Effectiveness and safety of carbohydrate counting in the management of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Archives of endocrinology and metabolism. 2018;62(3):337-345
Full text from:

Plain language summary

Glycaemic control of patients with diabetes mellitus is important because it impacts the development of diabetic complications. Carbohydrate counting is a meal planning tool that allows for great variation and flexibility in food choices among individuals with diabetes mellitus. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of carbohydrate counting in the treatment of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus using a systematic literature review. The study included randomised controlled trials with at least 3 months of follow-up, and evaluation of outcomes in which patients were randomly divided into two groups. The meta-analysis showed that the final haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) - a test that shows the average blood glucose levels for the last two to three months - was significantly lower in the carbohydrate counting group than in the control group. Authors conclude that the meta-analysis showed evidence favouring the use of carbohydrate counting in the management of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. However, this benefit was limited to the final HbA1c.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of carbohydrate counting (CHOC) in the treatment of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM1). MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a systematic review of randomized studies that compared CHOC with general dietary advice in adult patients with DM1. The primary outcomes were changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), quality of life, and episodes of severe hypoglycemia. We searched the following electronic databases: Embase, PubMed, Lilacs, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The quality of evidence was analyzed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS A total of 3,190 articles were identified, and two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts. From the 15 potentially eligible studies, five were included, and 10 were excluded because of the lack of randomization or different control/intervention groups. Meta-analysis showed that the final HbA1c was significantly lower in the CHOC group than in the control group (mean difference, random, 95% CI: -0.49 (-0.85, -0.13), p = 0.006). The meta-analysis of severe hypoglycemia and quality of life did not show any significant differences between the groups. According to the GRADE, the quality of evidence for severe hypoglycemia, quality of life, and change in HbA1c was low, very low, and moderate, respectively. CONCLUSION The meta-analysis showed evidence favoring the use of CHOC in the management of DM1. However, this benefit was limited to final HbA1c, which was significantly lower in the CHOC than in the control group.

Lifestyle medicine

Fundamental Clinical Imbalances : Hormonal ; Structural
Patient Centred Factors : Triggers/Carbohydrate counting
Environmental Inputs : Diet ; Nutrients
Personal Lifestyle Factors : Nutrition
Functional Laboratory Testing : Blood

Methodological quality

Allocation concealment : Not applicable

Metadata