• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Effects of lncretin-based Therapies on Weight-related lndicators among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: ANetwork Meta-analysis*

    2020-02-29 05:47:10XULuYUShuQingGAOLeHUANGYiWUShanShanYANGJunSUNYiXinYANGZhiRongCHAISanBaoZHANGYuanJILiNongSUNFengandZHANSiYan
    Biomedical and Environmental Sciences 2020年1期

    XU Lu, YU Shu Qing, GAO Le, HUANG Yi, WU Shan Shan, YANG Jun, SUN Yi Xin,YANG Zhi Rong, CHAI San Bao, ZHANG Yuan, JI Li Nong, SUN Feng,#, and ZHAN Si Yan,#

    1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China;2. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore MD 21250,Maryland, USA; 3. National Clinical Research Center of Digestive Diseases, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China; 4. The Primary Care Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK; 5. Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing 102206, China; 6. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton L8S 4L8, Ontario, Canada; 7. Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing 100044, China

    Abstract

    Objective To evaluate the effects of incretin-based therapies on body weight as the primary outcome,as well as on body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) as secondary outcomes.

    Methods Databases including Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Standard pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were both carried out. The risk of bias (ROB) tool recommended by the Cochrane handbook was used to assess the quality of studies. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis,meta-regression, and quality evaluation based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment,Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) were also performed.

    Results A total of 292 trials were included in this study. Compared with placebo, dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP-4Is) increased weight slightly by 0.31 kg [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05, 0.58] and had negligible effects on BMI and WC. Compared with placebo, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) lowered weight, BMI, and WC by ?1.34 kg (95% CI: ?1.60, ?1.09), ?1.10 kg/m2 (95%CI: ?1.42, ?0.78), and ?1.28 cm (95% CI: ?1.69, ?0.86), respectively.

    Conclusion GLP-1 RAs were more effective than DPP-4Is in lowering the three indicators. Overall, the effects of GLP-1 RAs on weight, BMI, and WC were favorable.

    Key words: Body mass index; Body weight; Diabetes mellitus; Dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors;Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; Network meta-analysis; Waist circumference

    INTRODUCTION

    Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM)constitute the largest proportion (> 85%)of all patients with diabetes[1]. In 2035, the number of patients with T2DM is expected to increase to 592 million[2], which has aroused widespread concern about related prevention and treatment.

    Weight management, which is a key step in T2DM prevention and treatment, has a great impact on blood glucose control[3]. Failed weight management can lead to poor glycemic control. In addition, metabolic syndrome, a widely recognized risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, is more common among patients with obesity and T2DM than among those with T2DM only[4,5].

    Currently, a new class of incretin-based antidiabetic drugs, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP-4Is), have been introduced into clinical practice. These incretin-based drugs can effectively lower blood glucose without raising the risk of hypoglycemia.Moreover, they can help control body weight,reduce blood pressure, and alleviate inflammation[6-8]. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) can reduce postprandial blood glucose by stimulating insulin secretion and suppressing glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner[9]. However, GLP-1 in blood will be rapidly inactivated by dipeptidyl peptidase-4(DPP-4) or cleared by kidney, resulting in the short half-life of GLP-1[10]. Thus, GLP-1 RAs and DPP-4Is were manufactured to solve this problem[11].

    To date, several randomized controlled trials(RCTs) have been conducted to explore the effects of incretin-based therapies on weight, body mass index(BMI), and waist circumference (WC) among patients with T2DM[12-15], including the well-known Helping Evaluate Exenatide in Patients with Diabetes Compared with Long-acting Insulin (HEELA) study[16].The HEELA study reported that exenatide causes less weight gain in patients with overweight and T2DM,compared with long-acting insulin with similar glycemic control efficacy. Rosenstock, et al.[17]discovered that an additional alogliptin treatment in consistent insulin therapy with or without metformin could help achieve better glycemic control in patients with T2DM, while not increasing weight gain. However, almost no RCTs were specially designed for evaluating BMI[18-20]and WC[21-23]. In fact, these parameters were provided as supplementary results in previous studies. Although most of existing RCTs reported that incretin-based agents can lower weight, BMI, or WC, there are still several RCTs with opposite results. Thus, a metaanalysis on these topics is essential. Most of related meta-analyses[24-29]were standard pairwise metaanalyses, although there are several network metaanalyses (NMAs) as well. One study[30]tried to evaluate the effect of antidiabetic drugs added to metformin on body weight, and the original studies included were published before December 2011.Therefore, the results need to be updated,considering the growing number of trials. In 2015,our team published two NMAs in this area[31,32].However, the two previous studies only focused on GLP-1 RAs. Additionally, most of previous metaanalyses focused on the effects of GLP-1 RAs on weight. There have been few meta-analyses investigating DPP-4Is as well as outcomes including BMI and WC. Furthermore, the effects of GLP-1 RAs and DPP-4Is on weight-related indicators are expected to be clarified.

    This study adopted NMA to overcome the drawbacks of previous studies. Unlike in a standard pairwise meta-analysis, multiple treatments can be compared in a single NMA by combing direct and indirect evidence. The indirect evidence is formed by common comparators[33]. This study also included body weight, BMI, and WC as outcomes to allow an overall analysis of the effects of incretin-based therapies on indicators of overweightness and obesity, thereby providing more evidence and references for clinical decision-making.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    This study was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews(PROSPERO), number CRD42018115756. This NMA was reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses(PRISMA) for NMA, and the specific items are provided in Supplementary Files available in www.besjournal.com.

    Search Strategy

    Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) were searched from inception to June 23, 2017. RCTs associated with GLP-1 RAs and DPP-4Is were retrieved. The specific search strategy is provided in Supplementary Files.

    Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

    Only RCTs with complete results on the effects of incretin-based therapies (GLP-1 RAs and DPP-4Is) on weight, BMI, or WC compared with other hypoglycemics or placebo were included. We excluded ongoing, unfinished, or suspended trials.Four reviewers (SSW, JY, LG, and FS) assessed the studies in duplicate.

    Data Extraction and Quality Evaluation

    The Aggregate Data Drug Information System(ADDIS) v1.16.5 was adopted to collect information regarding trial (author, publication year, sample size,trial duration, and types of intervention and control),population characteristics (age, diabetes duration,background therapy, gender, fasting plasma glucose,and baseline level of HbA1c), reported outcomes(changes in weight, BMI, and WC in each treatment group), and methodology.

    We used the risk of bias (ROB) tool recommended by the Cochrane handbook to evaluate the quality of included studies. The items considered are as follows: 1) random sequence generation; 2)allocation concealment; 3) blinding of participants and personnel; 4) blinding of outcome assessment;5) complete outcome data; 6) selective reporting; 7)company funding. The possible answers to items 1-5 are ‘yes’ (representing low risk), ‘no’ (representing high risk), or ‘unclear’ (representing unclear risk). For item 6, ‘yes’ represented high risk, ‘no’ represented low risk, and ‘unclear’ represented unclear risk.Furthermore, grading of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE),which includes five aspects (study limitation,indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias), was utilized to evaluate the quality of evidence contributing to each comparison and the overall ranking of treatment[34].

    Data extraction was conducted by four investigators (SSW, JY, LG, and FS) in duplicate.

    Statistical Analysis

    Standard Pairwise Meta-analysis The DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was utilized to carry out standard pairwise meta-analysis. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) of the three outcomes with 95%confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for measuring effects. I2statistic reflects the proportion of between-study heterogeneity in the overall variation.

    Network Meta-analysis A random-effects NMA within a frequentist framework[35]was performed to achieve the combined results in the form of WMDs with 95% CIs. To obtain a treatment hierarchy, we used surface under the cumulative ranking curve(SUCRA)[36]and mean ranks. SUCRA is a percentage indicating the probability of a treatment’s effectiveness ranking first without uncertainty. In this study, it is equivalent to 1 if the treatment is certain to be the best and 0 if it is certain to be the worst. The larger the SUCRA is, the lower the rank is.Subgroup analysis (grouping by age, years of T2DM,hemoglobin A1c level (HbA1c%), trial duration,sample size, and sponsorship), sensitivity analysis (by excluding studies with no allocation concealment or studies with a sample size of less than 50), as well as univariate and multivariate meta-regressions (by age, HbA1c%, and years of T2DM) were carried out.In NMA, sensitivity analysis is used to test the robustness of results by excluding studies that may bring inconsistency[33], which is different from traditional sensitivity analysis (leaving one study out at each time). Given that NMA involves multiple treatment comparison, traditional sensitivity analysis is not applicable in NMA, but it can be conducted in standard pairwise meta-analysis. In univariate metaregressions, every variate is added to the model separately each time, whereas in multivariate metaregression, all variates are added to the model at one time. We conducted NMA on the condition that direct and indirect comparisons were sufficiently similar. We detected the existence of inconsistency locally in all triangular or quadratic loops in the NMA model by the loop-specific approach[37-39].Discrepancy between the two types of evidence and their 95% CIs were used to detect inconsistency in all loops. We defined inconsistency as a difference between direct and indirect evidence with a 95% CI excluding 0. Additionally, we adopted the nodesplitting model[40]to detect a potential inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. I2statistic was used to assess the extent of heterogeneity of all direct comparisons in different studies. We analyzed global heterogeneity (using I2statistic) and global inconsistency (using Q statistic) by using the R 3.5.0‘netmeta’ package[41]. Predictive interval plots were also used to evaluate global heterogeneity.

    In addition, we made comparison-adjusted funnel plots[42]to assess potential publication bias. If there were no publication biases, scatters of the same color should be distributed symmetrically on both sides of the longitudinal axis.

    A simple linear regression line was attached to the funnel plot to make it easier to visually distinguish publication bias between small and large studies.

    All statistical analyses were conducted by STATA 14.0 (pairwise meta-analysis, NMA, I2calculations,estimation of inconsistency, SUCRA graphs, funnel plots, model fit and meta-regressions) and R 3.5.0(global heterogeneity and global inconsistency).

    RESULTS

    Study Characteristics and Evidence Network

    A total of 292 RCTs were selected for this study,262, 91, and 56 of which were related to weight,BMI, and WC, respectively. The whole inclusion and exclusion processes are shown in Figure 1. All trial durations were longer than 4 weeks except for one study that lasted for 2.4 weeks, with 24 weeks being the longest duration. The mean ages of patients in these trials were between 28.9 and 74.2 years old. The boxplots in Supplementary Files show the distribution of baseline characteristics in these trials.

    Nine treatments were involved in this study,including GLP-1 RAs, DPP-4Is, insulin, metformin(Met), sodium-dependent glucose transporters 2(SGLT-2), sulfonylurea (SU), thiazolidinedione (TZD),α-glycosidase inhibitor (a-Glu), and placebo. Most of the studies were two-arm (n = 276), and the others were three-arm (n = 13) and four-arm (n = 2). The plots of evidence structures are provided in Figure 2.According to the contribution plots (Supplementary Files), DPP-4Is versus placebo and GLP-1 RAs versus placebo were the two most contributing direct comparisons in the entire network.

    Quality Evaluation

    Regarding random sequence generation, 227 studies were at low risk and there was no study at high risk. Regarding allocation concealment, there were 102, 118, and 71 studies at high, low, and unclear risk, respectively. Regarding blinding of participants and personnel, double-blind trials and open-label trials accounted for 46.39% and 35.05%of all studies, respectively. As for blinding of outcome assessment, 102 trials were at high risk and 183 trials were at low risk. A total of 269 trials were at low risk in terms of complete outcome data. In addition, 260 trials were at low risk in terms of selective reporting. Among all trials, 68.38% were sponsored by companies.

    Results of Standard Pairwise Meta-analysis

    Weight The results of standard pairwise metaanalysis on weight are shown in Figure 3. Compared with placebo, GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2 reduced weight by ?1.04 kg (95% CI: ?1.14, ?0.95) and ?2.23 kg (95%CI: ?2.56, ?1.89), respectively. Compared with placebo, traditional hypoglycemic drugs, including insulin, SU, and TZD, increased weight by 2.02 kg(95% CI: 1.02, 3.02), 2.44 kg (95% CI: 1.81, 3.08), and 2.46 kg (95% CI: 1.81, 3.11), respectively. Compared with Met, SGLT-2, and a-Glu, DPP-4Is caused weight gain by 2.68 kg (95% CI: 2.59, 2.76), 2.61 kg (95% CI:2.30, 2.91), and 0.91 kg (95% CI: 0.71, 1.12),respectively. Compared with other traditional hypoglycemic drugs, including Insulin, SU, and TZD,DPP-4Is significantly decreased weight by ?1.61 kg(95% CI: ?2.18, ?1.04) to ?1.44 kg (95% CI: ?1.69,?1.19). GLP-1 RAs were observed to reduce weight significantly versus insulin (?3.35 kg, 95% CI: ?3.47,?3.24), SU (?3.88 kg, 95% CI: ?3.93, ?3.84), and TZD(?3.35 kg, 95% CI: ?3.63, ?3.06). Compared with GLP-1 RAs, DPP-4Is increased weight by 1.72 kg (95% CI:1.53, 1.92).

    BMI GLP-1 RAs decreased BMI by –0.85 kg/m2(95% CI: ?0.98, ?0.73) compared with placebo(Figure 3). DPP-4Is increased BMI significantly versus Met (0.28 kg/m2, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.55) and a-Glu (0.34 kg/m2, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.47). DPP-4Is reduced BMI,compared with SU (?0.42 kg/m2, 95% CI: ?0.60,?0.24) and TZD (?0.76 kg/m2, 95% CI: ?0.99, ?0.53).Compared with traditional hypoglycemic drugs except a-Glu, GLP-1 RAs effectively reduced BMI by?1.40 kg/m2(95% CI: ?1.47, ?1.32) to ?0.24 kg/m2(95% CI: ?0.46, ?0.02). Compared with GLP-1 RAs,DPP-4Is increased BMI by 1.29 kg/m2(95% CI: 1.13,1.45).

    WC Compared with placebo, DPP-4Is increased WC by 0.36 cm (95% CI: 0.01, 0.72), whereas GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2 decreased WC by ?1.30 cm (95% CI:?1.64, ?0.97) and ?1.60 cm (95% CI: ?2.22, ?0.98),respectively (Figure 3). DPP-4Is increased WC by 1.90 cm (95% CI: 1.24, 2.56) compared with SGLT-2, and decreased WC by ?1.88 cm (95% CI: ?2.62, ?1.14)compared with SU. GLP-1 RAs reduced WC to a greater extent than insulin, Met, TZD, and a-Glu, by?7.05 cm (95% CI: ?13.15, ?0.95) to ?2.33 cm (95%CI: ?3.11, ?1.56). Compared with GLP-1 RAs, DPP-4Is increased WC by 1.75 cm (95% CI: 1.29, 2.21).

    Results of Network Meta-analysis

    Weight Compared with placebo, DPP-4Is increased weight slightly by 0.31 kg (95% CI: 0.05, 0.58) and GLP-1 RAs decreased weight by ?1.34 kg (95% CI:?1.60, ?1.09) (Figure 3). Compared with placebo,insulin, SU, and TZD induced weight gain of 2.42 kg(95% CI: 1.96, 2.89), 1.84 kg (95% CI: 1.40, 2.28), and 2.15 kg (95% CI: 1.53, 2.77), respectively. Met and SGLT-2 led to weight loss of ?0.79 kg (95% CI: ?1.52,?0.07) and ?2.23 kg (95% CI: ?3.27, ?1.19),respectively, versus placebo. Compared with insulin,

    SU, and TZD, DPP-4Is decreased weight by ?2.11 kg(95% CI: ?2.59, ?1.62), ?1.52 kg (95% CI: ?1.92,?1.13), and ?1.83 kg (95% CI: ?2.43, ?1.24),respectively. Compared with Met and SGLT-2, DPP-4Is increased weight by 1.11 kg (95% CI: 0.41, 1.81)and 2.54 kg (95% CI: 1.51, 3.58), respectively.Compared with traditional hypoglycemic drugs(including insulin, SU, TZD, and a-Glu), GLP-1 RAs resulted in weight loss of -3.76 kg (95% CI: ?4.16,?3.37) to ?1.09 kg (95% CI: ?1.94, ?0.23). A statistically significant weight gain was observed after treatment with DPP-4Is compared with that after treatment with GLP-1 RAs, with a mean difference of 1.66 kg (95% CI: 1.35, 1.96).

    BMI GLP-1 RAs decreased BMI by ?1.10 kg/m2(95% CI: ?1.42, ?0.78) compared with placebo(Figure 3). Compared with placebo, SU increased BMI by 0.58 kg/m2(95% CI: 0.08, 1.08). DPP-4Is decreased BMI by ?0.69 kg/m2(95% CI: ?1.15,?0.24), compared with SU. Compared with all other traditional hypoglycemic drugs, GLP-1 RAs decreased BMI by ?1.68 kg/m2(95% CI: ?2.15, ?1.20) to ?0.63 kg/m2(95% CI: ?1.21, ?0.04). Compared with GLP-1 RAs, DPP-4Is increased BMI by 0.98 kg/m2(95% CI:0.66, 1.30).

    WC Compared with placebo, GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2 decreased WC by ?1.28 cm (95% CI: ?1.69, ?0.86)and ?1.57 cm (95% CI: ?2.74, ?0.40), respectively(Figure 3). Insulin, Met, SU, and TZD increased WC by 2.36 cm (95% CI: 1.59, 3.13), 2.16 cm (95% CI: 0.70,3.62), 2.12 cm (95% CI: 0.90, 3.33), and 1.13 cm (95%CI: 0.01, 2.24), respectively, compared with placebo.Compared with insulin, Met, and SU, DPP-4Is decreased WC by ?1.99 cm (95% CI: ?2.83, ?1.15),?1.79 cm (95% CI: ?3.28, ?0.31), and ?1.75 cm (95%CI: ?2.86, ?0.64), respectively. DPP-4Is increased WC by 1.93 cm (95% CI: 0.76, 3.11), compared to SGLT-2.Compared with insulin, Met, SU, and TZD, GLP-1 RAs decreased WC more effectively by ?3.63 cm (95% CI:?4.29, ?2.98) to ?2.40 cm (95% CI: ?3.44, ?1.37). In terms of decreasing WC, DPP-4Is were inferior to GLP-1 RAs, with a mean difference in WC of 1.64 cm(95% CI: 1.09, 2.19).

    Results of Subgroup Analysis, Sensitivity Analysis,and Meta-regression

    Subgroup analysis showed that DPP-4Is,compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce weight, BMI, and WC in all subgroups, but GLP-1 RAs lowered weight, BMI, and WC compared with placebo in every subgroup. The specific results of subgroup analysis are provided in Supplementary Files. According to the sensitivity analysis, the main results of this NMA were robust,as there were no large differences between the results before and after excluding certain RCTs(Supplementary Files). Based on the univariate meta-regression, it was found that DPP-4Is increased weight by 0.52 kg per 1% HbA1c rise,and that GLP-1RA caused weight loss of 0.08 kg per 1-year change in diabetes duration, compared with placebo. Multivariate meta-regression did not show similar results, but it indicated that,compared with placebo, GLP-1RA increased weight by 0.70 kg per 10-year increase in age. Limited by the number of studies, multivariate metaregression could not be performed for BMI and WC. Supplementary Files shows all metaregression results.

    Results of Ranking Hierarchy

    Table 1 shows that GLP-1 RAs ranked second and DPP-4Is ranked sixth in terms of inducing weight loss. According to Table 1, GLP-1 RAs had the highest efficacy in decreasing BMI and DPP-4Is ranked fourth in terms of efficacy in decreasing BMI. In reducing WC, the efficacy of GLP-1 RAs and DPP-4Is ranked second and fourth, respectively. Ranking results on weight after meta-regression are presented in Supplementary Files.

    Results of Inconsistency and Heterogeneity Tests

    We judged inconsistency by using the data in Supplementary Files. Regarding the studies onweight, the inconsistency test showed that 21 loops from all the 22 loops (including 1 quadratic loop and 21 triangular loops) were consistent (P > 0.05 with 95% CIs including 0). For the studies on BMI, 8 loops from all the 10 triangular loops were consistent. As for WC, 5 loops from all the 9 triangular loops were consistent. The results suggested that, for the three indicators (weight, BMI, and WC), direct estimates of the summary effects were not different from the indirect estimates. The node-splitting model revealed that there were 6, 0, and 2 comparisons with significant inconsistency on weight, BMI, and WC, respectively (Supplementary Files). The results of global inconsistency suggested that the consistency model was no different from the inconsistency model for all three indicators (weight:Q = 27.75, P = 0.479; BMI: Q = 5.26, P = 0.949; WC:Q = 3.79, P = 0.925). According to the predictive interval plots (Supplementary Files) and I2statistic,global heterogeneity existed in weight (I2statistic =91.4%) and BMI (I2statistic = 84.5%), but not in WC(I2statistic = 36.7%).

    Table 1. Ranking probability of the effectiveness of different treatments on weight,body mass index, and waist circumference

    Detection of Publication Bias

    In all three comparison-adjusted funnel plots(Supplementary Files), scatters of the same color were almost symmetrical visually, which meant that publication bias was relatively low for weight, BMI,and WC.

    Results of GRADE

    In light of the GRADE fr amework (Supplementary Files), the evidence quality ranking of treatments was low, very low, and moderate for weight, BMI,and WC, respectively. For each comparison, the evidence quality rank varied from very low to high,with low- and moderate-quality evidence showing larger proportions.

    DISCUSSION

    Obesity is a risk factor of diabetes that can incur insulin resistance[43]and cardiovascular diseases[44].BMI was reported to have a direct relationship with diabetes. Abdominal obesity, which can be measured by WC, is associated with dyslipidemia and hypertension[45]. Patients with obesity and diabetes are prone to worse outcomes; thus, losing weight is considered an effective way to treat diabetes[46]. Body weight, BMI, and WC are all indicators of overweightness or obesity.

    Several genres of traditional antidiabetic drugs(including insulin, TZD, and SU) may cause weight gain, which may be caused by ‘defensive snacking’ to deal with hypoglycemia risk[5]. Although, compared with these traditional drugs, incretin-based drugs can achieve similar results in reducing blood glucose,they may have fewer side effects, such as weight gain, by slowing down gastric emptying and inhibiting food intake[47]. Therefore, this study aimed to deeply explore the effects of incretin-based drugs on weight, BMI, and WC.

    Albeit there have been several evidence-based studies[24-32]on this topic, most of them were in the form of standard pairwise meta-analysis. Moreover,they mainly discussed body weight.

    An NMA published in 2012[30]aimed to evaluate the effects of antidiabetic drugs in combination with metformin on glycemic control, hypoglycemia risk,and body weight. That study found that, compared with placebo, GLP-1 RAs reduced weight by ?1.66 kg(95% CI: ?2.26, ?1.09) and that DPP-4Is had no significant effect on weight loss (0.23 kg, 95% CI:?0.13, 0.60). All the above results were consistent with our results, except that we discovered modest weight gain by 0.31 kg (95% CI: 0.05, 0.58) in DPP-4Is versus placebo. However, that study[30]by Liu et al.was somewhat different from our work. For starters,the study in 2012 only considered the agents in combination with metformin; thus, the study did not involve SGLT-2, but include glinides; moreover, the inclusion criterion of patients was different from ours. Our team also published an NMA on the effects of GLP-1 RAs on body weight in 2015[31]. A total of 51 trials were included in the final analysis in that study; however, 262 trials on weight were included in this study. The GLP-1 RAs concerned in that study were exenatide and liraglutide at varying dosages (exenatide: 5 μg twice daily, 10 μg twice daily, and 2 mg once weekly; liraglutide: 0.6 mg once daily, 0.9 mg once daily, 1.2 mg once daily,and 1.8 mg once daily). Compared with placebo, only exenatide (10 μg twice daily) and liraglutide (1.8 mg once daily) decreased weight by ?1.92 kg (95% CI:?2.61, ?1.24) and ?0.98 kg (95% CI: ?1.94, ?0.02),respectively.

    A previous NMA focusing on how GLP-1 RAs influence WC was also conducted by our team[32].That study only included 17 RCTs, whereas the present study included 56 RCTs on WC. In the previous study, the GLP-1 RAs studied included exenatide (5 μg twice daily, 10 μg twice daily, and 2 mg once weekly), liraglutide (0.6 mg once daily, 1.2 mg once daily, and 1.8 mg once daily), taspoglutide(10 mg once weekly and 20 mg once weekly), and sitagliptin. The results of the previous study showed that, compared with placebo, exenatide (10 μg twice daily), liraglutide (1.2 mg once daily), liraglutide (1.8 mg once daily), and sitagliptin significantly decreased WC.

    Regarding BMI, no meta-analysis on how incretin-based therapies affect BMI had been published. Thus, our study filled this gap.

    In this study, comparison of incretin-based therapies with six other traditional hypoglycemic drugs revealed that GLP-1 RAs were not less effective than any other traditional hypoglycemic drug in decreasing weight, BMI, and WC. However,DPP-4Is were not less effective than other traditional hypoglycemic drugs only in decreasing BMI. In inducing weight loss, DPP-4Is were less effective than Met and SGLT2, but more effective than insulin,SU, and TZD. In terms of lowering WC, DPP-4Is were less effective than SGLT2, but more effective than insulin, Met, and SU.

