Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a new class of antidiabetic drugs. To assess the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in adults with type 2 diabetes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception through April 2013 without language restrictions; regulatory authorities' reports; and gray literature. Randomized trials comparing SGLT2 inhibitors with placebo or other medication for type 2 diabetes. Three reviewers extracted or checked data for study characteristics, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias, and 3 reviewers summarized strength of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors were compared with placebo in 45 studies (n = 11 232) and with active comparators in 13 studies (n = 5175). They had a favorable effect on hemoglobin A_1c level (mean difference vs. placebo, −0.66% [95% CI, −0.73% to −0.58%]; mean difference vs. active comparators, −0.06% [CI, −0.18% to 0.05%]). Sensitivity analyses incorporating unpublished data showed similar effect estimates. Compared with other agents, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced body weight (mean difference, −1.80 kg [CI, −3.50 to −0.11 kg]) and systolic blood pressure (mean difference, −4.45 mm Hg [CI, −5.73 to −3.18 mm Hg]). Urinary and genital tract infections were more common with SGLT2 inhibitors (odds ratios, 1.42 [CI, 1.06 to 1.90] and 5.06 [CI, 3.44 to 7.45], respectively). Hypoglycemic risk was similar to that of other agents. Results for cardiovascular outcomes and death were inconclusive. An imbalance in incidence of bladder and breast cancer was noted with dapagliflozin compared with control. Most trials were rated as high risk of bias because of missing data and last-observation-carried-forward methods. Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors may improve short-term outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes, but effects on long-term outcomes and safety are unclear. None.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of artificial pancreas treatment in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature up to 2 February 2018. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes that compared the use of any artificial pancreas system with any type of insulin based treatment. Primary outcome was proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was within the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes included proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was above 10 mmol/L or below 3.9 mmol/L, low blood glucose index overnight, mean sensor glucose level, total daily insulin needs, and glycated haemoglobin. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality. Results 40 studies (1027 participants with data for 44 comparisons) were included in the meta-analysis. 35 comparisons assessed a single hormone artificial pancreas system, whereas nine comparisons assessed a dual hormone system. Only nine studies were at low risk of bias. Proportion of time in the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was significantly higher with artificial pancreas use, both overnight (weighted mean difference 15.15%, 95% confidence interval 12.21% to 18.09%) and over a 24 hour period (9.62%, 7.54% to 11.7%). Artificial pancreas systems had a favourable effect on the proportion of time with sensor glucose level above 10 mmol/L (−8.52%, −11.14% to −5.9%) or below 3.9 mmol/L (−1.49%, −1.86% to −1.11%) over 24 hours, compared with control treatment. Robustness of findings for the primary outcome was verified in sensitivity analyses, by including only trials at low risk of bias (11.64%, 9.1% to 14.18%) or trials under unsupervised, normal living conditions (10.42%, 8.63% to 12.2%). Results were consistent in a subgroup analysis both for single hormone and dual hormone artificial pancreas systems. Conclusions Artificial pancreas systems are an efficacious and safe approach for treating outpatients with type 1 diabetes. The main limitations of current research evidence on artificial pancreas systems are related to inconsistency in outcome reporting, small sample size, and short follow-up duration of individual trials.

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors compared with metformin as monotherapy, or with other commonly used hypoglycaemic drugs combined with metformin, in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, trial registers, and drug manufacturers’ websites. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus that compared a DPP-4 with metformin as monotherapy or with a sulfonylurea, pioglitazone, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, or basal insulin combined with metformin on the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c). Data extraction The primary outcome was the change in HbA_1c. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving the goal of HbA_1c <7%, the change in body weight, discontinuation rate because of any adverse event, occurrence of any serious adverse event, all cause mortality, and incidence of hypoglycaemia, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, upper respiratory infection, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea. Results 27 reports of 19 studies including 7136 patients randomised to a DPP-4 inhibitor and 6745 patients randomised to another hypoglycaemic drug were eligible for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Overall risk of bias for the primary outcome was low in three reports, unclear in nine, and high in 14. Compared with metformin as monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a smaller decline in HbA_1c (weighted mean difference 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.32) and in body weight (1.5, 0.9 to 2.11). As a second line treatment, DPP-4 inhibitors were inferior to GLP-1 agonists (0.49, 0.31 to 0.67) and similar to pioglitazone (0.09, −0.07 to 0.24) in reducing HbA_1c and had no advantage over sulfonylureas in the attainment of the HbA_1c goal (risk ratio in favour of sulfonylureas 1.06, 0.98 to 1.14). DPP-4 inhibitors had a favourable weight profile compared with sulfonylureas (weighted mean difference −1.92, −2.34 to −1.49) or pioglitazone (−2.96, −4.13 to −1.78), but not compared with GLP-1 agonists (1.56, 0.94 to 2.18). Only a minimal number of hypoglycaemias were observed in any treatment arm in trials comparing a DPP-4 inhibitor with metformin as monotherapy or with pioglitazone or a GLP-1 agonist as second line treatment. In most trials comparing a DPP-4 inhibitor with sulfonylureas combined with metformin, the risk for hypoglycaemia was higher in the group treated with a sulfonylurea. Incidence of any serious adverse event was lower with DPP-4 inhibitors than with pioglitazone. Incidence of nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting was higher in patients receiving metformin or a GLP-1 agonist than in those receiving a DPP-4 inhibitor. Risk for nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, or urinary tract infection did not differ between DPP-4 inhibitors and any of the active comparators. Conclusion In patients with type 2 diabetes who do not achieve the glycaemic targets with metformin alone, DPP-4 inhibitors can lower HbA_1c, in a similar way to sulfonylureas or pioglitazone, with neutral effects on body weight. Increased unit cost, which largely exceeds that of the older drugs, and uncertainty about their long term safety, however, should also be considered.

This network meta-analysis involving 453 trials compares the benefits and harms of 21 antidiabetic interventions from 9 drug classes for adults with type 2 diabetes. Efficacy of the regimens appear... Background: Several pharmacologic options for type 2 diabetes are available. Purpose: To compare benefits and harms of glucose-lowering drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes. Data Sources: Several d...

Aims/hypothesis: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) currently under review for marketing approval. Individual trials have assessed the clinical profile of tirzepatide vs different comparators. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov up until 27 October 2021 for randomised controlled trials with a duration of at least 12 weeks that compared once-weekly tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg with placebo or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes irrespective of their background glucose-lowering treatment. The primary outcome was change in HbA_1c from baseline. Secondary efficacy outcomes included change in body weight, proportion of individuals reaching the HbA_1c target of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%), ≤48 mmol/mol (≤6.5%) or <39 mmol/mol (<5.7%), and proportion of individuals with body weight loss of at least 5%, 10% or 15%. Safety outcomes included hypoglycaemia, gastrointestinal adverse events, treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and mortality. We used version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials to assess risk of bias for the primary outcome. Results: Seven trials (6609 participants) were included. A dose-dependent superiority in lowering HbA_1c was evident with all three tirzepatide doses vs all comparators, with mean differences ranging from −17.71 mmol/mol (−1.62%) to −22.35 mmol/mol (−2.06%) vs placebo, −3.22 mmol/mol (−0.29%) to −10.06 mmol/mol (−0.92%) vs GLP-1 RAs, and −7.66 mmol/mol (−0.70%) to −12.02 mmol/mol (−1.09%) vs basal insulin regimens. Tirzepatide was more efficacious in reducing body weight; reductions vs GLP-1 RAs ranged from 1.68 kg with tirzepatide 5 mg to 7.16 kg with tirzepatide 15 mg. Incidence of hypoglycaemia with tirzepatide was similar vs placebo and lower vs basal insulin. Nausea was more frequent with tirzepatide vs placebo, especially with tirzepatide 15 mg (OR 5.60 [95% CI 3.12, 10.06]), associated with higher incidence of vomiting (OR 5.50 [95% CI 2.40, 12.59]) and diarrhoea (OR 3.31 [95% CI 1.40, 7.85]). Odds of gastrointestinal events were similar between tirzepatide and GLP-1 RAs, except for diarrhoea with tirzepatide 10 mg (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.07, 2.15]). Tirzepatide 15 mg led to higher discontinuation rate of study medication due to adverse events regardless of comparator, while all tirzepatide doses were safe in terms of serious adverse events and mortality. Conclusions/interpretation: A dose-dependent superiority on glycaemic efficacy and body weight reduction was evident with tirzepatide vs placebo, GLP-1 RAs and basal insulin. Tirzepatide did not increase the odds of hypoglycaemia but was associated with increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events. Study limitations include presence of statistical heterogeneity in the meta-analyses for change in HbA_1c and body weight, assessment of risk of bias solely for the primary outcome, and generalisation of findings mainly to individuals who are overweight or obese and already on metformin-based background therapy. PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021283449. Graphical