Background: The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes with poor efficacy of basic insulin and metformin/sulfonylurea by umbrella review. Materials and Methods: Forming the data of publication of each database through 13 September 2022, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were surveyed. Results: A total of seven meta-analyses were included in the umbrella review. The combination of GLP-1 RA (WMD -3.41 [-5.61, -1.21], p = 0.002), SGLT-2i (WMD -5.34 [-9.56, -1.13], p = 0.013), and DPP-4i (WMD -5.56 [-7.39, -3.73], p ≤ 0.001) can significantly reduce HbA1c levels, respectively. The combination of GLP-1 RA (WMD -1.55 [-2.92, -0.18], p = 0.027), SGLT-2i (WMD -2.96 [-6.68, 0.77], p = 0.12), and DPP-4i (WMD -2.05 [-2.82, -1.28], p ≤ 0.001) can significantly reduce fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels, respectively. The combination of GLP-1 RA (WMD -3.24 [-5.14, -1.34], p < 0.001) can significantly reduce body weight of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The dose of basic insulin in diabetes patients after combined use of GLP-1 RA (WMD -2.74 [-4.26, -1.22], p ≤ 0.001) was significantly reduced. The combination use of GLP-1 RAs (OR 1.28 [1.05, 1.56], p = 0.017) increases the risk of hypoglycemia. Conclusions: The combination of GLP-1 RAs, DPP-4i, and SGLT-2i can effectively lower HbA1c and FPG in T2DM patients who have poor therapeutic effects on basic insulin combined with metformin/sulfonylureas, respectively. Compared to placebo, GLP-1 RAs can significantly reduce body weight and basic insulin dosage, while DPP-4i and SGLT-2i have a lower risk of hypoglycemia. Trial Registration: CRD42023410345.

Chiglitazar is an emerging pan-agonist of all peroxisome proliferator activated receptors (PPAR)-α, δ and γ, and has therapeutic potential for type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, to date, no clinical studies or meta-analyses have compared the efficacy and safety of chiglitazar and traditional PPAR-γ agonist thiazolidinediones (TZDs). A meta-analysis concerning this topic is therefore required.

To compare the efficacy and safety of chiglitazar and TZD in patients with T2D.

PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Reference Citation Analysis and Clinicaltrial.gov websites were searched from August 1994 to March 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of chiglitazar or TZD vs placebo in patients with T2D were included. Indirect comparisons and sensitivity analyses were implemented to evaluate multiple efficacy and safety endpoints of interest.

We included 93 RCTs that compared TZD with placebo and one that compared chiglitazar with placebo. For efficacy endpoints, the augmented dose of chig-litazar resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin (Hb)A1c [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.15%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.27 to -0.04%], triglycerides (WMD = -0.17 mmol/L, 95%CI: -0.24 to -0.11 mmol/L) and alanine aminotransferase (WMD = -5.25 U/L, 95%CI: -8.50 to -1.99 U/L), and a greater increase in homeostasis model assessment-β (HOMA-β) (WMD = 17.75, 95%CI: 10.73-24.77) when compared with TZD treatment. For safety endpoints, the risks of hypoglycemia, edema, bone fractures, upper respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, and weight gain were all comparable between the augmented dose of chiglitazar and TZD. In patients with baseline HbA1c ≥ 8.5%, body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 or diabetes duration < 10 years, the HbA1c reduction and HOMA-β increase were more conspicuous for the augmented dose of chiglitazar compared with TZD.

Augmented dose of chiglitazar, a pan-activator of PPARs, may serve as an antidiabetic agent with preferable glycemic and lipid control, better β-cell function preserving capacity, and does not increase the risk of safety concerns when compared with TZD.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec, which provides long-lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart, which targets postprandial glycaemia. This review provides expert opinion on the practical clinical use of IDegAsp, including: dose timings relative to meals, when and how to intensify treatment from once-daily (OD) to twice-daily (BID) dose adjustments, and use in special populations (including hospitalized patients). IDegAsp could be considered as one among the choices for initiating insulin treatment, preferential to starting on basal insulin alone, particularly for people with severe hyperglycaemia and/or when postprandial hyperglycaemia is a major concern. The recommended starting dose of IDegAsp is 10 units with the most carbohydrate-rich meal(s), followed by individualized dose adjustments. Insulin doses should be titrated once weekly in two-unit steps, guided by individualized fasting plasma glucose targets and based on patient goals, preferences and hypoglycaemia risk. Options for intensification from IDegAsp OD are discussed, which should be guided by HbA1c, prandial glucose levels, meal patterns and patient preferences. Recommendations for switching to IDegAsp from basal insulin, premixed insulins OD/BID, and basal-plus/basal-bolus regimens are discussed. IDegAsp can be co-administered with other antihyperglycaemic drugs; however, sulphonylureas frequently need to be discontinued or the dose reduced, and the IDegAsp dose may need to be decreased when sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are added. Considerations around the initiation or continuation of IDegAsp in hospitalized individuals are discussed, as well as in those undergoing medical procedures.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a new family of antidiabetic drugs that reduce blood glucose independent of insulin. In this review, we present the advantages and adverse effects of SGLT2 inhibitors plus insulin therapy as a treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors plus insulin therapy could significantly decrease fasting blood glucose and HbA1c, thereby reducing the daily required dose of insulin. A reduction in body weight and improvements in insulin resistance and β-cell function have also been widely reported with this therapy, and other potential advantages, including the reduction in blood pressure, adverse cardiovascular outcomes, and visceral adipose tissue volume, have been revealed. SGLT2 inhibitors cause a greater reduction than dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in body weight and the risk of cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, compared with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors reduce blood pressure, and heart failure. As this therapy is an oral preparation, an improvement in patient compliance is also achieved. Despite these advantages, however, combination therapy with SGLT2 inhibitors and insulin has several risks. Although no difference has been found in the incidence of hypoglycemic events and urinary tract infection between the administration of this combination and that of placebo, the risk of genital tract infections was reported to increase with the combination therapy. Additionally, bone adverse effects, euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, and volume depletion-and osmotic diuresis-related adverse effects have been observed. Altogether, we could conclude that SGLT2 inhibitors plus insulin therapy is an efficient treatment option for patients with T2D, especially those requiring high daily insulin doses and those with insulin resistance, obesity, and a high risk of cardiovascular events. However, careful monitoring of the adverse effects of this combination is also warranted.

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) are valuable ways to generate comparative effectiveness data for therapies available to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This review assesses NMAs that evaluate sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for treatment of T2DM and discusses potential issues in conducting and interpreting NMAs.

A systematic literature search was conducted on September 13, 2018 using the search terms "network meta-analysis," "SGLT2," variations of these terms, and individual SGLT2 inhibitor names. Extracted data included NMA objectives, methods, target populations, treatments, study endpoints, length of follow-up, and funding. Differences between NMAs were investigated.

Thirty-five full-length publications met criteria for inclusion. In most NMAs, the target population was defined by therapeutic regimen (e.g., combination with metformin). Follow-up intervals permitted in NMAs varied considerably (range, 4-208 weeks). Twenty-nine NMAs included dapagliflozin, 28 evaluated canagliflozin, and 27 evaluated empagliflozin. Nine NMAs used frequentist methods; 16 used Bayesian methods. Six NMAs were funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Heterogeneity across NMAs was seen in scope, time frame, and other aspects of analytic design.

Although this review indicates that methodological guidelines for reporting NMAs were generally followed, it also emphasizes the need for T2DM-specific guidance requiring clear reporting of NMA scope and objectives to aid appropriate interpretation and use of NMA results.