-
Brachytherapy 2014To review and analyze the published data on high-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To review and analyze the published data on high-dose-rate brachytherapy as monotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer.
METHODS
A literature search and a systematic review of the high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (monotherapy) prostate literature were performed on PubMed using "high-dose-rate, brachytherapy, prostate, monotherapy" as search terms. More than 80 articles and abstracts published between 1990 and 2013 were identified. Data tables were generated and summary descriptions created. Commentary and opinion was formulated through discussion and consensus based on the critical review of the literature and the author's combined personal experience and knowledge.
RESULTS
Thirteen articles reported clinical outcome and toxicity with followup ranging from 1.5 to 8.0 years. Results were available for all risk groups. A variety of dose and fractionation schedules were described. Prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival ranged from 79% to 100% and local control from 97% to 100%. The toxicity rates were low. Genitourinary toxicity, mainly frequency/urgency, was 0-16% (Grade 3). Gastrointestinal toxicity was 0-2% (Grade 3). Erectile function preservation was 67-89%. The radiobiological, clinical, and technical features of HDR brachytherapy were reviewed and discussed.
CONCLUSIONS
Consistently high local tumor control and low complications rates are reported with HDR monotherapy. It provides reproducible high-quality dosimetry, it has an advantage from a radiobiology perspective, and it has a good radiation safety profile. HDR brachytherapy is a safe and effective local treatment modality for prostate cancer.
Topics: Brachytherapy; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Male; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiotherapy Dosage; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 25085454
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2014.03.002 -
Medeniyet Medical Journal Jun 2022Management of increased intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury remains challenging in neurosurgical emergencies. The mainstay of medical management for...
Management of increased intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury remains challenging in neurosurgical emergencies. The mainstay of medical management for increased intracranial pressure is hyperosmolar therapy with mannitol or hypertonic saline. Mannitol has been the "gold standard" osmotic agent for almost a century. Given its wide usage, there has been a dilemma of concern because of its adverse effects. Over the past few decades, hypertonic saline has become an increasingly better alternative. To date, there is no consensus on the optimal therapeutic dose and concentration of hypertonic saline for treating increased intracranial pressure. This systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy of hypertonic saline and mannitol in the management of traumatic brain injury and investigate the optimal dose and concentration of hypertonic saline for the treatment. Extensive research was conducted on PubMed, DOAJ, and Cochrane databases. Studies published within the last 20 years were included. Research articles in the form of meta-analyses, clinical trials, and randomized controlled trials were preferred. Those with ambiguous remarks, irrelevant correlations to the main issue, or a focus on other disorders were excluded. Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review. Eleven studies have stated that hypertonic saline and mannitol were equally efficacious, whereas eight studies have reported that hypertonic saline was superior. Moreover, 3% hypertonic saline was the main concentration most discussed in research. Improvements in increased intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, survival rate, brain relaxation, and systemic hemodynamics were observed. Hypertonic saline is worthy of consideration as an excellent alternative to mannitol. This study suggests 3% hypertonic saline as the optimal concentration, with the therapeutic dose from 1.4 to 2.5 mL/kg, given as a bolus.
PubMed: 35735001
DOI: 10.4274/MMJ.galenos.2022.75725 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2010 (Issue 7).Carcinoma of the uterine cervix is the second most common cancer and the third... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2010 (Issue 7).Carcinoma of the uterine cervix is the second most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death among women. Radiotherapy has been used successfully to treat cervical cancer for nearly a century. The combination of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and intracavity brachytherapy (ICBT) has become a standard treatment for cervical cancer. Whether high dose rate (HDR) or low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy improves outcomes in terms of local control rates, survival and complications for women with cervical cancer remains controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of HDR versus LDR ICBT in combination with EBRT for women with uterine cervical cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1974 to March 2014), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to March 2014) for relevant original, published trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared HDR with LDR ICBT, combined with EBRT, for women with locally advanced uterine cervical cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted the data using standardised forms. Primary outcome measures included overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and pelvic control rate, while secondary outcomes included rates of recurrence and complications.
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies involving 1265 women met the inclusion criteria. In our meta-analysis to compare HDR and LDR ICBT, the pooled risk ratios (RRs) were 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.15), 0.93 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.04) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.20) for 3-, 5- and 10-year overall survival rates respectively; and 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.07) and 1.02 (0.88 to 1.19) for 5- and 10-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rates respectively. The RR for RFS was 1.04 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.52) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) at 3- and 5- years. For local control rates the RR was 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.05) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.05) at 3- and 5- years; with a RR of 1.09 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.43) for locoregional recurrence, 0.79 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.53) for local and distant recurrence, 2.23 (95% CI 0.78 to 6.34) for para-aortic lymph node metastasis, and 0.99 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.35) for distance metastasis. For bladder, rectosigmoid and small bowel complications, the RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.34), 1.00 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.91) and 3.37 (95% CI 1.06 to 10.72) respectively. These results indicated that there were no significant differences except for increased small bowel complications with HDRs (P = 0.04).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, no new studies were identified for inclusion in this review to provide additional information. This review showed no significant differences between HDR and LDR ICBT when considering OS, DSS, RFS, local control rate, recurrence, metastasis and treatment related complications for women with cervical carcinoma. Due to some potential advantages of HDR ICBT (rigid immobilization, outpatient treatment, patient convenience, accuracy of source and applicator positioning, individualized treatment) we recommend the use of HDR ICBT for all clinical stages of cervix cancer. The overall risk of bias was high for the included studies as many of the items were either of high or unclear risk. The GRADE assessment of the quality of the evidence was low to moderate.
Topics: Brachytherapy; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Radiotherapy Dosage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 25300170
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007563.pub3 -
BJGP Open Sep 2022Tablet splitting can provide dose flexibility and cost savings; however, pharmaceutical representatives typically discourage the practice.
BACKGROUND
Tablet splitting can provide dose flexibility and cost savings; however, pharmaceutical representatives typically discourage the practice.
AIM
To identify and summarise all published concerns related to tablet splitting and to present the experimental evidence that investigates those concerns.
DESIGN & SETTING
Systematic review and qualitative synthesis of tablet-splitting concerns and evidence.
METHOD
Medline and EMBASE databases were searched over all years of publication for articles in English discussing the splitting of tablets. Eligible articles included original research, narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and expert opinion.
RESULTS
After removing duplicates, 1837 potentially relevant articles underwent dual review, whereupon 1612 articles were excluded based on title and abstract. After examination of 225 full texts, 138 articles were included (one systematic review, four narrative reviews, 101 original research articles, and 32 opinion articles). The described concerns included difficulty breaking tablets, loss of mass, weight variability, chemical instability, overly rapid dosing if sustained-release medications are split, non-compliance, and patient confusion resulting in medication errors. No substantive evidence was found to support concerns regarding loss of mass, weight variability, chemical instability, or non-compliance. Evidence does support some older adults struggling to split tablets without tablet splitters, and the inappropriateness of splitting sustained-release preparations, given the potential for alteration of the rate of drug release for some products.
CONCLUSION
With the exception of sustained-release tablets, which should not be split, and excepting those older people who may struggle to split tablets based on physical limitations, there is little evidence to support tablet-splitting concerns.
PubMed: 35193886
DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0001 -
Heliyon May 2023Low dose naltrexone (LDN) is used off-label by many individuals with fibromyalgia to help manage their pain. There is no current systematic literature review summarising... (Review)
Review
A systematic literature review on the clinical efficacy of low dose naltrexone and its effect on putative pathophysiological mechanisms among patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia.
BACKGROUND
Low dose naltrexone (LDN) is used off-label by many individuals with fibromyalgia to help manage their pain. There is no current systematic literature review summarising the evidence to support this use of LDN. The objectives of this study were to evaluate if patients with fibromyalgia prescribed LDN have reduced pain scores and greater quality of life compared with those allocated to placebo in randomized controlled trials. Secondly to determine if changes in inflammatory markers and brain structure and function are observed among patients with fibromyalgia taking LDN.
METHODS
Systematic literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE Embase Classic + Embase, APA PsychInfo, and The Cochrane Library from inception to May 2022. Reference lists from the selected papers were cross-checked with database search results.
RESULTS
Three studies met our inclusion criteria for the assessment of efficacy, and two studies on potential LDN mechanisms. Results indicated some evidence to suggest LDN reduces pain and increases quality of life. One study reported baseline erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) predicted LDN response (≥30% reduction in fibromyalgia symptoms) and a second study showed plasma concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers were lower after LDN treatment. To our knowledge, there are no brain imaging studies reporting the effect of LDN in patients with fibromyalgia. All studies were based on small sample sizes, were restricted to women and the risk of bias was assessed to be high. There is also some evidence of publication bias.
CONCLUSION
The strength of evidence from randomized controlled trials to support the use of LDN among patients with fibromyalgia is low. Two small studies suggest ESR and cytokines may be involved in the mechanism by which LDN exerts its effects. Two trials (INNOVA and FINAL) are currently in progress, but further work is needed among men and different ethnic groups.
PubMed: 37206027
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15638 -
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Dec 2010Dose-dense chemotherapy has become a mainstay regimen in the adjuvant setting for women with high-risk breast cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dose-dense chemotherapy has become a mainstay regimen in the adjuvant setting for women with high-risk breast cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing data from randomized controlled trials regarding the efficacy and toxicity of the dose-dense chemotherapy approach in nonmetastatic breast cancer.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials that compared a dose-dense chemotherapy protocol with a standard chemotherapy schedule in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting in adult women older than 18 years with breast cancer were identified by searching The Cochrane Cancer Network register of trials, The Cochrane Library, and LILACS and MEDLINE databases (from January 1966 to January 2010). Hazard ratios (HRs) of death and recurrence and relative risks of adverse events were estimated and pooled. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS
Ten trials met the inclusion criteria and were classified into two categories based on trial methodology. Three trials enrolling 3337 patients compared dose-dense chemotherapy with a conventional chemotherapy schedule (similar agents). Patients who received dose-dense chemotherapy had better overall survival (HR of death = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.98, P = .03) and better disease-free survival (HR of recurrence or death = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.94, P = .005) than those on the conventional schedule. No benefit was observed in patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors. Seven trials enrolling 8652 patients compared dose-dense chemotherapy with regimens that use standard intervals but with different agents and/or dosages in the treatment arms. Similar results were obtained for these trials with respect to overall survival (HR of death = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.96, P = .01) and disease-free survival (HR of recurrence or death = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.88, P < .001). The rate of nonhematological adverse events was higher in the dose-dense chemotherapy arms than in the conventional chemotherapy arms.
CONCLUSION
Dose-dense chemotherapy results in better overall and disease-free survival, particularly in women with hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. However, additional data from randomized controlled trials are needed before dose-dense chemotherapy can be considered as the standard of care.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Biomarkers, Tumor; Breast Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Humans; Models, Statistical; Neoplasm Staging; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Estrogen; Receptors, Progesterone; Research Design; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 21098761
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq409 -
OncoTargets and Therapy 2019The present standard dose of gemcitabine (Gem), a pyrimidine antimetabolite, is 1,000-1,250 mg/m, and the infusion time is 30 min. However, pharmacological studies have... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The present standard dose of gemcitabine (Gem), a pyrimidine antimetabolite, is 1,000-1,250 mg/m, and the infusion time is 30 min. However, pharmacological studies have demonstrated that Gem with prolonged infusion could attain a better accumulation rate of Gem triphosphate (active metabolites of Gem), indicating that Gem with prolonged infusion is superior to 30-min infusion. Thus, this systematic review aims to provide some references for Gem administered as a prolonged infusion.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CNKI, for trials. Keywords were "Gem," "prolonged infusion," and "low-dose." In addition, we used the Cochrane Handbook V5.1.0 and methodological index for non-randomized studies to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, respectively. Furthermore, Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and the PRISMA statement were adopted.
RESULTS
We systematically reviewed 19 studies (5 RCTs and 14 non-RCTs). All studies assessed the efficacy and safety of Gem administered as a prolonged low-dose infusion (P-LDI) and reported that Gem administered as P-LDI was effective and well tolerated.
CONCLUSION
Gem administered as P-LDI is effective, safe, and economical, especially suited for patients with poor performance status or without good economic condition.
PubMed: 31417283
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S210117 -
Seizure Nov 2022Perampanel a third-generation antiseizure medication, belongs to a new promising class of drugs called AMPA receptor antagonists, approved to treat focal-onset seizures... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Perampanel a third-generation antiseizure medication, belongs to a new promising class of drugs called AMPA receptor antagonists, approved to treat focal-onset seizures with or without focal to bilateral tonic clonic seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures.
METHODS
This review included RCTs on patients with epilepsy exposed to perampanel compared with placebo, or one or more pre-existing antiseizure medications. Four databases and two clinical trial registries were searched from inception to July 2021. Included outcomes were 50% responder rate, seizure-free rate, discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE)s, having any TEAEs, and most reported TEAEs. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the internal validity of the included RCTs.
RESULTS
From 2211 retrieved citations, eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Fifty-percent responder and seizure freedom rates were significantly higher in patients receiving perampanel when compared to placebo (RR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.35 to 1.82, I 15% and RR 2.79, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.93, I 7%, respectively). The 50% responder rates for 8mg and 12 mg, when compared to placebo, were similar. The most-reported TEAEs were dizziness and somnolence with <1% reporting serious psychological outcomes.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review reports significant reduction in seizures and a potential dose-based increase in discontinuations due to TEAE. The most-reported TEAEs were non-threatening, with the possibility of rare but serious adverse psychological outcomes. Further independent RCTs studying the most efficient dose for efficacy and safety are needed.
Topics: Humans; Anticonvulsants; Treatment Outcome; Pyridones; Seizures; Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36206645
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2022.09.020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Acute limb ischaemia usually is caused by a blood clot blocking an artery or a bypass graft. Severe acute ischaemia will lead to irreversible damage to muscles and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute limb ischaemia usually is caused by a blood clot blocking an artery or a bypass graft. Severe acute ischaemia will lead to irreversible damage to muscles and nerves if blood flow is not restored in a few hours. Once irreversible damage occurs, amputation will be necessary and the condition can be life-threatening. Infusion of clot-busting drugs (thrombolysis) is a useful tool in the management of acute limb ischaemia. Fibrinolytic drugs are used to disperse blood clots (thrombi) to clear arterial occlusion and restore blood flow. Thrombolysis is less invasive than surgery. A variety of techniques are used to deliver fibrinolytic agents. This is an update of a review first published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of infusion techniques during peripheral arterial thrombolysis for treatment of patients with acute limb ischaemia.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries to 20 October 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing infusion techniques for fibrinolytic agents in the treatment of acute limb ischaemia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We were not able to carry out meta-analyses due to clinical heterogeneity, so we have reported the results and performed the comparisons narratively. The main outcomes of interest were amputation-free survival or limb salvage, amputation, mortality, vessel patency, duration of thrombolysis, and complications such as cerebrovascular accident and major and minor bleeding.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine studies with a total of 671 participants are included in this update. Trials covered a variety of infusion techniques, dosage regimens, and adjunctive agents. We grouped trials according to types of techniques assessed (e.g. intravenous and intra-arterial delivery of the agent, 'high-' and 'low-dose' regimens of the agent, continuous infusion and 'forced infusion' of the agent, use of adjunctive antiplatelet agents). We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low to low due to the limited power of individual studies to deliver clinically relevant results, small and heterogeneous study populations, use of different inclusion criteria by each study in terms of severity and duration of ischaemia, considerably different outcome measures between trials, and use of different fibrinolytic agents. This heterogeneity prevented pooling of data in meta-analyses. No regimen has been shown to confer benefit in terms of amputation-free survival (at 30 days), amputation, or death. For vessel patency, complete success was more likely with intra-arterial (IA) than with intravenous (IV) infusion (odds ratio (OR) 13.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 62.67; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence); radiological failure may be more likely with IV infusion (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to the small numbers involved in each arm and design differences between arms, it is not possible to conclude whether any technique offered any advantage over another. None of the treatment strategies clearly affected complications such as cerebrovascular accident or major bleeding requiring surgery or blood transfusion. Minor bleeding complications were more frequent in systemic (intravenous) therapy compared to intra-arterial infusion (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.56; 1 study, 40 participants), and in high-dose compared to low-dose therapy (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.96; 1 study, 63 participants). Limited evidence from individual trials appears to indicate that high-dose and forced-infusion regimens reduce the duration of thrombolysis. In one trial, the median duration of infusion was 4 hours (range 0.25 to 46) for the high-dose group and 20 hours (range 2 to 46) for the low-dose group. In a second trial, treatment using pulse spray was continued for a median of 120 minutes (range 40 to 310) compared with low-dose infusion for a median of 25 hours (range 2 to 60). In a third trial, the median duration of therapy was reduced with pulse spray at 195 minutes (range 90 to 1260 minutes) compared to continuous infusion at 1390 minutes (range 300 to 2400 minutes). However, none of the studies individually showed improvement in limb salvage at 30 days nor benefit for the amputation rate related to the technique of drug delivery. Similarly, no studies reported a clear difference in occurrence of cerebrovascular accident or major bleeding. Although 'high-dose' and 'forced-infusion' techniques achieved vessel patency in less time than 'low-dose' infusion, more minor bleeding complications may be associated (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.96; 1 study, 72 participants; and OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.32; 1 study, 121 participants, respectively). Use of adjunctive platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists did not improve outcomes, and results were limited by inclusion of participants with non-limb-threatening ischaemia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to show that any thrombolytic regimen provides a benefit over any other in terms of amputation-free survival, amputation, or 30-day mortality. The rate of CVA or major bleeding requiring surgery or blood transfusion did not clearly differ between regimens but may occur more frequently in high dose and IV regimens. This evidence was limited and of very low certainty. Minor bleeding may be more common with high-dose and IV regimens. In this context, thrombolysis may be an acceptable therapy for patients with marginally threatened limbs (Rutherford grade IIa) compared with surgery. Caution is advised for patients who do not have limb-threatening ischaemia (Rutherford grade I) because of risks of major haemorrhage, cerebrovascular accident, and death from thrombolysis.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Arteries; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Ischemia; Thrombolytic Therapy
PubMed: 34786692
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000985.pub3 -
The American Journal of Clinical... Aug 2023Serving whey protein before a meal in order to lower postprandial blood glucose concentrations is known as a premeal. The underlying mechanisms are only partly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Whey Protein Premeal Lowers Postprandial Glucose Concentrations in Adults Compared with Water-The Effect of Timing, Dose, and Metabolic Status: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Serving whey protein before a meal in order to lower postprandial blood glucose concentrations is known as a premeal. The underlying mechanisms are only partly understood but may involve stimulation of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and insulin secretion together with a slower gastric emptying rate.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to review all randomized clinical trials investigating premeals with whey protein in comparison with a nonactive comparator (control) that evaluated plasma glucose, GLP-1, GIP, insulin, and/or gastric emptying rate. Secondary aims included subgroup analyses on the timing and dose of the premeal together with the metabolic state of the participants [lean, obese, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)].
METHODS
We searched EMBASE, CENTRAL, PUBMED, and clinicaltrials.gov and found 16 randomized crossover trials with a total of 244 individuals. The last search was performed on 9 August, 2022.
RESULTS
Whey protein premeals lowered peak glucose concentration by -1.4 mmol/L [-1.9 mmol/L; -0.9 mmol/L], and the area under the curve for glucose was -0.9 standard deviation (SD) [-1.2 SD; -0.6 SD] compared with controls (high certainty). In association with these findings, whey protein premeals elevated GLP-1 (low certainty) and peak insulin (high certainty) concentrations and slowed gastric emptying rate (high certainty) compared with controls. Subgroup analyses showed a more pronounced and prolonged glucose-lowering effect in individuals with T2DM compared with participants without T2DM. The available evidence did not elucidate the role of GIP. The protein dose used varied between 4 and 55 g, and meta-regression analysis showed that the protein dose correlated with the glucose-lowering effects.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, whey protein premeals lower postprandial blood glucose, reduce gastric emptying rate, and increase peak insulin. In addition, whey protein premeals may elevate plasma concentrations of GLP-1. Whey protein premeals may possess clinical potential, but the long-term effects await future clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Whey Proteins; Glucagon; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Water; Insulin; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Gastric Inhibitory Polypeptide; Glucose; Gastric Emptying; Postprandial Period
PubMed: 37536867
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.05.012