Dataset Information

Efficacy and Side Effect Profile of Different Formulations of Metformin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Metformin is among the most frequently prescribed drugs worldwide for a variety of indications. Although metformin has several important advantages, for example being easy to store and administer, it is associated with a high incidence of gastrointestinal side effects. Slower-release formulations of metformin may reduce the incidence of side effects while maintaining efficacy; however, there is a lack of systematic evidence available to guide head-to-head comparisons between different metformin formulations.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, OVID EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane database and Clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched (from inception to 25 January 2021). Trials that randomized adult participants to extended-release formulation of metformin (met-XR), delayed-release (met-DR) or immediate-release metformin (met-IR) were included. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and risk-of-bias, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Outcome measures were change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, BMI, lipid profile and side effects. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models.

Results

Fifteen studies (n = 3765) met eligibility criteria. There was no significant difference between the efficacy of met-IR, met-XR or met-DR in changing FPG (p = 0.93). A non-significant reduction in mean body weight was observed in individuals randomized to met-XR vs. met-IR (- 1.03 kg, 95% CI - 2.12 to 0.05, p = 0.06). Individuals randomized to met-XR vs. met-IR had lower low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels (- 5.73 mg/dl, 95% CI - 7.91 to - 3.56, p < 0.00001). Gastrointestinal (GI) side effects were markedly reduced in patients randomised to met-DR vs. met-IR (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.80, p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate equal efficacy of longer-acting formulations (met-XR, met-DR) versus immediate-release metformin formulations in terms of glycaemic control. There were insufficient studies available to compare the efficacy of different metformin formulations outside of diabetes care. However met-XR was associated with reduced serum LDL cholesterol concentrations, while met-DR was strongly associated with reduced GI side effects, which could improve drug compliance.

SUBMITTER: Tarry-Adkins JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8266931 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Theophylline has been used for decades to treat both acute and chronic asthma. Despite its longevity in the practitioner's formulary, no detailed meta-analysis has been performed to determine the conditions, including concomitant medications, under which theophylline should be used for acute exacerbations of asthma. We aimed to quantify the usefulness and side effects of theophylline with or without ethylene diamine (aminophylline) in acute asthma, with particular emphasis on patient subgroups, such as children, adults, and concomitant medications.We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry for randomized, controlled clinical trials. We planned a priori subgroup analyses by time post-medication, concomitant medication, control type, and age.We included 52 study arms from 42 individual trials. Of these, 29 study arms included an active control, such as adrenaline, beta-2 agonists, or leukotriene receptor antagonists, and 23 study arms compared theophylline (with or without ethylene diamine) with placebo or no drug. Theophylline significantly reduced heart rate when compared with active control (p=0.01) and overall duration of stay (p=0.002), but beta-2 agonists were superior to theophylline at improving forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (p=0.002). Theophylline was not significantly different from other drugs in its effects on respiratory rate, forced vital capacity (FVC), peak expiratory flow rate, admission rate, use of rescue medication, oxygen saturation, or symptom score. Closer examination of the data revealed that the medications given in addition to theophylline or control significantly changed the effectiveness of theophylline (subgroup difference: p<0.00001).Given the low cost of theophylline, and its similar efficacy and rate of side effects compared with other drugs, we suggest that theophylline, when given with bronchodilators with or without steroids, is a cost-effective and safe choice for acute asthma exacerbations.

Project description:IntroductionAccording to the common definition, nutraceuticals are components found in food that can act as therapeutic substances. Recently, the International Lipid Expert Panel published two position papers covering the topic of lipid-lowering nutraceuticals and their potential use as a complementary treatment in addition to statins or as an alternative treatment in statin-intolerant patients. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different nutraceuticals on lipid profiles in a systematic review with pairwise and network meta-analyses.Methods and analysisThree databases, including PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, will be searched without time or publication language restrictions. The estimated end date for the searches will be 29 March 2020. Each stage of the review, including the study section, data extraction, and risk of bias and quality of evidence assessments, will be performed in duplicate. Randomised controlled trials meeting the following criteria will be eligible for inclusion: (1) participants aged ≥18 years, (2) intervention with a selected nutraceutical (artichoke, berberine, bergamot, soluble fibres, green tea, garlic, lupin, plant sterols and stanols, red yeast rice, soybean, spirulina or a combination of the aforementioned nutraceuticals), (3) administration of the treatment in the form of capsules, pills, powders, solutions, tablets or enriched food items, (4) comparison with another nutraceutical or placebo, (5) intervention period ≥3 weeks and (6) lipid profile (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides) as an outcome. Random-effect pairwise and network meta-analyses will be used to summarise the relative effect of each nutraceutical in comparison to the effect of every other nutraceutical. Subgroup analyses will be stratified by age, sex, ethnicity, sample size, length of trial follow-up, baseline cholesterol level and presence of other comorbidities.Ethics and disseminationThis review will summarise findings from primary studies, and therefore no ethics approval is required. The results will be presented at conferences as well as published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42019132877.