-
Nutrition Journal Apr 2024Whole grains have recently been promoted as beneficial to diabetes prevention. However, the evidence for the glycemic benefits of whole grains seems to conflict between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Whole grains have recently been promoted as beneficial to diabetes prevention. However, the evidence for the glycemic benefits of whole grains seems to conflict between the cohort studies and randomized control trials (RCTs). To fill the research gap, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effects of whole grains on diabetes prevention and to inform recommendations.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Clarivate Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until March 2024. We used the risk ratio (RR) of type 2 diabetes to represent the clinical outcomes for cohort studies, while the biomarkers, including fasting blood glucose and insulin, HbA, and HOMA-IR, were utilized to show outcomes for RCTs. Dose-response relationships between whole grain intakes and outcomes were tested with random effects meta-regression models and restricted cubic splines models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021281639.
RESULTS
Ten prospective cohort studies and 37 RCTs were included. Cohort studies suggested a 50 g/day whole grain intake reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes (RR = 0.761, 95% CI: 0.700 to 0.828, I = 72.39%, P < 0.001) and indicated a monotonic inverse relationship between whole grains and type 2 diabetes rate. In RCTs, whole grains significantly reduced fasting blood glucose (Mean difference (MD) = -0.103 mmol/L, 95% CI: -0.178 to -0.028; I = 72.99%, P < 0.01) and had modest effects on HbA (MD = -0.662 mmol/mol (-0.06%), 95% CI: -1.335 to 0.010; I = 64.55%, P = 0.05) and HOMA-IR (MD = -0.164, 95% CI: -0.342 to 0.013; I = 33.38%, P = 0.07). The intake of whole grains and FBG, HbA, and HOMA-IR were significantly dose-dependent. The restricted spline curves remained flat up to 150 g/day and decreased afterward. Subgroup analysis showed that interventions with multiple whole-grain types were more effective than those with a single type.
CONCLUSION
Our study findings suggest that a daily intake of more than 150 g of whole grain ingredients is recommended as a population approach for diabetes prevention.
Topics: Humans; Whole Grains; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glycemic Control; Blood Glucose; Prospective Studies; Diet; Glycated Hemoglobin; Insulin
PubMed: 38664726
DOI: 10.1186/s12937-024-00952-2 -
Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism May 2024The once-weekly insulin icodec, a new basal insulin analog, may positively support a reduction in injection frequency and improve adherence to therapy in type 2 diabetes... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Clinical Outcomes With Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec Versus Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 in Insulin-Naïve and Previously Insulin-Treated Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
AIMS
The once-weekly insulin icodec, a new basal insulin analog, may positively support a reduction in injection frequency and improve adherence to therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of insulin icodec compared with those of once-daily glargine U100.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception till September 2023. Data about clinical outcomes in both groups were extracted. Forest plots were generated using the random-effects model by pooling odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs).
RESULTS
Five randomised controlled trials and 2019 individuals with T2DM were included. In the pooled analysis, time in range was significantly higher (MD = 4.35; 95% CI: 1.65 to 7.05; p = 0.002) in the icodec group than in the once-daily glargine group. The HbA1c levels were significantly reduced (MD = -0.13; 95% CI: -0.24 to -0.03; p = 0.02) in the weekly icodec group compared with those in the once-daily glargine group. The weight gain was significantly less in the glargine group than in the weekly icodec group (MD = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.78; p = 0.03); however, in the subgroup analysis, this change became statistically insignificant in both insulin-naïve and previously insulin-treated individuals. The results were comparable across two groups for fasting plasma glucose levels, hypoglycaemia alert (Level 1), clinically significant (Level 2) or severe hypoglycaemia (Level 3), and adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Insulin icodec was associated with a reduction in glycated haemoglobin levels and higher time in range, with a similar safety profile as compared to insulin glargine U100. However, further evidence is still needed to reach a definitive conclusion.
Topics: Humans; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Drug Administration Schedule; Glycated Hemoglobin; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Insulin Glargine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38659132
DOI: 10.1002/edm2.480 -
Annals of Internal Medicine May 2024Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE).
LIMITATIONS
Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons.
CONCLUSION
In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Hypoglycemic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Insulin; Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Hypoglycemia; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 38639549
DOI: 10.7326/M23-1490 -
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology... Apr 2024Metformin is an insulin sensitizer that is widely used for the treatment of insulin resistance in polycystic ovary syndrome patients. However, metformin can cause... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Metformin is an insulin sensitizer that is widely used for the treatment of insulin resistance in polycystic ovary syndrome patients. However, metformin can cause gastrointestinal side effects.
PURPOSE
This study showed that the effects of quercetin are comparable to those of metformin. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of quercetin in treating PCOS.
METHODS
The present systematic search of the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data Information Site, Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), SinoMed, Web of Science, and PubMed databases was performed from inception until February 2024. The methodological quality was then assessed by SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, and the data were analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with those in the model group, quercetin in the PCOS group had significant effects on reducing fasting insulin serum (FIS) levels (P = 0.0004), fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels (P = 0.01), HOMA-IR levels (P < 0.00001), cholesterol levels (P < 0.0001), triglyceride levels (P = 0.001), testosterone (T) levels (P < 0.00001), luteinizing hormone (LH) levels (P = 0.0003), the luteinizing hormone/follicle stimulating hormone (LH/FSH) ratio (P = 0.01), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels (P < 0.00001), malondialdehyde (MDA) levels (P = 0.03), superoxide dismutase (SOD) levels (P = 0.01) and GLUT4 mRNA expression (P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggested that quercetin has positive effects on PCOS treatment. Quercetin can systematically reduce insulin, blood glucose, cholesterol, and triglyceride levels in metabolic pathways. In the endocrine pathway, quercetin can regulate the function of the pituitary-ovarian axis, reduce testosterone and luteinizing hormone (LH) levels, and lower the ratio of LH to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). Quercetin can regulate the expression of the GLUT4 gene and has antioxidative effects at the molecular level.
Topics: Female; Animals; Humans; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Quercetin; Blood Glucose; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Luteinizing Hormone; Insulin; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Metformin; Insulin Resistance; Testosterone; Cholesterol; Triglycerides
PubMed: 38637876
DOI: 10.1186/s12958-024-01220-y -
Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism Jul 2024To provide updated efficacy and safety information for teplizumab in the treatment of Stage 3 type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To provide updated efficacy and safety information for teplizumab in the treatment of Stage 3 type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teplizumab to placebo for T1DM that reported any of the following outcomes: (1) C-peptide area under the curve (AUC); (2) glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels; (3) insulin requirements; and (4) adverse events. Heterogeneity was examined with I statistics. p values <0.05 were taken to indicate statistical significance. The continuous endpoints were compared through the pooled mean difference (MD) and binary endpoints were assessed using risk ratios, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager Web software.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs with 1052 patients (754 receiving teplizumab) were included. Teplizumab significantly increased the AUC of C-peptide levels at 6 (MD 0.10 nmol/L, 95% CI 0.05, 0.16), 12 (MD 0.13 nmol/L, 95% CI 0.06, 0.20), 18 (MD 0.18 nmol/L, 95% CI 0.09, 0.27) and 24 months (MD 0.16 nmol/L, 95% CI 0.02, 0.31), significantly reduced HbA1c levels at 6 (MD -0.57%, 95% CI -1.07, -0.08) and 12 months (MD -0.31%, 95% CI -0.59, -0.02), and significantly reduced insulin requirements at 6 (MD -0.12 U/kg, 95% CI -0.16, -0.08), 12 (MD -0.11 U/kg, 95% CI -0.15, -0.07), 18 (MD -0.17 U/kg, 95% CI -0.26, -0.09) and 24 months (MD -0.11 U/kg, 95% CI -0.22, -0.01).
CONCLUSION
Teplizumab increases AUC of C-peptide levels and decreases HbA1c levels and insulin use, without raising serious adverse event risk.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Glycated Hemoglobin; Hypoglycemic Agents; Treatment Outcome; Insulin; C-Peptide; Female; Male; Adult; Hypoglycemia
PubMed: 38602411
DOI: 10.1111/dom.15581 -
Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism May 2024Previous meta-analyses have shown mixed results regarding the association between eating disorders (EDs) and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Our paper aimed to analyse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Previous meta-analyses have shown mixed results regarding the association between eating disorders (EDs) and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Our paper aimed to analyse different EDs and disordered eating behaviours that may be practiced by patients with T1DM.
METHODS
A literature search of PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science was conducted on 17 January 2023, using the key terms "T1DM," "Eating Disorders" and "Bulimia." Only observational controlled studies were included. The Revman software (version 5.4) was used for the analysis.
RESULTS
T1DM was associated with increased risk of ED compared with nondiabetic individuals (RR = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.84-3.32, p-value < 0.00001), especially bulimia nervosa (RR = 2.80, 95% CI = 1.18-6.65, p-value = 0.02) and binge eating (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.18-1.98, p-value = 0.001). Our analysis has shown that increased risk of ED among T1DM persisted regardless of the questionnaire used to diagnose ED; DM-validated questionnaires (RR = 2.80, 95% CI = 1.91-4.12, p-value < 0.00001) and generic questionnaires (RR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.27-3.23, p-value = 0.003). Prevalence of insulin omission/misuse was 10.3%; diabetic females demonstrated a significantly higher risk of insulin omission and insulin misuse than diabetic males.
CONCLUSION
Our study establishes a significant and clear connection between EDs and T1DM, particularly bulimia and binge eating, with T1DM. Moreover, female diabetics are at higher risk of insulin misuse/omission. Early proactive screening is essential and tailored; comprehensive interventions combining diabetes and ED components are recommended for this population, with referral to a specialised psychiatrist.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Bulimia; Feeding and Eating Disorders; Insulin; Insulin, Regular, Human
PubMed: 38597269
DOI: 10.1002/edm2.473 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2024The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach.
RESULTS
Of 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION
The efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.
Topics: Humans; Insulin Glargine; Insulin, Long-Acting; Glycated Hemoglobin; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hypoglycemic Agents; Hypoglycemia; Insulin; Weight Gain; Protamines
PubMed: 38586456
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1286827 -
Nutrients Mar 2024This study aims to update the evidence and clarify whether cranberry possesses lipid-lowering and hypoglycemic properties in humans. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study aims to update the evidence and clarify whether cranberry possesses lipid-lowering and hypoglycemic properties in humans. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched to identify relevant articles published up to December 2023. In total, 3145 publications were reviewed and 16 of them were included for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis. Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.4 were applied for statistical analyses. The results revealed a significant decrease in the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (TC/HDL-C) (MD = -0.24; 95% CI: -0.45, -0.04; = 0.02) and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (MD = -0.59; 95% CI: -1.05, -0.14; = 0.01) with cranberry consumption. However, it did not influence total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglyceride (TG), fasting blood glucose (FBG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and fasting insulin. In subgroup analysis, cranberry consumption in dried form (capsules, powder, and tablets) was found to significantly decrease the fasting insulin level (three studies, one hundred sixty-five participants, MD = -2.16; 95% CI: -4.24, -0.07; = 0.04), while intervention duration, health conditions, and dosage of polyphenols and anthocyanins had no impact on blood lipid and glycemic parameters. In summary, cranberry might have potential benefits in regulating lipid and glucose profiles.
