-
BMC Geriatrics Feb 2024To identify risk factors for falls in older adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To identify risk factors for falls in older adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
The eligible studies identified factors associated with the risk of falls in older adults with T2DM. We searched PubMed, Cinahl, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases. The review has been updated and the last review date was November 30, 2023 (CRD42020193461).
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, and eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. These studies included a total of 40,778 older adults with T2DM, aged 60 to 101 years. The risk of developing the outcome falls in older adults with T2DM is 63% higher compared to the risk in older adults without T2DM (HR 1.63; 95% CI [1.30 - 2.05]). The overall chance of falling in older adults with T2DM is 59% higher than that of non-diabetic older adults (OR 1.59; 95% CI [1.36 -1.87]), and in older adults with T2DM who take insulin the chance of falling is 162% higher (OR 2.62; 95% CI [1.87 - 3.65]). No results on diabetic polyneuropathy were found in the studies.
CONCLUSION
Older adults with T2DM present a higher risk of falls compared to non-diabetics. Among the included older adults with T2DM, the most important factor associated with a higher risk of falls was insulin use.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020193461).
Topics: Humans; Aged; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Accidental Falls; Risk Factors; Insulin
PubMed: 38413865
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-024-04668-0 -
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics Mar 2024Pivotal trials of automated insulin delivery (AID) closed-loop systems have demonstrated a consistent picture of glycemic benefit, supporting approval of multiple...
Pivotal trials of automated insulin delivery (AID) closed-loop systems have demonstrated a consistent picture of glycemic benefit, supporting approval of multiple systems by the Food and Drug Administration or Conformité Européenne mark receipt. To assess how pivotal trial findings translate to commercial AID use, a systematic review of retrospective real-world studies was conducted. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles published after 2018 with more than five nonpregnant individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Data were screened/extracted in duplicate for sample size, AID system, glycemic outcomes, and time in automation. Of 80 studies identified, 20 met inclusion criteria representing 171,209 individuals. Time in target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was the primary outcome in 65% of studies, with the majority of reports (71%) demonstrating a >10% change with AID use. Change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was reported in nine studies (range 0.1%-0.9%), whereas four reported changes in glucose management indicator (GMI) with a 0.1%-0.4% reduction noted. A decrease in HbA1c or GMI of >0.2% was achieved in two-thirds of the studies describing change in HbA1c and 80% of articles where GMI was described. Time below range <70 mg/dL (<3.9 mmol/L) was reported in 16 studies, with all but 1 study showing stable or reduced levels. Most systems had >90% time in automation. With larger and more diverse populations, and follow-up periods of longer duration (∼9 months vs. 3-6 months for pivotal trials), real-world retrospective analyses confirm pivotal trial findings. Given the glycemic benefits demonstrated, AID is rapidly becoming the standard of care for all people living with T1D. Individuals should be informed of these systems and differences between them, have access to and coverage for these technologies, and receive support as they integrate this mode of insulin delivery into their lives.
Topics: Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Glycated Hemoglobin; Retrospective Studies; Insulin; Insulin, Regular, Human; Insulin Infusion Systems; Blood Glucose
PubMed: 38377315
DOI: 10.1089/dia.2023.0442 -
Revista Paulista de Pediatria : Orgao... 2024To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, evaluating the effect of probiotics, prebiotics or symbiotics supplementation on glycemic and...
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, evaluating the effect of probiotics, prebiotics or symbiotics supplementation on glycemic and inflammatory control in children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM).
DATA SOURCE
The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE/PubMed), Clinical Trials, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) databases were searched. Randomized clinical trials of pediatric patients with DM1 using probiotics, prebiotics or symbiotics were included, regardless of year or language of publication. Studies that did not evaluate glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were excluded. Metabolic results (HbA1c, total insulin dose and C-peptide) and inflammatory control [interleukin-10 (IL-10), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interferon-gamma (IFN-γ)] during probiotic supplementation or similar, related to modification of the intestinal microbiota, were analyzed. PROSPERO ID: CRD42022384485.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Five studies were selected for a systematic review. Regarding metabolic markers, only one of the articles that analyzed HbA1c showed a significant decrease (p=0.03) in the intervention group. One study identified a reduction in the total dose of insulin and increased C-peptide levels. Regarding the evaluation of inflammatory parameters (IL-10, TNF-α, INF-γ), there were no statistical relevant modifications.
CONCLUSIONS
Current data from the literature were not conclusive in identifying an improvement in glycemic control and did not observe changes in inflammatory parameters with the use of probiotics, prebiotics or symbiotics in pediatric patients with T1DM.
Topics: Humans; Child; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Interleukin-10; Glycated Hemoglobin; C-Peptide; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Probiotics; Insulin
PubMed: 38359319
DOI: 10.1590/1984-0462/2024/42/2023097 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2024To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new hypoglycemic drug, tirzepatide, for treating obesity based on indicators such as BMI, waist circumference,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new hypoglycemic drug, tirzepatide, for treating obesity based on indicators such as BMI, waist circumference, and body weight.
METHODS
A search formula was written using search terms such as "tirzepatide," "overweight," and "obesity." A comprehensive search was conducted on databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science using a computer. Random controlled trial (RCT) literature was selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. After extracting the data, literature bias risk assessment and meta-analysis were conducted using RevMan 5.4 software. The search deadline is from the establishment of each database to May 2023.
RESULTS
A total of 12 randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 11,758 patients. Meta analysis results showed that compared with the glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RAs), placebo and insulin groups, tirzepatide could significantly reduce the BMI (body mass index) of patients [MD = -1.71, 95% CI (-2.46, -0.95), < 0.00001], [MD = -3.99, 95% CI (-3.69, -2.45), < 0.00001], [MD = -4.02, 95% CI (-4.72, -3.31), < 00.00001]. In terms of decreasing waist circumference, tirzepatide has a more significant advantage [MD = -4.08, 95% CI (-5.77, -2.39), < 0.00001], [MD = -7.71, 95% CI (-10.17, -5.25), < 0.00001], [MD = -9.15, 95% CI (-10.02, -8.29), < 0.00001]. In the analysis of body weight, tirzepatide showed a more significant reduction effect compared to the control group [MD = -5.65, 95% CI (-7.47, -3.82), < 0.001], [MD = -10.06, 95% CI (-12.86, -7.25), < 0.001], [MD = -10.63, 95% CI (-12.42, -8.84), < 0.001]. In comparison with placebo, tirzepatide had a prominent advantage in weight loss ≥20% and ≥25% [RR = 30.43, 95% CI (19.56, 47.33), < 0.00001], [RR = 37.25, 95% CI (26.03, 53.30), < 0.00001]. Subgroup analysis showed a dose-dependent therapeutic effect. In terms of safety, compared with the placebo and insulin groups, the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse reactions was markedly higher in the tirzepatide group, slightly higher to the GLP-1 RAs group. The hypoglycemic (<70 mg/dL) risk of tirzepatide was slightly higher to that of placebo and GLP-1 RAs, but significantly lower than that of the insulin group [RR = 0.46, 95% CI (0.36, 0.58), < 0.001]. The incidence of other adverse events, including pancreatitis, cholecystitis, major adverse cardiovascular events-4, hypersensitivity reactions, and neoplasms did not show significant statistical differences compared to the control group ( > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Tirzepatide, as a weight loss drug, significantly reduces BMI, waist circumference and body weight while gastrointestinal adverse reactions need to be vigilant. Overall, its efficacy is significant and its safety is high.
Topics: Humans; Body Weight; Gastric Inhibitory Polypeptide; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glucagon-Like Peptide-2 Receptor; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulins; Obesity; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38356942
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1277113 -
Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences Feb 2024Some studies have evaluated the manipulation of the sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling pathway to generate more efficient insulin-producing cells (IPCs). In a systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Some studies have evaluated the manipulation of the sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling pathway to generate more efficient insulin-producing cells (IPCs). In a systematic review, we evaluated and studies on the effect of inhibition or activation of the Shh pathway on the production, differentiation, maintenance, and endocrine activity of IPCs.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using all available experimental studies published between January 2000 and November 2022. The review aimed at determining the effect of Shh manipulation on the differentiation of stem cells (SCs) into IPCs. Keywords and phrases using medical subject headings were extracted, and a complete search was performed in Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. The inclusion criteria were manipulation of Shh in SCs, SCs differentiation into IPCs, and endocrine activity of mature IPCs. Articles with incomplete data and duplications were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 208 articles were initially identified, out of which 11 articles were included in the study. The effect of Shh inhibition in the definitive endoderm stage to produce functional IPCs were confirmed. Some studies showed the importance of Shh re-activation at late-stage differentiation for the generation of efficient IPCs. It is proposed that baseline concentrations of Shh in mature pancreatic β-cells affect insulin secretion and endocrine activities of the cells. However, Shh overexpression in pancreatic β-cells ultimately leads to improper endocrine function and inadequate glucose-sensing insulin secretion.
CONCLUSION
Accurate manipulation of the Shh signaling pathway can be an effective approach in the production and maintenance of functional IPCs.
