Drugs

, Volume 65, Issue 3, pp 385–411 | Cite as

Oral Antidiabetic Agents

Current Role in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Review Article

Abstract

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a progressive and complex disorder that is difficult to treat effectively in the long term. The majority of patients are overweight or obese at diagnosis and will be unable to achieve or sustain near normoglycaemia without oral antidiabetic agents; a sizeable proportion of patients will eventually require insulin therapy to maintain long-term glycaemic control, either as monotherapy or in conjunction with oral antidiabetic therapy. The frequent need for escalating therapy is held to reflect progressive loss of islet β-cell function, usually in the presence of obesity-related insulin resistance.

Today’s clinicians are presented with an extensive range of oral antidiabetic drugs for type 2 diabetes. The main classes are heterogeneous in their modes of action, safety profiles and tolerability. These main classes include agents that stimulate insulin secretion (sulphonylureas and rapid-acting secretagogues), reduce hepatic glucose production (biguanides), delay digestion and absorption of intestinal carbohydrate (α-glucosidase inhibitors) or improve insulin action (thiazolidinediones).

The UKPDS (United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study) demonstrated the benefits of intensified glycaemic control on microvascular complications in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes. However, the picture was less clearcut with regard to macrovascular disease, with neither sulphonylureas nor insulin significantly reducing cardiovascular events. The impact of oral antidiabetic agents on atherosclerosis — beyond expected effects on glycaemic control — is an increasingly important consideration. In the UKPDS, overweight and obese patients randomised to initial monotherapy with metformin experienced significant reductions in myocardial infarction and diabetes-related deaths. Metformin does not promote weight gain and has beneficial effects on several cardiovascular risk factors. Accordingly, metformin is widely regarded as the drug of choice for most patients with type 2 diabetes. Concern about cardiovascular safety of sulphonylureas has largely dissipated with generally reassuring results from clinical trials, including the UKPDS. Encouragingly, the recent Steno-2 Study showed that intensive target-driven, multifactorial approach to management, based around a sulphonylurea, reduced the risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications in high-risk patients. Theoretical advantages of selectively targeting postprandial hyperglycaemia require confirmation in clinical trials of drugs with preferential effects on this facet of hyperglycaemia are currently in progress. The insulin-sensitising thiazolidinedione class of antidiabetic agents has potentially advantageous effects on multiple components of the metabolic syndrome; the results of clinical trials with cardiovascular endpoints are awaited.

The selection of initial monotherapy is based on a clinical and biochemical assessment of the patient, safety considerations being paramount. In some circumstances, for example pregnancy or severe hepatic or renal impairment, insulin may be the treatment of choice when nonpharmacological measures prove inadequate. Insulin is also required for metabolic decompensation, that is, incipient or actual diabetic ketoacidosis, or non-ketotic hyperosmolar hyperglycaemia. Certain comorbidities, for example presentation with myocardial infarction during other acute intercurrent illness, may make insulin the best option.

Oral antidiabetic agents should be initiated at a low dose and titrated up according to glycaemic response, as judged by measurement of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration, supplemented in some patients by self monitoring of capillary blood glucose. The average glucose-lowering effect of the major classes of oral antidiabetic agents is broadly similar (averaging a 1–2% reduction in HbA1c), α-glucosidase inhibitors being rather less effective. Tailoring the treatment to the individual patient is an important principle. Doses are gradually titrated up according to response. However, the maximal glucose-lowering action for sulphonylureas is usually attained at appreciably lower doses (approximately 50%) than the manufacturers’ recommended daily maximum. Combinations of certain agents, for example a secretagogue plus a biguanide or a thiazolidinedione, are logical and widely used, and combination preparations are now available in some countries. While the benefits of metformin added to a sulphonylurea were initially less favourable in the UKPDS, longer-term data have allayed concern. When considering long-term therapy, issues such as tolerability and convenience are important additional considerations.

Neither sulphonylureas nor biguanides are able to appreciably alter the rate of progression of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary data suggesting that thiazolidinediones may provide better long-term glycaemic stability are currently being tested in clinical trials; current evidence, while encouraging,is not conclusive.

Delayed progression from glucose intolerance to type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals with glucose intolerance has been demonstrated with troglitazone, metformin and acarbose. However, intensive lifestyle intervention can be more effective than drug therapy, at least in the setting of interventional clinical trials. No antidiabetic drugs are presently licensed for use in prediabetic individuals.

References

  1. 1.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998; 352: 837–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Diabetes Policy Group. A desktop guide to type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Med 1999; 16: 716–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tuomilheto J. Controlling glucose and blood pressure in type 2 diabetes. BMJ 2000; 321: 394–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krentz AJ, Bailey CJ. Type 2 diabetes in practice. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2001Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adler AI. Cardiovascular risk reduction in diabetes: under-emphasized and overdue: messages from major trials. Clin Med 2001; 1: 472–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beckman JA, Creager MA, Libby P. Diabetes and atherosclerosis: epidemiology, pathophysiology and management. JAMA 2002; 287: 2570–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gray A, Clarke P, Farmer A, et al. Implementing intensive control of blood glucose concentration and blood pressure in type 2 diabetes in England: cost analysis. United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. BMJ 2002; 325: 860–3Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gaede P, Vedel P, Larsen N, et al. Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 383–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turner RC, Cull CA, Frighi V, et al. Glycemic control with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: progressive requirements for multiple therapies. JAMA 1999; 281: 2005–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evans AJ, Krentz AJ. Benefits and risks of transfer from oral antidiabetic agents to insulin in type 2 diabetes. In: Krentz AJ, editor. Drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. Auckland: Adis Books, 2000: 85–101Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seltzer HS. A summary of criticisms of the findings and conclusions of the University Group Diabetes Program. Diabetes 1972; 21: 976–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krentz AJ. Sulfonylureas in the prevention of vascular complications: from UKPDS to the ADVANCE study. Proceedings of the VIIIth European symposium on metabolism. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science International Congress Series 1253; 2003: 261–77Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Evans AJ, Krentz AJ. Glimepiride: a new sulphonylurea. Prescriber 1999; 10: 51–8Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ashcroft FM, Gribble FM. ATP-sensitive K+ channels and insulin secretion: their role in health and disease. Diabetologia 1999; 42: 903–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gribble FM, Reimann F. Pharmacological modulation of KATP channels. Biochem Soc Trans 2002; 30: 333–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rorsman P, Renstrom E. Insulin granule dynamics in pancreatic beta cells. Diabetologica 2003; 46: 1029–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Groop LC. Sulfonylureas in NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1992; 15: 1737–54Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rendell M. The role of sulfonylureas in the management of type 2 diabetes. Drugs 2004; 64(12): 1339–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bailey CJ, Day C. Antidiabetic drugs. Br J Cardiol 2003; 10: 128–36Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yki-Järvinen H. Combination therapies with insulin in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 758–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DeFronzo RA. Pharmacologic therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131: 281–303Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lebovitz HE. Insulin secretagogues: old and new. Diabetes Revs 1999; 7: 139–53Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krentz AJ, Ferner RE, Bailey CJ. Comparative tolerability profiles of oral antidiabetic agents. Drug Saf 1994; 11: 223–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krentz AJ, Boyle PJ, Justice K, et al. Successful treatment of severe refractory sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia with octreotide. Diabetes Care 1993; 16: 184–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilson SH, Kennedy FP, Garratt KN. Optimisation of the management of patients with coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Drugs Aging 2001; 18: 325–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schernthaner G, Grimaldi A, Di Mario U, et al. GUIDE study: double-blind comparison of once-daily gliclazide MR and glimepiride in type 2 diabetic patients. Eur J Clin Invest 2004; 34: 535–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Landgraf R. Meglitinide analogues in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Drugs Aging 2000; 17(5): 411–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dornhorst A. Insulotropic meglitinide analogues. Lancet 2001; 358: 1709–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davies M. Nateglinide: better post-prandial glucose control. Prescriber 2002; 13: 17–27Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Qiao Q, Tuomilehto J, Borch-Johnsen K. Post-challenge hyperglycaemia is associated with premature death and macrovascular complications. Diabetologia 2002; 46 Suppl. 1: M17–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lebovitz HE. α-Glucosidase inhibitors as agents in the treatment of diabetes. Diabetes Revs 1998; 6: 132–45Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chiasson JL, Josse RG, Gomis R, et al. Acarbose for the prevention of diabetes mellitus: the STOP-NIDDM randomised trial. STOP-NIDDM Trial Research Group. Lancet 2002; 359: 2072–7Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Holman RR, Cull CA, Turner RC. A randomised double-blind trial of acarbose in type 2 diabetes shows improved glycemic control over 3 years (UK Prospective Diabetes Study 44). Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 960–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chiasson J-L, Josse RG, Gomis R, et al. Acarbose treatment and the risk of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in patients with impaired glucose tolerance: the STOP-NIDDM trial. The STOP-NIDDM Trial Research Group. JAMA 2003; 290: 486–94Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scheen A. Is there a role for alpha-glucosidase inhibitors in the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus? Drugs 2003; 63(10): 933–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Reaven GM. Role of insulin resistance in human disease. Diabetes 1988; 37: 1595–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Krentz AJ. Insulin resistance. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ginsberg HN. Insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease. J Clin Invest 2000; 106: 453–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Campbell IW. Antidiabetic drugs past and future: will improving insulin resistance benefit cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus? Drugs 2000; 60(5): 1017–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bailey CJ, Turner RC. Metformin. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 574–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kirpichnikov D, McFarlane SI, Sowers JR. Metformin: an update. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 25–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cusi K, DeFronzo RA. Metformin: a review of its metabolic effects. Diabetes Rev 1998; 6: 89–131Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhou G, Myers R, Li Y, et al. Role of AMP-activated protein kinase in the mechanism of action of metformin. J Clin Invest 2001; 108: 1167–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Winder WW, Hardie DG. AMP-activated protein kinase, a metabolic master switch: possible roles in type 2 diabetes. Am J Physiol 1999; 277: E1–E10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lord JM, Flight IHK, Norman RJ. Metformin in polycystic ovary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2003; 327: 951–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Howlett HCS, Bailey CJ. A risk-benefit assessment of metformin in type 2 diabetes mellitus. In: Krentz AJ, editor. Drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. Auckland: Adis Books, 2000: 61–76Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    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: 854–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    The Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism: Diabetes Trials Unit. UK Prospective Diabetes Study [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/ukpds/index.html [Accessed 2004 Nov 23]
  49. 49.
    Hermann LS, Lindberg G, Lindblad U, et al. Efficacy, effectiveness and safety of sulphonylurea-metformin combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2002; 4: 296–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Johnson JA, Majumdar SR, Simpson SH, et al. Decreased mortality associated with sulfonylurea monotherapy in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 2244–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction of the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sulkin T, Bosman D, Krentz AJ. Contraindications to metformin therapy in patients with NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 925–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Holt HB, Krentz AJ. Metabolic emergencies in type 2 diabetes. In: Goldstein B, Müller-Wieland D, editors. Textbook of type 2 diabetes. London: Martin Dunitz, 2003: 183–98Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lalau J-D, Race J-M. Metformin and lactic acidosis in diabetic humans. Diabetes Obes Metab 2000; 2: 131–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Day C. Thiazolidinediones: a new class of antidiabetic drugs. Diabetic Med 1999; 16: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Krentz AJ, Bailey CJ, Melander A. Thiazolidinediones for type 2 diabetes. BMJ 2000; 321: 252–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rosen ED, Spiegelman BM. PPAR-γ: a nuclear regulator of metabolism, differentiation, and cell growth. J Biol Chem 2001; 276: 37731–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fasshauer M, Paschke R. Regulation of adipocytokines and insulin resistance. Diabetologia 2003; 46: 1594–1603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Baldwin SJ, Clarke SE, Chenery RJ. Characterisation of the cytochrome P450 enzymes involved in the in vitro metabolism of rosiglitazone. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 424–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bailey CJ, Day C, Krentz AJ. Nice timing for glitazones. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis 2003; 3: 366–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Buch HN, Baskar V, Barton DM, et al. Combination of insulin and thiazolidinedione therapy in massively obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetic Med 2002; 19: 572–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nesto RW, Bell D, Bonow RO, et al. Thiazolidinedione use, fluid retention, and congestive heart failure: a consensus statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association. Circulation 2003; 108: 2941–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Parulkar AA, Pendergrass ML, Granda-Ayala R, et al. Nonhypoglycemic effects of thiazolidinediones. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 61–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yki-Järvinen H. Thiazolidinedions. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1106–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Marten FMAC, Visseren FLJ, Lemay J, et al. Metabolic and additional vascular effects of thiazolidinediones. Drugs 2002; 62(10): 1463–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Buchanan TA, Xiang AH, Peters RK, et al. Preservation of pancreatic beta-cell function and prevention of type 2 diabetes by pharmacological treatment of insulin resistance in high-risk hispanic women. Diabetes 2002; 51: 2796–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bell DSH. B-cell rejuvenation with thiazolidinediones. Am J Med 2003; 115(8A): 20–23SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Roberts AW, Thomas A, Rees A, et al. Peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-γ agonists in atherosclerosis: current evidence and future directions. Curr Opin Lipidol 2003; 14: 567–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schoonjans K, Auwerx J. Thiazolidinediones: an update. Lancet 2000; 355: 1008–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Inzucchi SE. Oral antihyperglycemic therapy for type 2 diabetes. JAMA 2002; 287: 360–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kendall H. Trends in prescribing of drugs used to treat diabetes. Prescriber 2003; 14(24): 38–9Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cuthbertson D, Leese G. Managing type 2 diabetes: oral antidiabetic drugs. Prescriber 2003; 14(13): 47–53Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bell DSH. Type 2 diabetes mellitus: what is the optimal treatment regimen? Am J Med 2004; 116(5A): 23S–9SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kaufman FR. Type 2 diabetes mellitus in children and youth: a new epidemic. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2002; 15 Suppl. 2: 737–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Huizar JF, Gonzalez LA, Alderman J, et al. Sulfonylureas attenuate electrocardiographic ST-segment elevation during a myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42: 1017–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southampton University Hospitals NHS TrustSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Life and Health Sciences, Aston Pharmacy SchoolAston UniversityBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations