Glycemic effects of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes before, during and after the period of fasting in Ramadan

Interventions for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus fasting during Ramadan

BACKGROUND

Fasting during Ramadan is obligatory for adult Muslims, except those who have a medical illness. Many Muslims with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) choose to fast, which may increase their risks of hypoglycaemia and dehydration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (29 June 2022) without language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during Ramadan that evaluated all pharmacological or behavioural interventions in Muslims with T2DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and selected records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs with 5359 participants, with a four-week study duration and at least four weeks of follow-up. All studies had at least one high-risk domain in the risk of bias assessment. Four trials compared dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylureas (85/1237 versus 165/1258, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). Serious hypoglycaemia was similar between groups (no events were reported in two trials; 6/279 in the DPP-4 versus 4/278 in the sulphonylurea group was reported in one trial, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.24; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (141/1207 versus 157/1219, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54) and HbA1c changes (MD -0.11%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.36) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No deaths were reported (moderate-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared meglitinides with sulphonylurea. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on hypoglycaemia (14/133 versus 21/140, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.28) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.35% to 0.41%) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). Death, serious hypoglycaemic events, adverse events, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. SGLT-2 may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (4/58 versus 13/52, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (one event reported in both groups, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.97) and adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (20/58 versus 18/52, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). SGLT-2 inhibitors result in little or no difference in HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58; 1 trial, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Three trials compared glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues with sulphonylurea. GLP-1 analogues may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (20/291 versus 48/305, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (0/91 versus 1/91, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that GLP-1 analogues result in little to no difference in adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (78/244 versus 55/255, RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.61; very low-certainty evidence), treatment satisfaction (MD -0.18, 95% CI -3.18 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or change in HbA1c (MD -0.04%, 95% CI -0.45% to 0.36%; 2 trials, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of insulin analogues on hypoglycaemia (47/256 versus 81/244, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.40) and serious hypoglycaemia (4/131 versus 3/132, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.89) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). The evidence was very uncertain for the effect of insulin analogues on adverse effects other than hypoglycaemia (109/256 versus 114/244, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (1/131 versus 0/132, RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.53; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.03%, 95% CI -0.17% to 0.23%; 1 trial, 245 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared telemedicine with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of telemedicine on hypoglycaemia compared with usual care (9/63 versus 23/58, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; very low-certainty evidence), HRQoL (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.84%, 95% CI -1.51% to -0.17%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, AEs other than hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared Ramadan-focused patient education with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of Ramadan-focused patient education on hypoglycaemia (49/213 versus 42/209, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -0.73% to -0.06%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, adverse events other than hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared drug dosage reduction with usual care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drug dosage reduction on hypoglycaemia (19/452 versus 52/226, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30; very low-certainty evidence). No participants experienced adverse events other than hypoglycaemia during the study (very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction, HbA1c change and HRQoL were not evaluated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence of the benefits or harms of interventions for individuals with T2DM who fast during Ramadan. All results should be interpreted with caution due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies, which give rise to low- to very low-certainty evidence. Major outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life and severe hypoglycaemia, were rarely evaluated. Sufficiently powered studies that examine the effects of various interventions on these outcomes are needed.

Safety and effectiveness of newer antidiabetic medications during Ramadan fasting and safety of Ramadan fasting after bariatric surgery

Background

Fasting during Ramadan is mandatory for all adult healthy Muslims. International studies found that most Muslims with diabetes mellitus fast during Ramadan. The main risk factors are hypoglycemia, Hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and dehydration during fasting. Therefore, stratification of the risks for severe acute diabetes complications needs to be considered for each individual and strategies personalized to advert these complications. The advent of new diabetes medications which are effective yet with a better safety profile and monitoring of blood glucose levels during the day are important to reduce the risk of untoward effects of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia during Ramadan fasting. Here we review the safety and effectiveness of the newer diabetes medications for Ramadan fasting and whether it is safe to perform fasting after bariatric surgery.

Methods

An extensive literature search using PubMed and Google Scholar was done using different search terms. The eligible studies were 48 randomized controlled trials, prospective observational studies, and reviews from January 2008 to June 2022 which were conducted in individuals living with diabetes.

Results and Conclusions

The newer diabetes medications such as GLP-1 agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors, and new Insulin therapy are thought to be safe and effective during fasting of Ramadan. These medications are associated with a reduction in HbA1c, body weight, systolic blood pressure and risk of hypoglycemia during Ramadan fasting. However, further studies with larger sample size are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of these newer medications during Ramadan fasting. Individuals with Bariatric surgery should seek advice and approval to fast from the bariatric dietician, physician, and surgeon before the beginning of the month of Ramadan.

Hypoglycemic Events in Diabetic Patients under Non-insulin Regimens During Ramadan: A Frequentist Network Meta-Analysis.. [DOI: 10.1101/2022.05.28.22275730] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

Background

Diabetic Muslims who choose to fast during Ramadan encounter major risks such as hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and dehydration. Recently, newer antidiabetic agents have been found to be less likely to cause hypoglycemic emergencies. This meta-analysis aimed to present collective and conclusive results from major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the risk of hypoglycemia among patients taking oral antidiabetics during Ramadan.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for RCTs. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis using the “netmeta” package of R software version 4.1.1 to investigate the risk of developing hypoglycemia after taking oral antidiabetic drugs during Ramadan.

Results

Nine RCTs with a total of 3464 patients were included in the final analysis. In the comparison of all antidiabetic drug classes with sulfonylureas, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with the lowest hypoglycemic risk (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.78; P-score, 0.909), followed by GLP-1 agonists (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.17-0.56; P-score, 0.799), and DDP-4 inhibitors (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.75; P-score, 0.483). When comparing individual drugs, dapagliflozin was associated with the lowest hypoglycemic risk (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.78; P-score, 0.874), followed by lixisenatide (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71; P-score, 0.813), liraglutide (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17-0.69; P-score, 0.715), and sitagliptin (RR. 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71; P-score, 0.515).

Conclusion

SGLT-2 inhibitors are associated with the least documented hypoglycemic events and adverse outcomes compared with other oral hypoglycemic drugs. These findings could have considerable public health and clinical implications when extrapolated to the global Muslim population with a similar clinical background.

Abstract Figure

Safety Assessment of Glucose-Lowering Drugs and Importance of Structured Education during Ramadan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ramadan is the sacred month of the Islamic Hijri (lunar) calendar, and during this entire month, healthy adult Muslims abstain from eating and drinking from dawn to sunset. Muslims with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) who choose to fast during Ramadan encounter major risks such as hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Although patients with poor glycemic control and on multiple insulin injections are at high risk and exempt from fasting, many still insist on it. Thus, healthcare professionals play a pivotal role in managing diabetes-related complications in patients who fast during Ramadan. However, there is a lack of standard guidelines to be followed in association with structured education and administration of drugs and dosage. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine the safety and efficacy of different classes of drugs and the importance of structured education during Ramadan.

METHODS

In this review, an extensive PubMed search was performed to obtain literature on T2DM patients who fast during the month of Ramadan until the year 2020. Preference was given to fully downloadable articles. The articles were extracted based on the eligibility criteria. The extracted data were analyzed using Review Manager software version 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 32 articles were included for the review and 7 studies for meta-analysis. Majority of the studies demonstrated the importance of structured education either as a group session or as a one-on-one session with the healthcare professionals in preventing diabetes-related risks during Ramadan. As far as glucose-lowering drugs are concerned, DPP-4 inhibitor combined with metformin remains the drug of choice for T2DM patients who fast during Ramadan. The newer class of glucose-lowering agents appear to lower the risk of hypoglycemia in comparison with sulphonylureas, while among sulphonylureas gliclazide is relatively safe. The meta-analysis indicates that DPP-4 inhibitors would significantly reduce the risk of hypoglycemia as compared to sulphonylurea (odds ratio = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.55, p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

The results of our systematic review show that structured education and counselling by healthcare professionals can be an effective tool in preventing complications associated with fasting during Ramadan in people with T2DM. Additionally, the safest class of oral glucose-lowering drugs preferred during Ramadan fasting in T2DM patients is DPP-4 inhibitors.

Efficacy and safety of the newer oral hypoglycemic agents in patients with T2DM during Ramadan: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the newer glucose lowering treatments on glycemic control, weight, blood pressure and hypoglycemia in patients with T2DM during Ramadan.

METHODS

A literature search was done in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Quality assessment was done using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane tools for risk of bias and analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) led to a significant reduction in Hb_A1c (%) (SMD -0.25) and a non-significant decrease in weight (kg) (SMD -1.06) during Ramadan. Glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) agonist therapy was associated with a significant decrease in Hb_A1c (%) (SMD -0.68) and a non-significant decrease in weight (kg) (SMD -2.57) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (mmHg) (SMD -3.50) after Ramadan. Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) therapy was associated with a significant decrease in Hb_A1c (%) (SMD -0.51) and a non-significant decrease in weight (kg) (SMD -1.41), SBP (SMD -1.10) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (mmHg) (SMD -2.08) after Ramadan.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis shows clinical benefits with the newer glucose lowering medications in patients with T2DM who fast during Ramadan.

Impact of Ramadan Diurnal Intermittent Fasting on Hypoglycemic Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

Ramadan is the 9th month of the lunar calendar during which Muslims abstain from food and drink between dawn and sunset for 30 consecutive days. Ramadan fasting is observed by all healthy Muslim adults, as well many Muslims with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Hypoglycemic events (HE) are a serious complication associated with diabetes management and are associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk. Conflicting results have been reported concerning the incidence of HE among people with T2DM observing Ramadan fasting. This review summarizes available scientific evidence on the occurrence of HE and the effects of different moderators on the incidence of HE among patients with T2DM during Ramadan. We conducted a systematic review of available observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with T2DM who fasted during Ramadan, with HE as the primary outcome. Ten databases were searched for relevant studies from inception until October 31, 2020. In total, 68 studies (35 RCTs and 33 observational studies) met the inclusion criteria. Non-sulfonylureas hypoglycemic medications showed superior effects in lowering the incidence of HE over sulfonylureas hypoglycemic medications. Variable moderators were associated with experiencing HE during Ramadan in both observational studies and RCTs, including sex, geographical location, body anthropometric indicators, season, dietary behaviors, fasting duration, time since diagnosis, and pre-fasting education. This comprehensive systematic review covered the largest number of observational and clinical studies investigating the impact of Ramadan on HE among patients with T2DM. The study highlights the significance of different moderators that influence the effect of Ramadan fasting on HE, including dietary behaviors, fasting time duration, sex, season, country, pre-fasting education, age, and time since diagnosis. The study also highlighted the impact of different hypoglycemic medications on HE and noted the superiority of non-sulfonylureas over sulfonylureas hypoglycemic medications in lowering the risk for hypoglycemia in people with T2DM during Ramadan fasting.

Ramadan and Diabetes: A Narrative Review and Practice Update

Fasting in the Islamic month of Ramadan is obligatory for all sane, healthy adult Muslims. The length of the day varies significantly in temperate regions-typically lasting ≥ 18 h during peak summer in the UK. The synodic nature of the Islamic calendar means that Ramadan migrates across all four seasons over an approximately 33-year cycle. Despite valid exemptions, there is an intense desire to fast during this month, even among those who are considered to be at high risk, including many individuals with diabetes mellitus. In this review we explore the current scientific and clinical evidence on fasting in patients with diabetes mellitus, focussing on type 2 diabetes mellitus and type 1 diabetes mellitus, with brief reviews on pregnancy, pancreatic diabetes, bariatric surgery, the elderly population and current practice guidelines. We also make recommendations on the management of diabetes patients during the month of Ramadan. Many patients admit to a do-it-yourself approach to diabetes mellitus management during Ramadan, largely due to an under-appreciation of the risks and implications of the rigors of fasting on their health. Part of the issue may also lie with a healthcare professional's perceived inability to grasp the religious sensitivities of Muslims in relation to disease management. Thus, the pre-Ramadan assessment is crucial to ensure a safe Ramadan experience. Diabetes patients can be risk-stratified from low, medium to high or very high risk during the pre-Ramadan assessment and counselled accordingly. Those who are assessed to be at high to very high risk are advised not to fast. The current COVID-19 pandemic upgrades those in the high-risk category to very high risk; hence a significant number of diabetes patients may fall under the penumbra of the 'not to fast' advisory. We recognize that fasting is a personal choice and if a person chooses to fast despite advice to the contrary, he/she should be adequately supported and monitored closely during Ramadan and for a brief period thereafter. Current advancements in insulin delivery and glucose monitoring technologies are useful adjuncts to strategies for supporting type 1 diabetes patients considered to be high risk as well as 'high-risk' type 2 patients manage their diabetes during Ramadan. Although there is a lack of formal trial data, there is sufficient evidence across the different classes of therapeutic hypoglycaemic agents in terms of safety and efficacy to enable informed decision-making and provide a breadth of therapeutic options for the patient and the healthcare professional, even if the professional advice is to abstain. Thus, Ramadan provides an excellent opportunity for patient engagement to discuss important aspects of management, to improve control in the short term during Ramadan and to help the observants understand that the metabolic gains achieved during Ramadan are also sustainable in the other months of the year by maintaining a dietary and behavioural discipline. The application of this understanding can potentially prevent long-term complications.

Effect of Ramadan fasting on glycaemic parameters & body mass index in type II diabetic patients: A meta-analysis

Background & objectives:

There has been an ongoing debate about the impact of Ramadan fasting (RF) on the health of these individuals who fast during Ramadan. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the relationship between RF and glycaemic parameters in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.

Methods:

Search terms were decided and databases such as MEDLINE EBSCO, Google Scholar and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. Standardized mean differences and 95 per cent confidence intervals (CIs) of post-prandial plasma glucose (PPG), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) (%) and fructosamine levels were calculated for different treatment regimens.

Results:

Of the 40 studies, 19 were found eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Based on pooled results, significant reductions in FPG were found in single oral antidiabetics (OAD) [standardized weighted mean difference (SMD)=0.47, 95% CI=(0.20-0.74)], multi-OAD [SMD=0.36, 95% CI=(0.11-0.61)] and multitreatment subgroups [SMD=0.65, 95% CI=(0.03-1.27)] and overall [SMD=0.48, 95% CI=(0.27-0.70)]. Furthermore, HbA_1c (%) [SMD=0.26, 95% CI=(0.03-0.49)] and body mass index (BMI) [SMD=0.18, 95% CI=(0.04-0.31)] were significantly decreased in the multi-OAD group.

Interpretation & conclusions:

The meta-analysis showed that RF was not associated with any significant negative effects on PPG and fructosamine levels. However, BMI and FPG and HbA_1c (%) were positively affected by RF.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

A systematic review on efficacy and safety of the current hypoglycemic agents in patients with diabetes during Ramadan fasting

The fasting in the holy month of Ramadan is passionately practised among the Muslims population around the world. Patients with diabetes are generally considered to have various risks with fasting. The recent pharmacologic and technical advances in the management of diabetes may have enabled these patients to practice safe fasting. The purpose of this review is to scientific evidence on the safety and efficacy of the current hypoglycemic agents during Ramadan. METHODS: An extensive Electronic search via PubMed and Google scholar was accomplished through using different search terms. The eligible studies were limited to only published Randomised controlled trial (RCT) and prospective observational studies from 2007 to 2018 on patients with all types of diabetes on any pharmacological management, who intended to fast in Ramadan. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The current era witnessed a gradual shift in the management of these patients with diabetes who elected to fast in Ramadan, despite the variable health-related risks with fasting. Results from available RCTs and observational studies in patients with type 2 diabetes showed lower risk of hypoglycemia, similar or better efficacy for glycemic and weight control with SGLT2 inhibitors, incretin mimetics and the newer insulin analogues compared to Sulfonylurea. Gliclazide is a relatively safer option among all sulfonylurea. Patients requiring insulin did better with insulin analogues, especially the newer premixed formulation at the time of breaking fast compared to the former insulin formulation. Current commonly used newer hypoglycemic agents are generally safe during Ramadan, however, their safety in the higher risk diabetes patients is highly needed.

Rahim AA, Eliana F, Shrestha HK, Chaudhary S, Ngugi N, Mbanya JC, Aye TT, Latt TS, Akanov ZA, Syed AR, Tandon N, Unnikrishnan AG, Madhu SV, Jawa A, Chowdhury S, Bajaj S, Das AK. Consensus Recommendations on Sulfonylurea and Sulfonylurea Combinations in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - International Task Force

For decades, sulfonylureas (SUs) have been important drugs in the antidiabetic therapeutic armamentarium. They have been used as monotherapy as well as combination therapy. Focus on newer drugs and concerns about the risk of severe hypoglycemia and weight gain with some SUs have led to discussion on their safety and utility. It has to be borne in mind that the adverse events associated with SUs should not be ascribed to the whole class, as many modern SUs, such as glimepiride and gliclazide modified release, are associated with better safety profiles. Furthermore, individualization of treatment, using SUs in combination with other drugs, backed with careful monitoring and patient education, ensures maximum benefits with minimal side effects. The current guidelines, developed by experts from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, promote the safe and smart use of SUs in combination with other glucose-lowering drugs.

Clinical practice points for diabetes management during RAMADAN fast

Diabetes management during Ramadan is very crucial from the patient perspective as it can present significant risk of hypoglycemia and death when proper care is not taken. Moreover, managing diabetes in fasting Ramadan patients require different mechanisms than the routine diabetes management and pose significant challenge to the health care practitioners. Here we set forth to review the available literature of various clinical trials and studies on different antidiabetic agents in the context of Ramadan. On the basis of available evidence, we suggest that gliclazide is effective and it could be safely recommended in type 2 diabetic patients fasting during Ramadan.

Diabetes and Ramadan: Practical guidelines

Ramadan fasting is one of the five pillars of Islam and is compulsory for all healthy Muslims from puberty onwards. Exemptions exist for people with serious medical conditions, including many with diabetes, but a large number will participate, often against medical advice. Ensuring the optimal care of these patients during Ramadan is crucial. The International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and Diabetes and Ramadan (DAR) International Alliance have come together to deliver comprehensive guidelines on this subject. The key areas covered include epidemiology, the physiology of fasting, risk stratification, nutrition advice and medication adjustment. The IDF-DAR Practical Guidelines should enhance knowledge surrounding the issue of diabetes and Ramadan fasting, thereby empowering healthcare professionals to give the most up-to-date advice and the best possible support to their patients during Ramadan.

Effect of Vildagliptin Versus Sulfonylurea in Muslim Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Fasting During Ramadan in Egypt: Results from VIRTUE Study

INTRODUCTION

Fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with high risk of hypoglycemia. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin in T2DM patients fasting during Ramadan in a real-life setting in Egypt.

METHODS

In this 16-week prospective and noninterventional study, data were collected up to 6 weeks before and after Ramadan fasting. Patients who had received vildagliptin or sulfonylurea (SU) either as dual therapy with metformin or as monotherapy were enrolled into the study.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty four patients were enrolled in the study, out of which 246 [121 (97.6%) treated with vildagliptin and 125 (99.2%) with SU] were included in the safety analysis set. A significantly lower proportion of patients experienced ≥1 hypoglycemic event (HE) with vildagliptin as compared to those receiving SUs (1.7% vs. 19.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). No patient in either group reported a grade 2 HE. At week 16, mean change in HbA1c from baseline for vildagliptin and SU were -0.1% and +0.3%, respectively, with a between-treatment difference of -0.4% (p < 0.001). Mean change in body weight from baseline for vildagliptin and SU were -0.8 and -0.1 kg, with a between-treatment difference of -0.7 kg (p = 0.011). A higher proportion of SU-treated patients experienced adverse events compared to those treated with vildagliptin (23.2% vs. 5.8%, respectively), the primary reason being the high incidence of hypoglycemia in the SU group (n = 24, 19.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with vildagliptin was associated with lower incidence of hypoglycemia compared with SU and showed good glycemic and weight control in patients with T2DM fasting during Ramadan in a real-life setting in Egypt.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma AG.

