METHODS: This open-label, parallel-group, 26-week, multicentre, treat-to-target trial, randomly allocated participants (1:1) to two titration arms. The Simple algorithm titrated IDegAsp twice weekly based on a single pre-breakfast self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) measurement. The Stepwise algorithm titrated IDegAsp once weekly based on the lowest of three consecutive pre-breakfast SMPG measurements. In both groups, IDegAsp once daily was titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose values of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 26 weeks.
RESULTS: Change in HbA1c at Week 26 was IDegAspSimple -14.6 mmol/mol (-1.3%) (to 52.4 mmol/mol; 6.9%) and IDegAspStepwise -11.9 mmol/mol (-1.1%) (to 54.7 mmol/mol; 7.2%). The estimated between-group treatment difference was -1.97 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.1, 0.2] (-0.2%, 95% CI -0.4, 0.02), confirming the non-inferiority of IDegAspSimple to IDegAspStepwise (non-inferiority limit of ≤ 0.4%). Mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose and 8-point SMPG profiles were similar between groups. Rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia were lower for IDegAspStepwise [2.1 per patient years of exposure (PYE)] vs. IDegAspSimple (3.3 PYE) (estimated rate ratio IDegAspSimple /IDegAspStepwise 1.8; 95% CI 1.1, 2.9). Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were similar between groups. No severe hypoglycaemic events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: In participants with insulin-naïve Type 2 diabetes mellitus, the IDegAspSimple titration algorithm improved HbA1c levels as effectively as a Stepwise titration algorithm. Hypoglycaemia rates were lower in the Stepwise arm.
METHODS: Online literature search databases including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, Embase and Google Scholar were searched to discover relevant articles available up to 17 March 2020. We used mean changes and SD of the outcomes to assess treatment response from baseline and mean difference, and 95 % CI were calculated to combined data and assessment effect sizes in astaxanthin and control groups.
RESULTS: 14 eligible articles were included in the final quantitative analysis. Current study revealed that astaxanthin consumption was not associated with FBS, HbA1c, TC, LDL-C, TG, BMI, BW, DBP, and SBP. We did observe an overall increase in HDL-C (WMD: 1.473 mg/dl, 95 % CI: 0.319-2.627, p = 0.012). As for the levels of CRP, only when astaxanthin was administered (i) for relatively long periods (≥ 12 weeks) (WMD: -0.528 mg/l, 95 % CI: -0.990 to -0.066), and (ii) at high dose (> 12 mg/day) (WMD: -0.389 mg/dl, 95 % CI: -0.596 to -0.183), the levels of CRP would decrease.
CONCLUSION: In summary, our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that astaxanthin consumption was associated with increase in HDL-C and decrease in CRP. Significant associations were not observed for other outcomes.
METHODS AND DESIGN: This is a single-center, randomized, controlled, two-arm parallel design clinical trial that will be carried out in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. In this study, 100 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes will be enrolled. Diabetic patients who meet the eligibility criteria will be randomly allocated to two groups, which are diabetic C. caudatus treated(U) group and diabetic control (C) group. Primary and secondary outcomes will be measured at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The serum and urine metabolome of both groups will be examined using proton NMR spectroscopy.
DISCUSSION: The study will be the first randomized controlled trial to assess whether C. caudatus can confer beneficial effect in patients with type 2 diabetes. The results of this trial will provide clinical evidence on the effectiveness and safety of C. caudatus in patients with type 2 diabetes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02322268.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, Type 2 diabetic patients who were on insulin therapy attending health clinics were randomly selected and interviewed using a validated questionnaire. Binary logistic regression analysis was applied.
RESULTS: Out of 304 respondents, only 11.5% of them brought their used sharps to be disposed at health care facilities. Previous advice on sharp disposal from health care providers, knowledge score, and duration of diabetes were significant contributing factors for sharp waste disposal at health care facilities: (Adj. OR 6.31; 95% CI: 2.63, 15.12; p < 0.001), (Adj. OR 1.05; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.08; p < 0.001), and (Adj. OR 2.51; 95% CI: 1.06, 5.93; p = 0.036), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Continuous education and a locally adapted safe sharp disposal option must be available to increase awareness and facilitate diabetic patients adopting proper sharp disposal behavior.
METHODS: This was a cross sectional study involving 197 T2DM patients on insulin from two government primary health clinics in Gombak. Physician-patient interaction satisfaction was assessed using Skala Kepuasan Interaksi Perubatan (SKIP-11) consisting of 3 subdomains (Distress Relief, Rapport and Interaction Outcome). Medication adherence level was measured using a single item selfreport question. Data analysis for descriptive, inferential and multivariate analysis statistics were performed.
RESULTS: The mean age of the study participants was 57.12 (SD: 9.27). Majority were Malay, female, unemployed with mean BMI of 27.5. Majority reported full adherence (62.9%). High scores in the Interaction Outcome subdomain was associated with better adherence. Factors associated with high scores in this subdomain included patient education level, number of oral hypoglycaemic agent and type of insulin regime taken. This study also found that high scores in the Interaction Outcome domain is associated with lower HbA1c (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Physician-patient interaction satisfaction is an important factor in achieving better medication adherence which also leads to better glycaemic control in this group of patients. There is a need to identify strategies to improve satisfaction in this domain to improve patient adherence.
RECOMMENDATIONS: This is a narrative opinion piece on the design of clinical trials in youth-onset type 2 diabetes prepared by researchers who undertake this type of study in different countries. The review addresses possible ways to enhance trial designs in youth-onset type 2 diabetes to meet regulatory requirements, while minimizing the barriers to patients' participation. The definition of adolescence, recruitment of sufficient patient numbers, increasing flexibility in selection criteria, improving convenience of trial visits, requirements of a control group, possible endpoints, and trial compliance are all considered. The authors recommend allowing extrapolation from adult data, using multiple interventional arms within future trials, broadening inclusion criteria, and focusing on endpoints beyond glucose control, among others, in order to improve the successful completion of more trials in this population.
CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in trial design will enable better recruitment and retention and thereby more evidence for treatment outcomes for youth-onset type 2 diabetes.
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.
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.