Publication:
Effectiveness and safety of glimepiride and iDPP4, associated with metformin in second line pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorAmate, Jose Maria
dc.contributor.authorLopez-Cuadrado, Teresa
dc.contributor.authorAlmendro, Nuria
dc.contributor.authorBouza, Carmen
dc.contributor.authorSaz-Parkinson, ZuleiKa
dc.contributor.authorRivas-Ruiz, R
dc.contributor.authorGonzalez-Canudas, J
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-29T10:45:10Z
dc.date.available2022-03-29T10:45:10Z
dc.date.issued2015-03
dc.description.abstractObjective: Our review analyses the studies that have specifically compared the association iDPP4/metformin with glimepiride/metformin, both in second line pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). Methods: Systematic literature review with a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing glimepiride with any iDPP4, both used together with metformin as a second line treatment of DM2. The effectiveness variables used were as follows: %HbA1c variation, fasting plasma glucose variation, patients achieving the therapeutic objective of HbA1c <7%, treatment dropouts due to lack of effectiveness and rescue treatments needed. The safety variables included were as follows: weight variation at the end of treatment; presentation of any type of adverse event; presentation of serious adverse events; patients who experienced any type of hypoglycaemia; patients who experienced severe hypoglycaemia; treatments suspended due to adverse effects; and deaths for any reason. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. The group treated with glimepiride showed better results in all effectiveness variables. Regarding safety variables, the main differences observed were in the greater number of cases with hypoglycaemia in the group treated with glimepiride, and the serious adverse events or treatment discontinuations due to these which occurred in slightly over 2% more cases in this group compared to the iDPP4 group. The remaining adverse events, including mortality, did not show any differences between both groups. The variation in the weight difference between groups (2.1 kg) is not considered clinically relevant. Conclusions: A greater effectiveness is seen in the glimepiride/metformin association, which should not be diminished by slight differences in adverse effects, with absence of severe hypoglycaemia in over 98% of patients under treatment. The association of glimepiride/metformin, both due to cost as well as effectiveness and safety, may be the preferential treatment for most DM2 patients, and it offers a potential advantage in refractory hyperglycemic populations, tolerant to treatment.es_ES
dc.description.peerreviewedes_ES
dc.format.number3es_ES
dc.format.page292-304es_ES
dc.format.volume69es_ES
dc.identifier.citationInt J Clin Pract. 2015 Mar;69(3):292-304.es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/ijcp.12605es_ES
dc.identifier.e-issn1742-1241es_ES
dc.identifier.journalInternational Journal of Clinical Practicees_ES
dc.identifier.pubmedID25683794es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/13881
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherWiley
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12605es_ES
dc.repisalud.centroISCIII::Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitariases_ES
dc.repisalud.centroISCIII::Centro Nacional de Epidemiologíaes_ES
dc.repisalud.institucionISCIIIes_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
dc.rights.licenseAtribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/*
dc.subject.meshBlood Glucosees_ES
dc.subject.meshDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2es_ES
dc.subject.meshDipeptidyl Peptidase 4es_ES
dc.subject.meshDrug Therapy, Combinationes_ES
dc.subject.meshHumanses_ES
dc.subject.meshHypoglycemic Agentses_ES
dc.subject.meshMetformines_ES
dc.subject.meshSulfonylurea Compoundses_ES
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcomees_ES
dc.titleEffectiveness and safety of glimepiride and iDPP4, associated with metformin in second line pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysises_ES
dc.typeresearch articlees_ES
dc.type.hasVersionVoRes_ES
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication1a315ede-476b-4df9-88b2-d2d54ed749d1
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationd026ae99-29dc-4341-aa3f-236cf54d8a67
relation.isAuthorOfPublication7c44cd60-cd91-42d7-a627-d2aa093ac1fe
relation.isAuthorOfPublication25d5e1f0-261d-4c71-b02d-f9a3b335d01c
relation.isAuthorOfPublication99dfe2a8-30ac-4e03-acf8-eb088ad2485f
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery1a315ede-476b-4df9-88b2-d2d54ed749d1
relation.isPublisherOfPublicationd81e762a-95f7-4917-88a1-8004b3b8caa7
relation.isPublisherOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryd81e762a-95f7-4917-88a1-8004b3b8caa7

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
EffectivenessAndSafetyOf_2015.pdf
Size:
574.33 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: