-
Frontiers in Immunology 2019Inflammasomes play a crucial role in innate immunity by serving as signaling platforms which deal with a plethora of pathogenic products and cellular products associated... (Review)
Review
Inflammasomes play a crucial role in innate immunity by serving as signaling platforms which deal with a plethora of pathogenic products and cellular products associated with stress and damage. By far, the best studied and most characterized inflammasome is NLRP3 inflammasome, which consists of NLRP3 (nucleotide-binding domain leucine-rich repeat (NLR) and pyrin domain containing receptor 3), ASC (apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain), and procaspase-1. Activation of NLRP3 inflammasome is mediated by highly diverse stimuli. Upon activation, NLRP3 protein recruits the adapter ASC protein, which recruits the procaspase-1 resulting in its cleavage and activation, inducing the maturation, and secretion of inflammatory cytokines and pyroptosis. However, aberrant activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome is implicated in various diseases including diabetes, atherosclerosis, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular, and neurodegenerative diseases; raising a tremendous clinical interest in exploring the potential inhibitors of NLRP3 inflammasome. Recent investigations have disclosed various inhibitors of the NLRP3 inflammasome pathway which were validated through studies and experiments in animal models of NLRP3-associated disorders. Some of these inhibitors directly target the NLRP3 protein whereas some are aimed at other components and products of the inflammasome. Direct targeting of NLRP3 protein can be a better choice because it can prevent off target immunosuppressive effects, thus restrain tissue destruction. This paper will review the various pharmacological inhibitors of the NLRP3 inflammasome and will also discuss their mechanism of action.
Topics: Animals; Dipeptides; Glyburide; Humans; Inflammasomes; NLR Family, Pyrin Domain-Containing 3 Protein; Nitriles; Sulfones; ortho-Aminobenzoates; para-Aminobenzoates
PubMed: 31749805
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02538 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Sep 2022Data are lacking on the comparative effectiveness of commonly used glucose-lowering medications, when added to metformin, with respect to microvascular and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Data are lacking on the comparative effectiveness of commonly used glucose-lowering medications, when added to metformin, with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease outcomes in persons with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS
We assessed the comparative effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications, added to metformin, in achieving and maintaining a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% in participants with type 2 diabetes. The randomly assigned therapies were insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin. Prespecified secondary outcomes with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease included hypertension and dyslipidemia, confirmed moderately or severely increased albuminuria or an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m of body-surface area, diabetic peripheral neuropathy assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], hospitalization for heart failure, or an aggregate outcome of any cardiovascular event), and death. Hazard ratios are presented with 95% confidence limits that are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS
During a mean 5.0 years of follow-up in 5047 participants, there were no material differences among the interventions with respect to the development of hypertension or dyslipidemia or with respect to microvascular outcomes; the mean overall rate (i.e., events per 100 participant-years) of moderately increased albuminuria levels was 2.6, of severely increased albuminuria levels 1.1, of renal impairment 2.9, and of diabetic peripheral neuropathy 16.7. The treatment groups did not differ with respect to MACE (overall rate, 1.0), hospitalization for heart failure (0.4), death from cardiovascular causes (0.3), or all deaths (0.6). There were small differences with respect to rates of any cardiovascular disease, with 1.9, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.0 in the glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin groups, respectively. When one treatment was compared with the combined results of the other three treatments, the hazard ratios for any cardiovascular disease were 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.3) in the glargine group, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4) in the glimepiride group, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) in the liraglutide group, and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) in the sitagliptin group.
CONCLUSIONS
In participants with type 2 diabetes, the incidences of microvascular complications and death were not materially different among the four treatment groups. The findings indicated possible differences among the groups in the incidence of any cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).
Topics: Albuminuria; Blood Glucose; Cardiovascular Diseases; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Diabetes Complications; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Neuropathies; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyslipidemias; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Glycated Hemoglobin; Heart Failure; Humans; Hypertension; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin Glargine; Liraglutide; Metformin; Microvessels; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Sulfonylurea Compounds
PubMed: 36129997
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2200436 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Sep 2022The comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering medications for use with metformin to maintain target glycated hemoglobin levels in persons with type 2 diabetes is... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering medications for use with metformin to maintain target glycated hemoglobin levels in persons with type 2 diabetes is uncertain.
METHODS
In this trial involving participants with type 2 diabetes of less than 10 years' duration who were receiving metformin and had glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.8 to 8.5%, we compared the effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications. We randomly assigned participants to receive insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), the sulfonylurea glimepiride, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, or sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary metabolic outcome was a glycated hemoglobin level, measured quarterly, of 7.0% or higher that was subsequently confirmed, and the secondary metabolic outcome was a confirmed glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5%.
RESULTS
A total of 5047 participants (19.8% Black and 18.6% Hispanic or Latinx) who had received metformin for type 2 diabetes were followed for a mean of 5.0 years. The cumulative incidence of a glycated hemoglobin level of 7.0% or higher (the primary metabolic outcome) differed significantly among the four groups (P<0.001 for a global test of differences across groups); the rates with glargine (26.5 per 100 participant-years) and liraglutide (26.1) were similar and lower than those with glimepiride (30.4) and sitagliptin (38.1). The differences among the groups with respect to a glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5% (the secondary outcome) paralleled those of the primary outcome. There were no material differences with respect to the primary outcome across prespecified subgroups defined according to sex, age, or race or ethnic group; however, among participants with higher baseline glycated hemoglobin levels there appeared to be an even greater benefit with glargine, liraglutide, and glimepiride than with sitagliptin. Severe hypoglycemia was rare but significantly more frequent with glimepiride (in 2.2% of the participants) than with glargine (1.3%), liraglutide (1.0%), or sitagliptin (0.7%). Participants who received liraglutide reported more frequent gastrointestinal side effects and lost more weight than those in the other treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS
All four medications, when added to metformin, decreased glycated hemoglobin levels. However, glargine and liraglutide were significantly, albeit modestly, more effective in achieving and maintaining target glycated hemoglobin levels. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).
Topics: Blood Glucose; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin Glargine; Liraglutide; Metformin; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Sulfonylurea Compounds; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36129996
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2200433 -
The Journal of Clinical Investigation Feb 2021Monogenic diabetes refers to diabetes mellitus (DM) caused by a mutation in a single gene and accounts for approximately 1%-5% of diabetes. Correct diagnosis is... (Review)
Review
Monogenic diabetes refers to diabetes mellitus (DM) caused by a mutation in a single gene and accounts for approximately 1%-5% of diabetes. Correct diagnosis is clinically critical for certain types of monogenic diabetes, since the appropriate treatment is determined by the etiology of the disease (e.g., oral sulfonylurea treatment of HNF1A/HNF4A-diabetes vs. insulin injections in type 1 diabetes). However, achieving a correct diagnosis requires genetic testing, and the overlapping of the clinical features of monogenic diabetes with those of type 1 and type 2 diabetes has frequently led to misdiagnosis. Improvements in sequencing technology are increasing opportunities to diagnose monogenic diabetes, but challenges remain. In this Review, we describe the types of monogenic diabetes, including common and uncommon types of maturity-onset diabetes of the young, multiple causes of neonatal DM, and syndromic diabetes such as Wolfram syndrome and lipodystrophy. We also review methods of prioritizing patients undergoing genetic testing, and highlight existing challenges facing sequence data interpretation that can be addressed by forming collaborations of expertise and by pooling cases.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus; Genetic Diseases, Inborn; Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor 1-alpha; Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor 4; Humans; Mutation; Precision Medicine; Sulfonylurea Compounds
PubMed: 33529164
DOI: 10.1172/JCI142244 -
Diabetes Oct 2020A substantial proportion of patients with adult-onset diabetes share features of both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). These individuals, at diagnosis,...
A substantial proportion of patients with adult-onset diabetes share features of both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). These individuals, at diagnosis, clinically resemble T2D patients by not requiring insulin treatment, yet they have immunogenetic markers associated with T1D. Such a slowly evolving form of autoimmune diabetes, described as latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA), accounts for 2-12% of all patients with adult-onset diabetes, though they show considerable variability according to their demographics and mode of ascertainment. While therapeutic strategies aim for metabolic control and preservation of residual insulin secretory capacity, endotype heterogeneity within LADA implies a personalized approach to treatment. Faced with a paucity of large-scale clinical trials in LADA, an expert panel reviewed data and delineated one therapeutic approach. Building on the 2020 American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) consensus for T2D and heterogeneity within autoimmune diabetes, we propose "deviations" for LADA from those guidelines. Within LADA, C-peptide values, proxy for β-cell function, drive therapeutic decisions. Three broad categories of random C-peptide levels were introduced by the panel: ) C-peptide levels <0.3 nmol/L: a multiple-insulin regimen recommended as for T1D; ) C-peptide values ≥0.3 and ≤0.7 nmol/L: defined by the panel as a "gray area" in which a modified ADA/EASD algorithm for T2D is recommended; consider insulin in combination with other therapies to modulate β-cell failure and limit diabetic complications; ) C-peptide values >0.7 nmol/L: suggests a modified ADA/EASD algorithm as for T2D but allowing for the potentially progressive nature of LADA by monitoring C-peptide to adjust treatment. The panel concluded by advising general screening for LADA in newly diagnosed non-insulin-requiring diabetes and, importantly, that large randomized clinical trials are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Algorithms; Autoantibodies; C-Peptide; Consensus Development Conferences as Topic; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Glutamate Decarboxylase; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; International Cooperation; Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults; Male; Middle Aged; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Sulfonylurea Compounds
PubMed: 32847960
DOI: 10.2337/dbi20-0017 -
European Journal of Epidemiology Jul 2023Despite increasing therapeutic options to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA), many patients fail to reach treatment targets. The use of antidiabetic drugs like... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Despite increasing therapeutic options to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA), many patients fail to reach treatment targets. The use of antidiabetic drugs like thiazolidinediones has been associated with lower RA risk. We aimed to explore the repurposing potential of antidiabetic drugs in RA prevention by assessing associations between genetic variation in antidiabetic drug target genes and RA using Mendelian randomization (MR). A two-sample MR design was used to estimate the association between the antidiabetic drug and RA risk using summary statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We selected independent genetic variants from the gene(s) that encode the target protein(s) of the investigated antidiabetic drug as instruments. We extracted the associations of instruments with blood glucose concentration and RA from the UK Biobank and a GWAS meta-analysis of clinically diagnosed RA, respectively. The effect of genetic variation in the drug target(s) on RA risk was estimated by the Wald ratio test or inverse-variance weighted method. Insulin and its analogues, thiazolidinediones, and sulfonylureas had valid genetic instruments (n = 1, 1, and 2, respectively). Genetic variation in thiazolidinedione target (gene: PPARG) was inversely associated with RA risk (odds ratio [OR] 0.38 per 0.1mmol/L glucose lowering, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.73). Corresponding ORs (95%CIs) were 0.83 (0.44-1.55) for genetic variation in the targets of insulin and its analogues (gene: INSR), and 1.12 (0.83, 1.49) 1.25 (0.78-2.00) for genetic variation in the sulfonylurea targets (gene: ABCC8 and KCNJ11). In conclusion, genetic variation in the thiazolidinedione target is associated with a lower RA risk. The underlying mechanisms warrant further exploration.
Topics: Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Genome-Wide Association Study; Mendelian Randomization Analysis; Drug Repositioning; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Thiazolidinediones; Insulin; Sulfonylurea Compounds
PubMed: 37052755
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-023-01000-9 -
Diabetes Care Sep 2022Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a liver phenotype of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Currently, the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2)... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparison of Tofogliflozin and Glimepiride Effects on Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized, 48-Week, Open-Label, Active-Controlled Trial.
OBJECTIVE
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a liver phenotype of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Currently, the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and sulfonylureas in liver pathology and hepatic gene expression profiles for type 2 diabetes with NAFLD are unknown.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
We conducted a 48 week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial involving participants with biopsy-confirmed NAFLD. A total of 40 participants were randomly assigned to receive once daily 20 mg tofogliflozin or 0.5 mg glimepiride. The primary outcome was the percentage of participants with at least an improvement in all individual scores for histological categories of steatosis, hepatocellular ballooning, lobular inflammation, and fibrosis by at least 1 point. The secondary end points were the changes in liver enzymes, metabolic markers, and hepatic gene expression profiles.
RESULTS
Fibrosis scores improved in the tofogliflozin group (60%, P = 0.001), whereas the change from baseline did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.172). The histological variables of steatosis (65%, P = 0.001), hepatocellular ballooning (55%, P = 0.002), and lobular inflammation (50%, P = 0.003) were improved in the tofogliflozin group, whereas only hepatocellular ballooning was improved in the glimepiride group (25%, P = 0.025). Hepatic gene expression profiling revealed histology-associated signatures in energy metabolism, inflammation, and fibrosis that were reversed with tofogliflozin.
CONCLUSIONS
Tofogliflozin and, to a lesser degree, glimepiride led to liver histological and metabolic improvement in participants with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, with no significant difference between the agents. The hepatic expression of the genes involved in energy metabolism, inflammation, and fibrosis was well correlated with liver histological changes and rescued by tofogliflozin. We need further confirmation through long-term larger-scale clinical trials of SGLT2 inhibitors.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Fibrosis; Glucosides; Humans; Inflammation; Liver; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Sulfonylurea Compounds
PubMed: 35894933
DOI: 10.2337/dc21-2049 -
Journal of Diabetes Research 2019To compare the efficacy and safety of metformin, glyburide, and insulin in treating gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To compare the efficacy and safety of metformin, glyburide, and insulin in treating gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to November 13, 2018, were searched for RCT adjusted estimates of the efficacy and safety of metformin, glyburide, and insulin treatments in GDM patients. There were 41 studies involving 7703 GDM patients which were included in this meta-analysis; 12 primary outcomes and 24 secondary outcomes were detected and analyzed. Compared with metformin, insulin had a significant increase in the risk of preeclampsia (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.72; < 0.001), NICU admission (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.87; < 0.001), neonatal hypoglycemia (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.66; < 0.001), and macrosomia (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.86; < 0.05). To the outcomes of birth weight and gestational age at delivery, insulin had a significant increase when compared with metformin (MD, 114.48; 95% CI, 37.32 to 191.64; < 0.01; MD, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.34; < 0.001; respectively). Of the two groups between glyburide and metformin, metformin had lower gestational weight gain compared with glyburide (MD, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.26 to 3.07; < 0.05). Glyburide had a higher risk of neonatal hypoglycemia compared with insulin (RR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.36; < 0.001). This meta-analysis found that metformin could be a safe and effective treatment for GDM. However, clinicians should pay attention on the long-term offspring outcomes of the relative data with GDM patients treated with metformin. Compared with insulin, glyburide had a higher increase of neonatal hypoglycemia. The use of glyburide in pregnancy for GDM women appears to be unclear.
Topics: Adult; Biomarkers; Blood Glucose; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Glyburide; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Metformin; Patient Safety; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 31781670
DOI: 10.1155/2019/9804708 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020Worldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Worldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM. Despite this, the effects of metformin on patient-important outcomes are still not clarified.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of metformin monotherapy in adults with T2DM.
SEARCH METHODS
We based our search on a systematic report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and topped-up the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews, as well as health technology assessment reports and medical agencies. The date of the last search for all databases was 2 December 2019, except Embase (searched up 28 April 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year's duration comparing metformin monotherapy with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with T2DM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles/records, assessed risk of bias, and extracted outcome data independently. We resolved discrepancies by involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs with multiple study arms (N = 10,680). The percentage of participants finishing the trials was approximately 58% in all groups. Treatment duration ranged from one to 10.7 years. We judged no trials to be at low risk of bias on all 'Risk of bias' domains. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), non-fatal myocardial infarction (NFMI), non-fatal stroke (NFS), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Two trials compared metformin (N = 370) with insulin (N = 454). Neither trial reported on all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI, NFS or ESRD. One trial provided information on HRQoL but did not show a substantial difference between the interventions. Seven trials compared metformin with sulphonylureas. Four trials reported on all-cause mortality: in three trials no participant died, and in the remaining trial 31/1454 participants (2.1%) in the metformin group died compared with 31/1441 participants (2.2%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on SAE: in two trials no SAE occurred (186 participants); in the other trial 331/1454 participants (22.8%) in the metformin group experienced a SAE compared with 308/1441 participants (21.4%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on CVM: in one trial no CVM was observed and in the other trial 4/1441 participants (0.3%) in the metformin group died of cardiovascular reasons compared with 8/1447 participants (0.6%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred, and in the other trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 15/1441 participants (1.0%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). One trial reported no NFS occurred (very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Seven trials compared metformin with thiazolidinediones (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Five trials reported on all-cause mortality: in two trials no participant died; the overall RR was 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P = 0.57; 5 trials; 4402 participants). Four trials reported on SAE, the RR was 0,95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09; P = 0.49; 3208 participants. Four trials reported on CVM, the RR was 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.39; P = 0.58; 3211 participants. Three trial reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred and in one trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 25/1456 participants (1.7%) in the thiazolidinedione group. One trial reported no NFS occurred. No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Three trials compared metformin with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (one trial each with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin with altogether 1977 participants). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI and NFS (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). One trial compared metformin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue (very low-certainty evidence for all reported outcomes). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, CVM, NFMI and NFS. One or more SAEs were reported in 16/268 (6.0%) of the participants allocated to metformin compared with 35/539 (6.5%) of the participants allocated to a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue. HRQoL or ESRD were not reported. One trial compared metformin with meglitinide and two trials compared metformin with no intervention. No deaths or SAEs occurred (very low-certainty evidence) no other patient-important outcomes were reported. No trial compared metformin with placebo or a behaviour changing interventions. Four ongoing trials with 5824 participants are likely to report one or more of our outcomes of interest and are estimated to be completed between 2018 and 2024. Furthermore, 24 trials with 2369 participants are awaiting assessment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no clear evidence whether metformin monotherapy compared with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs influences patient-important outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Carbamates; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Metformin; Myocardial Infarction; Piperidines; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Sulfonylurea Compounds
PubMed: 32501595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012906.pub2 -
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2020Low-carbohydrate diets are increasingly used to help patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. We sought to provide an overview of the evidence for this treatment... (Review)
Review
Low-carbohydrate diets are increasingly used to help patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. We sought to provide an overview of the evidence for this treatment approach, considering the epidemiology and pathophysiology of obesity and diabetes in terms of carbohydrate excess. We describe the mechanistic basis for the clinical benefits associated with nutritional ketosis and identify areas of practice where the evidence base could be improved. We summarize the key principles which inform our approach to treating patients with low-carbohydrate diets. The scientific controversy relating to these diets is real but is consistent with the known challenges of any dietary interventions and also the limitations of nutritional epidemiology. Secondly, notwithstanding any controversy, international guidelines now recognize the validity and endorse the use of these diets as a therapeutic nutritional approach, in appropriate patients. Thirdly, we have found that early de-prescription of diabetes medications is essential, in particular insulin, sulphonylureas, and sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT2) inhibitors. Fourthly, we encourage patients to eat ad libitum to satiety, rather than calorie counting per se. Furthermore, we monitor cardiovascular risk factors frequently, as with all patients with obesity or diabetes, but we do not necessarily consider an increase in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol as an absolute indication to stop these diets, as this is usually related to large LDL particles, which are not associated with increased cardiovascular risk. In the absence of large randomized controlled trials with cardiovascular and other hard endpoints, adopting a low-carbohydrate diet is a legitimate and potentially effective treatment option for patients with diabetes or obesity.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Cholesterol, LDL; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted; Dietary Carbohydrates; Humans; Obesity; Sulfonylurea Compounds
PubMed: 32276484
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17072557