Mortality risk with sulphonylureas compared to metformin

Current clinical guidelines in the USA and the UK recommend first‐line glucose‐lowering treatment with metformin monotherapy for glucose control in type 2 diabetes, where not contraindicated. Consequently, the proportion of people treated with sulphonylureas is decreasing. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the risks and benefits associated with sulphonylurea monotherapy versus metformin monotherapy and the evidence that, in comparison with metformin, sulphonylureas cause increased harm to people with type 2 diabetes.     

Pharmacokinetics of metformin in patients with gastrointestinal intolerance

Aims

To assess potential causes of metformin intolerance, including altered metformin uptake from the intestine, increased anaerobic glucose utilization and subsequent lactate production, altered serotonin uptake, and altered bile acid pool.

Methods

For this pharmacokinetic study, we recruited 10 severely intolerant and 10 tolerant individuals, matched for age, sex and body mass index. A single 500‐mg dose of metformin was administered, with blood sampling at 12 time points over 24 hours. Blood samples were analysed for metformin, lactate, serotonin and bile acid concentrations, and compared across the phenotypes.

Results

The intolerant individuals were severely intolerant to 500 mg metformin. No significant difference was identified between tolerant and intolerant cohorts in metformin pharmacokinetics: median (interquartile range [IQR]) peak concentration 2.1 (1.7‐2.3) mg/L and 2.0 (1.8‐2.2) mg/L, respectively (P = .76); time to peak concentration 2.5 hours; median (IQR) area under the curve (AUC)_0–24 16.9 (13.9‐18.6) and 13.9 (12.9‐16.8) mg/L*h, respectively (P = .72). Lactate concentration peaked at 3.5 hours, with mean peak concentration of 2.4 mmol/L in both cohorts (95% CI 2.0‐2.8 and 1.8‐3.0 mmol/L, respectively), and similar incremental AUC_0–24 in each cohort: tolerant cohort 6.98 (95% CI 3.03‐10.93) and intolerant cohort 4.47 (95% CI –3.12‐12.06) mmol/L*h (P = .55). Neither serotonin nor bile acid concentrations were significantly different.

Conclusions

Despite evidence of severe intolerance in our cohort, there was no significant difference in metformin pharmacokinetics or systemic measures of lactate, serotonin or bile acids. This suggests that metformin intolerance may be attributable to local factors within the lumen or enterocyte.     

Long-term therapy with addition of pioglitazone to metformin compared with the addition of gliclazide to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, comparative study

BACKGROUND: This 52-week, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of metformin plus pioglitazone with the established combination of metformin plus gliclazide in type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c > or = 7.5% to < or =11.0%) received either pioglitazone 15 mg o.d. (titrated up to 45 mg; n = 317) or gliclazide 80 mg o.d. (titrated up to 320 mg; n = 313) and metformin at the pre-study dose. HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, lipids and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio were measured. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in HbA1c (1% decrease in both groups) and FPG between groups. There was a decrease in fasting insulin in the pioglitazone group compared to an increase in the gliclazide group (p < 0.001). There were significantly greater improvements in triglycerides and HDL-cholesterol in the metformin plus pioglitazone group compared to the metformin plus gliclazide group (p < 0.001). Mean LDL-cholesterol decreased with metformin plus gliclazide and increased with metformin plus pioglitazone (p < 0.001); however, this increase was considerably less marked than that in HDL-cholesterol. The mean urinary albumin/creatinine ratio was reduced by 10% in the metformin plus pioglitazone group compared to an increase of 6% in the metformin plus gliclazide group (p = 0.027). The incidence of adverse events was comparable between groups and both combinations were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the established combination of metformin plus gliclazide, this study indicates potential benefits of addition of pioglitazone to metformin in terms of improvements in microalbuminuria and specific abnormalities associated with diabetic dyslipidemia.     

Metformin-glibenclamide versus metformin plus rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy

AIM: This double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of metformin-glibenclamide tablets vs. metformin plus rosiglitazone therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: After an open-label, metformin lead-in phase, 318 patients were randomly assigned to treatment based on metformin-glibenclamide 500/2.5 mg tablets (initial daily dose 1000/5 mg) or metformin 500 mg plus rosiglitazone 4 mg (initial daily dose 1000-2000 mg + 4 mg, depending on previous treatment) for 24 weeks. Doses were titrated to achieve the therapeutic glycaemic target. The primary efficacy variable was the change in HbA1C. RESULTS: At week 24, metformin-glibenclamide tablets resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1C (-1.5%) and fasting plasma glucose [-2.6 mmol/l (-46 mg/dl)] than metformin plus rosiglitazone [-1.1%, p < 0.001; -2 mmol/l (-36 mg/dl), p = 0.03]. More patients receiving metformin-glibenclamide attained HbA1C <7.0% than did those in the metformin plus rosiglitazone group (60 vs. 47%) and had fasting plasma glucose levels <7 mmol/l (<126 mg/dl) by week 24 (34 vs. 25%). Both treatments were well tolerated. Frequency of adverse gastrointestinal events was comparable between groups. Four per cent of patients receiving metformin-glibenclamide withdrew because of symptomatic hypoglycaemia contrasted with 3% of patients receiving metformin plus rosiglitazone who withdrew because of persistent hyperglycaemia. Hypoglycaemic events were mild or moderate in intensity and were easily self-managed. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin-glibenclamide tablets resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1C and fasting plasma glucose compared with metformin plus rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.     

Safety and tolerability of dapagliflozin,saxagliptin and metformin in combination: Post‐hoc analysis of concomitant add‐on versus sequential add‐on to metformin and of triple versus dual therapy with metformin

The safety of triple oral therapy with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin plus metformin versus dual therapy with dapagliflozin or saxagliptin plus metformin was compared in a post‐hoc analysis of 3 randomized trials of sequential or concomitant add‐on of dapagliflozin and saxagliptin to metformin. In the concomitant add‐on trial, patients with type 2 diabetes on stable metformin received dapagliflozin 10 mg/d plus saxagliptin 5 mg/d. In sequential add‐on trials, patients on metformin plus either saxagliptin 5 mg/d or dapagliflozin 10 mg/d received dapagliflozin 10 mg/d or saxagliptin 5 mg/d, respectively, as add‐on therapy. After 24 weeks, incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between triple and dual therapy and between concomitant and sequential add‐on regimens. Urinary tract infections were more common with sequential than with concomitant add‐on therapy; genital infections were reported only with sequential add‐on of dapagliflozin to saxagliptin plus metformin. Hypoglycaemia incidence was <2.0% across all analysis groups. In conclusion, the safety and tolerability of triple therapy with dapagliflozin, saxagliptin and metformin, as either concomitant or sequential add‐on, were similar to dual therapy with either agent added to metformin.     

Adding saxagliptin to extended-release metformin vs. uptitrating metformin dosage

Aim: To investigate whether patients taking metformin for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have improved glycaemic control without compromising tolerability by adding an agent with a complementary mechanism of action vs. uptitrating metformin. Methods: Adults with T2DM and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) between 7.0 and 10.5% receiving metformin extended release (XR) 1500 mg/day for ≥8 weeks were randomized to receive saxagliptin 5 mg added to metformin XR 1500 mg (n = 138) or metformin XR uptitrated to 2000 mg/day (n = 144). Endpoints were change from baseline to week 18 in HbA1c (primary), 120‐min postprandial glucose (PPG), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7%. Results: At week 18, the adjusted mean reduction from baseline HbA1c was ?0.88% for saxagliptin + metformin XR and ?0.35% for uptitrated metformin XR (difference, ?0.52%; p < 0.0001). For 120‐min PPG and FPG, differences in adjusted mean change from baseline between saxagliptin + metformin XR and uptitrated metformin XR were ?1.3 mmol/l (?23.32 mg/dl) (p = 0.0013) and ?0.73 mmol/l (?13.18 mg/dl) (p = 0.0030), respectively. More patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with saxagliptin + metformin XR than with uptitrated metformin XR (37.2 vs. 26.1%; p = 0.0459). The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse events (AEs) were generally similar between groups; neither group showed any notable difference in hypoglycaemia or gastrointestinal AEs. Conclusion: Adding saxagliptin to metformin XR provided superior glycaemic control compared with uptitrating metformin XR without the emergence of additional safety concerns (Clinical Trials.gov registration: NCT00960076).     

Comparison of nateglinide and gliclazide in combination with metformin,for treatment of patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on maximum doses of metformin alone

Aims To compare the effects of nateglinide plus metformin with gliclazide plus metformin on glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes. Methods Double‐blind, double‐dummy, parallel group, randomized, multicentre study over 24 weeks. Patients with inadequate glucose control on maximal doses of metformin were randomized to additionally receive nateglinide (n = 133) or gliclazide (n = 129). Changes from baseline in HbA_1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and mealtime glucose and insulin excursions were examined. Results HbA_1c was significantly (P < 0.001) decreased from baseline in both treatment groups (mean changes: nateglinide ?0.41%, gliclazide ?0.57%), but with no significant difference between treatments. Proportions of patients achieving a reduction of HbA_1c ≥ 0.5% or an end point HbA_1c < 7% were also similar (nateglinide 58.1%, gliclazide 60.2%). Changes from baseline in FPG were similarly significant in both treatment groups (nateglinide ?0.63, gliclazide ?0.82 mmol/l). Reduction from baseline in maximum postprandial glucose excursion were significant in the nateglinide group only (nateglinide ?0.71, gliclazide ?0.10 mmol/l; P = 0.037 for difference). Postprandial insulin levels were significantly higher with nateglinide compared with gliclazide. The overall rate of hypoglycaemia events was similar in the nateglinide group compared with the gliclazide group. Conclusions No significant difference was seen between nateglinide plus metformin and gliclazide plus metformin in terms of HbA_1c. However, the nateglinide combination demonstrated better postprandial glucose control.     

The effect of initial therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin compared with metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Aims: This study was conducted to compare the glycaemic efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with the fixed‐dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin versus metformin monotherapy in drug‐naive patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: This double‐blind study (18‐week Phase A and 26‐week Phase B) randomized 1250 drug‐naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes [mean baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 9.9%] to sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg bid or metformin 500 mg bid (uptitrated over 4 weeks to achieve maximum doses of sitagliptin/metformin 50/1000 mg bid or metformin 1000 bid). Results of the primary efficacy endpoint (mean HbA1c reductions from baseline at the end of Phase A) are reported herein. Results: At week 18, mean change from baseline HbA1c was ?2.4% for sitagliptin/metformin FDC and ?1.8% for metformin monotherapy (p < 0.001); more patients treated with sitagliptin/metformin FDC had an HbA1c value <7% (p < 0.001) versus metformin monotherapy. Changes in fasting plasma glucose were significantly greater with sitagliptin/metformin FDC (?3.8 mmol/l) versus metformin monotherapy (?3.0 mmol/l; p < 0.001). Homeostasis model assessment of β‐cell function (HOMA‐β) and fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio were significantly improved with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy. Baseline body weight was reduced by 1.6 kg in each group. Both treatments were generally well tolerated with a low and similar incidence of hypoglycaemia. Abdominal pain (1.1 and 3.9%; p = 0.002) and diarrhoea (12.0 and 16.6%; p = 0.021) occurred significantly less with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy; the incidence of nausea and vomiting was similar in both groups. Conclusion: Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial treatment with sitagliptin/metformin FDC provided superior glycaemic improvement with a similar degree of weight loss and lower incidences of abdominal pain and diarrhoea.     

Initial treatment with rosiglitazone/metformin fixed-dose combination therapy compared with monotherapy with either rosiglitazone or metformin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes

AIM: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of rosiglitazone and metformin (RSG/MET) fixed-dose combination (AVANDAMET) as initial therapy in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes compared with monotherapy with either RSG or MET after 32 weeks of treatment. METHODS: A total of 468 drug-naive patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes were recruited for this multicentre, double-blind trial if their glycated haemoglobin (A1c) was greater than 7.5%, but less than or equal to 11%, and their fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was less than or equal to 15 mmol/l. Patients were randomized to 32 weeks of blinded treatment with either RSG/MET fixed-dose combination (n = 155), MET (n = 154) or RSG (n = 159). The groups were comparable at baseline, with mean A1c of 8.8% and FPG of 11 mmol/l. RSG/MET was initiated with a total daily dose of 2 mg/500 mg and could be increased up to 8 mg/2000 mg; MET therapy began with a total daily dose of 500 mg and could be increased up to 2000 mg; and RSG treatment began with a total daily dose of 4 mg and could be increased up to 8 mg. Medication was uptitrated during on-therapy visits based on failure to attain glycaemic target of mean daily glucose less than or equal to 6.1 mmol/l (unless at maximum tolerated dose). Patients were assessed for efficacy and safety at nine visits over a 32-week treatment period. This was a trial designed to show greater efficacy of RSG/MET combination therapy compared with MET or RSG monotherapy. The primary end point was change in A1c from baseline to week 32. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients achieving recommended A1c and FPG targets for glycaemic control and change from baseline in FPG, free fatty acid, lipids, insulin, insulin sensitivity, C-reactive protein and adiponectin. Safety evaluations included adverse-event (AE) monitoring, changes in weight and clinical laboratory evaluations. RESULTS: At week 32, RSG/MET showed significant improvements in A1c from a baseline of 8.9 +/- 1.1% to 6.6 +/- 1.0% at study end, and this 2.3% reduction was significantly greater than the reductions achieved individually with MET (-1.8%; p = 0.0008) and RSG (-1.6%; p < 0.0001). The greatest mean decrease in FPG was seen with RSG/MET (-4.1 mmol/l) and was significant compared with MET (-2.8 mmol/l; p < 0.0001) and RSG (-2.6 mmol/l; p < 0.0001). Target A1c of less than or equal to 6.5% and less than 7% were achieved in more patients in the RSG/MET group (60% and 77%) than with MET (39% and 57%) or RSG (35% and 58%) respectively. Treatment was well tolerated, with nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea as the most commonly reported AEs. Oedema was comparable between RSG/MET (6%) and RSG (7%) and lower in the MET group (3%). No new safety and tolerability issues were observed in the RSG/MET group. CONCLUSIONS: As first-line therapy in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, RSG/MET fixed-dose combination therapy achieved significant reductions in A1c and FPG compared with either RSG or MET monotherapy. RSG/MET was generally well tolerated as initial therapy, with no new tolerability issues identified with the fixed-dose combination.     

