Comparison of Mitochondrial Adenosine Triphosphate-Sensitive Potassium Channel High- vs Low-Affinity Sulfonylureas and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Metformin.

Importance: Sulfonylureas are frequently used as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes (T2D), and individual sulfonylurea agents carry different risks of cardiovascular disease. Sulfonylureas' different affinities to cardiac mitochondrial adenosine triphosphate-sensitive potassium (mitoKATP) channels have been speculated to account for the intraclass difference in cardiovascular risk from in vitro and ex vivo studies; however, this hypothesis has not been assessed in a general population with diabetes receiving sulfonylureas added to metformin. Objective: To compare the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with T2D treated with mitoKATP channel high-affinity sulfonylureas and low-affinity sulfonylureas as add-on to metformin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a new-user, active-comparator, and propensity score-matched cohort study with analysis of the Taiwanese Diabetes Mellitus Health Database from 2006, to 2017. Data analysis was performed from August 2020 to July 2021. Exposures: Cardiac mitoKATP channel high-affinity (glyburide and glipizide) and low-affinity (gliclazide and glimepiride) sulfonylureas combined with metformin. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for either MI or ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included individual MACE components, heart failure, arrhythmia, all-cause mortality, and severe hypoglycemia. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). Results: Each sulfonylurea group comprised 53 714 patients (mean [SD] age, 54.7 [12.1] years; 31 962 men [59.5%]). MitoKATP channel high-affinity sulfonylureas vs low-affinity sulfonylureas when combined with metformin were associated with an increased risk of MACE (aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34), MI (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.73), all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03-1.57), and severe hypoglycemia (aHR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58-2.10), but not with increased risks of ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death, arrhythmia, and heart failure. The duration analyses revealed the highest MACE risk during 1 to 90 days after initiation of mitoKATP channel high-affinity sulfonylureas (aHR, 6.06; 95% CI, 4.86-7.55). Conclusions and Relevance: Use of mitoKATP channel high-affinity sulfonylureas vs low-affinity sulfonylureas was associated with an increased MACE risk in patients with T2D concomitantly receiving metformin, suggesting that high-affinity blockage of the mitoKATP channels could account for sulfonylurea-associated MACEs.

Association Between Specificity of Sulfonylureas to Cardiac Mitochondrial KATP Channels and the Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have revealed an intraclass difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among sulfonylureas. In vitro and ex vivo studies reported several sulfonylureas to exhibit high-affinity blockage of cardiac mitochondrial ATP-sensitive potassium (mitoKATP) channels and could interfere with ischemic preconditioning, the most important mechanism of self-cardiac protection. However, no studies have examined whether these varying binding affinities of sulfonylureas could account for their intraclass difference in MACE. We compared mitoKATP channel high-affinity versus low-affinity sulfonylureas regarding the MACE risk in real-world settings. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using the Taiwan nationwide health care claims database, patients with type 2 diabetes initiating sulfonylurea monotherapy between 2007 and 2016 were included in the cohort study. A total of 33,727 new mitoKATP channel high-affinity (glyburide and glipizide) and low-affinity (gliclazide and glimepiride) sulfonylurea users, respectively, were identified after 1:1 propensity score matching. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CI. RESULTS: MitoKATP channel high-affinity sulfonylureas were associated with a significantly increased risk of three-point MACE (aHR 1.21 [95% CI 1.03-1.44]), ischemic stroke (aHR 1.23 [95% CI 1.02-1.50]), and cardiovascular death (aHR 2.61 [95% CI 1.31-5.20]), but not with that of myocardial infarction (aHR 1.04 [95% CI 0.75-1.46]). The duration-response analyses revealed the highest MACE risk to be within 90 days of therapy (aHR 4.67 [95% CI 3.61-6.06]). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac mitoKATP channel high-affinity sulfonylureas were associated with an increased MACE risk compared with low-affinity sulfonylureas in a nationwide population with diabetes.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Different Types of Inhaled Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist vs Inhaled Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Corticosteroid Fixed-Dose Combinations in COPD A Propensity Score-Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple available fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) plus long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and LABAs plus inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for COPD, uncertainty remains regarding their comparative effects. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can comparative effectiveness and safety of LABA plus LAMA (LABA/LAMA) and LABA plus ICS (LABA/ICS) FDCs vary by different individual components of the dual combinations in COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a new user, propensity score-inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort study to compare the effectiveness and safety of two frequently used LABA/LAMA FDCs (indacaterol plus glycopyrronium [IND/GLY] and vilanterol plus umeclidinium [VI/UMEC]) vs three commonly prescribed LABA/ICS FDCs (salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate [SAL/FP], formoterol fumarate plus budesonide [FF/BUD], and formoterol fumarate plus beclomethasone dipropionate [FF/BDP]) using the Taiwanese nationwide health care claims from 2014 through 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was the annual moderate to severe exacerbation rate, and safety outcomes included risks of severe pneumonia and cardiovascular disease requiring hospitalization. Weighted generalized linear mixed models and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Patients with COPD initiating IND/GLY and VI/UMEC showed an 11% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and 20% (IRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90) reduced annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations, respectively, than those initiating SAL/FP, but showed a similar rate as those initiating FF/BUD or FF/BDP. Both LABA/LAMA FDCs, compared with SAL/FP and VI/UMEC vs FF/BDP, were associated with a 27% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90) to 42% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.70) reduced pneumonia risk. Cardiovascular risk was comparable in five groups. An intraclass difference existed in rates of moderate to severe COPD exacerbation and risks of pneumonia among LABA/ICS FDCs, but not between LABA/LAMA FDCs. INTERPRETATION: Both LABA/LAMAs vs SAL/FP are associated with a lower exacerbation rate and pneumonia risk, but exhibit similar effectiveness and safety outcomes compared with FF/BDP or FF/BUD, suggesting that comparative effects may differ by individual components of the dual therapies in COPD.