Advertisement

Diabetologia

, Volume 53, Issue 5, pp 809–820 | Cite as

The use of metformin in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review of efficacy

  • S. Vella
  • L. Buetow
  • P. Royle
  • S. Livingstone
  • H. M. Colhoun
  • J. R. Petrie
Review

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis

As adding metformin to insulin therapy has been advocated in type 1 diabetes, we conducted a systematic review of published clinical trials and clinical trial databases to assess the effects on HbA1c, weight, insulin-dose requirement and adverse effects.

Methods

We constructed evidence tables and fitted a fixed-effects model (inverse variance method) in order to assess heterogeneity between studies and give a crude measure of each overall treatment effect.

Results

Of 197 studies identified, nine involved randomisation with informed consent of patients with type 1 diabetes to metformin (vs placebo or comparator) in either a parallel or crossover design for at least 1 week. We noted marked heterogeneity in study design, drug dose, age of participants and length of follow-up. Metformin was associated with reductions in: (1) insulin-dose requirement (5.7–10.1 U/day in six of seven studies); (2) HbA1c (0.6–0.9% in four of seven studies); (3) weight (1.7–6.0 kg in three of six studies); and (4) total cholesterol (0.3–0.41 mmol/l in three of seven studies). Metformin was well tolerated, albeit with a trend towards increased hypoglycaemia. Formal estimates of combined effects from the five trials which reported appropriate data indicated a significant reduction in insulin dose (6.6 U/day, p < 0.001) but no significant reduction in HbA1c (absolute reduction 0.11%, p = 0.42). No reported trials included cardiovascular outcomes.

Conclusions/interpretation

Metformin reduces insulin-dose requirement in type 1 diabetes but it is unclear whether this is sustained beyond 1 year and whether there are benefits for cardiovascular and other key clinical outcomes.

Keywords

Cardiovascular disease HbA1c Insulin Metformin Obesity Systematic review Type 1 diabetes 

Abbreviations

AMPK

AMP-activated protein kinase

CVD

Cardiovascular disease

MeSH

Medical search headings

SMD

Standardised mean difference

TW

Text word

UKPDS

UK Prospective Diabetes Study

Introduction

Tight glycaemic control using intensive insulin therapy was shown in the DCCT to reduce rates of microvascular complications in type 1 diabetes [1]. However, achieving and maintaining such control in type 1 diabetes using standard insulin therapy requires a high level of support and is associated with more hypoglycaemia, increased weight gain and, in some patients, aggravation of cardiovascular risk factors including dyslipidaemia [2, 3].

Metformin is an inexpensive and established oral glucose-lowering agent widely used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes [4]. Metformin, a biguanide agent, is first-line oral pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes in the UK and elsewhere, in accordance with guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence/National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions (NICE/NCC) [5] and international guidelines, such as those issued jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes [6] and the International Diabetes Federation [7].

Activation of the energy-regulating enzyme AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), principally in muscle and the liver, is considered a major mode of metformin action [8]. Therapy in type 2 diabetes is associated with decreased hepatic glucose production, decreased fasting plasma glucose, a reduction in HbA1c level, weight stabilisation/loss, modest reductions in serum triacylglycerol, VLDL and LDL levels, as well as decreased C-reactive protein, platelet activation and procoagulant factors (such as factor VII and fibrinogen) [9]. In the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) [10, 11] and the A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT) [12], patients randomised to metformin therapy experienced less weight gain than those allocated to other oral therapies, together with equivalent or lower rates of hypoglycaemia [12, 13]. Importantly metformin therapy was associated with a substantial 33% reduction in the rate of myocardial infarction in people with type 2 diabetes in the UKPDS, and this was sustained to 10 years after the end of randomisation [14]. Metformin therefore has properties that make it an attractive potential adjunct agent in type 1 diabetes.

The published summaries of the evidence on the effects of metformin in type 1 diabetes are incomplete. A recent review [15] did not include the two largest trials to date [16, 17] but did include data from a non-randomised controlled study [18]. A recent Cochrane review [19] only included the two trials [20, 21] conducted in adolescents. We have therefore conducted a systematic review aimed at capturing all published data from randomised trials that involved using metformin in people of any age with type 1 diabetes.

Methods

Our objective was to capture all trial data for metformin in type 1 diabetes where the trial was: (1) randomised; (2) lasted at least 1 week; (3) used either a comparator drug or placebo or used a crossover design; and (4) included consenting patients. We extracted any data on cardiovascular disease (CVD), HbA1c, body weight or BMI, insulin dose, lipids and adverse effects.

Search strategy

We first captured all publications pertaining to type 1 diabetes and metformin for any outcomes as follows in PubMed (1950 to week 4 January 2009, updated 6 October 2009) and EMBASE (1974 onwards). The search was conducted as follows using medical search headings (MeSH):
  1. 1.

    ‘Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1’ [MeSH]

     
  2. 2.

    (DIABET*) AND (TYPE 1 [TW] OR IDDM [TW]) OR (‘INSULIN DEPENDENT’ not ‘NON-INSULIN DEPENDENT’)

     
  3. 3.

    1 OR 2

     
  4. 4.

    ‘Metformin’ [MeSH]

     
  5. 5.

    Metformin [TW]

     
  6. 6.

    4 OR 5

     

This search was run by two independent researchers (P. Royle and H. M. Colhoun), and was repeated and updated by S. Vella. The abstracts of all identified publications were manually searched for studies that attempted to evaluate the effect of metformin on any clinically relevant outcome whether in a randomised trial or open-label or other design. The citations of all relevant publications were manually searched (H. M. Colhoun and L. Buetow) for any additional studies. Where uncertainty existed, the full text of the article was obtained and reviewed. S. Vella and L. Buetow independently assessed all potentially relevant studies and performed data extraction. The resulting tables of evidence were reviewed by J. R. Petrie and H. M. Colhoun. Disagreement was resolved by discussion; independent adjudication was not required.

In addition we searched for ongoing and unpublished trials as follows:
  • Cochrane Library 2009 issue 1

  • Science Citation Index meeting abstracts (includes European Association for the Study of Diabetes and American Diabetes Association meetings) 1980-October 2008

  • Diabetes UK meeting abstracts 2002–2008

  • Endocrine Society Abstracts 2005–2008

  • Science Citation Index meeting Abstracts 1980–2008

  • National Research Register (NRR)

  • Controlled-trials.com

Five trials were registered on the UK NRR, all with glycaemic/metabolic outcomes with end dates in 2005 or earlier. All leading investigators were emailed to request data: N0176113569, completed but unpublished (pilot study); N0231133055, completed and published [22]; N0394131469, not completed; N0301111201, completed and published [23]; N0046091476, not completed.

An online reference to trial N0394131469, initially accessed in the first search (week 4 January 2009), was no longer accessible on searching across multiple research registers on relevant websites (www.nrr.org.uk; www.controlled-trials.com) in the updated search (6 October 2009).

On the controlled-trials.com meta-register, one additional glycaemic/metabolic trial was found: NCT00145379, not completed, still recruiting (n = 50).

Participants

Participants were those of any age described by the authors of the publications as having type 1 diabetes or insulin-dependent diabetes or youth-onset diabetes.

Analysis

We decided to summarise the data mostly in text and tabular form as there was obvious heterogeneity between studies in methods, design and outcome measures. However, we also present some data using standard meta-analysis techniques [24]; the two trials of very short duration [25, 26] were excluded from these. Strictly speaking these formal meta-analysis techniques should be used only when a group of studies is sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions and outcomes to provide a meaningful summary [24]. Nevertheless, we considered it useful to have a measure of the statistical significance of apparent effects.

With these reservations, a fixed-effects model using the inverse variance method was fitted to give a crude measure of the overall treatment effect, to assess its statistical significance and to assess the heterogeneity of treatment effect between studies. We examined the outcomes of effect on %HbA1c and on insulin dose. The metan STATA user command was used, which quantifies heterogeneity using the I 2 measure [27]. Of the eight eligible studies, one study [23] was excluded as it may have been incorrectly analysed as if it were a parallel-group study (in which case the standard deviations would not be valid). Three other studies could not be included as they either did not report the outcomes of interest [25, 26], or because the data items necessary for inclusion in a combined analysis were not reported [17]. The data were extracted as %HbA1c and as U/day for insulin dose (using mean weight at baseline in each treatment group to convert insulin in U kg−1 day−1 to U/day). For some studies, only attained mean levels were available rather than changes from baseline by treatment group; therefore, we derived treatment effect as the net difference in absolute units of outcome between metformin and placebo groups. The obvious methodological heterogeneity in study design, drug dose, age of participants and length of follow-up render the combined estimates of effect somewhat imprecise.

Results

The initial electronic search identified 187 studies (Fig. 1). A manual review of the citations yielded an additional ten studies. In total, 47 of these publications were judged to be relevant to metformin therapy in type 1 diabetes. Analysis of publications revealed: 17 were observational studies with no random allocation and/or no comparator group [18, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]; 11 were reviews, letters or commentaries [43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53]; two did not contain any quantitative estimates of effects [54, 55]; one concerned an outcome (erythrocyte binding of insulin) not judged relevant [56]; and four were abstracts of papers subsequently published [57, 58, 59, 60]. Of the remaining 12 publications, one concerned insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes rather than type 1 diabetes (noted after translation) [61], and one covered a treatment period of fewer than 7 days [62]. Only ten studies were therefore identified [16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 63, 64, 65]. One of these, which was conducted on participants living in a children’s home and did not mention informed consent, was excluded from further analysis [64].
Fig. 1

Flow chart of the literature search

The final nine studies [16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 63, 65] covered a total of 192.8 patient years, and the number of completed participants ranged from ten to 92 (median 26) (two studies did not report number completed [17, 26]) (Table 1). The total maximum daily metformin dose varied from 1,000 to 2,550 mg; duration of therapy ranged from 7 days to 12 months (median 4 months). Two studies were available only in abstract form [17, 26], including one of the largest studies (n = 80), which dated from 2000 [17].
Table 1

Study design and baseline characteristics of participants

First author [reference]

Year

Form of publication

Design

Random allocation sequence

Comparison group

Blinding of investigator/patient

Number of patients randomised (completed)

Duration in months (or as stated)

Mean age (years)

Mean weight (kg)

HbA1c (%) at baseline

Daily dose metformin (mg)

Gin [25]

1985

Full

Crossover

b

Placebo

No/No

10 (10)

(7 days)

41

62

10.0a

1,700

Keen [26]

1987

Abstract

Crossover

b

Placebo

Yes/Yes

8 (b)

(3 weeks)

‘Adults’b

84

b

1,500

Walravens [17]

2000

Abstract

Parallel group

b

Placebo

Yes/Yes

80 (b)

6

16

68

9.6

1,000

Meyer [63]

2002

Full

Parallel groupc

b

Placebo

Yes/Yes

62 (59)

6

41

76

7.6

1,700

Hamilton [20]

2003

Full

Parallel group

Computer generated

Placebo

Yes/Yes

30 (27)

3

16

63 (MF), 71 (PL)

9.4 (MF), 8.9 (PL)

Up to 2,000 (weight-dependent)

Särnblad [21]

2003

Full

Parallel group

b

Placebo

Yes/Yes

30 (26)d

3

17

68

9.3

Forced titration to 2,000

Khan [23]

2006

Full

Crossover

Computer generated

Placebo

Yes/Yes

15 (15)

4

48

92

8.6

Forced titration to 2,550

Lund [16]

2008

Full

Parallel groupc

Computer generated

Placebo

Yes/Yes

100 (92)

12

46

80

9.5

Forced titration to 2,000

Jacobsen [65]

2009

Full

Parallel group

b

Placebo

Yes/Yes

24 (23)

6

40

90

8.9 (MF), 9.3 (PL)

Forced titration to 2,000

aHbA1

bFurther data unavailable

cIntention-to-treat analysis

d24 completed the hyperinsulinaemic–euglycaemic clamp procedure

MF, metformin; PL, placebo

All nine studies evaluated at least one glycaemic control or blood glucose variable in association with metformin treatment (Table 2), but only seven reported mean change in HbA1 or HbA1c [16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 63, 65], which was reduced by 0.6–0.9% in four studies [17, 20, 21, 23], with no significant change in three [16, 63, 65] (overall range +0.13% [16] to −0.9% [21]). The remaining two (shorter-term) studies reported other glycaemic benefits, including an 18% increase in glucose uptake (artificial pancreas hyperinsulinaemic–euglycaemic clamp) [25], and improved postprandial glucose handling [26].
Table 2

Study outcomes

First author [reference]

Year

Main outcome

Effect on HbA1c level

Effect on insulin dose

Effect on weight/ anthropometry

Other main effect(s)

No. of hypoglycaemic events

Lipids

Gin [25]

1985

Glucose uptake

a

Fixed by design (HEC with Biostator)

a

18% increase in insulin sensitivity (p<0.01)b,c

a

No significant differences with MFb

Keen [26]

1987

Fasting and postprandial glucose

Not measured (reduced mean 7 point capillary glucose –1.6c [MF] vs 0.1c [PL] mmol/l; p<0.05)

No change (fixed CSII)

No significant changeb

No significant difference in change in fasting venous plasma glucose (–1.7c [MF] vs –0.9c [PL] mmol/l; p=NS)

7 (MF), 0 (PL); ‘trend towards more hypos’ p=NS; severity of events not specified

a

Walravens [17]

2000

HbA1c

0.7% lower with MF at 3 months (p<0.05); no difference at 6 monthsc,d

Reduced by 10% with MF in men at 6 months onlya

Wt: MF 64 kgd, PL 70 kgd; p<0.05 at 3 months

a

a

HDL increased by 7 mmol/lc,d (22%) with MF (p=‘significant’)a

WC: MF 74 cmd, PL 77 cmd; p<0.05 at 3 months

No significant effects at 6 months

Meyer [63]

2002

Insulin dose (CSII)

No significant difference –0.13%c (MF) vs –0.11%c (PL) (‘remained unchanged’b)

6.0 fewer U/dayc with MF compared with PL (p=0.0043)

No significant changea

4.5 fewer Uc of basal insulin dose/day with MF compared with PL (p=0.023)

Minor: similar for MF and PL; 47.2c (MF) vs 45.1c (PL) events patient–1 month–1 (p=NS)

MF: TC reduced by 0.41 mmol/lc (p=0.04)

Major: 19 (MF) vs 8 (PL); ‘no significant difference’

PL: no datab

Hamilton [20]

2003

Insulin sensitivity (FSIGT); HbA1c

0.6%c lower with MF compared with PL (p=0.03)

0.16c U kg–1 day–1 lower with MF compared with PL (p=0.01)

‘Trend towards lower BMI in MF group’ –0.05c (MF) vs 0.2c (PL) kg/m2 (p=NS)

No significant difference in the change in insulin sensitivity from baseline between MF and PL 2.6 ×10–4 min–1 (μU/ml)–1 (1.0–4.1)e (MF) vs 2.5 ×10–4 min–1 (μU/ml)–1 (1.9–2.9)e (PL) (p=NS)

Minor: 1.8c (MF) vs 0.9c (PL) events patient–1 week–1 (p=0.03)

‘No significant change’d

Major: 2 (MF), 1 (PL)

Särnblad [21]

2003

HbA1c

0.9% (–1.6, –0.1)e lower with MF (p<0.05)b

No significant change over time for either treatment groupb

No significant change in wt: 66 to 67 kgc (MF), 65 to 66 kgc (PL)b

Statistically significant (but variable) increase in insulin sensitivity from baseline with MF, not with placebo (HEC) (p=<0.05)b

Minora

‘No significant change over time for either treatment group’a

No significant change in BMI, WC or WHRb

Major: none reported

Khan [23]

2006

HbA1c

0.7 %a lower with MF compared with PL (p<0.005)

8 Ua fewer per day with MF compared with PL (p<0.05)

–2 kgc (MF) vs –1 kgc (PL) (p=NS)

Fasting plasma glucose 4.3 mmol/lc lower with MF compared with PL (p<0.001)

Minor: 12 (MF) vs 11 (PL) episodes per patient per 4 weeks (p=NS)

TC and LDL lowered by 0.3 mmol/lc and 0.2 mmol/lc, respectively, by MF (p=NS for the difference between MF and PL)

Major: ‘none were reported’

Lund [16]

2008

HbA1c

No significant effect with MF (0.13% [–0.19, 0.44]e, p=NS)

5.7 U (–8.6, –2.9)e fewer per day with MF (p<0.001)

Wt reduced by 1.74 kg (–3.32, –0.17)e with MF compared with PL (p=0.03)

