Search

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the initial combination therapy versus a stepwise approach in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) by conducting a systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and through search of bibliographies to January 2022. Study‐specific risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: Eight articles including four unique RCTs (n = 5527 participants) and one observational cohort study (n = 200) that compared initial combination therapy versus stepwise therapy were included. The RR for myocardial infarction comparing initial combination therapy versus stepwise therapy was 1.21 (95% CI 0.74‐2.00). Initial combination therapy reduced levels of fasting plasma glucose and glycated haemoglobin: mean differences −0.97 mmol/L (95% CI −1.41, −0.53) and −24.92 mmol/mol (95% CI −25.67, −24.27), respectively. Initial combination therapy versus stepwise therapy reduced lipid levels, blood pressure and intima media thickness, with no differences in body composition variables, neuropathy, retinopathy or adverse events. Single‐study results showed that initial combination therapy reduced creatinine levels and urine albumin excretion rate. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Conclusions: Except for improving cardiometabolic and glycaemic variables, a limited number of studies characterized by small sample sizes show that initial combination therapy for newly diagnosed T2D may be similar in efficacy and safety to stepwise therapy with respect to cardio‐renal outcomes. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to recommend initial combination therapy with glucose‐lowering agents in newly diagnosed T2D with the aim of preventing cardio‐renal outcomes. Definitive RCTs are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To assess deintensification approaches and rates and evaluate the harm and benefits of deintensification with antidiabetic medication and other therapies among older people (≥ 65 years) with type 2 diabetes with or without cardiometabolic conditions. Methods: We identified relevant studies in a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases to 30 October 2018. Data were extracted on baseline characteristics, details on deintensification and outcomes, and was synthesized using a narrative approach. Results: Ten studies (observational cohorts and interventional studies) with data on 26 558 patients with comorbidities were eligible. Deintensification approaches included complete withdrawal, discontinuation, reducing dosage, conversion, or substitution of at least one medication, but the majority of studies were based on complete withdrawal or discontinuation of antihyperglycaemic medication. Rates of deintensification approaches ranged from 13.4%–75%. The majority of studies reported no deterioration in HbA1c levels, hypoglycaemic episodes, falls or hospitalizations on deintensification. On adverse events and mortality, no significant differences were observed among the comparison groups in the majority of studies. Conclusion: Available but limited evidence suggests that the benefits of deintensification outweigh the harm in older people with type 2 diabetes with or without comorbidities. Given the heterogeneity of patients with diabetes, further research is warranted on which deintensification approaches are appropriate and beneficial for each specific patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: We aimed to determine the macrovascular and microvascular outcomes of intensive versus standard glucose‐lowering strategies in type 2 diabetes (T2D) and investigate the relationships between these outcomes and trial arm glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction. Materials and Methods: In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, we identified relevant trials from MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and bibliographies up to August 2023. Macrovascular and microvascular outcomes, along with safety outcomes, were evaluated. Pooled study‐specific hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and meta‐regression was employed to analyse the relationships between outcomes and HbA1c reduction. Results: We included 11 unique RCTs involving 51 469 patients with T2D (intensive therapy, N = 26 691; standard therapy, N = 24 778). Intensive versus standard therapy reduced the risk of non‐fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.75‐0.94) with no difference in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.92‐1.03) and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Intensive versus standard therapy reduced the risk of retinopathy (HR 0.85; 0.78‐0.93), nephropathy (HR 0.71; 0.58‐0.87) and composite microvascular outcomes (HR 0.88; 0.77‐1.00). Meta‐regression analyses showed modest evidence of inverse linear relationships between HbA1c reduction and the outcomes of major adverse cardiovascular events, non‐fatal MI, stroke and retinopathy, but these were not statistically significant. Conclusions: In people with T2D, intensive glucose control was associated with a reduced risk of non‐fatal MI and several microvascular outcomes, particularly retinopathy and nephropathy. The lack of an effect of intensive glucose‐lowering on most macrovascular outcomes calls for a more comprehensive approach to managing cardiovascular risk factors alongside glycaemic control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Using a systematic review and meta‐analysis of placebo‐controlled cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) of newer glucose‐lowering agents [sodium‐glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitors (SGLT‐2is), glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1RAs), and dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitors (DPP‐4is)] in type 2 diabetes (T2D), we aimed to determine the macrovascular and microvascular outcomes of these agents and clarify the relationships between glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction and risk of these outcomes. Materials and Methods: Randomized controlled trials were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library until September 2023. Study‐specific hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled, and meta‐regression was used to assess the relationships between outcomes and between trial arm HbA1c reductions. Results: Twenty unique CVOTs (six SGLT‐2is, nine GLP‐1RAs, five DPP‐4is), based on 169 513 participants with T2D, were eligible. Comparing SGLT‐2is, GLP‐1RAs and DPP‐4is with placebo, the hazard ratios (95% CIs) for 3‐point major adverse cardiovascular events were 0.88 (0.82‐0.94), 0.85 (0.79‐0.92) and 1.00 (0.94‐1.06), respectively. SGLT‐2is and GLP‐1RAs consistently reduced the risk of several macrovascular and microvascular complications, particularly kidney events. DPP‐4is showed no macrovascular benefits. There was potential evidence of an inverse linear relationship between HbA1c reduction and 3‐point major adverse cardiovascular event risk (estimated risk per 1% reduction in HbA1c: 0.84, 95% CI 0.67‐1.06; p =.14; R2 = 14.2%), which was driven by the component of non‐fatal stroke (R2 = 100.0%; p =.094). There were non‐significant inverse linear relationships between HbA1c reduction and the risk of several vascular outcomes. Conclusions: SGLT‐2is and GLP‐1RAs showed consistent risk reductions in macrovascular and microvascular outcomes. The vascular benefits of SGLT‐2is and GLP‐1RAs in patients with T2D extend beyond mere glycaemic control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]