IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0082880.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Safety and Efficacy of Gliclazide as Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Gijs W D Landman
  • Geertruide H de Bock
  • Kornelis J J van Hateren
  • Peter R van Dijk
  • Klaas H Groenier
  • Rijk O B Gans
  • Sebastiaan T Houweling
  • Henk J G Bilo
  • Nanne Kleefstra

Abstract

Objective and Design: Gliclazide has been associated with a low risk of hypoglycemic episodes and beneficial long-term cardiovascular safety in observational cohorts. The aim of this study was to assess in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials the safety and efficacy of gliclazide compared to other oral glucose-lowering agents (PROSPERO2013:CRD42013004156) Data Sources: Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Trialregister.nl, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu and the Cochrane database. Selection: Included were randomized studies of at least 12 weeks duration with the following outcomes: HbA1c change, incidence of severe hypoglycemia, weight change, cardiovascular events and/or mortality when comparing gliclazide with other oral blood glucose lowering drugs. Bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The inverse variance random effects model was used. Results: Nineteen trials were included; 3,083 patients treated with gliclazide and 3,155 patients treated with other oral blood glucose lowering drugs. There was a considerable amount of heterogeneity between and bias in studies. Compared to other glucose lowering agents except metformin, gliclazide was slightly more effective (−0.13% (95%CI: −0.25, −0.02, I2 55%)). One out of 2,387 gliclazide users experienced a severe hypoglycemic event, whilst also using insulin. There were 25 confirmed non-severe hypoglycemic events (2.2%) in 1,152 gliclazide users and 22 events (1.8%) in 1,163 patients in the comparator group (risk ratio 1.09 (95% CI: 0.20, 5.78, I2 77%)). Few studies reported differences in weight and none were designed to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes. Conclusions: The methodological quality of randomized trials comparing gliclazide to other oral glucose lowering agents was poor and effect estimates on weight were limited by publication bias. The number of severe hypoglycemic episodes was extremely low, and gliclazide appears at least equally effective compared to other glucose lowering agents. None of the trials were designed for evaluating cardiovascular outcomes, which warrants attention in future randomized trials.

Suggested Citation

  • Gijs W D Landman & Geertruide H de Bock & Kornelis J J van Hateren & Peter R van Dijk & Klaas H Groenier & Rijk O B Gans & Sebastiaan T Houweling & Henk J G Bilo & Nanne Kleefstra, 2014. "Safety and Efficacy of Gliclazide as Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-8, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0082880
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082880
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082880
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082880&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0082880?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0082880. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.