Advertisement

Current Diabetes Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp 373–377 | Cite as

Are sulfonylureas passé?

  • Jennifer B. GreenEmail author
  • Mark N. Feinglos
Article

Abstract

Sulfonylureas and similarly acting rapid insulin secretagogues have long been available to manage type 2 diabetes. These agents have a well understood mechanism of action and are in large part well tolerated. However, sulfonylurea therapy is unlikely to sustain adequate long-term glycemic control and has potential side effects, including hypoglycemia and weight gain. Additional concerns exist regarding detrimental effects of certain sulfonylureas on ischemic preconditioning and cardiac outcomes. Fortunately, newer agents such as glimepiride appear less likely to adversely affect the myocardium. These agents can often be used successfully as one component of combination therapy for diabetes management.

Keywords

Metformin Hypoglycemia Glycemic Control Sulfonylurea Exenatide 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    CDC’s Diabetes Program: Data & Trends — Prevalence of Diabetes. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/ national/.gpersons.htm. Accessed June 30, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DeFronzo RA: Pharmacologic therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 1999, 131:281–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study 16. Overview of 6 years’ therapy of type II diabetes: a progressive disease. U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group [no authors listed]. Diabetes 1995, 44:1249–258.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rendell M: The role of sulphonylureas in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Drugs 2004, 64:1339–1358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riddle MC: Glycemic management of type 2 diabetes: an emerging strategy with oral agents, insulins, and combinations. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2005, 34:77–98. Data from multiple clinical trials suggest that combinations of insulin secretagogues, insulin-sensitizing agents, and insulin are often necessary to adequately control glycemia in type 2 diabetes. This paper outlines the rationale for and effectiveness of such strategies in diabetes management.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krentz AJ, Bailey CJ: Oral antidiabetic agents. Drugs 2005, 65:385–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Inzucchi SE: Oral antihyperglycemic therapy for type 2 diabetes. JAMA 2002, 287:360–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morello CM, Edelman SV: Exenatide. Practical Diabetology 2006, 25:6–18.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holst JJ: Glucagon-like peptide-1: from extract to agent. Diabetologia 2006, 49:253–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mest HJ, Mentlein R: Dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitors as new drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2005, 48:616–620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group [no authors listed]. Lancet 1998, 352:837–853.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Putnam WS, Andersen DK, Jones RS, et al.: Selective Potentiation of insulin-mediated glucose disposal in normal dogs by the sulfonylurea glipizide. J Clin Invest 1981, 67:1016–1023.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bell DS: Practical considerations and guidelines for dosing sulfonylureas as monotherapy or combination therapy. Clin Ther 2004, 26:1714–1727. This review article provides a comprehensive overview of sulfonylurea mechanism of action, effectiveness, side effects, and rationale for use.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burge MR, Sood V, Sobhy TA, et al.: Sulphonylureainduced hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review. Diabetes Obes Metab 1999, 1:199–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosak C: The pathophysiologic basis of efficacy and clinical experience with the new oral antidiabetic agents. J Diabetes Complications 2002, 16:123–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sonnenberg GE, Garg DC, Weidler DJ, et al.: Short-term comparison of once-versus twice-daily administration of glimepiride in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Ann Pharmacother 1997, 31:671–676.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simonson DC, Kourides IA, Feinglos MN, et al.: Efficacy, safety, and dose-response characteristics of glipizide gastrointestinal therapeutic system on glycemic control and insulin secretion in NIDDM: results of two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Diabetes Care 1997, 20:597–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis SN: The role of glimepiride in the effective management of type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications 2004, 18:367–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turner RC, Cull CA, Frighi V, et al.: Glycemic control with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: progressive requirement for multiple therapies (UKPDS 49). JAMA 1999, 281:2005–2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldner MG, Knatterud GL, Prout TE: Effects of hypoglycemic agents on vascular complications in patients with adult-onset diabetes. 3. Clinical implications of UGDP results. JAMA 1971, 218:1400–1410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rao SV, Bethel MA, Feinglos MN: Treatment of diabetes mellitus: Implications of the use of oral agents. Am Heart J 1999, 138:334–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    American diabetes association policy statement: the UGDP controversy [no authors listed]. Diabetes Care 1979, 2:1-3.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garratt KN, Brady PA, Hassinger NL, et al.: Sulfonylurea drugs increase early mortality in patients with diabetes mellitus after direct angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998, 33:119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meier JJ, Gallwitz B, Schmidt WE, et al.: Is impairment of ischaemic preconditioning by sulfonylurea drugs clinically important? Heart 2004, 90:9–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cleveland JC, Meldrum DR, Cain BS, et al.: Oral sulfonylurea hypoglycemic agents prevent ischemic preconditioning in human myocardium. Circulation 1997, 96:29–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee TM, Chou TF: Impairment of myocardial protection in type 2 diabetic patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003, 88:531–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group [no authors listed]. Lancet 1998, 352:854–865.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Charpentier G: Oral combination therapy for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2002, 18:S70-S76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buse JB, Fineman MS, Henry RR, et al.: Effects of exenatide (exendin-4) on glycemic control over 30 weeks in sulfonylurea-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004, 27:2628–2635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baggio LL, Drucker DJ: Therapeutic approaches to preserve islet mass in type 2 diabetes. Annu Rev Med 2006, 57:265–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Riddle MC: Editorial: sulfonylureas differ in effects on ischemic preconditioning-is it time to retire glyburide? J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003, 88:528–530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke University Medical Center, Division of EndocrinologyDUMCDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations