METHODS: Patients who were 10 to less than 17 years of age were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive subcutaneous liraglutide (up to 1.8 mg per day) or placebo for a 26-week double-blind period, followed by a 26-week open-label extension period. Inclusion criteria were a body-mass index greater than the 85th percentile and a glycated hemoglobin level between 7.0 and 11.0% if the patients were being treated with diet and exercise alone or between 6.5 and 11.0% if they were being treated with metformin (with or without insulin). All the patients received metformin during the trial. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level after 26 weeks. Secondary end points included the change in fasting plasma glucose level. Safety was assessed throughout the course of the trial.
RESULTS: Of 135 patients who underwent randomization, 134 received at least one dose of liraglutide (66 patients) or placebo (68 patients). Demographic characteristics were similar in the two groups (mean age, 14.6 years). At the 26-week analysis of the primary efficacy end point, the mean glycated hemoglobin level had decreased by 0.64 percentage points with liraglutide and increased by 0.42 percentage points with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -1.06 percentage points (P<0.001); the difference increased to -1.30 percentage points by 52 weeks. The fasting plasma glucose level had decreased at both time points in the liraglutide group but had increased in the placebo group. The number of patients who reported adverse events was similar in the two groups (56 [84.8%] with liraglutide and 55 [80.9%] with placebo), but the overall rates of adverse events and gastrointestinal adverse events were higher with liraglutide.
CONCLUSIONS: In children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes, liraglutide, at a dose of up to 1.8 mg per day (added to metformin, with or without basal insulin), was efficacious in improving glycemic control over 52 weeks. This efficacy came at the cost of an increased frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; Ellipse ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01541215.).
CASE PRESENTATION: We describe here three cases of type 2 diabetic patients that have rapid renal deterioration with rate of decline 46 - 60 mL/min per 1.73m2 per year. All the patients are heavily nephrotic. All of the renal biopsies done showed the classical diabetic changes, hypertensive changes, diffuse tubulointerstitial damage, and interstitial nephritis. All of the patients admitted to taking various form of traditional medications in hope of curing their renal disease.
CONCLUSION: We wish to highlight that type 2 diabetics with massive nephrotic range proteinuria have enhanced risk of rapid renal function deterioration. The patients should be educated about the risks of rapid renal function deterioration when there is presence of heavy proteinuria. High grade proteinuria is likely to inflict the diffuse tubulointerstitial inflammation. The interstitial nephritis could be further worsened by traditional supplements consumption. Timely health education and advice must be undertaken to retard this unwanted rapid renal disease progression.
AREAS COVERED: We discussed various aspects of pharmacotherapeutic management in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: (i) susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 among individuals with diabetes, (ii) glycemic goals for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes, (iii) pharmacological treatment considerations for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes.
EXPERT OPINION: The glycemic goals in patients with COVID-19 and concurrent type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are to avoid disruption of stable metabolic state, maintain optimal glycemic control, and prevent adverse glycemic events. Patients with T1DM require insulin therapy at all times to prevent ketosis. The management strategies for patients with T2DM include temporary discontinuation of certain oral antidiabetic agents and consideration for insulin therapy. Patients with T2DM who are relatively stable and able to eat regularly may continue with oral antidiabetic agents if glycemic control is satisfactory. Hyperglycemia may develop in patients with systemic corticosteroid treatment and should be managed upon accordingly.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Science Direct databases for articles that included the component of nutrition for adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), published in English between 2010 and 2020.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the criteria. Eight of 14 studies had an intervention with a control arm. In comparison to the control group, all studies (n = 8) showed a reduction in hypoglycemic events. However, only half of these studies (n = 4) had shown at least one positive clinical outcome. Features of nutrition therapy that appeared to have favorable clinical outcomes include individualized caloric prescription; distributing carbohydrates equally between Suhoor, Iftar and snacks; providing meal plans; adjusting food intake to suit Ramadan; and incorporating diabetes-specific formula as part of Suhoor or snack.
CONCLUSIONS: The review provides evidence for the effectiveness of Ramadan-focused nutrition therapy among people with T2D and identifies key features of nutrition therapy that may provide favourable clinical outcomes. Additional data on dietary quality and adequacy during Ramadan fasting warrants further studies.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mormodica charantia for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched, among these were The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SIGLE and LILACS (all up to February 2012), combined with handsearches. No language restriction was used.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared momordica charantia with placebo or a control intervention, with or without pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. Risk of bias of the trials was evaluated using the parameters of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias. A meta-analysis was not performed given the quality of data and the variability of preparations of momordica charantia used in the interventions (no similar preparation was tested twice).
MAIN RESULTS: Four randomised controlled trials with up to three months duration and investigating 479 participants met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias of these trials (only two studies were published as a full peer-reviewed publication) was generally high. Two RCTs compared the effects of preparations from different parts of the momordica charantia plant with placebo on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. There was no statistically significant difference in the glycaemic control with momordica charantia preparations compared to placebo. When momordica charantia was compared to metformin or glibenclamide, there was also no significant change in reliable parameters of glycaemic control. No serious adverse effects were reported in any trial. No trial investigated death from any cause, morbidity, health-related quality of life or costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence on the effects of momordica charantia for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Further studies are therefore required to address the issues of standardization and the quality control of preparations. For medical nutritional therapy, further observational trials evaluating the effects of momordica charantia are needed before RCTs are established to guide any recommendations in clinical practice.
METHODS: A 6-month parallel multicenter two-arm, single-blind randomized controlled trial involving 14 pharmacists at seven primary care clinics was conducted in Johor, Malaysia. Pharmacists without prior specialized diabetes training were trained to use the tool. Patients were randomized within each center to either Simpler care (SC), receiving care from pharmacists who used the tool (n =55), or usual care (UC), receiving usual care and dispensing services (n = 69).
RESULTS: Compared with UC, SC significantly reduced HbA1c (mean reduction 1.59% [95% confidence interval {CI} -2.2, -0.9] vs 0.25% [95% CI -0.62, 0.11], respectively; P ≤ 0.001), and significantly improved systolic BP (-6.28 mmHg [95% CI -10.5, 2.0] vs 0.26 mmHg [95% CI -3.74, 0.43], respectively; P = 0.005). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the SC than UC arm reached the Malaysian guideline treatment goals for HbA1c (14.3% vs 1.5%; P = 0.020), systolic BP (80% vs 42%; P = 0.001), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (60.5% vs 40.4%; P = 0.046).
CONCLUSIONS: Using the Simpler tool facilitated the delivery of comprehensive evidence-based diabetes management and significantly improved clinical outcomes. The Simpler tool supported pharmacists in providing enhanced structured diabetes care.