METHODS: Online literature search databases including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, Embase and Google Scholar were searched to discover relevant articles available up to 17 March 2020. We used mean changes and SD of the outcomes to assess treatment response from baseline and mean difference, and 95 % CI were calculated to combined data and assessment effect sizes in astaxanthin and control groups.
RESULTS: 14 eligible articles were included in the final quantitative analysis. Current study revealed that astaxanthin consumption was not associated with FBS, HbA1c, TC, LDL-C, TG, BMI, BW, DBP, and SBP. We did observe an overall increase in HDL-C (WMD: 1.473 mg/dl, 95 % CI: 0.319-2.627, p = 0.012). As for the levels of CRP, only when astaxanthin was administered (i) for relatively long periods (≥ 12 weeks) (WMD: -0.528 mg/l, 95 % CI: -0.990 to -0.066), and (ii) at high dose (> 12 mg/day) (WMD: -0.389 mg/dl, 95 % CI: -0.596 to -0.183), the levels of CRP would decrease.
CONCLUSION: In summary, our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that astaxanthin consumption was associated with increase in HDL-C and decrease in CRP. Significant associations were not observed for other outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to systematically review the published cost-effectiveness studies of insulin analogues for the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS: We searched major databases and health technology assessment agency reports for economic evaluation studies published up until 30 September 2015. Two reviewers performed data extraction and assessed the quality of the data using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines.
RESULTS: Seven of the included studies assessed short-acting insulin analogues, 12 assessed biphasic insulin analogues, 30 assessed long-acting insulin analogues and one assessed a combination of short- and long-acting insulin analogues. Only 17 studies involved patients with T1DM, all were modelling studies and 12 were conducted in Canada. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for short-acting insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US435,913 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, the ICERs for biphasic insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US57,636 per QALY gained and the ICERs for long-acting insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US599,863 per QALY gained. A total of 15 studies met all the CHEERS guidelines reporting quality criteria. Only 26 % of the studies assessed heterogeneity in their analyses.
CONCLUSION: Current evidence indicates that insulin analogues are cost effective for T1DM; however, evidence for their use in T2DM is not convincing. Additional evidence regarding compliance and efficacy is required to support the broader use of long-acting and biphasic insulin analogues in T2DM. The value of insulin analogues depends strongly on reductions in hypoglycaemia event rates and its efficacy in lowering glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of sweet potato for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched several electronic databases, including The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SIGLE and LILACS (all up to February 2013), combined with handsearches. No language restrictions were used.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sweet potato with a placebo or a comparator intervention, with or without pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the trials and extracted the data. We evaluated risk of bias by assessing randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias.
MAIN RESULTS: Three RCTs met our inclusion criteria: these investigated a total of 140 participants and ranged from six weeks to five months in duration. All three studies were performed by the same trialist. Overall, the risk of bias of these trials was unclear or high. All RCTs compared the effect of sweet potato preparations with placebo on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. There was a statistically significant improvement in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at three to five months with 4 g/day sweet potato preparation compared to placebo (mean difference -0.3% (95% confidence interval -0.6 to -0.04); P = 0.02; 122 participants; 2 trials). No serious adverse effects were reported. Diabetic complications and morbidity, death from any cause, health-related quality of life, well-being, functional outcomes and costs were not investigated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence about the use of sweet potato for type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition to improvement in trial methodology, issues of standardization and quality control of preparations - including other varieties of sweet potato - need to be addressed. Further observational trials and RCTs evaluating the effects of sweet potato are needed to guide any recommendations in clinical practice.
METHODS: We assessed sCD26/DPP-IV levels, active GLP-1 levels, body mass index (BMI), glucose, insulin, A1c, glucose homeostasis indices, and lipid profiles in 549 Malaysian subjects (including 257 T2DM patients with MetS, 57 T2DM patients without MetS, 71 non-diabetics with MetS, and 164 control subjects without diabetes or metabolic syndrome).
RESULTS: Fasting serum levels of sCD26/DPP-IV were significantly higher in T2DM patients with and without MetS than in normal subjects. Likewise, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were significantly higher in patients with T2DM and MetS than in non-diabetic patients with MetS. However, active GLP-1 levels were significantly lower in T2DM patients both with and without MetS than in normal subjects. In T2DM subjects, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with significantly higher A1c levels, but were significantly lower in patients using monotherapy with metformin. In addition, no significant differences in sCD26/DPP-IV levels were found between diabetic subjects with and without MetS. Furthermore, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were negatively correlated with active GLP-1 levels in T2DM patients both with and without MetS. In normal subjects, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with increased BMI, cholesterol, and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) levels.
CONCLUSION: Serum sCD26/DPP-IV levels increased in T2DM subjects with and without MetS. Active GLP-1 levels decreased in T2DM patients both with and without MetS. In addition, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with Alc levels and negatively correlated with active GLP-1 levels. Moreover, metformin monotherapy was associated with reduced sCD26/DPP-IV levels. In normal subjects, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with increased BMI, cholesterol, and LDL-c.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 adults with type 2 diabetes were assessed with 6-day continuous glucose monitoring and HbA1c . Area under the curve (AUC) ≥5.6 mmol/L was defined as AUCTOTAL . AUC equal to or greater than each preprandial glucose for 4-h duration was defined as AUCPPH . The total PPH (AUCTPPH ) was the sum of the various AUCPPH. The postprandial contribution to overall hyperglycemia was calculated as (AUCTPPH / AUCTOTAL ) × 100%.
RESULTS: The present study comprised of Malay, Indian, and Chinese type 2 diabetes patients at 34, 34 and 28% respectively. Overall, the mean PPH significantly decreased as HbA1c advanced (mixed model repeated measures adjusted, beta-estimate = -3.0, P = 0.009). Age (P = 0.010) and hypoglycemia (P = 0.006) predicted the contribution difference. In oral antidiabetic drug-treated patients (n = 58), FH contribution increased from 54% (HbA1c 6-6.9%) to 67% (HbA1c ≥10%). FH predominance was significant in poorly-controlled groups (P = 0.028 at HbA1c 9-9.9%; P = 0.015 at HbA1c ≥10%). Among insulin users (n = 42), FH predominated when HbA1c was ≥10% before adjustment for hypoglycemia (P = 0.047), whereas PPH was numerically greater when HbA1c was <8%.
CONCLUSIONS: FH and PPH contributions were equal in well-controlled Malaysian type 2 diabetes patients in real-world practice. FH predominated when HbA1c was ≥9 and ≥10% in oral antidiabetic drug- and insulin-treated patients, respectively. A unique observation was the greater PPH contribution when HbA1c was <8% despite the use of basal and mealtime insulin in this multi-ethnic cohort, which required further validation.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions for diabetes-related distress in adults with T2DM.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, BASE, WHO ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was December 2014 for BASE and 21 September 2016 for all other databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of psychological interventions for DRD in adults (18 years and older) with T2DM. We included trials if they compared different psychological interventions or compared a psychological intervention with usual care. Primary outcomes were DRD, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure, diabetes-related complications, all-cause mortality and socioeconomic effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified publications for inclusion and extracted data. We classified interventions according to their focus on emotion, cognition or emotion-cognition. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to compute overall estimates.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 30 RCTs with 9177 participants. Sixteen trials were parallel two-arm RCTs, and seven were three-arm parallel trials. There were also seven cluster-randomised trials: two had four arms, and the remaining five had two arms. The median duration of the intervention was six months (range 1 week to 24 months), and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 12 months). The trials included a wide spectrum of interventions and were both individual- and group-based.A meta-analysis of all psychological interventions combined versus usual care showed no firm effect on DRD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.03; P = 0.17; 3315 participants; 12 trials; low-quality evidence), HRQoL (SMD 0.01; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; P = 0.87; 1932 participants; 5 trials; low-quality evidence), all-cause mortality (11 per 1000 versus 11 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% CI 0.17 to 6.03; P = 0.99; 1376 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence) or adverse events (17 per 1000 versus 41 per 1000; RR 2.40; 95% CI 0.78 to 7.39; P = 0.13; 438 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). We saw small beneficial effects on self-efficacy and HbA1c at medium-term follow-up (6 to 12 months): on self-efficacy the SMD was 0.15 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.30; P = 0.05; 2675 participants; 6 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions; on HbA1c there was a mean difference (MD) of -0.14% (95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; P = 0.05; 3165 participants; 11 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions. Our included trials did not report diabetes-related complications or socioeconomic effects.Many trials were small and were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as well as possible performance and detection biases in the subjective questionnaire-based outcomes assessment, and some appeared to be at risk of selective reporting. There are four trials awaiting further classification. These are parallel RCTs with cognition-focused and emotion-cognition focused interventions. There are another 18 ongoing trials, likely focusing on emotion-cognition or cognition, assessing interventions such as diabetes self-management support, telephone-based cognitive behavioural therapy, stress management and a web application for problem solving in diabetes management. Most of these trials have a community setting and are based in the USA.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence showed that none of the psychological interventions would improve DRD more than usual care. Low-quality evidence is available for improved self-efficacy and HbA1c after psychological interventions. This means that we are uncertain about the effects of psychological interventions on these outcomes. However, psychological interventions probably have no substantial adverse events compared to usual care. More high-quality research with emotion-focused programmes, in non-US and non-European settings and in low- and middle-income countries, is needed.