Dataset Information

Quantifying the effects of diuretics and ?-adrenoceptor blockers on glycaemic control in diabetes mellitus - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Although there are reports that ?-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers) and diuretics can affect glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus, there is no clear information on how blood glucose concentrations may change and by how much. We report results from a systematic review to quantify the effects of these antihypertensive drugs on glycaemic control in adults with established diabetes.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the literature to identify randomized controlled trials in which glycaemic control was studied in adults with diabetes taking either beta-blockers or diuretics. We combined data on HbA1c and fasting blood glucose using fixed effects meta-analysis.

Results

From 3864 papers retrieved, we found 10 studies of beta-blockers and 12 studies of diuretics to include in the meta-analysis. One study included both comparisons, totalling 21 included reports. Beta-blockers increased fasting blood glucose concentrations by 0.64 mmol l(-1) (95% CI 0.24, 1.03) and diuretics by 0.77 mmol l(-1) (95% CI 0.14, 1.39) compared with placebo. Effect sizes were largest in trials of non-selective beta-blockers (1.33, 95% CI 0.72, 1.95) and thiazide diuretics (1.69, 95% CI 0.60, 2.69). Beta-blockers increased HbA1c concentrations by 0.75% (95% CI 0.30, 1.20) and diuretics by 0.24% (95% CI -0.17, 0.65) compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the number of hypoglycaemic events between beta-blockers and placebo in three trials.

Conclusions

Randomized trials suggest that thiazide diuretics and non-selective beta-blockers increase fasting blood glucose and HbA1c concentrations in patients with diabetes by moderate amounts. These data will inform prescribing and monitoring of beta-blockers and diuretics in patients with diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Hirst JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4415710 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantifying the effects of diuretics and β-adrenoceptor blockers on glycaemic control in diabetes mellitus - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hirst Jennifer A JA Farmer Andrew J AJ Feakins Benjamin G BG Aronson Jeffrey K JK Stevens Richard J RJ

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20150501 5

<h4>Aims</h4>Although there are reports that β-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers) and diuretics can affect glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus, there is no clear information on how blood glucose concentrations may change and by how much. We report results from a systematic review to quantify the effects of these antihypertensive drugs on glycaemic control in adults with established diabetes.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically reviewed the literature to identify randomized cont ...[more]

PMID: 25377481

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCancer and Diabetes Mellitus (DM) are leading causes of death worldwide and the prevalence of both is escalating. People with co-morbid cancer and DM have increased morbidity and premature mortality compared with cancer patients with no DM. The reasons for this are likely to be multifaceted but will include the impact of hypo/hyperglycaemia and diabetes therapies on cancer treatment and disease progression. A useful step toward addressing this disparity in treatment outcomes is to establish the impact of cancer treatment on diabetes control.AimThe aim of this review is to identify and analyse current evidence reporting glycaemic control (HbA1c) during and after cancer treatment.MethodsSystematic searches of published quantitative research relating to comorbid cancer and type 2 diabetes mellitus were conducted using databases, including Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science (February 2017). Full text publications were eligible for inclusion if they: were quantitative, published in English language, investigated the effects of cancer treatment on glycaemic control, reported HbA1c (%/mmols/mol) and included adult populations with diabetes. Means, standard deviations and sample sizes were extracted from each paper; missing standard deviations were imputed. The completed datasets were analysed using a random effects model. A mixed-effects analysis was undertaken to calculate mean HbA1c (%/mmols/mol) change over three time periods compared to baseline.ResultsThe available literature exploring glycaemic control post-diagnosis was mixed. There was increased risk of poor glycaemic control during this time if studies of surgical treatment for gastric cancer are excluded, with significant differences between baseline and 12 months (p < 0.001) and baseline and 24 months (p = 0.002).ConclusionWe found some evidence to support the contention that glycaemic control during and/or after non-surgical cancer treatment is worsened, and the reasons are not well defined in individual studies. Future studies should consider the reasons why this is the case.

Project description:AimPeripheral vasoconstriction has long been described as a vascular adverse effect of ?-adrenoceptor blockers. Whether ?-adrenoceptor blockers should be avoided in patients with peripheral vascular disease depends on pharmacological properties (e.g. preferential binding to ?1 -adrenoreceptors or intrinsic sympathomimetic activity). However, this has not been confirmed in experimental studies. We performed a network meta-analysis in order to assess the comparative risk of peripheral vasoconstriction of different ?-adrenoceptor blockers.MethodWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including ?-adrenoceptor blockers that were published in core clinical journals in the Pubmed database. All RCTs reporting peripheral vasoconstriction as an adverse effect of ?-adrenoceptor blockers and controls were included. Sensitivity analyses were conducted including possibly confounding covariates (latitude, properties of the ?-adrenoceptor blockers, e.g. intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, vasodilation, drug indication, drug doses). The protocol and the detailed search strategy are available online (PROSPERO registry CRD42014014374).ResultsAmong 2238 records screened, 38 studies including 57?026 patients were selected. Overall, peripheral vasoconstriction was reported in 7% of patients with ?-adrenoceptor blockers and 4.6% in the control groups (P < 0.001), with heterogeneity among drugs. Atenolol and propranolol had a significantly higher risk than placebo, whereas pindolol, acebutolol and oxprenolol had not.ConclusionOur results suggest that ?-adrenoceptor blockers have variable propensity to enhance peripheral vasoconstriction and that it is not related to preferential binding to ?1 -adrenoceptors. These findings challenge FDA and European recommendations regarding precautions and contra-indications of use of ?-adrenoceptor blockers and suggest that ?-adrenoceptor blockers with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity could be safely used in patients with peripheral vascular disease.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the benefits and harms of targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.DesignA systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and LILACS to January 2013.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials that prespecified different targets of glycaemic control in participants at any age with type 1 diabetes mellitus were included.Data extractionTwo authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data.Results18 randomised clinical trials included 2254 participants with type 1 diabetes mellitus. All trials had high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of targeting intensive glycaemic control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.08) or cardiovascular mortality (0.49, 0.19 to 1.24). Targeting intensive glycaemic control reduced the relative risks for the composite macrovascular outcome (0.63, 0.41 to 0.96; p=0.03), and nephropathy (0.37, 0.27 to 0.50; p<0.00001. The effect estimates of retinopathy, ketoacidosis and retinal photocoagulation were not consistently statistically significant between random and fixed effects models. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia was significantly increased with intensive glycaemic targets (1.40, 1.01 to 1.94). Trial sequential analyses showed that the amount of data needed to demonstrate a relative risk reduction of 10% were, in general, inadequate.ConclusionsThere was no significant effect towards improved all-cause mortality when targeting intensive glycaemic control compared with conventional glycaemic control. However, there may be beneficial effects of targeting intensive glycaemic control on the composite macrovascular outcome and on nephropathy, and detrimental effects on severe hypoglycaemia. Notably, the data for retinopathy and ketoacidosis were inconsistent. There was a severe lack of reporting on patient relevant outcomes, and all trials had poor bias control.

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.