Dataset Information

Long-Acting Metformin Vs. Metformin Immediate Release in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Background: Metformin, a commonly used antidiabetic medication, is available in both an immediate-release (IR) formulation and a long-acting formulation (metformin extended-release; XR). Objective: We performed a systematic review to compare the effectiveness, safety, and patient compliance and satisfaction between the metformin IR and XR formulations. Method: We searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the effectiveness, safety, or patient compliance and satisfaction of metformin XR with metformin IR using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Following report screening, data collection, and risk of bias assessment, we separately pooled data from RCTs and observational studies using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate the quality of evidence. Result: We included five RCTs, comprising a total of 1,662 patients, and one observational study, comprising 10,909 patients. In the meta-analyses, no differences were identified in outcomes of effectiveness and safety between the two forms of metformin (including change in HbA1c: mean difference (MD), 0.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.05-0.13%, fasting blood glucose: MD, -0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI, -0.22-0.15 mmol/L, postprandial blood glucose: MD, 0.50 mmol/L, 95% CI, -0.71-1.72 mmol/L, adverse events of abdominal pain: relative risk (RR), 1.15, 95% CI, 0.57-2.33, all-cause death (RR, 3.02, 95% CI 0.12-73.85), any adverse events (RR, 1.14, 95% CI 0.97-1.34), any adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation: RR, 1.51, 95% CI, 0.82-2.8, any gastrointestinal adverse events: RR, 1.09, 95% CI, 0.93-1.29, diarrhea: RR, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.53-1.27, flatulence: RR, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.15-1.23, nausea: RR, 0.97, 95% CI, 0.64-1.47, severe adverse events: RR, 0.64, 95% CI, 0.28-1.42, and vomiting: RR, 1.46, 95% CI, 0.6-3.56). Data from both the RCTs and the observational study indicate mildly superior patient compliance with metformin XR use compared with metformin IR use; this result was attributable to the preference for once-daily administration with metformin XR. Conclusion: Our systematic review indicates that metformin XR and IR formulations have similar effectiveness and safety, but that metformin XR is associated with improved compliance to treatment.

SUBMITTER: Tan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8165304 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR).ResultsWe included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12).ConclusionsOur results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction.Prospero registrationCRD42017077051.

Project description:Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) causes progressive destruction of pancreatic beta cells leading to absolute insulin deficiency. Treatment of T1DM requires insulin, and some evidence suggests that longer acting insulin analogues might have a higher effectiveness and greater safety profile compared to intermediate-acting insulin. Our objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost of long-acting insulin versus intermediate-acting insulin through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Studies examining long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin or placebo preparations for adult T1DM patients will be included. The primary outcome is glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C), and secondary outcomes include emergency department and physician visits, hospital admissions, weight gain, quality of life, microvascular complications (e.g., retinopathy), macrovascular complications (e.g., cardiovascular disease), all-cause mortality, incident cancers, and cost. We will include experimental [randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs], quasi-experimental (controlled before-after, interrupted time series), observational (cohort), and cost studies, of any duration of follow-up, conducted during all time periods, and disseminated in any language.We will conduct comprehensive searches of electronic databases from inception onwards, including MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. We will also search for difficult to locate and unpublished literature by searching dissertation databases, public health organization websites, and trial registries. After a calibration exercise using our eligibility criteria and data abstraction forms, two reviewers will screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data in duplicate. Conflicts will be resolved by team discussion. Using a similar process, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Risk of Bias tool will be used to appraise the risk of bias of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, while the Newcastle Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the methodological quality of cohort studies. If feasible and appropriate, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis, as well as a network meta-analysis.Our systematic review will be of utility to healthcare providers, policy-makers, T1DM patients and family members regarding treatment options of long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin preparations.PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003610.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and grey literature were searched through January 2013.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials or non-randomized studies of long acting (glargine, detemir) and intermediate acting (neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), lente) insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes were included.Results39 studies (27 randomized controlled trials including 7496 patients) were included after screening of 6501 titles/abstracts and 190 full text articles. Glargine once daily, detemir once daily, and detemir once/twice daily significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c compared with NPH once daily in network meta-analysis (26 randomized controlled trials, mean difference -0.39%, 95% confidence interval -0.59% to -0.19%; -0.26%, -0.48% to -0.03%; and -0.36%, -0.65% to -0.08%; respectively). Differences in network meta-analysis were observed between long acting and intermediate acting insulin for severe hypoglycemia (16 randomized controlled trials; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once/twice daily: odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.91) and weight gain (13 randomized controlled trials; detemir once daily versus NPH once/twice daily: mean difference 4.04 kg, 3.06 to 5.02 kg; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once daily: -5.51 kg, -6.56 to -4.46 kg; glargine once daily versus NPH once daily: -5.14 kg, -6.07 to -4.21). Compared with NPH, detemir was less costly and more effective in 3/14 cost effectiveness analyses and glargine was less costly and more effective in 2/8 cost effectiveness analyses. The remaining cost effectiveness analyses found that detemir and glargine were more costly but more effective than NPH. Glargine was not cost effective compared with detemir in 2/2 cost effectiveness analyses.ConclusionsLong acting insulin analogs are probably superior to intermediate acting insulin analogs, although the difference is small for hemoglobin A1c. Patients and their physicians should tailor their choice of insulin according to preference, cost, and accessibility.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42013003610.

Project description:ImportanceMetformin is widely viewed as the best initial pharmacological option to lower glucose concentrations in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, the drug is contraindicated in many individuals with impaired kidney function because of concerns of lactic acidosis.ObjectiveTo assess the risk of lactic acidosis associated with metformin use in individuals with impaired kidney function.Evidence acquisitionIn July 2014, we searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases for English-language articles pertaining to metformin, kidney disease, and lactic acidosis in humans between 1950 and June 2014. We excluded reviews, letters, editorials, case reports, small case series, and manuscripts that did not directly pertain to the topic area or that met other exclusion criteria. Of an original 818 articles, 65 were included in this review, including pharmacokinetic/metabolic studies, large case series, retrospective studies, meta-analyses, and a clinical trial.ResultsAlthough metformin is renally cleared, drug levels generally remain within the therapeutic range and lactate concentrations are not substantially increased when used in patients with mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rates, 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2). The overall incidence of lactic acidosis in metformin users varies across studies from approximately 3 per 100,000 person-years to 10 per 100,000 person-years and is generally indistinguishable from the background rate in the overall population with diabetes. Data suggesting an increased risk of lactic acidosis in metformin-treated patients with chronic kidney disease are limited, and no randomized controlled trials have been conducted to test the safety of metformin in patients with significantly impaired kidney function. Population-based studies demonstrate that metformin may be prescribed counter to prevailing guidelines suggesting a renal risk in up to 1 in 4 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus--use which, in most reports, has not been associated with increased rates of lactic acidosis. Observational studies suggest a potential benefit from metformin on macrovascular outcomes, even in patients with prevalent renal contraindications for its use.Conclusions and relevanceAvailable evidence supports cautious expansion of metformin use in patients with mild to moderate chronic kidney disease, as defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate, with appropriate dosage reductions and careful follow-up of kidney function.

Dataset Information

Long-Acting Metformin Vs. Metformin Immediate Release in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets