Key result
Compared to metformin, glibenclamide therapy in NIDDM patients resulted in higher plasma norepinephrine levels (6.41 vs 4.26 mmol/l, P<0.01) and greater systolic BP responses to norepinephrine.
Why the study?
Does glibenclamide compared to metformin affect ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular reactivity in patients with NIDDM?
RCT (n=14)
Double-blind
crossover
Does glibenclamide compared to metformin affect ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular reactivity in patients with NIDDM?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.41% vs 4.26%
p-value: p=<0.01
In patients with NIDDM, glibenclamide therapy is associated with greater sympathetic activity and systolic BP responses to norepinephrine and angiotensin II compared to metformin.
Glibenclamide heightens sympathetic activity and vascular reactivity versus metformin in NIDDM; extends evidence of agent-specific cardiovascular effects in randomized data.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of chronic glibenclamide and metformin therapy on blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular responsiveness in patients with NIDDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with NIDDM received metformin or glibenclamide for 1 month in a double-blind, randomized crossover study. At the end of each treatment period, patients were tested for forearm vascular responsiveness to intrabrachial arterial infusion of diazoxide (an ATP-sensitive potassium channel opener), acetylcholine, sodium nitroprusside, and norepinephrine, BP responses to intravenous infusions of NE and angiotensin II, BP responses to cold pressor testing and isometric exercise, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring. RESULTS: Metformin and glibenclamide produced similar glycemic control. Mean 24-h BPs did not differ between the two groups, but mean 24-h heart rates were significantly lower (75 +/- 6 bpm vs. 80 +/- 6 bpm) on glibenclamide therapy than on metformin. Plasma norepinephrine levels were significantly higher on glibenclamide (6.41 +/- 1.77 vs. 4.26 +/- 1.54 mmol/l, P < 0.01), and systolic BP responses to intravenous norepinephrine and angiotensin II were significantly higher on glibenclamide than on metformin (P < 0.02 and P < 0.05, respectively). Systolic BP responses to cold pressor testing appeared higher on glibenclamide than on metformin, but the difference did not quite achieve statistical significance (P = 0.052). Baseline forearm vascular resistance did not differ between the two drugs, nor did forearm vascular resistance responses to diazoxide, acetylcholine, sodium nitroprusside, and norepinephrine differ. CONCLUSIONS: Glibenclamide therapy is accompanied by greater systolic BP responses to norepinephrine and angiotensin II and higher plasma norepinephrine levels than those that occur on metformin therapy. Lower heart rates on glibenclamide therapy despite evidence of greater sympathetic activity suggests that glibenclamide may have negative chronotropic effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sundaresan et al. (1997) conducted an RCT in NIDDM (n=14). Glibenclamide vs. Metformin was evaluated on Plasma norepinephrine levels (mmol/l) (p=<0.01). Compared to metformin, glibenclamide therapy in NIDDM patients resulted in higher plasma norepinephrine levels (6.41 vs 4.26 mmol/l, P<0.01) and greater systolic BP responses to norepinephrine.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: