Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Impact of very low carbohydrate ketogenic diets on cardiovascular risk factors among patients with type 2 diabetes; GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Nutrition & Metabolism volume 21, Article number: 50 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

This study was designed to evaluate the impact of VLCKD on cardiovascular risk factors in patients with T2DM.

Methods

Until March 2024, extensive searches were conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and other relevant databases. The purpose was to identify clinical trials examining the impact of VLCKD on glycemic control, lipid profile, and blood pressure. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) method was used to assess the evidence’s degree of certainty.

Results

Our initial search found a total of 2568 records and finally 29 trials were included in final analysis. Our results showed that adherence from VLCKD led to significant reduction in fasting blood sugar (WMD= -11.68 mg/dl; 95% CI: -18.79, -4.56; P = 0.001), HbA1c (WMD= -0.29; 95% CI: -0.44, -0.14; P < 0.001), HOMA-IR(WMD= -0.71; 95% CI: -1.14, -0.29; P = 0.001), insulin (WMD= -1.45; 95% CI: -2.54, -0.36; P = 0.009), triglyceride (WMD= -17.95; 95% CI: -26.82, -9.07; P < 0.001), systolic blood pressure (WMD= -2.85, 95% CI: -4.99, -0.71; P = 0.009) and diastolic blood pressure (WMD= -1.40; 95% CI: -2.66, -0.13; P = 0.03). We also found a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level after adherence from VLCKD diet (WMD = 3.93, 95% CI: 2.03, 5.84; P = 0.000). We couldn’t find any significant differences between groups in term of LDL and total cholesterol levels.

Conclusion

People following a VLCKD experience a more significant improvement in cardiovascular risk factors when compared to individuals on control diets.

Introduction

T2DM represents a major global public health challenge, ranking as one of the most prevalent chronic illnesses, affecting millions of individuals worldwide [1]. In the United States, an estimated 37 million people, roughly equivalent to 10% of the population, are living with diabetes. Notably, T2DM accounts for approximately 90–95% of these cases [2]. The high and rising prevalence of T2DM in recent decades has spurred increased research efforts to investigate the efficacy of various interventions in managing this chronic condition [3,4,5]. In addition to impaired glycemic profile, patients with T2DM are at high risk for developing cardiovascular disease due to the presence of multiple risk factors, including high blood pressure, lipid profile disorders, and elevated inflammatory markers like CRP [6]. Consequently, a key focus for mitigating cardiovascular disease risk in diabetic patients lies in implementing effective lifestyle modifications, particularly those centered on dietary interventions [7,8,9].

Before the landmark discovery of exogenous insulin in the 1920s, management of diabetes mellitus relied heavily on strict dietary regimens that differed significantly from contemporary recommendations. These historical approaches often emphasized severe calorie restriction and limited carbohydrate intake, contrasting with the current focus on balanced, moderate-carbohydrate diets [10, 11]. For instance, a prominent example from 1923 involved a physician-recommended diabetic diet consisting of just 5% protein, 20% carbohydrate, and a remarkably high 75% fat [12, 13]. Clinical trials have shown that dietary interventions, including carbohydrate-restricted diets and low-glycemic index (GI) diets, can be effective in significantly lowering postprandial serum glucose concentrations [14,15,16,17]. While the degree of carbohydrate restriction varies across studies [18,19,20], a VLCKD is typically defined as a dietary regimen limiting carbohydrate intake to less than 50 g per day [21]. While some studies suggest potential benefits of low-carbohydrate diets for prediabetes and T2DM management, conflicting results and knowledge gaps prevent the establishment of a universally accepted optimal dietary approach [22, 23].

Diverging from a one-size-fits-all approach, both Diabetes UK and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines emphasize individualized dietary management for patients with diabetes. However, they achieve consensus on several core nutritional recommendations [24, 25]. In recent years, a growing body of research has investigated the impact of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly VLCKD, on cardiovascular risk in patients with T2DM. While some studies report positive effects on glycemic and lipid profiles [16], others reveal no significant advantage compared to other dietary approaches over the long term. This inconsistency highlights the need for further investigation to determine the optimal dietary strategy for managing T2DM and its associated cardiovascular risks [26]. Two recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluated the effects of VLCKD in patients with T2DM and reported some beneficial outcomes [27, 28]. However, One meta-analysis included studies with varying degrees of carbohydrate restriction, not solely VLCKD [27]. Additionally, methodological shortcomings identified in the other study warrant reevaluation [28]. Moreover, the evidence’s degree of certainty has not been examined in any of the previous meta-analyses. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess the impact of a VLCKD diet on certain cardiovascular risk factors in patients with T2DM.

Materials and methods

Following the principles of rigorous and transparent research methodology, we adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines version 2020 [29], for conducting and reporting this study. Additionally, the protocol for this work was prospectively registered within the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (Registration code: CRD42023475367).

Search strategy

We conducted a comprehensive electronic database search to identify relevant studies, encompassing PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The search covered studies published from database inception up to March 2024 and employed the following search terms: “Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] OR (“Noninsulin Dependent“[Title/Abstract] AND “Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract]) OR (“Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] AND “Ketosis-Resistant“[Title/Abstract]) OR “Ketosis-Resistant Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] OR (“Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] AND “Non-Insulin-Dependent“[Title/Abstract]) OR “Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] OR (“Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] AND “stable“[Title/Abstract]) OR (“Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] AND “Type II“[Title/Abstract]) OR “NIDDM“[Title/Abstract] OR “Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] OR “Noninsulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] OR “Type 2 Diabetes“[Title/Abstract] OR (“diabetes“[Title/Abstract] AND “Type 2“[Title/Abstract]) OR “Adult-Onset Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] OR “Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] OR (“Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] AND “Insulin Dependent“[Title/Abstract]) OR “Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus“[Title/Abstract] OR “T2DM“[Title/Abstract]) AND (“ketogenic“[Title/Abstract] OR “very low carbohydrate” OR VLCKD OR “Ketogenic Diet“[Title/Abstract] OR (“diet“[Title/Abstract] AND “ketogenic“[Title/Abstract]) OR “keto diet“[Title/Abstract] OR “ketotic diet“[Title/Abstract]). To ensure comprehensive coverage, we not only searched electronic databases but also conducted a hand search of the reference lists from all studies included in the final analysis. Additionally, we searched grey literature sources to minimize the risk of overlooking relevant articles. Details of the specific search terms and strategies employed in each database are provided in the supplementary file.

Eligibility criteria

Following the systematic search and transfer of records to Endnote software, two reviewers (MR and SAH) independently screened the studies. In the initial phase, they reviewed titles and abstracts to identify studies examining the impact of VLCKD on glycemic profile (FBS, insulin, HbA1C, HOMA-IR), lipid profile (triglyceride, total cholesterol, HDL, LDL), and blood pressure in patients with T2DM. Studies meeting these criteria were selected for inclusion. The second phase involved full-text review to ensure studies met all inclusion criteria: [1] investigating the effects of VLCKD diets on one of the mentioned biomarkers in T2DM patients, [2] being clinical trials, [3] having a carbohydrate intake less than 50 g/day, and [4] reporting mean or median with standard deviation (SD) or standard error (SE) or 95% CI for outcomes. We excluded studies that met the following criteria: [1] published in a language other than English or lacking a control group, [2] where no response was received from the corresponding author after two weeks of unsuccessful attempts to contact them via email, [3] review articles, case reports and case series, letters to the editor, conference abstracts, or one-arm clinical studies, [4] non-human trials. Regarding quality assessment between two researchers, the kappa statistic for agreement was 0.94. In instances of disagreement between the two reviewers during the initial or full-text screening phases, a third reviewer adjudicated the discrepancy.

Data extraction

The following data were independently extracted by two researchers (MR and JH) from the articles included in the final analysis: author name, publication year, country, study design, participant numbers in intervention and control groups, age range, body weight, intervention duration, and study design (parallel/crossover). Additionally, post-intervention means and standard deviations (SD) of cardiovascular risk factors for both intervention and control groups, as well as their post-intervention mean (SD) changes, were extracted. If standard errors (SEs) or interquartile ranges were reported, they were converted to SDs for consistency.

Assessment of the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence

To assess the risk of bias in studies with a randomized design, we employed the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias [30]. This tool evaluates methodological aspects of studies that could potentially influence the results. Two researchers (MR and JH) independently evaluated the quality of each randomized study using seven domains according to the guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Each domain was assessed using the terms “Low,” “High,” or “Unclear”. For non-randomized studies, we utilized the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions) tool [31]. This tool is specifically designed to evaluate the likelihood of bias in non-randomized studies comparing the health effects of different interventions.

We employed the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) method to assess the certainty of the evidence [32]. The GRADE approach categorizes the certainty of evidence into four levels: “high,” “moderate,” “low,” and “very low.” Two reviewers (MR and RT) independently assessed the certainty of the evidence for each study using the GRADE criteria. These criteria consider potential biases arising from selection, participant performance, detection, attrition, and reporting across the included studies. Any disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer (JH).

Statistical analysis

Effect sizes, representing the magnitude of treatment effects, were calculated as mean differences and standard deviations (SDs) for glycemic profiles (FBS, insulin, and HOMA-IR), lipid profiles (triglycerides, total cholesterol, HDL, and LDL cholesterol), and blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) levels between intervention and control groups. If studies reported data in other formats (standard errors [SEs] or interquartile ranges), these were converted to SDs for consistency. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to present the effect sizes. Heterogeneity, which refers to the variability in effect sizes across studies, was assessed using both Cochran’s Q statistic and the I² statistic. A p-value greater than 0.10 for the Q-test or an I² statistic less than 50% suggests a lack of significant heterogeneity [33]. The random-effects model was employed when heterogeneity exceeded 50%, whereas the fixed-effects model was used for studies with low heterogeneity (I² below 50%). To explore potential sources of heterogeneity, we conducted subgroup analyses focusing on predefined variables such as duration of T2DM, baseline BMI, and intervention duration. To assess the influence of individual studies on the overall effect size, we conducted a sensitivity analysis using the one-study-omitted technique. Additionally, we visually inspected funnel plots to identify potential publication bias, where studies with statistically significant results are more likely to be published. Furthermore, Begg’s rank correlation and Egger’s linear regression tests were employed for a more robust evaluation of publication bias. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata software, version 14 SE (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Study selection

Figure 1 illustrates the article filtering process. Our initial search identified a total of 2,568 records (2,478 from databases and 90 from grey literature. After deduplication using Endnote software, 1,583 studies proceeded to the first-stage screening based on titles and abstracts. One hundred and twenty-three articles advanced to the second phase involving full-text review. During this phase, we excluded studies that did not report our pre-defined outcomes, lacked a control group, involved interventions in children, adolescents, or non-T2DM/T1DM patients, included multiple simultaneous interventions, or were retrospective studies. Ultimately, 29 eligible clinical trials were included in the final analysis [22, 34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram (2020) of search process for studies examining the effects of Very Low Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diets on Cardiovascular Risk Factors among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Full size image

Characteristics of studies

Twenty-nine trials involving a total of 2,359 participants were included in the final analysis (Table 1). These studies were published between 2007 and 2023. Geographically, the studies originated from United States [22, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 61], Denmark [39, 55], Kuwait [46], Australia [34, 44, 50, 52], Spain [51], Canada [37, 60], Israel [42], Sweden [57, 58],UK [56], Germany [59], South Africa [54], Japan [49] and Italy [53]. The number of participants per study ranged from 11 to 349, with a mean participant age range of 18 to 68.7 years across the studies. Intervention durations varied from 4 days to 24 months. All studies included both men and women as participants.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Risk of bias

Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for randomized studies (Fig. 2) and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies (Table 2). In term of randomized studies, all studies used from acceptable random sequence generation, but fifteen trials, allocation concealment was acceptable [22, 34, 39, 40, 42, 44, 49, 51, 52, 54, 56,57,58,59, 61]. All the studies were prone to performance bias because participants were not blinded, and eight of them were susceptible to detection bias because outcome assessors were not blinded. Two studies had a high risk of attrition bias (due to dropouts), and one study had a high risk of reporting bias (due to selective reporting). In term of non-randomized studies, the overall quality for one study showed serious risk of bias and in two studies, there was a moderate risk of bias.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Study quality and risk of bias assessment of included studies in the meta-analysis

Full size image
Table 2 Evaluation of risk of bias for each included study by the ROBINS-I tool
Full size table

Meta-analysis results

Effects of VLCKD on glycemic profile (FBS, insulin, HbA1c and HOMA-IR)

