ORCID Profile
0000-0002-7848-5381
Current Organisation
Jennifer Beardsley
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2020
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 13-01-2021
DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.M4743
Abstract: To determine the efficacy and safety of low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) and very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) for people with type 2 diabetes. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB, and grey literature sources from inception to 25 August 2020. Randomized clinical trials evaluating LCDs ( g/day or % of a 2000 kcal/day diet) and VLCDs ( % calories from carbohydrates) for at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes were eligible. Primary outcomes were remission of diabetes (HbA 1c .5% or fasting glucose .0 mmol/L, with or without the use of diabetes medication), weight loss, HbA 1c , fasting glucose, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and biochemical laboratory data. All articles and outcomes were independently screened, extracted, and assessed for risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence at six and 12 month follow-up. Risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Outcomes were assessed according to a priori determined minimal important differences to determine clinical importance, and heterogeneity was investigated on the basis of risk of bias and seven a priori subgroups. Any subgroup effects with a statistically significant test of interaction were subjected to a five point credibility checklist. Searches identified 14 759 citations yielding 23 trials (1357 participants), and 40.6% of outcomes were judged to be at low risk of bias. At six months, compared with control diets, LCDs achieved higher rates of diabetes remission (defined as HbA 1c .5%) (76/133 (57%) v 41/131 (31%) risk difference 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.47 8 studies, n=264, I 2 =58%). Conversely, smaller, non-significant effect sizes occurred when a remission definition of HbA 1c .5% without medication was used. Subgroup assessments determined as meeting credibility criteria indicated that remission with LCDs markedly decreased in studies that included patients using insulin. At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes. Large clinically important improvements were seen in weight loss, triglycerides, and insulin sensitivity at six months, which diminished at 12 months. On the basis of subgroup assessments deemed credible, VLCDs were less effective than less restrictive LCDs for weight loss at six months. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence. That is, among highly adherent patients on VLCDs, a clinically important reduction in weight was seen compared with studies with less adherent patients on VLCDs. Participants experienced no significant difference in quality of life at six months but did experience clinically important, but not statistically significant, worsening of quality of life and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months. Otherwise, no significant or clinically important between group differences were found in terms of adverse events or blood lipids at six and 12 months. On the basis of moderate to low certainty evidence, patients adhering to an LCD for six months may experience remission of diabetes without adverse consequences. Limitations include continued debate around what constitutes remission of diabetes, as well as the efficacy, safety, and dietary satisfaction of longer term LCDs. PROSPERO CRD42020161795.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2020
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 10-2021
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2020-047474
Abstract: To evaluate the benefits and risks of zinc formulations compared with controls for prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in adults. Seventeen English and Chinese databases were searched in April/May 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and from April/May 2020 to August 2020 for SARS-CoV-2 RCTs. Cochrane rapid review methods were applied. Quality appraisals used the Risk of Bias 2.0 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Twenty-eight RCTs with 5446 participants were identified. None were specific to SARS-CoV-2. Compared with placebo, oral or intranasal zinc prevented 5 RTIs per 100 person-months (95% CI 1 to 8, numbers needed to treat (NNT)=20, moderate-certainty/quality). Sublingual zinc did not prevent clinical colds following human rhinovirus inoculations (relative risk, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21, moderate-certainty/quality). On average, symptoms resolved 2 days earlier with sublingual or intranasal zinc compared with placebo (95% CI 0.61 to 3.50, very low-certainty/quality) and 19 more adults per 100 were likely to remain symptomatic on day 7 without zinc (95% CI 2 to 38, NNT=5, low-certainty/quality). There were clinically significant reductions in day 3 symptom severity scores (mean difference, MD −1.20 points, 95% CI −0.66 to −1.74, low-certainty/quality), but not average daily symptom severity scores (standardised MD −0.15, 95% CI −0.43 to 0.13, low-certainty/quality). Non-serious adverse events (AEs) (eg, nausea, mouth/nasal irritation) were higher (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.69, NNHarm=7, moderate-certainty/quality). Compared with active controls, there were no differences in illness duration or AEs (low-certainty/quality). No serious AEs were reported in the 25 RCTs that monitored them (low-certainty/quality). In adult populations unlikely to be zinc deficient, there was some evidence suggesting zinc might prevent RTIs symptoms and shorten duration. Non-serious AEs may limit tolerability for some. The comparative efficacy/effectiveness of different zinc formulations and doses were unclear. The GRADE-certainty/quality of the evidence was limited by a high risk of bias, small s le sizes and/or heterogeneity. Further research, including SARS-CoV-2 clinical trials is warranted. CRD42020182044.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 04-11-2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.11.02.20220038
Abstract: To evaluate the benefits and risks of any type of zinc intervention to prevent or treat SARS-CoV-2. A living, systematic review and meta-analysis, incorporating rapid review methods. 17 English and Chinese databases and clinical trial registries were searched in April/May 2020, with additional covid-19 focused searches in June and August 2020. Randomized control trials (RCTs) published in any language comparing zinc to a control to prevent or treat SARS-CoV-2. Other viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs) were included, but the certainty of evidence downgraded twice for indirectness. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias appraisal (RoB-2 tool) and verification was performed by calibrated, single reviewers. RCTs with adult populations were prioritised for analysis. 123 RCTs were identified. None were specific to SARS-CoV-2 nor other coronaviruses. 28 RCTs evaluated oral (15-45mg daily), sublingual (45-300mg daily), or topical nasal (0.09-2.6 mg daily) zinc to prevent or treat nonspecific viral RTIs in 3,597 adults without zinc deficiency. Compared to placebo, zinc prevented 5 mild to moderate RTIs per 100 person-months, including in older adults (95% confidence interval 1 to 9) (number needed to treat (NTT)=20). There was no significant difference in the rates of non-serious adverse events (AE). For RTI treatment, a clinically important reduction in peak symptom severity scores was found for zinc compared to placebo (mean difference 1.2 points, 0.7 to 1.7), but not average daily symptom severity (standardised mean difference 0.2, 0.1 to 0.4). 19 fewer per 100 adults were at risk of remaining symptomatic over the first 7 days (2 to 38, NNT=5) and the mean duration of symptoms was 2 days shorter (0.2 to 3.5), however, there was substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 82% and 97%). 14 more per 100 experienced a non-serious AE (4 to 16, NNT=7) such as nausea, or mouth or nasal irritation. No differences in illness duration nor AE were found when zinc was compared to active controls. No serious AE, including copper deficiency, were reported by any RCT. Quality of life outcomes were not assessed. Confidence in these findings for SARS-CoV-2 is very low due to serious indirectness and some concerns about bias for most outcomes. Zinc is a potential therapeutic candidate for preventing and treating SARS-CoV-2, including older adults and adults without zinc deficiency (very low certainty). Zinc may also help to prevent other viral RTIs during the pandemic (moderate certainty) and reduce the severity and duration of symptoms (very low certainty). The pending results from seven RCTs evaluating zinc for SARS-CoV-2 will be tracked. PROSPERO CRD42020182044
No related grants have been discovered for Jennifer Beardsley.