Dataset Information

Risk of Fractures Associated with Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

More and more studies suggest that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can lead to an increased fracture risk. Some previous clinical studies and experimental data have shown that some antidiabetic drugs can increase or decrease the incidence of fractures.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ) for published or unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception through 2 December 2018 to compare the effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DDP-4) inhibitors with active control drugs or placebo in T2DM patients. All RCTs had a duration of at least 12 weeks, and the ultimate measure was whether a fracture occurs or not. We calculated odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals by the fixed effect Mantel-Haenszel model. Publication bias was investigated firstly through visual observation of funnel plot asymmetry and then through Begg's test or Egger's test. The Cochrane bias risk tools were used to assess the quality of included studies.

Results

Eighty-seven eligible RCTs were included in this study. Of 93,772 participants, 49,270 patients received therapy and 44,502 were control patients. Five kinds of DDP-4 inhibitors were included: sitagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin and vildagliptin. There were 676 fractures in the DDP-4 inhibitor treatment group and 646 in the control group. The median average glycosylated hemoglobin level was 8.2%. DDP-4 inhibitor treatment did not seem to influence the fracture risk, no matter whether compared with placebo or active comparators in T2DM patients (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) = 1.01, 95% CI 0.90-1.12, P = 0.92). After three subgroup analyses which were defined by drug type, control regimen and duration, the results were still stable.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that DDP-4 inhibitors do not affect the fracture risk when compared with antidiabetic drugs or placebo in T2DM patients.

SUBMITTER: Chen Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6778576 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Acarbose and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) have several similarities regarding their efficacy. Assessing the hypoglycemic and weight-loss effects, as well as the tolerability between them at their optimal dosages, could provide a better management of adult type 2 diabetics. Methods: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) on randomized controlled trials that were identified from the databases of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang, and SinoMed. The trials with 300 mg/day of acarbose or the recommended doses of DPP-4is were the most optimal for our NMA. The mean differences (MD) and relative risk (RR) derived from eligible studies were used. Results: Among the 15,411 obtained potential studies, 13 pair-wise trials and 48 monotherapy studies were included in the meta-analysis and NMA, respectively. DPP-4is had a greater glucose-lowering effect, but a weaker weight-loss effect than acarbose in pair-wise meta-analysis (p < 0.05). However, NMA with 11,877 participants showed that, at their optimal doses, acarbose and DPP-4is had similar glucose-lowering effects on the 2-h postprandial glucose (MD 0.96 mmol/L, 95% credible interval -0.56 to 2.54), HbA1c (0.05%, -0.25 to 0.33), fasting plasma glucose reductions (-0.27 mmol/L, -0.76 to 0.24), and HbA1c < 7.0% target goal achievement (RR 1.33, 0.51 to 3.64). Acarbose was superior to DPP-4is regarding weight loss (MD -1.23 kg, -2.08 to -0.33). Acarbose had more withdrawal, gastrointestinal, and overall adverse events than DPP-4is (p < 0.05), but the differences disappeared after longer treatment (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Acarbose and DPP-4is have similar glucose-lowering effects, but the weight-loss effects of acarbose are superior. Therefore, in the use of the most optimal dosages, overweight/obese type 2 diabetics might benefit more from a treatment with acarbose than DPP-4is.

Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

Project description:The association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is), a class of anti-diabetes, and bone fracture in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is unknown. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of DPP-4is on bone fracture in T2DM patients.We searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 28th, 2016 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DPP-4is with placebo or other anti-diabetes in T2DM patients. RCTs lasting more than 12 weeks and having data on bone fracture were included. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and network meta-analysis (NMA) to supplement direct comparisons. Predictive interval plot and node-splitting method were used to evaluate the heterogeneity and inconsistency for NMA, while the funnel plot was applied to explore publication bias. Besides, study quality was assessed according to Cochrane risk of bias tool.We identified 75 RCTs with a total of 70,207 patients and 11 treatments: interventions included 5 DPP-4is (alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin), while controls included placebo and 5 other anti-diabetes (sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, metformin, thiazolidinediones, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors). In the NMA, the risk of fracture for alogliptin tended to decrease when versus placebo (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.88). Besides, aloglitpin had a lower risk compared with linagliptin (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.99) and saxagliption (OR, 0.46; 95%CI, 0.25 to 0.84); the risk was higher with saxagliptin when versus sitagliptin (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.47) and sulfonylureas (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.71). In the direct pairwise meta-analysis, alogliptin was associated with a non-significant tendency to reduction of bone fracture compared with placebo (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.01). Ranking probability analysis indicated alogliptin decreased the risk of bone fracture most with a probability of 76.3%.Alogliptin may be associated with a lower risk of bone fracture compared with placebo, linagliptin, or saxagliptin, while other anti-diabetes did not seem to have an association with the risk of bone fracture.