METHODS: This is a controlled, intervention based study. It was run on three phases: before, during, and after Ramadan on 262 type 2 diabetes patients. The intervention group (n = 140) received RFEP on medications doses & timing adjustment before and after Ramadan, while the control group (n = 122) received standard care.
RESULTS: The dose of insulin glargine was reduced from 42.51 ± 22.16 at the baseline to 40.11 ± 18.51-units during Ramadan (p = 0.002) in the intervention group while it remained the same in the control group before Ramadan and during Ramadan (38.51 ± 18.63 and 38.14 ± 18.46, P = 0.428, respectively). The hypoglycemia score was 14.2 ± (8.5) pre-Ramadan in the intervention and reduced to 6.36 ± 6.17 during Ramadan (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, single-center, randomized, controlled, clinical trial in patients with T2DM and DKD, comparing 12-weeks of low carbohydrate diet (<20g daily intake) versus standard low protein (0.8g/kg/day) and low salt diet. Patients in the VLCBD group underwent 2-weekly monitoring including their 3-day food diaries. In addition, Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) was performed to estimate body fat percentages.
RESULTS: The study population (n = 30) had a median age of 57 years old and a BMI of 30.68kg/m2. Both groups showed similar total calorie intake, i.e. 739.33 (IQR288.48) vs 789.92 (IQR522.4) kcal, by the end of the study. The VLCBD group showed significantly lower daily carbohydrate intake 27 (IQR25) g vs 89.33 (IQR77.4) g, p<0.001, significantly higher protein intake per day 44.08 (IQR21.98) g vs 29.63 (IQR16.35) g, p<0.05 and no difference in in daily fat intake. Both groups showed no worsening of serum creatinine at study end, with consistent declines in HbA1c (1.3(1.1) vs 0.7(1.25) %) and fasting blood glucose (1.5(3.37) vs 1.3(5.7) mmol/L). The VLCBD group showed significant reductions in total daily insulin dose (39(22) vs 0 IU, p<0.001), increased LDL-C and HDL-C, decline in IL-6 levels; with contrasting results in the control group. This was associated with significant weight reduction (-4.0(3.9) vs 0.2(4.2) kg, p = <0.001) and improvements in body fat percentages. WC was significantly reduced in the VLCBD group, even after adjustments to age, HbA1c, weight and creatinine changes. Both dietary interventions were well received with no reported adverse events.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that dietary intervention of very low carbohydrate diet in patients with underlying diabetic kidney disease was safe and associated with significant improvements in glycemic control, anthropometric measurements including weight, abdominal adiposity and IL-6. Renal outcomes remained unchanged. These findings would strengthen the importance of this dietary intervention as part of the management of patients with diabetic kidney disease.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of CMI on medication adherence and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes in Qatar.
METHODS: We developed and customised CMI for all the anti-diabetic medications used in Qatar. A randomised controlled trial in which the intervention group patients (n = 66) received the customised CMI with usual care, while the control group patients (n = 74) received usual care only, was conducted. Self-reported medication adherence and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ) were the primary outcome measures. Glycaemic control and medication adherence parameters were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months in both groups. Medication adherence was measured using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8).
RESULTS: Although the addition of CMI resulted in better glycaemic control, this did not reach statistical significance, possibly because of the short-term follow-up. The median MMAS-8 score improved from baseline (6.6 [IQR = 1.5]) to 6-month follow-up (7.0 [IQR = 1.00]) in the intervention group. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference between the intervention and the control groups in terms of MMAS-8 score at the third visit (7.0 [IQR = 1.0]) vs 6.5 (IQR = 1.25; P-value = .010).
CONCLUSION: CMI for anti-diabetic medications when added to usual care has the potential to improve medication adherence and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, providing better health communication and CMI to patients with diabetes is recommended.
METHODS: A total of 1065 patients aged ≥18 years with T2DM initiating insulin therapy in normal clinical course were enrolled from Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand. Participants' data was recorded by the treating physicians. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using questionnaires completed by participants.
RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 57.2 years with mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 10.0%. About 66% of patients had an HbA1c ≥9.0% at insulin initiation despite 74% of them being on two or more oral antidiabetic agents at the time of insulin initiation. Basal insulin was initiated in 72% and premixed insulin in 27% of patients. Changes in insulin therapy was observed in 63% of patients and, by the end of study, 28% achieved HbA1c levels of <7.5%. The proportion of patients completely satisfied with their insulin treatment increased over the study course and the quality of life (QoL) score increased from baseline to the study end.
CONCLUSION: As high HbA1C levels indicate a delayed start of insulin therapy, timely initiation and early intensification of insulin therapy is necessary in the region to achieve adequate glycemic control in time and prevent diabetes complications. Data from PROs suggests that the insulin treatment improves QoL in most patients.
METHODS: Demographic and clinical variables were assessed at baseline, after three and six months in 73 type 2 diabetes patients. Regression analysis, using SPSS, evaluated the concurrent and longitudinal association of medication adherence and glycemic control. Potential confounders of variables were identified using bi-variate correlation analyses.
RESULTS: Concurrent Medication adherence and HbA1c association were significant after adjusting for ethnicity (P = 0.005). For longitudinal observation at 3 months, the association was significant after adjusting for ethnicity (P = 0.016); however, it became non-significant when baseline glycemic control was included in the model (P = 0.28).
CONCLUSION: Easy to administer MALMAS significantly predicted concurrent glycemic control independent of potential confounders. This association persisted in longitudinal observation after 3 months when adjusted for confounders and became non-significant after adjusting for baseline glycemic control.
METHODS: Two reviewers searched MEDLINE for studies of ≥12 weeks duration in adults with type 2 diabetes. The key search word was "gliclazide", filtered with "randomized controlled trial", "human" and "19+ years". Differences were explored in mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline (primary outcome) and risk of hypoglycemia (secondary outcome) between gliclazide and other oral insulinotropic agents; and other sulfonylureas.
RESULTS: Nine out of 181 references reported primary outcomes, of which 7 reported secondary outcomes. Gliclazide lowered HbA1c more than other oral insulinotropic agents, with a weighted mean difference of -0.11% (95%, CI -0.19 to -0.03%, P=0.008, I(2)=60%), though not more than other sulfonylureas (-0.12%; 95%, CI -0.25 to 0.01%, P=0.07, I(2)=77%). Risk of hypoglycemia with gliclazide was not different to other insulinotropic agents (RR 0.85; 95%, CI 0.66 to 1.09, P=0.20, I(2)=61%) but significantly lower than other sulfonylureas (RR 0.47; 95%, CI 0.27 to 0.79, P=0.004, I(2)=0%).
CONCLUSION: Compared with other oral insulinotropic agents, gliclazide significantly reduced HbA1c with no difference regarding hypoglycemia risk. Compared with other sulfonylureas, HbA1c reduction with gliclazide was not significantly different, but hypoglycemia risk was significantly lower.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Multinational, prospective cohort study to assess the prevalence of newborns free from major congenital malformations or perinatal or neonatal death (primary end point) following treatment with insulin detemir (detemir) versus other basal insulins.
RESULTS: Of 1,457 women included, 727 received detemir and 730 received other basal insulins. The prevalence of newborns free from major congenital malformations or perinatal or neonatal death was similar between detemir (97.0%) and other basal insulins (95.5%) (crude risk difference 0.015 [95% CI -0.01, 0.04]; adjusted risk difference -0.003 [95% CI -0.03, 0.03]). The crude prevalence of one or more congenital malformations (major plus minor) was 9.4% vs. 12.6%, with a similar risk difference before (-0.032 [95% CI -0.064, 0.000]) and after (-0.036 [95% CI -0.081, 0.009]) adjustment for confounders. Crude data showed lower maternal HbA1c during the first trimester (6.5% vs. 6.7% [48 vs. 50 mmol/mol]; estimated mean difference -0.181 [95% CI -0.300, -0.062]) and the second trimester (6.1% vs. 6.3% [43 vs. 45 mmol/mol]; -0.139 [95% CI -0.232, -0.046]) and a lower prevalence of major hypoglycemia (6.0% vs. 9.0%; risk difference -0.030 [95% CI -0.058, -0.002]), preeclampsia (6.4% vs. 10.0%; -0.036 [95% CI -0.064, -0.007]), and stillbirth (0.4% vs. 1.8%; -0.013 [95% CI -0.024, -0.002]) with detemir compared with other basal insulins. However, differences were not significant postadjustment.
CONCLUSIONS: Insulin detemir was associated with a similar risk to other basal insulins of major congenital malformations, perinatal or neonatal death, hypoglycemia, preeclampsia, and stillbirth.
METHODS: Patients who were 10 to less than 17 years of age were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive subcutaneous liraglutide (up to 1.8 mg per day) or placebo for a 26-week double-blind period, followed by a 26-week open-label extension period. Inclusion criteria were a body-mass index greater than the 85th percentile and a glycated hemoglobin level between 7.0 and 11.0% if the patients were being treated with diet and exercise alone or between 6.5 and 11.0% if they were being treated with metformin (with or without insulin). All the patients received metformin during the trial. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level after 26 weeks. Secondary end points included the change in fasting plasma glucose level. Safety was assessed throughout the course of the trial.
RESULTS: Of 135 patients who underwent randomization, 134 received at least one dose of liraglutide (66 patients) or placebo (68 patients). Demographic characteristics were similar in the two groups (mean age, 14.6 years). At the 26-week analysis of the primary efficacy end point, the mean glycated hemoglobin level had decreased by 0.64 percentage points with liraglutide and increased by 0.42 percentage points with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -1.06 percentage points (P<0.001); the difference increased to -1.30 percentage points by 52 weeks. The fasting plasma glucose level had decreased at both time points in the liraglutide group but had increased in the placebo group. The number of patients who reported adverse events was similar in the two groups (56 [84.8%] with liraglutide and 55 [80.9%] with placebo), but the overall rates of adverse events and gastrointestinal adverse events were higher with liraglutide.
CONCLUSIONS: In children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes, liraglutide, at a dose of up to 1.8 mg per day (added to metformin, with or without basal insulin), was efficacious in improving glycemic control over 52 weeks. This efficacy came at the cost of an increased frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; Ellipse ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01541215.).
METHODS: A retrospective observational study of 60 type 1 and 100 type 2 diabetes subjects. All underwent professional continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 3-6 days and recorded self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG). Indices were calculated from both CGM and SMBG. Statistical analyses included regression and area under receiver operator curve (AUC) analyses.
RESULTS: Hypoglycemia frequency (53.3% vs. 24%, P