1 / 16

O ral drugs for type 2 diabetes and all cause mortality in General Practice

Cardio Diabetes Master Class May 21-23, 2010, Amsterdam. Presentation topic. O ral drugs for type 2 diabetes and all cause mortality in General Practice. Slide lecture prepared and held by:. Ioanna Tzoulaki Epidemiology and Biostatistics School of Public Health Imperial College London.

dudley
Download Presentation

O ral drugs for type 2 diabetes and all cause mortality in General Practice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cardio Diabetes Master Class May 21-23, 2010, Amsterdam Presentation topic Oral drugs for type 2 diabetesand allcause mortality in General Practice Slide lecture prepared and held by: IoannaTzoulaki Epidemiology and Biostatistics School of Public Health Imperial College London

  2. Oral antidiabetes drugs • Diabetes is considered a coronary heart disease equivalent in adults older than 40 years • Oral antidiabetes drugs for glycemic control • recommendations based principally on evidence for reduced microvascular risk • concerns that some may increase the risk of cardiovascular events

  3. Thiazolidinediones and IHD • Initially approved as glucose lowering agents with a beneficial effect on insulin sensitivity and a potential beneficial effect on risk of CVD • Meta-analysis (Nissen et al 2007) of clinical trials showed increased risk of ischemic heart disease • Alternative meta-analysis techniques, new meta-analysis, new results from RCTs, observational studies provided variable evidence • RECORD and PROactive only RCTs to assess effect of rosiglitazone on CVD outcomes

  4. Thiazolidinediones and IHD risk based on RCTs (closed and open squares) and their meta-analyses (closed and open diamonds)‏ Kaul, S. et al. Circulation 2010;121:1868-1877

  5. Pioglitazone • PROactive and meta-analysis no increased risk on IHD • Significant reduction in composite endpoints • Observational studies mixed results • Pio vs. rosiglitazone limited evidence for reduced IHD events for pioglitazone from observational data • No head to head comparisons in RCTs

  6. Thiazolidinediones and HF • Evidence for increased risk of HF for rosi and pioglitazone • Meta-anaysis (Lago et al 2007), RECORD and PROActive • No increased risk of CVD mortality • Volume retention/ weight gain associated with thiazolidinedione harmful?

  7. Sulphonylureas • University Group Diabetes Study: increased numbers of deaths from cardiovascular disease among users of tolbutamide • United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study: no increasein CVD or death with sulphonylurea use comparedwith conventional diet group • ADOPT: no differencein cardiovascular event rates between groups treated with glibenclamideor metformin • ADVANCE: intensive therapy based on gliclazide reduced the risk of combined macrovascular/microvascular endpoint (driven mostly by reduced nephropathy) vs. less intensive therapy • but had no significant effect on macrovascular events alone

  8. The observational design Limitations • Bias/ Confounding by indication • Differences in prognostic factors between different drug groups • e.g. patients who had a greater risk of myocardial infarction were preferentially given specific treatment Advantages • Clinically important but unexpected adverseeffects of drugs are often too rare to be detected in randomized trials • Meta-analysis of RCT included trials with very few events • Surveillance data through general practice are able to capture information on drugs and events routinely on a wide range of patients as they present for clinical care

  9. Aims of this study • To examine relative risk of MI, heart failure and all cause mortality among different oral anti-diabetes drugs in a population study

  10. Methods- GPRD • The general practice research database (GPRD) comprises clinical and prescribing data from anonymised patient based clinical records of about five million people • Obtained data on patients 35-90 between 1990 and 2005 and a diagnostic code of diabetes • Extracted data on prescriptions, MI, heart failure and all cause mortality, cardiovascular risk factors

  11. Methods- data analysis • Interval of drug treatment as the unit of observation, defined as the period from onset of a drug treatment to onset of the next drug treatment, or until censored/ event • 2,843,007 intervals of oral antidiabetes treatments among 91,521 patients with diabetes • Periods when patients received insulin therapy, and events throughout these periods were excluded • Cox regression stratified by age at diagnosis and calendar year of prescription • Covariates were re-ascertained at each interval onset

  12. Hazard ratios (HR) (95% CI) for first episode of myocardial infarction among patients receiving rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, sulphonylureas and other drugs and combinations compared with patients receiving metformin monotherapy Adjusted for age at prescription, year of prescription, sex, previous peripheral arterial disease, previous CVD or HF, co-prescriptions of CVD drugs and any previous diabetes complications Tzoulaki, I. et al. BMJ 2009;339:b4731

  13. Hazard ratios (HR) (95% CI) for first episode of heart failure among patients receiving rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, sulphonylureas and other drugs and combinations compared with patients receiving metformin monotherapy Adjusted for age at prescription, year of prescription, sex, previous peripheral arterial disease, previous CVD or HF, co-prescriptions of CVD drugs and any previous diabetes complications Tzoulaki, I. et al. BMJ 2009;339:b4731

  14. Sensitivity analyses • SUs subclasses: no differences • Analysis truncated at 2000: no differences • Analysis stratified for older than/ less than 65years: no differences • No interactions between age, sex, aspirin or statin use and duration of diabetes • Model 3: adjustment for CVD risk factors, 60% reduction in sample size, results need to be interpreted with caution • Associations between thiazolodinediones and fracture risk significant

  15. Summary & Conclusions Differences in risk associated with different classes of oral antidiabetes drugs • Thiazolidinediones were not associated with risk of MI compared to metformin • Thiazolidinediones were associated with higher HF risk compared to metformin • Pioglitazone was associated with reduced all cause mortality compared with metformin • Pioglitazone had a favourable risk profile compared with rosiglitazone • requires replication in other studies • may have implications for prescribing within this class of drugs. • First and second generation SUs were associated with higher risk of MI and HF Findings favour metformin as the initial treatment for type 2 diabetes • Thiazolidinediones increase the risk of heart failure and should not be initiated in patients with class III/IV CHF • Evidence for thiazolidinediones and CVD insufficient • Insufficient data exist to support the choice of pioglitazone over rosiglitazone • Further evidence for sulphonylureas and CVD is required

More Related