Evidence Hub

Secondary failure of metformin monotherapy in clinical practice

Brown JB, Conner C, Nichols GA

Diabetes care, 2010

1,799 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE We sought to document the secondary failure rate of metformin monotherapy in a clinical practice setting and to explore factors that predict therapeutic failure. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We studied 1,799 type 2 diabetic patients who, between 2004 and 2006, lowered their A1C to or =7.5% or the addition or substitution of another anti-hyperglycemic agent. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with the probability of secondary failure. RESULTS Of the 1,799 patients studied, 42% (n = 748) experienced secondary failure; the mean failure rate was 17% per year. However, patients who initiated metformin within 3 months of diabetes diagnosis failed at an age-and A1C-adjusted rate of 12.2% (10.5-14.4%) per year, and patients who initiated while A1C was <7% failed at an adjusted rate of 12.3% per year. An interaction term between duration of diagnosed diabetes and A1C was not significant. Age, duration, and A1C at initiation were the only factors that predicted secondary failure. CONCLUSIONS Although metformin failure may occur more rapidly in clinical practice than in clinical trails, initiating it soon after diabetes diagnosis and while A1C is low might preserve beta-cell function, prolong the effectiveness of metformin, reduce lifetime glycemic burden, and prevent diabetes complications. Our findings support the current treatment algorithm for hyperglycemia management that recommends metformin initiation when diabetes is first diagnosed.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,799 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free