Key words
visfatin - adipokine - hypertension - cerebrovascular accident
Abbreviations
AIS:
Acute ischemic Stroke
BMI:
Body mass index
BP:
Blood pressure
CI:
Confidence interval
CV:
Confidence interval
CVA:
Cerebrovascular accident
CVD:
Cardiovascular disease
NAMPT:
nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase
PBEF:
Pre-B-cell colony-enhancing factor
QC:
Quality control
SMD:
Standard mean difference
SD:
Standard deviation
VSMC:
Vascular smooth muscle cell
WMD:
Weighted mean difference
Introduction
Adipose tissue is regarded as an active endocrine organ that secretes various biomolecules,
called ‘adipokines’. It is proved that many adipokines play potent roles in modulating
lipid and glucose, energy balance, and other physiological activities. Studies show
that obesity and insulin resistance are associated with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular
diseases, including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and heart
failure, often with altered levels of adipocytokines [1]
[2]. Scientists thus raise a research campaign on the role of adipokines in regulating
whole body physiology.
Visfatin / NAMPT, known as pre-B-cell colony-enhancing factor (PBEF) and nicotinamide
phosphoribosyltransferase, is a recently identified adipocytokine [3]. Latest research studies have shown that, besides adipocytes, there are a variety
of cells that secrete visfatin, such as epithelial cells, heart cells, pancreatic
cells, and hepatocytes [4]. It acts as with pleiotropic effector in metabolic and stress responses, which could
affect angiogenesis, cell apoptosis, and cell proliferation [5]
[6]. It is highly expressed in visceral fat and circulating levels correlated with obesity;
previous studies reported a positive correlation between plasma visfatin and waist-to-hip
ratio (WHR), Body Mass Index and lipid profiles [7]
[8]. It is considered as a key modifier of atherosclerosis, chronic kidney disease, and
acute myocardial infarction [9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]. An animal study proved that circulating visfatin levels were not statistically
different in spontaneously hypertensive rats, stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive
rats, and control rats [15]. The clinic trial reported that plasma visfatin concentrations were found to be
elevated in patients with stroke or blood pressure [16]
[17]. Therefore, the data were underpowered to show the relationship of visfatin with
hypertension and CVA. Many more clinical trials were conducted from then on, which
claim more detailed analysis to obtain a more accurate conclusion. We then carried
out a meta-analysis to compare the plasma visfatin levels in subjects with or without
hypertension or CVA.
Materials and Methods
Standard of systematic reviews
This study is designed and performed according to the “Transparent reporting of systematic
reviews and meta-analyses” (PRISMA) guidelines. All data were collected from previous
published studies cited in references. All data generated or analyzed during this
study were included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
All analyses were based on previous published studies, thus no ethical approval and
patient consent are required.
Systematic search and study selection
We searched PubMed, ovid EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
(CENTRAL), until January 13, 2019 without language restrictions. As no human subjects
or medical records were reviewed in this study, institutional review board approval
was not required. For the PubMed search, the following terms were used: (((blood pressure)
OR hypertension) OR ((stroke OR ((cerebrovascular OR cerebral) AND (event OR accident
OR stroke OR disease)) OR ((ischaemic OR ischemic OR hemorrhagic) AND stroke) OR brain
infarction OR cerebrovascular accident OR CVA))) AND (((nampt) OR visfatin)) to identify
observational studies that reported the relation of plasma visfatin levels with hypertension
or CVA in general adult population. Similar search terms were used for the EMBASE
and Cochrane search. All searches were conducted without restrictions.
Only studies reporting on the association between human plasma visfatin concentration
and hypertension or CVA were considered eligible. For hypertension and CVA, a full
endpoint-criterion description had to be presented, or referred to in previously published
articles. Studies were excluded if: 1) studies on animals or cell lines and studies
of genetic variation in visfatin-related genes; 2) they were commentaries, or reviews;
3) hypertension or CVA was not an outcome; and 4) they were conducted in children,
adolescents, or pregnant women. Besides, we also excluded patients with specific conditions
(diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, and metabolic syndrome) in whom the relationship
between visfatin and hypertension might differ (see [Fig. 1]). Research results were independently screened by two reviewers (F-X.Z. and P-L.Y)
using a structured literature tool (Endnote X7, Thomson Reuters, USA). Any disagreements
were resolved through consensus reached by discussion with a third researcher (C.W.).
Fig. 1 Process of literature search and study selection.
Data extraction and quality assessment
Investigators (F-X.Z. and P-L.Y) used a standardized form to extract the following
relevant data and another investigator (C.W.) independently confirmed their accuracy:
study design, sample size, source population, mean age, definition of hypertension,
mean and standard deviation (SD) of visfatin level, number of outcome events, and
adjusted confounders. Disagreement was resolved by discussion with the third person
(P-L.Y.). We assessed how visfatin levels were measured: assay method; timing of sample
collection in relation to hypertension diagnosis; collection, process, and storage
of sample; blinding of laboratory personnel; use of quality control (QC) sample; coefficient
of variation (CV). The study quality was assessed using a previously proposed scale
[3]
[18]. We assessed each item individually.
Statistical analysis
We performed analyses to evaluate the relation between visfatin levels and the risk
of hypertension or CVA. Cochran’s Q-statistic and I2 test were applied to estimate the heterogeneity of the studies firstly: if I2>50% and p<0.05, heterogeneity was considered to be significant; otherwise, not significant.
Publication bias was investigated by Egger test and by visual inspection of the funnel
plot. We pooled the weighted standard mean difference (SMD) between control and patient
groups (hypertension or CVA), using the DerSimonian-Laird fixed-effects method to
incorporate between-study heterogeneity. In addition, the single factor and multi-factor
meta-regression analysis was utilized to assess the potential sources of heterogeneity.
Statistical software
Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Editorial Unit, London, UK) software and STATA 14.0 (Stata
Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) software were used to analyze the included
studies. A 2-sided p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Search results and characteristics of included studies
From the initial search, 752 articles and abstracts (including 309 duplicates) were
extracted. The evaluation excluded 402 of these, with 41 selected for full screening.
Among these articles, 28 hypertension articles and 13 CVA related articles were assessed
in detail. After final assessment, 8 hypertension articles and 6 CVA related articles
were used for meta-analyses as shown in [Fig. 1].
Our systematic search identified 8 studies that included 1693 adults (974 with hypertension)
in Asia (3 studies), Europe (4 studies), and United States (1 study) ([Table 1]) [19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]. Most studies included middle-age adults, with 5 studies with a mean age ≥50 years.
Eight studies examined incident hypertension and 6 studies diagnosed hypertension
based on measurements over ≥2 separate visits. All studies are case-control studies,
5 of them applied matching criteria and the ratios of cases to controls were 1:1 in
1 study.
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies.
|
Source (Published Year)
|
Country
|
Study design For Visfatin
|
Study Population
|
Sample Size*
|
Mean Age year
|
Patient Male %
|
Patient BMI kg/m2
|
Inclusion criteria
|
Matching criteria
|
|
Hypertension studies (n=8)
|
|
Dogru [19] (2007)
|
Turkey
|
Case-control
|
Case: newly diagnosed and previously untreated hypertension Control: Normotensive adults
|
33 / 33
|
22.1±2.5
|
100
|
24.0±1.8
|
Patients were considered hypertensive if their BPs on three separate occasions exceeded
140 / 90 mmHg.
|
NR
|
|
Xia [20] (2015)
|
China
|
Case-control
|
Case: obesity and hypertension Control: BMI-matched, normal blood pressure
|
48 / 54
|
NA
|
0
|
22.2±1.7
|
BP ≥140 / 90 mmHg or BP medication on two measurements
|
Age matched
|
|
Horbal [21] (2016)
|
USA
|
Case-control
|
The MH-GRID study
|
134 / 116
|
48.6±6.0
|
33.3
|
33.9±7.8
|
BP≥140 / 90 mmHg
|
NR
|
|
Kocelak [22] (2015)
|
Poland
|
Case-control
|
The PolSenior study
|
591 / 2198
|
78±8
|
52%
|
NA
|
Average systolic BP values were at least 140 mmHg and / or average diastolic BP values
were at least 90 mmHg based on two readings of BP measurements
|
NR
|
|
Gunes [23] (2012)
|
Turkey
|
Case-control
|
Case: newly diagnosed hypertensive patients Control: healthy participants
|
30 / 46
|
52.6±10.6
|
30.4%
|
31.3±4.4
|
Blood pressure was measured by the same investigator at each visit
|
Age -matched
|
|
Liakos [24] (2015)
|
Greece
|
Case-control
|
Case: high normal BP Control: normal or optimal BP
|
25 / 35
|
57±4
|
25%
|
24.0±1.7
|
High normal BP was defined as SBP 130–139 and / or DBP 85–89 mmHg
|
matched for age, gender, smoking and body mass index (BMI)
|
|
Rotkegel [25] (2013)
|
Poland
|
Case-control
|
Case: hypertensive patients with visceral obesity Control: normotensive subjects with visceral obesity
|
12 / 11
|
42±10
|
50%
|
30.5±2
|
Hypertension was defined according WHO criteria (RR ≥ 140 / 90 mm Hg or using hypertensive
drugs).
|
matched for gender
|
|
Andreeva [26] (2013)
|
Ukraine
|
Case-control
|
Case: hypertension Control: normal blood pressure
|
28 / 19
|
59.3±5.4
|
NR
|
NR
|
NR
|
Matched for age, gender
|
|
Vascular brain accident (n=6)
|
|
Gu [27] (2013)
|
China
|
Case-control
|
Case: intracerebral hemorrhage patients Control: age and sex matched individuals
|
85 / 85
|
65.9±9.5
|
55.3%
|
25.8±2.2
|
Presented with acute spontaneous basal ganglia hemorrhage for the first time and were
assessed within 6 h after the incident
|
Age- and sex-matched
|
|
Huang [28] (2013)
|
China
|
Case-control
|
Case: acute spontaneous basal ganglia hemorrhage patients Control: healthy individuals
|
128 / 128
|
63.6±9.2
|
63.3%
|
24.8±2.3
|
Patients with acute basal ganglia hemorrhage
|
NR
|
|
Wang [29] (2013)
|
China
|
Case-control
|
Case: aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients Control: age-matched healthy subjects
|
172 / 172
|
45.3±12.1
|
76.7%
|
NR
|
Subarachnoid hemorrhage secondary to cerebral aneurysm rupture, which was confirmed
by computerized tomography (CT) angiography with or without digital subtraction angiography
of the four vessel
|
Sex and age-matched
|
|
Kadoglou [30] (2014)
|
Greece
|
Case-control
|
Case: acute ischemic stroke patients Control: stroke-free, age and sex matched individuals
|
168 / 58
|
70±9
|
47.6%
|
29.09±5.01
|
AIS was defined as a sudden focal neurologic defect lasting for more than 24 h and
diagnosed on the basis of clinical history, neurologic examination, and brain imaging
study by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging
|
Age-and sex-matched
|
|
Lu [16] (2009)
|
China
|
Case-control
|
Case: ischemic stroke patients Control: stroke-free, age and sex matched individuals
|
12 / 120
|
71.4±11.7
|
53.3%
|
25.6±10.6
|
Stroke was defined as an acute or sudden focal neurologic defect lasting or more than
24 h and diagnosed on the basis of clinical history, neurologic examinations, and
brain imaging studies by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or magnetic
resonance angiography.
|
NR
|
|
Yin [31] (2013)
|
China
|
Case-control
|
Case: ischemic stroke patients Control: Healthy individuals
|
186 / 100
|
65.2±8.4
|
54.8%
|
25.2±2.2
|
Patients be admitted for the treatment of first-ever ischemic stroke confirmed by brain
magnetic resonance imaging, and be diagnosed at the emergency room
|
NR
|
BMI: Body mass index; BP: Blood pressure; CVD: Cardiovascular disease; NA: Not applicable;
NR: Not reported; * Sample size for case-control and nested case-control studies are presented in number
of cases / number of controls.
Our systematic search identified 6 CVA related studies that included 1522 adults (859
with CVA) in Asia (5 studies in China), and Europe (1 study) ([Table 1]) [16]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]. Most studies included middle-age adults, with 5 studies with a mean age ≥60 years.
Three studies examined ischemic CVA and three studies diagnosed hemorrhagic incidents.
All studies are case-control studies, 3 of them applied matching criteria and the
ratios of cases to controls were 1:1 in 3 studies.
Quality of reporting on visfatin assay
The collection, process, and storage of sample are described in sufficient details
in include studies (Table 1S). No studies collected blood samples before the diagnosis. Blinding of laboratory
personnel was barely reported, and the use of QC sample was frequently reported. In
all 14 studies, the intra-assay and inter-assay CVs were good to excellent (<10%),
and the CVs of studies were not mentioned in others studies. Antihypertensive drugs
were allowed at the time of sampling in 5 studies. We also presented the study quality
in (Table 2S). Two of CVA studies were considered to be relatively 'high quality' (score 5), while
other studies were not (score 2–4).
Visfatin levels between hypertensive and normotensive adults
Of 8 included studies, 6 studies reported that visfatin levels were significantly
higher in hypertensive adults than in normotensive adults, whereas 2 studies found
no significant difference between adults with or without hypertension ([Table 2]).
Table 2 Summary of main findings in included studies.
|
Source (Published Year)
|
Visfatin level mean±SD or median (IQR)
|
|
Hypertension studies (n=8)
|
|
Dogru [19] (2007)
|
HTN: no HTN:
|
30.6±5.6 ng/ml 27.7±6.6 ng/ml
|
|
Xia [20] (2015)
|
HTN:
|
Nonobse: 3.75 (1.63, 6.67) ng/l Obse: 3.84 (3.4, 5.35) ng/l Nonobse: 3.23 (1.92, 4.64) ng/l Obse: 3.19 (0.69, 9.45) ng/l
|
|
Horbal [21] (2016)
|
HTN: no HTN: (Severe resistant hypertension)
|
1.6±0.9 pg/ml 1.0±0.8 pg/ml
|
|
Kocelak [22] (2015)
|
HTN: no HTN:
|
1.005±0.65 ng/ml 1.03±0.07 ng/ml
|
|
Gunes [23] (2012)
|
HTN: no HTN:
|
55.2±29.6 ng/dl 26.9±16.2 ng/dl
|
|
Liakos [24] (2015)
|
HNBP: no HNBP:
|
11.0±2.0 ng/ml 7.2±0.9 ng/ml
|
|
Rotkegel [25] (2013)
|
HTN: no HTN:
|
11±2.5 ng/ml 6.8±0.8 ng/ml
|
|
Andreeva [26] (2013)
|
HTN: no HTN:
|
166.4±2.9 MM PT.CT 124.3±3.8 MM PT.CT
|
|
Vascular brain accident (n=6)
|
|
Gu [27] (2013)
|
Patient: Control:
|
86.2±30.5 ng/ml 12.7±5.0 ng/ml
|
|
Huang [28] (2013)
|
Patient: Control:
|
94.9±31.6 ng/ml 12.5±5.4 ng/ml
|
|
Wang [ 29] (2013)
|
Patient: Control:
|
92.1±20.5 ng/ml 12.4±3.2 ng/ml
|
|
Kadoglou [30] (2014)
|
Patient: Control:
|
86.2±30.5 ng/ml 12.7±5.0 ng/ml
|
|
Lu [16] (2009)
|
Patient: Control:
|
86.2±30.5 ng/ml 12.7±5.0 ng/ml
|
|
Yin [31] (2013)
|
Patient: Control:
|
86.2±30.5 ng/ml 12.7±5.0 ng/ml
|
HTN: Hypertension; HNBP: High normal BP.
To avoid heterogeneity, we sub-grouped the studies on the basis of lab kit types.
Within both two subgroups, the pooled Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) was consistently
positive. Among 8 studies, visfatin level was lower in normotensive adults than in
hypertensive adults (95% confidence interval (CI): –0.61 to –0.40; I2=94%, p<0.00001) ([Fig. 2]). The weighted SMD was –0.51. According to the detection method and kit used for
visfatin testing (Table 1S), we sub-grouped these studies to 4 subgroups, the pooled WMD of the groups except
group 3 was consistently positive ([Fig. 2]).
Fig. 2 SMD of visfatin level by hypertension status.
Furthermore, the meta-regression analysis presented in (Table 3S) indicated that neither mean age of all subjects nor publication year was the potential
sources of heterogeneity.
Relationship between visfatin levels and CVA
Of 6 included studies, all studies reported that visfatin levels were significantly
higher in patients than healthy individuals ([Table 2]). The fixed-effects model was used. Among 6 studies, visfatin level was much higher
in CVA adults than in healthy adults (95% CI: –2.23 to –1.93; I2=99.7%, p<0.00001) ([Fig. 3a]). The weighted SMD was –2.08. Besides, the adjusted visfatin level was available
in Lu’ study (adjustments for age, sex, BMI, waist circumference, and smoking status).
The adjusted visfatin level was even much higher in CVA adults than in healthy adults
(95% CI: –3.22 to –2.85; I2=99.5%, p<0.00001) ([Fig. 3b]). The weighted SMD was –3.04
Fig. 3 a SMD of un-adjusted visfatin level by CVA diseases. b SMD of adjusted visfatin level by CVA diseases.
Subgroup analysis was performed to assess diagnostic abilities of visfatin. Within
both two subgroups (ischemic and hemorrhagic CVA), the pooled WMD was consistently
positive. Among 6 studies, three studies were ischemic CVA, while 3 studies were hemorrhagic
incidents. Visfatin level was much higher in ischemic CVA adults than in healthy adults
(95% CI: –1.44 to –1.09; I2=98%, p<0.00001), the weighted SMD was –1.26 ([Fig. 3a]). The Lu’ study belong to the ischemic sub-group, and the weighted SMD of adjusted
vsifatin level was –2.14 ([Fig. 3b]). Visfatin level was also much higher in hemorrhagic CVA adults than in healthy
adults (95% CI: –4.28 to –4.64; I2=99%, p<0.00001) ([Fig. 3a]).
Next we performed meta-regression to evaluate the effect of some factors on the estimate
of SMD. In meta-regression, mean age of all subjects, publication year and proportion
of male were proved to be significant contributing factors (Table 4S).
Sensitivity analysis and publication bias
The result of sensitivity analysis showed that all enrolled studies had no significant
effect on the pooled SMDs on correlations between serum visfatin levels and hypertension
or CVA. For risk assessment, the asymmetric funnel plots, suggested that there was
publication bias in the enrolled studies (Fig. 1S, 2S) and the Egger linear regression analysis further confirmed the publication bias
(p=0.028 for hypertension studies, p=0.008 for CVA studies) (Table 5S, 6S). The result of publication bias was mainly due to the limited number of included
studies.
Discussion
Our systematic review demonstrated that hypertension and CVA adults had higher mean
visfatin levels than healthy adults. These findings suggested that visfatin is possible
biomarker of hypertension and CVA.
Visfatin was initially identified as an adipocytokine exhibiting insulin mimetic properties
[32]. It is highly expressed in visceral fat and circulating levels correlate with obesity,
previous studies reported a positive correlation between plasma visfatin and waist-to-hip
ratio (WHR), body mass index and lipid profiles [7]
[8]. However, the relationship of visfatin with hypertension and CVA remains conflicting.
An animal study proved that circulating visfatin levels were not statistically different
in spontaneously hypertensive rats, stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats and
control rats [15]. However, clinic trials reported that plasma visfatin concentrations were found
to be elevated in patients with stroke or blood pressure [16].
Increasing evidences identify visfatin as a biomarker or even a predictor in the cardiovascular
diseases. Visfatin is considered harmful to blood vessel, such as stimulating vascular
smooth muscle cell (VSMC) cell proliferation, monocyte / macrophage activation and
recruitment [33]
[34]. Andreeva et al. showed that antihypertensive therapy reducing the level of visfatin
in hypertensive patients with abdominal obesity, which implied high blood pressure
may be associated with progressive increase in the level of visfatin [26]. Besides, antihypertensive drugs treatment decreased the visfatin in combination
with abdominal obesity, not in simple hypertension individuals [26]. Then we speculated that visfatin concentration may be affected by other factors
in hypertension, not blood pressure.
As a leading risk factor for vascular cognitive impairment, hypertension is the major
risk factor for CVA [35]. It is proved that visfatin had a neuroprotective effect in CVA through its enzymatic
activity for nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide production [36]
[37]. In the above CVA studies, plasma visfatin concentration is used for identifying
the clinical outcome of CVA patients. Moreover, in the studies of Kadoglou et al.
[30] and Lu et al. [16], stroke-patients appeared with elevated levels of blood pressure (BP) (p<0.01).
While Kadoglou et al. also performed logistic multiple regression analysis to estimate
the association of acute ischemic Stroke (AIS) with clinical and biochemical variables.
After adjustment for conventional stroke risk factors including hypertension, the
circulating levels of visfatin was identified as an independent risk factor of AIS.
These indicated that the visfatin levels is correlated with the severity of CVA, and
may be even higher in the group of subjects having both hypertension and cerebrovascular
accident.
It was proved that visfatin is negatively associated with vascular endothelial function
[38]. As a pro-inflammatory molecule, visfatin increases inflammatory and adhesion molecule
expression, such as IL-6, MMP-3, CAMs, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1, and positive correlation
was established between the level of visfatin and IL-4 or hs-CRP in serum [16]
[26]
[39]
[40]. Study also showed that, in human vascular smooth muscle cells, administration of
visfatin promotes the expression of iNOS [41]
[42]. Increased visfatin promotes the proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells and
of fibroblasts, and plays a part in myocardial fibrosis and cardiac remodeling, which
is an important process of hypertension [43]. Kong et al. proved that increased serum visfatin levels were associated with the
occurrence of atherosclerosis in patients with ischemic cerebral infarction [44]. These funding might suggest a potential role of this adipokine in vascular function.
Andreeva et al. did not mention the exact measurement of BP, but proved that antihypertensive
therapy reduces the level of visfatin in hypertensive patients with abdominal obesity,
Ozal et al. also proved visfatin levels are higher in patients with resistant hypertension
than controlled hypertension [17]
[26]. These implied that high blood pressure may be associated with progressive increase
in the level of visfatin.
There are some limitations to our study. First, because of high heterogeneity and
variable methodological quality of included studies, our meta-analysis should be interpreted
with caution. Second, sample size was the relatively small, the statistical power
might not enough for confirming the role of the plasma visfatin level in the two disease
(the dose-response data for hypertension were available in only 2 of 8 studies). Third,
geographical limitation exists (most of CVA studies in china, patients' background
having selection bias). However, we believe that our results still provide helpful
information in the study of adipocytokines regardless of these limitations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed a significant increase in plasma visfatin
levels in hypertension and CVA patients. Plasma visfatin level is positively correlated
with blood pressure, and may act as a biomarker in patients with CVA. Therefore, visfatin
measurement might have potential benefits in the detection of hypertension or CVA.
Author Contributions
One investigator (F-X.Z.) used a standardized form to extract the following relevant
data and another investigator (C.W.) independently confirmed their accuracy: study
design, sample size, source population, mean age, definition of hypertension, mean
and standard deviation (SD) of visfatin level, number of outcome events, and adjusted
confounders. Disagreement was resolved by discussion with the third person (P-L.Y.).
Wei Li (W.L.) analyzed the data. F-X.Z. and P-L.Y. designed the experiment and wrote
the manuscript.