GLUcose COntrol Safety & Efficacy in type 2 DIabetes, a systematic review and NETwork meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The last international consensus on the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) recommends SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists for patients with clinical cardiovascular (CV) disease; metformin remains the first-line glucose lowering medication. Last studies suggested beneficial effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, in secondary CV prevention. Recently, a potential benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in primary CV prevention also has been suggested. However, no comparison of all the new and the old hypoglycemic drugs is available on CV outcomes. We aimed to compare the effects of old and new hypoglycemic drugs in T2D, on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical trials. Randomized trials, blinded or not, assessing contemporary hypoglycemic drugs on mortality or MACE in patients with T2D, were searched for in Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov. References screening and data extraction were done by multiple observers. Each drug was analyzed according to its therapeutic class. A random Bayesian network meta-analysis model was used. The primary outcomes were overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and MACE. Severe adverse events and severe hypoglycemia were also recorded. 175,966 patients in 34 trials from 1970 to 2018 were included. No trials evaluating glinides or alpha glucosidase inhibitors were found. 17 trials included a majority of patients with previous cardiovascular history, 16 trials a majority of patients without. Compared to control, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.84 [95% CrI: 0.74; 0.95]), SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.89 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.98] and OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.95], respectively). Compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.82 [95% CrI: 0.69; 0.98]), GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.79; 0.99]). Insulin was also associated with an increased risk of MACE compared to GLP-1 agonists (OR = 1.19 [95% CrI: 1.01; 1.42]). Insulin and sulfonylureas were associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. In the trials including a majority of patients without previous CV history, the comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, metformin and control did not showed significant differences on primary outcomes. We limited our analysis at the therapeutic class level. CONCLUSIONS: SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists have the most beneficial effects, especially in T2D patients with previous CV diseases. Direct comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists and metformin are needed, notably in primary CV prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016043823.

Protocol of GLUcose COntrol Safety and Efficacy in type 2 DIabetes, a NETwork meta-analysis: GLUCOSE DINET protocol-Rational and design.

The aim of this study was to propose a ranking of the currently available antidiabetic drugs, regarding vascular clinical outcomes, in patients with type 2 diabetes, through a network meta-analysis approach. Randomized clinical trials, regardless of the blinding design, testing contemporary antidiabetic drugs, and considering clinically relevant outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus will be included. The primary outcomes of this analysis will be overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and major cardiovascular events. Diabetic microangiopathy will be a secondary outcome. Adverse events, hypoglycemia, weight evolution, bariatric surgery, and discontinuation of the treatment will also be recorded. Each drug will be analyzed according to its therapeutic class: biguanide, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, sulfonylureas, glitazones, glinides, insulin, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 analogs, and gliflozins. The treatment effect of each drug class will be compared using pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian random model network meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted according to the quality of the studies and the glycemic control. The report will follow the PRISMA checklist for network meta-analysis. Results of the search strategy and of the study selection will be presented in a PRISMA compliant flowchart. The treatment effects will be summarized with odds ratio (OR) estimates and their 95% credible intervals. A ranking of the drugs will be proposed. Our network meta-analysis should allow a clinically relevant ranking of the contemporary antidiabetic drugs.