Vitamins are essential micronutrients with antioxidant potential that may provide a complementary treatment for patients with chronic diseases. Our aim was to assess the effect of vitamin supplementation on the antioxidant status and glycemic index of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. We performed a systematic review with meta-analyses. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (December 2017). Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of any vitamin or vitamin complex supplementation on antioxidant status as primary outcome were included. The outcomes considered were: reduction of malondialdehyde (MDA); augmentation of glutathione peroxidase (GPx); changes in total antioxidant capacity (TAC), enhance in superoxide dismutase enzyme—SOD, and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS). Outcomes of glycemic control were also evaluated. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed using software Review Manager 5.3. Thirty trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, but only 12 could be included in the meta-analyses of antioxidant outcomes. The most commonly studied vitamins were B, C, D and E. Vitamin E was related to significant reduction of blood glucose as well as glycated hemoglobin compared to placebo, while both vitamins C and E were mainly associated with reducing MDA and TBARS and elevating GPx, SOD and TAC, compared to placebo. However, outcome reports in this field are still inconsistent (e.g. because of a lack of standard measures). Supplementation of vitamin E may be a valuable strategy for controlling diabetes complications and enhancing antioxidant capacity. The effects of other micronutrients should be further investigated in larger and well-designed trials to properly place these complementary therapies in clinical practice.

Objectives: Despite its broad spectrum, conventional amphotericin B (AB) is associated with serious adverse events. Lipid-based formulations may offer safer options. We aimed to synthesize the evidence of efficacy and safety of AB formulations. Methods: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare all available formulations: conventional AB; lipid complex or ABLC; colloidal dispersion or ABCD; liposomal or LAB; AB in Intralipid. Randomized controlled trials were searched in four databases. Cure, fever, chills, nephrotoxicity, death and drug discontinuation were assessed. NMA was based on Bayesian methods accounting for direct and indirect comparisons. Probability ranks estimating the best formulation were built for each outcome. The relative benefit–risk of formulations was assessed with stochastic multicriteria acceptability analyses (SMAA). Key findings: We identified 25 trials (n = 2996). No significant differences among drugs were observed for cure or death. All lipid-based formulations were safer than conventional AB for nephrotoxicity. AB-Intralipid was more tolerable than conventional AB and caused less chills than ABCD. AB-Intralipid was the best therapy (>60%) regarding nephrotoxicity, fever, chills and discontinuation. The scenario from SMAA favoured AB-Intralipid (81% acceptability). Conventional AB was secondary to all lipid-based formulations. Conclusions: Amphotericin B-Intralipid was identified as safer, cost-saving treatment in comparison with other formulations.

Objective Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic disease with great impact on patients' quality of life (QoL). This variable can be measured using reliable, standardized, and validated instruments. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the application and reporting of the Diabetes Quality of Life Measure (DQOL) or the Diabetes Quality of Life for Youths Measure (DQOLY), an adapted version for young patients with DM. Materials and methods A systematic review of interventional and observational studies using the DQOL or DQOLY was performed. Searches were conducted in the electronic databases Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, and SciELO. Results After conducting the searches, 111 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis. Of these, 32 studies were classified as interventional and 79 as observational, with 27,481 patients. The DQOL was applied in 82 studies, the DQOLY in another 27, and two studies used both instruments. DM was classified as type 1 DM in 69 studies and type 2 DM in 35 studies. Six studies included both patients. Improvement in patients' QoL after an intervention was observed in 13 interventional studies. Most of the studies (90%) provide a detailed description of the instrument and 52% the previous validation. The interpretation of the scores obtained varies among the studies, probably due to the differences inherent in cultural validations, translations, and adaptations. Conclusion The application of the instruments in clinical practice must be rigorously standardized and requires an accurate understanding of psychometric and statistical concepts. Arch Endocrinol Metab. 2020;64(1):59-65.