The increased global prevalence of type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with consumption of low fibre ‘Western diets’. Characteristic metabolic parameters of these individuals include insulin resistance, high fasting and postprandial glucose, as well as low-grade systemic inflammation. Gut microbiota composition is altered significantly in these cohorts suggesting a causative link between diet, microbiota and disease. Dietary fibre consumption has been shown to alleviate these changes and improve glucose parameters in individuals with metabolic disease. We previously reported that yeast β-glucan (yeast beta-1,3/1,6-D-glucan; Wellmune) supplementation ameliorated hyperinsulinaemia and insulin resistance in a murine model. Here, we conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled, two-armed dietary fibre phase I exploratory intervention study in patients with T2DM. The primary outcome measure was alteration to microbiota composition, while the secondary outcome measures included markers of glycaemic control, inflammation as well as metabolomics. Patients were supplemented with 2·5g/day of maltodextrin (placebo) or yeast β-1,3/1,6-D-glucan (treatment). Yeast β-glucan (Wellmune) lowered insulin resistance compared with the placebo maltodextrin after 8 weeks of consumption. TNFα was significantly lower after 4 weeks of β-glucan supplementation. Significantly higher fecal concentrations of several bile acids were detected in the treatment group when compared with the placebo after 8 weeks. These included tauroursodeoxycholic acid, which was previously shown to improve glucose control and lower insulin resistance. Interestingly, the hypoglycaemic and anti-inflammatory effect of yeast β-glucan was independent of any changes in fecal microbiota composition or short-chain fatty acid levels. Our findings highlight the potential of yeast β-glucan to lower insulin resistance in patients with T2DM.

A consensus workshop on low-calorie sweeteners (LCS) was held in November 2018 where seventeen experts (the panel) discussed three themes identified as key to the science and policy of LCS: (1) weight management and glucose control; (2) consumption, safety and perception; (3) nutrition policy. The aims were to identify the reliable facts on LCS, suggest research gaps and propose future actions. The panel agreed that the safety of LCS is demonstrated by a substantial body of evidence reviewed by regulatory experts and current levels of consumption, even for high users, are within agreed safety margins. However, better risk communication is needed. More emphasis is required on the role of LCS in helping individuals reduce their sugar and energy intake, which is a public health priority. Based on reviews of clinical evidence to date, the panel concluded that LCS can be beneficial for weight management when they are used to replace sugar in products consumed in the diet (without energy substitution). The available evidence suggests no grounds for concerns about adverse effects of LCS on sweet preference, appetite or glucose control; indeed, LCS may improve diabetic control and dietary compliance. Regarding effects on the human gut microbiota, data are limited and do not provide adequate evidence that LCS affect gut health at doses relevant to human use. The panel identified research priorities, including collation of the totality of evidence on LCS and body weight control, monitoring and modelling of LCS intakes, impacts on sugar reduction and diet quality and developing effective communication strategies to foster informed choice. There is also a need to reconcile policy discrepancies between organisations and reduce regulatory hurdles that impede low-energy product development and reformulation.

Sucralose is an artificial non-nutritive sweetener used in foods aimed to reduce sugar and energy intake. While thought to be inert, the impact of sucralose on metabolic control has shown to be the opposite. The gut microbiome has emerged as a factor shaping metabolic responses after sweetener consumption. We examined the short-term effect of sucralose consumption on glucose homeostasis and gut microbiome of healthy male volunteers. We performed a randomised, double-blind study in thirty-four subjects divided into two groups, one that was administered sucralose capsules (780 mg/d for 7 d; n 17) and a control group receiving placebo (n 17). Before and after the intervention, glycaemic and insulinaemic responses were assessed with a standard oral glucose load (75 g). Insulin resistance was determined using homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance and Matsuda indexes. The gut microbiome was evaluated before and after the intervention by 16S rRNA sequencing. During the study, body weight remained constant in both groups. Glycaemic control and insulin resistance were not affected during the 7-d period. At the phylum level, gut microbiome was not modified in any group. We classified subjects according to their change in insulinaemia after the intervention, to compare the microbiome of responders and non-responders. Independent of consuming sucralose or placebo, individuals with a higher insulinaemic response after the intervention had lower Bacteroidetes and higher Firmicutes abundances. In conclusion, consumption of high doses of sucralose for 7 d does not alter glycaemic control, insulin resistance, or gut microbiome in healthy individuals. However, it highlights the need to address individual responses to sucralose.

Hyperglycaemia occurs in the majority of critically-ill patients, partly because patients are hypercatabolic and consequently have increased glucose levels and partly because of insulin resistance. Hyperglycaemia is associated with increased mortality in critical illness. In 2001 it was shown that mortality and other complications of critical illness can be decreased by adopting ‘tight’ glycaemic control (4·1–6·4 mmol/l). The critical care world adopted tight glycaemic control enthusiastically, until it became apparent that profound life-threatening hypoglycaemia could result. Most clinicians, currently, have adopted regimens aiming to control glucose between 4 and 8 mmol/l. Practising this regimen safely requires attention to detail. Patients must be provided with energy as well as insulin; preferably via the enteral route, but parenterally if necessary. Insulin is administered according to a relatively simple scale that is adjustable by nursing staff according to patients' glucose results. Frequent glucose measurement is essential to success, along with using visual charting that makes sudden changes in blood glucose levels obvious. There are several ‘champions’ of safe implementation of glucose control in the intensive care unit at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital who are educators and who feed results back to staff regularly. Further studies will clarify the ultimate role of tight glycaemic control, but it can be done safely with meticulous attention to detail.