Safety Of Oral Antidiabetic Drugs Research Articles

The Prescription and Safety of Oral Antidiabetic Drugs in Outpatients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Observational, Retrospective, Multicenter Study on the Role of Adherence in a Real-Life Primary Care Setting

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a common disease burdened with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the substantial number of new available drug treatments, adherence to therapy and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are the major constraint in the management of this disease. We evaluated the use, the adherence, and the safety of antidiabetic drugs in patients with T2DM. Methods: We performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study on medical records of outpatients referred to general practitioners in Catanzaro (Calabria, Italy). Drug adherence was measured considering the packages of antidiabetic drugs prescribed at the time of admission, after three months, and 1 year later. ADRs were evaluated using the Naranjo probability scale. Collected data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Results: During the study, we evaluated 12,170 medical records of seven general practitioners. The most prescribed drug was metformin alone (28.4%) or with other oral antidiabetics (19.6%) and then insulin (n: 354; men 190, women 164). Logistic regression showed an association between T2DM less than or equal to 5 years and low adherence (p = 0.023). During the study, we recorded 26 ADRs that were correlated with sex (women) and insulin treatment. Conclusions: this real-life study shows that patients with T2DM have a high adherence, probably related to their having a low number of ADRs.

Comparison of Oral Antidiabetic Drugs as Add-On Treatments in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin: A Network Meta-Analysis.

We assessed the efficacy and safety of oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) as an add-on treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from inception to October 20, 2017. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using Stata 14.1 software. Odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used to evaluate outcomes. Sixty-eight trials including 36,746 patients were analyzed. No significant differences in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality were observed among any class of OADs when combined with metformin. All classes of OADs as add-ons to metformin improved glucose control, while sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors showed greater fasting plasma glucose (FPG) reductions {WMD, − 1.49 [95% confidence interval (CI) − 1.69 to − 1.28] mmol/l} and 2 h postprandial glucose (2 h PPG) reductions [WMD, − 3.07 (95% CI − 4.12 to − 2.03) mmol/l]. Thiazolidinediones and sulfonylureas were associated with weight gain [WMD, 2.53 (95% CI 1.95–3.10) kg and 2.00 (95% CI 1.63–2.36) kg, respectively] when added to metformin. Sulfonylureas [WMD, 6.52 (95% CI 4.07–10.45)] were associated with the highest ORs of hypoglycemia. Our results suggest that the seven classes of OADs were not associated with any increased risk of MACEs or all-cause mortality when combined with metformin. Most OADs were associated with similarly large reductions in HbA1c levels when added to metformin, while SGLT-2 inhibitors might be the best option for reducing body weight, FPG, and 2-h PPG.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-018-0482-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Repaglinide versus insulin for newly diagnosed diabetes in patients with cystic fibrosis: a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial

As survival among patients with cystic fibrosis has improved in recent decades, complications have become increasingly relevant. The most frequent complication is cystic-fibrosis-related diabetes. The recommended treatment is injected insulin, but some patients are treated with oral antidiabetic drugs to ease the treatment burden. We assessed the efficacy and safety of oral antidiabetic drugs. We did a multicentre, open-label, comparative, randomised trial in 49 centres in Austria, France, Germany, and Italy. Eligible patients had cystic fibrosis, were older than 10 years, and had newly diagnosed diabetes. We used a central randomisation schedule derived from a Geigy random number table to assign patients 1:1 to receive insulin or repaglinide, stratified by sex and age (10-15 years or >15 years). The primary outcome was glycaemic control assessed by mean change in HbA1c concentration from baseline after 24 months of treatment. Differences between groups were assessed by linear models. The primary and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population (including patients who stopped treatment early because of lack of efficacy). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00662714. We enrolled 34 patients in the repaglinide group and 41 in the insulin group, of whom 30 and 37, respectively, were included in the analyses. At 24 months, glycaemic control was similar in the repaglinide and insulin groups (mean change in HbA1c concentration from baseline 0·2% [SD 0·7%], 1·7 mmol/mol [8·1 mmol/mol] with repaglinide vs -0·2% [1·3%], -2·7 mmol/mol, [14·5 mmol/mol] with insulin; mean difference between groups -0·4%, (95% CI -1·1 to 0·2 [-4·4 mmol/mol, -11·5 to 2·7], p=0·15). The most frequent adverse events were pulmonary events (43 [40%] of 107 in the repaglinide group and 60 [45%] of 133 in the insulin group), and the most frequent serious adverse events were pulmonary events leading to hospital admission (five [50%] of ten and seven [54%] of 13, respectively). Repaglinide for glycaemic control in patients with cystic-fibrosis-related diabetes is as efficacious and safe as insulin. Mukoviszidose eV, Vaincre la Mucoviscidose, ABCF Association, and Novo Nordisk.

Comparative efficacy and safety of oral antidiabetic drugs and insulin in treating gestational diabetes mellitus: An updated PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis.

The safety and efficacy of different drugs in treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients who could not maintain normal glucose level only through diet and exercise remains to be debated. We performed this network meta-analysis (NAM) to compare and rank different antidiabetic drugs in glucose level control and pregnancy outcomes in GDM patients. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase up to December 31, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to different drugs in the treatment of GDM patients were enrolled. We extracted the relevant information and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model and then adopted random-effects NAM combining both direct and indirect evidence within a Bayesian framework, to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and to draw a surface under the cumulative ranking curve of the neonatal and maternal outcomes of different treatments in GDM patients. Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this NAM, including 6 kinds of treatments (metformin, metformin plus insulin, insulin, glyburide, acarbose, and placebo). The results of the NAM showed that regarding the incidence of macrosomia and LGA, metformin had lower incidence than glyburide (OR, 0.5411 and 0.4177). In terms of the incidence of admission to the NICU, insulin had higher incidence compared with glyburide (OR, 1.844). As for the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia, metformin had lower incidence than insulin and glyburide (OR, 0.6331 and 0.3898), and insulin was lower than glyburide (OR, 0.6236). For mean birth weight, metformin plus insulin was lower than insulin (SMD, -0.5806), glyburide (SMD, -0.7388), and placebo (SMD, -0.6649). Besides, metformin was observed to have lower birth weight than glyburide (SMD, 0.2591). As for weight gain, metformin and metformin plus insulin were lower than insulin (SMD, -0.9166, -1.53). Ranking results showed that glyburide might be the optimum treatment regarding average glucose control, and metformin is the fastest in glucose control for GDM patients; glyburide have the highest incidence of macrosomia, preeclampsia, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, shortest gestational age at delivery, and lowest mean birth weight; metformin (plus insulin when required) have the lowest incidence of macrosomia, PIH, LGA, RDS, low gestational age at delivery, and low birth weight. Besides, insulin had the highest incidence of NICU admission, acarbose had the lowest risk of neonatal hypoglycemia. Our study concluded that metformin is fastest in glucose control, with a more favorable pregnancy outcomes-would be a better option, but its rate of glucose control is the lowest.However, glyburide is the optimumtreatment regarding the rate of glucose control, but withmore adverse outcomes. This NAMbased on 32 RCTs will strongly help to guide further development of management for GDM patients, clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of different treatments according to various situations.

Cardiovascular Safety of Oral Antidiabetic Drugs.

Croatia belongs to a group of European countries with a high cardiovascular risk and growing prevalence of diabetes mellitus type 2 (DMT2). According to data of the National Diabetes Registry (CroDiab registry), a total of 254,296 individuals aged >18 suffering from diabetes were registered in 2014 (7.9%). Along with hypertension and hyperlipidemia, DMT2 is one of the leading cardiovascular risk factors. Prompted by adverse cardiovascular effects of rosiglitazone, demonstrated in the RECORD study and subsequent meta-analyses, the main drug regulatory agencies require clinical trials of the effect on cardiovascular outcomes and safety evidence for all antidiabetic drugs. On assessing the effects of antidiabetic drugs on cardiovascular risk, the two-sided confidence interval upper borderline value of 95% (95% CI) is highly relevant for the estimated risk ratio. Additional safety testing is required for all antidiabetic drugs with the risk ratio upper limit ≥1.3. Cardiovascular safety of oral antidiabetic drugs is of special importance in patients with heart failure. Considering the great number of antidiabetic drugs on the market, decision on optimal DMT2 therapy should be made in dependence of specific characteristics of each individual patient and cardiovascular risk assessment.

Diabetes update: Key research at 2014 ADA meeting

Cutting-edge diabetes research was featured at this year's 74th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA). Research was presented on oral antidiabetic agents and fracture risk, long-term follow-up from the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study, dietary effects on diabetes risk, and much more. Highlights from the June 13–17 meeting in San Francisco are available at http://professional.diabetes.org. Following are a few key research studies with a pharmacotherapy focus.

Oral antidiabetic drugs in pregnancy

A recent report casts doubt on the safety of oral antidiabetic drugs in pregnancy by suggesting that chlorpropamide (Diabinese - Pfizer), in high doses is associated with a high perinatal mortality (Brit. med. J. 1963, 1, 59). Out of 19 diabetic mothers who received 500 mg of the drug daily, 14 (74%) had perinatal loss. It is not clear whether this is due to inadequate diabetic control or to some direct effect of the chlorpropamide. Confirmation of these results is desirable and more information about the effects of other antidiabetic sulphonylurea derivatives in pregnancy (for example, tolbutamide) is also needed. There is little evidence that oral antidiabetic drugs induce congenital abnormalities in the human foetus, although cases have been reported (Lancet 1960, 2, 1424; 1961, 1, 891). The British manufacturers of oral antidiabetic drugs warn against their use in pregnancy.