RESUMO
SOURCE CITATION: Bajaj HS, Aberle J, Davies M, et al. Once-weekly insulin icodec with dosing guide app versus once-daily basal insulin analogues in insulin-naive type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 5): a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2023;176:1476-1485. 37748181.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Aplicativos Móveis , Humanos , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Glicemia , Hemoglobinas Glicadas , Esquema de MedicaçãoRESUMO
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of s.c. administered tirzepatide vs s.c. administered semaglutide for adults of both sexes with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Cochrane up to 11 November 2023 for RCTs with an intervention duration of at least 12 weeks assessing s.c. tirzepatide at maintenance doses of 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg once weekly, or s.c. semaglutide at maintenance doses of 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg once weekly, in adults with type 2 diabetes, regardless of background glucose-lowering treatment. Eligible trials compared any of the specified doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide against each other, placebo or other glucose-lowering drugs. Primary outcomes were changes in HbA1c and body weight from baseline. Secondary outcomes were achievement of HbA1c target of ≤48 mmol/mol (≤6.5%) or <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%), body weight loss of at least 10%, and safety outcomes including gastrointestinal adverse events and severe hypoglycaemia. We used version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2) to assess the risk of bias, conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses and evaluated confidence in effect estimates utilising the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework. RESULTS: A total of 28 trials with 23,622 participants (44.2% female) were included. Compared with placebo, tirzepatide 15 mg was the most efficacious treatment in reducing HbA1c (mean difference -21.61 mmol/mol [-1.96%]) followed by tirzepatide 10 mg (-20.19 mmol/mol [-1.84%]), semaglutide 2.0 mg (-17.74 mmol/mol [-1.59%]), tirzepatide 5 mg (-17.60 mmol/mol [-1.60%]), semaglutide 1.0 mg (-15.25 mmol/mol [-1.39%]) and semaglutide 0.5 mg (-12.00 mmol/mol [-1.09%]). In between-drug comparisons, all tirzepatide doses were comparable with semaglutide 2.0 mg and superior to semaglutide 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg. Compared with placebo, tirzepatide was more efficacious than semaglutide for reducing body weight, with reductions ranging from 9.57 kg (tirzepatide 15 mg) to 5.27 kg (tirzepatide 5 mg). Semaglutide had a less pronounced effect, with reductions ranging from 4.97 kg (semaglutide 2.0 mg) to 2.52 kg (semaglutide 0.5 mg). In between-drug comparisons, tirzepatide 15 mg, 10 mg and 5 mg demonstrated greater efficacy than semaglutide 2.0 mg, 1.0 mg and 0.5 mg, respectively. Both drugs increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, while neither tirzepatide nor semaglutide increased the risk of serious adverse events or severe hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Our data show that s.c. tirzepatide had a more pronounced effect on HbA1c and weight reduction compared with s.c. semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes. Both drugs, particularly higher doses of tirzepatide, increased gastrointestinal adverse events. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022382594.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon , Hipoglicemiantes , Metanálise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangue , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon/uso terapêutico , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon/administração & dosagem , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon/efeitos adversos , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/metabolismo , Adulto , Glicemia/efeitos dos fármacos , Feminino , Masculino , Injeções Subcutâneas , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 2 , Polipeptídeo Inibidor GástricoRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Several agents are under investigation for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacologic interventions for patients with NAFLD focusing on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL. We included randomized controlled trials of more than 12 weeks of intervention that recruited patients with biopsy-confirmed or MRI-confirmed NAFLD and assessed the efficacy of interventions on liver fat content (LFC) and fibrosis by means of MRI. We performed random-effects frequentist network meta-analyses and assessed confidence in our estimates using the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) approach. RESULTS: We included 47 trials (8583 patients). Versus placebo, thiazolidinediones were the most efficacious for the absolute change in LFC, followed by vitamin E, fibroblast growth factor (FGF) analogs, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) with mean differences ranging from -7.46% (95% confidence interval [-11.0, -3.9]) to -4.36% (-7.2, -1.5). No differences between drug classes were evident. Patients receiving GLP-1 RAs or glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RAs were more likely to achieve ≥30% relative reduction in LFC. Among agents, efruxifermin produced the largest reduction in LFC compared to placebo [-13.5% (-18.5, -8.5)], followed by pioglitazone, while being superior to most interventions. The effect of interventions on magnetic resonance elastography assessed fibrosis was small and insignificant. The confidence in our estimates was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Several drug classes may reduce LFC in patients with NAFLD without a significant effect on fibrosis; nevertheless, trial duration was small, and confidence in the effect estimates was low.
