PRISMA-efficacy and safety of lixisenatide for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google, Web of Science and the Chinese Science Citation Database were searched up to March 2018. Randomized controlled trials determining the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently extracted the data in a prespecified Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and relative risk (RR) together with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated, and only the random effects model was used in order to achieve a more conservative estimate of the efficacy and safety. RESULTS: Fourteen multicenter randomized controlled trials involving 11,947 patients were eligible for inclusion. Compared to placebo, lixisenatide could more significantly reduce the level of HbA1c (WMD=-0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.55,-0.33]), and a higher proportion of lixisenatide-treated patients achieved the HbA1c level of < 7.0% (RR = 1.89, 95% CI [1.75-2.03]) and < 6.5% (RR = 3.03, 95% CI [2.54-3.63]) than the placebo-treated patients. Lixisenatide was also associated with a significant reduction in fasting plasma glucose and 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose levels. The risks for any adverse events, gastrointestinal adverse events, and symptomatic hypoglycemia significantly increased in the lixisenatide-treatedment group compared to those in the placebo group. However, lixisenatideit did not increase the risks of serious adverse events, death, or severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Lixisenatide was more effective than placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and the mild-to-moderate adverse events were found to be tolerated during the follow-up.

Acute Pancreatitis Classifications: Basis and Key Goals.

To explore the efficacy of the revised Atlanta classification (RACAP) and the determinant-based classification of acute pancreatitis severity (DBCAPS) on the basis of clinical data and feedback from patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). The authors retrospectively investigated a total of 573 patients with AP admitted to our hospital between December 2011 and December 2014. The definitions of severity and local complications in AP using RACAP and DBCAPS are presented and common points and mutual differences between the 2 groups are analyzed and discussed. Classification according to RACAP and DBCAPS found 86 (15%) and 178 (31.1%) mild cases (P < 0.01), 269 (46.9%) and 176 (30.7%) moderate cases (P < 0.01), and 218 (38.0%) and 219 (38.2%) severe cases (P = 0.95), respectively. A major contribution of DBCAPS is the introduction of a new type of severe AP, critical AP, identified in 4 patients (0.7%). Complications were observed in 313 RACAP-defined cases and 153 DBCAPS-defined cases (P < 0.01). Among the 313 RACAP-defined cases, acute peripancreatic fluid collection (236 patients, 75.40%), pancreatic pseudocysts (20 patients, 6.4%), acute necrotic collection (42 patients, 13.4%), and walled-off necrosis (15 patients, 4.8%) were observed. Among the 153 DBCAPS-defined cases, sterile peripancreatic necrosis (105 patients, 68.6%), sterile pancreatic necrosis (44 patients, 28.8%), infected peripancreatic necrosis (2 patients, 1.3%), and infected pancreatic necrosis (2/153 patients, 1.3%) were observed. Both classifications adopted organ failure and complications as determinants of severity. Revised Atlanta classification refined local complications and DBCAPS modified severity to include critical AP. In accordance with the demands of precision medicine, a combination of the 2 could be important for further clinical practice and scientific research.

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy for obese patients with Type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy for obese patients with Type 2 diabetes. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Chinese Wan fang database up to October 2013. Randomized controlled trials regarding the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic gastric bypass versus sleeve gastrectomy for obese diabetic patients were included. Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The mean difference and relative risk were estimated with 95 per cent confidence intervals. Four randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy groups with regard to glycosylated hemoglobin (mean difference [MD], 0.41%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.09 to 0.91), fasting plasma glucose (standardized MD, 0.61 mg/mL; 95% CI, -0.10 to 1.32), the numbers of subjects using oral antihyperglycemic medications and insulin (relative rate [RR], 1.53; 95% CI, 0.45 to 5.24; RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.47 to 4.39, respectively), body weight (MD, 0.42 kg; 95% CI, -5.01 to 5.85), body mass index (MD, 0.85 kg/m(2); 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.58), or waist circumference (MD, 1.59 cm; 95% CI, -3.02 to 6.19). However, cardiovascular risk was more significantly lessened in the gastric bypass group. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass offers equal efficacy for treatment of diabetes in obese patients but is associated with a significantly decreased cardiovascular risk.