Acute glycemic and insulinemic effects of low-energy sweeteners: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Acute glycemic and insulinemic effects of low-energy sweeteners : A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. / Greyling, Arno; Appleton, Katherine M; Raben, Anne; Mela, David J.

I: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Bind 112, Nr. 4, 2020, s. 1002-1014.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Greyling, A, Appleton, KM, Raben, A & Mela, DJ 2020, 'Acute glycemic and insulinemic effects of low-energy sweeteners: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials', American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, bind 112, nr. 4, s. 1002-1014. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa167

APA

Greyling, A., Appleton, K. M., Raben, A., & Mela, D. J. (2020). Acute glycemic and insulinemic effects of low-energy sweeteners: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 112(4), 1002-1014. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa167

Vancouver

Greyling A, Appleton KM, Raben A, Mela DJ. Acute glycemic and insulinemic effects of low-energy sweeteners: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2020;112(4):1002-1014. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa167

Author

Greyling, Arno ; Appleton, Katherine M ; Raben, Anne ; Mela, David J. / Acute glycemic and insulinemic effects of low-energy sweeteners : A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. I: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2020 ; Bind 112, Nr. 4. s. 1002-1014.

Bibtex

@article{529a37038c74404ab8f69436b05cc1cc,
title = "Acute glycemic and insulinemic effects of low-energy sweeteners: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials",
abstract = "Background: It has been suggested that low-energy sweeteners (LES) may be associated with an increased risk of metabolic diseases, possibly due to stimulation of glucose-responsive mechanisms.Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of human intervention studies examining the acute effect of LES intake on postprandial glucose (PPG) and postprandial insulin (PPI) responses, in order to comprehensively and objectively quantify these relations.Methods: We systematically searched the Medline, OVID FSTA, and SCOPUS databases until January 2020. Randomized controlled trials comparing acute postprandial effects on PPG and/or PPI after exposure to LES, either alone, with a meal, or with other nutrient-containing preloads to the same intervention without LES were eligible for inclusion. PPG and PPI responses were calculated as mean incremental area under the curve divided by time. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models with inverse variance weighing.Results: Twenty-six papers (34 PPG trials and 29 PPI trials) were included. There were no reports of statistically significant differences in the effects of LES on PPG and PPI responses compared with control interventions. Pooled effects of LES intake on the mean change difference in PPG and PPI were -0.02 mmol/L (95{\%} CI: -0.09, 0.05) and -2.39 pmol/L (95{\%} CI: -11.83, 7.05), respectively. The results did not appreciably differ by the type or dose of LES consumed, cointervention type, or fasting glucose and insulin levels. Among patients with type 2 diabetes, the mean change difference indicated a smaller PPG response after exposure to LES compared with the control (-0.3 mmol/L; 95{\%} CI: -0.53, -0.07).Conclusions: Ingestion of LES, administered alone or in combination with a nutrient-containing preload, has no acute effects on the mean change in postprandial glycemic or insulinemic responses compared with a control intervention. Apart from a small beneficial effect on PPG (-0.3 mmol/L) in studies enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, the effects did not differ by type or dose of LES, or fasting glucose or insulin levels. This review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42018099608.",
keywords = "Faculty of Science, Noncaloric sweeteners, Nonnutritive sweeteners, Artificial sweeteners, Postprandial, Glucose, Insulin, Diabetes",
author = "Arno Greyling and Appleton, {Katherine M} and Anne Raben and Mela, {David J}",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} The Author(s) on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition 2020.",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.1093/ajcn/nqaa167",
language = "English",
volume = "112",
pages = "1002--1014",
journal = "American Journal of Clinical Nutrition",
issn = "0002-9165",
publisher = "American Society for Nutrition",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Acute glycemic and insulinemic effects of low-energy sweeteners

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AU - Greyling, Arno

AU - Appleton, Katherine M

AU - Raben, Anne

AU - Mela, David J

N1 - Copyright © The Author(s) on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition 2020.

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Background: It has been suggested that low-energy sweeteners (LES) may be associated with an increased risk of metabolic diseases, possibly due to stimulation of glucose-responsive mechanisms.Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of human intervention studies examining the acute effect of LES intake on postprandial glucose (PPG) and postprandial insulin (PPI) responses, in order to comprehensively and objectively quantify these relations.Methods: We systematically searched the Medline, OVID FSTA, and SCOPUS databases until January 2020. Randomized controlled trials comparing acute postprandial effects on PPG and/or PPI after exposure to LES, either alone, with a meal, or with other nutrient-containing preloads to the same intervention without LES were eligible for inclusion. PPG and PPI responses were calculated as mean incremental area under the curve divided by time. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models with inverse variance weighing.Results: Twenty-six papers (34 PPG trials and 29 PPI trials) were included. There were no reports of statistically significant differences in the effects of LES on PPG and PPI responses compared with control interventions. Pooled effects of LES intake on the mean change difference in PPG and PPI were -0.02 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.09, 0.05) and -2.39 pmol/L (95% CI: -11.83, 7.05), respectively. The results did not appreciably differ by the type or dose of LES consumed, cointervention type, or fasting glucose and insulin levels. Among patients with type 2 diabetes, the mean change difference indicated a smaller PPG response after exposure to LES compared with the control (-0.3 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.53, -0.07).Conclusions: Ingestion of LES, administered alone or in combination with a nutrient-containing preload, has no acute effects on the mean change in postprandial glycemic or insulinemic responses compared with a control intervention. Apart from a small beneficial effect on PPG (-0.3 mmol/L) in studies enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, the effects did not differ by type or dose of LES, or fasting glucose or insulin levels. This review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42018099608.

AB - Background: It has been suggested that low-energy sweeteners (LES) may be associated with an increased risk of metabolic diseases, possibly due to stimulation of glucose-responsive mechanisms.Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of human intervention studies examining the acute effect of LES intake on postprandial glucose (PPG) and postprandial insulin (PPI) responses, in order to comprehensively and objectively quantify these relations.Methods: We systematically searched the Medline, OVID FSTA, and SCOPUS databases until January 2020. Randomized controlled trials comparing acute postprandial effects on PPG and/or PPI after exposure to LES, either alone, with a meal, or with other nutrient-containing preloads to the same intervention without LES were eligible for inclusion. PPG and PPI responses were calculated as mean incremental area under the curve divided by time. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models with inverse variance weighing.Results: Twenty-six papers (34 PPG trials and 29 PPI trials) were included. There were no reports of statistically significant differences in the effects of LES on PPG and PPI responses compared with control interventions. Pooled effects of LES intake on the mean change difference in PPG and PPI were -0.02 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.09, 0.05) and -2.39 pmol/L (95% CI: -11.83, 7.05), respectively. The results did not appreciably differ by the type or dose of LES consumed, cointervention type, or fasting glucose and insulin levels. Among patients with type 2 diabetes, the mean change difference indicated a smaller PPG response after exposure to LES compared with the control (-0.3 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.53, -0.07).Conclusions: Ingestion of LES, administered alone or in combination with a nutrient-containing preload, has no acute effects on the mean change in postprandial glycemic or insulinemic responses compared with a control intervention. Apart from a small beneficial effect on PPG (-0.3 mmol/L) in studies enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, the effects did not differ by type or dose of LES, or fasting glucose or insulin levels. This review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42018099608.

KW - Faculty of Science

KW - Noncaloric sweeteners

KW - Nonnutritive sweeteners

KW - Artificial sweeteners

KW - Postprandial

KW - Glucose

KW - Insulin

KW - Diabetes

U2 - 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa167

DO - 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa167

M3 - Review

C2 - 32672338

VL - 112

SP - 1002

EP - 1014

JO - American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

JF - American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

SN - 0002-9165

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 245230365