METHODS: In this multinational, randomised, treat-to-target trial, patients with T2DM who intended to fast and were on basal, pre- or self-mixed insulin ± oral antidiabetic drugs for ≥90 days were randomised (1:1) to IDegAsp twice daily (BID) or BIAsp 30 BID. Treatment period included pre-Ramadan treatment initiation (with insulin titration for 8-20 weeks), Ramadan (4 weeks) and post-Ramadan (4 weeks). Insulin doses were reduced by 30-50% for the pre-dawn meal (suhur) on the first day of Ramadan, and readjusted to the pre-Ramadan levels at the end of Ramadan. Hypoglycaemia was analysed as overall (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L [56 mg/dL]), nocturnal (00:01-05:59) or severe (requiring assistance of another person).
RESULTS: During the treatment period, IDegAsp (n = 131) had significantly lower overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates with similar glycaemic efficacy, versus BIAsp 30 (n = 132). During Ramadan, despite achieving significantly lower pre-iftar (meal at sunset) self-measured plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference: -0.54 mmol/L [-1.02; -0.07]95% CI, p = .0247; post hoc) with similar overall glycaemic efficacy, IDegAsp showed significantly lower overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates versus BIAsp 30.
CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp is a suitable therapeutic agent for patients who need insulin for sustained glucose control before, during and after Ramadan fasting, with a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia, versus BIAsp 30, an existing premixed insulin analogue.
METHODS: Patients with T2D and HbA1c ≥ 8 % and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m2 and/or waist circumference ≥ 80 cm in women and ≥90 cm in men were recruited. The intervention in Diabetes Centre included 1) nurse-led, group-based workshops; 2) review by endocrinologists; 3) telephone reminders by healthcare assistants and 4) peer support during visits. The usual care (UC) group received consultations at outpatient clinic without workshops or peer support. The MIC group received UC after 1-year of intervention. The primary outcome was change of HbA1c from baseline at 1- and 3-year.
RESULTS: Of 207 eligible patients [age (mean ± standard deviation): 56.9 ± 8.8 years, 47.4 % men, disease duration: 13.5 ± 8.2 years, HbA1c: 9.6 ± 1.3 %, BMI: 28.8 ± 4.3 kg/m2, waist circumference: 101.5 ± 9.9 cm (men), 95.3 ± 9.8 cm (women)], 104 received MIC and 103 received UC. 95 % patients had repeat assessments at 1- and 3-year. After adjustment for confounders, MIC had greater HbA1c reduction (β -0.51, 95 % confidence interval [CI] -1.00 to -0.01; P = 0.045) than UC at 1-year, with sustained improvement at 3-year (β -0.56, CI -1.10 to -0.02; P = 0.044).
CONCLUSION: Team-based MIC for 1 year improved glycemic control in obese T2D which was sustained at 3-year.
METHODS: We analyzed data from Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Follow-Up Study participants. We examined associations of gestational diabetes (GDM), sum of fasting, 1-hour, and 2-hour glucose z-scores after 75-g load, insulin sensitivity, and lipid levels at 24-32 weeks' gestation with dyslipidemia 10-14 years postpartum.
RESULTS: Among 4,693 women, 14.3% had GDM. At follow-up, mean (SD) age was 41.7 (5.7) years, 32.3% had total cholesterol (TC) ≥ 5.17, 27.2% had HDL cholesterol
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of low glycaemic index or low glycaemic load diets on weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, one other database, and two clinical trials registers from their inception to 25 May 2022. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs with a minimum duration of eight weeks comparing low GI/GL diets to higher GI/GL diets or any other diets in people with overweight or obesity.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We conducted two main comparisons: low GI/GL diets versus higher GI/GL diets and low GI/GL diets versus any other diet. Our main outcomes included change in body weight and body mass index, adverse events, health-related quality of life, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, we included 10 studies (1210 participants); nine were newly-identified studies. We included only one study from the previous version of this review, following a revision of inclusion criteria. We listed five studies as 'awaiting classification' and one study as 'ongoing'. Of the 10 included studies, seven compared low GI/GL diets (233 participants) with higher GI/GL diets (222 participants) and three studies compared low GI/GL diets (379 participants) with any other diet (376 participants). One study included children (50 participants); one study included adults aged over 65 years (24 participants); the remaining studies included adults (1136 participants). The duration of the interventions varied from eight weeks to 18 months. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias across several domains. Low GI/GL diets versus higher GI/GL diets Low GI/GL diets probably result in little to no difference in change in body weight compared to higher GI/GL diets (mean difference (MD) -0.82 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.92 to 0.28; I2 = 52%; 7 studies, 403 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence from four studies reporting change in body mass index (BMI) indicated low GI/GL diets may result in little to no difference in change in BMI compared to higher GI/GL diets (MD -0.45 kg/m2, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.12; I2 = 22%; 186 participants; low-certainty evidence)at the end of the study periods. One study assessing participants' mood indicated that low GI/GL diets may improve mood compared to higher GI/GL diets, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -3.5, 95% CI -9.33 to 2.33; 42 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessing adverse events did not report any adverse events; we judged this outcome to have very low-certainty evidence. No studies reported on all-cause mortality. For the secondary outcomes, low GI/GL diets may result in little to no difference in fat mass compared to higher GI/GL diets (MD -0.86 kg, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.20; I2 = 6%; 6 studies, 295 participants; low certainty-evidence). Similarly, low GI/GL diets may result in little to no difference in fasting blood glucose level compared to higher GI/GL diets (MD 0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.21; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 344 participants; low-certainty evidence). Low GI/GL diets versus any other diet Low GI/GL diets probably result in little to no difference in change in body weight compared to other diets (MD -1.24 kg, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.34; I2 = 70%; 3 studies, 723 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that low GI/GL diets probably result in little to no difference in change in BMI compared to other diets (MD -0.30 kg in favour of low GI/GL diets, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.01; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 650 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Two adverse events were reported in one study: one was not related to the intervention, and the other, an eating disorder, may have been related to the intervention. Another study reported 11 adverse events, including hypoglycaemia following an oral glucose tolerance test. The same study reported seven serious adverse events, including kidney stones and diverticulitis. We judged this outcome to have low-certainty evidence. No studies reported on health-related quality of life or all-cause mortality. For the secondary outcomes, none of the studies reported on fat mass. Low GI/GL diets probably do not reduce fasting blood glucose level compared to other diets (MD 0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.12; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 732 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence indicates there may be little to no difference for all main outcomes between low GI/GL diets versus higher GI/GL diets or any other diet. There is insufficient information to draw firm conclusions about the effect of low GI/GL diets on people with overweight or obesity. Most studies had a small sample size, with only a few participants in each comparison group. We rated the certainty of the evidence as moderate to very low. More well-designed and adequately-powered studies are needed. They should follow a standardised intervention protocol, adopt objective outcome measurement since blinding may be difficult to achieve, and make efforts to minimise loss to follow-up. Furthermore, studies in people from a wide range of ethnicities and with a wide range of dietary habits, as well as studies in low- and middle-income countries, are needed.
METHODS: CLHIV were considered to have lipid or glucose abnormalities if they had total cholesterol ≥200 mg/dL, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) ≤35 mg/dL, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) ≥100 mg/dL, triglycerides (TG) ≥110 mg/dL, or fasting glucose >110 mg/dL. Factors associated with lipid and glucose abnormalities were assessed by logistic regression.
RESULTS: Of 951 CLHIV, 52% were male with a median age of 8.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 5.0-12.0) years at ART start and 15.0 (IQR 12.0-18.0) years at their last clinic visit. 89% acquired HIV perinatally, and 30% had ever used protease inhibitors (PIs). Overall, 225 (24%) had hypercholesterolemia, 105 (27%) low HDL, 213 (58%) high LDL, 369 (54%) hypertriglyceridemia, and 130 (17%) hyperglycemia. Hypercholesterolemia was more likely among females (versus males, aOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.40-2.67). Current PIs use was associated with hypercholesterolemia (current use: aOR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09-2.20); low HDL (current use: aOR 3.16, 95% CI 1.94-5.15; prior use: aOR 10.55, 95% CI 2.53-43.95); hypertriglyceridemia (current use: aOR 3.90, 95% CI 2.65-5.74; prior use: aOR 2.89, 95% CI 1.31-6.39); high LDL (current use: aOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.09-2.76); and hyperglycemia (prior use: aOR 2.43, 95% CI 1.42-4.18).
CONCLUSION: More than half and one-fifth of CLHIV have dyslipidemia and hyperglycemia, respectively. Routine paediatric HIV care should include metabolic monitoring. The association between PIs use and dyslipidemia emphasizes the importance of rapidly transitioning to integrase inhibitor-containing regimens.