The effect of VLCKD on FBS concentration was evaluated in 18 studies [22, 37,38,39, 41, 42, 44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. The combined analysis using the inverse variance method showed a significant decrease in FBS levels (WMD= -11.68 mg/dl; 95% CI: -18.79, -4.56; P = 0.001) (Fig. 3). Furthermore, a notable variation among studies was revealed, indicating significant between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 76.8%, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the length of intervention ( = < 6 months or > 6 months), T2DM duration (< 6 years or = > 6 years) and baseline BMI ( = < 35 or > 35 kg/m2) (Table 3). Subgroup analysis did not provide any explanation for between-study heterogeneity. The sensitivity analysis, where each trial was removed one at a time, indicated that no single trial significantly influenced the overall effect size. A funnel plot (Fig. 4A) indicated that there was no publication bias among the trials examining the impact of LCKD on FBS levels (Egger’s test P = 0.140; Begg’s test P = 0.0732) (See Fig. 4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot detailing weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals for the impact of VLCKD on FBS level

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Funnel plots detailing publication bias in the studies selected for analysis. A, FBS; B, HbA1c; C, TG

Full size image
Table 3 Subgroup analyses for the effect of VLCKD on cardiovascular disease risk factors among the patients with T2DM
Full size table

Our meta-analysis of 25 clinical trials [22, 34,35,36, 38,39,40,41,42,43, 45,46,47,48,49,50,51, 53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60] demonstrated a significant reduction in HbA1c with VLCKD (WMD= -0.29; 95% CI: -0.44, -0.14; P < 0.001). However, substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 = 91.3%, P < 0.001) (Fig. 5). Subgroup analysis by baseline BMI identified it as a source of heterogeneity. VLCKD significantly reduced HbA1c only in patients with baseline BMI > 35 kg/m² (WMD=-0.43, -0.67, -0.19, P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the overall effect size (CI range: -0.48, -0.09), indicating no single study unduly influenced the results. No publication bias was detected (Egger’s test P = 0.145; Begg’s test P = 0.834; Fig. 4B).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot detailing weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals for the impact of VLCKD on HbA1c level

Full size image

Initial analysis of eight clinical trials [38, 39, 44, 50,51,52, 55, 61] revealed a significant decrease in HOMA-IR index with VLCKD adherence (WMD= -0.71; 95% CI: -1.14, -0.29; P = 0.001) (Fig. 1S). However, significant heterogeneity was present (I2 = 83.6%, P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the effect size. Also, no publication bias was detected (Egger’s test P = 0.083; Begg’s test P = 0.266).

Pool analysis using data from nine clinical trials [22, 37,38,39, 44, 45, 50, 52, 54] revealed a significant decrease in insulin concentration with VLCKD (WMD= -1.45; 95% CI: -2.54, -0.36; P = 0.009) (Fig. 2S). Notably, the analysis showed high homogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.841), suggesting consistency across studies. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the effect size, with no single trial significantly influencing the overall WMD. Furthermore, Begg’s test (P = 0.31) and Egger’s test (P = 0.38), alongside a visual inspection of the funnel plot, yielded no evidence of publication bias.

Effects of VLCKD on lipid profile (TG, TC, LDL and HDL)

Our meta-analysis of 22 clinical trials [22, 35, 36, 38,39,40,41,42,43, 45, 46, 48,49,50,51,52, 54,55,56,57,58,59] demonstrated a significant reduction in TG levels with VLCKD adherence in patients with T2DM (WMD= -17.95; 95% CI: -26.82, -9.07; P < 0.001). Notably, heterogeneity was low and non-significant (I2 = 33.6%, P = 0.064) (Fig. 6), suggesting overall consistency across studies. VLCKD significantly decreased TG concentration in all evaluated subgroups, further supporting its efficacy. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the effect size. Publication bias was unlikely based on Begg’s test (P = 0.612), Egger’s test (P = 0.069), and visual inspection of the funnel plot (Fig. 4C).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot detailing weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals for the impact of VLCKD on TG level

Full size image

Pool analysis of 12 clinical trials [38,39,40,41,42, 44, 46, 47, 51, 53, 54, 59] revealed no significant effect of VLCKD on serum TC concentration (WMD= -1.45, 95% CI: -9.55, 6.65; P = 0.72). However, substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 = 68.3%, P < 0.001) (Fig. 7). Subgroup analysis failed to identify the source of this heterogeneity. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the null effect. No publication bias was detected (Egger’s test, P = 0.154; Begg’s test, P = 0.14) (Fig. 3S).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Forest plot detailing weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals for the impact of VLCKD on TC level

Full size image

Pool analysis of 22 trials [22, 35, 36, 38,39,40,41,42,43, 45, 46, 48,49,50,51,52, 54,55,56,57,58,59] revealed a non-significant increase in LDL concentration with VLCKD (WMD = 4.21, 95% CI: -0.54, 8.96; P = 0.08) (Fig. 4S). However, substantial heterogeneity was present (I², 71%; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis identified potential moderators of this effect. In studies with intervention ≤ 6 months (WMD, 5.59 mg/dL; 95% CI, 1.00 to 10.19; P = 0.017) and baseline BMI > 35 kg/m² (WMD, 7.08 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.93 to 13.02; P = 0.024), VLCKD significantly increased LDL concentration. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the overall effect size. No publication bias was detected (Begg’s test, P = 0.86; Egger’s test, P = 0.214).

A meta-analysis of 25 trials [22, 35, 36, 38,39,40,41,42,43, 45, 46, 48,49,50,51,52, 54,55,56,57,58,59] revealed a significant increase in HDL-C concentration with VLCKD adherence in patients with T2DM (WMD = 3.93, 95% CI: 2.03, 5.84; P = 0.000) (Fig. 5S). However, substantial heterogeneity was present (I², 74.2%; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis suggested that the intervention’s effectiveness may be modified by baseline characteristics and duration. Specifically, significant improvements in HDL-C were observed in participants with baseline BMI ≤ 35 kg/m², T2DM duration ≥ 6 years, and intervention time exceeding 6 months. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the pooled effect size. Publication bias was unlikely (Egger’s test, P = 0.359; Begg’s test, P = 0.83).

Effects of VLCKD on blood pressure

VLCKD adherence significantly reduced SBP in patients with T2DM [35, 36, 38,39,40,41,42, 44, 45, 47,48,49,50, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61] (WMD= -2.85, 95% CI: -4.99, -0.71; P = 0.009) (Fig. 8). Moderate heterogeneity was present (I², 45.3%; P = 0.017). When it comes to trials related to SBP, there was no evidence of publication bias found in both Begg’s test (P = 0.42) and Egger’s test (P = 0.99), as well as in the visual examination of the funnel plot. Subgroup analysis revealed a significant SBP reduction with VLCKD in participants with baseline BMI > 35 kg/m² (WMD, -3.15 mmHg; 95% CI, -5.94 to -0.37; P = 0.026), and the effect did not differ by follow-up duration. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the effect size.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Forest plot detailing weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals for the impact of VLCKD on SBP

Full size image

Strict adherence to a VLCKD resulted in a significant reduction in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD= -1.40; 95% CI: -2.66, -0.13; P = 0.03) (Fig. 6S) in an analysis of 18 clinical trial arms [35, 36, 38,39,40,41,42, 44, 45, 47,48,49,50, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61]. However, substantial heterogeneity was present among studies (I2 = 78.2%, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis could not identify the source of heterogeneity. The leave-one-out sensitivity analysis showed that leaving each of trials had no significant effect on the pooled effect size. A funnel plot demonstrated no publication bias of trials in investigating the effect of VLCKD on DBP level (Egger’s test P = 0.44; Begg’s test P = 0.17).

