METHODS: We used data from 1108 population-representative studies with 141 million participants aged 18 years and older with measurements of fasting glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and information on diabetes treatment. We defined diabetes as having a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 7·0 mmol/L or higher, having an HbA1c of 6·5% or higher, or taking medication for diabetes. We defined diabetes treatment as the proportion of people with diabetes who were taking medication for diabetes. We analysed the data in a Bayesian hierarchical meta-regression model to estimate diabetes prevalence and treatment.
FINDINGS: In 2022, an estimated 828 million (95% credible interval [CrI] 757-908) adults (those aged 18 years and older) had diabetes, an increase of 630 million (554-713) from 1990. From 1990 to 2022, the age-standardised prevalence of diabetes increased in 131 countries for women and in 155 countries for men with a posterior probability of more than 0·80. The largest increases were in low-income and middle-income countries in southeast Asia (eg, Malaysia), south Asia (eg, Pakistan), the Middle East and north Africa (eg, Egypt), and Latin America and the Caribbean (eg, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Costa Rica). Age-standardised prevalence neither increased nor decreased with a posterior probability of more than 0·80 in some countries in western and central Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, east Asia and the Pacific, Canada, and some Pacific island nations where prevalence was already high in 1990; it decreased with a posterior probability of more than 0·80 in women in Japan, Spain, and France, and in men in Nauru. The lowest prevalence in the world in 2022 was in western Europe and east Africa for both sexes, and in Japan and Canada for women, and the highest prevalence in the world in 2022 was in countries in Polynesia and Micronesia, some countries in the Caribbean and the Middle East and north Africa, as well as Pakistan and Malaysia. In 2022, 445 million (95% CrI 401-496) adults aged 30 years or older with diabetes did not receive treatment (59% of adults aged 30 years or older with diabetes), 3·5 times the number in 1990. From 1990 to 2022, diabetes treatment coverage increased in 118 countries for women and 98 countries for men with a posterior probability of more than 0·80. The largest improvement in treatment coverage was in some countries from central and western Europe and Latin America (Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Costa Rica), Canada, South Korea, Russia, Seychelles, and Jordan. There was no increase in treatment coverage in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa; the Caribbean; Pacific island nations; and south, southeast, and central Asia. In 2022, age-standardised treatment coverage was lowest in countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, and treatment coverage was less than 10% in some African countries. Treatment coverage was 55% or higher in South Korea, many high-income western countries, and some countries in central and eastern Europe (eg, Poland, Czechia, and Russia), Latin America (eg, Costa Rica, Chile, and Mexico), and the Middle East and north Africa (eg, Jordan, Qatar, and Kuwait).
INTERPRETATION: In most countries, especially in low-income and middle-income countries, diabetes treatment has not increased at all or has not increased sufficiently in comparison with the rise in prevalence. The burden of diabetes and untreated diabetes is increasingly borne by low-income and middle-income countries. The expansion of health insurance and primary health care should be accompanied with diabetes programmes that realign and resource health services to enhance the early detection and effective treatment of diabetes.
FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation (Research England), and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the spatiotemporal gait parameters and indicators of turning difficulty during the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test in older adults with BPPV.
METHODS: This case-controlled study collected data from older adults aged 65 and above with BPPV, young adults with BPPV and older adults without BPPV. Postural stability and self-perception of stability were measured using the Functional Gait Analysis and the Malay version of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory, respectively. The spatiotemporal gait parameters were recorded using a camera. The one-way ANOVA test was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Older adults with BPPV presented with alteration in gait parameters (time and number of steps) compared to older adults without BPPV and adults with BPPV during the TUG test (p
OBJECTIVE: In this scoping review, we aimed to systematically map the literature on the perceptions of physiotherapists as well as the barriers and enablers of telerehabilitation in their daily practice.
METHODS: The five-stage methodological framework recommended by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) was used for this scoping review. In the framework, eight databases were searched using key search terms such as "telerehabilitation", "physiotherapists", "readiness", "enablers" and "barriers" All findings were organised into perceptions and readiness, enablers, and barriers.
RESULTS: Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria and were categorized as: (1) perception and readiness, (2) enablers, and (3) barriers. In the perception and readiness category, new trends in healthcare, advancement in physiotherapy practices and the benefits to clients were identified. The enablers identified included prior training, personal experience, familiarity with technology, functional equipment and space, and client selection. The barriers to the adoption of telerehabilitation in physiotherapy practice are pinpointed to poor technology, communication hurdles, limited availability, lack of familiarity, and client-related concerns.
CONCLUSION: While initial evidence suggests a generally positive perceptions it is important to consider both facilitators and barriers when understanding adoption. This review's findings revealed a wide research gap, with unequal weightage towards barriers compared to enablers, and highlights the need for further research. Developing telerehabilitation guidelines that cater to both physiotherapists and clients is necessary.
DESIGN: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from their inception date until May 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing intraperitoneal lidocaine and placebo in adults undergoing surgery were included.
RESULTS: Our systematic review included 24 RCTs (n = 1824). The intraperitoneal lidocaine group was significantly associated with lower postoperative pain scores at rest (MD, -0.87, 95% CI, -1.04 to -0.69) and at movement (MD, -0.50, 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.08) among adult patients after surgery. Its administration also significantly decreased morphine consumption (MD, -6.42 mg, 95% CI, -11.56 to -1.27) and lowered the incidence of needing analgesia (OR, 0.22, 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.35). Intraperitoneal lidocaine statistically reduced time to resume regular diet (MD, 0.16 days; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.01) and lowered postoperative incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR, 0.54, 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.75).
CONCLUSIONS: In this review, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Future studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose of administering intraperitoneal lidocaine among adult patients undergoing surgery.
METHODS: The study was based on data from 7035 fully vaccinated respondents to the online COVAD questionnaire with SLE (N = 852), rAIDs (N = 3098), or nrAIDs (N = 414), and HCs (N = 2671). BI was defined as COVID-19 infection occurring in individuals vaccinated with ≥ 2 doses (or 1 dose of J&J) ≥ 14 days after vaccination and not after 6 months since the last vaccine dose. Data were analysed using linear and logistic regression models.
RESULTS: A total of 91/852 (10.7%) SLE patients reported at least one BI. The frequency of BIs in SLE patients was comparable to that among HCs (277/2671; p = 0.847) and patients with nrAID (39/414; p = 0.552) but higher than that among patients with other rAIDs (235/3098; p = 0.005). No demographic factors or treatments were associated with BIs in SLE patients (p ≥ 0.05 for all). Joint pain was more frequent in SLE patients than in HCs (odds ratio [OR]: 3.38; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.89-6.04; p
METHODS: A systematic literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed to identify all relevant studies evaluating outcomes of MICS CABG among patients with multivessel CAD and including at least 15 patients with no restriction on the publication date.
RESULTS: A total of 881 studies were identified, of which 26 studies met the eligibility criteria. The studies included a total of 7,556 patients. The average patient age was 63.3 years (range 49.5 to 69.0 years), male patients were an average of 77.8% (54.0% to 89.8%), and body mass index was 29.8 kg/m2 (24.5 to 30.1 kg/m2). Early mortality and stroke were on average 0.6% (range 0% to 2.0%) and 0.4% (range 0% to 1.3%), respectively. The average number of grafts was 2.8 (range 2.1 to 3.7). The average length of hospital stay was 5.6 days (range 3.1 to 9.3 days).
CONCLUSIONS: MICS CABG appears to be a safe method in well-selected patients with multivessel CAD. This approach is concentrated at dedicated centers, and there is no widespread application, although it has potential to be widely applicable as an alternative for surgical revascularization. However, large randomized controlled studies with longer follow-up are still required to compare the outcomes with conventional CABG and other revascularization strategies.
METHODS: Plasma and CSF NfL levels were measured and compared between groups, adjusting for age, sex, and weight.
RESULTS: A total of 337 participants were included: 136 ND, 77 PPD, and 124 Controls. Plasma NfL was 2.5-fold elevated in ND compared to PPD and had strong diagnostic performance (area under the curve, [AUC]: 0.86, 81%/85% specificity/sensitivity) that was comparable to CSF NfL (2-fold elevated, AUC: 0.89, 95%/71% specificity/sensitivity). Diagnostic performance was especially strong in younger people (40-
OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate the pattern and associated factors to COVID-19 knowledge, attitude, and practice among individuals with comorbidities.
METHODOLOGY: The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies assessing the KAP of comorbid patients were retrieved by carefully searching the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. The appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies was used to determine the quality of the included studies and the risk of biases.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The pooled sample size of the included studies was 9,104. Different comorbidities reported in the studies include hypertension, diabetes, psychological disorders, and cancer. Pooled analysis showed that 65% of patients showed good knowledge, 57% of patients showed a positive attitude and 51% of patients followed good practices to manage the COVID-19 in presence of their comorbid condition. Significant factors impacting knowledge, attitude and practice in COVID-19 comorbid patients were ethnicity OR 1.78 [95% CI 1.35-2.32]; educational status 3.2 [2.79-3.58]; urban residence 2.43 [1.65-3.02]; employment Status 1.67[1.34-2.12]; financial Status 4.02[3.66-4.38]; occupation 3.65[3.31-4.25]; information Source 2.64[2.19-3.26]; comorbidity 3.28[2.78-3.61]; and duration of chronic illness 1.59[1.31-2.04].