Filling the Knowledge Gap in Diabetes Management During Ramadan: the Evolving Role of Trial Evidence

Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who fast during Ramadan face challenges in diabetes management due to substantial alterations in lifestyle and treatment that frequently accompany the decision to fast. International guidelines for treating T2D do not fully address the clinical issues unique to fasting, and other guidance documents lack the large and high-quality evidence base available for non-fasting conditions. We reviewed 10 randomized controlled trials and 20 observational studies in T2D during Ramadan to assess the quality of evidence and identify issues in trial design that should be addressed in future studies. Results indicated that heterogeneity in key aspects of trial design precluded meaningful comparisons across studies. These included patients' baseline treatment at entry; use of a cutoff for glycemic control [glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)] for eligibility; exclusion of patients with a history of recurrent hypoglycemia or hypoglycemia unawareness, or with other serious systemic diseases; duration of treatment and follow-up, selection of safety versus efficacy as primary end point; and definition and measurement of those end points. Fructosamine was rarely used as an efficacy end point, despite the advantage of reflecting glycemic control over a period more closely aligned with the duration of Ramadan fasting than HbA1c. Adherence to treatment, definition and adherence to fasting, and changes in diet and exercise were reported inconsistently, and when reported, not in a fashion that would allow adequate control of confounding due to these variables. Despite a large body of evidence demonstrating their safety and efficacy in non-fasting populations, only two trials reported data for glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs, and neither involved a head-to-head comparison against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. More rigorous studies using trial designs suited to the unique conditions of a fasting population and capturing both standardized efficacy and safety end points are needed to provide better guidance to optimal treatment of T2D during Ramadan fasting.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk AG.

Comparative studies of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor vs sulphonylurea among Muslim Type 2 diabetes patients who fast in the month of Ramadan: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To systematically review the literature to compare the use of DPP4 inhibitors vs sulphonylurea in type 2 diabetic Muslim patients who fast in Ramadan, with regards to its safety, tolerability, glycemic control, and body weight changes.

METHODS

All English-language medical literature published from inception till October 2014 which met the inclusion criteria were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of nine papers were included, reviewed and analyzed. The total sample size was 4276 patients. All studies used either of the two DPP4 inhibitors - Vildagliptin or Sitagliptin, vs sulphonylurea or meglitinides. Patients receiving DPP4 inhibitors were less likely to develop symptomatic hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70), confirmed hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64) and severe hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.53) compared with patients on sulphonylureas. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1C changes comparing Vildagliptin and sulphonylurea.

CONCLUSION

DPP4 inhibitor is a safer alternative to sulphonylurea in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who fast during the month of Ramadan as it is associated with lower risk of symptomatic, confirmed and severe hypoglycemia, with efficacy comparable to sulphonylurea.

Strategies to Make Ramadan Fasting Safer in Type 2 Diabetics: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

Ramadan is the holy month for Muslims whereby they fast from predawn to after sunset and is observed by all healthy Muslim adults as well as a large population of type 2 diabetic Muslims.To determine the comparative effectiveness of various strategies that have been used for type 2 diabetic Muslim who fast during Ramadan.A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies (RCT) as well as observational studies for patients with type 2 diabetes who fasted during Ramadan was conducted. Eight databases were searched from January 1980 through October 2015 for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed study for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted relevant data. A network meta-analysis for each outcome was fitted separately, combining direct and indirect evidence for each comparison.Twenty-nine studies, 16 RCTs and 13 observational studies each met the inclusion criteria. The most common strategy used was drug changes during the Ramadan period, which found that the use of DPP-4 (Dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitor -4) inhibitors were associated with a reduction in incidence of experiencing hypoglycemia during Ramadan in both RCTs (pooled relative risk: 0.56; 95% confidence interval: 0.44-0.72) as well as in observational studies (pooled relative risk: 0.27; 0.09-0.75). Ramadan-focused education was shown to be beneficial in reducing hypoglycemia in observational studies but not RCTs (0.25 versus 1.00). Network meta-analyses suggest that incretin mimetics can reduce the risk of hypoglycemia by nearly 1.5 times.The newer antidiabetic agents appear to lower the risk of hypoglycemia and improved glycemic control when compared with sulfonylureas. Ramadan-focused education shows to be a promising strategy but more rigorous examination from RCTs are required.

Effectiveness and Safety of Newer Antidiabetic Medications for Ramadan Fasting Diabetic Patients

Hypoglycemia is the most common side effects for most glucose-lowering therapies. It constitutes a serious risk that faces diabetic patients who fast during Ramadan (the 9th month in the Islamic calendar). New glucose-lowering classes like dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors are efficacious in controlling blood glucose level with less tendency to induce hypoglycemia and thus may constitute a good choice for diabetic patients during Ramadan. This study reviews the safety and efficacy of newer glucose-lowering therapies during Ramadan. This study was accomplished through a careful literature search about studies that assess the benefit and side effects of these new glucose-lowering therapies during Ramadan during September 2015. Vildagliptin, sitagliptin, liraglutide, exenatide, and dapagliflozin were the only studied glucose-lowering therapies. All of the studied newer glucose-lowering therapies except dapagliflozin were associated with reduced risk to induce hypoglycemia. Gastrointestinal upset was common with the usage of liraglutide while increased thirst sensation was common with dapagliflozin. In conclusion DPP-4 inhibitors such as vildagliptin and sitagliptin may form a suitable glucose-lowering therapy option for Ramadan fasting patients.

Safety and effectiveness of non-insulin glucose-lowering agents in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes who observe Ramadan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To determine which non-insulin glucose-lowering treatment regimens are most appropriate in people with type 2 diabetes who choose to fast during Ramadan.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared non-insulin glucose-lowering agents in people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan. Those studies which reported hypoglycaemia, weight and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change were included. Data were pooled using random effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included: 9 RCTs and 7 observational studies. There was evidence that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors led to fewer hypoglycaemic events compared with sulphonylureas. Sitagliptin significantly reduced the number of patients with ≥1 hypoglycaemic episodes during Ramadan [risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36, 0.64; p > 0.0001]. This was not replicated in the RCTs of vildagliptin, but a significant reduction was found in the observational studies (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10, 0.75; p = 0.01) with high heterogeneity (I(2)  = 86.7%). Significant reductions in HbA1c and weight were seen in the observational studies of vildagliptin versus sulphonylureas. The use of liraglutide led to significant weight loss (-1.81 kg, 95% CI -2.91, -0.71; p = 0.001) compared with sulphonylureas. Pioglitazone significantly increased weight compared with placebo (3.48 kg, 95% CI 2.82, 4.14; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis supports the use of DPP-4 inhibitors during Ramadan rather than sulphonylureas for reduction in hypoglycaemia without a cost to diabetes control and weight. The glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 agonist liraglutide provides clinical benefits, but more studies are required. RCTs of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with GLP-1 agonists and novel therapies including the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 and α-glucosidase inhibitors are needed to inform evidence-based guidelines.

Fasting during Ramadan: efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of vildagliptin in diabetic patients

Diabetes management during Ramadan fasting is challenging to the physician in terms of minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia. As compared to oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) and sulfonylureas (SUs), which carry a higher and significant risk of hypoglycemia, newer antidiabetic agents such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have demonstrated lower risk of hypoglycemia during Ramadan fasting, with better patient compliance. In addition to diabetes education and pre-Ramadan assessments, the physician should also consider use of DPP-4 inhibitors (such as vildagliptin) during Ramadan fasting to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetic subjects. Severe episodes of hypoglycemia have been demonstrated in recent research and clinical trials with OHAs/SUs. Conversely, these research observations have also demonstrated comparative safety and efficacy with lower risk of hypoglycemia associated with vildagliptin. Current research review has collected evidence-based clinical trials and observations for the drug vildagliptin to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia during Ramadan fasting, while at the same time focusing the role of diabetes self-management education (DSME), pre-Ramadan assessments, and patient care.