Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of thiazolidinediones in diabetes patients with renal impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TZDs in treatment of diabetes mellitus patients with renal impairment. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that investigated the effects of TZDs in patients with diabetes and renal impairment were eligible. Outcomes included glycosylated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, serum lipids, and patient-important outcomes (i.e. hypoglycemia, weight, edema, cardiovascular events and mortality). 19 RCTs and 3 cohort studies involving 21,803 patients with diabetes and renal impairment were included. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that TZDs could significantly reduce HbA1c (MD -0.64, 95%CI -0.93 to -0.35), FPG (MD -26.27, 95%CI -44.90 to -7.64) and increase HDL levels (MD 3.70, 95%CI 1.10, 6.29). TZDs could increase weight (MD 3.23, 95% CI 2.29 to 4.16) and risk of edema (RR 2.96, 95% CI 1.22 to 7.20). Their effects on risk of hypoglycemia (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.29), heart failure (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.66), angina (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 8.95) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.01) are uncertain. Results from cohort studies were similar to RCTs.

SUBMITTER: Wang W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5431943 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of thiazolidinediones in diabetes patients with renal impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang Wen W Zhou Xu X Kwong Joey S W JSW Li Ling L Li Youping Y Sun Xin X

Scientific reports 20170511 1

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TZDs in treatment of diabetes mellitus patients with renal impairment. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that investigated the effects of TZDs in patients with diabetes and renal impairment were eligible. Outcomes included glycosylated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, serum lipids, a ...[more]

PMID: 28496176

Similar Datasets

Project description:Major depressive disorder (MDD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) remain among the most prevalent diseases and the most significant challenges faced by medicine in the 21st century. The frequent co-occurrence and bidirectional relationship between the two conditions necessitates the identification of treatment strategies that benefit both. The purpose of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze data on the efficacy and safety of agomelatine (AGO) in the treatment of patients with depression with comorbid diabetes to explore its potential mechanism of action in both diseases and its impact on diabetic parameters. Following PRISMA guidelines, a total of 11 studies were identified, both preclinical and clinical trials. Agomelatine has shown great potential as a treatment option for patients with diabetes and comorbid depression and anxiety. In addition to improving depressive and anxiety symptoms, it is also beneficial in glycemic control. A meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) and fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels following AGO administration over a period of 8-16 weeks. The administration of agomelatine was found to result in a significantly greater reduction in HbA1C than that observed with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medications (namely fluoxetine, sertraline, and paroxetine) during 12-16 weeks of therapy. Furthermore, AGO has been found to be at least as effective as SSRIs in reducing depressive symptoms and more effective than SSRIs in reducing anxiety symptoms. The safety of such treatment is similar to SSRIs; no severe adverse events were reported, and the incidence of some side effects, such as insomnia and sexual dysfunction, are even less often reported. Particularly promising is also its potential action in improving some diabetic complications reported in preclinical trials. This might be through mechanisms involving the reduction in oxidative stress, anti-inflammatory effects, and potentially noradrenergic or NMDA receptor modulation. Further clinical studies on larger sample sizes, as well as elucidating its mechanisms of action, especially in the context of diabetic complications, are needed. Research should also focus on identifying the patient subpopulations most likely to benefit from agomelatine treatment.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of saxagliptin for type 2 diabetes (T2D).MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and two Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saxagliptin with placebo or active comparators was performed up to July 2017. A complementary search was done to cover literature until March 2018. For continuous data, estimates were pooled using inverse variance methodology to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs). Dichotomous data were presented as Mantel-Haenzel risk ratios (RRs).ResultsThirty-nine references of 30 RCTs involving 29,938 patients were analyzed. Compared with placebo, saxagliptin significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, WMD -0.52%, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.44) and fasting plasma glucose (WMD -13.78 mg/dL, 95% CI -15.31 to -12.25), and increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.75). When combined with submaximal-dose metformin, saxagliptin significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% compared with acarbose (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.83) and uptitrated metformin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.63). Saxagliptin was similar to other DPP-4 inhibitors but inferior to liraglutide and dapagliflozin on glycemic control. Saxagliptin significantly decreased the incidences of overall adverse events compared with acarbose (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89) and liraglutide (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) when added to metformin. Weight gain and hypoglycemia with saxagliptin was slightly but significantly higher than placebo and lower than sulfonylureas. Saxagliptin did not increase the risk of arthralgia, heart failure, pancreatitis and other adverse events.ConclusionsGenerally, saxagliptin has similar efficacy compared with most oral antidiabetic drugs and may be more effective than acarbose, while having a better safety profile than both acarbose and sulfonylureas.

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of thiazolidinediones in diabetes patients with renal impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of thiazolidinediones in diabetes patients with renal impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets