1 / 34

Demystifying Cardiovascular Safety of Sulfonylurea

Demystifying Cardiovascular Safety of Sulfonylurea. UGDP: The Genesis of Sulfonylurea CV controversy.

estallworth
Download Presentation

Demystifying Cardiovascular Safety of Sulfonylurea

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Demystifying Cardiovascular Safety of Sulfonylurea

  2. UGDP: The Genesis of Sulfonylurea CV controversy The University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) study was initiated in 1960 and patients were treated with the sulfonylurea tolbutamide alone, or placebo, fixed dose insulin or variable dose insulin. Surprisingly, an excess of cardiac deaths was found in the tolbutamide group (12·7%) compared to 4·7% with placebo, 6.2% with fixed dose insulin and 5·9% with variable dose insulin; the tolbutamide arm of the study was prematurely terminated This led some experts to conclude that SUs, as a class, were associated with increased cardiovascular mortality while others criticized the design and analysis of the UGDP study and questioned its conclusions

  3. Sulfonylureas: How are they defined? First Generation • Tolbutamide • Chlorpropamide Second Generation • Glibenclamide • Gliclazide Third Generation • Glimepiride • Gliclazide MR Older SUs Newer SUs

  4. A therapy should demonstrate that it will not result in an unacceptable increase in: • Cardiovascular mortality • Myocardial infarction and stroke • Hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, urgent revascularization procedures • Other endpoints

  5. Sulfonylurea and CV safety: Few unanswered questions Are all Sulfonylureas CV unsafe?? Is there a difference in risk for different SUs? Lets see what evidence has to say?

  6. Cardiovascular mortality • Myocardial infarction and stroke • Hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, urgent revascularization procedures • Other endpoints

  7. To compare mortality and adverse CV events among SUs • Systematic review & network meta-analysis of studies reporting the • Risk of all cause mortality • CV related mortality or MI for SUs • 28 studies (167 327 patients) included in the main analysis • Relative risk of death compared with glibenclamide was • 1·13 for tolbutamide • 1·34 for chlorpropamide • 0·65 for gliclazide • 0·83 for glimepiride Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 Jan;3(1):43-51

  8. Comparison of cardiovascular-related mortality between SUs using direct and indirect evidence Newer SUs (Gliclazide and Glimepiride) were associated with a lower risk of all-cause and cardiovascular-related mortality compared with glibenclamide Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 Jan;3(1):43-51

  9. 178341metformin monotherapy patients, 2948 added insulin and 39990 added a sulfonylurea • Propensity score matching yielded 2436 metformin + insulin and 12 180 metformin + sulfonylurea patients JAMA. 2014 Jun 11;311(22):2288-96

  10. Cardiovascular Events and Mortality: Met+SU vs Met+insulin A, Cumulative incidence of cardiovascular disease (acutemyocardial infarction, stroke) or death among a propensity score–matched cohort of patients taking metformin + sulfonylurea vs patients taking metformin + insulin B, Cumulative incidence of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular deaths) among a propensity score–matched cohort of patients taking metformin + sulfonylurea vs patients taking metformin + insulin Sulfonylureas are CV safe when it comes to diabetes treatment JAMA. 2014 Jun 11;311(22):2288-96.

  11. Comparison of various CV outcome trials which had sulfonylurea in control group In all the recent CV outcome trials, the control group having SU as the major drugs, did not show worse CV outcomes

  12. Cardiovascular mortality • Myocardial infarction and stroke • Hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, urgent revascularization procedures • Other endpoints

  13. Significance of Ischemic preconditioning ISCHEMIC PRECONDITIONING Repeated and brief occlusion of the same vessel preconditions the myocardium such that subsequent prolonged occlusion leads toa smaller infarct NO ISCHEMIC PRECONDITIONING Prolonged occlusion ofa major coronary artery leads to myocardial infarction SULFONYLUREAS Sulfonylureas other than Glimepiride/Gliclazide abolish ischemic preconditoning, resultingin large infarction size J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Apr;31(5):950-6. Klepzig et al. Eur Heart J 1999;20:439-446

  14. 76 T2DM cases who developed CAD were compared retrospectively with 152 controls that did not • The hazard of developing CAD associated with initial treatment increased by • 2.4-fold with glibenclamide • 2.9-fold with either • The hazard decreased 0.3-fold with glimepiride, 0.4-fold with gliclazide, and 0.4-fold with either Initiating treatment of T2DM with the older SUs (glibenclamide) is associated with increased risk of CAD as compared to the newer SUs (glimepiride or gliclazide) Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008 Dec;82(3):391-5

  15. 6738 cases of first-time MI and 67,374 matched controls • Odds ratios (ORs) of MI (case–control study) were estimated • Risk of MI: Higher among users of old SUs (adjusted OR, 2.07) than among users of new SUs (adjusted OR, 1.36) New SUs (Glimepiride/Gliclazide) may be associated with a lower risk of MI than old SUs (Glibenclamide) Am J Ther. 2006 Mar-Apr;13(2):134-40.

