Dataset Information

Reappraisal of metformin efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The UK Prospective Diabetes Study showed that metformin decreases mortality compared to diet alone in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Since then, it has been the first-line treatment in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes. However, metformin-sulphonylurea bitherapy may increase mortality.

Methods and findings

This meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluated metformin efficacy (in studies of metformin versus diet alone, versus placebo, and versus no treatment; metformin as an add-on therapy; and metformin withdrawal) against cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane database. Primary end points were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death. Secondary end points included all myocardial infarctions, all strokes, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, leg amputations, and microvascular complications. Thirteen randomised controlled trials (13,110 patients) were retrieved; 9,560 patients were given metformin, and 3,550 patients were given conventional treatment or placebo. Metformin did not significantly affect the primary outcomes all-cause mortality, risk ratio (RR)=0.99 (95% CI: 0.75 to 1.31), and cardiovascular mortality, RR=1.05 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.64). The secondary outcomes were also unaffected by metformin treatment: all myocardial infarctions, RR=0.90 (95% CI: 0.74 to 1.09); all strokes, RR=0.76 (95% CI: 0.51 to 1.14); heart failure, RR=1.03 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.59); peripheral vascular disease, RR=0.90 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.78); leg amputations, RR=1.04 (95% CI: 0.44 to 2.44); and microvascular complications, RR=0.83 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.17). For all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, there was significant heterogeneity when including the UK Prospective Diabetes Study subgroups (I(2)=41% and 59%). There was significant interaction with sulphonylurea as a concomitant treatment for myocardial infarction (p=0.10 and 0.02, respectively).

Conclusions

Although metformin is considered the gold standard, its benefit/risk ratio remains uncertain. We cannot exclude a 25% reduction or a 31% increase in all-cause mortality. We cannot exclude a 33% reduction or a 64% increase in cardiovascular mortality. Further studies are needed to clarify this situation.

SUBMITTER: Boussageon R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3323508 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reappraisal of metformin efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Boussageon Rémy R Supper Irène I Bejan-Angoulvant Theodora T Kellou Nadir N Cucherat Michel M Boissel Jean-Pierre JP Kassai Behrouz B Moreau Alain A Gueyffier François F Cornu Catherine C

PLoS medicine 20120410 4

<h4>Background</h4>The UK Prospective Diabetes Study showed that metformin decreases mortality compared to diet alone in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Since then, it has been the first-line treatment in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes. However, metformin-sulphonylurea bitherapy may increase mortality.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>This meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluated metformin efficacy (in studies of metformin versus diet alone, versus placebo, ...[more]

PMID: 22509138

Similar Datasets

Project description:Diabetes is a serious threat to global health and among the top 10 causes of death, with nearly half a billion people living with it worldwide. Treating patients with diabetes tend to become more challenging due to the progressive nature of the disease. The role and benefits of combination therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes are well-documented, while the comparative safety and efficacy among the different combination options have not been elucidated. We aimed to systematically synthesize the evidence on the comparative cardiovascular safety and efficacy of combination therapy with metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus metformin-sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 15 August 2019 without restriction in the year of publication. We included randomized controlled trials of patients with type 2 diabetes who were on metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors or metformin-sulphonylureas combination therapy at least for a year. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events, and the secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hypoglycemia, and changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We used a random-effects meta-analysis model to estimate mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We followed PICOS description model for defining eligibility and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines for reporting results. Of 3,190 citations, we included nine trials involving 10,974 participants. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (risk ration [RR] = 0.93, 95% CI [0.52, 1.67]), serious adverse events (RR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.79, 1.17]) and adverse events (RR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.02]) between the two, but in hypoglycemia (RR = 0.13, 95% CI [0.10, 0.17], P < 0.001). Participants taking metformin-sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors showed a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c (mean difference [MD] = - 0.10%, 95% CI [- 0.17, - 0.03], body weight (MD = - 4.57 kg, 95% CI [- 4.74, - 4.39], systolic blood pressure (MD = - 4.77 mmHg, 95% CI [- 5.39, - 4.16]), diastolic blood pressure (MD = - 2.07 mmHg, 95% CI [- 2.74, - 1.40], and fasting plasma glucose (MD = - 0.55 mmol/L, 95% CI [- 0.69, - 0.41]), p < 0.001. Combination therapy of metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors is a safe and efficacious alternative to combination therapy of metformin and sulphonylureas for patients with type 2 diabetes who are at risk of cardiovascular comorbidity. However, there remains a need for additional long-term randomized controlled trials as available studies are very limited and heterogeneous.

Project description:Metformin is the most-prescribed oral medication to lower blood glucose worldwide. Yet previous systematic reviews have raised doubts about its effectiveness in reducing risk of cardiovascular disease, the most costly complication of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to systematically identify and pool randomised trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes in which the effect of metformin was 'isolated' through comparison to diet, lifestyle or placebo.We performed an electronic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. We also manually screened the reference lists of previous meta-analyses of trials of metformin identified through a MEDLINE search. We included randomised controlled trials of adults with type 2 diabetes comparing any dose and preparation of oral metformin with no intervention, placebo or a lifestyle intervention and reporting mortality or a cardiovascular outcome.We included ten articles reporting 13 trials (including a total of 2079 individuals with type 2 diabetes allocated to metformin and a similar number to comparison groups) of which only four compared metformin with placebo and collected data on cardiovascular outcomes. Participants were mainly white, aged ?65 years, overweight/obese and with poor glycaemic control. Summary estimates were based on a small number of events: 416 myocardial infarctions/ischaemic heart disease events in seven studies and 111 strokes in four studies. The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) contributed the majority of data to the summary estimates, with weights ranging from 52.3% for myocardial infarction to 70.5% for stroke. All outcomes, with the exception of stroke, favoured metformin, with limited heterogeneity between studies, but none achieved statistical significance. Effect sizes (Mantel-Haenszel RR) were: all-cause mortality 0.96 (95% CI 0.84, 1.09); cardiovascular death 0.97 (95% CI 0.80, 1.16); myocardial infarction 0.89 (95% CI 0.75, 1.06); stroke 1.04 (95% CI 0.73, 1.48); and peripheral vascular disease 0.81 (95% CI 0.50, 1.31).There remains uncertainty about whether metformin reduces risk of cardiovascular disease among patients with type 2 diabetes, for whom it is the recommended first-line drug. Although this is mainly due to absence of evidence, it is unlikely that a definitive placebo-controlled cardiovascular endpoint trial among people with diabetes will be forthcoming. Alternative approaches to reduce the uncertainty include the use of electronic health records in long-term pragmatic evaluations, inclusion of metformin in factorial trials, publication of cardiovascular outcome data from adverse event reporting in trials of metformin and a cardiovascular endpoint trial of metformin among people without diabetes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of dual sodium glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin in type 1 diabetes mellitus.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline; Cochrane Library; Embase; international meeting abstracts; international and national clinical trial registries; and websites of US, European, and Japanese regulatory authorities, up to 10 January 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of sotagliflozin versus active comparators or placebo on glycaemic and non-glycaemic outcomes and on adverse events in type 1 diabetes in participants older than 18. Three reviewers extracted data for study characteristics, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias and summarised strength of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. Main outcomes were pooled using random effects models.ResultsOf 739 records identified, six randomised placebo controlled trials (n=3238, duration 4-52 weeks) were included. Sotagliflozin reduced levels of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; weighted mean difference -0.34% (95% confidence interval -0.41% to -0.27%), P<0.001); fasting plasma glucose (-16.98 mg/dL, -22.1 to -11.9; 1 mg/dL=0.0555 mmol/L) and two hour-postprandial plasma glucose (-39.2 mg/dL, -50.4 to -28.1); and daily total, basal, and bolus insulin dose (-8.99%, -10.93% to -7.05%; -8.03%, -10.14% to -5.93%; -9.14%, -12.17% to -6.12%; respectively). Sotagliflozin improved time in range (weighted mean difference 9.73%, 6.66% to 12.81%) and other continuous glucose monitoring parameters, and reduced body weight (-3.54%, -3.98% to -3.09%), systolic blood pressure (-3.85 mm Hg, -4.76 to -2.93), and albuminuria (albumin:creatinine ratio -14.57 mg/g, -26.87 to -2.28). Sotagliflozin reduced hypoglycaemia (weighted mean difference -9.09 events per patient year, -13.82 to -4.36) and severe hypoglycaemia (relative risk 0.69, 0.49 to 0.98). However, the drug increased the risk of ketoacidosis (relative risk 3.93, 1.94 to 7.96), genital tract infections (3.12, 2.14 to 4.54), diarrhoea (1.50, 1.08 to 2.10), and volume depletion events (2.19, 1.10 to 4.36). Initial HbA1c and basal insulin dose adjustment were associated with the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis. A sotagliflozin dose of 400 mg/day was associated with a greater improvement in most glycaemic and non-glycaemic outcomes than the 200 mg/day dose, without increasing the risk of adverse events. The quality of evidence was high to moderate for most outcomes, but low for major adverse cardiovascular events and all cause death. The relatively short duration of trials prevented assessment of long term outcomes.ConclusionsIn type 1 diabetes, sotagliflozin improves glycaemic and non-glycaemic outcomes and reduces hypoglycaemia rate and severe hypoglycaemia. The risk of diabetic ketoacidosis could be minimised by appropriate patient selection and down-titration of the basal insulin dose.

Project description:Pioglitazone, the only thiazolidinedione drug in clinical practice is under scrutiny due to reported adverse effects, it's unique insulin sensitising action provides rationale to remain as a therapeutic option for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing pioglitazone monotherapy with monotherapies of other oral antidiabetic drugs for assessing its efficacy and safety in T2DM patients. Mean changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and mean changes in fasting blood sugar (FBS) level, body weight (BW) and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Safety outcomes were changes in lipid parameters, blood pressure and incidences of adverse events. Metafor package of R software and RevMan software based on random-effects model were used for analyses. We included 16 randomised controlled trials. Pioglitazone monotherapy showed equivalent efficacy as comparators in reducing HbA1c by 0.05% (95% CI: -0.21 to 0.11) and greater efficacy in reducing FBS level by 0.24 mmol/l (95% CI: -0.48 to -0.01). Pioglitazone showed similar efficacy as comparators in reducing HOMA-IR (WMD: 0.05, 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.59) and increasing high-density lipoprotein level (WMD: 0.02 mmol/l, 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.10). Improved blood pressure (WMD: -1.05 mmHg, 95% CI: -4.29 to 2.19) and triglycerides level (WMD: -0.71 mmol/l, 95% CI: -1.70 to 0.28) were also observed with pioglitazone monotherapy. There was a significant association of pioglitazone with increased BW (WMD: 2.06 kg, 95% CI: 1.11 to 3.01) and risk of oedema (RR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.48 to 3.31), though the risk of hypoglycaemia was absolutely lower (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.80). Meta-analysis supported pioglitazone as an effective treatment option for T2DM patients to ameliorate hyperglycaemia, adverse lipid metabolism and blood pressure. Pioglitazone is suggested to prescribe following individual patient's needs. It can be a choice of drug for insulin resistant T2DM patients having dyslipidaemia, hypertension or history of cardiovascular disease.

Project description:OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus compared with other treatments for atopic dermatitis. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of topical pimecrolimus or tacrolimus reporting efficacy outcomes or tolerability. DATA EXTRACTION: EFFICACY: investigators' global assessment of response; patients' global assessment of response; proportions of patients with flares of atopic dermatitis; and improvements in quality of life. Tolerability: overall rates of withdrawal; withdrawal due to adverse events; and proportions of patients with burning of the skin and skin infections. DATA SYNTHESIS: 4186 of 6897 participants in 25 randomised controlled trials received pimecrolimus or tacrolimus. Both drugs were significantly more effective than a vehicle control. Tacrolimus 0.1% was as effective as potent topical corticosteroids at three weeks and more effective than combined treatment with hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% (potent used on trunk) plus hydrocortisone acetate 1% (weak used on face) at 12 weeks (number needed to treat (NNT) = 6). Tacrolimus 0.1% was also more effective than hydrocortisone acetate 1% (NNT = 4). In comparison, tacrolimus 0.03% was more effective than hydrocortisone acetate 1% (NNT = 5) but less effective than hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% (NNT = -8). Direct comparisons of tacrolimus 0.03% and tacrolimus 0.1% consistently favoured the higher strength formulation, but efficacy differed significantly between the two strengths only after 12 weeks' treatment (rate ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.99). Pimecrolimus was far less effective than betamethasone valerate 0.1% (NNT = -3 at three weeks). Pimecrolimus and tacrolimus caused significantly more skin burning than topical corticosteroids. Rates of skin infections in any of the comparisons did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Both topical pimecrolimus and topical tacrolimus are more effective than placebo treatments for atopic dermatitis, but in the absence of studies that show long term safety gains, any advantage over topical corticosteroids is unclear. Topical tacrolimus is similar to potent topical corticosteroids and may have a place for long term use in patients with resistant atopic dermatitis on sites where side effects from topical corticosteroids might develop quickly. In the absence of key comparisons with mild corticosteroids, the clinical need for topical pimecrolimus is unclear. The usefulness of either treatment in patients who have failed to respond adequately to topical corticosteroids is also unclear.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This study was designed to evaluate the efficiency and tolerability of empagliflozin (EMPA) as monotherapy or add-on to existing therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy and safety of EMPA vs placebo or EMPA plus other antidiabetes drugs vs placebo plus other oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) in T2DM were recruited from electronic database Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), supplemented by a hand search of the reference lists of selected articles. Main effect sizes were change from baseline on glycemia control, body weight, blood pressure, and complications (i.e., incidence of urinary and genital tract infections, and morbidity of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia). Random-effects model was used to account for clinical or methodologic heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS:Fifteen RCTs with a total number of 7891 individuals (5374 in EMPA group and 2517 in control group) were suitable for this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that significant improvements in glycemia control, body weight, and blood pressure were associated with EMPA application (i.e., monotherapy and add-on therapy) in patient with T2DM when compared with placebo. Meanwhile, EMPA 10 and 20?mg improved glycemia, body weight, and blood pressure control for patients with T2DM. There was no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia and urinary tract infections across EMPA and placebo group. Significant reduced risk of hyperglycemia was revealed in EMPA group vs placebo (risk ratio: 0.34, 95%confidence interval: 0.23-0.49, P?<?.00001), except in patients on background insulin therapy. However, increased risk of genital infection was noted across EMPA vs placebo (risk ratio: 2.59, 95% confidence interval: 1.80-3.71, P?<?.00001). CONCLUSION:Our evidence supports the application of EMPA in treatment of patients with T2DM who are obesity or at risk of weight gain.

Project description:Background: Semaglutide, a newly once-weekly glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has showed a favorable effect on glycaemic control and weight reduction in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of semaglutide in T2DM. Methods: A comprehensive searching was performed for Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported the efficacy and safety data of semaglutide and other therapies. The efficacy data expressed as weight mean difference (WMD) and the safety data expressed as risk ratios (RRs) were calculated by employing random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed through I2 test, and subgroup analyses were performed by different control groups, dosage of semaglutide, and durations of follow up. Results: 9 RCTs including 9,773 subjects met the inclusion criteria. For efficacy, compared with other therapies, semaglutide resulted in a significant reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin (weight mean difference, WMD: -0.93%, 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.62, P < 0.001), fasting plasma glucose (WMD: -1.15 mmol/L, 95% CI: -1.67 to -0.63, P < 0.001), mean self-monitoring of plasma glucose (WMD: -1.19 mmol/L, 95% CI: -1.68 to -0.70, P < 0.001), body weight (WMD: -3.47 kg, 95% CI: -3.96 to -2.98, P < 0.001), body mass index (WMD: -1.25 kg/m2, 95% CI: -1.45 to -1.04, P < 0.001), systolic blood pressure (WMD: -2.55 mmHg, 95% CI: -3.22 to -1.88, P < 0.001), with the exception of negative result of diastolic blood pressure (WMD: -0.29 mmHg, 95% CI: -0.65 to 0.07, P = 0.113) and increased impact on pulse rate (WMD: -2.21, 95% CI: 1.54 to 2.88, P < 0.001). The results were consistent across the key subgroups. For safety, semaglutide did not increase the risk of any adverse events, hypoglycemia and pancreatitis, but induced a higher risk of gastrointestinal disorders when compared with other therapies (RR: 1.98, 95%CI: 1.49 to 2.62, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Semaglutide was effective and acceptable in patients with T2DM except for a high risk of gastrointestinal disorders. The capacity of glycaemic and body weight control of semaglutide appeared more effective than other add-on therapies including other GLP-1 receptor agonists of exenatide release and dulaglutide.

Project description:BackgroundTo assess the blood pressure and lipid-lowering efficacy and tolerability of 'polypills' used in cardiovascular disease prevention trials.Methodology/principal findingsSystematic review and meta-analysis.Search strategyThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and PubMed databases were searched for eligible trials. Study inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials of at least six weeks duration, which compared a 'polypill' (that included at least one anti-hypertensive and one lipid-lowering medication) with a placebo (or one active component).Outcome measuresChange from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and total and LDL-cholesterol; discontinuation of study medication and reported adverse effects. Of 44 potentially eligible studies, six trials (including 2,218 patients without previous cardiovascular disease) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, 'polypills' reduced systolic blood pressure by -9.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI): -13.4, -5.0) diastolic blood pressure by -5.0 mmHg (95%CI: -7.4, -2.6), total cholesterol by -1.22 mmol/L (95%CI: -1.60, -0.84) and LDL-cholesterol by -1.02 mmol/L (95%CI: -1.37, -0.67). However, those taking a 'polypill' (vs. placebo or component) were more likely to discontinue medication (20% vs 14%) (Odds ratio: 1.5 (95% CI: 1.2, 1.9)). There was no significant difference in reported adverse effects amongst those on a 'polypill' (36% vs. 28%) (OR: 1.3 (95%CI: 0.7, 2.5)). There was high statistical heterogeneity in comparisons for blood pressure and lipid-lowering but use of random-effects and quality-effects models produced very similar results.Conclusions/significanceCompared with placebo, the 'polypills' reduced blood pressure and lipids. Tolerability was lower amongst those on 'polypills' than those on placebo or one component, but differences were moderate. Effectiveness trials are needed to help clarify the status of 'polypills' in primary care and prevention strategies.

Dataset Information

Reappraisal of metformin efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Reappraisal of metformin efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets