1.
Comparative safety of the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Donnan, JR, Grandy, CA, Chibrikov, E, Marra, CA, Aubrey-Bassler, K, Johnston, K, Swab, M, Hache, J, Curnew, D, Nguyen, H, et al
BMJ open. 2019;(1):e022577
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To estimate the association between the use of sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and postmarket harms as identified by drug regulatory agencies. DESIGN We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCT). Six large databases were searched from inception to May 2018. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled relative risks (RRs). INTERVENTION SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with placebo or active comparators. PRIMARY OUTCOMES Acute kidney injury (AKI), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), urinary tract infections (UTI), bone fractures and lower limb amputations. RESULTS We screened 2418 citations of which 109 were included. Most studies included one of four SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, empagliflozin and ipragliflozin. When compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors were found to be significantly protective against AKI (RR=0.59; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.89; I2=0.0%), while no difference was found for DKA (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.45, I2=0.0%), UTI (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09, I2=0.0%) or bone fracture (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.09, I2=1.3%). Three studies reported on amputation, with one finding a significant increase risk. No increased risk for either outcome was found when compared with active controls. Subgroup analysis did show an increased risk of UTI with dapagliflozin only (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I2=0.0%), but no other analysis supported an increased risk of AKI, DKA, UTI or fracture. CONCLUSIONS Current evidence from RCTs does not suggest an increased risk of harm with SGLT2 inhibitors as a class over placebo or active comparators with respect to AKI, DKA, UTI or fracture. However, wide CIs for many comparisons suggest limited precision, and therefore clinically important adverse events cannot be ruled out. Dapagliflozin, appears to independently increase the risk of UTI, although the mechanism for this intraclass variation in risk is unclear. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42016038715.
2.
[Systematic review with meta-analysis: Subcutaneous insulin glargine coadministration for diabetic ketoacidosis].
Andrade-Castellanos, CA, Colunga-Lozano, LE
Gaceta medica de Mexico. 2016;(6):761-769
Abstract
BACKGROUND The standard treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis involves intravenous infusion of regular insulin until recovery of the episode: this is associated with high costs. Coadministration of insulin glargine from the onset of management may prove beneficial, potentially avoiding rebound hyperglycemia, and hopefully improving the time to resolution of the disease. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials comparing coadministration of insulin glargine versus standard treatment in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis. To be eligible, studies must assess the efficacy of insulin glargine and report clinically important outcomes. Two reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and summarized strength of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS Four studies (135 participants during hospital follow-up) were included in this review. Low-quality evidence from three trials suggested that subcutaneously administered insulin glargine, in addition to the standard treatment, significantly reduces the time to resolution of diabetic ketoacidosis (MD -4.19 hours; 95% CI: -7.81 to 0.57; p = 0.02). There was neutral difference between the two groups regarding length of hospital stay and hypoglycemic episodes. CONCLUSIONS subcutaneously administered insulin glargine, in addition to standard treatment, significantly reduces the time to resolution of diabetic ketoacidosis, with neutral effects on hypoglycemic episodes.
3.
Subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues for diabetic ketoacidosis.
Andrade-Castellanos, CA, Colunga-Lozano, LE, Delgado-Figueroa, N, Gonzalez-Padilla, DA
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;(1):CD011281
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is an acute, life-threatening complication of uncontrolled diabetes that mainly occurs in individuals with autoimmune type 1 diabetes, but it is not uncommon in some people with type 2 diabetes. The treatment of DKA is traditionally accomplished by the administration of intravenous infusion of regular insulin that is initiated in the emergency department and continued in an intensive care unit or a high-dependency unit environment. It is unclear whether people with DKA should be treated with other treatment modalities such as subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis. SEARCH METHODS We identified eligible trials by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. We searched the trials registers WHO ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 27 October 2015. We also examined reference lists of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, and contacted trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included trials if they were RCTs comparing subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues versus standard intravenous infusion in participants with DKA of any age or sex with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, and in pregnant women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed studies for risk of bias, and evaluated overall study quality utilising the GRADE instrument. We assessed the statistical heterogeneity of included studies by visually inspecting forest plots and quantifying the diversity using the I² statistic. We synthesised data using random-effects model meta-analysis or descriptive analysis, as appropriate. MAIN RESULTS Five trials randomised 201 participants (110 participants to subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues and 91 to intravenous regular insulin). The criteria for DKA were consistent with the American Diabetes Association criteria for mild or moderate DKA. The underlying cause of DKA was mostly poor compliance with diabetes therapy. Most trials did not report on type of diabetes. Younger diabetic participants and children were underrepresented in our included trials (one trial only). Four trials evaluated the effects of the rapid-acting insulin analogue lispro, and one the effects of the rapid-acting insulin analogue aspart. The mean follow-up period as measured by mean hospital stay ranged between two and seven days. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated trials was unclear in many domains and high for performance bias for the outcome measure time to resolution of DKA.No deaths were reported in the included trials (186 participants; 3 trials; moderate- (insulin lispro) to low-quality evidence (insulin aspart)). There was very low-quality evidence to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous insulin lispro versus intravenous regular insulin on the time to resolution of DKA: mean difference (MD) 0.2 h (95% CI -1.7 to 2.1); P = 0.81; 90 participants; 2 trials. In one trial involving children with DKA, the time to reach a glucose level of 250 mg/dL was similar between insulin lispro and intravenous regular insulin. There was very low-quality evidence to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous insulin aspart versus intravenous regular insulin on the time to resolution of DKA: MD -1 h (95% CI -3.2 to 1.2); P = 0.36; 30 participants; 1 trial. There was low-quality evidence to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues versus intravenous regular insulin on hypoglycaemic episodes: 6 of 80 insulin lispro-treated participants compared with 9 of 76 regular insulin-treated participants reported hypoglycaemic events; risk ratio (RR) 0.59 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.52); P = 0.28; 156 participants; 4 trials. For insulin aspart compared with regular insulin, RR for hypoglycaemic episodes was 1.00 (95% CI 0.07 to 14.55); P = 1.0; 30 participants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence. Socioeconomic effects as measured by length of mean hospital stay for insulin lispro compared with regular insulin showed a MD of -0.4 days (95% CI -1 to 0.2); P = 0.22; 90 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence and for insulin aspart compared with regular insulin 1.1 days (95% CI -3.3 to 1.1); P = 0.32; low-quality evidence. Data on morbidity were limited, but no specific events were reported for the comparison of insulin lispro with regular insulin. No trial reported on adverse events other than hypoglycaemic episodes, and no trial investigated patient satisfaction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Our review, which provided mainly data on adults, suggests on the basis of mostly low- to very low-quality evidence that there are neither advantages nor disadvantages when comparing the effects of subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues versus intravenous regular insulin for treating mild or moderate DKA.