Structured Abstract

Contents

• Addendum and Errata
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Technical Expert Panel
• Peer Reviewers
• Executive Summary
• Introduction
  • Background
  • Rationale for Update of Review on Comparative Effectiveness of Diabetes Medications
  • Analytic Framework
  • Scope
  • Key Questions
• Methods
  • Topic Refinement and Review Protocol
  • Literature Search Strategy
  • Data Extraction
  • Risk of Bias Assessment of Individual Studies
  • Data Synthesis
  • Strength of the Body of Evidence
  • Applicability
  • Peer Review and Public Commentary
• Results
  • Results of Literature Searches
  • Study Duration of RCTs for All Key Questions (KQ1–KQ4)
  • Key Questions 1a and 1b. Intermediate Outcomes
  • Key Questions 2a and 2b. All-Cause Mortality and Macrovascular and Microvascular Outcomes
  • Key Questions 3a and 3b. Safety
  • Key Question 4. Subgroups
• Discussion
  • Key Findings in Context
  • Applicability
  • Implications for Clinical and Policy Decisionmaking
  • Limitations of the Comparative Effectiveness Review Process
  • Limitations of the Evidence Base
  • Research Gaps and Future Research Needs
  • Conclusions
• References
• Abbreviations
• Appendix A. Detailed Electronic Database Search Strategies
• Appendix B. Forms
• Appendix C. List of Excluded Studies
• Appendix D. Evidence Tables
• Appendix E. Gray Literature
• Appendix F. Key Points and Evidence Grades
• Appendix G. References

Suggested citation:

Bolen S, Tseng E, Hutfless S, Segal JB, Suarez-Cuervo C, Berger Z, Wilson LM, Chu Y, Iyoha E, Maruthur NM. Diabetes Medications for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: An Update. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 173. (Prepared by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00007-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 16-EHC013-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; April 2016. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

This report is based on research conducted by the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2012-00007-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies, may not be stated or implied.

This report may periodically be assessed for the currency of conclusions. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.

1

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; www​.ahrq.gov