METHODS AND FINDINGS: The web-based Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) platform provides a protocol to guide data collection for issuing a personalized JADE report including risk categories (1-4, low-high), 5-year probabilities of cardiovascular-renal events, and trends and targets of 4 risk factors with tailored decision support. The JADE program is a prospective cohort study implemented in a naturalistic environment where patients underwent nurse-led structured evaluation (blood/urine/eye/feet) in public and private outpatient clinics and diabetes centers in Hong Kong. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 16,624 Han Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes who were enrolled in 2007-2015. In the public setting, the non-JADE group (n = 3,587) underwent structured evaluation for risk factors and complications only, while the JADE (n = 9,601) group received a JADE report with group empowerment by nurses. In a community-based, nurse-led, university-affiliated diabetes center (UDC), the JADE-Personalized (JADE-P) group (n = 3,436) received a JADE report, personalized empowerment, and annual telephone reminder for reevaluation and engagement. The primary composite outcome was time to the first occurrence of cardiovascular-renal diseases, all-site cancer, and/or death, based on hospitalization data censored on 30 June 2017. During 94,311 person-years of follow-up in 2007-2017, 7,779 primary events occurred. Compared with the JADE group (136.22 cases per 1,000 patient-years [95% CI 132.35-140.18]), the non-JADE group had higher (145.32 [95% CI 138.68-152.20]; P = 0.020) while the JADE-P group had lower event rates (70.94 [95% CI 67.12-74.91]; P < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the primary composite outcome were 1.22 (95% CI 1.15-1.30) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.66-0.75), respectively, independent of risk profiles, education levels, drug usage, self-care, and comorbidities at baseline. We reported consistent results in propensity-score-matched analyses and after accounting for loss to follow-up. Potential limitations include its nonrandomized design that precludes causal inference, residual confounding, and participation bias.
CONCLUSIONS: ICT-assisted integrated care was associated with a reduction in clinical events, including death in type 2 diabetes in public and private healthcare settings.
BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) account for >95% of bariatric procedures in United States in patients with T2DM. To date, there is no validated model to guide procedure selection based on long-term glucose control in patients with T2DM.
METHODS: A total of 659 patients with T2DM who underwent RYGB and SG at an academic center in the United States and had a minimum 5-year follow-up (2005-2011) were analyzed to generate the model. The validation dataset consisted of 241 patients from an academic center in Spain where similar criteria were applied.
RESULTS: At median postoperative follow-up of 7 years (range 5-12), diabetes remission (HbA1C <6.5% off medications) was observed in 49% after RYGB and 28% after SG (P < 0.001). Four independent predictors of long-term remission including preoperative duration of T2DM (P < 0.0001), preoperative number of diabetes medications (P < 0.0001), insulin use (P = 0.002), and glycemic control (HbA1C < 7%) (P = 0.002) were used to develop the Individualized Metabolic Surgery (IMS) score using a nomogram. Patients were then categorized into 3 stages of diabetes severity. In mild T2DM (IMS score ≤25), both procedures significantly improved T2DM. In severe T2DM (IMS score >95), when clinical features suggest limited functional β-cell reserve, both procedures had similarly low efficacy for diabetes remission. There was an intermediate group, however, in which RYGB was significantly more effective than SG, likely related to its more pronounced neurohormonal effects. Findings were externally validated and procedure recommendations for each severity stage were provided.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported cohort (n = 900) with long-term postoperative glycemic follow-up, which, for the first time, categorizes T2DM into 3 validated severity stages for evidence-based procedure selection.
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.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the updated pooled effects of these polymorphisms with DN among Asian populations with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
METHODS: The PubMed electronic database was searched without duration filter until August 2017 and the reference list of eligible studies was screened. The association of each polymorphism with DN was examined using odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval based on dominant, recessive and allele models. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on region, DN definition and DM duration.
RESULTS: In the main analysis, the ACE I/D (all models) and AGTR1 A1166C (dominant model) showed a significant association with DN. The main analysis of the AGT M235T polymorphism did not yield significant findings. There were significant subgroup differences and indication of significantly higher odds for DN in terms of DM duration (≥10 years) for ACE I/D (all models), AGT M235T (recessive and allele models) and AGTR1 A1166C (recessive model). Significant subgroup differences were also observed for DN definition (advanced DN group) and region (South Asia) for AGTR1 A1166C (recessive model).
CONCLUSION: In the Asian populations, ACE I/D and AGTR1 A1166C may contribute to DN susceptibility in patients with T2DM by different genetic models. However, the role of AGT M235T needs to be further evaluated.