Dataset Information

Meta-Analysis of Sulfonylurea Therapy on Long-Term Risk of Mortality and Cardiovascular Events Compared to Other Oral Glucose-Lowering Treatments.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Among the most pressing clinical decisions in type 2 diabetes treatments are which drugs should be used after metformin is no longer sufficient, and whether sulfonylureas (SUs) should remain as a suitable second-line treatment. In this article we summarize current evidence on the long-term safety risks associated with SU therapy relative to other oral glucose-lowering therapies. METHODS:The MEDLINE database and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for observational and experimental studies comparing the safety of SUs to that of other diabetes medications in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus through December 15, 2015. Studies with at least 1 year of follow-up, which explicitly examined major cardiovascular events or death in patients who showed no evidence of serious conditions at baseline, were selected for inclusion in meta-analyses. RESULTS:SU treatment was associated with an elevated risk relative to treatment with metformin (METF), thiazolidinedione (TZD), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4), and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist classes, either when compared alone (as a monotherapy) or when used in combination with METF. Significant findings were almost entirely derived from nontrial data and not confirmed by smaller, efficacy designed randomized controlled trials whose effects were in the same direction but much more imprecise. CONCLUSION:Although much of the evidence is derived and will continue to come from observational studies, the methodological rigor of such studies is questionable. A key challenge for evaluators is the extent to which they should incorporate evidence from study designs that are quasi-experimental.

SUBMITTER: Powell WR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6064594 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntensive glucose lowering has previously been shown to increase mortality among persons with advanced type 2 diabetes and a high risk of cardiovascular disease. This report describes the 5-year outcomes of a mean of 3.7 years of intensive glucose lowering on mortality and key cardiovascular events.MethodsWe randomly assigned participants with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors to receive intensive therapy (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level below 6.0%) or standard therapy (targeting a level of 7 to 7.9%). After termination of the intensive therapy, due to higher mortality in the intensive-therapy group, the target glycated hemoglobin level was 7 to 7.9% for all participants, who were followed until the planned end of the trial.ResultsBefore the intensive therapy was terminated, the intensive-therapy group did not differ significantly from the standard-therapy group in the rate of the primary outcome (a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes) (P=0.13) but had more deaths from any cause (primarily cardiovascular) (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.44) and fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.95). These trends persisted during the entire follow-up period (hazard ratio for death, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.38; and hazard ratio for nonfatal myocardial infarction, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.96). After the intensive intervention was terminated, the median glycated hemoglobin level in the intensive-therapy group rose from 6.4% to 7.2%, and the use of glucose-lowering medications and rates of severe hypoglycemia and other adverse events were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsAs compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy for 3.7 years to target a glycated hemoglobin level below 6% reduced 5-year nonfatal myocardial infarctions but increased 5-year mortality. Such a strategy cannot be recommended for high-risk patients with advanced type 2 diabetes. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cardiovascular disease such as coronary artery disease, stroke and congestive heart failure, is a leading cause of death worldwide. A postulated risk factor is elevated circulating total homocysteine (tHcy) levels which is influenced mainly by blood levels of cyanocobalamin (vitamin B12), folic acid (vitamin B9) and pyridoxine (vitamin B6). There is uncertainty regarding the strength of association between tHcy and the risk of cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVES:To assess the clinical effectiveness of homocysteine-lowering interventions (HLI) in people with or without pre-existing cardiovascular disease. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (issue 3 2008), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2008), EMBASE (1988 to August 2008), and LILACS (1982 to September 2, 2008). We also searched in Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED; 1985 to August 2008), ISI Web of Science (1993 to August 2008), and the Cochrane Stroke Group Specialised Register (April 2007). We hand searched pertinent journals and the reference lists of included papers. We also contacted researchers in the field. There was no language restriction in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of HLI for preventing cardiovascular events with a follow-up period of 1 year or longer. We considered myocardial infarction and stroke as the primary outcomes. We excluded studies in patients with end-stage renal disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We estimated relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using I(2). We used a random-effects model to synthesise the findings. MAIN RESULTS:We included eight RCTs involving 24,210 participants with a low risk of bias in general terms. HLI did not reduce the risk of non-fatal or fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or death by any cause (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13, I(2) = 0%; pooled RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08, I(2) = 15%); and pooled RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.09, I(2): 0%), respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Results from available published trials suggest that there is no evidence to support the use of HLI to prevent cardiovascular events.

Project description:Importance: Little is known about the comparative cardiovascular safety of oral hormone therapy products, which impedes women from making informed safety decisions about hormone therapy to treat menopausal symptoms.Objective: To compare the relative clinical cardiovascular safety of 2 commonly used oral estrogen drugs-conjugated equine estrogens (CEEs) and estradiol.Design, setting, and participants: Population-based, case-control study from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2009, comparing cardiovascular event risk associated with current CEEs and estradiol use in a large health maintenance organization in which the preferred formulary estrogen changed from CEEs to estradiol during the course of data collection. Participants were 384 postmenopausal women aged 30 to 79 years using oral hormone therapy.Main outcomes and measures: Incident venous thrombosis was the primary clinical outcome, and incident myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke were secondary outcomes. As validation, an intermediate clotting phenotype, the endogenous thrombin potential-based normalized activated protein C sensitivity ratio, was measured in plasma of controls.Results: We studied 68 venous thrombosis, 67 myocardial infarction, and 48 ischemic stroke cases, with 201 matched controls; all participants were current users of oral CEEs or estradiol. In adjusted analyses, current oral CEEs use compared with current oral estradiol use was associated with an increased venous thrombosis risk (odds ratio, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.02-4.27; P = .045) and an increased myocardial infarction risk that did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.91-3.84; P = .09) and was not associated with ischemic stroke risk (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.55-2.31; P = .74). Among 140 controls, CEEs users compared with estradiol users had higher endogenous thrombin potential-based normalized activated protein C sensitivity ratios (P < .001), indicating a stronger clotting propensity.Conclusions and relevance: In an observational study of oral hormone therapy users, CEEs use was associated with a higher risk of incident venous thrombosis and possibly myocardial infarction than estradiol use. This risk differential was supported by biologic data. These findings need replication and suggest that various oral estrogen drugs may be associated with different levels of cardiovascular risk.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine all cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular events related to intensive glucose lowering treatment in people with type 2 diabetes.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on cardiovascular events and microvascular complications in adults (≥ 18 years) with type 2 diabetes.Data extractionPrimary end points were all cause mortality and death from cardiovascular causes. Secondary end points were severe hypoglycaemia and macrovascular and microvascular events. Synthesis of results Results are reported as risk ratios with 99% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity between trials was assessed with χ(2), τ(2), and I(2) statistics. A fixed effect model was used to assess the effect on the outcomes of intensive glucose lowering versus standard treatment. The quality of clinical trials was assessed by the Jadad score.Results13 studies were included. Of 34,533 patients, 18,315 received intensive glucose lowering treatment and 16,218 standard treatment. Intensive treatment did not significantly affect all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.04, 99% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.19) or cardiovascular death (1.11, 0.86 to 1.43). Intensive therapy was, however, associated with reductions in the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.85, 0.74 to 0.96, P<0.001), and microalbuminuria (0.90, 0.85 to 0.96, P<0.001) but a more than twofold increase in the risk of severe hypoglycaemia (2.33, 21.62 to 3.36, P<0.001). Over a treatment period of five years, 117 to 150 patients would need to be treated to avoid one myocardial infarction and 32 to 142 patients to avoid one episode of microalbuminuria, whereas one severe episode of hypoglycaemia would occur for every 15 to 52 patients. In analysis restricted to high quality studies (Jadad score >3), intensive treatment was not associated with any significant risk of reductions but resulted in a 47% increase in risk of congestive heart failure (P<0.001).ConclusionsThe overall results of this meta-analysis show limited benefits of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular causes. We cannot exclude a 9% reduction or a 19% increase in all cause mortality and a 14% reduction or a 43% increase in cardiovascular death. The benefit:risk ratio of intensive glucose lowering treatment in the prevention of macrovascular and microvascular events remains uncertain. The harm associated with severe hypoglycaemia might counterbalance the potential benefit of intensive glucose lowering treatment. More double blind randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the best therapeutic approach in people with type 2 diabetes.

Project description:AIMS/HYPOTHESIS:Evidence that glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) and/or the GIP receptor (GIPR) are involved in cardiovascular biology is emerging. We hypothesised that GIP has untoward effects on cardiovascular biology, in contrast to glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), and therefore investigated the effects of GIP and GLP-1 concentrations on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk. METHODS:GIP concentrations were successfully measured during OGTTs in two independent populations (Malmö Diet Cancer-Cardiovascular Cohort [MDC-CC] and Prevalence, Prediction and Prevention of Diabetes in Botnia [PPP-Botnia]) in a total of 8044 subjects. GLP-1 (n?=?3625) was measured in MDC-CC. The incidence of CVD and mortality was assessed via national/regional registers or questionnaires. Further, a two-sample Mendelian randomisation (2SMR) analysis between the GIP pathway and outcomes (coronary artery disease [CAD] and myocardial infarction) was carried out using a GIP-associated genetic variant, rs1800437, as instrumental variable. An additional reverse 2SMR was performed with CAD as exposure variable and GIP as outcome variable, with the instrumental variables constructed from 114 known genetic risk variants for CAD. RESULTS:In meta-analyses, higher fasting levels of GIP were associated with risk of higher total mortality (HR[95% CI]?=?1.22 [1.11, 1.35]; p?=?4.5?×?10-5) and death from CVD (HR[95% CI] 1.30 [1.11, 1.52]; p?=?0.001). In accordance, 2SMR analysis revealed that increasing GIP concentrations were associated with CAD and myocardial infarction, and an additional reverse 2SMR revealed no significant effect of CAD on GIP levels, thus confirming a possible effect solely of GIP on CAD. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION:In two prospective, community-based studies, elevated levels of GIP were associated with greater risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality within 5-9 years of follow-up, whereas GLP-1 levels were not associated with excess risk. Further studies are warranted to determine the cardiovascular effects of GIP per se.

Dataset Information

Meta-Analysis of Sulfonylurea Therapy on Long-Term Risk of Mortality and Cardiovascular Events Compared to Other Oral Glucose-Lowering Treatments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets