This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Glipizide does in the body
Insulin comes out, blood sugar falls, and it keeps falling if the person has not eaten.
Beta cells in the pancreas keep a set of potassium channels open when blood sugar is low, which keeps them electrically quiet. When sugar rises the cell burns it, the channels shut, and the cell fires and releases insulin. Glipizide shuts those channels chemically, so the cell fires whether or not there is sugar to justify it.
Why people take it. Type 2 diabetes — a tablet that squeezes more insulin out of the pancreas
What happened in people
An adjusted hazard ratio of 0.54 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.90) for recurrent cardiovascular events favouring metformin over glipizide in 304 randomised patients with coronary disease, at matched HbA1c
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
That lowering HbA1c with glipizide prevents heart attacks — UKPDS found no significant macrovascular reduction, and the only randomised head-to-head comparison found glipizide worse than metformin
Where it acts
Pancreatic islet beta cell plasma membrane; the same channel subtype family also exists in cardiac and vascular smooth muscle
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
Supervision
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · X7WDT95N5C · read 2026-08-29
Its recorded molecular formula is C21H27N5O4S, weighing 445.55.
US prescribing information · 0effd04d-172c-5d8c-e063-6294a90a93f4 · read 2026-08-30
Where each sentence above came from
A person wrote this explanation into the record, with the studies named in the path below.
The recorded use, written for a reader without medical training. Not signed off.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 118 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Stand-in result
A stand-in result is a number measured because the real result takes too long.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like judging a journey by the speedometer rather than by arriving.
Where that stops being true. Speed does predict arrival. Many stand-in results do not predict the real one.
What people get wrong. A stand-in result is often reported as the result itself.
A surrogate endpoint substituted for a clinical endpoint, valid only where the substitution has been shown to hold.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
Confidence interval
A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.
Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.
What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.
An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.
Pathway
A pathway is a chain of steps inside a cell, each one setting off the next.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A pathway is like a row of dominoes.
Where that stops being true. Dominoes fall one way. Pathways loop back and can switch themselves off.
What people get wrong. Changing one step is read as changing the outcome. Other steps often absorb it.
An ordered series of molecular interactions producing a defined cellular change.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What was measured, goal by goal
One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.
Registered studies list 29 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.
There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.
Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
Goal
Life outcome
What a body can do
How a person feels
A test result
A step in the body
Harms
How long
Who was studied
Blood sugar
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.
△Only a number moved5 registered test measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Blood sugar
hba1c at week 52; hba1c at week 18; adjusted mean change in hba1c levels; glucose time in range; metabolic control of diabetes measured by hba1c in /mol
Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.
What each mark on this table means
∅ Nothing in the sources checked
No registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
△ Only a number moved
5 registered test measure.
— Not recorded
Harms were not a registered measure for this goal.
… Waiting for a reviewer
Who was studied is listed further down the page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Time to the composite of recurrent cardiovascular events — cardiovascular death, death from any cause, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or arterial revascularisation — glipizide against metformin
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
SPREAD-DIMCAD (Hong 2013)
How many people
304
Study design
Multicentre randomised double-blind trial, 3 years of treatment, median 5.0 years of follow-up
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
Adjusted hazard ratio 0.54 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.90, P = 0.026) in favour of metformin, against glipizide
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Both arms reached effectively the same HbA1c (7.1% against 7.0%), so the difference in outcomes cannot be attributed to differential glucose control. The trial is small, single-country and unreplicated.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet — immediate-release, and an extended-release osmotic push-pull system
Interval reported. 95% CI 0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Three aggregate endpoints — any diabetes-related endpoint, diabetes-related death and all-cause mortality — for intensive control with a sulphonylurea or insulin against conventional dietary policy
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
UKPDS 33
How many people
3867
Study design
Randomised controlled trial of glycaemic policy, median 10 years
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
P = 0.029 for a 12% reduction in any diabetes-related endpoint; P = 0.0099 for a 25% reduction in microvascular endpoints; P = 0.34 for diabetes-related death and P = 0.44 for all-cause mortality
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Neither diabetes-related death nor all-cause mortality reached significance, and macrovascular disease was not reduced. Intensive treatment produced more hypoglycaemia (p<0.0001) and 2.9 kg more weight gain (p<0.001).
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet — immediate-release, and an extended-release osmotic push-pull system
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Reduction in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose across doses
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
GLUCOTROL XL dose-response programme
How many people
347
Study design
Two randomised double-blind dose-response studies
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
The label states the relationship between dose and reduction in HbA1c was not established; fasting plasma glucose fell more at 20 mg than at 5 mg
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. A dose-response relationship for the registration endpoint that could not be demonstrated in 347 randomised patients is stated on the label rather than resolved by a further trial.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet — immediate-release, and an extended-release osmotic push-pull system
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Prevention or delay of vascular complications with glucose-lowering drugs in non-insulin-dependent diabetes
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP), tolbutamide arm
How many people
823
Study design
Long-term prospective randomised four-arm trial, 5 to 8 years
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Cardiovascular mortality approximately 2.5 times that of diet alone in the tolbutamide arm; total mortality was not significantly increased
Repeated elsewhere
Failed to Replicate
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Tolbutamide was stopped on the cardiovascular finding, which the FDA label acknowledges limited the ability of the trial to detect an effect on overall mortality. The finding has been extended by regulation to glipizide, which was not studied.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet — immediate-release, and an extended-release osmotic push-pull system
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
RNAWiki holds 4 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
■Living longer, or avoiding a major eventEvidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.3 registered measures of this kind. 1 written-up study measured this and did not show a benefit.
□What a body can do day to dayNo evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
□Measured performanceNo evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
□Symptoms and quality of lifeNo evidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.No registered study measures this.
■A number that stands in for healthEvidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.11 registered measures of this kind.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
■AnimalsEvidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.Stored records in Rat. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
■Cells in a dishEvidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.Stored mechanism abstracts describe steps measured in cells or tissue.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Where a source records it acting
Pancreas: Appears to lower blood glucose acutely by stimulating the release of insulin from the pancreas, dependent upon functioning beta cells in the pancreatic islets
US prescribing information · 00729e82-150a-464a-abe7-a3319721fbdb · read 2026-08-27
Start
Glipizide
What a person takes: Oral tablet — immediate-release, and an extended-release osmotic push-pull system.
The measurement behind this step
The immediate-release tablet is a conventional compressed tablet of a poorly water-soluble weak acid with a pKa of 5.9. The extended-release tablet is an osmotic pump: a bilayer core of drug plus an inert swelling layer, inside a semipermeable cellulose acetate membrane with a laser-drilled orifice. Water crosses the membrane, the push layer expands, and drug is extruded through the hole at a controlled rate. The insoluble shell passes through the gut and is excreted intact, which patients sometimes notice and mistake for an unabsorbed tablet.
Getting in
Swallowed, completely absorbed, in the blood within an hour
The tablet dissolves and essentially all of the drug gets into the bloodstream. Peak levels arrive one to three hours later, and most of it is cleared within four hours.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Absolute bioavailability is 100%, with peak plasma concentration at 1 to 3 hours and an elimination half-life of 2 to 4 hours. The half-life is the same intravenously as orally, so there is no meaningful first-pass extraction. The molecule is highly protein-bound and metabolised in the liver to inactive products.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
It docks on a receptor that sits on top of a potassium gate
On the surface of every insulin-producing cell is a gate that lets potassium out. Sitting on that gate is a protein that acts as its handle. Glipizide grips that handle.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Glipizide binds the sulfonylurea receptor SUR1, an ABC-transporter-family protein (gene ABCC8) that assembles as four copies around four copies of the inward-rectifier potassium pore Kir6.2 (gene KCNJ11). The binding site is on SUR1, not on the pore itself.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
The gate shuts and the cell becomes electrically excitable
With potassium no longer leaking out, positive charge builds up inside the cell. That change in voltage is the trigger the cell normally waits for sugar to produce.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Channel closure removes the resting potassium conductance and depolarises the beta-cell membrane from roughly -70 mV toward the threshold for voltage-gated L-type calcium channels. Physiologically this depolarisation is produced by a rising ATP-to-ADP ratio from glucose metabolism; glipizide produces it chemically, independent of glucose.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Calcium floods in and insulin granules fuse with the surface
Voltage-gated calcium channels open, calcium rushes in, and the pre-loaded packets of insulin inside the cell fuse with the membrane and empty into the blood.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
L-type calcium channel opening raises cytosolic calcium, which triggers SNARE-mediated fusion of docked insulin granules. The label notes the insulinotropic response to a meal occurs within 30 minutes of an oral dose, and that elevated insulin levels do not persist beyond the meal challenge.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Blood sugar falls — and keeps falling if no food arrives
The released insulin drives glucose into muscle and fat and shuts down the liver. Because the release was not conditional on blood sugar being high, it continues when blood sugar is already normal.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
This is the mechanistic origin of sulfonylurea hypoglycaemia: the drug bypasses the glucose-sensing step entirely. It is also why the effect decays as beta-cell function is lost, and why the label states the drug is ineffective in type 1 diabetes and diabetic ketoacidosis.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
The same channel family exists in heart and blood vessels
Potassium channels of this type also sit in heart muscle and artery walls, where they open during oxygen starvation and are thought to protect tissue. Whether blocking them there matters is the question behind the warning on the label.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
The cardiac and vascular isoforms pair Kir6.2 or Kir6.1 with SUR2A or SUR2B (gene ABCC9) rather than SUR1, and mediate ischaemic preconditioning. Sulfonylureas differ in their selectivity between SUR1 and SUR2. This is the proposed mechanism behind the UGDP finding and behind the SPREAD-DIMCAD result, and it remains a mechanism rather than a demonstrated cause of the clinical outcomes.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 6 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Felt, measured, or meaningful
Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.
Felt
Things a person could notice without a test.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
Measured
Things only a test, a scale or a device shows.
hba1c at week 52
hba1c at week 18
hemoglobin a1c after sitagliptin treatment
hemoglobin a1c levels at week 54
adjusted mean change in hba1c levels
glycosylated hemoglobin at week 52
glycosylated hemoglobin at week 104
hemoglobin a1c at week 26
glycosylated hemoglobin at week 24
glucose time in range
and 1 more.
Meaningful
Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.
hospitalization for incident heart failure
hospitalization for acute pancreatitis
incidence of 3 major adverse cardiovascular events
A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.
Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.
Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.
Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.
Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.
Names that fit none of the three (15)
atheroma volume to month 18
a1c values
clinical adverse events
hypoglycemic events
bioequivalence
bioequivalence based on auc and cmax
who experienced at least one adverse event
who discontinued study drug due to an adverse event
euglycemia
myocardial fat content
hepatic fat content
incident pancreatic cancer
gfr change after treatment
mace
modified mace
These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How long anything takes
Nine different lengths of time that get confused with each other. None of them is worked out from another.
Before anything is noticed.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Before a test result moves.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Before performance moves.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
How long the result was watched.No finished study window is recorded for a study that tested this substance.
How long people took it.How long people actually took it is not stored. The study window is not the same thing.
How long people were followed.Follow-up length is not stored separately. It is never read off the study window, which would be a different thing.
How fast the body clears it. 2 to 4 hours hours
Read from the label, which states: “The half-life of elimination ranges from 2 to 4 hours in normal subjects, whether given intravenously or orally.”
How long effects linger.RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.
Beyond the studies. Nothing is recorded about the long term.
The longest finished study sets the edge of what anyone measured.
A study window is not how long people took it, and neither is how long they were followed. Where RNAWiki holds only one of the three, it shows one.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Adults with type 2 diabetes, usually after metformin. Glipizide is among the cheapest glucose-lowering drugs in existence and remains heavily prescribed for that reason, particularly where newer agents are not affordable.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What the label states about particular groups
On pediatric, the label states: “Safety and effectiveness in children have not been established.”
US prescribing information · 0effd04d-172c-5d8c-e063-6294a90a93f4 · read 2026-08-30
On older people, the label states: “There were no overall differences in effectiveness or safety between younger and older patients, but greater sensitivity of some individuals cannot be ruled out.”
US prescribing information · 0effd04d-172c-5d8c-e063-6294a90a93f4 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are pregnant, the label states: “Risk Summary Available data from a small number of published studies and postmarketing experience with glipizide extended-release tablets use in pregnancy over decades have not identified any drug associated risks for major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal outcomes.”
US prescribing information · 0effd04d-172c-5d8c-e063-6294a90a93f4 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Risk Summary Breastfed infants of lactating women using glipizide extended-release tablets should be monitored for symptoms of hypoglycemia (see Clinical Considerations).”
US prescribing information · 0effd04d-172c-5d8c-e063-6294a90a93f4 · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced liver function, the label states: “There is no information regarding the effects of hepatic impairment on the disposition of glipizide.”
US prescribing information · 0effd04d-172c-5d8c-e063-6294a90a93f4 · read 2026-08-30
Where the result stopped carrying
Glipizide lost SPREAD-DIMCAD to metformin on a composite hard cardiovascular endpoint, the only randomised outcome comparison it has
UKPDS 33 did not show a significant reduction in diabetes-related death (p=0.34) or all-cause mortality (p=0.44) for intensive glycaemic control with sulfonylureas or insulin
The dose-response relationship for HbA1c could not be established in the extended-release registration programme
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely.
On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Prescription only
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral tablet — immediate-release, and an extended-release osmotic push-pull system
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
9. The extended-release tablet is an osmotic pump: a bilayer core of drug plus an inert swelling layer, inside a semipermeable cellulose acetate membrane with a laser-drilled orifice. Water crosses the membrane, the push layer expands, and drug is extruded through the hole at a controlled rate. The insoluble shell passes through the gut and is excreted intact, which patients sometimes notice and mistake for an unabsorbed tablet.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
The recorded stepping schedule
What follows is the schedule printed on the label, recorded as it is written there. It is a record of what was done, not a recommendation.
US prescribing information · 00729e82-150a-464a-abe7-a3319721fbdb · read 2026-08-27
Initial Dose: 5 mg, given before breakfast — Label-stated recommended starting dose; geriatric patients or those with liver disease may be started on 2.5 mg
US prescribing information · 00729e82-150a-464a-abe7-a3319721fbdb · read 2026-08-27
Titration, with at least several days between titration steps: Dosage adjustments in increments of 2.5 to 5 mg, as determined by blood glucose response — Label-stated titration
US prescribing information · 00729e82-150a-464a-abe7-a3319721fbdb · read 2026-08-27
Maximum: 15 mg once daily; maximum recommended total daily dose 40 mg — Label-stated maximum recommended doses
US prescribing information · 00729e82-150a-464a-abe7-a3319721fbdb · read 2026-08-27
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Hypoglycaemia is the defining risk and it is mechanistic, not idiosyncratic: the drug releases insulin whether or not glucose is high. Older patients, impaired renal or hepatic function, missed meals, alcohol and unaccustomed exertion all increase it. Weight gain is expected. The United States label opens its warnings with a special warning on increased risk of cardiovascular mortality derived from the 1970 UGDP trial of tolbutamide and extended to the class by analogy. Haemolytic anaemia has been reported in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. Rare hepatic and haematological reactions occur, as with any sulfonylurea.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of … · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction.
Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing.
The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete.
News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report.
A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Glipizide appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 1365 reaction mentions were counted. One report can name several reactions.
The recorded terms (10)
hypoglycaemia — 568 reaction mentions
blood glucose increased — 204 reaction mentions
drug hypersensitivity — 180 reaction mentions
blood glucose decreased — 91 reaction mentions
diabetes mellitus inadequate control — 70 reaction mentions
open-targets-adr · recorded 2026-06-24 · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral tablet — immediate-release, and an extended-release osmotic push-pull system
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
9. The extended-release tablet is an osmotic pump: a bilayer core of drug plus an inert swelling layer, inside a semipermeable cellulose acetate membrane with a laser-drilled orifice. Water crosses the membrane, the push layer expands, and drug is extruded through the hole at a controlled rate. The insoluble shell passes through the gut and is excreted intact, which patients sometimes notice and mistake for an unabsorbed tablet.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
184 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 163 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 72162-2614 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as powder, tablet, tablet, extended release, tablet, film coated and tablet, film coated, extended release, taken oral.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 72162-2614 · read 2026-08-29
The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is sulfonylurea compounds [cs] and sulfonylurea [epc].
FDA National Drug Code directory · 72162-2614 · read 2026-08-29
114 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 105 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.
US prescribing information · 560448dd-3690-43d9-9667-925f20bb816e · read 2026-08-29
Those labels are classed as human prescription drug.
US prescribing information · 560448dd-3690-43d9-9667-925f20bb816e · read 2026-08-29
Glipizide is tablets at 10 mg, recorded as prescription product; fda label in effect 2026-03-19 in the United States.
US prescribing information · 00729e82-150a-464a-abe7-a3319721fbdb · read 2026-08-27
Recorded price in US: 0.03498–1.28952 USD per one unit as the pricing file counts it — a tablet, capsule, patch or single item, across 40 priced products whose strengths and pack forms differ, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..
Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
RNAWiki could not confidently classify this substance, so no self-experiment plan is offered.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Glipizide studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That lowering HbA1c with glipizide prevents heart attacks — UKPDS found no significant macrovascular reduction, and the only randomised head-to-head comparison found glipizide worse than metformin
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the 1970 UGDP cardiovascular mortality finding applies to glipizide — the label extends it by chemical analogy and says so, and glipizide has never been tested against placebo for cardiovascular outcomes
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That higher doses give proportionally better HbA1c control — the extended-release label states in terms that this relationship was not established across 347 randomised patients
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the long-term glucose-lowering effect is fully explained by insulin release — the label says the long-term mechanism has not been clearly established and invokes unspecified extrapancreatic effects
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Glipizide are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
The label still carries a 1970 mortality warning about a drug that is not glipizide
In plain words
Every glipizide package insert in the United States opens its warnings section with a statement that oral diabetes drugs increase death from heart disease. That statement comes from a trial that finished in 1970, tested tolbutamide, and enrolled 823 people. It was extended to glipizide on the reasoning that the drugs are chemically similar.
What was measured
Cardiovascular mortality ratio in the tolbutamide arm of a 823-patient trial, and the regulatory extension of that finding to the sulfonylurea class
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The FDA-approved glipizide label contains a section headed "SPECIAL WARNING ON INCREASED RISK OF CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY". It states that the University Group Diabetes Program, a 823-patient four-arm trial published in Diabetes in 1970, found patients treated for five to eight years with diet plus a fixed 1.5 g daily dose of tolbutamide had cardiovascular mortality approximately two and a half times that of patients on diet alone. Total mortality was not significantly increased, and the label acknowledges that tolbutamide was discontinued on the basis of the cardiovascular finding, "thus limiting the opportunity for the study to show an increase in overall mortality". The label then states: "Despite controversy regarding the interpretation of these results, the findings of the UGDP study provide an adequate basis for this warning", and extends it to the class because "it is prudent from a safety standpoint to consider that this warning may also apply to other oral hypoglycemic drugs in this class, in view of their close similarities in mode of action and chemical structure." Glipizide was approved fourteen years after UGDP reported and has never had a placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcome trial of its own.
Source
FDA prescribing information for glipizide tablets USP, WARNINGS section; University Group Diabetes Program, Diabetes 1970;19(suppl 2):747-830
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
contested
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Glipizide lost its only randomised cardiovascular comparison, to metformin
In plain words
A Chinese trial randomised 304 people with type 2 diabetes who had already had coronary disease to glipizide or metformin, blinded, for three years, then followed them for five. Both drugs controlled blood sugar equally. The metformin group had roughly half the rate of further cardiovascular events.
What was measured
Adjusted hazard ratio for the composite of recurrent cardiovascular events at a median 5.0 years, metformin against glipizide, at matched HbA1c
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
SPREAD-DIMCAD was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 304 patients with type 2 diabetes and a history of coronary artery disease, mean age 63.3 years, assigned to glipizide 30 mg daily or metformin 1.5 g daily for three years. At the end of study drug administration HbA1c was 7.1% in the glipizide group and 7.0% in the metformin group. At a median follow-up of 5.0 years, 91 participants had developed 103 primary endpoints. The intention-to-treat adjusted hazard ratio for the composite of cardiovascular death, death from any cause, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or arterial revascularisation was 0.54 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.90, p=0.026) for metformin against glipizide. Secondary endpoints and adverse events did not differ significantly. The trial is small, single-country and has not been replicated, and it is the only randomised comparison of glipizide against another agent with adjudicated cardiovascular endpoints in the literature.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
In UKPDS, sulfonylureas prevented eye and kidney damage but not heart attacks
In plain words
The one large long-term trial that included glipizide followed 3,867 newly diagnosed patients for ten years. Tighter control cut microvascular complications — retinal damage, kidney damage — by a quarter. It did not significantly cut heart attacks, deaths from diabetes, or deaths from anything.
What was measured
Relative risk reductions for aggregate diabetes-related endpoints, microvascular endpoints and all-cause mortality at ten years, and major hypoglycaemia rates by agent
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
UKPDS 33 randomised 3,867 newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes to an intensive policy with a sulphonylurea (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide or glipizide) or insulin, or a conventional policy with diet. Over ten years median HbA1c was 7.0% in the intensive group against 7.9% conventional, an 11% relative reduction. Risk in the intensive group was 12% lower for any diabetes-related endpoint (95% CI 1 to 21, p=0.029), 10% lower for any diabetes-related death (95% CI -11 to 27, p=0.34) and 6% lower for all-cause mortality (95% CI -10 to 20, p=0.44). Most of the aggregate benefit came from a 25% reduction in microvascular endpoints (95% CI 7 to 40, p=0.0099), including the need for retinal photocoagulation. Major hypoglycaemic episodes per year were 0.7% on conventional treatment, 1.0% on chlorpropamide, 1.4% on glibenclamide and 1.8% on insulin. Mean weight gain in the intensive group was 2.9 kg (p<0.001). The published between-agent comparisons in the abstract cover chlorpropamide, glibenclamide and insulin; glipizide was used at some centres and is not separately reported.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Glipizide causes about half as much serious hypoglycaemia as glyburide
In plain words
A study of nearly 14,000 older people on Medicaid counted the episodes of low blood sugar severe enough to put someone in hospital. Glyburide users had nearly twice the risk of glipizide users, and the gap held in every subgroup examined.
What was measured
Crude and adjusted rates of serious hypoglycaemia per 1,000 person-years by individual sulfonylurea in adults aged 65 and over
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Shorr and colleagues followed 13,963 Tennessee Medicaid enrollees aged 65 or over prescribed one of six sulfonylureas between 1985 and 1989, and identified 255 first episodes of serious hypoglycaemia — hospitalisation, emergency admission or death with neuroglycopenic or autonomic symptoms and a concomitant blood glucose below 2.8 mmol/L — during 20,715 person-years of use. The crude rate per 1,000 person-years was highest for glyburide at 16.6 (95% CI 13.2 to 19.9) and lowest for tolbutamide at 3.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.9). Among second-generation agents the adjusted relative risk for glyburide against glipizide was 1.9 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.9), and the excess persisted in every stratum defined by gender, race, nursing-home residence, dose and duration of use. This is an observational cohort, not a randomised comparison, and the authors themselves called for effectiveness data on individual agents that the field still largely lacks.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The label concedes the long-term mechanism has not been established
In plain words
The drug has been sold since 1984. Its own FDA-approved label says that how it lowers blood sugar over the long run is not clearly known, and that fasting insulin levels do not go up even after years of treatment.
What was measured
That the glucose-lowering effect of long-term glipizide is fully explained by beta-cell insulin release — the label says otherwise and points at unspecified extrapancreatic effects
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The clinical pharmacology section of the glipizide label states that "the mechanism by which glipizide lowers blood glucose during long-term administration has not been clearly established", that fasting insulin levels are not elevated even on long-term administration while the post-prandial insulin response remains enhanced after at least six months, and that "extrapancreatic effects may play a part in the mechanism of action of oral sulfonylurea hypoglycemic drugs". The extended-release label adds that in two randomised double-blind dose-response studies totalling 347 patients, "the relationship between dose and reduction in hemoglobin A1c was not established", although fasting plasma glucose fell more at 20 mg than at 5 mg. A drug in continuous use for four decades whose dose-response relationship for its own registration endpoint is described on its label as not established is a fact worth stating plainly.
Source
FDA prescribing information for glipizide tablets USP, CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY; FDA prescribing information for GLUCOTROL XL, sections 12.1 and 12.2
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The molecule is gone in hours; the extended-release tablet is a plumbing solution
In plain words
Glipizide itself is short-acting: fully absorbed, peaking in one to three hours, half of it cleared within four. The once-daily version works by encasing the drug in a membrane with a laser-drilled hole and pushing it out slowly with an osmotic layer.
What was measured
Absolute bioavailability, time to peak plasma concentration, elimination half-life, and the overfill ratio of the extended-release tablet
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The label reports absolute bioavailability of 100%, peak plasma concentrations at 1 to 3 hours after a single oral dose, an elimination half-life of 2 to 4 hours identical by oral and intravenous routes — indicating no significant first-pass metabolism — and no accumulation on repeated dosing. Blood-sugar control nonetheless persists in some patients up to 24 hours after a single dose, when plasma levels have fallen to a small fraction of peak. Glucotrol XL is an osmotically active bilayer core, an active drug layer and an inert push layer, surrounded by a semipermeable cellulose acetate membrane with a drilled orifice; the tablet shell is excreted intact. Each extended-release tablet is overfilled — 5.49 mg of glipizide to deliver a 5 mg dose — because the system does not empty completely.
Source
FDA prescribing information for glipizide tablets USP, Pharmacokinetics; FDA prescribing information for GLUCOTROL XL, section 11 Description
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
How many documents were read
107 documents were read for this substance.
RNAWiki source record
30 of them state the same bioavailability, and they agree.
RNAWiki source record
77 of them state the same tMax, and they agree.
RNAWiki source record
Where else this substance is registered
FDA substance identifier (UNII)
X7WDT95N5C
CAS registry number
29094-61-9
PubChem compound
3478
RxNorm concept
4821
Checks this page had to pass
✓ Passed
Identity resolved
no open identity hold
✓ Passed
No unresolved merge across substance families
no quarantine open
✓ Passed
Every public sentence names a source
The opening statement carries the origin: Written into the record, not signed off.
✗ Not passed
Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence
No registered study is classified as testing this substance.
✓ Passed
No internal keys in reader text
enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
✗ Not passed
Safety mode resolved
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
✓ Passed
Canonical metadata present
slug and display name present
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How this medicine reached us
Kept near the foot of the page. A historical event moves up only when it changes something about this substance today.
What the approval register records
30 approved applications cover products containing this substance. The earliest was NDA017783, approved 19840508 to PFIZER.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
3 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A sulfonylurea that closes the ATP-sensitive potassium channel on the pancreatic beta cell and forces insulin release regardless of blood glucose — a mechanism that reliably lowers HbA1c, that lost a 304-patient randomised cardiovascular outcome comparison against metformin with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.54 in favour of metformin, and whose United States label has carried a special warning on increased cardiovascular mortality since 1970 based on a trial of a different sulfonylurea.
Recorded evidence blocks (12)
Q1
What did Glipizide's largest trial (1499650 people) and its longest (18 years) measure?
1499650 people in Glipizide's largest registered study, 18 years in its longest registered window, measuring Cmax (Maximum Observed Concentration) - Glipizide in Plasma. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
11 phase3, 8 phase4, 6 phase1, 5 na or unstated, 3 phase2, 2 na; NCT01762046; 2025-12; no ageing endpoint recorded. Last human test completed 2025, NCT01762046.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Glipizide was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase3
11
phase4
8
phase1
6
na or unstated
5
phase2
3
na
2
1 more recorded row
Last recorded human testNCT01762046
2025-12
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q2
From rat to human: where has Glipizide shown biomarker?
Glipizide's half-life is 2 to 4 hours — which schedules were studied?
2 to 4 hours, the half-life Glipizide's label states. openfda-label · a59e2aaf-692c-4696-817b-3fed7a9dc52c · 2026-08-27
Interpretation bioavailability uniform, rapid, and essentially complete gastrointestinal absorption.
Show the evidence
half life
2 to 4 hours hours; The half-life of elimination ranges from 2 to 4 hours in normal subjects, whether given intravenously or orally.
bioavailability
uniform, rapid, and essentially complete gastrointestinal absorption; Gastrointestinal absorption of glipizide in man is uniform, rapid, and essentially complete. Peak plasma concentrations occur 1 to 3 hours after a single oral dose.
metabolism
The metabolism of glipizide is extensive and occurs mainly in the liver.
recorded 2026-08-27 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q5
Could one person measure Glipizide's effect on hba1c at week 52?
Hba1c at week 52: measured in Glipizide's trials.
hba1c at week 52 is the recorded endpoint.
Show the evidence
biomarkers
hba1c at week 52; 2026-09-01
atheroma volume to month 18; 2026-09-01
a1c values; 2026-09-01
hba1c at week 18; 2026-09-01
hemoglobin a1c after sitagliptin treatment; 2026-09-01
clinical adverse events; 2026-09-01
14 more recorded rows
biomarkers
hemoglobin a1c levels at week 54; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
hypoglycemic events; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
bioequivalence; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
adjusted mean change in hba1c levels; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
glycosylated hemoglobin at week 52; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
glycosylated hemoglobin at week 104; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
hemoglobin a1c at week 26; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
bioequivalence based on auc and cmax; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
glycosylated hemoglobin at week 24; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
who experienced at least one adverse event; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
who discontinued study drug due to an adverse event; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
euglycemia; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
myocardial fat content; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
hepatic fat content; 2026-09-01
half life
2026-09-04; halfLife; hours; 2 to 4 hours; 2026-08-27
human trials at or under30
6
smallest human trial
3; NCT02608177; NA; the smallest recorded human enrolment at or below 30; the registry states no direction of its result; COMPLETED
Q6
Which of a1c values, adjusted mean change in hba1c levels and atheroma volume to month 18 did Glipizide's trials measure?
a1c values, adjusted mean change in hba1c levels and atheroma volume to month 18 lead 29 outcome terms across Glipizide's trials. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
hba1c at week 18, hemoglobin a1c after sitagliptin treatment, clinical adverse events, hemoglobin a1c levels at week 54, hypoglycemic events and bioequivalence follow.
