Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of oral antidiabetic drugs in comparison to insulin in treating gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To assess the efficacy and safety of oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in comparison to insulin. METHODS:A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. The efficacy and safety of OADs in comparison to insulin in GDM patients were explored. Studies were identified by conducting a literature search using the electronic databases of Medline, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science in addition to conducting hand search of relevant journals from inception until October 2013. RESULTS:Thirteen studies involving 2,151 patients met the inclusion criteria. These studies were randomized controlled trials of metformin and glyburide in comparison to insulin therapy. Our results indicated a significant increase in the risk for preterm births (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.04-2.19, p = 0.03) with metformin compared to insulin. However, a significant decrease in the risk for gestational hypertension (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91, p = 0.02) was found. Postprandial glucose levels also decreased significantly in patients receiving metformin (MD, -2.47 mg/dL; 95% CI, -4.00, -0.94, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference between the two groups for the remaining outcomes. There were significant increases in the risks of macrosomia (RR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.18-4.63, p = 0.03) and neonatal hypoglycemia (RR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34, p = 0.005) in the glyburide group compared to insulin whereas results for the other analyzed outcomes remained non-significant. CONCLUSION:The available evidence suggests favorable effects of metformin in treating GDM patients. Metformin seems to be an efficacious alternative to insulin and a better choice than glyburide especially those with mild form of disease.

SUBMITTER: Poolsup N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4193853 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of oral antidiabetic drugs in comparison to insulin in treating gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis.

Poolsup Nalinee N Suksomboon Naeti N Amin Muhammad M

PloS one 20141010 10

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the efficacy and safety of oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in comparison to insulin.<h4>Methods</h4>A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. The efficacy and safety of OADs in comparison to insulin in GDM patients were explored. Studies were identified by conducting a literature search using the electronic databases of Medline, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science in addition to conducting hand ...[more]

PMID: 25302493

Similar Datasets

Project description:The safety and efficacy of different drugs in treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients who could not maintain normal glucose level only through diet and exercise remains to be debated. We performed this network meta-analysis (NAM) to compare and rank different antidiabetic drugs in glucose level control and pregnancy outcomes in GDM patients.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase up to December 31, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to different drugs in the treatment of GDM patients were enrolled. We extracted the relevant information and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model and then adopted random-effects NAM combining both direct and indirect evidence within a Bayesian framework, to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and to draw a surface under the cumulative ranking curve of the neonatal and maternal outcomes of different treatments in GDM patients.Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this NAM, including 6 kinds of treatments (metformin, metformin plus insulin, insulin, glyburide, acarbose, and placebo). The results of the NAM showed that regarding the incidence of macrosomia and LGA, metformin had lower incidence than glyburide (OR, 0.5411 and 0.4177). In terms of the incidence of admission to the NICU, insulin had higher incidence compared with glyburide (OR, 1.844). As for the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia, metformin had lower incidence than insulin and glyburide (OR, 0.6331 and 0.3898), and insulin was lower than glyburide (OR, 0.6236). For mean birth weight, metformin plus insulin was lower than insulin (SMD, -0.5806), glyburide (SMD, -0.7388), and placebo (SMD, -0.6649). Besides, metformin was observed to have lower birth weight than glyburide (SMD, 0.2591). As for weight gain, metformin and metformin plus insulin were lower than insulin (SMD, -0.9166, -1.53). Ranking results showed that glyburide might be the optimum treatment regarding average glucose control, and metformin is the fastest in glucose control for GDM patients; glyburide have the highest incidence of macrosomia, preeclampsia, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, shortest gestational age at delivery, and lowest mean birth weight; metformin (plus insulin when required) have the lowest incidence of macrosomia, PIH, LGA, RDS, low gestational age at delivery, and low birth weight. Besides, insulin had the highest incidence of NICU admission, acarbose had the lowest risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.Our study concluded that metformin is fastest in glucose control, with a more favorable pregnancy outcomes-would be a better option, but its rate of glucose control is the lowest.However, glyburide is the optimumtreatment regarding the rate of glucose control, but withmore adverse outcomes. This NAMbased on 32 RCTs will strongly help to guide further development of management for GDM patients, clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of different treatments according to various situations.

Project description:IntroductionTwo studies were carried out to investigate the efficacy and safety of luseogliflozin added to existing oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled with OAD monotherapy.Materials and methodsIn the trial involving add-on to sulfonylureas (study 03-1), patients were randomly assigned to receive luseogliflozin 2.5 mg or a placebo for a 24-week double-blind period, followed by a 28-week open-label period. In the open-label trial involving add-on to other OADs; that is, biguanides, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, glinides and ?-glucosidase inhibitors (study 03-2), patients received luseogliflozin for 52 weeks.ResultsIn study 03-1, luseogliflozin significantly decreased glycated hemoglobin at the end of the 24-week double-blind period compared with the placebo (-0.88%, P < 0.001), and glycated hemoglobin reduction from baseline at week 52 was -0.63%. In study 03-2, luseogliflozin added to other OADs significantly decreased glycated hemoglobin from baseline at week 52 (-0.52 to -0.68%, P < 0.001 for all OADs). Bodyweight reduction was observed in all add-on therapies, even with agents associated with weight gain, such as sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones. Most adverse events were mild in severity. When added to a sulfonylurea, incidences of hypoglycemia during the double-blind period were 8.7% and 4.2% for luseogliflozin and placebo, respectively, but no major hypoglycemic episodes occurred. The frequency and incidences of adverse events of special interest for sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and adverse events associated with combined OADs were acceptable.ConclusionsAdd-on therapies of luseogliflozin to existing OADs improved glycemic control, reduced bodyweight and were well tolerated in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients. These trials were registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center (add on to sulfonylurea: JapicCTI-111507; add on to other OADs: JapicCTI-111508).

Project description:IntroductionThe efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) has been evaluated in the Dual Action of Liraglutide and Insulin Degludec in Type 2 Diabetes (DUAL) phase 3 clinical trial program. In this post hoc analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of IDegLira in the Indian subpopulation with the results from the global trial population of DUAL trials. The analysis includes participants uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in DUAL I and DUAL IV and participants uncontrolled on basal insulin and OADs in DUAL II.MethodsThree phase 3 trials were included in the analysis: DUAL I extension (IDegLira vs. insulin degludec or liraglutide 1.8 mg in participants uncontrolled on metformin ± pioglitazone; 52 weeks; n = 1663), DUAL IV (IDegLira vs. placebo as an add-on to a regimen of sulfonylurea ± metformin; 26 weeks; n = 435) and DUAL II (IDegLira vs. insulin degludec in participants uncontrolled on basal insulin + OADs; 26 weeks; n = 398). There were 251, 64 and 64 participants, respectively, at the Indian sites.ResultsIn the Indian subpopulations, the reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with IDegLira were substantial [DUAL I: 1.96% (-21 mmol/mol); DUAL IV: -1.40% (-15 mmol/mol); DUAL II: -2.20% (-24 mmol/mol)] and significantly greater than those in the comparators in each trial. IDegLira was generally weight-neutral after the administration of OADs (-0.3 and +0.6 kg in DUAL I and DUAL IV) and resulted in weight loss after the administration of basal insulin (-2.1 kg in DUAL II). Hypoglycemia rates were 1.98, 1.08 and 0.37 events/patient-years of exposure (PYE) for IDegLira, insulin degludec and liraglutide in DUAL I, 4.06 and 0.36 events/PYE for IDegLira and placebo in DUAL IV and 1.16 and 0.83 events/PYE with IDegLira and insulin degludec in DUAL II.ConclusionsResults from the Indian subpopulations reflect those of the global study populations, supporting IDegLira as an effective and safe treatment option for people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on OADs or basal insulin + OADs in the South Asian population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01336023 (DUAL I), NCT01392573 (DUAL II), NCT01618162 (DUAL IV).FundingNovo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough metformin is recommended as a first-line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Western countries, no specific treatment is recommended in Japan, and various agents are used. Metformin has long been used at low doses in Japan, and information regarding its effect at the maximum maintenance dose is lacking. Here, we compared the efficacy and safety of metformin at 1500 mg/day with those of the other oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) approved in Japan.MethodsRandomized controlled trials comparing a change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline at 12 weeks or later (ΔHbA1c) among OADs (including placebo) as a first-line treatment in adult patients with T2D were selected by systematic review with comprehensive searching of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Ichushi Web, and EMBASE and manual searching of clinical trial registries. The ΔHbA1c and incidence of hypoglycemia were compared among OAD treatments using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). The relative risk (RR) of the incidence of hypoglycemia was determined relative to that of placebo.ResultsForty-six randomized controlled trials were identified in the systematic review, and 37 studies, comprising 38 different types of treatments, including placebos, were selected for the NMA of ΔHbA1c. Compared with metformin 1500 mg/day, 20 OAD treatments were significantly less effective in reducing HbA1c from baseline (differences from metformin 1500 mg/day: 0.40-0.96%). Two treatments (glimepiride 2 mg/day and pioglitazone 45 mg/day) showed greater mean reductions in HbA1c from baseline than metformin 1500 mg/day (- 0.38% and - 0.03%), although these differences were not significant. Regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia, only pioglitazone 30 mg/day among 31 treatments showed a lower RR (< - 0.01), whereas 23 treatments showed a significantly higher RR (1.02-66.71) than metformin 1500 mg/day.ConclusionThe NMA suggested a preferable efficacy and safety profile of metformin 1500 mg/day compared with the other OADs approved in Japan.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-utility (from the Chinese health insurance perspective) of lixisenatide and insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).MethodsA comprehensive literature search of English (PubMed and Cochrane Library) and Chinese (CNKI and WanFang) language databases was performed, and head-to-head relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved and analyzed by performing a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis for efficacy and safety endpoints. A cost-utility analysis was then conducted using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model to compare the lifetime pharmacoeconomic profiles among the treatment groups.ResultsEleven RCTs were included in this MTC meta-analysis. Regarding glycated hemoglobin targets, lixisenatide was similar to both basal insulin (mean difference [MD] 0.27%; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.02%, 0.57%) and premixed insulin (MD 0.32%; 95% CrI - 0.01%, 0.66%), respectively. Statistically significant differences were found for changes in body weight in favor of lixisenatide compared with basal insulin (MD - 3.22 kg; 95% CrI - 5.51 kg, - 0.94 kg) and premixed insulin (MD - 2.68 kg; 95% CrI - 5.16 kg, - 0.20 kg). The relative risk (RR) of symptomatic hypoglycemia associated with lixisenatide was also significantly lower than that associated with basal insulin (RR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.09, 0.52) and premixed insulin (RR 0.17; 95% CrI 0.07, 0.41). The cost-utility analysis yielded results of ¥61,072 ($8565, vs. basal insulin) and ¥127,169 ($17,836, vs. premixed insulin) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with both values falling within the willingness-to-pay threshold in China.ConclusionsFor T2DM patients inadequately controlled on OADs, lixisenatide was shown to be comparable to basal insulin and premixed insulin in terms of HbA1c and better than both of the latter in terms of both body weight loss and hypoglycemia. Lixisenatide was also a cost-effective treatment option from the perspective of Chinese health insurance.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:In Asia, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often have suboptimal glycemic control for many years prior to initiating basal insulin. Active titration of basal insulin is also required to improve glycemic outcomes. This pooled analysis was conducted to determine the impact of patient baseline covariates on the required dose of basal insulin and treatment response, for the improved management of Asian patients with T2DM. METHODS:Data on insulin-naïve Asian patients with T2DM who initiated and fully titrated insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) for ≥ 20 weeks were pooled from seven randomized, controlled, treat-to-target trials. Covariance and multivariate linear/logistic regression analyses were applied to determine the impact of the baseline covariates on Gla-100 dose (primary outcome) and treatment response (secondary outcomes) at week 24 for patients from Asia (N = 724) and from China alone (n = 249). Based on the multivariate analysis for the primary outcome in the Asian population, a nomogram was developed. RESULTS:The dose of Gla-100 at week 24 was negatively correlated with age and positively correlated with body mass index (BMI) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at baseline in both Asian and Chinese populations. In both populations, higher baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was associated with a lower reduction in HbA1c from baseline, higher HbA1c at week 24, and a lower chance of achieving HbA1c < 7% at week 24. The constructed nomogram enables calculation of the likely dose of Gla-100 required by Asian patients with T2DM to achieve HbA1c < 7% at week 24. CONCLUSIONS:Higher doses of Gla-100 are likely to be required in younger patients or patients with higher baseline BMI or FPG. The nomogram developed in this study can aid clinicians to titrate the dose of Gla-100 appropriately. Evidence in this pooled analysis also indicates that initiating basal insulin at a lower HbA1c can lead to greater glycemic control. FUNDING:Sanofi China Investment Company.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of oral antidiabetic drugs in comparison to insulin in treating gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of oral antidiabetic drugs in comparison to insulin in treating gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets