Meta-analysis: Insulin sensitizers for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

143Citations
Citations of this article
83Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease generally has a benign course; however, patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) may progress to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Currently, there is a lack of consensus about optimal NASH treatment. Aim To assess the efficacy of insulin-sensitizing agents on histological and biochemical outcomes in randomized control trials of biopsy-proven NASH. Methods Multiple online databases and conference abstracts were searched. Random effects meta-analyses were performed, with assessment for heterogeneity and publication bias. Results Nine trials were included; five trials using thiazolidinediones (glitazones), three using metformin and one trial using both drugs. There was no publication bias. Compared with controls, glitazones resulted in improved steatosis (WMD = 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.77, P = <0.001), hepatocyte ballooning (WMD = 0.36, 95% CI 0.24-0.49, P < 0.001) and ALT (WMD = 16.4, 95% CI 7.7-25.0, P < 0.001), but not inflammation (P = 0.09) or fibrosis (P = 0.11). In patients without diabetes, glitazones significantly improved all histological and biochemical outcomes, most importantly including fibrosis (WMD = 0.29, 95% CI 0.078-0.51, P = 0.008). Metformin failed to improve any pooled outcome. Conclusions Treatment of NASH with glitazones, but not metformin, demonstrates a significant histological and biochemical benefit, especially in patients without diabetes. Additional studies are needed to investigate long-term outcomes of glitazone therapy in patients without diabetes. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rakoski, M. O., Singal, A. G., Rogers, M. A. M., & Conjeevaram, H. (2010). Meta-analysis: Insulin sensitizers for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 32(10), 1211–1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04467.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free