Dataset Information

Sulfonylurea versus metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Guidelines recommend metformin as the first-line oral treatment for type 2 diabetes. We conducted a systematic review to assess whether the use of second- and third-generation sulfonylurea agents is associated with benefits and harms in terms of patient-important outcomes compared with metformin.

Methods

We searched several electronic databases and other sources for randomized clinical trials published to August 2011. We included trials that compared sulfonylurea versus metformin monotherapy among patients 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes and that had an intervention period of at least 24 weeks. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data related to interventions and outcomes. The risk of random errors was assessed by trial sequential analysis.

Results

We included 14 trials (4560 participants). All trials were judged to be at high risk of bias. Data on patient-important outcomes were sparse. Compared with metformin, sulfonylurea did not significantly affect all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 1.58) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.01). Sulfonylurea significantly decreased the risk of nonfatal macrovascular outcomes (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93). However, the definition of this outcome varied among trials, and trial sequential analysis showed that more trials are needed before reliable conclusions can be drawn. No differences between sulfonylurea and metformin were found for change in fasting blood glucose level or glycosylated hemoglobin concentration in the random-effects model. Sulfonylurea resulted in greater weight gain compared with metformin, a finding confirmed in the trial sequential analysis. Significantly more patients in the sulfonylurea arm than in the metformin arm had mild hypoglycemia (RR 2.95, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.07) and severe hypoglycemia (RR 5.64, 95% CI 1.22 to 26.00).

Interpretation

Some evidence suggests that, compared with metformin, second- and third-generation sulfonylureas may not affect all-cause or cardiovascular mortality but may decrease the risk of nonfatal macrovascular outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. They may also increase the risk of hypoglycemia. In general, the available data were too few and inconsistent to provide firm evidence concerning patient-important outcomes in relation to the benefits and harms of sulfonylurea versus metformin monotherapy.

SUBMITTER: Hemmingsen B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4185978 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative efficacy of ranibizumab (RBZ) monotherapy or combined with laser (RBZ + Laser) versus laser monotherapy for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).MethodsA comprehensive literature search using PUBMED, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RBZ or RBZ + Laser to laser monotherapy in patients with DME. Efficacy estimates were determined by comparing weighted mean differences (WMD) in the change of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline, and the risk ratios (RR) for the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters change from baseline. Safety analysis estimated the RR of cardiac disorders at 6 to 12 months in RBZ therapy vs. laser monotherapy. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.1 software.ResultsSeven RCTs were selected for this meta-analysis, including 1749 patients (394 patients in the RBZ group, 642 patients in the RBZ + Laser group, and 713 patients in the laser group). RBZ and RBZ + Laser were superior to laser monotherapy in the mean change of BCVA and CMT from baseline (WMD?=?5.65, 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.44-6.87, P<0.00001; WMD ?=?5.02, 95% CI, 3.83-6.20, P<0.00001, and WMD ?=?-57.91, 95% CI, -77.62 to -38.20, P<0.00001; WMD ?=?-56.63, 95% CI, -104.81 to -8.44, P?=?0.02, respectively). The pooled RR comparing the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters improvement or deterioration were also in favor of RBZ and RBZ + Laser (RR?=?2.94, 95% CI, 1.82-4.77, P<0.00001; RR?=?2.04, 95% CI, 1.50-2.78, P<0.00001, and RR?=?0.21, 95% CI, 0.06-0.71, P?=?0.01; RR?=?0.52, 95% CI, 0.29-0.95, P?=?0.03, respectively). There were no significant differences between RBZ and RBZ + Laser for any of the parameters. There were no difference in the safety profile between RBZ and laser.ConclusionRBZ and RBZ + Laser had better visual and anatomic outcomes than laser monotherapy in the treatment of DME. RBZ + Laser seemed to be equivalent to RBZ.

Project description:BackgroundAccumulating evidence suggests that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hyperinsulinemia are at an increased risk of developing malignancies. It remains to be fully elucidated whether the use of metformin, an insulin sensitizer, and/or sulfonylureas, insulin secretagogues, affects cancer incidence in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus.ObjectiveA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the risk of cancer incidence associated with monotherapy with metformin compared with monotherapy with sulfonylureas in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.MethodsSearch was performed throughout MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov up until December 2018. In this meta-analysis, each raw data (unadjusted) and study-specific (adjusted) relative risks (RRs) was combined and the pooled unadjusted and adjusted RRs with the 95% CI were calculated using the random-effects model with inverse-variance weighting. Heterogeneity among the studies was evaluated using I 2 statistics. Publication bias was evaluated using the funnel plot asymmetry test. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess the study quality.ResultsA total of 8 cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. Obvious heterogeneity was noted, and monotherapy with metformin was associated with a lower risk of cancer incidence (unadjusted RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55-0.99, I 2 = 97.89%, p < 0.00001; adjusted RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.54-1.07, I 2 = 98.12%, p < 0.00001) compared with monotherapy with sulfonylurea, using the random-effects model with inverse-variance weighting.ConclusionsAccording to this review, the monotherapy with metformin appears to be associated with a lower risk of cancer incidence than monotherapy with sulfonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes. This analysis is mainly based on cohort studies, and our findings underscore the need for large-scale randomized controlled trials to establish the effect of metformin monotherapy, relative to sulfonylureas monotherapy on cancer.

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 compare the effect of home based and supervised centre based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, without language restriction, searched from 2001 to January 2008.Review methodsReference lists checked and advice sought from authors. Included randomised controlled trials that compared centre based cardiac rehabilitation with home based programmes in adults with acute myocardial infarction, angina, or heart failure or who had undergone coronary revascularisation. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted when possible to obtain missing information.Results12 studies (1938 participants) were included. Most studies recruited patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. No difference was seen between home based and centre based cardiac rehabilitation in terms of mortality (relative risk 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity (standardised mean difference -0.11, -0.35 to 0.13), modifiable risk factors (weighted mean difference systolic blood pressure (0.58 mm Hg, -3.29 mm Hg to 4.44 mm Hg), total cholesterol (-0.13 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.05 mmol/l), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.15 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.01 mmol/l), or relative risk for proportion of smokers at follow-up (0.98, 0.73 to 1.31)), or health related quality of life, with the exception of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.06, -0.11 to -0.02) mmol/l). In the home based participants, there was evidence of superior adherence. No consistent difference was seen in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation.ConclusionsHome and centre based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective in improving clinical and health related quality of life outcomes in patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of differences in patients' adherence and healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the further provision of evidence based, home based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the "Heart Manual." The choice of participating in a more traditional supervised centre based or evidence based home based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient.