The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of liraglutide versus sitagliptin both in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes and provide reference basis for rational use of clinical drugs. Several databases were searched, including Web of science, PubMed, Cochrane library, CNKI, and Wanfang database. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of liraglutide versus sitagliptin both in combination with metformin up to 31 August 2016 were included. Data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers, and a fixed or random effects model were used to analyze outcomes that were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for different situations. Five RCTs involving 1440 participants were included. Compared with sitagliptin combination with metformin group, participants’ treatment with 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg liraglutide with metformin could significantly lower the level of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (P < .00001, MD = −0.35, 95% CI −0.51 to −0.20). Moreover, patients with 1.8 mg liraglutide group had significant body weight loss (P < .00001, MD = −1.12, 95% CI −1.54 to −0.70). However, there were no obvious differences in cutting down the systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure between liraglutide-metformin and sitagliptin-metformin groups. The incidence of gastrointestinal problems was significantly higher than sitagliptin with metformin groups. The results of this meta-analysis indicated that Liraglutide added on to metformin therapy could significantly lower the level of HbA1c and increase body weight loss. Meanwhile, the adverse reactions such as gastrointestinal problems were common in the liraglutide treatment group. Thus, this will provide an important reference for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Fasudil (F) plus methylcobalamin (M) or lipoic acid (L) treatment has been suggested as a therapeutic approach for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in numerous studies. However, the effect of the combined use still remains dubious. The aim of this report was to evaluate the efficacy of F plus M or L (F + M or F + L) for the treatment of DPN compared with that of M or L monotherapy, respectively, in order to provide the basis and reference for clinical rational drug use. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of F for DPN published up to September 2017 were searched. Relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 test. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. The outcomes measured were as follows: the clinical efficacy, median motor nerve conduction velocities (NCVs) (MNCVs), median sensory NCV (SNCV), peroneal MNCV, peroneal SNCV, and adverse effects. Thirteen RCTs with 1148 participants were included. Clinical efficacy of F + M combination therapy was significantly better than M monotherapy (8 trials; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.17–1.35, P < .00001, I2 = 0%), the efficacy of F + L combination therapy was also obviously better than L monotherapy (4 trials; RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16–1.39, P < .00001, I2 = 0%). Compared with monotherapy, the pooled effects of combination therapy on NCV were (MD 6.69, 95% CI 4.74–8.64, P < .00001, I2 = 92%) for median MNCV, (MD 6.71, 95% CI 1.77–11.65, P = .008, I2 = 99%) for median SNCV, (MD 4.18, 95% CI 2.37–5.99, P < .00001, I2 = 94%) for peroneal MNCV, (MD 5.89, 95% CI 3.57–8.20, P < .00001, I2 = 95%) for peroneal SNCV. Furthermore, there were no serious adverse events associated with drug intervention. Combination therapy with F plus M or L was superior to M or L monotherapy for improvement of neuropathic symptoms and NCVs in DPN patients, respectively. Moreover, no serious adverse events occur in combination therapy.

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are prone to suffer a series of potential side effects, including metabolic change, declining physical strength and worsening fatigue. Recent studies found that the change of lifestyle interventions can help to alleviate some adverse reactions, but the results were controversial. Therefore, the aim of this review was to comprehensively evaluate the effects of these lifestyle interventions on the side effects on PCa patients who received ADT. Methods: We searched several electronic databases, including ScienceDirect, PubMed, Cochrane library, CNKI and Wanfang database, without language restrictions. Among the literature, such lifestyle interventions as dietary advice, exercise and physical activities were carried out in the way of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PCa patients taking ADT. Pooled estimates were performed using fixed-effects or random-effects model. Results: Eleven RCTs involving 905 participants were included in this review. Compared with usual care group, exercise intervention could significantly improve the quality of life (QoL) of PCa patients undergoing ADT (P = 0.05, SMD = 0.17, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.34), but exercise plus dietary advice could not significantly improve the QoL (P = 0.15, SMD = 0.45, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.08). Moreover, lifestyle intervention could significantly change body composition (P = 0.03, SMD = -0.1, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.01). However, there showed no obvious difference in mitigating fatigue and depression (P = 0.46, SMD = 0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.39; P = 0.31, SMD = -0.18, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.17). Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis from present study indicated that exercise interventions can better improve the QoL and alleviate treatment-related side effects on prostate cancer patients taking ADT, and better therapeutic regimens for PCa patients are likely to emerge in the process.