OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on the current status of diabetes in Malaysia, including epidemiology, complications, lifestyle, and pharmacologic treatments, as well as the use of technologies in its management and the adoption of the World Health Organization chronic care model in primary care clinics.
METHODS: A narrative review based on local available health care data, publications, and observations from clinic experience.
FINDINGS: The prevalence of diabetes varies among the major ethnic groups in Malaysia, with Asian Indians having the highest prevalence of T2D, followed by Malays and Chinese. The increase prevalence of overweight and obesity has accompanied the rise in T2D. Multidisciplinary care is available in tertiary and primary care settings with integration of pharmacotherapy, diet, and lifestyle changes. Poor dietary adherence, high consumption of carbohydrates, and sedentary lifestyle are prevalent in patients with T2D. The latest medication options are available with increasing use of intensive insulin regimens, insulin pumps, and continuous glucose monitoring systems for managing glycemic control. A stepwise approach is proposed to expand the chronic care model into an Innovative Care for Chronic Conditions framework to facilitate implementation and realize better outcomes in primary care settings.
CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive strategy and approach has been established by the Malaysian government to improve prevention, treatment, and control of diabetes as an urgent response to this growing chronic disease.
METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled, open-label trial evaluated 50 women with insulin-treated GDM randomized to either retrospective CGM (6-day sensor) at 28, 32 and 36 weeks' gestation (Group 1, CGM, n = 25) or usual antenatal care without CGM (Group 2, control, n = 25). All women performed seven-point capillary blood glucose (CBG) profiles at least 3 days per week and recorded hypoglycaemic events (symptomatic and asymptomatic CBG
Methods: The Iraqi Anti-Diabetic Medication Adherence Scale (IADMAS) consists of eight items. The face and content validity of the IADMAS were established via an expert panel. For convergent validity, the IADMAS was compared with the Medication Adherence Questionnaire (MAQ). For concurrent validity, the IADMAS was compared with glycosylated hemoglobin. A total of 84 patients with types 2 diabetes were recruited from a diabetes center in Baghdad, Iraq. Test-retest reliability was measured by readministering the IADMAS to the same patients 4 weeks later.
Results: Only 80 patients completed the study (response rate: 95%). Reliability analysis of the IADMAS showed a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.712, whereas that of the MAQ was 0.649. All items in the IADMAS showed no significant difference in the test-retest analysis, indicating that the IADMAS has stable reliability. There was no difference in the psychometric properties of the IADMAS and the MAQ. The sensitivity and specificity of the IADMAS were higher than that of the MAQ (100% vs 87.5% and 33.9% vs 29.7%, respectively).
Conclusion: The IADMAS developed in this study is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing antidiabetic medication adherence among Iraqi patients.
METHODS: A cross-sectional investigation was conducted at General Penang Hospital, Malaysia. Demographic criteria and laboratory tests of patients were investigated. Controlled glycemia (CG) was recognized as glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤7% depending on American Diabetes Association guidelines 2018. Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to estimate the confounding influence of co-morbidities and predict ES-10Y. Data was managed by IBM-SPSS 23.0.
RESULTS: A total of 400 cases categorized to (44.25%) patients with CG, and (55.75%) cases had uncontrolled glycemia (UCG). HbA1c mean in CG and UCG group was (6.8 ± 0.9 vs 9.5 ± 1.6, P-value: 0.001). Fasting blood glucose was (7 ± 2.3 vs. 9.9 ± 4.3, P-value: 0.001) in CG and UCG group. CCI was (3.38 ± 2.38 vs. 4.42 ± 2.70, P-value: 0.001) and, ES-10Y was (62% vs 46.2%, p-value: 0.001) in CG vs. UCG respectively. Spearman test indicates a negative correlation between CG and CCI (r: 0.19, p-value: 0.001). Logistic regression confirmed HbA1c as a significant predictor of CCI (r2: 0.036, P-value: 0.001). CG has a positive correlation with survival (r: 0.16, P-value: 0.001) and logistic regression of survival (r2: 0.26, P-value: 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of the investigated persons had UCG. Controlled HbA1c was associated with lower co-morbidities and higher ES-10Y.
METHODS: This is a controlled, intervention based study. It was run on three phases: before, during, and after Ramadan on 262 type 2 diabetes patients. The intervention group (n = 140) received RFEP on medications doses & timing adjustment before and after Ramadan, while the control group (n = 122) received standard care.
RESULTS: The dose of insulin glargine was reduced from 42.51 ± 22.16 at the baseline to 40.11 ± 18.51-units during Ramadan (p = 0.002) in the intervention group while it remained the same in the control group before Ramadan and during Ramadan (38.51 ± 18.63 and 38.14 ± 18.46, P = 0.428, respectively). The hypoglycemia score was 14.2 ± (8.5) pre-Ramadan in the intervention and reduced to 6.36 ± 6.17 during Ramadan (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-four participants, with type 1 (T1D, n = 24), type 2 (T2D, n = 11), or gestational (n = 39) diabetes, were enrolled across 13 sites (9 in United Kingdom, 4 in Austria). Average gestation was 26.6 ± 6.8 weeks (mean ± standard deviation), age was 30.5 ± 5.1 years, diabetes duration was 13.1 ± 7.3 years for T1D and 3.2 ± 2.5 years for T2D, and 49/74 (66.2%) used insulin to manage their diabetes. Sensors were worn for up to 14 days. Sensor glucose values (masked) were compared with capillary SMBG values (made at least 4 times/day).
RESULTS: Clinical accuracy of sensor results versus SMBG results was demonstrated, with 88.1% and 99.8% of results within Zone A and Zones A and B of the Consensus Error Grid, respectively. Overall mean absolute relative difference was 11.8%. Sensor accuracy was unaffected by the type of diabetes, the stage of pregnancy, whether insulin was used, age or body mass index. User questionnaires indicated high levels of satisfaction with sensor wear, system use, and comparison to SMBG. There were no unanticipated device-related adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: Good agreement was demonstrated between the FreeStyle Libre System and SMBG. Accuracy of the system was unaffected by patient characteristics, indicating that the system is safe and accurate to use by pregnant women with diabetes.