-
Scientific Reports Jul 2021Periodontal disease has been reported to be associated with diabetes mellitus. However, the direction of the association and the influence of bias are not clear. Thus,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Periodontal disease has been reported to be associated with diabetes mellitus. However, the direction of the association and the influence of bias are not clear. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the existing evidence on the bidirectional prospective association between periodontal disease and diabetes mellitus by accounting for the risk of bias of the original studies. The literature search was conducted on the electronic data sources PubMed and Web of Science up to February 9th, 2021. We included observational studies, which investigated the prospective association between diabetes mellitus and periodontal disease or vice versa. The risk of bias of the primary studies was evaluated by applying the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Random effects models were used to calculate summary relative risk (SRR) with 95% CI. Subgroup analyses were applied to investigate heterogeneity and the robustness of the finding. In total, 15 studies were included . The SRR for incident diabetes mellitus was 1.26 (95% CI 1.12, 1.41; I: 71%, n = 10; participants = 427,620; identified cases = 114,361), when comparing individuals with periodontitis to individuals without periodontitis. The SRR for incident periodontitis was 1.24 (95% CI 1.13, 1.37; I: 92%, n = 7; participants = 295,804; identified cases: > 22,500), comparing individuals with diabetes to individuals without diabetes. There were no significant differences between subgroups after stratification for risk of bias. The findings show a positive bidirectional association between periodontal disease and diabetes mellitus, and thus, underline the need for screening of patients with periodontitis regarding diabetes mellitus and vice versa. The main limitation of the study is the high unexplained heterogeneity between the studies including the different assessment methods of the disease diagnosis.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Diabetes Complications; Diabetes Mellitus; Humans; Periodontal Diseases; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34211029
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93062-6 -
International Journal of Cardiology May 2018Chronic Care Model (CCM) has been developed to improve patients' health care by restructuring health systems in a multidimensional manner. This systematic review aims to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic Care Model (CCM) has been developed to improve patients' health care by restructuring health systems in a multidimensional manner. This systematic review aims to summarize and analyse programs specifically designed and conducted for the fulfilment of multiple CCM components. We have focused on programs targeting diabetes mellitus, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.
METHOD AND RESULTS
This review was based on a comprehensive literature search of articles in the PubMed database that reported clinical outcomes. We included a total of 25 eligible articles. Evidence of improvement in medical outcomes and the compliance of patients with medical treatment were reported in 18 and 14 studies, respectively. Two studies demonstrated a reduction of the medical burden in terms of health service utilization, and another two studies reported the effectiveness of the programs in reducing the risk of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases. However, CCMs were still restricted by limited academic robustness and social constraints when they were implemented in primary care. Higher professional recognition, tighter system collaborations and increased financial support may be necessary to overcome the limitations of, and barriers to CCM implementation.
CONCLUSION
This review has identified the benefits of implementing CCM, and recommended suggestions for the future development of CCM.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Chronic Disease; Diabetes Mellitus; Disease Management; Humans; Hypertension; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 29544944
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.11.057 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... May 2022Thyroid hormones are important regulators of glucose metabolism, and studies investigating the association between thyroid function and type 2 diabetes incidence have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Thyroid hormones are important regulators of glucose metabolism, and studies investigating the association between thyroid function and type 2 diabetes incidence have shown conflicting results.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to combine the evidence from prospective studies addressing the association between thyroid function and type 2 diabetes risk.
METHODS
We systematically searched in Embase, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for prospective studies assessing the association of thyroid function and incident type 2 diabetes. Data extraction was performed using a standardized protocol by 2 independent reviewers. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI using random-effects models.
RESULTS
From the 4574 publications identified, 7 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Six publications were included in the meta-analysis. Studies assessed hypothyroidism (6 studies), hyperthyroidism (5 studies), thyrotropin (TSH) in the reference range (4 studies), and free thyroxine (FT4) in the reference range (3 studies) in relation to incident type 2 diabetes. The pooled HR for the risk of type 2 diabetes was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.05-1.52) for hypothyroidism, 1.16 (95% CI, 0.90-1.49) for hyperthyroidism, 1.06 (95% CI, 0.96-1.17) for TSH in the reference range, and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) for FT4 in the reference range.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests an increased type 2 diabetes risk in people with hypothyroidism and lower FT4 levels in the reference range. Further population-based studies are needed to address this association given the limited evidence.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Hyperthyroidism; Hypothyroidism; Prediabetic State; Prospective Studies; Thyrotropin; Thyroxine
PubMed: 35137143
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgac006 -
Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome 2020Many studies on COVID-19 have reported diabetes to be associated with severe disease and mortality, however, the data is conflicting. The objectives of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many studies on COVID-19 have reported diabetes to be associated with severe disease and mortality, however, the data is conflicting. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to explore the relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 mortality and severity, and to determine the prevalence of diabetes in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed for case-control studies in English, published between Jan 1 and Apr 22, 2020, that had data on diabetes in patients with COVID-19. The frequency of diabetes was compared between patients with and without the composite endpoint of mortality or severity. Random effects model was used with odds ratio as the effect size. We also determined the pooled prevalence of diabetes in patients with COVID-19. Heterogeneity and publication bias were taken care by meta-regression, sub-group analyses, and trim and fill methods.
RESULTS
We included 33 studies (16,003 patients) and found diabetes to be significantly associated with mortality of COVID-19 with a pooled odds ratio of 1.90 (95% CI: 1.37-2.64; p < 0.01). Diabetes was also associated with severe COVID-19 with a pooled odds ratio of 2.75 (95% CI: 2.09-3.62; p < 0.01). The combined corrected pooled odds ratio of mortality or severity was 2.16 (95% CI: 1.74-2.68; p < 0.01). The pooled prevalence of diabetes in patients with COVID-19 was 9.8% (95% CI: 8.7%-10.9%) (after adjusting for heterogeneity).
CONCLUSIONS
Diabetes in patients with COVID-19 is associated with a two-fold increase in mortality as well as severity of COVID-19, as compared to non-diabetics. Further studies on the pathogenic mechanisms and therapeutic implications need to be done.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Case-Control Studies; Coronavirus Infections; Diabetes Mellitus; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; Survival Rate
PubMed: 32408118
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.044 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2022To quantify the risk of overall and type specific cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases as well as venous thromboembolism in women with a history of gestational... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To quantify the risk of overall and type specific cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases as well as venous thromboembolism in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analyses.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 1 November 2021 and updated on 26 May 2022.
REVIEW METHODS
Observational studies reporting the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and incident cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases were eligible. Data, pooled by random effects models, are presented as risk ratios (95% confidence intervals). Certainty of evidence was appraised by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations.
RESULTS
15 studies rated as moderate or serious risk of bias were included. Of 513 324 women with gestational diabetes mellitus, 9507 had cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. Of more than eight million control women without gestational diabetes, 78 895 had cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. Compared with women without gestational diabetes mellitus, women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus showed a 45% increased risk of overall cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases (risk ratio 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.36 to 1.53), 72% for cardiovascular diseases (1.72, 1.40 to 2.11), and 40% for cerebrovascular diseases (1.40, 1.29 to 1.51). Women with gestational diabetes mellitus showed increased risks of incident coronary artery diseases (1.40, 1.18 to 1.65), myocardial infarction (1.74, 1.37 to 2.20), heart failure (1.62, 1.29 to 2.05), angina pectoris (2.27, 1.79 to 2.87), cardiovascular procedures (1.87, 1.34 to 2.62), stroke (1.45, 1.29 to 1.63), and ischaemic stroke (1.49, 1.29 to 1.71). The risk of venous thromboembolism was observed to increase by 28% in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus (1.28, 1.13 to 1.46). Subgroup analyses of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease outcomes stratified by study characteristics and adjustments showed significant differences by region (P=0.078), study design (P=0.02), source of data (P=0.005), and study quality (P=0.04), adjustment for smoking (P=0.03), body mass index (P=0.01), and socioeconomic status (P=0.006), and comorbidities (P=0.05). The risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases was, however, attenuated but remained significant when restricted to women who did not develop subsequent overt diabetes (all gestational diabetes mellitus: 1.45, 1.33 to 1.59, gestational diabetes mellitus without subsequent diabetes: 1.09, 1.06 to 1.13). Certainty of evidence was judged as low or very low quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risks of overall and type specific cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases that cannot be solely attributed to conventional cardiovascular risk factors or subsequent diabetes.
Topics: Brain Ischemia; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Stroke; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 36130740
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070244 -
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy 2017Physical exercise has been used to mitigate the metabolic effects of diabetes mellitus. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Physical exercise has been used to mitigate the metabolic effects of diabetes mellitus.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of resistance exercise when compared to aerobic exercise without insulin therapy on metabolic and clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
METHODS
Papers were searched on the databases MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, and SCIELO, without language or date of publication limits. Clinical trials that compared resistance exercise to aerobic exercise in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who did not use insulin therapy were included. The quality of evidence and risk of bias were assessed using the GRADE system and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, respectively. Meta-analysis was also used, whenever possible. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. Eight eligible articles were included in this study, with a total of 336 individuals, with a mean age of 48-58 years. The protocols of aerobic and resistance exercise varied in duration from eight to 22 weeks, 30-60min/day, three to five times/week.
RESULTS
Overall the available evidence came from a very low quality of evidence and there was an increase in Maximal oxygen consumption (mean difference: -2.86; 95% CI: -3.90 to -1.81; random effect) for the resistance exercise and no difference was found in Glycated hemoglobin, Body mass index, High-density lipoprotein cholesterol, Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total cholesterol.
CONCLUSIONS
Resistance exercise appears to be more effective in promoting an increase in Maximal oxygen consumption in protocols longer than 12 weeks and there is no difference in the control of glycemic and lipid levels between the two types of exercise.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Insulin; Oxygen Consumption; Resistance Training
PubMed: 28728958
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2017.06.004 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2021We performed a meta-analysis of observational studies to evaluate the association between the presence of sarcopenia and HbA1c, prediabetes, diabetes and diabetic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
We performed a meta-analysis of observational studies to evaluate the association between the presence of sarcopenia and HbA1c, prediabetes, diabetes and diabetic complications.
METHOD
The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to May 2021. We included full-text English language articles that reported the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with and without diabetes. Quality assessment was performed according to the Newcastle- Ottawa scale for observational studies.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies showed that high HbA1c levels lead to loss of muscle mass, and one study involving prediabetes showed that people with prediabetes had lower muscle mass, strength, and performance than non-diabetic population. Seven studies showed that people with diabetes had a higher risk of sarcopenia than those without diabetes (combined OR: 2.09, 95% CI:1.62-2.70). The remaining five studies suggested that diabetic complications increased the risk of sarcopenia (combined OR: 2.09,95% CI:1.62-2.70).
CONCLUSION
High HbA1c levels, prediabetes, diabetes and diabetes complications were associated with an increased risk of sarcopenia. Therapeutic strategies addressed to avoid the conversion of IGT to diabetes and to optimize glycemic control are warranted to prevent or arrest sarcopenia in the diabetic population.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Risk Factors; Sarcopenia
PubMed: 35002965
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.782391 -
Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism May 2021To conduct a systematic literature review to identify recent epidemiological, biomarker, genetic and clinical evidence that expands our understanding of nonalcoholic... (Review)
Review
AIMS
To conduct a systematic literature review to identify recent epidemiological, biomarker, genetic and clinical evidence that expands our understanding of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) as a metabolic disorder.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a literature search using PubMed to identify trials, observational studies and meta-analyses published in the past 5 years.
RESULTS
A total of 95 publications met prespecified inclusion criteria and reported on the interplay between NAFLD/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and metabolic dysfunction, in terms of disease burden and/or epidemiology (n = 10), pathophysiology, risk factors and associated conditions (n = 29), diagnosis and biomarkers (n = 34), and treatment approaches (n = 22). There is a growing body of evidence on the links between NAFLD/NASH pathogenesis and mechanisms of metabolic dysfunction, through liver lipid accumulation, insulin resistance, inflammation, apoptosis, and fibrogenic remodelling within the liver. The frequent co-occurrence of NAFLD with obesity, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes supports this premise. Therapeutic approaches originally envisaged for type 2 diabetes or obesity (such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, insulin sensitizers and bariatric surgery) have shown promising signs of benefit for patients with NAFLD/NASH.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the complex interplay between NAFLD and metabolic dysfunction, there is an urgent need for multidisciplinary collaboration and established protocols for care of patients with NAFLD that are individualized and ideally support reduction of overall metabolic risk as well as treatment for NASH.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Insulin Resistance; Liver; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors
PubMed: 33464677
DOI: 10.1111/dom.14322 -
Brain and Behavior Feb 2021To provide an estimate of the effect of interventions on comorbid depressive disorder (MDD) or subthreshold depression in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To provide an estimate of the effect of interventions on comorbid depressive disorder (MDD) or subthreshold depression in type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials evaluating the outcome of depression treatments in diabetes and comorbid MDD or subthreshold symptoms published before August 2019 compared to care as usual (CAU), placebo, waiting list (WL), or active comparator treatment as in a comparative effectiveness trial (CET). Primary outcomes were depressive symptom severity and glycemic control. Cohen's d is reported.
RESULTS
Forty-three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected, and 32 RCTs comprising 3,543 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that, compared to CAU, placebo or WL, all interventions showed a significant effect on combined outcome 0,485 (95% CI 0.360; 0.609). All interventions showed a significant effect on depression. Pharmacological treatment, group therapy, psychotherapy, and collaborative care had a significant effect on glycemic control. High baseline depression score was associated with a greater reduction in HbA c and depressive outcome. High baseline HbA c was associated with a greater reduction in HbA c.
CONCLUSION
All treatments are effective for comorbid depression in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Over the last decade, new interventions with large effect sizes have been introduced, such as group-based therapy, online treatment, and exercise. Although all interventions were effective for depression, not all treatments were effective for glycemic control. Effective interventions in comorbid depressive disorder may not be as effective in comorbid subthreshold depression. Baseline depression and HbA c scores modify the treatment effect. Based on the findings, we provide guidance for treatment depending on patient profile and desired outcome, and discuss possible avenues for further research.
Topics: Depression; Depressive Disorder; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Humans; Psychotherapy; Psychotherapy, Group; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33274609
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1981 -
Nutrition, Metabolism, and... Nov 2018The strength of the association between diabetes and risk of heart failure has differed between previous studies and the available studies have not been summarized in a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIM
The strength of the association between diabetes and risk of heart failure has differed between previous studies and the available studies have not been summarized in a meta-analysis. We therefore quantified the association between diabetes and blood glucose and heart failure in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS AND RESULTS
PubMed and Embase databases were searched up to May 3rd 2018. Prospective studies on diabetes mellitus or blood glucose and heart failure risk were included. A random effects model was used to calculate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Seventy seven studies were included. Among the population-based prospective studies, the summary RR for individuals with diabetes vs. no diabetes was 2.06 (95% CIs: 1.73-2.46, I = 99.8%, n = 30 studies, 401495 cases, 21416780 participants). The summary RR was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.15-1.32, I = 78.2%, n = 10, 5344 cases, 91758 participants) per 20 mg/dl increase in blood glucose and there was evidence of a J-shaped association with nadir around 90 mg/dl and increased risk even within the pre-diabetic blood glucose range. Among the patient-based studies the summary RR was 1.69 (95% CI: 1.57-1.81, I = 85.5%, p<0.0001) for diabetes vs. no diabetes (n = 41, 100284 cases and >613925 participants) and 1.25 (95% CI: 0.89-1.75, I = 95.6%, p<0.0001) per 20 mg/dl increase in blood glucose (1016 cases, 34309 participants, n = 2). In the analyses of diabetes and heart failure there was low or no heterogeneity among the population-based studies that adjusted for alcohol intake and physical activity and among the patient-based studies there was no heterogeneity among studies with ≥10 years follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that individuals with diabetes are at an increased risk of developing heart failure and there is evidence of increased risk even within the pre-diabetic range of blood glucose.
Topics: Biomarkers; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus; Heart Failure; Humans; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30318112
DOI: 10.1016/j.numecd.2018.07.005