Harrower A D
Department of Medicine and Bracco House Diabetes Centre, Monklands Hospital, Airdrie, Lanarkshire, Scotland.
Drug Saf. 2000 Apr;22(4):313-20. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200022040-00004.
The sulphonylurea drugs have been the mainstay of oral treatment for patients with diabetes mellitus since they were introduced. In general, they are well tolerated, with a low incidence of adverse effects, although there are some differences between the drugs in the incidence of hypoglycaemia. Over the years, the drugs causing the most problems with hypoglycaemia have been chlorpropamide and glibenclamide (glyburide), although this is a potential problem with all sulphonylureas because of their action on the pancreatic beta cell, stimulating insulin release. Other specific problems have been reported with chlorpropamide that occur only rarely, if at all, with other sulphonylureas. Hyponatraemia secondary to inappropriate antidiuretic hormone activity, and increased flushing following the ingestion of alcohol, have been well described. The progressive beta cell failure with time results in eventual loss of efficacy, as these agents depend on a functioning beta cell and are ineffective in the absence of insulin-producing capacity. Differences in this secondary failure rate have been reported, with chlorpropamide and gliclazide having lower failure rates than glibenclamide or glipizide. The reasons for this are unclear, but the more abnormal pattern of insulin release produced by glibenclamide may be partly responsible and, indeed, may explain the increased risk of hypoglycaemia with this agent. Previously reported increased mortality associated with tolbutamide therapy has not been substantiated, and more recent data have shown no increased mortality from sulphonylurea treatment. Indeed, benefit from glycaemic control, regardless of the agent used--insulin or sulphonylurea--was reported by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study. Nevertheless, there is still ongoing controversy in view of the experimental evidence, mainly from animal studies, of potential adverse effects on the heart from sulphonylureas, but these are difficult to extrapolate into clinical situations. Most of these studies have been carried out with glibenclamide, which makes comparison of possible risk difficult. Other cardiovascular risk factors may be modified by gliclazide, which seems unique among the sulphonylureas in this respect. Its reported haemobiological and free radical scavenging activity probably resides in the azabicyclo-octyl ring structure in the side chain. Reduced progression or improvement in retinopathy has been reported in comparative trials with other sulphonylureas, and the effect is unrelated to improvements in glycaemia. There are differences between the sulphonylureas in some adverse effects, risk of hypoglycaemia, failure rates and actions on vascular risk factors. As a group of drugs, they are very well tolerated, but differences in overall tolerability can be identified.
自磺脲类药物问世以来,一直是糖尿病患者口服治疗的主要药物。总体而言,它们耐受性良好,不良反应发生率较低,尽管不同药物在低血糖发生率方面存在一些差异。多年来,导致低血糖问题最多的药物是氯磺丙脲和格列本脲(优降糖),不过由于所有磺脲类药物都会作用于胰腺β细胞,刺激胰岛素释放,所以这是所有磺脲类药物都存在的潜在问题。氯磺丙脲还存在一些其他特定问题,而这些问题在其他磺脲类药物中很少出现,甚至根本不会出现。继发于抗利尿激素活性异常的低钠血症,以及饮酒后脸红加剧,都已有详细描述。随着时间推移,β细胞功能逐渐衰竭会导致药物最终失效,因为这些药物依赖有功能的β细胞,在缺乏胰岛素分泌能力时无效。不同药物在这种继发失效发生率上存在差异,据报道氯磺丙脲和格列齐特的失效发生率低于格列本脲或格列吡嗪。其原因尚不清楚,但格列本脲产生的胰岛素释放模式更异常可能是部分原因,实际上,这也可能解释了该药物低血糖风险增加的原因。先前报道的甲苯磺丁脲治疗相关死亡率增加并未得到证实,最新数据表明磺脲类药物治疗不会增加死亡率。事实上,英国前瞻性糖尿病研究报告称,无论使用胰岛素还是磺脲类药物,血糖控制均可带来益处。然而,鉴于主要来自动物研究的实验证据表明磺脲类药物可能对心脏有潜在不良影响,这一问题仍存在争议,但这些影响难以外推至临床情况。大多数此类研究是使用格列本脲进行的,这使得比较潜在风险变得困难。格列齐特可能会改变其他心血管危险因素,在这方面它在磺脲类药物中似乎很独特。其报道的血液生物学和自由基清除活性可能存在于侧链的氮杂双环辛基环结构中。与其他磺脲类药物的对比试验报告称,视网膜病变的进展减缓或有所改善,且这种效果与血糖改善无关。不同磺脲类药物在一些不良反应、低血糖风险、失效发生率以及对血管危险因素的作用方面存在差异。作为一类药物,它们耐受性良好,但总体耐受性存在差异。