McIntosh Brendan, Cameron Chris, Singh Sumeet R, Yu Changhua, Ahuja Tarun, Welton Nicky J, Dahl Marshall
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), 600–865 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Open Med. 2011;5(1):e35-48. Epub 2011 Mar 1.
Although there is general agreement that metformin should be used as first-line pharmacotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes, uncertainty remains regarding the choice of second-line therapy once metformin is no longer effective. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of all available classes of antihyperglycemic therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English from 1980 to October 2009. Additional citations were obtained from grey literature and conference proceedings and through stakeholder feedback. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Key outcomes of interest were hemoglobin A1c, body weight, hypoglycemia, quality of life, long-term diabetes-related complications, serious adverse drug events and mortality. Mixed-treatment comparison and pairwise meta-analyses were conducted to pool trial results, when appropriate.
We identified 49 active and non-active controlled randomized trials that compared 2 or more of the following classes of antihyperglycemic agents and weight-loss agents: sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues, insulins, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, sibutramine and orlistat. All classes of second-line antihyperglycemic therapies achieved clinically meaningful reductions in hemoglobin A1c (0.6% to 1.0%). No significant differences were found between classes. Insulins and insulin secretagogues were associated with significantly more events of overall hypoglycemia than the other agents, but severe hypoglycemia was rarely observed. An increase in body weight was observed with the majority of second-line therapies (1.8 to 3.0 kg), the exceptions being DPP-4 inhibitors, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues (0.6 to -1.8 kg). There were insufficient data available for diabetes complications, mortality or quality of life.
DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues achieved improvements in glycemic control similar to those of other second-line therapies, although they may have modest benefits in terms of weight gain and overall hypoglycemia. Further long-term trials of adequate power are required to determine whether newer drug classes differ from older agents in terms of clinically meaningful outcomes.
尽管人们普遍认为二甲双胍应用于2型糖尿病患者的一线药物治疗,但一旦二甲双胍不再有效,二线治疗的选择仍存在不确定性。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估在二甲双胍单药治疗控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者中,所有可用类别的降糖治疗的相对安全性和疗效。
检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、BIOSIS Previews、PubMed和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库,查找1980年至2009年10月以英文发表的随机对照试验。通过灰色文献、会议记录和利益相关者反馈获取其他参考文献。两名评价员独立选择研究、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。感兴趣的主要结局包括糖化血红蛋白、体重、低血糖、生活质量、长期糖尿病相关并发症、严重药物不良事件和死亡率。在适当情况下,进行混合治疗比较和成对荟萃分析以汇总试验结果。
我们确定了49项活性和非活性对照随机试验,这些试验比较了以下2种或更多类别的降糖药物和减肥药物:磺脲类、格列奈类、噻唑烷二酮类(TZDs)、二肽基肽酶-4(DPP-4)抑制剂、胰高血糖素样肽-1(GLP-1)类似物、胰岛素、α-葡萄糖苷酶抑制剂、西布曲明和奥利司他。所有类别的二线降糖治疗均使糖化血红蛋白有临床意义的降低(0.6%至1.0%)。各治疗类别之间未发现显著差异。胰岛素和胰岛素促泌剂与总体低血糖事件显著多于其他药物相关,但严重低血糖很少见。大多数二线治疗均观察到体重增加(1.8至3.0千克),例外情况是DPP-4抑制剂、α-葡萄糖苷酶抑制剂和GLP-1类似物(0.6至-1.8千克)。关于糖尿病并发症、死亡率或生活质量的数据不足。
DPP-4抑制剂和GLP-1类似物在血糖控制方面取得的改善与其他二线治疗相似,尽管它们在体重增加和总体低血糖方面可能有适度益处。需要进一步进行足够样本量的长期试验,以确定新药物类别在临床有意义的结局方面是否与旧药物不同。