Objective To determine all cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular events related to intensive glucose lowering treatment in people with type 2 diabetes.Design Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sources Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews.Study selection Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on cardiovascular events and microvascular complications in adults (≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes.Data extraction Primary end points were all cause mortality and death from cardiovascular causes. Secondary end points were severe hypoglycaemia and macrovascular and microvascular events.Synthesis of results Results are reported as risk ratios with 99% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity between trials was assessed with χ², τ², and I2 statistics. A fixed effect model was used to assess the effect on the outcomes of intensive glucose lowering versus standard treatment. The quality of clinical trials was assessed by the Jadad score.Results 13 studies were included. Of 34 533 patients, 18 315 received intensive glucose lowering treatment and 16 218 standard treatment. Intensive treatment did not significantly affect all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.04, 99% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.19) or cardiovascular death (1.11, 0.86 to 1.43). Intensive therapy was, however, associated with reductions in the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.85, 0.74 to 0.96, P<0.001), and microalbuminuria (0.90, 0.85 to 0.96, P<0.001) but a more than twofold increase in the risk of severe hypoglycaemia (2.33, 21.62 to 3.36, P3), intensive treatment was not associated with any significant risk of reductions but resulted in a 47% increase in risk of congestive heart failure (P<0.001).Conclusions The overall results of this meta-analysis show limited benefits of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular causes. We cannot exclude a 9% reduction or a 19% increase in all cause mortality and a 14% reduction or a 43% increase in cardiovascular death. The benefit:risk ratio of intensive glucose lowering treatment in the prevention of macrovascular and microvascular events remains uncertain. The harm associated with severe hypoglycaemia might counterbalance the potential benefit of intensive glucose lowering treatment. More double blind randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the best therapeutic approach in people with type 2 diabetes.

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. 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). 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

Summary: Evaluation of the accuracy of ultrasound has yielded heterogeneous results. Our objective was to summarize the evidence on the accuracy of ultrasound compared to venography in asymptomatic patients, taking into account the variation due to threshold differences. Searches of journal table of contents, computer databases (Medline, Embase, Biomed, Cochrane) and conference proceedings were performed. A study was eligible if it prospectively compared ultrasound to venography for the diagnosis of DVT in asymptomatic patients. Data of studies selected for inclusion were extracted independently by two authors. High quality studies with consecutive patient enrollment, blind evaluation of the two techniques, and absence of verification bias are summarized as Level 1, while those not fulfilling one or more of these criteria are considered Level 2. Original study authors were contacted to confirm accuracy and to provide missing data. A pooled estimate of the accuracy of ultrasound was obtained according to the method of Moses and coworkers. This method gives a summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The DOR is a single indicator of test performance. It varies between 0 and infinity and exceeds 1, only when ultrasound is more often positive in patients with DVT relative to those without DVT. Higher DOR indicates better discriminatory test performance. Thirty one studies were rated as potentially unbiased and graded as Level 1.The mean prevalence of DVT as determined by venography was 22%. In Level 1 studies, the odds of positive ultrasound in proximal veins was 379 times higher (95% confidence limits 65, 2,200) and in distal veins 32 times higher (7.5, 135) among patients with DVT than those without. Our results suggest that, particularly for proximal veins, ultrasound is accurate for the diagnosis of DVT in asymptomatic postoperative orthopedic patients. More research is needed in other clinical settings.

Plasma-creatinine-based equations to estimate the glomerular filtration rate are recommended by several clinical guidelines. In 2009, Schwartz et al. adapted the traditional Schwartz equation to children and adolescents but did not find different k-coefficients between children and adolescents (k = 36.5 for all patients). We reevaluated the coefficient of the 2009-Schwartz formula according to sex and age in a pediatric population. We used linear mixed-effects models to reestimate the 2009-Schwartz k-coefficient in 360 consecutive French subjects aged 1 to 18 years referred to a single centre between July 2003 and July 2010 (965 measurements). We assessed the agreement between the estimated glomerular filtration rate obtained with the new formula (called Schwartz-Lyon) and the rate measured by inulin clearance. We then compared this agreement to the one between the measured glomerular filtration rate and 2009-Schwartz formula, first in the French then in a Swedish cohort. In Schwartz-Lyon formula, k was estimated at 32.5 in boys <13 years and all girls and at 36.5 in boys aged ≥13 years. The performance of this formula was higher than that of 2009-Schwartz formula in children <13 years. This was first supported by a statistically significant reduction of the overestimation of the measured glomerular filtration rate in both cohorts, by better 10% and 30% accuracies, and by a better concordance correlation coefficient. The performance and simplicity of Schwartz formula are strong arguments for its routine use in children and adolescents. The specific coefficient for children aged <13 years further improves this performance.