Dataset Information

Effect of bile acid sequestrants on glycaemic control: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In addition to the lipid-lowering effect of bile acid sequestrants (BASs), they also lower blood glucose and, therefore, could be beneficial in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Three oral BASs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: colestipol, cholestyramine and colesevelam. The BAS colestimide/colestilan is used in Japan. Colesevelam was recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of T2DM. We plan to provide a systematic review with meta-analysis of the glucose-lowering effect of BASs with the aim to evaluate their potential as glucose-lowering agents in patients with T2DM.

Methods and analysis

In accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement, a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of BASs (vs placebo, oral antidiabetes drugs or insulin), reporting measures of glycaemic control in adult patients with T2DM, will be performed. Change in glycated haemoglobin constitutes the primary endpoint, and secondary endpoints include changes in fasting plasma glucose, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, body weight and body mass index and adverse events. Electronic searches will be performed in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE, along with manual searches in the reference lists of relevant papers. The analyses will be performed based on individual patient data and summarised data. The primary meta-analysis will be performed using random effects models owing to expected intertrial heterogeneity. Dichotomous data will be analysed using risk difference and continuous data using weighted mean differences, both with 95% CIs.

Ethics and dissemination

The study will evaluate the potential of BASs as glucose-lowering agents and possibly contribute to the clinical management of patients with T2DM.

Results

The study will be disseminated by peer-review publication and conference presentation.

Protocol registration

PROSPERO CRD42012002552.

SUBMITTER: Hansen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3533035 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of bile acid sequestrants on glycaemic control: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Hansen Morten M Sonne David Peick DP Mikkelsen Kristian Hallundbæk KH Gluud Lise Lotte LL Vilsbøll Tina T Knop Filip Krag FK

BMJ open 20121112 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>In addition to the lipid-lowering effect of bile acid sequestrants (BASs), they also lower blood glucose and, therefore, could be beneficial in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Three oral BASs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: colestipol, cholestyramine and colesevelam. The BAS colestimide/colestilan is used in Japan. Colesevelam was recently approved by the FDA for the treatme ...[more]

PMID: 23148345

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether psychological interventions have any effect on glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of psychological therapies to assess their effectiveness in improving glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes.Data sourcesMedline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials searched to September 2004.Review methodsAll included studies were randomised controlled trials in children (including adolescents) or adults with type 1 diabetes that evaluated the effect of a psychological therapy (counselling, cognitive behaviour therapy, family systems therapy, and psychodynamic therapy) on control of diabetes. Data were extracted on sample size, age, duration of diabetes, type of psychological therapy, its mode of delivery, and type of intervention in control group.Main outcome measuresGlycaemic control measured by percentage of glycated haemoglobin and psychological distress. Pooled standardised effect sizes were calculated.Results29 trials were eligible for the systematic review and 21 trials for the meta-analysis. In the 10 studies of children and adolescents included in the meta-analysis, the mean percentage of glycated haemoglobin was significantly reduced in those who had received a psychological intervention compared with those in the control group (pooled standardised mean difference -0.35 (95% confidence interval -0.66 to -0.04), equivalent to a 0.48% (0.05% to 0.91%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. In the 11 studies in adults the pooled standardised mean difference was -0.17 (-0.45 to 0.10), equivalent to 0.22% (-0.13% to 0.56%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. Psychological distress was significantly lower in the intervention groups in children and adolescents (pooled standardised effect size -0.46, -0.83 to -0.10) but not in adults (-0.25, -0.51 to 0.01).ConclusionPsychological treatments can slightly improve glycaemic control in children and adolescents with diabetes but have no effect in adults.

Project description:ObjectiveTo inform the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library searched up to 13 May 2021.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials of three or more weeks investigating the effect of diets with low glycaemic index (GI)/glycaemic load (GL) in diabetes.Outcome and measuresThe primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes included other markers of glycaemic control (fasting glucose, fasting insulin); blood lipids (low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, apo B, triglycerides); adiposity (body weight, BMI (body mass index), waist circumference), blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)), and inflammation (C reactive protein (CRP)).Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by random effects models. GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to assess the certainty of evidence.Results29 trial comparisons were identified in 1617 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes who were predominantly middle aged, overweight, or obese with moderately controlled type 2 diabetes treated by hyperglycaemia drugs or insulin. Low GI/GL dietary patterns reduced HbA1c in comparison with higher GI/GL control diets (mean difference −0.31% (95% confidence interval −0.42 to −0.19%), P<0.001; substantial heterogeneity, I2=75%, P<0.001). Reductions occurred also in fasting glucose, LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apo B, triglycerides, body weight, BMI, systolic blood pressure (dose-response), and CRP (P<0.05), but not blood insulin, HDL-C, waist circumference, or diastolic blood pressure. A positive dose-response gradient was seen for the difference in GL and HbA1c and for absolute dietary GI and SBP (P<0.05). The certainty of evidence was high for the reduction in HbA1c and moderate for most secondary outcomes, with downgrades due mainly to imprecision.ConclusionsThis synthesis suggests that low GI/GL dietary patterns result in small important improvements in established targets of glycaemic control, blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure, and inflammation beyond concurrent treatment with hyperglycaemia drugs or insulin, predominantly in adults with moderately controlled type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The available evidence provides a good indication of the likely benefit in this population.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04045938.

Project description:BackgroundBile acid diarrhoea (BAD) can be severely debilitating and negatively affect patients' quality of life (QoL). We carried out a multi-centre prospective study exploring QoL outcomes in patients with BAD after treatment with colesevelam.MethodsPatients with or without a positive 23-seleno-25-homotaurocholic acid (SeHCAT) scan were recruited and categorised into four groups: SeHCAT negative control group (CG), idiopathic BAD, post-cholecystectomy (PC) and post-terminal ileal resection for Crohn's disease (CD). Patients with a positive SeHCAT were treated with colesevelam and dosing was titrated to symptomatic response. Patients were reviewed at 4- and 8-weekly intervals and QoL was evaluated by EQ-5D-3L, SF-36, IBDQ-32 at each visit (where relevant). Patients with a negative SeHCAT (CG cohort) completed one set of questionnaires before being discharged from the study.Results47 patients (BAD = 24, PC = 12, CD = 11) completed paired QoL questionnaires before and after treatment and 30 CG patients completed a baseline questionnaire. There was a significant improvement in IBDQ-32 mean scores before and after treatment in CD patients [134.6 (95%CI 112.5-156.6) and 158.4 (136.1-180.6), respectively (p = 0.007). Following treatment, BAD patients had significantly improved mean SF-36 scores in the "Role limitation due to physical health" dimension (p = 0.02) and in the overall mental component summary (p = 0.03). Prior to starting treatment, BAD patients had the lowest scores in the 'activity' dimension of the EQ-5D-3L (p = 0.04), which improved significantly after treatment (p = 0.002). Overall, the BAD and CD cohort showed improved mean scores with treatment in all components of the SF-36 and EQ-5D-3L, while the PC cohort showed a general decline in mean scores after treatment. 55% of patients clinically responded to treatment of which 41.7%, 58.3% and 81.8% responded from the BAD, PC and CD groups respectively. Correlations between those deemed as responders with improvements on the SF-36 and EQ-5D dimensions were not statistically significant.ConclusionOur results demonstrate improved QoL in the BAD and CD cohort with treatment. Further larger studies are recommended specifically investigating the PC cohort and whether patients may improve with newer treatments such as FXR agonists. Trial registration Ethical approval REC Ref: 16/LO/1325.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Dataset Information

Effect of bile acid sequestrants on glycaemic control: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Results

Protocol registration

Publications

Effect of bile acid sequestrants on glycaemic control: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets