TY - JOUR
T1 - The Infamous, Famous Sulfonylureas and Cardiovascular Safety
T2 - Much Ado About Nothing?
AU - Pop, Laurentiu M.
AU - Lingvay, Ildiko
N1 - Funding Information:
Ildiko Lingvay reports grants and other from NIH; grants, nonfinancial support, and other from NovoNordisk; non-financial support from Boheringer Ingelheimer; grants and non-financial support from Astra Zeneca; personal fees, non-financial support, and other from Sanofi; grants from Pfizer; grants from Merck; grants from Novartis; personal fees and other from Lilly; and grants from GI Dynamics.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
PY - 2017/12/1
Y1 - 2017/12/1
N2 - Purpose of Review: Sulfonylureas (SUs) are one of the most commonly used glucose-lowering agents worldwide. While their efficacy is undisputed, their cardiovascular safety has been debated since the 1970’s. Recent Findings: With no dedicated cardiovascular studies to definitively answer this question, observational studies and meta-analyses abound and have reported divergent results, fueling the controversy. Studies that compared SUs to metformin or newer agents, like GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, suggest a difference in cardiovascular events, yet this is likely the result of beneficial effects of the latter. Studies comparing SUs to other agents have been reassuring. Summary: SUs remain a common choice of treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes due to their exceptional value. They are effective at lowering glucose and thus contributing to the prevention of microvascular complications. Weight gain and hypoglycemia are their main side effects, although less severe when compared to insulin treatment. Their cardiovascular safety will remain a controversial topic due to lack of conclusive data, but there is no definitive evidence of harm with the second-generation agents.
AB - Purpose of Review: Sulfonylureas (SUs) are one of the most commonly used glucose-lowering agents worldwide. While their efficacy is undisputed, their cardiovascular safety has been debated since the 1970’s. Recent Findings: With no dedicated cardiovascular studies to definitively answer this question, observational studies and meta-analyses abound and have reported divergent results, fueling the controversy. Studies that compared SUs to metformin or newer agents, like GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, suggest a difference in cardiovascular events, yet this is likely the result of beneficial effects of the latter. Studies comparing SUs to other agents have been reassuring. Summary: SUs remain a common choice of treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes due to their exceptional value. They are effective at lowering glucose and thus contributing to the prevention of microvascular complications. Weight gain and hypoglycemia are their main side effects, although less severe when compared to insulin treatment. Their cardiovascular safety will remain a controversial topic due to lack of conclusive data, but there is no definitive evidence of harm with the second-generation agents.
KW - Cardiovascular disease
KW - Cardiovascular safety
KW - Healthcare cost
KW - Ischemic preconditioning
KW - Sulphonylurea
KW - Type 2 diabetes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032219048&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032219048&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11892-017-0954-4
DO - 10.1007/s11892-017-0954-4
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29063276
AN - SCOPUS:85032219048
SN - 1534-4827
VL - 17
JO - Current Diabetes Reports
JF - Current Diabetes Reports
IS - 12
M1 - 124
ER -