No abstract

BACKGROUND Lifestyle interventions improve the metabolic control of individuals with hyperglycemia. PURPOSE We aimed to determine the effect of lifestyle interventions on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in this population. DATA SOURCES Searches were made through MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science (no date/language restriction, until 15 May 2022). STUDY SELECTION We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of subjects with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, comparing intensive lifestyle interventions with usual care, with a minimum of 2 years of active intervention. DATA EXTRACTION Data from the 11 RCTs selected were extracted in duplicate. A frequentist and arm-based meta-analysis was performed with random-effects models to estimate relative risk (RR) for mortality, and heterogeneity was assessed through I2 metrics. A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to confirm the findings. DATA SYNTHESIS Lifestyle interventions were not superior to usual care in reducing cardiovascular (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79–1.23) or all-cause (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.85–1.03) mortality. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses showed no influence of type of intervention, mean follow-up, age, glycemic status, geographical location, risk of bias, or weight change. All of these results were confirmed with the GLMM. Most studies had a low risk of bias according to the RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence was moderate for both outcomes. LIMITATIONS Most studies had a low risk of bias according to the RoB 2.0 tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach resulted in moderate certainty of evidence for both outcomes. Differences in lifestyle programs and in usual care between the studies should be considered in the interpretation of our results. CONCLUSIONS Intensive lifestyle interventions implemented so far did not show superiority to usual care in reducing cardiovascular or all-cause mortality for subjects with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

Background Despite having a 92% concentration of saturated fatty acid composition, leading to an apparently unfavorable lipid profile, body weight and glycemic effect, coconut oil is consumed worldwide. Thus, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to analyze the effect of coconut oil intake on different cardiometabolic outcomes. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, and LILACS for RCTs conducted prior to April 2022. We included RCTs that compared effects of coconut oil intake with other substances on anthropometric and metabolic profiles in adults published in all languages, and excluded non-randomized trials and short follow-up studies. Risk of bias was assessed with the RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence with GRADE. Where possible, we performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Results We included seven studies in the meta-analysis (n = 515; 50% females, follow up from 4 weeks to 2 years). The amount of coconut oil consumed varied and is expressed differently among studies: 12 to 30 ml of coconut oil/day (n = 5), as part of the amount of SFAs or total daily consumed fat (n = 1), a variation of 6 to 54.4 g/day (n = 5), or as part of the total caloric energy intake (15 to 21%) (n = 6). Coconut oil intake did not significantly decrease body weight (MD -0.24 kg, 95% CI -0.83 kg to 0.34 kg), waist circumference (MD -0.64 cm, 95% CI -1.69 cm to 0.41 cm), and % body fat (-0.10%, 95% CI -0.56% to 0.36%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (MD -1.67 mg/dL, 95% CI -6.93 to 3.59 mg/dL), and triglyceride (TG) levels (MD -0.24 mg/dL, 95% CI -5.52 to 5.04 mg/dL). However, coconut oil intake was associated with a small increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (MD 3.28 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.66 to 5.90 mg/dL). Overall risk of bias was high, and certainty of evidence was very-low. Study limitations include the heterogeneity of intervention methods, in addition to small samples and short follow-ups, which undermine the effects of dietary intervention in metabolic parameters. Conclusions Coconut oil intake revealed no clinically relevant improvement in lipid profile and body composition compared to other oils/fats. Strategies to advise the public on the consumption of other oils, not coconut oil, due to proven cardiometabolic benefits should be implemented. Registration PROSPERO CRD42018081461.

<p>  </p> <p><strong>Background: </strong>Lifestyle interventions improve the metabolic control of individuals with hyperglycemia. We aimed to determine the effect of lifestyle interventions on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in this population.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were made through MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science (no date/language restriction, until May 15, 2022). Were included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of subjects with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, comparing intensive lifestyle interventions to usual care, and a minimum of 2 years of active intervention. Data from the 11 RCTs selected were extracted in duplicate. A frequentist and arm-based meta-analysis was performed using random effects models to estimate relative risk (RR) for mortality, and heterogeneity was assessed through I2 metrics. A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was performed to confirm the findings.</p> <p><strong>Results: </strong>Lifestyle interventions were not superior to usual care in reducing cardiovascular (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.23) and all-cause mortality (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.03). Subgroup, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses showed no influence of type of intervention, mean follow-up, age, glycemic status, geographical location, risk of bias, and weight change. All these results were confirmed with the GLMM.  Most studies had a low risk of bias according to the RoB 2.0 tool, and the GRADE approach resulted in moderate certainty of evidence for both outcomes.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Intensive lifestyle interventions implemented so far did not show superiority to usual care in reducing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in subjects with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.</p>