Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique

#202 Sulfonylureas in Diabetes: Sweet on the Heart or Surrogate Charlatan?

Does treating type 2 diabetes with sulfonylureas affect mortality or cardiovascular events?

There is a lack of convincing evidence that sulfonylureas reduce cardiovascular events or mortality in type 2 diabetic patients. If anything, sulfonylureas potentially increase cardiovascular harm. 

CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session

Sulfonylurea versus placebo: 
  • Most Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) investigate HbA1c, not patient-oriented outcomes.1-5 
  • Largest RCT for patient outcomes (n=409), ~5 years, tolbutamide versus placebo:6,7 
    • Non-significant: All-cause mortality (14.7% versus 10.2%), myocardial infarction (13.7% versus 10.7%). 
    • Significant increase: Cardiovascular (CV) mortality (12.7% versus 4.9%), Number Needed to Harm (NNH)=13. 
    • Limitations: Possible randomization imbalance, smoking not included in baseline demographics, first generation sulfonylurea. 
Sulfonylurea versus metformin: 
  • RCT (n=304) five years, patients with coronary artery disease, mean HbA1c 7.6%, glipizide versus metformin:8 
    • Sulfonylureas increased composite CV events: 35% versus 25%, NNH=10. 
  • RCT (n=2,895), four years, mean HbA1c 7.4%, glyburide versus metformin:9
    • Non-significant: All-cause mortality (2.2% versus 2.1%), total CV events (2.9% versus 4.0%). 
    • Limitations: ~40% withdrew after randomization. 
  • Systematic review: No other RCTs with more than one death.10 
Sulfonylurea added to metformin:  
  • RCT (n=3028), ~5 years, sulfonylurea versus pioglitazone: 
    • No difference in CV events.11 
  • Other studies reported CV events or mortality as adverse events:  
    • Sulfonylurea versus DPP-4 inhibitors:  
      • No difference in death:12 0.5% versus 0.4%. 
      • Major CV events:13 3.4% versus 1.5%, NNH=53. 
    • Versus other drugs:  
      • Studies underpowered to find a difference in patient outcomes compared to GLP-1 agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, or insulin.14,15,16    
  • Two systematic reviews of observational studies report increased CV risk with sulfonylureas, however multiple confounders limit conclusions.17,18   
  • UKPDS is frequently cited to support sulfonylureas, but confounded by use of insulin.19 
  • CV disease causes ~50% of diabetes type 2 deaths.20 
  • Sulfonylureas increase risk of severe hypoglycemia (<1% overall) and weight gain (~2.1kg).21 
  • We need to think critically about the use of sulfonylureas beyond HbA1C reduction (~0.8%) and low cost.21

Michel Cauchon April 17, 2021

neutral cv effect?

Rosemary avram April 26, 2021

good article

Jillian Higgs May 11, 2021

I wish our New Brunswick drug plan formulary coverage for diabetes medications took into consideration the potential negative side effects and covered SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists without trying sulfonylureas first.

Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#364 Facing the Evidence in Acne, Part II: Oral Antibiotics

How effective are oral antibiotics in treating acne of at least mild-moderate severity?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#363 Making a difference in indifference? Medications for apathy in dementia

In patients with dementia, how safe and effective are stimulants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics for treating apathy?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session

  • Kirstin Bester BSc
  • Joey Ton PharmD
  • Christina Korownyk MD CCFP

1. Coniff R, Shapiro J, Seaton T, et al. Am J Med. 1995; 98:443-51.

2. Hoffman J, Spengler M. Diabetes Care. 1994; 17(6):561-6.

3. Kovacevic I, Profozic V, Skrabalo Z, et al. Diabetologia Croatica. 1997; 26(2):83-9.

4. Roberts V, Stewart J, Issa M, et al. Clin Ther. 2005; 27(10):1535-47.

5. Johnston P, Lebovitz H, Coniff R, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998; 83(5):1515-22.

6. The University Group Diabetes Program. Diabetes. 1970; 19(2):747-830.

7. The University Group Diabetes Program. Diabetes. 1976; 25:1129-53.

8. Hong J, Zhang Y, Lai S, et al. Diabetes Care. 2013; 36(5):1304-11.

9. Kahn SE, Haffner SM, Heise MA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(23):2427-43.

10. Hemmingsen B, Schroll JB, Wetterslev J, et al. CMAJ Open. 2014; 2(3):E162-75.

11. Vaccaro O, Masulli M, Nicolucci A, et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017; S2213-8587(17)30317-0. [Epub ahead of print].

12. Karagiannis T, Paschos P, Paletas K, et al. BMJ. 2012; 12(344):e1369.

13. Gallwitz B, Rosenstock J, Rauch T, et al. Lancet. 2012; 380:475-83.

14. Gallwitz B, Guzman J, Dotta F, et al. Lancet. 2012; 379:2270-8.

15. Leiter LA, Yoon KH, Arias P, et al. Diabetes Care. 2015; 38(3):355-64.

16. Moon J, Ha K, Yoon J, et al. Acta Diabetol. 2014; 51(2):277-85.

17. Forst T, Hanefeld M, Jacob S, et al. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2013; 10(4):302-14.

18. Phung OJ, Schwartzman E, Allen RW, et al. Diabet Med. 2013; 30(10):1160-71.

19. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998; 352:837-53.

20. Bruno G, Ferrero S, Biggeri A, et al. Diabetes Care. 2003; 26:2353-8.

21. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Controversies in the Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Available at: Last Accessed: July 1, 2017.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.