Dataset Information

Risk of any hypoglycaemia with newer antihyperglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objectives:For patients with type 2 diabetes, newer antihyperglycaemic agents (AHA), including the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) offer a lower risk of hypoglycaemia relative to sulfonylurea or insulin. However, it is not clear how AHA compare to placebo on risk of any hypoglycaemia. This study evaluates the risk of any and severe hypoglycaemia with AHA and metformin relative to placebo. Design:A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized, placebo-controlled trials ?12 weeks in duration. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to April 16, 2019. Studies allowing use of other diabetes medications were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals were used to pool estimates based on class of AHA and number of concomitant therapies used. Patients:Eligible studies enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes ?18 years of age. Results:144 studies met our inclusion criteria. Any hypoglycaemia was not increased with AHA when used as monotherapy (DPP4i (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.81-1.56), GLP1RA (1.77; 0.91-3.46), SGLT2i (1.34; 0.83-2.15)), or as add-on to metformin (DPP4i (0.95; 0.67-1.35), GLP1RA (1.24; 0.80-1.91), SGLT2i (1.29; 0.91-1.83)) or as triple therapy (1.13; 0.67-1.91). However, metformin monotherapy (1.73; 1.02-2.94) and dual therapy initiation (3.56; 1.79-7.10) was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia was rare not increased for any comparisons. Conclusions:Metformin and the simultaneous initiation of dual therapy, but not AHA used alone or as single add-on combination therapy, was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia relative to placebo.

SUBMITTER: Kamalinia S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6947712 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk of any hypoglycaemia with newer antihyperglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kamalinia Sanaz S Josse Robert G RG Donio Patrick J PJ Leduc Lindsay L Shah Baiju R BR Tobe Sheldon W SW

Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism 20191113 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>For patients with type 2 diabetes, newer antihyperglycaemic agents (AHA), including the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) offer a lower risk of hypoglycaemia relative to sulfonylurea or insulin. However, it is not clear how AHA compare to placebo on risk of any hypoglycaemia. This study evaluates the risk of any and severe hypoglycaemia with AHA and metformin re ...[more]

PMID: 31922027

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors versus intermediate-acting insulin for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and poor glycaemic control despite treatment with two oral agents.SettingStudies were multicentre and multinational.ParticipantsTen studies including 2967 patients with T2DM.InterventionsStudies that examined DPP-4 inhibitors compared with each other, intermediate-acting insulin, no treatment or placebo in patients with T2DM.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes were healthcare utilisation, body weight, fractures, quality of life, microvascular complications, macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality, harms, cost and cost-effectiveness.Results10 randomised clinical trials with 2967 patients were included after screening 5831 titles and abstracts, and 180 full-text articles. DPP-4 inhibitors significantly reduced HbA1c versus placebo in network meta-analysis (NMA; mean difference (MD) -0.62%, 95% CI -0.93% to -0.33%) and meta-analysis (MD -0.61%, 95% CI -0.81% to -0.41%), respectively. Significant differences in HbA1c were not observed for neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin versus placebo and DPP-4 inhibitors versus NPH insulin in NMA. In meta-analysis, no significant differences were observed between DPP-4 inhibitors and placebo for severe hypoglycaemia, weight gain, cardiovascular disease, overall harms, treatment-related harms and mortality, although patients receiving DPP-4 inhibitors experienced less infections (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91).ConclusionsDPP-4 inhibitors were superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c levels in adults with T2DM taking at least two oral agents. Compared with placebo, no safety signals were detected with DPP-4 inhibitors and there was a reduced risk of infection. There was no significant difference in HbA1c observed between NPH and placebo or NPH and DPP-4 inhibitors.Trial registration numberPROSPERO # CRD42013003624.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Many children with type 1 diabetes have poor glycaemic control. Since the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) showed that tighter control reduces complication rates, there has been more emphasis on intensified insulin therapy. We know that patients and families are afraid of hypoglycaemia. We hypothesised that fear of hypoglycaemia might take precedence over concern about long-term complications, and that behaviour to avoid hypoglycaemia might be at the cost of poorer control, and aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of any interventions designed to prevent that. The objective of this review was to systematically review studies concerning the extent and consequences of fear of hypoglycaemia in parents of children under 12 years of age with type 1 diabetes, and interventions to reduce it. METHODS: DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, meeting abstracts of EASD, ADA and Diabetes UK, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, UK CRN, scrutiny of bibliographies of retrieved papers and contact with experts in the field.Inclusions: Relevant studies of any design of parents of children under 12 years of age with Type 1 diabetes were included. The key outcomes were the extent and impact of fear, hypoglycaemia avoidance behaviour in parents due to parental fear of hypoglycaemia in their children, the effect on diabetes control, and the impact of interventions to reduce this fear and hypoglycaemia avoidance behaviour. RESULTS: Eight articles from six studies met the inclusion criteria. All were cross sectional studies and most were of good quality. Parental fear of hypoglycaemia, anxiety and depression were reported to be common. There was a paucity of evidence on behaviour to avoid hypoglycaemia, but there were some suggestions that higher than desirable blood glucose levels might be permitted in order to avoid hypoglycaemia. No studies reporting interventions to reduce parental fear of hypoglycaemia were found. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base was limited. Parents of children with Type 1 diabetes reported considerable parental fear of hypoglycaemia, affecting both parental health and quality of life. There is some suggestion that hypoglycaemia avoidance behaviours by parents might adversely affect glycaemic control. Trials of interventions to reduce parental anxiety and hypoglycaemia avoidance behaviour are needed. We suggest that there should be a trial of structured education for parents of young children with Type 1 diabetes.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence from cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) for newer antidiabetic drugs is increasingly influencing revised recommendations for second-line therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This systematic review aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of newer antidiabetic drugs specified as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) for T2D in a second-line setting.MethodsA systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines, and all relevant published studies were searched comprehensively in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and International Health Technology Assessment database published from April 2023. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 reporting checklists.ResultsWe included 28 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS 2022 recommendations. The CORE and Cardiff models were the most frequently utilized for pharmacoeconomic evaluation in T2D. Four studies consistently discovered that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than GLP-1RA in T2D who were not adequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. Four studies compared GLP-1RA with DPP-4i, sufonylurea (SU), or insulin. Except for one that demonstrated SU was cost-effective, all were GLP-1RA. Five studies revealed that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than DPP-4i or SU. Eleven studies indicated that DPP-4i was more cost-effective than traditional antidiabetic drugs. Four additional studies explored the cost-effectiveness of various antidiabetic drugs as second-line options, indicating that SU, SGLT2i, or meglitinides were more economically advantageous. The most common driven factors were the cost of new antidiabetic drugs.ConclusionNewer antidiabetic drugs as second line are the cost-effective option for T2D from the cost-effectiveness perspective, especially SGLT2i.

Project description:Recently, some studies have focused on the relationship between dietary protein intake and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the conclusions have been inconsistent. Therefore, in this paper, a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies regarding protein consumption and T2DM risk are conducted in order to present the association between them. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases for cohort studies on dietary protein, high-protein food consumption and risk of T2DM, up to July 2017. A summary of relative risks was compiled by the fixed-effect model or random-effect model. Eleven cohort studies regarded protein intake and T2DM (52,637 cases among 483,174 participants). The summary RR and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) of T2DM was 1.12 (1.08-1.17) in all subjects, 1.13 (1.04-1.24) in men, and 1.09 (1.04-1.15) in women for total protein;1.14 (1.09-1.19) in all subjects, 1.23 (1.09-1.38) in men, and 1.11 (1.03-1.19) in women for animal protein; 0.96 (0.88-1.06) in all subjects, 0.98 (0.72-1.34) in men, and 0.92 (0.86-0.98) in women for plant protein. We also compared the association between different food sources of protein and the risk of T2DM. The summary RR (Relative Risk) and 95% CI of T2DM was 1.22 (1.09-1.36) for red meat, 1.39 (1.29-1.49) for processed meat, 1.03 (0.89-1.17) for fish, 1.03 (0.64-1.67) for egg, 0.89 (0.84-0.94) for total dairy products, 0.87 (0.78-0.96) for whole milk, 0.83 (0.70-0.98) for yogurt, 0.74 (0.59-0.93) in women for soy. This meta-analysis shows that total protein and animal protein could increase the risk of T2DM in both males and females, and plant protein decreases the risk of T2DM in females. The association between high-protein food types and T2DM are also different. Red meat and processed meat are risk factors of T2DM, and soy, dairy and dairy products are the protective factors of T2DM. Egg and fish intake are not associated with a decreased risk of T2DM. This research indicates the type of dietary protein and food sources of protein that should be considered for the prevention of diabetes.

Dataset Information

Risk of any hypoglycaemia with newer antihyperglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Risk of any hypoglycaemia with newer antihyperglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets