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.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (29 June 2022) without language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during Ramadan that evaluated all pharmacological or behavioural interventions in Muslims with T2DM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened and selected records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs with 5359 participants, with a four-week study duration and at least four weeks of follow-up. All studies had at least one high-risk domain in the risk of bias assessment. Four trials compared dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylureas (85/1237 versus 165/1258, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). Serious hypoglycaemia was similar between groups (no events were reported in two trials; 6/279 in the DPP-4 versus 4/278 in the sulphonylurea group was reported in one trial, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.24; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (141/1207 versus 157/1219, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54) and HbA1c changes (MD -0.11%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.36) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No deaths were reported (moderate-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared meglitinides with sulphonylurea. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on hypoglycaemia (14/133 versus 21/140, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.28) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.35% to 0.41%) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). Death, serious hypoglycaemic events, adverse events, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. SGLT-2 may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (4/58 versus 13/52, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (one event reported in both groups, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.97) and adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (20/58 versus 18/52, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). SGLT-2 inhibitors result in little or no difference in HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58; 1 trial, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Three trials compared glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues with sulphonylurea. GLP-1 analogues may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (20/291 versus 48/305, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (0/91 versus 1/91, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that GLP-1 analogues result in little to no difference in adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (78/244 versus 55/255, RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.61; very low-certainty evidence), treatment satisfaction (MD -0.18, 95% CI -3.18 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or change in HbA1c (MD -0.04%, 95% CI -0.45% to 0.36%; 2 trials, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of insulin analogues on hypoglycaemia (47/256 versus 81/244, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.40) and serious hypoglycaemia (4/131 versus 3/132, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.89) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). The evidence was very uncertain for the effect of insulin analogues on adverse effects other than hypoglycaemia (109/256 versus 114/244, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (1/131 versus 0/132, RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.53; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.03%, 95% CI -0.17% to 0.23%; 1 trial, 245 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared telemedicine with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of telemedicine on hypoglycaemia compared with usual care (9/63 versus 23/58, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; very low-certainty evidence), HRQoL (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.84%, 95% CI -1.51% to -0.17%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, AEs other than hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared Ramadan-focused patient education with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of Ramadan-focused patient education on hypoglycaemia (49/213 versus 42/209, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -0.73% to -0.06%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, adverse events other than hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared drug dosage reduction with usual care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drug dosage reduction on hypoglycaemia (19/452 versus 52/226, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30; very low-certainty evidence). No participants experienced adverse events other than hypoglycaemia during the study (very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction, HbA1c change and HRQoL were not evaluated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence of the benefits or harms of interventions for individuals with T2DM who fast during Ramadan. All results should be interpreted with caution due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies, which give rise to low- to very low-certainty evidence. Major outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life and severe hypoglycaemia, were rarely evaluated. Sufficiently powered studies that examine the effects of various interventions on these outcomes are needed.
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.