PATIENTS AND METHODS: This case-control study involved the participation of 87 patients and 122 healthy individuals. Lycopene intake was assessed by using a food frequency questionnaire. The peripheral antioxidant capacity among the T2DM patients was evaluated. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were measured as indications of glycaemic status.
RESULTS: Peripheral antioxidant capacity was significantly lower in the T2DM group. Direct positive correlations were found between the lycopene intake and peripheral antioxidant level among the T2DM patients. Contrarily, HbA1c and FPG levels decreased significantly with the higher lycopene intake.
CONCLUSIONS: T2DM patients with a higher lycopene intake showed a greater peripheral antioxidant capacity and better glycaemic control. Lycopene may act to ameliorate oxidative stress and improve the pathophysiology of T2DM.
METHODS AND DESIGN: This is a single-center, randomized, controlled, two-arm parallel design clinical trial that will be carried out in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. In this study, 100 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes will be enrolled. Diabetic patients who meet the eligibility criteria will be randomly allocated to two groups, which are diabetic C. caudatus treated(U) group and diabetic control (C) group. Primary and secondary outcomes will be measured at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The serum and urine metabolome of both groups will be examined using proton NMR spectroscopy.
DISCUSSION: The study will be the first randomized controlled trial to assess whether C. caudatus can confer beneficial effect in patients with type 2 diabetes. The results of this trial will provide clinical evidence on the effectiveness and safety of C. caudatus in patients with type 2 diabetes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02322268.
METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines to investigate the postoperative impact on diabetes resolution following LVSG versus LRYGB.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving a total of 732 patients (LVSG n = 365, LRYGB n = 367) met inclusion criteria. Significant diabetes resolution or improvement was reported with both procedures across all time points. Similarly, measures of glycemic control (HbA1C and fasting blood glucose levels) improved with both procedures, with earlier improvements noted in LRYGB that stabilized and did not differ from LVSG at 12 months postoperatively. Early improvements in measures of insulin resistance in both procedures were also noted in the studies that investigated this.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative type 2 diabetes in obese patients during the reported 3- to 5-year follow-up periods. However, further studies are required before longer-term outcomes can be elucidated. Areas identified that need to be addressed for future studies on this topic include longer follow-up periods, standardized definitions and time point for reporting, and financial analysis of outcomes obtained between surgical procedures to better inform procedure selection.