3.9 Review

Dipeptidyl Peptidase IV Inhibitors for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease - Systematic Review and Metanalysis

Journal

CURRENT DIABETES REVIEWS
Volume 17, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1573399816999201110195634

Keywords

Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV inhibitors; fatty liver; steatohepatitis; type 2 diabetes mellitus; obesity; systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Through meta-analysis, i DPP-IV showed a reduction in ALT and hepatic steatosis in NAFLD patients, but the overall quality of the studies was poor, and no significant efficacy was found on inflammatory markers or fibrosis.
Introduction: Hepatic steatosis is a frequent condition that afflicts, especially, obese and insulin-resistant patients. Diagnosis is usually made through imaging tests. Despite the high prevalence and risk of complications, there is no specific treatment approved, though a vast number of medications have been tested. Objective: This study aimed to determine the efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors (i DPP-IV) in the treatment of NAFLD. Methods: We searched the electronic databases of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS, as well as reference lists of the included studies and grey literature; 9 studies were selected for inclusion. Results: 7 studies were used for metanalysis for 3 outcomes. i DPP-IV showed an ALT-reducing power of MD -10.83 (95% CI 35.23 to 13.57) at 3 months and MD -9.27 (95% CI 10.92 to -7.62) at 6 months of intervention, as well as a reduction of hepatic steatosis via MRI of SMD 0.10 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.50); the overall incidence of adverse events was very low. The studies were considered of low and very low quality by the GRADE evaluation. Conclusion: Because of the overall poor quality of the studies and heterogeneity of the population analyzed, i DPP-IV did not show efficacy on inflammatory markers or fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available