1.
Comparative analysis of the efficacies of probiotic supplementation and glucose-lowering drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Liang, T, Xie, X, Wu, L, Li, L, Yang, L, Gao, H, Deng, Z, Zhang, X, Chen, X, Zhang, J, et al
Frontiers in nutrition. 2022;9:825897
-
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a serious medical condition often requiring antidiabetic drug management. Although commonly used antidiabetic drugs effectively control glucose levels, their tolerability profiles differ, causing various side effects. Probiotics can be used as single or multi strains to reduce glycaemic and lipid indicators and avoid the negative effects of antidiabetic medications. The study included twenty-five randomised controlled trials, of which fourteen studies assessed the effectiveness of probiotics (single probiotics, multi-strain probiotics, and probiotics with co-supplements), and eleven studies included different antidiabetic drugs such as Thiazolidinedione (TZD), Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), Dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP-4i), and Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i). This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of probiotic and antidiabetic drugs on glycaemia, lipid profile and blood pressure in T2D patients. Probiotics were less effective than specific antidiabetic drugs in reducing fasting blood sugar levels (FBS), HbA1c levels, and triglycerides. Different probiotic formulations were effective in reducing the HOMA-IR index, total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), and systolic and diastolic pressure (SBP and DBP). A subgroup analysis showed a greater reduction in FBS, HbA1c, TC, TG, and SBP in obese and elderly participants, those who participated for a longer duration, and those from Eastern origins. Considering the high heterogeneity in baseline study characteristics among the studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, further studies are required to evaluate the effects of probiotics and antidiabetic drugs. However, healthcare professionals can use the study to understand the effect of probiotics and antidiabetic drugs in reducing glycaemic, lipid and hypertension profiles.
Expert Review
Conflicts of interest:
None
Take Home Message:
- Glucose-lowering drugs, except for DPP-4i, reduced FBS and HbA1c more than probiotics; and SGLT-2i induced the greatest decrease in HbA1c
- A BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 showed a significant decrease in FBS and the HOMA-IR index compared with those with lower BMI
- Weight loss induced by glucose-lowering drugs and probiotic supplementation plays an important role in glycaemic control in obese patients with type 2 diabetes.
Evidence Category:
-
X
A: Meta-analyses, position-stands, randomized-controlled trials (RCTs)
-
B: Systematic reviews including RCTs of limited number
-
C: Non-randomized trials, observational studies, narrative reviews
-
D: Case-reports, evidence-based clinical findings
-
E: Opinion piece, other
Summary Review:
Introduction
This meta-analysis compared the effects of probiotics and glucose-lowering drugs thiazolidinedione [TZD], glucagon-like pep-tide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1 RA], dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors, and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors [SGLT-2i]) on various outcome measures in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Methods
A search was performed on PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane Library between January 2015 - April 2021.
Results
25 randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included (2843 participants). 14 RCTs (842 participants) involved the administration of single probiotics, multi-strain probiotics, and probiotics with co-supplements, and 11 RCTs (2001 participants) involved TZD, GLP-1 RA, SGLT-2i, and DPP-4i. Participants in 7 of the studies had T2D, aged ≤ 55 years old. 8 RCTs included participants with a mean BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, and 11 RCTs participants had a mean BMI < 30 kg/m2.
Effects of probiotics:
- Fasting Blood Sugar (FBS): A reduction (−1.42, −0.32 mg/dL, p=0.000)
- Glycated hemaglobin (HbA1c): No reduction (p = 0.000)
- Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR): A decrease (−0.64, −0.31; p = 0.780), regardless of probiotic strain or with a co-supplement
- Insulin: Not significant (p = 0.000). Subgroup analysis: no reduction
- Total Cholesterol (TC): No difference (p = 0.941). Subgroup analysis: reduction from multi-species probiotics (−0.36, −0.01 mg/dL, p = 0.871)
- Triglycerides: Difference (−0.25 mg/dL, p = 0.958)
- LDL-C: No changes (p = 0.189)
- HDL-C: No increase (p = 0.014)
- Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): A decrease (−6.44, −0.08 mmHg, p = 0.044)
- Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): A reduction (−4.53, −0.80 mmHg, p = 0.206).
Effects of glucose-lowering drugs:
- FBS: A decrease (−4.22 mg/dL, −1.24 mg/dL, p = 0.000)
- HbA1c: A decrease (−2.51%, −0.52%, p = 0.000) with TZD, GLP-1 RA, SGLT-2i, and DPP- 4i; a reduction with SGLT-2i (p = 0.003)
- TC: No difference (p = 0.000). Subgroup: no decrease with single species probiotics and probiotics with co-supplements, TZD, GLP-1 RA, and DPP-4i)
- TG: No difference (p = 0.000)
- . HDL-C: No increase (p = 0.000). Subgroup: a decrease with TZDs (−2.37, −0.72 mg/dL). No difference with probiotic strains, or probiotics with co-supplements, GLP-1 RA, and DPP-4i
- LDL-C: No changes (p = 0.000), Subgroups: no difference with probiotic strains, probiotics with co-supplements, TZD, GLP-1 RA, and DPP-4i).
Limitations
Limited number of studies for TZD and SGLT-2i, making results potentially unreliable.
Conclusions
Multi species probiotics are worth considering as an adjunct to glucose-lowering drugs, and for improving lipid profiles and hypertension.
Clinical practice applications:
- Probiotic supplementation reduced the HOMA-IR index
- Multi-species probiotics were associated with reduction in TC and TG levels
- DPP-4i only decreased TG levels
- TZD was associated with decrease in HDL-C, whereas probiotic supplementation was associated with higher decrease in SBP and DBP and that GLP-1 RA increases the risk of hypoglycaemia.
Considerations for future research:
- Semaglutide was associated with an increased risk for hypoglycaemia compared with a placebo, indicating that the safety of semaglutide needs further study
- Dietary and physical activity should be considered in future studies
- Heterogeneity in some indicators may be due to differences in study baseline characteristics,Larger trials needed to support the results of this meta-analysis.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of probiotics and glucose-lowering drugs (thiazolidinedione [TZD], glucagon-like pep-tide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1 RA], dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors, and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors [SGLT-2i]) in patients with type 2 diabetes from randomized con-trolled trials (RCTs). The PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched on the treatment effects of probiotics and glucose-lowering drugs on glycemia, lipids, and blood pressure metabolism published between Jan 2015 and April 2021. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. We included 25 RCTs (2,843 participants). Overall, GLP-1RA, SGLT-2i, and TZD significantly reduce fasting blood sugar (FBS) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), whereas GLP-1 RA increased the risk of hypoglycaemia. Multispecies probiotics decrease FBS, total cholesterol (TC), and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP). Moreover, subgroup analyses indicated that participants aged >55 years, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, longer duration of intervention, and subjects from Eastern countries, showed significantly higher reduction in FBS and HbA1c, TC, TG and SBP. This meta-analysis revealed that including multiple probiotic rather than glucose-lowering drugs might be more beneficial regarding T2D prevention who suffering from simultaneously hyperglycemia, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension.
2.
Food sources of fructose-containing sugars and glycaemic control: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention studies.
Choo, VL, Viguiliouk, E, Blanco Mejia, S, Cozma, AI, Khan, TA, Ha, V, Wolever, TMS, Leiter, LA, Vuksan, V, Kendall, CWC, et al
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2018;363:k4644
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
With increasing evidence linking fructose to metabolic disease, current dietary guidelines recommend a reduction of added free sugars, especially fructose-containing sugars from sugars-sweetened beverages (SSBs). However, it is currently unclear whether the negative impact of fructose on metabolic health is as implicative in the context of an overall dietary consumption pattern. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of different sources of fructose-containing sugars on glycaemic control in people with and without diabetes. This review analysed 155 controlled intervention studies and found that fructose-containing sugars in the form of fruit do not have a harmful effect on glycaemic control when compared to energy-matched macronutrient substitutions. Further, harmful effects on glycaemic control were found when excess energy in the form of fructose-containing sugars from SSBs were added to the diet. The authors conclude the food source of fructose-containing sugars on glycemic control is important in the conversation of metabolic health and glycaemic control. While further research is needed to assess a wider variety of food sources, public health professionals should consider the influence of food sources when developing dietary recommendations for the prevention and management of diabetes and other metabolic conditions.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars on glycaemic control at different levels of energy control. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled intervention studies. DATA SOURCES Medine, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to 25 April 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Controlled intervention studies of at least seven days' duration and assessing the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars on glycaemic control in people with and without diabetes were included. Four study designs were prespecified on the basis of energy control: substitution studies (sugars in energy matched comparisons with other macronutrients), addition studies (excess energy from sugars added to diets), subtraction studies (energy from sugars subtracted from diets), and ad libitum studies (sugars freely replaced by other macronutrients without control for energy). Outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, and fasting blood glucose insulin. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Four independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by random effects models and overall certainty of the evidence assessed by the GRADE approach (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation). RESULTS 155 study comparisons (n=5086) were included. Total fructose-containing sugars had no harmful effect on any outcome in substitution or subtraction studies, with a decrease seen in HbA1c in substitution studies (mean difference -0.22% (95% confidence interval to -0.35% to -0.08%), -25.9 mmol/mol (-27.3 to -24.4)), but a harmful effect was seen on fasting insulin in addition studies (4.68 pmol/L (1.40 to 7.96)) and ad libitum studies (7.24 pmol/L (0.47 to 14.00)). There was interaction by food source, with specific food sources showing beneficial effects (fruit and fruit juice) or harmful effects (sweetened milk and mixed sources) in substitution studies and harmful effects (sugars-sweetened beverages and fruit juice) in addition studies on at least one outcome. Most of the evidence was low quality. CONCLUSIONS Energy control and food source appear to mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on glycaemic control. Although most food sources of these sugars (especially fruit) do not have a harmful effect in energy matched substitutions with other macronutrients, several food sources of fructose-containing sugars (especially sugars-sweetened beverages) adding excess energy to diets have harmful effects. However, certainty in these estimates is low, and more high quality randomised controlled trials are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02716870).