Dataset Information

Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the USA and UK governments, respectively, with the ambition of reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality by reducing dietary fat intake. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by the present authors, examining the randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence available to the dietary committees during those time periods, found no support for the recommendations to restrict dietary fat. The present investigation extends our work by re-examining the totality of RCT evidence relating to the current dietary fat guidelines. METHODS:A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs currently available, which examined the relationship between dietary fat, serum cholesterol and the development of CHD, was undertaken. RESULTS:The systematic review included 62?421 participants in 10 dietary trials: 7 secondary prevention studies, 1 primary prevention and 2 combined. The death rates for all-cause mortality were 6.45% and 6.06% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The risk ratio (RR) from meta-analysis was 0.991 (95% CI 0.935 to 1.051). The death rates for CHD mortality were 2.16% and 1.80% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The RR was 0.976 (95% CI 0.878 to 1.084). Mean serum cholesterol levels decreased in all intervention groups and all but one control group. The reductions in mean serum cholesterol levels were significantly greater in the intervention groups; this did not result in significant differences in CHD or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS:The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions. RCT evidence currently available does not support the current dietary fat guidelines. The evidence per se lacks generalisability for population-wide guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Harcombe Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4985840 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Harcombe Zoë Z Baker Julien S JS DiNicolantonio James J JJ Grace Fergal F Davies Bruce B

Open heart 20160808 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the USA and UK governments, respectively, with the ambition of reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality by reducing dietary fat intake. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by the present authors, examining the randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence available to the dietary committees during those time periods, found no support for the recommendations to restrict dietary fat. The present invest ...[more]

PMID: 27547428

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundEffects of major dietary macronutrients on glucose-insulin homeostasis remain controversial and may vary by the clinical measures examined. We aimed to assess how saturated fat (SFA), monounsaturated fat (MUFA), polyunsaturated fat (PUFA), and carbohydrate affect key metrics of glucose-insulin homeostasis.Methods and findingsWe systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, BIOSIS, Web-of-Knowledge, CAB, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SIGLE, Faculty1000) for randomised controlled feeding trials published by 26 Nov 2015 that tested effects of macronutrient intake on blood glucose, insulin, HbA1c, insulin sensitivity, and insulin secretion in adults aged ≥18 years. We excluded trials with non-isocaloric comparisons and trials providing dietary advice or supplements rather than meals. Studies were reviewed and data extracted independently in duplicate. Among 6,124 abstracts, 102 trials, including 239 diet arms and 4,220 adults, met eligibility requirements. Using multiple-treatment meta-regression, we estimated dose-response effects of isocaloric replacements between SFA, MUFA, PUFA, and carbohydrate, adjusted for protein, trans fat, and dietary fibre. Replacing 5% energy from carbohydrate with SFA had no significant effect on fasting glucose (+0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI = -0.01, +0.04; n trials = 99), but lowered fasting insulin (-1.1 pmol/L; -1.7, -0.5; n = 90). Replacing carbohydrate with MUFA lowered HbA1c (-0.09%; -0.12, -0.05; n = 23), 2 h post-challenge insulin (-20.3 pmol/L; -32.2, -8.4; n = 11), and homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (-2.4%; -4.6, -0.3; n = 30). Replacing carbohydrate with PUFA significantly lowered HbA1c (-0.11%; -0.17, -0.05) and fasting insulin (-1.6 pmol/L; -2.8, -0.4). Replacing SFA with PUFA significantly lowered glucose, HbA1c, C-peptide, and HOMA. Based on gold-standard acute insulin response in ten trials, PUFA significantly improved insulin secretion capacity (+0.5 pmol/L/min; 0.2, 0.8) whether replacing carbohydrate, SFA, or even MUFA. No significant effects of any macronutrient replacements were observed for 2 h post-challenge glucose or insulin sensitivity (minimal-model index). Limitations included a small number of trials for some outcomes and potential issues of blinding, compliance, generalisability, heterogeneity due to unmeasured factors, and publication bias.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis of randomised controlled feeding trials provides evidence that dietary macronutrients have diverse effects on glucose-insulin homeostasis. In comparison to carbohydrate, SFA, or MUFA, most consistent favourable effects were seen with PUFA, which was linked to improved glycaemia, insulin resistance, and insulin secretion capacity.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess effects of increasing omega-3, omega-6, and total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) on diabetes diagnosis and glucose metabolism.DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and trials in relevant systematic reviews.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration assessing effects of increasing α-linolenic acid, long chain omega-3, omega-6, or total PUFA, which collected data on diabetes diagnoses, fasting glucose or insulin, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and/or homoeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR).Data synthesisStatistical analysis included random effects meta-analyses using relative risk and mean difference, and sensitivity analyses. Funnel plots were examined and subgrouping assessed effects of intervention type, replacement, baseline risk of diabetes and use of antidiabetes drugs, trial duration, and dose. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool and quality of evidence with GRADE.Results83 randomised controlled trials (mainly assessing effects of supplementary long chain omega-3) were included; 10 were at low summary risk of bias. Long chain omega-3 had little or no effect on likelihood of diagnosis of diabetes (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.17; 58 643 participants, 3.7% developed diabetes) or measures of glucose metabolism (HbA1c mean difference -0.02%, 95% confidence interval -0.07% to 0.04%; plasma glucose 0.04, 0.02 to 0.07, mmol/L; fasting insulin 1.02, -4.34 to 6.37, pmol/L; HOMA-IR 0.06, -0.21 to 0.33). A suggestion of negative outcomes was observed when dose of supplemental long chain omega-3 was above 4.4 g/d. Effects of α-linolenic acid, omega-6, and total PUFA on diagnosis of diabetes were unclear (as the evidence was of very low quality), but little or no effect on measures of glucose metabolism was seen, except that increasing α-linolenic acid may increase fasting insulin (by about 7%). No evidence was found that the omega-3/omega-6 ratio is important for diabetes or glucose metabolism.ConclusionsThis is the most extensive systematic review of trials to date to assess effects of polyunsaturated fats on newly diagnosed diabetes and glucose metabolism, including previously unpublished data following contact with authors. Evidence suggests that increasing omega-3, omega-6, or total PUFA has little or no effect on prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017064110.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people with severe mental illness.MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane CENTRAL Register, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to July 2013 without restriction by publication status. Randomised trials of non-residential peer support interventions were included. Trial interventions were categorised and analysed separately as: mutual peer support, peer support services, or peer delivered mental health services. Meta-analyses were performed where possible, and studies were assessed for bias and the quality of evidence described.ResultsEighteen trials including 5597 participants were included. These comprised four trials of mutual support programmes, eleven trials of peer support services, and three trials of peer-delivered services. There was substantial variation between trials in participants' characteristics and programme content. Outcomes were incompletely reported; there was high risk of bias. From small numbers of studies in the analyses it was possible to conduct, there was little or no evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on hospitalisation, overall symptoms or satisfaction with services. There was some evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on measures of hope, recovery and empowerment at and beyond the end of the intervention, although this was not consistent within or across different types of peer support.ConclusionsDespite the promotion and uptake of peer support internationally, there is little evidence from current trials about the effects of peer support for people with severe mental illness. Although there are few positive findings, this review has important implications for policy and practice: current evidence does not support recommendations or mandatory requirements from policy makers for mental health services to provide peer support programmes. Further peer support programmes should be implemented within the context of high quality research projects wherever possible. Deficiencies in the conduct and reporting of existing trials exemplify difficulties in the evaluation of complex interventions.

Project description:Aims/hypothesisNordic dietary patterns that are high in healthy traditional Nordic foods may have a role in the prevention and management of diabetes. To inform the update of the EASD clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of Nordic dietary patterns and cardiometabolic outcomes.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library from inception to 9 March 2021. We included prospective cohort studies and RCTs with a follow-up of ≥1 year and ≥3 weeks, respectively. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool). The primary outcome was total CVD incidence in the prospective cohort studies and LDL-cholesterol in the RCTs. Secondary outcomes in the prospective cohort studies were CVD mortality, CHD incidence and mortality, stroke incidence and mortality, and type 2 diabetes incidence; in the RCTs, secondary outcomes were other established lipid targets (non-HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides), markers of glycaemic control (HbA1c, fasting glucose, fasting insulin), adiposity (body weight, BMI, waist circumference) and inflammation (C-reactive protein), and blood pressure (systolic and diastolic blood pressure). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsWe included 15 unique prospective cohort studies (n=1,057,176, with 41,708 cardiovascular events and 13,121 diabetes cases) of people with diabetes for the assessment of cardiovascular outcomes or people without diabetes for the assessment of diabetes incidence, and six RCTs (n=717) in people with one or more risk factor for diabetes. In the prospective cohort studies, higher adherence to Nordic dietary patterns was associated with 'small important' reductions in the primary outcome, total CVD incidence (RR for highest vs lowest adherence: 0.93 [95% CI 0.88, 0.99], p=0.01; substantial heterogeneity: I2=88%, pQ<0.001), and similar or greater reductions in the secondary outcomes of CVD mortality and incidence of CHD, stroke and type 2 diabetes (p<0.05). Inverse dose-response gradients were seen for total CVD incidence, CVD mortality and incidence of CHD, stroke and type 2 diabetes (p<0.05). No studies assessed CHD or stroke mortality. In the RCTs, there were small important reductions in LDL-cholesterol (mean difference [MD] -0.26 mmol/l [95% CI -0.52, -0.00], pMD=0.05; substantial heterogeneity: I2=89%, pQ<0.01), and 'small important' or greater reductions in the secondary outcomes of non-HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, insulin, body weight, BMI and systolic blood pressure (p<0.05). For the other outcomes there were 'trivial' reductions or no effect. The certainty of the evidence was low for total CVD incidence and LDL-cholesterol; moderate to high for CVD mortality, established lipid targets, adiposity markers, glycaemic control, blood pressure and inflammation; and low for all other outcomes, with evidence being downgraded mainly because of imprecision and inconsistency.Conclusions/interpretationAdherence to Nordic dietary patterns is associated with generally small important reductions in the risk of major CVD outcomes and diabetes, which are supported by similar reductions in LDL-cholesterol and other intermediate cardiometabolic risk factors. The available evidence provides a generally good indication of the likely benefits of Nordic dietary patterns in people with or at risk for diabetes.RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04094194.FundingDiabetes and Nutrition Study Group of the EASD Clinical Practice.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the relation between total fat intake and body weight in adults and children.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to June 2010.Inclusion criteriaRandomised controlled trials and cohort studies of adults or children that compared lower versus usual total fat intake and assessed the effects on measures of body fatness (body weight, body mass index, or waist circumference) after at least six months (randomised controlled trials) or one year (in cohorts). Randomised controlled trials with any intention to reduce weight in participants or confounded by additional medical or lifestyle interventions were excluded.Data extractionData were extracted and validity was assessed independently and in duplicate. Random effects meta-analyses, subgroups, sensitivity analyses, and metaregression were done.Results33 randomised controlled trials (73,589 participants) and 10 cohort studies were included, all from developed countries. Meta-analysis of data from the trials suggested that diets lower in total fat were associated with lower relative body weight (by 1.6 kg, 95% confidence interval -2.0 to -1.2 kg, I(2)=75%, 57,735 participants). Lower weight gain in the low fat arm compared with the control arm was consistent across trials, but the size of the effect varied. Metaregression suggested that greater reduction in total fat intake and lower baseline fat intake were associated with greater relative weight loss, explaining most of the heterogeneity. The significant effect of a low fat diet on weight was not lost in sensitivity analyses (including removing trials that expended greater time and attention on low fat groups). Lower total fat intake also led to lower body mass index (-0.51 kg/m(2), 95% confidence interval -0.76 to -0.26, nine trials, I(2)=77%) and waist circumference (by 0.3 cm, 95% confidence interval -0.58 to -0.02, 15,671 women, one trial). There was no suggestion of negative effects on other cardiovascular risk factors (lipid levels or blood pressure). GRADE assessment suggested high quality evidence for the relation between total fat intake and body weight in adults. Only one randomised controlled trial and three cohort studies were found in children and young people, but these confirmed a positive relation between total fat intake and weight gain.ConclusionsThere is high quality, consistent evidence that reduction of total fat intake has been achieved in large numbers of both healthy and at risk trial participants over many years. Lower total fat intake leads to small but statistically significant and clinically meaningful, sustained reductions in body weight in adults in studies with baseline fat intakes of 28-43% of energy intake and durations from six months to over eight years. Evidence supports a similar effect in children and young people.

Project description:ObjectivesTo estimate the efficacy of app-based interventions designed to support medication adherence and investigate which behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used by the apps are associated with efficacy.DesignSystematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with meta-analysis.SettingMedline/PubMed, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase and Web of Science were searched from 1990 to November 2018 for RCTs conducted in any healthcare setting.ParticipantsStudies of participants of any age taking prescribed medication for any health condition and for any duration.InterventionAn app-based intervention delivered through a smartphone, tablet computer or personal digital assistant to help, support or advise about medication adherence.ComparatorOne of (1) usual care, (2) a control app which did not use any BCTs to improve medication adherence or (3) a non-app-based comparator.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the pooled effect size of changes in medication adherence. The secondary outcome was the association between BCTs used by the apps and the effect size.ResultsThe initial search identified 13 259 citations. After title and abstract screening, full-text articles of 83 studies were screened for eligibility. Nine RCTs with 1159 recruited participants were included. The mean age of participants was >50 years in all but one study. Health conditions of target populations included cardiovascular disease, depression, Parkinson's disease, psoriasis and multimorbidity. The meta-analysis indicated that patients who use mobile apps to support them in taking medications are more likely to self-report adherence to medications (OR 2.120, 95% CI 1.635 to 2.747, n=988) than those in the comparator groups. Meta-regression of the BCTs did not reveal any significant associations with effect size.ConclusionsApp-based medication adherence interventions may have a positive effect on patient adherence. Larger scale studies are required to further evaluate this effect, including long-term sustainability, and intervention and participant characteristics that are associated with efficacy and app usage.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO Protocol Registration Number: CRD42017080150.

Dataset Information

Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets