METHODS: Fifty overweight/obese individuals aged 22-29 years were assigned to either no-exercise control (n=25) or HIIT (n=25) group. The HIIT group underwent a 12-week intervention, three days/week, with intensity of 65-80% of age-based maximum heart rate. Anthropometric measurements, homeostatic model of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and gene expression analysis were conducted at baseline and post intervention.
RESULTS: Significant time-by-group interactions (p<0.001) were found for body weight, BMI, waist circumference and body fat percentage. The HIIT group had lower body weight (2.3%, p<0.001), BMI (2.7%, p<0.001), waist circumference (2.4%, p<0.001) and body fat percentage (4.3%, p<0.001) post intervention. Compared to baseline, expressions of PGC-1∝ and AdipoR1 were increased by approximately three-fold (p=0.019) and two-fold (p=0.003) respectively, along with improved insulin sensitivity (33%, p=0.019) in the HIIT group.
CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that HIIT possibly improved insulin sensitivity through modulation of PGC-1∝ and AdipoR1. This study also showed that improved metabolic responses can occur despite modest reduction in body weight in overweight/obese individuals undergoing HIIT intervention.
OBJECTIVE: To discover genetic variants associated with HbA1c level in nondiabetic Malay individuals.
DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis for HbA1c using 2 Malay studies, the Singapore Malay Eye Study (SiMES, N = 1721 on GWAS array) and the Living Biobank study (N = 983 on GWAS array and whole-exome sequenced). We built a Malay-specific reference panel to impute ethnic-specific variants and validate the associations with HbA1c at ethnic-specific variants.
RESULTS: Meta-analysis of the 1000 Genomes imputed array data identified 4 loci at genome-wide significance (P
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.
METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines to investigate the postoperative impact on diabetes resolution following LVSG versus LRYGB.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving a total of 732 patients (LVSG n = 365, LRYGB n = 367) met inclusion criteria. Significant diabetes resolution or improvement was reported with both procedures across all time points. Similarly, measures of glycemic control (HbA1C and fasting blood glucose levels) improved with both procedures, with earlier improvements noted in LRYGB that stabilized and did not differ from LVSG at 12 months postoperatively. Early improvements in measures of insulin resistance in both procedures were also noted in the studies that investigated this.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative type 2 diabetes in obese patients during the reported 3- to 5-year follow-up periods. However, further studies are required before longer-term outcomes can be elucidated. Areas identified that need to be addressed for future studies on this topic include longer follow-up periods, standardized definitions and time point for reporting, and financial analysis of outcomes obtained between surgical procedures to better inform procedure selection.