Acta Diabetologica

, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 233–239 | Cite as

Safety of nateglinide as used in general practice in England: results of a prescription-event monitoring study

  • B. Twaites
  • L. V. Wilton
  • D. Layton
  • S. A. W. Shakir
Original Article

Abstract

Nateglinide (Starlix®) is licensed for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes in patients inadequately controlled with metformin. The study objective was to monitor the safety and use of nateglinide prescribed by primary care physicians (GPs) in England, using the observational cohort technique, Prescription–Event Monitoring. Exposure data were derived from dispensed nateglinide prescriptions issued October 2001–June 2004; demographic and outcome data, from questionnaires sent to patients’ GPs at least 6 months after patients’ first prescription. Incidence densities (IDs; number of first reports of an event/1,000 patient-months exposure) were calculated for month 1 (ID1), months 2–6 (ID2–6); rate differences [ID1−ID2–6 (+99% CI)] were examined. Cohort comprised 4,557 patients, median age 60 (IQR 51, 68 years); 2,439 (53.5%) male; 3,463 (76.0%) received nateglinide in combination with metformin. GPs reported 1,625 reasons for stopping in 1,474 (32.3%) patients and 80 events as adverse drug reactions in 66 (1.5%) patients. Events associated with starting treatment included nausea/vomiting [ID1−ID2–6 9.6 (99% CI 5.3, 13.9)], malaise/lassitude [ID1−ID2–6 6.03 (99% CI 2.2, 9.9)]. No serious hypersensitivity reactions were reported. Two pregnancies (< 0.1%) and 73 deaths (1.6%) were reported. Nateglinide appeared to be generally well tolerated when used in combination with metformin for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes.

Keywords

Nateglinide Type 2 diabetes Drug safety Post-marketing surveillance Prescription-event monitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the GPs in England and the Prescription Pricing Division (a part of the NHSBSA) for their co-operation in this study. We also wish to thank Mrs Lesley Flowers for assistance in the preparation of this manuscript and Mr. Shayne Freemantle for IT support. The Drug Safety Research Unit (DSRU) is a registered independent medical charity (No. 327206) associated with the University of Portsmouth. The DSRU receives donations from pharmaceutical companies; the companies have no control on the conduct or the publication of its studies. The DSRU has received such funds from the manufacturer of the product included in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Shinkai H, Toi K, Kumashiro I, Seto Y, Fukuma M, Dan K, Toyoshima S (1988) N-acylphenylalanines and related compounds. A new class of oral hypoglycaemic agents. J Med Chem 31:2092–2097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nateglinide (Starlix). Summary of product characteristics. 2001. NovartisGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horton ES, Clinkingbeard C, Gatlin M, Foley J, Mallows S, Shen S (2000) Nateglinide alone and in combination with metformin improves glycemic control by reducing mealtime glucose levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 23:1660–1665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shakir S (2002) Prescription-event monitoring. In: Mann RD, Andrews E (eds) Pharmacovigilance. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shakir S (2004) Causality and correlation in pharmacovigilance. In: Talbot J, Waller P (eds) Stephens’ detection of new adverse drug reactions, 5th edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 329–343Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    CIOMS, WHO (2002) International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Royal College of Physicians of London (1996) Guidelines on the practice of ethics committees in medical research involving human subjects, 3. Royal College of Physicians of LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Multi-centre research ethics committees guidance notes (2000) Examples of enquiries and surveys in the public interest where no reference to a research ethics committee is necessary. Appendix C;21Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin RM, Kapoor KV, Wilton LV et al (1998) Underreporting of suspected adverse drug reactions to newly marketed (“black triangle”) drugs in general practice: observational study. Br Med J 317(7151):119–120Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    BUPA’s Health Information Team (2005) Diabetes Type 2. Web address: http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/diabetes2.html
  11. 11.
    Patient UK (2005) Diabetes Type 2. Web address: http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/23068721/
  12. 12.
    Williams G (1994) Management of non-insulin dependent diabetes. Lancet 343:95–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horton ES, Foley JE, Shen SG, Baron MA (2004) Efficacy and tolerability of initial combination therapy with nateglinide and metformin in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin 20:883–889PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parke Davis (2005) Atorvastatin (LipitorTM). Summary of product characteristics, March 2005Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Merck Pharmaceuticals (2005) Metformin (Glucophage). Summary of product characteristics, April 2005Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Twaites
    • 1
  • L. V. Wilton
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. Layton
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. A. W. Shakir
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Drug Safety Research UnitSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.University of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations