Search

With the global epidemics of obesity and associated conditions, including type 2 diabetes, metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, stroke, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cancer, and cognitive changes, the prevalence of multimorbidity is rapidly increasing worldwide. In this Review, a panel of international experts from across the spectrum of metabolic diseases come together to identify the challenges and provide perspectives on building a framework for a virtual primary care-driven, patient-centred, multidisciplinary model to deliver holistic care for patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and associated metabolic diseases. We focus on clinical care and innovative trial design for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and associated metabolic diseases. This work represents a call to action to promote collaboration and partnerships between stakeholders for improving the lives of people with, or at risk of, metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and associated metabolic diseases.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common and emerging liver disease in adults, paralleling the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and leading to worrisome events (hepatocellular carcinoma and end-stage liver disease). In the past years, mounting evidence added insights about epidemiology, natural history, diagnosis and lifestyle-based or drug treatment of NAFLD. In this rapidly evolving scenario, members of the Associazione Italiana per lo Studio del Fegato, the Società Italiana di Diabetologia and the Società Italiana dell’Obesità reviewed current knowledge on NAFLD. The quality of the published evidence is graded, and practical recommendations are made following the rules and the methodology suggested in Italy by the Centro Nazionale per l’Eccellenza delle cure and Istituto Superiore di Sanità. Whenever possible, recommendations are placed within the context the Italian Healthcare system, with reference to specific experience and local diagnostic and management resources. Level of evidence Level of evidence of recommendations for each PICO question were reported according to available evidence.

Aim: Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors are approved drugs for treating type 2 diabetes (T2DM); however, their effects on mortality and cardiovascular safety are unclear. This meta-analysis was aimed at evaluating the effects of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors on all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events (MACE). Data synthesis: A Medline, Embase, Cochrane database searching for alpha-glucosidase inhibitors was performed up to July 1st, 2021. All randomized controlled trials (RCT) with a duration ≥52 weeks and comparing the effects of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors with placebo or active drugs were collected. Further inclusion criteria were: RCT reporting MACE within their primary outcome, or as pre-defined secondary outcome; and RCT enrolling at least 100 patients with T2DM. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH–OR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the aforementioned outcomes. A total of eight RCTs, enrolling 1124 and 908 patients on alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and comparators, respectively, were identified. No trials reported information on MACE. Treatment with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors was not associated with a significant increase of all-cause mortality compared with other therapies or no therapy/placebo (MH–OR 0.58 [0.23, 1.45]). Conclusions: The evidence of beneficial or detrimental effects of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events is not sufficient to draw any conclusions.

Aims: Meta-analyses of randomized trials on Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) reported discordant results on major cardiovascular events (MACE), mortality, and heart failure. Aim of this meta-analysis of randomized trials is the assessment of the cardiovascular safety of DPP4i. Data synthesis: A Medline, Embase, Cochrane database search for sitagliptin, vildagliptin, omarigliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, trelagliptin, anagliptin, linagliptin, gemigliptin, evogliptin, and teneligliptin was performed up to up January 1st, 2020. All trials with a duration ≥24 weeks and comparing the effects of DPP4i with placebo or active drugs were collected. Mantel–Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all outcomes defined above. A total of 182 eligible trials were identified. DPP-4i were not associated with an increased risk of MACE (MH-OR 0.99 [0.93, 1.04]), all-cause mortality (MH-OR 0.99 [0.93, 1.06]), and heart failure (MH-OR 1.05 [0.96, 1.15]) with no significant differences across individual molecules, except for saxagliptin, which was associated with an increased risk of heart failure. Conclusions: As a class, DPP4i are not associated with any increase or reduction of MACE, all-cause mortality, and heart failure. Saxagliptin seems to be associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure.

Aims: The Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists are developing new guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. The effects of anti-hyperglycaemic drugs on all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were included among the critical clinical outcomes. We have therefore carried out an updated meta-analysis on the effects of metformin on these outcomes. Data synthesis: A MEDLINE and EMBASE search was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with duration ≥52 weeks (published up to August 2020), in which metformin was compared with either placebo/no therapy or active comparators. MACEs (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their study endpoints) and all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified endpoints) were considered as the primary endpoints. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH–OR) with 95% confidence interval was calculated for all endpoints considered. Metformin was associated with a nonsignificant reduction of all-cause mortality (n = 13 RCTs; MH–OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.60, 1.07]). However, this association became statistically significant after excluding RCTs comparing metformin with sulfonylureas, SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 analogues (MH–OR 0.71 [0.51, 0.99]). Metformin was associated with a lower risk of MACEs compared with comparator treatments (n = 2 RCTs; MH–OR 0.52 [0.37, 0.73]), p < 0.001. Similar results were obtained in a post-hoc analysis including all RCTs fulfilling criteria for inclusion in the analysis (MH–OR: 0.57 [0.42, 0.76]). Conclusions: This updated meta-analysis suggests that metfomin is significantly associated with lower risk of MACEs and tendentially lower all-cause mortality compared to placebo or other anti-hyperglycaemic drugs.