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.
Methods: A total of 413 individuals (163 men and 250 women) aged 30-60 years were selected by stratified random sampling. The participants had safe alcohol consumption habits (<2 drinks/day) and no symptoms of hepatitis B and C. NAFLD was diagnosed through ultrasound. Blood pressure, anthropometric, and body composition measurements were made and liver function tests were conducted. Biochemical assessments, including the measurement of fasting blood sugar (FBS) and ferritin levels, as well as lipid profile tests were also performed. Metabolic syndrome was evaluated according to the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) criteria.
Results: The overall prevalence of ultrasound-diagnosed NAFLD was 39.3%. The results indicated a significantly higher prevalence of NAFLD in men than in women (42.3% vs 30.4%; P < 0.05). Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the significant variables as NAFLD predictors. Overall, male gender, high body mass index (BMI), high alanine aminotransferase (ALT), high FBS, and high ferritin were identified as the predictors of NAFLD. The only significant predictors of NAFLD among men were high BMI and high FBS. These predictors were high BMI, high FBS, and high ferritin in women (P < 0.05 for all variables).
Conclusions: The metabolic profile can be used for predicting NAFLD among men and women. BMI, FBS, ALT, and ferritin are the efficient predictors of NAFLD and can be used for NAFLD screening before liver biopsy.
METHODS: A total of 220 T2DM patients from the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia, who had at least one CV complication and who had been taking at least one antidiabetic drug for at least 3 months, were included. The associations of antidiabetics, cardiovascular diseases, laboratory parameters, concurrent medications, comorbidities, demographics, and clinical characteristics with glycemic control were investigated.
RESULTS: Sulfonylureas in combination (P=0.002) and sulfonylurea monotherapy (P<0.001) were found to be associated with good glycemic control, whereas insulin in combination (P=0.051), and combination biguanides and insulin therapy (P=0.012) were found to be associated with poor glycemic control. Stroke (P=0.044) was the only type of CVD that seemed to be significantly associated with good glycemic control. Other factors such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (P=0.026), elderly patients (P=0.018), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (P=0.021), and fasting plasma glucose (P<0.001) were found to be significantly correlated with good glycemic control.
CONCLUSION: Individualized treatment in T2DM patients with CVDs can be supported through a better understanding of the association between glycemic control and CV profiles in T2DM patients.
Materials and Methods: In two tertiary care selected hospitals, the included diabetic patients were randomly divided into two study arms. In the control group, 200 patients who were receiving usual treatment from hospitals were included. However, in the intervention group, those 200 patients who were receiving usual treatment along with counseling sessions from pharmacists under the Diabetes Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic (DMTAC) program were included. The study continued for 1 year, and there were four follow-up visits for both study arms. A prevalidated data collection form was used to measure the improvement in predictors of diabetic foot in included patients. Data were analyzed by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software program, version 24.0.
Results: With the average decrease of 1.97% of HbA1c values in the control group and 3.43% in the intervention group, the univariate and multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant difference between both of the study arms in the improvement of predictors belonging to the diabetic foot (P < 0.05). The proportion of patients without any signs and symptoms of the diabetic foot in the intervention group was 91.7%, which increased from 42.3% at baseline (P < 0.05). However, this proportion in the control group was 76.9% at the fourth follow-up, from 48.3% at baseline (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: A statistically significant reduction in the signs and symptoms of diabetic foot was observed in the intervention group at the end of 1 year. The progression of diabetic foot was significantly decreased in the pharmacist intervention group.
METHODS: DIA-RAMADAN was a real-world, observational, international, non-comparative study. The global study population was divided into three regional subgroups, with data gathered at inclusion 6-8 weeks prior to Ramadan (V0), during Ramadan (4.5 weeks) and 4-6 weeks after Ramadan (V1). Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reporting ≥ 1 symptomatic hypoglycaemic events (HE), which were collected using a patient diary along with other adverse events.
RESULTS: Patient numbers from the three regions were n = 564 (46.5%; Indian sub-continent), n = 354 (29.1%; Middle East) and n = 296 (24.4%; South-East Asia). Patient baseline characteristics, demographics, fasting habits and antidiabetic treatments varied between regions. There were similar proportions of symptomatic HE between regions, with no severe HE. Significant weight reductions were observed in all regions following Ramadan, along with reductions in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose.
CONCLUSION: These real-world study data indicate that gliclazide MR is safe and effective for management of type 2 diabetes during Ramadan in all three regions studied as part of DIA-RAMADAN.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT04132934. INFOGRAPHIC.