Dataset Information

Noninsulin Antidiabetic Drugs for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Are We Respecting Their Contraindications?

ABSTRACT: AIM:To assess prescribing practices of noninsulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) in T2DM with several major contraindications according to prescribing information or clinical guidelines: renal failure, heart failure, liver dysfunction, or history of bladder cancer. METHODS:Cross-sectional, descriptive, multicenter study. Electronic medical records were retrieved from all T2DM subjects who attended primary care centers pertaining to the Catalan Health Institute in Catalonia in 2013 and were pharmacologically treated with any NIAD alone or in combination. RESULTS:Records were retrieved from a total of 255,499 pharmacologically treated patients. 78% of patients with some degree of renal impairment (glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 60 mL/min) were treated with metformin and 31.2% with sulfonylureas. Even in the event of severe renal failure (GFR < 30 mL/min), 35.3% and 22.5% of patients were on metformin or sulfonylureas, respectively. Moreover, metformin was prescribed to more than 60% of patients with moderate or severe heart failure. CONCLUSION:Some NIADs, and in particular metformin, were frequently used in patients at high risk of complications when they were contraindicated. There is a need to increase awareness of potential inappropriate prescribing and to monitor the quality of prescribing patterns in order to help physicians and policymakers to yield better clinical outcomes in T2DM.

SUBMITTER: Ruiz-Tamayo I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4736814 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Noninsulin Antidiabetic Drugs for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Are We Respecting Their Contraindications?

Ruiz-Tamayo Irene I Franch-Nadal Josep J Mata-Cases Manel M Mauricio Dídac D Cos Xavier X Rodriguez-Poncelas Antonio A Barrot Joan J Coll-de-Tuero Gabriel G Mundet-Tudurí Xavier X

Journal of diabetes research 20160106

<h4>Aim</h4>To assess prescribing practices of noninsulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) in T2DM with several major contraindications according to prescribing information or clinical guidelines: renal failure, heart failure, liver dysfunction, or history of bladder cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>Cross-sectional, descriptive, multicenter study. Electronic medical records were retrieved from all T2DM subjects who attended primary care centers pertaining to the Catalan Health Institute in Catalonia in 2013 and ...[more]

PMID: 26881258

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTwo studies were carried out to investigate the efficacy and safety of luseogliflozin added to existing oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled with OAD monotherapy.Materials and methodsIn the trial involving add-on to sulfonylureas (study 03-1), patients were randomly assigned to receive luseogliflozin 2.5 mg or a placebo for a 24-week double-blind period, followed by a 28-week open-label period. In the open-label trial involving add-on to other OADs; that is, biguanides, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, glinides and ?-glucosidase inhibitors (study 03-2), patients received luseogliflozin for 52 weeks.ResultsIn study 03-1, luseogliflozin significantly decreased glycated hemoglobin at the end of the 24-week double-blind period compared with the placebo (-0.88%, P < 0.001), and glycated hemoglobin reduction from baseline at week 52 was -0.63%. In study 03-2, luseogliflozin added to other OADs significantly decreased glycated hemoglobin from baseline at week 52 (-0.52 to -0.68%, P < 0.001 for all OADs). Bodyweight reduction was observed in all add-on therapies, even with agents associated with weight gain, such as sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones. Most adverse events were mild in severity. When added to a sulfonylurea, incidences of hypoglycemia during the double-blind period were 8.7% and 4.2% for luseogliflozin and placebo, respectively, but no major hypoglycemic episodes occurred. The frequency and incidences of adverse events of special interest for sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and adverse events associated with combined OADs were acceptable.ConclusionsAdd-on therapies of luseogliflozin to existing OADs improved glycemic control, reduced bodyweight and were well tolerated in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients. These trials were registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center (add on to sulfonylurea: JapicCTI-111507; add on to other OADs: JapicCTI-111508).

Project description:BackgroundThe changes of endothelial function in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients are closely associated with the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, it is still unclear whether commonly used antidiabetic drugs can improve endothelial function. Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) is a noninvasive tool for evaluating endothelial function, which typically examines changes in the brachial artery diameter in response to ischemia using ultrasound. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to explore the associations between changes in endothelial function and antidiabetic drugs by evaluating FMD in T2DM patients.MethodsWe systematically searched several electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception until January 25, 2022 with no language restriction. The primary outcome was FMD change in all studies, and we performed subgroup analysis in T2DM patients without CVD. NMA was performed to calculate the mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsFrom the 1,987 candidate articles identified in the initial search, 30 RCTs were eventually included in the analysis. In all studies, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists [MD = 3.70 (1.39-5.97)], TZD [MD = 1.96 (0.006-3.89)] produced improvement of FMD change compared to lifestyle intervention. GLP-1R agonists [MD = 3.33 (1.36-5.34) and MD = 3.30 (1.21-5.43)] showed significantly greater improvements in FMD change in pairwise comparisons with sulfonylureas and placebo. SGLT-2i also showed efficacy compared to sulfonylureas (MD = 1.89, 95% CI, 0.10, 3.75). In studies of T2DM patients without CVD, GLP-1R agonists [MD = 3.53 (1.24-5.76)], and TZD [MD = 2.30 (0.27-3.24)] produced improvements in FMD change compared to lifestyle treatment. GLP-1R agonists [MD = 3.25 (1.13-5.40), and MD = 3.85 (1.68-6.13)] showed significantly greater improvements in pairwise comparisons with sulfonylureas, and placebo.ConclusionIn T2DM patients, both GLP-1R agonists, SGLT-2i and TZD have favorable effects to improve endothelial function in T2DM patients. In T2DM patients without CVD, GLP-1R agonists had a greater effect to improve endothelial function than sulfonylureas. These suggested that GLP-1R agonists are associated with significantly improved endothelial function in T2DM patients.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-utility (from the Chinese health insurance perspective) of lixisenatide and insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).MethodsA comprehensive literature search of English (PubMed and Cochrane Library) and Chinese (CNKI and WanFang) language databases was performed, and head-to-head relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved and analyzed by performing a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis for efficacy and safety endpoints. A cost-utility analysis was then conducted using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model to compare the lifetime pharmacoeconomic profiles among the treatment groups.ResultsEleven RCTs were included in this MTC meta-analysis. Regarding glycated hemoglobin targets, lixisenatide was similar to both basal insulin (mean difference [MD] 0.27%; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.02%, 0.57%) and premixed insulin (MD 0.32%; 95% CrI - 0.01%, 0.66%), respectively. Statistically significant differences were found for changes in body weight in favor of lixisenatide compared with basal insulin (MD - 3.22 kg; 95% CrI - 5.51 kg, - 0.94 kg) and premixed insulin (MD - 2.68 kg; 95% CrI - 5.16 kg, - 0.20 kg). The relative risk (RR) of symptomatic hypoglycemia associated with lixisenatide was also significantly lower than that associated with basal insulin (RR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.09, 0.52) and premixed insulin (RR 0.17; 95% CrI 0.07, 0.41). The cost-utility analysis yielded results of ¥61,072 ($8565, vs. basal insulin) and ¥127,169 ($17,836, vs. premixed insulin) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with both values falling within the willingness-to-pay threshold in China.ConclusionsFor T2DM patients inadequately controlled on OADs, lixisenatide was shown to be comparable to basal insulin and premixed insulin in terms of HbA1c and better than both of the latter in terms of both body weight loss and hypoglycemia. Lixisenatide was also a cost-effective treatment option from the perspective of Chinese health insurance.

Project description:The global incidence of diabetes mellitus (DM) is increasing. Types 1 and 2 DM are associated with declining β-cell function. Verapamil (50% S-verapamil and 50% R-verapamil) can treat DM by downregulating thioredoxin-interacting protein (TXNIP), which induces islet β-cell apoptosis. However, it may also induce cardiovascular side effects as S-verapamil is negatively inotropic. In contrast, R-verapamil only weakly induces adverse cardiac effects. In this study, we aimed to determine the antidiabetic efficacy and cardiovascular safety of R-verapamil. We examined R- and S-verapamil binding through in vitro studies. Streptozotocin-induced type 1 and db/db type 2 DM mouse models were used to assess the antidiabetic efficacy of verapamil. IL-6, blood glucose (BG), Txnip expression, and β-cells were evaluated in streptozotocin-induced diabetic mice, while body weight, BG, and serum insulin were measured in the db/db mice. In the type 1 DM study, 100 mg/kg/day R-verapamil and racemic verapamil lowered BG, downregulated Txnip expression, and reduced β-cell apoptosis. In the type 2 DM study, the optimal R-verapamil dosage was 60 mg/kg/day and it lowered BG and raised serum insulin. However, efficacy did not increase with R-verapamil dosage. R-verapamil combined with metformin/acarbose improved BG and serum insulin more effectively than metformin/acarbose alone or verapamil combined with acarbose. R-verapamil had weaker cardiovascular side effects than S-verapamil. R-verapamil was 9.0× and 3.4× less effective than S-verapamil at inhibiting atrial inotropy and ileal contractility, respectively. It was also 8.7× weaker than S-verapamil as an agonist of somatostatin receptor type 2 (SSTR2), inhibiting ileal neurogenic contraction. Hence, R-verapamil may be an optimal DM treatment as it is safe, improves glycemic control, and preserves β-cell function both as monotherapy and in combination with metformin or acarbose. R-Verapamil has potential for delaying or arresting DM progression and improving patients' quality of life.

Project description:IntroductionPotentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) of antidiabetic drugs (ADs) (PIPADs) to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been reported in some studies. The detection of PIPs in electronic databases requires the development of explicit definitions. This approach is widely used in geriatrics but has not been extended to PIPADs in diabetes mellitus. The objective of the present literature review was to identify all explicit definitions of PIPADs in patients with T2DM.Materials and methodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature listed on Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and, Embase between 2010 and 2021. The query included a combination of three concepts ("T2DM" AND "PIPs" AND "ADs") and featured a total of 86 keywords. Two independent reviewers selected publications, extracted explicit definitions of PIPADs, and then classified the definitions by therapeutic class and organ class.ResultsOf the 4,093 screened publications, 39 were included. In all, 171 mentions of PIPADs (corresponding to 56 unique explicit definitions) were identified. More than 50% of the definitions were related to either metformin (34%) or sulfonylureas (29%). More than 75% of the definitions were related to either abnormal renal function (56%) or age (22%). In addition, 20% (n = 35) mentions stated that biguanides were inappropriate in patients with renal dysfunction and 17.5% (n = 30) stated that sulfonylureas were inappropriate above a certain age. The definitions of PIPADs were heterogeneous and had various degrees of precision.ConclusionOur results showed that researchers focused primarily on the at-risk situations related to biguanide prescriptions in patients with renal dysfunction and the prescription of sulfonylureas to older people. Our systematic review of the literature revealed a lack of consensus on explicit definitions of PIPADs, which were heterogeneous and limited (in most cases) to a small number of drugs and clinical situations.

Dataset Information

Noninsulin Antidiabetic Drugs for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Are We Respecting Their Contraindications?

Publications

Noninsulin Antidiabetic Drugs for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Are We Respecting Their Contraindications?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets