PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1498242)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Reappraisal of Metformin Efficacy in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials 
PLoS Medicine  2012;9(4):e1001204.
Catherine Cornu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of metformin efficacy on cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and showed that although metformin is considered the gold standard, its benefit/risk ratio remains uncertain.
Background
The UK Prospective Diabetes Study showed that metformin decreases mortality compared to diet alone in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Since then, it has been the first-line treatment in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes. However, metformin-sulphonylurea bitherapy may increase mortality.
Methods and Findings
This meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluated metformin efficacy (in studies of metformin versus diet alone, versus placebo, and versus no treatment; metformin as an add-on therapy; and metformin withdrawal) against cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane database. Primary end points were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death. Secondary end points included all myocardial infarctions, all strokes, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, leg amputations, and microvascular complications. Thirteen randomised controlled trials (13,110 patients) were retrieved; 9,560 patients were given metformin, and 3,550 patients were given conventional treatment or placebo. Metformin did not significantly affect the primary outcomes all-cause mortality, risk ratio (RR) = 0.99 (95% CI: 0.75 to 1.31), and cardiovascular mortality, RR = 1.05 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.64). The secondary outcomes were also unaffected by metformin treatment: all myocardial infarctions, RR = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.74 to 1.09); all strokes, RR = 0.76 (95% CI: 0.51 to 1.14); heart failure, RR = 1.03 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.59); peripheral vascular disease, RR = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.78); leg amputations, RR = 1.04 (95% CI: 0.44 to 2.44); and microvascular complications, RR = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.17). For all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, there was significant heterogeneity when including the UK Prospective Diabetes Study subgroups (I2 = 41% and 59%). There was significant interaction with sulphonylurea as a concomitant treatment for myocardial infarction (p = 0.10 and 0.02, respectively).
Conclusions
Although metformin is considered the gold standard, its benefit/risk ratio remains uncertain. We cannot exclude a 25% reduction or a 31% increase in all-cause mortality. We cannot exclude a 33% reduction or a 64% increase in cardiovascular mortality. Further studies are needed to clarify this situation.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
Worldwide, more than 350 million people have diabetes, and this number is increasing rapidly. Diabetes is characterized by dangerous amounts of sugar (glucose) in the blood. Blood sugar levels are normally controlled by insulin, a hormone produced by the pancreas. In people with type 2 diabetes (the most common form of diabetes), blood sugar control fails because the fat and muscle cells that usually respond to insulin by removing excess sugar from the blood become less responsive to insulin. Type 2 diabetes can be controlled with diet and exercise and with antidiabetic pills, each of which works in a different way to maintain a healthy blood sugar level. Metformin, for example, stops the liver making glucose and increases the body's response to insulin, whereas sulfonylureas help the pancreas make more insulin. The long-term complications of diabetes, which include an increased risk of cardiovascular problems such as heart disease and stroke, reduce the life expectancy of people with diabetes by about ten years compared to people without diabetes.
Why Was This Study Done?
In 1998, a large randomized clinical trial called the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS 34) reported that metformin in combination with dietary control reduced all-cause mortality in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes when compared to dietary control alone. Specifically, the risk of death from any cause among patients taking metformin was about a third lower than the risk of death among patients not taking metformin—a risk ratio (RR) of 0.64. This reduction in risk was significant (that is, it was unlikely to have occurred by chance) because its 95% confidence interval (95% CI; there is a 95% chance that the “true” RR lies within this interval) of 0.45–0.91 did not overlap 1.0. Given this finding, metformin is now recommended as the first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes. However, UKPDS 34 also reported an increase in death in non-overweight patients who took metformin plus sulfonylurea compared to those who took sulfonylurea alone (RR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.02–2.52), a result considered non-significant by the UKPDS 34 researchers and largely ignored ever since. So do the benefits of metformin outweigh its risks? In this meta-analysis, the researchers re-evaluate the risk-to-benefit balance of metformin in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. A meta-analysis is a statistical method that combines the results of several studies.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers identified 13 randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of metformin on cardiovascular morbidity (illness) and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. More than 13,000 patients participated in these studies, three-quarters of whom received metformin and a quarter of whom received other treatments or a placebo. Compared to other treatments, metformin treatment had no effect on the risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.75–1.31) or cardiovascular mortality (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.67–1.64), the primary end points of this study. However, the results of the individual trials varied more than would be expected by chance (“heterogeneity”). Exclusion of the UKPDS 34 trial from the meta-analysis had no effect on the estimated risk ratio for all-cause mortality or cardiovascular deaths, but the heterogeneity disappeared. Finally, metformin treatment had no significant effect on the risk of cardiovascular conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, and heart failure; there was no heterogeneity among the trials for these secondary end points.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings show no evidence that metformin has any beneficial effect on all-cause mortality, on cardiovascular mortality, or on cardiovascular morbidity among patients with type 2 diabetes. These findings must be cautiously interpreted because only a few randomized controlled trials were included in this study, and only a few patients died or developed any cardiovascular illnesses. Importantly, however, from these findings, it is impossible to exclude beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that metformin causes up to a 25% reduction or a 31% increase in all-cause mortality. Similarly, these findings cannot exclude the possibility that metformin causes up to a 33% reduction or a 64% increase in cardiovascular mortality. Given that a large number of patients take metformin for many years as a first-line treatment for diabetes, further studies are urgently needed to clarify this situation.
Additional Information
Please access these web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001204.
The International Diabetes Federation provides information about all aspects of diabetes
The US National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse provides information about diabetes for patients, health-care professionals, and the general public, including detailed information on diabetes medicines (in English and Spanish)
The UK National Health Service Choices web site provides information for patients and carers about type 2 diabetes and includes peoples stories about diabetes
The charity Diabetes UK also provides detailed information for patients and carers, including information on diabetes medications, and has a further selection of stories from people with diabetes
MedlinePlus provides links to further resources and advice about diabetes and about diabetes medicines; it also provides information about metformin (in English and Spanish)
The charity Healthtalkonline has interviews with people about their experiences of diabetes and of controlling diabetes with oral medications
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001204
PMCID: PMC3323508  PMID: 22509138
2.  Adding Saxagliptin to Metformin Extended Release (XR) or Uptitration of Metformin XR: Efficacy on Daily Glucose Measures 
Diabetes Therapy  2013;4(2):269-283.
Introduction
Saxagliptin added to metformin extended release (XR) and uptitrated metformin XR were evaluated for their impact on daily glucose measurements and their tolerability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.
Methods
Patients aged 18–78 years on metformin 850–1,500 mg with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5–11.5% at screening were eligible for this double-blind, active-controlled study. Patients were stabilized on metformin XR 1,500 mg before randomization. Patients with HbA1c 7–11% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥126 mg/dL after a 4- 8-week lead-in period were randomly assigned to saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin XR 1,500 mg or metformin XR 500 mg + metformin XR 1,500 mg (uptitrated metformin XR). The primary end point was change from baseline to week 4 in 24-h mean weighted glucose (MWG). Secondary end points were changes from baseline to week 4 in 2-h postprandial glucose (PPG) and FPG.
Results
At week 4, the adjusted mean ± SE change from baseline in 24-h MWG was −19.0 ± 5.7 mg/dL (95% CI −30.3 to −7.6) for saxagliptin + metformin XR and −8.2 ± 6.0 mg/dL (95% CI −20.0 to 3.7) for uptitrated metformin XR. Mean changes from baseline in 2-h PPG and FPG were numerically greater with saxagliptin + metformin XR versus uptitrated metformin XR. The incidence of adverse events was lower with saxagliptin + metformin XR (17.4%) versus uptitrated metformin XR (31.9%) mainly due to differences in gastrointestinal adverse event incidence (2.2% vs 10.6%, respectively). There were no reports of confirmed hypoglycemia in either group.
Conclusion
In this 4-week study in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy, saxagliptin added to metformin XR demonstrated a trend for improvement in measures of daily glycemic control, with fewer gastrointestinal adverse events, compared with uptitrated metformin.
doi:10.1007/s13300-013-0028-9
PMCID: PMC3889315  PMID: 23881432
Efficacy; Glycemic control; Metformin; Saxagliptin; Tolerability; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
3.  A randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of twice-daily saxagliptin plus metformin combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy 
Background
To compare the safety and efficacy of saxagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily (BID) versus placebo add-on therapy to metformin immediate release (IR) in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control with metformin alone.
Methods
This multicenter, 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group trial enrolled adult outpatients with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.0%–10.0%) on stable metformin IR monotherapy (≥1500 mg, BID for ≥8 weeks). Patients were randomized to double-blind saxagliptin 2.5 mg BID or placebo added on to metformin IR following a 2-week, single-blind, placebo add-on therapy lead-in period. The primary end point was the change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c. Key secondary end points included change from baseline to week 12 in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% or HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at week 12. Efficacy was analyzed in all patients who received randomized study drug with ≥1 postbaseline assessment. Safety was assessed in all treated patients.
Results
In total, 74 patients were randomized to double-blind saxagliptin add-on therapy and 86 to placebo add-on therapy. At week 12, least-squares mean changes (95% CI) from baseline HbA1c (adjusted for baseline HbA1c) were significantly greater (P = 0.006) in the saxagliptin + metformin group -0.56% (-0.74% to -0.38%) versus the placebo + metformin group -0.22% (-0.39% to -0.06%). Adjusted mean changes from baseline in FPG were numerically greater with saxagliptin versus placebo; the difference (95% CI) -9.5 mg/dL (-21.7 to 2.7) was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). A numerically greater proportion of patients in the saxagliptin group than the placebo group achieved HbA1c < 7.0% (37.5% vs 24.2%) or HbA1c ≤6.5% (24.6% vs 10.7%). There were no unexpected safety findings. Hypoglycemia occurred in 4 patients (5.4%) in the saxagliptin group and 1 patient (1.2%) in the placebo group; confirmed hypoglycemia (symptoms plus fingerstick glucose ≤50 mg/dL) occurred in 1 patient in the placebo group.
Conclusions
Addition of saxagliptin 2.5 mg BID to metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy reduced HbA1c compared with placebo added to metformin, with an adverse events profile similar to placebo and no unexpected safety findings.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00885378
doi:10.1186/1472-6823-14-17
PMCID: PMC3946011  PMID: 24565221
Incretin; Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor; Saxagliptin; Metformin; Combination therapy; Diabetes; Glycemic control; Hypoglycemia; Twice-daily
4.  Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in clinical practice-results of the PROVIL-study 
World Journal of Diabetes  2012;3(9):161-169.
AIM: To investigate efficacy and safety of vildagliptin compared to other oral antidiabetics in clinical practice in Germany.
METHODS: In this prospective, open, observational study, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) previously on oral monotherapy were selected by their treating physician to receive either vildagliptin add-on to metformin (cohort 1), vildagliptin + metformin single-pill combination (SPC) (cohort 2) or another dual combination therapy with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) (cohort 3). According to routine clinical practice, interim examinations occurred every 3 mo: at baseline, after approximately 3 mo and after approximately 6 mo. Parameters documented in the study included demographic and diagnostic data, history of T2DM, data on diabetes control, vital signs, relevant prior and concomitant medication and disease history. Efficacy was assessed by changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 3 mo and 6 mo after initiation of dual combination therapy. Safety was assessed by adverse event reporting and measurement of specific laboratory values (serum creatinine, total bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatine kinase).
RESULTS: Between October 2009 and January 2011, a total of 3881 patients were enrolled in this study. Since 47 patients were withdrawn due to protocol violations, 3834 patients were included in the statistical analysis. There were no relevant differences between the three cohorts concerning age, body weight and body mass index. Average diabetes duration was approximately 6 years and mean HbA1c was between 7.6% and 7.9% at baseline. Antidiabetic treatment was recorded in 3648 patients. Patients were treated with vildagliptin add-on to metformin (n = 603), vildagliptin + metformin (SPC) (n = 2198), and other oral OADs including combinations of metformin with sulfonylurea (n = 370), with glitazones (n = 123), other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (n = 99). After 6 mo of treatment, the absolute decrease in HbA1c (mean ± SE) was significantly more pronounced in patients receiving vildagliptin add-on to metformin (-0.9% ± 0.04%) and vildagliptin + metformin (SPC) (-0.9% ± 0.03%) than in patients receiving other OADs (-0.6% ± 0.04%; P < 0.0001). In addition, significant cohort differences were observed for the improvement in FPG after 6 mo treatment (vildagliptin add-on to metformin: -291 mg/L ± 18.3 mg/L; vildagliptin +metformin (SPC): -305 mg/L ± 9.6 mg/L; other antidiabetic drugs: -209 mg/L ± 14.0 mg/L for (P < 0.0001). Moderate decreases in body weight (absolute difference between last control and baseline: mean ± SE) were observed for patients in all cohorts (vildagliptin add-on to metformin: -1.4 kg ± 0.17 kg; vildagliptin + metformin (SPC): -1.7 kg ± 0.09 kg; other OADs: -0.8 kg ± 0.13 kg). No significant differences in adverse events (AEs) and other safety measures were observed between the cohorts. When performing an additional analysis by age (patients < 65 years vs patients ≥ 65 years), there was no relevant difference in the most common AEs between the two age groups and the AE profile was similar to that of the overall patient population.
CONCLUSION: Clinical practice confirms that vildagliptin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment in combination with metformin in T2DM patients.
doi:10.4239/wjd.v3.i9.161
PMCID: PMC3487174  PMID: 23125906
Observational study; Combination therapy; Vildagliptin; Metformin; Type 2 diabetes
5.  The TONIC Trial: A Step Forward in Treating Pediatric Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease 
Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)  2012;55(4):1292-1295.
Lavine JE, Schwimmer JB, Van Natta ML, Molleston JP, Murray KF, Rosenthal P, Abrams SH, et al. Effect of vitamin E or metformin for treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in children and adolescents: the TONIC randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2011;305:1659–1668. (Reprinted with permission).
CONTEXT
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common chronic liver disease in US children and adolescents and can present with advanced fibrosis or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). No treatment has been established.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether children with NAFLD would improve from therapeutic intervention with vitamin E or metformin.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS
Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted at 10 university clinical research centers in 173 patients (aged 8–17 years) with biopsy-confirmed NAFLD conducted between September 2005 and March 2010. Interventions Daily dosing of 800 IU of vitamin E (58 patients), 1000 mg of metformin (57 patients), or placebo (58 patients) for 96 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was sustained reduction in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) defined as 50% or less of the baseline level or 40 U/L or less at visits every 12 weeks from 48 to 96 weeks of treatment. Improvements in histological features of NAFLD and resolution of NASH were secondary outcome measures.
RESULTS
Sustained reduction in ALT level was similar to placebo (10/58; 17%; 95% CI, 9% to 29%) in both the vitamin E (15/58; 26%; 95% CI, 15% to 39%; P = .26) and metformin treatment groups (9/57; 16%; 95% CI, 7% to 28%; P = .83). The mean change in ALT level from baseline to 96 weeks was −35.2 U/L (95% CI, −56.9 to −13.5) with placebo vs −48.3 U/L (95% CI, −66.8 to −29.8) with vitamin E (P = .07) and −41.7 U/L (95% CI, −62.9 to −20.5) with metformin (P = .40). The mean change at 96 weeks in hepatocellular ballooning scores was 0.1 with placebo (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.3) vs −0.5 with vitamin E (95% CI, −0.8 to −0.3; P = .006) and −0.3 with metformin (95% CI, −0.6 to −0.0; P = .04); and in NAFLD activity score, −0.7 with placebo (95% CI, −1.3 to −0.2) vs −1.8 with vitamin E (95% CI, −2.4 to −1.2; P = .02) and −1.1 with metformin (95% CI, −1.7 to −0.5; P = .25). Among children with NASH, the proportion who resolved at 96 weeks was 28% with placebo (95% CI, 15% to 45%; 11/39) vs 58% with vitamin E (95% CI, 42% to 73%; 25/43; P = .006) and 41% with metformin (95% CI, 26% to 58%; 16/39; P = .23). Compared with placebo, neither therapy demonstrated significant improvements in other histological features.
CONCLUSION
Neither vitamin E nor metformin was superior to placebo in attaining the primary outcome of sustained reduction in ALT level in patients with pediatric NAFLD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00063635.
doi:10.1002/hep.24767
PMCID: PMC3325147  PMID: 22461076
Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD); Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH); Fibrosis
6.  Comparison between the Therapeutic Effect of Metformin, Glimepiride and Their Combination as an Add-On Treatment to Insulin Glargine in Uncontrolled Patients with Type 2 Diabetes 
PLoS ONE  2014;9(3):e87799.
Aims
To compare the commonly prescribed oral anti-diabetic drug (OAD) combinations to use as an add-on therapy with insulin glargine in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes despite submaximal doses of OADs.
Methods
People with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (n = 99) were randomly assigned on a 1∶1∶1 basis to receive insulin glargin, with fixed doses of glimepiride, metformin, and glimepiride plus metformin. Outcomes assessed included HbA1c, the changes in fasting glucose levels, body weight, serum lipids values, insulin dose and symptomatic hypoglycemia.
Results
After 24 weeks, HbA1C levels improved from (mean ± SD) 8.5±0.9% to 7.7±0.8% (69.0±10.0 mmol/mol to 60.8±8.6 mmol/mol) with insulin glargine plus metformin, from 8.4±1.0% to 7.7±1.3% (68.8±10.6 mmol/mol to 61.1±14.4 mmol/mol) with insulin glargine plus glimepiride and from 8.7±0.9% to 7.3±0.6% (71.7±9.8 mmol/mol to 56.2±6.7 mmol/mol) with insulin glargine plus glimepirde plus metformin. The decrease in HbA1c was more pronounced with insulin glargine plus glimepiride plus metformin than with insulin glargine plus metformin (0.49% [CI, 0.16% to 0.82%]; P = 0.005) (5.10 mmol/mol [CI, 1.64 to 8.61]; P = 0.005) and insulin glargine plus glimepiride (0.59% [CI, 0.13% to 1.05%]; P = 0.012) (5.87 mmol/mol [CI, 1.10 to 10.64]; P = 0.012) (overall P = 0.02). Weight gain and the risk of hypoglycemia of any type did not significantly differ among the treatment groups.
Conclusion
The combination therapy of metformin and glimepiride plus glargine insulin resulted in a significant improvement in overall glycemic control as compared with the other combinations.
Trial registration information
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00708578.
The approval number of Kangbuk Samsung hospital's institutional review board (IRB): C0825.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087799
PMCID: PMC3948620  PMID: 24614911
7.  Glibenclamide, metformin, and insulin for the treatment of gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis 
Objective To summarize short term outcomes in randomized controlled trials comparing glibenclamide or metformin versus insulin or versus each other in women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment.
Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomized controlled trials that fulfilled all the following: (1) published as full text; (2) addressed women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment; (3) compared glibenclamide v insulin, metformin v insulin, or metformin v glibenclamide; and (4) provided information on maternal or fetal outcomes.
Data sources Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase were searched up to 20 May 2014.
Outcomes measures We considered 14 primary outcomes (6 maternal, 8 fetal) and 16 secondary (5 maternal, 11 fetal) outcomes.
Results We analyzed 15 articles, including 2509 subjects. Significant differences for primary outcomes in glibenclamide v insulin were obtained in birth weight (mean difference 109 g (95% confidence interval 35.9 to 181)), macrosomia (risk ratio 2.62 (1.35 to 5.08)), and neonatal hypoglycaemia (risk ratio 2.04 (1.30 to 3.20)). In metformin v insulin, significance was reached for maternal weight gain (mean difference −1.14 kg (−2.22 to −0.06)), gestational age at delivery (mean difference −0.16 weeks (−0.30 to −0.02)), and preterm birth (risk ratio 1.50 (1.04 to 2.16)), with a trend for neonatal hypoglycaemia (risk ratio 0.78 (0.60 to 1.01)). In metformin v glibenclamide, significance was reached for maternal weight gain (mean difference −2.06 kg (−3.98 to −0.14)), birth weight (mean difference −209 g (−314 to −104)), macrosomia (risk ratio 0.33 (0.13 to 0.81)), and large for gestational age newborn (risk ratio 0.44 (0.21 to 0.92)). Four secondary outcomes were better for metformin in metformin v insulin, and one was worse for metformin in metformin v glibenclamide. Treatment failure was higher with metformin than with glibenclamide.
Conclusions At short term, in women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment, glibenclamide is clearly inferior to both insulin and metformin, while metformin (plus insulin when required) performs slightly better than insulin. According to these results, glibenclamide should not be used for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes if insulin or metformin is available.
Systematic review registration NCT01998113
doi:10.1136/bmj.h102
PMCID: PMC4301599  PMID: 25609400
8.  Effect of Adjunct Metformin Treatment in Patients with Type-1 Diabetes and Persistent Inadequate Glycaemic Control. A Randomized Study 
PLoS ONE  2008;3(10):e3363.
Background
Despite intensive insulin treatment, many patients with type-1 diabetes (T1DM) have longstanding inadequate glycaemic control. Metformin is an oral hypoglycaemic agent that improves insulin action in patients with type-2 diabetes. We investigated the effect of a one-year treatment with metformin versus placebo in patients with T1DM and persistent poor glycaemic control.
Methodology/Principal Findings
One hundred patients with T1DM, preserved hypoglycaemic awareness and HaemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) ≥8.5% during the year before enrolment entered a one-month run-in on placebo treatment. Thereafter, patients were randomized (baseline) to treatment with either metformin (1 g twice daily) or placebo for 12 months (double-masked). Patients continued ongoing insulin therapy and their usual outpatient clinical care. The primary outcome measure was change in HbA1c after one year of treatment. At enrolment, mean (standard deviation) HbA1c was 9.48% (0.99) for the metformin group (n = 49) and 9.60% (0.86) for the placebo group (n = 51). Mean (95% confidence interval) baseline-adjusted differences after 12 months with metformin (n = 48) versus placebo (n = 50) were: HbA1c, 0.13% (−0.19; 0.44), p = 0.422; Total daily insulin dose, −5.7 U/day (−8.6; −2.9), p<0.001; body weight, −1.74 kg (−3.32; −0.17), p = 0.030. Minor and overall major hypoglycaemia was not significantly different between treatments. Treatments were well tolerated.
Conclusions/Significance
In patients with poorly controlled T1DM, adjunct metformin therapy did not provide any improvement of glycaemic control after one year. Nevertheless, adjunct metformin treatment was associated with sustained reductions of insulin dose and body weight. Further investigations into the potential cardiovascular-protective effects of metformin therapy in patients with T1DM are warranted.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00118937
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003363
PMCID: PMC2566605  PMID: 18852875
9.  Impact of Baseline BMI on Glycemic Control and Weight Change with Metformin Monotherapy in Chinese Type 2 Diabetes Patients: Phase IV Open-Label Trial 
PLoS ONE  2013;8(2):e57222.
Background
Differences exist between treatment recommendations regarding the choice of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes patients according to body mass index (BMI). This study compared the efficacy of metformin monotherapy among normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.
Methods
In this prospective, multicenter, open-label study in China, patients aged 23–77 years were enrolled 1∶1:1 according to baseline BMI: normal-weight (BMI 18.5−23.9 kg/m2; n = 125); overweight (BMI 24.0−27.9 kg/m2; n = 122) or obese (BMI ≥28 kg/m2; n = 124). Extended-release metformin was administered for 16 weeks (500 mg/day, up-titrated weekly to a maximum 2,000 mg/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was the effect of baseline BMI on glycemic control with metformin monotherapy, measured as the change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at week 16 compared among BMI groups using ANCOVA. Other endpoints included comparisons of metformin’s effects on fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid levels and body weight.
Results
Mean HbA1c decreases at week 16, adjusted for baseline values, were –1.84%, –1.78% and –1.78% in normal-weight, overweight and obese patients, (P = 0.664); body weight decreased by 2.4%, 3.9% and 3.5%, respectively. FPG levels decreased similarly over time in all BMI groups (P = 0.461) and changes from baseline in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) did not differ significantly among BMI groups at week 16 (P = 0.143 and 0.451, respectively).
Conclusions
Baseline BMI had no impact on glycemic control, weight change or other efficacy measures with metformin monotherapy. These data suggest that normal-weight type 2 diabetes patients would derive the same benefits from first-line treatment with metformin as overweight and obese patients, and are not at increased risk of excess weight loss.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00778622
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057222
PMCID: PMC3585309  PMID: 23468941
10.  The Fixed Combination of Pioglitazone and Metformin Improves Biomarkers of Platelet Function and Chronic Inflammation in Type 2 Diabetes Patients: Results from the PIOfix Study 
Background
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterized by a proinflammatory and procoagulant condition. This study investigates the impact of a pioglitazone plus metformin therapy on biomarkers of inflammation and platelet activation in comparison to a treatment with glimepiride plus metformin.
Methods
The study was designed as a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded two-arm trial. Patients with T2DM and dyslipidemia under metformin monotherapy with hemoglobin A1c value between 6.5% and 9.0% were eligible for trial participation. Blood was drawn at baseline and after 24 weeks of treatment from patients of five centers. Markers of inflammation and thrombocyte function (soluble CD40 ligand, thromboxane, vWillebrand factor, adhesion molecules, clotting reaction) were evaluated subsequently in a central laboratory.
Results
A total of 46 patients were included in the final analyses. Mean (± standard deviation) age was 58.5 ± 9.0 years (13 women, 33 men; disease duration 6.3 ± 5.0 years; body mass index 32.0 ± 4.8 kg/m2). A total of 25 patients were treated with pioglitazone plus metformin, and 21 patients were in the glimepiride arm. There was a significant decline of E-selectin (-3.7 ± 4.8 ng/ml, p < .001 versus baseline), vWillebrand factor (-19.5 ± 32.0%, p < .05), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations (-1.08 ± 0.91 mg/liter, p < .05) in the metformin + pioglitazone arm only (metformin + glimepiride, -0.5 ± 3.4 ng/ml, +1.4 ± 33.2%, + 0.08 ± 0.72 mg/liter, respectively, all not significant). Also, all other surrogate markers for platelet function and inflammation showed slight improvements in the metformin + pioglitazone arm but not in the metformin + glimepiride arm.
Conclusions
The fixed metformin + pioglitazone combination treatment showed an overall improvement of laboratory surrogate markers, indicating improvement of platelet function and of chronic systemic inflammation, which was not seen with metformin + glimepiride.
PMCID: PMC3125938  PMID: 21527115
inflammation; oral antidiabetics; pioglitazone plus metformin; platelet aggregation; type 2 diabetes; vascular function
11.  A Clinical Trial to Maintain Glycemic Control in Youth with Type 2 Diabetes 
The New England journal of medicine  2012;366(24):2247-2256.
BACKGROUND
Despite the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes in youth, there are few data to guide treatment. We compared the efficacy of three treatment regimens to achieve durable glycemic control in children and adolescents with recent-onset type 2 diabetes.
METHODS
Eligible patients 10 to 17 years of age were treated with metformin (at a dose of 1000 mg twice daily) to attain a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 8% and were randomly assigned to continued treatment with metformin alone or to metformin combined with rosiglitazone (4 mg twice a day) or a lifestyle-intervention program focusing on weight loss through eating and activity behaviors. The primary outcome was loss of glycemic control, defined as a glycated hemoglobin level of at least 8% for 6 months or sustained metabolic decompensation requiring insulin.
RESULTS
Of the 699 randomly assigned participants (mean duration of diagnosed type 2 diabetes, 7.8 months), 319 (45.6%) reached the primary outcome over an average follow-up of 3.86 years. Rates of failure were 51.7% (120 of 232 participants), 38.6% (90 of 233), and 46.6% (109 of 234) for metformin alone, metformin plus rosiglitazone, and metformin plus lifestyle intervention, respectively. Metformin plus rosiglitazone was superior to metformin alone (P = 0.006); metformin plus lifestyle intervention was intermediate but not significantly different from metformin alone or metformin plus rosiglitazone. Prespecified analyses according to sex and race or ethnic group showed differences in sustained effectiveness, with metformin alone least effective in non-Hispanic black participants and metformin plus rosiglitazone most effective in girls. Serious adverse events were reported in 19.2% of participants.
CONCLUSIONS
Monotherapy with metformin was associated with durable glycemic control in approximately half of children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes. The addition of rosiglitazone, but not an intensive lifestyle intervention, was superior to metformin alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; TODAY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00081328.)
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1109333
PMCID: PMC3478667  PMID: 22540912
12.  Effect of Vitamin E or Metformin for Treatment of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Children and Adolescents 
Context
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common chronic liver disease in US children and adolescents and can present with advanced fibrosis or non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). No treatment has been established.
Objective
To determine whether children with NAFLD would improve from therapeutic intervention with vitamin E or metformin.
Design, Setting, and Patients
Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted at 10 university clinical research centers in 173 patients (aged 8–17 years) with biopsy-confirmed NAFLD conducted between September 2005 and March 2010.
Interventions
Daily dosing of 800 IU of vitamin E (58 patients), 1000 mg of metformin (57 patients), or placebo (58 patients) for 96 weeks.
Main Outcome Measures
The primary outcome was sustained reduction in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) defined as 50% or less of the baseline level or 40 U/L or less at visits every 12 weeks from 48 to 96 weeks of treatment. Improvements in histological features of NAFLD and resolution of NASH were secondary outcome measures.
Results
Sustained reduction in ALT level was similar to placebo (10/58; 17%; 95% CI, 9% to 29%) in both the vitamin E (15/58; 26%; 95% CI, 15% to 39%; P=.26) and metformin treatment groups (9/57; 16%; 95% CI, 7% to 28%; P=.83). The mean change in ALT level from baseline to 96 weeks was −35.2 U/L (95% CI, −56.9 to −13.5) with placebo vs −48.3 U/L (95% CI, −66.8 to −29.8) with vitamin E (P=.07) and −41.7 U/L (95% CI, −62.9 to −20.5) with metformin (P=.40). The mean change at 96 weeks in hepatocellular ballooning scores was 0.1 with placebo (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.3) vs −0.5 with vitamin E (95% CI, −0.8 to −0.3; P=.006) and −0.3 with metformin (95% CI, −0.6 to −0.0; P=.04); and in NAFLD activity score, −0.7 with placebo (95% CI, −1.3 to −0.2) vs −1.8 with vitamin E (95% CI, −2.4 to −1.2; P=.02) and −1.1 with metformin (95% CI, −1.7 to −0.5; P=.25). Among children with NASH, the proportion who resolved at 96 weeks was 28% with placebo (95% CI, 15% to 45%; 11/39) vs 58% with vitamin E (95% CI, 42% to 73%; 25/43; P=.006) and 41% with metformin (95% CI, 26% to 58%; 16/39; P=.23). Compared with placebo, neither therapy demonstrated significant improvements in other histological features.
Conclusion
Neither vitamin E nor metformin was superior to placebo in attaining the primary outcome of sustained reduction in ALT level in patients with pediatric NAFLD.
Trial Registration
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00063635
doi:10.1001/jama.2011.520
PMCID: PMC3110082  PMID: 21521847
13.  Vitamin B12 Status in Metformin Treated Patients: Systematic Review 
PLoS ONE  2014;9(6):e100379.
Objective
Randomized controlled trials and observational studies have yielded inconsistent results on the effects of metformin on vitamin B12 reduction. We therefore performed a systematic review to analyze the effects of metformin on vitamin B12 concentration.
Methods
PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane central registry of controlled trials were searched to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies exploring the association between metformin and vitamin B12 concentration in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or polycystic ovary syndrome. The main outcome measure was changes in serum vitamin B12 concentration after 6–208 weeks of treatment with metformin, as compared with placebo or other anti-hyperglycemic therapy.
Results
Six randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Serum vitamin B12 concentrations were significantly lower in patients treated with metformin than in those who received placebo or rosiglitazone (mean difference [MD], −53.93 pmol/L; 95% confidence interval [CI], −81.44 to −26.42 pmol/L, P = 0.0001). Subgroup analysis identified four trials in which patients received a lower dose of metformin (<2000 mg/d) and two in which they received a higher dose (≥2000 mg/d), with MDs in vitamin B12 concentration after metformin treatment of −37.99 pmol/L (95% CI, −57.44 to −18.54 pmol/L, P = 0.0001) and −78.62 pmol/L (95% CI, −106.37 to −50.86 pmol/L, P<0.00001), respectively.
Conclusions
The reduction of vitamin B12 may be induced by metformin in a dose dependent manner.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100379
PMCID: PMC4069007  PMID: 24959880
14.  Quantifying the Effect of Metformin Treatment and Dose on Glycemic Control 
Diabetes Care  2012;35(2):446-454.
OBJECTIVE
Metformin is the first-line oral medication recommended for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We reviewed the literature to quantify the effect of metformin treatment on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in all types of diabetes and examine the impact of differing doses on glycemic control.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1950 to June 2010 for trials of at least 12 weeks’ duration in which diabetic patients were treated with either metformin monotherapy or as an add-on therapy. Data on change in HbA1c were pooled in a meta-analysis. Data from dose-comparison trials were separately pooled.
RESULTS
A total of 35 trials were identified for the main analysis and 7 for the dose-comparison analysis. Metformin monotherapy lowered HbA1c by 1.12% (95% CI 0.92–1.32; I2 = 80%) versus placebo, metformin added to oral therapy lowered HbA1c by 0.95% (0.77–1.13; I2 = 77%) versus placebo added to oral therapy, and metformin added to insulin therapy lowered HbA1c by 0.60% (0.30–0.91; I2 = 79.8%) versus insulin only. There was a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c using higher doses of metformin compared with lower doses of metformin with no significant increase in side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence supports the effectiveness of metformin therapy in a clinically important lowering of HbA1c used as monotherapy and in combination with other therapeutic agents. There is potential for using higher doses of metformin to maximize glycemic control in diabetic patients without increasing gastrointestinal effects.
doi:10.2337/dc11-1465
PMCID: PMC3263873  PMID: 22275444
15.  Comparative efficacy of glimepiride and metformin in monotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 
Background
Metformin treatment has been the most recommended monotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) for decades but is challenged by new antidiabetic drugs. This study conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the efficacy of metformin and glimepiride in monotherapy of T2DM.
Methods
A literature search for RCTs on glimepiride and metformin was conducted on the bibliographic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect, from their inceptions to 25 Mar 2013. All RCTs were selected according to pre-specified eligibility criteria. The quality of articles was assessed with the Cochrane’s risk of bias tool. Statistical meta-analysis evaluated the overall effects and biochemical indices of T2DM. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses evaluated the robustness and explained the heterogeneity of the results. Begg and Egger’s tests quantified possible publication biases. Results were represented as "standard mean difference or odds ratio [95% confidence internals] P value".
Results
Fifteen RCTs with 1681 adult T2DM patients were included for meta-analysis. Metformin was not better than glimepiride in overall efficacy in controlling the levels of HbA1c, postprandial blood sugar (PPBS), fasting plasma insulin (FINS), systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP), and high density lipoprotein (HDL). Metformin was only more effective than glimepiride in controlling the levels of total cholesterol (TC, 0.33 [0.03, 0.63], P = 0.03), low-density lipoprotein (LDL, 0.35 [0.16, 0.53], P = 0.0002) and triglycerides (TG, 0.26 [0.05, 0.46], P = 0.01). Odds ratios of adverse events showed that glimepiride was more likely to induce hypoglycemia episodes and metformin was with a higher risk of gastrointestinal upset.
Conclusion
Metformin was not significantly better than glimepiride in glycemic control of T2DM, suggesting that glimepiride would be a good choice second to metformin in the monotherapy of T2DM.
doi:10.1186/1758-5996-5-70
PMCID: PMC3834882  PMID: 24228743
Glimepiride; Metformin; Type 2 diabetes mellitus; Meta-analysis
16.  Efficacy and safety of add on therapy of bromocriptine with metformin in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized open labeled phase IV clinical trial 
Indian Journal of Pharmacology  2014;46(1):24-28.
Objective:
To compare the effectiveness and safety of add on therapy of bromocriptine with metformin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients.
Material and Methods:
Adult type 2 DM patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomized in three groups. Group A received metformin (1000 mg/ day), while group B patients were treated with metformin (1000 mg/day) plus bromocriptine (0.8 mg/day) and group C received metformin (1000 mg/day) plus bromocriptine (1.6 mg/day) for 12 weeks. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG), and body weight were measured at week 4, 8, and 12 visits and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) at week 12 visit.
Results:
Metformin alone and in combination with bromocriptine in escalating dose (0.8 mg/day and 1.6 mg/day) significantly (P < 0.05) decreased FPG and PPPG levels at weeks 4, 8, and 12 compared with pretreatment values. HbA1C level in all three treatment groups significantly (P < 0.05) decreased at week 12 as compared with pretreatment baseline value. HbA1C level in groups B and C significantly (P < 0.05) decreased as compared with group A at week 12. Addition of bromocriptine to metformin also significantly (P < 0.05) decreased FPG and PPPG levels in a dose-dependent manner as compared with metformin alone. Intergroup analysis did not show any statistically significant change in weight of study subjects at different intervals.
Conclusion:
The combination of bromocriptine with metformin significantly decreased FPG, PPPG, and HbA1C compared with metformin alone in type 2 DM patients in a dose-dependent manner.
doi:10.4103/0253-7613.125160
PMCID: PMC3912802  PMID: 24550580
Bromocriptine; diabetes mellitus; metformin
17.  Diabetes: glycaemic control in type 2 (drug treatments) 
Clinical Evidence  2012;2012:0609.
Introduction
Diabetes mellitus is a progressive disorder of glucose metabolism. It is estimated that about 285 million people between the ages of 20 and 79 years had diabetes worldwide in 2010, or 5% of the adult population. Type 2 diabetes may occur with obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia (the metabolic syndrome), which are powerful predictors of cardiovascular disease. Without adequate blood-glucose-lowering treatment, blood glucose levels may rise progressively over time in people with type 2 diabetes. Microvascular and macrovascular complications may develop.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of blood-glucose-lowering medications in adults with type 2 diabetes? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 194 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs), combination treatment (single, double, and triple), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues, insulins (including conventional [human] and analogue, different regimens, different length of action), meglitinides, metformin, sulphonylureas, and thiazolidinediones.
Key Points
Diabetes mellitus affects about 6.5% of people aged 20 to 79 years worldwide. In 2010, an estimated 285 million people have diabetes, over 85% of whom have type 2 diabetes.
Type 2 diabetes is often associated with obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia, which are all powerful predictors of cardiovascular disease. For that reason, the treatment of type 2 diabetes requires a multifactorial approach, including lifestyle advice, treatment of hypertension, and lowering of lipid levels.
Without adequate blood-glucose-lowering treatment, blood glucose levels may rise progressively over time in people with type 2 diabetes. Microvascular and macrovascular complications may develop.
Metformin reduces HbA1c effectively compared with placebo. The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) RCT found that metformin may be moderately protective against mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, but further high-quality studies are needed.We found no evidence to suggest that metformin increases the risk of lactic acidosis.
Sulphonylureas reduce HbA1c by 1% compared with placebo, and they may reduce microvascular complications compared with diet alone. They can cause weight gain and hypoglycaemia. One review found that the risk of hypoglycaemia was highest with glibenclamide compared with other second-generation sulphonylureas.
The effectiveness of the combination of metformin and sulphonylurea on mortality and morbidity is unknown.
Meglitinides reduce HbA1c by about 0.4–0.9% compared with placebo, but robust data are sparse.
Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors reduce HbA1c by about 0.8% compared with placebo. We found no reports of dangerous adverse effects.
Thiazolidinediones reduce HbA1c by 1.0% compared with placebo but may increase the risk of congestive heart failure and bone fractures. Rosiglitazone increases the risk of MI. DRUG ALERT: Rosiglitazone has been withdrawn from the market in many countries because the benefits of treatment are no longer thought to outweigh the risks.
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors reduce HbA1c by about 0.6–0.7% compared with placebo. We found no long-term data on effectiveness and safety.
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues reduce HbA1c compared with placebo and result in weight loss. We found no long-term data on effectiveness and safety.
Combined oral drug treatment may reduce HbA1c levels more than monotherapy, but increases the risk of hypoglycaemia.
Insulin improves glycaemic control in people with inadequate control of HbA1c on oral drug treatment, but is associated with weight gain, and an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.
Adding metformin to insulin may reduce HbA1c levels compared with insulin alone, with less weight gain.
Insulin analogues, short-acting, long-acting, and combined in various regimens, seem no more effective than conventional (human) insulin in reducing HbA1c levels. However, in people presenting with recurrent hypoglycaemic episodes, long-acting insulin analogues may be preferred above human insulin.
Long-acting insulin analogues seem equally effective at reducing HbA1c.
There is lack of evidence about the effectiveness of various insulin analogue regimens after once-daily long-acting insulin has failed.
The effectiveness of insulin basal bolus regimens is not well established.
PMCID: PMC3462437  PMID: 23862772
18.  Metformin vs Insulin in the Management of Gestational Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis 
PLoS ONE  2013;8(5):e64585.
Background
Nowadays, there have been increasing studies comparing metformin with insulin. But the use of metformin in pregnant women is still controversial, therefore, we aim to examine the efficiency and safety of metformin by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of metformin with insulin on glycemic control, maternal and neonatal outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).
Methods
We used the key words “gestational diabetes” in combination with “metformin” and searched the databases including Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, Web of knowledge, and Clinical Trial Registries. A random-effects model was used to compute the summary risk estimates.
Results
Meta-analysis of 5 RCTs involving 1270 participants detected that average weight gains after enrollment were much lower in the metformin group (n = 1006, P = 0.003, SMD = −0.47, 95%CI [−0.77 to −0.16]); average gestational ages at delivery were significantly lower in the metformin group (n = 1270, P = 0.02, SMD = −0.14, 95%CI [−0.25 to −0.03]); incidence of preterm birth was significantly more in metformin group (n = 1110, P = 0.01, OR = 1.74, 95%CI [1.13 to 2.68]); the incidence of pregnancy induced hypertension was significantly less in the metformin group (n = 1110, P = 0.02, OR = 0.52, 95%CI [0.30 to 0.90]). The fasting blood sugar levels of OGTT were significantly lower in the metformin only group than in the supplemental insulin group (n = 478, P = 0.0006, SMD = −0.83, 95%CI [−1.31 to −0.36]).
Conclusions
Metformin is comparable with insulin in glycemic control and neonatal outcomes. It might be more suitable for women with mild GDM. This meta-analysis also provides some significant benefits and risks of the use of metformin in GDM and help to inform further development of management guidelines.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064585
PMCID: PMC3664585  PMID: 23724063
19.  Efficacy and Safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine for Diabetes: A Double-Blind, Randomised, Controlled Trial 
PLoS ONE  2013;8(2):e56703.
Background
Treatment of diabetes mellitus with Traditional Chinese Medicine has a long history. The aim of this study is to establish the safety and efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine combined with glibenclamide to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Methods
In a controlled, double blind, multicentre non-inferiority trial, 800 patients with unsatisfactory glycemic control (fasting glucose 7–13 mmol/L and HbA1c 7–11%) were randomly assigned to receive Xiaoke Pill, a compound of Chinese herbs combined with glibenclamide, or Glibenclamide in two study groups – drug naive group, and patients previously treated with metformin monotherapy (metformin group). Outcome measures at 48 weeks were the incidence and rate of hypoglycemia, mean difference in HbA1c, and proportion of patients with HbA1c<6.5%.
Findings
In drug naïve group, the total hypoglycemia rate and the mild hypoglycemic episode in the Xiaoke Pill arm were 38% (p = 0.024) and 41% (p = 0.002) less compared to Glibenclamide arm; in Metformin group, the average annual rate of hypoglycemia was 62% lower in Xiaoke Pill arm (p = 0.003). Respective mean changes in HbA1c from baseline were −0.70% and −0.66% for Xiaoke Pill and Glibenclamide, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of −0.04% (−0.20, 0.12) in the drug naïve group, and those in metformin group were −0.45% and −0.59%, 0.14% (−0.12, 0.39) respectively. The respective proportions of patients with a HbA1c level <6.5% were 26.6% and 23.4% in the drug naïve group and 20.1% and 18.9% in the metformin group.
Interpretation
In patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control, treatment with Xiaoke Pill led to significant reduction in risk of hypoglycemia and similar improvements in glycemic control after 48 weeks compared to Glibenclamide.
Trial Registration
Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR-TRC-08000074
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056703
PMCID: PMC3584095  PMID: 23460810
20.  The Efficacy and Safety of Saxagliptin When Added to Metformin Therapy in Patients With Inadequately Controlled Type 2 Diabetes With Metformin Alone 
Diabetes Care  2009;32(9):1649-1655.
OBJECTIVE
This 24-week trial assessed the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control with metformin alone.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of saxagliptin (2.5, 5, or 10 mg once daily) or placebo plus a stable dose of metformin (1,500–2,500 mg) in 743 patients (A1C ≥7.0 and ≤10.0%). Efficacy analyses were performed using an ANCOVA model using last observation carried forward methodology on primary (A1C) and secondary (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] and postprandial glucose [PPG] area under the curve [AUC]) end points.
RESULTS
Saxagliptin (2.5, 5, and 10 mg) plus metformin demonstrated statistically significant adjusted mean decreases from baseline to week 24 versus placebo in A1C (−0.59, −0.69, and −0.58 vs. +0.13%; all P < 0.0001), FPG (−14.31, −22.03, and −20.50 vs. +1.24 mg/dl; all P < 0.0001), and PPG AUC (−8,891, −9,586, and −8,137 vs. −3,291 mg · min/dl; all P < 0.0001). More than twice as many patients achieved A1C <7.0% with 2.5, 5, and 10 mg saxagliptin versus placebo (37, 44, and 44 vs. 17%; all P < 0.0001). β-Cell function and postprandial C-peptide, insulin, and glucagon AUCs improved in all saxagliptin treatment groups at week 24. Incidence of hypoglycemic adverse events and weight reductions were similar to those with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Saxagliptin once daily added to metformin therapy was generally well tolerated and led to statistically significant improvements in glycemic indexes versus placebo added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin alone.
doi:10.2337/dc08-1984
PMCID: PMC2732156  PMID: 19478198
21.  Diabetes: glycaemic control in type 2 
Clinical Evidence  2008;2008:0609.
Introduction
Diabetes mellitus is now seen as a progressive disorder of glucose metabolism, affecting about 5% of the population worldwide, over 85% of whom have type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes may occur with obesity, hypertension and dyslipidaemia (the metabolic syndrome), which are powerful predictors of CVD. Blood glucose levels rise progressively over time in people with type 2 diabetes regardless of treatment, causing microvascular and macrovascular complications.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to October 2006 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 69 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: combined oral drug treatment, diet, education, insulin (continuous subcutaneous infusion), insulin, intensive treatment programmes, meglitinides (nateglinide, repaglinide), metformin, monotherapy, blood glucose self-monitoring (different frequencies), and sulphonylureas (newer or older).
Key Points
Diabetes mellitus is now seen as a progressive disorder of glucose metabolism; it affects about 5% of the population worldwide, over 85% of whom have type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is often associated with obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia (the metabolic syndrome), which are powerful predictors of CVD.Type 2 diabetes is a disease in which glucose levels rise over time, with or without treatment and irrespective of the type of treatment given. This rise may lead to microvascular and macrovascular complications.
Most people with type 2 diabetes will eventually need treatment with oral hypoglycaemic agents. Metformin reduces glycated haemoglobin by 1−2% and reduces mortality compared with diet alone, without increasing weight, but it can cause hypoglycaemia compared with placebo. Sulphonylureas reduce HbA1c by 1−2% compared with diet alone. Older sulphonylureas can cause weight gain and hypoglycaemia, but the risk of these adverse effects may be lower with newer-generation sulphonylureas. Meglitinides (nateglinide, repaglinide) may reduce HbA1c by 0.4-0.9% compared with placebo, but may cause hypoglycaemia. Combined oral drug treatment may reduce HbA1c levels more than monotherapy, but increases the risk of hypoglycaemia. Insulin is no more effective than sulphonylureas in improving glucose control in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, and is associated with a higher rate of major hypoglycaemic episodes, and with weight gain.
Individual or group intensive educational programmes may reduce HbA1c compared with usual care, although studies have been of poor quality.
Insulin improves glycaemic control in people with inadequate control of HbA1c from oral drug treatment, but is associated with weight gain, and an increased risk of hypoglycaemia. Adding metformin to insulin improves glucose control compared with insulin alone, but increases gastrointestinal adverse effects. However, the combination may cause less weight gain than insulin alone.
Monitoring of blood glucose levels has not been shown to improve glycaemic control in people not being treated with insulin.
Diet may be less effective than metformin or sulphonylureas in improving glucose control, although sulphonylureas were associated with higher rates of hypoglycaemia. However, there is consensus that weight reduction in people with type 2 diabetes can improve glycaemic control, as well as conferring other health benefits.
PMCID: PMC2907982  PMID: 19450326
22.  Metformin for Weight Loss and Metabolic Control in Overweight Outpatients With Schizophrenia and Schizoaffective Disorder 
The American journal of psychiatry  2013;170(9):10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12010127.
Objective
The purpose of this study was to determine whether metformin promotes weight loss in overweight out-patients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
Method
In a double-blind study, 148 clinically stable, overweight (body mass index [BMI] ≥27) outpatients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were randomly assigned to receive 16 weeks of metformin or placebo. Metformin was titrated up to 1,000 mg twice daily, as tolerated. All patients continued to receive their prestudy medications, and all received weekly diet and exercise counseling. The primary outcome measure was change in body weight from baseline to week 16.
Results
Fifty-eight (77.3%) patients who received metformin and 58 (81.7%) who received placebo completed 16 weeks of treatment. Mean change in body weight was −3.0 kg (95% CI=−4.0 to −2.0) for the metformin group and −1.0 kg (95% CI= −2.0 to 0.0) for the placebo group, with a between-group difference of −2.0 kg (95% CI=−3.4 to −0.6). Metformin also demonstrated a significant between-group advantage for BMI (−0.7; 95% CI=−1.1 to −0.2), triglyceride level (−20.2 mg/dL; 95% CI=−39.2 to −1.3), and hemoglobin A1c level (−0.07%; 95% CI=−0.14 to −0.004). Metformin-associated side effects were mostly gastrointestinal and generally transient, and they rarely led to treatment discontinuation.
Conclusions
Metformin was modestly effective in reducing weight and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease in clinically stable, overweight outpatients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder over 16 weeks. A significant time-by-treatment interaction suggests that benefits of metformin may continue to accrue with longer treatment. Metformin may have an important role in diminishing the adverse consequences of obesity and metabolic impairments in patients with schizophrenia.
doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12010127
PMCID: PMC3874085  PMID: 23846733
23.  ADDITION OF METFORMIN TO A LIFESTYLE MODIFICATION PROGRAM IN ADOLESCENT WITH INSULIN RESISTANCE 
The Journal of pediatrics  2008;152(6):817-822.
Objective
To evaluate whether metformin, when added to a program of personal goal setting, improves weight loss and clinical status in obese adolescents.
Study design
In a randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial, 85 adolescents with insulin-resistance were randomized to receive metformin (70%) or placebo (30%), along with monthly goal setting for diet and exercise modification. Anthropometric measures, fasting blood analysis, and glucose tolerance tests were performed at baseline and 6 months.
Results
Mean age was 15.7 years. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 39.7 kg/m2. 71% were female, 58% Hispanic, and 34% African-American (AA). 76% of participants completed the study. Goal setting alone did not result in significant weight loss. In addition, there were no group differences between metformin and placebo in weight loss or measures of glucose metabolism. However, among females taking metformin, there was a significant decrease in BMI not seen in the placebo group. Furthermore, metformin adherence, when accompanied by lifestyle change, was a predictor of BMI decrease of 5% or more. 60% of 10 subjects who adhered to metformin and decreased portion size decreased BMI by > 5%.
Conclusions
In this group of predominately minority adolescents, monthly goal setting alone did not lead to weight loss. Although the addition of metformin had no effect on weight loss overall, the agent did significantly increase weight loss among females and weight loss was predicted by degree of metformin adherence. However, weight loss was only found in those participants also reporting lifestyle change, particularly a decrease in portion sizes. These results suggest that metformin may be a useful agent to promote short-term weight loss among girls making modest lifestyle changes.
doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.01.018
PMCID: PMC2585976  PMID: 18492523
24.  Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin compared with placebo and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes on background metformin monotherapy: a randomised trial 
Diabetologia  2013;56(12):2582-2592.
Aims/hypothesis
The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin vs placebo and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes who were being treated with background metformin.
Methods
This randomised, double-blind, four-arm, parallel-group, Phase 3 study was conducted at 169 centres in 22 countries between April 2010 and August 2012. Participants (N = 1,284) with type 2 diabetes aged ≥18 and ≤80 years who had inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥7.0% [53 mmol/mol] and ≤10.5% [91 mmol/mol]) on metformin therapy received canagliflozin 100 mg or 300 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo (n = 368, 367, 366, 183, respectively) for a 26 week, placebo- and active-controlled period followed by a 26 week, active-controlled period (placebo group switched to sitagliptin [placebo/sitagliptin]) and were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis set. Randomisation was performed using a computer-generated schedule; participants, study centres and the sponsor were blinded to group assignment. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 26; secondary endpoints included changes in HbA1c (week 52) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, and systolic blood pressure (BP; weeks 26 and 52). Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study.
Results
At week 26, canagliflozin 100 mg and 300 mg reduced HbA1c vs placebo (−0.79%, –0.94%, –0.17%, respectively; p < 0.001). At week 52, canagliflozin 100 mg and 300 mg demonstrated non-inferiority, and canagliflozin 300 mg demonstrated statistical superiority, to sitagliptin in lowering HbA1c (−0.73%, –0.88%,–0.73%, respectively); differences (95% CI) vs sitagliptin were 0% (−0.12, 0.12) and −0.15% (−0.27, –0.03), respectively. Canagliflozin 100 mg and 300 mg reduced body weight vs placebo (week 26: –3.7%, –4.2%, –1.2%, respectively; p < 0.001) and sitagliptin (week 52: –3.8%, –4.2%, –1.3%, respectively; p < 0.001). Both canagliflozin doses reduced FPG and systolic BP vs placebo (week 26) and sitagliptin (week 52) (p < 0.001). Overall AE and AE-related discontinuation rates were generally similar across groups, but higher with canagliflozin 100 mg. Genital mycotic infection and osmotic diuresis-related AE rates were higher with canagliflozin; few led to discontinuations. Hypoglycaemia incidence was higher with canagliflozin.
Conclusions/interpretation
Canagliflozin improved glycaemia and reduced body weight vs placebo (week 26) and sitagliptin (week 52) and was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin.
Clinical trial registry
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01106677
Funding
This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00125-013-3039-1) contains peer-reviewed but unedited supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.
doi:10.1007/s00125-013-3039-1
PMCID: PMC3825495  PMID: 24026211
Canagliflozin; Metformin; Sitagliptin; Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
25.  Metformin in Gestational Diabetes: The Offspring Follow-Up (MiG TOFU) 
Diabetes Care  2011;34(10):2279-2284.
OBJECTIVE
In women with gestational diabetes mellitus, who were randomized to metformin or insulin treatment, pregnancy outcomes were similar (Metformin in Gestational diabetes [MiG] trial). Metformin crosses the placenta, so it is important to assess potential effects on growth of the children.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
In Auckland, New Zealand, and Adelaide, Australia, women who had participated in the MiG trial were reviewed when their children were 2 years old. Body composition was measured in 154 and 164 children whose mothers had been randomized to metformin and insulin, respectively. Children were assessed with anthropometry, bioimpedance, and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), using standard methods.
RESULTS
The children were similar for baseline maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes. In the metformin group, compared with the insulin group, children had larger mid-upper arm circumferences (17.2 ± 1.5 vs. 16.7 ± 1.5 cm; P = 0.002) and subscapular (6.3 ± 1.9 vs. 6.0 ± 1.7 mm; P = 0.02) and biceps skinfolds (6.03 ± 1.9 vs. 5.6 ± 1.7 mm; P = 0.04). Total fat mass and percentage body fat assessed by bioimpedance (n = 221) and DEXA (n = 114) were not different.
CONCLUSIONS
Children exposed to metformin had larger measures of subcutaneous fat, but overall body fat was the same as in children whose mothers were treated with insulin alone. Further follow-up is required to examine whether these findings persist into later life and whether children exposed to metformin will develop less visceral fat and be more insulin sensitive. If so, this would have significant implications for the current pandemic of diabetes.
doi:10.2337/dc11-0660
PMCID: PMC3177748  PMID: 21949222

Results 1-25 (1498242)