British Journal of Anaesthesia 107 (1): 6573 (2011)

Advance Access publication 24 May 2011 . doi:10.1093/bja/aer120

Diabetes mellitus: new drugs for a new epidemic

G. Nicholson and G. M. Hall*
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, St Georges University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, UK
* Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Editors key points

Prevalence of diabetes
mellitus is increasing
rapidly in the 21st
century.

Incretin mimetics show

promise in managing
type 2 diabetes.
New insulin analogues
permit the adoption of
the basal-bolus regimen
to glucose control.
Thiazolidinediones
(pioglitazone) are now
only a third-line
treatment.

Keywords: anaesthesia; diabetes; treatment; surgery

The International Diabetes Federation estimated in 2008

that 246 million adults worldwide had diabetes mellitus
(DM) and the prevalence was expected to reach 380
million by 2025.1 The World Health Organization (WHO)
has revised its estimates for the prevalence of DM in the
USA in 2025 from 21.9 million to 30.3 (prevalence of
11.2%).2 3 This increase in DM results from a rise in new
patients of type 2 DM, which is a consequence of obesity,
an ageing population, lack of exercise, and increased
migration of susceptible patients. Indeed, the global pandemic of obesity and type 2 DM has been compared with
the Black Death of the 14th century.4 DM is a costly
chronic disease and patients develop micro- and macrovascular complications that often need surgery. Patients with
type 2 DM can expect a 10 yr reduction in life expectancy
and, globally, 5% of all deaths could be attributed to DM
(both types 1 and 2) in 2000 and this increased to 6.8% in
2010.5 6 Improved glycaemic control has been shown to
delay the
onset
of
microvascular complications

(nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy), whereas the

beneficial effects on macrovascular complications are less
clear. However, the 10 yr follow-up of United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), again emphasized the
benefits of long-term glycaemic control on all-cause death,
micro- and macrovascular complications in type 2 DM.7
Increased knowledge of pathophysiology of type 2 DM, particularly insulin signalling and insulin resistance, has contributed to the development of novel treatments. The primary
aim of managing type 2 DM is to delay, or even prevent,
the complications of the disease by achieving good glycaemic control. In addition to drug therapy, this often involves
changes in lifestyle such as diet and exercise.
Patients with DM presenting for surgery are challenging
for a number of reasons. They may have vascular, renal, or
neurological disease as a consequence of their underlying
DM and are more prone to wound infections. Maintaining
normal blood glucose concentrations has been shown to
reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality, although the

& The Author [2011]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: [email protected]

Downloaded from http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on February 1, 2015

Several new drugs have

been introduced, some
with novel modes of
action.

Summary. The prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) is increasing rapidly in the 21st century
as a result of obesity, an ageing population, lack of exercise, and increased migration of
susceptible patients. This costly and chronic disease has been likened recently to the
Black Death of the 14th century. Type 2 DM is the more common form and the primary
aim of management is to delay the micro- and macrovascular complications by
achieving good glycaemic control. This involves changes in lifestyle, such as weight loss
and exercise, and drug therapy. Increased knowledge of the pathophysiology of diabetes
has contributed to the development of novel treatments: glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)
mimetics, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), and insulin
analogues. GLP-1 agonists mimic the effect of this incretin, whereas DPP-4 inhibitors
prevent the inactivation of the endogenously released hormone. Both agents offer an
effective alternative to the currently available hypoglycaemic drugs but further
evaluation is needed to confirm their safety and clinical role. The past decade has seen
the rise and fall in the use of the TZDs (glitazones), such that the only glitazone
recommended is pioglitazone as a third-line treatment. The association between the use
of rosiglitazone and adverse cardiac outcomes is still disputed by some authorities. The
advent of new insulin analogues, fast-acting, and basal release formulations, has
enabled the adoption of a basal-bolus regimen for the management of blood glucose.
This regimen aims to provide a continuous, low basal insulin release between meals with
bolus fast-acting insulin to limit hyperglycaemia after meals. Insulin therapy is
increasingly used in type 2 DM to enhance glycaemic control. Recently, it has been
suggested that the use of the basal-release insulins, particularly insulin glargine may be
associated with an increased risk of cancer. Although attention is focused increasingly on
newer agents in the treatment of diabetes, metformin and the sulphonylureas are still
used in many patients. Metformin, in particular, remains of great value and may have
novel anti-cancer properties.

BJA
evidence for this derives mainly from studies in patients
undergoing cardiac surgery. However, a recent retrospective
survey found that perioperative hyperglycaemia was associated with increased length of hospital stay, morbidity, and
mortality after non-cardiac general surgery in diabetic and
non-diabetic patients.8 It was notable that the risk of
death increased proportionally with the increase in glucose
values in non-diabetic patients but not in those with DM. A
number of studies have identified substantial gaps in
inpatient diabetic care in the UK9 with prolonged inpatient
length of stay being a significant problem in those patients
with cardiac or surgical conditions.10
The aim of this review is to explore novel agents used in
diabetic management in the 21st century.

Diagnosis

66

overt DM. In 2003, a reconstituted International Expert Committee met to evaluate these issues and make appropriate
revisions to the previous criteria.11 The principal recommendations were that the cut-off points of FPG and 2 h PG should
remain as in the 1997 report: 7.0 and 11.1 mmol l21,
respectively, but that lowering the IFG cut-off point from
6.1 to 5.6 mmol l21 would optimize its sensitivity and specificity. The committee noted that measurement of HbA1c has
numerous advantages including an indication of glucose
concentrations over a number of weeks and is a useful
monitor of both diagnosis and response to treatment.
However, in 2003, it was considered premature to add
HbA1c to the list of tests used for the definitive diagnosis of
DM. Both the FPG and the 2 h PG have advantages and disadvantages; the 2 h PG is a more sensitive assay but the FPG
is more reproducible, less costly, and likely to be more
convenient.
More recently, since the introduction of a new standardized HbA1c assay, the use of HbA1c both as a diagnostic
tool and as a predictor of perioperative outcomes has been
re-examined. Two studies used HbA1c values .6.5% (48
mmol mol21) as a single diagnostic marker for DM compared
with standard glucose-based methods and concluded that it
lacked sensitivity.16 17 However, HbA1c may have a greater
role in predicting perioperative outcomes in patients with
or without DM undergoing a variety of surgical procedures.18 20

Drug therapy
DM is defined by an absolute (type 1) or relative (type 2)
deficiency of insulin. Type 2 DM is characterized by insulin
resistance, abnormal hepatic glucose production, and progressive worsening of pancreatic b-cell function over time.21
Prevention and treatment of DM is a major public health challenge. In the Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) 10 yr
follow-up study, lifestyle management including diet and
exercise led to a 31 58% reduction in the incidence of diabetes.22 23 Greater understanding of the pathophysiology
of DM has contributed to the development of new pharmacological approaches. The currently available classes of antidiabetic agents are glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor
agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitors, thiazolidinediones (TZDs; glitazones), insulin analogues, biguanides,
sulphonylureas, meglitinides, a-glucosidase inhibitors, and
synthetic amylin analogues (Table 1). In addition, endocannabinoid antagonists acting at the CB1 receptor show promise
for affecting food intake and improving glucose homeostasis.
Insulin treatment, particularly with new basal formulations, is
used increasingly in type 2 diabetics.
At present, there is little published information on the
perioperative management of patients taking the newer
agents but guidelines have been agreed by the Joint British
Diabetic Societies (Management of adults with diabetes
undergoing surgery and elective procedures: improving
standards) and can be accessed at www.diabetes.nhs.uk.

Downloaded from http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on February 1, 2015

The difficulty in diagnosing DM is the lack of a unique qualitative, biological marker that separates all people with diabetes from non-diabetics.11 Diabetic retinopathy is one
such characteristic but has the obvious disadvantage that
it usually becomes evident many years after the onset of
DM. Because of the lack of a suitable marker, metabolic
abnormalities such as hyperglycaemia provide the most
useful diagnostic tests. Different parameters such as
fasting plasma glucose (FPG), impaired fasting glucose
(IFG), and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) have all been
used. In 1997, an International Expert Committee
re-examined the classification and diagnostic criteria from
the 1979 National Diabetes Data Group and the 1985 WHO
study group and proposed some changes to the diagnostic
criteria for DM and impaired glucose regulation.12 The 1997
guidelines included recommending the use of FPG as part
of the diagnostic tests but the cut-off point was reduced
from 7.8 to 7.0 mmol l21. Normal FPG was defined as ,6.1
mmol l21. The use of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as
a diagnostic test was not recommended owing to the lack
of standardized methodology among laboratories. The
utility of the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) that
measures plasma glucose (PG) 2 h after a 75 g oral glucose
load was recognized and an abnormal result was accepted
as .11.1 mmol l21. However, because of the inconvenience,
increased costs, and difficulties in reproducibility, the use of
this test for diagnostic purposes was discouraged but the
diagnostic category of IGT was retained. This refers to individuals with a normal FPG but a 2 h PG of 7.8 11 mmol l21
after a 75 g oral glucose challenge. IFG was defined as FPG
between 6.1 and 6.9 mmol l21.
Since 1997, many studies relating to the diagnosis of diabetes have been published and a number of questions have
been raised including the use of FPG vs the 2 h PG after
OGTT. It has been noted that the category of IGT is associated with cardiovascular disease risk factors and events,
whereas IFG is much less strongly associated with cardiovascular events or mortality.13 15 It was shown that lifestyle
changes such as diet and exercise and the use of metformin
or acarbose may delay or prevent the progression from IGT to

Nicholson and Hall

BJA

DM: new drugs for a new epidemic

Table 1 Current drugs available for the treatment of diabetes

mellitus. Sodium glucose co-transporter inhibitorinsufficient
data at present
New agentsprimary treatment
GLP-1 receptor agonists
DPP-4 inhibitors
Thiazolidinediones
Insulin analogues, basal, and short-acting
Current proved agentsprimary treatment
Biguanides
Sulphonylureas
New agentssecondary treatment
Meglitimides

a-Glucosidase inhibitors
Synthetic amylin analogues

Incretins are gut-derived peptides secreted in response to

meals; the incretin effect refers to the augmented release
of insulin from oral ingestion of glucose compared with an
i.v. glucose challenge. The two major incretins are GLP-1,
which is produced by the neuroendocrine L cells of the
ileum and colon, and glucose-dependent insulinotropic
peptide, which is produced by the K cells of the duodenum
and jejunum. Both are released rapidly after a meal and
they limit postprandial glucose excursions.24 Incretins stimulate insulin production from pancreatic b cells and GLP-1 also
decreases glucagon secretion, slows gastric emptying, and
suppresses appetite. GLP-1 may also reduce b-cell apoptosis
and promote b-cell proliferation.25 26 Patients with diabetes
demonstrate a blunted rise in GLP-1 concentrations after
food intake.27 I.V. GLP-1 infusion will increase insulin
release and reduce fasting blood glucose concentrations,
even in patients with longstanding type 2 DM.21 One of the
major clinical concerns about the use of GLP-1 is its rapid
enzymatic degradation by DPP-4. To counteract this, agents
that are resistant to DPP-4 degradation such as exenatide
and liraglutide have been developed. Another approach is
the development of specific DPP-4 inhibitors.
There are two commercially available GLP-1 agonists in
the UKexenatide and liraglutide. Exenatide is derived
from the naturally occurring peptide, exendin-4, which was
isolated from the salivary secretions of the lizard Heloderma
suspectum (Gila monster). This lizard eats once a month and
the function of exendin-4 is to rapidly increase the production of insulin in response to nutrients entering the gut.
Exenatide is a complete agonist at the GLP-1 receptor, is
resistant to DPP-4 degradation, and is cleared by the
kidneys. It is usually administered twice daily as injections
and provides adequate daily replacement of GLP-1. Exenatide is approved for the treatment of type 2 DM in patients
receiving concurrent metformin or sulphonylurea treatment,
although the dose of sulphonylurea may need to be reduced
to avoid hypoglycaemia. Clinical trials have demonstrated

