Charles E Leonard1,2, Xu Han1,2, Colleen M Brensinger1,2, Warren B Bilker1,2,3, Serena Cardillo2,4, James H Flory2,5,6, Sean Hennessy1,2,7. 1. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Neuropsychiatry Section, Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Division of Comparative Effectiveness, Weill Cornell Medicine, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA. 6. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine and compare risks of serious hypoglycemia among antidiabetic monotherapy-treated adults receiving metformin, a sulfonylurea, a meglitinide, or a thiazolidinedione. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of apparently new users of monotherapy with metformin, glimepiride, glipizide, glyburide, pioglitazone, rosiglitazone, nateglinide, or repaglinide within a dataset of Medicaid beneficiaries from California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. We did not include users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, or sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. We identified serious hypoglycemia outcomes within 180 days following new use using a validated, diagnosis-based algorithm. We calculated age- and sex-standardized outcome occurrence rates for each drug and generated propensity score-adjusted hazard ratios vs metformin using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The ranking of standardized occurrence rates of serious hypoglycemia was glyburide > glimepiride > glipizide > repaglinide > nateglinide > rosiglitazone > pioglitazone > metformin. Rates were increased for all study drugs at higher average daily doses. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) vs metformin were 3.95 (3.66-4.26) for glyburide, 3.28 (2.98-3.62) for glimepiride, 2.57 (2.38-2.78) for glipizide, 2.03 (1.64-2.52) for repaglinide, 1.21 (0.89-1.66) for nateglinide, 0.90 (0.75-1.07) for rosiglitazone, and 0.80 (0.68-0.93) for pioglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: Sulfonylureas were associated with the highest rates of serious hypoglycemia. Among all study drugs, the highest rate was seen with glyburide. Pioglitazone was associated with a lower adjusted hazard for serious hypoglycemia vs metformin, while rosiglitazone and nateglinide had hazards similar to that of metformin.
PURPOSE: To examine and compare risks of serious hypoglycemia among antidiabetic monotherapy-treated adults receiving metformin, a sulfonylurea, a meglitinide, or a thiazolidinedione. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of apparently new users of monotherapy with metformin, glimepiride, glipizide, glyburide, pioglitazone, rosiglitazone, nateglinide, or repaglinide within a dataset of Medicaid beneficiaries from California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. We did not include users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, or sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. We identified serious hypoglycemia outcomes within 180 days following new use using a validated, diagnosis-based algorithm. We calculated age- and sex-standardized outcome occurrence rates for each drug and generated propensity score-adjusted hazard ratios vs metformin using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The ranking of standardized occurrence rates of serious hypoglycemia was glyburide > glimepiride > glipizide > repaglinide > nateglinide > rosiglitazone > pioglitazone > metformin. Rates were increased for all study drugs at higher average daily doses. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) vs metformin were 3.95 (3.66-4.26) for glyburide, 3.28 (2.98-3.62) for glimepiride, 2.57 (2.38-2.78) for glipizide, 2.03 (1.64-2.52) for repaglinide, 1.21 (0.89-1.66) for nateglinide, 0.90 (0.75-1.07) for rosiglitazone, and 0.80 (0.68-0.93) for pioglitazone. CONCLUSIONS:Sulfonylureas were associated with the highest rates of serious hypoglycemia. Among all study drugs, the highest rate was seen with glyburide. Pioglitazone was associated with a lower adjusted hazard for serious hypoglycemia vs metformin, while rosiglitazone and nateglinide had hazards similar to that of metformin.
Authors: Xu Han; ChienWei Chiang; Charles E Leonard; Warren B Bilker; Colleen M Brensinger; Lang Li; Sean Hennessy Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Meijia Zhou; Shirley V Wang; Charles E Leonard; Joshua J Gagne; Candace Fuller; Christian Hampp; Patrick Archdeacon; Sengwee Toh; Aarthi Iyer; Tiffany Siu Woodworth; Elizabeth Cavagnaro; Catherine A Panozzo; Sophia Axtman; Ryan M Carnahan; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Sean Hennessy Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Alexandra Tungol; Catherine I Starner; Brent W Gunderson; Jeremy A Schafer; Yang Qiu; Patrick P Gleason Journal: J Manag Care Pharm Date: 2012 Nov-Dec
Authors: Maria Soledad Cepeda; Daniel Fife; Michel Denarié; Dan Bradford; Stephanie Roy; Yingli Yuan Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Michael Bodmer; Christian Meier; Stephan Krähenbühl; Susan S Jick; Christoph R Meier Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Young Hee Nam; Colleen M Brensinger; Warren B Bilker; Charles E Leonard; Xu Han; Sean Hennessy Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Weiguo Liu; Pengcheng P Shao; Gui-Bai Liang; John Bawiec; Jiafang He; Susan D Aster; Margaret Wu; Garry Chicchi; John Wang; Kwei-Lan Tsao; Jin Shang; Gino Salituro; Yun-Ping Zhou; Cai Li; Taro E Akiyama; Daniel E Metzger; Beth Ann Murphy; Andrew D Howard; Ann E Weber; Joseph L Duffy Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Suzanne V Arnold; Darren K McGuire; Silvio E Inzucchi; Fengming Tang; Sanjeev N Mehta; Carolyn S P Lam; Abhinav Goyal; Laurence S Sperling; Nathan D Wong; Niklas Hammar; Peter Fenici; Mikhail Kosiborod Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Vahid Kheirollahi; Roxana M Wasnick; Valentina Biasin; Ana Ivonne Vazquez-Armendariz; Xuran Chu; Alena Moiseenko; Astrid Weiss; Jochen Wilhelm; Jin-San Zhang; Grazyna Kwapiszewska; Susanne Herold; Ralph T Schermuly; Bernard Mari; Xiaokun Li; Werner Seeger; Andreas Günther; Saverio Bellusci; Elie El Agha Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Young Hee Nam; Colleen M Brensinger; Warren B Bilker; James H Flory; Charles E Leonard; Sean Hennessy Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Jeong Mi Kim; Sang Soo Kim; Jong Ho Kim; Mi Kyung Kim; Tae Nyun Kim; Soon Hee Lee; Chang Won Lee; Ja Young Park; Eun Sook Kim; Kwang Jae Lee; Young Sik Choi; Duk Kyu Kim; In Joo Kim Journal: Diabetes Metab J Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 5.376