Efficacy of Various Antidiabetic Agents as Add-On Treatments to Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 4

Summary of FPI (μU/mL) between the treatment and the control groups.

Study	Treatment				Control				Difference
	n	Baseline	Final	Change	n	Baseline	Final	Change	between groups
				TZD versus DPP IV inh.
(i) Scott et al. [22]; Rosiglitazone versus Sitagliptin	73	15.1 ± 9.6	11.2 ± 8.8	−3.7 ± 6.54	79	14.7 ± 9.9	14.5 ± 8.6	−0.2 ± 6.35	−3.5
				TZDs versus SUs
(i) Charbonnel et al. [24]; Pioglitazone versus Gliclazide	317	15.3 ± 11.70	NA	−2.61 ± 10.48^b; (−18.1 pmol/L)	313	15.0 ± 10.07	NA	1.90 ± 10.48^b; (13.2 pmol/L)	−4.51
(ii) Garber et al. [25]; Rosiglitazone versus Glibenclamide	152	18 ± 11	NA	−7 ± 10.48^b	153	15 ± 11	NA	−3 ± 10.48^b	−4
(iii) Umpierrez et al. [26]; Pioglitazone versus Glimepiride	107	16.9 ± 15.2	NA	−5.18 ± 11.90; (SE = 1.15)	96	14.8 ± 8.95	NA	6.21 ± 11.95; (SE = 1.22)	−11.39
(iv) Hamann et al. [27]; Rosiglitazone versus Glibenclamide, Gliclazide	236	12.40 ± 10.56; (86.12 ± 73.34 pmol/L)	8.26 ± 5.78; (57.36 ± 40.13 pmol/L)	−4.14 ± 9.16^a	229	11.83 ± 11.38; (82.15 ± 79.04 pmol/L)	11.95 ± 8.95; (82.98 ± 62.15 pmol/L)	0.12 ± 10.38^a	−4.26
				TZD versus TZD
(i) Derosa et al. [28]; Pioglitazone versus Rosiglitazone	48	25.5 ± 6.1	20.2 ± 4.9	−5.3 ± 5.60^a	48	26.1 ± 5.9	22.2 ± 5.2	−3.9 ± 5.58^a	1.4

Data are mean ± SD values. NA: not available. ^aSD calculated from SD baseline and final values. ^bSD calculated from pooled standard deviation of Umpierrez et al. [26] and Hamann et al. [27]. To convert μU/mL to pmol/L multiply by 6.945.