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

Glycemic Management Among Adults With Type 1 Diabetes During Passover: A Pre-Post Single-center Study

OBJECTIVES

No data are available regarding glycemic management of individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during Passover. Our aim in this study was to assess the effect of Passover on diabetes management and glycemic management in adults with T1D with nutritional changes during Passover (observant) compared with those who did not change their dietary habits during Passover (nonobservant).

METHODS

We conducted an observational pre-post study of adults with T1D, followed in a diabetes clinic in Israel. Data were downloaded from insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring for 37 days: 2 weeks before Passover, 9 days of Passover, and 2 weeks thereafter. Differences in percentage of time spent above target (>10.0 to >13.9 mmol/L), at target (3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L), and below target (<3.9 to <3.0 mmol/L) were compared using paired t tests or paired signed rank tests.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 43 individuals with T1D (23 observant, 20 nonobservant). The average blood glucose was significantly higher during Passover compared with the period before Passover---in nonobservant patients 8.2±1.5 mmol/L and 7.9±1.3 mmol/L (p=0.043), respectively, and in observant patients 8.7±1.6 mmol/L and 8.4±1.6 mmol/L (p=0.048), respectively. Time above range 10 to 13.9 mmol/L was increased in observant individuals during Passover, as compared with the period before Passover, at 24.9±16.2% and 20.6±12.4% (p=0.04), respectively. The dose of bolus insulin had increased significantly in observant individuals: 27.4±13.9 units during Passover, as compared with 24.2±11.2 units before Passover (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Passover alters glycemic management and insulin needs in Jewish adults with T1D. It is advisable to make specific adjustments to maintain the recommended glycemic management.

Safety of high-risk diabetic patients during Ramadan at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan, practicing updated IDF DAR guidelines

Objective

To determine trend of following medical advice and safety of high-risk diabetic patients during Ramadan practicing updated IDF DAR guidelines.

Methods

The cross-sectional study was conducted at Outpatient Department of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Disorders Hayatabad Medical Complex Peshawar, Pakistan from April to June 2022, and comprised of high-risk diabetic patients (>6.0) based on updated IDF-DAR guidelines 2022 intending to fast. A questionnaire was designed to document patient risk factors score, type and duration of diabetes, HbA1c, comorbidities and complications developed during Ramadan. Data was analyzed using SPSS 20.

Results

Among all 130 participants, 78(60%) followed medical advice and did not fast and 52(40%) patients fasted against medical advice during month of Ramadan. Out of 130 participants, 89.2% were having type-2 diabetes Mellitus, 55.4% were female and mean age of participants was 52+14.6.40%. In fasting group, 57.7% were in the age range of 16 to 50 years while in non-fasting group 69.2% participants were more than 50 years old (P-value 0.031). There were 80.8% female participants in fasting group versus 38.5% in non-fasting group (P-value 0.001). Hypoglycemia occurred in 58.3% patients in fasting group and 29.3% non-fasting group. (P-value 0.021). On the other hand, 27.8% patients in fasting group and 55.2% of non-fasting group had hyperglycemia (P-value 0.025).

Conclusion

Despite advised against fasting in these high-risk patients as per IDF DAR guidelines, almost half of patients fasted considering fasting a religious obligation. Those who fasted had significant hypoglycemia despite adjustment of medications as in guidelines. There is need of more intensive education before fasting, especially in high-risk diabetic patients.

Incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis does not differ in Ramadan compared to other months and seasons: results from a 6-year multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is a life-threatening adverse complication of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). It is postulated that fasting during Ramadan can increase the risk of DKA; however, there are contradicting data in this regard. Furthermore, studies from Western countries have suggested a seasonal variation in the incidence of DKA. This study examines the differences in the number of DKA episodes during Ramadan compared to the rest of the year in patients with type 1 DM (T1D) and type 2 DM (T2D). Besides, we aim to examine the seasonal difference in the incidence of DKA.

METHODS

We included consecutive index-DKA admissions from 2015 to 2021 and used descriptive statistics to compare the episodes of DKA in Ramadan vs other months and seasons.

RESULTS

Of 922 patients, 480 (52%) had T1D, whereas 442 (48%) had T2D. The median age (IQR) was 35 (25-45) years, with the majority being Arab (N = 502, 54.4%). There were 94 DKA admissions in six collective Ramadan months, whereas the DKA admissions ranged from 61 to 88 episodes in other months (p = .3). The highest DKA admissions were observed in Autumn (N = 236) and the lowest in Spring (N = 226) with no statistically significant difference (p = .4). There were no differences in DKA severity or new-onset diabetes rates when analyzed based on Hiji months, Roman months, or seasons.

CONCLUSIONS

DKA occurrence is not increased during Ramadan. We found no evidence of seasonal variations in the rates of DKA in the State of Qatar.

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.