↓ Skip to main content

Glucose-lowering agents for treating pre-existing and new-onset diabetes in kidney transplant recipients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Glucose-lowering agents for treating pre-existing and new-onset diabetes in kidney transplant recipients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009966.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clement Lo, Min Jun, Sunil V Badve, Helen Pilmore, Sarah L White, Carmel Hawley, Alan Cass, Vlado Perkovic, Sophia Zoungas

Abstract

Kidney transplantation is the preferred form of kidney replacement therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and is often complicated by worsening or new-onset diabetes. Management of hyperglycaemia is important to reduce post-transplant and diabetes-related complications. The safety and efficacy of glucose-lowering agents after kidney transplantation is largely unknown. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for lowering glucose levels in patients who have undergone kidney transplantation and have diabetes. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 15 April 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies examining head-to-head comparisons of active regimens of glucose-lowering therapy or active regimen compared with placebo/standard care in patients who have received a kidney transplant and have diabetes were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and quality and performed data extraction. Continuous outcomes were expressed as post-treatment mean differences (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD). Adverse events were expressed as post-treatment absolute risk differences (RD). Dichotomous clinical outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included seven studies that involved a total of 399 kidney transplant recipients. All included studies had observed heterogeneity in the patient population, interventions and measured outcomes or missing data (which was unavailable despite correspondence with authors). Many studies had incompletely reported methodology preventing meta-analysis and leading to low confidence in treatment estimates.Three studies with 241 kidney transplant recipients examined the use of more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy in kidney transplant recipients with pre-existing type 1 or 2 diabetes. Evidence for the effects of more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy on transplant graft survival, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, all cause mortality and adverse effects including hypoglycaemia was of very low quality. More intensive versus less intensive insulin therapy resulted in no difference in transplant or graft survival over three to five years in one study while another study showed that more intensive versus less intensive insulin therapy resulted in more rejection events over the three year follow-up (11 events in total; 9 in the more intensive group, P = 0.01). One study showed that more intensive insulin therapy resulted in a lower mean HbA1c (10 ± 0.8% versus 13 ± 0.9%) and lower fasting blood glucose (7.22 ± 0.5 mmol/L versus 13.44 ± 1.22 mmol/L) at 13 months compared with standard insulin therapy. Another study showed no difference between more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy on all-cause mortality over a five year follow-up period. All studies showed either an increased frequency of hypoglycaemia or severe hypoglycaemia episodes.Three studies with a total of 115 transplant recipients examined the use of DPP4 inhibitors for new-onset diabetes after transplantation. Evidence for the treatment effect of DPP4 inhibitors on transplant or graft survival, HbA1c and fasting blood glucose levels, all cause mortality, and adverse events including hypoglycaemia was of low quality. One study comparing vildagliptin to placebo and another comparing sitagliptin to placebo showed no difference in transplant or graft survival over two to four months of follow-up. One study comparing vildagliptin to placebo showed no significant change in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline (1.9 ± 10.3 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P = 0.48 and 2.1 ± 6.1 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P = 0.22) and no deaths, in either treatment group over three months of follow-up. One study comparing vildagliptin to placebo showed a lower HbA1c level (mean ± SD) (6.3 ± 0.5% versus versus 6.7 ± 0.6%, P = 0.03) and trend towards a greater lowering of fasting blood glucose (-0.91 ± -0.92 mmol/L versus vs -0.19 ± 1.16 mmol/L, P = 0.08) with vildagliptin. One study comparing sitagliptin to insulin glargine showed an equivalent lowering of HbA1c (-0.6 ± 0.5% versus -0.6 ± 0.6%, P = NS) and fasting blood glucose (4.92 ± 1.42 versus 4.76 ± 1.09 mmol/L, P = NS) with sitagliptin. For the outcome of hypoglycaemia, one study comparing vildagliptin to placebo reported no episodes of hypoglycaemia, one study comparing sitagliptin to insulin glargine reported fewer episodes of hypoglycaemia with sitagliptin (3/28 patients; 10.7% versus 5/28; 17.9%) and one cross-over study of sitagliptin and placebo reported two episodes of asymptomatic moderate hypoglycaemia (2 to 3.9 mmol/L) when sitagliptin was administered with glipizide. All three studies reported no drug interactions between DPP4 inhibitors and the immunosuppressive agents taken.Evidence for the treatment effect of pioglitazone for treating pre-existing diabetes was of low quality. One study with 62 transplant recipients compared the use of pioglitazone with insulin to insulin alone for treating pre-existing diabetes. Pioglitazone resulted in a lower HbA1c level (mean ± SD) (-1.21 ± 1.2 versus 0.39 ± 1%, P < 0.001) but had no effects on fasting blood glucose (6.58 ± 2.71 versus 7.28 ± 2.78 mmol/L, P = 0.14 ), and change in creatinine (3.54 ± 15.03 versus 10.61 ± 18.56 mmol/L, P = 0.53) and minimal adverse effects (no episodes of hypoglycaemia, three dropped out due to mild to moderate lower extremity oedema, cyclosporin levels were not affected). Evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents for treating pre-existing and new-onset diabetes in kidney transplant recipients is limited. Existing studies examine more intensive versus less intensive insulin therapy, and the use of DPP4 inhibitors and pioglitazone. The safety and efficacy of more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy is very uncertain and the safety and efficacy of DPP4 inhibitors and pioglitazone is uncertain, due to data being limited and of poor quality. Additional RCTs are required to clarify the safety and efficacy of current glucose-lowering agents for kidney transplant recipients with diabetes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 152 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 18%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 13 9%
Other 32 21%
Unknown 29 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 35 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,776,189
of 14,574,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,540
of 11,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,910
of 258,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#161
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,574,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.