| Literature DB >> 36197267 |
Wenwen Sun1,2, Yuling Xing2, Dexian Kong2,3, Zhimin Zhang2,4, Huijuan Ma2,4,5, Linlin Yang5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As novel hypoglycemic drugs, the effects of sodium-dependent glucose transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2I) on inflammatory factors such as C-reactive protein (CRP) remain unclear.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36197267 PMCID: PMC9509164 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030553
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Figure 1.Literature screening process and results.
Basic characteristics of the included studies.
| Number | Author | Year | Country | Research type | Medication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Zhenfei Ou | 2021 | China | Case-control | Dapagliflozin |
| 2 | Nur Aisyah Zainordin | 2019 | Malaysia | Case-control | Dapagliflozin |
| 3 | Xiaoqing Mo | 2019 | China | Case-control | Dapagliflozin |
| 4 | Sachiko Hattori | 2018 | Japan | Case-control | Engligliflozin |
| 5 | Xiaoying Xia | 2020 | China | Case-control | Dapagliflozin |
| 6 | Daxiang Huang | 2020 | China | Case-control | Dapagliflozin |
| 7 | Wenjun Zhang | 2021 | China | Case-control | Engligliflozin |
| 8 | Nedogoda S.V | 2021 | Russia | Case-control | Engligliflozin |
| 9 | Aki Okamoto | 2016 | Japan | Prospective cohort | Dapagliflozin |
| 10 | Ryotaro Bouchi | 2017 | Japan | Prospective cohort | Luseogliflozin |
| 11 | Hiroshi Tobita | 2017 | Japan | Prospective cohort | Dapagliflozin |
| 12 | Akira Sezai | 2019 | Japan | Prospective cohort | Canagliflozin |
| 13 | Takeshi Osono | 2018 | Japan | Prospective cohort | Canagliflozin |
Results of C-reactive protein before and after the treatment.
| Number | C-reactive protein | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| before treatment | After 3 months of treatment | After 6 months of treatment | After 12 months of treatment | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Test group | Control group | Test group | Control group | Test group | Control group | Test group | Control group | |||||||||||||||||
| n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | |
| 1 | 89 | 3.4057 | 1.1303 | 94 | 3.4648 | 0.9788 | 89 | 2.0409 | 0.7536 | 94 | 2.8352 | 0.6776 | 89 | 1.6704 | 0.6029 | 94 | 2.3352 | 0.6776 | ||||||
| 2 | 36 | 1.93 | 0.6072 | 36 | 2.7 | 0.3146 | 36 | 6.03 | 1.0745 | 36 | 2.96 | 0.5132 | ||||||||||||
| 3 | 30 | 29.58 | 5.37 | 30 | 29.16 | 5.52 | 30 | 10.39 | 3.54 | 30 | 19.82 | 4.46 | ||||||||||||
| 4 | 51 | 1.33 | 1 | 51 | 1.46 | 1.4 | 51 | 1.13 | 0.73 | 51 | 1.43 | 1.56 | 51 | 0.92 | 0.68 | 51 | 1.33 | 1 | 51 | 0.59 | 0.42 | 51 | 1.71 | 1.64 |
| 5 | 40 | 26.26 | 0.56 | 40 | 26.15 | 0.62 | 40 | 24.21 | 0.34 | 38 | 25.64 | 0.48 | ||||||||||||
| 6 | 57 | 8.79 | 0.22 | 57 | 8.62 | 0.29 | 57 | 5.17 | 0.34 | 57 | 8.79 | 0.22 | ||||||||||||
| 7 | 42 | 3.04 | 0.96 | 42 | 2.93 | 0.86 | 42 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 42 | 2.21 | 0.75 | ||||||||||||
| 8 | 61 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 60 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 61 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 61 | 3.1 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||
| 9 | 27 | 2.41 | 2.814 | 27 | 1.607 | 1.96 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 10 | 20 | -0.01 | 0.45 | 20 | -0.1 | 0.33 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 11 | 11 | 3.0413 | 3.5626 | 11 | 2.3825 | 3.5626 | 11 | 1.678 | 2.2902 | |||||||||||||||
| 12 | 35 | 3.9 | 0.7 | 35 | 2 | 0.5 | 35 | 2.1 | 0.4 | 35 | 2.1 | 0.4 | ||||||||||||
| 13 | 20 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 20 | 1.1 | 1.6 | ||||||||||||||||||
Study quality evaluation with Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale.
| Case-control studies | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | Selection | Comparability | Exposure | ||
| Zhenfei Ou 2021 | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ||
| Nur Aisyah Zainordin 2019 | ★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ||
| Xiaoqing Mo 2019 | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ||
| Sachiko Hattori 2018 | ★★ | ★★★ | |||
| Xiaoying Xia 2020 | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ||
| Daxiang Huang 2020 | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ||
| Wenjun Zhang 2021 | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ||
| Nedogoda S.V 2020 | ★ | ★★★ | |||
| Cohort studies | |||||
| Reference | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | ||
| Aki Okamoto 2016 | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ||
| Ryotaro Bouchi 2017 | ★ | ★★ | ★★★ | ||
| Hiroshi Tobita 2017 | ★ | ★ | ★★★ | ||
| Akira Sezai 2019 | ★★ | ★ | ★★★ | ||
| Takeshi Osonoi 2018 | ★★ | ★ | ★★★ | ||
Figure 2.Forest plot of CRP in experimental group and control group before and after SGLT-2I treatment. CRP = C-reactive protein, SGLT-2I = sodium-dependent glucose transporter 2 inhibitors.
Figure 3.Forest plot of CRP changes at different time of SGLT-2I treatment. CRP = C-reactive protein, SGLT-2I = sodium-dependent glucose transporter 2 inhibitors.
Figure 4.Funnel plot of CRP changes after SGLT-2I treatment. CRP = C-reactive protein, SGLT-2I = sodium-dependent glucose transporter 2 inhibitors.
Figure 5.Subgroup analysis of C-reactive protein after 3 months of treatment: