-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020The use of insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are undergoing ovulation induction or in vitro fertilisation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are undergoing ovulation induction or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles has been widely studied. Metformin reduces hyperinsulinaemia and suppresses the excessive ovarian production of androgens. It is suggested that as a consequence metformin could improve assisted reproductive techniques (ART) outcomes, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), pregnancy, and live birth rates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin as a co-treatment during IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in achieving pregnancy or live birth in women with PCOS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, the trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 13 February 2020).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metformin treatment with placebo or no treatment in women with PCOS who underwent IVF or ICSI treatment.
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS
women of reproductive age with anovulation due to PCOS with or without co-existing infertility factors. Types of interventions: metformin administered before and during IVF or ICSI treatment.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES
live birth rate, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data according to the protocol, and assessed study quality. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review includes 13 RCTs involving a total of 1132 women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI treatments. We stratified the analysis by type of ovarian stimulation protocol used (long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-agonist) or short gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-antagonist)) to determine whether the type of stimulation used influenced the outcomes. We did not perform meta-analysis on the overall (both ovarian stimulation protocols combined) data for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per woman because of substantial heterogeneity. In the long protocol GnRH-agonist subgroup, the pooled evidence showed that we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on live birth rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.79; 6 RCTs; 651 women; I = 47%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 28%, the chance following metformin would be between 27% and 51%. Only one study used short protocol GnRH-antagonist and reported live birth rate. Metformin may reduce live birth rate compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 1 RCT; 153 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 43%, the chance following metformin would be between 13% and 34% (short GnRH-antagonist protocol). We found that metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72; 11 RCTs; 1091 women; I = 38%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 20% risk of OHSS without metformin, the corresponding risk using metformin would be between 6% and 14%. Using long protocol GnRH-agonist stimulation, metformin may increase clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.63; 10 RCTs; 915 women; I = 13%; low-quality evidence). Using short protocol GnRH-antagonist, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 9.14; 2 RCTs; 177 women; I = 87%; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32; 8 RCTs; 821 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). Metformin may result in an increase in side effects compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 3.35, 95% CI 2.34 to 4.79; 8 RCTs; 748 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were inconsistency, risk of bias, and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated review on metformin versus placebo/no treatment before or during IVF/ICSI treatment in women with PCOS found no conclusive evidence that metformin improves live birth rates. In a long GnRH-agonist protocol, we are uncertain whether metformin improves live birth rates, but metformin may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. In a short GnRH-antagonist protocol, metformin may reduce live birth rates, although we are uncertain about the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate. Metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS but may result in a higher incidence of side effects. We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Confidence Intervals; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Hyperandrogenism; Hyperinsulinism; Hypoglycemic Agents; Live Birth; Metformin; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Placebos; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
PubMed: 33347618
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006105.pub4 -
JAMA Network Open Feb 2021Combining 2 first-line treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) or initiating other modalities in addition to a first-line therapy may produce beneficial outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Combining 2 first-line treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) or initiating other modalities in addition to a first-line therapy may produce beneficial outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether different ED combination therapies were associated with improved outcomes compared with first-line ED monotherapy in various subgroups of patients with ED.
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified through a systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception of these databases to October 10, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials or prospective interventional studies of the outcomes of combination therapy vs recommended monotherapy in men with ED were identified. Only comparative human studies, which evaluated the change from baseline of self-reported erectile function using validated questionnaires, that were published in any language were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and synthesis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
A meta-analysis was conducted that included randomized clinical trials that compared outcomes of combination therapy with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors plus another agent vs PDE5 inhibitor monotherapy. Separate analyses were performed for the mean International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score change from baseline and the number of adverse events (AEs) by different treatment modalities and subgroups of patients.
RESULTS
A total of 44 studies included 3853 men with a mean (SD) age of 55.8 (11.9) years. Combination therapy compared with monotherapy was associated with a mean IIEF score improvement of 1.76 points (95% CI, 1.27-2.24; I2 = 77%; 95% PI, -0.56 to 4.08). Adding daily tadalafil, low-intensity shockwave therapy, vacuum erectile device, folic acid, metformin hydrochloride, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was associated with a significant IIEF score improvement, but each measure was based on only 1 study. Specifically, the weighted mean difference (WMD) in IIEF score was 1.70 (95% CI, 0.79-2.61) for the addition of daily tadalafil, 3.50 (95% CI, 0.22-6.78) for the addition of low-intensity shockwave therapy, 8.40 (95% CI, 4.90-11.90) for the addition of a vacuum erectile device, 3.46 (95% CI, 2.16-4.76) for the addition of folic acid, 4.90 (95% CI, 2.82-6.98) for the addition of metformin hydrochloride and 2.07 (95% CI, 1.37-2.77) for the addition of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The addition of α-blockers to PDE5 inhibitors was not associated with improvement in IIEF score (WMD, 0.80; 95% CI, -0.06 to 1.65; I2 = 72%). Compared with monotherapy, combination therapy was associated with improved IIEF score in patients with hypogonadism (WMD, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.99-2.23; I2 = 0%), monotherapy-resistant ED (WMD, 4.38; 95% CI, 2.37-6.40; I2 = 52%), or prostatectomy-induced ED (WMD, 5.47; 95% CI, 3.11-7.83; I2 = 53%). The treatment-related AEs did not differ between combination therapy and monotherapy (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.66-1.85; I2 = 78%). Despite multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the levels of heterogeneity remained high.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study found that combination therapy of PDE5 inhibitors and antioxidants was associated with improved ED without increasing the AEs. Treatment with PDE5 inhibitors and daily tadalafil, shockwaves, or a vacuum device was associated with additional improvement, but this result was based on limited data. These findings suggest that combination therapy is safe, associated with improved outcomes, and should be considered as a first-line therapy for refractory, complex, or difficult-to-treat cases of ED.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antioxidants; Combined Modality Therapy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Equipment and Supplies; Erectile Dysfunction; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Folic Acid; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Male; Metformin; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Sildenafil Citrate; Tadalafil; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 33599772
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.36337 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020Worldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Worldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM. Despite this, the effects of metformin on patient-important outcomes are still not clarified.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of metformin monotherapy in adults with T2DM.
SEARCH METHODS
We based our search on a systematic report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and topped-up the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews, as well as health technology assessment reports and medical agencies. The date of the last search for all databases was 2 December 2019, except Embase (searched up 28 April 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year's duration comparing metformin monotherapy with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with T2DM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles/records, assessed risk of bias, and extracted outcome data independently. We resolved discrepancies by involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs with multiple study arms (N = 10,680). The percentage of participants finishing the trials was approximately 58% in all groups. Treatment duration ranged from one to 10.7 years. We judged no trials to be at low risk of bias on all 'Risk of bias' domains. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), non-fatal myocardial infarction (NFMI), non-fatal stroke (NFS), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Two trials compared metformin (N = 370) with insulin (N = 454). Neither trial reported on all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI, NFS or ESRD. One trial provided information on HRQoL but did not show a substantial difference between the interventions. Seven trials compared metformin with sulphonylureas. Four trials reported on all-cause mortality: in three trials no participant died, and in the remaining trial 31/1454 participants (2.1%) in the metformin group died compared with 31/1441 participants (2.2%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on SAE: in two trials no SAE occurred (186 participants); in the other trial 331/1454 participants (22.8%) in the metformin group experienced a SAE compared with 308/1441 participants (21.4%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on CVM: in one trial no CVM was observed and in the other trial 4/1441 participants (0.3%) in the metformin group died of cardiovascular reasons compared with 8/1447 participants (0.6%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred, and in the other trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 15/1441 participants (1.0%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). One trial reported no NFS occurred (very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Seven trials compared metformin with thiazolidinediones (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Five trials reported on all-cause mortality: in two trials no participant died; the overall RR was 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P = 0.57; 5 trials; 4402 participants). Four trials reported on SAE, the RR was 0,95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09; P = 0.49; 3208 participants. Four trials reported on CVM, the RR was 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.39; P = 0.58; 3211 participants. Three trial reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred and in one trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 25/1456 participants (1.7%) in the thiazolidinedione group. One trial reported no NFS occurred. No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Three trials compared metformin with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (one trial each with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin with altogether 1977 participants). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI and NFS (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). One trial compared metformin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue (very low-certainty evidence for all reported outcomes). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, CVM, NFMI and NFS. One or more SAEs were reported in 16/268 (6.0%) of the participants allocated to metformin compared with 35/539 (6.5%) of the participants allocated to a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue. HRQoL or ESRD were not reported. One trial compared metformin with meglitinide and two trials compared metformin with no intervention. No deaths or SAEs occurred (very low-certainty evidence) no other patient-important outcomes were reported. No trial compared metformin with placebo or a behaviour changing interventions. Four ongoing trials with 5824 participants are likely to report one or more of our outcomes of interest and are estimated to be completed between 2018 and 2024. Furthermore, 24 trials with 2369 participants are awaiting assessment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no clear evidence whether metformin monotherapy compared with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs influences patient-important outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Carbamates; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Metformin; Myocardial Infarction; Piperidines; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Sulfonylurea Compounds
PubMed: 32501595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012906.pub2 -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology Sep 2022The global incidence of childhood obesity is increasing. Currently, there are only few established drugs for treating adolescent obesity. Randomized clinical trials... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The global incidence of childhood obesity is increasing. Currently, there are only few established drugs for treating adolescent obesity. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions in children with obesity are scarce; therefore, we aimed to analyze the relative efficacy and adverse reactions of these drugs and compare the effects of each drug on body mass index (BMI).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
This meta-analysis focused on the slimming effect, safety, and correlation of metformin, orlistat, exenatide, liraglutide, and topiramate in children with obesity. Several international databases were searched and clinical trials on the treatment of obesity in children in which the drug was administered for ≥ 6 months were included. Changes in BMI before and after treatment were analyzed using a Bayes framework, and the surface under the cumulative ranking was calculated.
RESULTS
Of 2102 relevant articles retrieved, 21 RCTs were included in the study. Compared to other drugs, liraglutide reduced BMI the most in children with obesity. However, it was most associated with drug withdrawal due to adverse events while topiramate was least.
CONCLUSIONS
Liraglutide had a higher probability of achieving clinically significant weight loss compared with other drugs while topiramate was superior in safety.
Topics: Adolescent; Anti-Obesity Agents; Child; Exenatide; Humans; Liraglutide; Metformin; Obesity; Orlistat; Topiramate; Weight Loss
PubMed: 36039827
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2022.2117152 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Metformin has been proposed as possibly a safer and more effective long-term treatment than the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Metformin has been proposed as possibly a safer and more effective long-term treatment than the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). It is important to directly compare the efficacy and safety of metformin versus OCP in the long-term treatment of women with PCOS. This is an update of a Cochrane Review comparing insulin sensitising agents with the OCP and only includes studies on metformin.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of metformin versus the OCP (alone or in combination) in improving clinical, hormonal, and metabolic features of PCOS.
SEARCH METHODS
In August 2019 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL, the trial registers, handsearched references of the identified articles, and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of metformin versus the OCP (alone or in combination) for women with PCOS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were the clinical parameters of hirsutism and adverse events, both severe (requiring stopping of medication), and minor. In the presence of substantial heterogeneity (I statistic > 50), which could be explained by pre-specified subgroup analyses on the basis of BMI, we reported the subgroups separately.
MAIN RESULTS
This is a substantive update. We identified 38 additional studies. We included 44 RCTs (2253 women), which comprised 39 RCTs on adult women (2047 women) and five RCTs on adolescent women (206 women). Evidence quality ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. Metformin versus the OCP In adult women, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin compared to the OCP on hirsutism in subgroup body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m (mean difference (MD) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to 1.19, 3 RCTs, n = 134, I = 50%, very low-quality evidence) and subgroup BMI > 30 kg/m (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.93 to 1.17; 2 RCTs, n = 85, I = 34%, low-quality evidence). Metformin may be less effective in improving hirsutism compared to the OCP in the subgroup BMI 25 kg/m to 30 kg/m (MD 1.92, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.64, 5 RCTs, n = 254, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). Metformin may increase severe gastro-intestinal adverse events rate compared to the OCP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 6.42, 95% CI 2.98 to 13.84, 11 RCTs, n = 602, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). Metformin may decrease the incidence of severe other adverse events compared to the OCP (Peto OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.44, 8 RCTs, n = 363, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). There were no trials reporting on minor adverse events. In adolescents, we are uncertain whether there is a difference between Metformin and the OCP, on hirsutism and adverse events. Metformin versus metformin combined with the OCP In adult women, metformin may be less effective in improving hirsutism compared to Metformin combined with the OCP (MD 1.36, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.11, 3 RCTs, n = 135, I= 9%, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there was a difference between metformin and metformin combined with the OCP for severe gastro-intestinal adverse events (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.53, 3 RCTs, n = 171, I = 0%, low-quality evidence), or for severe other adverse events (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.82, 2 RCTs, n = 109, I = 44%, low-quality evidence). There were no trials reporting on minor adverse events. In adolescents, there were no trials for this comparison. The OCP versus metformin combined with the OCP In adult women, the OCP may be less effective in improving hirsutism compared to metformin combined with the OCP (MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.89, 6 RCTs, n = 389, I= 1%, low-quality evidence). The OCP may decrease the incidence of severe gastro-intestinal adverse events compared to metformin combined with the OCP (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.72, 5 RCTs, n = 228, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference between the OCP and metformin combined with the OCP for severe other adverse events (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.37, 4 RCTs, n = 159, I = 12%, low-quality evidence). The OCP may decrease the incidence of minor (gastro-intestinal) adverse events compared to metformin combined with the OCP (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.44, 2 RCTs, n = 98, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). In adolescents, we are uncertain whether there is a difference between the OCP, compared to metformin combined with the OCP, on hirsutism or adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In adult women with PCOS, metformin may be less effective in improving hirsutism compared to the OCP in the subgroup BMI 25 kg/m to 30 kg/m but we are uncertain if there was a difference between metformin and the OCP in subgroups BMI < 25 kg/m and BMI > 30kg/m. Compared to the OCP, metformin may increase the incidence of severe gastro-intestinal adverse events and decrease the incidence of severe other adverse events with no trials reporting on minor adverse events. Either metformin alone or the OCP alone may be less effective in improving hirsutism compared to metformin combined with the OCP. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the OCP alone and metformin alone compared to metformin combined with the OCP for severe or minor adverse events except for the OCP versus metformin combined with the OCP where the OCP may decrease the incidence of severe and minor gastro-intestinal adverse events. In adolescent women with PCOS, we are uncertain whether there is a difference between any of the comparisons for hirsutism and adverse events due to either no evidence or very low-quality evidence. Further large well-designed RCTs that stratify for BMI are needed to evaluate metformin versus the OCP and combinations in women with PCOS, in particular adolescent women.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adolescent; Adult; Body Mass Index; Cardiovascular Diseases; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Drug Therapy, Combination; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Hirsutism; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Menstruation Disturbances; Metformin; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 32794179
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005552.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by infrequent or absent ovulation, and high levels of androgens and insulin (hyperinsulinaemia). Hyperinsulinaemia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by infrequent or absent ovulation, and high levels of androgens and insulin (hyperinsulinaemia). Hyperinsulinaemia occurs secondary to insulin resistance and is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus. Insulin-sensitising agents such as metformin may be effective in treating PCOS-related anovulation.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of insulin-sensitising drugs in improving reproductive and metabolic outcomes for women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases from inception to January 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We searched registers of ongoing trials and reference lists from relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of insulin-sensitising drugs compared with placebo, no treatment, or an ovulation-induction agent for women with oligo and anovulatory PCOS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and bias. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and gastrointestinal adverse effects. Secondary outcomes included other pregnancy outcomes, menstrual frequency and metabolic effects. We combined data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I statistic and reported quality of the evidence for primary outcomes using GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We assessed the interventions metformin, clomiphene citrate, metformin plus clomiphene citrate, D-chiro-inositol, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. We compared these with each other, placebo or no treatment. We included 48 studies (4451 women), 42 of which investigated metformin (4024 women). Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations were risk of bias (poor reporting of methodology and incomplete outcome data), imprecision and inconsistency. Metformin versus placebo or no treatmentThe evidence suggests that metformin may improve live birth rates compared with placebo (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.51, 4 studies, 435 women, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). The metformin group experienced more gastrointestinal side effects (OR 4.76, 95% CI 3.06 to 7.41, 7 studies, 670 women, I = 61%, moderate-quality evidence) but had higher rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.64, 9 studies, 1027 women, I = 43%, moderate-quality evidence), ovulation (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.81 to 3.59, 14 studies, 701 women, I = 58%, moderate-quality evidence) and menstrual frequency (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.61, 7 studies, 427 women, I = 54%, low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.35, 4 studies, 748 women, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). Metformin plus clomiphene citrate versus clomiphene citrate alone There was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups in live birth rates (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.59, 9 studies, 1079 women, I = 20%, low-quality evidence), but gastrointestinal side effects were more common with combined therapy (OR 3.97, 95% CI 2.59 to 6.08, 3 studies, 591 women, I = 47%, moderate-quality evidence). However, the combined therapy group had higher rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.99, 16 studies, 1529 women, I = 33%, moderate-quality evidence) and ovulation (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.92, 21 studies, 1624 women, I = 64%, moderate-quality evidence). There was a statistically significant difference in miscarriage rate per woman, with higher rates in the combined therapy group (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.46, 9 studies, 1096 women, I = 0%, low-quality evidence) but this is of uncertain clinical significance due to low-quality evidence, and no clear difference between groups when we analysed miscarriage per pregnancy (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.12, 8 studies; 400 pregnancies, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). Metformin versus clomiphene citrateWhen all studies were combined, findings for live birth were inconclusive and inconsistent (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01, 5 studies, 741 women, I = 86%, very low-quality evidence). In subgroup analysis by obesity status, obese women had a lower birth rate in the metformin group (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52, 2 studies, 500 women, I = 0%, very low-quality evidence), while data from the non-obese group showed a possible benefit from metformin, with high heterogeneity (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.94, 3 studies, 241 women, I = 78%, very low-quality evidence). Similarly, among obese women taking metformin there were lower rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55, 2 studies, 500 women, I = 0%, very low-quality evidence) and ovulation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.43 2 studies, 500 women, I = 0%, low-quality evidence) while among non-obese women, the metformin group had more pregnancies (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.33, 5 studies, 490 women, I = 41%, very low-quality evidence) and no clear difference in ovulation rates (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.28, 4 studies, 312 women, low-quality evidence, I=0%). There was no clear evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates (overall: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.67, 5 studies, 741 women, I = 52%, very low-quality evidence). D-chiro-inositol (2 studies), rosiglitazone (1 study) or pioglitazone (1 study) versus placebo or no treatmentWe were unable to draw conclusions regarding other insulin-sensitising drugs as no studies reported primary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our updated review suggests that metformin alone may be beneficial over placebo for live birth, although the evidence quality was low. When metformin was compared with clomiphene citrate, data for live birth were inconclusive, and our findings were limited by lack of evidence. Results differed by body mass index (BMI), emphasising the importance of stratifying results by BMI. An improvement in clinical pregnancy and ovulation suggests that clomiphene citrate remains preferable to metformin for ovulation induction in obese women with PCOS.An improved clinical pregnancy and ovulation rate with metformin and clomiphene citrate versus clomiphene citrate alone suggests that combined therapy may be useful although we do not know whether this translates into increased live births. Women taking metformin alone or with combined therapy should be advised that there is no evidence of increased miscarriages, but gastrointestinal side effects are more likely.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Anovulation; Clomiphene; Female; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Infertility, Female; Inositol; Insulin Resistance; Live Birth; Metformin; Ovulation Induction; Pioglitazone; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rosiglitazone; Thiazolidinediones
PubMed: 29183107
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003053.pub6 -
Diabetes Care Jul 2023Observational and preclinical data suggest metformin may prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Observational and preclinical data suggest metformin may prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes.
PURPOSE
We conducted a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of metformin treatment for COVID-19 to determine whether metformin affects clinical or laboratory outcomes in individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and present a structured summary of preclinical data.
