Key result
Glimepiride and glyburide showed non-significant and conflicting associations with sudden cardiac arrest or ventricular arrhythmia compared to glipizide across two independent claims databases.
Why the study?
A knowledge gap exists regarding real-world cardiovascular effects of sulfonylureas, specifically serious arrhythmogenic endpoints such as sudden cardiac arrest or ventricular arrhythmia.
Does glimepiride or glyburide compared to glipizide increase the risk of sudden cardiac arrest or ventricular arrhythmia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Cohort (n=1,116,346)
Yes
Does glimepiride or glyburide compared to glipizide increase the risk of sudden cardiac arrest or ventricular arrhythmia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?
The risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia among users of glimepiride, glyburide, and glipizide showed conflicting, non-significant results across two independent US claims databases, highlighting the sensitivity of observational findings to data source differences.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No consistent arrhythmic differences among sulfonylureas; hypothesis-generating and should not change practice.
Sulfonylureas are commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite awareness of their effects on cardiac physiology, a knowledge gap exists regarding their effects on cardiovascular events in real-world populations. Prior studies reported sulfonylurea-associated cardiovascular death but not serious arrhythmogenic endpoints like sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) or ventricular arrhythmia (VA). We assessed the comparative real-world risk of SCA/VA among users of second-generation sulfonylureas: glimepiride, glyburide, and glipizide. We conducted two incident user cohort studies using five-state Medicaid claims (1999–2012) and Optum Clinformatics commercial claims (2000–2016). Outcomes were SCA/VA events precipitating hospital presentation. We used Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for high-dimensional propensity scores, to generate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR). We identified 624,406 and 491,940 sulfonylurea users, and 714 and 385 SCA/VA events, in Medicaid and Optum, respectively. Dataset-specific associations with SCA/VA for both glimepiride and glyburide (vs. glipizide) were on opposite sides of and could not exclude the null (glimepiride: aHR Medicaid 1.17, 95% CI 0.96–1.42; aHR Optum 0.84, 0.65–1.08; glyburide: aHR Medicaid 0.87, 0.74–1.03; aHR Optum 1.11, 0.86–1.42). Database differences in data availability, populations, and documentation completeness may have contributed to the incongruous results. Emphasis should be placed on assessing potential causes of discrepancies between conflicting studies evaluating the same research question.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dhopeshwarkar et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=1,116,346). Glimepiride vs. Glipizide was evaluated on Incident outpatient-originating sudden cardiac arrest or ventricular arrhythmia precipitating hospital presentation (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96-1.42). Glimepiride and glyburide showed non-significant and conflicting associations with sudden cardiac arrest or ventricular arrhythmia compared to glipizide across two independent claims databases.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: