4.7 Article

Association between reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with statin therapy and the risk of new-onset diabetes: a meta-analysis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep39982

关键词

-

资金

  1. Kidney Research UK [RP46/2015]
  2. Major State Basic Research Development Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB517700, 2012CB517500]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81270493, 81270789, 81200567, 81570732]
  4. Shenzhen Peacock Plan [KQTD20140630100746562]
  5. [81030008]
  6. [81390354]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that statin therapy was associated with a risk of diabetes. The present study investigated whether the relative reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) was a good indicator of the risk of new-onset diabetes. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, Lilacs, Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases for randomized controlled trials of statins. Fourteen trials were included in the study. Eight trials with target LDL-c levels <= 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L) or LDL-c reductions of at least 30% were extracted separately. The results showed that the overall risk of incident diabetes increased by 11% (OR = 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20). The group with intensive LDL-c-lowering statin had an 18% increase in the likelihood of developing diabetes (OR = 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.28). Furthermore, the risks of incident diabetes were 13% (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 1.01-1.26) and 29% (OR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.13-1.47) in the subgroups with 30-40% and 40-50% reductions in LDL-c, respectively, suggesting that LDL-c reduction may provide a dynamic risk assessment parameter for new-onset diabetes. In conclusion, LDL-c reduction is positively related to the risk of new-onset diabetes. When LDL-c is reduced by more than 30% during lipid-lowering therapy, blood glucose monitoring is suggested to detect incident diabetes in high-risk populations.

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