Aim To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the effect of carbohydrate restriction on glycaemic control in Type 2 diabetes. Methods We searched Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL for the period between 1976 and April 2018. We included randomized controlled trials comparing carbohydrate restriction with a control diet which aimed to maintain or increase carbohydrate intake, and that reported HbA1c as an outcome and reported the amount of carbohydrate consumed during or at the end of the study, with outcomes reported at ≥3 months. Results We identified 1402 randomized controlled trials, 25 of which met the inclusion criteria, incorporating 2132 participants for the main outcome. Definitions of low carbohydrate varied among the studies. The pooled effect estimate from meta‐analysis was a weighted mean difference of –0.09% [95% CI –0.27, 0.08 (P = 0.30); I2 72% (P <0.001)], suggesting no effect on HbA1c of restricting the quantity of carbohydrate. A subgroup analysis of diets containing 50–130 g carbohydrate resulted in a pooled effect estimate of –0.49% [95% CI –0.75, –0.23 (P <0.001); I2 0% (P = 0.56)], suggesting a clinically and statistically significant effect on HbA1c in favour of low‐carbohydrate diets in studies of ≤6 months’ duration. Conclusions There was no overall pooled effect on HbA1c in favour of restricting carbohydrate; however, restriction of carbohydrate to 50–130 g per day had beneficial effects on HbA1c in trials up to 6 months. Future randomized controlled trials should be of >12 months’ duration, assess pre‐study carbohydrate intake, use recognized definitions of low‐carbohydrate diets and examine reasons for non‐adherence to prescribed diets in greater detail.

No abstract

Background Sore throat is a common condition caused by an infection of the airway. Most cases are of a viral nature; however, a number of these infections may be caused by the group A Streptococcus bacterium. Most viral and bacterial sore throat infections resolve spontaneously within a few weeks. Point-of-care testing in primary care has been recognised as an emerging technology for aiding targeted antibiotic prescribing for sore throat in cases that do not spontaneously resolve. Objective Systematically review the evidence for 21 point-of-care tests for detecting group A Streptococcus bacteria and develop a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of point-of-care tests alongside clinical scoring tools with the cost-effectiveness of clinical scoring tools alone for patients managed in primary care and hospital settings. Data sources Multiple electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2019. The following databases were searched in November and December 2018 and searches were updated in March 2019: MEDLINE [via OvidSP (Health First, Rockledge, FL, USA)], MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (via OvidSP), MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print (via OvidSP), MEDLINE Daily Update (via OvidSP), EMBASE (via OvidSP), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [via Wiley Online Library (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA)], Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via Wiley Online Library), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (via Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), Health Technology Assessment database (via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings [via the Web of Science™ (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA)] and the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). Review methods Eligible studies included those of people aged ≥ 5 years presenting with sore throat symptoms, studies comparing point-of-care testing with antibiotic-prescribing decisions, studies of test accuracy and studies of cost-effectiveness. Quality assessment of eligible studies was undertaken. Meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity was carried out for tests with sufficient data. A decision tree model estimated costs and quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Results The searches identified 38 studies of clinical effectiveness and three studies of cost-effectiveness. Twenty-six full-text articles and abstracts reported on the test accuracy of point-of-care tests and/or clinical scores with biological culture as a reference standard. In the population of interest (patients with Centor/McIsaac scores of ≥ 3 points or FeverPAIN scores of ≥ 4 points), point estimates were 0.829 to 0.946 for sensitivity and 0.849 to 0.991 for specificity. There was considerable heterogeneity, even for studies using the same point-of-care test, suggesting that is unlikely that any single study will have accurately captured a test’s true performance. There is some randomised controlled trial evidence to suggest that the use of rapid antigen detection tests may help to reduce antibiotic-prescribing rates. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for each test in each age group and care setting combination were obtained using meta-analyses where appropriate. Any apparent differences in test accuracy may not be attributable to the tests, and may have been caused by known differences in the studies, latent characteristics or chance. Fourteen of the 21 tests reviewed were included in the economic modelling, and these tests were not cost-effective within the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s cost-effectiveness thresholds. Uncertainties in the cost-effectiveness estimates included model parameter inputs and assumptions that increase the cost of testing, and the penalty for antibiotic overprescriptions. Limitations No information was identified for the elderly population or pharmacy setting. It was not possible to identify which test is the most accurate owing to the paucity of evidence. Conclusions The systematic review and the cost-effectiveness models identified uncertainties around the adoption of point-of-care tests in primary and secondary care settings. Although sensitivity and specificity estimates are promising, we have little information to establish the most accurate point-of-care test. Further research is needed to understand the test accuracy of point-of-care tests in the proposed NHS pathway and in comparable settings and patient groups. Study registration The protocol of the review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018118653. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundSmoking prevalence is high among Pakistani and Bangladeshi men in the UK, but there are few tailored smoking cessation programmes for Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. The aim of this study was to pilot a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of Pakistani and Bangladeshi smoking cessation outreach workers with standard care to improve access to and the success of English smoking cessation services.MethodsA pilot cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in Birmingham, UK. Geographical lower layer super output areas were used to identify natural communities where more than 10% of the population were of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin. 16 agglomerations of super output areas were randomised to normal care controls vs. outreach intervention. The number of people setting quit dates using NHS services, validated abstinence from smoking at four weeks, and stated abstinence at three and six months were assessed. The impact of the intervention on choice and adherence to treatments, attendance at clinic appointments and patient satisfaction were also assessed.ResultsWe were able to randomise geographical areas and deliver the outreach worker-based services. More Pakistani and Bangladeshi men made quit attempts with NHS services in intervention areas compared with control areas, rate ratio (RR) 1.32 (95%CI: 1.03-1.69). There was a small increase in the number of 4-week abstinent smokers in intervention areas (RR 1.30, 95%CI: 0.82-2.06). The proportion of service users attending weekly appointments was lower in intervention areas than control areas. No difference was found between intervention and control areas in choice and adherence to treatments or patient satisfaction with the service. The total cost of the intervention was £124,000; an estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of £8,500.ConclusionsThe intervention proved feasible and acceptable. Outreach workers expanded reach of smoking cessation services in diverse locations of relevance to Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. The outreach worker model has the potential to increase community cessation rates and could prove cost-effective, but needs evaluating definitively in a larger, appropriately powered, randomised controlled trial. These future trials of outreach interventions need to be of sufficient duration to allow embedding of new models of service delivery.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN82127540