Back to Journals » Clinical Epidemiology » Volume 9

Hypoglycemia: a review of definitions used in clinical trials evaluating antihyperglycemic drugs for diabetes

Authors Balijepalli C, Druyts E, Siliman G, Joffres M, Thorlund K, Mills EJ

Received 6 December 2016

Accepted for publication 21 April 2017

Published 23 May 2017 Volume 2017:9 Pages 291—296

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S129268

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Christian Fynbo Christiansen

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Professor Henrik Toft Sørensen


Chakrapani Balijepalli,1,2 Eric Druyts,2 Gaye Siliman,2 Michel Joffres,1 Kristian Thorlund,2,3 Edward J Mills3

1Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, 2Precision Health Economics, Vancouver, BC, 3Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Objective: To understand the severity and potential impact of heterogeneity in definitions of hypoglycemia used in diabetes research, we aimed to review the hypoglycemia definitions adopted in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods: We reviewed 109 RCTs included in the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health reports for the second- and third-line therapy for the patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Results: Nearly 60% (n=66) of the studies reviewed presented the definitions for overall hypoglycemia, and another 20% (n=22) of the studies reported the results for hypoglycemia but did not report a definition. Among these 66 studies, only 9 (14%) followed the American Diabetes Association/European Medicines Agency specified guidelines to define hypoglycemia, with an exact threshold of plasma glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L. Fifty-two of the 66 studies (79%) used a threshold considerably lower than the recommended ≤3.9 mmol/L, and 16 studies used a threshold between 3.8 and 4.0 mmol/L. The proportion of the trials that used a cutoff value of <3.1 mmol/L appeared to be slightly similar among the more commonly used non-insulin treatments, GLP-1s (7 of 18 [39%]), thiazolidinediones (TZDs; 6 of 11 [55%]), DPP-4s (12 of 19 [64%]), and sulfonylureas (11 of 20 [55%]). Among trials with intermediate-long-acting insulins (neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, detemir, glargine), 7 of 26 trials (27%) used a cutoff of <3.1 mmol/L. The definition of severe hypoglycemia was also subject to substantial heterogeneity, in both the utilized threshold and accompanying soft definitions.
Conclusion: This review demonstrates that substantial heterogeneity exists in the definition of overall, severe/major, and nocturnal hypoglycemia across RCTs investigating T2D interventions.

Keywords: diabetes, hypoglycemia, randomized controlled trials, heterogeneity, review

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]