Dataset Information

Effects of Anti-Diabetic Drugs on Fracture Risk: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Available data on the effects of anti-diabetic drugs on fracture risk are contradictory. Therefore, our study aimed to analyze all available data on the effects of anti-diabetic drugs on fracture risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.

Methods

Embase, Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for relevant trials. All data analyses were performed with STATA (12.0) and R language (3.6.0). Risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by combining data for the fracture effects of anti-diabetic drugs, including sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, meglitinides, α-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, biguanides, insulin, and sulfonylureas.

Results

One hundred seventeen eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 221,364 participants were included in this study. Compared with placebo, trelagliptin (RR 3.51; 1.58–13.70) increased the risk of fracture, whereas albiglutide (RR 0.29; 0.04–0.93) and voglibose (RR 0.03; 0–0.11) decreased the risk of fracture. Other medications were comparable in terms of their effects on fracture risk, and no statistical significance was observed. In terms of fractures, voglibose (0.01%) may be the safest option, and trelagliptin (13.64%) may be the worst. Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with those of the main analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed in the regression coefficients of age (1.03; 0.32–2.1), follow-up duration (0.79; 0.27–1.64), and sex distribution (0.63; 0.15–1.56).

Conclusions

We found varied results on the association between the use of anti-diabetic drugs and fracture risk. Specifically, trelagliptin raised the risk of fracture, whereas voglibose and albiglutide showed benefit with statistical difference. Other drugs were comparable in terms of their effects on fracture risk. Some drugs (omarigliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, empagliflozin, ertugliflozin, rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, and nateglinide) may increase the risk of fracture, while others (such as dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, semaglutide, lixisenatide, linagliptin, alogliptin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, glipizide, gliclazide, glibenclamide, glimepiride, metformin, and insulin) may show benefits. The risk of fracture was independent of age, sex distribution, and the duration of exposure to anti-diabetic drugs. When developing individualized treatment strategies, the clinical efficacy of anti-diabetic drugs must be weighed against their benefits and risks brought about by individual differences of patients.

Systematic Review Registration

This Systematic Review was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, registration number CRD42020189464).

SUBMITTER: Zhang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8553257 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although a variety of antidiabetic drugs have significant protective action on the cardiovascular system, it is still unclear which antidiabetic drugs can improve ventricular remodeling and fundamentally delay the process of heart failure. The purpose of this network meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of sodium glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, metformin (MET), sulfonylurea (SU) and thiazolidinediones (TZDs) in improving left ventricular (LV) remodeling in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS:We searched articles published before October 18, 2019, regardless of language or data, in 4 electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. We included randomized controlled trials in this network meta-analysis, as well as a small number of cohort studies. The differences in the mean changes in left ventricular echocardiographic parameters between the treatment group and control group were evaluated. RESULTS:The difference in the mean change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) between GLP-1 agonists and placebo in treatment effect was greater than zero (MD?=?2.04% [0.64%, 3.43%]); similar results were observed for the difference in the mean change in LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) between SGLT-2 inhibitors and placebo (MD?=?-?3.3 mm [5.31, -?5.29]), the difference in the mean change in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) between GLP-1 agonists and placebo (MD?=?-?4.39 ml [-?8.09, -?0.7]); the difference in the mean change in E/e' between GLP-1 agonists and placebo (MD?=?-?1.05[-?1.78, -?0.32]); and the difference in the mean change in E/e' between SGLT-2 inhibitors and placebo (MD?=?-?1.91[-?3.39, -?0.43]). CONCLUSIONS:GLP-1 agonists are more significantly associated with improved LVEF, LVESV and E/e', SGLT-2 inhibitors are more significantly associated with improved LVEDD and E/e', and DPP-4 inhibitors are more strongly associated with a negative impact on LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) than are placebos. SGLT-2 inhibitors are superior to other drugs in pairwise comparisons.

Project description:Although observational studies have identified the protective effect of statins on bone health, the effects remain controversial in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs to evaluate the effects of statins on bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk among adults.We searched electronic databases of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and conducted a bibliography review to identify articles published until May, 2015.Studies included in this meta-analysis should be randomized controlled trials conducted in adults, using statins in the intervention group. Information on changes in BMD or odds ratio, relative risk or hazard ratio (HR) for fracture risk with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was provided.Two investigators independently reviewed the title or abstract, further reviewed the full-texts and extracted information on study characteristics and study outcomes. Net change estimates of BMD and pooled HR of fracture risk comparing the intervention group with the control group were estimated across trials using random-effects models.Of the relevant 334 citations, 7 trials (including 27,900 randomized participants in total) meeting the eligibility criteria were included. Of the 7 trials, 5 were conducted to assess the association of statins use with BMD change and 2 with fracture risk. Compared with the control group, statins use was associated with significant increase in BMD of 0.03?g/cm (95% CI: 0.006, 0.053; I?=?99.2%; P?<?0.001), but null association with fracture risk, with the pooled HR of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.87, 1.15; I?=?0; P?=?0.396). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the associations were consistent and robust.The effect of statins use on bone health among subpopulation could not be identified due to limited number of trials.These findings provide evidence that statins could be used to increase BMD other than decreasing fracture risk in participant with dyslipidemia. In addition, further trials with the primary outcome of bone health-related measurements in subpopulation are warranted to ensure the effect of statins use.

Project description:Background: Pre-diabetes is a risk factor for full-blown diabetes; it presents opportunities to prevent the actual diseases. It is therefore essential to identify effective preventive strategies, and to clarify the direction of future research. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched using key terms (Supplementary Table 1). We applied network meta-analysis to multiple comparisons among various diabetic preventive strategies, including lifestyle and pharmacological interventions; traditional meta-analysis for the synthesis of basal metabolic changes after interventions; and trial sequential analysis for determinations as to whether analysis conclusions meet expectations. Results: We included 32 randomized controlled trials comprising 43,669 patients and 14 interventions in the meta-analysis. Both lifestyle modifications and anti-diabetic medications improved physical conditions, including weight loss, blood glucose, and blood pressure. Network meta-analysis suggested that the progression of diabetes could be delayed to varying degrees by lifestyle and pharmacological interventions, except for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, statins, sulfonylureas and vitamin D. The risk ratios (RR) [95% credible interval (CrI)] compared with control were: GLP-1RAs 0.28 (0.15, 0.50), Orlistat 0.33 (0.18, 0.55), TZM 0.33 (0.16, 0.63), TZD 0.39 (0.27, 0.53), LST 0.54 (0.32, 0.88), lifestyle 0.58 (0.49, 0.67), LSM 0.62 (0.45, 0.80), GI 0.66 (0.46, 0.88), SU 0.67 (0.40, 1.00), Vitamin D 0.91 (0.59, 1.40), ACEI 0.93 (0.62, 1.40), statins 1.20 (0.84, 1.60). Conclusions: In adults with pre-diabetes, firm evidence supports the notion that lifestyle modifications and metformin reduces the incidence of diabetes with an average of 20% relative risk reduction, while statins increase the relative risk 20%. We found that lifestyle modifications, promising long-term strategies involving three factors (nutrition, exercise, and weight loss) contribute to health by reducing BMI, body weight, waist and hip circumference, systolic and diastolic pressure, fasting, and 2-h postprandial blood glucose, total cholesterol and by increasing HDL. We made this determination using TSA, avoiding further waste of experimental resources.

Project description:Despite the availability of three network meta-analyses (NMA) examining the efficacy, treatment completion, and adverse events associated with all latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) treatments, there is currently no evidence to support the notion that the benefits of these treatments outweigh the potential risks. This NMA aimed to conduct a comprehensive comparison and update of the efficacy, treatment completion rates and adverse events associated with recommended treatment options for LTBI for individuals with confirmed LTBI, as outlined in the 2020 World Health Organization (WHO) Consolidated Guidelines for TB preventive treatment. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE and Scopus databases was conducted until April 2023. The NMA was applied to estimate the risk difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using a combination of direct and indirect evidence. The risk-benefit assessment was employed to evaluate the feasibility of the extra benefits in relation to the extra risks. The primary outcomes of interest in this study were active TB disease, completion rates, and adverse events. The meta-analysis incorporated data from 15 studies, which collectively demonstrated that the administration of a placebo resulted in a significant increase in the risk of developing TB disease by 1.279%, compared to the daily intake of isoniazid for 6 months (6H). Furthermore, treatment completion rates were significantly higher when using isoniazid plus rifapentine weekly for 3 months (3HP) and rifampicin daily for 4 months (4R), as compared to 6H. Considering adverse events, the combination of 3HP, 4R, and isoniazid administered daily for 9 months (referred to as 9H) significantly decreased adverse events by 4.53% in comparison to 6H. The risk-benefit assessment showed that alternative treatment regimens (9H, 4R, 3HR and 3HP) had a lower incidence of adverse events, while demonstrating a higher efficacy in preventing TB, as compared to 6H. This review indicates that there were no significant differences observed among various active treatment options in terms of their efficacy in preventing active TB. Moreover, completion rates were higher in 3HP and 4R, and a reduction in adverse events was observed in 3HP, 4R, and 9H.

