Effect of insulin secretagogues on major cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and aimIn 2019, the Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists nominated an expert panel to develop guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. This expert panel, after identifying the effects of glucose-lowering agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality as critical outcomes, decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of insulin secretagogues (sulfonylureas and glinides) with this respect.Methods and resultsA MEDLINE database search was performed to identify all RCTs, up to January 1st, 2020, with duration≥52 weeks, in which insulin secretagogues (glibenclamide, gliclazide, glimepiride, glipizide, chlorpropamide, repaglinide, nateglinide) were compared with either placebo or active comparators. The principal endpoints were MACE (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their outcomes) and all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified outcomes). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH–OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all the endpoints considered. Fourteen RCTs were included in the analysis for MACEs (919 in insulin secretagogues and 1,087 in control group). Insulin secretagogues were not significantly associated with an increased risk of MACEs in comparison with controls (MH–OR 1.08 [95% CI 0.96, 1.22], p = 0.20). When considering the 48 RCTs fulfilling criteria for inclusion in the analysis on all-cause mortality, insulin secretagogues were associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality (MH–OR 1.11 [1.00, 1.23], p = 0.04).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that insulin secretagogues are associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or other anti-hyperglycaemic drugs.     

Aspirin in a diabetic retinopathy setting: Insights from NO BLIND study

Background and aimsDiabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common microvascular complication of diabetes. Diabetic macroangiopathies, particularly cardiovascular (CV) diseases, seem closely related to diabetes microvascular complications. Aspirin represents the most prescribed compound in CV prevention. Aspirin impact on DR is still object of debate. As it is already recommended among diabetics at high CV risk, aim of this study was to assess a potential relationship between DR and aspirin therapy, in a type 2 diabetes cohort of patients screened through telemedicine.Methods and resultsNO Blind is a cross-sectional, multicenter, observational study, which involved nine Italian outpatient clinics. Primary endpoint was the assessment of the relationship between aspirin treatment and DR. 2068 patients were enrolled in the study, subsequently split in two subpopulations according to either the presence or absence of DR. Overall, 995 subjects were under aspirin therapy. After adjusting for most common potential confounders, age and gender, aspirin reveals significantly associated with DR (OR: 1.72, 95%CI: 1.58–2.89, p = 0.002) and proliferative DR (PDR) (OR: 1.89, 95%CI: 1.24–2.84, p = 0.003). Association comes lost further adjusting for MACEs (OR: 1.28, 95%CI: 0.85–1.42, p = 0.157) (Model 4) and eGFR (OR: 0.93; 95%CI: 0.71–1.22; p = 0.591) (Model 5).ConclusionIn this multicenter cross-sectional study including a large sample of outpatients with T2DM, we showed that aspirin was not associated with DR after adjustment for several cardio-metabolic confounders. However, as partially confirmed by our findings, and related to the well-known pro-hemorrhagic effect of aspirin, its use should be individually tailored, even by telemedicine tools.