Skip to main content
. 2017 Aug 17;9(2):321–331. doi: 10.1111/jdi.12711

Table 4.

Glycemic control and body weight change of alpha‐glucosidase inhibitor treatment compared with active controls in Asian and non‐Asian patients with type 2 diabetes

Variables Asian Non‐Asian Difference 95% CI P‐value
No. studies No. participants WMD from baseline 95% CI No. studies No. participants WMD from baseline 95% CI
HbA1c (%)
AGI vs MET 2 273/404 0.05 −0.07, 0.17 4 159/158 0.47 −0.06, 1.01 −0.49 −2.63, 1.65 0.560
AGI vs SU 4 75/67 0.46a 0.03, 0.88 6 151/147 0.50 −0.22, 1.22 −0.33 −1.25, 0.60 0.486
AGI vs glinide 3 72/69 0.07 −0.09, 0.23
AGI vs TZD 2 30/32 0.16 −0.40, 0.72 3 326/319 0.71a 0.27, 1.16 −0.04 −0.61, 0.53 0.836
AGI vs DPP‐4i 11 1,189/1,414 0.36a 0.20, 0.52
FPG (mmol/L)
AGI vs MET 2 273/404 0.23a 0.21, 0.26 3 128/131 0.23 −0.82, 1.28 −0.47 −2.43, 1.50 0.504
AGI vs SU 2 32/39 0.57 −0.56, 1.70 6 151/147 1.45a 0.50, 2.40 −1.3 −2.66, 0.058 0.058
AGI vs glinide 3 72/69 0.10 −0.49, 0.69
AGI vs TZD 3 326/319 0.56 −0.43, 1.56
AGI vs DPP‐4i 10 1,158/1,390 0.41a 0.05, 0.78
PPG‐1 h (mmol/L)
AGI vs MET 3 144/144 0.13 −0.40, 0.65
AGI vs SU 5 131/129 −0.09 −0.91, 0.72
AGI vs glinide
AGI vs TZD
AGI vs DPP‐4i
PPG‐2 h (mmol/L)
AGI vs MET 2 273/404 −0.34 −1.42, 0.73 2 97/100 0.83a 0.69, 0.97 −1.77 −1.98, −1.55 0.001a
AGI vs SU
AGI vs glinide
AGI vs TZD 2 190/190 0.67 −2.30, 3.63
AGI vs DPP‐4i 3 526/539 0.91 −0.42, 2.24
Bodyweight (kg)
AGI vs MET 2 273/404 −0.63a −0.77, −0.49 4 159/159 −0.40 −1.92, 1.12 −2.56 −7.41, 2.30 0.218
AGI vs SU 3 60/52 −1.59 −6.66, 3.49 3 92/94 −2.80a −3.24, −2.35 −0.47 −1.50, 0.56 0.277
AGI vs glinide
AGI vs TZD 3 326/319 −3.09a −4.01, −2.17
AGI vs DPP‐4i 9 996/1,231 −0.83a −1.15, −0.50
a

P‐value <0.05. AGI, alpha‐glucosidase inhibitors; DPP‐4 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase‐4; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; MET, metformin; PPG, postprandial plasma glucose; SU, sulfonylureas; TZD, thiazolidinedione.