Background: Achieving optimal glucose control is essential in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral quadruple combination therapy for the treatment of T2D. Methods: This meta-analysis reviewed original research on oral quadruple combination therapy for T2D, including both experimental and observational studies with a minimum duration of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the incidence rate of adverse events. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled as the standardized mean difference (using Hedge’s g) and the risk ratio for adverse events in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: The meta-analysis included 17 studies. Oral quadruple combination therapy resulted in an additional mean reduction in HbA1c levels of 1.1% in patients who did not achieve glycemic control with oral triple combination therapy. Compared with switching to injectables, such as insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist–containing regimen, this therapy was non-inferior, even demonstrating a slightly superior glucose-lowering effect. Furthermore, it was determined to be safe, with an adverse event rate of 0.25, indicating no significant difference in safety compared with adding a placebo or switching to an injectable-containing regimen. Conclusion Oral quadruple combination therapy is a valid option for patients with T2D who are unable to achieve glycemic targets with oral triple combination therapy, offering both effective glycemic control and a favorable safety profile.

Background: Achieving optimal glucose control is essential in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral quadruple combination therapy for the treatment of T2D. Methods: This meta-analysis reviewed original research on oral quadruple combination therapy for T2D, including both experimental and observational studies with a minimum duration of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the incidence rate of adverse events. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled as the standardized mean difference (using Hedge’s g) and the risk ratio for adverse events in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: The meta-analysis included 17 studies. Oral quadruple combination therapy resulted in an additional mean reduction in HbA1c levels of 1.1% in patients who did not achieve glycemic control with oral triple combination therapy. Compared with switching to injectables, such as insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist–containing regimen, this therapy was non-inferior, even demonstrating a slightly superior glucose-lowering effect. Furthermore, it was determined to be safe, with an adverse event rate of 0.25, indicating no significant difference in safety compared with adding a placebo or switching to an injectable-containing regimen. Conclusion Oral quadruple combination therapy is a valid option for patients with T2D who are unable to achieve glycemic targets with oral triple combination therapy, offering both effective glycemic control and a favorable safety profile.

Background: Achieving optimal glucose control is essential in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral quadruple combination therapy for the treatment of T2D. Methods: This meta-analysis reviewed original research on oral quadruple combination therapy for T2D, including both experimental and observational studies with a minimum duration of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the incidence rate of adverse events. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled as the standardized mean difference (using Hedge’s g) and the risk ratio for adverse events in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: The meta-analysis included 17 studies. Oral quadruple combination therapy resulted in an additional mean reduction in HbA1c levels of 1.1% in patients who did not achieve glycemic control with oral triple combination therapy. Compared with switching to injectables, such as insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist–containing regimen, this therapy was non-inferior, even demonstrating a slightly superior glucose-lowering effect. Furthermore, it was determined to be safe, with an adverse event rate of 0.25, indicating no significant difference in safety compared with adding a placebo or switching to an injectable-containing regimen. Conclusion Oral quadruple combination therapy is a valid option for patients with T2D who are unable to achieve glycemic targets with oral triple combination therapy, offering both effective glycemic control and a favorable safety profile.

Background: Achieving optimal glucose control is essential in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral quadruple combination therapy for the treatment of T2D. Methods: This meta-analysis reviewed original research on oral quadruple combination therapy for T2D, including both experimental and observational studies with a minimum duration of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the incidence rate of adverse events. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled as the standardized mean difference (using Hedge’s g) and the risk ratio for adverse events in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: The meta-analysis included 17 studies. Oral quadruple combination therapy resulted in an additional mean reduction in HbA1c levels of 1.1% in patients who did not achieve glycemic control with oral triple combination therapy. Compared with switching to injectables, such as insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist–containing regimen, this therapy was non-inferior, even demonstrating a slightly superior glucose-lowering effect. Furthermore, it was determined to be safe, with an adverse event rate of 0.25, indicating no significant difference in safety compared with adding a placebo or switching to an injectable-containing regimen. Conclusion Oral quadruple combination therapy is a valid option for patients with T2D who are unable to achieve glycemic targets with oral triple combination therapy, offering both effective glycemic control and a favorable safety profile.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

OBJECTIVES: Observational studies have reported that diabetes is a risk factor that increases the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, the causal relationship remains a matter of debate. This study aimed to analyze the relationship between fasting serum glucose (FSG) and ASCVD. METHODS: This study used data from the Korean Cancer Prevention Study-II (KCPS-II) Biobank, consisting of 159,844 people recruited with consent from 18 health examination centers from 2004 to 2013. Outcomes were confirmed based on diagnoses on hospital discharge summaries from National Health Insurance System. We used linear and non-linear Mendelian randomization (MR) methods. The outcome data were obtained from KCPS-II, and the exposure data were derived from the Korean Genome Epidemiology Study. RESULTS: First, a prospective cohort study estimated that for each 10 mg/dL increase in FSG level, the risk of ASCVD increased by 4% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.05). Second, the 2-sample MR study showed that every 10 mg/dL increase in FSG influenced the risk of ASCVD (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.18). Third, the multivariable MR study showed that the OR per 10 mg/dL increase in FSG on ASCVD was 1.14 (p<0.001). Similar results were found for a 10 mg/dL increase in FSG and ischemic heart disease (IHD), but a significant relationship with stroke was not found. When performing non-linear MR, a linear relationship was observed between fasting blood sugar and ASCVD, including IHD and stroke. CONCLUSIONS FSG showed a linear and causal association with IHD, but not with stroke.