School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2019 Dec;85(12):2772-2783. doi: 10.1111/bcp.14107. Epub 2019 Dec 9.
Metformin may have clinical benefits in dialysis patients; however, its safety in this population is unknown. This systematic review evaluated the safety of metformin in dialysis patients.
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials and observational studies evaluating metformin use in dialysis patients. Three authors reviewed the studies and extracted data. The primary outcomes were mortality, occurrence of lactic acidosis and myocardial infarction (MI) in patients taking metformin during dialysis treatment for ≥12 months (long term). Risk of bias was assessed using Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-1). Overall quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
Fifteen observational studies were eligible; 7 were prospective observational studies and 8 were case reports/case series. No randomised controlled trials were identified. The 7 prospective observational studies (n = 194) reported on cautious metformin use in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. Only 3 provided long-term follow-up data. In 2 long-term studies of metformin therapy (≤1000 mg/d) in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD), 1 reported 6 deaths (6/83; 7%) due to major cardiovascular events (3 MI) and the other reported no deaths (0/35). One long-term study of metformin therapy (250 mg to 500 mg thrice weekly) in patients undergoing haemodialysis reported 4 deaths (4/61; 7%) due to major cardiovascular events (2 MI). These findings provide very low-quality evidence as they come from small observational studies.
The evidence regarding the safety of metformin in people undergoing dialysis is inconclusive. Appropriately designed randomised controlled trials are needed to resolve this uncertainty.
二甲双胍在透析患者中可能具有临床获益,但该药在该人群中的安全性尚不清楚。本系统评价评估了二甲双胍在透析患者中的安全性。
检索 MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL、PsycINFO 和 Cochrane 图书馆,以评估在接受透析治疗≥12 个月(长期)的患者中使用二甲双胍的随机对照试验和观察性研究。三位作者对研究进行了回顾并提取数据。主要结局为接受透析治疗的患者中使用二甲双胍的死亡率、乳酸性酸中毒和心肌梗死(MI)的发生情况。采用干预措施非随机研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-1)评估偏倚风险。使用推荐评估、制定与评价(GRADE)评估总体证据质量。
共纳入 15 项观察性研究;其中 7 项为前瞻性观察性研究,8 项为病例报告/病例系列研究。未发现随机对照试验。7 项前瞻性观察性研究(n=194)报告了在维持性透析患者中谨慎使用二甲双胍的情况。仅有 3 项研究提供了长期随访数据。在 2 项关于腹膜透析(PD)患者接受≤1000 mg/d 二甲双胍治疗的长期研究中,1 项研究报告 6 例死亡(6/83;7%),原因是主要心血管事件(3 例 MI),另 1 项研究报告无死亡(0/35)。1 项关于血液透析患者接受 250-500 mg 每周 3 次二甲双胍治疗的长期研究报告 4 例死亡(4/61;7%),原因是主要心血管事件(2 例 MI)。这些研究结果来自于小型观察性研究,提供的证据质量极低。
目前关于接受透析治疗的人群中使用二甲双胍的安全性证据尚不明确。需要设计恰当的随机对照试验来解决这一不确定性。