Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Point-Counterpoint

Is It Time to Change the Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Paradigm? No! Metformin Should Remain the Foundation Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes

  1. Silvio E. Inzucchi⇑
  1. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
  1. Corresponding author: Silvio E. Inzucchi, silvio.inzucchi{at}yale.edu.
Diabetes Care 2017 Aug; 40(8): 1128-1132. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-2372
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Most treatment guidelines, including those from the American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the International Diabetes Federation, suggest metformin be used as the first-line therapy after diet and exercise. This recommendation is based on the considerable body of evidence that has accumulated over the last 30 years, but it is also supported on clinical grounds based on metformin’s affordability and tolerability. As such, metformin is the most commonly used oral antihyperglycemic agent in the U.S. However, based on the release of newer agents over the recent past, some have suggested that the modern approach to disease management should be based upon identification of its etiology and correcting the underlying biological disturbances. That is, we should use interventions that normalize or at least ameliorate the recognized derangements in physiology that drive the clinical manifestation of disease, in this circumstance, hyperglycemia. Thus, it is argued that therapeutic interventions that target glycemia but do not correct the underlying pathogenic disturbances are unlikely to result in a sustained benefit on the disease process. In our field, there is an evolving debate regarding the suggested first step in diabetes management and a call for a new paradigm. Given the current controversy, we provide a Point-Counterpoint debate on this issue. In the point narrative that precedes the counterpoint narrative below, Drs. Abdul-Ghani and DeFronzo provide their argument that a treatment approach for type 2 diabetes based upon correcting the underlying pathophysiological abnormalities responsible for the development of hyperglycemia provides the best therapeutic strategy. Such an approach requires a change in the recommendation for first-line therapy from metformin to a GLP-1 receptor agonist. In the counterpoint narrative below, Dr. Inzucchi argues that based on the medical community’s extensive experience and the drug’s demonstrated efficacy, safety, low cost, and cardiovascular benefits, metformin should remain the “foundation therapy” for all patients with type 2 diabetes, barring contraindications.

—William T. Cefalu

Chief Scientific, Medical & Mission Officer, American Diabetes Association

Within a few years of its introduction to the U.S. market in 1995, the biguanide metformin became considered the favored initial therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. This distinction was owed to the combination of a paucity of long-term side effects, weight neutrality or modest weight loss, effectiveness in reducing HbA1c without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia, and evidence for cardiovascular benefits. Despite its popularity, however, metformin’s precise mechanism of action still remains incompletely understood. Over the years, several lines of evidence have supported multiple mechanisms, as shown in Table 1. The most consistent finding is that the drug reduces hepatic glucose production (HGP), mainly through inhibition of hepatic gluconeogenesis (1). Recently, elegant studies in murine models have clearly demonstrated that the specific target of metformin is likely to be inhibition of the mitochondrion-specific isoform of glycerophosphate dehydrogenase, leading to an increase in the cytosolic redox state and, as a consequence, decreased conversion of lactate and glycerol to glucose (2). There is also growing evidence that at least some of the drug’s metabolic effects may involve the enteroendocrine axis, including gut activation culminating in the release of GLP-1 and peptide YY (3). Because patients with type 2 diabetes express both increased HGP and derangements in the incretin system, metformin’s mechanism(s) of action could also be considered to be pathophysiologically based.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Major proposed mechanisms of action of metformin

The cardiovascular benefits of this drug were initially demonstrated in 1998, with publication of the results from a small, prespecified subinvestigation of overweight patients within the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). This demonstrated strikingly better macrovascular outcomes in those randomized to metformin versus conventional diet therapy (myocardial infarction: hazard ratio [HR] 0.61 [95% CI 0.41, 0.89], diabetes-related death: 0.58 [0.37, 0.91], and all-cause mortality: 0.64 [0.45, 0.91]) (4). In contrast, in the main UKPDS comparing sulfonylurea or insulin versus diet, there was no such cardiovascular advantage (5). Moreover, when metformin-treated patients were compared directly to those on sulfonylureas or insulin, they experienced fewer diabetes-related end points (P = 0.003) and less all-cause mortality (P = 0.02) and stroke (P = 0.03) (2). In two subsequent trials, Hyperinsulinaemia: the Outcome of its Metabolic Effects (HOME) (6) and Study on the Prognosis and Effect of Antidiabetic Drugs on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus With Coronary Artery Disease (SPREAD-DIMCAD) (7), the risk reductions related to cardiovascular end points were remarkably consistent at about 40% (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Randomized clinical trials involving metformin and CVD outcomes

More recently, several large observational studies have buttressed the notion of cardiovascular benefits from metformin, showing improved outcomes with the biguanide as compared with sulfonylurea monotherapy both for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality (8–10). Admittedly, it cannot be known from such data whether event rates are decreased by metformin or increased by sulfonylureas, which are, of course, associated with hypoglycemia. Mechanistic studies over the years, however, seem to support the former conclusion, with this biguanide having protean benefits on cardiovascular risk factors, including body weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, inflammatory markers, hypercoagulability, platelet dysfunction, and microvascular reactivity (11).

This body of evidence, along with metformin’s low cost and general good tolerability, catapulted the drug in less than a decade to be the most commonly used oral antihyperglycemic agent in the U.S. (12). Most treatment guidelines, including those from the American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (13) and the International Diabetes Federation (14), suggest metformin be used as the first-line therapy after diet and exercise, barring any prevailing contraindications. The drug is also endorsed by professional organizations for diabetes prevention in those with mild hyperglycemia, attesting to its excellent safety profile (15). This recommendation and growing use by the medical community stems from the impressive findings of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), a study involving 3,234 overweight patients with impaired glucose tolerance and fasting plasma glucose 95–125 mg/dL who were randomized to intensive lifestyle change, metformin, or placebo (16). Patients in the metformin arm experienced a 31% reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes over 2.8 years relative to placebo. In the long-term follow-up component of the DPP, known as the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS), those initially randomized to metformin experienced an 18% reduction in the incidence of diabetes versus the original placebo group at the end of a full decade (17). This was despite the fact that placebo patients were offered additional lifestyle support and good adherence to metformin was achieved by only 57% patients.

The value of metformin was recently indirectly suggested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s revision of its proviso for use in those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (18), which, when severe, can result in drug accumulation and increased risk of lactic acidosis. The updated guidelines now allow therapy in those with stable, mild to moderate CKD, thereby expanding its use in the U.S. by, potentially, more than a million individuals (19).

In fact, so pervasive is metformin’s clinical use that every recent drug development program for new glucose-lowering agents routinely tests its investigational agent in combination with metformin. It is also the most common therapeutic ingredient in fixed-dose combination drugs, now available in conjunction with sulfonylureas, glinides, thiazolidinediones, DPP-4 inhibitors, and SGLT2 inhibitors.

Despite these now widely recognized advantages of metformin, a rapidly growing pharmacopeia for type 2 diabetes has led to the emergence of an important but controversial question: should any of the newer medications replace metformin as first-line therapy? Until recently, there was no solid evidence that any specific glucose-lowering drug or drug category had any definitive long-term benefit over other agents. During the past year, however, members of two categories of diabetes medications, the SGLT2 inhibitors (specifically empagliflozin) (20) and the GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) (specifically the daily injectable liraglutide [21] and the weekly and still investigational injectable semaglutide [22]) have now been shown to have clear cardiovascular benefits over the standard of care. Two of these (empagliflozin [23] and liraglutide [21]) were also found to improve renal outcomes. Both benefits are extremely important and also likely to be, at least in part, distinct from the drugs’ glucose-lowering effects. Based on these new data, should either of these agents supplant metformin’s long-held position as the favored initial therapy for type 2 diabetes? Might the answer differ when addressing it in the context of patients with versus without overt cardiovascular disease (CVD)? In this writer’s view, based on the available evidence, the answers are the same: a resounding “No.”

In order to be preferred over metformin as initial monotherapy for type 2 diabetes, a glucose-lowering drug must at the very least demonstrate some tangible advantage, whether it be greater potency, enhanced durability of effectiveness, or a clear benefit on the incidence of long-term complications, either microvascular or macrovascular. No category has thus shown this convincingly. Metformin, with perhaps the exception of insulin, has unsurpassed efficacy for HbA1c reduction, typically in the 1–1.5% range, influenced to some degree by baseline glycemia (24). Whenever it has been compared head-to-head with other drugs, equivalent glycemic reductions have been measured or, in some studies, an actual advantage to metformin has been found (24). Admittedly, however, the degree of HbA1c reduction may not necessarily be the most important outcome from a medication used for diabetes.

The recently demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents have also been measured versus placebo, not versus metformin, and, moreover, upon a background of contemporary treatment, which commonly included metformin. For example, in the BI 10773 (Empagliflozin) Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME), 74% of patients were already on metformin at baseline (20). Corresponding figures from Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results—A Long Term Evaluation (LEADER) and Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6) were 76% and 73%, respectively (21,22). Accordingly, it can be said that the benefits to the cardiovascular system of the newer agents have only been demonstrated, largely, on top of widespread metformin use.

Most importantly, extending the findings from these trials to the primary prevention setting—the most common scenario when prescribing initial glucose-lowering therapy—is very premature. In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, a main inclusion criterion was a prior history of CVD (20). It is impossible to know whether empagliflozin might have benefits in those without overt macrovascular complications. Given the prominent effects of empagliflozin in this trial on heart failure hospitalization rates (HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.50, 0.85]) and its recognized diuretic actions, some have proposed that the drug exerts its benefits on cardiovascular mortality by simply off-loading the left ventricle in those with known and even perhaps yet unrecognized ventricular dysfunction (25). In LEADER (21) and SUSTAIN-6 (22), eligibility criteria included those over age 50 years with overt CVD but also a smaller cohort (about 1 in 5 to 6 participants) over age 60 years with cardiovascular risk factors only. Notably, in both studies, the point estimates for the primary outcome were ≥1.00 for those without overt CVD (LEADER: HR 1.20 [95% CI 0.86, 1.67], P for interaction = 0.04 [21]; SUSTAIN-6: 1.00 [0.41, 2.46], P for interaction = 0.49 [22]) (Fig. 1). These data also suggest that the GLP-1 RAs may exert their cardiovascular outcome benefits solely in those with prevalent macrovascular disease. Even the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone, which has been shown to have favorable effects on atherosclerotic end points in the PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events (PROactive) (26) and Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) (27) trial, has been tested solely in those with preexisting macrovascular complications. Accordingly, it can be confidently stated that metformin remains the only diabetes drug with clear cardiovascular benefits demonstrated in individuals without known CVD. Therefore, its fundamental position as the preferred initial glucose-lowering therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes remains deeply rooted.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Point estimates for primary outcome treatment effect in LEADER and SUSTAIN-6 by subgroups of baseline CVD status. HRs for the primary outcome were >1.00 in participants enrolled with CVD risk factors only (i.e., no established CVD) in these trials. Such data suggest that the cardiovascular benefits of these GLP-1 RAs (liraglutide in LEADER and semaglutide in SUSTAIN-6) were restricted to those participants with established CVD, calling into question their role in primary prevention.

Another concern is the adverse effect profile of any medication, particularly those used in chronic disease management. Other than metformin’s well-recognized gastrointestinal side effects, which are typically self-limited and often mitigated by use of extended-release formulations (28), it is exceedingly well tolerated and, as mentioned, has been in widespread use for more the two decades in the U.S. The very rare complication of lactic acidosis is likely to occur only in those taking the drug in spite of prevailing contraindications, especially renal failure (29). Additionally, as mentioned, the drug is now being proposed as a diabetes prevention agent (15) and prescribing guidelines in those with mild to moderate CKD have recently been relaxed (Fig. 2) (18), which both attest to the safety of this compound.

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2

Recently updated U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines for the use of metformin in CKD. Metformin may now be used in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 but is contraindicated in those with an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. If eGFR falls <45 mL/min/1.73 m2, the benefits and risks of continuing treatment should be assessed. Starting metformin in patients with an eGFR between 30 and 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 is not recommended. ESRD, end-stage renal disease.

In contrast, with newer agents, by definition, there is less information available concerning long-term toxicities. SGLT2 inhibitors appear to be reasonably well tolerated except for genitourinary infections, but they have been in wide use for less than 5 years. They now appear to increase the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, a rare but potentially serious complication that we are still trying to understand (30). The GLP-1 RAs have been available for nearly a decade but in more limited use and are associated with substantial rates of nausea. Initial concerns about carcinogenesis appear to be diminishing (31), but additional long-term safety data are still needed.

Finally, the current relative annual cost differences between metformin (<$50), SGLT2 inhibitors (∼$4,800), and GLP-1 RAs (∼$9,300) are striking (32). With hundreds of billions of dollars already spent in the U.S. on the management of diabetes, it is critical that we favor the most cost-effective options in the absence of compelling data dictating a different approach. Were these newer categories to be used as initial therapy for all 29 million Americans with diabetes (admittedly an extreme case used for illustrative purposed only), costs to the health care system might range up to $139 to $270 billion dollars—clearly unreasonable. If both categories were used in tandem, as some have proposed, the combined costs could easily exceed the total expenditures for all retail prescription drugs in the U.S. as of 2014 (33)! Our group recently reported that while spending on diabetes medications has increased dramatically over the past decade, the mean HbA1c and rates of hypoglycemia have not changed appreciably (12). These data suggest, at the very least, that the value of diabetes therapy must be carefully considered, especially if any major changes in traditional strategies are being contemplated.

Instead, as endorsed by the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (13), SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs are reasonable options after metformin monotherapy no longer adequately controls HbA1c. Indeed, some members of these drug categories may be the preferred agents in this setting in patients with established CVD, as suggested by the aforementioned trials.

In order to replace metformin as the preferred initial drug in type 2 diabetes, a head-to-head trial with the proposed agent would need to be conducted, assessing the relative effects on glycemia and both macrovascular and microvascular outcomes. Given the likely underlying cardiovascular benefits of metformin, however, such a study would probably need to involve tens of thousands of patients and extend well beyond 5 years. Some trialists would view this as impractical from both a cost and logistical standpoint. The majority of the long-term diabetes treatment trials currently underway consist of other cardiovascular outcome studies of similar design to EMPA-REG OUTCOME, LEADER, and SUSTAIN-6, testing the investigational agent versus placebo upon background therapy (34). They therefore will not provide relevant information as to the preferred monotherapy for type 2 diabetes. One exception is a trial comparing the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin to the sulfonylurea glimepiride, but also upon background glucose-lowering therapy that will likely commonly involve metformin (35). The National Institutes of Health’s Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) trial is testing mainly the durability of several options added to metformin (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, and insulin glargine) (36). By definition, all GRADE participants, per protocol, will already be on metformin monotherapy. The study is also not powered to adequately assess for important long-term complications, such as CVD. Notably, an important second-line category, SGLT2 inhibitors, a member of which is now indicated for the prevention of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and CVD, are not represented because they became available in the U.S. after the trial had started. Thus, GRADE will also not be able to inform on this specific debate.

In summary, based on the medical community’s extensive experience and the drug’s demonstrated efficacy, safety, low cost, and cardiovascular benefits, metformin should remain the “foundation therapy” for all patients with type 2 diabetes, barring contraindications. There is no convincing evidence at the present time to consider any other approach.

Article Information

Duality of Interest. S.E.I. reports serving on clinical trial steering/executive/publications committees for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Daiichi Sankyo; serving on data-monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk and Intarcia; and serving as a consultant to Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Sanofi, and vTv Therapeutics. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Footnotes

  • See accompanying article, p. 1121.

  • © 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.
http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Hundal RS,
    2. Krssak M,
    3. Dufour S, et al
    . Mechanism by which metformin reduces glucose production in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2000;49:2063–2069
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Madiraju AK,
    2. Erion DM,
    3. Rahimi Y, et al
    . Metformin suppresses gluconeogenesis by inhibiting mitochondrial glycerophosphate dehydrogenase. Nature 2014;510:542–546
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Buse JB,
    2. DeFronzo RA,
    3. Rosenstock J, et al
    . The primary glucose-lowering effect of metformin resides in the gut, not the circulation: results from short-term pharmacokinetic and 12-week dose-ranging studies. Diabetes Care 2016;39:198–205
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group
    . Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 1998;352:854–865
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group
    . Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837–853
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Kooy A,
    2. de Jager J,
    3. Lehert P, et al
    . Long-term effects of metformin on metabolism and microvascular and macrovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:616–625
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Hong J,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Lai S, et al.; SPREAD-DIMCAD Investigators
    . Effects of metformin versus glipizide on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. Diabetes Care 2013;36:1304–1311
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Roumie CL,
    2. Hung AM,
    3. Greevy RA, et al
    . Comparative effectiveness of sulfonylurea and metformin monotherapy on cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:601–610
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Johnson JA,
    2. Majumdar SR,
    3. Simpson SH,
    4. Toth EL
    . Decreased mortality associated with the use of metformin compared with sulfonylurea monotherapy in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002;25:2244–2248
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Claesen M,
    2. Gillard P,
    3. De Smet F,
    4. Callens M,
    5. De Moor B,
    6. Mathieu C
    . Mortality in individuals treated with glucose-lowering agents: a large, controlled cohort study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016;101:461–469
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Anabtawi A,
    2. Miles JM
    . Metformin: nonglycemic effects and potential novel indications. Endocr Pract 2016;22:999–1007
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Lipska KJ,
    2. Yao X,
    3. Herrin J, et al
    . Trends in drug utilization, glycemic control, and rates of severe hypoglycemia, 2006–2013. Diabetes Care 2017;40:468–475
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Inzucchi SE,
    2. Bergenstal RM,
    3. Buse JB, et al
    . Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centered approach: update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2015;38:140–149
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    International Diabetes Federation. Global guideline for type 2 diabetes. Available from https://www.idf.org/e-library/guidelines/79-global-guideline-for-type-2-diabetes.html. Accessed 6 November 2016
  14. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . Prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes. Sec. 5. In Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2017. Diabetes Care 2017;40(Suppl. 1):S44–S47
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Knowler WC,
    2. Barrett-Connor E,
    3. Fowler SE, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393–403
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
    . Long-term effects of lifestyle intervention or metformin on diabetes development and microvascular complications over 15-year follow-up: the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015;3:866–875
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA revises warnings regarding use of the diabetes medicine metformin in certain patients with reduced kindey function [Internet]. Available from http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm493244.htm. Accessed 29 October 2016
  18. ↵
    1. Flory JH,
    2. Hennessy S
    . Metformin use reduction in mild to moderate renal impairment: possible inappropriate curbing of use based on Food and Drug Administration contraindications. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:458–459
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Zinman B,
    2. Wanner C,
    3. Lachin JM, et al.; EMPA-REG OUTCOME Investigators
    . Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2117–2128
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Marso SP,
    2. Daniels GH,
    3. Brown-Frandsen K, et al.; LEADER Steering Committee; LEADER Trial Investigators
    . Liraglutide and CV outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016;375:311–322
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Marso SP,
    2. Bain SC,
    3. Consoli A, et al.; SUSTAIN-6 Investigators
    . Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1834–1844
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Wanner C,
    2. Inzucchi SE,
    3. Lachin JM, et al.; EMPA-REG OUTCOME Investigators
    . Empagliflozin and progression of kidney disease in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016;375:323–334
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Maruthur NM,
    2. Tseng E,
    3. Hutfless S, et al
    . Diabetes medications as monotherapy or metformin-based combination therapy for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2016;164:740–751
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Sattar N,
    2. McLaren J,
    3. Kristensen SL,
    4. Preiss D,
    5. McMurray JJ
    . SGLT2 inhibition and CV events: why did EMPA-REG Outcomes surprise and what were the likely mechanisms? Diabetologia 2016;59:1333–1339
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Dormandy JA,
    2. Charbonnel B,
    3. Eckland DJ, et al.; PROactive Investigators
    . Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:1279–1289
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Kernan WN,
    2. Viscoli CM,
    3. Furie KL, et al.; IRIS Trial Investigators
    . Pioglitazone after ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1321–1331
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Ali S,
    2. Fonseca V
    . Overview of metformin: special focus on metformin extended release. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2012;13:1797–1805
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Inzucchi SE,
    2. Lipska KJ,
    3. Bailey CJ,
    4. McGuire DK
    . Metformin in type 2 diabetes patients with kidney disease: a systematic review. JAMA 2014;312:2668–2675
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    1. Goldenberg RM,
    2. Berard LD,
    3. Cheng AY, et al
    . SGLT2 inhibitor-associated diabetic ketoacidosis: clinical review and recommendations for prevention and diagnosis. Clin Ther 2016;38:2654–2664.e1
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Nauck MA,
    2. Friedrich N
    . Do GLP-1–based therapies increase cancer risk? Diabetes Care 2013;36(Suppl. 2):S245–S252
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    GoodRx. Stop paying too much for your prescriptions [Internet]. Available from https://www.goodrx.com. Accessed 6 November 2016
  32. ↵
    U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National health expenditures 2015 highlights [Internet]. Available from https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/downloads/highlights.pdf. Accessed 6 November 2016
  33. ↵
    1. Holman RR,
    2. Sourij H,
    3. Califf RM
    . Cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering drugs or strategies in type 2 diabetes. Lancet 2014;383:2008–2017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. Marx N,
    2. Rosenstock J,
    3. Kahn SE, et al
    . Design and baseline characteristics of the CARdiovascular Outcome Trial of LINAgliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes (CAROLINA®). Diab Vasc Dis Res 2015;12:164–174
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    The George Washington University Biostatistics Center. Glycemia Reduction Approches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) [Internet]. Available from https://portal.bsc.gwu.edu/web/grade. Accessed 6 November 2016
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 40 (8)

In this Issue

August 2017, 40(8)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Is It Time to Change the Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Paradigm? No! Metformin Should Remain the Foundation Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Is It Time to Change the Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Paradigm? No! Metformin Should Remain the Foundation Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes
Silvio E. Inzucchi
Diabetes Care Aug 2017, 40 (8) 1128-1132; DOI: 10.2337/dc16-2372

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Is It Time to Change the Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Paradigm? No! Metformin Should Remain the Foundation Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes
Silvio E. Inzucchi
Diabetes Care Aug 2017, 40 (8) 1128-1132; DOI: 10.2337/dc16-2372
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Is It Time to Change the Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Paradigm? Yes! GLP-1 RAs Should Replace Metformin in the Type 2 Diabetes Algorithm
  • Are There Clinical Implications of Racial Differences in HbA1c? A Difference, to Be a Difference, Must Make a Difference
Show more Point-Counterpoint

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.