scholarly journals Long-term Low-carbohydrate Diets and Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Noto ◽  
Atsushi Goto ◽  
Tetsuro Tsujimoto ◽  
Mitsuhiko Noda
2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ozra Tabatabaei-Malazy ◽  
Shekoufeh Nikfar ◽  
Bagher Larijani ◽  
Mohammad Abdollahi

Purpose.There are controversial data regarding the beneficial effects of ascorbic acid (AA) supplementation in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In this systematic review, we aimed to criticize the current relevant data from both observational and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods. All observational and RCTs conducted to assess anti-hyperglycemic effects of AA in diabetics, published before January 2013, were included. To obtain all related studies Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, IranMedex, and Magiran web databases were searched. Exclusion criteria were animal studies, and studies conducted in Type 1 DM, children or pregnant women. Main outcome measures were fasting blood sugar (FBS), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). According to degree of heterogeneity, fixed or random effect models were employed. Meta-analyses were done using Stats Direct software, version 3.0.97. The quality of included articles and publication bias were also assessed. Results. We selected 38 articles; 26 observational studies and 12 RCTs. Due to severe methodological heterogeneity in all observational studies and some of RCTs, we could pool data from only 5 RCTs in a meta-analysis. Single intake of AA versus placebo showed a significant effect on FBS; with the standardized mean difference (SMD): -20.59, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): -40.77 to -0.4 (p= 0.04), but non-significant effect on HbA1c; SMD: -0.46, 95% CI: -1.75 to 0.84 (p= 0.4). Effect of other antioxidants with/without AA supplementation on FBSwere nonsignificant; SMD: -4.26 (p= 0.8), and SMD: -12.04 (p= 0.3), respectively. Also, their effect on HbA1c was non-significant; SMD: 0.53 (p= 0.11), and SMD: 0.28 (p= 0.34), respectively. Conclusions. Our study supports the positive effect of AA in reduction of FBS in diabetics, however, due to insufficient evidence ragarding long term safety of AA supplementation and limited number of  RCTs, the long term use of this vitamin for its anti-diabetic properties cannot be strongly recommended. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see “For Readers”) may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue’s contents page.


BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. m4743
Author(s):  
Joshua Z Goldenberg ◽  
Andrew Day ◽  
Grant D Brinkworth ◽  
Junko Sato ◽  
Satoru Yamada ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To determine the efficacy and safety of low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) and very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) for people with type 2 diabetes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB, and grey literature sources from inception to 25 August 2020. Study selection Randomized clinical trials evaluating LCDs (<130 g/day or <26% of a 2000 kcal/day diet) and VLCDs (<10% calories from carbohydrates) for at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes were eligible. Data extraction Primary outcomes were remission of diabetes (HbA 1c <6.5% or fasting glucose <7.0 mmol/L, with or without the use of diabetes medication), weight loss, HbA 1c , fasting glucose, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and biochemical laboratory data. All articles and outcomes were independently screened, extracted, and assessed for risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence at six and 12 month follow-up. Risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Outcomes were assessed according to a priori determined minimal important differences to determine clinical importance, and heterogeneity was investigated on the basis of risk of bias and seven a priori subgroups. Any subgroup effects with a statistically significant test of interaction were subjected to a five point credibility checklist. Results Searches identified 14 759 citations yielding 23 trials (1357 participants), and 40.6% of outcomes were judged to be at low risk of bias. At six months, compared with control diets, LCDs achieved higher rates of diabetes remission (defined as HbA 1c <6.5%) (76/133 (57%) v 41/131 (31%); risk difference 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.47; 8 studies, n=264, I 2 =58%). Conversely, smaller, non-significant effect sizes occurred when a remission definition of HbA 1c <6.5% without medication was used. Subgroup assessments determined as meeting credibility criteria indicated that remission with LCDs markedly decreased in studies that included patients using insulin. At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes. Large clinically important improvements were seen in weight loss, triglycerides, and insulin sensitivity at six months, which diminished at 12 months. On the basis of subgroup assessments deemed credible, VLCDs were less effective than less restrictive LCDs for weight loss at six months. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence. That is, among highly adherent patients on VLCDs, a clinically important reduction in weight was seen compared with studies with less adherent patients on VLCDs. Participants experienced no significant difference in quality of life at six months but did experience clinically important, but not statistically significant, worsening of quality of life and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months. Otherwise, no significant or clinically important between group differences were found in terms of adverse events or blood lipids at six and 12 months. Conclusions On the basis of moderate to low certainty evidence, patients adhering to an LCD for six months may experience remission of diabetes without adverse consequences. Limitations include continued debate around what constitutes remission of diabetes, as well as the efficacy, safety, and dietary satisfaction of longer term LCDs. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020161795.


Author(s):  
Nasim Janbozorgi ◽  
Ramesh Allipour ◽  
Kurosh Djafarian ◽  
Sakineh Shab-Bidar ◽  
Mostafa Badeli ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e027298
Author(s):  
Janett Barbaresko ◽  
Manuela Neuenschwander ◽  
Lukas Schwingshackl ◽  
Sabrina Schlesinger

IntroductionType 2 diabetes (T2D) is a major health concern associated with several comorbidities such as diabetic chronic kidney disease, neuropathy and cardiovascular diseases. Many of these complications may be preventable by an adequate lifestyle, including a favourable dietary behaviour, additionally to pharmacological management. In general, dietary guidelines for patients with diabetes recommend a hypocaloric diet to achieve a normal weight, but there is a lack of detailed instructions on specific nutrients and foods to prevent diabetes-related outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarise the available evidence on the association between dietary factors and health-related outcomes in patients with T2D.Methods and analysisA systematic literature search will be conducted in PubMed and Web of Science in May 2019 to identify prospective observational studies investigating dietary factors in association with major complications in patients with T2D. We will include studies investigating dietary patterns, food groups, foods, macronutrients and micronutrients as well as secondary plant compounds. As diabetes-related outcomes, we will include macrovascular (cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases) and microvascular outcomes (nephropathy, neuropathy and retinopathy), as well as cancer, quality of life, depression, cognitive disorders and mortality. We will conduct dose-response meta-analyses using random effects models. We will investigate heterogeneity across studies and publication bias. To assess the risk of bias and quality of the included studies, we will use the Cochrane risk of bias tool ROBINS-I and the quality of evidence will be assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationAs the systematic review is based on published studies, ethical considerations are not required. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed Journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018110669


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document