Key result
Sulfonylureas remain widely recommended as safe, effective, and cost-effective glucose-lowering agents in many international guidelines, despite being relegated to last-choice in the EASD/ADA report.
Why the study?
The review was conducted to examine the current role of sulfonylureas in T2DM management, evaluate their place across local and international guidelines, and critically appraise reasons for guideline differences.
This review highlights discrepancies between evidence-based guidelines and consensus reports regarding the role of sulfonylureas in T2DM, arguing for their continued utility and safety, particularly gliclazide.
Discrepancies may guide nuanced T2DM prescribing; challenges EASD/ADA consensus and leaves harmonization open.
This review describes a presentation at a recent symposium entitled "SUs in the treatment of T2DM: a fresh look and new insights" on Wednesday September 18, 2019 at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Barcelona, Spain. It examines the current role of sulfonylureas (SUs) in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and gives the author's personal perspective of how this therapeutic class has performed in both local and international guidelines. The place of SUs within current guidelines is highlighted, and a critical appraisal of the reasons for the differences between guidelines given. Finally, comparison of evidence-based guidelines and consensus reports is discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aslam Amod (2020) conducted a review in Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Sulfonylureas was evaluated. Sulfonylureas remain widely recommended as safe, effective, and cost-effective glucose-lowering agents in many international guidelines, despite being relegated to last-choice in the EASD/ADA report.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: