-
1.
Efficacy and safety of low and very low carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomized trial data.
Goldenberg, JZ, Day, A, Brinkworth, GD, Sato, J, Yamada, S, Jönsson, T, Beardsley, J, Johnson, JA, Thabane, L, Johnston, BC
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2021;372:m4743
-
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Diet modification has long been recognised as a component for the treatment of diabetes. Diets low in carbohydrates have been extensively researched, as a diet for those with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of low carbohydrate diets on T2D. The systematic review found 23 studies, including 1357 individuals, investigating the role of low carbohydrate diets on T2D outcomes. Low carbohydrate diet was defined as less than 130g of carbohydrate (less than 26% of calories from carbohydrate) for at least 12 weeks. Results reported at 6 months, found low carbohydrate diets were more effective than a normal diet at achieving diabetes remission. However, this effect diminished at 12 months, although longer term improvements were seen in blood lipids, weight loss and measures of prediabetes. It was concluded that individuals with T2D, eating a low carbohydrate diet for 6 months may reverse the disease. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to recommend a short-term low carbohydrate diet to individuals with T2D, to improve their chance of going into remission.
Expert Review
Conflicts of interest:
None
Take Home Message:
- Type 2 diabetes remains a significant and worsening problem worldwide, despite many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.
- This review highlights structured LCDs as a worthwhile option for the management and treatment of diabetes, providing an opportunity for Nutritional Therapy Practitioners to support clients in adopting evidence-informed, modifiable dietary and lifestyle changes for Type Two Diabetes.
Evidence Category:
-
A: Meta-analyses, position-stands, randomized-controlled trials (RCTs)
-
X
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:
- Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes, accounting for 90-95% of cases.
- Previous randomised trials assessed low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) (<26-45% of daily calories from carbohydrate) as encouraging to improve blood glucose control and outcomes of type 2 diabetes but did not systematically assessed remission of diabetes using low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) and very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) for people with type 2 diabetes.
- Systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses represent the most valuable, reliable, and objective tool to summarise evidence from primary studies.
- This SR assessed 23 randomised controlled trials comparing LCDs with mostly low fat control diets in individuals / subjects / participants with type 2 diabetes. LCDs were defined as diets with less than 130 g/day or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates, based on 2000 kcal/day. The authors used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 (RoB 2) to assess methodological quality of evidence, GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence
- On the basis of assessment of moderate to low certainty evidence, individuals / subjects / participants adhering to a LCD for six months may experience remission of type 2 diabetes without adverse consequences.
- Primary outcomes of interest were remission of type 2 diabetes (dichotomously defined as HbA1c <6.5% or fasting glucose <7.0 mmol/L), with or without the use of diabetes medication.
- Eight studies reported on remission of diabetes at six months. Pooled analysis showed that when remission was defined by an HbA1c level below 6.5% independent of medication use, LCDs increased remissions by an additional 32 per 100 patients followed (risk difference 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.47; 8 studies, n=264; GRADE=moderate)
- When remission was defined by an HbA1c level below 6.5% and the absence of diabetes medication, LCDs increased remissions at a lower rate (risk difference 0.05, –0.05 to 0.14; 5 studies, n=199; GRADE=low)
- Additional primary outcomes were weight loss, HbA1c:
- 18 studies reported on Weight loss results (mean difference –3.46, 95% confidence interval –5.25 to –1.67; n=882 (note that positive results not sustained at 12 mo)
- Seventeen studies reported on HbA1c levels at six months, LCDs achieved greater reductions in HbA1c than did control diets (mean difference –0.47%, –0.60 to –0.34; n=747
- Limitations of study: 1) the definition of remission of diabetes, 2) Self-reported dietary intake data are prone to measurement error, particularly in dietary trials in which participants are not blinded
- This SR was funded in part by Texas A&M University.
- The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Clinical practice applications:
The Authors highlight LCD diets incorporating carbohydrate of less than 130 g/day or less than 26% of calories (based on 2000 kcal/day) may be a safe strategy to help individuals with type 2 diabetes achieve weight loss and better blood glucose control over a six-month period. Results may not be sustained at 12 months.
Considerations for future research:
- The definition of diabetes remission needs clarification, especially with regard to threshold concentrations of Hb1Ac or fasting glucose and the use of diabetes medication.
- Safety concerns have been raised with LCDs. Although no significant or clinically important increase in total or serious adverse events was identified in this SR, these outcomes should be reported in future trials to confirm the certainty of evidence for safety.
- The Authors suggest long term, well designed, calorie controlled randomised trials are needed to determine the effects of LCD on sustained weight loss and remission of diabetes.
- Larger treatment effects for LCDs in shorter term trials (3 to <6 months), may be trialed as an effect modifier
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy and safety of low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) and very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) for people with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES Searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB, and grey literature sources from inception to 25 August 2020. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials evaluating LCDs (<130 g/day or <26% of a 2000 kcal/day diet) and VLCDs (<10% calories from carbohydrates) for at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION Primary outcomes were remission of diabetes (HbA1c <6.5% or fasting glucose <7.0 mmol/L, with or without the use of diabetes medication), weight loss, HbA1c, fasting glucose, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and biochemical laboratory data. All articles and outcomes were independently screened, extracted, and assessed for risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence at six and 12 month follow-up. Risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Outcomes were assessed according to a priori determined minimal important differences to determine clinical importance, and heterogeneity was investigated on the basis of risk of bias and seven a priori subgroups. Any subgroup effects with a statistically significant test of interaction were subjected to a five point credibility checklist. RESULTS Searches identified 14 759 citations yielding 23 trials (1357 participants), and 40.6% of outcomes were judged to be at low risk of bias. At six months, compared with control diets, LCDs achieved higher rates of diabetes remission (defined as HbA1c <6.5%) (76/133 (57%) v 41/131 (31%); risk difference 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.47; 8 studies, n=264, I2=58%). Conversely, smaller, non-significant effect sizes occurred when a remission definition of HbA1c <6.5% without medication was used. Subgroup assessments determined as meeting credibility criteria indicated that remission with LCDs markedly decreased in studies that included patients using insulin. At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes. Large clinically important improvements were seen in weight loss, triglycerides, and insulin sensitivity at six months, which diminished at 12 months. On the basis of subgroup assessments deemed credible, VLCDs were less effective than less restrictive LCDs for weight loss at six months. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence. That is, among highly adherent patients on VLCDs, a clinically important reduction in weight was seen compared with studies with less adherent patients on VLCDs. Participants experienced no significant difference in quality of life at six months but did experience clinically important, but not statistically significant, worsening of quality of life and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months. Otherwise, no significant or clinically important between group differences were found in terms of adverse events or blood lipids at six and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of moderate to low certainty evidence, patients adhering to an LCD for six months may experience remission of diabetes without adverse consequences. Limitations include continued debate around what constitutes remission of diabetes, as well as the efficacy, safety, and dietary satisfaction of longer term LCDs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42020161795.
-
2.
Zinc for the prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections in adults: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Hunter, J, Arentz, S, Goldenberg, J, Yang, G, Beardsley, J, Myers, SP, Mertz, D, Leeder, S
BMJ open. 2021;(11):e047474
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the benefits and risks of zinc formulations compared with controls for prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in adults. METHOD Seventeen English and Chinese databases were searched in April/May 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and from April/May 2020 to August 2020 for SARS-CoV-2 RCTs. Cochrane rapid review methods were applied. Quality appraisals used the Risk of Bias 2.0 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS Twenty-eight RCTs with 5446 participants were identified. None were specific to SARS-CoV-2. Compared with placebo, oral or intranasal zinc prevented 5 RTIs per 100 person-months (95% CI 1 to 8, numbers needed to treat (NNT)=20, moderate-certainty/quality). Sublingual zinc did not prevent clinical colds following human rhinovirus inoculations (relative risk, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21, moderate-certainty/quality). On average, symptoms resolved 2 days earlier with sublingual or intranasal zinc compared with placebo (95% CI 0.61 to 3.50, very low-certainty/quality) and 19 more adults per 100 were likely to remain symptomatic on day 7 without zinc (95% CI 2 to 38, NNT=5, low-certainty/quality). There were clinically significant reductions in day 3 symptom severity scores (mean difference, MD -1.20 points, 95% CI -0.66 to -1.74, low-certainty/quality), but not average daily symptom severity scores (standardised MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.13, low-certainty/quality). Non-serious adverse events (AEs) (eg, nausea, mouth/nasal irritation) were higher (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.69, NNHarm=7, moderate-certainty/quality). Compared with active controls, there were no differences in illness duration or AEs (low-certainty/quality). No serious AEs were reported in the 25 RCTs that monitored them (low-certainty/quality). CONCLUSIONS In adult populations unlikely to be zinc deficient, there was some evidence suggesting zinc might prevent RTIs symptoms and shorten duration. Non-serious AEs may limit tolerability for some. The comparative efficacy/effectiveness of different zinc formulations and doses were unclear. The GRADE-certainty/quality of the evidence was limited by a high risk of bias, small sample sizes and/or heterogeneity. Further research, including SARS-CoV-2 clinical trials is warranted. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42020182044.
-
3.
Rapid review protocol: Zinc for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 and other coronavirus-related respiratory tract infections.
Hunter, J, Arentz, S, Goldenberg, J, Yang, G, Beardsley, J, Mertz, D, Leeder, S
Integrative medicine research. 2020;(3):100457
Abstract
BACKGROUND The global COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an urgent search for effective interventions. SARS-CoV-2 mortality/morbidity risk increases with age and for those chronic disease co-morbidities, both of which are associated with lower zinc status, as is the risk of infection. METHODS Rapid review methods will be applied to a systematic review of zinc for the prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and viral respiratory tract infections in humans. Included are published studies reporting randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compare zinc intervention to placebo and/or other comparator interventions. English and Chinese language databases will be searched for primary studies of viral respiratory tract infections and clinical trial registries for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Due to concerns about indirectness, studies evaluating non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infections will be rated down by one level, and non-specific or confirmed non-coronavirus viral infections will be rated down by two levels. Review constraints include (1) using Google translate when screening articles published in languages other than English or Chinese and limited translation (2) following calibration, only one reviewer will screen articles, extract data, appraise quality and conduct the analysis, (3) prioritising data extraction and meta-analyses of SARS-CoV-2 studies and critical outcomes of other viral infections, followed by high risk groups and (4) reporting important preliminary findings prior to peer review if necessary. DISCUSSION The application of these rapid review methods and broadening the inclusion criteria to include other coronavirus-related viral respiratory tract infections aims to enable a timely evidence appraisal of priority research questions and dissemination of results. STUDY REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42020182044.
-
4.
Zinc for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral respiratory infections: a rapid review.
Arentz, S, Hunter, J, Yang, G, Goldenberg, J, Beardsley, J, Myers, SP, Mertz, D, Leeder, S
Advances in integrative medicine. 2020;(4):252-260
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The global COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an urgent search for interventions to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2. Higher risk of infection and adverse outcomes coincide with populations with chronic diseases and elderly who are at risk of zinc deficiency. Through several mechanisms zinc may prevent, reduce severity and duration of symptoms. METHOD An a priori protocol was registered with PROSPERO on 27th April 2020 (CRD42020182044). Eight databases (one Chinese) and four clinical trial registries (one Chinese) were searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating single or adjunct zinc against placebo or active controls, for prevention and/or treatment of SARS-CoV-2, other coronaviruses or related infections. RR constraints included not searching bibliographies or contacting authors, single reviewers with calibration and second reviewer checking, meta-analyses and quality appraisal of critical and study primary outcomes only and reporting results as they became available. RESULTS 118 publications of 1,627 records met the inclusion criteria (35 Chinese and 83 English publications), 32 for prevention, 78 for treatment and 8 for both. Four RCTs specific to SARS-CoV-2 are ongoing; two are investigating zinc for prevention and two for treatment. As of 7 July 2020, no results were available. A wide range of zinc forms, including nasal spray/gel, lozenges, liquid, tablets and intramuscular were investigated. CONCLUSION Currently, indirect evidence suggests zinc may potentially reduce the risk, duration and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections, particularly for populations at risk of zinc deficiency including people with chronic disease co-morbidities and older adults. Direct evidence to determine if zinc is effective for either prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 is pending. In the interim, assessing zinc status of people with chronic diseases and older adults, as part of a SARS-CoV-2 clinical work-up, is reasonable as both groups have a higher risk of zinc deficiency/insufficiency and poorer outcomes from SARS-CoV-2.
-
5.
Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults and children.
Goldenberg, JZ, Yap, C, Lytvyn, L, Lo, CK, Beardsley, J, Mertz, D, Johnston, BC
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017;(12):CD006095
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antibiotics can disturb gastrointestinal microbiota which may lead to reduced resistance to pathogens such as Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Probiotics are live microbial preparations that, when administered in adequate amounts, may confer a health benefit to the host, and are a potential C. difficile prevention strategy. Recent clinical practice guidelines do not recommend probiotic prophylaxis, even though probiotics have the highest quality evidence among cited prophylactic therapies. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for preventing C.difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 21 March 2017. Additionally, we conducted an extensive grey literature search. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized controlled (placebo, alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment control) trials investigating probiotics (any strain, any dose) for prevention of CDAD, or C. difficile infection were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors (independently and in duplicate) extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcome was the incidence of CDAD. Secondary outcomes included detection of C. difficile infection in stool, adverse events, antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and length of hospital stay. Dichotomous outcomes (e.g. incidence of CDAD) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. Continuous outcomes (e.g. length of hospital stay) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference and corresponding 95% CI. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of missing data on efficacy and safety outcomes. For the sensitivity analyses, we assumed that the event rate for those participants in the control group who had missing data was the same as the event rate for those participants in the control group who were successfully followed. For the probiotic group, we calculated effects using the following assumed ratios of event rates in those with missing data in comparison to those successfully followed: 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1, and 5:1. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analyses were conducted on probiotic species, dose, adult versus pediatric population, and risk of bias as well as a post hoc subgroup analysis on baseline risk of CDAD (low 0% to 2%; moderate 3% to 5%; high > 5%). The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was independently assessed using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS Thirty-nine studies (9955 participants) met the eligibility requirements for our review. Overall, 27 studies were rated as either high or unclear risk of bias. A complete case analysis (i.e. participants who completed the study) among trials investigating CDAD (31 trials, 8672 participants) suggests that probiotics reduce the risk of CDAD by 60%. The incidence of CDAD was 1.5% (70/4525) in the probiotic group compared to 4.0% (164/4147) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52; GRADE = moderate). Twenty-two of 31 trials had missing CDAD data ranging from 2% to 45%. Our complete case CDAD results proved robust to sensitivity analyses of plausible and worst-plausible assumptions regarding missing outcome data and results were similar whether considering subgroups of trials in adults versus children, inpatients versus outpatients, different probiotic species, lower versus higher doses of probiotics, or studies at high versus low risk of bias. However, in a post hoc analysis, we did observe a subgroup effect with respect to baseline risk of developing CDAD. Trials with a baseline CDAD risk of 0% to 2% and 3% to 5% did not show any difference in risk but trials enrolling participants with a baseline risk of > 5% for developing CDAD demonstrated a large 70% risk reduction (interaction P value = 0.01). Among studies with a baseline risk > 5%, the incidence of CDAD in the probiotic group was 3.1% (43/1370) compared to 11.6% (126/1084) in the control group (13 trials, 2454 participants; RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.42; GRADE = moderate). With respect to detection of C. difficile in the stool pooled complete case results from 15 trials (1214 participants) did not show a reduction in infection rates. C. difficile infection was 15.5% (98/633) in the probiotics group compared to 17.0% (99/581) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.10; GRADE = moderate). Adverse events were assessed in 32 studies (8305 participants) and our pooled complete case analysis indicates probiotics reduce the risk of adverse events by 17% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; GRADE = very low). In both treatment and control groups the most common adverse events included abdominal cramping, nausea, fever, soft stools, flatulence, and taste disturbance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials including 8672 patients, moderate certainty evidence suggests that probiotics are effective for preventing CDAD (NNTB = 42 patients, 95% CI 32 to 58). Our post hoc subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity indicated that probiotics are effective among trials with a CDAD baseline risk >5% (NNTB = 12; moderate certainty evidence), but not among trials with a baseline risk ≤5% (low to moderate certainty evidence). Although adverse effects were reported among 32 included trials, there were more adverse events among patients in the control groups. The short-term use of probiotics appears to be safe and effective when used along with antibiotics in patients who are not immunocompromised or severely debilitated. Despite the need for further research, hospitalized patients, particularly those at high risk of CDAD, should be informed of the potential benefits and harms of probiotics.