Cardiovascular diabetology · 2018
Effects of oral antidiabetic drugs on left ventricular mass in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a network meta-analysis.
СтатьяОбзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ida Satoshi, Kaneko Ryutaro, Murata Kazuya
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We used a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to comparatively examine the effects of oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) on left ventricular mass (LVM) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS: Document searches were implemented using Medline, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We decided to include RCTs that evaluated the impact of LVM using the administration of OADs to patients with type 2 diabetes. The outcome evaluations used standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We then performed a comparative examination of LVM related to the administration of OADs using random effects network meta-analysis.
RESULTS: The document search found 11 RCTs (1410 people) that satisfied the eligibility criteria for this study, and these RCTs were incorporated into the network meta-analysis. The only medication that significantly reduced LVM compared to a placebo was gliclazide (SMD, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.62 to - 0.57). Further, when comparing the impact on LVM between OADs, only gliclazide significantly reduced LVM compared to other OADs (glyburide, voglibose, metformin, pioglitazone, rosiglitazone, and sitagliptin).
CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, gliclazide was the only medication that significantly reduced LVM in patients with type 2 diabetes. When considered from the perspective of causing heart failure and preventing recurrence, it is possible that the use of gliclazide in patients with type 2 diabetes will provide multiple benefits.
METHODS: Document searches were implemented using Medline, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We decided to include RCTs that evaluated the impact of LVM using the administration of OADs to patients with type 2 diabetes. The outcome evaluations used standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We then performed a comparative examination of LVM related to the administration of OADs using random effects network meta-analysis.
RESULTS: The document search found 11 RCTs (1410 people) that satisfied the eligibility criteria for this study, and these RCTs were incorporated into the network meta-analysis. The only medication that significantly reduced LVM compared to a placebo was gliclazide (SMD, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.62 to - 0.57). Further, when comparing the impact on LVM between OADs, only gliclazide significantly reduced LVM compared to other OADs (glyburide, voglibose, metformin, pioglitazone, rosiglitazone, and sitagliptin).
CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, gliclazide was the only medication that significantly reduced LVM in patients with type 2 diabetes. When considered from the perspective of causing heart failure and preventing recurrence, it is possible that the use of gliclazide in patients with type 2 diabetes will provide multiple benefits.