The effect of lifestyle interventions on depressive symptom severity in individuals with type-2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a severe metabolic condition which is commonly comorbid with depression. Lifestyle factors are involved in the pathophysiology of both conditions; however, the role of lifestyle interventions remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systematically review the literature on randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of lifestyle interventions on depressive scores in patients with T2DM. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in computerized databases before October 2022. A random-effects model was used to investigate the effect of lifestyle interventions on depression scores and meta-regression was conducted to assess the influence of age and disease onset. RESULTS: Six trials met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A statistically significant reduction in depression scores was found for groups receiving lifestyle interventions compared to controls (SMD = -0.49 [95%CI -0.89 to -0.08]; p = 0.0269]). Interventions increased in efficacy with the age of the participants but no significant correlation was found with years since disease onset. Participants in a control group receiving a less intense lifestyle intervention demonstrated improved depression scores when compared to those who received standard care or no intervention at all. Trial design and outcome measurement tools were heterogeneous between studies and limited data on antidepressant use was available which may introduce bias into the results. CONCLUSION: Lifestyle interventions were effective at improving depressive symptom severity in patients with T2DM.

Risk of bias and certainty of evidence on the association between obesity and mortality in patients with SARS-COV-2: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SR-MAs) aimed to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence of SR-MAs on the association between obesity and mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search until April 22, 2022, in several databases and assessed the risk of bias of SR-MAs according to AMSTAR-2 and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The degree of overlap between meta-analyses was based on the corrected covered area (CCA) index. The results of each MA [relative risk (RR), hazard ratio (HR), or odds ratio (OR)] were extracted to evaluate the magnitude of the association between obesity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 24 SR-MAs were eligible, and the association between obesity and mortality was not statistically significant in eight (33.3%) of them, while the OR/HR/RR ranged from 1.14 to 3.52 in the other SR-MAs. The overlap was slight (CCA = 4.82%). The majority of SR-MAs presented critically low quality according to AMSTAR-2 (66.7%), and the certainty of the evidence for most of them (83.4%) was "very low". CONCLUSIONS: Obesity was associated with an increased risk of death in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in most SR-MAs; however, a critical appraisal pointed to a high risk of bias, and the certainty of their evidence was not well graded. The dissemination of poor SR-MAs may limit the interpretation of findings, and we should always aspire to trustworthy scientific evidence. PROSPERO: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021253142.

Long-term Effect of Lifestyle Interventions on the Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality of Subjects With Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

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.

A systematic review on the agreement between clinical practice guidelines regarding the steps of the nutrition care process of adult patients who are critically ill.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the nutrition management of adult patients who are critically ill present divergences on recommendations regarding the nutrition care process (NCP), which bring difficulties in their application. We aimed to compare the recommendations from these CPGs and present a synthesis of them for each step of the NCP in intensive care unit (ICU) settings. METHODS: Systematic review of CPGs on nutrition care in ICU, searched in six databases up to January 2022. We have extracted data about CPGs, steps of the NCP, and quality of evidence for each recommendation. We compiled the recommendations from each CPG for each step of the NCP and calculated the relative frequency of agreement between them. RESULTS: Ten CPGs were reviewed, and 9 made recommendations for energy requirement, time to start, and route for nutrition support; however, only 3 presented recommendations on nutrition monitoring. The relative frequency of agreement between the recommendations of the CPGs ranges from 11% to 100%. The highest agreement was for the determination of energy requirements by indirect calorimetry and the provision of high protein for patients who are obese (100%). The lowest agreement among the CPGs was for considering either enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition (PN) as an acceptable route (11%) and when to start PN (16.7%). Most recommendations were based on expert consensus. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide divergence on the recommendations to NCP of patients who are critically ill. This systematic review summarizes recommendations to evidence-based practice in ICU settings to facilitate the daily decisions of professionals.