Long-term efficacy of gliflozins versus gliptins for Type 2 Diabetes after metformin failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Zilli,Renato Wilberto
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Rached,Chennyfer Dobbins Abi, Silva,Fabiano Pinheiro da, Baena,Renato Corrêa
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302020000400458
Resumo: SUMMARY After metformin failure in treatment for diabetes type 2, there is no trivial option for adjuvant medication. The last two oral class medications, gliflozins and gliptins, have different mechanisms of action but have never been compared in long run studies. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to assess the overall long-term efficacy of these drugs after metformin failure. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed, including all trials with a duration of over 2 years, comparing gliflozins or gliptins after metformin failure in type 2 diabetes. Data Sources: Pubmed (Medline), Embase, Lilacs, and the Cochrane Library from inception through July 2016 without language restrictions. The longest study period found in the literature was 4 years. We selected 1 article on empagliflozin, 1 on dapagliflozin, and 1 on saxagliptin with missing data. After one year of treatment, over 50% of the patients presented HbA1c > 7%. Efficacy rate after 4 years of empagliflozin (23%) was better than dapagliflozin (5%) and saxagliptin (7%); however, it presented statistically non-significant values for HbA1c (7.4 and 7.3% between gliflozins), and missing data for saxaglifozin. Nonetheless, empagliflozin performed better than glimepiride in the 4-year period (standardized mean difference SMD 0.4, confidence interval CI 95% 0.23 to 0.56). The failure of the secondary treatment using gliflozins occurs in less than one year of treatment (less than 50% of the patients presenting HbA1c > 7 %). Empagliflozin offered better glycemic control compared to sulfonylureas but was similar to dapagliflozin.
id AMB-1_d3b4ca14aaa5b9dfe9a6ebdd75193163
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0104-42302020000400458
network_acronym_str AMB-1
network_name_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Long-term efficacy of gliflozins versus gliptins for Type 2 Diabetes after metformin failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysisDiabetes mellitus, type 2MetforminDipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitorsSUMMARY After metformin failure in treatment for diabetes type 2, there is no trivial option for adjuvant medication. The last two oral class medications, gliflozins and gliptins, have different mechanisms of action but have never been compared in long run studies. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to assess the overall long-term efficacy of these drugs after metformin failure. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed, including all trials with a duration of over 2 years, comparing gliflozins or gliptins after metformin failure in type 2 diabetes. Data Sources: Pubmed (Medline), Embase, Lilacs, and the Cochrane Library from inception through July 2016 without language restrictions. The longest study period found in the literature was 4 years. We selected 1 article on empagliflozin, 1 on dapagliflozin, and 1 on saxagliptin with missing data. After one year of treatment, over 50% of the patients presented HbA1c > 7%. Efficacy rate after 4 years of empagliflozin (23%) was better than dapagliflozin (5%) and saxagliptin (7%); however, it presented statistically non-significant values for HbA1c (7.4 and 7.3% between gliflozins), and missing data for saxaglifozin. Nonetheless, empagliflozin performed better than glimepiride in the 4-year period (standardized mean difference SMD 0.4, confidence interval CI 95% 0.23 to 0.56). The failure of the secondary treatment using gliflozins occurs in less than one year of treatment (less than 50% of the patients presenting HbA1c > 7 %). Empagliflozin offered better glycemic control compared to sulfonylureas but was similar to dapagliflozin.Associação Médica Brasileira2020-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302020000400458Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.66 n.4 2020reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)instacron:AMB10.1590/1806-9282.66.4.458info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessZilli,Renato WilbertoRached,Chennyfer Dobbins AbiSilva,Fabiano Pinheiro daBaena,Renato Corrêaeng2020-06-10T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0104-42302020000400458Revistahttps://ramb.amb.org.br/ultimas-edicoes/#https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||ramb@amb.org.br1806-92820104-4230opendoar:2020-06-10T00:00Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Long-term efficacy of gliflozins versus gliptins for Type 2 Diabetes after metformin failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title Long-term efficacy of gliflozins versus gliptins for Type 2 Diabetes after metformin failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
spellingShingle Long-term efficacy of gliflozins versus gliptins for Type 2 Diabetes after metformin failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Zilli,Renato Wilberto
Diabetes mellitus, type 2
Metformin
Dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors
title_short Long-term efficacy of gliflozins versus gliptins for Type 2 Diabetes after metformin failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full Long-term efficacy of gliflozins versus gliptins for Type 2 Diabetes after metformin failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Long-term efficacy of gliflozins versus gliptins for Type 2 Diabetes after metformin failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Long-term efficacy of gliflozins versus gliptins for Type 2 Diabetes after metformin failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_sort Long-term efficacy of gliflozins versus gliptins for Type 2 Diabetes after metformin failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
author Zilli,Renato Wilberto
author_facet Zilli,Renato Wilberto
Rached,Chennyfer Dobbins Abi
Silva,Fabiano Pinheiro da
Baena,Renato Corrêa
author_role author
author2 Rached,Chennyfer Dobbins Abi
Silva,Fabiano Pinheiro da
Baena,Renato Corrêa
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Zilli,Renato Wilberto
Rached,Chennyfer Dobbins Abi
Silva,Fabiano Pinheiro da
Baena,Renato Corrêa
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Diabetes mellitus, type 2
Metformin
Dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors
topic Diabetes mellitus, type 2
Metformin
Dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors
description SUMMARY After metformin failure in treatment for diabetes type 2, there is no trivial option for adjuvant medication. The last two oral class medications, gliflozins and gliptins, have different mechanisms of action but have never been compared in long run studies. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to assess the overall long-term efficacy of these drugs after metformin failure. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed, including all trials with a duration of over 2 years, comparing gliflozins or gliptins after metformin failure in type 2 diabetes. Data Sources: Pubmed (Medline), Embase, Lilacs, and the Cochrane Library from inception through July 2016 without language restrictions. The longest study period found in the literature was 4 years. We selected 1 article on empagliflozin, 1 on dapagliflozin, and 1 on saxagliptin with missing data. After one year of treatment, over 50% of the patients presented HbA1c > 7%. Efficacy rate after 4 years of empagliflozin (23%) was better than dapagliflozin (5%) and saxagliptin (7%); however, it presented statistically non-significant values for HbA1c (7.4 and 7.3% between gliflozins), and missing data for saxaglifozin. Nonetheless, empagliflozin performed better than glimepiride in the 4-year period (standardized mean difference SMD 0.4, confidence interval CI 95% 0.23 to 0.56). The failure of the secondary treatment using gliflozins occurs in less than one year of treatment (less than 50% of the patients presenting HbA1c > 7 %). Empagliflozin offered better glycemic control compared to sulfonylureas but was similar to dapagliflozin.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-04-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302020000400458
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302020000400458
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1806-9282.66.4.458
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.66 n.4 2020
reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron:AMB
instname_str Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron_str AMB
institution AMB
reponame_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
collection Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||ramb@amb.org.br
_version_ 1754212834807382016