Combined metformin and insulin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The cost of influence: How gifts to physicians shape prescriptions and drug costs

This paper investigates the influence of gifts - monetary and in-kind payments - from drug firms to US physicians on prescription behavior and drug costs. Using causal models and machine learning, we estimate physicians' heterogeneous responses to payments on antidiabetic prescriptions. We find that payments lead to increased prescription of brand drugs, resulting in a cost rise of $23 per dollar value of transfer received. Paid physicians show higher responses when they treat higher proportions of patients receiving a government-funded low-income subsidy that lowers out-of-pocket drug costs. We estimate that introducing a national gift ban would reduce diabetes drug costs by 2%.

Phytochemical screening and preliminary clinical trials of the aqueous extract mixture of Andrographis paniculata (Burm. f.) Wall. ex Nees and Syzygium polyanthum (Wight.) Walp leaves in metformin treated patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Our previous preclinical study showed that the extract mixture (EM) of Andrographis paniculata (Burm. f.) Wall. ex Nees (AP) and Syzygium polyanthum (Wight.) Walp (SP) leaves had antidiabetic effects and were beneficial on alloxan-induced diabetic rats.

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were to: 1) identify the phytochemical compounds present in aqueous extract of AP and SP and 2) examine the benefits of the EM of AP and SP leaves in lowering blood glucose in the presence of standard antidiabetic treatment using metformin in type 2 diabetic patients in Indonesian Traditional Medicine Polyclinic of Dr. Soetomo General Hospital in Surabaya.

METHODS

Phytochemical analysis of aqueous leaf extract of AP and SP was performed using standard chemical tests, TLC, and GC-MS. Furthermore, a total of 54 subjects with T2DM participated in this study and were randomly assigned to either the intervention group supplemented with the extract mixture of AP and SP at a dose 900  mg/day for 8 weeks, or the control group which received placebo tablets in a randomized placebo-controlled double-blinded parallel clinical trial. Both groups received metformin at dose 1000  mg/day. Body weight, blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, postprandial glucose, haemoglobin A1c, triglycerides, total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein, high density lipoprotein, and markers of liver and kidney damage were measured.

RESULTS

The results of phytochemical analysis showed that the glycosides, terpenoids, alkaloids, flavonoids, saponins, and tannins were found to be present in the extract mixture. GC-MS analyses of AP and SP showed the presence of 19 and 12 peaks, respectively. Methyl ester of 9-octadecenoic and eicosanoic acid were determined as the main constituents of both species. Moreover, the results of clinical study suggested that the extract mixture improved the decrease of fasting blood glucose and postprandial glucose, significantly lowered body mass index compared with the control group. The EM appeared beneficial for SGPT values and uric acid levels.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the results of this study suggested the potential beneficial effects of the extract mixture for use as complementary medicine alongside conventional treatment of metformin. The extract mixture contained many highly potent compounds for treating T2DM and preventing short- and long-term risk complications of diabetes.

Insulin Monotherapy Versus Insulin Combined with Other Glucose-Lowering Agents in Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review

CONTEXT

Insulin can be prescribed as a monotherapy or a combined therapy with other anti-diabetic medications. In this narrative review, the authors aimed to gather data related to comparison of insulin monotherapy versus combination of insulin and other anti-diabetic treatments with regards to different outcome measures in type 2 diabetes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This study searched and focused on the most recently published systematic reviews and their references investigating issues related to the primary aim.

RESULTS

The current data available on this topic is heterogeneous and suffers from low quality with respect to most combination treatments. Considering the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of insulin with older hypoglycemic agents, in general metformin and pioglitazone have the best and worst profiles, respectively. Compared to insulin monotherapy, combination of insulin and metformin is associated with better glycemic control, reduced daily insulin dose, less hypoglycemia, and weight gain; combination of insulin and pioglitazone results in greater hypoglycemia and weight gain and is associated with increased risk of edema and heart failure. Regarding sulphonylurea, there is some concern regarding hypoglycemia and weight gain. Addition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors to insulin seems to be beneficial with respect to glycemic control without any significant adverse effects. New drugs, including glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, have acceptable profiles with significant benefits regarding weight reduction when added on insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the quality and longevity of evidence, compared to insulin monotherapy, insulin combined with metformin and pioglitazone has the best and worst profiles, respectively. New anti-diabetic medications have acceptable profiles yet are expensive. It is important for clinicians to meticulously weigh the advantages of combination therapy against the possible adverse effects with each drug class in every patient, individually.

A new perspective on metformin therapy in type 1 diabetes

Metformin is quite frequently used off-label in type 1 diabetes to limit insulin dose requirement. Guidelines recommend that it can improve glucose control in those who are overweight and obese but evidence in support of this is limited. Recently-published findings from the REducing with MetfOrmin Vascular Adverse Lesions (REMOVAL) trial suggest that metformin therapy in type 1 diabetes can reduce atherosclerosis progression, weight and LDL-cholesterol levels. This provides a new perspective on metformin therapy in type 1 diabetes and suggests a potential role for reducing the long-term risk of cardiovascular disease.

Do We Need Updated Guidelines on the Use of Insulin Pump Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes? A Review of National and International Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is used less for type 2 than for type 1 diabetes because of inconsistencies in evidence of effectiveness. We reviewed published guidelines on intensive insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes to assess whether updating of guidance is needed with respect to evidence used and recommendations for CSII in diabetes management.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to identify published national and international guidelines on type 2 diabetes management. Searches were performed using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, and websites of national health care agencies, reimbursement agencies, and professional associations. Searches were limited to articles published in English between 2004 and 2014 and 1666 unique hits were identified, of which 22 were reviewed following screening.

RESULTS

Only 6 of the 22 guidelines identified from North and South America, Western Europe, Greece, and Israel provided specific recommendations on intensive insulin therapy and the role of CSII, and only 1 provided information on the grade of evidence supporting recommendations. Quality appraisal based on the AGREE II tool suggested that published guidelines may have limitations in terms of search methodology and evidence grading, and findings were of mixed rigor and clarity. Only 3 guidelines described the population for whom CSII may be appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines need to improve the evidence base, rigor, clarity, and grading of evidence associated with recommendations on intensive insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes. Future updates may benefit from considering recent evidence on the efficacy of CSII in poorly controlled patients on MDI.

Insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on insulin monotherapy who do not achieve adequate glycaemic control should continue insulin as monotherapy or can benefit from adding oral glucose-lowering agents to the insulin therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin monotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of articles. The date of the last search was November 2015 for all databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials of at least two months' duration comparing insulin monotherapy with combinations of insulin with one or more oral glucose-lowering agent in people with type 2 diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated overall quality of the evidence using GRADE. We summarised data statistically if they were available, sufficiently similar and of sufficient quality. We performed statistical analyses according to the statistical guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 trials with 40 treatment comparisons involving 3227 participants. The duration of the interventions ranged from 2 to 12 months for parallel trials and two to four months for cross-over trials.The majority of trials had an unclear risk of bias in several risk of bias domains. Fourteen trials showed a high risk of bias, mainly for performance and detection bias. Insulin monotherapy, including once-daily long-acting, once-daily intermediate-acting, twice-daily premixed insulin, and basal-bolus regimens (multiple injections), was compared to insulin in combination with sulphonylureas (17 comparisons: glibenclamide = 11, glipizide = 2, tolazamide = 2, gliclazide = 1, glimepiride = 1), metformin (11 comparisons), pioglitazone (four comparisons), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (four comparisons: acarbose = 3, miglitol = 1), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) (three comparisons: vildagliptin = 1, sitagliptin = 1, saxagliptin = 1) and the combination of metformin and glimepiride (one comparison). No trials assessed all-cause mortality, diabetes-related morbidity or health-related quality of life. Only one trial assessed patients' treatment satisfaction and showed no substantial differences between the addition of either glimepiride or metformin and glimepiride to insulin compared with insulin monotherapy.Insulin-sulphonylurea combination therapy (CT) compared with insulin monotherapy (IM) showed a MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of -1% (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 316 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. Insulin-metformin CT compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.9% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 698 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. We could not pool the results of adding pioglitazone to insulin. Insulin combined with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.2); P < 0.01; 448 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). Insulin combined with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.4); P < 0.01; 265 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence. In most trials the participants with CT needed less insulin, whereas insulin requirements increased or remained stable in participants with IM.We did not perform a meta-analysis for hypoglycaemic events because the included studies used different definitions.. In most trials the insulin-sulphonylurea combination resulted in a higher number of mild episodes of hypoglycaemia, compared to the IM group (range: 2.2 to 6.1 episodes per participant in CT versus 2.0 to 2.6 episodes per participant in IM; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT also resulted in more mild to moderate hypoglycaemic episodes compared with IM (range 15 to 90 episodes versus 9 to 75 episodes, respectively; low-quality evidence. The trials that reported hypoglycaemic episodes in the other combinations found comparable numbers of mild to moderate hypoglycaemic events (low-quality evidence).The addition of sulphonylureas resulted in an additional weight gain of 0.4 kg to 1.9 kg versus -0.8 kg to 2.1 kg in the IM group (220 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT caused more weight gain compared to IM: MD 3.8 kg (95% CI 3.0 to 4.6); P < 0.01; 288 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence. Metformin CT was associated with weight loss: MD -2.1 kg (95% CI -3.2 to -1.1), P < 0.01; 615 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors CT showed weight gain of -0.7 to 1.3 kg versus 0.6 to 1.1 kg in the IM group (362 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). Alpha-glucosidase CT compared to IM showed a MD of -0.5 kg (95% CI -1.2 to 0.3); P = 0.26; 241 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence.Users of metformin CT (range 7% to 67% versus 5% to 16%), and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors CT (14% to 75% versus 4% to 35%) experienced more gastro-intestinal adverse effects compared to participants on IM. Two trials reported a higher frequency of oedema with the use of pioglitazone CT (range: 16% to 18% versus 4% to 7% IM).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of all oral glucose-lowering agents in people with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control who are on insulin therapy has positive effects on glycaemic control and insulin requirements. The addition of sulphonylureas results in more hypoglycaemic events. Additional weight gain can only be avoided by adding metformin to insulin. Other well-known adverse effects of oral glucose-lowering agents have to be taken into account when prescribing oral glucose-lowering agents in addition to insulin therapy.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin as add-on therapy to basal insulin and metformin in people with Type 2 diabetes

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in people with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin and metformin.

METHODS

This was a post hoc subanalysis of participants who received basal insulin and metformin in a global phase III study that randomized participants (1:1) to receive linagliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo for ≥52 weeks as add-on therapy to basal insulin alone or in combination with metformin and/or pioglitazone. During the first 24 weeks, the background dose of basal insulin remained stable; thereafter, adjustments based on glucose concentrations were recommended. The primary endpoint of the subanalysis was the change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks. The safety analysis incorporated data up to a maximum of 110 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 950 participants receiving background insulin and metformin were included in this subanalysis (linagliptin and placebo, both n = 475). At week 24, the placebo-corrected adjusted mean (±se) change from baseline in HbA1c with linagliptin was -7 (±1) mmol/mol [-0.7 (±0.1) %; 95% CI -0.8, -0.6; P < 0.0001]. The overall frequency of drug-related adverse events (linagliptin, 18.9%; placebo, 21.9%) and investigator-reported hypoglycaemia (linagliptin, 30.7%; placebo, 31.6%) were similar in both groups at the end of treatment. The frequency of severe hypoglycaemia was low (linagliptin, 1.7%; placebo, 0.8%). No meaningful changes in mean (±sd) body weight were noted in either group [week 52: linagliptin, -0.5 (±3.2) kg; placebo, 0.0 (±3.1) kg].

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin added to basal insulin and metformin improved glycaemic control, without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia or body weight gain.

Treatment Approach to Patients With Severe Insulin Resistance

In Brief Patients with severe insulin resistance require >2 units/kg of body weight or 200 units/day of insulin. Yet, many patients do not achieve glycemic targets despite using very high doses of insulin. Insulin can cause weight gain, which further contributes to worsening insulin resistance. This article describes the pharmacological options for managing patients with severe insulin resistance, including the use of U-500 insulin and newer agents in combination with insulin.

Lipid Fingerprinting in Mild versus Severe Forms of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

The blood serum lipid profile of women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is still under study. There are no data on the serum lipid profile of GDM patients with more severe (insulin treated) compared to milder forms (diet treated) GDM. The aim of our study was to analyze the blood serum lipid profile of patients with milder versus more severe forms of GDM and to compare these findings with those of healthy pregnant women. This cross-sectional analytical study included 30 insulin-treated GDM, 30 diet-only GDM and 30 healthy pregnant women. Serum lipid was extracted from the 90 participants and their lipid profiles were analyzed by lipid fingerprinting using liquid-chromatography-mass spectrometry. A total of 143 parent ions were differentially represented in each of the three groups, belonging to the following classes: Glycerophospholipids, Sterol Lipids, Sphingolipids, Prenol Lipids, Fatty Acyls and Glycerolipids. There were significant differences in the lipid profiles of healthy pregnant women compared to GDM patients and also between milder versus more severe forms of GDM. There are marked differences in lipid fingerprinting between healthy pregnant women compared to those with GDM in the third trimester. Moreover, the lipid profile of women with more severe forms of GDM differs considerably from that of women with milder forms of GDM. These findings may be useful to help clarify the pathogenesis of milder and more severe forms of GDM.

Simultaneous determination of linagliptin and metformin by reverse phase-high performance liquid chromatography method: An application in quantitative analysis of pharmaceutical dosage forms

To enhance patient compliance toward treatment in diseases like diabetes, usually a combination of drugs is prescribed. Therefore, an anti-diabetic fixed-dose combination of 2.5 mg of linagliptin 500 mg of metformin was taken for simultaneous estimation of both the drugs by reverse phase-high performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) method. The present study aimed to develop a simple and sensitive RP-HPLC method for the simultaneous determination of linagliptin and metformin in pharmaceutical dosage forms. The chromatographic separation was designed and evaluated by using linagliptin and metformin working standard and sample solutions in the linearity range. Chromatographic separation was performed on a C₁₈ column using a mobile phase of 70:30 (v/v) mixture of methanol and 0.05 M potassium dihydrogen orthophosphate (pH adjusted to 4.6 with orthophosphoric acid) delivered at a flow rate of 0.6 mL/min and UV detection at 267 nm. Linagliptin and metformin shown linearity in the range of 2-12 μg/mL and 400–2400 μg/mL respectively with correlation co-efficient of 0.9996 and 0.9989. The resultant findings analyzed for standard deviation (SD) and relative standard deviation to validate the developed method. The retention time of linagliptin and metformin was found to be 6.3 and 4.6 min and separation was complete in <10 min. The method was validated for linearity, accuracy and precision were found to be acceptable over the linearity range of the linagliptin and metformin. The method was found suitable for the routine quantitative analysis of linagliptin and metformin in pharmaceutical dosage forms.

What are the barriers faced by patients using insulin? A qualitative study of Malaysian health care professionals' views

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes often require insulin as the disease progresses. However, health care professionals frequently encounter challenges when managing patients who require insulin therapy. Understanding how health care professionals perceive the barriers faced by patients on insulin will facilitate care and treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVE

This study explores the views of Malaysian health care professionals on the barriers faced by patients using insulin.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with health care professionals involved in diabetes care using insulin. Forty-one health care professionals participated in the study, consisting of primary care doctors (n = 20), family medicine specialists (n = 10), government policymakers (n = 5), diabetes educators (n = 3), endocrinologists (n = 2), and one pharmacist. We used a topic guide to facilitate the interviews, which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

FIVE THEMES WERE IDENTIFIED AS BARRIERS: side effects, patient education, negative perceptions, blood glucose monitoring, and patient adherence to treatment and follow-up. Patients perceive that insulin therapy causes numerous negative side effects. There is a lack of patient education on proper glucose monitoring and how to optimize insulin therapy. Cost of treatment and patient ignorance are highlighted when discussing patient self-monitoring of blood glucose. Finally, health care professionals identified a lack of a follow-up system, especially for patients who do not keep to regular appointments.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies five substantial barriers to optimizing insulin therapy. Health care professionals who successfully identify and address these issues will empower patients to achieve effective self-management. System barriers require government agency in establishing insulin follow-up programs, multidisciplinary diabetes care teams, and subsidies for glucometers and test strips.

Pharmacological treatment of the pathogenetic defects in type 2 diabetes: the randomized multicenter South Danish Diabetes Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of treatment with insulin aspart compared with NPH insulin, together with metformin/placebo and rosiglitazone/placebo. The hypothesis was that combined correction of major pathogenetic defects in type 2 diabetes would result in optimal glycemic control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study was a 2-year investigator-driven randomized partly placebo-controlled multicenter trial in 371 patients with type 2 diabetes on at least oral antiglycemic treatment. Patients were assigned to one of eight treatment groups in a factorial design with insulin aspart at mealtimes versus NPH insulin once daily at bedtime, metformin twice daily versus placebo, and rosiglitazone twice daily versus placebo. The main outcome measurement was change in A1C.

RESULTS

A1C decreased more in patients treated with insulin aspart compared with NPH (-0.41 ± 0.10%, P < 0.001). Metformin decreased A1C compared with placebo (-0.60 ± 0.10%, P < 0.001), as did rosiglitazone (-0.55 ± 0.10%, P < 0.001). Triple therapy (rosiglitazone, metformin, and any insulin) resulted in a greater reduction in A1C than rosiglitazone plus insulin (-0.50 ± 0.14%, P < 0.001) and metformin plus insulin (-0.45 ± 0.14%, P < 0.001). Aspart was associated with a higher increase in body weight (1.6 ± 0.6 kg, P < 0.01) and higher incidence of mild daytime hypoglycemia (4.9 ± 7.5 vs. 1.7 ± 5.4 number/person/year, P < 0.001) compared with NPH.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin treatment of postprandial hyperglycemia results in lower A1C than treatment of fasting hyperglycemia, at the expense of higher body weight and hypoglycemic episodes. However, insulin therapy has to be combined with treatment of both peripheral and liver insulin resistance to normalize blood glucose, and in this case, the insulin regimen is less important.

Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Metformin is an oral anti-hyperglycemic agent that has been shown to reduce total mortality compared to other anti-hyperglycemic agents, in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metformin, however, is thought to increase the risk of lactic acidosis, and has been considered to be contraindicated in many chronic hypoxemic conditions that may be associated with lactic acidosis, such as cardiovascular, renal, hepatic and pulmonary disease, and advancing age.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis, and to evaluate blood lactate levels, for those on metformin treatment compared to placebo or non-metformin therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search was performed of electronic databases to identify studies of metformin treatment. The search was augmented by scanning references of identified articles, and by contacting principal investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective trials and observational cohort studies in patients with type 2 diabetes of least one month duration were included if they evaluated metformin, alone or in combination with other treatments, compared to placebo or any other glucose-lowering therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis was recorded as cases per patient-years, for metformin treatment and for non-metformin treatments. The upper limit for the true incidence of cases was calculated using Poisson statistics. In a second analysis lactate levels were measured as a net change from baseline or as mean treatment values (basal and stimulated by food or exercise) for treatment and comparison groups. The pooled results were recorded as a weighted mean difference (WMD) in mmol/L, using the fixed-effect model for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Pooled data from 347 comparative trials and cohort studies revealed no cases of fatal or nonfatal lactic acidosis in 70,490 patient-years of metformin use or in 55,451 patients-years in the non-metformin group. Using Poisson statistics the upper limit for the true incidence of lactic acidosis per 100,000 patient-years was 4.3 cases in the metformin group and 5.4 cases in the non-metformin group. There was no difference in lactate levels, either as mean treatment levels or as a net change from baseline, for metformin compared to non-metformin therapies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from prospective comparative trials or from observational cohort studies that metformin is associated with an increased risk of lactic acidosis, or with increased levels of lactate, compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments.

Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Metformin is an oral anti-hyperglycemic agent that has been shown to reduce total mortality compared to other anti-hyperglycemic agents, in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metformin, however, is thought to increase the risk of lactic acidosis, and has been considered to be contraindicated in many chronic hypoxemic conditions that may be associated with lactic acidosis, such as cardiovascular, renal, hepatic and pulmonary disease, and advancing age.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis, and to evaluate blood lactate levels, for those on metformin treatment compared to placebo or non-metformin therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search was performed of electronic databases to identify studies of metformin treatment. The search was augmented by scanning references of identified articles, and by contacting principal investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective trials and observational cohort studies in patients with type 2 diabetes of least one month duration were included if they evaluated metformin, alone or in combination with other treatments, compared to placebo or any other glucose-lowering therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis was recorded as cases per patient-years, for metformin treatment and for non-metformin treatments. The upper limit for the true incidence of cases was calculated using Poisson statistics. In a second analysis lactate levels were measured as a net change from baseline or as mean treatment values (basal and stimulated by food or exercise) for treatment and comparison groups. The pooled results were recorded as a weighted mean difference (WMD) in mmol/L, using the fixed-effect model for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Pooled data from 347 comparative trials and cohort studies revealed no cases of fatal or nonfatal lactic acidosis in 70,490 patient-years of metformin use or in 55,451 patients-years in the non-metformin group. Using Poisson statistics the upper limit for the true incidence of lactic acidosis per 100,000 patient-years was 4.3 cases in the metformin group and 5.4 cases in the non-metformin group. There was no difference in lactate levels, either as mean treatment levels or as a net change from baseline, for metformin compared to non-metformin therapies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from prospective comparative trials or from observational cohort studies that metformin is associated with an increased risk of lactic acidosis, or with increased levels of lactate, compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments.

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: what is the evidence?

AIM

To systematically review the literature regarding insulin use in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

METHODS

A Medline and Embase search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in English between 1 January 2000 and 1 April 2008, involving insulin therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The RCTs must comprise at least glycaemic control (glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), postprandial plasma glucose and /or fasting blood glucose (FBG)) and hypoglycaemic events as outcome measurements.

RESULTS

The Pubmed search resulted in 943 hits; the Embase search gave 692 hits. A total of 116 RCTs were selected by title or abstract. Eventually 78 trials met the inclusion criteria. The studies were very diverse and of different quality. They comprised all possible insulin regimens with and without combination with oral medication. Continuing metformin and/or sulphonylurea after start of therapy with basal long-acting insulin results in better glycaemic control with less insulin requirements, less weight gain and less hypoglycaemic events. Long-acting insulin analogues in combination with oral medication are associated with similar glycaemic control but fewer hypoglycaemic episodes compared with NPH insulin. Most of the trials demonstrated better glycaemic control with premix insulin therapy than with a long-acting insulin once daily, but premix insulin causes more hypoglycaemic episodes. Analogue premix provides similar HbA1c, but lower postprandial glucose levels compared with human premix, without increase in hypoglycaemic events or weight gain. Drawing conclusions from the limited number of studies concerning basal-bolus regimen seems not possible. Some studies showed that rapid-acting insulin analogues frequently result in a better HbA1c or postprandial glucose without increase of hypoglycaemia than regular human insulin.

CONCLUSION

A once-daily basal insulin regimen added to oral medication is an ideal starting point. All next steps, from one to two or even more injections per day should be taken very carefully and in thorough deliberation with the patient, who has to comply with such a regimen for many years.

Addressing insulin resistance in Type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes is recognised to include an element of insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is an independent risk factor for the development of macro- and microvascular complications of Type 1 diabetes and may also contribute to the development of the disease. This understanding comes at a time when the incidence of Type 1 diabetes appears to be rising and the public health burden from its vascular complications is high. A variety of safe and efficacious manoeuvres are available to redress insulin resistance in Type 2 diabetes. So far however, clinical trials addressing insulin resistance in Type 1 diabetes have been small with only short periods of follow-up. Regardless, these trials have yielded promising results. This review examines the evidence for insulin resistance in the pathophysiology of Type 1 diabetes and its complications, the problems associated with its measurement, and summarizes the trials aimed at reducing insulin resistance in Type 1 diabetes. This includes a meta-analysis of controlled trials of adjuvant metformin in Type 1 diabetes.

A comparative study of the glycemic control of various antidiabetic agents and the role of homocysteine in the therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to evaluate and to compare the glycemic control of various antidiabetic agents and the role of homocysteine in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Two hundred forty patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, divided into Groups 1-6 (n=40), received glipizide, glipizide-SR, glimepiride, glibenclamide, metformin, and insulin followed by an oral hypoglycemic agent, respectively. They were evaluated with respect to glycemic control, serum insulin, safety, and quality of life (QoL) for 24 weeks. Furthermore, poorly controlled patients with elevated serum homocysteine were divided into two groups, of which received folic acid for 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Glipizide-SR significantly improved glycemic control at lower serum insulin levels, was well tolerated, and improved QoL. Metformin improved glycemic control and reduced insulin resistance in obese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Initial insulin therapy led to rapid reduction in hyperglycemia with reduced insulin resistance. Folic acid therapy significantly (P<.001) lowered elevated serum homocysteine levels in poorly controlled patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Glipizide-SR emerged as the sulfonylurea of choice in lean type 2 diabetes mellitus patients, while metformin was preferable for obese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Short-course insulin therapy with subsequent oral hypoglycemic agent could obviate the need for continuous insulin therapy in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Folic acid constitutes an inexpensive and safe therapy for hyperhomocysteinemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

[Types of insulin therapy]

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease associated with a series of long-term microvascular and macrovascular complications that requires continuing therapeutic control. In recent years, the pharmaceutical industry has developed new types of insulin and administration systems in order to more closely mimic human insulin secretion. In this way, insulin therapy is divided into conventional and intensive regimens according to their complexity. In type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients, the treatment of choice is the one which achieves intensive glycemic control. In type 2 diabetes mellitus, we can start with a simplified conventional regimen which could progress into an intensive one similar to that of T1DM treatment. Both types of diabetes require an individualized treatment prescription based on the needs and characteristics of each patient.

Why insulin sensitizers but not secretagogues should be retained when initiating insulin in type 2 diabetes

The stringent targets set for HbA(1c) levels in type 2 diabetes are currently achieved by fewer than half the patients in the United States. Failure to manage hyperglycaemia in the early stages of disease results in progressive loss of beta-cell function, which ultimately necessitates the initiation of insulin therapy. At this point, choices have to be made on whether to continue oral anti-diabetic drug therapy and, if so, with which agent(s). Historically, sulfonylureas have been the mainstay of oral anti-diabetic drug therapy; however, their long-term efficacy in patients with depleted beta-cell capacity is doubtful, and other classes of oral anti-diabetic drugs, notably the insulin sensitizers, may prove more reliable. These agents (metformin and thiazolidinediones) appear to provide various benefits over and above sustained glycaemic control, which may variably include reduced loss of beta-cell function as well as improvements to cardiovascular risk factors, morbidity, and mortality. Metformin also limits weight gain associated with insulin therapy. This manuscript presents the case that when insulin therapy is initiated it should be tailored to individual needs through combination with one or more insulin sensitizers rather than a secretagogue.

Metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: can we stop the weight gain with diabetes?

Many patients with type 2 diabetes also have the metabolic syndrome with its cardinal features of central adiposity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. Although there is strong evidence for the importance of tight glycemic control in minimizing the microvascular complications of diabetes, many of the current therapies used for optimizing glycemic control also cause weight gain. With this treatment-induced weight gain, there is a risk of worsening the patient's insulin resistance. Physicians need to be aware of this vicious cycle in their overweight type 2 diabetic patients. This article reviews the strategies currently available to achieve glycemic control while at the same time minimizing weight gain and the associated complications.

A comparison of mealtime insulin aspart and human insulin in combination with metformin in type 2 diabetes patients

This randomized, open-label, cross-over study compares the efficacy of mealtime rapid-acting analog insulin aspart with human insulin, in combination with metformin. A total of 30 patients with type 2 diabetes, inadequately controlled (HbA(1c)>7.5%) with oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), were assigned to human insulin 30 min before meals or aspart immediately before meals, both with metformin 500 mg t.i.d. for 90 days. Patients then switched to the alternate insulin. At 90 and 180 days, blood glucose and lipids were measured at baseline and every 30 min after test meals, for 3h. HbA(1c) and hypoglycemic events were also assessed. After 3 months, HbA(1c) was significantly reduced with aspart, but not human insulin (-0.4+/-0.7% versus +0.1+/-0.7%, p<0.05). During meal tests, blood glucose area under the curve (AUC) was significantly lower with aspart than human insulin (1240+/-476 min/mmol/l versus 1588+/-766 min/mmol/l, p<0.01). AUCs for lipids were similar for both treatments. Neither group experienced serious hypoglycemic events. These results encourage treatment with mealtime insulin aspart plus metformin, in type 2 diabetes patients with postprandial hyperglycemia inadequately controlled by OHAs alone.

Metformin and body weight

Most patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, overweight or obesity increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and obesity per se is strongly associated with multiple cardiometabolic risk factors. However, many antidiabetic treatments increase body weight. The oral antidiabetic agent, metformin, has been evaluated in hundreds of clinical studies in diverse patient populations during approximately five decades of clinical use. This review summarizes the effects of metformin on body weight, with special reference to studies of longer duration (>/=6 months) as both diabetes and obesity are long-term conditions. Approximately half of studies in drug-naive type 2 diabetic patients demonstrated significant weight loss with metformin compared with baseline or comparator drugs, although pooled analyses have suggested no significant effect versus placebo. Similarly, metformin has been shown to induce weight loss in obese nondiabetic populations, although studies of long duration in this population are scarce. Metformin does appear to mitigate the adverse effects of insulin on body weight. The weight-neutral or weight-sparing effects of metformin constitute a therapeutic advantage in diabetes management where other first-line oral antidiabetic treatments often promote clinically significant weight gain.

Weight gain and insulin requirement in type 2 diabetic patients during the first year after initiating insulin therapy dependent on baseline BMI

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine differences, if any, in weight gain and increased insulin requirements in insulin-treated type 2 diabetic patients with a normal and an elevated body mass index (BMI).

METHODS

A total of 192 patients with newly insulinized type 2 diabetes were included in the study. The patients were divided into three groups: those with BMI <26 (n = 102), BMI 26-30 (n = 50) and those with BMI >30 (n = 40). At the beginning of insulin therapy and 12 months later, we compared HbA1c, BMI and required insulin doses in each group and evaluated weight gain and the increase in insulin requirement during the observation period. Moreover, we investigated the influence of additional metformin therapy on weight gain and insulin requirement.

RESULTS

Body weight increased in the group with normal BMI from 68.8 +/- 9.2 to 70.8 +/- 9.4 kg (+2.9%) and in the other groups from 79.0 +/- 9.3 to 81.2 +/- 8.4 (+2.8%) and from 96.2 +/- 11.2 to 99.1 +/- 16.5 kg (+3.0%) respectively. The differences between the groups were not significant. The insulin requirement increased by 22% in the normal-weighted group and by 23% in both groups with overweight. The reduction in mean HbA1c was similar in the three groups (22, 18 and 22%). Under additional metformin therapy, the increment of insulin requirement of all patients (n = 40) was significantly lower (11 vs. 26%, p < 0.01), and there was no significant difference between the groups with different BMIs. During the same period, the gain in body weight and the decrease of HbA1c were not significantly different in the patients with and without metformin independent on the BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk for weight gain and increase in insulin requirement is similar in insulin-treated type 2 diabetic patients with normal and elevated BMI. Additional metformin therapy reduces insulin requirement in patients with and without overweight.

Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Metformin is an oral anti-hyperglycemic agent used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The results of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study indicate that metformin treatment is associated with a reduction in total mortality compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments. Metformin, however, is thought to increase the risk of lactic acidosis, and is considered to be contraindicated in many chronic hypoxemic conditions that may be associated with lactic acidosis, such as cardiovascular, renal, hepatic and pulmonary disease, and advancing age.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use compared to placebo and other glucose-lowering treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A secondary objective was to evaluate the blood lactate levels for those on metformin treatment compared to placebo or non-metformin therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was performed of The Cochrane Library (up to 8/2005), MEDLINE (up to 8/2005), EMBASE (up to 11/2000), OLD MEDLINE, and REACTIONS (up to 8/2005), in order to identify all studies of metformin treatment from 1966 to August 2005. The Cumulated Index Medicus was used to search relevant articles from 1959 to 1965. The search was augmented by scanning references of identified articles, and by contacting principal investigators. Date of latest search: August 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective trials in patients with type 2 diabetes that lasted longer than one month were included if they evaluated metformin, alone or in combination with other treatments, compared to placebo or any other glucose-lowering therapy. Observational cohort studies of metformin treatment lasting greater than one month were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials to be included, assessed study quality and extracted data. The incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis was recorded as cases per patient-years, for metformin treatment and for placebo or other treatments. The upper limit for the true incidence of cases in the metformin and non-metformin groups were calculated using Poisson statistics. In a second analysis lactate levels were measured as a net change from baseline or as mean treatment values (basal and stimulated by food or exercise) for treatment and comparison groups. The pooled results were recorded as a weighted mean difference (WMD) in mmol/L, using the fixed effect model for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Pooled data from 206 comparative trials and cohort studies revealed no cases of fatal or nonfatal lactic acidosis in 47,846 patient-years of metformin use or in 38,221 patients-years in the non-metformin group. Using Poisson statistics with 95% confidence intervals the upper limit for the true incidence of metformin-associated lactic acidosis was 6.3 cases per 100,000 patient-years, and the upper limit for the true incidence of lactic acidosis in the non-metformin group was 7.8 cases per 100,000 patient-years. There was no difference in lactate levels, either as mean treatment levels or as a net change from baseline, for metformin compared to placebo or other non-biguanide therapies. The mean lactate levels were slightly lower for metformin treatment compared to phenformin (WMD -0.75 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.15).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from prospective comparative trials or from observational cohort studies that metformin is associated with an increased risk of lactic acidosis, or with increased levels of lactate, compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments if prescribed under the study conditions.

Combination therapy using metformin or thiazolidinediones and insulin in the treatment of diabetes mellitus

The biguanide, metformin, sensitizes the liver to the effect of insulin, suppressing hepatic glucose output. Thiazolidinediones such as rosiglitazone and pioglitazone enhance insulin-mediated glucose disposal, leading to reduced plasma insulin concentrations. These classes of drugs may also have varying beneficial effects on features of insulin resistance such as lipid levels, blood pressure and body weight. Metformin in combination with insulin has been shown to significantly improve blood glucose levels while lowering total daily insulin dose and body weight. The thiazolidinediones in combination with insulin have also been effective in lowering blood glucose levels and total daily insulin dose. Triple combination therapy using insulin, metformin and a thiazolidinedione improves glycaemic control to a greater degree than dual therapy using insulin and metformin or insulin and a thiazolidinedione. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of metformin or thiazolidinediones in type 1 diabetic patients. Although these agents are largely well tolerated, some subjects experience significant gastrointestinal problems while using metformin. Metformin is associated with a low risk of lactic acidosis, but should not be used in patients with elevated serum creatinine or those being treated for congestive heart failure. The thiazolidinediones are associated with an increase in body weight, although this can be avoided with careful lifestyle management. Thiazolidinediones may also lead to oedema and are associated with a low incidence of hepatocellular injury. Thiazolidinediones are contraindicated in patients with underlying heart disease who are at risk of congestive heart failure and in patients who have abnormal hepatic function. The desired blood glucose-lowering effect and adverse event profiles of these agents should be considered when recommending these agents to diabetic patients. The potential for metformin or the thiazolidinediones to impact long-term cardiovascular outcomes remains under investigation.

Metformin monotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Metformin is an anti-hyperglycaemic agent used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Type 2 diabetes may present long-term complications: micro- (retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy) and macrovascular (stroke, myocardial infarction and peripheral vascular disease). Two meta-analyses have been published before, although only secondary outcomes were assessed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin monotherapy on mortality, morbidity, quality of life, glycaemic control, body weight, lipid levels, blood pressure, insulinaemia, and albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were obtained from computerised searches of multiple electronic databases and hand searches of reference lists of relevant trials identified. Date of last search: September 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials fulfilling the following inclusion criteria: Diabetes mellitus type 2, metformin versus any other oral intervention, assessment of relevant clinical outcome measures, use of random allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data, using a standard data extraction form. Data were summarised under a random effects model. Dichotomous data were expressed as relative risk. We calculated the risk difference (RD), and the Number Needed to Treat, when it was possible. We collected data of mean and standard deviation from changes to baseline. However many trials reported end point data. This limitation lead to the expression of the results as standardised mean differences (SMD) and an overall SMD was calculated. Heterogeneity was tested for using the Z score and the I-squared statistic. Subgroup, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were used to explore heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included for analysis 29 trials with 37 arms (5259 participants), comparing metformin (37 arms and 2007 participants) with sulphonylureas (13 and 1167), placebo (12 and 702), diet (three and 493), thiazolidinediones (three and 132), insulin (two and 439), meglitinides (two and 208), and glucosidase inhibitors (two and 111). Nine studies reported data on primary outcomes. Obese patients allocated to intensive blood glucose control with metformin showed a greater benefit than chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or insulin for any diabetes-related outcomes (P = 0.009), and for all-cause mortality (P = 0.03). Obese participants assigned to intensive blood glucose control with metformin showed a greater benefit than overweight patients on conventional treatment for any diabetes-related outcomes (P = 0.004), diabetes-related death (P = 0.03), all-cause mortality (P = 0.01), and myocardial infarction (P = 0.02). Patients assigned to metformin monotherapy showed a significant benefit for glycaemia control, weight, dyslipidaemia, and diastolic blood pressure. Metformin presents a strong benefit for HbA1c when compared with placebo and diet; and a moderated benefit for: glycaemia control, LDL cholesterol, and BMI or weight when compared with sulphonylureas.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Metformin may be the first therapeutic option in the diabetes mellitus type 2 with overweight or obesity, as it may prevent some vascular complications, and mortality. Metformin produces beneficial changes in glycaemia control, and moderated in weight, lipids, insulinaemia and diastolic blood pressure. Sulphonylureas, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides, insulin, and diet fail to show more benefit for glycaemia control, body weight, or lipids, than metformin.

Insulin monotherapy versus combinations of insulin with oral hypoglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether patients with type 2 diabetes who have poor glycaemic control despite maximal oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs) should be commenced on insulin as monotherapy, or insulin combined with oral hypoglycaemic agents (insulin-OHA combination therapy).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of insulin monotherapy versus insulin-OHA combinations therapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Eligible studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. Date of last search: May 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 months minimum follow-up duration comparing insulin monotherapy (all schemes) with insulin-OHA combination therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of study quality were undertaken by three reviewers in pairs.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty RCTs (mean trial duration 10 months) including 1,811 participants, with mean age 59.8 years and mean known duration of diabetes 9.6 years. Overall, study methodological quality was low. Twenty-eight comparisons in 20 RCTs were ordered according to clinical considerations. No studies assessed diabetes-related morbidity, mortality or total mortality. From 13 studies (21 comparisons), sufficient data were extracted to calculate pooled effects on glycaemic control. Insulin-OHA combination therapy had statistically significant benefits on glycaemic control over insulin monotherapy only when the latter was applied as a once-daily injection of NPH insulin. Conversely, twice-daily insulin monotherapy (NPH or mixed insulin) provided superior glycaemic control to insulin-OHA combination therapy regimens where insulin was administered as a single morning injection. In more conventional comparisons, regimens utilising OHAs with bedtime NPH insulin provided comparable glycaemic control to insulin monotherapy (administered as twice daily, or multiple daily injections). Overall, insulin-OHA combination therapy was associated with a 43% relative reduction in total daily insulin requirement compared to insulin monotherapy. Of the 14 studies (22 comparisons) reporting hypoglycaemia, 13 demonstrated no significant difference in the frequency of symptomatic or biochemical hypoglycaemia between insulin and combination therapy regimens. No significant differences in quality of life related issues were detected. Combination therapy with bedtime NPH insulin resulted in statistically significantly less weight gain compared to insulin monotherapy, provided metformin was used +/-sulphonylurea. In all other comparisons no significant differences with respect to weight gain were detected.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Bedtime NPH insulin combined with oral hypoglycaemic agents provides comparable glycaemic control to insulin monotherapy and is associated with less weight gain if metformin is used.

Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Metformin is an oral anti-hyperglycemic agent used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The results of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study indicate that metformin treatment is associated with a reduction in total mortality compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments. Metformin, however, is thought to increase the risk of lactic acidosis, and is considered to be contraindicated in many chronic hypoxemic conditions that may be associated with lactic acidosis, such as cardiovascular, renal, hepatic and pulmonary disease, and advancing age.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use compared to placebo and other glucose-lowering treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A secondary objective was to evaluate the blood lactate levels for those on metformin treatment compared to placebo or non-metformin therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was performed of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (up to 4/2000), Medline (up to 11/2000), Embase (up to 11/2000), Oldmedline, and Reactions (up to 5/2000), in order to identify all studies of metformin treatment from 1966 to November 2000. The Cumulated Index Medicus was used to search relevant articles from 1959 to 1965. The search was augmented by scanning references of identified articles, and by contacting principal investigators. Date of latest search: November 2000.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective trials in patients with type 2 diabetes that lasted longer than one month were included if they evaluated metformin, alone or in combination with other treatments, compared to placebo or any other glucose-lowering therapy. Observational cohort studies of metformin treatment lasting greater than one month were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials to be included, assessed study quality and extracted data. The incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis was recorded as cases per patient-years, for metformin treatment and for placebo or other treatments. The upper limit for the true incidence of cases in the metformin and non-metformin groups were calculated using Poisson statistics. In a second analysis lactate levels were measured as a net change from baseline or as mean treatment values (basal and stimulated by food or exercise) for treatment and comparison groups. The pooled results were recorded as a weighted mean difference (WMD) in mmol/L, using the fixed effects model for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Pooled data from 176 comparative trials and cohort studies revealed no cases of fatal or nonfatal lactic acidosis in 35,619 patient-years of metformin use or in 30,002 patients-years in the non-metformin group. Using Poisson statistics with 95% confidence intervals the upper limit for the true incidence of metformin-associated lactic acidosis was 8.4 cases per 100,000 patient-years, and the upper limit for the true incidence of lactic acidosis in the non-metformin group was 9 cases per 100,000 patient-years. There was no difference in lactate levels, either as mean treatment levels or as a net change from baseline, for metformin compared to placebo or other non-biguanide therapies. The mean lactate levels were slightly lower for metformin treatment compared to phenformin (WMD -0.75 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.15).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from prospective comparative trials or from observational cohort studies that metformin is associated with an increased risk of lactic acidosis, or with increased levels of lactate, compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments if prescribed under the study conditions, taking into account contra-indications.