Assessment of the relative effectiveness and tolerability of treatments of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a network meta-analysis

Does optimal HbA1c in diabetes differ according to drug treatment? An evaluation of national electronic database in Malta

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A J-shaped relationship between HbA_1c and mortality has been reported in subjects with type 2 diabetes. The postulated mechanism linking low HbA_1c with increased mortality is increased hypoglycaemia risk. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the relationship between low HbA_1c to mortality in patients on therapies with different hypoglycaemia risk.

METHODS

We selected patients on any type of treatment for diabetes from a national electronic database (n = 25,743) and linked to other databases, including laboratory database and the national mortality register.

RESULTS

We observed a J-shaped or U-shaped association between HbA_1c and all-cause mortality in the whole type 2 diabetes patient cohort as well as in patients on metformin monotherapy and in those on metformin-sulphonylurea combination therapy, but not in subjects on sulphonylurea monotherapy or in those on insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm the J-shaped relationship between HbA_1c and mortality in type 2 diabetes, but suggest that a low HbA_1c is deleterious even in absence of hypoglycaemia and that subjects with type 2 diabetes might require a slightly elevated blood glucose for optimal outcome. Our data also suggest that the increased mortality associated with sulphonylureas cannot be mediated solely through increased hypoglycaemia risk.

Network Pharmacology Study to Reveal the Potentiality of a Methanol Extract of Caesalpinia sappan L. Wood against Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus

Caesalpinia sappan L. (CS) is widely used to treat diabetic complications in south-east Asia, specifically in traditional Chinese medicine. This study intends to explain the molecular mechanism of how chemical constituents of CS interrelate with different signaling pathways and receptors involved in T2DM. GC-MS was employed to identify the chemical compounds from the methanol extract of CS wood (MECSW). Lipinski's rule of five was applied, and 33 bioactive constituents have been screened from the CS extract. After that, 124 common targets and 26 compounds associated with T2DM were identified by mining several public databases. Protein-protein interactions and compound-target network were constructed using the STRING database and Cytoscape tool. Protein-protein interactions were identified in 121 interconnected nodes active in T2DM and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARG) as key target receptors. Furthermore, pathway compound target (PCT) analysis using the merger algorithm plugin of Cytoscape revealed 121 nodes from common T2DM targets, 33 nodes from MECSW compounds and 9 nodes of the KEGG pathway. Moreover, network topology analysis determined "Fisetin tetramethyl ether" as the key chemical compound. The DAVID online tool determined seven signaling receptors, among which PPARG was found most significant in T2DM progression. Gene ontology and KEGG pathway analysis implied the involvement of nine pathways, and the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) pathway was selected as the hub signaling pathway. Finally, molecular docking and quantum chemistry analysis confirmed the strong binding affinity and reactive chemical nature of fisetin tetramethyl ether with target receptors exceeding that of the conventional drug (metformin), PPARs agonist (rosiglitazone) and co-crystallized ligands, indicating that fisetin could be a potential drug of choice in T2DM management. This study depicts the interrelationship of the bioactive compounds of MECSW with the T2DM-associated signaling pathways and target receptors. It also proposes a more pharmaceutically effective substance, fisetin tetramethyl ether, over the standard drug that activates PPARG protein in the PPAR signaling pathway of T2DM.

A network pharmacology study to investigate bioactive compounds and signaling pathways of garlic (Allium sativum L.) husk against type 2 diabetes mellitus

During garlic harvest, much husk has been generated, nearly all husk is discarded as unnecessary by-products. However, in Korean folk remedies, Allium sativum L. husk (ASLH) extracts have been used as a reliever against type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Currently, its significant mechanisms against T2DM remain unclear. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics of its key signaling pathways, targets, and compounds. The compounds in ASLH were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrum (GC-MS) and confirmed drug-like compounds (DLCs) in silico. Then, protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks and signaling pathways, targets, compounds are constructed, visualized by using RStudio. Finally, we performed a molecular docking test (MDT) to identify the key mechanism(s), target(s), and compound(s) of ASLH on T2DM. A total of 23 compounds in ASLH were identified by GC-MS, and all compounds were accepted by Lipinski's rule. The 23 compounds were associated with 521 targets and retrieved 4,736 T2DM-related targets by Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) and DisGeNET. The final overlapping 87 targets were obtained between compounds-targets and T2DM-related targets. The number of 13 signaling pathways, 33 targets, and 19 compounds of ASLH were associated with T2DM. In parallel, MDT revealed four potential compounds: (1) 9-hexacosene, (2) 2-(([2-ethylhexyl]oxy)carbonyl)benzoic acid, (3) clionasterol, (4) 4-methyl-2-phenylpyrimidine on PPAR signaling pathway. Overall, the four compounds from ASLH might show an anti-T2DM synergistic effect by activating the PPAR signaling pathway or inactivating the phospholipase D signaling pathway. In this study, we suggest that ASLH might be considered a health-promising resource from both nutraceutical and pharmaceutical perspectives. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Allium sativum L. husk (ASLH) has been regarded as wastes that come from garlic (Allium sativum L.). During the harvesting period of garlic, a considerable amount of ASLH is a severe problem in farm communities. Particularly, garlic bioactive compounds are well documented including organosulfur compounds. Conversely, at present, no information is available on chemical compounds of ASLH to use in health industries. Taking this matter into consideration, our analysis approach was to select drug-like compounds (DLCs) from ASLH via GC-MS, thereby we can explore the compounds with high cell permeability. The screened compounds can be used as nutraceutical or medicinal or even cosmetical resources. In this study, we described the significant compounds via the network pharmacology concept to uncover the pharmaceutical mechanism(s) of ASLH against T2DM. Eventually, this work provides nutraceutical or medicinal value of ASLH and suggests that ASLH might be used as an upcycling resource to relieve T2DM.

Autophagy and metabolism

Metabolism consists of diverse life-sustaining chemical reactions in living organisms. Autophagy is a highly conservative process that responds to various internal and external stresses. Both processes utilize surrounding resources to provide energy and nutrients for the cell. Autophagy progression may proceed to the degradative or secretory pathway determined by Rab family proteins. The former is a degradative and lysosome-dependent catabolic process that produces energy and provides nutrients for the synthesis of essential proteins. The degradative pathway also balances the energy source of the cell and regulates tissue homeostasis. The latter is a newly discovered pathway in which the autophagosome is fused with the plasma membrane. Secretory autophagy participates in diverse functions and diseases ranging from the spread of viral particles to cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Aberrant metabolism in the body causes various metabolic syndromes. This review explores the relationships among autophagy, metabolism, and related diseases.

Metformin monotherapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM. Despite this, the effects of metformin on patient-important outcomes are still not clarified.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin monotherapy in adults with T2DM.

SEARCH METHODS

We based our search on a systematic report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and topped-up the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews, as well as health technology assessment reports and medical agencies. The date of the last search for all databases was 2 December 2019, except Embase (searched up 28 April 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year's duration comparing metformin monotherapy with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with T2DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles/records, assessed risk of bias, and extracted outcome data independently. We resolved discrepancies by involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs with multiple study arms (N = 10,680). The percentage of participants finishing the trials was approximately 58% in all groups. Treatment duration ranged from one to 10.7 years. We judged no trials to be at low risk of bias on all 'Risk of bias' domains. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), non-fatal myocardial infarction (NFMI), non-fatal stroke (NFS), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Two trials compared metformin (N = 370) with insulin (N = 454). Neither trial reported on all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI, NFS or ESRD. One trial provided information on HRQoL but did not show a substantial difference between the interventions. Seven trials compared metformin with sulphonylureas. Four trials reported on all-cause mortality: in three trials no participant died, and in the remaining trial 31/1454 participants (2.1%) in the metformin group died compared with 31/1441 participants (2.2%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on SAE: in two trials no SAE occurred (186 participants); in the other trial 331/1454 participants (22.8%) in the metformin group experienced a SAE compared with 308/1441 participants (21.4%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on CVM: in one trial no CVM was observed and in the other trial 4/1441 participants (0.3%) in the metformin group died of cardiovascular reasons compared with 8/1447 participants (0.6%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred, and in the other trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 15/1441 participants (1.0%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). One trial reported no NFS occurred (very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Seven trials compared metformin with thiazolidinediones (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Five trials reported on all-cause mortality: in two trials no participant died; the overall RR was 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P = 0.57; 5 trials; 4402 participants). Four trials reported on SAE, the RR was 0,95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09; P = 0.49; 3208 participants. Four trials reported on CVM, the RR was 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.39; P = 0.58; 3211 participants. Three trial reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred and in one trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 25/1456 participants (1.7%) in the thiazolidinedione group. One trial reported no NFS occurred. No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Three trials compared metformin with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (one trial each with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin with altogether 1977 participants). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI and NFS (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). One trial compared metformin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue (very low-certainty evidence for all reported outcomes). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, CVM, NFMI and NFS. One or more SAEs were reported in 16/268 (6.0%) of the participants allocated to metformin compared with 35/539 (6.5%) of the participants allocated to a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue. HRQoL or ESRD were not reported. One trial compared metformin with meglitinide and two trials compared metformin with no intervention. No deaths or SAEs occurred (very low-certainty evidence) no other patient-important outcomes were reported. No trial compared metformin with placebo or a behaviour changing interventions. Four ongoing trials with 5824 participants are likely to report one or more of our outcomes of interest and are estimated to be completed between 2018 and 2024. Furthermore, 24 trials with 2369 participants are awaiting assessment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence whether metformin monotherapy compared with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs influences patient-important outcomes.

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.

Efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 analogues, and SGLT2 inhibitors as add-ons to metformin monotherapy in T2DM patients: a model-based meta-analysis

AIMS

The aim of the present study was to quantitate the hypoglycaemic effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1r) and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) as add-on treatments to metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using a model-based meta-analysis (MBMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of public databases was conducted to develop models that describe the time courses of the fasting plasma glucose (FPG)- and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)-lowering effects of three antidiabetic classes using NONMEM 7.3.0.

RESULTS

Seventy-six publications were eligible for this study, and 873 FPG and 1086 HbA1c values were collected. We developed a physiological indirect response model that described the time courses of FPG and HbA1c and simulated reductions in these values 90 days after the initiation of add-on treatments. FPG and HbA1c reductions with once weekly exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide were greater than those with other drugs. Mean changes from baseline FPG and HbA1c with these drugs were as follows: exenatide (-22.5 and -16.6%), liraglutide (-22.1 and -16.3%), and dulaglutide (-19.3 and -14.3%). The hypoglycaemic effects of DPP-4i and SGLT2i were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Once weekly exenatide, liraglutide and dulaglutide provided better hypoglycaemic effects among the antidiabetic drugs analysed. Long-acting GLP-1r appears to be more useful for T2DM patients inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Thiazolidinedione drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: past, present and future

Thiazolidinedione (TZD) drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have proven effective in improving insulin sensitivity, hyperglycemia, and lipid metabolism. Though well tolerated by some patients, their mechanism of action as ligands of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) results in the activation of several pathways in addition to those responsible for glycemic control and lipid homeostasis. These pathways, which include those related to inflammation, bone formation, and cell proliferation, may lead to adverse health outcomes. As treatment with TZDs has been associated with adverse hepatic, cardiovascular, osteological, and carcinogenic events in some studies, the role of TZDs in the treatment of T2DM continues to be debated. At the same time, new therapeutic roles for TZDs are being investigated, with new forms and isoforms currently in the pre-clinical phase for use in the prevention and treatment of some cancers, inflammatory diseases, and other conditions. The aims of this review are to provide an overview of the mechanism(s) of action of TZDs, a review of their safety for use in the treatment of T2DM, and a perspective on their current and future therapeutic roles.

Network Pharmacology Studies on the Bioactive Compounds and Action Mechanisms of Natural Products for the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus: A Review

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a kind of chronic and metabolic disease, which can cause a number of diseases and severe complications. Network pharmacology approach is introduced to study DM, which can combine the drugs, target proteins and disease and form drug-target-disease networks. Network pharmacology has been widely used in the studies of the bioactive compounds and action mechanisms of natural products for the treatment of DM due to the multi-components, multi-targets, and lower side effects. This review provides a balanced and comprehensive summary on network pharmacology from current studies, highlighting different bioactive constituents, related databases and applications in the investigations on the treatment of DM especially type 2. The mechanisms related to type 2 DM, including α-amylase and α-glucosidase inhibitory, targeting β cell dysfunction, AMPK signal pathway and PI3K/Akt signal pathway are summarized and critiqued. It suggests that the network pharmacology approach cannot only provide a new research paradigm for natural products, but also improve the current antidiabetic drug discovery strategies. Furthermore, we put forward the perspectives on the reasonable applications of network pharmacology for the therapy of DM and related drug discovery.

Factors influencing the longevity and replacement frequency of Provox voice prostheses

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess the factors that influence the longevity and replacement frequency of Provox voice prostheses following their placement.

METHODS

The medical records of 27 patients who received Provox voice prostheses after total laryngectomy and attended follow-up regularly between 1998 and 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. The success rate of the Provox voice prostheses (i.e. whether speech was achieved), quality of speech achieved, number and type of complications encountered, frequency of prostheses replacement and reasons for prostheses replacements were evaluated.

RESULTS

All 27 patients were men and their mean age was 63.0 (range 43-78) years. The mean follow-up period was 60.3 (range 1-168) months. Fluent and understandable speech was achieved in 85.0% of the patients. The mean duration before prosthesis replacement had to be performed was 17.1 (range 1-36) months. The most frequent complication was fluid leakage through the prosthesis. There was a strong positive correlation of 77.1% between the longevity of prostheses and postoperative follow-up duration (r = 0.771; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The voice prosthesis is a tool that can be delivered in a practical fashion and replaced easily with no serious complications. It is a means by which speech can be restored, with a high success rate, after total laryngectomy. In the present study, we found that postoperative follow-up duration was the most important factor influencing the longevity of the Provox voice prosthesis.

Cost-Effectiveness of Saxagliptin versus Acarbose as Second-Line Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes in China

Objective

This study assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin+metformin (SAXA+MET) versus acarbose+metformin (ACAR+MET) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on MET alone.

Methods

Systematic literature reviews were performed to identify studies directly comparing SAXA+MET versus ACAR+MET, and to obtain diabetes-related events costs which were modified by hospital surveys. A Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to estimate the long-term economic and health treatment consequences in patients with T2DM. Costs (2014 Chinese yuan) were calculated from the payer’s perspective and estimated over a patient’s lifetime.

Results

SAXA+MET predicted lower incidences of most cardiovascular events, hypoglycemia events and fatal events, and decreased total costs compared with ACAR+MET. For an individual patient, the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with SAXA+MET was 0.48 more than ACAR+MET at a cost saving of ¥18,736, which resulted in a cost saving of ¥38,640 per QALY gained for SAXA+MET versus ACAR+MET. Results were robust across various univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

SAXA+MET is a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with ACAR+MET for patients with T2DM in China, with a little QALYs gain and lower costs. SAXA is an effective, well-tolerated drug with a low incidence of adverse events and ease of administration; it is anticipated to be an effective second-line therapy for T2DM treatment.

Hypoglycaemia when adding sulphonylurea to metformin: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

The risk of hypoglycaemia may differ among sulphonylureas (SUs), but evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse. Performing a network meta-analysis to use indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we compared the relative risk of hypoglycaemia with newer generation SUs when added to metformin.

