09; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.29; P=0.32]. However, the number of cases of arthralgia (RR 1.49; 95% CI 1.17–1.89; P=0.001) and oedema (RR 3.95; 95% CI 1.73 to 9.00; P=0.001) were higher in the GH axis drug arm than in the placebo arm. Despite the extraordinary progress that has been made in the treatment of HIV infection with HAART, metabolic derangements, Akt inhibition including central fat accumulation and peripheral lipoatrophy, have become a serious concern for many patients. Treating HIV-associated lipodystrophy is important for a number of reasons. Loss of SAT, especially in the face, can

cause significant emotional distress and can lead to poor self-esteem [21]. Some patients with lipodystrophy become worried that their HIV status is easily apparent [22]. Potential interventions, particularly for abnormal fat deposition, include exercise, medical therapy and surgery. Unfortunately, medical therapeutic options in the treatment of HIV-associated lipodystrophy are www.selleckchem.com/products/GDC-0980-RG7422.html limited. Patients with HIV-associated lipodystrophy have decreased secretion of GH, a hormone with lipolytic properties [20]. Therefore, we sought to investigate GH axis treatments. The results of our systematic review demonstrate that GH axis treatments significantly reduced VAT by an average of 20.20 cm2. GH and tesamorelin were particularly effective, reducing VAT by 35.61 and 22.65 cm2, respectively.

Our results also demonstrate that GH axis treatments significantly increased LBM. Tesamorelin was the most effective GH axis treatment for improving LBM, resulting in an increase of 1.35 kg relative to placebo. With a total of 610 participants in the treatment groups and 281 in the placebo groups, we feel that the results are a reliable measure of the efficacy of tesamorelin. GHRH was also effective at improving

LBM, resulting in an increase of 1.20 kg compared to placebo, but there was only one study [23] in our systematic review that Forskolin compared GHRH with placebo, and there were only 14 participants in the treatment group and 15 in the placebo group. The overall effects of GH and IGF-1 vs. placebo in improving LBM were not statistically significant (P=0.09 and 0.06, respectively). Funnel plots were constructed for the primary outcomes to assess publication bias. A symmetric inverted funnel shape was obtained for change in LBM. There were insufficient points in the funnel plots for change in VAT or SAT to allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn. Thus, no evidence for publication bias was detected. The overall effect of GH axis treatments on improving SAT was not significant. Although adipose is fundamentally the same tissue in the viscera and in subcutaneous locations, loss of SAT (lipoatrophy) and VAT accumulation (lipohypertrophy) appear to be separate processes controlled by different mechanisms [24], and our results support this hypothesis.