Effect of metformin plus roziglitazone compared with metformin alone on glycaemic control in well-controlled Type 2 diabetes.

Aims To investigate the effect of metformin plus roziglitazione (RSGMET) compared with metformin alone (MET) on glycaemic control in well‐controlled Type 2 diabetes. Methods Subjects (drug naïve or those on glucose‐lowering monotherapy) were randomized (n = 526), following a 4‐week placebo run‐in period, to RSGMET [4 mg rosiglitazone (RSG)/500 mg MET] or MET 500 mg. From weeks 2–18, medication was escalated every 4 weeks (based on gastrointestinal tolerability), then remained at RSGMET 8 mg/2 g or MET 3 g for 14 weeks. Results RSGMET reduced HbA_1c from 7.2 ± 0.6 to 6.7 ± 0.8% at week 32, compared with a reduction from 7.2 ± 0.6 to 6.8 ± 0.9% with MET (treatment difference ?0.13%; P = 0.0357). More subjects achieved an HbA_1c value of ≤ 6.5% at week 32 with RSGMET (51.6 vs. 43.7%), but the treatment difference was not significant (odds ratio 1.37, P = 0.0949). RSGMET produced larger reductions from baseline in mean fasting plasma glucose (adjusted difference ?0.62 mmol/l, P < 0.0001), with the odds ratio of achieving a target of < 7.0 mmol/l being 2.33 (P < 0.0001). Statistically significant differences in favour of RSGMET relative to MET were seen for homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)‐derived estimates of insulin sensitivity and pancreatic B‐cell function, C‐reactive protein (CRP), and systolic blood pressure. Overall rates of gastrointestinal adverse events (relevant to the known profile of MET) were comparable, but with a lower incidence of diarrhoea (8 vs. 18%) with RSGMET. Hypoglycaemia was reported in ≤ 7% subjects per group. Conclusions RSGMET provided similar short‐term glycaemic control to MET with greater improvements in estimates of insulin sensitivity, B‐cell function and CRP, with less diarrhoea and low risk of biochemical hypoglycaemia, suggesting that early use of combination therapy may be appropriate.     

Efficacy of glimepiride/metformin fixed‐dose combination vs metformin uptitration in type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled on low‐dose metformin monotherapy: A randomized,open label,parallel group,multicenter study in Korea

Aims/Introduction

To compare the efficacy and safety of early combination therapy with glimepiride/metformin to metformin uptitration in reducing glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in Korean type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled on low-dose metformin monotherapy.

Materials and Methods

In a randomized, open label, parallel group, multicenter study, 209 Korean type 2 diabetic patients (HbA1c 7.0–10.0%, on metformin 500–1,000 mg/day) received glimepiride/metformin fixed-dose combination (G/M FDC) or metformin uptitration treatment (Met UP). The primary end-point was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24.

Results

G/M FDC therapy provided significantly greater adjusted mean decreases vs Met UP therapy in HbA1c (−1.2 vs −0.8%, P < 0.0001), and fasting plasma glucose (−35.7 vs −18.6 mg/dL, P < 0.0001). A significantly greater proportion of patients with G/M FDC therapy achieved HbA1c < 7% (74.7 vs 46.6%, P < 0.0001) at the end of the study. More patients experienced hypoglycemia with G/M FDC therapy compared with Met UP therapy (41 vs 5.6%, P < 0.0001), but there was no serious hypoglycemia in any group. A modest increase in mean bodyweight occurred in the patients who were treated with G/M FDC therapy (1.0 kg), whereas a slight decrease was observed in the patients who were treated with Met UP therapy (−0.7 kg).

Conclusion

The present study showed that glimepiride/metformin fixed-dose combination therapy was more effective in glycemic control than metformin uptitration, and was well tolerated in type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled by low-dose metformin monotherapy in Korea. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (no. {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00612144","term_id":"NCT00612144"}}NCT00612144).