Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The role of nanosystems in the delivery of glucose-lowering drugs for the preemption and treatment of diabetes-associated atherosclerosis

Diabetes is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. In recent decades, type-2 diabetes has become increasingly common, particularly in younger individuals. Diabetes leads to many vascular complications, including atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis is a cardiovascular disease characterized by lipid-rich plaques within the vasculature. Plaques develop over time, restricting blood flow, and can, therefore, be the underlying cause of major adverse cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction and stroke. Diabetes and atherosclerosis are intrinsically linked. Diabetes is a metabolic syndrome that accelerates atherosclerosis and increases the risk of developing other comorbidities, such as diabetes-associated atherosclerosis (DAA). Gold standard antidiabetic medications focus on attenuating hyperglycemia. Though recent evidence suggests that glucose-lowering drugs may have broader applications, beyond diabetes management. This review mainly evaluates the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), such as liraglutide and semaglutide in DAA. These drugs mimic gut hormones (incretins), which inhibit glucagon secretion while stimulating insulin secretion, thus improving insulin sensitivity. This facilitates delayed gastric emptying and increased patient satiety; hence, they are also indicated for the treatment of obesity. GLP-1 RAs have significant cardioprotective effects, including decreasing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglycerides levels. Liraglutide and semaglutide have specifically been shown to decrease cardiovascular risk. Liraglutide has displayed a myriad of antiatherosclerotic properties, with the potential to induce plaque regression. This review aims to address how glucose-lowering medications can be applied to treat diseases other than diabetes. We specifically focus on how nanomedicines can be used for the site-specific delivery of antidiabetic medicines for the treatment of diabetes-associated atherosclerosis.

[Cardiovascular preventive recommendations. PAPPS 2022 thematic updates. Working groups of the PAPPS]

The recommendations of the semFYC's Program for Preventive Activities and Health Promotion (PAPPS) for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are presented. The following sections are included: epidemiological review, where the current morbidity and mortality of CVD in Spain and its evolution as well as the main risk factors are described; cardiovascular (CV) risk and recommendations for the calculation of CV risk; main risk factors such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, describing the method for their diagnosis, therapeutic objectives and recommendations for lifestyle measures and pharmacological treatment; indications for antiplatelet therapy, and recommendations for screening of atrial fibrillation, and recommendations for management of chronic conditions. The quality of testing and the strength of the recommendation are included in the main recommendations.

Neuroinflammation Involved in Diabetes-Related Pain and Itch

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a global epidemic with increasing incidence, which results in diverse complications, seriously affects the patient quality of life, and brings huge economic burdens to society. Diabetic neuropathy is the most common chronic complication of DM, resulting in neuropathic pain and chronic itch. The precise mechanisms of diabetic neuropathy have not been fully clarified, hindering the exploration of novel therapies for diabetic neuropathy and its terrible symptoms such as diabetic pain and itch. Accumulating evidence suggests that neuroinflammation plays a critical role in the pathophysiologic process of neuropathic pain and chronic itch. Indeed, researchers have currently made significant progress in knowing the role of glial cells and the pro-inflammatory mediators produced from glial cells in the modulation of chronic pain and itch signal processing. Here, we provide an overview of the current understanding of neuroinflammation in contributing to the sensitization of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) and central nervous system (CNS). In addition, we also summarize the inflammation mechanisms that contribute to the pathogenesis of diabetic itch, including activation of glial cells, oxidative stress, and pro-inflammatory factors. Targeting excessive neuroinflammation may provide potential and effective therapies for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and itch in DM.

Active coating of immediate-release evogliptin tartrate to prepare fixed dose combination tablet with sustained-release metformin HCl

This study was aimed to develop a fixed dose combination (FDC) tablet containing a low dose of evogliptin tartrate (6.87 mg) for immediate release combined with a high dose (1000 mg) of sustained-release (SR) metformin HCl appropriate for once daily dosing the treatment of type 2 diabetes. To prepare the FDC tablets, an active coating was used in this study, whereby evogliptin tartrate film was layered on a matrix core tablet containing metformin HCl. To overcome the problem caused by a low-dose drug in combination with a relatively large matrix tablet containing high-dose drug, it was also aimed to confirm the formulation and coating operation for satisfactory content uniformity, and to describe the chemical stability during storage of the amorphous active coating layer formulation in relation to molecular mobility. Furthermore, the in vitro release and in vivo pharmacokinetic profiles of metformin HCl and evogliptin tartrate in the FDC active coating tablet were compared to those of the commercially marketed reference drugs, Diabex XR® (Daewoong, Seoul, Korea) containing metformin HCl and Suganon® (Donga ST, Seoul, Korea) containing evogliptin tartrate. In conclusion, the newly developed FDC active coating tablet in this study was confirmed to be bioequivalent to the reference marketed products in beagle dogs, with satisfactory content uniformity and stability.

Effect of liraglutide combined with metformin or acarbose on glucose control in type 2 diabetes mellitus and risk factors of gastrointestinal adverse reactions

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of liraglutide combined with metformin or acarbose on glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and to analyze the risk factors of gastrointestinal adverse reactions.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted on 88 T2DM patients who were treated in our hospital from February 2019 to August 2021. The patients were divided into Group A (n=40) and Group B (n=48) according to different treatment methods. Group A was treated with liraglutide and metformin, while Group B was given liraglutide and acarbose. The effects of glucose control (FPG, 2hPG, HbA1c), inflammatory indexes (IL-6, CRP, SAA), fasting C-peptide, 2-h postprandial C-peptide levels and adverse reactions were compared. Afterwards, The risk factors of gastrointestinal adverse reactions were assessed via logistics regression.

RESULTS

It was found that the FPG, 2hPG and HbA1c levels after treatment were lower than those before treatment (P<0.05), and the levels in group A were lower than those in group B (P<0.05). The serum IL-6, CRP and SAA levels after treatment were lower than those before treatment (P<0.05), but there was no marked difference between the two groups after treatment (P>0.05). The fasting C-peptide and 2-h postprandial C-peptide levels in group A after treatment were higher than those in group B (P<0.05). Logistics regression analysis revealed that complicated digestive system diseases and combined use of acarbose were independent risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Compared with liraglutide and acarbose, liraglutide and metformin has better glucose control effect in T2DM. Although there is no obvious difference in eliminating inflammation, liraglutide combined with acarbose will increase the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse reactions in patients. So, liraglutide combined with metformin is recommended for T2DM treatment.

L-ergothioneine and metformin alleviates liver injury in experimental type-2 diabetic rats via reduction of oxidative stress, inflammation, and hypertriglyceridemia

Type-2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with liver toxicity. L-ergothioneine (L-egt) has been reported to reduce toxicity in tissues exposed to injury, while metformin is commonly prescribed to manage T2D. Hence, this study evaluates the hepatoprotective role of L-egt, with or without metformin, in T2D male rats. A total of 36 adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into non-diabetic (n = 12) and diabetic (n = 24) groups. After induction of diabetes, animals were divided into six groups (n = 6) and treated orally either with deionized water, L-egt (35 mg/kg bodyweight (bwt)), metformin (500 mg/kg bwt), or a combination of L-egt and metformin for 7 weeks. Body weight and blood glucose were monitored during the experiment. Thereafter, animals were euthanized and liver tissue was excised for biochemical, ELISA, real-time quantitative PCR, and histopathological analysis. L-egt with or without metformin reduced liver hypertrophy, liver injury, triglycerides, oxidative stress, and inflammation. Also, L-egt normalized mRNA expression of SREBP-1c, fatty acid synthase, nuclear factor kappa B, transforming growth factor β1, nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2, and sirtuin-1 in diabetic rats. Furthermore, co-administration of L-egt with metformin to diabetic rats reduced blood glucose and insulin resistance. These results provide support to the therapeutic benefits of L-egt in the management of liver complications associated with T2D.

Sulfonylureas in the Current Practice of Type 2 Diabetes Management: Are They All the Same? Consensus from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries Advisory Board on Sulfonylureas

Since their inception in the commercial market in the mid-twentieth century, sulfonylureas (SUs) have remained a therapeutic option in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Despite their established glucose-lowering effects, there is no consensus among global experts and modern guidelines regarding the priority of SUs in relation to other therapeutic options, given the lack of evidence that SUs are associated with a low risk of macrovascular events and excess mortality. However, findings from recent trials and real-time observations have resolved this contentious issue somewhat, albeit to varying degrees. The present consensus discusses the role of SUs in contemporary diabetes management in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Regional experts from these countries gathered virtually to formulate a consensus following presentations of topics relevant to SU therapy with an emphasis on gliclazide, including long-term efficacy, cost, end-organ benefits, and side effects, based on up-to-date evidence. The present narrative review reflects the conclusions of this assembly and provides a platform upon which future guidelines for the use of SUs in the GCC can be tailored.

