Aims We compared the effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with those of multiple daily insulin (MDI) injections on glycaemic control, risk of hypoglycaemic episodes, insulin requirements and adverse events in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials up to March 2007. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Results Overall, 22 studies were included (17 on type 1 diabetes mellitus, two on type 2 diabetes mellitus, three on children). With regard to adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus, our meta-analysis found a between-treatment difference of −0.4% HbA 1c (six studies) in favour of CSII therapy. Available median rates of mild or overall hypoglycaemic events were comparable between the different interventions (1.9 [0.9-3.1] [CSII] vs 1.7 [1. 1-3.3] [MDI] events per patient per week). Total daily insulin requirements were lower with CSII than with MDI therapy. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, CSII and MDI treatment showed no statistically significant difference for HbA 1c . The incidence of mild hypoglycaemic events was comparable between the treatment groups. In adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus, glycated haemoglobin and insulin requirements were significantly lower in the CSII groups; no data were available on hypoglycaemic events. The only study performed in younger children did not provide enough data for conclusive inferences. No overall conclusions were possible for severe hypoglycaemia and adverse events for any of the different patient groups due to rareness of such events, different definitions and insufficient reporting. Conclusions/interpretation CSII therapy in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus resulted in a greater reduction of glycated haemoglobin, in adult patients without a higher rate of hypoglycaemia. No beneficial effect of CSII therapy could be detected for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia (2008) 51:941-951

Summary Overweight and obesity are increasing worldwide. In general practice, different approaches exist to treat people with weight problems. To provide the foundation for the development of a structured clinical pathway for overweight and obesity management in primary care, we performed a systematic overview of international evidence‐based guidelines. We searched in PubMed and major guideline databases for all guidelines published in World Health Organization (WHO) “Stratum A” nations that dealt with adults with overweight or obesity. Nineteen guidelines including 711 relevant recommendations were identified. Most of them concluded that a multidisciplinary team should treat overweight and obesity as a chronic disease. Body mass index (BMI) should be used as a routine measure for diagnosis, and weight‐related complications should be taken into account. A multifactorial, comprehensive lifestyle programme that includes reduced calorie intake, increased physical activity, and measures to support behavioural change for at least 6 to 12 months is recommended. After weight reduction, long‐term measures for weight maintenance are necessary. Bariatric surgery can be offered to people with a BMI greater than or equal to 35 kg/m2 when all non‐surgical interventions have failed. In conclusion, there was considerable agreement in international, evidence‐based guidelines on how multidisciplinary management of overweight and obesity in primary care should be performed.

Objective To summarise the benefits and harms of treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sources Embase, Medline, AMED, BIOSIS, CCMed, CDMS, CDSR, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, HTA, NHS EED, Heclinet, SciSearch, several publishers’ databases, and reference lists of relevant secondary literature up to October 2009.Review methods Included studies were randomised controlled trials of specific treatment for gestational diabetes compared with usual care or “intensified” compared with “less intensified” specific treatment.Results Five randomised controlled trials matched the inclusion criteria for specific versus usual treatment. All studies used a two step approach with a 50 g glucose challenge test or screening for risk factors, or both, and a subsequent 75 g or 100 g oral glucose tolerance test. Meta-analyses did not show significant differences for most single end points judged to be of direct clinical importance. In women specifically treated for gestational diabetes, shoulder dystocia was significantly less common (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.75), and one randomised controlled trial reported a significant reduction of pre-eclampsia (2.5 v 5.5%, P=0.02). For the surrogate end point of large for gestational age infants, the odds ratio was 0.48 (0.38 to 0.62). In the 13 randomised controlled trials of different intensities of specific treatments, meta-analysis showed a significant reduction of shoulder dystocia in women with more intensive treatment (0.31, 0.14 to 0.70).Conclusions Treatment for gestational diabetes, consisting of treatment to lower blood glucose concentration alone or with special obstetric care, seems to lower the risk for some perinatal complications. Decisions regarding treatment should take into account that the evidence of benefit is derived from trials for which women were selected with a two step strategy (glucose challenge test/screening for risk factors and oral glucose tolerance test).

Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for type 2 diabetes mellitus (Review)

Background Clinical guidelines differ regarding their recommended blood glucose targets for patients with type 1 diabetes and recent studies on patients with type 2 diabetes suggest that aiming at very low targets can increase the risk of mortality. Objectives To assess the effects of intensive versus conventional glycaemic targets in patients with type 1 diabetes in terms of long-term complications and determine whether very low, near normoglycaemic values are of additional benefit. Search methods A systematic literature search was performed in the databases The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE. The date of the last search was December 2012 for all databases. Selection criteria We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that had defined different glycaemic targets in the treatment arms, studied patients with type 1 diabetes, and had a follow-up duration of at least one year. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed studies for risk of bias, with differences resolved by consensus. Overall study quality was evaluated by the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation' (GRADE) system. Randomeffects models were used for the main analyses and the results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.