4.7 Review

The effect of thiazolidinediones on bone mineral density and bone turnover: systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 58, 期 10, 页码 2238-2246

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-015-3660-2

关键词

Bone density; Diabetes mellitus; Meta-analysis; Pioglitazone; Rosiglitazone; Systematic review; Thiazolidinediones

资金

  1. Health Research Council (HRC) of New Zealand
  2. Sir Charles Hercus Health Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims/hypothesis Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are associated with an increased risk of fracture but the mechanism is unclear. We sought to determine the effect of TZDs on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers. Methods PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until January 2015 for randomised controlled trials comparing TZDs with metformin, sulfonylureas or placebo, and those reporting changes in BMD and/or bone turnover markers. The primary outcome was percentage change in BMD from baseline and results were pooled with random effects meta-analyses. Results In all, 18 trials were included in the primary analyses and another two were included in the sensitivity analyses (n = 3,743, 50% women, mean age 56 years, median trial duration 48 weeks). TZDs decreased BMD at the lumbar spine (difference -1.1% [95% CI -1.6, -0.7]; p < 0.0001), total hip (-1.0% [-1.4, -0.6]; p < 0.0001) and forearm (-0.9% [-1.6, -0.3]; p = 0.007). There were statistically non-significant decreases in BMD at the femoral neck (-0.7% [-1.4, 0.0]; p = 0.06) and total body (-0.3% [-0.5, 0.0]; p = 0.08). Five trials (n = 450) showed no statistically significant difference in percentage change in BMD between the TZD group and controls up to 1 year following TZD withdrawal. In 14 trials, the effect of TZD treatment on turnover markers varied considerably between individual studies. Conclusions/interpretation Treatment with TZDs results in modest bone loss that may not be reversed 1 year after cessation of treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据