1.
Effectiveness of Strategies for Nutritional Therapy for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and/or Hypertension in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Simões Corrêa Galendi, J, Leite, RGOF, Banzato, LR, Nunes-Nogueira, VDS
International journal of environmental research and public health. 2022;(7)
Abstract
A central aspect to the management of type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension is promoting a healthy lifestyle, and nutritional therapy (NT) can support patients achieving glycemic control and blood pressure targets. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of NT in the management of patients with T2DM and/or hypertension in primary care. Primary outcomes were HbA1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Thirty-nine studies were included, thirty on T2DM and nine on hypertension. With a moderate quality of evidence, educational/counseling programs and food replacement programs in primary care likely reduce HbA1c on patients with T2DM (mean difference (MD): -0.37, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.17, 7437 patients, 27 studies; MD: -0.54, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.32, 440 patients, 2 studies, respectively). Mediterranean diet for T2DM was accessed by one study, and no difference between the groups was found. Educational and counseling programs likely reduce DBP in patients with hypertension (MD: -1.79, 95% CI: -3.46, -0.12, 2840 patients, 9 studies, moderate quality of the evidence), but the effect in SBP was unclear due to risk of bias and imprecision. Nutritional therapy strategies (i.e., educational/counseling programs and food replacement programs) in primary care improved HbA1c in patients with T2DM and DBP in individuals with hypertension.
2.
Effectiveness of non-pharmacological strategies in the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Leite, RGOF, Banzato, LR, Galendi, JSC, Mendes, AL, Bolfi, F, Veroniki, AA, Thabane, L, Nunes-Nogueira, VDS
BMJ open. 2020;(1):e034481
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Despite the increasing number of drugs and various guidelines on the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), several patients continue with the disease uncontrolled. There are several non-pharmacological treatments available for managing T2DM, but various of them have never been compared directly to determine the best strategies. OBJECTIVE This study will evaluate the comparative effects of non-pharmacological strategies in the management of T2DM in primary care or community settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), and will include randomised controlled trials if one of the following interventions were applied in adult patients with T2DM: nutritional therapy, physical activity, psychological interventions, social interventions, multidisciplinary lifestyle interventions, diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES), technology-enabled DSMES, interventions delivered only either by pharmacists or by nurses, self-blood glucose monitoring in non-insulin-treated T2DM, health coaching, benchmarking and usual care. The primary outcome will be glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (%)), and the secondary outcomes will be weight loss, quality of life, patient satisfaction, frequency of cardiovascular events and deaths, number of patients in each group with HbA1c <7, adverse events and medication adherence. We have developed search strategies for Embase, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Trip database, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Australasian Medical Index and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Four reviewers will assess the studies for their eligibility and their risk of bias in pairs and independently. An NMA will be performed using a Bayesian hierarchical model, and the treatment hierarchy will be obtained using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. To determine our confidence in an overall treatment ranking from the NMA, we will follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION As no primary data collection will be undertaken, no formal ethical assessment is required. We plan to present the results of this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, conferences and the popular press. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42019127856.
3.
Effectiveness of strategies for nutritional therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension in primary care: protocol of a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
Simões Corrêa Galendi, J, Leite, RGOF, Mendes, AL, Nunes-Nogueira, VDS
BMJ open. 2019;(9):e030450
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Despite the increasing number of drugs available and various guidelines on the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension, an expressive number of patients continue with these diseases uncontrolled. Nutrition therapy (NT) plays a fundamental role in the prevention and management of these comorbidities, as well as in the prevention of complications related to them. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of NT strategies in the management of patients with T2DM and/or hypertension in primary care. The selected strategies did not substitute pharmaceutical treatment but instead focused on preventing a sedentary lifestyle and stimulating healthy nutrition. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will perform a systematic review according to Cochrane methodology of randomised controlled trials, wherein patients with T2DM and/or hypertension were allocated into one of the two groups: NT strategy, which may be of dietary quality or energy restriction, and conventional treatment. The primary outcomes will be glycaemic and blood pressure (BP) control, measured by final glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (%) and BP (mm Hg), respectively. Four general and adaptive search strategies have been created for the Embase, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases. Two reviewers will independently select eligible studies, assess the risk of bias and extract data from the included studies. Similar outcomes measured in at least two trials will be plotted in the meta-analysis using Review Manager V.5.3. The quality of evidence of the effect estimate of the intervention will be generated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION As no primary data collection will be undertaken, formal ethical assessment is not required. We plan to present the results of this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, conferences and the popular press. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER Our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 20 December 2018 (Registration number CRD42018118117).
4.
Effectiveness and safety of carbohydrate counting in the management of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Vaz, EC, Porfírio, GJM, Nunes, HRC, Nunes-Nogueira, VDS
Archives of endocrinology and metabolism. 2018;62(3):337-345
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Glycaemic control of patients with diabetes mellitus is important because it impacts the development of diabetic complications. Carbohydrate counting is a meal planning tool that allows for great variation and flexibility in food choices among individuals with diabetes mellitus. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of carbohydrate counting in the treatment of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus using a systematic literature review. The study included randomised controlled trials with at least 3 months of follow-up, and evaluation of outcomes in which patients were randomly divided into two groups. The meta-analysis showed that the final haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) - a test that shows the average blood glucose levels for the last two to three months - was significantly lower in the carbohydrate counting group than in the control group. Authors conclude that the meta-analysis showed evidence favouring the use of carbohydrate counting in the management of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. However, this benefit was limited to the final HbA1c.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of carbohydrate counting (CHOC) in the treatment of adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM1). MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a systematic review of randomized studies that compared CHOC with general dietary advice in adult patients with DM1. The primary outcomes were changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), quality of life, and episodes of severe hypoglycemia. We searched the following electronic databases: Embase, PubMed, Lilacs, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The quality of evidence was analyzed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS A total of 3,190 articles were identified, and two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts. From the 15 potentially eligible studies, five were included, and 10 were excluded because of the lack of randomization or different control/intervention groups. Meta-analysis showed that the final HbA1c was significantly lower in the CHOC group than in the control group (mean difference, random, 95% CI: -0.49 (-0.85, -0.13), p = 0.006). The meta-analysis of severe hypoglycemia and quality of life did not show any significant differences between the groups. According to the GRADE, the quality of evidence for severe hypoglycemia, quality of life, and change in HbA1c was low, very low, and moderate, respectively. CONCLUSION The meta-analysis showed evidence favoring the use of CHOC in the management of DM1. However, this benefit was limited to final HbA1c, which was significantly lower in the CHOC than in the control group.