Assuntos
Biomarcadores , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Hepatopatia Gordurosa não Alcoólica , Tiazolidinedionas , Hepatopatia Gordurosa não Alcoólica/tratamento farmacológico , Hepatopatia Gordurosa não Alcoólica/diagnóstico por imagem , Humanos , Tiazolidinedionas/uso terapêutico , Vitamina E/uso terapêutico , Metanálise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1/agonistas , Resultado do Tratamento , Fatores de Crescimento de Fibroblastos/sangue , Fígado/diagnóstico por imagem , Fígado/patologia , Cirrose Hepática/tratamento farmacológico , Cirrose Hepática/diagnóstico por imagemRESUMO
Incretin-based therapies, particularly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits in people with type 2 diabetes. However, socioeconomic disparities in their uptake may constrain the collective advantages offered by these medications to the broader population. In this review we examine the socioeconomic disparities in the utilisation of incretin-based therapies and discuss strategies to address these inequalities. Based on real-world evidence, the uptake of GLP-1 RAs is reduced in people who live in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, have low income and education level, or belong to racial/ethnic minorities, even though these individuals have a greater burden of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Contributing factors include suboptimal health insurance coverage, limited accessibility to incretin-based therapies, financial constraints, low health literacy and physician-patient barriers such as provider bias. Advocating for a reduction in the price of GLP-1 RAs is a pivotal initial step to enhance their affordability among lower socioeconomic groups and improve their value-for-money from a societal perspective. By implementing cost-effective strategies, healthcare systems can amplify the societal benefits of incretin-based therapies, alongside measures that include maximising treatment benefits in specific subpopulations while minimising harms in vulnerable individuals, increasing accessibility, enhancing health literacy and overcoming physician-patient barriers. A collaborative approach between governments, pharmaceutical companies, healthcare providers and people with diabetes is necessary for the effective implementation of these strategies to enhance the overall societal benefits of incretin-based therapies.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Inibidores da Dipeptidil Peptidase IV , Humanos , Incretinas/uso terapêutico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Dipeptidil Peptidase IV/uso terapêutico , Peptídeo 1 Semelhante ao Glucagon , Fatores Socioeconômicos , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1/agonistasRESUMO
The present study is an overview of systematic reviews focusing on adverse events of antimyeloma treatments. It provides a systematic description of adverse events as they are reported in the systematic reviews as well as a critical appraisal of included reviews. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in the most widely used electronic databases looking for systematic reviews that had an adverse event of an antimyeloma treatment intervention as primary outcome. Two independent reviewers conducted selection of included studies and data extraction on predesigned online forms and assessed study quality using AMSTAR 2. Overall corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated to examine the overlap of primary studies across systematic reviews. After screening eligible studies, 23 systematic reviews were included in this overview. Seven reviews with overall CCA of 14.7% examined cardiovascular adverse events of different drugs, including immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors (mainly carfilzomib). Nine focused on infections, presenting with overall CCA of 5.8%, each one focused on a different drug or drug class. Three studied thromboembolism in patients treated either with lenalidomide, any immunomodulatory drug, or with daratumumab and had an overall CCA equal to 1.5%. Four more reviews focused on bortezomib-associated neurotoxicity, carfilzomib-associated renal toxicity, or second primary malignancies as an adverse event of lenalidomide or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody treatment. The quality of included studies as judged by AMSTAR 2 was mostly critically low. Absence of a priori registered protocol and formal assessment of risk of bias of included primary studies were the most common shortcomings. Reporting of antimyeloma drug-associated toxicity is supported by multiple systematic reviews; nevertheless, methodological quality of existing reviews is mostly low.
RESUMO
AIM: To explore whether the beneficial cardiovascular (CV) effect of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors is consistent with or without concurrent use of CV medications in patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure (HF) or chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase up to September 2022 for CV outcomes trials. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for HF. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of CV death, hospitalization for HF, death from any cause, major adverse CV events or renal events, volume depletion and hyperkalaemia. We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included 12 trials comprising 83 804 patients. SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced the risk of CV death or hospitalization for HF regardless of background use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), b-blockers, diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), or triple combination therapy of either an ACEI/ARB plus b-blocker plus MRA, or an ARNI plus b-blocker plus MRA (HRs ranged from 0.61 to 0.83; P > .1 for each subgroup interaction). Similarly, no subgroup differences were evident for most analyses for the secondary outcomes of CV death, hospitalization for HF, all-cause mortality, major adverse CV or renal events, hyperkalaemia and volume depletion rate. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors seems to be additive to background use of CV medications in a broad population of patients. These findings should be interpreted as hypothesis generating because most of the subgroups analysed were not prespecified.
Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Hiperpotassemia , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose , Simportadores , Humanos , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/efeitos adversos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/complicações , Simportadores/uso terapêutico , Glucose/uso terapêutico , Sódio , Doenças Cardiovasculares/epidemiologia , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Doenças Cardiovasculares/complicaçõesRESUMO
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) currently under review for marketing approval. Individual trials have assessed the clinical profile of tirzepatide vs different comparators. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov up until 27 October 2021 for randomised controlled trials with a duration of at least 12 weeks that compared once-weekly tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg with placebo or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes irrespective of their background glucose-lowering treatment. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline. Secondary efficacy outcomes included change in body weight, proportion of individuals reaching the HbA1c target of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%), ≤48 mmol/mol (≤6.5%) or <39 mmol/mol (<5.7%), and proportion of individuals with body weight loss of at least 5%, 10% or 15%. Safety outcomes included hypoglycaemia, gastrointestinal adverse events, treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and mortality. We used version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials to assess risk of bias for the primary outcome. RESULTS: Seven trials (6609 participants) were included. A dose-dependent superiority in lowering HbA1c was evident with all three tirzepatide doses vs all comparators, with mean differences ranging from -17.71 mmol/mol (-1.62%) to -22.35 mmol/mol (-2.06%) vs placebo, -3.22 mmol/mol (-0.29%) to -10.06 mmol/mol (-0.92%) vs GLP-1 RAs, and -7.66 mmol/mol (-0.70%) to -12.02 mmol/mol (-1.09%) vs basal insulin regimens. Tirzepatide was more efficacious in reducing body weight; reductions vs GLP-1 RAs ranged from 1.68 kg with tirzepatide 5 mg to 7.16 kg with tirzepatide 15 mg. Incidence of hypoglycaemia with tirzepatide was similar vs placebo and lower vs basal insulin. Nausea was more frequent with tirzepatide vs placebo, especially with tirzepatide 15 mg (OR 5.60 [95% CI 3.12, 10.06]), associated with higher incidence of vomiting (OR 5.50 [95% CI 2.40, 12.59]) and diarrhoea (OR 3.31 [95% CI 1.40, 7.85]). Odds of gastrointestinal events were similar between tirzepatide and GLP-1 RAs, except for diarrhoea with tirzepatide 10 mg (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.07, 2.15]). Tirzepatide 15 mg led to higher discontinuation rate of study medication due to adverse events regardless of comparator, while all tirzepatide doses were safe in terms of serious adverse events and mortality. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: A dose-dependent superiority on glycaemic efficacy and body weight reduction was evident with tirzepatide vs placebo, GLP-1 RAs and basal insulin. Tirzepatide did not increase the odds of hypoglycaemia but was associated with increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events. Study limitations include presence of statistical heterogeneity in the meta-analyses for change in HbA1c and body weight, assessment of risk of bias solely for the primary outcome, and generalisation of findings mainly to individuals who are overweight or obese and already on metformin-based background therapy. PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021283449.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Hipoglicemia , Insulinas , Glicemia , Peso Corporal , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Diarreia/induzido quimicamente , Diarreia/complicações , Diarreia/tratamento farmacológico , Polipeptídeo Inibidor Gástrico/uso terapêutico , Peptídeo 1 Semelhante ao Glucagon/agonistas , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1/agonistas , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Humanos , Hipoglicemia/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Insulinas/uso terapêutico , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the previous consensus statements on the management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes in adults, published since 2006 and last updated in 2019. The target audience is the full spectrum of the professional healthcare team providing diabetes care in the USA and Europe. A systematic examination of publications since 2018 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on social determinants of health, the healthcare system and physical activity behaviours including sleep. There is a greater emphasis on weight management as part of the holistic approach to diabetes management. The results of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes trials involving sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, including assessment of subgroups, inform broader recommendations for cardiorenal protection in people with diabetes at high risk of cardiorenal disease. After a summary listing of consensus recommendations, practical tips for implementation are provided.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Hiperglicemia , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose , Adulto , Humanos , Consenso , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1/agonistas , Hiperglicemia/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/uso terapêutico , Estados UnidosRESUMO
AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of sotagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature sources up to August 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sotagliflozin with placebo or other antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes. Our primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline. We additionally assessed three secondary efficacy and 15 safety outcomes. We synthesized data using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (ORs), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs comprising 16 411 subjects in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, sotagliflozin reduced HbA1c (WMD -0.42%, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.29), body weight (WMD -1.33 kg, 95% CI -1.57 to -1.09), and systolic blood pressure (WMD -2.44 mmHg, 95% CI -2.81 to -2.07). No difference was evident against other active comparators. Sotagliflozin reduced myocardial infarction (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.97) and heart failure (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79) compared with placebo, and had a neutral effect on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke. Treatment with sotagliflozin was safe regarding the incidence of serious adverse events, hypoglycaemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis. Nevertheless, it was associated with an increased incidence of diarrhoea, genital infections, and volume depletion events. CONCLUSIONS: Sotagliflozin reduces blood glucose, body weight, and systolic blood pressure, and demonstrates a beneficial effect on heart failure and myocardial infarction. Its overall safety profile is comparable with other sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Glicosídeos/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/efeitos adversosRESUMO
SOURCE CITATION: Navaneethan SD, Zoungas S, Caramori ML, et al. Diabetes management in chronic kidney disease: synopsis of the 2020 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2020. [Epub ahead of print]. 33166222.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus , Insuficiência Renal Crônica , Diabetes Mellitus/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/complicações , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/terapiaRESUMO
Healthcare systems around the globe are still facing the evolving threat of the coronavavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Hemoglobinopathies include a group of genetic disorders, with the two main entities being thalassemias and sickle cell disease. Due to their immunocompromised status, such patients have been protected as extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. We studied patients with different hemoglobinopathies, consecutively monitored at our center, who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) during the second and third waves of the pandemic in Greece (September 2020-April 2021), and associated the outcomes of the infection with the following factors: age, employment, blood type, liver and heart hemosiderosis, splenectomy, concomitant endocrine disorders and transfusion dependency. Among 250 patients monitored at our center, 14 were infected with COVID-19. Nine of them were hospitalized but no one required intensive care unit support and all of them responded to the generally applied treatment plan, despite their comorbidities. Notwithstanding the slightly increased prevalence of COVID-19 in patients with hemoglobinopathies compared to the general population, self-applied measures are still thought to be effective, as our patients got infected through their already sick family members.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Hemoglobinopatias , Talassemia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Grécia/epidemiologia , Hemoglobinopatias/epidemiologia , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Talassemia/epidemiologia , Talassemia/terapiaRESUMO
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel, ultra-rapid-acting insulins aspart and lispro in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Our primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline. We additionally assessed eight efficacy and six safety endpoints. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We additionally assessed statistical heterogeneity among studies with the I2 statistic, considering values greater than 60% as indicative of substantial heterogeneity. Nine studies comprising 5931 patients were included in the systematic review; eight active-controlled studies could be synthesized in terms of a meta-analysis. Treatment with ultra-rapid-acting insulins had a similar effect on change in HbA1c compared with rapid-acting insulins (WMD -0.02%, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.05, I2 = 61% for patients with type 1 diabetes and -0.02%, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04, I2 = 19% for patients with type 2 diabetes). Similarly, no difference was evident in terms of change in fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose, body weight, basal or bolus insulin dose, incidence of serious adverse events and hypoglycaemia. Compared with rapid-acting insulins, ultra-rapid-acting insulins reduced 1- and 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increment based on a liquid meal test, both in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (WMD -0.94 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.72, I2 = 0% and -0.56 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.32, I2 = 0%, respectively, for change in 1-hour PPG increment). In conclusion, ultra-rapid-acting insulins were as efficacious and safe as rapid-acting insulins, showing a favourable effect solely on PPG control.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Adulto , Glicemia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Insulina AspartRESUMO
AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering drugs used as an adjunct to insulin therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 24 January 2020 for randomized controlled trials. Our primary outcome was change in HbA1c. We additionally assessed eight efficacy and six safety secondary endpoints. We performed random effects frequentist network meta-analysis to estimate mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs), alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias and evaluated confidence in the evidence for the primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 58 trials comprising 13 216 participants. Overall, sodium-glucose co-transporter (SGLT) inhibitors, liraglutide, glibenclamide, acarbose and metformin reduced HbA1c compared with placebo (MDs ranging from -0.46% [95% CI -0.64% to -0.29%] for empagliflozin to -0.20% [-0.35% to -0.06%] for metformin). SGLT inhibitors, exenatide daily, liraglutide and metformin reduced body weight and total daily insulin dose, while liraglutide and SGLT inhibitors reduced blood pressure. Diabetic ketoacidosis and genital infections were more frequent with SGLT inhibitors, while exenatide, liraglutide, pramlintide and metformin increased the incidence of nausea. No drug increased the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia. Confidence in evidence was mainly moderate to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Specific drugs may improve glycaemic control and reduce body weight, blood pressure and total daily insulin dose in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, low quality of evidence and an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, genital infections or gastrointestinal adverse events should be taken into consideration by healthcare providers and patients. Future long-term trials are needed to clarify their benefit-to-risk profile and elucidate their role in clinical practice.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Preparações Farmacêuticas , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose , Adulto , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Glucose , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Metanálise em RedeRESUMO
AIM: To compare the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on body weight and blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature sources until 29 September 2020 for randomized controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration assessing the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on body weight and blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes. We performed frequentist network meta-analyses and calculated weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals combining trial arms of different approved doses of a given intervention into a single group. We evaluated the confidence in pooled estimates using the CINeMA (Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis) framework. RESULTS: In total, 424 trials (276 336 patients) assessing 21 antidiabetic medications from nine drug classes were included. Subcutaneous semaglutide was the most efficacious in reducing body weight followed by oral semaglutide, exenatide twice-daily, liraglutide, and the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors empagliflozin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin. The same agents also conferred the greatest reductions in systolic blood pressure. Metformin had a modest effect in reducing body weight and systolic blood pressure. Diastolic blood pressure was reduced with the SGLT-2 inhibitors pioglitazone, exenatide twice-daily and semaglutide. In subgroup analyses of trials with over 52 weeks' duration, semaglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced both body weight and systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors conferred reductions both in body weight and blood pressure that were sustainable for over 1 year of treatment. These agents may be preferable treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes who are overweight/obese and/or hypertensive.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Adulto , Pressão Sanguínea , Peso Corporal , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Glucose , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Metanálise em RedeRESUMO
SOURCE CITATION: Douros A, Lix LM, Fralick M, et al. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis: a multicenter cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:417-25. 32716707.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Cetoacidose Diabética , Inibidores da Dipeptidil Peptidase IV , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose , Estudos de Coortes , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Cetoacidose Diabética/induzido quimicamente , Inibidores da Dipeptidil Peptidase IV/efeitos adversos , Glucose , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Sódio , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/efeitos adversosRESUMO
SOURCE CITATION: Zhu J, Yu X, Zheng Y, et al. Association of glucose-lowering medications with cardiovascular outcomes: an umbrella review and evidence map. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020;8:192-205. 32006518.
Assuntos
Glucose , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose , Glicemia , Coração , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/efeitos adversosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Several pharmacologic options for type 2 diabetes are available. PURPOSE: To compare benefits and harms of glucose-lowering drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Several databases from inception through 18 December 2019 and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 April 2020. STUDY SELECTION: English-language randomized trials that had at least 24 weeks of intervention and assessed the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on mortality, glycemic, and vascular outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers extracted data and appraised risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: 453 trials assessing 21 antidiabetic interventions from 9 drug classes were included. Interventions included monotherapies (134 trials), add-on to metformin-based therapies (296 trials), and monotherapies versus add-on to metformin therapies (23 trials). There were no differences between treatments in drug-naive patients at low cardiovascular risk. Insulin regimens and specific glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) added to metformin-based background therapy produced the greatest reductions in hemoglobin A1c level. In patients at low cardiovascular risk receiving metformin-based background treatment (298 trials), there were no clinically meaningful differences between treatments for mortality and vascular outcomes. In patients at increased cardiovascular risk receiving metformin-based background treatment (21 trials), oral semaglutide, empagliflozin, liraglutide, extended-release exenatide, and dapagliflozin reduced all-cause mortality. Oral semaglutide, empagliflozin, and liraglutide also reduced cardiovascular death. Odds of stroke were lower with subcutaneous semaglutide and dulaglutide. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors reduced heart failure hospitalization and end-stage renal disease. Subcutaneous semaglutide and canagliflozin increased diabetic retinopathy and amputation, respectively. LIMITATION: Inconsistent definitions of cardiovascular risk and low-level confidence in some estimates for patients at low cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients at low cardiovascular risk, no treatment differs from placebo for vascular outcomes. In patients at increased cardiovascular risk receiving metformin-based background therapy, specific GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2 inhibitors have a favorable effect on certain cardiovascular outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes, supported by an unrestricted educational grant from AstraZeneca. (PROSPERO: CRD42019122043).
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Glicemia/análise , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Metanálise em Rede , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of adjunctive interventions for the prevention of Clostridioides difficile recurrence. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov up to May 2021. We included randomized controlled trials comparing interventions added to antibiotic therapy for prevention of CDI recurrence, to placebo or each other. Efficacy outcomes were CDI and diarrhea recurrence. Safety outcomes included the incidence of any adverse event (AE), serious AEs, and discontinuation due to AEs. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis. We ranked interventions based on SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) probabilities. We assessed confidence in estimates utilizing the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) framework. RESULTS: Fifteen trials (3909 patients) assessed 9 interventions. Oligofructose (OR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.46), NTCD-M3 (OR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68), rifaximin (OR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.93), RBX2660 (OR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.99), the combination bezlotoxumab/actoxumab (OR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.60), and bezlotoxumab (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.68) were associated with lower incidence of CDI recurrence than placebo (moderate confidence). Oligofructose was ranked highest, however data for oligofructose were derived solely from one small trial. Probiotics, actoxumab and SER-109 were not superior to placebo (low confidence). Probiotics were not well tolerated (low confidence) and actoxumab showed high rates of serious AEs (moderate confidence). CONCLUSION: Add-on treatment with oligofructose, NTCD-M3 spores, rifaximin, RBX2660, and bezlotoxumab likely reduces the risk of CDI. Evidence on probiotics and SER-109 are uncertain, thus adequately powered trials are warranted.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos/administração & dosagem , Clostridioides difficile/efeitos dos fármacos , Infecções por Clostridium/prevenção & controle , Probióticos/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Amplamente Neutralizantes/uso terapêutico , Clostridioides difficile/genética , Clostridioides difficile/fisiologia , Infecções por Clostridium/microbiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Metanálise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
The incorrect figure legend was printed for Fig. 2.
RESUMO
The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes have briefly updated their 2018 recommendations on management of hyperglycaemia, based on important research findings from large cardiovascular outcomes trials published in 2019. Important changes include: (1) the decision to treat high-risk individuals with a glucagon-like-peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalisation for heart failure (hHF), cardiovascular death or chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression should be considered independently of baseline HbA1c or individualised HbA1c target; (2) GLP-1 receptor agonists can also be considered in patients with type 2 diabetes without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) but with the presence of specific indicators of high risk; and (3) SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure, particularly those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, to reduce hHF, MACE and CVD death, as well as in patients with type 2 diabetes with CKD (eGFR 30 to ≤60 ml min-1 [1.73 m]-2 or urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g, particularly >300 mg/g) to prevent the progression of CKD, hHF, MACE and cardiovascular death.