Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 2551 participants, 18 studies; high CoE). Hypoglycaemic events, both severe and non-severe, were mainly experienced in the intensive glycaemic control group. Intensive glycaemic control may slightly increase hypoglycaemic events compared to conventional glycaemic control (141/1184 (11.9%) and 41/1226 (3.3%) events, RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.67; I2 = 64%; 2410 participants, 17 studies; low CoE), as well as those considered severe events (37/927 (4.0%) and 6/969 (0.6%), RR 4.73, 95% CI 2.12 to 10.55; I2 = 0%; 1896 participants, 11 studies; low CoE). Intensive glycaemic control, compared to conventional glycaemic control, may result in little to no difference in the rate of infectious complications (160/1228 (13.0%) versus 224/1225 (18.2%) events, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.04; P = 0.09; I2 = 55%; 2453 participants, 18 studies; low CoE). Analysis of the predefined secondary outcomes revealed that intensive glycaemic control may result in a decrease in cardiovascular events compared to conventional glycaemic control (107/955 (11.2%) versus 125/978 (12.7%) events, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 44%; 1454 participants, 12 studies; low CoE). Further, intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in renal failure events compared to conventional glycaemic control (137/1029 (13.3%) and 158/1057 (14.9%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; P = 0.56; I2 = 38%; 2086 participants, 14 studies; low CoE). We found little to no difference between intensive glycaemic control and conventional glycaemic control in length of ICU stay (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; P = 0.69; I2 = 69%; 1687 participants, 11 studies; low CoE), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.21; P = 0.12; I2 = 77%; 1520 participants, 12 studies; very low CoE). Due to the differences within included studies, we did not pool data for the reduction of mean blood glucose. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a mean lowering of blood glucose, ranging from 13.42 mg/dL to 91.30 mg/dL. One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 participants in the intensive glycaemic control group, and 13/44 participants in the conventional glycaemic control group; no important difference was shown in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). One substudy reported a cost analysis of the population of an included study showing a higher total hospital cost in the conventional glycaemic control group, USD 42,052 (32,858 to 56,421) compared to the intensive glycaemic control group, USD 40,884 (31.216 to 49,992). It is important to point out that there is relevant heterogeneity between studies for several outcomes. We identified two ongoing trials. The results of these studies could add new information in future updates on this topic.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for obese women with subfertility

BACKGROUND

Clinicians primarily recommend weight loss for obese women seeking pregnancy. The effectiveness of interventions aimed at weight loss in obese women with subfertility is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies compared with each other, placebo, or no treatment for achieving weight loss in obese women with subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CGF Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and AMED from inception to 18 August 2020. We also checked reference lists and contacted experts in the field for additional relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials in which weight loss was the main goal of the intervention. Our primary effectiveness outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and primary safety outcomes were miscarriage and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, weight change, quality of life, and mental health outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 10 trials. Evidence was of very low to low quality: the main limitations were due to lack of studies and poor reporting of study methods. The main reasons for downgrading evidence were lack of details by which to judge risk of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment), lack of blinding, and imprecision. Non-pharmacological intervention versus no intervention or placebo Evidence is insufficient to determine whether a diet or lifestyle intervention compared to no intervention affects live birth (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.11; 918 women, 3 studies; I² = 78%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no intervention is assumed to be 43%, the chance following diet or lifestyle changes would be 33% to 46%. We are uncertain if lifestyle change compared with no intervention affects miscarriage rate (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.39; 917 women, 3 studies; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Evidence is insufficient to determine whether lifestyle change compared with no intervention affects clinical pregnancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.40; 917 women, 3 studies; I² = 73%; low-quality evidence). Lifestyle intervention resulted in a decrease in body mass index (BMI), but data were not pooled due to heterogeneity in effect (mean difference (MD) -3.70, 95% CI -4.10 to -3.30; 305 women, 1 study; low-quality evidence; and MD -1.80, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.93; 43 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). Non-pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention We are uncertain whether intensive weight loss interventions compared to standard care nutrition counselling affects live birth (OR 11.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 284; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 11.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 284; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), BMI (MD -3.00, 95% CI -5.37 to -0.63; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), weight change (MD -9.00, 95% CI -15.50 to -2.50; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), quality of life (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or mental health (MD -7.00, 95% CI -13.92 to -0.08; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on adverse events . Pharmacological versus pharmacological intervention For metformin plus liraglutide compared to metformin we are uncertain of an effect on the adverse events nausea (OR 7.22, 95% CI 0.72 to 72.7; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), diarrhoea (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.3; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), and headache (OR 5.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 133; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if a combination of metformin plus liraglutide vs metformin affects BMI (MD 2.1, 95% CI -0.42 to 2.62; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) and total body fat (MD -0.50, 95% CI -4.65 to 3.65; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). For metformin, clomiphene, and L-carnitine versus metformin, clomiphene, and placebo, we are uncertain of an effect on miscarriage (OR 3.58, 95% CI 0.73 to 17.55; 274 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 5.56, 95% CI 2.57 to 12.02; 274 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or BMI (MD -0.3, 95% CI 1.17 to 0.57, 274 women, 1 study, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if dexfenfluramine versus placebo affects weight loss in kilograms (MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.77 to 2.57; 21 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on live birth, quality of life, or mental health outcomes. Pharmacological intervention versus no intervention or placebo We are uncertain if metformin compared with placebo affects live birth (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.57; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following placebo is assumed to be 15%, the chance following metformin would be 7% to 50%. We are uncertain if metformin compared with placebo affects gastrointestinal adverse events (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.57; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.80; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 2.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.93; 96 women, 2 studies; I² = 48%; very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain if diet combined with metformin versus diet and placebo affects BMI (MD -0.30, 95% CI -2.16 to 1.56; 143 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.21 to 6.21; 143 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). Pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention No study undertook this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to support the use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for obese women with subfertility. No data are available for the comparison of pharmacological versus non-pharmacological strategies. We are uncertain whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological strategies effect live birth, ongoing pregnancy, adverse events, clinical pregnancy, quality of life, or mental heath outcomes. However, for obese women with subfertility, a lifestyle intervention may reduce BMI. Future studies should compare a combination of pharmacological and lifestyle interventions for obese women with subfertility.

Recommendations for improving clinical trial design to facilitate the study of youth-onset type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increasing in youths and differs from adult-onset type 2 diabetes in its characteristics and progression. Currently, only two drugs are approved for youth-onset type 2 diabetes and many patients are not meeting glycemic targets. Clearly, there is an urgent need to complete clinical trials in youths with type 2 diabetes to increase the therapeutic choice for these patients. However, factors such as limited patient numbers, unwillingness of patients to participate in trials, failure to meet strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, and poor clinic attendance have limited the size and number of trials in this complicated patient demographic.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This is a narrative opinion piece on the design of clinical trials in youth-onset type 2 diabetes prepared by researchers who undertake this type of study in different countries. The review addresses possible ways to enhance trial designs in youth-onset type 2 diabetes to meet regulatory requirements, while minimizing the barriers to patients' participation. The definition of adolescence, recruitment of sufficient patient numbers, increasing flexibility in selection criteria, improving convenience of trial visits, requirements of a control group, possible endpoints, and trial compliance are all considered. The authors recommend allowing extrapolation from adult data, using multiple interventional arms within future trials, broadening inclusion criteria, and focusing on endpoints beyond glucose control, among others, in order to improve the successful completion of more trials in this population.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in trial design will enable better recruitment and retention and thereby more evidence for treatment outcomes for youth-onset type 2 diabetes.

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonists for preventing recurrent stroke and other vascular events in people with stroke or transient ischaemic attack

BACKGROUND

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR-γ) agonists are insulin-sensitising drugs used for the treatment of insulin resistance. In addition to lowering glucose in diabetes, these drugs may also protect against hyperlipidaemia and arteriosclerosis, which are risk factors for stroke. This is an update of a review first published in January 2014 and subsequently updated in October 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of PPAR-γ agonists in the secondary prevention of stroke and related vascular events for people with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (16 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1949 to 16 May 2017), Embase (1980 to 16 May 2017), CINAHL (1982 to 16 May 2017), AMED (1985 to 16 May 2017), and 11 Chinese databases (16 May 2017). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we searched ongoing trials registers, reference lists, and relevant conference proceedings, and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies. We did not impose any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PPAR-γ agonists versus placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke and related vascular events in people with stroke or TIA, with the outcomes of recurrent stroke, vascular events, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted eligible data, cross-checked the data for accuracy, and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias. We evaluated the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five RCTs with 5039 participants; two studies had a low risk of bias for all domains. Four studies evaluated the drug pioglitazone, and one study evaluated rosiglitazone. The participants in different studies were heterogeneous.Recurrent strokeThree studies evaluated the number of participants with recurrent stroke (4979 participants, a single study contributing 3876 of these). Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonists probably reduce the recurrence of stroke compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.99; moderate-quality evidence).Adverse eventsEvidence that adverse events occurred more frequently in participants treated with PPAR-γ agonists when compared with placebo was uncertain due to wide confidence interval and high levels of statistical heterogeneity: risk difference 10%, 95% CI -8% to 28%; low-quality evidence).Data were available on additional composite outcomes reflecting serious vascular events (all-cause death and other major vascular events; all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke) from one study in 984 people. This study provided low-quality evidence that PPAR-γ agonists led to fewer events (data not meta-analysed).Vascular eventsPeroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonists given over a mean duration of 34.5 months in a single trial of 984 participants may reduce serious vascular events expressed as a composite outcome of total events of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99; low-quality evidence).Other outcomesOne study in 20 people measured insulin sensitivity, and one study in 40 people measured the ubiquitin-proteasome activity in carotid plaques. Our confidence in the improvements observed with PPAR-γ agonists were limited by small sample sizes and risk of bias. None of the studies reported the number of participants with disability due to vascular events or improvement in quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonists probably reduce recurrent stroke and total events of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke, and may improve insulin sensitivity and the stabilisation of carotid plaques. Their effects on adverse events are uncertain. Our conclusions should be interpreted with caution considering the small number and the quality of the included studies. Further well-designed, double-blind RCTs with large samples are required to assess the efficacy and safety of PPAR-γ agonists in the secondary prevention of stroke and related vascular events in people with stroke or TIA.

Glucose-lowering agents for treating pre-existing and new-onset diabetes in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the preferred form of kidney replacement therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and is often complicated by worsening or new-onset diabetes. Management of hyperglycaemia is important to reduce post-transplant and diabetes-related complications. The safety and efficacy of glucose-lowering agents after kidney transplantation is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for lowering glucose levels in patients who have undergone kidney transplantation and have diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 15 April 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies examining head-to-head comparisons of active regimens of glucose-lowering therapy or active regimen compared with placebo/standard care in patients who have received a kidney transplant and have diabetes were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and quality and performed data extraction. Continuous outcomes were expressed as post-treatment mean differences (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD). Adverse events were expressed as post-treatment absolute risk differences (RD). Dichotomous clinical outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies that involved a total of 399 kidney transplant recipients. All included studies had observed heterogeneity in the patient population, interventions and measured outcomes or missing data (which was unavailable despite correspondence with authors). Many studies had incompletely reported methodology preventing meta-analysis and leading to low confidence in treatment estimates.Three studies with 241 kidney transplant recipients examined the use of more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy in kidney transplant recipients with pre-existing type 1 or 2 diabetes. Evidence for the effects of more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy on transplant graft survival, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, all cause mortality and adverse effects including hypoglycaemia was of very low quality. More intensive versus less intensive insulin therapy resulted in no difference in transplant or graft survival over three to five years in one study while another study showed that more intensive versus less intensive insulin therapy resulted in more rejection events over the three year follow-up (11 events in total; 9 in the more intensive group, P = 0.01). One study showed that more intensive insulin therapy resulted in a lower mean HbA1c (10 ± 0.8% versus 13 ± 0.9%) and lower fasting blood glucose (7.22 ± 0.5 mmol/L versus 13.44 ± 1.22 mmol/L) at 13 months compared with standard insulin therapy. Another study showed no difference between more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy on all-cause mortality over a five year follow-up period. All studies showed either an increased frequency of hypoglycaemia or severe hypoglycaemia episodes.Three studies with a total of 115 transplant recipients examined the use of DPP4 inhibitors for new-onset diabetes after transplantation. Evidence for the treatment effect of DPP4 inhibitors on transplant or graft survival, HbA1c and fasting blood glucose levels, all cause mortality, and adverse events including hypoglycaemia was of low quality. One study comparing vildagliptin to placebo and another comparing sitagliptin to placebo showed no difference in transplant or graft survival over two to four months of follow-up. One study comparing vildagliptin to placebo showed no significant change in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline (1.9 ± 10.3 mL/min/1.73 m2, P = 0.48 and 2.1 ± 6.1 mL/min/1.73 m2, P = 0.22) and no deaths, in either treatment group over three months of follow-up. One study comparing vildagliptin to placebo showed a lower HbA1c level (mean ± SD) (6.3 ± 0.5% versus versus 6.7 ± 0.6%, P = 0.03) and trend towards a greater lowering of fasting blood glucose (-0.91 ± -0.92 mmol/L versus vs -0.19 ± 1.16 mmol/L, P = 0.08) with vildagliptin. One study comparing sitagliptin to insulin glargine showed an equivalent lowering of HbA1c (-0.6 ± 0.5% versus -0.6 ± 0.6%, P = NS) and fasting blood glucose (4.92 ± 1.42 versus 4.76 ± 1.09 mmol/L, P = NS) with sitagliptin. For the outcome of hypoglycaemia, one study comparing vildagliptin to placebo reported no episodes of hypoglycaemia, one study comparing sitagliptin to insulin glargine reported fewer episodes of hypoglycaemia with sitagliptin (3/28 patients; 10.7% versus 5/28; 17.9%) and one cross-over study of sitagliptin and placebo reported two episodes of asymptomatic moderate hypoglycaemia (2 to 3.9 mmol/L) when sitagliptin was administered with glipizide. All three studies reported no drug interactions between DPP4 inhibitors and the immunosuppressive agents taken.Evidence for the treatment effect of pioglitazone for treating pre-existing diabetes was of low quality. One study with 62 transplant recipients compared the use of pioglitazone with insulin to insulin alone for treating pre-existing diabetes. Pioglitazone resulted in a lower HbA1c level (mean ± SD) (-1.21 ± 1.2 versus 0.39 ± 1%, P < 0.001) but had no effects on fasting blood glucose (6.58 ± 2.71 versus 7.28 ± 2.78 mmol/L, P = 0.14 ), and change in creatinine (3.54 ± 15.03 versus 10.61 ± 18.56 mmol/L, P = 0.53) and minimal adverse effects (no episodes of hypoglycaemia, three dropped out due to mild to moderate lower extremity oedema, cyclosporin levels were not affected).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents for treating pre-existing and new-onset diabetes in kidney transplant recipients is limited. Existing studies examine more intensive versus less intensive insulin therapy, and the use of DPP4 inhibitors and pioglitazone. The safety and efficacy of more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy is very uncertain and the safety and efficacy of DPP4 inhibitors and pioglitazone is uncertain, due to data being limited and of poor quality. Additional RCTs are required to clarify the safety and efficacy of current glucose-lowering agents for kidney transplant recipients with diabetes.

Subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues for diabetic ketoacidosis

BACKGROUND

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is an acute, life-threatening complication of uncontrolled diabetes that mainly occurs in individuals with autoimmune type 1 diabetes, but it is not uncommon in some people with type 2 diabetes. The treatment of DKA is traditionally accomplished by the administration of intravenous infusion of regular insulin that is initiated in the emergency department and continued in an intensive care unit or a high-dependency unit environment. It is unclear whether people with DKA should be treated with other treatment modalities such as subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified eligible trials by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. We searched the trials registers WHO ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 27 October 2015. We also examined reference lists of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, and contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials if they were RCTs comparing subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues versus standard intravenous infusion in participants with DKA of any age or sex with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, and in pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed studies for risk of bias, and evaluated overall study quality utilising the GRADE instrument. We assessed the statistical heterogeneity of included studies by visually inspecting forest plots and quantifying the diversity using the I² statistic. We synthesised data using random-effects model meta-analysis or descriptive analysis, as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials randomised 201 participants (110 participants to subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues and 91 to intravenous regular insulin). The criteria for DKA were consistent with the American Diabetes Association criteria for mild or moderate DKA. The underlying cause of DKA was mostly poor compliance with diabetes therapy. Most trials did not report on type of diabetes. Younger diabetic participants and children were underrepresented in our included trials (one trial only). Four trials evaluated the effects of the rapid-acting insulin analogue lispro, and one the effects of the rapid-acting insulin analogue aspart. The mean follow-up period as measured by mean hospital stay ranged between two and seven days. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated trials was unclear in many domains and high for performance bias for the outcome measure time to resolution of DKA.No deaths were reported in the included trials (186 participants; 3 trials; moderate- (insulin lispro) to low-quality evidence (insulin aspart)). There was very low-quality evidence to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous insulin lispro versus intravenous regular insulin on the time to resolution of DKA: mean difference (MD) 0.2 h (95% CI -1.7 to 2.1); P = 0.81; 90 participants; 2 trials. In one trial involving children with DKA, the time to reach a glucose level of 250 mg/dL was similar between insulin lispro and intravenous regular insulin. There was very low-quality evidence to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous insulin aspart versus intravenous regular insulin on the time to resolution of DKA: MD -1 h (95% CI -3.2 to 1.2); P = 0.36; 30 participants; 1 trial. There was low-quality evidence to evaluate the effects of subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues versus intravenous regular insulin on hypoglycaemic episodes: 6 of 80 insulin lispro-treated participants compared with 9 of 76 regular insulin-treated participants reported hypoglycaemic events; risk ratio (RR) 0.59 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.52); P = 0.28; 156 participants; 4 trials. For insulin aspart compared with regular insulin, RR for hypoglycaemic episodes was 1.00 (95% CI 0.07 to 14.55); P = 1.0; 30 participants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence. Socioeconomic effects as measured by length of mean hospital stay for insulin lispro compared with regular insulin showed a MD of -0.4 days (95% CI -1 to 0.2); P = 0.22; 90 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence and for insulin aspart compared with regular insulin 1.1 days (95% CI -3.3 to 1.1); P = 0.32; low-quality evidence. Data on morbidity were limited, but no specific events were reported for the comparison of insulin lispro with regular insulin. No trial reported on adverse events other than hypoglycaemic episodes, and no trial investigated patient satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review, which provided mainly data on adults, suggests on the basis of mostly low- to very low-quality evidence that there are neither advantages nor disadvantages when comparing the effects of subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin analogues versus intravenous regular insulin for treating mild or moderate DKA.

Interventions for hirsutism (excluding laser and photoepilation therapy alone)

BACKGROUND

Hirsutism occurs in 5% to 10% of women of reproductive age when there is excessive terminal hair growth in androgen-sensitive areas (male pattern). It is a distressing disorder with a major impact on quality of life. The most common cause is polycystic ovary syndrome. There are many treatment options, but it is not clear which are most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions (except laser and light-based therapies alone) for hirsutism.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and five trials registers, and checked reference lists of included studies for additional trials. The last search was in June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in hirsute women with polycystic ovary syndrome, idiopathic hirsutism, or idiopathic hyperandrogenism.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors carried out study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 157 studies (sample size 30 to 80) comprising 10,550 women (mean age 25 years). The majority of studies (123/157) were 'high', 30 'unclear', and four 'low' risk of bias. Lack of blinding was the most frequent source of bias. Treatment duration was six to 12 months. Forty-eight studies provided no usable or retrievable data, i.e. lack of separate data for hirsute women, conference proceedings, and losses to follow-up above 40%.Primary outcomes, 'participant-reported improvement of hirsutism' and 'change in health-related quality of life', were addressed in few studies, and adverse events in only half. In most comparisons there was insufficient evidence to determine if the number of reported adverse events differed. These included known adverse events: gastrointestinal discomfort, breast tenderness, reduced libido, dry skin (flutamide and finasteride); irregular bleeding (spironolactone); nausea, diarrhoea, bloating (metformin); hot flushes, decreased libido, vaginal dryness, headaches (gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues)).Clinician's evaluation of hirsutism and change in androgen levels were addressed in most comparisons, change in body mass index (BMI) and improvement of other clinical signs of hyperandrogenism in one-third of studies.The quality of evidence was moderate to very low for most outcomes.There was low quality evidence for the effect of two oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) (ethinyl estradiol + cyproterone acetate versus ethinyl estradiol + desogestrel) on change from baseline of Ferriman-Gallwey scores. The mean difference (MD) was -1.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.86 to 0.18).There was very low quality evidence that flutamide 250 mg, twice daily, reduced Ferriman-Gallwey scores more effectively than placebo (MD -7.60, 95% CI -10.53 to -4.67 and MD -7.20, 95% CI -10.15 to -4.25). Participants' evaluations in one study with 20 participants confirmed these results (risk ratio (RR) 17.00, 95% CI 1.11 to 259.87).Spironolactone 100 mg daily was more effective than placebo in reducing Ferriman-Gallwey scores (MD -7.69, 95% CI -10.12 to -5.26) (low quality evidence). It showed similar effectiveness to flutamide in two studies (MD -1.90, 95% CI -5.01 to 1.21 and MD 0.49, 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97) (very low quality evidence), as well as to finasteride in two studies (MD 1.49, 95% CI -0.58 to 3.56 and MD 0.40, 95% CI -1.18 to 1.98) (low quality evidence).Although there was very low quality evidence of a difference in reduction of Ferriman-Gallwey scores for finasteride 5 mg to 7.5 mg daily versus placebo (MD -5.73, 95% CI -6.87 to -4.58), it was unlikely it was clinically meaningful. These results were reinforced by participants' assessments (RR 2.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 4.29 and RR 11.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 175.86). However, finasteride showed inconsistent results in comparisons with other treatments, and no firm conclusions could be reached.Metformin demonstrated no benefit over placebo in reduction of Ferriman-Gallwey scores (MD 0.05, 95% CI -1.02 to 1.12), but the quality of evidence was low. Results regarding the effectiveness of GnRH analogues were inconsistent, varying from minimal to important improvements.We were unable to pool data for OCPs with cyproterone acetate 20 mg to 100 mg due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity between studies. However, addition of cyproterone acetate to OCPs provided greater reductions in Ferriman-Gallwey scores.Two studies, comparing finasteride 5 mg and spironolactone 100 mg, did not show differences in participant assessments and reduction of Ferriman-Gallwey scores (low quality evidence). Ferriman-Gallwey scores from three studies comparing flutamide versus metformin could not be pooled (I² = 62%). One study comparing flutamide 250 mg twice daily with metformin 850 mg twice daily for 12 months, which reached a higher cumulative dosage than two other studies evaluating this comparison, showed flutamide to be more effective (MD -6.30, 95% CI -9.83 to -2.77) (very low quality evidence). Data showing reductions in Ferriman-Gallwey scores could not be pooled for four studies comparing finasteride with flutamide as the results were inconsistent (I² = 67%).Studies examining effects of hypocaloric diets reported reductions in BMI, but which did not result in reductions in Ferriman-Gallwey scores. Although certain cosmetic measures are commonly used, we did not identify any relevant RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatments may need to incorporate pharmacological therapies, cosmetic procedures, and psychological support. For mild hirsutism there is evidence of limited quality that OCPs are effective. Flutamide 250 mg twice daily and spironolactone 100 mg daily appeared to be effective and safe, albeit the evidence was low to very low quality. Finasteride 5 mg daily showed inconsistent results in different comparisons, therefore no firm conclusions can be made. As the side effects of antiandrogens and finasteride are well known, these should be accounted for in any clinical decision-making. There was low quality evidence that metformin was ineffective for hirsutism and although GnRH analogues showed inconsistent results in reducing hirsutism they do have significant side effects.Further research should consist of well-designed, rigorously reported, head-to-head trials examining OCPs combined with antiandrogens or 5α-reductase inhibitor against OCP monotherapy, as well as the different antiandrogens and 5α-reductase inhibitors against each other. Outcomes should be based on standardised scales of participants' assessment of treatment efficacy, with a greater emphasis on change in quality of life as a result of treatment.

Colesevelam for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Colesevelam is a second-generation bile acid sequestrant that has effects on both blood glucose and lipid levels. It provides a promising approach to glycaemic and lipid control simultaneously.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of colesevelam for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

Several electronic databases were searched, among these The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, OpenGrey and Proquest Dissertations and Theses database (all up to January 2012), combined with handsearches. No language restriction was used.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared colesevelam with or without other oral hypoglycaemic agents with a placebo or a control intervention with or without oral hypoglycaemic agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials and extracted the data. We evaluated risk of bias of trials using the parameters of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs ranging from 8 to 26 weeks investigating 1450 participants met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias of these trials was unclear or high. All RCTs compared the effects of colesevelam with or without other antidiabetic drug treatments with placebo only (one study) or combined with antidiabetic drug treatments. Colesevelam with add-on antidiabetic agents demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in fasting blood glucose with a mean difference (MD) of -15 mg/dL (95% confidence interval (CI) -22 to - 8), P < 0.0001; 1075 participants, 4 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. There was also a reduction in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in favour of colesevelam (MD -0.5% (95% CI -0.6 to -0.4), P < 0.00001; 1315 participants, 5 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. However, the single trial comparing colesevelam to placebo only (33 participants) did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two arms - in fact, in both arms HbA1c increased. Colesevelam with add-on antidiabetic agents demonstrated a statistical significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol with a MD of -13 mg/dL (95% CI -17 to - 9), P < 0.00001; 886 participants, 4 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. Non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes were infrequently observed. No other serious adverse effects were reported. There was no documentation of complications of the disease, morbidity, mortality, health-related quality of life and costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Colesevelam added on to antidiabetic agents showed significant effects on glycaemic control. However, there is a limited number of studies with the different colesevelam/antidiabetic agent combinations. More information on the benefit-risk ratio of colesevelam treatment is necessary to assess the long-term effects, particularly in the management of cardiovascular risks as well as the reduction in micro- and macrovascular complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, long-term data on health-related quality of life and all-cause mortality also need to be investigated.

Glucagon-like peptide analogues for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide analogues are a new class of drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes that mimic the endogenous hormone glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). GLP-1 is an incretin, a gastrointestinal hormone that is released into the circulation in response to ingested nutrients. GLP-1 regulates glucose levels by stimulating glucose-dependent insulin secretion and biosynthesis, and by suppressing glucagon secretion, delayed gastric emptying and promoting satiety.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of glucagon-like peptide analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were obtained from electronic searches of The Cochrane Library (last search issue 1, 2011), MEDLINE (last search March 2011), EMBASE (last search March 2011), Web of Science (last search March 2011) and databases of ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials of a minimum duration of eight weeks comparing a GLP-1 analogue with placebo, insulin, an oral anti-diabetic agent, or another GLP-1 analogue in people with type 2 diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and quality assessment of studies were done by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data were analysed by type of GLP-1 agonist and comparison treatment. Where appropriate, data were summarised in a meta-analysis (mean differences and risk ratios summarised using a random-effects model).

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen randomised controlled trials including relevant analyses for 6899 participants were included in the analysis. Studies were mostly of short duration, usually 26 weeks.In comparison with placebo, all GLP-1 agonists reduced glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels by about 1%. Exenatide 2 mg once weekly and liraglutide 1.8 mg reduced it by 0.20% and 0.24% respectively more than insulin glargine. Exenatide 2 mg once weekly reduced HbA1c more than exenatide 10 μg twice daily, sitagliptin and pioglitazone. Liraglutide 1.8 mg reduced HbA1c by 0.33% more than exenatide 10 μg twice daily. Liraglutide led to similar improvements in HbA1c compared to sulphonylureas but reduced it more than sitagliptin and rosiglitazone.Both exenatide and liraglutide led to greater weight loss than most active comparators, including in participants not experiencing nausea. Hypoglycaemia occurred more frequently in participants taking concomitant sulphonylurea. GLP-1 agonists caused gastrointestinal adverse effects, mainly nausea. These adverse events were strongest at the beginning and then subsided. Beta-cell function was improved with GLP-1 agonists but the effect did not persist after cessation of treatment.None of the studies was long enough to assess long-term positive or negative effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

GLP-1 agonists are effective in improving glycaemic control.

Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Chronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Many diabetes patients will eventually require insulin treatment to maintain good glycaemic control. There are still uncertainties about the optimal insulin treatment regimens for type 2 diabetes, but the long-acting insulin analogues seem beneficial. Several reviews have compared either insulin detemir or insulin glargine to NPH insulin, but research directly comparing both insulin analogues is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with each other in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, online registries of ongoing trials and abstract books. Date of last search was January 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine with a duration of 12 weeks or longer were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analysis was performed.

MAIN RESULTS

This review examined four trials lasting 24 to 52 weeks involving 2250 people randomised to either insulin detemir or glargine. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated studies was high. Insulin glargine was dosed once-daily in the evening. Insulin detemir was initiated once-daily in the evening with the option of an additional dose in the morning in three studies and initiated twice-daily in one study. Of randomised patients 13.6% to 57.2% were injecting insulin detemir twice-daily at the end of trial.Glycaemic control, measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and HbA1c equal to or less than 7% with or without hypoglycaemia, did not differ statistically significantly between treatment groups.The results showed no significant differences in overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia between treatment groups.Insulin detemir was associated with less weight gain. Treatment with insulin glargine resulted in a lower daily basal insulin dose and a lower number of injection site reactions.There was no significant difference in the variability of FPG or glucose values in 24-hour profiles between treatment groups. It was not possible to draw conclusions on quality of life, costs or mortality. Only one trial reported results on health-related quality of life and showed no significant differences between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses suggest that there is no clinically relevant difference in efficacy or safety between insulin detemir and insulin glargine for targeting hyperglycaemia. However, to achieve the same glycaemic control insulin detemir was often injected twice-daily in a higher dose but with less weight gain, while insulin glargine was injected once-daily, with somewhat fewer injection site reactions.

Emergency interventions for hyperkalaemia

BACKGROUND

Hyperkalaemia occurs in outpatients and in between 1% and 10% of hospitalised patients. When severe, consequences include arrhythmia and death.

OBJECTIVES

To review randomised evidence informing the emergency (i.e. acute, rather than chronic) management of hyperkalaemia

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (1966-2003), EMBASE (1980-2003), The Cochrane Library (issue 4, 2003), and SciSearch using the text words hyperkal* or hyperpotass* (* indicates truncation). We also searched selected journals and abstracts of meetings. The reference lists of recent review articles, textbooks, and relevant papers were reviewed for additional potentially relevant titles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All selection was performed in duplicate. Articles were considered relevant if they were randomised, quasi-randomised or cross-over randomised studies of pharmacological or other interventions to treat non-neonatal humans with hyperkalaemia, reporting on clinically-important outcomes, or serum potassium levels within the first six hours of administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All data extraction was performed in duplicate. We extracted quality information, and details of the patient population, intervention, baseline and follow-up potassium values. We extracted information about arrhythmias, mortality and adverse effects. Where possible, meta-analysis was performed using random effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

None of the studies of clinically-relevant hyperkalaemia reported mortality or cardiac arrhythmias. Reports focussed on serum potassium levels. Many studies were small, and not all intervention groups had sufficient data for meta-analysis to be performed. On the basis of small studies, inhaled beta-agonists, nebulised beta-agonists, and intravenous (IV) insulin-and-glucose were all effective, and the combination of nebulised beta agonists with IV insulin-and-glucose was more effective than either alone. Dialysis is effective. Results were equivocal for IV bicarbonate. K-absorbing resin was not effective by four hours, and longer follow up data on this intervention were not available from RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nebulised or inhaled salbutamol, or IV insulin-and-glucose are the first-line therapies for the management of emergency hyperkalaemia that are best supported by the evidence. Their combination may be more effective than either alone, and should be considered when hyperkalaemia is severe. When arrhythmias are present, a wealth of anecdotal and animal data suggests that IV calcium is effective in treating arrhythmia. Further studies of the optimal use of combination treatments and of the adverse effects of treatments are needed.

'Human' insulin versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Human insulin was introduced for the routine treatment of diabetes mellitus in the early 1980s without adequate comparison of efficacy to animal insulin preparations. First reports of altered hypoglycaemia awareness after transfer to human insulin made physicians and especially patients uncertain about potential adverse effects of human insulin.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different insulin species by evaluating their efficacy (in particular glycaemic control) and adverse effects profile (mainly hypoglycaemia).

SEARCH STRATEGY

A highly sensitive search for randomised controlled trials combined with key terms for identifying studies on human versus animal insulin was performed using The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We also searched reference lists and databases of ongoing trials. Date of latest search: July 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled clinical trials with diabetic patients of all ages that compared human to animal (for the most part purified porcine) insulin. Trial duration had to be at least one month in order to achieve reliable results on the main outcome parameter glycated haemoglobin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial selection as well as evaluation of study quality was performed by two independent reviewers. The quality of reporting of each trial was assessed according to a modification of the quality criteria as specified by Schulz and by Jadad.

MAIN RESULTS

Altogether 2156 participants took part in the 45 randomised controlled studies that were discovered through extensive search efforts. Though many studies had a randomised, double-blind design, most studies were of poor methodological quality. Purified porcine and semi-synthetic insulin were most often investigated. No significant differences in metabolic control or hypoglycaemic episodes between various insulin species could be elucidated. Insulin dose and insulin antibodies did not show relevant dissimilarities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A comparison of the effects of human and animal insulin as well as of the adverse reaction profile did not show clinically relevant differences. Many patient-oriented outcomes like health-related quality of life or diabetes complications and mortality were never investigated in high-quality randomised clinical trials. The story of the introduction of human insulin might be repeated by contemporary launching campaigns to introduce pharmaceutical and technological innovations that are not backed up by sufficient proof of their advantages and safety.