4.7 Review

Effect of fibrates on glycemic parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

期刊

PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 232-241

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2017.12.030

关键词

Fibrates; Glucose; Insulin; Insulin resistance; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials was to assess the effect of fibrates on glycemic parameters. Materials and methods: Only randomized placebo-controlled trials investigating the impact of fibrate treatment on glucose homeostasis markers were searched in PubMed-Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases (from inception to April 11, 2017). A random-effects model and generic inverse variance method were used for quantitative data synthesis. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the leave-one-out method. A weighted random-effects meta-regression was performed to evaluate the impact of potential confounders on glycemic parameters. Results: This meta-analysis of data from 22 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving a total of 11,402 subjects showed that fibrate therapy significantly decreased fasting plasma glucose (WMD: -0.28 mmol/L, 95% CI: -0.42, -0.14,p <0.001), insulin levels (WMD: -3.87 pmol/L, 95% CI: -4.97, -2.78, p <0.001) and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR, WMD: -1.09, 95% CI: -1.71, -0.47, p=0.001), but with no effect on HbA1c (WMD: 0.01%, 95% CI: -0.18, 0.19,p = 0.955). All analyses were robust in the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis except for insulin levels that showed a non-significant result (WMD: -0.84 pmol/L, 95% CI: -6.36, 4.68, p = 0.766) following omission of one of the included trials. Conclusion: This meta-analysis has shown that fibrate treatment significantly decreases fasting plasma glucose, insulin levels, and HOMA-IR indicating additional clinical therapeutic benefits. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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