Effect of Dosage Reduction of Hypoglycemic Multidrug Regimens on the Incidences of Acute Glycemic Complications in People With Type 2 Diabetes Who Fast During Ramaḍān: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Interventions for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus fasting during Ramadan

BACKGROUND

Fasting during Ramadan is obligatory for adult Muslims, except those who have a medical illness. Many Muslims with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) choose to fast, which may increase their risks of hypoglycaemia and dehydration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (29 June 2022) without language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during Ramadan that evaluated all pharmacological or behavioural interventions in Muslims with T2DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened and selected records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs with 5359 participants, with a four-week study duration and at least four weeks of follow-up. All studies had at least one high-risk domain in the risk of bias assessment. Four trials compared dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylureas (85/1237 versus 165/1258, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). Serious hypoglycaemia was similar between groups (no events were reported in two trials; 6/279 in the DPP-4 versus 4/278 in the sulphonylurea group was reported in one trial, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.24; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (141/1207 versus 157/1219, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54) and HbA1c changes (MD -0.11%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.36) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No deaths were reported (moderate-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared meglitinides with sulphonylurea. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on hypoglycaemia (14/133 versus 21/140, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.28) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.35% to 0.41%) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). Death, serious hypoglycaemic events, adverse events, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. SGLT-2 may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (4/58 versus 13/52, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (one event reported in both groups, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.97) and adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (20/58 versus 18/52, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). SGLT-2 inhibitors result in little or no difference in HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58; 1 trial, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Three trials compared glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues with sulphonylurea. GLP-1 analogues may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (20/291 versus 48/305, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (0/91 versus 1/91, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that GLP-1 analogues result in little to no difference in adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (78/244 versus 55/255, RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.61; very low-certainty evidence), treatment satisfaction (MD -0.18, 95% CI -3.18 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or change in HbA1c (MD -0.04%, 95% CI -0.45% to 0.36%; 2 trials, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of insulin analogues on hypoglycaemia (47/256 versus 81/244, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.40) and serious hypoglycaemia (4/131 versus 3/132, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.89) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). The evidence was very uncertain for the effect of insulin analogues on adverse effects other than hypoglycaemia (109/256 versus 114/244, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (1/131 versus 0/132, RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.53; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.03%, 95% CI -0.17% to 0.23%; 1 trial, 245 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared telemedicine with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of telemedicine on hypoglycaemia compared with usual care (9/63 versus 23/58, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; very low-certainty evidence), HRQoL (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.84%, 95% CI -1.51% to -0.17%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, AEs other than hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared Ramadan-focused patient education with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of Ramadan-focused patient education on hypoglycaemia (49/213 versus 42/209, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -0.73% to -0.06%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, adverse events other than hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared drug dosage reduction with usual care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drug dosage reduction on hypoglycaemia (19/452 versus 52/226, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30; very low-certainty evidence). No participants experienced adverse events other than hypoglycaemia during the study (very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction, HbA1c change and HRQoL were not evaluated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence of the benefits or harms of interventions for individuals with T2DM who fast during Ramadan. All results should be interpreted with caution due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies, which give rise to low- to very low-certainty evidence. Major outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life and severe hypoglycaemia, were rarely evaluated. Sufficiently powered studies that examine the effects of various interventions on these outcomes are needed.

Sex as a Biological Factor in the Changes in Disease Patients During Ramadan Intermittent Fasting: A Systematic Review

Background

During Ramadan, many patients with diabetes, renal, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal diseases, headaches, and epilepsy choose to fast even against their doctor's advice. The impact of this intermittent fasting on health and disease could be different in men and women. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of sex as a factor in diseases outcomes of patients who opt to fast during Ramadan.

Main Body

The articles included in this study reported data on six diseases: diabetes, renal, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal diseases, headaches, and epilepsy. A systematic search was performed on PubMed and Scopus for observational and clinical studies mentioning Ramadan, diabetes, renal, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal diseases, headaches, and epilepsy in both men and women. Data was extracted by two independent reviewers using a standardized data-collection form. From 381 original articles, 38 studies were selected, including 25,023 patients of which 44.4% were women. Sex-based differences were reported by 18 studies for several variables such as body mass index, blood glucose, the frequency of hypoglycemia, renal colic, mortality, thrombosis, and gastrointestinal diseases in patients fasting during Ramadan. Most of the differences between men and women were reported both in the baseline period before Ramadan and during Ramadan. Indeed, during the period outside Ramadan, the frequency of renal colic, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal diseases, were higher in men; while body mass index, Thrombosis, and headache were higher in women. In the remaining 21 studies, it was reported that the sex factor was not associated with the effect of Ramadan fasting in the frequency and other outcomes of these diseases.

Conclusion

Currently, small attention is paid to sex as a determinant factor in patients while fasting during Ramadan. There appeared to be differences in the frequency and incidence of diseases in men and women during Ramadan. Closer attention to sex differences regarding the frequency and the progression of the diseases during fasting may help to improve patient care, especially to benefit those patients willing to fast during Ramadan.

A Systematic Review of Insulin Management Recommendations to Improve Glycemic Control and Reduce Hypoglycemic Events During Ramadan Fasting in Patients With Insulin-Requiring Type 2 Diabetes

Background

Muslims with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes are at high risk of hypo- and hyperglycemia while fasting during the month of Ramadan. Although a few reviews on diabetic management during Ramadan have been published, surveys reveal knowledge gaps remain among physicians.

Aim

This systematic review qualitatively analyzes what insulin dosing recommendations are likely to reduce hypoglycemic events and improve glycemic control during the Ramadan fasting for this high-risk group.

Methods

A comprehensive search in six databases and gray sources was performed from August 10, 2001, to August 10, 2021, for studies assessing which types of insulin and/or what dosing recommendations reduce hypoglycemic events and improve glycemic control during Ramadan. We excluded studies focusing mainly on oral antihyperglycemic medications, type 1 diabetes, persons with insulin pumps, and studies older than 20 years. Hypoglycemic event rates, pre-, and post-iftar blood glucose levels, overall average blood glucose, and hemoglobin A1c were analyzed, and a narrative synthesis was performed.

Results

Out of 1,101 collected articles, 14 eligible studies including 2,969 participants with an average age of 54.8 years, we found that insulin dose reduction may prevent hypoglycemia without causing subsequent hyperglycemia, and rapid-acting insulin analogs may improve post-iftar and overall blood glucose without incurring hypoglycemia.

Conclusions

Though initial findings are promising, more research is needed to confirm the benefits of insulin dose reduction, rapid-acting insulin analogs, and ultra-long-acting insulins.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021268943.

Ramadan and Diabetes: What About Non-Fasting Patients with Diabetes?

BACKGROUND

The management of diabetes during Ramadan is well codified. International guidelines recommend avoiding fasting for patients with the risk of complications. However, during Ramadan drastic changes occur in lifestyles habits. Our study aims to evaluate the impact of the month of Ramadan on the lifestyle habits and metabolic profile of non-fasting patients with diabetes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This observational cross-sectional study was carried out during 3 months of Ramadan in 2018, Ramadan 2019, and Ramadan 2021. We conducted 3 consultations (before, during, and after Ramadan). Before Ramadan, we collected anthropometric and metabolic parameters, and we assessed physical activity level and dietary intake. During Ramadan, we evaluated the occurrence of complications such as hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, as well as we assessed physical activity level, dietary intake, and the number of meals. After Ramadan re-evaluate anthropometric and metabolic parameters.

RESULTS

We included 155 patients, 93.5% had type 2 diabetes and 6.5% had type 1 diabetes. We found that glycated hemoglobin, LDL cholesterol, and Triglyceride increased significantly after Ramadan (p-value <0.001). We also found that weight, body mass index, waist circumference. Caloric intake increased significantly during Ramadan (p-value <0.001); this increase concerned 61.3% of patients. In terms of metabolic parameters, diabetes was unbalanced in 52.6% of patients, hypoglycemia occurs in 20.9% of patients, and hyperglycemia was experienced by 37% of patients during Ramadan. We found that LDL cholesterol increased in 48.4% of patients, triglycerides increased in 60.6% of patients and serum level of total cholesterol increased in 55% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that during Ramadan risk of complications in patients with diabetes is not only related to fasting.