1.
Nut consumption and type 2 diabetes risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Becerra-Tomás, N, Paz-Graniel, I, Hernández-Alonso, P, Jenkins, DJA, Kendall, CWC, Sievenpiper, JL, Salas-Salvadó, J
The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2021;(4):960-971
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous meta-analyses, with some methodological controversies, have assessed the relation between nut consumption and type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk and pointed to contradictory results, making desirable the performance of an updated meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze all the published studies investigating the relations of total nuts and different types of nuts-i.e., walnuts, peanuts, peanut butter, and total tree nuts-with the prevalence and incidence of T2D. METHODS A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed and Cochrane databases through 12 August, 2020. The inverse variance method with fixed-effect models was used to pool data across studies, expressed as risk ratios (RRs) or ORs and 95% CIs for prospective cohort and cross-sectional studies, respectively. The Cochran Q test and I2 statistics were used to test and quantify heterogeneity, respectively. Dose-response meta-analysis was also conducted. RESULTS Eight studies (5 prospective and 3 cross-sectional) were included in the quantitative synthesis. Meta-analyses of cross-sectional studies and prospective cohort studies, comparing the highest with the lowest categories, revealed a nonsignificant association between total nut consumption and T2D. Meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies showed an inverse association between peanut butter consumption and T2D incidence (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.98; I2 = 50.6%; Pheterogeneity = 0.16), whereas no association was observed between peanuts or tree nuts and T2D. There was no evidence of a linear dose-response or nonlinear dose-response gradient for total nut and peanut consumption in prospective cohort studies. The certainty of the evidence using NutriGrade was very low for all the exposures. CONCLUSIONS Current results do not demonstrate an association of total nut, peanut, or tree nut consumption with T2D. Peanut butter consumption may be inversely associated with this disease.This review protocol was registered at www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ as CRD42020149756.
2.
Effect of low glycaemic index or load dietary patterns on glycaemic control and cardiometabolic risk factors in diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Chiavaroli, L, Lee, D, Ahmed, A, Cheung, A, Khan, TA, Blanco, S, Mejia, , Mirrahimi, A, Jenkins, DJA, Livesey, G, et al
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2021;:n1651
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To inform the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library searched up to 13 May 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Randomised controlled trials of three or more weeks investigating the effect of diets with low glycaemic index (GI)/glycaemic load (GL) in diabetes. OUTCOME AND MEASURES The primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes included other markers of glycaemic control (fasting glucose, fasting insulin); blood lipids (low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, apo B, triglycerides); adiposity (body weight, BMI (body mass index), waist circumference), blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)), and inflammation (C reactive protein (CRP)). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by random effects models. GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS 29 trial comparisons were identified in 1617 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes who were predominantly middle aged, overweight, or obese with moderately controlled type 2 diabetes treated by hyperglycaemia drugs or insulin. Low GI/GL dietary patterns reduced HbA1c in comparison with higher GI/GL control diets (mean difference −0.31% (95% confidence interval −0.42 to −0.19%), P<0.001; substantial heterogeneity, I2=75%, P<0.001). Reductions occurred also in fasting glucose, LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apo B, triglycerides, body weight, BMI, systolic blood pressure (dose-response), and CRP (P<0.05), but not blood insulin, HDL-C, waist circumference, or diastolic blood pressure. A positive dose-response gradient was seen for the difference in GL and HbA1c and for absolute dietary GI and SBP (P<0.05). The certainty of evidence was high for the reduction in HbA1c and moderate for most secondary outcomes, with downgrades due mainly to imprecision. CONCLUSIONS This synthesis suggests that low GI/GL dietary patterns result in small important improvements in established targets of glycaemic control, blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure, and inflammation beyond concurrent treatment with hyperglycaemia drugs or insulin, predominantly in adults with moderately controlled type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The available evidence provides a good indication of the likely benefit in this population. STUDY REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04045938.
3.
Dietary Glycemic Index and Load and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analyses of Prospective Cohort Studies.
Livesey, G, Taylor, R, Livesey, HF, Buyken, AE, Jenkins, DJA, Augustin, LSA, Sievenpiper, JL, Barclay, AW, Liu, S, Wolever, TMS, et al
Nutrients. 2019;(6)
Abstract
Published meta-analyses indicate significant but inconsistent incident type-2 diabetes(T2D)-dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) risk ratios or risk relations (RR). It is nowover a decade ago that a published meta-analysis used a predefined standard to identify validstudies. Considering valid studies only, and using random effects dose-response meta-analysis(DRM) while withdrawing spurious results (p < 0.05), we ascertained whether these relationswould support nutrition guidance, specifically for an RR > 1.20 with a lower 95% confidence limit>1.10 across typical intakes (approximately 10th to 90th percentiles of population intakes). Thecombined T2D-GI RR was 1.27 (1.15-1.40) (p < 0.001, n = 10 studies) per 10 units GI, while that forthe T2D-GL RR was 1.26 (1.15-1.37) (p < 0.001, n = 15) per 80 g/d GL in a 2000 kcal (8400 kJ) diet.The corresponding global DRM using restricted cubic splines were 1.87 (1.56-2.25) (p < 0.001, n =10) and 1.89 (1.66-2.16) (p < 0.001, n = 15) from 47.6 to 76.1 units GI and 73 to 257 g/d GL in a 2000kcal diet, respectively. In conclusion, among adults initially in good health, diets higher in GI or GLwere robustly associated with incident T2D. Together with mechanistic and other data, thissupports that consideration should be given to these dietary risk factors in nutrition advice.Concerning the public health relevance at the global level, our evidence indicates that GI and GLare substantial food markers predicting the development of T2D worldwide, for persons ofEuropean ancestry and of East Asian ancestry.