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.

OBJECTIVE: We have conducted a systematic review of two major (FIGHT and LIVE) placebo-controlled trials of liraglutide and its clinical effect on the ejection fraction of subjects with heart failure.

METHODS: Medline data was retrieved for trials involving liraglutide from 2012 to 2020. The inclusion criteria for trials were: subjects with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), subjects with heart failure with rLVEF, major trials (phase II or III) on liraglutide, trials included liraglutide with defined efficacy primary outcome of patients with heart failure with rLVEF. The search was limited to the English language, whereby two trials [FIGHT and LIVE] had been included and two trials were excluded due to different primary outcomes. Participants (541) had been randomized for either liraglutide or placebo for 24 weeks.

RESULTS: In the FIGHT trial the primary intention-to-treat, sensitivity, and diabetes subgroup analyses have shown no significant between-group difference in the global rank scores (mean rank of 146 in the liraglutide group versus 156 in the placebo group; Wilcoxon rank-sum P=.31), number of deaths, re-hospitalizations for heart failure, or the composite of death or change in NT-pro BNP level (P= .94). In the LIVE trial, the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to week 24 was not significantly different between treatment groups. The overall discontinuation rate of liraglutide was high in the FIGHT trial (29%, 86) as compared to that in the LIVE trial (11.6%, 28).

Methods: A systematic search using predefined search terms in three scholarly databases, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and PubMed, was conducted. Original research articles published in the English language between 2012 and 2020 that reported renal outcomes associated with the use of non-insulin AD pharmacotherapy were eligible for inclusion. Review articles, meta-analysis studies, and conference proceedings were excluded. A study-specific data extraction form was designed to extract the author's name, country, publication year, study design, study population, objectives, key findings, and conclusions. A narrative review of the key findings that focused on renal outcomes and renal safety issues was conducted.

Results: Of the 18,872 results identified through the initial search, a total of 32 articles were included in this review. Of these, 18 of the included articles reported the renal outcomes of newer antidiabetic medications, eg, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. Eight studies focussed on the well-established antidiabetic medications, eg, metformin and sulphonylureas. The review reported three main types of the clinical impact of the prescribed AD on the renal outcomes: "renoprotective effects", "no additional risk" and "associated with a decline in renal parameters". Seventeen studies reported the renoprotective effects of AD, including SGLT2i studies (n=8), GLP1 studies (n=6), and DPP4i studies (n=3). The reported renoprotective effects included slowing down the GFR decline, improving albuminuria, and reducing renal adverse events. The "no additional risk" impact was reported in eight studies, including DPP4i studies (n=3), two SGLT2i studies (n=2), metformin studies (n=2), and one study involving pioglitazone. Furthermore, seven studies highlighted the "associated with a decline in renal parameters" effect. Of these, three involved SGLT2i, two with metformin, and one for each DPP4i and sulphonylurea.

METHODS: A total of 174 subjects were divided into NGT (n=58), pre-DM (n=54), and T2DM (n=62). Plasma total GLP-1 concentrations were measured at 0, 30, and 120 min during a 75-g OGTT. Homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), HOMA of insulin sensitivity (HOMA-IS), and triglyceride-glucose index (TyG) were calculated.

RESULTS: Total GLP-1 levels at fasting and 30 min were significantly higher in T2DM compared with pre-DM and NGT (27.18 ± 11.56 pmol/L vs. 21.99 ± 10.16 pmol/L vs. 16.24 ± 7.79 pmol/L, p=0.001; and 50.22 ± 18.03 pmol/L vs. 41.05 ± 17.68 pmol/L vs. 31.44 ± 22.59 pmol/L, p<0.001; respectively). Ethnicity was a significant determinant of AUCGLP-1, with the Indians exhibiting higher GLP-1 responses than Chinese and Malays. Indians were the most insulin resistant, whereas Chinese were the most insulin sensitive. The GLP-1 levels were positively correlated with HOMA-IR and TyG but negatively correlated with HOMA-IS. This relationship was evident among Indians who exhibited augmented GLP-1 responses proportionately to their high insulin-resistant states.

METHODS: Twenty healthy subjects were enrolled in a randomized, 3-way, blinded cross-over trial. The study was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier no. NCT00123456. At each test day, the subjects received one of three meals comprising 30 g of starch with 5 g of LD or UP or an energy-adjusted control meal containing pea protein. Fasting and postprandial blood glucose, insulin, C-peptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) concentrations were measured. Subjective appetite sensations were scored using visual analogue scales (VAS).

RESULTS: Linear mixed model (LMM) analysis showed a lower blood glucose, insulin and C-peptide response following the intake of LD and UP, after correction for body weight. Participants weighing ≤ 63 kg had a reduced glucose response compared to control meal between 40 and 90 min both following LD and UP meals. Furthermore, LMM analysis for C-peptide showed a significantly lower response after intake of LD. Compared to the control meal, GLP-1 response was higher after the LD meal, both before and after the body weight adjustment. The VAS scores showed a decreased appetite sensation after intake of the seaweeds. Ad-libitum food intake was not different three hours after the seaweed meals compared to control.

CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant ingestion of brown seaweeds may help improving postprandial glycaemic and appetite control in healthy and normal weight adults, depending on the dose per body weight.

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.

METHODS: The study involved 235 Malaysian subjects who were randomly selected (66 normal weight subjects, 97 overweight, 59 obese subjects, and 13 subjects who were underweight). Serum sDPP4 and active GLP-1 levels were examined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Also, body mass index kg/m(2) (BMI), lipid profiles, insulin and glucose levels were evaluated. Insulin resistance (IR) was estimated via the homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR).

RESULTS: Serum sDPP4 levels were significantly higher in obese subjects compared to normal weight subjects (p=0.034), whereas serum levels of active GLP-1 were lower (p=0.021). In obese subjects, sDPP4 levels correlated negatively with active GLP-1 levels (r(2)=-0.326, p=0.015). Furthermore, linear regression showed that sDPP4 levels were positively associated with insulin resistance (B=82.28, p=0.023) in obese subjects.