STUDY SELECTION
Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 1 February 2023 with no date restrictions for trials where investigators randomized adults with COVID-19 to metformin versus control and assessed clinical and/or laboratory outcomes of interest. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess bias.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers extracted data pertaining to prespecified outcomes of each interest from each included trial.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The synthesis plan was developed a priori and was guided by Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. Summary tables and narrative synthesis were used (PROSPERO, 2022, CRD42022349896). Three randomized trials met inclusion criteria. In two of the trials investigators found that metformin improved clinical outcomes (prevented need for oxygen and prevented need for acute health care use), and in the third trial a larger portion of adults with diabetes were enrolled but results did show a direction of benefit similar to that of the other trials in the per-protocol group. In the largest trial, subjects were enrolled during the delta and omicron waves and vaccinated individuals were included. The certainty of evidence that metformin prevents health care use due to COVID-19 was moderate per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Many preclinical studies have shown metformin to be effective against SARS-CoV-2.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations include inclusion of only three trials and heterogeneity between trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Future trials will help define the role of metformin in COVID-19 treatment guidelines.
Topics: Adult; Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Metformin; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Bias
PubMed: 37339345
DOI: 10.2337/dc22-2539 -
Molecular Metabolism Nov 2023The gut microbiota is increasingly recognized as a crucial factor in human health and disease. Metformin, a commonly prescribed medication for type 2 diabetes, has been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The gut microbiota is increasingly recognized as a crucial factor in human health and disease. Metformin, a commonly prescribed medication for type 2 diabetes, has been studied for its potential impact on the gut microbiota in preclinical models. However, the effects of metformin on the gut microbiota in humans remain uncertain.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies to assess the existing knowledge on the impact of metformin on the gut microbiota in humans. The review focused on changes in bacterial composition and diversity following metformin treatment.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
Thirteen studies were included in the analysis. The results revealed alterations in the abundance of bacterial genera from various phyla, suggesting that metformin may selectively influence certain groups of bacteria in the gut microbiota. However, the effects on gut microbiota diversity were inconsistent across populations, with conflicting findings on changes in alpha and beta diversity measures. Overall, the use of metformin was associated with changes in the abundance of specific bacterial genera within the gut microbiota of human populations. However, the effects on gut microbiota diversity were not consistent, highlighting the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanisms and clinical significance of these changes.
Topics: Humans; Metformin; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Bacteria
PubMed: 37696355
DOI: 10.1016/j.molmet.2023.101805 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019The projected rise in the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) could develop into a substantial health problem worldwide. Whether metformin can prevent or delay... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Metformin for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in persons at increased risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
BACKGROUND
The projected rise in the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) could develop into a substantial health problem worldwide. Whether metformin can prevent or delay T2DM and its complications in people with increased risk of developing T2DM is unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of metformin for the prevention or delay of T2DM and its associated complications in persons at increased risk for the T2DM.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials. The date of the last search of all databases was March 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of one year or more comparing metformin with any pharmacological glucose-lowering intervention, behaviour-changing intervention, placebo or standard care in people with impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting glucose, moderately elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or combinations of these.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 RCTs randomising 6774 participants. One trial contributed 48% of all participants. The duration of intervention in the trials varied from one to five years. We judged none of the trials to be at low risk of bias in all 'Risk of bias' domains. Our main outcome measures were all-cause mortality, incidence of T2DM, serious adverse events (SAEs), cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects.The following comparisons mostly reported only a fraction of our main outcome set. Fifteen RCTs compared metformin with diet and exercise with or without placebo: all-cause mortality was 7/1353 versus 7/1480 (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.01; P = 0.83; 2833 participants, 5 trials; very low-quality evidence); incidence of T2DM was 324/1751 versus 529/1881 participants (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.65; P < 0.001; 3632 participants, 12 trials; moderate-quality evidence); the reporting of SAEs was insufficient and diverse and meta-analysis could not be performed (reported numbers were 4/118 versus 2/191; 309 participants; 4 trials; very low-quality evidence); cardiovascular mortality was 1/1073 versus 4/1082 (2416 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). One trial reported no clear difference in health-related quality of life after 3.2 years of follow-up (very low-quality evidence). Two trials estimated the direct medical costs (DMC) per participant for metformin varying from $220 to $1177 versus $61 to $184 in the comparator group (2416 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). Eight RCTs compared metformin with intensive diet and exercise: all-cause mortality was 7/1278 versus 4/1272 (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.23; P = 0.43; 2550 participants, 4 trials; very low-quality evidence); incidence of T2DM was 304/1455 versus 251/1505 (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.37; P = 0.42; 2960 participants, 7 trials; moderate-quality evidence); the reporting of SAEs was sparse and meta-analysis could not be performed (one trial reported 1/44 in the metformin group versus 0/36 in the intensive exercise and diet group with SAEs). One trial reported that 1/1073 participants in the metformin group compared with 2/1079 participants in the comparator group died from cardiovascular causes. One trial reported that no participant died due to cardiovascular causes (very low-quality evidence). Two trials estimated the DMC per participant for metformin varying from $220 to $1177 versus $225 to $3628 in the comparator group (2400 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). Three RCTs compared metformin with acarbose: all-cause mortality was 1/44 versus 0/45 (89 participants; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence); incidence of T2DM was 12/147 versus 7/148 (RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.14; P = 0.22; 295 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence); SAEs were 1/51 versus 2/50 (101 participants; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence). Three RCTs compared metformin with thiazolidinediones: incidence of T2DM was 9/161 versus 9/159 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; P = 0.98; 320 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). SAEs were 3/45 versus 0/41 (86 participants; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence). Three RCTs compared metformin plus intensive diet and exercise with identical intensive diet and exercise: all-cause mortality was 1/121 versus 1/120 participants (450 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence); incidence of T2DM was 48/166 versus 53/166 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.92; P = 0.49; 332 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). One trial estimated the DMC of metformin plus intensive diet and exercise to be $270 per participant compared with $225 in the comparator group (94 participants; 1 trial; very-low quality evidence). One trial in 45 participants compared metformin with a sulphonylurea. The trial reported no patient-important outcomes. For all comparisons there were no data on non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or microvascular complications. We identified 11 ongoing trials which potentially could provide data of interest for this review. These trials will add a total of 17,853 participants in future updates of this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Metformin compared with placebo or diet and exercise reduced or delayed the risk of T2DM in people at increased risk for the development of T2DM (moderate-quality evidence). However, metformin compared to intensive diet and exercise did not reduce or delay the risk of T2DM (moderate-quality evidence). Likewise, the combination of metformin and intensive diet and exercise compared to intensive diet and exercise only neither showed an advantage or disadvantage regarding the development of T2DM (very low-quality evidence). Data on patient-important outcomes such as mortality, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications and health-related quality of life were sparse or missing.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glucose Intolerance; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Metformin; Prediabetic State; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31794067
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008558.pub2 -
Acta Bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis Aug 2023the COVID-19 infection, caused by severe Coronavirus 2 syndrome (Sars-Cov-2), immediately appeared to be the most tragic global pandemic event of the twentieth century.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
the COVID-19 infection, caused by severe Coronavirus 2 syndrome (Sars-Cov-2), immediately appeared to be the most tragic global pandemic event of the twentieth century. Right from the start of the pandemic, diabetic patients treated with metformin experienced a reduction in mortality and complications from COVID-19 compared to those with different treatments or no treatment. Objective The main objective of the study was to observe the effects of metformin in hospitalized subjects infected with COVID-19. Specifically, the outcomes of hospitalization in Intensive Care Units or death were examined. Materials and Methods A specific research PICOS was developed and the Pubmed, Embase and Scopus databases were consulted down to April 30, 2022. To estimate the extent of the metformin effect and risk of severity in SARS-CoV-2 infection, the Odd Ratio (OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) published by the authors of the selected systematic reviews was used. Results from five systematic reviews 36 studies were selected. The final meta-analysis showed that thanks to treatment with metformin, DM2 patients affected by COVID-19 had protection against risk of disease severity, complications (ES 0.80; 95% CI) and mortality (ES 0.69; 95% CI). Conclusions More in-depth studies on the use of metformin, compared to other molecules, may be required to understand the real protective potential of the drug against negative outcomes caused by COVID-19 infection in DM2 patients.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Databases, Factual; Metformin
PubMed: 37695186
DOI: 10.23750/abm.v94iS3.14405