4.5 Review

The prevalence and predictors of type two diabetes mellitus in people with schizophrenia: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis

Journal

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 132, Issue 2, Pages 144-157

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acps.12439

Keywords

schizophrenia; psychosis; T2DM mellitus; glucose abnormality; metabolic syndrome; diabetes

Categories

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca
  2. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  3. Eli Lilly
  4. Janssen-Cilag
  5. Lundbeck JA
  6. Pfizer
  7. Sanofi-Aventis
  8. Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo conduct a meta-analysis investigating the prevalence of type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in people with schizophrenia compared to controls. MethodSystematic review of electronic databases from inception till November 2014. Articles reporting the prevalence of T2DM in people with schizophrenia and healthy controls (without mental illness) were included. Two independent authors conducted searches and extracteddata. A random effects relative risks (RR) meta-analysis was conducted. ResultsTwenty-five studies including 145718 individuals with schizophrenia (22.5-54.4years) and 4343407 controls were included. The prevalence of T2DM in people with schizophrenia was 9.5% (95% CI = 7.0-12.8, n=145718) and 10.75% (95% CI 7.44-14.5%, n=2698) in studies capturing T2DM according to recognized criteria. The pooled RR across all studies was 1.82 (95% CI = 1.56-2.13; = 4489125). Subgroup analyses found a RR of 2.53 (95% CI = 1.68-3.799, n=17727) in studies ascertaining T2DM according to recognized criteria and RR 1.65 (95% CI = 1.34-2.03, n=4243389) in studies relying on T2DM determined through medical records. ConclusionPeople with schizophrenia are at least double the risk of developing T2DM according to recognized T2DM criteria. Proactive lifestyle and screening programmes should be given clinical priority.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available