Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Sulphonylureas 'linked with CV mortality increase'

GPs should consider alternatives to sulphonylureas in patients with Type 2 diabetes as their use is linked to an increase in cardiovascular disease, claim researchers.

GPs should consider alternatives to sulphonylureas in patients with Type 2 diabetes as their use is linked to an increase in cardiovascular disease, claim researchers.

The study

The US meta-analysis of 33 randomised and observational studies included 1,325,446 patients with diabetes a mean age ranging from 52 to 76 years. Cardiovascular composite endpoints such as a major cardiovascular event, cardiovascular death or stroke were compared for patients with diabetes taking sulphonylureas, compared with other diabetes treatments, such as metformin and thiazolidinediones. Ratios were adjusted for potential confounders including baseline cardiovascular risk, concomitant medications and diabetes severity.

The results

A significant association between sulphonylurea use and cardiovascular mortality was seen, with a relative risk 1.27 compared with other diabetes treatments. Sulphonylurea use was also significantly associated with a 10% increased risk of the cardiovascular composite endpoint, compared with other diabetes treatments.  Sulphonylureas were associated with a 16% increased risk of the cardiovascular composite endpoint when compared with metformin. Statistical pooling found no statistically significant associations between sulphonylureas use and stroke, compared with other diabetes treatments.

What this means for GPs

The researchers concluded that their results ‘warrant consideration in clinical practice, when other treatment options may be available’.

Readers' comments (1)

  • Vinci Ho

    (1) Were all studies included in the mtea-analysis only randomised observational studies with no controlled trials? Difficult to judge the quality then.
    (2) Relative risk of mortality of 1.27.Hence , increase in relative risk of 27% i.e. one in every four these patients died? Then the actual increase in cardiovascular event was 10% only ?? That's probably why conclusion was only 'worth consideration '

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say