4.7 Review

Cardiovascular and Metabolic Outcomes in Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 103, 期 11, 页码 4097-4103

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2018-01862

关键词

-

资金

  1. Endocrine Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) require glucocorticoid therapy to replace cortisol and to control androgen excess. We sought to evaluate the effects of glucocorticoid therapy on cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes in individuals with CAH. Methods: We searched bibliographical databases through January 2016 for studies evaluating cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with CAH treated with glucocorticoids compared with controls without CAH. We used a random-effects model to synthesize quantitative data. Results: We included 20 observational studies (14 longitudinal, six cross- sectional) with a moderate to high risk of bias. The average dose of glucocorticoids (in hydrocortisone equivalents) was 9 to 26.5 mg/m(2)/d. In the meta-analysis (416 patients), compared with controls without CAH, individuals with CAH had increased systolic blood pressure [weighted mean difference (WMD), 4.44 mm Hg; 95% CI, 3.26 to 5.63 mm Hg], diastolic blood pressure (WMD, 2.35 mm Hg; 95% CI, 0.49 to 4.20 mm Hg), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (WMD, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.96), and carotid intima thickness (WMD, 0.08 mm; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.15 mm). No statistically significant differences were noted in fasting blood glucose, insulin level, glucose, or insulin level after 2-hour glucose load or serum lipids. Data on cardiac events were sparse, and most of the literature focused on surrogate outcomes. Conclusion: Individuals with CAH demonstrate a high prevalence of cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors. The current evidence relies on surrogate outcomes. Long-term prospective studies are warranted to assess strategies for reducing cardiovascular risk in individuals with CAH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据