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.

In Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, human understanding is emphasized as one of three necessary characteristics that a physician must have. Inflammation, which is caused by inflammatory inducers (inf-ids), is a fundamental feature of disease at the cellular and molecular levels. Inflammation protects the body, but excessive or prolonged inflammation can be damaging and can cause disease. Humans are repeatedly exposed to external and internal environmental factors that generate inf-ids throughout their lives. External environmental factors include microbial and non-microbial inf-ids, as well as stressors that inevitably arise during social interactions. Internal environmental factors include the adaptive physiological response that is present from birth. Inf-ids may also be produced by the four-step habit loop, which consists of a cue (e.g., stressor), emotions, routine act (adaptive response), and a reward. Immune cells in the circulatory system and in tissues may have positive and negative effects in inflammatory responses. However, low-grade inflammation may be difficult to detect. We propose a model of disease development that integrates external and internal environmental factors from the perspective of human understanding.

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.