Significant reduction in cobalamin (–83.3 pmol/l [–139.3, –27.3]e; p=0.004) and alkaline phosphatase (5.91 U/l [–10.77, –1.05]e; p=0.018) from baseline with MF compared with PL

Minor: 48% of patients (MF) vs 49% of patients (PL) (not compared statistically)

Significant reductions in TC and LDL in MF-treated patients compared with PLf

BMI reduced by 0.56 kg/m2 (–1.06, –0.05)e with MF compared with PL (p=0.03)

Significant increase in potassium (0.20 mmol/l [0.02, 0.38]e; p=0.029) with MF compared with PL

Major: 15% of patients (MF) vs 10% of patients (PL) (p=NS)

TC: –0.37 mmol/l

HC reduced by 2.90cm (–5.03, –0.77)e with MF compared with PL (p=0.008)

 

Borderline increase in patients experiencing unconsciousness: 6% (MF) vs 1% (PL) (p=0.06)

(–0.67, –0.06)e (p=0.021)

  

Major hypoglycaemic events leading to unconsciousness during follow-up: 10 (MF) vs 2 (PL) (p<0.05)

LDL: –0.33 mmol/l (–0.61, –0.06)e (p=0.018)

   

 

Jacobsen [65]

2009

HbA1c

No significant difference (–0.48c [MF] vs –0.17c [PL]%; p=NS)

8.8 U (–14.62, –3.04)e fewer per day with MF (p=0.004)

Wt was 3.9 kg (–7.01, –0.71)e lower with MF compared with PL (p=0.02)

No significant difference in systolic or diastolic blood pressure (daytime or night-time) compared with baseline or between treatment groups

gSignificantly higher frequency with MF (0.7c [MF] vs 0.3c [PL] events patient–1 week–1 [p=0.005])

No significant differences in change in TC, LDL, between treatment groupsf

Comparing with baseline values:

‘the increased frequency was most distinct in the first 8 weeks’a

 

DSBP: –1.1c (MF) vs –4.2c (PL) mmHg (p=NS)

 TC: –0.09c (MF) vs 0.03c (PL) mmol/l (p=0.80)

DDBP: –2.4c (MF) vs –8.7c (PL) mmHg (p = NS)

 LDL: –0.23c (MF) vs –0.10c (PL) mmol/l (p=NS)

NSBP: –4.8c (MF) vs –0.4c (PL) mmHg (p=NS)

 

NDBP: –4.5c (MF) vs 2.4c (PL) mmHg (p=NS)

 

To convert values for insulin sensitivity to SI units (×10–4 min–1 [pmol/l]–1) multiply by 0.167

aFurther data unavailable

bNo p value reported for between-treatment comparison

c95% CI unavailable

dNo variance estimates stated

e95% CI

fLipid data published separately [66]

gOnly biochemical hypoglycaemia was registered

CSII, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; DDBP, daytime diastolic blood pressure; DSBP, daytime systolic blood pressure; FSIGT, frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test; HC, hip circumference; HEC, hyperinsulinaemic–euglycaemic clamp; MF, metformin; NDBP, night-time diastolic blood pressure; NSBP, night-time systolic blood pressure; PL, placebo; TC, total cholesterol; WC, waist circumference; Wt, weight

Of the seven studies in which insulin dose was not fixed by design [16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 63, 65], insulin-dose requirement was reduced by 5.7–10.1 U/day in six of seven studies (the study which reported no change was conducted in adolescents) [21]. The same seven studies were of sufficient duration to report data on changes in weight or BMI. Metformin reduced weight by 1.7–6.0 kg in three [16, 17, 65] of six studies [16, 17, 21, 23, 63, 65]. A sustained and statistically significant reduction (mean 1.74 kg) was reported in the largest study, which was also of the longest duration [16].

Total cholesterol was reported in seven studies: it was reduced by 0.37 mmol/l in comparison with placebo in the largest study [66], and by 0.3–0.41 mmol/l with respect to baseline (but not placebo) in two others [23, 63]. ‘No change’ was reported in the other four studies [20, 21, 25, 65].

For formal meta-analysis, only five studies reported the necessary means and standard deviations for insulin dose and HbA1c [16, 20, 21, 63, 65]; there were insufficient data for weight and lipids. Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 summarise the data in standardised mean differences (SMDs) between treatment groups (i.e. the mean difference/standard deviation of mean difference). Analysing all five studies, the overall effect on %HbA1c was a standardised mean difference between treatment groups of −0.10 (i.e. 0.10 standardised units lower in the metformin group 95% CI: standardised mean difference reduction of –0.36 to 0.15, p = 0.42). This translates into an absolute difference of 0.11 units lower %HbA1c in the metformin than placebo groups (not statistically significant) (Fig. 2). As there was some suggestion of heterogeneity (p = 0.175), we carried out a sensitivity analysis of the four smaller and shorter studies [20, 21, 63, 65]. Thus, excluding the largest study [16] the overall effect on %HbA1c was a standardised mean difference between treatment groups of −0.30 (i.e. 0.30 standardised units lower in the metformin group 95% CI: standardised mean difference of −0.64 to 0.037, p = 0.081). This translates into an absolute difference of 0.28 units lower %HbA1c (not statistically significant) in the metformin than the placebo groups, with little evidence of heterogeneity (p = 0.353) (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2

Standardised mean difference of HbA1c level between metformin-treated and metformin-free type 1 diabetes patients from five randomised controlled studies, including the largest study to date [16] (see text for equivalent %HbA1c units)

Fig. 3

Standardised mean difference of HbA1c level between metformin-treated and metformin-free type 1 diabetes patients from four randomised controlled studies, excluding the largest study to date [16] (see text for equivalent %HbA1c units)

Fig. 4

Standardised mean difference of insulin dose between metformin-treated and metformin-free type 1 diabetes patients from five randomised controlled studies, including the largest study to date [16] (see text for equivalent insulin dose units)

Fig. 5

Standardised mean difference of insulin dose between metformin-treated and metformin-free type 1 diabetes patients from four randomised controlled studies, excluding the largest study to date [16] (see text for equivalent insulin dose units)

All five studies [16, 20, 21, 63, 65] showed a reduction in daily insulin dose with metformin, with the overall measure of the treatment effect being a standardised mean difference between treatment groups of −0.65 (i.e. 0.65 standardised units lower in the metformin group 95% CI: standardised mean difference of –0.92 to –0.39 units, p < 0.001). This translates into an absolute difference in insulin-dose requirement of 6.6 U/day lower in the metformin than placebo groups. The χ 2 test of heterogeneity was not statistically significant (p = 0.41), with most of the information coming from the Lund et al. study [16] (Fig. 4). A similar sensitivity analysis of the four smaller and shorter studies [20, 21, 63, 65], excluding Lund et al. [16] confirmed a reduction in daily insulin dose with metformin, with the overall measure of the treatment effect being a standardised mean difference between treatment groups of −0.55 (i.e. 0.55 standardised units lower in the metformin group 95% CI: standardised mean difference of −0.90 to −0.21 units, p = 0.002). This translates into an absolute difference of 7.16 U/day lower in the metformin than placebo groups. The χ 2 test of heterogeneity was not statistically significant (p = 0.365) with most of the information coming from Meyer et al. [63] (Fig. 5).

There were trends for increased major and/or minor hypoglycaemia with metformin therapy in six [16, 20, 23, 26, 63, 65] out of seven studies in which this adverse effect was mentioned [16, 20, 21, 23, 26, 63, 65] (Table 2); this reached statistical significance in two of the smaller studies [20, 65]. There were no reports of lactic acidosis associated with metformin therapy. Rates of gastrointestinal adverse effects were not systematically reported except in two studies [16, 65], with rates being nearly identical in metformin and placebo groups in the largest study [16].

No studies of any design evaluating cardiovascular function, structure or events were identified.

Discussion

We found only nine randomised studies of metformin therapy in type 1 diabetes, two of which were small and experimental. There were only 192.8 patient years of randomised follow-up in the literature which compares adversely with the evidence for statin therapy in type 1 diabetes (over 6,000 patient years), although even this is inconclusive [67]. Reflecting the paucity of the evidence underpinning metformin in type 1 diabetes, recent publication of a single study [16] from the Steno Diabetes Centre almost doubled the available patient years of randomised follow-up. Overall, the grade of evidence according to the Cochrane GRADE system for our main outcomes of glycaemic control and insulin dose is, at best, moderate [24].

Only five studies [16, 20, 21, 63, 65] could be formally combined in a meta-analysis: there are obvious constraints to the interpretations of such sparse and heterogeneous data. Nonetheless, there was evidence of a significant effect of metformin in reducing daily insulin dose requirement. There was no significant effect on HbA1c, which might be expected as, over time, patients would tend to self-titrate their insulin dose towards their usual HbA1c, unless this was prohibited by the protocol. Overall, the evidence we have reviewed is consistent with a whole-body insulin-sensitising effect of metformin. A predicted concomitant attenuation in weight gain with lowering of required insulin doses was seen in the largest and longest trial [16], which was of twice the duration of any other study. A reduction in weight was also reported over 6 months’ treatment in the most recently published study [65], in which use of a specific algorithm for insulin titration resulted in a mean dose reduction of 20%. In keeping with the evidence in type 2 diabetes, as recently reviewed by Wulffele et al [68], there was also a relatively consistent signal that metformin may reduce total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol in adults with type 1 diabetes [66].

In terms of adverse effects, we noted trends towards increased rates of hypoglycaemia in association with adjunct metformin therapy, although this reached statistical significance in only two of the smaller trials [20, 65]. Furthermore, although the largest trial did not report increased rates of metformin-associated major or minor hypoglycaemia, there were significantly more major hypoglycaemic events leading to unconsciousness among metformin-treated individuals with type 1 diabetes [16]. Clearly, even with this weak evidence, physicians contemplating a recommendation of metformin therapy for their patients with type 1 diabetes should advise them carefully regarding insulin-dose adjustment and blood-glucose monitoring. Surprisingly, gastrointestinal adverse effects were infrequently mentioned by investigators. In the largest trial, two of 108 patients screened dropped out for this reason in a run-in period; thereafter, these effects occurred in almost half of the remaining patients, but in almost exactly equal proportions in the active and placebo groups [16]. No cases of lactic acidosis were reported in any of the trials. Although evidence from a Cochrane review has been reassuring on this account in type 2 diabetes [69], randomised follow-up is clearly insufficient in type 1 diabetes, and concern continues to be expressed by some physicians [46].

The findings of the present review disagree to some extent from those of another recent review [15]. Pang and Narendran reported a reduction in HbA1c with metformin therapy in type 1 diabetes on the basis of their meta-analysis of the three smaller trials on this topic [20, 21, 23] which they chose to combine with one of the three larger trials [63], (but not the two largest [16, 17]), along with an observational (controlled but non-randomised) trial that did not meet our inclusion criteria [18]. At the time of their review, the largest trial [16] was only available in abstract form [60]. Thus, although our own review has the limitation of being based on only 192.8 patient years of follow-up, it is a significant advance on the 54 patient years available in the only comparable publication to date. The conclusions of both reviews on outcomes other than HbA1c (weight reduction, insulin dose requirement and cholesterol) were, however, generally similar. While acknowledging that studies of duration as short as 1 to 3 weeks are unlikely to yield information on efficacy, we opted to include them in this review simply as potential sources of information on safety and tolerability, particularly given the paucity of evidence available. These studies were excluded from the formal meta-analysis.

As potential chance differences (randomisation error) at baseline between groups allocated to treatment can influence the outcome of smaller studies, an ideal approach for meta-analysis is to base calculations on data adjusted for baseline values. As such information was not available for all studies, we derived the treatment effects reported from absolute units of outcome; we acknowledge this as a limitation, but believe it unlikely to have significantly impacted on the conclusions. A further constraint is that magnitude of treatment effect can be influenced by differences in entry criteria between trials (e.g. for HbA1c): we believe that such methodological issues inherent to meta-analysis only strengthen the case for further larger trials.

Following UKPDS [10] and its more recent 10 year post-randomisation follow-up [14], metformin is widely considered to protect against cardiovascular complications in type 2 diabetes. This is the principal reason for its current status as first-line therapy in this condition. It should be recalled that only 753 patients were included in this specific UKPDS randomisation, and that an effect in the other direction was observed when it was combined with a sulfonylurea [10, 70]. Recently published results from the Hyperinsulinaemia: the Outcome of its Metabolic Effects (HOME) trial have shown that metformin improves macrovascular outcomes in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients [71]. This is consistent with some data, including from one of the present authors (J. R. Petrie), that metformin may have intrinsic (and possibly direct) beneficial effects independent of glucose lowering on the cardiovascular system via activation of AMPK [72, 73, 74] in a number of conditions [72, 75, 76]. If this is accepted, the hypothesis that metformin might prevent cardiovascular complications in type 1 diabetes should also be tested formally, as even young adults with this condition have an extremely high relative risk of CVD [77, 78, 79]. The data reviewed herein provide useful information to guide the design of such a future trial.

To our knowledge metformin therapy is not advocated in any major national or international guidelines for the management of type 1 diabetes, nor in our own regional guidelines. However, routine searches we recently conducted of anonymised type 1 diabetes prescription data in Tayside, Scotland [80] (population 400,000, with approximately 1850 classified as having type 1 diabetes and diagnosed aged <35 years), estimated that 7.9% with BMI > 27 kg/m2 were receiving metformin, rising to 13.0% for those with BMI > 30 kg/m2. Even allowing for any residual misclassification, it is therefore likely that many thousands of people with type 1 diabetes worldwide are receiving an unproven therapy of unknown long-term efficacy (albeit a familiar one with an attractive theoretical underpinning and the potential to result in reductions in rates of CVD). Considering that type 1 diabetes is usually diagnosed in childhood or adolescence and is a lifelong condition, we believe that properly designed randomised controlled clinical trials of sufficient size and duration to have the power to show reductions in CVD should be conducted forthwith. Given that metformin use in type 2 diabetes has also been associated with reduced cancer risk [81], it would additionally be desirable to investigate this relationship in metformin-treated people with type 1 diabetes.

In summary, our systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomised trials in the literature indicates that metformin therapy in type 1 diabetes is associated with a reduced insulin-dose requirement but no clear evidence of an improvement in glycaemic control. In addition, there may be small reductions in weight and total cholesterol/LDL-cholesterol, but there are no data on cardiovascular outcomes or their surrogates. We suggest this is an important area for future study.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the assistance of N. Waugh (University of Aberdeen) and R. McAlpine (NHS Tayside).

Duality of interest

J. R. Petrie is a member of the Steering Group of the European Group for the study of Insulin Resistance which receives part funding for its annual meetings from Merck Serono, European manufacturers of metformin. H. M. Colhoun has received research funding, consultancy fees and speaker fees from Pfizer. The remaining authors declare that there is no duality of interest associated with this manuscript. This work was not supported by external funding.

References

  1. 1.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group (1993) The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 329:977–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Purnell JQ, Hokanson JE, Marcovina SM, Steffes MW, Cleary PA, Brunzell JD (1998) Effect of excessive weight gain with intensive therapy of type 1 diabetes on lipid levels and blood pressure: results from the DCCT. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. JAMA 280:140–146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sibley SD, Palmer JP, Hirsch IB, Brunzell JD (2003) Visceral obesity, hepatic lipase activity, and dyslipidemia in type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88:3379–3384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey CJ, Turner RC (1996) Metformin. N Engl J Med 334:574–579CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    The National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions (2008) Type 2 diabetes. National clinical guidelines for management in primary and secondary care (update). Royal College of Physicians, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB et al (2009) Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy. A consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia 52:17–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Diabetes Federation Clinical Guidelines Task Force (2005) Global guidelines for type 2 diabetes. International Diabetes Federation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schimmack G, Defronzo RA, Musi N (2006) AMP-activated protein kinase: role in metabolism and therapeutic implications. Diabetes Obes Metab 8:591–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bailey CJ (2008) Metformin: effects on micro and macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 22:215–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group (1998) Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 352:854–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright AD, Cull CA, Macleod KM, Holman RR (2006) Hypoglycemia in Type 2 diabetic patients randomized to and maintained on monotherapy with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin for 6 years from diagnosis: UKPDS 73. J Diabetes Complications 20:395–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kahn SE, Haffner SM, Heise MA et al (2006) Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide monotherapy. N Engl J Med 355:2427–2443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bolen S, Feldman L, Vassy J et al (2007) Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and safety of oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 147:386–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA (2008) 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 359:1577–1589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pang TT, Narendran P (2008) Addressing insulin resistance in type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 25:1015–1024CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lund SS, Tarnow L, Astrup AS et al (2008) Effect of adjunct metformin treatment in patients with type-1 diabetes and persistent inadequate glycaemic control. A randomized study. PLoS One 3:e3363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walravens PA, Chase PH, Klingensmith GJ, Ellison M, Cornell C, Monahan K (2000) Low dose metformin in adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a double blind, controlled study. Diabetes 49(Suppl 1):A128 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lacigova S, Rusavy Z, Jankovec Z, Kyselova P (2001) Metformin in the treatment of type 1 diabetics—a placebo controlled study. Cas Lek Cesk 140:302–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abdelghaffar S, Attia AM (2009) Metformin added to insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus in adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, Issue 1. Art. no. CD006691. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006691.pub2
  20. 20.
    Hamilton J, Cummings E, Zdravkovic V, Finegood D, Daneman D (2003) Metformin as an adjunct therapy in adolescents with type 1 diabetes and insulin resistance: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 26:138–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Särnblad S, Kroon M, Aman J (2003) Metformin as additional therapy in adolescents with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: randomised placebo-controlled trial with aspects on insulin sensitivity. Eur J Endocrinol 149:323–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moon RJ, Bascombe LA, Holt RI (2007) The addition of metformin in type 1 diabetes improves insulin sensitivity, diabetic control, body composition and patient well-being. Diabetes Obes Metab 9:143–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khan AS, McLoughney CR, Ahmed AB (2006) The effect of metformin on blood glucose control in overweight patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 23:1079–1084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. In: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed 31 July 2009)
  25. 25.
    Gin H, Messerchmitt C, Brottier E, Aubertin J (1985) Metformin improved insulin resistance in type I, insulin-dependent, diabetic patients. Metabolism 34:923–925CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keen H, Collins ACG, Bending JJ (1987) Metformin increases response to insulin in type-1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes. Diabetologia 30:A538 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ahmed AE, Home PD, Marshall SM (2001) Effect of metformin in blood glucose control on people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 50(Suppl 2):A430 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Coscelli C, Palmari V, Saccardi F, Alpi O, Bonora E (1984) Evidence that metformin addition to insulin induces an amelioration of glycemic profile in type I (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus. Curr Ther Res 35:1058–1064Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Desmangles J, Buchlis JG, Shine B, Quattrin T (2000) Is metformin a useful adjunct to insulin therapy in adolescents with type 1 diabetes in poor control? Endocrine Society Meeting: 444 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gin H, Freyburger G, Boisseau M, Aubertin J (1989) Study of the effect of metformin on platelet aggregation in insulin-dependent diabetics. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 6:61–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gomez R, Mokhashi MH, Rao J et al (2002) Metformin adjunctive therapy with insulin improves glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a pilot study. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 15:1147–1151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gottlieb PA, Ellis SL, Lopez P, Gutin R, Garg SK (2007) Metformin improved glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 56:A574 (Abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gunton JE, Twigg SM (2003) Metformin use as an adjunct to insulin treatment. Med J Aust 178:591–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Janssen M, Rillaerts E, De Leeuw I (1991) Effects of metformin on haemorheology, lipid parameters and insulin resistance in insulin-dependent diabetic patients (IDDM). Biomed Pharmacother 45:363–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lacigova S, Rusavy Z, Kyselova P, Jankovec Z, Karova R, Cechurova D (2001) Short-term and long-term effect of metformin in type 1 diabetics. Vnitr Lek 47:81–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lestradet H, Labram C, Gregoire J, Billaud L, Deschamps I (1966) The limits of effectiveness of dimethylbiguanide in some cases of minor diabetes mellitus, in young patients, apparently well controlled by this sole treatment. Diabetes 14:157–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Melga P (1989) Usefulness and rationale of combined therapy with insulin and metformin in insulin-dependent diabetes (type I). G Ital Diabetol 9:247–253Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pagano G, Tagliaferro V, Carta Q et al (1983) Metformin reduces insulin requirement in type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes. Diabetologia 24:351–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ravina A, Minuchin O (1990) Bedtime administration of metformin may reduce insulin requirements. Harefuah 119:200–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tan AB, Bandyopadhyay S, Brake J, Weston PJ (2006) Effects of metformin in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diab Med 23(Suppl 2):111 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Urakami T, Morimoto S, Owada M, Harada K (2005) Usefulness of the addition of metformin to insulin in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Int 47:430–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Aldasouqi SA, Duick DS (2003) Safety issues on metformin use. Diabetes Care 26:3356–3357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Alves C (2006) Metformin as an adjunctive therapy to insulin in adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Revista Brasileira de Medicina 63:539–543Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Daniel JR, Hagmeyer KO (1997) Metformin and insulin: is there a role for combination therapy? Ann Pharmacother 31:474–480PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Faichney JD, Tate PW (2003) Metformin in type 1 diabetes: is this a good or bad idea? Diabetes Care 26:1655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fossati P, Fontaine P, Beuscart R (1985) Value of metformin-insulin association in the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes. Diabete Metab 11:396–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Golay A, Guillet-Dauphine N, Fendel A, Juge C, Assal JP (1995) The insulin-sparing effect of metformin in insulin-treated diabetic patients. Diabetes Metab Rev 11(Suppl 1):S63–S67 (Abstract)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jefferies CA, Hamilton J, Daneman D (2004) Potential adjunctive therapies in adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Treat Endocrinol 3:337–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Meyer L, Guerci B (2003) Metformin and insulin in type 1 diabetes: the first step. Diabetes Care 26:1655–1656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rachmiel M, Perlman K, Daneman D (2005) Insulin analogues in children and teens with type 1 diabetes: advantages and caveats. Pediatr Clin North Am 52:1651–1675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Russell-Jones D, Khan R (2007) Insulin-associated weight gain in diabetes—causes, effects and coping strategies. Diabetes Obes Metab 9:799–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Slama G (1991) The insulin sparing effect of metformin in insulin-treated diabetic patients. Diabete Metab 17:241–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ferguson AW, De La Harpe PL, Farquhar JW (1961) Dimethyldiguanide in the treatment of diabetic children. Lancet 1:1367–1369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pirart J (1971) Failure of the biguanides to improve the control of unstable diabetes treated with insulin. Diabetologia 7:283–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rizkalla SW, Elgrably F, Tchobroutsky G, Slama G (1986) Effects of metformin treatment on erythrocyte insulin binding in normal weight subjects, in obese non diabetic subjects, in type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients. Diabete Metab 12:219–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Slama G, Gin H, Weissbrodt P, Poynard T, Vexiau P, Klein JC (1981) Metformin reduces post-prandial insulin needs in type-1 diabetics—assessment by the artificial pancreas. Diabetologia 21:329 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tagliaferro V, Pagano G, Carta Q, Vitelli F, Pisu E, Cocuzza E (1981) Insulin sparing effect of metformin on insulin requirement of IDDM assessed by artificial pancreas (Biostator Ames). Diabetologia 21:333 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Meyer L, Delbachian I, Lehert P, Cugnardey N, Drouin P, Guerci B (1999) Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in type 1 diabetes: insulin-sparing effect of metformin. Diabetologia 42(Suppl 1):A226 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jacobsen PK, Lund SS, Tarnow L et al (2007) Impact of metformin treatment on glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk-factors in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes (T1DM). Diabetologia 50(Suppl 1):S107 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Leblanc H, Marre M, Billault B, Passa P (1987) Value of combined subcutaneous infusion of insulin and metformin in 10 insulin-dependent obese diabetics. Diabete Metab 13:613–617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gin H, Slama G, Weissbrodt P et al (1982) Metformin reduces post-prandial insulin needs in type I (insulin-dependent) diabetic patients: assessment by the artificial pancreas. Diabetologia 23:34–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Meyer L, Bohme P, Delbachian I et al (2002) The benefits of metformin therapy during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion treatment of type 1 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 25:2153–2158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Schatz H, Winkler G, Jonatha EM, Pfeiffer EF (1975) Studies on juvenile-type diabetes in children. Assessment of control under treatment with constant and variable doses of insulin with or without addition of biguanides. Diabete Metab 1:211–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Jacobsen IB, Henriksen JE, Beck-Nielsen H (2009) The effect of metformin in overweight patients with type 1 diabetes and poor metabolic control. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 105:145–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lund SS, Tarnow L, Astrup AS et al (2009) Effect of adjunct metformin treatment on levels of plasma lipids in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 11:966–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kearney PM, Blackwell L, Collins R et al (2008) Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18,686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis. Lancet 371:117–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wulffele MG, Kooy A, de Zeeuw D, Stehouwer CD, Gansevoort RT (2004) The effect of metformin on blood pressure, plasma cholesterol and triglycerides in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. J Intern Med 256:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Salpeter S, Greyber E, Pasternak G, Salpeter E (2003) Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD002967Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Petrie JR (2009) Follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 360:416–417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kooy A, de Jager J, Lehert P et al (2009) Long-term effects of metformin on metabolism and microvascular and macrovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med 169:616–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Jadhav S, Ferrell W, Greer IA, Petrie JR, Cobbe SM, Sattar N (2006) Effects of metformin on microvascular function and exercise tolerance in women with angina and normal coronary arteries: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:956–963CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Morrow VA, Foufelle F, Connell JM, Petrie JR, Gould GW, Salt IP (2003) Direct activation of AMP-activated protein kinase stimulates nitric-oxide synthesis in human aortic endothelial cells. J Biol Chem 278:31629–31639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Towler MC, Hardie DG (2007) AMP-activated protein kinase in metabolic control and insulin signaling. Circ Res 100:328–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Matsumoto K, Sera Y, Abe Y, Tominaga T, Yeki Y, Miyake S (2004) Metformin attenuates progression of carotid arterial wall thickness in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 64:225–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Zou MH, Wu Y (2008) AMP-activated protein kinase activation as a strategy for protecting vascular endothelial function. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 35:535–545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Laing SP, Swerdlow AJ, Carpenter LM et al (2003) Mortality from cerebrovascular disease in a cohort of 23 000 patients with insulin-treated diabetes. Stroke 34:418–421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Laing SP, Swerdlow AJ, Slater SD et al (2003) Mortality from heart disease in a cohort of 23,000 patients with insulin-treated diabetes. Diabetologia 46:760–765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Soedamah-Muthu SS, Fuller JH, Mulnier HE, Raleigh VS, Lawrenson RA, Colhoun HM (2006) All-cause mortality rates in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus compared with a non-diabetic population from the UK general practice research database, 1992–1999. Diabetologia 49:660–666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Morris AD, Boyle DI, MacAlpine R et al (1997) The diabetes audit and research in Tayside Scotland (DARTS) study: electronic record linkage to create a diabetes register. DARTS/MEMO Collaboration. BMJ 315:524–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Libby G, Donnelly LA, Donnan PT, Alessi DR, Morris AD, Evans JM (2009) New users of metformin are at low risk of incident cancer: a cohort study among people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 32:1620–1625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Vella
    • 1
  • L. Buetow
    • 1
  • P. Royle
    • 2
  • S. Livingstone
    • 1
  • H. M. Colhoun
    • 1
  • J. R. Petrie
    • 1
  1. 1.Biomedical Research Institute, Ninewells Hospital and Medical SchoolUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK
  2. 2.Department of Public Health, School of MedicineUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations