SynthesisDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2026

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relative benefit of dual versus single oral hypoglycaemic therapy following diagnosis with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Mairead Kelly, Sushant Saluja, Hugh Logan Ellis, Sarah Jamil, Martin B Whyte, Adrian Heald

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2026. The graph read 1 number from its abstract, feeding 1 cell of the map: it . Not yet cited in PubMed.

1number the graph read from it
1cell of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

← favours the comparatorfavours the treatment →
1 · no effect
Glycemic controlfavours the treatment · head-to-head · t2dfeeds one cell of the map
OR 1.55p ≤ 0.001
The combination of metformin with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2-i) resulted in 88% reaching ≤7.5% (58 mmol/mol), compared to 81% with metformin alone (OR 1.55, p ≤ 0.001), a difference significant across all thresholds.

clause the extractor read what became the number

2 · Its place on the map

Where it lands on the map

Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.

supports the treatmentfavours the comparatorno clear differenceread, but no usable result
3 · What it changes

What it adds to each cell

For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.

Metformin×glycemic control

No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →

40 readable studies in this cell: 41 favour the treatment, 12 find no difference, 8 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.84replicated · 32 families support, 6 contradict · against placebo
Without itNot a counted family in this claim, so removing it changes nothing.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
0 · no effect
NCT017190031,413 enrolled · 2012
Adjusted mean -0.72-0.95 to -0.48
NCT018093271,186 enrolled · 2013
Δ -0.40-0.59 to -0.21
NCT022730501,136 enrolled · 2014
Δ -0.89-1.08 to -0.69
NCT008598981,093 enrolled · 2009
Δ -0.53-0.74 to -0.32
Δ -0.85-43.8 to 26.7
NCT00643851994 enrolled · 2008
Δ -0.86-1.11 to -0.62
NCT01708902876 enrolled · 2012
Δ -1.00-1.23 to -0.78
NCT00676338820 enrolled · 2008
Δ -0.05-0.26 to 0.17
NCT01126580807 enrolled · 2010
Δ -0.22-0.36 to -0.08
NCT01023581784 enrolled · 2009
Δ -0.67-0.96 to -0.37
NCT01076088744 enrolled · 2010
Δ -0.84-1.15 to -0.52
NCT00386100688 enrolled · 2006
Δ -0.49-0.67 to -0.30

This paper's own estimate is on a different scale from the rest of the cell, so it is not drawn here.

4 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

5 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

6 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

7 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mairead KellyEndocrinology & Diabetes, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Sushant SalujaUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Hugh Logan EllisKings College Hospital, London, UK.
Sarah JamilEndocrinology & Diabetes, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Martin B WhyteKings College Hospital, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2897-2026
Adrian HealdEndocrinology & Diabetes, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9537-4050

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

8 · The paper itself

Abstract

The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.

introductionAchieving and sustaining target glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels is fundamental in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We here aimed to assess whether initial dual oral therapy outperforms monotherapy in reaching glycaemic targets in patients with treatment-naive or early-stage T2D.

methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251111096). Parallel-group randomised controlled trials with a duration of at least 12 weeks were identified through searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library spanning 2005 to 2025. Data at the trial arm level, including baseline and endpoint HbA1c values, were extracted for seven predefined comparisons and combined using a random-effects inverse-variance meta-analysis in R version 4.3.1 (meta package). The primary outcome was the proportion of treatment arms achieving an HbA1c level of ≤7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Secondary outcomes included the proportions achieving HbA1c levels of ≤7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and ≤6.5% (48 mmol/mol), as well as mean differences in HbA1c levels.

resultsA total of 20 trials, encompassing 37 treatment arms, were analysed. Dual combination therapy consistently demonstrated superior efficacy compared to monotherapy. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c levels of ≤7.5% (58 mmol/mol) was 86% with initial dual therapy versus 82% with initial monotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.47, p = 0.002). At the more stringent threshold of ≤7.0% (53 mmol/mol), the rates were 69% versus 64% (OR 1.27, p = 0.003), and at ≤6.5% (48 mmol/mol), 42% versus 39% (OR 1.18, p = 0.056). When comparing initial dual therapy to metformin monotherapy, the respective achievement rates were 86% versus 81% (OR 1.41, p = 0.001) for a target of ≤7.0% (53 mmol/mol). The combination of metformin with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2-i) resulted in 88% reaching ≤7.5% (58 mmol/mol), compared to 81% with metformin alone (OR 1.55, p ≤ 0.001), a difference significant across all thresholds. Dual therapy containing SGLT-2i achieved 87% at ≤7.5% (58 mmol/mol), compared with 82% with all monotherapies (OR 1.43, p ≤ 0.001). SGLT-2i monotherapy itself led to 89% reaching the target, compared with 81% with metformin (OR 1.73, p ≤ 0.001). No significant difference in outcome was observed between dual and monotherapy involving SGLT2-is (OR 0.87, p = 0.480). The pooled final HbA1c values were 6.7% (50 mmol/mol) for dual therapy and 7.9% (63 mmol/mol) for monotherapy, corresponding to a mean difference of -0.45% (95% CI -0.60 to -0.25, p ≤ 0.001). Heterogeneity among studies was low to moderate (I

conclusionsInitial dual therapy, particularly combining metformin with an SGLT2-i, results in superior achievement of HbA1c targets across various thresholds compared to monotherapy. SGLT2-i alone surpasses metformin alone in efficacy. Adding a second agent to SGLT2-i did not provide additional glucose-lowering benefit to SGLT2-i monotherapy. Early initiation of SGLT2-i monotherapy or combination therapy should be considered upon diagnosis of T2D.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Hypoglycemic AgentsAdministration, OralBlood GlucoseDrug Therapy, CombinationGlycated HemoglobinHumansMetforminRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humanHypoglycemic AgentsMetformindual therapyHbA1cmonotherapySGLT2‐itype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID42165377
PMCPMC13257891

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.