胰岛素增敏剂治疗2型糖尿病的疗效和安全性:一项网络meta分析

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Gerile Huang, Yujie Li, YuQi Shang, Huiduo Wang, Wenjing Zhang, Hao Guo
{"title":"胰岛素增敏剂治疗2型糖尿病的疗效和安全性:一项网络meta分析","authors":"Gerile Huang, Yujie Li, YuQi Shang, Huiduo Wang, Wenjing Zhang, Hao Guo","doi":"10.1007/s00228-025-03882-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Thiazolidinediones (TZDs), including pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, and non-TZD insulin sensitisers (chiglitazar sodium) demonstrate potential; however, their comparative efficacy and safety remain unclear. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin sensitisers, including chiglitazar sodium, sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and rosiglitazone for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A computer-based search was conducted in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, the VIP database, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the establishment date of each database to January 2025. Included study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve was calculated for each outcome indicator to compare the efficacy and safety of different interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In reducing haemoglobin A1c, 8 mg of rosiglitazone was superior over 100 mg sitagliptin, 30 mg pioglitazone, and 15 mg pioglitazone (P < 0.05), with no significant differences among the remaining medications. To reduce fasting plasma glucose, 45 mg of pioglitazone was more effective than any dosage of chiglitazar sodium, sitagliptin, or rosiglitazone (P < 0.05). Regarding safety, the incidence rate of adverse reactions was higher with 45 mg of pioglitazone than with 8 mg of rosiglitazone (P < 0.05), with no significant differences in adverse events among other medications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with placebo, all four drugs were safe and effective in the treatment of T2DM. High-dose TZDs may be more effective than mitiglinide and sitagliptin. However, 45 mg of pioglitazone was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events, warranting close monitoring of its safety profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":11857,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"1493-1506"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of insulin sensitisers for treating type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Gerile Huang, Yujie Li, YuQi Shang, Huiduo Wang, Wenjing Zhang, Hao Guo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00228-025-03882-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Thiazolidinediones (TZDs), including pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, and non-TZD insulin sensitisers (chiglitazar sodium) demonstrate potential; however, their comparative efficacy and safety remain unclear. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin sensitisers, including chiglitazar sodium, sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and rosiglitazone for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A computer-based search was conducted in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, the VIP database, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the establishment date of each database to January 2025. Included study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve was calculated for each outcome indicator to compare the efficacy and safety of different interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In reducing haemoglobin A1c, 8 mg of rosiglitazone was superior over 100 mg sitagliptin, 30 mg pioglitazone, and 15 mg pioglitazone (P < 0.05), with no significant differences among the remaining medications. To reduce fasting plasma glucose, 45 mg of pioglitazone was more effective than any dosage of chiglitazar sodium, sitagliptin, or rosiglitazone (P < 0.05). Regarding safety, the incidence rate of adverse reactions was higher with 45 mg of pioglitazone than with 8 mg of rosiglitazone (P < 0.05), with no significant differences in adverse events among other medications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with placebo, all four drugs were safe and effective in the treatment of T2DM. High-dose TZDs may be more effective than mitiglinide and sitagliptin. However, 45 mg of pioglitazone was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events, warranting close monitoring of its safety profile.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1493-1506\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-025-03882-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-025-03882-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:噻唑烷二酮类药物(TZDs),包括吡格列酮和罗格列酮,以及非tzd胰岛素增敏剂(chiglitazar钠)显示出潜力;然而,它们的相对疗效和安全性仍不清楚。我们的目的是分析常用的胰岛素增敏剂,包括齐格列他钠、西格列汀、吡格列酮和罗格列酮治疗2型糖尿病(T2DM)的疗效和安全性。方法:计算机检索中国国家知识基础设施、万方数据、VIP数据库、PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库,检索时间为各数据库建立日期至2025年1月。采用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估纳入研究的质量。计算各结局指标的累积排序曲线下曲面,比较不同干预措施的疗效和安全性。结果:在降低血红蛋白A1c方面,8 mg罗格列酮优于100 mg西格列汀、30 mg吡格列酮和15 mg吡格列酮(P)结论:与安慰剂相比,4种药物治疗T2DM均安全有效。高剂量tzd可能比米格列奈和西格列汀更有效。然而,45mg吡格列酮与较高的不良事件发生率相关,需要密切监测其安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy and safety of insulin sensitisers for treating type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis.

Purpose: Thiazolidinediones (TZDs), including pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, and non-TZD insulin sensitisers (chiglitazar sodium) demonstrate potential; however, their comparative efficacy and safety remain unclear. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin sensitisers, including chiglitazar sodium, sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and rosiglitazone for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods: A computer-based search was conducted in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, the VIP database, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the establishment date of each database to January 2025. Included study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve was calculated for each outcome indicator to compare the efficacy and safety of different interventions.

Results: In reducing haemoglobin A1c, 8 mg of rosiglitazone was superior over 100 mg sitagliptin, 30 mg pioglitazone, and 15 mg pioglitazone (P < 0.05), with no significant differences among the remaining medications. To reduce fasting plasma glucose, 45 mg of pioglitazone was more effective than any dosage of chiglitazar sodium, sitagliptin, or rosiglitazone (P < 0.05). Regarding safety, the incidence rate of adverse reactions was higher with 45 mg of pioglitazone than with 8 mg of rosiglitazone (P < 0.05), with no significant differences in adverse events among other medications.

Conclusion: Compared with placebo, all four drugs were safe and effective in the treatment of T2DM. High-dose TZDs may be more effective than mitiglinide and sitagliptin. However, 45 mg of pioglitazone was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events, warranting close monitoring of its safety profile.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology publishes original papers on all aspects of clinical pharmacology and drug therapy in humans. Manuscripts are welcomed on the following topics: therapeutic trials, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, pharmacogenetics, drug metabolism, adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, all aspects of drug development, development relating to teaching in clinical pharmacology, pharmacoepidemiology, and matters relating to the rational prescribing and safe use of drugs. Methodological contributions relevant to these topics are also welcomed. Data from animal experiments are accepted only in the context of original data in man reported in the same paper. EJCP will only consider manuscripts describing the frequency of allelic variants in different populations if this information is linked to functional data or new interesting variants. Highly relevant differences in frequency with a major impact in drug therapy for the respective population may be submitted as a letter to the editor. Straightforward phase I pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic studies as parts of new drug development will only be considered for publication if the paper involves -a compound that is interesting and new in some basic or fundamental way, or -methods that are original in some basic sense, or -a highly unexpected outcome, or -conclusions that are scientifically novel in some basic or fundamental sense.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信