Efficacy of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Overweight/Obese and/or T2DM Adolescents: A Meta-analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) on blood glucose and weight in adolescents with overweight/obesity and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) aged <18 years. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to August 2023 comparing GLP-1RAs with placebo in overweight/obese and/or T2DM adolescents and extracted relevant data for meta-analysis. Fourteen RCTs were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 1,262 participants. Results revealed that the GLP-1RAs group had a more significant reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c; risk difference (RD)=-0.34%, p<0.001) than the control group. However, there was no difference in fasting plasma glucose [fasting plasma glucose (FPG); RD=-2.07 mg/dL, p=0.065] between the two groups. Nonetheless, the experimental group that received exenatide showed no significant reduction in HbA1c (p=0.253) and FPG (p=0.611) between the two groups. The GLP-1RAs group had a more significant decline in body weight (RD=-4.28 kg, p=0.002) and body mass index (BMI) (RD=-1.63 kg/m2, p=0.002) compared to the control group. The experimental group was given liraglutide (RD=-2.31 kg, p=0.038) or exenatide (RD=-2.70 kg, p<0.001). Compared to the control group, the experimental group had a more significant drop in body weight than the control group. However, for the experimental group that received liraglutide, the BMI had a no significant reduction between the two groups (RD=-0.81 kg/m2, p=0.260). For the experimental group using exenatide, BMI declined more significantly in the intervention group than in the control group (RD=-1.14 kg/m2, p<0.001). This study showed that GLP-1RAs reduced HbA1c, FPG, and weight loss in overweight/obese and/or T2DM adolescents. Liraglutide was better than exenatide in terms of glucose reduction. Nevertheless, in terms of weight control, exenatide was more effective than liraglutide.

Dai M ，Dai S ，Gu L ，Xiang Z ，Xu A ，Lu S ，Yang Y ，Zhou C ... -  《-》

Effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for reduction of body mass index and blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity: A retrospective cohort study and difference-in-difference analysis.

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in reducing body mass index (BMI) and blood glucose levels in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using the difference-in-differences (DID) technique. This retrospective cohort study included patients with T2DM, receiving GLP1-RA or other second-line antidiabetic treatments between 2010 and 2023. A linear mixed-effect regression with heterogeneous augmented inverse probability weighting DID analysis was used to compare the effectiveness of GLP-1RA and other second-line treatments in reducing BMI, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) in patients with T2DM. An average treatment effect on the treated (ATET) for each outcome was estimated. 1000 patients with T2DM (GLP-1RA=220, non-GLP-1RA=880) were included. Compared with other second-line drugs, GLP-1RA significantly reduced BMI by approximately 1.02 kg/m2 (95% CI -1.46 to -0.58) over 24 months of treatment. Additionally, GLP-1RA significantly decreased FPG and HbA1c levels, compared with other second-line treatments with overall ATETs (95% CI) of -21.34 mg/dL (-29.53 to -13.15) and -0.58% (-0.77% to -0.38%), respectively. Our results indicate that patients with T2DM treated with GLP-1RA had a significantly greater reduction in BMI, FPG and HbA1C levels compared with those receiving other second-line antidiabetic therapies. As such, GLP-1RA might be considered the preferred treatment for obese patients with T2DM who fail to sufficiently respond to metformin monotherapy.

Siriyotha S ，Anothaisintawee T ，Looareesuwan P ，Nimitphong H ，McKay GJ ，Attia J ，Thakkinstian A ... -  《BMJ Open》

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 (GLP-1) Receptor Variants and Glycemic Response to Liraglutide: A Pharmacogenetics Study in Iranian People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Pharmacogenetics studies suggest that genetic variants have a possible influence on the inter-individual differences in therapeutic response to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). We aimed to examine the potential role of genetic variability of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor (GLP-1R) on glycemic response to GLP-1 RAs in a population of Iranian people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In this study, we analyzed the data from participants in a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial between 2019 and 2020. Patients received liraglutide 1.8 mg/day subcutaneously for 24 weeks. They were stratified by the baseline hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) into four categories: 7-7.99, 8-8.99, 9-9.99, and ≥ 10%. In each category, subjects with HbA1c reduction greater than the median ΔHbA1c value for that group were defined as optimal responders. The pooled number of optimal/suboptimal responders in the four groups was used for the comparison. We evaluated two genetic variants of GLP-1R, rs6923761 and rs10305420, using Sanger sequencing. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the associations of the GLP-1R variants with the glycemic response in different genetic models. Out of 233 participants, 120 individuals were optimal responders. Median HbA1c reduction was - 2.5% in the optimal responder group compared with - 1.0% in the suboptimal responder group (P < 0.001). In genetic models, rs10305420 T allele homozygosity was associated with optimal glycemic response to liraglutide compared with heterozygous and wild-type homozygous states (recessive model: OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.41-7.65, P = 0.006; codominant model: OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.03-6.13, P = 0.04). No significant association was found between rs6923761 variant and HbA1c reduction. GLP-1R rs10305420 polymorphism can explain some of the inter-individual differences in glycemic response to liraglutide in a population of Iranian people with T2DM.

Eghbali M ，Alaei-Shahmiri F ，Hashemi-Madani N ，Emami Z ，Mostafavi L ，Malek M ，Khamseh ME ... -  《-》

Calcium supplementation for people with overweight or obesity.

Obesity is a major health problem worldwide as it can lead to high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and insulin resistance. The prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing worldwide across different age groups. There is evidence of an inverse relationship between calcium intake and body weight. The clinical relevance of a small reduction in body weight has been questioned. However, at a population level, a small effect could mitigate the observed global trends. To assess the effects of calcium supplementation on weight loss in individuals living with overweight or obesity. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), and two clinical trials registries. The date of the last search of all databases (except Embase) was 10 May 2023. No language restrictions were applied. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of calcium in participants with overweight or obesity of any age or gender. We excluded studies in participants with absorption problems. We included studies of any dose with a minimum duration of two months. We included the following comparisons: calcium supplementation versus placebo, calcium-fortified food or beverage versus placebo, or calcium-fortified food or beverage versus non-calcium-fortified food or beverage. We excluded studies that evaluated the effect of calcium and vitamin D or mixed minerals compared to placebo. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were body weight, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were anthropometric measures other than body weight, all-cause mortality, and morbidity. We found 18 studies that evaluated the effect of calcium compared to placebo or control, with a total of 1873 randomised participants (950 participants in the calcium supplementation groups and 923 in the control groups). All included studies gave oral calcium supplementation as the intervention. We did not find any studies evaluating calcium-fortified foods. We excluded 38 studies, identified four ongoing studies, and listed one study as 'awaiting classification'. Sixteen studies compared calcium supplementation to placebo; two studies compared different doses of calcium supplementation. Doses ranged from very low (0.162 g of calcium/day) to high (1.5 g of calcium/day). Most studies were performed in the USA and Iran, lasted less than six months, and included only women. Low-certainty evidence suggests that calcium supplementation compared to placebo or control may result in little to no difference in body weight (mean difference (MD) -0.15 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.55 to 0.24; P = 0.45, I2 = 46%; 17 studies, 1317 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by two levels for risk of bias and heterogeneity. None of the included studies reported health-related quality of life, all-cause mortality, or morbidity/complications as outcomes. Only five studies assessed or reported adverse events. Low-certainty evidence suggests a low frequency of adverse events, with no clear difference between intervention and control groups. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that calcium supplementation compared to placebo or control probably results in a small reduction in body mass index (BMI) (MD -0.18 kg/m2,95% CI -0.22 to -0.13; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 731 participants) and waist circumference (MD -0.51 cm, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.29; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 273 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that calcium supplementation compared to placebo or control may result in a small reduction in body fat mass (MD -0.34 kg, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.05; P < 0.001, I2 = 97%; 12 studies, 812 participants). Calcium supplementation for eight weeks to 24 months may result in little to no difference in body weight in people with overweight or obesity. The current evidence is of low certainty, due to concerns regarding risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity. We found that the degree of heterogeneity might be partly explained by calcium dosage, the presence or absence of a co-intervention, and whether an intention-to-treat analysis was pursued. While our analyses suggest that calcium supplementation may result in a small reduction in BMI, waist circumference, and fat mass, this evidence is of low to moderate certainty. Future studies could investigate the effect of calcium supplementation on lean body mass to explore if there is a change in body composition.

Cormick G ，Ciapponi A ，Harbron J ，Perez SM ，Vazquez P ，Rivo J ，Metzendorf MI ，Althabe F ，Belizán JM ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

M.G. Showell, R. Mackenzie‐Proctor, V. Jordan, and R.J. Hart, “Antioxidants for Female Subfertility,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 8 (2020): CD007807, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 This Editorial Note is for the above article, published online on August 27, 2020, in Cochrane Library (cochranelibrary.com), and has been issued by the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, in agreement with Cochrane. The Editorial note has been agreed due to concerns discovered by the Cochrane managing editor regarding the retraction of six studies in the Review (Badawy et al. 2006, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.097; El Refaeey et al. 2014, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.011; El Sharkwy & Abd El Aziz 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12902; Gerli et al. 2007, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202309_33752, full text: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/18074942; Ismail et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.008; Hashemi et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1372413). In addition, expressions of concern have been published for two studies (Jamilian et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1236-3; Zadeh Modarres 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1148-2). The retracted studies will be moved to the Excluded Studies table, and their impact on the review findings will be investigated and acted on accordingly in a future update. Initial checks indicate that removal of the six retracted studies did not make an appreciable difference to the results. Likewise, the studies for which Expressions of Concern were issued will be moved to the Awaiting classification table; they did not report any review outcomes, so removal will have no impact on the review findings. A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》