Show the evidence
hba1c at week 52
1
atheroma volume to month 18
1
a1c values
1
hba1c at week 18
1
hemoglobin a1c after sitagliptin treatment
1
clinical adverse events
1
14 more recorded rows
hemoglobin a1c levels at week 54
1
hypoglycemic events
1
bioequivalence
1
adjusted mean change in hba1c levels
1
glycosylated hemoglobin at week 52
1
glycosylated hemoglobin at week 104
1
hemoglobin a1c at week 26
1
bioequivalence based on auc and cmax
1
glycosylated hemoglobin at week 24
1
who experienced at least one adverse event
1
who discontinued study drug due to an adverse event
1
euglycemia
1
myocardial fat content
1
hepatic fat content
1
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q7
Which of Glipizide's 2 ongoing trials reports first?
MACE; Change in mean interstitial glucose level for Cohort 1 participants before and after initiation of glipizide; latest 2027-09-30
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT05220917
"Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Four Second Line Pharmacological Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes Study"; n 781430; "MACE"; 2027-09-30
NCT06168812
"A Study of Glipizide to Treat High Blood Sugar in People With Pancreatic Cancer"; n 29; "Change in mean interstitial glucose level for Cohort 1 participants before and after initiation of glipizide"; 2026-12-05
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q8
Which 10 trials of Glipizide posted no result?
Posted no result
10 of 10 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00946504, NCT00648505, NCT00649454, NCT00732524, NCT01082796 and NCT00513630, and 4 more
Completion dates
oldest 1992-10; newest 2015-07-25
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00946504
1992-10
NCT00648505
2005-06
NCT00649454
2005-06
NCT00732524
2006-04
NCT01082796
2010-01
NCT00513630
2010-07
4 further recorded trials
NCT02475499
2015-04
NCT02476760
2015-04
NCT02456428
2015-05
NCT01267448
2015-07-25
Q9
At the median, Glipizide's trials enrolled 246 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
246
Largest enrolment
1499650
Registered trials counted
35
Q10
What do 1365 spontaneous reports say about Glipizide — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Glipizide appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 1365 reaction mentions were counted: hypoglycaemia 568; blood glucose increased 204; drug hypersensitivity 180; blood glucose decreased 91. open-targets-adr · CHEMBL1073 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
hypoglycaemia
568
blood glucose increased
204
drug hypersensitivity
180
blood glucose decreased
91
diabetes mellitus inadequate control
70
pharmaceutical product complaint
65
4 more recorded rows
confusional state
50
glycosylated haemoglobin increased
49
convulsion
44
mental status changes
44
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q11
Was Glipizide studied with fasting?
fasting is named in Glipizide's label sentences: "Regarding fasting plasma glucose, top three anti-diabetics were repaglinide (-2.01 [-2.75 to -0.97]), metformin (-1.72 [-2.16 to -1.27]) and glipizide (-1.57 [-2.44 to -0.64]), against placebo." openfda-label+europepmc · 2018-09-17
1 recorded statement; fasting
Show the evidence
fasting
Regarding fasting plasma glucose, top three anti-diabetics were repaglinide (-2.01 [-2.75 to -0.97]), metformin (-1.72 [-2.16 to -1.27]) and glipizide (-1.57 [-2.44 to -0.64]), against placebo.
"This indicates that glipizide encouraged autophagy flux activation in human lung cancer cells."
PMID 29245957
"Inhibition of autophagy flux applying a specific inhibitor and genetically modified ATG5 siRNA enclosed glipizide-mediated enhancing effect of TRAIL."
mTORPMID 29245957
"These data demonstrate that inhibition of Akt/mTOR by glipizide sensitizes TRAIL-induced tumor cell death through activating autophagy flux and also suggest that glipizide may be a combination therapeutic target with TRAIL protein in TRAIL-resistant cancer cells."
autophagyPMID 29245957
"These data demonstrate that inhibition of Akt/mTOR by glipizide sensitizes TRAIL-induced tumor cell death through activating autophagy flux and also suggest that glipizide may be a combination therapeutic target with TRAIL protein in TRAIL-resistant cancer cells."
AMPKPMID 26986624
"The results showed that metformin and telmisartan, but not glipizide and metoprolol, activated AMPK, which phosphorylated PARP1 Ser-177 in cultured ECs and the vascular wall of rodent models."
recorded 2017-10-09 · last checked 2026-09-04
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work
✗ required summary fields resolved: 5 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Most important common problem, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 10 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.