Topics: Humans; Anthocyanins; Blood Glucose; Cholesterol, HDL; Insulin; Lipids; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triglycerides; Vaccinium macrocarpon
PubMed: 38542695
DOI: 10.3390/nu16060782 -
Pharmacological Research May 2024There are multiple disease-modifying immunotherapies showing the potential of preventing or delaying the progression of type 1 diabetes (T1D). We designed and performed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There are multiple disease-modifying immunotherapies showing the potential of preventing or delaying the progression of type 1 diabetes (T1D). We designed and performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to gain an overview of what a role immunotherapy plays in the treatment of T1D. We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to December 2023. We included clinical trials of immunotherapy conducted in patients with T1D that reported the incidence of hypoglycemia or changes from baseline in at least one of following outcomes: 2 h and 4 h mixed-meal-stimulated C-peptide area under the curve (AUC), fasting C-peptide, daily insulin dosage, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The results were computed as the weighted mean differences (WMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in random-effect model. In all, 34 clinical trials were included. When compared with control groups, 2 h C-peptide AUC was marginally higher in patient treated with nonantigen-based immunotherapies (WMD, 0.04nmol/L, 95% CI, 0.00-0.09 nmol/L, P=0.05), which was mainly driven by the effects of T cell-targeted therapy. A greater preservation in 4 h C-peptide AUC was observed in patients with nonantigen-based immunotherapies (WMD, 0.10nmol/L, 95% CI, 0.04-0.16 nmol/L, P=0.0007), which was mainly driven by the effects of tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitor and T cell-targeted therapy. After excluding small-sample trials, less daily insulin dosage was observed in patient treated with nonantigen-based immunotherapies when compared with control groups (WMD, -0.07units/kg/day, 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.03units/kg/day, P=0.0004). The use of antigen-based immunotherapies was also associated with a lower daily insulin dosage versus control groups (WMD, -0.11units/kg/day, 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.00units/kg/day, P=0.05). However, changes of HbA1c or FPG were comparable between nonantigen-based immunotherapies or antigen-based immunotherapies and control groups. The risk of hypoglycemia was not increased in patients treated with nonantigen-based immunotherapies or patients treated with antigen-based immunotherapies when compared with control groups. In conclusion, nonantigen-based immunotherapies were associated with a preservation of 2 h and 4 h C-peptide AUC in patients with T1D when compared with the controls, which was mainly driven by the effects of TNF-a inhibitor and T cell-targeted therapy. Both nonantigen-based immunotherapies and antigen-based immunotherapies tended to reduce the daily insulin dosage in patients with T1D when compared with the controls. However, they did not contribute to a substantial improvement in HbA1c or FPG. Both nonantigen-based immunotherapies and antigen-based immunotherapies were well tolerated with not increased risk of hypoglycemia in patients with T1D.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Humans; Immunotherapy; Hypoglycemic Agents; Blood Glucose; Insulin; Glycated Hemoglobin
PubMed: 38531504
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2024.107157 -
Endocrine Practice : Official Journal... May 2024Teplizumab has emerged as a potential disease-modifying drug in type 1 diabetes (T1D). This meta-analysis sought to summarize the therapeutic effect of teplizumab in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Teplizumab has emerged as a potential disease-modifying drug in type 1 diabetes (T1D). This meta-analysis sought to summarize the therapeutic effect of teplizumab in newly diagnosed patients with T1D.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials involving patients with T1D receiving teplizumab in the intervention arm and placebo (or no active intervention) in the control arm were searched throughout the electronic databases. The primary outcome was the change in area under the curve of C-peptide levels from baseline.
RESULTS
Seven reports from 6 studies involving 834 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Compared to teplizumab, greater reductions in area under the curve of C-peptide from the baseline values were observed in the control group after 6 months (mean difference [MD] 0.07 nmol/L [0.01, 0.13], P = .02), after 12 months (MD 0.07 nmol/L [0.04, 0.11], P = .0001), after 18 months (MD 0.10 nmol/L [0.06, 0.14], P < .00001), and after 24 months (MD 0.07 nmol/L [0.01, 0.14], P = .03) of interventions. Moreover, fewer patients treated with teplizumab had a decreased C-peptide response after 6 months (odds ratio [OR] 0.21), after 12 months (OR 0.17), after 18 months (OR 0.30), and after 24 months (OR 0.12) of treatment. The preservation of endogenous insulin production was supported by reduced use of exogenous insulin with maintenance of comparable glycemic control for up to 18 months post-treatment. Teplizumab imparted higher risks of grade 3 or higher adverse events, adverse events leading to study medication discontinuation, nausea, rash, and lymphopenia.
CONCLUSION
The results of the meta-analysis support teplizumab as a promising disease-modifying therapy for newly diagnosed T1D.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; CD3 Complex; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; C-Peptide
PubMed: 38519028
DOI: 10.1016/j.eprac.2024.03.006