Dataset Information

Effect of fruit restriction on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes--a randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: Medical nutrition therapy is recognized as an important treatment option in type 2 diabetes. Most guidelines recommend eating a diet with a high intake of fiber-rich food including fruit. This is based on the many positive effects of fruit on human health. However some health professionals have concerns that fruit intake has a negative impact on glycemic control and therefore recommend restricting the fruit intake. We found no studies addressing this important clinical question. The objective was to investigate whether an advice to reduce the intake of fruit to patients with type 2 diabetes affects HbA1c, bodyweight, waist circumference and fruit intake.This was an open randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups. The primary outcome was a change in HbA1c during 12 weeks of intervention. Participants were randomized to one of two interventions; medical nutrition therapy + advice to consume at least two pieces of fruit a day (high-fruit) or medical nutrition therapy + advice to consume no more than two pieces of fruit a day (low-fruit). All participants had two consultations with a registered dietitian. Fruit intake was self-reported using 3-day fruit records and dietary recalls. All assessments were made by the "intention to treat" principle.The study population consisted of 63 men and women with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. All patients completed the trial. The high-fruit group increased fruit intake with 125 grams (CI 95%; 78 to 172) and the low-fruit group reduced intake with 51 grams (CI 95%; -18 to -83). HbA1c decreased in both groups with no difference between the groups (diff.: 0.19%, CI 95%; -0.23 to 0.62). Both groups reduced body weight and waist circumference, however there was no difference between the groups.A recommendation to reduce fruit intake as part of standard medical nutrition therapy in overweight patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes resulted in eating less fruit. It had however no effect on HbA1c, weight loss or waist circumference. We recommend that the intake of fruit should not be restricted in patients with type 2 diabetes.http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT01010594.

SUBMITTER: Christensen AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3599615 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of fruit restriction on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes--a randomized trial.

Christensen Allan S AS Viggers Lone L Hasselström Kjeld K Gregersen Søren S

Nutrition journal 20130305

<h4>Background</h4>Medical nutrition therapy is recognized as an important treatment option in type 2 diabetes. Most guidelines recommend eating a diet with a high intake of fiber-rich food including fruit. This is based on the many positive effects of fruit on human health. However some health professionals have concerns that fruit intake has a negative impact on glycemic control and therefore recommend restricting the fruit intake. We found no studies addressing this important clinical questio ...[more]

PMID: 23497350

Similar Datasets

Project description:It is unclear whether a lifestyle intervention can maintain glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.To test whether an intensive lifestyle intervention results in equivalent glycemic control compared with standard care and, secondarily, leads to a reduction in glucose-lowering medication in participants with type 2 diabetes.Randomized, assessor-blinded, single-center study within Region Zealand and the Capital Region of Denmark (April 2015-August 2016). Ninety-eight adult participants with non-insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes who were diagnosed for less than 10 years were included. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; stratified by sex) to the lifestyle group (n?=?64) or the standard care group (n?=?34).All participants received standard care with individual counseling and standardized, blinded, target-driven medical therapy. Additionally, the lifestyle intervention included 5 to 6 weekly aerobic training sessions (duration 30-60 minutes), of which 2 to 3 sessions were combined with resistance training. The lifestyle participants received dietary plans aiming for a body mass index of 25 or less. Participants were followed up for 12 months.Primary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to 12-month follow-up, and equivalence was prespecified by a CI margin of ±0.4% based on the intention-to-treat population. Superiority analysis was performed on the secondary outcome reductions in glucose-lowering medication.Among 98 randomized participants (mean age, 54.6 years [SD, 8.9]; women, 47 [48%]; mean baseline HbA1c, 6.7%), 93 participants completed the trial. From baseline to 12-month follow-up, the mean HbA1c level changed from 6.65% to 6.34% in the lifestyle group and from 6.74% to 6.66% in the standard care group (mean between-group difference in change of -0.26% [95% CI, -0.52% to -0.01%]), not meeting the criteria for equivalence (P?=?.15). Reduction in glucose-lowering medications occurred in 47 participants (73.5%) in the lifestyle group and 9 participants (26.4%) in the standard care group (difference, 47.1 percentage points [95% CI, 28.6-65.3]). There were 32 adverse events (most commonly musculoskeletal pain or discomfort and mild hypoglycemia) in the lifestyle group and 5 in the standard care group.Among adults with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for less than 10 years, a lifestyle intervention compared with standard care resulted in a change in glycemic control that did not reach the criterion for equivalence, but was in a direction consistent with benefit. Further research is needed to assess superiority, as well as generalizability and durability of findings.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02417012.

Project description:BackgroundSalsalate, a nonacetylated prodrug of salicylate, has been shown to decrease blood glucose concentration in small studies.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of salsalate at different doses in patients with type 2 diabetes.DesignParallel randomized trial with computer-generated randomization and centralized allocation. Patients and investigators, including those assessing outcomes and performing analyses, were masked to group assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00392678)Setting3 private practices and 14 universities in the United States.PatientsPersons aged 18 to 75 years with fasting plasma glucose concentrations of 12.5 mmol/L or less (< or = 225 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels of 7.0% to 9.5% treated by diet, exercise, and oral medication at stable doses for at least 8 weeks.InterventionAfter a 4-week, single-masked run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or salsalate in dosages of 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0 g/d for 14 weeks (27 patients each) in addition to their current therapy.MeasurementsChange in HbA1c was the primary outcome. Adverse effects and changes in measures of coronary risk and renal function were secondary outcomes.ResultsHigher proportions of patients in the 3 salsalate treatment groups experienced decreases in HbA1c levels of 0.5% or more from baseline (P = 0.009). Mean HbA1c changes were -0.36% (P = 0.02) at 3.0 g/d, -0.34% (P = 0.02) at 3.5 g/d, and -0.49% (P = 0.001) at 4.0 g/d compared with placebo. Other markers of glycemic control also improved in the 3 salsalate groups, as did circulating triglyceride and adiponectin concentrations. Mild hypoglycemia was more common with salsalate; documented events occurred only in patients taking sulfonylureas. Urine albumin concentrations increased in all salsalate groups compared with placebo. The drug was otherwise well tolerated.LimitationThe number of patients studied and the trial duration were insufficient to warrant recommending the use of salsalate for type 2 diabetes at this time.ConclusionSalsalate lowers HbA1c levels and improves other markers of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and may therefore provide a new avenue for treatment. Renal and cardiac safety of the drug require further evaluation.Primary funding sourceNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

Project description:Importance:Intermittent energy restriction is an alternative weight loss method that is becoming popular; however, to date, there are no long-term clinical trials of intermittent energy restriction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Objective:To compare the effects of intermittent energy restriction (2 days per week) with those of continuous energy restriction on glycemic control and weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes during a 12-month period. Design, Setting, and Participants:Adult participants (N?=?137) with type 2 diabetes were randomized 1:1 to parallel diet groups (intermittent energy restriction [n?=?70] or continuous energy restriction [n?=?67]) between April 7, 2015, and September 7, 2017, at the University of South Australia. Medications likely to cause hypoglycemia were reduced at baseline according to the medication management protocol. Interventions:An intermittent energy restriction diet (500-600 kcal/d) followed for 2 nonconsecutive days per week (participants followed their usual diet for the other 5 days) or a continuous energy restriction diet (1200-1500 kcal/d) followed for 7 days per week for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level, with equivalence prespecified by a 90% CI margin of ±0.5%. The secondary outcome was weight loss with equivalence set at ±2.5 kg (±1.75 kg for fat mass loss and ±0.75 kg for fat-free mass loss). All other outcomes were tested for superiority. Results:Of the 137 randomized participants (77 women and 60 men; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [9.1] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 36.0 [5.8] [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]; and mean [SD] HbA1c level, 7.3% [1.3%]), 97 completed the trial. Intention-to-treat analysis showed similar reductions in mean (SEM) HbA1c level between the continuous and intermittent energy restriction groups (-0.5% [0.2%] vs -0.3% [0.1%]; P?=?.65), with a between-group difference of 0.2% (90% CI, -0.2% to 0.5%) meeting the criteria for equivalence. Mean (SEM) weight change was similar between the continuous and intermittent energy restriction groups (-5.0 [0.8] kg vs -6.8 [0.8] kg; P?=?.25), but the between-group difference did not meet the criteria for equivalence (-1.8 kg; 90% CI, -3.7 to 0.07 kg), nor did the between-group difference in fat mass (-1.3 kg; 90% CI, -2.8 to 0.2 kg) or fat-free mass (-0.5 kg; 90% CI, -1.4 to 0.4 kg). There were no significant differences between groups in final step count, fasting glucose levels, lipid levels, or total medication effect score at 12 months. Effects did not differ using completers analysis. Hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic events in the first 2 weeks of treatment were similar between the continuous and intermittent energy restriction groups (mean number [SEM] of events, 3.2 [0.7] vs 4.9 [1.4]; P?=?.28), affecting 35% of participants (16 of 46) using sulfonylureas and/or insulin. Conclusions and Relevance:Intermittent energy restriction is an effective alternative diet strategy for the reduction of HbA1c and is comparable with continuous energy restriction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Trial Registration:anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12615000383561.

Project description:ImportanceContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be beneficial for adults with type 2 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy, but its use in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin has not been well studied.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin in primary care practices.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted at 15 centers in the US (enrollment from July 30, 2018, to October 30, 2019; follow-up completed July 7, 2020) and included adults with type 2 diabetes receiving their diabetes care from a primary care clinician and treated with 1 or 2 daily injections of long- or intermediate-acting basal insulin without prandial insulin, with or without noninsulin glucose-lowering medications.InterventionsRandom assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring (n = 59).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at 8 months. Key secondary outcomes were CGM-measured time in target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with glucose level at greater than 250 mg/dL, and mean glucose level at 8 months.ResultsAmong 175 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [9] years; 88 women [50%]; 92 racial/ethnic minority individuals [53%]; mean [SD] baseline HbA1c level, 9.1% [0.9%]), 165 (94%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 9.1% at baseline to 8.0% at 8 months in the CGM group and from 9.0% to 8.4% in the BGM group (adjusted difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -0.8% to -0.1%]; P = .02). In the CGM group, compared with the BGM group, the mean percentage of CGM-measured time in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL was 59% vs 43% (adjusted difference, 15% [95% CI, 8% to 23%]; P < .001), the mean percentage of time at greater than 250 mg/dL was 11% vs 27% (adjusted difference, -16% [95% CI, -21% to -11%]; P < .001), and the means of the mean glucose values were 179 mg/dL vs 206 mg/dL (adjusted difference, -26 mg/dL [95% CI, -41 to -12]; P < .001). Severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 1 participant (1%) in the CGM group and in 1 (2%) in the BGM group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin, continuous glucose monitoring, as compared with blood glucose meter monitoring, resulted in significantly lower HbA1c levels at 8 months.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03566693.

Project description:ImportanceGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are effective therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and are all currently available as an injection.ObjectivesTo compare the effects of oral semaglutide with placebo (primary) and open-label subcutaneous semaglutide (secondary) on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.Design, setting, and patientsPhase 2, randomized, parallel-group, dosage-finding, 26-week trial with 5-week follow-up at 100 sites (hospital clinics, general practices, and clinical research centers) in 14 countries conducted between December 2013 and December 2014. Of 1106 participants assessed, 632 with type 2 diabetes and insufficient glycemic control using diet and exercise alone or a stable dose of metformin were randomized. Randomization was stratified by metformin use.InterventionsOnce-daily oral semaglutide of 2.5 mg (n?=?70), 5 mg (n?=?70), 10 mg (n?=?70), 20 mg (n?=?70), 40-mg 4-week dose escalation (standard escalation; n?=?71), 40-mg 8-week dose escalation (slow escalation; n?=?70), 40-mg 2-week dose escalation (fast escalation, n?=?70), oral placebo (n?=?71; double-blind) or once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide of 1.0 mg (n?=?70) for 26 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26. Secondary end points included change from baseline in body weight and adverse events.ResultsBaseline characteristics were comparable across treatment groups. Of the 632 randomized patients (mean age, 57.1 years [SD, 10.6]; men, 395 (62.7%); diabetes duration, 6.3 years [SD, 5.2]; body weight, 92.3 kg [SD, 16.8]; BMI, 31.7 [SD, 4.3]), 583 (92%) completed the trial. Mean change in HbA1c level from baseline to week 26 decreased with oral semaglutide (dosage-dependent range, -0.7% to -1.9%) and subcutaneous semaglutide (-1.9%) and placebo (-0.3%); oral semaglutide reductions were significant vs placebo (dosage-dependent estimated treatment difference [ETD] range for oral semaglutide vs placebo, -0.4% to -1.6%; P?=?.01 for 2.5 mg, <.001 for all other dosages). Reductions in body weight were greater with oral semaglutide (dosage-dependent range, -2.1 kg to -6.9 kg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (-6.4 kg) vs placebo (-1.2 kg), and significant for oral semaglutide dosages of 10 mg or more vs placebo (dosage-dependent ETD range, -0.9 to -5.7 kg; P?<?.001). Adverse events were reported by 63% to 86% (371 of 490 patients) in the oral semaglutide groups, 81% (56 of 69 patients) in the subcutaneous semaglutide group, and 68% (48 of 71 patients) in the placebo group; mild to moderate gastrointestinal events were most common.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with type 2 diabetes, oral semaglutide resulted in better glycemic control than placebo over 26 weeks. These findings support phase 3 studies to assess longer-term and clinical outcomes, as well as safety.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01923181.

Dataset Information

Effect of fruit restriction on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes--a randomized trial.

Publications

Effect of fruit restriction on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes--a randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets