Antihyperglycemic Treatment in Diabetics with Coronary Disease: Increased Metformin-Associated Mortality over a 5-Year Follow-UpFisman E.Z.a · Tenenbaum A.a · Benderly M.b · Goldbourt U.b · Behar S.b · Motro M.a
aCardiac Rehabilitation Institute and bBezafibrate Infarction Prevention Coordinating Center, Neufeld Cardiac Research Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Mortality rates are considerably higher in chronic ischemic heart disease (IHD) patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) than in those who are nondiabetics. The relationship between different types of antihyperglycemic pharmacological therapy and mortality rate in this NIDDM population is uncertain. We aimed to examine the survival in NIDDM patients with IHD using various types of oral antidiabetic treatments over a 5-year follow-up period. The study sample comprised 11,440 patients with a previous myocardial infarction and/or stable anginal syndrome, aged 45–74 years, who were screened, but not included in the Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention study. Among them, 9,045 were nondiabetics and 2,395 diabetics. The diabetic patients were divided into four groups on the basis of their therapeutic regimen at screening: diet alone (n = 990), sulfonylureas (n = 1,041), metformin (n = 78) and a combination of a sulfonylurea and metformin (n = 266). All NIDDM groups were similar with regard to age, gender, hypertension, smoking, heart failure, angina and prior myocardial infarction. Crude mortality rate was lower in the nondiabetic group (11.21 vs. 21.8%; p < 0.001). In the diabetic group, mortality was 18.5% for patients on diet alone, 22.5% for those on sulfonylureas, 25.6% for patients on metformin, and 31.6% for the combined sulfonylurea/metformin group (p < 0.01). When analyzing age-adjusted mortality rate and actuarial survival curves, the lowest mortality was found in patients on diet alone and the highest in patients on metformin (alone or in combination with sulfonylureas). After adjustment for variables connected with long-term prognosis, the use of metformin was associated with increased relative risk (RR) for all-cause mortality of 1.42 (95% CI 1.10–1.85), whereas the use of sulfonylureas alone was not [RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.90–1.36)]. NIDDM patients with IHD using metformin, alone or in combination with sulfonylureas, exhibited a significantly increased mortality. Until the results of problem-oriented prospective studies on oral control of NIDDM will be available, alternative therapeutic approaches should be investigated in these patients.
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.