METHODS: Caprine pancreatic tissues were collected from a local slaughterhouse and prior transported to the laboratory by maintaining the cold chain. Islets were obtained by a collagenase-based digestion and optimized isolation technique. Islet cell purity and viability were determined by dithizone and trypan blue staining, respectively. Islet clusters of different sizes were positively identified by staining methods and demonstrated 90% viability in the culture system. Following static incubation, an in vitro insulin secretion assay was carried out and analyzed by ELISA.
RESULTS: The islets remained satisfactorily viable for 5 days in the culture system following regular media changes. The current study has successfully optimized the isolation, purification and culture maintenance of caprine islets.
CONCLUSION: The successful yield, viability and functionality of islets isolated from the optimized protocol provide promising potential as an alternative source of islets for diabetes and transplantation researches.
Aim: To report the rate of misdiagnosis and its associated risk factors in Malaysian children and adolescents with T1DM.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of children with T1DM below 18 years of age over a 10 year period was conducted.
Results: The cohort included 119 children (53.8% female) with a mean age 8.1 SD ± 3.9 years. 38.7% of cases were misdiagnosed, of which respiratory illnesses were the most common (37.0%) misdiagnosis. The rate of misdiagnosis remained the same over the 10 year period. Among the variables examined, younger age at presentation, DKA at presentation, healthcare professional (HCP) contact and admission to the intensive care unit were significantly different between the misdiagnosed and correctly diagnosed groups (p <0.05).
Conclusion: Misdiagnosis of T1DM occurs more frequently in Malaysian children <5 years of age. Misdiagnosed cases are at a higher risk of presenting in DKA with increased risk of ICU admission and more likely to have had prior HCP contact. Awareness of T1DM amongst healthcare professionals is crucial for early identification, prevention of DKA and reducing rates of misdiagnosis.
Methodology: This sub-analysis included Filipino patients with T1DM or T2DM, aged 18 years and older, treated with insulin for more than 12 months, who completed the two-part self-assessment questionnaires (SAQ1 and SAQ2) and patient diaries that recorded hypoglycemia during retrospective (6 months/4 weeks before baseline) and prospective period (4 weeks after baseline) (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02306681).
Results: A total of 671 patients were enrolled and completed the SAQ1 (62 patients with T1DM and 609 patients with T2DM). Almost all patients (100% in T1DM and 99.3% in T2DM) experienced at least 1 hypoglycemic event prospectively. The incidence of any hypoglycemia was also high in the prospective period compared to retrospective period (72.6 [95% CI: 64.8, 80.9] events PPY and 43.6 [95% CI: 37.8, 49.9] events PPY; p=0.001, respectively) in T1DM patients.
Conclusion: Among insulin-treated patients, higher rates of hypoglycemia were reported prospectively than retrospectively. This indicates that the patients in real-life setting often under-report hypoglycemia. Patient education can help in accurate reporting and appropriate management of hypoglycemia and diabetes.
Methodology: We conducted a cross-sectional study using 6-days CGMS to detect the prevalence of hypoglycaemia in 31 insulin-treated pregnant women with diabetes who achieved HbA1c <6.0%. Patients were required to log-keep their self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) readings and hypoglycaemia events.
Results: Eight women experienced confirmed hypoglycaemia with additional seven experienced relative hypoglycaemia, giving rise to prevalence rate of 45.2% (one had both confirmed and relative hypoglycaemia). Nine relative hypoglycaemia and 17 confirmed hypoglycaemic events were recorded. Sixteen (94%) out of 17 confirmed hypoglycaemia events recorded by CGMS were asymptomatic and were missed despite performing regular SMBG. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia events were recorded in seven women. Univariable analysis did not identify any association between conventional risk factors and hypoglycaemia events in our cohort.
Conclusion: Insulin-treated pregnant women with diabetes who achieved HbA1c <6.0% were associated with high prevalence of hypoglycaemia. Asymptomatic hypoglycaemia is common in our cohort and frequently missed despite regular SMBG. Present study did not identify any association between conventional risk factors and hypoglycaemia events in our cohort.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We pooled data from 17 observational studies involving 1,699 patients treated with either CSII or non-CSII (including premixed and MDI) regimen. The study outcomes were the frequencies of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia and/or ketosis. Given the lack of patient-level data, separate analyses for premixed and MDI regimen were not carried out.
RESULTS: The CSII-treated group (n = 203) was older (22.9 ± 6.9 vs 17.8 ± 4.0 years), and had longer diabetes duration (116.7 ± 66.5 vs 74.8 ± 59.2 months) and lower glycated hemoglobin (7.8 ± 1.1% vs 9.1 ± 2.0%) at baseline than the non-CSII-treated group (n = 1,496). The non-CSII-treated group had less non-severe hypoglycemia than the CSII-treated group (22%, 95% CI 13-34 vs 35%, 95% CI 17-55). Of the non-CSII-treated group, 7.1% (95% CI 5.8-8.5) developed severe hypoglycemia, but none from the CSII-treated group did. The non-CSII-treated group was more likely to develop hyperglycemia (12%, 95% CI 3-25 vs 8.8%, 95% CI 0-31) and ketosis (2.5%, 95% CI 1.0-4.6 vs 1.6%, 95% CI 0.1-4.7), and discontinue fasting (55%, 95% CI 34-76 vs 31%, 95% CI 9-60) than the CSII-treated group.
CONCLUSIONS: The CSII regimen had lower rates of severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia/ketosis, but a higher rate of non-severe hyperglycemia than premixed/MDI regimens. These suggest that appropriate patient selection with regular, supervised fine-tuning of the basal insulin rate with intensive glucose monitoring might mitigate the residual hypoglycemia risk during Ramadan.
OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.