1.
Effect of fructose on glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials.
Cozma, AI, Sievenpiper, JL, de Souza, RJ, Chiavaroli, L, Ha, V, Wang, DD, Mirrahimi, A, Yu, ME, Carleton, AJ, Di Buono, M, et al
Diabetes care. 2012;(7):1611-20
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The effect of fructose on cardiometabolic risk in humans is controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials to clarify the effect of fructose on glycemic control in individuals with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (through 22 March 2012) for relevant trials lasting ≥7 days. Data were aggregated by the generic inverse variance method (random-effects models) and expressed as mean difference (MD) for fasting glucose and insulin and standardized MD (SMD) with 95% CI for glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and glycated albumin. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochran Q statistic and quantified by the I(2) statistic. Trial quality was assessed by the Heyland methodological quality score (MQS). RESULTS Eighteen trials (n = 209) met the eligibility criteria. Isocaloric exchange of fructose for carbohydrate reduced glycated blood proteins (SMD -0.25 [95% CI -0.46 to -0.04]; P = 0.02) with significant intertrial heterogeneity (I(2) = 63%; P = 0.001). This reduction is equivalent to a ~0.53% reduction in HbA(1c). Fructose consumption did not significantly affect fasting glucose or insulin. A priori subgroup analyses showed no evidence of effect modification on any end point. CONCLUSIONS Isocaloric exchange of fructose for other carbohydrate improves long-term glycemic control, as assessed by glycated blood proteins, without affecting insulin in people with diabetes. Generalizability may be limited because most of the trials were <12 weeks and had relatively low MQS (<8). To confirm these findings, larger and longer fructose feeding trials assessing both possible glycemic benefit and adverse metabolic effects are required.
2.
Dilution of the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test increases postprandial glycemia: implications for diagnostic criteria.
Sievenpiper, JL, Jenkins, DJ, Josse, RG, Vuksan, V
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne. 2000;(7):993-6
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dilution has been noticed to increase the glycemic response to various sugars, including glucose. This effect may contribute to the poor reproducibility of the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). To test this hypothesis we assessed the effect of diluting a 75-g OGTT on 2-hour postprandial blood glucose based diagnostic outcomes, incremental glycemia and area under the glucose curve. METHODS On 3 different occasions, 10 subjects (mean age 40 [and standard error of the mean (SEM) 3.2] years; mean body mass index 27.2 [and SEM 1.2] kg/m2) without previously diagnosed dysglycemia were given a 300-mL, 600-mL or 900-mL 75-g OGTT in random order. The protocol followed the American Diabetes Association's guidelines. Finger-prick capillary blood samples were obtained at fasting and then 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes after the start of the test. RESULTS At 30, 45 and 60 minutes, incremental glycemic concentrations were significantly higher with the 900-mL meal (means [and SEMs]: 4.9 [0.4] mmol/L, 5.1 [0.6] mmol/L and 4.6 [0.8] mmol/L, respectively) than with the 600-mL (means [and SEMs]: 4.0 [0.3] mmol/L, 4.2 [0.6] mmol/L and 3.6 [0.7] mmol/L, respectively) and the 300-mL meals (means and [SEMs]: 3.8 [0.5] mmol/L, 4.0 [0.5] mmol/L and 3.2 [0.6] mmol/L, respectively) (p < 0.05). The same was true for peak incremental blood glucose, regardless of time (p < 0.05). The area under the curve for the 900-mL meal (mean [and SEM] 404 [57] min.mmol/L) was significantly higher than for the 600-mL (mean [and SEM] 331 [51] min.mmol/L) and 300-mL meals (mean [and SEM] 280 [48] min.mmol/L) (p < 0.05). No other significant differences were observed. INTERPRETATION Dilution of the 75-g OGTT will likely not affect current screening practices that use 2-h postprandial glucose levels as the basis for diagnosis. It may, however, bias the interpretation of older criteria that rely on intermediate time points because these midpoints appear to be sensitive to alterations in the total volume of the meal ingested.