Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Initial Combination Therapy in Treatment-Naive Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy compared with monotherapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes patients.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials of initial combination therapy with hypoglycemic agents compared with monotherapy. Those which satisfied the search criteria were included in the meta-analysis. Weighted mean difference and relative risks were calculated.

Results

A total of 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin plus another anti-diabetes drug exhibited significant reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (p < 0.001). Most of the combination therapies had a similar risk of hypoglycemia (p > 0.05), with the exception of combinations of sulfonylurea/glinide and metformin or combinations of thiazolidinedione and metformin. Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor monotherapy, initial combination therapy with DPP-4 inhibitor plus another anti-diabetes drug showed a significant decrease in HbA1c (p < 0.001) and a similar risk of hypoglycemia (p > 0.05). Compared with monotherapy with other anti-diabetes drugs, initial combination therapies also resulted in significant HbA1c reductions, a similar risk of hypoglycemia and similar risks of other adverse events.

Conclusion

Compared with monotherapy, all initial combination therapies resulted in significant HbA1c reductions. Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial combination therapies with DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin, sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and metformin, respectively, were associated with similar risks of hypoglycemia, but initial combination therapies with sulfonylurea plus metformin, thiazolidinedione and metformin, respectively, were associated with higher risks of hypoglycemia.

Funding

AstraZeneca Ltd. (China).

Trial registration

Registration number CRD42017060717 in PROSPERO.

SUBMITTER: Cai X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6167297 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe last international consensus on the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) recommends SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists for patients with clinical cardiovascular (CV) disease; metformin remains the first-line glucose lowering medication. Last studies suggested beneficial effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, in secondary CV prevention. Recently, a potential benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in primary CV prevention also has been suggested. However, no comparison of all the new and the old hypoglycemic drugs is available on CV outcomes. We aimed to compare the effects of old and new hypoglycemic drugs in T2D, on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical trials. Randomized trials, blinded or not, assessing contemporary hypoglycemic drugs on mortality or MACE in patients with T2D, were searched for in Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov. References screening and data extraction were done by multiple observers. Each drug was analyzed according to its therapeutic class. A random Bayesian network meta-analysis model was used. The primary outcomes were overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and MACE. Severe adverse events and severe hypoglycemia were also recorded. 175,966 patients in 34 trials from 1970 to 2018 were included. No trials evaluating glinides or alpha glucosidase inhibitors were found. 17 trials included a majority of patients with previous cardiovascular history, 16 trials a majority of patients without. Compared to control, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.84 [95% CrI: 0.74; 0.95]), SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.89 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.98] and OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.95], respectively). Compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.82 [95% CrI: 0.69; 0.98]), GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.79; 0.99]). Insulin was also associated with an increased risk of MACE compared to GLP-1 agonists (OR = 1.19 [95% CrI: 1.01; 1.42]). Insulin and sulfonylureas were associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. In the trials including a majority of patients without previous CV history, the comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, metformin and control did not showed significant differences on primary outcomes. We limited our analysis at the therapeutic class level.ConclusionsSGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists have the most beneficial effects, especially in T2D patients with previous CV diseases. Direct comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists and metformin are needed, notably in primary CV prevention.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043823.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of saxagliptin for type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS:A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and two Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saxagliptin with placebo or active comparators was performed up to July 2017. A complementary search was done to cover literature until March 2018. For continuous data, estimates were pooled using inverse variance methodology to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs). Dichotomous data were presented as Mantel-Haenzel risk ratios (RRs). RESULTS:Thirty-nine references of 30 RCTs involving 29,938 patients were analyzed. Compared with placebo, saxagliptin significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, WMD -0.52%, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.44) and fasting plasma glucose (WMD -13.78 mg/dL, 95% CI -15.31 to -12.25), and increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.75). When combined with submaximal-dose metformin, saxagliptin significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% compared with acarbose (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.83) and uptitrated metformin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.63). Saxagliptin was similar to other DPP-4 inhibitors but inferior to liraglutide and dapagliflozin on glycemic control. Saxagliptin significantly decreased the incidences of overall adverse events compared with acarbose (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89) and liraglutide (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) when added to metformin. Weight gain and hypoglycemia with saxagliptin was slightly but significantly higher than placebo and lower than sulfonylureas. Saxagliptin did not increase the risk of arthralgia, heart failure, pancreatitis and other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:Generally, saxagliptin has similar efficacy compared with most oral antidiabetic drugs and may be more effective than acarbose, while having a better safety profile than both acarbose and sulfonylureas.

Project description:Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disease with high morbidity and mortality. Recently, stem cell-based therapy for DM has shown considerable promise. Here, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy for both type 1 DM (T1DM) and type 2 DM (T2DM). The PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched up to November 2018. We employed a fixed-effect model using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) when no statistically significant heterogeneity existed. Otherwise, a random-effects statistical model was used. Twenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria: ten T1DM studies including 226 patients and eleven T2DM studies including 386 patients. Stem cell therapy improved C-peptide levels (mean difference (MD), 0.41; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.76) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c; MD, -3.46; 95% CI, -6.01 to -0.91) for T1DM patients. For T2DM patients, stem cell therapy improved C-peptide levels (MD, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.59), HbA1c (MD, -0.87; 95% CI, -1.37 to -0.37) and insulin requirements (MD, -35.76; 95% CI, -40.47 to -31.04). However, there was no significant change in fasting plasma glucose levels (MD, -0.52; 95% CI, -1.38 to 0.34). Subgroup analyses showed significant HbA1c and C-peptide improvements in patients with T1DM treated with bone marrow hematopoietic stem cells (BM-HSCs), while there was no significant change in the mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) group. In T2DM, HbA1c and insulin requirements decreased significantly after MSC transplantation, and insulin requirements and C-peptide levels were significantly improved after bone marrow mononuclear cell (BM-MNC) treatment. Stem cell therapy is a relatively safe and effective method for selected individuals with DM. The data showed that BM-HSCs are superior to MSCs in the treatment of T1DM. In T2DM, MSC and BM-MNC transplantation showed favorable therapeutic effects.