4.6 Review

Thiazolidinediones play a positive role in the vascular endothelium and inhibit plaque progression in diabetic patients with coronary atherosclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

FRONTIERS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1043406

Keywords

thiazolidinediones (TZDs); rosiglitazone; pioglitazone; endothelium; plaque; diabetes; coronary atherosclerosis

Funding

  1. Decoding Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine project [90070161220027]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

TZDs drugs have shown inhibiting effects on plaque progression and protective effects on vascular endothelium in diabetic patients with coronary atherosclerosis, potentially contributing to a protective effect on myocardial infarction.
Rosiglitazone (Avandia) and pioglitazone (Actos) belong to the class of thiazolidinediones (TZDs) drugs that act by increasing insulin sensitivity and are widely used for treating diabetic patients with insulin resistance. TZDs exhibit anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, then may play an active role in inhibiting plaque formation and coronary atherosclerosis. But the results of evidence-based medicine suggest that TZDs may increase the risk of cardiovascular adverse events. To explore the dispute in depth, our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the changes in vascular endothelial and plaque-related indicators following treatment with TZDs in diabetic patients with coronary atherosclerosis. According to our meta-analysis, TZDs showed an inhibiting effect on plaque progression and a protective effect on the vascular endothelium in patients with diabetes and coronary atherosclerosis. Interestingly, these effects may not depend on the regulation of inflammation and lipid metabolism. By this token, TZDs may develop a potential protective effect on myocardial infarction.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available