4.7 Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of hypoglycemia and cardiovascular event - A comparison of glyburide with other secretagogues and with insulin

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 389-394

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc06-1789

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - Glyburide is the most widely used sulfonylurea but has unique pharmacodynamic properties that may increase harm. We hypothesized that glyburide causes more hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events than other secretagogues or insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Data sources were Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and three other web-based clinical trial registers (1966-2005). Parallel, randomized, controlled trials in people with type 2 diabetes comparing glyburide monotherapy with monotherapy using secretagogues or insulin were selected. Outcomes were hypoglycemia, glycemic control, cardiovascular events, body weight, and death. Titles and abstracts of 1,806 publications were reviewed in duplicate and 21 relevant articles identified. Data on patient characteristics, interventions, Outcomes, and validity were extracted in duplicate using predefined criteria. RESULTS - Glyburide was associated with a 52% greater risk of experiencing at least one episode of hypoglycemia compared with other secretagogues (relative risk 1.52 [95% CI 1.21-1.92]) and with 83% greater risk compared with other sulfortylureas (1.83 [1.35-2.49]). Glyburide was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events (0.84 [0.56-1.26]) death (0.87 [0.70-1.07]), or end-of-trial weight (weighted mean difference 1.69 kg [95% CI -0.41 to 3.80]) compared with other secretagogues. Limitations included suboptimal reporting of original trials. Loss to follow-up exceeded 20% in some studies, and major hypoglycemia was infrequently reported. CONCLUSIONS - Glyburide caused more hypoglycemia than other secretagogues and other sulfonylureas. Glyburide was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, death, or weight gain.

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