ArticlePDF Available

Predictors of Metformin Side Effects in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Introduction Metformin has become the first-line agent for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in several international guidelines. Up to 25% of patients suffer from gastrointestinal side-effects, with approximately 5% unable to tolerate metformin at all. Objective We aimed to study the effect of variables that may influence the development of metformin side effects and/or intolerance. Method A prospective study was conducted from April 1, 2021 to March 30, 2022. One-hundred and forty-eight patients newly diagnosed with T2DM were enrolled in the study, and divided into two groups—those who were escalate to the maximum dose of metformin over 2 weeks (n = 43) and the other group over 4 weeks (n = 105). We studied the variables that may affect the development of side effects including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), lipid profile, glycemic level, and the use of other antidiabetic medications besides the duration of dose escalation. Results Total number of patients who developed side effects was 59 (39.9%). Twenty-four (55.8%) and 35 (33.3%) patients were put in the rapid and slow escalation groups, respectively. Twenty-six (17.6%) patients developed diarrhea that was the most common side effect. Two (2.7%) men and ten women (13.5%) had stopped metformin due to severe side effects developed after initiation (p = 0.016). The mean BMI for the patients who discontinued metformin was 34.7 ± 4.1 kg/m2 in the rapid escalation arm and 31.6 ± 3.3 kg/m2 in the slow escalation arm (p = 0.003). The mean of fasting blood glucose for the patients who discontinued metformin in the rapid and slow escalation arms was 200.6 ± 25.6 and 173.4 ± 36.5 mg/dL, respectively (p = 0.022). Conclusion The severity of metformin side effects is higher in women than in men, making more women to discontinue the drug. Besides, a higher fasting blood sugar and BMI are associated with a higher rate of discontinuation. A rapid dose escalation is associated with a higher frequency of side effects. Diarrhea is the commonest side effect encountered.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Predictors of Metformin Side Effects in Patients
with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Nassar Taha Yaseen Alibrahim1Mohammed Ghazi Chasib1Saad Shaheen Hamadi2
Abbas Ali Mansour1
1Faiha Specialized Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolism Center,
University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq
2College of Medicine, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq
Ibnosina J Med Biomed Sci
Address for correspondence Nassar Taha Yaseen Alibrahim, CABM,
Faiha Specialized Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolism Center,
University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq 61013
(e-mail: nassar.yaseen@fdemc.iq).
Keywords
diabetes mellitus
metformin
side effects
intolerance
dose escalation
Abstract Introduction Metformin has become the rst-line agent for the treatment of type 2
diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in several international guidelines. Up to 25% of patients suffer
from gastrointestinal side-effects, with approximately 5% unable to tolerate metformin at all.
Objective We aimed to study the effect of variables that may inuence the develop-
ment of metformin side effects and/or intolerance.
Method A prospective study was conducted from April 1, 2021 to March 30, 2022.
One-hundred and forty-eight patients newly diagnosed with T2DM were enrolled in the
study, and divided into two groupsthose who were escalate to the maximum dose of
metformin over 2 weeks (n¼43) and the other group over 4 weeks (n¼105). We
studied the variables that may affect the development of side effects including age,
gender, body mass index (BMI), lipid prole, glycemic level, and the use of other
antidiabetic medications besides the duration of dose escalation.
Results Total number of patients who developed side effects was 59 (39.9%). Twenty-
four (55.8%) and 35 (33.3%) patients were put in the rapid and slow escalation groups,
respectively. Twenty-six (17.6%) patients developed diarrhea that was the most
common side effect. Two (2.7%) men and ten women (13.5%) had stopped metformin
due to severe side effects developed after initiation (p¼0.016). The mean BMI for the
patients who discontinued metformin was 34.7 4.1 kg/m
2
in the rapid escalation arm
and 31.6 3.3 kg/m
2
in the slow escalation arm (p¼0.003). The mean of fasting blood
glucose for the patients who discontinued metformin in the rapid and slow escalation
arms was 200.6 25.6 and 173.4 36.5 mg/dL, respectively (p¼0.022).
Conclusion The severity of metformin side effects is higher inwomen than in men, making
more women to discontinue the drug. Besides, a higher fasting blood sugar and BMI are
associated with a higher rate of discontinuation. A rapid dose escalation is associated with a
higher frequency of side effects. Diarrhea is the commonest side effect encountered.
DOI https://doi.org/
10.1055/s-0043-1761215.
ISSN 1947-489X.
© 2023. The Libyan Biotechnology Research Center. All rights
reserved.
This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License,
permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given
appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or
adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientic Publishers Pvt. Ltd., A-12, 2nd Floor,
Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
THIEME
Research Paper
Article published online: 2023-04-01
Introduction
According to the World Health Organization, diabetes melli-
tus (DM) is a chronic, progressive disease characterized by
high levels of glucose in the blood. Type 2 diabetes mellitus
(T2DM) accounts for 90% of all cases of diabetes, a condition
caused by either decline in pancreatic B cell function or
peripheral insulin resistance.1Diabetes risk factors include
(genetic, metabolic, and environment that interact with each
other leading to its prevalence. T2DM risk factors are divided
into nonmodiable r isk factors (ethnicity and family history/
genetic predisposition) and modiable risk factors (obesity,
low physical activity, and an unhealthy diet).2,3 The preva-
lence of T2DM in 2019 in the Middle East was 12.2% and is
estimated to increase to 15.7% by 2045. In Iraq, the preva-
lence of T2DM in 2018 was ranging from 8.5 to 13.9%.4T2DM
can be managed with different strategies (lifestyle modica-
tion, the use of insulin, or the antidiabetic medications
administration) together with monitoring of blood glucose.5
Metformindimethylbiguanideis an oral glucose-lower-
ing medication. Its origin was based on a plant extract com-
monly named as goats rue or French lilac, the Galega
ofcinalis.6Since its discovery early in the last century, it
became well known for its blood glucose lowering effects, in
animals initially, when Jean Sterne extensively studied it and
later developed the glucophage in the fties of last century.7Its
good reputation, regarding both the efcacy and safety pro-
les, placed it at the top of most T2DM management guidelines
recommendations.8Although one can recall some past bumps
through its history, when, at some point, it was shadowed by
phenformin, which had contributed to serios lactic acidosis
until the 1970s when it was withdrawn.9Several large ran-
domized control trials had proven that metformin improves
glycemic control and has a good safety prole and is not
associated with hypoglycemia besides its low cost.10 Metfor-
min, like any medications, has side effects, and up to 25% of
patients may suffer from side effects mostly gastrointestinal
with approximately 5% could not tolerate metformin.11
The most noticeable metformin side effects include nau-
sea, vomiting, bloating, dyspepsia, metallic taste, abdominal
pain, abdominal cramps, and/or changes in intestinal motili-
ty, leading to loose stools and overt diarrhea that becomes,
sometimes, intractable. The etiology behind metformin in-
tolerance is still unclear.12
The aim of this article was to study the effect of variables
that may inuence the development of metformin side
effects and/or intolerance and the frequency of each side
effect.
Method
Patients and Setting
A prospective study was conducted in Faiha Specialized
Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolism Center in Basrah city
from April 1, 2021 to March 30, 2022. Data were collected
from the patients attending the center and from patients
referred from private specialized endocrinology clinics (as
mentioned in the acknowledgment) using the same inclu-
sion and exclusion criteria. One hundred and forty-eight
patients with newly diagnosed T2DM on any one of the
following criteria: (non-fasting blood glucose more than
200 mg/dL (>11.1 mmol/L), fasting (8 hours or longer) blood
glucose more than or equal to 126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L), or
glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) more than or equal to 6.5%13,
in patients who had symptoms suggestive of DM (polyuria,
polydipsia and weight loss), their age 35 years old and above.
Patients with abnormal renal function (raised serum creati-
nine level 1.5 mg/dL i n m en, a nd m ore th an 1.4 mg/ dL i n
women), pregnancy, liver cirrhosis, peptic ulcer disease,
congestive heart failure, inammatory bowel disease, and
patients with gastrointestinal surgery were excluded. In this
study, we divided the patients into two groups, those who
escalated their metformin dose to the maxi mum (200 0 mg/
day) over 2 weeks (500 mg twice daily [bid] in the rst week
and 1000 mg bid in the second week), while the other group
escalated over 4 weeks (500 mg on ce daily in the rst week
and increase the dose by 500 mg weekly). Anthr opometric
data were collected from th e patients through careful histor y
and clinical examination; patients were sent for HbA1c,
fasting, and/or random blood glucose and lipid prole; a
questionnaire involving all the required data was lled by
physicians who volunteered to help. Verbal consents were
taken from all patients prior to enrollment. We studied the
effect of the above variables on the development of the side
effects including the use of other antidiabetic medications.
Statistical Analysis
We used the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS
v23); for the comparison of the continuous variables, Stu-
dentst-test was used, and for the categorical variables
Pearsons chi-squared or Fishers exact test was used when
appropriate. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve
statistics were used to extract a cutoff value of some contin-
uous variables. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered as
a level of signicance.
Results
Table 1 shows the general characteristics of the patients at
the beginning of our study. Of the 148 enrolled patients, 72
(48.6%) were men and 74 (51.4%) women. Forty-three (29%)
patients were in the rapid escalation arm and 105 (71%) in
the slow escalation arm.
Out of all the enrolled patients, 59 (39.9%) developed one
or more of the metformin side effects (gastrointestinal tract
[GIT] and non-GIT), and the frequency of each side effect can
be seen in Fig. 1. While diarrhea was the most frequently
observed side effect seen in 26(17.6%) patients, myalgia was
observed in the least 2 patients (1.4%). The effect of escala-
tion methods on the frequency of side effects can be seen
in Table 2. Higher frequencies of side effects occurred in the
rapid escalation arm in comparison to the slow escalation
arm, with the exception of chest discomfort (although sta-
tistically not signicant).
Some of the features of the 59 patients who developed
side effects can be seen in Table 3. A lthough no single factor
Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences © 2023. The Libyan Biotechnology Research Center. All rights reserved.
Predictors of Metformin Side Effects in T2DM Alibrahim et al.
was signicantly associated with the development of the
metformin side effects between both arms, generally they
tend to occur more in women. In 12(8.1%) patients, the side
effects were rather more severe that obligated them to
discontinue metformin; some features of these patients
are illustrated in Table 4. Ten women (13.5%) versus two
men (8.1%) had discontinued metformin due to the develop-
ment of severe side effects (p¼0.016). Patients who discon-
tinued metform in had a higher BMI (mean ¼34.7 0
4.05 kg/m
2
) than t hose who did not (m ean ¼31.64 3.29
kg/m
2
)(p¼0.003) and were having a higher basal fasting
blood sugar (200 .60 25.57 vs. 173.36 36.48; p¼0.022).
From the area under the curve retrieved from the ROC
curve drown for the BMI against the development of metfor-
min discontinuation (Fig. 2), we can see that patients with
BMI 32.2 kg/m
2
and above were more likely to be intolerant
to metformin (s ensitivity ¼75%, specicity ¼72%; odds ratio
[OR] ¼6.930 with 95% conden ce interval ¼1.46232.844;,
p¼0.004).
While data from the area under the curve retrieved
from the ROC curve (Fig. 3)drownfortheFBGagainst
discontinuation of metformin, we can see that patients
with FBG of 180 mg/dL and below were less likely to be
intolerant to metformin (sensitivity ¼90%, specicity
¼74%; OR ¼22.629 with 95% condence interval ¼2.763
185.304, p¼0.001).
Discussion
Oral hypoglycemic drugs were reported as a common cause
of side effects especially gastrointestinal14 the mechanism
behind these side effects was still in a controversy and the
studiesresults were conicting.1517 Moreover, these symp-
toms were very common in diabetic patients and normal
people in the community making the relationship difcult to
prove. And even in patients with diabetes, the frequency and
severity were subjected to a signicant interindividual vari-
ation that may hinder a genetic predisposition.11
To our knowledge, this was the rst study ever looking for
the effect of escalation time on the development of metformin
Table 1 General characteristics of the patients at the
beginning of the study,
a
n¼148
Rapid
escalation
n¼43
Slow
escalation
n¼105
p-Value
Age (yea rs) 50.4 8.1 48.5 5.8 0.103
Male gender 22(51.2) 52(49.5) 0.856
Female gender 21(48.2%) 53(50.5%)
BMI (kg/m
2
)32.15.1 31.8 2.5 0.685
FBS (mg/dL) 184.7 41.2 172.2 34.3 0.083
RBG (mg/dL) 262.1 103.2 225.3 100.2 0.387
TG (mg/dL) 208.2 81.1 210.8 36.4 0.838
Tot a l
cholesterol
(mg/dL)
205.1 52.6 213.9 36.1 0.465
HbA1c % 9.7 2.1 9.5 1.1 0.575
SU 13(30.2) 38(36.2) 0.622
DPP4i 12(27.9) 22(21.0) 0.361
TZD 6(14.0) 7(6.7) 0.303
Insulin 10(23.3%) 8(7.6%) 0.008
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; FBG, fasting blood glucose; RBG,
random blood glucose; TG, triglycerides; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin;
SD, standard deviation; SGLT2i, sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 inhib-
itors; SU, sulphonylureas; DPP4i, dipeptidyl peptidase type 4 inhibitors;
TZD, thiazolidinedione.
Data were ex pressed either as m ean SD or n(%).
a
Four patient were on SGLT2i in the rapid escalation arm, while no one in
the slow arm.
Fig. 1 Percentages of metformin side effects.
Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences © 2023. The Libyan Biotechnology Research Center. All rights reserved.
Predictors of Metformin Side Effects in T2DM Alibrahim et al.
side effects; any previous advice about gradual escalation was
delivered from clinical observations and was advised for
escalation of the dose over a period of 4 weeks.18 Though, in
our clinical practice, we were frequently facing patients who
escalated their metformin rapidly on their own without com-
plaining from serious side effects, which made us thinking
about including the study of this factor and its effect on the
development of metformin side effects.
The frequency of metformin side effects differs between
the studies and as more than one third of our patients
Table 2 Frequency of metformin side effects in the whole studied patients
a
Total Rapid escalation Slow escalation p-Value
Any side effect 59(39.9%) 24(55.8%) 35(33.3%) 0.011
GIT related
Epigastric pain 11(7.4%) 4(9.3%) 7(6.7%) 0.402
b
Diarrhea 26(17.6%) 15 (34.9%) 11(10.5%) <0.001
Bloating 15(10.1%) 9(20.9%) 6(5.7%) 0.005
Nausea 25(16.9%) 12(27.9%) 13(12.4%) 0.22
Vomiting 16(10.8%) 8(18.6%) 8(7.6%) 0.051
Abd pain 8(5.4%) 3(7.0%) 5(4.8%) 0.424
b
Heart burn 17(11.5%) 9(20.9%) 8(7.6%) 0.021
Non-GIT
Chest discomfort 3(2.0%) 0(0.0%) 3(2.9%) 0.354
b
Palpitation 9(6.1%) 7(16.3%) 2(1.9%) 0.003
b
Headache 5(3.4%) 4(9.3%) 1(1%) 0.025
b
Myalgia 2(1.4%) 1(2.3%) 1(1.0%) 0.498
b
Abbreviation: GIT, gastrointestinal tract.
a
No patients in our study had complained of dyspepsia, constipation, ushing, or distension.
b
F-test.
Table 3 Factors associated with the development of metformin side effects, n¼59
Rapid escalation
n¼24
Slow escalation
n¼35
p-Value
Age (years) 51.29 7.81 48.17 8.305 0.152
Male gender 10/22(45.5%) 11/52(21.2%) 0.420
a
Female gender 14/21(66.7%) 24/53(45.3%)
BMI (kg/m
2
) 32.05 5.77314 32.38 3.35 0.780
FBG (mg/dL) 188.53 44.98 174.55 54.111 0.356
RBG (mg/dL) 253.89 106.107 231.86 120.763 0.704
TG (mg/dL) 202.2055.966 200.47 69.745 0.948
Cholesterol (mg/dL) 219.27 36.266 202.65 41.553 0.288
HbA1c % 9.44 1.86 9.19 1.52 0.569
SU 12(50.0%) 10(28.6%) 0.095
DDP4 5(20.8%) 8(22.9%) 0.854
TZD 4(16.7%) 3(8.6%) 0.293
b
SGLT2 2(8.3%) 0(0.0%) 0.161
b,c
Insulin 4(16.7%) 4(11.4%) 0.418
b
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; DPP4i, dipeptidyl peptidase type 4 inhibitors; FBG, fasting blood glucose; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; RBG,
random blood glucose; SD, standard deviation; SGLT2i, sodium/glucose cotranspor ter-2 inhibitors; SU, sulphonylureas; TG, triglycerides; TZD,
thiazolidinedione.
Data were ex pressed either as m ean SD or n(%).
a
Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of patients who did develop side effects by the number of those who did not in each eld.
b
F-test.
c
Already there are no patient on SGLT2i in the slow arm.
Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences © 2023. The Libyan Biotechnology Research Center. All rights reserved.
Predictors of Metformin Side Effects in T2DM Alibrahim et al.
Table 4 Factors associated with discontinuation of metformin
Yes No p-Value
Number 12(8.1%) 136(91.9%) NA
Age (yea rs) 49.17 5.54 49.02 6.71 0.942
Male gender 2(2.7%) 72(97.3%) 0.016
Female gender 10(13.5%) 64(86.5%)
BMI (kg/m
2
)34.704.05 31.64 3.29 0.003
FBG (mg/dL) 200.60 25.57 173.36 36.48 0.022
RBS (mg/dL) 207.33 19.35 252.82 107.22 0.479
TG (mg/dL) 205.50 108.45 210.38 47.60 0.852
Cholesterol (mg/dL) 207.20 26.03 210.38 45.40 0.879
HbA1c % 9.79 1.07 9.54 1.49 0.562
SU yes 6(11.8%) 45(88.2%) 0.237
No 6(6.2%) 91(93.8%)
DDP4 yes 2(5.9%) 32(94.1%) 0.450
a
No 10(8.8%) 104(91.2%)
TZD yes 2(15.4%) 11(84.6%) 0.284
a
No 10(7.4%) 125(92.6%)
SGLT2 yes 0(0.0%) 4(100.0%) 0.710
a
No 12(8.3%) 132(91.7%)
Insulin yes 2(11.1%) 16(88.9%) 0.641
No 10(7.7%) 120(923%)
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; DPP4i, dipeptidyl peptidase type 4 inhibitors; FBG, fasting blood glucose; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; RBG,
random blood glucose; SGLT2i, sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor; SU, sulphonylureas; TG, triglycerides; TZD, thiazolidinediones.
a
F-test.
Fig. 2 Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve for the effect of
body mass index on metformin discontinuation rate.
Fig. 3 Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve for the effect of
fasting blood glucose on metformin discontinuation rate.
Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences © 2023. The Libyan Biotechnology Research Center. All rights reserved.
Predictors of Metformin Side Effects in T2DM Alibrahim et al.
developed one or more side effects, other studies found it to
be as high as 53.3%.19
Diarrhea continues to be the most frequently encoun tered
side effect in about sixth of the patients followed by nausea
with comparable frequencies of diarrhea in other stud-
ies,20,21 but much less than the observation of Florez et al
who found it to be reaching to the half.22
Heartburn, vomiting, and bloating were seen in around
tenth of the patients, a percentage quite smaller than what
was seen by other studies: 52, 25, and 35%, respectively.2224
Epigastric and abdominal pain were seen in less than 10%
of the patients, and in contrast to other side effects, epigas-
tric pain was higher than what was noticed previously.21
Patients also reported some nongastrointestinal side effects
of metformin, such as palpitation, headache, chest discomfort,
and myalgias, but none of these have reached 10% in prevalence,
similar to the ndings of previous investigators.24,25
Most of the patients who developed side effects were
around the age of 50 years, Flory et al found that patients
aged between 50 and 65 years were 8% less likely to have side
effects than patients more than 65 years old, although their
results were not statically signicant.26
Obesity was evident in the patients who developed met-
formin side effects, although this was in contrast to the
nding of Guo et al who found that the proportion of patients
who reported more than one side effect did not differ
signicantly between BMI groups.27
As a common nding, women reported side effects more than
men did, although statistically not signicant in our study.28
Some of these side effects were severe enough to obligate
the patients to discontinue metformin, at a rate slightly
higher than the nding of Bouchoucha et al.29 Most of
them were females as in the observations of previous inves-
tigators who found, besides, women were prescribed lower
doses of metformin to avoid discontinuation.28,3032 One
explanation for this gender difference could be attributed
to fact that women may be more eager to read about drug
information including side effects than men did, which may
cause reporting biase.33 Or it can be attributed to pharma-
cokinetics differences between genders that may result from
differences in body fat percentage and its effect on the drug
distrbution.34 Likely wise, this could be the explanation
behind the higher BMI of the patients who discontinued
metformin in our study.
We failed to nd studies investigating the effect of glyce-
mia or lipid prole on the development of the metformin
adverse effects to compare it with our results regarding both
the frequency of side effects and the rate of discontinuation
of metformin, which will merit the need for further inves-
tigations and studies in the future. And apart from hypogly-
cemia which accompanies sulfonylureas and insulin, the
coadministration of other anti-diabetic medications had no
effect on the patterns of side effects.
Surprisingly, other gastrointestinal symptoms like consti-
pation, ushing, dyspepsia, abnormal taste, and distension
were not reported by any patients in our cohort.
Whether the side effects mentioned by the patients were
due to undiagnosed gastrointestinal diseases or due to
metformin itself was hardly to be conrmed, making it
one of the limitations of the study. Another limitation of
the study was that we have only studied (from medication-
wise) the effect of antidiabetic medications and have not
included other medications that may contribute to these
symptoms. But as we have asked the patients to report only
new symptoms they felt after metformin use, we proposed
that these symptoms were due to metformin use.
Conclusion
Metformin side effects (gastroi ntestinal and to a lesser extent
nongastrointestinal) were common in our population. Diar-
rhea was the most frequently noticed side effect. Women
exhibit side effects to metformin more than men did, and
were more likely to discontinue the drug due to higher
severity of the side effects. Patients who titrated their
medication in a short period were more prone for the
development of side effects in comparison with those who
titrated it over a longer period. Female gender, higher BMI,
and higher FBG were associated with more metformin dis-
continuation events.
AuthorsContributions
Data collection was performed by MG Chasib. Results and
statistical analyses were done by NTY Alibrahim. The
study was designed by SS Hamadi and AA Mansour was
responsible for literature review and discussion.
Compliance with Ethical Principles
The research was approved by the ethical committee at
Faiha Specialized Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolism
Center in Basrah.
Funding and Sponsorship
None.
Conict of Interest
None declared.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr.
Haider Ayad Alidrisi, Dr. Safaa Adulmonim, and Haider
Abd-Oan for their help in patients referral and advice.
References
1Galicia-Garcia U, Benito-Vicente A, Jebari S, et al. Pathop hysiology
of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21(17):6275
2HuFB,MansonJE,StampferMJ,etal.Diet,lifestyle,andtheriskoftype
2 diabetes mellitus in women. N Engl J Med 2001;345(11):790797
3Chan JC, Cheung CK, Swaminathan R, Nicholls MG, Cockram CS.
Obesity, albuminuria and hypertension among Hong Kong Chi-
nese with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM).
Postgrad Med J 1993;69(809):204210
4Abusaib M, Ahmed M, Nwayyir HA, et al. Iraqi experts consensus
on the management of type 2 diabetes/prediabetes in adults. Clin
Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes 2020;13:1179551420942232
5Testa R, Bongli AR, Prattichizzo F, La Sala L, De Nigris V, Ceriello
A. The Metabolic Memorytheory and the early treatment of
Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences © 2023. The Libyan Biotechnology Research Center. All rights reserved.
Predictors of Metformin Side Effects in T2DM Alibrahim et al.
hyperglycemia in prevention of diabetic complications. Nutrients
2017;9(05):437
6Bailey CJ, Day C. Traditional plant medicines as treatments for
diabetes. Diabetes Care 1989;12(08):553564
7Bailey CJ, Day C. Metformin: its botanical background. Pract
Diabetes Int 2004;21(03):115117
8Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyper-
glycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centred approach.
Update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Associ-
ation and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Diabetologia 2015;58(03):429442
9Graham GG, Punt J, Arora M, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of
metformin. Clin Pharmacokinet 2011;50(02):8198
10 Group UPDSUK Prospect iveD iabetes Study (UKPDS) Gr oup. Effect
of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complica-
tions in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34).
Lancet 1998;352(9131):854865
11 Dujic T, Zhou K, Donnelly LA, Tavendale R, Palmer CN, Pearson ER.
Association of organic cation transporter 1 with intolerance to
metformin in type 2 diab etes:a Go DARTS study.D iabetes 2015;64
(05):17861793
12 Hermans MP, Ahn SA, Rousseau MF. What is the phenotype of
patients with gastrointestinal intolerance to metformin? Diabe-
tes Metab 2013;39(04):322329
13 Cox ME, Edelman D. Tests for screening and diagnosis of type 2
diabetes. Clin Diabetes 2009;27(04):132138
14 Davidson MB, Peters AL. An overview of metformin in the
treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Med 1997;102(01):
99110
15 Feldman M, Schiller LR. Disorders of gastrointestinal motility
associated with diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 1983;98(03):
378384
16 Spångéus A, El-Salhy M, Suhr O, Eriksson J, Li thner F. Prevalence of
gastrointestinal symptoms in young and middle-aged diabetic
patients. Scand J Gastroenterol 1999;34(12):11961202
17 Bytzer PM, Hammer J, Talley NJ, Young LJ, Jones MP, Horowitz M.
Gastrointestinal symptoms in diabetes mellitus are associated
with diabetic complications but not with current glycemic con-
trol. Gastroenterology 2000;4(118):A468
18 Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, et al. Management of hyper-
glycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the
initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement
from the American Diabetes Association and the European Asso-
ciation for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006;29(08):
19631972
19 Siavash M, Tabbakhian M, Sabzghabaee AM, Razavi N. Severity of
gastrointestinal side effects of metformin tablet compared to
metformin capsule in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. J Res
Pharm Pract 2017;6(02):7376
20 Bytzer P, Talley NJ, Jones MP, Horowitz M. Oral hypoglycaemic
drugs and gastrointestinal symptoms in diabetes mellitus. Ali-
ment Pharmacol Ther 2001;15(01):137142
21 Schwartz S, Fonseca V, Berner B, Cramer M, Chiang Y-K, Lewin A.
Efcacy, tolerability, and safety of a novel once-daily extended-
release metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care
2006;29(04):759764
22 Florez H, Luo J, Castillo-Florez S, et al. Impact of metformin-
induced gastrointestinal symptoms on quality of life and adher-
ence in patients with type 2 diabetes. Postgrad Med 2010;122
(02):112120
23 Fatima M, Sadeeqa S, Nazir SUR. Metformin and its gastrointesti-
nal problems: a review. Biomed Res (Aligarh) 2018;29(11):
22852289
24 Wentling G. Glucophage®(metformin hydrochloride), the won-
der drug: a biguanide class t reatment of type 2 diabetes. Monarch
Rev. 2017;4:112128
25 Administration UFaD. Glucophage (metfor min hydrochloride tab-
lets)/Glucophage XR (metformin hydrochloride extended release
tablets)(NDA 20357/S-031 and NDA 21202/S-016). Princeton
(NJ): Bristol-Myers Squibb; 2008:332
26 Flory JH, Keating SJ, Siscovick D, Mushlin AI. Identifying preva-
lence and risk factors for metformin non-persistence: a retro-
spective cohort study us ing an electronic health record. BMJ Open
2018;8(07):e021505
27 Guo L, Guo X, Li Y, et al. Effects of body mass index or dosage on
gastrointestinal disorders associated with extended-release met-
formin in type 2 diabetes: sub-analysis of a Phase IV open-labeltrial
in Chinese patients. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2016;10(03):137142
28 de Vries ST, Denig P, Ekhart C, Mol PGM, van Puijenbroek EP. Sex
differences in adverse drug re actions of metformin: a longit udinal
survey study. Drug Saf 2020;43(05):489495
29 Bouchoucha M, Uzzan B, Cohen R. Metformin and digestive
disorders. Diabetes Metab 2011;37(02):9096
30 Tran C, Knowles SR, Liu BA, Shear NH. Gender differences in
adverse drug reactions. J Cli n Pharmacol 1998;38(11):10031009
31 Walker EA, Molitch M, Kramer MK, et al. Adherence to preventive
medications: predic tors and outcomes in the Diabetes Prevention
Program. Diabetes Care 2006;29(09):19972002
32 de Jong L, Härmark L, van Puijenbroek E. Time course, outcome
and management of adverse drug reactions associated with
metformin from patients perspective: a prospective, observa-
tional cohort study in the Netherland s. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2016;
72(05):615622
33 Hammar T, Nilsson AL, Hovstadius B. Patientsviews on electronic
patient information leaets. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2016;14(02):702
34 Svarstad BL, Cleary PD, Mechanic D, Robers PA. Gende r differences
in the acquisition of prescribed drugs: an epidemiological study.
Med Care 1987;25(11):10891098
Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences © 2023. The Libyan Biotechnology Research Center. All rights reserved.
Predictors of Metformin Side Effects in T2DM Alibrahim et al.
... Iraq's adult population is estimated to be 30% overweight or obese, a considerable rise in the incidence of obesity over the past few years (3). These elements are thought to be responsible for the growth in obesity prevalence, along with sedentary lifestyles, unhealthy eating habits, and genetic susceptibility [6]. ...
... The results of weight loss surgery varied widely, with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass producing the highest percentage of effective weight loss (EWL), followed by sleeve gastrectomy and adjustable gastric banding [6]. This is in line with earlier research, which found that Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had better weight loss results than other bariatric procedures [7]. ...
... Diabetes is a chronic condition that is caused by elevated levels of blood sugar (glucose) [3]. This occurs when the body either cannot use the insulin it produces effectively or cannot produce enough insulin. ...
Article
Full-text available
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a heterogenous condition that is estimated to effect up to 21% of reproductive aged people with ovaries. In previous work, a dataset of PCOS features was derived from approximately 100,000 PCOS subreddit users via machine learning. In this study, an exploration of treatment response within the PCOS subreddit was undertaken with the derived dataset. The treatment or symptom features in the dataset had sentiment labels indicating when a treatment was perceived to improve or worsen a condition or symptom. When different features were mentioned within two sentences of each other without conflicting sentiment, it could be assumed that they were related. This assumption allowed for a broad analysis of the perceived effect of popular treatments on the most frequently mentioned symptoms. In general, lifestyle changes and supplements were the most positively regarded, while contraceptives were frequently associated with considerable negative sentiment. For PCOS weight loss, unspecified dieting (RR 5.19, 95% CI 3.28–8.19, n = 99) and intermittent fasting (RR 33.50, 95% CI 8.54–131.34, n = 69) were the most successful interventions. Inositol was associated with a large range of favourable outcomes and was one of the few treatments associated with improved mental health [depression (RR 4.25, 95% CI 1.72–10.51, n = 21), anxiety (RR 5.83, 95% CI 2.76–12.35, n = 41) and mood issues (RR 25.00, 95% CI 3.65–171.10, n = 26)]. Combined oral contraceptive pills as a whole were strongly associated with adverse effects such as worsening depression (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02–0.25, n = 33), anxiety (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03–0.36, n = 23), fatigue (RR 0, n = 45) and low libido (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.24, n = 30). However, combined contraceptives with anti-androgenic progestins were associated with more favourable experiences. This study demonstrates the utility of machine learning to derive measurable patient experience data from an internet forum. While patient experience data derived using machine learning is not a substitute for traditional clinical trials, it is useful for mass validation and hypothesis generation. This paper may serve as the first exploration into this category of clinical internet forum research.
Article
Full-text available
This comprehensive review examines the therapeutic potential of metformin, a well-established diabetes medication, in treating neurodegenerative disorders. Originally used as a first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, recent studies have begun investigating metformin’s effects beyond metabolic disorders, particularly its neuroprotective capabilities against conditions like Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and multiple sclerosis. Key findings demonstrate that metformin’s neuroprotective effects operate through multiple pathways: AMPK activation enhancing cellular energy metabolism and autophagy; upregulation of antioxidant defenses; suppression of inflammation; inhibition of protein aggregation; and improvement of mitochondrial function. These mechanisms collectively address common pathological features in neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation, including oxidative stress, protein accumulation, and mitochondrial dysfunction. Clinical and preclinical evidence supporting metformin’s association with improved cognitive performance, reduced risk of dementia, and modulation of pathological hallmarks of neurodegenerative diseases is critically evaluated. While metformin shows promise as a therapeutic agent, this review emphasizes the need for further investigation to fully understand its mechanisms and optimal therapeutic applications in neurodegenerative diseases.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Metformin is the most prescribed medication for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); there is a well-established link with the elevated incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AE) limiting its administration or intensification. Objectives The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was to evaluate the pooled incidence of GI AE related to metformin use in patients with T2DM. Materials and methods PUB MED/CINAHL/Web of Science/Scopus were searched from database inception until 29.07.2024 for observational studies in English describing the frequency of GI AE in patients with T2DM treated with metformin. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to derive effect sizes: event rates. Results From 7019 publications, we identified 211 potentially eligible full-text articles. Ultimately, 21 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of GI AE was as follows: diarrhea 6.9% (95% CI: 0.038–0.123), bloating 6,2% (95% CI: 0.020–0.177), abdominal pain 5,3% (95% CI: 0.003–0.529), vomiting 2.4% (95%: CI 0.007–0.075), constipation 1.1% (95%: CI 0.001–0.100). The incidence of bloating (coefficient -4.46; p < 0.001), diarrhea (coefficient -1.17; p = 0.0951) abdominal pain (coefficient -2.80; p = 0.001), constipation (coefficient -5.78; p = 0.0014) and vomiting (coefficient -2.47; p < 0.001) were lower for extended release (XR) metformin than metformin immediate release (IR) formulation. Conclusions This study highlights the prevalence of GI AE in patients receiving metformin, with a diarrhea predominance, followed by bloating, diarrhea, abdominal pain, constipation, and vomiting. The incidence is lower in patients administered with XR metformin. Trial registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021289975, identifier CRD42021289975.
Article
Full-text available
Diabetic vascular complications are prevalent and severe among diabetic patients, profoundly affecting both their quality of life and long-term prospects. These complications can be classified into macrovascular and microvascular complications. Under the impact of risk factors such as elevated blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol lipids, the vascular endothelium undergoes endothelial dysfunction, characterized by increased inflammation and oxidative stress, decreased NO biosynthesis, endothelial-mesenchymal transition, senescence, and even cell death. These processes will ultimately lead to macrovascular and microvascular diseases, with macrovascular diseases mainly characterized by atherosclerosis (AS) and microvascular diseases mainly characterized by thickening of the basement membrane. It further indicates a primary contributor to the elevated morbidity and mortality observed in individuals with diabetes. In this review, we will delve into the intricate mechanisms that drive endothelial dysfunction during diabetes progression and its associated vascular complications. Furthermore, we will outline various pharmacotherapies targeting diabetic endothelial dysfunction in the hope of accelerating effective therapeutic drug discovery for early control of diabetes and its vascular complications.
Article
Full-text available
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM), one of the most common metabolic disorders, is caused by a combination of two primary factors: defective insulin secretion by pancreatic β-cells and the inability of insulin-sensitive tissues to respond appropriately to insulin. Because insulin release and activity are essential processes for glucose homeostasis, the molecular mechanisms involved in the synthesis and release of insulin, as well as in its detection are tightly regulated. Defects in any of the mechanisms involved in these processes can lead to a metabolic imbalance responsible for the development of the disease. This review analyzes the key aspects of T2DM, as well as the molecular mechanisms and pathways implicated in insulin metabolism leading to T2DM and insulin resistance. For that purpose, we summarize the data gathered up until now, focusing especially on insulin synthesis, insulin release, insulin sensing and on the downstream effects on individual insulin-sensitive organs. The review also covers the pathological conditions perpetuating T2DM such as nutritional factors, physical activity, gut dysbiosis and metabolic memory. Additionally, because T2DM is associated with accelerated atherosclerosis development, we review here some of the molecular mechanisms that link T2DM and insulin resistance (IR) as well as cardiovascular risk as one of the most important complications in T2DM.
Article
Full-text available
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management differs dramatically between Iraqi public and private sectors; this variability is due to treatment access discrepancy. The aim of this consensus is to put for the first-time uniform recommendation on how to manage patients with T2DM taking in consideration the local obstacles in Iraq. These consensuses were approved by a group of Iraqi Internist and diabetologist from all over the country. Up-to-date and latest level of evidence was used throughout the recommendation.
Article
Full-text available
IntroductionIn general, women more often experience metformin-associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than men.Objectives We aimed to assess whether sex differences in reported ADRs for metformin are observed at different times after initiation, and to explore their concurrence with sex differences in the dose of metformin over time. This may guide future studies in assessing the involved mechanisms of sex differences in metformin-associated ADRs and may guide sex-specific management of ADRs in clinical practice.Methods This study has a longitudinal design using data about patients initiating metformin collected by the Dutch National Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb through their Intensive Monitoring program. Patients were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire six times after initiation (i.e., at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). The outcome variables were the proportion of patients reporting any ADR (primary) and the dose of metformin (secondary). Sex differences in the proportions of ADRs and in the dose were tested at each assessment using Pearson Chi-Squared tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, respectively. Using Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing, a p value < 0.01 was considered statistically significant.ResultsThe number of included patients was 1712 (40.9% women). Women reported an ADR more often than men, which was statistically significant at the assessment at 2 weeks (34% vs 25%, p < 0.001), and 6 weeks (37% vs 28%, p = 0.001) after initiation. In general, women were reported to be prescribed a lower dose than men, which became statistically significant at the 9-month assessment (p < 0.01).Conclusions Sex differences in reported ADRs were seen in the first weeks after metformin initiation, whereas statistically significant differences in self-reported prescribed dosing were observed after several months. Patients, in particular women, might benefit from being prescribed lower metformin doses at treatment initiation.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives Non-persistence may be a significant barrier to the use of metformin. Our objective was to assess reasons for metformin non-persistence, and whether initial metformin dosing or use of extended release (ER) formulations affect persistence to metformin therapy. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Electronic health record data from a network of urban academic practices. Participants The cohort was restricted to individuals receiving a metformin prescription between 2009/1/1 and 2015/9/31, under care for at least 6 months before the first prescription of metformin. The cohort was further restricted to patients with no evidence of any antihyperglycaemic agent use prior to the index date, an haemoglobin A1c measured within 1 month prior to or 1 week after the index date, at least 6 months of follow-up, and with the initial metformin prescription originating in either a general medicine or endocrinology clinic. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measure was early non-persistence, as defined by the absence of further prescriptions for metformin after the first 90 days of follow-up. Results The final cohort consisted of 1259 eligible individuals. The overall rate of early non-persistence was 20.3%. Initial use of ER and low starting dose metformin were associated with significantly lower rates of reported side effects and non-persistence, but after multivariable analysis, only use of low starting doses was independently associated with improved persistence (adjusted OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.76, for comparison of 500 mg daily dose or less to all higher doses). Conclusions These data support the routine prescribing of low starting doses of metformin as a tool to improve persistence. In this study setting, many providers routinely used ER metformin as an initial treatment; while this practice may have benefits, it deserves more rigorous study to assess whether increased costs are justified.
Article
Full-text available
Objective This study was designed to compare the severity of gastrointestinal (GI) side effects in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients receiving tablet or capsule forms of metformin. Methods In this prospective interventional study, patients were evaluated from June to November 2016 at DM clinics affiliated to Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. Adult patients with Type 2 DM who were eligible for inclusion criteria switched from metformin tablet to metformin capsule. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), GI side effects, and patient satisfaction based on visual analog scale (VAS) were assessed during a 6-week follow-up of receiving metformin capsule. Findings One hundred and three patients were evaluated, and 75 patients participated in this study. At the baseline, 40 patients (53.3%) had GI side effects due to metformin tablet which was reduced to 16 patients (21.3%) after switching to metformin capsule (P = 0.001). There was also an improvement in HbA1c (from 7 to 6.8,P < 0.0001). The results of patients’ satisfaction based on VAS and numeric rating scale indicated that in 59 patients (78.67%), GI side effects were reduced after switching to metformin capsule (mean score: 7.2 with the range of 6–9) while 16 patients stated no treatment preference. Conclusion Switching to metformin capsule may result in less GI side effects, with no further side effect complications.
Article
Full-text available
Several epidemiological and prospective studies suggest that an early intensive control of hyperglycaemia is able to decrease the risk of diabetic micro- and macro-vascular complications. A growing body of experimental evidence supports the concept that the risk for diabetes complications may be linked to oxidative stress, non-enzymatic glycation of proteins, epigenetic changes, and chronic inflammation, laying the foundation for the “metabolic memory” theory. From a clinical point of view, this theory supports the need for a very early aggressive treatment, with the goal of normalizing metabolic control as soon as possible. It may also prove beneficial to introduce therapeutic agents that are able to reduce reactive species and glycation, in addition to presenting better control of glucose levels in patients with diabetes, in order to minimize long-term diabetes complications. In this review, we evaluate the effect of glucose intake and metabolism in the light of this theory.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Information in society and in health care is currently undergoing a transition from paper to digital formats, and the main source of information will probably be electronic in the future. Objective: To explore patients’ use and perceptions of the patient information leaflet included in the medication package, and their attitude towards a transition to an electronic version. Methods: The data was collected during October to November 2014 among individuals in South-Eastern Sweden, using a questionnaire (n=406, response rate 78%) and interviews (n=15). Results: The questionnaire showed that the majority of the respondents (52%) occasionally read the patient information leaflet, 37% always read it, and 11% never read it. Almost half of the patients (41%) were positive towards reading the patient information leaflet electronically while 32% were hesitant and 26% neutral. A majority of the patients would request to get the patient information leaflet printed at the pharmacy if it was not included in the package. There were differences in attitude related to age and gender. The interviews showed that patients had mixed views on a transition to an electronic patient information leaflet. The patients perceived several positive aspects with an electronic patient information leaflet but were concerned about elderly patients. Conclusion: Although many were positive towards reading the patient information leaflet electronically, the majority prefer the patient information leaflet in paper form. Providing appropriate and useful eHealth services for patients to access the patient information leaflet electronically, along with education, could prepare patients for a transition to electronic patient information leaflet.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: The aim of this study was to gather information about frequency, latency time, outcome and management of frequently occurring adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the use of metformin in daily practice. Methods: A prospective, observational cohort study was performed. A total of 2490 first-time metformin users were recruited through pharmacies in the Netherlands between February 1, 2008, and April 1, 2012. Patients were invited to complete six web-based questionnaires at 2-week, 6-week, 3-month, 6-month, 9-month and 12-month intervals after starting treatment with metformin. Information was gathered about patient characteristics, ADRs and drug use. Results: The occurrence of at least one possible ADR related to the use of metformin was reported by 34.5 % of the patients. A higher proportion of females reported the occurrence of an ADR (39.6 %) compared to the proportion in males (30.9 %). Some patients (11.4 %) stopped using metformin within 1 year after start. More than half of the patients (50.8 %) undertook no action regarding metformin after the occurrence of ADRs. A high number of patients (77.7 %) recovered or were still recovering from ADRs despite continuation of metformin. Most ADRs occurred shortly after the beginning of the treatment, with a median latency time of 1-6 days. The study revealed some ADR-specific differences in occurrence rate, latency time, management and outcome. Conclusion: This study successfully obtained information about frequency, latency time, outcome and management of frequently occurring ADRs related to the use of metformin in daily practise.
Article
Metformin is a biguanide class of drugs and has been recommended as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes. It has a good safety profile, efficacy, comparatively reduced cost, and potential cardiovascular benefits. Metformin is an insulin-sensitizing agent, its bioavailability is 50%-60%. Generally, A1C levels are lowered by 1.5% points by metformin monotherapy. Treatment with metformin decreases fasting plasma glucose concentrations by 25% to 30% and decreases the production of glucose. Metformin reduces hepatic glucose production and absorption of glucose in the intestine. In addition to it, decreases fatty acids oxidation. In liver and skeletal muscles the mitochondrial function and AMP Activated Protein Kinase (AMPK) activity are considered as potential mechanisms and has gained much attention by which metformin exerts its advantageous effects. In the gut enteroendocrine cells secret glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide, which are considered as important determinants for the disposal of glucose following a meal. Glucose production is reduced either by decreasing gluconeogenesis or by glycogenolysis. Treatment with metformin is, nevertheless, very often associated with gastrointestinal side effects and quality of life and treatment adherence is negatively affected in patients of type 2 diabetes. The most common gastrointestinal symptoms are diarrhea, heartburn, and nausea, followed by abdominal pain, bloating, and retching. The mechanism lying under gastrointestinal intolerance caused by metformin is unclear. However, there are different hypothesis proposed, including stimulation of intestinal secretion of serotonin, alteration in incretin and metabolism of glucose, and malabsorption of bile salts. Metformin is used clinically in diabetes, polycystic ovary syndrome, and in obese for weight reduction. It has cardioprotective effect and its use is recently being studied in cancer and HIV associated metabolic abnormalities.
Article
Aim: To determine whether gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability of metformin monotherapy varies according to baseline BMI or at doses >1500mg/day in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Methods: We performed a sub-analysis of the safety population from a prospective, multicenter, Phase IV open-label study in which 371 Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes received extended-release metformin monotherapy for 16 weeks. The incidence, severity and duration of GI adverse events (AEs) were compared between normal-weight (BMI<25kg/m(2), n=155) and overweight/obese (BMI≥25kg/m(2), n=216) patients. The primary objective was to determine whether baseline BMI affect the incidence, severity and duration of GI AEs, using Fisher's exact test and Student's t-test. Secondary objectives were to compare these factors according to final metformin dose (≤1500mg/day versus 2000mg/day). Results: The proportion of patients who reported ≥1 GI AE did not differ significantly between BMI groups (25.2% of the normal-weight group versus 21.3% of the overweight/obese group; p=0.3840). Patients who reported GI AEs in the two BMI groups experienced similar GI AE severity (p=0.5410), mean duration (p=0.3572) and duration distribution (p=0.1347). There was no significant difference in GI AE severity and duration between metformin dosage groups (≤1500mg/day versus 2000mg/day). Conclusions: Newly-diagnosed Chinese type 2 diabetes patients of normal weight are no more likely than overweight/obese patients to suffer from increased incidence rates, severity or duration of GI AEs when treated with first-line extended-release metformin monotherapy. Doses of 2000mg/day did not increase the severity or duration of GI AEs.