Adverse cardiovascular events during treatment with glyburide (glibenclamide) or gliclazide in a high-risk population

Authors

  • D. N. Juurlink,

    1. The Sunnybrook Research Institute, Departments of
    2. Medicine
    3. Pediatrics
    4. Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the University of Toronto
    5. The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
    Search for more papers by this author
  • T. Gomes,

    1. The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
    2. Department of Pharmacy at the University of Toronto
    Search for more papers by this author
  • B. R. Shah,

    1. The Sunnybrook Research Institute, Departments of
    2. Medicine
    3. Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the University of Toronto
    4. The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
    Search for more papers by this author
  • M. M. Mamdani

    1. Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the University of Toronto
    2. The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
    3. Department of Pharmacy at the University of Toronto
    4. the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author

David Juurlink. E-mail: dnj@ices.on.ca

Abstract

Diabet. Med. 29, 1524–1528 (2012)

Abstract

Aims  Sulphonylureas promote insulin release by inhibiting pancreatic potassium channels. Older sulphonylureas such as glyburide (glibenclamide), but not newer ones such as gliclazide, antagonize similar channels in myocardium, interfering with the protective effects of ischaemic preconditioning. Whether this imparts a higher risk of adverse cardiac events is unknown.

Methods  We conducted a population-based cohort study of patients aged 66 years and older who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction or who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2010 while receiving either glyburide or gliclazide. We used a high-dimensional propensity score matching process to ensure similarity of glyburide- and gliclazide-treated patients. The primary outcome was a composite of death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or heart failure.

Results  During the 2-year study period, we matched 1690 patients treated with glyburide to 984 patients treated with gliclazide at the time of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention. We found no difference in the risk of the composite outcome among patients receiving glyburide (adjusted hazard ratio 1.01; 95% CI 0.86–1.18). We found similar results in secondary analyses of each outcome individually, and in two supplementary analyses (haemorrhage and pneumonia) in which we anticipated no difference between the two patient groups.

Conclusions  Among older patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention, treatment with glyburide is not associated with an increased risk of future adverse cardiovascular events relative to gliclazide, suggesting that the effect of glyburide on ischaemic preconditioning is of little clinical relevance.

Ancillary