METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was designed. Forty normotensive (median age 47 +/- 6 yrs.) and twenty untreated hypertensive Malay men (median age 50 +/- 7 yrs.) without clinical evidence of cardiovascular complications were selected. Pulse wave velocity measured using the automated Complior machine was used as an index of arterial stiffness. Other measurements obtained were blood pressure, body mass index, fasting insulin, cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose and creatinine level.
RESULTS: The blood pressure and pulse wave velocity (PWV) were significantly higher in the hypertensives compared to the normotensives (blood pressure 169/100 mm Hg +/- 14/7 vs. 120/80 mm Hg +/- 10/4, p < 0.001; PWV 11.69 m/s +/- 1.12 vs. 8.83 m/s +/- 1.35, p < 0.001). Other variables such as body mass index, fasting insulin, cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and haematocrit were comparable among the two groups. Within each group, there was a significant positive correlation between pulse wave velocity and systolic blood pressure (r = 0.76, p < 0.001 in normotensives; r = 0.73, p < 0.001 in hypertensives) and mean arterial pressure (r = 0.74, p < 0.001 in normotensives; r = 0.73, p < 0.001 in hypertensives). No correlation was noted between pulse wave velocity and diastolic blood pressure, age, body mass index, fasting insulin level, cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol or triglyceride levels.
CONCLUSION: Arterial stiffness as determined by PWV is increased in newly diagnosed untreated hypertensive subjects even before clinically evident cardiovascular disease. However, arterial stiffness is not correlated with the fasting insulin level in normotensives and newly diagnosed hypertensives.
METHODS: A total of 20 healthy volunteers were challenged with 3 test meals, similar in fat content (~31% en) but varying in saturated SFA content and polyunsaturated/saturated fatty acid ratios (P/S). The 3 meals were lauric + myristic acid-rich (LM), P/S 0.19; palmitic acid-rich (POL), P/S 0.31; and stearic acid-rich (STE), P/S 0.22. Blood was sampled at fasted baseline and 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 hours. Plasma lipids (triacylglycerol [TAG]) and lipoproteins (TC, LDL-C, high density lipoprotein-cholesterol [HDL-C]) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Varying SFA in the test meal significantly impacted postprandial TAG response (p < 0.05). Plasma TAG peaked at 5 hours for STE, 4 hours for POL, and 2 hours for LM test meals. Area-under-the-curve (AUC) for plasma TAG was increased significantly after STE treatment (STE > LM by 32.2%, p = 0.003; STE > POL by 27.9%, p = 0.023) but was not significantly different between POL and LM (POL > LM by 6.0%, p > 0.05). At 2 hours, plasma HDL-C increased significantly after the LM and POL test meals compared with STE (p < 0.05). In comparison to the STE test meal, HDL-C AUC was elevated 14.0% (p = 0.005) and 7.6% (p = 0.023) by the LM and POL test meals, respectively. The TC response was also increased significantly by LM compared with both POL and STE test meals (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Chain length of saturates clearly mediated postmeal plasma TAG and HDL-C changes.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of colesevelam for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched, among these The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, OpenGrey and Proquest Dissertations and Theses database (all up to January 2012), combined with handsearches. No language restriction was used.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared colesevelam with or without other oral hypoglycaemic agents with a placebo or a control intervention with or without oral hypoglycaemic agents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the trials and extracted the data. We evaluated risk of bias of trials using the parameters of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias.
MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs ranging from 8 to 26 weeks investigating 1450 participants met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias of these trials was unclear or high. All RCTs compared the effects of colesevelam with or without other antidiabetic drug treatments with placebo only (one study) or combined with antidiabetic drug treatments. Colesevelam with add-on antidiabetic agents demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in fasting blood glucose with a mean difference (MD) of -15 mg/dL (95% confidence interval (CI) -22 to - 8), P < 0.0001; 1075 participants, 4 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. There was also a reduction in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in favour of colesevelam (MD -0.5% (95% CI -0.6 to -0.4), P < 0.00001; 1315 participants, 5 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. However, the single trial comparing colesevelam to placebo only (33 participants) did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two arms - in fact, in both arms HbA1c increased. Colesevelam with add-on antidiabetic agents demonstrated a statistical significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol with a MD of -13 mg/dL (95% CI -17 to - 9), P < 0.00001; 886 participants, 4 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. Non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes were infrequently observed. No other serious adverse effects were reported. There was no documentation of complications of the disease, morbidity, mortality, health-related quality of life and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Colesevelam added on to antidiabetic agents showed significant effects on glycaemic control. However, there is a limited number of studies with the different colesevelam/antidiabetic agent combinations. More information on the benefit-risk ratio of colesevelam treatment is necessary to assess the long-term effects, particularly in the management of cardiovascular risks as well as the reduction in micro- and macrovascular complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, long-term data on health-related quality of life and all-cause mortality also need to be investigated.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 120 men, aged 40-70 years, with TD (serum total testosterone [TT] ≤ 12 nmol/L) were randomised to receive either i.m. TU (1000 mg) or placebo. In all, 58 and 56 men in the placebo and treatment arm, respectively, completed the study. Participants were seen six times in the 48-week period and the following data were collected: physical examination results, haemoglobin, haematocrit, TT, lipid profile, fasting blood glucose, sex hormone-binding globulin, liver function test, prostate- specific antigen (PSA) and adverse events.
RESULTS: The mean (sd) age of the participants was 53.4 (7.6) years. A significant increase in serum TT (P < 0.001), PSA (P = 0.010), haematocrit (P < 0.001), haemoglobin (P < 0.001) and total bilirubin (P = 0.001) were seen in the treatment arm over the 48-week period. Two men in the placebo arm and one man in the treatment arm developed myocardial infarction. Common adverse events observed in the treatment arm included itching/swelling/pain at the site of injection, flushing and acne. Overall, TU injections were well tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS: TU significantly increases serum testosterone in men with TD. PSA, haemoglobin and haematocrit were significantly elevated but were within clinically safe limits. There was no significant adverse reaction that led to the cessation of treatment.
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: All English-language medical literature published from inception till October 2014 which met the inclusion criteria were reviewed and analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of nine papers were included, reviewed and analyzed. The total sample size was 4276 patients. All studies used either of the two DPP4 inhibitors - Vildagliptin or Sitagliptin, vs sulphonylurea or meglitinides. Patients receiving DPP4 inhibitors were less likely to develop symptomatic hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70), confirmed hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64) and severe hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.53) compared with patients on sulphonylureas. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1C changes comparing Vildagliptin and sulphonylurea.
CONCLUSION: DPP4 inhibitor is a safer alternative to sulphonylurea in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who fast during the month of Ramadan as it is associated with lower risk of symptomatic, confirmed and severe hypoglycemia, with efficacy comparable to sulphonylurea.
METHODS: Blood and pancreas were collected from adult male diabetic rats receiving 28days treatment with VVSAE orally. Fasting blood glucose (FBG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), insulin and lipid profile levels and activity levels of anti-oxidative enzymes (superoxide dismutase-SOD, catalase-CAT and glutathione peroxidase-GPx) in the pancreas were determined by biochemical assays. Histopathological changes in the pancreas were examined under light microscopy and levels of insulin, glucose transporter (GLUT)-2, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, Ikkβ and caspase-3 mRNA and protein were analyzed by real-time PCR (qPCR) and immunohistochemistry respectively. Radical scavenging activity of VVSAE was evaluated by in-vitro anti-oxidant assay while gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was used to identify the major compounds in the extract.
RESULTS: GC-MS analyses indicated the presence of compounds that might exert anti-oxidative, anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptosis effects. Near normal FBG, HbAIc, lipid profile and serum insulin levels with lesser signs of pancreatic destruction were observed following administration of VVSAE to diabetic rats. Higher insulin, GLUT-2, SOD, CAT and GPx levels but lower TNF-α, Ikkβ and caspase-3 levels were also observed in the pancreas of VVSAE-treated diabetic rats (p<0.05 compared to non-treated diabetic rats). The extract possesses high in-vitro radical scavenging activities.
CONCLUSION: In conclusions, administration of VVSAE to diabetic rats could help to protect the pancreas against oxidative stress, inflammation and apoptosis-induced damage while preserving pancreatic function near normal in diabetes.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 adults with type 2 diabetes were assessed with 6-day continuous glucose monitoring and HbA1c . Area under the curve (AUC) ≥5.6 mmol/L was defined as AUCTOTAL . AUC equal to or greater than each preprandial glucose for 4-h duration was defined as AUCPPH . The total PPH (AUCTPPH ) was the sum of the various AUCPPH. The postprandial contribution to overall hyperglycemia was calculated as (AUCTPPH / AUCTOTAL ) × 100%.
RESULTS: The present study comprised of Malay, Indian, and Chinese type 2 diabetes patients at 34, 34 and 28% respectively. Overall, the mean PPH significantly decreased as HbA1c advanced (mixed model repeated measures adjusted, beta-estimate = -3.0, P = 0.009). Age (P = 0.010) and hypoglycemia (P = 0.006) predicted the contribution difference. In oral antidiabetic drug-treated patients (n = 58), FH contribution increased from 54% (HbA1c 6-6.9%) to 67% (HbA1c ≥10%). FH predominance was significant in poorly-controlled groups (P = 0.028 at HbA1c 9-9.9%; P = 0.015 at HbA1c ≥10%). Among insulin users (n = 42), FH predominated when HbA1c was ≥10% before adjustment for hypoglycemia (P = 0.047), whereas PPH was numerically greater when HbA1c was <8%.
CONCLUSIONS: FH and PPH contributions were equal in well-controlled Malaysian type 2 diabetes patients in real-world practice. FH predominated when HbA1c was ≥9 and ≥10% in oral antidiabetic drug- and insulin-treated patients, respectively. A unique observation was the greater PPH contribution when HbA1c was <8% despite the use of basal and mealtime insulin in this multi-ethnic cohort, which required further validation.
METHODS: Seventy-six obese subjects were randomly placed into two groups. The first group received three daily 120 mg dosages of orlistat for nine months (n=39), and the second group received a once daily 10 or 15 mg dosage of sibutramine for nine months (n=37). Baseline measurements for weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), body fat percentage (BF), visceral fat (VF), adiponectin, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting insulin, pancreatic B cell secretory capacity (HOMA%B), insulin sensitivity (HOMA%S), insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and serum high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) were performed and repeated during the sixth and ninth months of treatment.
RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects completed the trial in both groups. For both groups, weight, BMI, WC, BF, VF, HOMA-IR and hs-CRP were significantly lower at the end of the nine month intervention. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups for these parameters with nine months treatment. There was a significant decrease in FPG in orlistat group; while fasting insulin and HOMA%B reduced in sibutramine group. For both groups, there were also significant increases in adiponectin levels and HOMA%S at the end of the nine month intervention.
CONCLUSION: Nine months of treatment with orlistat and sibutramine not only reduced weight but also significantly improved BMI, WC, BF, VF, FPG, adiponectin, fasting insulin, HOMA%B, HOMA%S, HOMA-IR and hs-CRP. These improvements could prove useful in the reduction of metabolic and cardiovascular risks in obese subjects.