| Literature DB >> 32506801 |
Mancheng Xia1, Haosen Yang2, Xunan Tong2, Hongjie Xie1, Fan Cui1, Weibing Shuang3.
Abstract
AIMS/Entities:
Keywords: Meta-analysis; New-onset diabetes mellitus after kidney transplantation; Risk factors
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32506801 PMCID: PMC7779280 DOI: 10.1111/jdi.13317
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Diabetes Investig ISSN: 2040-1116 Impact factor: 4.232
Figure 1Flow diagram showing the study selection process.
Characteristics and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale quality score of included studies
| Author | Year | Study type | NOS | Country | NODAT ( | Sample ( | Period | Risk factors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Choudhury | 2019 | Case–control study | 7 | India | 43 | 133 | NA | Age, BMI |
| Jahromi | 2019 | Case–control study | 7 | Kuwait | 154 | 309 | 2015–2016 | Sex, BMI, HCV, CMV, tacrolimus, cyclosporine A, hypertension, steroid |
| Lima | 2018 | Case–control study | 6 | Brazil | 80 | 258 | 2015.7–2015.12 | Sex, CMV, hypertension |
| Xu | 2018 | Case–control study | 7 | China | 110 | 358 | 2010.1.1–2014.12.31 | Polycystic kidney, HCV, CMV, tacrolimus, family history of diabetes mellitus, sex, BMI, age |
| Sinangil | 2017 | Case–control study | 6 | Turkey | 70 | 420 | 2005.2–2014.2 | Sirolimus, HCV, HBV, tacrolimus, acute rejection, family history of diabetes mellitus, age, BMI, sex |
| Yang | 2017 | Case–control study | 8 | China | 71 | 365 | 2004.12–2014.12 | Polycystic kidney, HBV, CMV, acute rejection, family history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, age, BMI, sex, steroid |
| Yu | 2016 | Case–control study | 6 | South Korea | 85 | 418 | 2009.1–2012.4 | Age, BMI, sex, polycystic kidney, tacrolimus, cyclosporine A, acute rejection, family history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension |
| Xie | 2016 | Case–control study | 7 | China | 37 | 397 | 2007.1–2010.5 | Cyclosporine A, family history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, sex, steroid |
| Dedinská | 2015 | Case–control study | 7 | Slovak Republic | 64 | 167 | 2003–2012 | Polycystic kidney, HCV, CMV, family history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, age, BMI, sex, steroid |
| Augusto | 2014 | Case‐control study | 7 | France | 28 | 154 | 2005–2010 | Polycystic kidney, polycystic kidney, tacrolimus, acute rejection, family history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, age, BMI, sex, steroid |
| Buarque | 2014 | Case–control study | 7 | Brazil | 61 | 307 | 2006.1–2010.12 | HCV, CMV, acute rejection, family history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, sex |
| Cotovio | 2013 | Case–control study | 7 | Portugal | 47 | 94 | 2005–2009 | Polycystic kidney, HCV, hypertension, age, BMI, sex, steroid |
| Chen | 2012 | Case–control study | 6 | Spain | 162 | 319 | NA | Polycystic kidney, sirolimus, tacrolimus, cyclosporine A, acute rejection, age, BMI, sex, steroid |
| Kurzawski | 2012 | Case–control study | 7 | Poland | 67 | 235 | 2000–2009 | HCV, HBV, CMV, acute rejection, age, BMI, sex |
| Prakash | 2012 | Case–control study | 6 | India | 13 | 68 | 1998.1–2012.4 | Polycystic kidney, HCV, tacrolimus, family history of diabetes mellitus |
| Santos | 2012 | Case–control study | 6 | Spain | 37 | 303 | NA | HCV, tacrolimus, acute rejection, family history of diabetes mellitus, age, BMI, sex |
| Yang | 2011 | Case–control study | 6 | Spain | 133 | 303 | NA | HCV, tacrolimus, sirolimus, acute rejection, family history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, age, sex |
| Razeghi | 2010 | Case–control study | 6 | Iran | 30 | 90 | 2003.6–2004.5 | Polycystic kidney, family history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, BMI |
|
| 2009 | Case–control study | 7 | France | 118 | 1076 | NA | Tacrolimus, sirolimus, cyclosporine A, acute rejection, sex |
| Laecke | 2009 | Case–control study | 6 | Belgium | 75 | 254 | 2002–2008 | Tacrolimus, sirolimus, cyclosporine A, acute rejection, sex |
| Chakkera | 2009 | Case–control study | 6 | America | 22 | 91 | 2003–2006 | HCV, family history of diabetes mellitus, age, BMI, sex |
| Hamer | 2007 | Case–control study | 8 | England | 28 | 429 | 1990–2004 | Polycystic kidney, tacrolimus, acute rejection, age, sex |
| Andrade‐Sierra | 2006 | Case–control study | 7 | Mexico | 53 | 522 | 1994.1–2002.12 | HCV, acute rejection, family history of diabetes mellitus, age, sex, steroid |
| Numakura | 2005 | Case–control study | 6 | Japan | 10 | 70 | 1998.2–2004.3 | CMV, acute rejection, age, sex |
NA, not available; NODAT, new‐onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation; NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.
Summary of meta‐analysis results of non‐modifiable factors for new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation
| Factors | No. study | Sample ( | Heterogeneity test | Effects model | OR/MD (95% CI) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| Age | 17 | 4,635 | <0.00001 | 78 | Random effects model | 6.05 (4.33–7.78) | <0.00001 |
| Sex | 21 | 6,849 | 0.42 | 3 | Fixed effects model | 1.00 (0.88–1.13) | 0.97 |
| Polycystic kidney disease | 10 | 2,462 | 0.17 | 30 | Fixed effects model | 1.69 (1.22–2.34) | 0.002 |
| Family history of diabetes mellitus | 14 | 3,942 | <0.00001 | 83 | Random effects model | 3.14 (1.87–5.27) | <0.0001 |
CI, confidence interval; MD, mean difference; NODAT, new‐onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation; OR, odds ratio.
Summary of meta‐analysis results of modifiable factors for new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation
| Factors | No. study | Sample ( | Heterogeneity test | Effects model | OR/MD (95% CI) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| BMI | 14 | 3,456 | 0.0006 | 64 | Random effects model | 1.82 (1.35, 2.30) | <0.00001 |
| Tacrolimus use | 12 | 4,409 | 0.009 | 56 | Fixed effects model | 1.2 (1.02, 1.41) | 0.03 |
| Sirolimus use | 5 | 2,372 | <0.00001 | 86 | Random effects model | 2.21 (0.96, 5.09) | 0.06 |
| Cyclosporin A use | 7 | 2,927 | 0.003 | 70 | Random effects model | 0.91 (0.63, 1.31) | 0.61 |
| Steroid use | 8 | 2,380 | 0.82 | 0 | Fixed effects model | 1.42 (0.97, 2.08) | 0.07 |
| Acute rejection | 13 | 4,921 | 0.05 | 42 | Fixed effects model | 1.97 (1.61, 2.41) | <0.00001 |
| HBV | 3 | 1,020 | 0.05 | 67 | Random effects model | 3.53 (1.12, 11.13) | 0.03 |
| HCV | 12 | 3,177 | 0.4 | 5 | Fixed effects model | 1.51 (1.01, 2.24) | 0.04 |
| CMV | 8 | 2,069 | 0.21 | 27 | Fixed effects model | 1.11 (0.81, 1.53) | 0.51 |
| Hypertension | 11 | 2,841 | 0.4 | 4 | Fixed effects model | 1.48 (1.19, 1.85) | 0.0004 |
CI, confidence interval; MD, mean difference; NODAT, new‐onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation; OR, odds ratio.
Figure 2Forest plots (random effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between age and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 3Forest plots (fixed effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between sex and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 4Forest plots (fixed effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between polycystic kidney disease and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 5Forest plots (random effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between family history of diabetes and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 6Forest plots (random effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between BMI and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 7Forest plots (fixed effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between tacrolimus use and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 8Forest plots (random effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between sirolimus use and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 9Forest plots (random effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between cyclosporin A use and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 10Forest plots (fixed effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between steroid use and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 11Forest plots (fixed effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between acute rejection and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 12Forest plots (random effect model) of meta‐analysis on the association between hepatitis B virus and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 13Forest plots (fixed effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between hepatitis C virus and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 14Forest plots (fixed effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between cytomegalovirus and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 15Forest plots (fixed effects model) of meta‐analysis on the association between hypertension and the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation.
Figure 16Funnel chart results of age as a risk factor. MD, mean difference; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 17Funnel chart results of HCV infection as a risk factor. OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error.