    Our study found that GLP-1 RAs were also more effective than DPP-4Is in decreasing all three indicators. Notably, a study reported that liraglutide, a type of GLP-1 RAs, primarily reduces fat mass (especially visceral fat and intrahepatic fat)[48], rather than lean tissue[49]mass, such as skeletal muscles[48]. It was reported that liraglutide reduces more visceral fat tissues than subcutaneous fat tissues[50-53]. Visceral adipose tissue is considered the source of inflammation and promoter of atherosclerosis[54], and it promotes the development of type 2 diabetes[55].Furthermore, elderly people deserve more attention as they are prone to type 2 diabetes[56].GLP-1 RAs can help improve cognitive performance in the elderly[57]and protect them from sarcopenia[58]. Thus, GLP-1 RAs can bring great benefits to patients with type 2 diabetes.Our study had several advantages. Firstly, a large number of trials related to incretin-based therapies on weight, BMI, and WC were included,making the evaluation reliable and accurate.Secondly, instead of adopting standard pairwise meta-analysis, we carried out NMA. Because standard pairwise meta-analysis can only combine the results of head-to-head comparisons, it can cause a waste of information in the studies without the direct comparisons that we wanted.However, NMA can achieve indirect comparisons between multiple treatments. In addition, through NMA, multiple treatments can be ranked. There is no doubt that the ranking results can assist clinicians in selecting appropriate treatments in their work.

    Nonetheless, there were still several drawbacks in this study. First, the documents included in this study were all published in English; thus, publication bias might exist. Second, most included studies were not especially designed to evaluate the effects of incretin-based therapies on weight, BMI, or WC,raising the potential of inaccurate measurement of the three indicators. Third, we did not consider the variations in products and dosages. Fourth, the placebos varied in the different studies, but this is common in NMA using wide inclusion criteria to gain generalized results[59]. This study reported the effectiveness of incretin-based therapies on weight,BMI, and WC, compared with other traditional therapies and placebo, which will be helpful for future clinical practice. Still, more high-caliber RCTs that emphasize blinding and allocation concealment are being expected to improve the current evidence quality.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    We are grateful to all cooperating organizations and their staff who have promoted the completion of the whole study. We also sincerely acknowledge all authors of the original studies who provided the materials we needed.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    The authors declared no conflict of interest.

    AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

    SUN Feng, ZHAN Si Yan, and XU Lu were involved in study conceptualization and design.HUANG Yi and YANG Zhi Rong were involved in the methodology. XU Lu, GAO Le, and YU Shu Qing were responsible for the formal analysis. XU Lu and YU Shu Qing were responsible for writing and preparing the original draft. All authors participated in the writing, review, and editing of the manuscript.

    Received: April 18, 2019;

    Accepted: September 24, 2019

    91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 黄色一级大片看看| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 91国产中文字幕| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| tube8黄色片| 午夜91福利影院| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 多毛熟女@视频| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 另类精品久久| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 日韩视频在线欧美| 热re99久久国产66热| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 亚洲中文av在线| 成人免费观看视频高清| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 久久久久久久精品精品| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| videossex国产| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 一级毛片我不卡| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 一区二区三区精品91| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 午夜日本视频在线| 两性夫妻黄色片| 观看av在线不卡| 一区二区av电影网| 深夜精品福利| 性色avwww在线观看| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 日韩电影二区| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 高清av免费在线| 91成人精品电影| 999久久久国产精品视频| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 97在线人人人人妻| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 9热在线视频观看99| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 人妻一区二区av| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 成年动漫av网址| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 人妻系列 视频| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 久久人人爽人人片av| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 青春草国产在线视频| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 人妻系列 视频| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 欧美日韩av久久| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 丝袜美足系列| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 久久午夜福利片| 欧美另类一区| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 精品福利永久在线观看| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 咕卡用的链子| av电影中文网址| 午夜91福利影院| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 中文天堂在线官网| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 久久99精品国语久久久| 中文欧美无线码| 日本午夜av视频| 亚洲av男天堂| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| tube8黄色片| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 欧美+日韩+精品| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看 | 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 人人澡人人妻人| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站 | 免费看av在线观看网站| 亚洲国产色片| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 精品国产一区二区久久| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 午夜久久久在线观看| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 赤兔流量卡办理| 欧美+日韩+精品| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 免费观看性生交大片5| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 久久av网站| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 色哟哟·www| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 伦理电影免费视频| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 性色avwww在线观看| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 精品久久久精品久久久| 超碰成人久久| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区 | 欧美日韩av久久| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 亚洲av男天堂| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 精品午夜福利在线看| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 男女国产视频网站| 午夜福利视频精品| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 久久久久久人人人人人| 91成人精品电影| 1024香蕉在线观看| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 久久免费观看电影| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 国产精品无大码| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 亚洲av福利一区| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| videossex国产| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 精品一区二区免费观看| 高清av免费在线| 久久97久久精品| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 婷婷色综合www| 天堂8中文在线网| 欧美另类一区| 精品一区在线观看国产| 久久久久久伊人网av| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 麻豆av在线久日| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 久久精品夜色国产| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 国产在线免费精品| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 在线观看国产h片| 超碰成人久久| 青春草国产在线视频| 99久久人妻综合| h视频一区二区三区| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 国产探花极品一区二区| 国产av精品麻豆| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 午夜日本视频在线| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| videossex国产| 亚洲伊人色综图| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| av福利片在线| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 欧美成人午夜精品| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 国产成人精品婷婷| 色视频在线一区二区三区| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 久久精品夜色国产| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 免费看不卡的av| av有码第一页| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看 | 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区 | 精品视频人人做人人爽| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 赤兔流量卡办理| av有码第一页| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 大香蕉久久成人网| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 午夜福利,免费看| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 久久免费观看电影| 亚洲av.av天堂| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 国产 精品1| 1024香蕉在线观看| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 久久久国产一区二区| 看免费av毛片| a级毛片黄视频| videos熟女内射| 欧美人与善性xxx| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 欧美97在线视频| 国产成人精品在线电影| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 在线观看三级黄色| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 性色av一级| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| av.在线天堂| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 嫩草影院入口| 一本久久精品| 日日啪夜夜爽| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精 国产伦在线观看视频一区 | 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 国产一区二区激情短视频 | 在线天堂最新版资源| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 亚洲av福利一区| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 亚洲在久久综合| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 777米奇影视久久| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 性色av一级| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| av有码第一页| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 一级毛片 在线播放| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 在线观看www视频免费| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 性少妇av在线| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | 午夜老司机福利剧场| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 欧美人与善性xxx| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 国产激情久久老熟女| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 欧美97在线视频| 久久av网站| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 色吧在线观看| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 国产成人aa在线观看| h视频一区二区三区| 在线天堂最新版资源| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 国产 精品1| 免费少妇av软件| 日本免费在线观看一区| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 午夜日本视频在线| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 岛国毛片在线播放| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 伦理电影免费视频| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | 日本av免费视频播放| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 成人国语在线视频| 一本久久精品| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 看免费av毛片| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 尾随美女入室| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 多毛熟女@视频| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区 | 亚洲成人av在线免费| 国产精品无大码| 看免费av毛片| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 亚洲中文av在线| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 午夜福利视频精品| 伊人久久国产一区二区| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 色播在线永久视频| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 免费观看在线日韩| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 亚洲精品视频女| 9色porny在线观看| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 岛国毛片在线播放| 成人国语在线视频| 久热久热在线精品观看| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 色哟哟·www| 韩国av在线不卡| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 性少妇av在线| 国产在视频线精品| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 精品少妇内射三级| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 国产福利在线免费观看视频| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 免费看av在线观看网站| 国产成人精品在线电影| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 只有这里有精品99| 久久97久久精品| 老女人水多毛片| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区 | 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产福利在线免费观看视频| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 老司机影院毛片| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 91精品三级在线观看| 观看av在线不卡| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 考比视频在线观看| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 日韩电影二区| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 午夜免费观看性视频| 国产精品成人在线| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 国产极品天堂在线| 国产综合精华液| www.自偷自拍.com| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 久久99一区二区三区| 我的亚洲天堂| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 1024视频免费在线观看| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 大香蕉久久成人网| 一本久久精品| 亚洲精品一二三| 日韩伦理黄色片| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区 | 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 日日撸夜夜添| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| av一本久久久久| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 97在线人人人人妻| 亚洲人成电影观看| 一本久久精品| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 美女国产视频在线观看| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 久久 成人 亚洲| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 在线观看国产h片| 人妻 亚洲 视频| www.精华液| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站 | 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 五月天丁香电影| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲 | 成人国产麻豆网| 一级爰片在线观看| 久久热在线av| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av | 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| av一本久久久久| videosex国产| a 毛片基地| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| tube8黄色片| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 美女中出高潮动态图| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 色吧在线观看| 国产成人一区二区在线| av电影中文网址| 只有这里有精品99| 777米奇影视久久| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 热re99久久国产66热| 亚洲成色77777| 性色avwww在线观看| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 另类亚洲欧美激情| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 日韩av免费高清视频| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 午夜av观看不卡| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 不卡av一区二区三区| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 性少妇av在线| 国产成人精品一,二区| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 亚洲第一av免费看| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 国产探花极品一区二区| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 青春草国产在线视频| 色网站视频免费| 有码 亚洲区| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| av卡一久久| 久久影院123| 国产成人精品福利久久| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 性色av一级| 观看av在线不卡| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 亚洲综合色惰|