Grading of evidence

The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty (quality) of evidence. Triglyceride levels received a moderate-certainty rating (Table 4). The certainty of evidence for FBS and TC was downgraded to low. Evidence for HbA1c, SBP, and LDL-C received very low certainty ratings.

Table 4 GRADE profile of very low Carbohydrate Ketogenic diets on Cardiovascular Risk factors in adults
Full size table

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of VLCKDs on cardiovascular risk factors in patients with T2DM. Our findings demonstrated that adherence to a VLCKD significantly improved glycemic control, as evidenced by reductions in FBS, HbA1c, and insulin levels. Additionally, VLCKDs significantly lowered triglyceride levels and increased HDL-cholesterol levels, both of which are favorable for cardiovascular health. However, we observed no significant changes in TC or LDL-cholesterol levels.

Patients with T2DM exhibit a markedly elevated prevalence of CVD. Indeed, a significant proportion of individuals diagnosed with T2DM develop CVD within a few years. This underscores the critical importance of prioritizing CVD risk factor management in this patient population. Our study investigated the effects of adherence to VLCKD, known to induce ketosis, on serum levels of FBS and HbA1c. Consistent with previous research, we observed reductions in these markers. Additionally, existing studies suggest that VLCKD can improve blood sugar control, promote weight loss, and decrease the risk of metabolic syndrome [62]. Dietary carbohydrates significantly impact postprandial glycemia, promoting fluctuations in blood glucose levels and potentially inducing hyperinsulinemia. Consequently, carbohydrate restriction has been shown to be an effective strategy for enhancing glycemic control, lowering insulin demand, and improving insulin sensitivity [63,64,65]. In addition to limiting the consumption of carbohydrates, adherence to the VLCKD triggers a condition known as nutritional ketosis in individuals [66, 67]. The metabolic consequences associated with nutritional ketosis, such as the reduction of fat reserves and diminished appetite, could potentially be linked to the advantageous outcomes observed with the VLCKD [68,69,70]. Diminished hunger sensations could have contributed to a decrease in energy intake among participants following the VLCKD. Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight that in most of the studies incorporated in this analysis, the control diet group adhered to an energy-restricted regimen of 500 kcal/d, whereas the VLCKD group had unrestricted access to food.

Several studies have established the beneficial effects of weight-loss-focused nutritional interventions on T2DM management [45]. Supporting this notion, recent American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines recommend a 5–10% body weight reduction within six months to significantly improve T2DM symptoms and disease control [25]. Notably, VLCKDs have demonstrated promising weight loss effects in numerous studies. A meta-analysis by Bueno et al. revealed that VLCKD adherence led to significant long-term weight loss [19]. These findings are corroborated by additional meta-analyses [71, 72]. VLCKDs promote satiety by encouraging higher intakes of fat and protein. These macronutrients exhibit a slower rate of gastric emptying compared to carbohydrates, leading to sustained feelings of fullness [69, 73]. Additionally, VLCKDs induce ketosis, a metabolic state where the body produces ketones that further suppress appetite. This enhanced satiety may contribute to weight loss, particularly the reduction of visceral and abdominal fat, which is known to play a crucial role in managing T2DM according to past research findings [74].

The enhanced glycemic control observed with the VLCKD could potentially be linked to the greater magnitude of weight reduction experienced by individuals adhering to this dietary approach [75, 76]. Our study revealed a significant decrease in HbA1c solely within the subgroup of patients with a body BMI exceeding 35 kg/m2 adhering to a VLCKD. This observation might be explained by the greater reduction in adipose tissue stores that occurs during nutritional ketosis in individuals with a higher BMI [68, 77, 78]. Intriguingly, some studies suggest that ketogenic diets can improve glucose metabolism independent of weight loss. Gumbiner et al. [79] examined the impact of ketosis and ensuing weight reduction on glycemic regulation among individuals following ketogenic dietary patterns. Their study revealed a notable enhancement in glycemic parameters among those adhering to the ketogenic diet compared to the nonketogenic counterpart, despite comparable levels of weight loss achieved by participants in both groups. Given its low-glycemic nature, VLCKD might directly ameliorate glycemic management by concurrently fostering weight reduction [80, 81]. Our study observed a reduction in HbA1c levels in patients with T2DM adhering to a VLCKD. This aligns with findings from Elhayany et al. [82]. where a low-carbohydrate Mediterranean diet also led to significant HbA1c reductions. Similarly, a systematic review by Sainsbury et al. demonstrated the greater efficacy of low-carbohydrate diets compared to moderate or high-carbohydrate diets in lowering HbA1c levels [71]. Notably, previous studies have shown that each 1% reduction in HbA1c is associated with a reduction in the risk of cardiac infarction by 14% and micro-vascular complications by 37% [83,84,85]. In our analysis, trials reported HbA1c reductions ranging from 0.1 to 1.45% following VLCKD intervention. The duration of the intervention is likely a contributing factor to the variation in HbA1c reductions observed across studies.

Our study observed a significant decrease in serum TG and an increase in HDL cholesterol in patients adhering to a VLCKD. Notably, no significant changes were observed in LDL cholesterol or TC. Consistent with our findings, a previous meta-analysis reported a significant reduction in TG concentration following a VLCKD [71, 86, 87]. Dietary carbohydrate restriction, particularly of simple carbohydrates, has been demonstrated in prior studies to be more effective in reducing triglycerides compared to dietary fat restriction. This effect is likely mediated, in part, by a reduction in postprandial insulin secretion. As an anabolic hormone, insulin promotes both lipogenesis and the conversion of glucose to fatty acids [84, 88]. Our study observed a significant increase in HDL-C concentration within the VLCKD group. This finding aligns with the observations reported by Volek et al., who proposed that the preservation of HDL-C levels and reduced postprandial lipemia in individuals adhering to a VLCKD may be attributable to lowered triacylglycerol (TAG) levels [89]. Typically, VLCKD are characterized by a significant proportion of dietary fat. The replacement of carbohydrates with fats in these diets may have contributed to a deceleration in the reduction of serum LDL-C levels. The results of a meta-analysis study, which assessed the impact of a ketogenic diet versus a low-fat diet among non-diabetic individuals with obesity, observed that serum LDL-C levels were elevated in the VLCKD group compared to the low-fat diet group [19]. Ketogenic dietary patterns elevate serum LDL-C levels due to their heightened saturated fat content. The augmented intake of fat and restriction of carbohydrates foster the proliferation of large LDL-C particles, which are deemed to be less atherogenic. Consequently, juxtaposing the elevated LDL-C levels observed with ketogenic diets against those induced by alternative dietary regimens may not be entirely appropriate [90, 91].

Our study revealed a noteworthy reduction in both SBP and DBP among individuals with T2DM who adhered to a VLCKD. Consistent with our findings, certain studies propose that the substitution of carbohydrates with proteins and monounsaturated fats may confer an additional reduction in blood pressure, surpassing the anticipated decline solely from sodium restriction [92]. Furthermore, reports indicate that a low carbohydrate diet can enhance arterial function and trigger the phosphorylation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) enzyme, a critical factor for vascular vasodilation [93, 94]. Various other mechanisms have been proposed to explain these favorable outcomes, including heightened relaxation of mesenteric arteries attributed to enhanced endothelium-dependent response (acetylcholine), coupled with diminished contraction (potassium chloride, phenylephrine), and elevated phosphorylation of eNOSSer1177 in arteries [95,96,97].

This study exhibited several strengths compared previous meta-analysis, including a comprehensive search strategy, appropriate statistical methods, sub group analysis based on different variables and a thorough evaluation of the quality and certainty of the evidence. The use of the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence adds credibility to the findings by systematically evaluating the quality of evidence across outcomes, helping readers understand the reliability of the results. However, several limitations were identified in the present meta-analysis. Firstly, in terms of study design, the main issue in terms of internal validity of these studies is the lack of blinding of participants and study personnel, something that is difficult to achieve given such an intervention; however, this should be acknowledged when interpreting results. Secondly, it relied on aggregated data from the included studies rather than individual patient data. Thirdly, the heterogeneity among the studies may restrict the generalizability of the findings, although subgroup analyses were conducted to address confounding variables. Fourthly, some studies compared two different types of diets rather than employing a routine diet for the control group, which could introduce bias. Additionally, the short duration of most included studies hinders the assessment of long-term cardiovascular risks associated with VLCKDs in patients with T2DM. Moreover, the certainty of evidence was generally low for most outcomes. Finally, some studies reported low adherence to the VLCKD, highlighting challenges in maintaining adherence and sustainability over the long term. It’s important to recognize that strict adherence to VLCKDs may be challenging for some individuals, and the potential long-term risks and benefits should be carefully weighed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the results of the present study showed that adherence from a VLCKD diet among the patients with T2DM can act as an effective nutritional approach in improving the glycemic profile and reducing the risk of cardiovascular complications. The observed improvements in glycemic control, as evidenced by reductions in FBS levels, glycated HbA1c, and insulin levels, are of paramount importance in the management of T2DM. These improvements not only contribute to better disease control but also hold promise for reducing the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications associated with poorly managed diabetes. Moreover, the significant reductions in TG levels and increases in HDL-C levels are particularly noteworthy from a cardiovascular risk perspective. Elevated TG levels are a well-established risk factor for CVD, while higher HDL-C levels are associated with a reduced risk of CVD events. Therefore, the observed changes suggest a potential cardioprotective effect of VLCKDs in patients with T2DM. However, further research is warranted to elucidate the long-term effects and sustainability of VLCKDs in managing T2DM and reducing cardiovascular risk. Healthcare providers should consider individual patient preferences and characteristics when recommending dietary interventions, and close monitoring is necessary to ensure safety and efficacy.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

References

  1. Zheng Y, Ley SH, Hu FB. Global aetiology and epidemiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its complications. Nat Reviews Endocrinol. 2018;14(2):88–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Reed J, Bain S, Kanamarlapudi V. A review of current trends with type 2 diabetes epidemiology, aetiology, pathogenesis, treatments and future perspectives. Diabetes Metabolic Syndrome Obesity: Targets Therapy. 2021;3567:602.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hurst CP, Rakkapao N, Hay K. Impact of diabetes self-management, diabetes management self-efficacy and diabetes knowledge on glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D): a multi-center study in Thailand. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(12):e0244692.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Morvaridzadeh M, Sepidarkish M, Fazelian S, Rahimlou M, Omidi A, Ardehali SH, et al. Effect of calcium and vitamin D co-supplementation on blood pressure: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Clin Ther. 2020;42(3):e45–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ghanavati M, Rahmani J, Clark CCT, Hosseinabadi SM, Rahimlou M. Pistachios and cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Complement Ther Med. 2020;52:102513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bailey DP, Hewson DJ, Champion RB, Sayegh SM. Sitting time and risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2019;57(3):408–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Evert AB, Dennison M, Gardner CD, Garvey WT, Lau KHK, MacLeod J, et al. Nutrition therapy for adults with diabetes or prediabetes: a consensus report. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(5):731–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Rahimlou M, Mirzaei K, Keshavarz SA, Hossein-Nezhad A. Association of circulating adipokines with metabolic dyslipidemia in obese versus non-obese individuals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2016;10(1 Suppl 1):S60–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Parsi A, Torkashvand M, Hajiani E, Rahimlou M, Sadeghi N. The effects of crocus sativus extract on serum lipid profile and liver enzymes in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a randomized placebo-controlled study. Obes Med. 2020;17:100165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Klein S, Sheard NF, Pi-Sunyer X, Daly A, Wylie-Rosett J, Kulkarni K, Clark NG. Weight management through lifestyle modification for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes: rationale and strategies. A statement of the American Diabetes Association, the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, and the American Society for Clinical Nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80(2):257–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Arora SK, McFarlane SI. The case for low carbohydrate diets in diabetes management. Nutr Metabolism. 2005;2(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Osler W. The principles and practice of medicine. D. Appleton and Company; 1912.

  13. Allen FM, Stillman E, Fitz R. Total dietary regulation in the treatment of diabetes. Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research New York, NY, USA; 1919.

  14. Bergia RE, Giacco R, Hjorth T, Biskup I, Zhu W, Costabile G, et al. Differential glycemic effects of low-versus high-glycemic index mediterranean-style eating patterns in adults at risk for type 2 diabetes: the MEDGI-carb randomized controlled trial. Nutrients. 2022;14(3):706.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ. Effect of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 2004;53(9):2375–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Feinman RD, Pogozelski WK, Astrup A, Bernstein RK, Fine EJ, Westman EC, et al. Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: critical review and evidence base. Nutrition. 2015;31(1):1–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Salari-Moghaddam A, Saneei P, Larijani B, Esmaillzadeh A. Glycemic index, glycemic load, and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73(3):356–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Paoli A, Rubini A, Volek J, Grimaldi K. Beyond weight loss: a review of the therapeutic uses of very-low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) diets. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013;67(8):789–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Bueno NB, de Melo ISV, de Oliveira SL, da Rocha Ataide T. Very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet v. low-fat diet for long-term weight loss: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Nutr. 2013;110(7):1178–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu L, Zhou Y, Zhao X, Yang X, Wan X, An Z, et al. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-derived Exosomes Alleviate Diabetic kidney disease in rats by inhibiting apoptosis and inflammation. Front Bioscience-Landmark. 2023;28(9):203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dashti HM, Mathew TC, Al-Zaid NS. Efficacy of low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Med Principles Pract. 2021;30(3):223–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gardner CD, Landry MJ, Perelman D, Petlura C, Durand LR, Aronica L, et al. Effect of a ketogenic diet versus Mediterranean diet on glycated hemoglobin in individuals with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus: the interventional Keto-Med randomized crossover trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2022;116(3):640–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Javid AZ, Hosseini SA, Gholinezhad H, Moradi L, Haghighi-Zadeh MH, Bazyar H. Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of melatonin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with periodontal disease under non-surgical periodontal therapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Diabetes Metabolic Syndrome Obesity: Targets Therapy. 2020;13:753.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dyson P, Twenefour D, Breen C, Duncan A, Elvin E, Goff L, et al. Diabetes UK evidence-based nutrition guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes. Diabet Med. 2018;35(5):541–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, Bannuru RR, Brown FM, Bruemmer D, et al. 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of Care in Diabetes—2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(Supplement1):S19–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Singh M, Hung ES, Cullum A, Allen RE, Aggett PJ, Dyson P, et al. Lower carbohydrate diets for adults with type 2 diabetes. Br J Nutr. 2022;127(9):1352–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Luo W, Zhang J, Xu D, Zhou Y, Qu Z, Yang Q, Lv Q. Low carbohydrate ketogenic diets reduce cardiovascular risk factor levels in obese or overweight patients with T2DM: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Nutr. 2022;9:1092031.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Parry-Strong A, Wright-McNaughton M, Weatherall M, Hall RM, Coppell KJ, Barthow C, Krebs JD. Very low carbohydrate (ketogenic) diets in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Obes Metabolism. 2022;24(12):2431–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. McInnes MD, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, Clifford T, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA. 2018;319(4):388–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Higgins J, Altman D, Gøtzsche P, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman A, et al. Cochrane bias methods group; cochrane statistical methods group. Cochrane Collaboration’s tool Assess risk bias Randomised Trials BMJ. 2011;343(7829):d5928.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355.

  32. Goldet G, Howick J. Understanding GRADE: an introduction. J Evidence-Based Med. 2013;6(1):50–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Training C. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2019. 2017.

  34. Wycherley TP, Thompson CH, Buckley JD, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Noakes M, Wittert GA, Brinkworth GD. Long-term effects of weight loss with a very-low carbohydrate, low saturated fat diet on flow mediated dilatation in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. Atherosclerosis. 2016;252:28–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Saslow LR, Mason AE, Kim S, Goldman V, Ploutz-Snyder R, Bayandorian H, et al. An online intervention comparing a very low-carbohydrate ketogenic Diet and Lifestyle recommendations Versus a plate Method Diet in overweight individuals with type 2 diabetes: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(2):e36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bhanpuri NH, Hallberg SJ, Williams PT, McKenzie AL, Ballard KD, Campbell WW, et al. Cardiovascular disease risk factor responses to a type 2 diabetes care model including nutritional ketosis induced by sustained carbohydrate restriction at 1 year: an open label, non-randomized, controlled study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17(1):56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Myette-Côté É, Durrer C, Neudorf H, Bammert TD, Botezelli JD, Johnson JD, et al. The effect of a short-term low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet with or without postmeal walks on glycemic control and inflammation in type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2018;315(6):R1210–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Athinarayanan SJ, Adams RN, Hallberg SJ, McKenzie AL, Bhanpuri NH, Campbell WW et al. Long-term effects of a novel continuous remote care intervention including nutritional ketosis for the management of type 2 diabetes: A 2-year nonrandomized clinical trial. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2019;10(JUN).

  39. Gram-Kampmann EM, Hansen CD, Hugger MB, Jensen JM, Brønd JC, Hermann AP, et al. Effects of a 6-month, low-carbohydrate diet on glycaemic control, body composition, and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes: an open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24(4):693–703.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Davis NJ, Tomuta N, Schechter C, Isasi CR, Segal-Isaacson CJ, Stein D, et al. Comparative study of the effects of a 1-year dietary intervention of a low-carbohydrate diet versus a low-fat diet on weight and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(7):1147–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Iqbal N, Vetter ML, Moore RH, Chittams JL, Dalton-Bakes CV, Dowd M, et al. Effects of a low-intensity intervention that prescribed a low-carbohydrate vs. a low-fat diet in obese, diabetic participants. Obes (Silver Spring). 2010;18(9):1733–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Goldstein T, Kark JD, Berry EM, Adler B, Ziv E, Raz I. The effect of a low carbohydrate energy-unrestricted diet on weight loss in obese type 2 diabetes patients – A randomized controlled trial. E-spen, The European E-journal of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. 2011;6.

  43. Saslow LR, Daubenmier JJ, Moskowitz JT, Kim S, Murphy EJ, Phinney SD, et al. Twelve-month outcomes of a randomized trial of a moderate-carbohydrate versus very low-carbohydrate diet in overweight adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus or prediabetes. Nutr Diabetes. 2017;7(12):304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Tay J, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Thompson CH, Noakes M, Buckley JD, Wittert GA, et al. A very low-carbohydrate, low–saturated fat diet for type 2 diabetes management: a randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(11):2909–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Westman EC, Yancy WS Jr., Mavropoulos JC, Marquart M, McDuffie JR. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2008;5:36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hussain TA, Mathew TC, Dashti AA, Asfar S, Al-Zaid N, Dashti HM. Effect of low-calorie versus low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet in type 2 diabetes. Nutrition. 2012;28(10):1016–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mayer SB, Jeffreys AS, Olsen MK, McDuffie JR, Feinglos MN, Yancy WS. Jr. Two diets with different haemoglobin A1c and antiglycaemic medication effects despite similar weight loss in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2014;16(1):90–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Saslow LR, Kim S, Daubenmier JJ, Moskowitz JT, Phinney SD, Goldman V, et al. A randomized pilot trial of a moderate carbohydrate diet compared to a very low carbohydrate diet in overweight or obese individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus or prediabetes. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(4):e91027.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Yamada Y, Uchida J, Izumi H, Tsukamoto Y, Inoue G, Watanabe Y, et al. A non-calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet is effective as an alternative therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Intern Med. 2014;53(1):13–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Tay J, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Thompson CH, Noakes M, Buckley JD, Wittert GA, et al. Comparison of low-and high-carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes management: a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102(4):780–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Goday A, Bellido D, Sajoux I, Crujeiras AB, Burguera B, García-Luna PP, et al. Short-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of a very low-calorie-ketogenic diet interventional weight loss program versus hypocaloric diet in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutr Diabetes. 2016;6(9):e230.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Tay J, Thompson CH, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Wycherley TP, Noakes M, Buckley JD, et al. Effects of an energy‐restricted low‐carbohydrate, high unsaturated fat/low saturated fat diet versus a high‐carbohydrate, low‐fat diet in type 2 diabetes: a 2‐year randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Obes Metabolism. 2018;20(4):858–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Moriconi E, Camajani E, Fabbri A, Lenzi A, Caprio M. Very-Low-Calorie Ketogenic Diet as a safe and Valuable Tool for Long-Term Glycemic Management in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Nutrients. 2021;13(3).

  54. Breukelman GJ, Basson AK, Djarova TG, Du Preez CJ, Shaw I, Malan H, Shaw BS. Concurrent low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet with/without physical activity does not improve glycaemic control in type 2 diabetics. South Afr J Clin Nutr. 2021;34(1):18–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hansen CD, Gram-Kampmann E-M, Hansen JK, Hugger MB, Madsen BS, Jensen JM, et al. Effect of calorie-unrestricted low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet versus high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet on type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2023;176(1):10–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dyson PA, Beatty S, Matthews DR. A low-carbohydrate diet is more effective in reducing body weight than healthy eating in both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Diabet Med. 2007;24(12):1430–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Guldbrand H, Dizdar B, Bunjaku B, Lindström T, Bachrach-Lindström M, Fredrikson M, et al. In type 2 diabetes, randomisation to advice to follow a low-carbohydrate diet transiently improves glycaemic control compared with advice to follow a low-fat diet producing a similar weight loss. Diabetologia. 2012;55(8):2118–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Jonasson L, Guldbrand H, Lundberg AK, Nystrom FH. Advice to follow a low-carbohydrate diet has a favourable impact on low-grade inflammation in type 2 diabetes compared with advice to follow a low-fat diet. Ann Med. 2014;46(3):182–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Barbosa-Yañez RL, Dambeck U, Li L, Machann J, Kabisch S, Pfeiffer AFH. Acute endothelial benefits of Fat Restriction over Carbohydrate Restriction in type 2 diabetes Mellitus: Beyond Carbs and Fats. Nutrients. 2018;10(12).

  60. Oliveira BF, Chang CR, Oetsch K, Falkenhain K, Crampton K, Stork M, et al. Impact of a low-carbohydrate compared with low-Fat breakfast on blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes: a Randomized Trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2023;118(1):209–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Saslow LR, Jones LM, Sen A, Wolfson JA, Diez HL, O’Brien A, et al. Comparing very low-carbohydrate vs DASH diets for overweight or obese adults with hypertension and prediabetes or type 2 diabetes: a Randomized Trial. Ann Fam Med. 2023;21(3):256–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Castellana M, Conte E, Cignarelli A, Perrini S, Giustina A, Giovanella L, et al. Efficacy and safety of very low calorie ketogenic diet (VLCKD) in patients with overweight and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reviews Endocr Metabolic Disorders. 2020;21(1):5–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Boden G, Sargrad K, Homko C, Mozzoli M, Stein TP. Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels, and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(6):403–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Li M, Li L, Tao X, Xie Z, Xie Q, Yuan J. Boosting healthiness exposure in category-constrained Meal recommendation using Nutritional standards. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology; 2024.

  65. Yang Y-Y, Chen Z, Yang X-D, Deng R-R, Shi L-X, Yao L-Y, Xiang D-X. Piperazine ferulate prevents high–glucose–induced filtration barrier injury of glomerular endothelial cells. Experimental Therapeutic Med. 2021;22(4):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Li J-M, Li X, Chan LW, Hu R, Zheng T, Li H, Yang S. Lipotoxicity-polarised macrophage-derived exosomes regulate mitochondrial fitness through Miro1-mediated mitophagy inhibition and contribute to type 2 diabetes development in mice. Diabetologia. 2023;66(12):2368–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Xiao D, Guo Y, Li X, Yin J-Y, Zheng W, Qiu X-W et al. The impacts of SLC22A1 rs594709 and SLC47A1 rs2289669 polymorphisms on metformin therapeutic efficacy in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. International journal of endocrinology. 2016;2016.

  68. Pogozelski W, Arpaia N, Priore S. The metabolic effects of low-carbohydrate diets and incorporation into a biochemistry course. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2005;33(2):91–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Gibson AA, Seimon RV, Lee CM, Ayre J, Franklin J, Markovic T, et al. Do ketogenic diets really suppress appetite? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2015;16(1):64–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Zhao X, Zhang Y, Yang Y, Pan J. Diabetes-related avoidable hospitalisations and its relationship with primary healthcare resourcing in China: a cross‐sectional study from Sichuan Province. Health Soc Care Commun. 2022;30(4):e1143–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Rafiullah M, Musambil M, David SK. Effect of a very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet vs recommended diets in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Nutr Rev. 2022;80(3):488–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Yao H, Zhang A, Li D, Wu Y, Wang C-Z, Wan J-Y, Yuan C-S. Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024;384.

  73. Mao X, Chen Y, Lu X, Jin S, Jiang P, Deng Z, et al. Tissue resident memory T cells are enriched and dysfunctional in effusion of patients with malignant tumor. J Cancer. 2023;14(7):1223–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Ryan DH, Yockey SR. Weight loss and improvement in comorbidity: differences at 5%, 10%, 15%, and over. Curr Obes Rep. 2017;6:187–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Park S, Kim DS, Kang S, Daily JW. 3rd. A ketogenic diet impairs energy and glucose homeostasis by the attenuation of hypothalamic leptin signaling and hepatic insulin signaling in a rat model of non-obese type 2 diabetes. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2011;236(2):194–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Guo W, Zhang Z, Li L, Liang X, Wu Y, Wang X, et al. Gut microbiota induces DNA methylation via SCFAs predisposing obesity-prone individuals to diabetes. Pharmacol Res. 2022;182:106355.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Zhou Y, Chai X, Yang G, Sun X, Xing Z. Changes in body mass index and waist circumference and heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Front Endocrinol. 2023;14:1305839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Chen Y, Tan S, Liu M, Li J. LncRNA TINCR is downregulated in diabetic cardiomyopathy and relates to cardiomyocyte apoptosis. Scandinavian Cardiovasc J. 2018;52(6):335–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Gumbiner B, Wendel JA, McDermott MP. Effects of diet composition and ketosis on glycemia during very-low-energy-diet therapy in obese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996;63(1):110–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Wang Q, Guo Q, Niu W, Wu L, Gong W, Yan S, et al. The pH-responsive phase separation of type-A gelatin and dextran characterized with static multiple light scattering (S-MLS). Food Hydrocolloids. 2022;127:107503.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Mohammadifard N, Haghighatdoost F, Rahimlou M, Rodrigues APS, Gaskarei MK, Okhovat P et al. The Effect of Ketogenic Diet on Shared Risk factors of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer. Nutrients. 2022;14(17).

  82. Elhayany A, Lustman A, Abel R, Attal-Singer J, Vinker S. A low carbohydrate Mediterranean diet improves cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes control among overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 1‐year prospective randomized intervention study. Diabetes Obes Metabolism. 2010;12(3):204–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Yancy WS Jr., Westman EC, McDuffie JR, Grambow SC, Jeffreys AS, Bolton J, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet vs orlistat plus a low-fat diet for weight loss. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(2):136–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HAW, Matthews DR, Manley SE, Cull CA, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ. 2000;321(7258):405–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Chen J, Li X, Liu H, Zhong D, Yin K, Li Y, et al. Bone marrow stromal cell-derived exosomal circular RNA improves diabetic foot ulcer wound healing by activating the nuclear factor erythroid 2‐related factor 2 pathway and inhibiting ferroptosis. Diabet Med. 2023;40(7):e15031.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Liang W, Liu H, Zeng Z, Liang Z, Xie H, Li W, et al. KRT17 promotes T-lymphocyte infiltration through the YTHDF2–CXCL10 Axis in Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2023;11(7):875–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Rahimlou M, Morshedzadeh N, Karimi S, Jafarirad S. Association between dietary glycemic index and glycemic load with depression: a systematic review. Eur J Nutr. 2018;57:2333–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Li M, Yuan J. Effects of very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet on lipid metabolism in patients with type II diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Nutr Hosp. 2022;39(4):916–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Volek JS, Sharman MJ, Forsythe CE. Modification of lipoproteins by very low-carbohydrate diets. J Nutr. 2005;135(6):1339–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Siri PW, Krauss RM. Influence of dietary carbohydrate and fat on LDL and HDL particle distributions. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2005;7(6):455–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Yang W, Ding N, Luo R, Zhang Q, Li Z, Zhao F, et al. Exosomes from young healthy human plasma promote functional recovery from intracerebral hemorrhage via counteracting ferroptotic injury. Bioact Mater. 2023;27:1–14.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Appel LJ, Sacks FM, Carey VJ, Obarzanek E, Swain JF, Miller ER, et al. Effects of protein, monounsaturated fat, and carbohydrate intake on blood pressure and serum lipids: results of the OmniHeart randomized trial. JAMA. 2005;294(19):2455–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Bosse JD, Lin HY, Sloan C, Zhang Q-J, Abel ED, Pereira TJ, et al. A low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet reduces blood pressure in spontaneously hypertensive rats without deleterious changes in insulin resistance. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2013;304(12):H1733–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Wang C, Wang S, Wang Z, Han J, Jiang N, Qu L, Xu K. Andrographolide regulates H3 histone lactylation by interfering with p300 to alleviate aortic valve calcification. Br J Pharmacol. 2024.

  95. Pour Abbasi MS, Shojaei N, Farhangi MA. Low-carbohydrate diet score is associated with improved blood pressure and cardio‐metabolic risk factors among obese adults. Physiological Rep. 2022;10(13):e15375.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Chen J, Li X, Liu H, Zhong D, Yin K, Li Y, et al. Bone marrow stromal cell-derived exosomal circular RNA improves diabetic foot ulcer wound healing by activating the nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 pathway and inhibiting ferroptosis. Diabet Med. 2023;40(7):e15031.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Xiong D, Hu W, Han X, Cai Y. Rhein Inhibited ferroptosis and EMT to Attenuate Diabetic Nephropathy by regulating the Rac1/NOX1/β-Catenin Axis. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2023;28(5):100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was financially supported by Student Research Committee, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran (project code:456217653; code of ethics: IR237632376).

Funding

This study received no financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Committee, Medical School, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran

    Parisa Ghasemi

  2. Department of Exercise physiology, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

    Malihe Jafari

  3. Department of nutrition, School of Public health, Jiroft University of Medical Sciences, Jiroft, Iran

    Saber Jafari Maskouni

  4. Department of Nutrition, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

    Seyed Ahmad Hosseini

  5. Mofid Childrens Hospital Clinical Research Development Unit, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

    Roksaneh Amiri

  6. Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran

    Jalal Hejazi, Ronia Tavasolian & Mehran Rahimlou

  7. Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Applied Sciences, UCSI University, 56000 Cheras, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Mahla Chambari

Authors
  1. Parisa Ghasemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Malihe Jafari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saber Jafari Maskouni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seyed Ahmad Hosseini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roksaneh Amiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jalal Hejazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mahla Chambari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ronia Tavasolian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mehran Rahimlou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MR, JH and SAH designed the research. MR, PGh, MJ, and MCH conducted the research. MR and RT analyzed the data. MR and JH wrote the article. SJM and MR revised the article. MR had primary responsibility for the final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehran Rahimlou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

The authors provided final approval for the publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghasemi, P., Jafari, M., Maskouni, S.J. et al. Impact of very low carbohydrate ketogenic diets on cardiovascular risk factors among patients with type 2 diabetes; GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Nutr Metab (Lond) 21, 50 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12986-024-00824-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12986-024-00824-w

Keywords

Nutrition & Metabolism

ISSN: 1743-7075

Contact us