scholarly journals Meta-analysis and critical review on the efficacy and safety of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors in Asian and non-Asian populations

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueying Gao ◽  
Xiaoling Cai ◽  
Wenjia Yang ◽  
Yifei Chen ◽  
Xueyao Han ◽  
...  
2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 246
Author(s):  
H. Chen ◽  
V. Saundankar ◽  
D. Bhowmik ◽  
K. Birtcher ◽  
L. Radican ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth L. Coleman ◽  
Charles A. B. Scott ◽  
Zhihui Lang ◽  
M. Angelyn Bethel ◽  
Jaakko Tuomilehto ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs) have been shown to reduce incident type 2 diabetes but their impact on cardiovascular (CV) disease remains controversial. We sought to identify the overall impact of AGIs with respect to incident type 2 diabetes in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and CV outcomes in those with IGT or type 2 diabetes. Methods We used PubMed and SCOPUS to identify randomized controlled trials reporting the incidence of type 2 diabetes and/or CV outcomes that had compared AGIs with placebo in populations with IGT or type 2 diabetes, with or without established CV disease. Eligible studies were required to have ≥ 500 participants and/or ≥ 100 endpoints of interest. Meta-analyses of available trial data were performed using random effects models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident type 2 diabetes and CV outcomes. Results Of ten trials identified, three met our inclusion criteria for incident type 2 diabetes and four were eligible for CV outcomes. The overall HR (95% CI) comparing AGI with placebo for incident type 2 diabetes was 0.77 (0.67–0.88), p < 0.0001, and for CV outcomes was 0.98 (0.89–1.10), p = 0.85. There was little to no heterogeneity between studies, with I2 values of 0.03% (p = 0.43) and 0% (p = 0.79) for the two outcomes respectively. Conclusions Allocation of people with IGT to an AGI significantly reduced their risk of incident type 2 diabetes by 23%, whereas in those with IGT or type 2 diabetes the impact on CV outcomes was neutral.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Longhao Zhang ◽  
Qiyan Chen ◽  
Ling Li ◽  
Joey S. W. Kwong ◽  
Pengli Jia ◽  
...  

Metabolism ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 154780
Author(s):  
Ashwini Arvind ◽  
Zoe N. Memel ◽  
Lisa L. Philpotts ◽  
Hui Zheng ◽  
Kathleen E. Corey ◽  
...  

VASA ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirko Hirschl ◽  
Michael Kundi

Abstract. Background: In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) showed a superior risk-benefit profile in comparison to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Patients enrolled in such studies do not necessarily reflect the whole target population treated in real-world practice. Materials and methods: By a systematic literature search, 88 studies including 3,351,628 patients providing over 2.9 million patient-years of follow-up were identified. Hazard ratios and event-rates for the main efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted and the results for DOACs and VKAs combined by network meta-analysis. In addition, meta-regression was performed to identify factors responsible for heterogeneity across studies. Results: For stroke and systemic embolism as well as for major bleeding and intracranial bleeding real-world studies gave virtually the same result as RCTs with higher efficacy and lower major bleeding risk (for dabigatran and apixaban) and lower risk of intracranial bleeding (all DOACs) compared to VKAs. Results for gastrointestinal bleeding were consistently better for DOACs and hazard ratios of myocardial infarction were significantly lower in real-world for dabigatran and apixaban compared to RCTs. By a ranking analysis we found that apixaban is the safest anticoagulant drug, while rivaroxaban closely followed by dabigatran are the most efficacious. Risk of bias and heterogeneity was assessed and had little impact on the overall results. Analysis of effect modification could guide the clinical decision as no single DOAC was superior/inferior to the others under all conditions. Conclusions: DOACs were at least as efficacious as VKAs. In terms of safety endpoints, DOACs performed better under real-world conditions than in RCTs. The current real-world data showed that differences in efficacy and safety, despite generally low event rates, exist between DOACs. Knowledge about these differences in performance can contribute to a more personalized medicine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document