Effect of more versus less intensive blood pressure control on cardiovascular, renal and mortality outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Currently, there is uncertainty as to whether blood pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes should be treated to standard recommended levels or more intensively. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched between January 1, 2000 and April 20th, 2023. Outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, albuminuria, coronary heart disease, and renal outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated pooled relative risks and mean differences. RESULTS: Nine trials enrolling 11,005 participants with type 2 diabetes were included. The pooled mean difference between the intensive and standard treatment groups at follow-up were -7.98 mmHg (95% CI: 12.19 to -3.76) in systolic blood pressure, and -5.08 mmHg (-7.00 to -3.17) in diastolic blood pressure; although between study heterogeneity was high for both meta-analyses (I2>85%). Intensive blood pressure lowering resulted in a reduction in risk of stroke (risk ratio 0.64; 0.52 to 0.79), and macro-albuminuria (0.77; 0.63 to 0.93). More intensive blood pressure control did not result in a statistically significant reduction in risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure, cardiovascular death, cardiovascular events, renal outcomes, and micro-albuminuria; although the direction of estimated effect was beneficial for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of intensive compared with standard blood pressure targets resulted in a significant reduction in blood pressure, stroke, and macro-albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes. The post-treatment blood pressure level in the intensive group was 125/73 mmHg, suggesting the current recommendations of 130/80 mmHg blood pressure or lower if tolerated, could be reduced further.

Association between Chronotype and Physical Behaviours in Adolescent Girls.

The aim of this study was to (1) describe accelerometer-assessed physical behaviours by chronotype, and (2) examine the association between chronotype and accelerometer-assessed physical behaviours in a cohort of adolescent girls. Chronotype (single question) and physical behaviours (GENEActiv accelerometer on the non-dominant wrist) were assessed in 965 adolescent girls (13.9 ± 0.8 years). Linear mixed-effects models examined the relationships among chronotype and physical behaviours (time in bed, total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sedentary time, overall, light and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity) on weekdays and weekend days. Over the 24 h day, participants spent 46% sedentary, 20% in light activity, 3% in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and 31% in 'time in bed'. Seventy percent of participants identified as 'evening' chronotypes. Compared to evening chronotypes, morning chronotypes engaged in less sedentary time (10 min/day) and had higher overall physical activity (1.3 mg/day, ~30 min of slow walking) on weekdays. Most girls identified as evening chronotypes with a large proportion of their day spent sedentary and a small amount in physical activities which may be exacerbated in evening chronotypes on weekdays. The results maybe be important for programmes aiming to promote physical activity in adolescent girls.

Concurrent screen use and cross-sectional association with lifestyle behaviours and psychosocial health in adolescent females.

AIM: To describe concurrent screen use and any relationships with lifestyle behaviours and psychosocial health. METHODS: Participants wore an accelerometer for seven days to calculate physical activity sleep and sedentary time. Screen ownership and use and psychosocial variables were self-reported. Body mass index (BMI) was measured. Relationships were explored using mixed models accounting for school clustering and confounders. RESULTS: In 816 adolescent females (age: 12.8 SD 0.8 years; 20.4% non-white European) use of ≥2 screens concurrently was: 59% after school, 65% in evenings, 36% in bed and 68% at weekends. Compared to no screens those using: ≥1 screens at weekends had lower physical activity; ≥2 screens at the weekend or one/two screen at bed had lower weekend moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; one screen in the evening had lower moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in the after-school and evening period; ≥1 screens after school had higher BMI; and ≥3 screens at the weekend had higher weekend sedentary time. Compared to no screens those using: 1-3 after-school screens had shorter weekday sleep; ≥1 screens after-school had lower time in bed. CONCLUSION: Screen use is linked to lower physical activity, higher BMI and less sleep. These results can inform screen use guidelines.

Effect of pragmatic versus explanatory interventions on medication adherence in people with cardiometabolic conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions aimed at increasing medication adherence in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD). And, in a novel approach, to compare the intervention effect of studies which were categorised as being more pragmatic or more explanatory using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) tool, to identify whether study design affects outcomes. As explanatory trials are typically held under controlled conditions, findings from such trials may not be relatable to real-world clinical practice. In comparison, pragmatic trials are designed to replicate real-world conditions and therefore findings are more likely to represent those found if the intervention were to be implemented in routine care. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: RCTs lasting ≥3 months (90 days), involving ≥200 patients in the analysis, with either established CVD and/or T2DM and which measured medication adherence. From 4403 citations, 103 proceeded to full text review. Studies published in any language other than English and conference abstracts were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in medication adherence. RESULTS: Of 4403 records identified, 34 studies were considered eligible, of which 28, including 30 861 participants, contained comparable outcome data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Overall interventions were associated with an increase in medication adherence (OR 1.57 (95% CI: 1.33 to 1.84), p<0.001; standardised mean difference 0.24 (95% CI: -0.10 to 0.59) p=0.101). The effectiveness of interventions did not differ significantly between studies considered pragmatic versus explanatory (p=0.598), but did differ by intervention type, with studies that included a multifaceted rather than a single-faceted intervention having a more significant effect (p=0.010). The analysis used random effect models and used the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool to assess study quality. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, interventions were associated with a significant increase in medication adherence. Overall multifaceted interventions which included an element of education alongside regular patient contact or follow-up showed the most promise. Effectiveness of interventions between pragmatic and explanatory trials was comparable, suggesting that findings can be transferred from idealised to real-word conditions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017059460.

Efficacy and tolerability of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in adults with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from inception to 24 April 2019 for randomized controlled trials reporting change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at approximately 24 and/or 52 weeks for SGLT-2is and/or GLP-1RAs (classified as short- and long-acting). Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to compare within and between SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA classes for cardiometabolic efficacy and adverse events (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018091306). RESULTS: Sixty-four trials (53 trials of 24 weeks; seven trials of 52 weeks; four trials of both 24 and 52 weeks), comprising 31 384 participants were identified. Compared with placebo, all treatments improved HbA1c. Long-acting GLP-1RAs reduced HbA1c compared with short-acting GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is, with semaglutide showing greater reduction compared with placebo [24 weeks: -1.49% (95% credible interval: -1.76, -1.22); 52 weeks: -1.38% (-2.05, -0.71)] and all other treatments. Long-acting GLP-1RAs showed benefits in body weight and waist circumference reduction, while SGLT-2is reduced blood pressure. SGLT-2is showed increased risk of genital infection in comparison with long-acting GLP-1RAs [odds ratio (95% credible interval): 5.26 (1.45, 25.00)], while GLP-1RAs showed increased risk of diarrhoea in comparison with SGLT-2is [short-acting GLP-1RAs: 1.65 (1.09, 2.49); long-acting GLP-1RAs: 2.23 (1.51, 3.28)]. No other differences were found between SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs in adverse events. CONCLUSION: Long-acting GLP-1RAs showed superiority in reducing HbA1c levels, body weight and waist circumference. SGLT-2is showed reductions in blood pressure levels. This review provides essential evidence to guide treatment recommendations in the management of type 2 diabetes.