0
selected
-
1.
Does chronic hyperglycaemia increase the risk of kidney stone disease? results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Geraghty, R, Abdi, A, Somani, B, Cook, P, Roderick, P
BMJ open. 2020;(1):e032094
Abstract
DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for studies reporting on diabetes mellitus (DM) or metabolic syndrome (MetS) and kidney stone disease (KSD). OBJECTIVE To examine the association between chronic hyperglycaemia, in the form of DM and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in the context of MetS and KSD. SETTING Population-based observational studies. Databases searched: Ovid MEDLINE without revisions (1996 to June 2018), Cochrane Library (2018), CINAHL (1990 to June 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar and individual journals including the Journal of Urology, European Urology and Kidney International. PARTICIPANTS Patients with and without chronic hyperglycaemic states (DM and MetS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES English language articles from January 2001 to June 2018 reporting on observational studies. EXCLUSIONS No comparator group or fewer than 100 patients. Unadjusted values were used for meta-analysis, with further meta-regression presented as adjusted values. Bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS 2340 articles were screened with 13 studies included for meta-analysis, 7 DM (three cohort) and 6 MetS. Five of the MetS studies provided data on IGT alone. These included: DM, n=28 329; MetS, n=31 767; IGT, n=12 770. CONTROLS DM, n=5 89 791; MetS, n=1 78 050; IGT, n=2 93 852 patients. Adjusted risk for DM cohort studies, RR=1.23 (0.94 to 1.51) (p<0.001). Adjusted ORs for: DM cross-sectional/case-control studies, OR=1.32 (1.21 to 1.43) (p<0.001); IGT, OR=1.26 (0.92 to 1.58) (p<0.0001) and MetS, OR=1.35 (1.16 to 1.54) (p<0.0001). There was no significant difference between IGT and DM (cross-sectional/case-control), nor IGT and MetS. There was a moderate risk of publication bias. Statistical heterogeneity remained significant in adjusted DM cohort values and adjusted IGT (cross-sectional/case-control), but non-signficant for adjusted DM (cross-sectional/case-control). CONCLUSION Chronic hyperglycaemia increases the risk of developing kidney stone disease. In the context of the diabetes pandemic, this will increase the burden of stone related morbidity and mortality. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42018093382.
-
2.
Oral anti-diabetic agents for women with established diabetes/impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes planning pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.
Tieu, J, Coat, S, Hague, W, Middleton, P, Shepherd, E
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017;(10):CD007724
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND While most guidance recommends the use of insulin in women whose pregnancies are affected by pre-existing diabetes, oral anti-diabetic agents may be more acceptable to women. The effects of these oral anti-diabetic agents on maternal and infant health outcomes need to be established in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance, as well as in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus preconceptionally or during a subsequent pregnancy. This review is an update of a review that was first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES To investigate the effects of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who are planning a pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes, on maternal and infant health. The use of oral anti-diabetic agents for the management of gestational diabetes in a current pregnancy is evaluated in a separate Cochrane Review. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who were planning a pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Review authors checked the data for accuracy, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS We identified six RCTs (707 women), eligible for inclusion in this updated review, however, three RCTs had mixed populations (that is, they included pregnant women with gestational diabetes) and did not report data separately for the relevant subset of women for this review. Therefore we have only included outcome data from three RCTs; data were available for 241 women and their infants. The three RCTs all compared an oral anti-diabetic agent (metformin) with insulin. The women in the RCTs that contributed data had type 2 diabetes diagnosed before or during their pregnancy. Overall, the RCTs were judged to be at varying risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence for selected important outcomes using GRADE; the evidence was low- or very low-quality, due to downgrading because of design limitations (risk of bias) and imprecise effect estimates (for many outcomes only one or two RCTs contributed data).For our primary outcomes there was no clear difference between metformin and insulin groups for pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.20; RCTs = 2; participants = 227; very low-quality evidence) although in one RCT women receiving metformin were less likely to have pregnancy-induced hypertension (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91; RCTs = 1; participants = 206; low-quality evidence). Women receiving metformin were less likely to have a caesarean section compared with those receiving insulin (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; RCTs = 3; participants = 241; low-quality evidence). In one RCT there was no clear difference between groups for large-for-gestational-age infants (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.72; RCTs = 1; participants = 206; very low-quality evidence). There were no perinatal deaths in two RCTs (very low-quality evidence). Neonatal mortality or morbidity composite outcome and childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability were not reported.For other secondary outcomes we assessed using GRADE, there were no clear differences between metformin and insulin groups for induction of labour (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.28; RCTs = 2; participants = 35; very low-quality evidence), though infant hypoglycaemia was reduced in the metformin group (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.62; RCTs = 3; infants = 241; very low-quality evidence). Perineal trauma, maternal postnatal depression and postnatal weight retention, and childhood/adulthood adiposity and diabetes were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There are insufficient RCT data to evaluate the use of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who are planning a pregnancy, or in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests possible reductions in pregnancy-induced hypertension, caesarean section birth and neonatal hypoglycaemia with metformin compared with insulin for women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed before or during their pregnancy, and no clear differences in pre-eclampsia, induction of labour and babies that are large-for-gestational age. Further high-quality RCTs that compare any combination of oral anti-diabetic agent, insulin and dietary and lifestyle advice for these women are needed. Future RCTs could be powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term clinical outcomes; such RCTs could attempt to collect and report on the standard outcomes suggested in this review. We have identified three ongoing studies and four are awaiting classification. We will consider these when this review is updated.
-
3.
Chronic fructose substitution for glucose or sucrose in food or beverages has little effect on fasting blood glucose, insulin, or triglycerides: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Evans, RA, Frese, M, Romero, J, Cunningham, JH, Mills, KE
The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2017;(2):519-529
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Background: Conflicting evidence exists on the role of long-term fructose consumption on health. No systematic review has addressed the effect of isoenergetic fructose replacement of other sugars and its effect on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, insulin, and triglycerides.Objective: The objective of this study was to review the evidence for a reduction in fasting glycemic and insulinemic markers after chronic, isoenergetic replacement of glucose or sucrose in foods or beverages by fructose. The target populations were persons without diabetes, those with impaired glucose tolerance, and those with type 2 diabetes.Design: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and clinicaltrials.gov The date of the last search was 26 April 2016. We included randomized controlled trials of isoenergetic replacement of glucose, sucrose, or both by fructose in adults or children with or without diabetes of ≥2 wk duration that measured fasting blood glucose. The main outcomes analyzed were fasting blood glucose and insulin as well as fasting triglycerides, blood lipoproteins, HbA1c, and body weight.Results: We included 14 comparison arms from 11 trials, including 277 patients. The studies varied in length from 2 to 10 wk (mean: 28 d) and included doses of fructose between 40 and 150 g/d (mean: 68 g/d). Fructose substitution in some subgroups resulted in significantly but only slightly lowered fasting blood glucose (-0.14 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.24, -0.036 mmol/L), HbA1c [-10 g/L (95% CI: -12.90, -7.10 g/L; impaired glucose tolerance) and -6 g/L (95% CI: -8.47, -3.53 g/L; normoglycemia)], triglycerides (-0.08 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.14, -0.02 mmol/L), and body weight (-1.40 kg; 95% CI: -2.07, -0.74 kg). There was no effect on fasting blood insulin or blood lipids.Conclusions: The evidence suggests that the substitution of fructose for glucose or sucrose in food or beverages may be of benefit to individuals, particularly those with impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes. However, additional high-quality studies in these populations are required.
-
4.
Effect of lifestyle interventions on glucose regulation among adults without impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Zhang, X, Imperatore, G, Thomas, W, Cheng, YJ, Lobelo, F, Norris, K, Devlin, HM, Ali, MK, Gruss, S, Bardenheier, B, et al
Diabetes research and clinical practice. 2017;:149-164
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
This study systematically assessed the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions on glycemic indicators among adults (⩾18years) without IGT or diabetes. Randomized controlled trials using physical activity (PA), diet (D), or their combined strategies (PA+D) with follow-up ⩾12months were systematically searched from multiple electronic-databases between inception and May 4, 2016. Outcome measures included fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting insulin (FI), homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and bodyweight. Included studies were divided into low-range (FPG <5.5mmol/L or HbA1c <5.5%) and high-range (FPG ⩾5.5mmol/L or HbA1c ⩾5.5%) groups according to baseline glycemic levels. Seventy-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Random-effect models demonstrated that compared with usual care, lifestyle interventions achieved significant reductions in FPG (-0.14mmol/L [95%CI, -0.19, -0.10]), HbA1c (-0.06% [-0.09, -0.03]), FI (%change: -15.18% [-20.01, -10.35]), HOMA-IR (%change: -22.82% [-29.14, -16.51]), and bodyweight (%change: -3.99% [-4.69, -3.29]). The same effect sizes in FPG reduction (0.07) appeared among both low-range and high-range groups. Similar effects were observed among all groups regardless of lengths of follow-up. D and PA+D interventions had larger effects on glucose reduction than PA alone. Lifestyle interventions significantly improved FPG, HbA1c, FI, HOMA-IR, and bodyweight among adults without IGT or diabetes, and might reduce progression of hyperglycemia to type 2 diabetes mellitus.
-
5.
The Relationship between Maternal Gestational Impaired Glucose Tolerance and Risk of Large-for-Gestational-Age Infant: A Meta-Analysis of 14 Studies.
Wang, HQ, Lai, HL, Li, Y, Liu, QF, Hu, S, Li, L
Journal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology. 2016;(3):264-9
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To explore, by conducting a meta-analysis, whether gestational impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) is an independent predictor of neonatal large for gestational age (LGA) or not. METHODS Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify published epidemiological studies (cohort and case-control studies) investigating the association between gestational IGT and neonatal LGA. Calculations of pooled estimates were conducted in random-effect models or fixed-effects models. Heterogeneity was tested by using chi-square test and I2 statistics. Egger's test (linear regression method) and Begg's test (rank correlation method) were used to assess potential publication bias. RESULTS Fourteen observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall risk for the effect of IGT on LGA was 2.09 (1.56, 2.78). Stratified analyses showed no differences regarding different geographic regions or the analysis of overall adjusted odds ratios. No evidence of publication bias was observed in either Egger's test or Begg's test results. CONCLUSION Gestational IGT is an independent predictor of neonatal LGA.
-
6.
Differences by sex in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus, impaired fasting glycaemia and impaired glucose tolerance in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Hilawe, EH, Yatsuya, H, Kawaguchi, L, Aoyama, A
Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2013;(9):671-682D
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess differences between men and women in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus, impaired fasting glycaemia and impaired glucose tolerance in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS In September 2011, the PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for community-based, cross-sectional studies providing sex-specific prevalences of any of the three study conditions among adults living in parts of sub-Saharan Africa (i.e. in Eastern, Middle and Southern Africa according to the United Nations subregional classification for African countries). A random-effects model was then used to calculate and compare the odds of men and women having each condition. FINDINGS In a meta-analysis of the 36 relevant, cross-sectional data sets that were identified, impaired fasting glycaemia was found to be more common in men than in women (OR: 1.56; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.20-2.03), whereas impaired glucose tolerance was found to be less common in men than in women (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.98). The prevalence of diabetes mellitus - which was generally similar in both sexes (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.91-1.11) - was higher among the women in Southern Africa than among the men from the same subregion and lower among the women from Eastern and Middle Africa and from low-income countries of sub-Saharan Africa than among the corresponding men. CONCLUSION Compared with women in the same subregions, men in Eastern, Middle and Southern Africa were found to have a similar overall prevalence of diabetes mellitus but were more likely to have impaired fasting glycaemia and less likely to have impaired glucose tolerance.