CONCLUSION: Comorbid COVID-19 patients showed good knowledge, positive attitude and good practice towards the management of the disease.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effects, including adverse effects, of galantamine in people with probable or possible Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment, and to investigate potential moderators of effect.
SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 14 December 2022 using the term 'galantamine'. The Register contains records of clinical trials identified from major electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase), trial registries, grey literature sources, and conference proceedings. We manually searched reference lists and collected information from US Food and Drug Administration documents and unpublished trial reports. We imposed no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included double-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trials comparing oral galantamine with placebo for a treatment duration exceeding four weeks in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease or with mild cognitive impairment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Working independently, two review authors selected studies for inclusion, assessed their quality, and extracted data. Outcomes of interest included cognitive function, change in global function, activities of daily living, functional disability, behavioural function, and adverse events. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analytic synthesis, and presented results as Peto odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. We used Cochrane's original risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies with a total of 10,990 participants. The average age of participants was 74 years, and 37% were male. The studies' durations ranged from eight weeks to two years, with 24 weeks being the most common duration. One newly included study assessed the effects of galantamine at two years, and another newly included study involved participants with severe Alzheimer's disease. Nineteen studies with 10,497 participants contributed data to the meta-analysis. All studies had low to unclear risk of bias for randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding. We judged four studies to be at high risk of bias due to attrition and two due to selective outcome reporting. Galantamine for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease We summarise only the results for galantamine given at 8 to 12 mg twice daily (total galantamine 16 mg to 24 mg/day), assessed at six months. See the full review for results of other dosing regimens and assessment time points. There is high-certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, galantamine improves: cognitive function, as assessed with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog) (MD-2.86, 95% CI -3.29 to -2.43; 6 studies, 3049 participants; minimum clinically important effect (MCID) = 2.6- to 4-point change); functional disability, as assessed with the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD) scale (MD 2.12, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.49; 3 studies, 1275 participants); and behavioural function, as assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (MD -1.63, 95% CI -3.07 to -0.20; 2 studies, 1043 participants) at six months. Galantamine may improve global function at six months, as assessed with the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC-plus) (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.84; 6 studies, 3002 participants; low-certainty evidence). Participants who received galantamine were more likely than placebo-treated participants to discontinue prematurely (22.7% versus 17.2%) (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.68; 6 studies, 3336 participants; high-certainty evidence), and experience nausea (20.9% versus 8.4%) (OR 2.89, 95% CI 2.40 to 3.49; 7 studies, 3616 participants; high-certainty evidence) during the studies. Galantamine reduced death rates at six months: 1.3% of participants in the galantamine groups had died compared to 2.3% in the placebo groups (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.96; 6 studies, 3493 participants; high-certainty evidence). Galantamine for mild cognitive impairment We summarise results, assessed at two years, from two studies that gave participants galantamine at 8 to 12 mg twice daily (total galantamine 16 mg to 24 mg/day). Compared to placebo, galantamine may not improve cognitive function, as assessed with the expanded ADAS-cog for mild cognitive impairment (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.37; 2 studies, 1901 participants; low-certainty evidence) or activities of daily living, assessed with the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Activities of Daily Living scale for mild cognitive impairment (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1901 participants; low-certainty evidence). Participants who received galantamine were probably more likely to discontinue prematurely than placebo-treated participants (40.7% versus 28.6%) (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.05; 2 studies, 2057 participants) and to experience nausea (29.4% versus 10.7%) (OR 3.49, 95% CI 2.75 to 4.44; 2 studies, 2057 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. Galantamine may not reduce death rates at 24 months compared to placebo (0.5% versus 0.1%) (OR 5.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 29.10; 2 studies, 2057 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results from subgroup analysis and meta-regression suggest that an imbalance in discontinuation rates between galantamine and placebo groups, together with the use of the 'last observation carried forward' approach to outcome assessment, may potentially bias cognitive outcomes in favour of galantamine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, galantamine (when given at a total dose of 16 mg to 24 mg/day) slows the decline in cognitive function, functional ability, and behaviour at six months in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. Galantamine probably also slows declines in global function at six months. The changes observed in cognition, assessed with the ADAS-cog scale, were clinically meaningful. Gastrointestinal-related adverse events are the primary concerns associated with galantamine use in people with dementia, which may limit its tolerability. Although death rates were generally low, participants in the galantamine groups had a reduced risk of death compared to those in the placebo groups. There is no evidence to support the use of galantamine in people with mild cognitive impairment.