Dataset Information

Hypoglycaemia when adding sulphonylurea to metformin: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The risk of hypoglycaemia may differ among sulphonylureas (SUs), but evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse. Performing a network meta-analysis to use indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we compared the relative risk of hypoglycaemia with newer generation SUs when added to metformin.

Methods

A systematic review identified RCTs lasting 12-52 weeks and evaluating SUs added to inadequate metformin monotherapy (?1000 mg/day) in type 2 diabetes. Adding RCTs investigating the active comparators from the identified SU trials, we established a coherent network. Hypoglycaemia of any severity was the primary end point.

Results

Thirteen trials of SUs and 14 of oral non-SU antihyperglycaemic agents (16?260 patients) were included. All reported hypoglycaemia only as adverse events. Producing comparable reductions in HbA_1C of -0.66 to -0.84% (-7 to -9 mmol/mol), the risk of hypoglycaemia was lowest with gliclazide compared to glipizide (OR 0.22, CrI: 0.05 to 0.96), glimepiride (OR 0.40, CrI: 0.13 to 1.27), and glibenclamide (OR 0.21, CrI: 0.03 to 1.48). A major limitation is varying definitions of hypoglycaemia across studies.

Conclusions

When added to metformin, gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia between the newer generation SUs. Clinicians should consider the risk of hypoglycaemia agent-specific when selecting an SU agent.

SUBMITTER: Andersen SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5061791 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAlogliptin is an oral antihyperglycemic agent that is a selective inhibitor of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There currently exists no comparative data to support the use of alogliptin in combination with metformin (met) and sulfonylurea (SU). A decision-focused network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the relative efficacy and safety of alogliptin 25 mg once daily to other DPP-4 inhibitors as part of a triple therapy regimen for patients inadequately controlled on metformin and SU dual therapy.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify published papers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared alogliptin with other DPP-4 inhibitors (linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin) at their Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) recommended daily doses, added on to metformin and SU. Comprehensive comparative analysis involving frequentist meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA compared alogliptin to each DPP-4 inhibitor separately and collectively as a group. Quasi-random effect models were introduced when random effect models could not be estimated.ResultsThe review identified 2186 articles, and 94 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Eight RCTs contained appropriate data for inclusion in the NMA. All analyses over all trial population sets produced very similar results, and show that alogliptin 25 mg is as least as effective (as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline, but supported by other outcome measures: change in body weight and FPG from baseline) and safe (as measured by incidence of hypoglycemia and adverse events leading to study discontinuation) as all the other DPP-4 inhibitors in triple therapy.ConclusionThis decision-focused systematic review and NMA demonstrated alogliptin 25 mg daily to have similar efficacy and safety compared to other DPP-4 inhibitors, for the treatment of T2DM in adults inadequately controlled on metformin and SU. (Funded by Takeda Development Centre Americas; EXAMINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968708).

Project description:BackgroundPoor feeding, among other factors, predisposes neonates to hypoglycaemia. Early feeding is widely recommended to prevent hypoglycaemia in those at risk, but the effectiveness of this is uncertain. This review aimed to summarise and analyse the evidence on the effectiveness of early feeding for prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia.MethodsFour databases and three clinical trial registries were searched from inception to May 24, 2023. Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster randomised trials, non-randomised studies of interventions, and observational studies with comparison groups were considered for inclusion with no language or publication date restrictions. We included studies of neonates who were fed early (within 60 min of birth or study defined) versus delayed. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 tool or Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RevMan 5.4.1 or R was used to synthesise results in random-effects meta-analyses. This review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42022378904).ResultsA total of 175,392 participants were included across 19 studies, of which two were RCTs, 14 cohort studies, two cross-sectional studies, and one a case-control study. Most studies (13/19) were conducted in low- or lower-middle-income countries. Early feeding may be associated with reduced neonatal hypoglycaemia (four cohort studies, 744 infants, odds ratio [OR] 0.19 (95% CI: 0.10-0.35), p < 0.00001, I2 = 44%) and slightly reduced duration of initial hospital stay (one cohort study, 1,673 infants, mean difference: -0.20 days [95% CI: -0.31 to -0.09], p = 0.0003), but the evidence is very uncertain. One RCT found early feeding had little or no effect on the risk of neonatal mortality, but three cohort studies found early feeding may be associated with reduced risk (136,468 infants, OR 0.51 [95% CI: 0.37-0.72]; low certainty evidence; p <0.0001; I2 = 54%).ConclusionWe found that early feeding may reduce the incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia, but the evidence is very uncertain. Given its many other benefits, early feeding should continue to be recommended. This review was primarily funded by the Aotearoa Foundation and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health.

Project description:Importance/Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is a critical public health issue. Evidence has shown that metformin favorably influences COVID-19 outcomes. This study aimed to assess the benefits and risks of metformin in COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database from inception to February 18, 2021. Observational studies assessing the association between metformin use and the outcomes of COVID-19 patients were included. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes included intubation, deterioration, and hospitalization. Random-effects weighted models were used to pool the specific effect sizes. Subgroup analyses were conducted by stratifying the meta-analysis by region, diabetic status, the adoption of multivariate model, age, risk of bias, and timing for adding metformin. Results: We identified 28 studies with 2,910,462 participants. Meta-analysis of 19 studies showed that metformin is associated with 34% lower COVID-19 mortality [odds ratio (OR), 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-0.78; I 2 = 67.9%] and 27% lower hospitalization rate (pooled OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.00; I 2 = 16.8%). However, we did not identify any subgroup effects. The meta-analysis did not identify statistically significant association between metformin and intubation and deterioration of COVID-19 (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.16; I 2 = 0.0% for intubation and OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.65-6.34; I 2 = 79.4% for deterioration of COVID-19), respectively. Conclusions: Metformin use among COVID-19 patients was associated with a reduced risk of mortality and hospitalization. Our findings suggest a relative benefit for metformin use in nursing home and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm the association between metformin use and COVID-19 outcomes. Study Registration: The study was registered on the PROSPERO on Feb 23, 2021 (CRD42021238722).

Project description:Objective To determine the association between use of sulphonylureas and risk of hypoglycaemia in relation to renal function and sulphonylurea metabolic group compared with use of metformin.Design Population based cohort study using routinely collected data from general practices in England.Setting Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database, 2004-12.Participants 120?803 new users of a non-insulin antidiabetic agent with at least one prescription and aged 18 years or more. The first prescription defined start of follow-up. Patients were followed until the end of data collection, a record for hypoglycaemia, or a blood glucose level of less than 3.0 mmol/L.Main outcome measures Associations between sulphonylurea dose, renal impairment, type of sulphonylurea used, and risk of hypoglycaemia, were determined using Cox proportional hazard models. Adjustments were made for age, sex, lifestyle, comorbidity, and drug use.Results The risk of hypoglycaemia in current users of sulphonylureas only was significantly increased compared with current users of metformin only (adjusted hazard ratio 2.50, 95% confidence interval 2.23 to 2.82). The higher risk in current users of sulphonylureas only was further increased in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (4.96, 3.76 to 6.55). The risk of hypoglycaemia was also significantly higher in patients with a high sulphonylurea dose (3.12, 2.68 to 3.62) and in current users of glibenclamide (7.48, 4.89 to 11.44). Gliclazide, the sulphonylurea of first choice, showed a similar risk of hypoglycaemia compared with other sulphonylureas.Conclusions Sulphonylurea treatment in patients with a renal function of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) should be considered with caution. Moreover, an increased risk of hypoglycaemic events was observed among all users of sulphonylureas. This contrasts with several guidelines that recommend gliclazide as first choice sulphonylurea, and therefore requires further investigation.