The consensus algorithm for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus was developed on behalf of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes approximately 1 year ago [1, 2]. This evidence-based algorithm was developed to help guide healthcare providers to choose the most appropriate treatment regimens from an ever-expanding list of approved medications. The authors continue to endorse the major features of the algorithm, including the need to achieve and maintain glycaemia within or as close to the non-diabetic range as is safely possible; the initiation of lifestyle interventions and treatment with metformin at the time of diagnosis; the rapid addition of medications and transition to new regimens when target glycaemia is not achieved; and the early addition of insulin therapy in patients who do not meet target HbA1c levels.
The availability of newly approved medications and the accrual of new clinical trial and other data should inform the algorithm. In this update we primarily address one important issue that has received much recent attention: our current understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the thiazolidinediones. In addition, we have revised the original Table 1 to include the dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, which was not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration at the time of our original publication (Table 1).
We are mindful of the importance of not changing this consensus guideline in the absence of definitive or compelling new data. Future updates are planned to consider further revisions of the algorithm, guided by the evidence base and clinical experience with the newer classes of glucose-lowering medications.
The original consensus algorithm included the thiazolidinediones as one of three possible choices (insulin and sulfonylurea were the other two) that should be added to metformin and lifestyle intervention if target HbA1c levels (<7%) were not being achieved (Fig. 1). Several recent meta-analyses [3, 4], together with one performed by the manufacturer [5] and one by regulatory authorities [6], have called into question the safety of rosiglitazone with regard to the risk of myocardial infarction. The putative 30–40% relative increase in risk of myocardial infarctions is based on data that are widely viewed as less than definitive; still, these data have led to the recommendation that clinicians exercise increased caution in prescribing rosiglitazone [7–10]. Another recent meta-analysis of essentially the same data set found no significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality owing to either rosiglitazone or pioglitazone [11]. An interim analysis of the Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes (RECORD) Study, designed specifically to examine cardiovascular outcomes of rosiglitazone therapy, revealed no statistically significant effects on myocardial infarction (hazard ratio 1.17, 95% CI 0.75–1.82), but confirmed the risk for congestive heart failure (CHF) with rosiglitazone (hazard ratio 2.15, 95% CI 1.30–3.57) [12]. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of the clinical trial data regarding cardiovascular disease risk and pioglitazone has suggested that the drug exerts a protective effect [13].
In addition to the concern raised regarding the potential risk of myocardial infarction with rosiglitazone, the previously recognised risk of fluid retention and resultant CHF, which applies to both pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, has now been quantified as an approximately twofold increase [11, 14]. These findings have led to a stronger (black box) warning in the prescribing information for the thiazolidinediones [15].
Both thiazolidinediones have been associated with an increased risk for fractures, particularly in women [16, 17]. Of note, the majority of these fractures were in the distal upper (forearm, hand or wrist) or lower (foot, ankle, fibula or tibia) limb, as opposed to the classic sites of osteoporotic fractures.
At this time, we do not view as definitive the clinical trial data regarding increased or decreased risk of myocardial infarctions with rosiglitazone or pioglitazone, respectively. Nor do we think that the increased risk of CHF or fractures with either of the available thiazolidinediones is of a magnitude to warrant their removal as one of the possible second-step medications in our algorithm, given that they cause hypoglycaemia less frequently than other second-step drugs.
On the other hand, we do believe that the weight of the new information outlined above should prompt clinicians to consider more carefully whether to use this class of drugs vs insulin or sulfonylureas as the second step in the algorithm (Fig. 1). As with other drug classes, there may well be clinically important differences between the two drugs in this class. The current decision not to remove either or both of the thiazolidinediones from the algorithm represents a balance between the preservation of options to treat a challenging and progressive serious disease and the recent unfavourable evidence.
In conclusion, new information suggests additional hazards associated with the use of either thiazolidinedione, and rosiglitazone in particular may result in an increased frequency of myocardial infarctions. We therefore recommend greater caution in using the thiazolidinediones, especially in patients at risk of, or with, CHF.
Abbreviations
- CHF:
-
congestive heart failure
References
Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB et al (2006) Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy. A consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 29:1963–1972
Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB et al (2006) Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy. A consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia 49:1711–1721
Nissen SE, Wolski K (2007) Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 356:2457–2471
Singh S, Loke YK, Furberg CD (2007) Long-term risk of cardiovascular events with rosiglitazone: a meta-analysis. JAMA 298:1189–1195
GalaxoSmithKline (2007) Advisory committee briefing document: cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone. GalaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, pp 40–45. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4308b1-01-sponsor-backgrounder.pdf, accessed 25 October 2007
US Food and Drug Administration (2007) FDA briefing document. FDA, Rockville, pp 13–105. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4308b1-02-fda-backgrounder.pdf, accessed 25 October 2007
Psaty BM, Furberg CD (2007) Rosiglitazone and cardiovascular risk. N Engl J Med 356:2522–2524
Drazen JM, Morrissey S, Curfman GD (2007) Rosiglitazone—continued uncertainty about safety. N Engl J Med 357:63–64
Nathan DM (2007) Rosiglitazone and cardiotoxicity—weighing the evidence. N Engl J Med 357:64–66
Psaty BM, Furberg CD (2007) The record on rosiglitazone and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 357:67–69
Lago RM, Singh PP, Nesto RW (2007) Congestive heart failure and cardiovascular death in patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes given thiazolidinediones: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Lancet 370:1129–1136
Home PD, Pocock SJ, Beck-Nielsen H, for the RECORD Study Group et al (2007) Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes—an interim analysis. N Engl J Med 357:28–38
Lincoff AM, Wolski K, Nicholls SJ, Nissen SE (2007) Pioglitazone and risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA 298:1180–1188
Singh S, Loke YK, Furberg CD (2007) Thiazolidinediones and heart failure: a teleo-analysis. Diabetes Care 30:2248–2253
US Food and Drug Administration: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (2007) Rosiglitazone maleate (marketed as Avandia, Avandamet, and Avandaryl) information. Available from: http://fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/rosiglitazone/default.htm, accessed 25 October 2007
Schwartz AV, Sellmeyer DE, Vittinghoff E et al (2006) Thiazolidinedione use and bone loss in older diabetic adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91:3349–3354
Kahn SE, Haffner SM, Heise MA et al (2006) Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide monotherapy. N Engl J Med 355:2427–2442
Duality of interest
The following potential conflicts of interest were reported: D. M. Nathan reports receiving research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, and support for educational programmes from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. J. B. Buse conducts research and/or serves on advisory boards under contract between the University of North Carolina and Amylin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-LaRoche, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis. M. B. Davidson reports receiving research support from Eli Lilly, Merck and Pfizer, serves on advisory boards to Amylin, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi-Aventis; and is on speakers bureaus for Amylin, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. E. Ferrannini reports receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novartis, and serves on scientific advisory boards for Amylin, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim and Takeda. R. R. Holman reports receiving grant support from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NovoNordisk, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, and serves on scientific advisory boards for Amylin, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Merck and Sanofi-Aventis. R. Sherwin reports serving on advisory boards for Amylin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck and Takeda. B. Zinman receives research support from Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and NovoNordisk, and is a member of scientific advisory boards and/or has received honoraria for speaking from Amylin, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis and Smiths Medical.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Simultaneous publication: This article is being simultaneously published in 2008 in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Copyright 2008 by the American Diabetes Association, Inc. and Springer. Copying with attribution allowed for any non-commercial use of the work.
An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00125-007-0917-4
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nathan, D.M., Buse, J.B., Davidson, M.B. et al. Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy. Diabetologia 51, 8–11 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-007-0873-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-007-0873-z