Fang Li1, Ligang Liu2, Yang Hu2, Carrie McAdam Marx3, Wei Liu4. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Beijing You An Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China. 2. College of Pharmacy, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198, USA. 3. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Beijing You An Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China. liuwei8090@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metformin is widely used for the treatment of gestational diabetes. Although some meta-analyses are conducted on the efficacy and safety of metformin, none of them are focused on the Chinese population. The efficacy and safety of metformin in the Chinese GDM population are unknown. AIM: The study aimed to compare metformin to insulin regarding the safety and efficacy in Chinese GDM patients using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in China. METHOD: Chinese databases (Wanfang, CNKI, VIP, and CBM), PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Scopus were searched for RCTs. The last search date was October 18, 2021. RESULTS: Fifty RCTs (4663 patients) were included in this study after screening. Six outcomes were analyzed. In the main analysis, metformin had lower risk of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS, OR, 0.28; 95% CI 0.16-0.51; P < 0.0001), premature birth (OR, 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.85, P = 0.02), and neonatal hypoglycemia (OR, 0.34; 95% CI 0.24-0.48; P < 0.00001) compared to insulin. Moreover, the metformin group is better than the insulin group concerning all other outcomes such as maternal glycemic control and glycated hemoglobin. Subgroup analysis confirmed that metformin has better outcomes than all types of insulin except for RDS, premature birth, 2 h postprandial blood glucose, and glycated hemoglobin. CONCLUSION: Metformin is considered to be a safe and effective alternative to insulin for the management of GDM if patients refuse insulin due to any reasons in China.
BACKGROUND: Metformin is widely used for the treatment of gestational diabetes. Although some meta-analyses are conducted on the efficacy and safety of metformin, none of them are focused on the Chinese population. The efficacy and safety of metformin in the Chinese GDM population are unknown. AIM: The study aimed to compare metformin to insulin regarding the safety and efficacy in Chinese GDM patients using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in China. METHOD: Chinese databases (Wanfang, CNKI, VIP, and CBM), PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Scopus were searched for RCTs. The last search date was October 18, 2021. RESULTS: Fifty RCTs (4663 patients) were included in this study after screening. Six outcomes were analyzed. In the main analysis, metformin had lower risk of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS, OR, 0.28; 95% CI 0.16-0.51; P < 0.0001), premature birth (OR, 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.85, P = 0.02), and neonatal hypoglycemia (OR, 0.34; 95% CI 0.24-0.48; P < 0.00001) compared to insulin. Moreover, the metformin group is better than the insulin group concerning all other outcomes such as maternal glycemic control and glycated hemoglobin. Subgroup analysis confirmed that metformin has better outcomes than all types of insulin except for RDS, premature birth, 2 h postprandial blood glucose, and glycated hemoglobin. CONCLUSION: Metformin is considered to be a safe and effective alternative to insulin for the management of GDM if patients refuse insulin due to any reasons in China.
Authors: Fernando Guerrero-Romero; Celia Aradillas-García; Luis E Simental-Mendia; Elizabeth Monreal-Escalante; Esperanza de la Cruz Mendoza; Martha Rodríguez-Moran Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Julie Brown; Nisreen A Alwan; Jane West; Stephen Brown; Christopher Jd McKinlay; Diane Farrar; Caroline A Crowther Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-04
Authors: Tracy Riggins; Neely C Miller; Patricia J Bauer; Michael K Georgieff; Charles A Nelson Journal: Dev Neuropsychol Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.253
Authors: Caroline A Crowther; Janet E Hiller; John R Moss; Andrew J McPhee; William S Jeffries; Jeffrey S Robinson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-06-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N H Cho; J E Shaw; S Karuranga; Y Huang; J D da Rocha Fernandes; A W Ohlrogge; B Malanda Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Boyd E Metzger; Lynn P Lowe; Alan R Dyer; Elisabeth R Trimble; Udom Chaovarindr; Donald R Coustan; David R Hadden; David R McCance; Moshe Hod; Harold David McIntyre; Jeremy J N Oats; Bengt Persson; Michael S Rogers; David A Sacks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-05-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jodie M Dodd; Caroline A Crowther; Georgia Antoniou; Peter Baghurst; Jeffrey S Robinson Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Mark B Landon; Catherine Y Spong; Elizabeth Thom; Marshall W Carpenter; Susan M Ramin; Brian Casey; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; Dwight J Rouse; John M Thorp; Anthony Sciscione; Patrick Catalano; Margaret Harper; George Saade; Kristine Y Lain; Yoram Sorokin; Alan M Peaceman; Jorge E Tolosa; Garland B Anderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245