Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of gliclazide as treatment for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective and design

Gliclazide has been associated with a low risk of hypoglycemic episodes and beneficial long-term cardiovascular safety in observational cohorts. The aim of this study was to assess in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials the safety and efficacy of gliclazide compared to other oral glucose-lowering agents (PROSPERO2013:CRD42013004156).

Data sources

Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Trialregister.nl, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu and the Cochrane database.

Selection

Included were randomized studies of at least 12 weeks duration with the following outcomes: HbA1c change, incidence of severe hypoglycemia, weight change, cardiovascular events and/or mortality when comparing gliclazide with other oral blood glucose lowering drugs. Bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The inverse variance random effects model was used.

Results

Nineteen trials were included; 3,083 patients treated with gliclazide and 3,155 patients treated with other oral blood glucose lowering drugs. There was a considerable amount of heterogeneity between and bias in studies. Compared to other glucose lowering agents except metformin, gliclazide was slightly more effective (-0.13% (95%CI: -0.25, -0.02, I(2) 55%)). One out of 2,387 gliclazide users experienced a severe hypoglycemic event, whilst also using insulin. There were 25 confirmed non-severe hypoglycemic events (2.2%) in 1,152 gliclazide users and 22 events (1.8%) in 1,163 patients in the comparator group (risk ratio 1.09 (95% CI: 0.20, 5.78, I² 77%)). Few studies reported differences in weight and none were designed to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes.

Conclusions

The methodological quality of randomized trials comparing gliclazide to other oral glucose lowering agents was poor and effect estimates on weight were limited by publication bias. The number of severe hypoglycemic episodes was extremely low, and gliclazide appears at least equally effective compared to other glucose lowering agents. None of the trials were designed for evaluating cardiovascular outcomes, which warrants attention in future randomized trials.

SUBMITTER: Landman GW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3922704 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety and efficacy of gliclazide as treatment for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Landman Gijs W D GW de Bock Geertruide H GH van Hateren Kornelis J J KJ van Dijk Peter R PR Groenier Klaas H KH Gans Rijk O B RO Houweling Sebastiaan T ST Bilo Henk J G HJ Kleefstra Nanne N

PloS one 20140212 2

<h4>Objective and design</h4>Gliclazide has been associated with a low risk of hypoglycemic episodes and beneficial long-term cardiovascular safety in observational cohorts. The aim of this study was to assess in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials the safety and efficacy of gliclazide compared to other oral glucose-lowering agents (PROSPERO2013:CRD42013004156).<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Trialregister.nl, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu ...[more]

PMID: 24533045

Similar Datasets

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:AimThe study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of Gegen Qinlian decoction in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsWe systematically searched a total of nine databases from the time of creation to 20 March 2023. The quality of the literature was assessed using the risk of bias assessment tool in the Cochrane Handbook. RevMan 5. 3 and Stata 14.0 were applied to conduct meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 17 studies, encompassing 1,476 patients, were included in the study. Gegen Qinlian decoction combined with conventional treatment was found to significantly reduce FBG (MD = -0.69 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.55, p < 0.01; I2 = 67%, p<0.01), 2hPG (MD = -0.97 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.81, p < 0.01; I2 = 37%, p=0.09), HbA1c (MD = -0.65%, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.53, p < 0.01; I2 = 71%, p<0.01), TC (MD = -0.51 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.41, p < 0.01; I2 = 45%, p=0.09), TG (MD = -0.17mmol/L, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.05, p < 0.01; I2 = 78%, p<0.01), LDL-C (MD = -0.38mmol/L, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.23, p < 0.01; I2 = 87%, p<0.01), HOMA-IR (SMD = -1.43, 95% CI -2.32 to -0.54, p < 0.01; I2 = 94%, p<0.01), and improved HDL-C (MD = 0.13 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.09-0.17, p < 0.01; I2 = 30%, p=0.24). Only three studies explored the differences in efficacy between GQD alone and conventional treatment in improving glucose-lipid metabolism and insulin resistance, and some of the outcome indicators, such as 2hPG and HDL-C, were examined in only one study. Therefore, the effect of GQD alone on glucose-lipid metabolism and insulin resistance cannot be fully determined, and more high-quality studies are needed to verify it. Publication bias analysis revealed no bias in the included studies.ConclusionGegen Qinlian Decoction has certain efficacy and safety in enhancing glycolipid metabolism and alleviating insulin resistance, potentially serving as a complementary therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Rigorous, large-sample, multicenter RCTs are needed to verify this.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023413758, PROSPERO CRD42023413758.

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: Teneligliptin is a 3rd-generation dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. There is a limited evidence regarding the effect of teneligliptin. Therefore, this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with inadequately glycemic controlled. Methods: A search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library during 2000.01-2018.03 was performed for randomized controlled trials of teneligliptin compared to placebo in patients with T2DM with monotherapy or add-on treatment. Results: Ten trials with 2119 patients were analyzed. Teneligliptin produced absolute reductions in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-0.91 to -0.72], p < 0.00001) compared with placebo. However, after 36-42 weeks of follow-up (open-label), HbA1c level rise higher than duration (double-blind) in teneligliptin group. Teneligliptin led to greater decrease of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level (vs. placebo, WMD -18.32%, 95% CI [-21.05 to -15.60], p < 0.00001). Teneligliptin also significantly decreased the 2 h post-prandial plasma glucose (2 h PPG) (WMD -46.94%, 95% CI [-51.58 to -42.30], p < 0.00001) and area under the glucose plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 2 h (AUC0-2h) for PPG (WMD -71.50%, 95% CI [-78.09 to -64.91], p < 0.00001) compared with placebo. Patients treated with teneligliptin achieved increased homeostasis model assessment of β cell function (HOMA-β) with 9.31 (WMD, 95% CI [7.78-10.85], p < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference between teneligliptin and placebo in overall adverse effects (0.96 risk ratio (RR), 95% CI [0.87, 1.06], p = 0.06). The risks of hypoglycemia were not significantly different between teneligliptin and placebo (1.16 RR, 95% CI [0.59, 2.26], p = 0.66). Conclusions: Teneligliptin improved blood glucose levels and β-cells function with low risk of hypoglycemia in patients with T2DM. Common adverse effects of teneligliptin including hypoglycemia were identified and reviewed. Risks of cardiovascular events are less certain, and more data for long-term effects are needed.

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:BackgroundCanagliflozin is a new SGLT2 inhibitor which has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) mellitus in more than 30 countries. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin in patients with T2D, we carried out a meta-analysis of phase III clinical trials to offer an additional evidence of the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin for evidence-based clinical practice, strictly restricting the treatment durations to 26 weeks (core period) and 52 weeks (extension period).MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English were searched in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database (before April 2016). The studies reporting the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin in patients with T2DM were considered. Two authors separately performed data extraction. The differences were discussed and resolved. Pooled weighted mean differences (WMDs) or relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed by using either fixed- or random-effects models.ResultsAt the end of the selection process, 7 RCTs were collected and included in the present analysis. Placebo-subtracted WMDs (%) of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were -0.63 (95% CI: -0.77, -0.49) and -0.80 (95% CI: -0.98, -0.62) for canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg, respectively, from baseline to week 26. At week 26, canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg significantly reduced the body weight from baseline when compared with that of placebo, with a WMD of -2.23 and -3.00 in percent changes (P < 0.001 for both). The fasting and postmeal glucose, blood pressure (BP), and triglycerides were also reduced. These reductions were sustained over 52 weeks but had no significant differences between the 100 and 300 mg doses. The overall safety of canagliflozin was good, with the exception of high incidence of genital mycotic infections and osmotic diuresis-related adverse events.ConclusionCanagliflozin was found to reduce HbA1c, fasting and postmeal glucose, body weight, BP, and triglycerides, and it was generally well tolerated in patients with T2DM.

Project description:AimThe comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation.MethodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach.ResultsOf 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses.ConclusionThe efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.

Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of gliclazide as treatment for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Objective and design

Data sources

Selection

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Safety and efficacy of gliclazide as treatment for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets