|

 

Comparative safety and efficacy of glibenclamide in the elderly

EML Section 18.5 – Insulin and other medicines used for diabetes
Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Glibenclamide in the Elderly
Should elderly patients with type 2 diabetes be treated with glibenclamide (glyburide) or different
HARINDER CHAHAL
For WHO Secretariat Table of Contents

List of Tables

Acronyms and Abbreviations:

BNF – British National Formulary
CI – Confidence interval CV – Cardiovascular DM – Diabetes Mellitus EC – Expert Committee EML – Essential Medicines List FDA – Food and Drug Administration HbA1c – Glycosylated hemoglobin LMICs - Low- and Middle-Income Countries MSH – Management Sciences for Health NEML – National Essential Medicines List RCT – Randomized controlled trial SFU – Sulfonylureas SRA – Stringent Regulatory Authority TGA – Therapeutics Goods Administration UK – United Kingdom US – United States of America USD – United States dollar WHO – World Health Organization Executive Summary
This application reviewed the comparative safety and efficacy of 4 second generation
sulfonylureas (2nd generation SFUs) for the treatment of type 2 non-insulin dependent diabetes in
elderly patients for the Essential Medicines List for adults as requested by the 18th WHO Expert
Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines. The medications reviewed included
the 2nd generation SFU currently on the EML – glibenclamide, also called glyburide. This
medication was compared with three other 2nd generation SFUs commonly used and widely
available worldwide – gliclazide, glimepiride and glipizide. The application also analyzed the
cost of the four medications as well as their availability of NEMLs of 40 low and middle-income
countries.
Compared with other sulfonylureas, glyburide has been associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, especially in the elderly. Evidence show the increased relative risk of hypoglycemia and the resulting harm with use of glibenclamide versus any of the other second generation SFUs, particularly gliclazide and glipizide. The data unequivocally recommends against the use of glibenclamide in elderly patients. A retrospective, cohort study of more than 13,000 patients concluded that glyburide had the highest rate of hypoglycemia at 16.9 per 1000 person-years, compared to all other SFUs. The authors also concluded that the physiological changes associated with increasing age such as declining renal and hepatic function, as well as polypharmacy and concurrent illnesses additionally predispose the elderly to hypoglycemia; this predisposition is further compounded by use of glibenclamide. Another retrospective, cohort study of more than 33,000 patients in the UK showed that the risk of hypoglycemia was higher with glibenclamide when compared to other SFUs. The authors also concluded that patients older than 65 years, were at higher risk of hypoglycemia versus adults less than 65 years of age with a relative risk of 1.27 (CI 1.06-1.51). A 2007 meta-analysis of 21 studies showed that there is an increased risk of hypoglycemia with glibenclamide by 52% than with other insulin secreting anti-diabetes therapies and 83% higher risk compared to other SFUs. The same meta-analysis also showed that based on HbA1c results, compared to other SFUs, including gliclazide, glimepiride and glipizide, glibenclamide did not have an increased efficacy in treatment of diabetes. Based on a review of safety, efficacy, cost and NEML availability of glibenclamide, gliclazide, glipizide and glimepiride, the recommendations are as follow: 1. Glibenclamide 2.5mg and 5mg tablets should remain on the EML with age restriction recommending against use in patients older than 6o years of age. 2. Gliclazide 80mg tablet should be added to the EML for use in the elderly with type 2 diabetes, with a square box designation so as to indicate that other second general sulfonylureas (other than glibenclamide) are an acceptable alternative. Background and Rationale for the review
Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease that occurs when the pancreas does not produce enough insulin leading to hyperglycemia and requires life-long pharmacological and non-pharmacological management to prevent complications such as cardiovascular disease, retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the most common form of diabetes comprising of 90% to 95% of all diabetes cases. An estimated 346 million people worldwide live with diabetes, resulting in 3.4 million deaths in 2004, with more than 80% of these deaths occurring in low- and middle income countries. The fastest growing age group of people with diabetes is between 40 to 59 years. The worldwide 2011 estimated prevalence of diabetes is the elderly population (60 years and above) is between 15% to 20%. It is projected that the death burden from diabetes will double by the year 2030 to around 7 million. According to the 2010 WHO report on NCDs, the estimated prevalence of diabetes in 2008 was about 8% for men and women in low-income countries and 10% for both sexes in upper-middle-income countries with the highest global prevalence of diabetes in Eastern Mediterranean Region and Region of the Americas. The high prevalence rate is of concern since diabetes in the leading cause of renal failure, visual impairment and blindness and increases the risk of lower limb amputation by at least 10 times. Additionally, patients living with diabetes may need 2 to 3 fold more health-care resources compared to people without diabetes and diabetes care may require allocation of up to 15% of national health care budgets. Furthermore, given the close link between poverty and NCDs, the NCDs impose a disproportionate burden on low and middle income countries (LMICs). The 18th WHO Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines (18th EC) in 2011 requested a review concerning the safety of sulfonylureas, a class of oral anti-diabetic agents, in the elderly patient population, to determine if updates to the EML are needed. A review of safe use of medications in the elderly population is of great importance. A 12-month retrospective cohort study of elderly patients on Medicare (Federally funded healthcare plan) in the US identified medication related adverse event rate of 50.1 per 1000 person years with a preventable rate of 13.7 per 1000 person years. The study identified 27.6% of the ADEs were preventable, while 58% of these errors occurred due to improper prescribing and 10.9% were related to anti-diabetic medications. Currently, the EML contains one second generation sulfonylurea, glibenclamide, also known as glyburide, for treatment of adults, including the elderly, living with diabetes. This document will conduct comparative analysis of four second generation SFUs – glimepiride, glipizide, gliclazide and glibenclamide – to determine their safety and efficacy in the elderly. The review will also 1) conduct a cost-comparison of these agents, 2) provide an overview of the current availability of the three medications in questions in LMICs by surveying NEMLs of 40 nations, and 3) provide information on regulatory status of these agents in the US, UK and Australia. The regulatory status in US, UK and Australia was selected as an initial reference point given the stringent review and approval process required for therapeutic approval by these agencies and due to the availability of the databases in English. Glimepiride, glipizide and glibenclamide were selected for review due to their approval for use in DM by three SRAs. However, gliclazide is also reviewed due to the extensive use and availability of this agent worldwide; gliclazide is approved for use in diabetes by UK and Australia SRAs, but it is not approved by the FDA in the US. All four medications are off-patent. Search Methods
1. Methods for compiling evidence on safety and efficacy
The purpose of this review was to present comparative safety and efficacy information on four sulfonylureas (anti-diabetes medications); therefore, the search was focused to answer this question. The four agents under review: glimepiride, glipizide, gliclazide and glibenclamide (glyburide). The Cochrane library and PubMed databases were searched for systematic reviews or meta-analysis, clinical studies, observational studies and literature reviews evaluating or presenting information on safety and efficacy (either comparative or placebo-controlled) of glimepiride, glipizide, gliclazide and glibenclamide (glyburide) up to October 2012. The following strategy was employed: 1. Glibenclamide compared to glimepiride, glipizide, and/or gliclazide for safety and/or 2. Glimepiride compared to glipizide, gliclazide and/or glibenclamide (glyburide) for safety and/or efficacy. 3. Glipizide compared to glimepiride, gliclazide and/or glibenclamide (glyburide) for safety and/or efficacy. 4. Gliclazide compared to glimepiride, glipizide, and/or glibenclamide (glyburide) for safety and/or efficacy. 5. Glimepiride, glipizide, gliclazide and/or glibenclamide (glyburide) compared to placebo for safety and/or efficacy. 6. The term ‘hypoglycemia' was also used as a measure of comparative safety. 7. Only standard, regular, original or immediate release tablet/capsule formulations were reviewed for pharmacokinetic, safety or efficacy; modified or extended release or other formulations were excluded from the review. 8. The search was limited to publications in English. 9. A title review was conducted to identify relevant results followed by an abstract review. The online databases of three stringent regulatory authorities were also searched for pertinent information: FDA (United States), TGA (Australia), and MHRA (UK). Other online databases searched were: British National Formulary, and Micromedex and Lexi-Comp (clinical pharmacy databases). All SRAs and databases were selected based on their online availability in English. The following search terms were used: - glimepiride, glipizide, gliclazide, glibenclamide, glyburide, diabeta, diamicron, glucotrol, amaryl, sulfonylurea, sulphonylurea, hypoglycemia, hypoglycaemia, efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, elderly, adults, older adults. - [AND / OR] terms were used to search for comparative trials, studies and reviews. 2. Methods for survey of medication availability on NEMLs
The WHO Essential Medicines website was used to reference NEMLs of 40 LMICs to determine how many of the surveyed nations had four medications in question on their NEML. The NEML review was limited to nations that published their respective NEMLs in English, French or Spanish. 3. Methods for cost comparison
MSH 2011 International Drug Price Indicator Guide was referenced first to obtain median buyer price per unit. When the cost of a medication was not available from the MSH guide, US market based prices for prescription medications were used for comparison using an online database, Lexi-Comp. 4. Definition of an elderly person
For the purposes of this review, the definition of elderly was selected based on initial literature review. In the reviewed literature, the age at which an individual may be considered ‘old' or ‘elderly' was variable. Some of the literature included in this review considers individuals older than 60 years of age as elderly, while other publications used 65 years as the cutoff age. Hence, to provide a comprehensive analysis, this review considers 60 years of age and older as the definition of an elderly person. III. Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic profile of sulfonylureas
used in diabetes
Sulfonylureas aim to reduce diabetes associated hyperglycemia by acting on the pancreatic beta-cell channels (ATP-K channel) to facilitate insulin secretion. categorizes the various PK parameters of the three SFUs under consideration in this review. The primary difference between glibenclamide and the other SFUs is the prolonged half-life of glibenclamide at 10 hours compared average half-life of 5 hours for glimepiride and 2 to 5 hours for glipizide. The PK parameters of half-life, elimination and volume of distribution are also increased to a greater extent for glibenclamide compared to glimepiride and glipizide. However, all sulfonylureas are hepatically metabolized and renally cleared, therefore, are subject to slower elimination in the elderly due to the age-associated decrease in renal function. Furthermore, compared to glipizide or glimepiride, glibenclamide has a higher affinity for pancreatic beta-cell SFU receptors, greater propensity for accumulation of active metabolites and greater penetration of pancreatic tissue. Glibenclamide can also increase insulin sensitivity greater than other SFUs, particularly when compared to gliclazide. These factors combined with the long half-life, can lead to increased insulin release for longer periods after cessation of the medication, especially in decreased renal functions, as can be case in the elderly. Table 1 - Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic profile of Glibenclamide, Glipizide, Glimepiride and Gliclazide
Second Generation Sulfonylureas
PK/PD Property
Glimepiride
Glipizide
Gliclazide
Duration of Action
Volume of Distribution
Protein Binding
Metabolism
Hepatic, extensive Hepatic, extensive Hepatic, extensive Hepatic, extensive Absorption (Bioavailability)
Half-life
Time to Peak Concentration
Peak Response
Excretion
Dose adjustment in renal
impairment
Yes, titrate appropriately Dose adjustment in hepatic
impairment
Dose adjustment in Elderly
Yes, Initiate with conservative dose; for glibenclamide, do NOT titrate to PK changes in Elderly
Slower elimination; No significant differences in PK properties Likely increase half- higher volume of between younger and older adults.
IV. Cost, Regulatory and Current NEML Availability Evaluation:
provides an overview of the cost per unit, per 30 units and estimated monthly cost
of treatment with medications under review in US dollars. Glibenclamide and gliclazide prices
are from the 2011 MSH International Drug Price Indicator Guide (MSH Guide). Glipizide
and glimepiride pricing is not available in the MSH guide, therefore, US market based pricing is
listed from an online database, Lexi-Comp – this provides costs of medications as they pertain to
US markets for comparison only and are not generalizable or indicative of global medication
prices. However, gliclazide is not registered in the US, therefore, no US market based
pricing is available. It was not possible to compare gliclazide prices to UK or Australia as these
systems operate on nationalized healthcare with negotiated prescription medication prices. US
based Glibenclamide price is also listed for comparison. According to the MSH Guide, the
monthly cost of gliclazide (with maximum daily dosing) at USD 2.83 is 3.3 times higher than the
maximum daily dose price of glibenclamide at USD 0.85. However, it is important to note that
these prices are based on the median buyer prices and may not reflect prices for procurement
systems or patients.also shows the regulatory status of medications in the US
(FDA), UK (MHRA) and Australia (TGA).
evaluates the availability of glibenclamide, glipizide, glimepiride and gliclazide across 40 low and middle-income countries based on the NEML for each nation. The countries for this review were selected from the WHO website hosting NEMLs. Most widely available second generation sulfonylurea was glibenclamide with a overall listing on 39 of the 40 NEMLs (97.5%); followed by gliclazide and glipizide, available on 50% and 27.5% of the NEMLs, respectively. The least available medication was glimepiride at 17.5%. It is logical that most nations would have glibenclamide as an option diabetes treatment given the medications listing on the WHO EML – a list that many nations use as a guide or a starting point to their own NEMLs. However, it was surprising that many nations had also added gliclazide (50%) and glipizide (27.5%) to their NEMLs. Furthermore, South Africa has gliclazid listed as an alternative to glibenclamide for the elderly and for patients with renal impairment. Table 2 - Comparative Cost Chart and Drug Approval by US, UK and Australian Regulatory Agencies
Medication (Name
Cost per unit
Cost/30 tablets
Daily Maximum
Monthly cost based on
and Strength)
maximum dosing (USD)
Approved
Approved
Approved
International Drug Price Indicator Guide, 2011 (Management Science for Health)
Glibenclamide 5mg
Glipizide 5mg*
Glimepiride 2mg*
Gliclazide 80mg
Prices from Lexi-Comp Online (US market based prices)
Glibenclamide 5mg
Glipizide 5mg
Glimepiride 2mg
Gliclazide 80mg
*MSH Guide does not provide median buyer prices for glipizide or glimepiride; Gliclazide is not registered in the US, therefore, no prices were
compared.
Table 3 - Sulfonylureas listed on selected NEMLs
Glibenclamide Gliclazide
Glipizide
Glimepiride
Central African Republic Democratic Republic of Congo Dominican Republic 11 Georgia
14 Indonesia
16 Honduras
17 Kyrgyzstan
18 Lesotho
19 Malaysia
21 Montenegro
22 Morocco
23 Namibia
24 Nigeria
26 Pakistan
27 Paraguay
28 Republic of Moldova
29 Rwanda
30 Senegal
31 South Africa
32 Sri Lanka
33 Syrian Arab Republic
34 Thailand
35 Tunisia
37 United Republic of Tanzania
38 Vanuatu
40 Zimbabwe
Total # of surveyed countries with identified
medications on the NEML
Comparative Safety and Efficacy Evaluation
For the treatment of diabetes, second generation sulfonylureas (SFUs) are one of the mainstays of therapy for most patients; SFUs primarily act by increasing release of insulin from the pancreas to relieve the hyperglycemia associated with diabetes. SFUs are generally well tolerated as a class; however, as discussed in Section III, pharmacokinetic differences within the agents can have significant clinical implications for patients. The pharmacokinetic differences are amplified and particularly noticeable in the elderly patient. One of the most common side effects of sulfonylureas is hypoglycemia, that if left untreated can lead to altered mental status, seizures, coma or death. An estimated 20% of the patients on an SFU experience hypoglycemia within a 6-month period. Aging and pharmacokinetic changes predispose the elderly to experiencing such side effects at a higher rate. Therefore, for the purposes of evaluating safety of the three SFUs under review, the primary outcome of safety in the searched literature considered was hypoglycemia. Efficacy of sulfonylureas has been evaluated using various criteria – primarily fasting and post-prandial plasma glucose levels and a reduction in HbA1c at the end of the treatment period. Therefore, for the purposes of evaluating efficacy of the four SFUs under review, the primary outcomes of efficacy in the searched literature considered were both plasma glucose levels (fasting and post-prandial) and HbA1c. Appendix A below summarizes the literature review of trials, retrospective studies and systematic reviews that have evaluated both efficacy and safety of glibenclamide (glyburide), chlorpropamide and glipizide. 1. Evidence for Comparative Safety
Several studies have evaluated the comparative safety of SFUs in adults and specifically in the elderly (Appendix A). Four of the most pertinent studies are discussed here and summarized in A review of 57 cases of glibenclamide associated hypoglycemia by Asplund et al, showed that coma or altered mental status was the most common clinical presentation of serious hypoglycemia. Twenty-four patients had long lasting (protracted) hypoglycemia lasting between 12 and 72 hours despite resuscitation attempts, resulting in 10 deaths. A retrospective, cohort study of more than 13,000 patients by Shorr et al, looked at risk of hypoglycemia with six different SFUs in the elderly, including glipizide and glibenclamide (glyburide). The reviewers concluded that glyburide had the highest rate of hypoglycemia at 16.9 per 1000 person-years, compared to all other SFUs. When compared to glipizide, relative risk of severe hypoglycemia in glibenclamide patients was 1.9 (CI 1.2-2.9). The authors also concluded that the physiological changes associated with increasing age such as declining renal and hepatic function, as well as polypharmacy and concurrent illnesses additionally predispose the elderly to hypoglycemia; this predisposition is further compounded by use of glibenclamide. Another retrospective, cohort study of more than 33,000 patients in the UK by van Staa et al, compared risk of hypoglycemia with glibenclamide, gliclazide, chlorpropamide, tolbutamide and glipizide. The study showed that the risk of hypoglycemia was higher with glibenclamide when compared to other SFUs. The relative risks for hypoglycemia with gliclazide and glipizide compared with glibenclamide were 0.74 (CI 0.59-0.92) and 0.60 (CI 0.40-0.92), respectively. The authors also concluded that elderly patients, older than 65 years, were at higher risk of experiencing hypoglycemia (annual risk of 2.0%) versus adults less than 65 years of age (annual risk of 1.4%) with a relative risk of 1.27 (CI 1.06-1.51). A 2007 meta-analysis of 21 studies compared glibenclamide (glyburide) with other hypoglycemic agents, including gliclazide, chlorpropamide and glipizide. The study showed that there is an increased risk of hypoglycemia with glibenclamide by 52% than with other insulin secreting anti-diabetes therapies and 83% higher risk compared to other SFUs. shows the relative risk of hypoglycemia associated with glibenclamide versus other SFUs from 8 studies as compiled by Gangji et al in their meta-analysis. Of note, in two studies the relative risk of hypoglycemia with glipizide and gliclazide compared to glibenclamide was 2.96 (CI 0.32-27.74) and 2.23 (CI 1.08-4.59). Another study by Harrower et al, showed greater risk of hypoglycemia with glibenclamide compared to gliclazide with relative risk of 3.58 (CI 0.77-16.79). Table 4 - Four selected safety studies for glibenclamide associated hypoglycemia
Retrospective chart Coma or altered mental status was the most common clinical presentation. 22 associated
review of 57 cases to patients responded to initial treatment, 24 had protracted hypoglycaemia of 12- hypoglycaemia: a
determine risk of 72 h duration and 10 died. report on 57
hypoglycemia with glibenclamide in the Fatal outcome was observed even with small doses of glibenclamide (2.5-5 Asplund K, et al.
Contributing factors included impaired renal function, low food intake, diarrhoea, alcohol intake and interaction with other drugs. Glibenclamide, like the first-generation sulphonylureas, can cause serious, protracted and even fatal hypoglycaemic events. The crude rate (per 1000 person-years) of serious hypoglycemia was highest in eas and serious hypog
glyburide users, 16.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.2 to 19.9). lycemia in older peop
enrollees, aged 65 Users of tolbutamide, tolazamide, and glipizide had lower risks years or older, to of serious hypoglycemia than users of chlorpropamide and glyburide. Shorr RI, et al. 1996
determine risk of hypoglycemia with The adjusted relative risk of severe hypoglycemia among glyburide users, glibenclamide versus compared with glipizide users, was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.9). An increased risk of serious hypoglycemia associated with use of glyburide compared with glipizide occurred in all strata, including those defined by gender, race, nursing home residence, dose, and duration of use. Rates of hypoglycemi
Retrospective, cohort The rate and risk of hypoglycemia is higher for glibenclamide than for other a in users of
sulfonylurea patients to determine risk of The relative risks for hypoglycemia with gliclazide and glipizide compared Van Staa, et al. 1997
hypoglycemia with with glibenclamide were 0.74 (CI0.59-0.92) and 0.60 (CI 0.40-0.92), glibenclamide versus Elderly patients, age greater than 65 years, are at increased risk of hypoglycemia than younger adults. A systematic review
A systematic review Glyburide was associated with a 52% greater risk of experiencing at least one and meta-analysis of
and meta-analysis episode of hypoglycemia compared with other secretagogues (relative risk 1.52 hypoglycemia and
comparing glyburide [95% CI 1.21-1.92]) and with 83% greater risk compared with other monotherapy with sulfonylureas (RR 1.83 [95% CI 1.35-2.49]). events: a comparison
monotherapy using of glyburide with
oral secretagogues or Glyburide caused more hypoglycemia than other secretagogues and other other secretagogues
and with insulin.
Gangji AS, et al. 2007
Table 5 - Relative risk of hypoglycemia with glibenclamide compared with other SFUs
Relative Risk [95% CI]
Baba, 1983
2.23 [1.08 – 4.59] Dills, 1996
1.42 [0.94 – 2.13] Draeger, 1996
1.24 [0.90 – 1.71] Haider, 1976
5.26 [0.26 – 107.81] Hamblin, 1970
3.29 [0.72 – 15.05] Harrower, 1994
3.58 [0.77 – 16.79] Rosenstock, 1993
2.96 [0.32 – 27.74] United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, 1995
2.39 [1.78 – 3.20] CI – Confidence Interval; Data is adapted from Gangji AS, et al.

Furthermore, Lexi-Comp, an online clinical pharmacy database in the US also recommends against the use of glibenclamide in the elderly, citing: "Glyburide is not a drug of choice for the elderly because of its association with severe hypoglycemia. Rapid and prolonged hypoglycemia (>12 hours) despite hypertonic glucose injections has been reported; age, hepatic, and renal impairment are independent risk factors for hypoglycemia; dosage titration should be made at weekly intervals." And warns against titration of dose to maximum doses recommended for adults. The British National Formulary also makes a similar recommendation against glibenclamide and recommends use of shorter-acting SFUs, such as gliclazide. Finally, according to the American Geriatrics Society's Beers criteria, a project aimed at using comprehensive, systematic review and grading of the evidence on drug-related problems and adverse drug events (ADEs) to promote safe use of medications in older adults, glibenclamide should be avoided in the elderly due to greater risk of severe prolonged hypoglycemia. The quality of evidence for this is high and the strength of the recommendation is strong. 2. Evidence for Comparative Efficacy
Several studies have evaluated the comparative efficacy of glibenclamide against other second generation SFUs. Two studies comparing efficacy of glibenclamide versus gliclazide measured with reduction in fasting and post-prandial plasma glucose levels and a reduction in HbA1c, showed no differences between the two treatments. A placebo controlled study to determine efficacy of gliclazide showed significant reduction with SFU treatment in plasma glucose levels and HbA1c. Three clinical studies compared efficacy of glibenclamide and glimepiride showed similar results for reductions in plasma glucose levels or HbA1c, indicating similar efficacy. A literature review considering 1-year trials comparing safety and efficacy of glimepiride with other SFUs found no differences in efficacy, while proving glimepiride is safer with fewer hypoglycemic events. Three clinical studies that compared efficacy of glibenclamide and glipizide showed similar results for reductions in plasma glucose levels or HbA1c, indicating similar efficacy. Finally, the meta-analysis by Gangji et al, showed that based on HbA1c results, compared to other SFUs, including gliclazide, glimepiride and glipizide, glibenclamide did not have an increased efficacy in treatment of diabetes. 3. Summary of Comparative Safety and Efficacy Evidence
Compared with other sulfonylureas, glyburide has been associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, especially in the elderly. Systematic reviews discussed above provide data that show the increased relative risk of hypoglycemia and the resulting harm with use of glibenclamide versus any of the other second generation SFUs, particularly gliclazide and glipizide. The data unequivocally recommends against the use of glibenclamide in elderly patients. In fact, South Africa treatment guidelines have listed gliclazid as an alternative to glibenclamide for the treatment of elderly and for patients with renal impairment. Efficacy evidence has proven that there is no associated benefit (lower HbA1c) with the use of glibenclamide when compared with other second generation SFUs. Evidence fails to identify significant differences in the efficacy between second generation SFUs. VI. Summary and Recommendations

This report has compiled and analyzed comparative evidence for safety and efficacy of second
generation SFUs with a focus on glibenclamide (currently on EML), glimepiride, glipizide and
gliclazide. The evidence shows that glibenclamide is not a safe medication for use in the elderly
(patients older than 60 years of age). The evidence also shows that all four of these agents are
equally effective in reducing HbA1c.
For potential alternatives to glibenclamide, the availability survey of 40 LMICs based NEML review shows that availability is highest for gliclazide (50%) and glipizide (27.5%). Based on the cost i is possible to compare costs of glibenclamide and gliclazide in international arena. According to the 2011 MSH International Drug Price Indicator Guide, the potential monthly cost of gliclazide (USD 2.83) is 3.3 times higher than glibenclamide (USD 0.85). Based on a review of safety, efficacy, cost and NEML availability of glibenclamide, gliclazide, glipizide and glimepiride, the recommendations are as follow: 3. Glibenclamide 2.5mg and 5mg tablets should remain on the EML with age restriction recommending against use in patients older than 6o years of age. 4. Gliclazide 80mg tablet should be added to the EML for use in the elderly with type 2 diabetes, with a square box designation so as to indicate that other second general sulfonylureas (other than glibenclamide) are an acceptable alternative. Table 6 - Gliclazide dosing information
Medication
Initial Dose
Maximum Dose
Gliclazide
40-80 mg twice daily Maintain adequate caloric intake. 80mg tablet
Dosage of ≥160 mg should be Take with breakfast. divided into 2 equal parts for twice- daily administration Titrate based on plasma glucose levels/clinical response. Educate patient and monitor for signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia. All sulfonylureas have an increased risk of hypoglycemia in the elderly patients. Appendix A – Summary of Literature Review: Safety and Efficacy Evidence Table
Medications
Objectives
Retrospective chart To determine incidence Median age of the patients with hypoglycaemia was 75 years and 21% were 85 associated
review, 51 cases. of hypoglycemic events hypoglycaemia: a
in the elderly with use report on 57
of glibenclamide The median daily dose of glibenclamide prescribed was 10 mg both in the hypoglycaemic cases and in the prescription sample. Asplund K, et al.
Coma or disturbed consciousness was the most common clinical presentation. 22 patients responded to initial treatment, 24 had protracted hypoglycaemia of 12-72 h duration and 10 died. Fatal outcome was observed even with small doses of glibenclamide (2.5-5 mg/day). Contributing factors included impaired renal function, low food intake, diarrhoea, alcohol intake and interaction with other drugs. Glibenclamide, like the first-generation sulphonylureas, can cause serious, protracted and even fatal hypoglycaemic events. Diabetes control in
Randomized study. Hypoglycemia was defined as fasting plasma glucose of < 3.3 mmol/L (60 the elderly: a
145 patients aged > efficacy and safety of mg/dl) or a random plasma glucose of < 2.8 mmol/L (50 mg/dl), with randomized,
or = 65 years with glyburide and glipizide associated signs and symptoms. comparative study of
in elderly patients with glyburide versus
well-controlled non- Most patients in both the glyburide and glipizide groups achieved satisfactory glipizide in non-
insulin-dependent glycemic control. glyburide, 1.25 or diabetes mellitus diabetes mellitus.
No significant differences between groups in fasting plasma glucose or glipizide, 2.5 or 5 hemoglobin A1c levels at any time. Rosenstock J, et al.
Both regimens were well tolerated and were associated with a similarly low incidence of hypoglycemia. It was concluded that both glyburide and glipizide are suitable for the treatment of NIDDM in properly selected elderly patients. Pharmacokinetics and Glibenclamide To determine PK and Compared with the young subjects, the elderly subjects had slower glyburide Pharmacodynamics 5mg, single dose PD effects of glyburide absorption and smaller area under the plasma concentration-time curve from in young and elderly zero to four hours (AUC0-4). of glyburide in young
Non-diabetic, 20 and elderly
elderly (mean +/- The elderly subjects also had a lower glyburide elimination rate constant and nondiabetic
S.D. age, 65.7 +/- 5.3 higher volume of distribution and a 52% higher free fraction. years) male (n = 10) and female (n = 10) The aging process appears to affect the pharmacokinetics and Schwinghammer TL,
volunteers and 15 pharmacodynamics of glyburide. et al. 1991
young (22.3 +/- 4.5 years) male volunteers. Glipizide
Pharmacokinetics and Glipizide 5mg To determine the The mean values for Tmax (range 2.0-2.5 hours), Cmax (385-465 Pharmacodynamics effects of aging, the micrograms/l), and t1/2 (4.0-4.2 hours) were not significantly different in the effects of age,
presence of NIDDM, three populations after single doses of glipizide. diabetes, and
Ten healthy young and multiple dosing on multiple dosing.
men (under age 25), the pharmacokinetics of AUC, Cl, Vss and V area were not significantly different in the three ten healthy older men populations or at steady state, but there was a trend for AUC to be smaller and Kradjan WA, et al.
(over age 65) and 15 each of the other parameters to be increased in the older diabetics. older diabetic men The young subjects had a significantly higher free fraction (0.83%) than either of the two elderly groups (0.55-0.64%), but CI did not differ between groups. Age, diabetes, and multiple dosing appear to have little effect on the pharmacokinetics of glipizide and should have little influence on the clinical response to glipizide. Gliclazide: a
Gliclazide is well absorbed orally with a variable peak plasma concentration preliminary review of
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacokinetic and time of 0.4 to 4.8 hours. Pharmacodynamics pharmacodynamics properties of gliclazide. Volume of distribution is low ranging from 15.9L to 17.4L indicating limited properties and
tissue distribution. Plasma protein binding is high ranging from 85 to 97%. therapeutic efficacy
Gliclazide is both metabolized and renally eliminated. in diabetes
mellitus.
Half-life is variable in males and females around 8 and 11 hours, respectively.
Holmes B, et al. 1984
Glipizide
Pharmacokinetics and Glipizide 5mg To determine the The mean values for young and older subjects for time to peak concentration pharmacokinetics in
Pharmacodynamics effects of aging on the (2.1 versus 2.5 hours), peak concentrations (465 versus 399 micrograms/mL), young and elderly
pharmacokinetics of elimination half-life (4.2 versus 4.0 hours), clearance (38.8 versus 38.1 volunteers.
Ten healthy young mL/min), and distribution volume at steady state (12.5 versus 14.3 L) were not men (24.9 +/- 1.9 Kobayashi KA, et al.
years of age) and 10 healthy older men Two older individuals had a prolonged time to peak concentration (six to eight (74.4 +/- 7.9 years of There is no significant difference in the pharmacokinetics of glipizide between young and older participants. Retrospective chart Prolonged hypoglycemia - serum glucose levels of 50 mg/dl and less, for more induced prolonged
review, 13 patients, association between than 12 h in spite of treatment with periodic injections of hypertonic glucose - 68 years and older secondary to treatment with glibenclamide. hypoglycemia and use Sonnenblick M, et al.
of glibenclamide in The mean daily dose of glibenclamide was 6.7 mg. In nine patients, the elderly patients. hypoglycemia developed within 7 days of treatment. In two patients the tendency to hypoglycemia lasted for more than 60 h in spite of continuous infusion of 5% or 10% glucose. Old age is a crucial predisposing factor. Contributing factors were renal failure and congestive heart disease. Glibenclamide should be used with care in the elderly and in patients with renal or cardiac failure. Benefits and risks
Glipizide (11.9 mg) and glyburide (8.4 mg) produced similar fasting and with glyburide and
crossover trial, efficacy, benefits, and postprandial plasma glucose and HbA1c concentrations. glipizide in elderly
21 elderly patients risks of glyburide and NIDDM patients.
(mean age = 70years) glipizide in elderly A significantly higher incidence of SMBG readings less than 4.5 mM was patients with non- attributed to glyburide (11%) than glipizide (7%), p<0.05. Brodows RG, et al.
insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Both treatments proved effective for glycemic control. Both second-generation sulfonylureas are associated with a significant risk of hypoglycemia in elderly NIDDM patients. Hypoglycemia in
Nested case-control Hypoglycemia, defined as a blood glucose level less than 70 mg/dl. hospitalized patients
study, adults who incidence of and risk 19% of patients who received a sulfonylurea experienced at least one episode treated with
factors associated with of hypoglycemia: 22% received glyburide, 19% received glimepiride, and 16% sulfonylurea during received glipizide. hospitalization and hospitalized patients Deusenberry CM, et
experienced at least taking sulfonylureas. 65 years or older (odds ratio [OR] 3.07, p < 0.001) was a predictor of Cases were less likely than controls to receive glipizide (OR 0.44, p=0.005). Hospitalized patients at increased risk for sulfonylurea-related hypoglycemia were those aged 65 years or older and those with a GFR of 30 ml/minute/1.73 m(2) or lower. Sulfonylureas should be avoided or used with caution in these patients. A systematic review
A systematic Review; Sulfonylureas Glyburide was associated with a 52% greater risk of experiencing at least one and meta-analysis of
parallel, randomized, glyburide causes more episode of hypoglycemia compared with other secretagogues (relative risk 1.52 hypoglycemia and
controlled trials in hypoglycemia and [95% CI 1.21-1.92]) and with 83% greater risk compared with other people with type 2 cardiovascular events sulfonylureas (RR 1.83 [95% CI 1.35-2.49]). events: a comparison
diabetes comparing of glyburide with
secretagogues or insulin Glyburide was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events other secretagogues
monotherapy with (0.84 [0.56-1.26]), death (0.87 [0.70-1.07]), or end-of-trial weight (weighted and with insulin.
monotherapy using mean difference 1.69 kg [95% CI -0.41 to 3.80]) compared with other secretagogues or Gangji AS, et al. 2007
insulin were selected. Glyburide caused more hypoglycemia than other secretagogues and other sulfonylureas. Retrospective case To determine which Sulfonylureas (especially chlorpropamide and glyburide), either alone or with a second hypoglycemic or potentiating agent, account for 63% of all cases of a. A review of 1418
responsible for causing 86% of the hypoglycemia cases with sulfonylurea therapy were patients older Seltzer HS. 1989
than 50 years. An estimated 80% of the hypoglycemia cases omitted one or more meals. Comparative
Systematic review The relative risk for recorded hypoglycemia showed an increased risk for tolerability of
comparative tolerability glibenclamide-treated patients compared with other sulfonylureas (adjusted sulphonylureas in
of sulfonylureas relative risk versus glibenclamide: 0.74, 0.75, 0.60 for gliclazide, tolbutamide diabetes mellitus.
and glipizide, respectively). Harrower AD. 2000
Glibenclamide and chlorpropamide should be avoided in elderly patients and those with impaired renal function.
Rates of hypoglycemi
Retrospecitve, cohort A diagnosis of hypoglycemia during sulfonylurea therapy was recorded in 605 a in users of
people over 34,052 person-years of sulfonylurea therapy, which converted into sulfonylurea patietns clinical characteristics an annual risk of 1.8%. of sulfonylurea users. Van Staa, et al. 1997
To assess the risk The risk in glibenclamide users was higher than in users of other types of of hypoglycemia in sulfonylureas uses. patients treated with sulfonylureas in clinical Duration of therapy, concomitant use of insulin, sulfonylurea-potentiating or practice, and to antagonizing and concomitant use of beta-blockers were predictive of the risk characterize the risk in of developing hypoglycemia. relation to the different The rate of hypoglycemia is higher for glibenclamide than for other Symptomatic
Retrospective chart Oral hypoglycemic Hypoglycemic symptoms were experienced by 41 of 203 (20.2%) patients hypoglycemia in
review. Older adults agents, including prevalence and causes treated with sulfonylureas but in none of the 16 patients treated with metformin NIDDM patients
(age 40 to 65 years), of hypoglycemia in treated with oral
on oral hypoglycemic patients receiving oral agents, 203 patients. Hypoglycemic symptoms were experienced at least monthly in 5.9% and less frequently in 14.3% of patients. Jennings AM, et al.
The prevalence of hypoglycemic symptoms was significantly higher in patients treated with glyburide than in patients treated with gliclazide (P<0 .01) or chlorpropamide (P <0.05). The prevalence of symptoms was higher in patients taking medications in addition to OHAs (P < 0.01). Ten (24%) of the patients who experienced hypoglycemic symptoms were taking drugs that may potentiate sulfonylureas. The relatively
Retrospective chart To determine the The risk of hypoglycemia is significantly higher with glibenclamide and frequent incidence of
review in emergency chlorpropamide than with glibornuride and tolbutamide. ward patients with sulfonylurea induced severe hypoglycemia severe hypoglycemia. Advanced age proved to be a risk factor in HE: 77% of patients with HE were hypoglycemia in the
over two periods. over 69 years of age, whereas only 50% of all diabetics treated with last 25 years in
sulfonylurea preparations were in this age group. Switzerland. Results
period 2, n=116. of 2 surveys in
Further risk factors were impaired renal function (21%) and possible drug Switzerland in 1969
interactions (27%). and 1984.
Berger W, et al. 1986
Long-
The primary failure-rate in the chlorpropamide group was less (p<0.05) term comparative tri
prospective, long- clinical effectiveness al of glibenclamide a
term (2 year) study. of glibenclamide with Greater number of patients were on chlorpropamide at the end of two years nd chlorpropamide in 321, diet-failed, non-
than on glibenclamide (p<0.01). onset diabetics.
patients, 40 years and Secondary failures rates between treatment groups was not significant. older (94 patients Clarke BF, et al. 1975
Using plasma glucose levels and weight, the efficacy of the treatment at the of 2 years was similar in both groups. Hypoglycaemic episodes were more common (total 8) and severe (4 patients went into a coma) in the glibenclamide group than the chlorpropamide group (total 3, none severe). Glimepiride in type 2
Literature review In clinical studies, glimepiride was generally associated with a lower risk of diabetes mellitus:
hypoglycemia and less weight gain than other SUs. a review of
summary of available the worldwide
Results of studies suggest that glimepiride can be used in older patients and those with renal compromise. pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety There is evidence that glimepiride preserves myocardial preconditioning, a Massi-Benedetti M.
profile of glimepiride in protective mechanism that limits damage in the event of an ischemic event. the treatment of type 2 Glimepiride can be used in combination with other oral antidiabetic agents or insulin to optimize glycemic control. Based on the evidence, glimepiride is an effective and well-tolerated once-daily antidiabetic drug. Effects of glimepiride
Open, uncontrolled To examine the efficacy HbA1c was reduced from 8.4% at baseline to 7.1% after 4 months and 6.9% on HbA(1c) and body
surveillance study, after 1 and 1.5 years (P<0.0001). weight in Type 2
284 patients for Patients received diabetes: results of a
Treatment with glimepiride also resulted in significant and stable weight loss 1.5-year follow-up
glimepiride once relative to baseline, with the exception of patients with a body mass index of daily for 1.5 years. Weitgasser R, et al.
Once daily glimepiride provides effective glycemic control, and may have advantages over other sulfonylureas, because it exhibits weight neutralizing/reducing effects in patients with Type 2 diabetes Glimepiride. A
Literature review To provide a summary Glimepiride has fewer and less severe effects on cardiovascular variables than review of its use in
of efficacy and safety of glibenclamide (glyburide). the management of
glimepiride use is type type 2 diabetes
2 diabetes patients. Pharmacokinetics are mainly unaltered in elderly patients or those with renal mellitus.
or liver disease. Langtry HD, et al.
Glimepiride was similar in efficacy to glibenclamide and glipizide in 1-year studies. Glimepiride appears to reduce blood glucose more rapidly than glipizide over the first few weeks of treatment. Glimepiride and gliclazide were compared in patients with good glycemic control at baseline in a 14-week study that noted no differences between their effects. Pooled clinical trial data suggest that glimepiride may have a lower incidence of hypoglycemia than glibenclamide, particularly in the first month of treatment. The efficacy and
To determine efficacy safety of glimepiride
controlled trial. 332 HbA1c values (% ± SD) decreased during the study period. in the management of
patients, fasting for glimepiride use in type Reported hypoglycemic events ranged from 25 (in 13 subjects) in pre- type 2 diabetes in
2 diabetic patients who Ramadan to 15 (in 11 subjects) during Ramadan and 8 (in 8 subjects) in post- Muslim patients
observer Ramadan. Ramadan periods. during Ramadan.
Results show that the efficacy and safety of glimepiride in type 2 diabetic patients is not altered during the month-long daylight fast of Ramadan. The Glimepiride in
Ramadan (GLIRA)
During Ramadan the incidence of hypoglycemic episodes was 3% in newly Study Group. 2005
diagnosed patients and 3.7% in already-treated patients. These figures were similar to the pre- and post-Ramadan periods. A prospective trial of
No hypoglycemia was observed during 156 fasting studies. risk factors for
randomized, double- hypoglycemic effects of blind clinical trial. 52 maximum doses of Plasma glucose level was decreased [88 mg/dL] for a 20-mg dose of glyburide hypoglycemia in type
sulfonylurea-treated 1 week of placebo, once-daily second- vs [150 mg/dL] for placebo; [105 mg/dL] for a 20-mg dose of glipizide vs [157 2 diabetes
patients with type 2 mg/dL] for placebo. mellitus.
diabetes with a mean and 1 week of 20 age of 65.1 years. mg of the assigned administered to fasting Plasma glucose parameters did not differ between the 2 sulfonylureas Burge MR, et al. 1998
elderly patients. Fasting was well tolerated among these elderly patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sulfonylureas. Older age should not be considered a contraindication to sulfonylurea treatment for diabetes. To compare the risk The crude rate (per 1000 person-years) of serious hypoglycemia was highest in eas and serious hypog
cohort study. A total of serious hypoglycemi glyburide users, 16.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.2 to 19.9 and lowest lycemia in older peop
of 13,963 Medicaid a associated with the among users of tolbutamide, 3.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 5.9). enrollees, aged 65 use of individual years or older, who sulfonylureas in older Users of tolbutamide, tolazamide, and glipizide had lower risks Shorr RI, et al. 1996
were prescribed one of serious hypoglycemia than users of chlorpropamide, whereas the risk of serious hypoglycemia among glyburide users did not differ from that of six sulfonylureas fro chlorpropamide users. The adjusted relative risk of severe hypoglycemia among glyburide users, compared with glipizide users, was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.9). An increased risk of serious hypoglycemia associated with use of glyburide compared with glipizide occurred in all strata, including those defined by gender, race, nursing home residence, dose, and duration of use. These data indicate that glipizide is less associated with hypoglycemia than is glyburide. Comparison of
Multicenter, double To assess efficacy and Hypoglycemia incidence was significantly lower in gliclazide group versus gliclazide and
blind, randomized safety of gliclazide glibenclamide group (7% versus 15%). treatment in non-
No significant differences in efficacy for reduction of blood glucose levels 289 type 2 diabetes with either treatment. diabetes.
patients (113 were 60 years and older) Baba S, et al. 1983
A clinical comparison
To compare efficacy The increase in postprandial blood glucose levels was found to be significantly between glipizide and
controlled, double- and tolerability of lower with glipizide treatment than with glibenclamide treatment. glibenclamide in the
blind, cross-over treatment of maturity study in 38 patients.
The fasting blood glucose was significantly lower during glibenclamide onset diabetes: A
blind cross-over
No differences were found in the other parameters tested (weight, ECG, serum cholesterol, serum triglyceride). Frederiksen PK, et al.
Hypoglycaemic reactions were the only side effects. Six episodes occurred in each treatment group. Eleven episodes were mild. One episode with moderately severe hypoglycaemia occurred with glibenclamide. Comparative efficacy
Glibenclamide and Similar doses of glipizide (11 mg/day) or glyburide (10 mg/day) resulted in and potency of long-
prospective trial; 18 Glipizide, over a effectiveness and comparable reduction of FPG and hemoglobin A1c and increase in first phase term therapy with
patients with type 2 15-month period in relative potency of insulin response to intravenous glucose tolerance testing. glipizide or glyburide
diabetes mellitus glipizide and glyburide. in patients with type
glibenclamide and There was greater reduction in FPG and 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose 2 diabetes
9 on glipizide). with glipizide than with glyburide in 6 months. mellitus.
This long-term study demonstrated that glipizide and glyburide are equipotent Kitabchi AE, et al.
at similar doses in controlling hyperglycemia in DM2. 2000
Long-term beneficial
Glipizide 2.5mg or To assess the efficacy Fasting insulin improved in the glipizide group (P = 0.04 and 0.02 effects of glipizide
placebo-controlled and long-term effects of respectively) as well as HDL cholesterol (P = 0.05) compared with placebo treatment on glucose
trial; 37 patients with glipizide treatment on group after 6 months. tolerance in subjects
type 2 diabetes. glucose and insulin with impaired
At 18 months, both fasting and 2 h glucose concentrations were significantly glucose tolerance.
individuals with lower in the glipizide group compared with the placebo group (P = 0.04 and impaired glucose 0.03 respectively). Eriksson JG, et al.
tolerance (IGT). The prevalence of type 2 diabetes was 29.4% in the placebo group and 5.9% in the glipizide group at 18 months. This equals an 80% relative risk reduction in the active treatment group. Efficacy of
To determine efficacy After 6 months, glycemic control (HbA1C and fasting plasma glucose) had not glimepiride in
controlled trial, 172 changed significantly in either treatment group. Japanese type 2
compared to gliclazide diabetic subjects.
diabetic patients and glibenclamide. Showed equal efficacy for the three medications in controlling HbA1C.
Inukai K, et al. 2005
Muslims with non-
Cohort, randomized At the end of Ramadan there were no significant differences between the insulin dependent
and non-randomized groups in fructosamine concentration (400 mumol/l in controls and 381 diabetes fasting
glibenclamide regimens mumol/l and 376 mumol/l in the fasting groups); percentage of glycated during Ramadan:
diabetic patients in patients with non- haemoglobin (14.7%, 14.0%, and 13.6%); or number of hypoglycaemic events treatment with
insulin dependent during Ramadan (11, 14, and 10). diabetes who were fasting during Ramadan Glibenclamide is effective and safe for patients with non-insulin dependent Belkhadir J, et al.
diabetes who fast during Ramadan. glibenclamide treatment in the non-fasting group. Glimepiride, a new
The placebo group's FPG value increased from 13.0 mmol/l at baseline to 14.5 once-daily
randomized double- efficacy and safety of mmol/l at the last evaluation endpoint (P < or = 0.001). sulfonylurea. A
two daily doses of the controlled fixed-dose new sulfonylurea, FPG values in the four glimepiride groups decreased from a range of 12.4-12.9 controlled study of
study. 416, type 2 Course of placebo glimepiride, each as a mmol/l at baseline to a range of 8.6-9.8 mmol/l at endpoint (P < or = 0.001, NIDDM patients.
diabetic patients. or glimepiride 8 once-daily dose or in within-group change from baseline; P < or = 0.001, between-group change [vs. two divided doses, in placebo] from baseline). Rosenstock J, et al.
twice daily, 16 mg patients with NIDDM. In the placebo group, the HbA1c value increased from 7.7% at baseline to 9.7% at endpoint (P < or = 0.001), whereas HbA1c values for the glimepiride groups were 7.9-8.1% at baseline and 7.4-7.6% at endpoint (P < or = 0.001, within-group change from baseline; P < or = 0.001, between-group change from baseline). Glimepiride is an effective oral glucose-lowering agent. Long-Term
Prospective, randomi To examine the long- A comparable reduction in HbA1c levels by both agents versus placebo was Randomized
term (15 months) observed throughout the study period, but after a marked initial reduction in Placebo -Controlled
effects on glycemic both sulfonylurea groups, all three groups showed gradually increasing HbA1c controlled study on control and insulin Therapeutic
46 NIDDM patients Comparison of
comparing fasting of glipizide and glyburi However, both glipizide and glyburide achieved and maintained lowered Glipizide and
levels and test-meal de treatment in patients postprandial glucose levels and increased fasting and postprandial insulin Glyburide.
responses of glucose with non-insulin- levels compared with placebo. and insulin during 15 dependent diabetes Birkeland, et al. 1994
months of follow-up. mellitus (NIDDM). Both glipizide and glyburide may achieve and maintain glycemic reduction and stimulation of insulin secretion during long-term treatment. Clinical trials with
To review efficacy of Glimepiride is equally effective as glyburide and glipizide. placebo-controlled, glimepiride in treatment active-controlled or placebo or other of diabetes versus At lower doses, glimepiride may have a superior safety profile compared to Clark CM, et al. 1998
placebo and other glyburide, glipizide and gliclazide. studies with 6500 second generation patients (4220 of Long-term treatment
Prospective, double- To compare efficacy Mean HbA1c and mean fasting blood glucose were not statistically or of type 2 diabetic
clinically significant between the two agents (8.4% and 174 mg/dl (9.7 patients with the new
randomized active- Glibenclamide (2.5 glimepiride compared mmol/l) for glimepiride and 8.3% and 168 mg/dl (9.3 mmol/l) for oral antidiabetic
controlled trial to glibenclamide agent glimepiride
(Amaryl): a double-
1444 type 2 diabetic Both treatment groups showed an equivalent safety profile. Fewer blind comparison
patients, with median hypoglycemic reactions occurred with glimepiride than with glibenclamide (105 versus 150 episodes). Long-term follow-up of 457 patients showed that glimepiride (1-8 mg) once Draeger KE, et al.
daily is as efficacious as glibenclamide (2.5-20.0 mg). 1996
Gliclazide. An update
Gliclazide can control blood glucose levels in 62 to 97% of patients. pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety Gliclazide can reduce fasting glucose levels by 12 to 62.1% and postprandial properties and
glucose levels by 18 to 26.7%. therapeutic efficacy
Gliclazide is associated with a low incidence of hypoglycemia. dependent diabetes
mellitus.
Palmer KJ, et al.
1993
Efficacy of gliclazide
To determine efficacy Study 1: Gliclazide is able to achieve adequate blood glucose control in 65% in comparison with
clinical studies: and safety of gliclazide of the patients within three months. Gliclazide also improved glucose control other sulphonylureas
Study 1: 224 diabetic compared with other in 49% of patients who had failed other anti-diabetic medications. in the treatment of
patients, multicenter, Study 2: Study drugs (n): chlorpropamide (21), glipizide (24), gliquidone (22), gliclazide (22) and glibenclamide (23). Similar efficacy between glibenclamide Harrower, AD. 1991
Study 2: 112 diabetic and gliclazide was observed at 74% and 80% patients observing decreases in patients, randomized, HbA1c. Gliclazide produced better HbA1c control compared to five cohorts, one year chlorpropamide (17%, p=0.01), gliquidone (40%, p=0.038) and glipizide Study 3: 248 diabetic patients, randomized, three cohorts, five Study 3: Compared to glipizide (25.6%) and glibenclamide (17.9%), gliclazide (7%), had the lowest rate of secondary failure to SFU therapy. The failure rate was significant between gliclazide and glipizide (p<0.05), however, not significant between gliclazide and glibenclamide (p<0.1). The incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly higher with glibenclamide versus gliclazide (p<0.05). Gliclazide efficacy is similar to other SFUs, particularly glibenclamide and glipizide. Gliclazide causes less hypoglycemia than glibenclamide. Glibenclamide vs
Randomized, double Glibenclamide and Similar efficacy of the two agents using oral glucose tolerance test and HbA1c gliclazide in type 2
efficacy and safety of was observed (p >0.05 for both tests) at 6 months. diabetes of the
22 elderly patients glibenclamide and elderly.
gliclazide in elderly Hypoglycemic event rate was significantly higher with glibenclamide than with gliclazide: 17 vs 4 (p < 0.01). Tessier, D. et al. 1994
Insulin sensitivity index (ml kg-1 min-1 pmol-1 x 100) was increased significantly by glibenclamide but not gliclazide (glibenclamide: 0.284 +/- 0.116 (baseline) vs 0.518 +/- 0.102 (6 months) (p < 0.05), gliclazide: 0.260 +/- 0.048 (baseline) vs 0.358 +/- 0.048 (6 months) (p > 0.05)). Glycaemic control was equivalent with the two drugs but the incidence of hypoglycemic events was significantly greater with glibenclamide; likely due to glibenclamide's ability to increase insulin sensitivity to a greater degree. The action of
Placebo controlled, To determine efficacy After gliclazide therapy, fasting and 2 hour post-oral glucose tolerance test gliclazide on insulin
double-blind, cross- of gliclazide in plasma glucose significantly decreased (p< 0.005) and plasma insulin was secretion and insulin
significantly increased (p<0.05) while fasting plasma insulin remained sensitivity in non-
18 diabetic patients, glucose and HbA1c unchanged (p>0.1). obese non-insulin
mean age 57 years. compared to placebo. dependent diabetic
HbAlc decreased significantly with gliclazide therapy (6.6 vs. 7.6%, p<0.005). patients.

Chang TC, et al. 1990
References:
1.
ADA, Standards of medical care in diabetes--2012, American Diabetes Association. Diabetes
Care, 2012. 35 Suppl 1: p. S11-63.
Qaseem, A., et al., Oral pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a clinical practice
guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med, 2012. 156(3): p. 218-31.
WHO. WHO Diabetes Programme. 2012 [cited 2012 November 1st]; Available from: Vaidyanathan, J., S. Choe, and C.G. Sahajwalla, Type 2 diabetes in pediatrics and adults: thoughts
from a clinical pharmacology perspective. J Pharm Sci, 2012. 101(5): p. 1659-71.
WHO. WHO Diabetes Fact Sheet, August 2011. 2011 [cited 2012 July 21st]; Available from: Foundation, I.D. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 5th Edition. 2012 [cited 2012 October 29th]; Available from: WHO, Global status report on noncommunicable disease 2010, 2010, World Health Organization: WHO Press, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland. WHO, The Selection and Use of Essential Medicines - Report of the WHO Expert Committee, 2011, 2011, World Health Organization. Gurwitz, J.H., et al., Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in
the ambulatory setting. JAMA, 2003. 289(9): p. 1107-16.
FDA. United States - Food and Drug Admnistration. 2012 [cited 2012 October 1st]; Available from MHRA. United Kingdom - Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. 2012 [cited 2012 October 1st]; Available from TGA. Australia - Therapeutic Goods Administration. 2012 [cited 2012 October 1st]; Available from BNF, British National Formulary, 2012. Lexi-Comp, Lexi-Comp Online Database, 2012. Micromedex, Micromedex 2.0 - Clinical Pharmacy Database, 2012. WHO. National Medicines List/Formulary/Standard Treatment Guidelines. 2012 [cited 2012 July 7th]; Available from: MSH, International Drug Price Indicator Guide, 2011, Management Sciences for Health. Gangji, A.S., et al., A systematic review and meta-analysis of hypoglycemia and cardiovascular
events: a comparison of glyburide with other secretagogues and with insulin. Diabetes Care,
2007. 30(2): p. 389-94.
Pfizer, Product Information: Glipizide, 2010. Sanofi-Aventis, Product Information: Glimepiride, 2012. Teva, Product Information: Glyburide (Glibenclamide), 2009. Kobayashi, K.A., et al., Glipizide pharmacokinetics in young and elderly volunteers. Clin Pharm,
1988. 7(3): p. 224-8.
Kradjan, W.A., et al., Glipizide pharmacokinetics: effects of age, diabetes, and multiple dosing. J
Clin Pharmacol, 1989. 29(12): p. 1121-7.
Schwinghammer, T.L., et al., Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of glyburide in young
and elderly nondiabetic adults. Clin Pharm, 1991. 10(7): p. 532-8.
Shorr, R.I., et al., Individual sulfonylureas and serious hypoglycemia in older people. J Am Geriatr
Soc, 1996. 44(7): p. 751-5.
Szoke, E., et al., Effects of glimepiride and glyburide on glucose counterregulation and recovery
from hypoglycemia. Metabolism, 2006. 55(1): p. 78-83.
Hellman, B., J. Sehlin, and I.B. Taljedal, Glibenclamide is exceptional among hypoglycaemic
sulphonylureas in accumulating progressively in beta-cell-rich pancreatic islets. Acta Endocrinol
(Copenh), 1984. 105(3): p. 385-90.
Tessier, D., et al., Glibenclamide vs gliclazide in type 2 diabetes of the elderly. Diabet Med, 1994.
11(10): p. 974-80.
Campbell, D.B., R. Lavielle, and C. Nathan, The mode of action and clinical pharmacology of
gliclazide: a review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 1991. 14 Suppl 2: p. S21-36.
Palmer, K.J. and R.N. Brogden, Gliclazide. An update of its pharmacological properties and
therapeutic efficacy in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Drugs, 1993. 46(1): p. 92-125.
Holmes, B., et al., Gliclazide. A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic properties and
therapeutic efficacy in diabetes mellitus. Drugs, 1984. 27(4): p. 301-27.
Standard Treatment Guidelines And Essential Drugs List for South Africa, 2006, The National Department of Health, South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa. Lexicomp, Lexicomp online database, 2012. Burge, M.R., et al., A prospective trial of risk factors for sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia in
type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA, 1998. 279(2): p. 137-43.
Hung, A.M., et al., Comparative effectiveness of incident oral antidiabetic drugs on kidney
function. Kidney Int, 2012. 81(7): p. 698-706.
Krentz, A.J., R.E. Ferner, and C.J. Bailey, Comparative tolerability profiles of oral antidiabetic
agents. Drug Saf, 1994. 11(4): p. 223-41.
Asplund, K., B.E. Wiholm, and F. Lithner, Glibenclamide-associated hypoglycaemia: a report on
57 cases. Diabetologia, 1983. 24(6): p. 412-7.
Sills, M.N., C.C. Ogu, and J. Maxa, Prolonged hypoglycemic crisis associated with glyburide.
Pharmacotherapy, 1997. 17(6): p. 1338-40.
Jennings, A.M., R.M. Wilson, and J.D. Ward, Symptomatic hypoglycemia in NIDDM patients
treated with oral hypoglycemic agents. Diabetes Care, 1989. 12(3): p. 203-8.
van Staa, T., L. Abenhaim, and J. Monette, Rates of hypoglycemia in users of sulfonylureas. J Clin
Epidemiol, 1997. 50(6): p. 735-41.
Baba, S., et al., Comparison of gliclazide and glibenclamide treatment in non-insulin-dependent
diabetes. Tohoku J Exp Med, 1983. 141 Suppl: p. 693-706.
Rosenstock, J., et al., Diabetes control in the elderly: a randomized, comparative study of
glyburide versus glipizide in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther, 1993. 15(6): p.
1031-40.
Harrower, A.D., Comparison of efficacy, secondary failure rate, and complications of
sulfonylureas. J Diabetes Complications, 1994. 8(4): p. 201-3.
Dills, D.G. and J. Schneider, Clinical evaluation of glimepiride versus glyburide in NIDDM in a
double-blind comparative study. Glimepiride/Glyburide Research Group. Horm Metab Res, 1996.
28(9): p. 426-9.
Draeger, K.E., et al., Long-term treatment of type 2 diabetic patients with the new oral
antidiabetic agent glimepiride (Amaryl): a double-blind comparison with glibenclamide. Horm
Metab Res, 1996. 28(9): p. 419-25.
Haider, Z., S. Obaidullah, and D. Fayyaz ud, Comparative study of glibenclamide &
chlorpropamide in newly diagnosed maturity onset diabetics. J Pak Med Assoc, 1976. 26(2): p.
23-6.
Hamblin, J.J., et al., A comparative study of glibenclamide and chlorpropamide. (Preliminary report). Postgrad Med J, 1970: p. Suppl:92-4. UKPDS, 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. Lancet, 1998. 352(9131): p. 837-53.
American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria Update Expert, P., American Geriatrics Society
updated Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr
Soc, 2012. 60(4): p. 616-31.
Harrower, A.D., Efficacy of gliclazide in comparison with other sulphonylureas in the treatment
of NIDDM. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 1991. 14 Suppl 2: p. S65-7.
Chang, T.C., et al., The action of gliclazide on insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity in non-obese
non-insulin dependent diabetic patients. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei), 1990. 46(2): p. 79-85.
Clark, C.M., Jr. and A.W. Helmy, Clinical trials with glimepiride. Drugs Today (Barc), 1998. 34(5):
p. 401-8.
Inukai, K., et al., Efficacy of glimepiride in Japanese type 2 diabetic subjects. Diabetes Res Clin
Pract, 2005. 68(3): p. 250-7.
Langtry, H.D. and J.A. Balfour, Glimepiride. A review of its use in the management of type 2
diabetes mellitus. Drugs, 1998. 55(4): p. 563-84.
Brodows, R.G., Benefits and risks with glyburide and glipizide in elderly NIDDM patients.
Diabetes Care, 1992. 15(1): p. 75-80.
Birkeland, K.I., et al., Long-term randomized placebo-controlled double-blind therapeutic
comparison of glipizide and glyburide. Glycemic control and insulin secretion during 15 months.
Diabetes Care, 1994. 17(1): p. 45-9.
Aspinall, S.L., et al., Intervention to decrease glyburide use in elderly patients with renal
insufficiency. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother, 2011. 9(1): p. 58-68.
Deusenberry, C.M., et al., Hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients treated with sulfonylureas.
Pharmacotherapy, 2012. 32(7): p. 613-7.
Harrower, A.D., Comparative tolerability of sulphonylureas in diabetes mellitus. Drug Saf, 2000.
22(4): p. 313-20.
Sonnenblick, M. and S. Shilo, Glibenclamide induced prolonged hypoglycaemia. Age Ageing,
1986. 15(3): p. 185-9.
Seltzer, H.S., Drug-induced hypoglycemia. A review of 1418 cases. Endocrinol Metab Clin North
Am, 1989. 18(1): p. 163-83.
Berger, W., et al., [The relatively frequent incidence of severe sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia
in the last 25 years in Switzerland. Results of 2 surveys in Switzerland in 1969 and 1984]. Schweiz
Med Wochenschr, 1986. 116(5): p. 145-51.
Clarke, B.F. and I.W. Campbell, Long-term comparative trial of glibenclamide and
chlorpropamide in diet-failed, maturity-onset diabetics. Lancet, 1975. 1(7901): p. 246-8.
Massi-Benedetti, M., Glimepiride in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review of the worldwide
therapeutic experience. Clin Ther, 2003. 25(3): p. 799-816.
Weitgasser, R., et al., Effects of glimepiride on HbA(1c) and body weight in Type 2 diabetes:
results of a 1.5-year follow-up study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2003. 61(1): p. 13-9.
Glimepiride in Ramadan Study, G., The efficacy and safety of glimepiride in the management of
type 2 diabetes in Muslim patients during Ramadan. Diabetes Care, 2005. 28(2): p. 421-2.
Frederiksen, P. and E. Mogensen, A clinical comparison between glipizide and glibenclamide in
the treatment of maturity onset diabetes: A controlled double-blind cross-over study. CURR-
THER-RES, 1982. 32(1I): p. 1-7.
Kitabchi, A.E., et al., Comparative efficacy and potency of long-term therapy with glipizide or
glyburide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Med Sci, 2000. 319(3): p. 143-8.
Eriksson, J., et al., Long-term beneficial effects of glipizide treatment on glucose tolerance in
subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. Journal of internal medicine, 2006. 259(6): p. 553-560.
Belkhadir, J., et al., Muslims with non-insulin dependent diabetes fasting during Ramadan:
treatment with glibenclamide. BMJ, 1993. 307(6899): p. 292-5.
Rosenstock, J., et al., Glimepiride, a new once-daily sulfonylurea. A double-blind placebo-
controlled study of NIDDM patients. Glimepiride Study Group. Diabetes Care, 1996. 19(11): p.
1194-9.

Source: http://dineshthakur.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Sulfonylurea_18_5_A_R.pdf