SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Pioglitazone use is associated with reduced risk of Parkinson's disease in patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Clin Neurosci · 2022-11-03

DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2022.10.023PMID: 36335768

Check source for accessMeta-Analysis; Systematic Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of pioglitazone on Parkinson's disease (PD) in diabetes patients.MethodsA study search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to July 22, 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the quality of the eligible studies. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as effect size indicators in this meta-analysis to evaluate the risk association between pioglitazone and PD. The Cochran's Q and I2 tests were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. A dose-response meta-analysis was conducted using the least squares trend estimation method.ResultsThree studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. Compared with diabetes patients who did not use pioglitazone, there was a significant reduction in the risk of PD (RR of 0.87 [95 % CI 0.62-0.99, P = 0.039]) in pioglitazone users. No significant difference in PD risk was noted in diabetes patients taking 438 dose-duration-days (DDDs) of pioglitazone or lower compared with those who did not. When the DDD of pioglitazone was 438, the RR was 0.85 (95 % CI [0.72-1.00], P = 0.05). When the DDD of pioglitazone was > 438, the risk of PD in patients with diabetes was significantly decreased (P ConclusionPioglitazone administration in PD in diabetes patients is significantly associated with a decrease in the risk of PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.