RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD: Data were obtained from the published biomedical literature as well as abstracts and posters presented at scientific meetings. Using MEDLINE, EMBASE and BIOSIS databases (to July 2007), epidemiological studies were identified using the search terms: 'human', 'vitamin D', 'vitamin D deficiency', 'vitamin D inadequacy', 'vitamin D insufficiency' and 'hypovitaminosis D', 'osteomalacia' and 'osteoporosis'. Additional references were also identified from the bibliographies of published articles.
RESULTS: The prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy in studies of postmenopausal women (ambulatory or with osteoporosis or related musculoskeletal disorders) in Eastern Asia ranged from 0 to 92%, depending on the cut-off level of serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol [25(OH)D] that was applied (range < or =6-35 ng/mL [< or = 15-87 nmol/L]). One large international study found that 71% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Eastern Asia had vitamin D inadequacy, defined as serum levels of 25(OH)D < 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L). Prevalence rates using this cut-off level were 47% in Thailand, 49% in Malaysia, 90% in Japan and 92% in South Korea. High prevalences of vitamin D inadequacy were evident in two studies using a lower 25(OH)D level cut-off value of < 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L) - 21% in China and 57% in South Korea. Dietary deficiency and inadequate exposure or reactivity to sunlight (due to lifestyle choices, cultural customs and/or aging) were identified as important risk factors for vitamin D inadequacy.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-uniform, epidemiological studies indicate a high prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy in postmenopausal women in Eastern Asia. Recommended remedial approaches are education campaigns and broad-based provision of vitamin D supplementation.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions for diabetes-related distress in adults with T2DM.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, BASE, WHO ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was December 2014 for BASE and 21 September 2016 for all other databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of psychological interventions for DRD in adults (18 years and older) with T2DM. We included trials if they compared different psychological interventions or compared a psychological intervention with usual care. Primary outcomes were DRD, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure, diabetes-related complications, all-cause mortality and socioeconomic effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified publications for inclusion and extracted data. We classified interventions according to their focus on emotion, cognition or emotion-cognition. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to compute overall estimates.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 30 RCTs with 9177 participants. Sixteen trials were parallel two-arm RCTs, and seven were three-arm parallel trials. There were also seven cluster-randomised trials: two had four arms, and the remaining five had two arms. The median duration of the intervention was six months (range 1 week to 24 months), and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 12 months). The trials included a wide spectrum of interventions and were both individual- and group-based.A meta-analysis of all psychological interventions combined versus usual care showed no firm effect on DRD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.03; P = 0.17; 3315 participants; 12 trials; low-quality evidence), HRQoL (SMD 0.01; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; P = 0.87; 1932 participants; 5 trials; low-quality evidence), all-cause mortality (11 per 1000 versus 11 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% CI 0.17 to 6.03; P = 0.99; 1376 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence) or adverse events (17 per 1000 versus 41 per 1000; RR 2.40; 95% CI 0.78 to 7.39; P = 0.13; 438 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). We saw small beneficial effects on self-efficacy and HbA1c at medium-term follow-up (6 to 12 months): on self-efficacy the SMD was 0.15 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.30; P = 0.05; 2675 participants; 6 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions; on HbA1c there was a mean difference (MD) of -0.14% (95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; P = 0.05; 3165 participants; 11 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions. Our included trials did not report diabetes-related complications or socioeconomic effects.Many trials were small and were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as well as possible performance and detection biases in the subjective questionnaire-based outcomes assessment, and some appeared to be at risk of selective reporting. There are four trials awaiting further classification. These are parallel RCTs with cognition-focused and emotion-cognition focused interventions. There are another 18 ongoing trials, likely focusing on emotion-cognition or cognition, assessing interventions such as diabetes self-management support, telephone-based cognitive behavioural therapy, stress management and a web application for problem solving in diabetes management. Most of these trials have a community setting and are based in the USA.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence showed that none of the psychological interventions would improve DRD more than usual care. Low-quality evidence is available for improved self-efficacy and HbA1c after psychological interventions. This means that we are uncertain about the effects of psychological interventions on these outcomes. However, psychological interventions probably have no substantial adverse events compared to usual care. More high-quality research with emotion-focused programmes, in non-US and non-European settings and in low- and middle-income countries, is needed.
METHODS: This was a multi-centre, open-label randomised crossover study. Twenty-four overweight/obese T1DM patients aged ⩾18 years old with HbA1c ⩾ 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) were recruited and randomised into two study arms. For first 6-week, one arm remained on standard of care (SOC), the other arm received metformin, adjunctive to SOC. After 2-week washout, patients crossed over and continued for another 6 weeks. Glycaemic variability, other glycaemic parameters and metabolic profile were monitored.
RESULTS: There were significant reduction in metformin group for GV: mean (0.18 ± 1.73 vs -0.95 ± 1.24, p = 0.014), %CV (-15.84 (18.92) vs -19.08 (24.53), p = 0.044), glycemic risk assessment of diabetes equation (-0.69 (3.83) vs -1.61 (3.61), p = 0.047), continuous overlapping net glycaemic action (0.25 ± 1.62 vs -0.85 ± 1.22, p = 0.013), J-index (-0.75 (21.91) vs -7.11 (13.86), p = 0.034), time in range (1.13 ± 14.12% vs 10.83 ± 15.47%, p = 0.032); changes of systolic blood pressure (2.78 ± 11.19 mmHg vs -4.30 ± 9.81 mmHg, p = 0.027) and total daily dose (TDD) insulin (0.0 (3.33) units vs -2.17 (11.45) units, p = 0.012). Hypoglycaemic episodes were not significant in between groups.
CONCLUSION: Metformin showed favourable effect on GV in overweight/obese T1DM patients and reduction in systolic blood pressure, TDD insulin, fasting venous glucose and fructosamine.