Topics: Hedgehog Proteins; Insulin; Cell Differentiation; Signal Transduction; Insulin-Secreting Cells
PubMed: 38356490
DOI: 10.30476/ijms.2023.95425.2678 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Ultra-long-acting insulin analogs [insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine 300 units/mL (IGla-300)] offer a longer duration of action with less risk of hypoglycemia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ultra-long-acting insulin analogs [insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine 300 units/mL (IGla-300)] offer a longer duration of action with less risk of hypoglycemia compared to other long-acting insulins. However, data about the comparative efficacy and safety are inconsistent.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 October 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of IDeg (100 or 200 units/mL) and IGla-300 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were included. Three review authors independently selected trials, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data, and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and any hypoglycemia; the secondary outcomes were the change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and severe and nocturnal hypoglycemia.
RESULTS
Four open-label RCTs were included (2727 participants), 3 parallel and 1 cross-over. Overall, the risk of bias assessment yielded some concern or high risk. There was a comparable change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of treatment, a mean difference of 0.07% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 - 0.19; p = 0.29; 3 trials; 2652 patients; very low-certainty evidence), and a comparable rate of any hypoglycemia, rate ratio 1.02 (95% CI 0.8 - 1.3; p = 0.87; 3 trials; 2881 patients; very low-certainty evidence). IDeg resulted in more reduction in FPG compared to IGla-300, mean difference of 10.27 mg/dL (95% CI 7.25 - 13.29; p < 0.001; 3 trials; 2668 patients; low-certainty evidence). Similar rates of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia were observed, rate ratio of 1.13 (95% CI 0.72 - 1.78; p = 0.54; 3 trials; 2668 patients; very low-certainty evidence) and 1.4 (95% CI 0.41 - 4.73; p = 0.59; 2 trials; 1952 patients; very low-certainty evidence), respectively.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence of a difference between IDeg and IGla-300 in the mean change in HbA1c and the risk of anytime, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemia. IDeg appeared to cause a higher reduction in FPG compared to IGla-300. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of trials included and their high risk of bias.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022364891, identifier CRD42022364891.
Topics: Humans; Insulin Glargine; Hypoglycemic Agents; Glycated Hemoglobin; Insulin, Long-Acting; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hypoglycemia
PubMed: 38313835
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1285147 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jan 2024Delivering contraceptive hormones through a transdermal patch or a vaginal ring might have advantages over the traditional oral route. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Delivering contraceptive hormones through a transdermal patch or a vaginal ring might have advantages over the traditional oral route.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness, compliance, and side effect profile of oral and parenteral drug administration methods.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search in four medical databases-MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Embase, and Scopus-from inception to 20 November 2022. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy, compliance, and adverse event profile of combined parenteral and oral hormonal contraceptives were included.
RESULTS
Our systematic search provided 3952 records; after duplicate removal, we screened 2707 duplicate-free records. A total of 13 eligible studies were identified after title, abstract, and full-text selection. We observed no significant difference in contraceptive efficacy (Pearl Index) between oral and parenteral drug administration (MD = -0.06, CI: -0.66-0.53; I = 0%). We found significant subgroup differences between parenteral methods in terms of compliance (χ = 4.32, =0.038, I = 80%) and certain adverse events: breast discomfort (χ = 19.04, =0.001, I = 80%), nausea (χ = 8.04, =0.005, I = 75%), and vomiting (χ = 9.30, =0.002; I = 72%).
CONCLUSION
Both parenteral and oral contraceptives can be used as an effective contraceptive method, and the route of administration should be tailored to patient needs and adverse event occurrence.
PubMed: 38276081
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13020575 -
Scientific Reports Jan 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the magnitude of the effect of combined exercise training on glucose metabolism markers, adipokines, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the magnitude of the effect of combined exercise training on glucose metabolism markers, adipokines, and inflammatory cytokines in non-diabetic sedentary adults. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library electronic databases and reference lists of included studies were explored for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included physically inactive adults and provided combined training interventions (aerobic plus resistance exercise). Effects on fasting glucose and insulin, Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), HbA1c, adiponectin, leptin, IL-6, TNF-α, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in exercise vs control groups were analyzed using random effects meta-analysis. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials 2.0 (RoB 2) was used to assess the risk of bias. A total of 24 RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis. Combined exercise training significantly decrease fasting glucose (standardized mean difference, SMD: - 0.474, 95% CI [- 0.829, - 0.120], p = 0.009, 35 study arms), fasting insulin (SMD: - 1.024, 95% CI [- 1.502, - 0.545], p < 0.001, 27 study arms), HOMA-IR (SMD: - 0.946, 95% CI [- 1.450, - 0.442], p < 0.001, 23 study arms), TNF-α (SMD: - 0.972, 95% CI [- 1.361, - 0.582], p < 0.001, 10 study arms), and CRP (SMD: - 0.507, 95% CI [- 0.818, - 0.196], p = 0.001, 14 study arms). No significant effects were observed for HbA1c, adiponectin, leptin, and IL-6 levels. Random effects meta-regression models by age, sex, and intervention length were not able to explain any of the variation in the effect size of HOMA-IR. Findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that combined exercise training improves some glucose metabolism markers and inflammatory parameters in sedentary adults without diabetes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adiponectin; Glycated Hemoglobin; Interleukin-6; Leptin; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Insulin; C-Reactive Protein; Exercise; Glucose
PubMed: 38253590
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-51832-y -
Critical Care Medicine Apr 2024Maintaining glycemic control of critically ill patients may impact outcomes such as survival, infection, and neuromuscular recovery, but there is equipoise on the target...
RATIONALE
Maintaining glycemic control of critically ill patients may impact outcomes such as survival, infection, and neuromuscular recovery, but there is equipoise on the target blood levels, monitoring frequency, and methods.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose was to update the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine and American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) guidelines with a new systematic review of the literature and provide actionable guidance for clinicians.
PANEL DESIGN
The total multiprofessional task force of 22, consisting of clinicians and patient/family advocates, and a methodologist applied the processes described in the ACCM guidelines standard operating procedure manual to develop evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach (GRADE) methodology. Conflict of interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including panel selection and voting.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes question related to glycemic management in critically ill children (≥ 42 wk old adjusted gestational age to 18 yr old) and adults, including triggers for initiation of insulin therapy, route of administration, monitoring frequency, role of an explicit decision support tool for protocol maintenance, and methodology for glucose testing. We identified the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as a good practice statement. In addition, "In our practice" statements were included when the available evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, but the panel felt that describing their practice patterns may be appropriate. Additional topics were identified for future research.
RESULTS
This guideline is an update of the guidelines for the use of an insulin infusion for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. It is intended for adult and pediatric practitioners to reassess current practices and direct research into areas with inadequate literature. The panel issued seven statements related to glycemic control in unselected adults (two good practice statements, four conditional recommendations, one research statement) and seven statements for pediatric patients (two good practice statements, one strong recommendation, one conditional recommendation, two "In our practice" statements, and one research statement), with additional detail on specific subset populations where available.
CONCLUSIONS
The guidelines panel achieved consensus for adults and children regarding a preference for an insulin infusion for the acute management of hyperglycemia with titration guided by an explicit clinical decision support tool and frequent (≤ 1 hr) monitoring intervals during glycemic instability to minimize hypoglycemia and against targeting intensive glucose levels. These recommendations are intended for consideration within the framework of the patient's existing clinical status. Further research is required to evaluate the role of individualized glycemic targets, continuous glucose monitoring systems, explicit decision support tools, and standardized glycemic control metrics.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Humans; Blood Glucose; Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Glycemic Control; Hyperglycemia; Insulin; Infant; Child, Preschool
PubMed: 38240484
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006174 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most frequent complication of type 2 diabetes and remains the leading cause of preventable blindness. Current clinical decisions... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most frequent complication of type 2 diabetes and remains the leading cause of preventable blindness. Current clinical decisions regarding the administration of antidiabetic drugs do not sufficiently incorporate the risk of DR due to the inconclusive evidence from preceding meta-analyses. This umbrella review aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of antidiabetic drugs on DR in people with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was undertaken in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from inception till 17th May 2022) without language restrictions to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials or longitudinal studies that examined the association between antidiabetic drugs and DR in people with type 2 diabetes. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklist, and evidence assessment was performed using the GRADE (Grading of recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Random-effects models were applied to calculate relative risk (RR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022332052).
RESULTS
With trial evidence from 11 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, we found that the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i), or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) was not statistically associated with the risk of DR, compared to either placebo (RR: GLP-1 RA, 0.98, 0.89-1.08; SGLT-2i, 1.00, 95% CI 0.79-1.27; DPP-4i, 1.17, 0.99-1.39) or other antidiabetic drugs. Compared to other antidiabetic drugs, meglitinides (0.34, 0.01-8.25), SGLT-2i (0.73, 0.10-5.16), thiazolidinediones (0.92, 0.67-1.26), metformin (1.15, 0.81-1.63), sulphonylureas (1.24, 0.93-1.65), and acarbose (4.21, 0.44-40.43) were not statistically associated with the risk of DR. With evidence from longitudinal studies only, insulin was found to have a higher risk of DR than other antidiabetic drugs (OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 2.04-2.99).
CONCLUSION
Our results indicate that antidiabetic drugs are generally safe to prescribe regarding the risk of DR among people with type 2 diabetes. Further robust and large-scale trials investigating the effects of insulin, meglitinides, and acarbose on DR are warranted.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=332052, identifier CRD42022332052.
Topics: Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Retinopathy; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Acarbose; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Insulin; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1
PubMed: 38239984
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1303238