Metformin-Insulin versus Metformin-Sulfonylurea Combination Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes: A Comparative Study of Glycemic Control and Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare glycemic control and risk of cardiovascular outcomes of metformin-insulin versus metformin-sulfonylurea combination therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative cross-sectional study in five tertiary level hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. We enrolled 321 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were on continuous treatment follow-up on either metformin-insulin or metformin-sulfonylurea combination therapy. We interviewed the participants and reviewed their medical records to investigate medication efficacy, safety, and adherence. The primary outcome measure was glycemic control and the secondary outcome measures were composite cardiovascular outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the total participants enrolled, 50.5% (n = 162) were those who received metformin-insulin and 49.5% (n = 159) metformin-sulfonylurea combination therapies for a median of 48 months follow-up. The reduction of Hb1Ac levels was comparable between the metformin-insulin (-1.04 ± 0.96%) and metformin-sulfonylurea (-1.02 ± 1.03%), p = 0.912. Patients who received metformin-sulfonylurea had 4.3 times more likely to have achieved target HbA1c level compared to those who received metformin-insulin, p < 0.001, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% CI = 4.31[1.79-10.32]. Risk of composite cardiovascular outcomes was higher in metformin-insulin group (40.5% versus 34.0%), p = 0.021. Co-morbidities, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and HbA1c had a significant association with composite cardiovascular outcomes. Reductions of bodyweight, HDL-C, LDL-C, triglycerides levels, and microvascular complications were different between the two groups, p < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

High proportion of patients who received metformin-sulfonylurea achieved target HbA1c level and had less composite cardiovascular outcomes compared to those who received metformin-insulin. However, these findings have to be confirmed with randomized control trials to determine risks associated with insulin use, while efficacy is maintained as second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Optimization of bilayer tablet manufacturing process for fixed dose combination of sustained release high-dose drug and immediate release low-dose drug based on quality by design (QbD)

A fixed dose combination (FDC) bilayer tablet, consisting of high-dose metformin HCl in a sustained release layer and low-dose evogliptin tartrate in an immediate release layer, was developed based on a quality by design (QbD) approach. To implement QbD approach, the bilayer tableting process parameters judged as high risk through risk analysis were optimized by a central composite face-centered design as a design of experiment (DOE) methodology. Using DOE, the optimized conditions of the tableting process for drug products that satisfy the established quality target product profiles were obtained. The content uniformity of low-dose evogliptin tartrate in the optimized bilayer tablet prepared on a large scale was confirmed by at-line transmittance Raman spectroscopy as a process analytical technology. In addition, the in vitro drug release and in vivo pharmacokinetic studies showed that metformin HCl and evogliptin tartrate in the bilayer tablet is bioequivalent to those of the respective reference drugs. Furthermore, the physicochemical stability of the optimized bilayer tablet during storage under long-term and accelerated conditions was also confirmed. Therefore, it can be concluded that the QbD approach is an effective way to develop a new FDC bilayer tablet that is easy to scale up for successful commercialization.

ESO Guideline on covert cerebral small vessel disease

'Covert' cerebral small vessel disease (ccSVD) is common on neuroimaging in persons without overt neurological manifestations, and increases the risk of future stroke, cognitive impairment, dependency, and death. These European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to assist with clinical decisions about management of ccSVD, specifically white matter hyperintensities and lacunes, to prevent adverse clinical outcomes. The guidelines were developed according to ESO standard operating procedures and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We prioritised the clinical outcomes of stroke, cognitive decline or dementia, dependency, death, mobility and mood disorders, and interventions of blood pressure lowering, antiplatelet drugs, lipid lowering, lifestyle modifications, glucose lowering and conventional treatments for dementia. We systematically reviewed the literature, assessed the evidence, formulated evidence-based recommendations where feasible, and expert consensus statements. We found little direct evidence, mostly of low quality. We recommend patients with ccSVD and hypertension to have their blood pressure well controlled; lower blood pressure targets may reduce ccSVD progression. We do not recommend antiplatelet drugs such as aspirin in ccSVD. We found little evidence on lipid lowering in ccSVD. Smoking cessation is a health priority. We recommend regular exercise which may benefit cognition, and a healthy diet, good sleep habits, avoiding obesity and stress for general health reasons. In ccSVD, we found no evidence for glucose control in the absence of diabetes or for conventional Alzheimer dementia treatments. Randomised controlled trials with clinical endpoints are a priority for ccSVD.

Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Once-Weekly GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Dulaglutide as Add-On to Metformin or Metformin Plus Insulin Secretagogues in Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes

AIMS AND METHODS

The aim of this monocentric retrospective observational study was to evaluate the 18-month safety and effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) dulaglutide (DU) 1.5 mg/once weekly as an add-on to metformin (MET) or MET plus conventional insulin secretagogues in a study cohort with excess body weight and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Comparative efficacy versus liraglutide (LIRA) 1.2-1.8 mg/once daily in a study sample naïve to GLP-1 RAs, frequency matching for age, gender, T2D duration, degree of glycemic impairment, cardiovascular comorbidities, and medications, was addressed as a secondary aim. Clinical and biochemical data for efficacy outcomes and information on drug discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) were collected from digital records.

RESULTS

Initial analysis included 126 overweight and obese T2D patients (48.4% females). Out of these, 13 discontinued DU due to moderate-severe gastrointestinal AEs after a mean follow-up of 6 (4 standard deviations (SD)) months, while 65 completed 18 months of continuous therapy. At 6 months, there was a significant mean HbA1c reduction of -0.85% (1.17 SD) with respect to baseline values (p < 0.001), which remained stable during 18 months follow-up. These results were accompanied by a moderate weight loss sustained over time, with a mean reduction of -2.0% (4.3 SD) at 6 months and -1.3% (4.8 SD) at 18 months (p = 0.091). At univariate analysis, a negative correlation between baseline body mass index (BMI) and risk of drug discontinuation due to gastrointestinal AEs was observed. The protective effect of obesity against drug discontinuation was confirmed by logistic regression analysis. Neither gender, nor age, nor T2D duration, nor concomitant conventional insulin secretagogue use, nor switching to DU from other GLP-1 RAs influenced its long-term effectiveness. However, higher baseline HbA1c values emerged as predictors of clinically relevant efficacy outcomes, either in terms of HbA1c reduction ≥ 0.5% or body weight loss ≥ 5%. The efficacy outcomes were corroborated by head-to-head comparison with LIRA, a GLP-1 RA with durable beneficial effects on glycemic control and body weight in real-world experiences. With the advantage of once-weekly administration, at 18-month follow-up, a significantly larger fraction of patients on DU therapy reached glycemic targets (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) when compared to those on LIRA: from 14.8% at baseline (both groups) to 64.8% with DU and 42.6% with LIRA (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Although limited by a retrospective design and lack of constant up-titration for LIRA to the highest dose, these findings indicate that the beneficial responses to DU on a background of MET or MET plus insulin secretagogues are durable, especially in the presence of obesity and greater HbA1c impairment.

Cardiovascular safety and efficacy of metformin-SGLT2i versus metformin-sulfonylureas in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Diabetes is a serious threat to global health and among the top 10 causes of death, with nearly half a billion people living with it worldwide. Treating patients with diabetes tend to become more challenging due to the progressive nature of the disease. The role and benefits of combination therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes are well-documented, while the comparative safety and efficacy among the different combination options have not been elucidated. We aimed to systematically synthesize the evidence on the comparative cardiovascular safety and efficacy of combination therapy with metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus metformin-sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 15 August 2019 without restriction in the year of publication. We included randomized controlled trials of patients with type 2 diabetes who were on metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors or metformin-sulphonylureas combination therapy at least for a year. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events, and the secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hypoglycemia, and changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We used a random-effects meta-analysis model to estimate mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We followed PICOS description model for defining eligibility and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines for reporting results. Of 3,190 citations, we included nine trials involving 10,974 participants. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (risk ration [RR] = 0.93, 95% CI [0.52, 1.67]), serious adverse events (RR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.79, 1.17]) and adverse events (RR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.02]) between the two, but in hypoglycemia (RR = 0.13, 95% CI [0.10, 0.17], P < 0.001). Participants taking metformin-sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors showed a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c (mean difference [MD] = − 0.10%, 95% CI [− 0.17, − 0.03], body weight (MD = − 4.57 kg, 95% CI [− 4.74, − 4.39], systolic blood pressure (MD = − 4.77 mmHg, 95% CI [− 5.39, − 4.16]), diastolic blood pressure (MD = − 2.07 mmHg, 95% CI [− 2.74, − 1.40], and fasting plasma glucose (MD = − 0.55 mmol/L, 95% CI [− 0.69, − 0.41]), p < 0.001. Combination therapy of metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors is a safe and efficacious alternative to combination therapy of metformin and sulphonylureas for patients with type 2 diabetes who are at risk of cardiovascular comorbidity. However, there remains a need for additional long-term randomized controlled trials as available studies are very limited and heterogeneous.

Herbal Formula Gegen-Qinlian Decoction for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Herbal formula Gegen-Qinlian Decoction (GQD) has been widely used in China for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but its efficacy and safety are unclear.

Method

The studies were identified from the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, Wanfang database, and VIP database using the keywords “Gegenqinlian” or “Gegen-Qinlian” or “Gegen-Qin-Lian” or “Ge Gen Qin Lian.” Relevant studies were selected according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Study selection, data extraction, and validation were carried out by, at least, two reviewers with disagreements being settled by discussion.

Results

After literature search, a total of 26 randomized controlled trials were included with a total of 2553 patients. There was evidence that compared with metformin, the combination of GQD and metformin significantly reduced the fasting plasma glucose levels (MD −1.79, 95% CI (−2.31, −1.27), p < 0.00001); 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose levels (MD −1.72, 95% CI (−2.12, −1.31), p < 0.00001); and glycosylated hemoglobin levels (MD −1.26, 95% CI (−1.80, −0.72), p < 0.00001), and no serious side effects were identified.

Conclusion

These data suggest that GQD may be an effective herbal formula in treating T2DM without serious side effects. The addition of GQD also enhances the hypoglycemic effects of metformin. However, the evidence remains weak due to methodological flaws, which may amplify the therapeutic benefit of GQD.

[Cardiovascular preventive recommendations. PAPPS 2020 update]

The recommendations of the semFYC's Program for Preventive Activities and Health Promotion (PAPPS) for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are presented. The following sections are included: Epidemiological review, where the current morbidity and mortality of CVD in Spain and its evolution as well as the main risk factors are described; Cardiovascular (CV) risk tables and recommendations for the calculation of CV risk; Main risk factors such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, describing the method for their diagnosis, therapeutic objectives and recommendations for lifestyle measures and pharmacological treatment; Indications for antiplatelet therapy, and recommendations for screening of atrial fibrillation. The quality of testing and the strength of the recommendation are included in the main recommendations.

Strategies to Promote ResiliencY (SPRY): a randomised embedded multifactorial adaptative platform (REMAP) clinical trial protocol to study interventions to improve recovery after surgery in high-risk patients

INTRODUCTION

As the population ages, there is interest in strategies to promote resiliency, especially for frail patients at risk of its complications. The physiological stress of surgery in high-risk individuals has been proposed both as an important cause of accelerated age-related decline in health and as a model testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve resiliency to age-related health decline. We describe a randomised, embedded, multifactorial, adaptative platform (REMAP) trial to investigate multiple perioperative interventions, the first of which is metformin and selected for its anti-inflammatory and anti-ageing properties beyond its traditional blood glucose control features.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Within a multihospital, single healthcare system, the Core Protocol for Strategies to Promote ResiliencY (SPRY) will be embedded within both the electronic health record (EHR) and the healthcare culture generating a continuously self-learning healthcare system. Embedding reduces the administrative burden of a traditional trial while accessing and rapidly analysing routine patient care EHR data. SPRY-Metformin is a placebo-controlled trial and is the first SPRY domain evaluating the effectiveness of three metformin dosages across three preoperative durations within a heterogeneous set of major surgical procedures. The primary outcome is 90-day hospital-free days. Bayesian posterior probabilities guide interim decision-making with predefined rules to determine stopping for futility or superior dosing selection. Using response adaptative randomisation, a maximum of 2500 patients allows 77%-92% power, detecting >15% primary outcome improvement. Secondary outcomes include mortality, readmission and postoperative complications. A subset of patients will be selected for substudies evaluating the microbiome, cognition, postoperative delirium and strength.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Core Protocol of SPRY REMAP and associated SPRY-Metformin Domain-Specific Appendix have been ethically approved by the Institutional Review Board and are publicly registered. Results will be publicly available to healthcare providers, patients and trial participants following achieving predetermined platform conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03861767.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.