Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors compared with metformin as monotherapy, or with other commonly used hypoglycaemic drugs combined with metformin, in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, trial registers, and drug manufacturers' websites.Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus that compared a DPP-4 with metformin as monotherapy or with a sulfonylurea, pioglitazone, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, or basal insulin combined with metformin on the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ). Data extractionThe primary outcome was the change in HbA 1c . Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving the goal of HbA 1c <7%, the change in body weight, discontinuation rate because of any adverse event, occurrence of any serious adverse event, all cause mortality, and incidence of hypoglycaemia, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, upper respiratory infection, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea.Results 27 reports of 19 studies including 7136 patients randomised to a DPP-4 inhibitor and 6745 patients randomised to another hypoglycaemic drug were eligible for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Overall risk of bias for the primary outcome was low in three reports, unclear in nine, and high in 14. Compared with metformin as monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a smaller decline in HbA 1c (weighted mean difference 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.32) and in body weight (1.5, 0.9 to 2.11). As a second line treatment, DPP-4 inhibitors were inferior to GLP-1 agonists (0.49, 0.31 to 0.67) and similar to pioglitazone (0.09, −0.07 to 0.24) in reducing HbA 1c and had no advantage over sulfonylureas in the attainment of the HbA 1c goal (risk ratio in favour of sulfonylureas 1.06, 0.98 to 1.14). DPP-4 inhibitors had a favourable weight profile compared with sulfonylureas (weighted mean difference −1.92, −2.34 to −1.49) or pioglitazone (−2.96, −4.13 to −1.78), but not compared with GLP-1 agonists (1.56, 0.94 to 2.18). Only a minimal number of hypoglycaemias were observed in any treatment arm in trials comparing a DPP-4 inhibitor with metformin as monotherapy or with pioglitazone or a GLP-1 agonist as second line treatment. In most trials comparing a DPP-4 inhibitor with sulfonylureas combined with metformin, the risk for hypoglycaemia was higher in the group treated with a sulfonylurea. Incidence of any serious adverse event was lower with DPP-4 inhibitors than with pioglitazone. Incidence of nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting was higher in patients receiving metformin or a GLP-1 agonist than in those receiving a DPP-4 inhibitor. Risk for nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, or urinary tract infection did not differ between DPP-4 inhibitors and any of the active comparators. ConclusionIn patients w...

This article has an accompanying continuing medical education activity, also eligible for MOC credit, on page e109. Learning Objective-Upon completion of this activity, successful learners will be able to identify the appropriate test for screening and surveillance for esophageal varices in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD). BACKGROUND & AIMS:We aimed to assess the accuracy of Baveno VI criteria for identification of high-risk varices (HRVs) and varices of any size in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD). METHODS:We performed a systematic search of publications through December 2018 for studies that assessed the accuracy of Baveno VI criteria for screening for varices in patients with cACLD. We used hierarchical models to synthesize evidence. We also conducted a post hoc analysis to assess the accuracy of Expanded Baveno VI criteria. We appraised the confidence in estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS:We identified 30 studies (8469 participants). Pooled values of Baveno VI criteria for HRVs (26 studies) were a sensitivity of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98) and a specificity of 0.32 (95% CI, 0.26-0.39). Pooled sensitivity of Expanded Baveno VI criteria for HRVs (12 studies) was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.93) and specificity was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.45-0.57). In 1000 patients with cACLD, with a prevalence of HRVs of 20%, Baveno VI criteria would prevent endoscopy in 262 patients, but 6 patients with HRVs would be missed. Instead, use of the Expanded Baveno VI criteria would result in 428 patients avoiding endoscopy, but 20 patients with HRVs would be missed. The credibility of our findings is moderate or low, mainly owing to the retrospective design of most studies. CONCLUSIONS:Baveno VI criteria have high diagnostic accuracy as a triage test for screening for HRVs in patients with cACLD. Expanded Baveno VI criteria could reduce the proportion of unnecessary endoscopies further, nevertheless with a higher rate of missed HRVs.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the commonest liver disease in Western countries. Treatment of NAFLD is currently based on lifestyle measures and no effective pharmacologic treatment is available so far. Emerging evidence, mainly from animal studies, suggests that the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may be of major importance in the pathogenesis of NAFLD and indicates that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) as a potentially useful therapeutic approach. However, data from human studies are limited and contradictory. In addition, there are few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of ACE-I or ARB in patients with NAFLD and most data are from retrospective studies, pilot prospective studies and post hoc analyses of clinical trials. Accordingly, more and larger RCTs are needed to directly assess the effectiveness of ACE-I and ARBs in NAFLD.

The potential role of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for screening patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) has not yet been elucidated.OBJECTIVE To assess the diagnostic accuracy of FIT for CRC or advanced neoplasia (AN) in asymptomatic patients at above-average risk.DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and gray literature sources through August 2016.STUDY SELECTION Diagnostic studies evaluating the accuracy of FIT for CRC or AN in patients with a personal or familial history of CRC using colonoscopy as the reference standard.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two authors (A.K. and P.P.) independently extracted data and evaluated study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, and evaluated the quality of the body of evidence by means of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Hierarchical models were used to synthesize available evidence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of FIT for detecting CRC or AN. RESULTSWe included 12 studies (6204 participants). Seven studies were deemed at high or unclear risk of bias. The average sensitivity of FIT for CRC was 93% (95% CI, 53%-99%), and the average specificity was 91% (95% CI, 89%-92%), yielding a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 10.30 (CI 7.7-13.9) and a negative likelihood ratio (LR−) of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.75) (GRADE: very low). The average sensitivity of FIT for AN was 48% (95% CI, 39%-57%); and the average specificity was 93% (95% CI, 91%-94%), yielding an LR+ of 6.55 (95% CI, 5.0-8.5) and an LR− of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.48-0.67) (GRADE: very low). Subgroup analyses indicated that FIT cutoff values between 15-and 25-μg/g feces provided the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of CRC (93% and 94%, respectively). Quantitative and 1-sample FIT showed adequate test performance, but data on other FIT brands and multiple samples were insufficient. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe FIT has high overall diagnostic accuracy for CRC but moderate accuracy for AN in patients at above-average personal or familial risk. Heterogeneity and wide confidence intervals limit the trustworthiness of our findings.