Background
Methods
Study selection
Data extraction and quality assessment
Statistical analysis
Results
Description of included studies
No. | References | Year | Region | No. of patients | Age (years) | % Women | BMI (kg/m2) | Body weight (kg) | Duration of DM (years) | HbA1c (%) | Hypertension (%) | Dyslipidemia (%) | Prior CVD (%) | Comparison | OADs dose (mg/day) | Basic treatment | Study duration (weeks) | LVM (g) or LVMI (g/m2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Yamada et al. [17] | 2017 | Japan | 115 | 69 | 35 | 24.8 | NR | NR | 6.9 | 76 | 70 | 0 | Sitagliptin vs. conventional | Sitagliptin, 25 or 50; conventional, α-glucosidase inhibitor/glinide/metformin/sulfonylurea/pioglitazone | Diet + exercise | 96 | 96.2 (g/m2) |
2 | Oe et al. [18] | 2015 | Japan | 77 | 66 | 35 | 25.7 | NR | 3 | NR | 80 | 10 | 5 | Sitagliptin vs. voglibose | Sitagliptin,50; voglibose, 0.6 | Diet + exercise | 24 | 85 (g/m2) |
3 | McGavock et al. [27] | 2012 | US | 49 | 55 | 52 | 34 | 92 | 10.7 | 7.7 | 78 | 65 | 8 | Rosiglitazone vs. placebo | Rosiglitazone, 8 | Diet + exercise | 24 | 153 (g) |
4 | Naka et al. [28] | 2010 | Greece | 81 | 64 | 72 | NR | 74.2 | 9 | 7.9 | NR | NR | 0 | Pioglitazone vs. conventional | Pioglitazone, 30; conventional, metformin/sulfonylurea | Metformin and/or sulfonylurea | 24 | 118.1 (g/m2) |
5 | McGuire et al. [29] | 2010 | US | 108 | 55 | 38 | 34 | 97 | 8.7 | 7.2 | 74 | 75 | 37 | Rosiglitazone vs. placebo | Rosiglitazone, 8 | Diet + exercise | 24 | 76 (g/m2) |
6 | Pala et al. [30] | 2010 | Turkey | 40 | 55 | 60 | 33 | NR | 4.4 | 8.4 | 65 | 60 | 0 | Rosiglitazone vs. pioglitazone | Rosiglitazone, 8; pioglitazone, 30 | Metformin and/or sulfonylurea | 16 | 136 (g/m2) |
7 | van der Meer et al. [19] | 2009 | Netherlands | 71 | 56 | NR | 29.3 | NR | NR | 7 | NR | NR | 0 | Pioglitazone vs. metformin | Pioglitazone, 30; metformin, 2000 | Diet + exercise | 24 | 107 (g) |
8 | Giles et al. [31] | 2008 | US | 518 | 63 | 33 | 29.7 | NR | 11.6 | 8.9 | NR | NR | 100 | Pioglitazone vs. glyburide | Pioglitazone, 30; glyburide, 10 | Metformin and/or sulfonylurea | 24 | NR |
9 | Lee et al. [14]. | 2007 | Taiwan | 108 | 63 | 44 | 26.6 | NR | 11 | 8.3 | 74 | NR | 0 | Glyburide vs. gliclazide | Glyburide, 5; gliclazide, 80 | Diet + exercise | 24 | 219 (g) |
10 | Pan et al. [32] | 2006 | Taiwan | 40 | 63 | 52 | 27 | NR | 12 | 8.1 | 76 | NR | 0 | Glibenclamide vs. gliclazide | Glibenclamide, 5; gliclazide, 80 | Glibenclamide | 24 | 120 (g/m2) |
11 | Sutton et al. [33] | 2002 | US | 203 | 55 | 25 | NR | 86.2 | 5.3 | 9.1 | NR | NR | 0 | Glyburide vs. rosiglitazone | Glyburide, 10; rosiglitazone, 8 | Diet + exercise | 52 | 75.5 (g/m2) |
Assessment of potential bias
No. | Reference | Randomization procedure | Allocation concealment | Blinding of personnel and participants | Blinding of outcome assessment | Incomplete outcome assessment | Selective reporting |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Yamada et al. [17] | L | L | H | L | L | L |
2 | Oe et al. [18] | L | L | H | U | U | L |
3 | McGavock et al. [27] | L | L | L | L | U | L |
4 | Naka et al. [28] | L | L | H | L | U | L |
5 | McGuireet al. [29] | U | U | L | U | H | L |
6 | Pala et al. [30] | U | U | U | U | L | L |
7 | van der Meer et al. [19] | L | L | L | U | L | L |
8 | Giles et al. [31] | U | U | L | U | U | L |
9 | Pan et al. [32] | U | U | U | L | L | L |
10 | Sutton et al. [33] | U | U | H | L | U | L |
11 | Lee et al. [14] | U | U | H | L | H | L |
Direct pairwise meta-analysis
Placebo
| ||||||||
0.14 (− 0.26, 0.54) |
Glyburide
| 0.07 (− 0.11, 0.24) [31] | 0.09 (− 0.19, 0.36) [33] | |||||
1.09 (0.57, 1.62) | 0.95 (0.61, 1.29) |
Gliclazide
| ||||||
0.12 (− 0.72, 0.96) | − 0.02 (− 0.76, 0.73) | − 0.97 (− 1.79, − 0.15) |
Voglibose
| − 0.20 (− 0.65, 0.25) [18] | ||||
0.13 (− 0.50, 0.76) | − 0.01 (− 0.50, 0.49) | − 0.96 (− 1.56, − 0.36) | 0.01 (− 0.85, 0.87) |
Metformin
| 0.05 (− 0.41, 0.52) [19] | |||
0.08 (− 0.35, 0.50) | − 0.06 (− 0.23, 0.10) | − 1.02 (− 1.40, − 0.64) | − 0.05 (− 0.77, 0.68) | − 0.05 (− 0.52, 0.41) |
Pioglitazone
| 0.06 (− 0.56, 0.68) [30] | − 0.06 (− 0.49, 0.38) [28] | |
0.05 (− 0.27, 0.36) | − 0.10 (− 0.35, 0.16) | − 1.05 (− 1.47, − 0.62) | − 0.08 (− 0.86, 0.70) | − − 0.09 (− 0.63, 0.46) | − 0.03 (− 0.32, 0.26) |
Rosiglitazone
| ||
0.32 (− 0.39, 1.03) | 0.18 (− 0.41, 0.77) | − 0.77 (− 1.46, − 0.09) | 0.20 (− 0.25, 0.65) | 0.19 (− 0.55, 0.92) | 0.24 (− 0.33, 0.81) | 0.27 (− 0.36, 0.91) |
Sitagliptin
| 0.18 (− 0.18, 0.55) [17] |
0.14 (− 0.47, 0.74) | − 0.01 (− 0.47, 0.46) | − 0.96 (− 1.54, − 0.38) | 0.01 (− 0.57, 0.59) | 0.00 (− 0.63, 0.64) | 0.06 (− 0.38, 0.49) | 0.09 (− 0.43, 0.61) | − 0.18 (− 0.55, 0.18) |
Conventional
|
Network meta-analysis
Treatment | SUCRA | Rank |
---|---|---|
Placebo | 28.1 | 9 |
Glyburide | 51.3 | 3 |
Gliclazide | 99.6 | 1 |
Voglibose | 43.3 | 6 |
Metformin | 45.2 | 4 |
Pioglitazone | 36.4 | 7 |
Rosiglitazone | 32.8 | 8 |
Sitagliptin | 68.8 | 2 |
Conventional | 44.4 | 5 |