No abstract

Aim To compare the effects of glucose‐lowering drugs on body weight and blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature sources until 29 September 2020 for randomized controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration assessing the effects of glucose‐lowering drugs on body weight and blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes. We performed frequentist network meta‐analyses and calculated weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals combining trial arms of different approved doses of a given intervention into a single group. We evaluated the confidence in pooled estimates using the CINeMA (Confidence In Network Meta‐Analysis) framework. Results In total, 424 trials (276 336 patients) assessing 21 antidiabetic medications from nine drug classes were included. Subcutaneous semaglutide was the most efficacious in reducing body weight followed by oral semaglutide, exenatide twice‐daily, liraglutide, and the sodium‐glucose co‐transporter‐2 (SGLT‐2) inhibitors empagliflozin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin. The same agents also conferred the greatest reductions in systolic blood pressure. Metformin had a modest effect in reducing body weight and systolic blood pressure. Diastolic blood pressure was reduced with the SGLT‐2 inhibitors pioglitazone, exenatide twice‐daily and semaglutide. In subgroup analyses of trials with over 52 weeks' duration, semaglutide and SGLT‐2 inhibitors reduced both body weight and systolic blood pressure. Conclusions Semaglutide and SGLT‐2 inhibitors conferred reductions both in body weight and blood pressure that were sustainable for over 1 year of treatment. These agents may be preferable treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes who are overweight/obese and/or hypertensive.

Semaglutide is a potent once-weekly GLP-1 RA, significantly reducing HbA1c, body weight and systolic blood pressure. However, it is associated with increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events. Results for pancreatitis and retinopathy require further assessment in post-approval pharmacovigilance studies.

Aim To assess the efficacy and safety of glucose‐lowering drugs used as an adjunct to insulin therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 24 January 2020 for randomized controlled trials. Our primary outcome was change in HbA1c. We additionally assessed eight efficacy and six safety secondary endpoints. We performed random effects frequentist network meta‐analysis to estimate mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs), alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias and evaluated confidence in the evidence for the primary outcome. Results We included 58 trials comprising 13 216 participants. Overall, sodium‐glucose co‐transporter (SGLT) inhibitors, liraglutide, glibenclamide, acarbose and metformin reduced HbA1c compared with placebo (MDs ranging from −0.46% [95% CI −0.64% to −0.29%] for empagliflozin to −0.20% [−0.35% to −0.06%] for metformin). SGLT inhibitors, exenatide daily, liraglutide and metformin reduced body weight and total daily insulin dose, while liraglutide and SGLT inhibitors reduced blood pressure. Diabetic ketoacidosis and genital infections were more frequent with SGLT inhibitors, while exenatide, liraglutide, pramlintide and metformin increased the incidence of nausea. No drug increased the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia. Confidence in evidence was mainly moderate to very low. Conclusions Specific drugs may improve glycaemic control and reduce body weight, blood pressure and total daily insulin dose in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, low quality of evidence and an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, genital infections or gastrointestinal adverse events should be taken into consideration by healthcare providers and patients. Future long‐term trials are needed to clarify their benefit‐to‐risk profile and elucidate their role in clinical practice.

Background Beta-blockers are used for prophylaxis of variceal bleeding. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of carvedilol for primary or secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and gray literature sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carvedilol with placebo or any active intervention. We synthesized data using random effects models. We summarized the strength of evidence using GRADE criteria. Results We included 13 trials with 1598 patients. Carvedilol was as efficacious as endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) (4 RCTs, risk ratio [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-1.49) or propranolol (3 RCTs, RR 0.76, 95%CI 0.27-2.14) for primary prevention of variceal bleeding. Likewise, carvedilol was as efficacious as EVL (3 RCTs, RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.75-1.61), non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (2 RCTs, RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.70-1.51) or propranolol (2 RCTs, RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.15-1.03) for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding. Carvedilol was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to EVL (3 RCTs, RR 0.51, 95%CI 0.33-0.79). There was no difference in any other efficacy outcome. Finally, there were no significant differences in the safety profiles compared with EVL and NSBBs. Our confidence in the effect estimates for all outcomes was very low. Conclusion Carvedilol is as efficacious and safe as standard-of-care interventions for the primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding.