OBJECTIVE: This study sought to identify demographic, clinical, and genetic factors that may contribute to increased insulin resistance or worsening of glycaemic control in patients with T2DM.
SETTING: This prospective cohort study included 156 patients with T2DM and severe or acute hyperglycaemia who were treated with insulin at any medical ward of the National University of Malaysia Medical Centre.
METHOD: Insulin resistance was determined using the homeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance index. Glycaemic control during the episode of hyperglycaemia was assessed as the degree to which the patient achieved the target glucose levels. The polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism method was used to identify polymorphisms in insulin receptor substrate (IRS) genes.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Identification of possible predictors (demographic, clinical, or genetic) for insulin resistance and glycaemic control during severe/acute hyperglycaemia.
RESULTS: A polymorphism in IRS1, r.2963 G>A (p.Gly972Arg), was a significant predictor of both insulin resistance [odds ratios (OR) 4.48; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.2-16.7; P = 0.03) and worsening of glycaemic control (OR 6.04; 95 % CI 0.6-64.6; P = 0.02). The use of loop diuretics (P < 0.05) and antibiotics (P < 0.05) may indirectly predict worsening of insulin resistance or glycaemic control in patients with severe/acute hyperglycaemia.
CONCLUSION: Clinical and genetic factors contribute to worsening of insulin resistance and glycaemic control during severe/acute hyperglycaemia in patients with T2DM. Early identification of factors that may influence insulin resistance and glycaemic control may help to achieve optimal glycaemic control during severe/acute hyperglycaemia.
METHODS: We assessed sCD26/DPP-IV levels, active GLP-1 levels, body mass index (BMI), glucose, insulin, A1c, glucose homeostasis indices, and lipid profiles in 549 Malaysian subjects (including 257 T2DM patients with MetS, 57 T2DM patients without MetS, 71 non-diabetics with MetS, and 164 control subjects without diabetes or metabolic syndrome).
RESULTS: Fasting serum levels of sCD26/DPP-IV were significantly higher in T2DM patients with and without MetS than in normal subjects. Likewise, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were significantly higher in patients with T2DM and MetS than in non-diabetic patients with MetS. However, active GLP-1 levels were significantly lower in T2DM patients both with and without MetS than in normal subjects. In T2DM subjects, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with significantly higher A1c levels, but were significantly lower in patients using monotherapy with metformin. In addition, no significant differences in sCD26/DPP-IV levels were found between diabetic subjects with and without MetS. Furthermore, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were negatively correlated with active GLP-1 levels in T2DM patients both with and without MetS. In normal subjects, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with increased BMI, cholesterol, and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) levels.
CONCLUSION: Serum sCD26/DPP-IV levels increased in T2DM subjects with and without MetS. Active GLP-1 levels decreased in T2DM patients both with and without MetS. In addition, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with Alc levels and negatively correlated with active GLP-1 levels. Moreover, metformin monotherapy was associated with reduced sCD26/DPP-IV levels. In normal subjects, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with increased BMI, cholesterol, and LDL-c.
METHODS: A total of 220 T2DM patients from the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia, who had at least one CV complication and who had been taking at least one antidiabetic drug for at least 3 months, were included. The associations of antidiabetics, cardiovascular diseases, laboratory parameters, concurrent medications, comorbidities, demographics, and clinical characteristics with glycemic control were investigated.
RESULTS: Sulfonylureas in combination (P=0.002) and sulfonylurea monotherapy (P<0.001) were found to be associated with good glycemic control, whereas insulin in combination (P=0.051), and combination biguanides and insulin therapy (P=0.012) were found to be associated with poor glycemic control. Stroke (P=0.044) was the only type of CVD that seemed to be significantly associated with good glycemic control. Other factors such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (P=0.026), elderly patients (P=0.018), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (P=0.021), and fasting plasma glucose (P<0.001) were found to be significantly correlated with good glycemic control.
CONCLUSION: Individualized treatment in T2DM patients with CVDs can be supported through a better understanding of the association between glycemic control and CV profiles in T2DM patients.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify antidiabetic regimens as well as other factors that associated with glycemic control in T2DM patients with different stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study involved 242 T2DM inpatients and outpatients with renal complications from January 2009 to March 2014 and was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital in Malaysia. Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was used as main parameter to assess patients' glycemic status. Patients were classified to have good (A1C <7%) or poor glycemic control (A1C ≥7%) based on the recommendations of the American Diabetes Association.
RESULTS: Majority of the patients presented with CKD stage 4 (43.4%). Approximately 55.4% of patients were categorized to have poor glycemic control. Insulin (57.9%) was the most commonly prescribed antidiabetic medication, followed by sulfonylureas (43%). Of all antidiabetic regimens, sulfonylureas monotherapy (P<0.001), insulin therapy (P=0.005), and combination of biguanides with insulin (P=0.038) were found to be significantly associated with glycemic control. Other factors including duration of T2DM (P=0.004), comorbidities such as anemia (P=0.024) and retinopathy (P=0.033), concurrent medications such as erythropoietin therapy (P=0.047), α-blockers (P=0.033), and antigouts (P=0.003) were also correlated with A1C.
CONCLUSION: Identification of factors that are associated with glycemic control is important to help in optimization of glucose control in T2DM patients with renal complication.
PATIENTS & METHODS: DPP4, WFS1 and KCNJ11 gene polymorphisms were genotyped in a cohort study of 662 T2DM patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors sitagliptin, vildagliptin or linagliptin. Genotyping was performed by Applied Biosystems TaqMan SNP genotyping assay.
RESULTS: Patients with triglyceride levels less than 1.7 mmol/l (odds ratio [OR]: 2.2.; 95% CI: 1.031-4.723), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 90 mmHg (OR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.009-2.892) and KCNJ11 rs2285676 (genotype CC) (OR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.025-3.767) were more likely to response to DPP-4 inhibitor treatment compared with other patients, as measured by HbA1c levels.
CONCLUSION: Triglycerides, DBP and KCNJ11 rs2285676 are predictors of the DPP-4 inhibitor treatment response in T2DM patients.
METHOD: Ten DPP4 SNPs were genotyped by TaqMan genotyping assays in 314 subjects with T2DM and 235 controls. Of these, 71 metabolic syndrome (MetS) subjects were excluded from subsequent analysis. The odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated using multiple logistic regression for the association between the SNPs of DPP4 and T2DM. In addition, the serum levels of sDPP-IV were investigated to evaluate the association of the SNPs of DPP4 with the sDPP-IV levels.
RESULTS: Dominant, recessive, and additive genetic models were employed to test the association of DPP4 polymorphisms with T2DM, after adjusting for age, race, gender and BMI. The rs12617656 was associated with T2DM in Malaysian subjects in the recessive genetic model (OR = 1.98, p = 0.006), dominant model (OR = 1.95, p = 0.008), and additive model (OR = 1.63, p = 0.001). This association was more pronounced among Malaysian Indians, recessive (OR = 3.21, p = 0.019), dominant OR = 3.72, p = 0.003) and additive model (OR = 2.29, p = 0.0009). The additive genetic model showed that DPP4 rs4664443 and rs7633162 polymorphisms were associated with T2DM (OR = 1.53, p = 0.039), and (OR = 1.42, p = 0.020), respectively. In addition, the rs4664443 G>A polymorphism was associated with increased sDPP-IV levels (p = 0.042) in T2DM subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: DPP4 polymorphisms were associated with T2DM in Malaysian subjects, and linked to variations in sDPP-IV levels. In addition, these associations were more pronounced among Malaysian Indian subjects.
PURPOSE: To investigate the association of psychological factors, patients' knowledge, and management among ED patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 93 patients with an age range from 31 to 81 years who have undergone treatment for ED were included in this study.
RESULTS: It was found that the feeling of blame (P=0.001), guilt (P=0.001), anger or bitterness (P=0.001), depression (P=0.001), feeling like a failure (P=0.001), and the feeling of letting down a partner during intercourse (P=0.001) were significantly associated with ED. Age was also found to be significantly associated with patients' psychological scale (P=0.004). In addition, the majority of patients in this study practice the right method of administration of ED therapy. However, no significant correlation was found between patients' knowledge of ED therapy and demographic characteristics.
CONCLUSION: This study concluded that ED does affect psychological well-being of people. In addition, patient's knowledge about ED and its management is also crucial in ensuring that the patient achieves optimal therapeutic outcomes from ED therapy.
METHODS: The study involved 235 Malaysian subjects who were randomly selected (66 normal weight subjects, 97 overweight, 59 obese subjects, and 13 subjects who were underweight). Serum sDPP4 and active GLP-1 levels were examined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Also, body mass index kg/m(2) (BMI), lipid profiles, insulin and glucose levels were evaluated. Insulin resistance (IR) was estimated via the homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR).
RESULTS: Serum sDPP4 levels were significantly higher in obese subjects compared to normal weight subjects (p=0.034), whereas serum levels of active GLP-1 were lower (p=0.021). In obese subjects, sDPP4 levels correlated negatively with active GLP-1 levels (r(2)=-0.326, p=0.015). Furthermore, linear regression showed that sDPP4 levels were positively associated with insulin resistance (B=82.28, p=0.023) in obese subjects.
CONCLUSION: Elevated serum sDPP4 levels and reduced GLP-1 levels were observed in obese subjects. In addition, sDPP4 levels correlated negatively with active GLP-1 levels but was positively associated with insulin resistance. This finding provides evidence that sDPP4 and GLP-1 may play an important role in the pathogenesis of obesity, suggesting that sDPP4 may be valuable as an early marker for the augmented risk of obesity and insulin resistance.
AIM: The aim of this paper was to review the role of CMKLR-1 receptor and the potential therapeutic target in the management of chemerin induced type 2 diabetes mellitus and cancer.
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY: Increased chemerin secretion activates an inflammatory response. The inflammatory response will increase the oxidative stress in adipose tissue and consequently results in an insulin-resistant state. The occurrence of inflammation, oxidative stress and insulin resistance leads to the progression of cancers.
CONCLUSION: Chemerin is one of the markers that may involve in development of both cancer and insulin resistance. Chemokine like receptor- 1 (CMKLR-1) receptor that regulates chemerin levels exhibits a potential therapeutic target for insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes and cancer treatment.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review the use of antidepressants for physical and psychological symptoms in cancer patients.
RESULTS: Our findings showed the mixed result of positive and negative findings in various symptoms associated with cancer patients. These studies are categorised according to the hierarchy of evidence from high to low level, namely randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, case series, case reports, as well as other type of publications. The majority of antidepressants used in cancer patients seem to be beneficial for the treatment of depression, anxiety, hot flashes and other symptoms such as sexual dysfunction, fatigue, nicotine dependence, vasomotor symptoms, executive functions, sleep problems, pruritus, as well as for hypochondriasis. While fluoxetine was found to be associated with the reduction of antiemetic property in ondansetron, mirtazapine was identified to be a good alternative in treating nausea and cachexia among cancer patients.
CONCLUSION: More research studies with adequate statistical power are warranted to validate the use of antidepressants among cancer patients in treating these physical and psychological symptoms.