4.5 Article

Relationship of the Serum CRP Level With the Efficacy of Metformin in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 13-22

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.21803

关键词

C-reactive protein; meta-analysis; metformin; type 2 diabetes mellitus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundMetformin, an anti-diabetes drug, is always used as a first-line agent for the management of T2DM. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate whether CRP was sensitive in predicting the efficacy of metformin in the treatment of T2DM. MethodsPotential relevant studies were identified covering the following databases: MEDLINE, Science Citation Index database, the Cochrane Library Database, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Current Contents Index, the Chinese Biomedical Database, the Chinese Journal Full-Text Database, and the Weipu Journal Database. Data from eligible studies were extracted and included into the meta-analysis using a random effects model. Statistical analyses were calculated using the version 12.0 STATA software. ResultsA total of 33 articles including 1,433 subjects were collected for analysis. Pooled SMD of those studies revealed that serum levels of CRP and hs-CRP significantly decreased in patients with T2DM after receiving the metformin treatment. Subgroup analysis by country yielded significant different estimates in the serum levels of CRP between the baseline and after metformin treatment in the China, Israel and India subgroups; but only detected only in the China subgroup considering serum levels of hs-CRP. Follow-up time-stratified analyses indicated that serum levels of CRP were markedly reduced in the metformin-treated group in all subgroups. While differences in serum hs-CRP levels were not observed in two subgroups. ConclusionDecreased serum levels of CRP and hs-CRP may contribute to a more sensitive prediction in providing a more accurate efficacy reference in the metformin drug in T2DM patients.

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

4.5
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