Project description:Dairy product consumption may affect the risk of hip fracture, but previous studies have reported inconsistent findings. The primary aim of our meta-analysis was to examine and quantify the potential association of dairy product consumption with risk of hip fracture.We searched the databases of PubMed and EMBASE for relevant articles from their inception through April 17, 2017. The final analysis included 10 cohort studies and 8 case-control studies. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled risk. Subgroup and dose-response analyses were conducted to explore the relationships between the consumption of milk and the risk of hip fracture.After pooling the data from the included studies, the summary relative risk (RR) for hip fracture for highest versus lowest consumption were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.74-1.12), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.66-0.86), 0.68 (95% CI: 0.61-0. 77), 1.02 (95% CI: 0.93-1.12) for milk, yogurt, cheese, and total dairy products in cohort studies, respectively. Higher milk consumption [Odds ratio (OR), 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55-0. 91] was associated with lower risk of hip fracture for highest versus lowest consumption in case-control studies. After quantifying the specific dose of milk, the summary RR/OR for an increased milk consumption of 200 g/day was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.94-1.07), and 0.89 (95%CI: 0.64-1.24) with significant heterogeneity for cohort and case-control studies, respectively; There was a nonlinear association between milk consumption and hip fracture risk in cohort, and case-control studies.Our findings indicate that consumption of yogurt and cheese was associated with lower risk of hip fracture in cohort studies. However, the consumption of total dairy products and cream was not significantly associated with the risk of hip fracture. There was insufficient evidence to deduce the association between milk consumption and risk of hip fracture. A lower threshold of 200 g/day milk intake may have beneficial effects, whereas the effects of a higher threshold of milk intake are unclear.

Project description:Background: There is uncertainty about the effect of antiemetic drugs (AED) for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness and safety of AED for PONV. Methods and Findings: We searched online databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Wiley, Elsevier Science Direct, Ovid LWW, and Springer for publications from 1985 to June 2018. Adults undergoing craniotomy with the prophylactic use of at least one AED were included. The primary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) during the first and second day. A total of 1,433 participants from 17 clinical trials were enrolled in this Network Meta-Analysis (NMA). Compared to placebo, ramosetron was the most effective treatment for PON 24 h after surgery (OR = 0.063, 95% Crl: 0.006-0.45), with a 69.2% probability. On the other hand, for POV, droperidol was the best treatment during the first 2 h with a 71.1% probability (OR = 0.029, 95% Crl: 0.003-0.25); while fosaprepitant was the most effective treatment at 0-24 h (OR = 0.027, 95% Crl: 0.007-0.094; 66.9% probability) and 0-48 h (OR = 0.036, 95% Crl: 0.006-0.18; 56.6% probability). Besides, ramosetron showed a significantly higher incidence of complete response (OR = 29. 95% Crl: 1.4-6.5e + 02), as well as lower requirement for rescue AED (OR = 0.022, 95% Crl: 0.001-0.2). Granisetron was associated with the lowest incidence of headache and excessive sedation. Conclusions: Compared with placebo, ramosetron appears to be the best prophylactic treatment for PON 24 h after craniotomy, with higher complete responses. Fosaprepitant appears to be the most effective prophylaxis option for POV on the first 0-24 and 0-48 h. Both may be better applied in combination with perioperative dexamethasone. These findings may guide clinicians to provide improved pharmacological prophylaxis for PONV after craniotomy with fewer adverse effects.