DPP-4 inhibitors
The effects of endogenous incretins are short-lived because
of rapid degradation and inactivation by the enzyme DPP-4.
This enzyme is widely expressed throughout the body and
circulates in a soluble form. Its acts by cleavage of the two
NH2-terminal amino acids of bioactive peptides, provided
the second amino acid is alanine or proline. Cleavage is
rapid and endogenous GLP-1 has a short half-life (,2 min).
Inhibitors of DPP-4 have been developed to prevent the inactivation of GLP-1 and prolong the activity of the endogenously released hormone.37 In contrast to GLP-1 receptor
agonists, these drugs are available orally and have a longer
duration of action, requiring only once daily dosing. The
drugs currently available in the UK are sitagliptin, saxagliptin,
and vildagliptin as sole agents and also combined with metformin. They are effective at controlling hyperglycaemia,
reducing HbA1c concentrations by around 1%, improving
pancreatic b-cell function, and can be used as monotherapy
or in combination with other agents. They are safe and welltolerated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia, but do not reduce
appetite or cause weight loss such as GLP-1 agonists.38 One
potential concern, however, is the ability of DPP-4 to cleave
other bioactive peptides, including neuropeptide Y, gastrinreleasing peptide, substance P, and various chemokines.37
Inhibition of DPP-4 activity may cause adverse events such
as increased blood pressure, neurogenic inflammation, and
immunological reactions. No severe effects have been
reported to date, but further long-term trials are needed.

67

Downloaded from http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on February 1, 2015

Incretins/GLP-1 mimetics

a reduction in both fasting and postprandial glucose concentrations, a 12% reduction in HbA1c concentrations, and a
moderate weight loss of 25 kg.28 30 Side-effects of exenatide include nausea and less commonly, vomiting or diarrhoea, particularly when starting therapy. It is
recommended that treatment is initiated with a dose of 5
mg twice daily which may be increased to 10 mg twice daily
approximately 1 month later. A recent study of once-weekly
dosing using a sustained release formulation of exenatide
showed improvements in glycaemic control, no increased
risk of hypoglycaemia, and similar reductions in body
weight.31
Liraglutide, another incretin mimetic, is administered once
daily, is not excreted by the kidneys, is not subjected to DPP-4
degradation, and may be a promising alternative.32 It provides greater improvements in glycaemic control, induces
weight loss, improves obesity-related risk factors, and
reduces pre-diabetes. It is also associated with reductions
in HbA1c and blood pressure.33 35 Animal studies have
shown an increased occurrence of thyroid medullary cancer
with high doses of liraglutide but the clinical relevance of
this work is unclear. Early clinical trials of liraglutide
suggested an increased incidence of pancreatitis.
In summary, incretin therapy appears to offer an effective
alternative to the currently available hypoglycaemic agents.
Continued evaluation and further long-term studies will
confirm its safety and clinical role.36

BJA
Thiazolidinediones

68

43% increased odds ratio for MI and a trend towards a

64% increased odds ratio for cardiovascular death.49
However, none of these studies were designed to assess cardiovascular effects and had extremely low cardiovascular
event rates. A Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) enquiry
had concluded in 2007 that the evidence against rosiglitazone was insufficient to recommend that it be withdrawn.50
TZDs, therefore, have a number of effects on the cardiovascular system apart from benefitting glucose metabolism.
One important study, the PROactive study (Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events), demonstrated
a reduction in the hazard ratio and a reduction in all-cause
mortality, non-fatal MI, and stroke in high-risk patients
with type 2 DM taking pioglitazone.51 Furthermore, there
may exist differences between the two available agents. In
an observational study of almost 30 000 patients with a 1.2
yr follow-up, pioglitazone was associated with a 22% lower
rate of MI when compared with rosiglitazone and a 15%
decrease in MI and coronary revascularization.52
In January 2008, both the American Diabetes Association
(ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes
(EASD) recommended TZDs as the second-line treatment for
type 2 DM after lifestyle intervention and metformin. In 2008,
the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes)
trial was terminated early when it was shown that patients in
the intensive treatment arm, 91% of whom received rosiglitazone, were at significantly increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease.53 Further analysis showed that the use of
intensive therapy to achieve normal glycosylated haemoglobin
values for 3.5 yr increased mortality, attributed mostly to hypoglycaemia, and did not significantly reduce the major cardiovascular events. There was no evidence to show that any one
drug class was directly responsible.54 Nevertheless, in
October 2008 both the ADA and the EASD issued guidelines
that explicitly advised against the use of rosiglitazone for the
treatment of type 2 DM. Current consensus relegates pioglitazone to third-line treatment and states that rosiglitazone is not
recommended.55 However, Woo56 has re-emphasized the
differences in clinical practice guidelines between Canada,
America, and Europe and the lack of evidence from long-term
studies regarding the association between rosiglitazone and
MI. The results of the RECORD study, which was designed to
prospectively assess the cardiac outcomes of rosiglitazone,
confirmed that the addition of rosiglitazone to glucoselowering therapy increased the risk of heart failure and of
some fractures, mainly in women, although the data were
inconclusive about any possible effect on MI. The authors concluded that rosiglitazone is not recommended for patients with
a history of heart failure and should be used with caution in
women at high risk of fractures, but does not increase the
overall cardiovascular morbidity or mortality.57

Insulin therapy
Type 1 DM is caused by autoimmune destruction of the pancreas and patients require insulin from the outset of their
illness. In type 2 DM with progressive b-cell failure, individuals

Downloaded from http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on February 1, 2015

The 21st century has seen the increase and decrease of TZDs.
TZDs, like metformin, belong to the class of drugs known as
insulin sensitizers. Metformin acts mainly on the muscle and
the hepatocyte, while TZDs act predominantly on the adipocyte and the muscle. TZDs enhance insulin sensitivity by
increasing the efficiency of glucose transporters, lowering
HbA1C by 12%, and reducing both fasting and postprandial
glucose concentrations.39 They do not cause hypoglycaemia
when used as a single agent but can do so when used in
combination with other agents. Troglitazone was the first
TZD approved to treat type 2 DM in 1997, but was withdrawn
from clinical practice in 2000 because of rare idiosyncratic
hepatotoxicity, a side-effect not observed with rosiglitazone
and pioglitazone. TZDs activate peroxisome proliferatoractivated gamma nuclear receptors throughout the body,
exerting their main insulin-sensitization in fat and muscles.
This in turn results in altered gene transcription in adipocytes, a modulation of fatty acid metabolism and a reduction
in circulating free fatty acids by 2040%.40 41
A decrease in circulating free fatty acids is postulated to
enhance insulin-receptor signalling in skeletal muscle, resulting in increased insulin sensitivity throughout the whole
body. A further benefit may be favourable effects on pancreatic b-cell function by reducing exposure of b-cells to lipotoxicity, which may contribute to b-cell death.40 42 This
proposed improvement in b-cell function may account for
the lower risk of monotherapy failure, after 5 yr, for rosiglitazone vs metformin (32% lower) or rosiglitazone vs glyburide
(glibenclamide) (63% lower).43
TZDs redistribute fat from visceral to subcutaneous deposits, a pattern which is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease.44 Both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone increase
high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) and low-density
lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c); pioglitazone also decreases
triglyceride concentrations.45 Other benefits associated with
the use of TZD include anti-inflammatory effects,46 improved
peripheral and coronary vascular endothelial function, and a
modest improvement in hypertension.47
New or worsening peripheral oedema is common with the
use of TZD with the incidence ranging from 2.5% to 16.2%.
The risk is increased with age, drug dose, female sex, impaired
renal function, and concomitant insulin use. One of the likely
mechanisms for this is increased renal reabsorption of
sodium and plasma volume expansion. A greater concern,
however, is the potential for worsening of heart failure with
these drugs. Although relatively uncommon, the annual
increment in heart failure is 0.25 0.45% per year. Thus,
these drugs are contraindicated in patients with New York
Heart Association class III or IV cardiac status and should
be used with caution in those with class II disease.48
TZDs have also been associated with an increased incidence of myocardial infarction (MI). A controversial
meta-analysis evaluated the cardiovascular effects of rosiglitazone vs placebo or active controls from 42 trials, and concluded that rosiglitazone was associated with a significant

Nicholson and Hall

BJA

DM: new drugs for a new epidemic

Table 2 Pharmacokinetics of new insulin analogues

Drug

Onset (min)

Peak (h)

Duration (h)

Lispro

5 15

Aspart

5 15

Glulisine

5 15

Glargine

15

Flat

24

Detemir

15

Flat

24

5 15

2 4

18

5 15

2 4

20 24

Rapid-acting

Basal

Analogue mixture
Biphasic insulin
Lispro
Biphasic insulin
Aspart

Established agents
Although the treatment of diabetes in the 21st century has
been dominated by interest in the newer agents described
above, there is still a major role for well-established drugs,
particularly the biguanides and sulphonylureas.

Biguanides
Metformin and phenformin were introduced for the treatment of diabetes in the 1950s. Phenformin was withdrawn

69

Downloaded from http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on February 1, 2015

may require insulin therapy as the disease progresses.

Increasingly, insulin is no longer seen as a last resort after
long-term oral agent combinations have failed, but as a therapeutic tool for earlier use. Starting insulin therapy with low
doses in combination with oral agents is effective in achieving
glycaemic targets and maintaining HbA1c values.58 59 Furthermore, insulin use can improve insulin resistance58 and may
have cardiovascular benefits. Concerns that insulin therapy
would worsen weight gain, obesity, and accelerate coronary
artery disease have not been realized.
The goal of insulin therapy is to mimic as closely as possible the physiological pattern of insulin secretion seen in nondiabetic patients. Normally insulin secretion in response to a
meal consists of a first- and second-phase response, and
type 2 DM is characterized by a defect in first-stage or
acute glucose-induced insulin secretion. Insulin therapy
should address both basal and post-prandial insulin requirements, the basal-bolus concept.21 This requires basal insulin
to suppress glucose production between meals, and overnight and bolus insulin to limit postprandial hyperglycaemia.
Bolus insulin may comprise up to 1020% of total daily
insulin at each meal. When used in this manner, insulin
should demonstrate an immediate increase and a sharp
peak to effectively control glucose. This has been made feasible by the development of newer fast-acting analogues,
such as insulin lispro, insulin aspart, and insulin glulisine
(Table 2). Changes in their amino acid structure reduce the
tendency to aggregate into dimers thus speeding their
absorption after subcutaneous injection. They have a rapid
onset of action (typically 515 min), peak activity 2 h after
injection, and their effect has almost disappeared after 4 5
h. This matches normal mealtime peaks of plasma insulin
more closely than human regular insulin, and in turn
results in less immediate post-prandial hyperglycaemia and
less late post-prandial hypoglycaemia.58
New long-acting insulin formulations such as glargine and
detemir provide good glycaemic control between meals
without the risk of hypoglycaemia. Insulin glargine results
from two modifications of human insulin, substitution of

glycine at position A21, and addition of two arginine molecules at the C terminal of the B chain. These substitutions
reduce the solubility at physiological pH and stabilize the
molecule. It is released very slowly from the injection site
and its duration of action is prolonged allowing a relatively
constant basal insulin supply for more than 24 h.
There have been recent reports suggesting an increased risk
of cancer in patients taking long-acting insulins.60 Type 2 DM,
per se, is associated with three leading cancerscolon, pancreas, and breast and is also a risk factor for liver cancer.61
Cancers linked with type 2 DM are, however, also associated
with obesity or insulin resistance, so the cause may be multifactorial. Interestingly, metformin therapy is associated with
a reduced cancer risk compared with insulin or sulphonylureas.62 64 Indeed, cancer mortality was shown to almost
double among insulin users when compared with metformin
users and use of sulphonylurea was also associated with
increased mortality.63 Insulin is a growth factor for a number
of epithelial tumours in cell culture systems and increased
insulin concentrations also cause a secondary increase in
(IGF-1) (insulin-like growth factor), which is another known
tumour growth factor.60 The newer biosynthetic insulins have
increased trophic effects and increase DNA synthesis and cell
division in cell culture systems. These effects are mediated by
prolonged binding to the insulin receptor or increased crossreactivity to the IGF-1 receptor.60 Observational studies in
patients foster the debate. In a large observational study,
there was a strong correlation between insulin dose and
cancer risk, regardless of the insulin type, but when adjusted
for dose insulin glargine had a higher risk than human
insulin.65 A Swedish study of more than 100 000 patients
found that those patients on insulin glargine alone had a
higher risk of breast cancer than those on other insulins (with
or without glargine) although the number of patients was relatively small.66 Further reports from Scotland suggested that
patients on insulin glargine alone had a higher risk of breast
cancer.67 These studies have been criticized for possible selection bias and other statistical deficiencies.68 Two, more recent
analyses of the literature69 70 failed to find an increased risk of
cancer in patients on insulin glargine. The authors commented
that even if research was to establish an increased risk of
cancer among insulin users, this would be unlikely to diminish
the favourable benefitrisk ratio for patients requiring insulin
therapy.70 A recent editorial stated that ultimately what
matters is good glucose controlwhen other therapies fail,
insulin and the insulin analogues achieve this.71

BJA

70

Sulphonylureas
Sulphonylureas have been used since the 1950s and their
efficacy is well-established. However, they are being superseded by newer agents.
Sulphonylureas act mainly by stimulating insulin release
from the b-cells of the pancreas and may also improve
insulin resistance in peripheral target tissues such as muscle
and fat. These drugs reduce concentrations of HbA1c by
12% and fasting blood glucose concentrations by 3.33.9
mmol l21.80 82 Hypoglycaemia is the most common sideeffect and is of particular concern with agents that are metabolized to an active metabolite with significant renal excretion,
such as glibenclamide. These should be avoided in patients
with renal impairment and in elderly patients. Other wellrecognized side-effects include an increase in appetite and
weight gain, and sulphonylureas are not the first choice for
the management of obese patients.83
There has been controversy about the cardiovascular
risk associated with the use of sulphonylureas. The University
Group Diabetes Programme suggested that use of sulphonylurea was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular
events.84 86 Two high-profile randomized trials have
addressed these concerns. The UKPDS and ADOPT
(A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial) have suggested a
reduced cardiovascular risk, which approached statistical significance and a lower incidence of cardiovascular events,
using glibenclamide, when compared with rosiglitazone or
metformin.87 43

Other agents
Meglitinides
The glinides, repaglinide, and nateglinide, are secretagogues
that stimulate rapid insulin production by the pancreas and
reduce both post-prandial blood glucose and HbA1c by
0.52%.88 This early insulin release rapidly suppresses
hepatic glucose production and reduces the need for additional
insulin secretion. The glinides have a faster onset and shorter
duration of action than the sulphonylureas.39 They are associated with a reduced risk of hypoglycaemia, cause less weight
gain, and are metabolized and excreted by the liver, and so
can be used in patients with impaired renal function.

a-Glucosidase inhibitors
Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors block the enzyme a-glucosidase
in the brush border of the small intestine, which delays
absorption of glucose, thereby decreasing meal-related
blood glucose increases.39 Acarbose is taken before carbohydrate containing meals and should not be used when
meals are missed. It does not cause weight gain or hypoglycaemia. Its use is contraindicated in patients with hepatic or
renal impairment (serum creatinine .180 mmol l21), inflammatory bowel disease, or a history of bowel obstruction.86
Side-effects include bloating, flatulence, abdominal cramps,
and diarrhoea, which limits their clinical use. Acarbose is
probably of greatest use in patients with mild fasting

Downloaded from http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on February 1, 2015

from clinical use in the 1970s and metformin is the sole

agent in clinical use in this class. Metformin improves
insulin sensitivity especially in skeletal muscle, decreases
hepatic gluconeogenesis, and inhibits glycogenolysis. Other
beneficial effects include a reduction in plasma triglyceride
and LDL concentrations.72 Metformin, before the introduction of newer agents, was the only drug that improved glycaemia and was associated with a lack of weight gain
and even weight loss in some patients. This makes it an
ideal first-line agent particularly in overweight patients.
Metformin may also improve other cardiovascular risk
factors; the UKPDS group studies suggest that metformin
used as monotherapy in obese patients reduced the rate of
MI and all-cause mortality.73 The 10 yr follow-up of UKPDS,
again emphasized the benefits of long-term glycaemic
control on all causes of death, micro-, and macrovascular
complications.74
Metformin has a mostly favourable side-effect profile.
Because it does not affect insulin secretion, it is not associated with hypoglycaemia when used as monotherapy but
can do so when used in combination with sulphonylureas
or insulin. Gastrointestinal side-effects such as metallic
taste, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhoea occur to
varying degrees in up to 30% of patients. Most of these are
transient and occur when the drug is introduced or the
dose increased rapidly.
Lactic acidosis is a potential concern with metformin.
However, the evidence for metformin-induced lactic acidosis
stems from about 300 case reports.75 Underlying medical
conditions such as chronic renal disease or MI are wellestablished risk factors for lactic acidosis and attributing
lactic acidosis to metformin vs an underlying condition is
often difficult. The reported frequency of metformin-induced
lactic acidosis is three patients per 100 000 patient-years.75
Nevertheless, metformin is not recommended in patients
with renal disease (creatinine clearance ,60 ml min21,
serum creatinine .120 mmol l21 in women or .130 mmol l21
in men), hepatic disease, cardiac disease (NYHA class III or
IV), chronic pulmonary disease, severe infection, alcohol
abuse, history of lactic acidosis, pregnancy, or use of i.v.
radiographic contrast medium.21 72 Despite these concerns,
metformin remains one of the mainstays of diabetic management.76 Stumvoll and colleagues77 have highlighted the
lack of good evidence to support the contraindications to
metformin and suggested that this drug can be safely used
in elderly patients, those with stable heart failure, moderate
renal impairment (emphasizing the need for a reduced dose),
and mild liver impairment (which is often owing to fatty liver
and which improves with metformin). It has been shown that
continuing metformin ingestion does not increase morbidity
or mortality after cardiac surgery and may indeed, have beneficial effects. Metformin-treated patients had less postoperative prolonged tracheal intubation, infection, and
overall cardiac morbidity.78 Metformin treatment is associated with a dose-dependent reduction in cancer risk and it
has been postulated that it may have a role as a novel
anti-cancer drug.79

Nicholson and Hall

BJA

DM: new drugs for a new epidemic

hyperglycaemia or who are already on combination oral

therapy, but require an additional agent. Some studies
have suggested that its use is associated with a reduction
in cardiovascular events and a favourable effect on lipid
metabolism.89 90

Synthetic amylin analogues

Conflict of interest
None declared.

1 Editorial. The global challenge of diabetes. Lancet 2008; 371:

1723
2 Wild SH, Farouhi NG. What is the scale of the future diabetes epidemic and how certain are we about it? Diabetologica 2007; 50:
903 5
3 Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, et al. Global prevalence of diabetes. Estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care
2004; 27: 1047 53
4 Matthews DR, Matthews PC. Type 2 diabetes as an infectious
disease: is this the Black Death of the 21st century? Diabet Med
2011; 28: 2 9
5 Roglic G, Unwin N, Bennett PH, et al. The burden of mortality
attributable to diabetes. Realistic estimates for the year 2000.
Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 21305
6 Roglic G, Unwin N. Mortality attributable to diabetes: estimates
for the year 2010. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2009; 87: 15 9
7 Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year
follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl
J Med 2008; 359: 1577 89
8 Frisch A, Chandra P, Smiley D, et al. Prevalence and clinical
outcome of hyperglycaemia in the perioperative period in noncardiac surgery. Diabetes Care 2010; 33: 17838
9 Sampson MJ, Brennan C, Dhatariya K, et al. A national survey of
in-patient diabetic services in the United Kingdom. Diabet Med
2007; 24: 643 9
10 Sampson MJ, Dozio N, Ferguson B, Dhatariya K. Total and excess
bed occupancy by age, speciality and insulin use for nearly one
million diabetes patients discharged from all English Acute Hospitals. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2007; 77: 92 9
11 The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Follow-up report on the diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 2003; 26: 3160 7
12 The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Report of the Expert Committee on the diagnosis
and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 1997; 20:
1183 97
13 Hanefield M, Temelkova-Kurktschiev T, Schaper F, et al. Impaired
fasting glucose is not a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Diabet Med
1999; 16: 212 8
14 The DECODE Study Group, the European Diabetes Epidemiology
Group. Glucose tolerance and cardiovascular mortality: comparison of fasting and 2-hour diagnostic criteria. Arch Intern Med
2001; 161: 397 404
15 The DECODE Study Group, on behalf of the European Diabetes
Epidemiology Group. Is the current definition for diabetes relevant to mortality risk from all causes and cardiovascular and
noncardiovascular diseases? Diabetes Care 2003; 26: 68896
16 Cavagnolli G, Comerlatot J, Comerlatot C, et al. HbA1c measurement for the diagnosis of diabetes: is it enough? Diabet Med
2011; 28: 315
17 Pajunen P, Peltonen M, Eriksson JG, et al. HbA1c in diagnosing and
predicting type 2 diabetes in impaired glucose tolerance: the
Finnish Diabetes Prevention study. Diabet Med 2011; 28: 36 42
18 Halkos ME, Lattouf OM, Puskas JD, et al. Elevated preoperative
hemoglobin A1c level is associated with reduced long-term survival after coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;
86: 14317
19 Marchant MH, Viens NA, Cook C, et al. The impact of glycemic
control and diabetes mellitus on perioperative outcomes
after total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91:
1621 9

71

Downloaded from http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on February 1, 2015

Amylin is a peptide neurohormone that is synthesized and

secreted by the b-cells of the pancreas with insulin. Patients
lacking functional b-cells (i.e. patients with type 1 DM or
advanced type 2 DM) are deficient in both insulin and
amylin. Amylin secretion, like GLP-1, is stimulated by the
presence of food in the gut and its 24 h profile resembles
that of insulin with low baseline values and a rapid increase
in response to meals. The physiological effects of amylin are
also similar to those of GLP-1 but it is not an incretin
hormone. Amylin suppresses glucagon secretion, delays
gastric-emptying, and acts centrally in the area postrema
of the hindbrain to induce satiety. Amylin slows the
passage of glucose into the circulation while insulin
stimulates cellular uptake of glucose to reduce glucose
concentrations.91 92
Synthetic analogues of amylin such as pramlintide have
been developed. Pramlintide is a stable, bioactive analogue
that differs from human amylin by three amino acid substitutions.93 It is given as a subcutaneous injection two to
three times daily and is administered before meals. It has
a rapid onset of action and duration of action of 2 4 h. It
is currently used in patients with type 1 DM and in those
type 2 diabetics using meal time insulin or insulin in combination with a sulphonylurea or metformin.94 Nausea is a
common side-effect. Hypoglycaemia can occur particularly
in the first 4 weeks of treatment. Decreasing the dose of
pre-meal insulin by 50% when starting therapy avoids this
problem. Pramlintide also causes some weight loss,95 96
reduces HbA1c by 0.3 0.6%, and significantly lowers postprandial glucose.94 The role of pramlintide in the treatment
of type 2 DM is unclear but it may be of some benefit to
those patients already on insulin regimens.
Finally, as part of the quest for newer agents, research has
focused on insulin-independent mechanisms. One of the
newest agents is dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor. Sodiumglucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) is located mainly in the
proximal tubule of the nephron. It reabsorbs most of the
glucose filtered by the glomerulus. Binding of dapagliflozin
inhibits renal glucose reabsorption and promotes urinary
glucose excretion. One study of more than 500 patients,
who had inadequate diabetic control with metformin alone,
found that the addition of dapagliflozin reduced HbA1c and
FPG, with no increased risk in hypoglycaemia but with an
increased incidence of genital infections. The investigators
concluded that addition of dapagliflozin to metformin
provided a new therapeutic option.97

References

BJA

72

40 Fonseca V, Rosenstock J, Patwardhan R, Salzman A. Effect of metformin and rosiglitazone combination therapy in patients with
type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA
2000; 283: 1695 1702
41 Phillips LS, Grunberger G, Miller E, Patwardhan R, Rappaport EB,
Salzman A; the Rosiglitazone Clinical Trials Study Group. Onceand twice-daily dosing with rosiglitazone improves glycemic
control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001;
24: 30815
42 Bell DS, Ovalle F. Tissue triglyceride levels in type 2 diabetes and
the role of thiazolidinediones in reversing the effects of tissue
hypertriglyceridemia: review of the evidence in animals and
humans. Endocr Pract 2001; 7: 13538
43 Kahn SE, Haffner SM, Heise MA, et al. ADOPT Study Group. Glycaemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin or glyburide monotherapy. N Eng J Med 2006; 355: 2427 43
44 Adams M, Montague CT, Prins JB, et al. Activators of peroxisome
proliferator-activated receptor gamma have depot-specific
effects on human preadipocyte differentiation. J Clin Invest
1997; 100: 3149 53
45 McGuire DK, Inzucchi SE. New drugs for the treatment of diabetes
mellitus. Part I. Thiazolidinediones and their evolving cardiovascular implications. Circulation 2008; 117: 4409
46 Haffner SM, Greenberg AS, Weston WM, et al. Effect of rosiglitazone treatment on nontraditional markers of cardiovascular
disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation
2002; 106: 679 84
47 Forst T, Lubben G, Hohberg C, et al. Influence of glucose control
and improvement of insulin resistance on microvascular blood
flow and endothelial function in patients with diabetes mellitus
type 2. Microcirculation 2005; 12: 543 50
48 Nesto RW, Bell D, Bonow RO, et al. Thiazolidinedione use, fluid
retention, and congestive heart failure: a consensus statement
from the American Heart Association and American Diabetes
Association. Circulation 2003; 108: 2941 8
49 Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J
Med 2007; 356: 2457 71
50 Misbin RI. Lessons from the Avandia controversy: a new paradigm
for the development of drugs to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Diabetes Care 2007; 30: 31414
51 Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJ, et al. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in
the PROactive Study (Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in
Macrovascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet
2005; 366: 1279 89
52 McAfee AT, Koro C, Landon J, et al. Coronary heart disease outcomes in patients receiving antidiabetic agents. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 711 25
53 Buse JB; the ACCORD Study group. Action to control cardiovascular risk in diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Design and methods. Am J
Cardiol 2007; 99: S21 S33
54 Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive
glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:
2545 59
55 Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, et al. Medical management of
hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the
initiation and adjustment of therapy. Diabetes Care 2009; 32:
193 203
56 Woo V. Important differences; Canadian Diabetes Association
2008 clinical practice guidelines and the consensus statement

Downloaded from http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on February 1, 2015

20 Gustafsson UO, Thorall A, Soop M, et al. Haemoglobin A1c as a

predictor of postoperative hyperglycaemia and complications
after major colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 2009; 96: 135864
21 Cefalu WT. Pharmacotherapy for the treatment of patients with
type 2 diabetes mellitus: rationale and specific agents. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007; 81: 636 49
22 Misra A. Prevention of type-2 diabetes: the long and winding
road. Lancet 2009; 374: 16556
23 Diabetes Prevention Program research Group. 10-year follow-up
of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the Diabetes Prevention
Program Outcomes Study. Lancet 2009; 374: 1677 86
24 Inzucchi SE, McGuire DK. New drugs for the treatment of diabetes
mellitus. Part II. Incretin-based therapy and beyond. Circulation
2008; 117: 574 84
25 Drucker DJ. The biology of incretin hormones. Cell Metab 2006; 3:
153 65
26 Wong VS, Brubaker PL. From cradle to grave: pancreatic beta-cell
mass and glucagon-like peptide-1. Minerva Endocrinol 2006; 31:
107 24
27 Nathan DM, Schreiber E, Fogel H, et al. Insulinotropic action of
glucagon-like peptide-1-(7-37) in diabetic and nondiabetic subjects. Diabetes Care 1992; 15: 2706
28 Buse JB, Henry RR, Han J, et al. Effects of exenatide (exendin-1)
on glycaemic control over 30 weeks in sulfonylurea-treated
patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 2628 35
29 Defronzo RA, Ratner RE, Han J, et al. Effects of exenatide
(exendin-4) on glycaemic control and weight over 30 weeks in
metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care
2005; 28: 1092 1100
30 Kendall DM, Riddle MC, Rosenstock J, et al. Effects of exenatide
(exendin-4) on glycaemic control over 30 weeks in patients
with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin and a sulfonylurea.
Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 108391
31 Drucker DJ, Buse JB, Taylor K, et al. for the DURATION-1 Study
group. Exenatide once weekly versus twice daily for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomised, open-label, noninferiority study. Lancet 2008; 372: 1240 50
32 Vilsboll T. Liraglutide: a once daily GLP-1 analogue for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Expert Opin Investig Drugs
2007; 16: 231 7
33 Garber A, Henry R, Ratner R, et al. Liraglutide versus glimepiride
monotherapy for type-2 diabetes (LEAD-3 Mono): a randomised
52-week, phase III, double-blind, parallel-treatment trial.
Lancet 2009; 373: 473 81
34 Buse JB, Rosenstock J, Sesti G, et al. Liraglutide once a day versus
exenatide twice a day for type-2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multi-national, open-label trial (LEAD-6).
Lancet 2009; 374: 39 47
35 Astrup A, Rossner S, Van Gaal L, et al. Effects of liraglutide in the
treatment of obesity: a randomised, double-blind, placebocontrolled study. Lancet 2009; 374: 1606 16
36 Amori RE, Lau J, Pittas AG. Efficacy and safety of incretin therapy
in type 2 diabetes. JAMA 2007; 298: 194 206
37 Ahren B. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Diabetes Care 2007;
30: 134450
38 Pratley RE, Salsali A. Inhibition of DPP-4: a new therapeutic
approach for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res
Opin 2007; 23: 919 31
39 Fonseca VA, Kulkarni KD. Management of type 2 diabetes: oral
agents, insulin and injectables. J Am Diet Assoc 2008; 108:
S29S33

Nicholson and Hall

DM: new drugs for a new epidemic

57

58
59

60
61

62

64

65

66

67

68
69

70

71
72
73

74

75

76

77 Holstein A, Stumvoll M. Contraindications can damage your health

- is metformin a case in point? Diabetologia 2005; 48: 245459
78 Duncan AI, Koch CG, Xu M, et al. Recent metformin ingestion does
not increase in-hospital morbidity or mortality after cardiac
surgery. Anesth Analg 2007; 104: 42 50
79 Jalving M, Gietema JA, Lefrandt JD, et al. Metformin: taking away
the candy for cancer? Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 236980
80 Luna B, Feinglos MN. Oral agents in the management of type 2
diabetes mellitus. Am Fam Physician 2001; 63: 1747 56
81 Feinglos MN, Bethel MA. Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Med Clin North Am 1998; 82: 757 90
82 Luna B, Hughes AT, Feinglos MN. The use of insulin secretagogues in
the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Primary Care 1999; 26: 895915
83 Kelley DE. Effects of weight loss on glucose homeostasis in
NIDDM. Diabetes Rev 1995; 3: 36677
84 Meinert CL, Knatterud GL, Prout TE, Klimt CR. A study of the effect
of hypoglycaemic agents on vascular complications in patients
with adult-onset diabetes. II. Mortality results. Diabetes 1970;
19(suppl.): 789 830
85 Feinglos MN, Bethel MA. Therapy of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular death, and the UGDP. Am Heart J 1999; 138: 34652
86 Sheehan MT. Current therapeutic opinion in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a practical approach. Clin Med Res 2003; 1: 189200
87 UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood
glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with
conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients
with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998; 352: 837 53
88 Black C, Donnelly P, McIntyre L, et al.. Meglitinide analogues for
type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 18:
CD004654
89 Chiasson JL, Josse RG, Gomis R, Hanefeld M, Karasik A, Laakso M;
STOP-NIDDM Trial Research Group. Acarbose treatment and the
risk of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in patients with
impaired glucose tolerance: the STOP-NIDDM trial. JAMA 2003;
290: 48694
90 Kado S, Murakami T, Aoki A, et al. Effect of acarbose on postprandial lipid metabolism in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin
Pract 1998; 41: 49 55
91 Kruger DF, Gloster MA. Pramlintide for the treatment of insulinrequiring diabetes mellitus: rationale and review of clinical
data. Drugs 2004; 64: 1419 32
92 Schmitz O, Brock B, Rungby J. Amylin agonists: a novel approach
in the treatment of diabetes. Diabetes 2004; 53: S233 8
93 Samsom M, Szarka LA, Camilleri M, et al. Pramlintide, an amylin
analog, selectively delays gastric emptying: potential role of
vagal inhibition. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2000;
278: G946G951
94 Ryan GJ, Jobe LJ, Martin R. Pramlintide in the treatment of type 1
and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2005; 27: 150012
95 Ratner RE, Dickey R, Fineman M, et al. Amylin replacement with
pramlintide as an adjunct to insulin therapy improves long-term
glycaemic and weight control in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabet
Med 2004; 21: 1204 12
96 Hollander P, Maggs DG, Ruggles JA, et al. Effect of pramlintide on
weight in overweight and obese insulin-treated type 2 diabetes
patients. Obesity Res 2004; 12: 661 668
97 Bailey CJ, Gross JL, Pieters A, et al. Effect of dapagliflozin in
patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic
control with metformin: a randomised, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 2223 33

73

Downloaded from http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on February 1, 2015

63

of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia 2009; 52: S523
Home PD, Pocock S, Beck-Nielsen H, et al. Rosiglitazone evaluated
for cardiovascular outcomes in oral agent combination therapy
for type-2 diabetes (RECORD): a multicentre, randomised, openlabel trial. Lancet 2009; 373: 212535
Wyne KL, Mora PF. Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes. Endocr Res
2007; 32: 71107
Garber AJ, Wahlen J, Wahl T, et al. Attainment of glycaemic goals
in type 2 diabetes with once-, twice-, or thrice-daily dosing with
biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (The 1 23 study). Diabetes Obes
Metab 2006; 8: 58 66
Smith U, Gale EAM. Does diabetes therapy influence the risk of
cancer. Diabetologia 2009; 52: 1699 1708
Coughlin SS, Callee EE, Teras LR, et al. Diabetes mellitus as a
predictor of cancer mortality in a large cohort of US adults.
Am J Epidemiol 2004; 159: 11607
Evans JMM, Donnelly LA, Emslie-Smith AM, et al. Metformin and
reduced risk of cancer in diabetic patients. Br Med J 2005; 330:
1304 5
Bowker SL, Majumdar SR, Veugelers P, Johnson JA. Increased
cancer-related mortality for patients with type 2 diabetes who
use sulfonylureas or insulin. Diabetes Care 2006; 29: 2548
Currie CJ, Poole CD, Gale EAM. The influence of glucose-lowering
therapies on cancer risk in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2009; 52:
1766 77
Hemkens LG, Grouven U, Bender R, et al. Risk of malignancies in
patients with diabetes treated with human insulin or insulin analogues: a cohort study. Diabetologia 2009; 52: 1732 44
Jonasson JM, Ljung R, Talback M, et al. Insulin glargine use and
short-term incidence of malignanciesa population-based
follow-up study in Sweden. Diabetologia 2009; 52: 174554
Colhoun HM, SDRN Epidemiology group. Use of insulin glargine
and cancer incidence in Scotland: a study from the Scottish Diabetes Research Network Epidemiology Group. Diabetologia 2009;
52: 175565
Pocock SJ, Smeeth L. Insulin glargine and malignancy: an unwarranted alarm. Lancet 2009; 374: 5112
Home PD, Lagarenne P. Combined randomised controlled trial
experience of malignancies in studies using insulin glargine. Diabetologia 2009; 52: 2499 505
Pollak M, Russell-Jones D. Insulin analogues and cancer risk:
cause for concern or cause cele`bre? Int J Clin Pract 2010; 64:
628 36
Thompson GA. Insulin, insulin analogues and cancer: no cause
for panic. Int J Clin Pract 2010; 64: 525 7
Stumvoll M, Haring H-U, Matthaei S. Metformin. Endocr Res 2007;
32: 39 57.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of intensive
blood glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 1998;
352: 85465
Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, et al. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:
1577 89
Bolen S, Feldman L, Vassy J, et al. Systematic Review: comparative
effectiveness and safety of oral medications for type 2 diabetes
mellitus. Ann Int Med 2007; 147: 386 99
Hall GM, Nicholson G. Current therapeutic drugs for Type 2 diabetes, still useful after 50 years? Anesth Analg 2009; 108: 1727 30

BJA