4.5 Article

The impacts of thiazolidinediones on circulating C-reactive protein levels in different diseases: A meta-analysis

Journal

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 90, Issue 3, Pages 279-287

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.09.011

Keywords

C-reactive protein; Rosiglitazone; Pioglitazone; Thiazolidinediones; Coronary artery disease

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [30800401]
  2. Shanghai University [79301636]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Thiazolidinediones (TZDs), including rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, are widely used as antidiabetic agents. Here we present an updated meta-analysis of the respective effects of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone on the levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a biomarker and predictor of CAD risks. Methods and results: PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched using the terms C-reactive protein and rosiglitazone or pioglitazone or thiazolidinedione. A total of 59 rosiglitazone studies and 36 pioglitazone studies were included for evaluation. These were classified as 2-group studies and 1-group studies according to their study design. Standard mean difference (SMD) of CRP and 95% CI were calculated to evaluate the effect of TZDs on CRP. The overall SMD for rosiglitazone treatment is -0.392 (95% CI, [-0.446, -0.338]) in 2-group studies and -0.424 (95% CI, [-0.501, -0.346]) in 1-group studies. The overall SMD for pioglitazone treatment is -0.577 (95% CI, [-0.732, -0.421]) in 2-group studies and -0.327 (95% CI, [0.439, 0.216]) in 1-group studies. Moreover, TZDs were found to significantly reduce CRP levels in both diabetes mellitus (DM) and non-DM patients. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggested that both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone significantly decrease serum CRP levels. TZDs presented their CRP-lowering effect in both DM and non-DM patients. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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