Methods: The Iraqi Anti-Diabetic Medication Adherence Scale (IADMAS) consists of eight items. The face and content validity of the IADMAS were established via an expert panel. For convergent validity, the IADMAS was compared with the Medication Adherence Questionnaire (MAQ). For concurrent validity, the IADMAS was compared with glycosylated hemoglobin. A total of 84 patients with types 2 diabetes were recruited from a diabetes center in Baghdad, Iraq. Test-retest reliability was measured by readministering the IADMAS to the same patients 4 weeks later.
Results: Only 80 patients completed the study (response rate: 95%). Reliability analysis of the IADMAS showed a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.712, whereas that of the MAQ was 0.649. All items in the IADMAS showed no significant difference in the test-retest analysis, indicating that the IADMAS has stable reliability. There was no difference in the psychometric properties of the IADMAS and the MAQ. The sensitivity and specificity of the IADMAS were higher than that of the MAQ (100% vs 87.5% and 33.9% vs 29.7%, respectively).
Conclusion: The IADMAS developed in this study is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing antidiabetic medication adherence among Iraqi patients.
METHODS: A cross-sectional investigation was conducted at General Penang Hospital, Malaysia. Demographic criteria and laboratory tests of patients were investigated. Controlled glycemia (CG) was recognized as glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤7% depending on American Diabetes Association guidelines 2018. Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to estimate the confounding influence of co-morbidities and predict ES-10Y. Data was managed by IBM-SPSS 23.0.
RESULTS: A total of 400 cases categorized to (44.25%) patients with CG, and (55.75%) cases had uncontrolled glycemia (UCG). HbA1c mean in CG and UCG group was (6.8 ± 0.9 vs 9.5 ± 1.6, P-value: 0.001). Fasting blood glucose was (7 ± 2.3 vs. 9.9 ± 4.3, P-value: 0.001) in CG and UCG group. CCI was (3.38 ± 2.38 vs. 4.42 ± 2.70, P-value: 0.001) and, ES-10Y was (62% vs 46.2%, p-value: 0.001) in CG vs. UCG respectively. Spearman test indicates a negative correlation between CG and CCI (r: 0.19, p-value: 0.001). Logistic regression confirmed HbA1c as a significant predictor of CCI (r2: 0.036, P-value: 0.001). CG has a positive correlation with survival (r: 0.16, P-value: 0.001) and logistic regression of survival (r2: 0.26, P-value: 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of the investigated persons had UCG. Controlled HbA1c was associated with lower co-morbidities and higher ES-10Y.
METHODS: Using a randomized, crossover and double-blinded design, 15 men and 15 women with metabolic syndrome consumed high-fat meals enriched with SFA, MUFA or n-6 PUFA, or a low-fat/high-sucrose (SUCR) meal. C-peptide, insulin, glucose, gastrointestinal peptides and satiety were measured up to 6 h.
RESULTS: As expected, SUCR meal induced higher C-peptide (45 %), insulin (45 %) and glucose (49 %) responses compared with high-fat meals regardless of types of fatty acids (P < 0.001). Interestingly, incremental area under the curve (AUC0-120min) for glucagon-like peptide-1 was higher after SUCR meal compared with MUFA (27 %) and n-6 PUFA meals (23 %) (P = 0.01). AUC0-120min for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide was higher after SFA meal compared with MUFA (23 %) and n-6 PUFA meals (20 %) (P = 0.004). Significant meal x time interaction (P = 0.007) was observed for ghrelin, but not cholecystokinin and satiety.
CONCLUSIONS: The amount of fat regardless of the types of fatty acids affects insulin and glycemic responses. Both the amount and types of fatty acids acutely affect the gastrointestinal peptide release in metabolic syndrome subjects, but not satiety.
METHODS: A clinically validated insulin/glucose model was used to calculate SI with the standard fasting assumption (SFA) G0 = GTARGET. Then GTARGET was treated as a variable in a second analysis (VGT). The outcomes were contrasted across twelve participants with established type 2 diabetes mellitus that were recruited to take part in a 24-week dietary intervention. Participants underwent three insulin-modified intravenous glucose tolerance tests (IM-IVGTT) at 0, 12, and 24 weeks.
RESULTS: SIVGT had a median value of 3.36×10-4 L·mU-1·min-1 (IQR: 2.30 - 4.95×10-4) and were significantly lower ( P < .05) than the median SISFA (6.38×10-4 L·mU-1·min-1, IQR: 4.87 - 9.39×10-4). The VGT approach generally yielded lower SI values in line with expected participant physiology and more effectively tracked changes in participant state over the 24-week trial. Calculated GTARGET values were significantly lower than G0 values (median GTARGET = 5.48 vs G0 = 7.16 mmol·L-1 P < .001) and were notably higher in individuals with longer term diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS: Typical modeling approaches can overestimate SI when GTARGET does not equal G0. Hence, calculating GTARGET may enable more precise SI measurements in individuals with type 2 diabetes, and could imply a dysfunction in diabetic metabolism.
METHODS: Participants were consented to answer a physician-administered questionnaire following Ramadan 2020. Impact of COVID-19 on the decision of fasting, intentions to fast and duration of Ramadan and Shawal fasting, hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia events were assessed. Specific analysis comparing age categories of <65 years and ≥65 years were performed.
RESULTS: Among the 5865 participants, 22.5% were ≥65 years old. Concern for COVID-19 affected fasting decision for 7.6% (≥65 years) vs 5.4% (<65 years). More participants ≥65 years old did not fast (28.8% vs 12.7%, <65 years). Of the 83.6%, participants fulfilling Ramadan-fasting, 94.8% fasted ≥15 days and 12.6% had to break fast due to diabetes-related illness. The average number of days fasting within and post-Ramadan were 27 and 6 days respectively, regardless of age. Hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia occurred in 15.7% and 16.3% of participants respectively, with 6.5% and 7.4% requiring hospital care respectively. SMBG was performed in 73.8% of participants and 43.5% received Ramadan-focused education.
CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, universally high rates of Ramadan-fasting were observed regardless of fasting risk level. Glycemic complications occurred frequently with older adults requiring higher rates of acute hospital care. Risk stratification is essential followed by pre-Ramadan interventions, Ramadan-focused diabetes education and self-monitoring to reduce and prevent complications, with particular emphasis in older adults.