  16. Meta-analysis comparing a SU with a non-SU agent in T2DM • End points: Major cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality • An overall OR for MACE with SU treatment vs comparators was 1.08 thus detecting no signal for cardiovascular risk • Use of SU was not associated with any significant difference in the incidence of MI with respect to comparators (OR: 0.88) Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013 Oct;15(10):938-53

  17. Cardiovascular mortality • Myocardial infarction and stroke • Hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, urgent revascularization procedures • Other endpoints

  18. 1310 diabetic patients with Acute STEMI and Non-STEMI • Mortality was lower in patients previously treated with SUs (3.9%) vs. those on other OHAs (6.4%), insulin (9.4%), or no medication (8.4%) • Among SU-treated patients, in-hospital mortality was lower in patients receiving newer SUs (gliclazide or glimepiride) • Arrhythmias and ischemic complications were also less frequent in patients receiving gliclazide/glimepiride J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov;95(11):4993-5002

  19. Effect of Newer vs Older SU on CV risk J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov;95(11):4993-5002 J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov;95(11):4993-5002

  20. Effect of Newer vs Older SU on CV risk: Subgroup analysis J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov;95(11):4993-5002 J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov;95(11):4993-5002

  21. Effect of Newer vs Older SU on CV risk: Subgroup analysis • Patients on newer SUs have fewer early complications and lower mortality than those on glibenclamide • All SUs do not have the same impact on cardiac outcomes and should therefore not be considered a single pharmacologic entity

  22. Glimepiride: Preferred SU in patients with underlying CAD • A retrospective cohort study • 23 915 patients with T2DM ≥18 years of age, with and without a history of CAD who initiated monotherapy with • Metformin (N = 12 774) • Glipizide (N = 4325) • Glyburide (N = 4279) • Glimepiride (N = 2537) Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012 Sep;14(9):803-9

  23. Survival probability in T2DM patients treated with SU or metformin monotherapy and a documented h/o CAD If a SU is required to obtain glycaemic control, glimepiride may be the preferred SU in those with underlying CAD Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012 Sep;14(9):803-9

  24. Cardiovascular mortality • Myocardial infarction and stroke • Hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, urgent revascularization procedures • Other endpoints

  25. SU does not increase the risk of all-cause or CV mortality: A meta-analysis • 47 RCTs were included, totalizing 37650 patients • SU were not associated with total (OR 1.12, 95% C.I. 0.96 to 1.30; I2 = 0%, p = 0.67) or cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.12, 95% C.I. 0.87 to 1.42; I2 = 12%, p = 0.30) • SU were also not associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction(OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76 - 1.12; I2 = 3% p = 0.42) or stroke (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 - 1.66; I2 = 30% p = 0.09) Sulfonylureas are not associated with increased Cardiovascular Mortality Rados DV, Pinto LC, Remonti LR, et al. Sulfonylureas are not associated with increased mortality: Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials. American Diabetes Association 2015 Scientific Sessions; June 6, 2015; Boston, MA. Abstract 16-OR

  26. Glimepiride Gliclazide Repaglinide Glibenclamide Yearly mortality 0.4% 2.1%* 3.1%* 8.7%** Newer SU Safety: All-Cause Mortality In combination with metformin, Glimepiride is associated with lower mortality than other SUs having less selectivity for β-cell receptors Kaplan-Meier survival analysis 1.0 Glimepirideor gliclazide Repaglinide 0.9 0.8 Cumulative survival Glibenclamide 0.7 0.6 Time (months) * P < 0.05 vs Glimepiride **P <0.01 vs all comparators 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Mortality with Glimepiride was significantly lower as compared to Gliclazide and Repaglinide Monami M, et al. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2006; 22(6): 477-482

  27. Do Gliclazide and Glimepiride have similar CV outcomes?

  28. Recent Clinical Outcome Trials: Intensive vs Standard therapy VADT/FS: • Glimepiride used in the intensive arm along with other OADs and insulin ADVANCE: • Gliclazide MR used in Intensive arm along with 40% insulin, other OHA: 93% VADT – FS: Veteran's Affairs Diabetes Trial - Follow-up Study ADVANCE: Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 4;372(23):2197-206 N Engl J Med 2008;358:2560-72

  29. VADT/FS: Clinical Outcome Results • Glimepiride used in intensive arm along with other OADs and insulin • 17% RRR in CV events, effect on Microvascular complications were not studied • HbA1c reached: 6.9% in intensive arm vs 8.4% in standard therapy arm N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 4;372(23):2197-206

  30. VADT/FS: Clinical Outcome Results Intensive vs Standard therapy: Effect on primary outcome of the time to the first major cardiovascular event 2015 The intensive-therapy group (having glimepiride) had a significant 17% RRR in major CV events N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 4;372(23):2197-206

  31. ADVANCE: Clinical Outcome Results ADVANCE: • Gliclazide MR used in Intensive arm along with 40% insulin, other OHA: 93% • HbA1c reached: 6.5% in intensive arm vs 7.3% in the standard therapy arm • 10% RRR in combined Micro- and Macrovascular events • Due to a 16% RRR reduction in Microvascular events (nephropathy) • No effect seen on Major Macrovascular events N Engl J Med 2008;358:2560-72

  32. ADVANCE study: Is Gliclazide CV safe? • Primary Endpoint: • As compared with standard control, Intensive control • Reduced the incidence of combined major macrovascular and microvascular events, mainly as a consequence of a reduction in nephropathy • Resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of major microvascular events (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P = 0.01) • But not in the incidence of major macrovascular events (HR, 0.94) or death from cardiovascular causes (HR 0.88), or death from any cause (HR 0.93) • The annual rate of macrovascular events was lower possibly due to the greater use of statins, BP lowering drugs and antiplatelet agents Thus, ADVANCE does not show that gliclazide MR was better than other OADs in terms of macrovascular events

  33. Macrovascular outcome: Long term Cardiovascular outcome data Long term follow up Initial trial In terms of long term CV outcomes, Gliclazide or other contemporary SU would be the same N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 9;371(15):1392-406 N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 4;372(23):2197-206

  34. Summary • Newer SUs are associated with a lower risk of all-cause and cardiovascular-related mortality • Newer SUs are associated with a lower risk of CAD • Newer SUs and especially Glimepiride may be preferred in patients with underlying CAD • Among all SUs, risk of mortality is lower with Glimepiride • In terms of long term CV outcomes, Glimepiride based combination therapy is better than Gliclazide

More Related