4.7 Review

Posttransplantation diabetes - A systematic review of the literature

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 583-592

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.3.583

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - To systematically the incidence of posttransplantation diabetes (PTD) risk factors for its development. prognostic implications, and optimal management RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - We searched databases, (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and others) from Inception to September 2000, reviewed bibliographies in reports retrieved, contacted transplantation experts, and reviewed specialty journals Two reviewers independently determined report inclusion (original studies, in all languages, of PTD in adults with no history of diabetes before transplantation), assessed study methods, and extracted data using a standardized form. Meta-regression as used to explain between-study differences in incidence. RESULTS - Nineteen studies with 3,611 patients were included The 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD is lower (<10% in most studies) than it was 3 decades ago, The type of immunosuppression explained 74% of the variability in incidence (P = 0.0004). Risk factors were patient age, nonwhite ethnicity, glucocorticoid treatment for rejection, and immunosuppression with high-close cyclosporine and tacrolimus. PTD was associated with decreased graft and patient survival in earlier studies later studies showed improved outcomes. Randomized trials of treatment regimens have not been conducted. CONCLUSIONS - Physicians should consider modification of immunosuppressive regimens to decrease the risk of PTD in high-risk transplant recipients Randomized trials are needed to evaluate the use of oral glucose-lowering agents in transplant recipients, paying particular attention to interactions with immunosuppressive drugs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available