The phantom of lactic acidosis due to metformin in patients with diabetes.

M etformin is the only biguanide that is available in the U.S. Another biguanide, phenformin, had been used since the 1950s, but was declared an “imminent hazard” in 1976 because of lactic acidosis (1). At the time of its removal from the market, there had been 306 documented cases of phenformin-associated lactic acidosis (2), including 1 fatal and 2 nonfatal cases in the randomized controlled trial of the University Group Diabetes Program (3). Metformin was marketed as Glucophage by Bristol-Myers Squibb in early 1995, with a boxed warning concerning the risk of lactic acidosis. Metformin had been used widely in Europe for several years, where it had been recognized that the risk of lactic acidosis from metformin was no greater than the risk of hypoglycemia from sulfonylureas (4). Although the clinical utility of metformin had been recognized in the U.S. (5), its approval was undoubtedly delayed by the specter of phenformin and the lingering concern that metformin might also cause lactic acidosis. The eventual approval of metformin was unusually controversial. Crofford (6) predicted that metformin “will be widely used and will improve the outlook for many patients” with diabetes. But fear of lactic acidosis led the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen (7) to issue the warning: “Do not use Glucophage.” Based on data from Sweden, it was estimated that the risk of lactic acidosis in patients taking phenformin was 10-fold higher than the risk in patients taking metformin. A later report from Sweden (9) concluded that discontinuing metformin in aging patients when they developed renal or cardiovascular disease could further reduce the risk of lactic acidosis. The labeling of Glucophage reflected a belief that metformin had the potential to cause lactic acidosis, but that the risk could be mitigated by careful selection of patients. To help allay concerns about the safety of metformin, Bristol-Myers Squibb committed to perform a large study (the Comparative Outcomes Study of Metformin Intervention Versus Conventional Approach [COSMIC]), comparing 1 year of treatment with metformin to “usual care” with other antidiabetic agents. The results of this study have recently become available (10). There were no meaningful differences in safety outcomes between the 7,227 patients who received metformin and the 1,505 patients who received usual care. There were no cases of lactic acidosis in either group. Two large government-supported studies provide an impressive body of evidence to support the safety and effectiveness of metformin (11,12). In addition, several manufacturers other than BristolMyers Squibb have performed studies in which a new drug was used in combination with metformin or compared with metformin. Metformin is now indicated for use in combination with every other oral antidiabetic agent and insulin and is the only oral agent available in fixed-dose combinations with other antidiabetic agents. Metformin is also specifically labeled for use in children with type 2 diabetes (13). In none of the studies submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of these indications were there any episodes of lactic acidosis. Salpeter et al. (14,15) reviewed published reports of controlled trials involving metformin that lasted 1 month or more and were reported through November 2002. They found no cases of lactic acidosis in 36,000 patient-years of exposure to metformin and concluded that there was no evidence to support a role for metformin in the development of lactic acidosis. In contrast to the findings from controlled trials, cases of lactic acidosis continue to be reported in patients taking metformin. Among the first million patients (approximately) to have received metformin in the U.S., there were 47 reports (20 fatal) to the FDA of lactic acidosis. Of these patients, 43 had renal failure (labeled contraindication for metformin) or risk factors for lactic acidosis besides metformin (primarily congestive heart failure) (16). There were only four patients who did not have other risk factors for lactic acidosis when metformin was initially given. In one of these four case subjects, lactic acidosis appears to have been precipitated by an episode of urosepsis. None of these four patients died. A recent review by Stades et al. (17) provides additional evidence that most cases of metformin-associated lactic acidosis, particularly fatal ones, are related to underlying conditions rather than to metformin. The authors went on to attribute many reports of metformin-associated lactic acidosis to a publication bias in which the widely held clinical impression that metformin causes lactic acidosis is erroneously fortified. I believe that this view is probably correct and cite as an example a report of “lactic acidosis” in a patient whose lactate level was only about 2 mmol/l (18 and see the technical note in the APPENDIX). On the other hand, there is a recent report by Dawson et al. (19) of ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●