Shaukat M Sadikot1, Carl E Mogensen. 1. Jaslok Hospital & Research Center, 15 Dr. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai 400026, India. smsadikot@yahoo.com
Abstract
AIMS: This study sought to assess the risk of developing coronary artery disease (CAD) associated with initial treatment of type 2 diabetes with different sulphonylureas. METHODS: In type 2 diabetic patients, cases who developed CAD were compared retrospectively with controls that did not. The 20-year risk of CAD at diagnosis of diabetes, using the UKPDS risk engine, was used to match cases with controls. RESULTS: The 76 cases of CAD were compared with 152 controls. The hazard of developing CAD (95% CI) associated with initial treatment increased by 2.4-fold (1.3-4.3, P=0.004) with glibenclamide; 2-fold (0.9-4.6, P=0.099) with glipizide; 2.9-fold (1.6-5.1, P=0.000) with either, and was unchanged with metformin. The hazard decreased 0.3-fold (0.7-1.7, P=0.385) with glimepiride, 0.4-fold (0.7-1.3, P=0.192) with gliclazide, and 0.4-fold (0.7-1.1, P=0.09) with either. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating treatment of type 2 diabetes with glibenclamide or glipizide is associated with increased risk of CAD in comparison to gliclazide or glimepiride. If confirmed, this may be important because most Indian patients receive the cheaper older sulphonylureas, and present guidelines do not distinguish between individual agents.
AIMS: This study sought to assess the risk of developing coronary artery disease (CAD) associated with initial treatment of type 2 diabetes with different sulphonylureas. METHODS: In type 2 diabeticpatients, cases who developed CAD were compared retrospectively with controls that did not. The 20-year risk of CAD at diagnosis of diabetes, using the UKPDS risk engine, was used to match cases with controls. RESULTS: The 76 cases of CAD were compared with 152 controls. The hazard of developing CAD (95% CI) associated with initial treatment increased by 2.4-fold (1.3-4.3, P=0.004) with glibenclamide; 2-fold (0.9-4.6, P=0.099) with glipizide; 2.9-fold (1.6-5.1, P=0.000) with either, and was unchanged with metformin. The hazard decreased 0.3-fold (0.7-1.7, P=0.385) with glimepiride, 0.4-fold (0.7-1.3, P=0.192) with gliclazide, and 0.4-fold (0.7-1.1, P=0.09) with either. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating treatment of type 2 diabetes with glibenclamide or glipizide is associated with increased risk of CAD in comparison to gliclazide or glimepiride. If confirmed, this may be important because most Indian patients receive the cheaper older sulphonylureas, and present guidelines do not distinguish between individual agents.
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Amanda R Patrick; Elizabeth M Garry; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Victoria G Gillet; Dorothee B Bartels; Elvira Masso-Gonzalez; John D Seeger Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Helena Atroch Machado; Marcelo Vieira; Maria Rosaria Cunha; Marcia Regina Soares Correia; Rosa Tsunechiro Fukui; Rosa Ferreira dos Santos; Dalva Marreiro Rocha; Bernardo Leo Wajchenberg; Silvia G Lage; Maria Elizabeth Rossi da Silva Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Sanjay Kalra; A H Aamir; Abbas Raza; A K Das; A K Azad Khan; Dina Shrestha; Md Faisal Qureshi; Md Faruque Pathan; Fatema Jawad; Jyoti Bhattarai; Nikhil Tandon; Noel Somasundaram; Prasad Katulanda; Rakesh Sahay; Sanjib Dhungel; Sarita Bajaj; Subhankar Chowdhury; Sujoy Ghosh; S V Madhu; Tofail Ahmed; Uditha Bulughapitiya Journal: Indian J Endocrinol Metab Date: 2015 Sep-Oct
Authors: Gijs W D Landman; Geertruide H de Bock; Kornelis J J van Hateren; Peter R van Dijk; Klaas H Groenier; Rijk O B Gans; Sebastiaan T Houweling; Henk J G Bilo; Nanne Kleefstra Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 3.240