Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Diabetes mellitus type 2. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta Diabetes mellitus type 2. Mostrar todas las entradas

02 febrero, 2014

Safe prescribing of metformine in diabetes

Peter Davoren
Director
Diabetes and Endocrinology
Gold Coast University Hospital

Associate professor
Griffith University School of Medicine
Southport

Queensland

Summary

Metformin is the first-line pharmacological therapy for type 2 diabetes. It is the only glucose-lowering oral drug that has been shown to reduce mortality in patients with diabetes.

The most common adverse effect is gastrointestinal upset. Starting at a low dose and increasing it slowly reduces this risk. Taking metformin with food also helps.

Numerous contraindications to the use of metformin are listed in the product information, including reduced renal function. Strict adherence to these recommendations may deny a valuable drug to many patients.

Key words: biguanides, lactic acidosis, type 2 diabetes

Aust Prescr 2014;37:2-5

Introduction

Metformin lowers both fasting and postprandial blood glucose. It reduces hepatic glucose output 1 and increases peripheral glucose uptake, and may delay intestinal glucose absorption. Its use is not associated with weight gain and hypoglycaemia is extremely rare when metformin is used on its own. It lowers triglyceride concentrations and has small but beneficial effects on total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Pharmacokinetics

Metformin is absorbed throughout the gastrointestinal tract with an oral bioavailability of 50–60%. It is extensively distributed to the tissues. Metformin does not significantly bind to plasma proteins and reaches a steady state in 24–48 hours. The plasma half-life is around 3.5 hours. Metformin does not undergo hepatic metabolism and over 90% of the drug is excreted unchanged in the urine.

Clinical use

In the UK Prospective Diabetes Study metformin reduced diabetes-related and all-cause mortality, and reduced the risk of myocardial infarction in obese patients with type 2 diabetes when used as first-line therapy. It also reduced the risk of microvascular complications, but was no more effective than insulin or sulfonylureas. 2 A retrospective cohort study from the USA found a lower rate of hospitalisations for myocardial infarction and stroke and a reduced death rate when metformin was used first-line in type 2 diabetes in comparison with a sulfonylurea. 3

Metformin is effective when used with other glucose-lowering drugs. A standard-release (3000 mg/day maximum dose) and an extended-release preparation of metformin (2000 mg/day maximum dose) are available. The extended-release preparation can be taken once daily.

Contraindications and cautions

As our knowledge of metformin has improved, many cautions have become outdated. Proposed changes to the current contraindications are shown in the Table. According to the product information, metformin is contraindicated in patients with a creatinine clearance less than 60 mL/min, moderate–severe heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and those undergoing major surgery.

The level of renal function at which metformin becomes unsafe is not clear. Many prescribers use metformin in patients with impaired renal function. A creatinine clearance of 30 mL/min may be an appropriate level at which to consider stopping the drug, although some patients may tolerate small doses with less renal function. Patients with impaired renal function should suspend metformin if they develop vomiting, febrile illness, diarrhoea or poor tissue perfusion. There is no place for routinely measuring serum lactate to determine the safety of metformin as this does not predict those at risk of lactic acidosis. 4

Evidence suggests that, if anything, metformin may be beneficial in people with heart failure. 5 The degree of heart failure may not predict the likelihood of benefit. Metformin should not be prescribed in those with symptomatic heart failure at rest or with minimal exertion where the goals of glucose control are different from those of more mobile patients. Patients with otherwise reasonable overall health can probably take metformin in the presence of renal disease, heart disease or other underlying comorbid conditions. The metformin dose can be reduced depending on the severity of the comorbid conditions and patients should be advised to suspend the drug if they develop any acute illness predisposing them to dehydration or poor tissue perfusion.

The use of metformin around the time of surgery and other acute illnesses requiring hospital admission should be determined by the presence or risk of renal dysfunction or an infection. Metformin may need to be suspended temporarily.
Proposed changes to product information for metformin

Pregnancy

Despite metformin being a category C drug in pregnancy, data are reassuring in terms of the risk of congenital anomalies. 6,7 The product information recommends that metformin be replaced with insulin. However, data do not support this.

Hyperglycaemia is a recognised teratogen and stopping metformin when pregnancy is discovered (with or without the introduction of insulin) often results in significant hyperglycaemia, a state more dangerous than continuing the metformin. Metformin can be continued while adjusting the insulin dose. Many diabetes physicians continue metformin throughout pregnancy, only stopping the drug if pre-eclampsia develops.

Gestational diabetes

A large randomised trial has demonstrated that metformin is a valid alternative to insulin in gestational diabetes. Perinatal outcomes were similar, although the trial was not powered to detect differences in perinatal mortality. 8

Lactation

The product information does not recommend metformin during lactation. However, as in pregnancy, the available data do not support withholding metformin in breastfeeding women.

Infants receive approximately a 0.2% weight-adjusted dose of metformin if the mother is breastfeeding. The concentration of metformin in breast milk is probably relatively constant and so timing doses after breastfeeding probably does not alter exposure. 9

Gastrointestinal adverse effects

Nausea, vomiting, abdominal bloating, diarrhoea, anorexia and abdominal pain are the most common adverse effects of metformin. Symptoms are often self-limiting, but are persistent in some patients.

Metformin should be commenced at a low dose (500 mg/day) and always with food, to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects. The dose should be escalated slowly. It is not uncommon for a patient who has tolerated metformin for many years to develop gastrointestinal adverse effects. It is appropriate to stop metformin in any patient who develops gastrointestinal upset to determine if metformin is the culprit. In a retrospective study, gastrointestinal effects were half as likely to occur with extended-release metformin compared with standard metformin.10

Vitamin B12 malabsorption

Metformin causes vitamin B12 malabsorption in some patients. In a placebo-controlled trial, vitamin B12 concentrations below the reference range were observed in 18.2% of patients taking metformin and vitamin B12 deficiency was seen in almost 10% (after four years). This was considerably higher than in the control group.11 It is prudent to measure vitamin B12 yearly in patients taking metformin, and prescribe vitamin B12 if concentrations are below the reference range.

Lactic acidosis

Lactic acidosis is an adaptive physiologic response by the body to energy failure, so that cells may survive. When individuals develop conditions resulting in reduced tissue perfusion and hypoxaemia, lactate will be produced and acidosis will occur as part of the body's compensatory response.

Metformin is plagued by its association with the similar drug phenformin, which was withdrawn from the market many years ago because of its association with lactic acidosis.12 Phenformin is thought to reduce peripheral glucose oxidation and therefore increase circulating lactate. This is not observed with metformin.13 In a Cochrane review, the estimated upper limit for the incidence of lactic acidosis in metformin users was 4.3 cases per 100 000 patient-years compared with 5.4 cases per 100 000 patient-years in those assigned to other treatment groups.14

Many publications indicate that metformin is frequently prescribed to patients with contraindications. However, there are intermittent reports of fatal lactic acidosis. These fatalities are nearly always associated with the use of intravascular iodinated contrast media for radiological investigations. Such patients commonly have underlying renal disease and develop acute renal failure in association with the use of contrast media and then develop marked metformin accumulation.15

Stopping metformin temporarily for the investigation should diminish the risk of lactic acidosis. However, there is much disagreement as to the appropriate schedule to follow.16 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists recommends no withdrawal of metformin in patients with normal renal function and contrast doses up to 100 mL. Patients with impaired renal function should suspend metformin for 48 hours from the day of the procedure and recommence when a test of renal function shows no deterioration.17 In patients undergoing urgent investigations, adequate intravenous hydration should be maintained to preserve renal function. Prolonged withdrawal of metformin may lead to hyperglycaemia and consequent dehydration. This may cause acute deterioration in renal function in patients with diabetes and pre-existing renal disease.

Pre-diabetes

In a randomised trial, metformin reduced the risk of developing type2 diabetes by around 30% in high-risk patients. However in the same study, interventions with diet and exercise were twice as effective as metformin in preventing diabetes.18

Conclusion

Metformin is the drug of first choice in the management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes. It improves mortality in obese patients with diabetes. The risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects is common. In patients with diabetes, the risk of lactic acidosis in metformin users does not appear to be higher than in non-users. However, the use of intravascular iodinated contrast material in association with metformin may pose the greatest risk of lactic acidosis.

Metformin can be continued despite some of the contraindications in the product information if the dose is reduced in appropriate patients and stopped at the time of acute illness. Warnings about the use of metformin in pregnancy and breastfeeding should be reviewed.

Conflict of interest: none declared

References

    Stumvoll M, Nurjhan N, Perriello G, Dailey G, Gerich JE. Metabolic effects of metformin in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. NEngl J Med 1995;333:550-4.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 1998;352:854-65.
    Roumie CL, Hung AM, Greevy RA, Grijalva CG, Liu X, Murff HJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of sulphonylurea and metformin monotherapy on cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:601-10.
    Seidowsky A, Nseir S, Houdret N, Fourrier F. Metformin associated lactic acidosis: a prognostic and therapeutic study. Crit Care Med 2009;37:2191-6.
    Eurich DT, McAlister FA, Blackburn DF, Majumdar SR, Tsuyuki RT, Varney J, et al. Benefits and harms of antidiabetic agents in patients with diabetes and heart failure: systematic review. BMJ 2007;335:497.
    Hague WM. Metformin in pregnancy and lactation. Aust Prescr 2007;30:68-9.
    Gilbert C, Valois M, Koren G. Pregnancy outcome after first-trimester exposure to metformin: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2006;86:658-63.
    Rowan JA, Hague WM, Gao W, Battin MR, Moore MP; MiG Trial Investigators. Metformin versus insulin for the treatment of gestational diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2003-15.
    Gardiner SJ, Kirkpatrick CM, Begg EJ, Zhang M, Moore MP, Saville DJ. Transfer of metformin into human milk. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003;73:71-7.
    Blonde L, Dailey GE, Jabbour SA, Reasner CA, Mills DJ. Gastrointestinal tolerability of extended-release metformin compared to immediate-release metformin tablets: results of a retrospective cohort study. Curr Med Res Opin 2004;20:565-72.
    de Jager J, Kooy A, Lehert P, Wulffele MG, van der Kolk J, Bets D, et al. Long term treatment with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes and risk of vitamin B-12 deficiency: randomised placebo controlled trial. BMJ 2010;340:c2181.
    Shenfield G. Metformin: myths, misunderstandings and lessons from history. Aust Prescr 2013;36:38-9.
    Marchetti P, Benzi L, Cechetti P, Giannarelli R, Boni C, Ciociaro D, et al. Plasma biguanide levels are correlated with metabolic effects in diabetic patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1987;41:450-4.
    Salpeter S, Greyber E, Pasternak G, Salpeter E. Risk of fatal and non-fatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;CD002967.
    Thomson KR, Varma DK. Safe use of radiographic contrast media. Aust Prescr 2010;33:19-22.
    Goergen SK, Rumbold G, Compton G, Harris C. Systematic review of current guidelines, and their evidence base, on risk of lactic acidosis after administration of contrast medium for patients receiving metformin. Radiology 2010;254:261-9.
    Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. RANZCR guidelines for iodinated contrast administration. 2009. www.ranzcr.edu.au/quality-a-safety/resources/guidelines [cited 2014 Jan 7]
    Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, et al; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393-403.

Further reading

Nestler JE. Metformin for the treatment of the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2008;358:47-54.

Lipska KA, Bailey CJ, Inzucchi SE. Use of metformin in the setting of mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1431-7.
Self-test questions

    The following statements are either true or false (click here for the answers)

    1. Metformin is always contraindicated in lactation.

    2. Vitamin B12 should be measured periodically in patients taking metformin.

25 junio, 2013

ADA: Lifestyle Changes Don’t Protect Diabetic Heart


 
English: The blue circle is the global symbol ...
English: The blue circle is the global symbol for diabetes, introduced by the International Diabetes Federation with the aim of giving diabetes a common identity, supporting existing efforts to raise awareness of diabetes and placing the diabetes epidemic firmly in the public spotlight. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

An intense lifestyle intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes that was focused on diet and exercise failed to protect patients against heart problems according to AHEAD Trial.  
Full Text

See also in New England Journal of Medicine




In terms of retention, early numbers suggest success. The 1-year exam was attended by 96.4% of participants, which was only slightly, but statistically significant between the two study arms (Intensive Lifestyle Intervention 97.1% versus DSEI 95.7%; p = 0.004) [17]. The 4-year exam was attended by 93.6% of participants. There was no significant difference between the two study arms (Intensive Lifestyle Intervention 94.1% versus DSEI 93.0%; p = 0.11) [18]. Such high 1-year and 4-year retention rates in a weight loss trial are remarkable. Furthermore, there was a significant stepwise trend between attending a greater number of DSEI sessions and higher retention at the 1-year visit, with only 85% of those participants who attended no DSEI sessions the first year completing data collection, compared to 99% of those attending all three DSEI classes (p < 0.001). While this does not prove causality, it provides face validity that the DSEI sessions were valuable in enhancing retention in the comparison group. The years 1 and 4 retention data in Look AHEAD equal or exceed those of other large multi-center lifestyle intervention trials (Table 4). The Weight Loss Maintenance trial retained 94.7% of its Self-Directed control group after 30 months; however, this study randomized only patients who had lost 4 kg during a 6-month intervention period [15]. The Diabetes Prevention Program retained 92.4% of its participants at the end of the study (2.8 years); however, the control group in that study was a placebo control group designed in comparison to the metformin and troglitazone arms of the study [19]. Perhaps most similarly, the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study had an overall retention rate of 97.1% at 1 year, but only 90.1% at 2 years [20]; furthermore, the retention rates by study arm were not reported clearly. Prior to Look AHEAD, the longest lifestyle intervention trial was the Women’s Health Initiative which reported an overall retention rate of 90.8% (90.4% for lifestyle and 91.1% for the comparison group) at 8 years of follow-up [21]. Look AHEAD is currently in year 8 of data collection, so comparison at that time point will be available in the future.
Enhanced by Zemanta

22 junio, 2013

Integrated management of type 2 diabetes mellitus and depression treatment to improve medication adherence

English: The blue circle is the global symbol ...
English: The blue circle is the global symbol for diabetes, introduced by the International Diabetes Federation with the aim of giving diabetes a common identity, supporting existing efforts to raise awareness of diabetes and placing the diabetes epidemic firmly in the public spotlight. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Bogner HR, Morales KH, de Vries HF, et al. Integrated management of type 2 diabetes mellitus and depression treatment to improve medication adherence: a randomized controlled trialAnn Fam Med. 2012 Jan;10(1):15-22. (Original) PMID: 22230826

PURPOSE Depression commonly accompanies diabetes, resulting in reduced adherence to medications and increased risk for morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to examine whether a simple, brief integrated approach to depression and type 2 diabetes mellitus (type 2 diabetes) treatment improved adherence to oral hypoglycemic agents and antidepressant medications, glycemic control, and depression among primary care patients. METHODS We undertook a randomized controlled trial conducted from April 2010 through April 2011 of 180 patients prescribed pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes and depression in primary care. Patients were randomly assigned to an integrated care intervention or usual care. Integrated care managers collaborated with physicians to offer education and guideline-based treatment recommendations and to monitor adherence and clinical status. Adherence was assessed using the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). We used glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) assays to measure glycemic control and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess depression. RESULTS Intervention and usual care groups did not differ statistically on baseline measures. Patients who received the intervention were more likely to achieve HbA(1c) levels of less than 7% (intervention 60.9% vs usual care 35.7%; P <.001) and remission of depression (PHQ-9 score of less than 5: intervention 58.7% vs usual care 30.7%; P <.001) in comparison with patients in the usual care group at 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS A randomized controlled trial of a simple, brief intervention integrating treatment of type 2 diabetes and depression was successful in improving outcomes in primary care. An integrated approach to depression and type 2 diabetes treatment may facilitate its deployment in real-world practices with competing demands for limited resources.
Enhanced by Zemanta

02 mayo, 2013

Riesgo cardiovascular en diabeticos sin cardiopatia isquemica y en pacientes con cardiopatia isquemica sin diabetes

English: The blue circle is the global symbol ...
English: The blue circle is the global symbol for diabetes, introduced by the International Diabetes Federation with the aim of giving diabetes a common identity, supporting existing efforts to raise awareness of diabetes and placing the diabetes epidemic firmly in the public spotlight. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Ken T, Gislason GH, Køber L, Rasmussen S, Rasmussen JN, Abildstrøm SZDiabetes Patients Requiring Glucose-Lowering Therapy and Nondiabetics With a Prior Myocardial Infarction Carry the Same Cardiovascular Risk: A Population Study of 3.3 Million People. Circulation 2008; 117: 1945-1954.  TC  PDF 

Introducción

Está ampliamente demostrado que la diabetes incrementa el riesgo de sufrir una enfermedad cardiovascular. Sin embargo, existe cierta polémica sobre el grado en que está aumentado, de forma que algunos autores lo consideran equivalente al de los pacientes con cardiopatía isquémica mientras que otros discrepan.

Objetivo

Estudiar el riesgo cardiovascular de pacientes con diabetes de cualquier tipo, edad y sexo y compararlo con el de los pacientes con antecedentes de infarto de miocardio.

Perfil del estudio

Tipo de estudio: Estudio de cohortes
Área del estudio: Pronóstico
Ámbito del estudio: Comunitario

Métodos

A partir del Registro Civil de Dinamarca se identificaron todas las personas ≥30 años en 1997. Se consideró que eran diabéticos todas las personas a las que se les había prescrito un fármaco hipoglicemiante en los 6 meses anteriores a esa fecha identificados a partir del Registro Nacional de Prescripciones. Se consideró que tenían antecedentes de infarto de miocardio (IM) todas las personas en las que se detectó que habían ingresado por este motivo en el Registro Nacional de Pacientes de Dinamarca durante los 19 años anteriores.
A partir de las mismas fuentes se registraron también los datos demográficos, los tratamientos con betabloqueantes, IECA, inhibidores de la ARA-II y estatinas. También se registraron datos de comorbilidad.
La variable de resultado principal fue el desarrollo de una enfermedad cardiovascular (infarto de miocardio, otras formas de cardiopatía isquémica, AVC y otras enfermedades cardiovasculares) por grupos de edad y sexo.

Resultados

Se identificaron mas de 2,7 millones de personas ≥30 años, de las cuales el 2,2% se identificaron como diabéticos y un 2,4% como personas con antecedentes de IM (tabla 1). Los pacientes con diabetes o IM era más probable que fuesen varones y tenían una mayor edad media que los pacientes sin antecedentes.
Tabla 1. Distribución de los participantes.

DiabetesTotal (%)
No
Infarto de miocardioNo3.129.51665.3823.194.898 (97,6)
73.1556.41979.574 (2,4)
Total (%)3.202.671 (97,8)71.801 (2,2)3.274.472 (100)
En el análisis multivariante los riesgos para todos los eventos analizados fueron similares para los pacientes con diabetes mellitus sin antecedentes de IM y para los pacientes no diabéticos con antededentes de IM (tabla 2). Sin embargo, se dieron diferencias en los tipos de eventos cardiovasculares, los pacientes con antecedentes de IM presentaron más eventos coronarios y los pacientes diabéticos, más AVC.
Tabla 2. Hazard ratio (IC95%) de eventos cardiovasculares en pacientes con antecedentes de IM sin diabetes (IM) y en pacientes con diabetes sin IM (DM) en el análisis multivariante.

VaronesMujeres

IMDMPIMDMP
Muerte cardiovascular1,77 (1,73 a 1,81)1,78 (1,73 a 1,84)0,671,96 (1,90 a 2,01)1,77 (1,71 a 1,82)<0 font="">
IM (fatal o no fatal)3,01 (2,93 a 3,09)1,85 (1,77 a 1,92)<0 font="">4,20 (4,05 a 4,36)2,69 (2,57 a 2,81)<0 font="">
AVC1,16 (1,12 a 1,20)1,92 (1,85 a 1,99)<0 font="">1,27 (1,21 a 1,32)1,90 (1,83 a 1,97)<0 font="">
Muerte coronaria3,07 (2,99 a 3,15)1,91 (1,84 a 2,00)<0 font="">3,53 (3,41 a 3,65)2,09 (2,00 a 2,18)<0 font="">
Mortalidad total1,22 (1,20 a 1,25)1,33 (1,30 a 1,36)<0 font="">1,31 (1,28 a 1,34)1,33 (1,30 a 1,36)0,29
Para todos los eventos analizados, los antecedentes de IM y la diabetes presentaron efectos aditivos y los pacientes que presentaban los dos factores de riesgo presentaban un riesgo de eventos cardiovasculares mucho mayor.

Conclusiones

Los autores concluyen que el riesgo cardiovascular de los pacientes >30 años con diabetes que precisa tratamiento farmacológico es comparable al de los pacientes no diabéticos con antecedentes de IM, por lo que al iniciar el tratamiento con hipoglicemiantes de debe iniciar también un tratamiento intensivo para prevenir las enfermedades cardiovasculares.

Conflictos de interés

Ninguno declarado. Financiado por una beca de la Danish Pharmacist Fund.

Comentario

La diabetes se asocia a un mayor riesgo de desarrollar enfermedades cardiovasculares, que son la primera causa de muerte en esta enfermedad. En algunos estudios publicados previamente se había detectado que la mortalidad por cardiopatía isquémica en pacientes con diabetes era superponible a la de los pacientes sin diabetes pero con antecedentes de infarto de miocardio. A partir de estos estudios se ha creado una corriente de opinión que ha tenido un ampliol eco en algunos grupos de expertos de forma que consideran que se debe tratar a los pacientes diabéticos a efectos preventivos de la misma forma que a los pacientes con antecedentes de cardiopatía isquémica, por lo que se podrían extender a ellos las conclusiones de los estudios llevados a cabo en pacientes infartados (antiagregantes, objetivos de control de los factores de riesgo, etc.)
Sin embargo, dichos estudios no estaban exentos de problemas metodológicos y otros estudios mejor diseñados no confirmaron estos resultados, aunque tuvieron menor difusión. Del presente trabajo parece desprenderse la misma conclusión que de los trabajos iniciales. Sin embargo, existen diferencias importantes, puesto que en los primeros lo que era igual entre pacientes diabéticos e infartados era la mortalidad coronaria, mientras que en éste es superior para los pacientes infartados. Por otro lado, se trata de un estudio prospectivo en el que se incluyen a las personas vivas en una fecha determinada con antecedentes de IM o de diabetes. Dado que la mortalidad por cardiopatía isquémica es mayor cuanto en las fechas más próximas al evento agudo, es evidente que los pacientes con IM incluidos en este estudio tienen mejor pronóstico que la población general de pacientes con IM. En el caso de la diabetes, al detectarse a los pacientes a partir de una base de datos de prescripciones sucede exactamente lo contrario, dado que se incluyen los casos con formas más evolucionadas de la enfermedad.
En cualquier caso, para evitar los problemas derivados de extrapolaciones de dudosa certeza a partir de pacientes en otras situaciones clínicas, sería deseable que las decisiones terapéuticas a tomar ante los pacientes con diabetes se hagan a partir de estudios llevados a cabo en personas con esta enfermedad.

Bibliografía

  1. Millaruelo JM¿Debe equipararse el abordaje preventivo del riesgo cardiovascular en la diabetes tipo 2 a la prevención secundaria? (1). FMC 2005; 12: 155-161. TC (s)  PDF (s) 
  2. Millaruelo JM¿Debe equipararse el abordaje preventivo del riesgo cardiovascular en la diabetes tipo 2 a la prevención secundaria? (II). FMC 2005; 12: 236-245. TC (s)  PDF (s) 
  3. Evans JMM, Wang J, Morris ADComparison of cardiovascular risk between patients with type 2 diabetes and those who had had a myocardial infarction: cross sectional and cohort studies. BMJ 2002; 324: 939  TC  PDF 
  4. Goldfine AB, Beckman JALife and Death in Denmark: Lessons About Diabetes and Coronary Heart Disease. Circulation 2008; 117: 1914-1917. TC PDF 
  5. Haffner SM, Lehto S, Rönnemaa T, Pyörälä K, Laakso MMortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 229-234. TCPDF

Autor

Manuel Iglesias Rodal. Correo electrónico:mrodal@menta.net.

29 abril, 2013

Seguridad de la combinación de metformina y sulfonilureas



Rao AD, Kuhadiya N, Reynolds K, Fonseca VA. Is the Combination of Sulfonylureas and Metformin Associated With an Increased Risk of Cardiovascular Disease or All-Cause Mortality?: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Diabetes Care 2008; 31: 1672-1678.
Introducción

La presencia de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2) se asocia a un mayor riesgo de muerte por enfermedades cardiovasculares y por cualquier causa. En la mayor parte de estudios sobre el tratamiento farmacológico de la DM2 no se dispone de resultados a largo plazo. En el UKPDS se detectó que la asociación de sulfonilureas con metformina se asociaba a un mayor riesgo de muerte relacionada con la diabetes y por enfermedades cardiovasculares. Otros estudios han obtenido resultados contradictorios entre sí.

Objetivo

Revisar los estudios observacionales para estudiar la asociación entre el tratamiento de la DM2 con una asociación de metformina y sulfonilureas y el riesgo de desarrollar enfermedades cardiovasculares y de muerte por cualquier causa.
Perfil del estudio

Tipo de estudio: Metaanálisis

Área del estudio: Tratamiento

Ámbito del estudio: Comunitario
Métodos

Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda en MEDLINE y en las listas de referencias de los artículos lozalizados para identificar los estudios observacionales llevados a cabo en personas con DM2 diagnosticada de acuerdo con los criterios habituales en el momento en que se realizaron, en los que se analizaba la relación entre el tratamiento combinado con metformina y sulfonilureas y la mortalidad total y las enfermedades cardiovasculares en términos de riesgo relativo o algún otro parámetro equivalente (hazard ratio u odds ratio).

Se extrajeron los datos relativos a año de publicación y en que se llevó a cabo, país, tipo de estudio, duración del mismo, características de la población estudiada (tamaño de la muestra, edad, sexo, raza, etc.), tipo de grupo de comparación y factores de confusión por los que se controló el análisis.

Las variables de resultado principales fueron el riesgo relativo de muerte por cualquier causa y de enfermedad cardiovascular.
Resultados

Se incluyeron en el estudio 9 publicaciones (fig. 1). Seis eran estudios de cohortes retrospectivas, 2 eran estudios de casos y controles y uno fue un estudio de casos y controles anidados. Cinco se habían llevado a cabo en Europa, 3 en Norteamérica y uno en Israel. El tamaño de las muestras osciló entre 900 y 39.000 individuos y el tiempo de seguimiento entre 2,1 y 7,7 años. Siete de los estudios ofrecían resultados de mortalidad total, 4 de mortalidad cardiovascular y 3, de ingresos hospitalarios por enfermedades cardiovasculares.
Figura 1. Proceso de selección de los trabajos incluidos.
scr http://www.apaldia.com/resumenes/img/F0061701.gif


El tratamiento combinado con metformina y sulfonilureas no se asoció a un incremento estadísticamente significativo de muerte por enfermedades cardiovasculares o de mortalidad total, pero sí a un incremento de muerte u hospitalización por enfermedades cardiovasculares (tabla 1).
Tabla 1. Riesgo relativo de los principales resultados del estudio asociado ala utilización de tratamiento combinado con metformina y sulfonilureas. Resultado Estudios RR (IC95%)
Mortalidad total 10 1,19 (0,88 a 1,62)
Mortalidad cardiovascular 6 1,29 (0,73 a 2,27)
Mortalidad / ingreso por enf. cardiovasculares 7 1,43 (1,10 a 1,85)

Los resultados no cambiaron de forma importante cuando se excluyeron los estudios en los que no se controló en el análisis la duración de la diabetes o la presencia de enfermedades cardiovasculares. Los riesgos relativos se mantuvieron por encima de 1 independientemente de cuál fuera el grupo de comparación utilizado -dieta, metformina o sulfonilureas solas- (excepto la mortalidad total cuando el grupo de comparación fue tratamiento con sulfonilureas solas).
Conclusiones

Los autores concluyen que el tratamiento combinado con metformina y sulfonilureas se asoció a un mayor riesgo de ingreso o de muerte por enfermedades cardiovasculares, pero no de muerte por cualquier causa o por enfermedades cardiovasculares.
Conflictos de interés

Algunos de los autores han recibido honorarios de varios laboratorios farmacéuticos por diferentes conceptos.
Comentario

La diabetes es una enfermedad cuya prevalencia va en aumento. Los pilares de su tratamiento son la dieta y el ejercicio combinados con una serie de tratamientos farmacológicos, que muchas veces deben administrarse en combinación. En una revisión de los estudios publicados en 2007 no se detectaron diferencias importantes entre los distintos grupos de fármacos disponibles para el tratamiento de la diabetes en términos de resultados importantes como mortalidad total, morbimortalidad cardiovascular y complicaciones microangiopáticas, pero los mismos autores calificaban la calidad de la evidencia como baja dado el escaso número de ensayos clínicos publicados y de eventos incluidos.

En el UKPDS, el grupo asignado a tratamiento intensivo de la diabetes con metformina presentó una reducción de la mortalidad total del 36% respecto al grupo de tratamiento convencional. Sin embargo, en el grupo asignado a tratamiento intensivo con sulfonilureas, la adición de metformina de forma temprana al tratamiento se asoció con un incremento de la muerte relacionada con la diabetes de casi el doble y a un incremento de la mortalidad total del 60%. Los autores atribuyeron esta sorprendente asociación a las diferencias en las características iniciales de los pacientes.

Los estudios observacionales posteriores han obtenido resultados contradictorios. Su análisis conjunto en este estudio apunta a que el tratamiento combinado se asocia a un mayor riesgo de desarrollar una enfermedad cardiovascular. Sin embargo, se trata de estudios observacionales, por lo que es posible que las diferencias observadas se deban a diferencias en las características de los pacientes de los dos grupos, puesto que es probable que los pacientes asignados al tratamiento combinado tengan diabetes más evolucionadas o con peor grado de control que los pacientes asignados al tratamiento con monoterapia.

En cualquier caso, la gran cantidad de pacientes que se encuentran tratados con esta combinación debería ser suficiente para estimular la puesta en marcha de un ensayo clínico que aclare definitivamente la cuestión.
Bibliografía

1. Bolen S, Feldman L, Vassy J, Wilson L, Yeh HC, Marinopoulos S et al. Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Medications for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 386-399. R TC PDF
2. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Effect of intensive blood glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 1998; 352: 854-865. R TC PDF

Autor

Manuel Iglesias Rodal. Correo electrónico: mrodal@menta.net.
Enhanced by Zemanta

29 marzo, 2013

Evidence on target blood glucose levels

English: Illustration of the changes in blood ...
English: Illustration of the changes in blood glucose over time following a high and low GI carbohydrate. Designed and made Public Domain by Scott Dickinson (user: Studio34), Sydney, Australia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Diabetes - type 2 - Evidence
Evidence on target blood glucose levels

There is good evidence from epidemiological and intervention studies that decreasing the HbA1c level can reduce both the macrovascular and the microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes. There appears to be no threshold below which the risk is no longer reduced, nor a level above which the risk is no longer increased.
Two recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensive blood glucose lowering treatment (targeting an HbA1c level below 6.0%) with standard treatment (targeting an HbA1c level between 7.0% and 7.9%) failed to identify a significant improvement in macrovascular vascular outcomes with intensive therapy; one study demonstrated a significant increase in all-cause mortality with intensive therapy, and both studies demonstrated a significant increase in hypoglycaemia with intensive therapy.
In one long-term follow up study, despite an early loss of difference in glycaemic control between a conventional treatment group and an intensive treatment group, a continued reduction in microvascular risk and emergent risk reductions for myocardial infarction and death from any cause were observed during 10 years of post-trial follow-up.
Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a relationship between HbA1c and vascular complications in people with type 2 diabetes:
  • The UK Prospective Diabetes Study 35 (n = 3867) suggested that the lower the HbA1c level, the better the outcome [UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group et al, 2000]. For every percentage reduction in the HbA1c level, there is a:
    • 21% decrease in risk for any diabetes-related endpoint (95% CI 17 to 24, p < 0.0001).
    • 21% decrease in risk for any diabetes-related death (95% CI 15 to 27, p < 0.0001).
    • 14% decrease in risk for myocardial infarction (95% CI 8 to 21, p < 0.0001).
    • 37% decrease in risk for microvascular complications (95% CI 33 to 41, p < 0.0001).
  • There was no indication of a threshold for any complication below which risk no longer decreased, nor a level above which risk no longer increased.
Two recent RCTs investigated the effect of intensive glucose control on vascular outcomes [Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group, 2008; ADVANCE Collaborative Group, 2008]:
  • The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study investigated whether intensive therapy (target HbA1c level below 6.0%) would reduce cardiovascular events compared with standard therapy (target HbA1c level between 7.0% and 7.9%) in people with type 2 diabetes [Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group, 2008]:
    • People with type 2 diabetes and either established cardiovascular (CV) disease or additional CV risk factors (n = 10,251) were randomized to receive either intensive therapy targeting an HbA1c level of less than 6.0% or standard therapy targeting a level of 7.0–7.9%.
    • The primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, or death from CV causes.
    • Stable median HbA1c levels of 6.4% (interquartile range 6.1 to 7.0) in the intensive therapy group and 7.5% (interquartile range 7.0 to 8.2) in the standard therapy group were achieved at 1 year and were maintained throughout follow up.
    • Intensive therapy was stopped after a mean of 3.5 years follow up because of a higher mortality rate in the intensive therapy group.
    • The incidence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, or death from CV causes did not differ between the two groups:
      • During follow up, the primary composite outcome occurred in 352 people (6.9%) in the intensive therapy group compared with 371 people (7.2%) in the standard therapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.04; p = 0.16).
    • However, all-cause mortality and death from CV causes increased in the intensive therapy group compared with the standard therapy group:
      • During follow up, death from any cause occurred in 257 people (5.0%) in the intensive therapy group compared with 203 people (4.0%) in the standard therapy group (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.46; p = 0.04).
      • During follow up, death from CV causes occurred in 135 people (2.6%) in the intensive therapy group compared with 94 people (1.8%) in the standard therapy group (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.76; p = 0.02).
    • Hypoglycaemia requiring assistance and weight gain of more than 10 kg were also more frequent in the intensive therapy group (p < 0.001).
  • The ADVANCE study was also designed to investigate the effects of intensive glucose control (using modified-release gliclazide plus other antidiabetic drugs as required to achieve an HbA1c level of 6.5% or less) on vascular outcomes [ADVANCE Collaborative Group, 2008]:
    • People with type 2 diabetes and a history of major macrovascular or microvascular disease or at least one other risk factor for vascular disease (n = 11,140) were randomized to receive either intensive therapy (modified-release gliclazide with the addition of metformin, a glitazone, acarbose, or insulin as needed to attain an HbA1c level of less than 6.0%) or standard therapy (HbA1c targets defined on the basis of local guidelines).
    • The primary outcomes were a composite of macrovascular events (death from CV causes, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke) and a composite of microvascular events (new or worsening nephropathy or retinopathy), considered both jointly and separately.
    • After a median of 5 years of follow up, the mean HbA1c level was lower in the intensive glucose control group (6.5%) than in the standard glucose control group (7.3%).
    • The incidence of combined major macrovascular and microvascular events was reduced with intensive control (18%) compared with standard control (20%): HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; p = 0.01.
    • The incidence of major microvascular events was also reduced (9.4% compared to 10.9%, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.97; p = 0.01), primarily because of a reduction in the incidence of nephropathy (4.1% compared to 5.2%, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93; p = 0.006), with no effect on retinopathy (p = 0.50).
    • The type of glucose control had no effect on major macrovascular events, death from CV causes, or death from any cause.
    • Severe hypoglycaemia, although uncommon, was more common in the intensive glucose control group (2.7%) than the standard glucose control group (1.5%): HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.40; p < 0.001.
  • A 10-year follow up of UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS 33) investigated whether intensive glucose-lowering treatment during the early stage of type 2 diabetes had a long-term effect on macrovascular outcomes [Holman et al, 2008].
    • In UKPDS 33, 4209 people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were randomized to either conventional therapy (dietary restriction) or intensive therapy (either sulfonylurea or insulin or, in overweight patients, metformin). After the study, 3277 of the participants attended an annual review for 5 years, and completed a questionnaire for a further 5 years. No attempt was made to maintain their previously assigned study treatment.
    • Between-group differences in HbA1c levels were lost after the first year of post-trail follow-up.
    • In the sulfonylurea–insulin group compared with the conventional treatment group, reductions in risk persisted at 10 years for any diabetes-related end point (risk ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99) and microvascular disease (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.89). Reductions in risk for myocardial infarction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.97) and death from any cause (0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96) emerged over time, as more events occurred.
    • In the metformin group, reductions in risk persisted for any diabetes-related end point (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.95), myocardial infarction (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.89), and death from any cause (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89