ReviewDrug safety1993
Continuous versus intermittent sulphonylurea therapy in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.
Review in Drug safety, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute and long-term effects of nateglinide on insulin secretory pathways.British journal of pharmacology · 2004Article
- Induced desensitization of the insulinotropic effects of antidiabetic drugs, BTS 67 582 and tolbutamide.British journal of pharmacology · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although it is 50 years since the discovery of the hypoglycaemic effects of sulphonylureas, the molecular basis of their effects are still not fully understood. It has been suggested that long term sulphonylurea therapy may desensitise the pancreatic beta-cells to further drug effects, and that intermittent sulphonylurea therapy may be the best approach to maintain their effectiveness. A randomised, double-blind study has been carried out to attempt to answer the question of whether intermittent sulphonylurea therapy is more effective then continuous administration. Responders to oral glibenclamide (glyburide) went on to receive continuous or intermittent treatment (glibenclamide for 2 weeks then placebo for 2 weeks) for 16 weeks. Glycaemic control was maintained in the continuous treatment group. However, glucose levels deteriorated in the intermittent treatment group, suggesting that there is no merit to intermittent sulphonylurea treatment. Other strategies to investigate include administration on an alternate-day basis or a shorter period off the drug (e.g. 1 week). The underlying question of optimal glycaemic control with sulphonylureas warrants a definitive answer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.