scholarly journals Omega-3, omega-6, and total dietary polyunsaturated fat for prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l4697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracey J Brown ◽  
Julii Brainard ◽  
Fujian Song ◽  
Xia Wang ◽  
Asmaa Abdelhamid ◽  
...  

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tala Raad ◽  
Elena George ◽  
Anne Griffin ◽  
Louise Larkin ◽  
Alexander Fraser ◽  
...  

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterised by swollen and painful joints. It is hypothesised that changes in lifestyle factors such as consuming a healthier diet may  reduce the severity of RA symptoms. People living with RA commonly make alterations to their dietary intake with the hope of improving their symptoms. This systematic review aims to discuss the effects of dietary interventions with and without omega-3 supplementation for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs) will be conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register) and CINAHL will be searched from inception without using date restrictions. Primary outcomes will include measures of disease activity, inflammation and quality of life among adults living with RA. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the methodological appraisal of the studies will be assessed independently by two different reviewers (TR and AG) using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for RCTs, and Risk-of-Bias In Non-Randomised Studies Tool for NRCTs. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Only publically available data from previously published studies will be used. The findings of this systematic review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020147415 (11/02/2020).


Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Messina ◽  
Chiara Robba ◽  
Lorenzo Calabrò ◽  
Daniel Zambelli ◽  
Francesca Iannuzzi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Postoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients’ outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded. Results After full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (− 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I2 (95% CI) = 38.6% (0–66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02–0.09); p value  = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value  = 0.33) or late (p value  = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups Conclusions In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive. Trial Registration CRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document