• Renato Wilberto Zilli, Chennyfer Dobbins Abi Rached, SilvaFabiano Pinheiro daFPD0000-0003-2673-2202. Departamento de Medicina de Emergência, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil., and Renato Corrêa Baena.
• . Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
• Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2020 Apr 1; 66 (4): 458465458-465.

AbstractAfter metformin failure in treatment for diabetes type 2, there is no trivial option for adjuvant medication. The last two oral class medications, gliflozins and gliptins, have different mechanisms of action but have never been compared in long run studies. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to assess the overall long-term efficacy of these drugs after metformin failure. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed, including all trials with a duration of over 2 years, comparing gliflozins or gliptins after metformin failure in type 2 diabetes. Data Sources: Pubmed (Medline), Embase, Lilacs, and the Cochrane Library from inception through July 2016 without language restrictions. The longest study period found in the literature was 4 years. We selected 1 article on empagliflozin, 1 on dapagliflozin, and 1 on saxagliptin with missing data. After one year of treatment, over 50% of the patients presented HbA1c > 7%. Efficacy rate after 4 years of empagliflozin (23%) was better than dapagliflozin (5%) and saxagliptin (7%); however, it presented statistically non-significant values for HbA1c (7.4 and 7.3% between gliflozins), and missing data for saxaglifozin. Nonetheless, empagliflozin performed better than glimepiride in the 4-year period (standardized mean difference SMD 0.4, confidence interval CI 95% 0.23 to 0.56). The failure of the secondary treatment using gliflozins occurs in less than one year of treatment (less than 50% of the patients presenting HbA1c > 7 %). Empagliflozin offered better glycemic control compared to sulfonylureas but was similar to dapagliflozin.

12 keywords...

hide…