Metformin and second‐ or third‐generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Abstract

Background

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

Objectives

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second‐ or third‐generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Search methods

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose‐lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors read all abstracts and full‐text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random‐effects model to perform meta‐analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

Main results

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non‐fatal stroke (NFS), non‐fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:

Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon‐like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all‐cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low‐certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low‐certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; non‐fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low‐certainty evidence.

Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl‐peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all‐cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low‐certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low‐certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; non‐fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low‐certainty evidence).

Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all‐cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low‐certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low‐certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; non‐fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low‐certainty evidence).

Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low‐certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low‐certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low‐certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low‐certainty evidence); non‐fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low‐certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low‐certainty evidence).

Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium‐glucose co‐transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all‐cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; non‐fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low‐certainty evidence.

Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin‐antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

Authors' conclusions

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose‐lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient‐important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health‐related quality of life.

Plain language summary

Metformin and sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Review question

We wanted to investigate the effects of the combination of the antidiabetic medications metformin plus sulphonylurea compared with other antidiabetic interventions in people with type 2 diabetes.

Background

Many people with type 2 diabetes are treated with several types of glucose‐lowering drugs such as 'sulphonylureas' (for example glibenclamide or glyburide, glipizide and gliclazide). These medications lower blood glucose by stimulating the secretion of insulin in the body, thereby increasing insulin levels in the blood. Another antidiabetic agent, metformin lowers blood glucose by improving the body's ability to make insulin work better (insulin sensitivity). The combination of metformin plus sulphonylurea is widely used. We wanted to investigate the effects of metformin plus sulphonylurea on patient‐important outcomes such as complications of diabetes (for example kidney and eye disease, heart attacks, strokes), death from any cause, health‐related quality of life and side effects of the medications.

Study characteristics

We found 32 randomised controlled studies (clinical trials where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups), which allocated 28,746 people with type 2 diabetes to either metformin plus sulphonylurea or a comparator group. The comparator groups consisted of the following types of antidiabetic medications in addition to metformin: five studies with glucagon‐like peptide 1 analogues, nine studies with dipeptidyl‐peptidase 4 inhibitors, 11 studies with thiazolidinediones, three studies with glinides and four studies with sodium‐glucose co‐transporter 2 inhibitors.

Participants of the studies were treated for between one and four years. There were big differences between people taking part in the studies, especially with regard to age, how long people had diabetes and whether diabetes complications were present at the start of the study.

This evidence is up to date as of March 2018.

Key results

Data on patient‐important outcomes were few, and data were sparse for all comparisons of metformin plus sulphonylurea with other antidiabetic medications. The available data did not show firm differences between metformin plus sulphonylurea and other combinations of metformin with antidiabetic drugs or metformin only for most patient‐important outcomes. There were more events with low blood sugar (hypoglycaemic episodes) with metformin plus sulphonylurea combination treatment compared to all other combinations of metformin with another antidiabetic compound.

We did not identify studies reporting on health‐related quality of life. We identified nine ongoing studies and two yet unpublished studies are awaiting assessment. Together these studies will include around 16,631 participants. Once results are published these studies could significantly influence the findings of our review.

Certainty of the evidence

All included studies had deficiencies in the way they were conducted or how study authors reported the results. For individual comparisons of the antidiabetic medications the number of participants was often small, resulting in a high risk of random error (play of chance).