METHODS

A systematic review identified RCTs lasting 12-52 weeks and evaluating SUs added to inadequate metformin monotherapy (≥1000 mg/day) in type 2 diabetes. Adding RCTs investigating the active comparators from the identified SU trials, we established a coherent network. Hypoglycaemia of any severity was the primary end point.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials of SUs and 14 of oral non-SU antihyperglycaemic agents (16 260 patients) were included. All reported hypoglycaemia only as adverse events. Producing comparable reductions in HbA_1C of -0.66 to -0.84% (-7 to -9 mmol/mol), the risk of hypoglycaemia was lowest with gliclazide compared to glipizide (OR 0.22, CrI: 0.05 to 0.96), glimepiride (OR 0.40, CrI: 0.13 to 1.27), and glibenclamide (OR 0.21, CrI: 0.03 to 1.48). A major limitation is varying definitions of hypoglycaemia across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

When added to metformin, gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia between the newer generation SUs. Clinicians should consider the risk of hypoglycaemia agent-specific when selecting an SU agent.

Cost effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a new class of antidiabetic drugs used for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus. While many studies have reported on the cost-effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors for treating type 2 diabetes, a systematic review of economic evaluations of DPP-4 inhibitors is currently lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the cost effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Web of Science, EconLit databases, and the Cochrane Library were searched in November 2013.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Studies assessing the cost effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes were eligible for analysis. DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy or combinations with other antidiabetic agents were included in the review. The DPP-4 inhibitors were all marketed drugs. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

The quality of included studies was assessed according to the 24-item checklist of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. The costs reported by the included studies were converted to US dollars via purchasing power parities (PPP) in the year 2013 using the CCEMG-EPPI-Center Cost Converter.

RESULTS

A total of 11 published studies were selected for inclusion; all were cost-utility analyses. Nine studies were conducted from a payer perspective and one used a societal perspective; however, the perspective of the other study was unclear. Four studies were of good quality, six were of moderate quality, and one was of low quality. Of the seven studies comparing DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin with sulfonylureas plus metformin, six concluded that DPP-4 inhibitors were cost effective in patients with type 2 diabetes who were no longer adequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. Five studies compared DPP-4 inhibitors with thiazolidinediones, and whether DPP-4 inhibitors were cost effective was uncertain. Only two economic evaluations provided data to compare DPP-4 inhibitors versus insulin, and the results favored the use of DPP-4 inhibitors as second-line therapy.

LIMITATIONS

Synthesis of the data was impossible because of heterogeneity in the methodology and data sources of the economic evaluations, and the inclusion criteria excluded conference abstracts. It was difficult to find reliable weightings for each of the items of the CHEERS checklist, and the ratings were dichotomous.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

This study provides the first systematic evaluation of DPP-4 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes. It found that, in patients with type 2 diabetes who do not achieve glycemic targets with antidiabetic monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors as add-on treatment may represent a cost-effective option compared with sulfonylureas and insulin. However, high-quality cost-effectiveness analyses that utilize long-term follow-up data and have no conflicts of interest are still needed.

Qizhi Jiangtang Jiaonang Improves Insulin Signaling and Reduces Inflammatory Cytokine Secretion and Reactive Oxygen Species Formation in Insulin Resistant HepG2 Cells

We analyzed the effects of a traditional Chinese medicine, Qizhi Jiangtang Jiaonang (QJJ), on insulin resistance (IR) in vitro. After an in vitro model of IR was established by treating human liver cancer cells (HepG2 cells) with palmitic acid, the cells were then treated with various concentrations of QJJ. Treatment with 400 µM palmitic acid for 24 h induced IR in HepG2 cells. The survival rate for HepG2 cells in the IR group was significantly lower than that of the untreated control group (P < 0.001); however, QJJ restored HepG2 cell survival (P < 0.001). As compared with HepG2 cells in the IR group, QJJ at all doses analyzed significantly increased glucose consumption (all P < 0.05). Moreover, treatment with all the QJJ doses significantly reduced the mean intracellular reactive oxygen species levels as compared with the IR group (all P < 0.05). Furthermore, high-dose QJJ reduced both TNF-α and IL-6 levels as compared to the IR group (all P < 0.05). QJJ ameliorated the altered PI3K, GLUT4, and RAGE expression observed with IR. In conclusion, QJJ can improve IR in HepG2 cells, which may be mediated through the IRS-1/PI3K/GLUT4 signaling pathway as well as regulation of NF-κB-mediated inflammation and oxidative stress.