No abstract

The retest reliability of SARC-F-J was regarded to be good. When EWGSOP was assumed as a reference, the specificity of SARC-F-J was high. Because the sensitivity was low, patients with sarcopenia could not be screened, and hence, attention is needed.

Background In patients with diabetes, death and cardiovascular diseases are attributed to classical risk factors such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking habit, whereas these events are attributed to frailty in the remaining patients. In this meta-analysis, we examined the relationship between frailty and mortality, hospitalization, and cardiovascular diseases in patients with diabetes. Methods Literature search was conducted using databases such as MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that examined the relationship between frailty and mortality, hospitalization, and cardiovascular disease and included hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were included. Statistical analysis was performed using a random effects model, and pooled HRs, pooled ORs, and 95% CIs were calculated. Results The literature search extracted 8 studies (565,039 patients) that met our inclusion criteria, which were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled HR of prefrailty and frailty related to mortality was 1.09 (95% CI 1.01–1.17; P = 0.02) and 1.35 (95% CI 1.05–1.74; P = 0.02), respectively, indicating a significant relationship between them. The pooled OR of prefrailty and frailty related to hospitalization was 2.15 (95% CI 1.30–3.54; P = 0.003) and 5.18 (95% CI 2.68–9.99; P < 0.001), respectively, indicating a significant relationship. Although a significant relationship was found between frailty and cardiovascular diseases, we found only few related studies; thus, robust results could not be obtained. Conclusions In patients with diabetes, a significant relationship was observed between frailty and mortality and hospitalization. However, only few heterogeneous studies were included, warranting further examination.

In the present study, we aimed to investigate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on blood glucose levels, body weight, blood pressure, and hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov. RCTs using CGM in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were then selected. Statistical analysis included calculation of the standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random effects model. After literature search, seven RCTs (669 patients) satisfied the eligibility criteria established herein and were included into the meta-analysis. Compared with the self-monitoring blood glucose group, the CGM group exhibited significantly lower HbA1c levels (SMD, −0.35; 95% CI, −0.59–−0.10; P = 0.006) and shorter time spent with hypoglycaemia (SMD, −0.42; 95% CI, −0.70–−0.13; P = 0.004). Conversely, no differences in body weight and blood pressure were observed between the groups. CGM in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus could reduce HbA1c levels and time spent with hypoglycaemia. However, because few RCTs were included in this present study and heterogeneity was also noted, care should be taken when interpreting the results.

BackgroundUsing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), this study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of pemafibrate, a novel selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α modulator, in patients with dyslipidemia.MethodsA search was performed using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. We decided to employ RCTs to evaluate the effects of pemafibrate on lipid and glucose metabolism-related parameters in patients with dyslipidemia. For statistical analysis, standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effect model.ResultsOur search yielded seven RCTs (with a total of 1623 patients) that satisfied the eligibility criteria of this study; hence, those studies were incorporated into this meta-analysis. The triglyceride concentration significantly decreased in the pemafibrate group (SMD, − 1.38; 95% CI, − 1.63 to − 1.12; P < 0.001) than in the placebo group, with a reduction effect similar to that exhibited by fenofibrate. Compared with the placebo group, the pemafibrate group also showed improvements in high-density and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels as well as in homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance. Furthermore, the pemafibrate group showed a significant decrease in hepatobiliary enzyme activity compared with the placebo and fenofibrate groups; and, total adverse events (AEs) were significantly lower in the pemafibrate group than in the fenofibrate group (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49–0.73; P < 0.001). In contrast, the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was significantly higher in the pemafibrate group than in the placebo (P = 0.006) and fenofibrate (P < 0.001) groups.ConclusionsThe lipid profile significantly improved in the pemafibrate group than in the placebo group. In addition to the pemafibrate group having an improved lipid profile, which was comparable with that of the fenofibrate group, the AEs were significantly lower than in the fenofibrate group and an improvement in hepatobiliary enzyme activity was also recognized. However, we believe that actual clinical data as well as long-term efficacy and safety need to be investigated in the future.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12933-019-0845-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.