [control 22.61 ±â€…3.94, gliclazide 33.11 ±â€…7.83 (P = 0.01)] as well as late-phase incretin potentiation [control 0.92 ±â€…0.05, gliclazide 1.285 ±â€…0.14 (P = 0.038)]. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Low-dose gliclazide reduces plasma glucose in response to oral glucose load, with concomitant augmentation of the classical incretin effect. Beta-cell modeling shows that low plasma concentrations of gliclazide potentiate late-phase insulin secretion and increase glucose sensitivity by 50%. Further studies are merited to explore whether low-dose gliclazide, by enhancing incretin action, could effectively lower blood glucose without risk of hypoglycemia.

Reflections on the sulphonylurea story: A drug class at risk of extinction or a drug class worth reviving?

The role of sulphonylureas (SUs) in modern clinical practice poses ongoing clinical debate. With the advent of newer agents in diabetes management, there is an increasing shift away from the prescribing of SUs, but not necessarily to more effective agents. This review provides a different perspective on the debate, reflecting in depth upon the physiology of SUs, drawing on insights gained from monogenic diabetes to highlight the potential benefit of lower doses of SUs, and the probable benefit of gliclazide over most other, if not all SUs, in terms of sulphonylurea failure and cardiovascular outcomes.