Obesity-associated metabolic illnesses are increasing at an alarming rate in Asian countries. A common feature observed in the Asian population is a higher incidence of abdominal obesity-the "skinny-fat" Asian syndrome. In this review, we critically evaluate the relative roles of genetics and environmental factors on fat distribution in Asian populations. While there is an upward trend in obesity among most Asian countries, it appears particularly conspicuous in Malaysia. We propose a novel theory, the Malaysian gene-environment multiplier hypothesis, which explains how ancestral variations in feast-and-famine cycles contribute to inherited genetic predispositions that, when acted on by modern-day stressors-most notably, urbanization, westernization, lifestyle changes, dietary transitions, cultural pressures, and stress-contribute to increased visceral adiposity in Asian populations. At present, the major determinants contributing to visceral adiposity in Asians are far from conclusive, but we seek to highlight critical areas for further research.
The ultimate purpose of diabetes care is achieving the outcomes that patients regard as important throughout the life course. Despite advances in pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, psychoeducational programs, information technologies, and digital health, the levels of treatment target achievement in people with diabetes mellitus (DM) have remained suboptimal. This clinical care of people with DM is highly challenging, complex, costly, and confounded for patients, physicians, and healthcare systems. One key underlying problem is clinical inertia in general and therapeutic inertia (TI) in particular. TI refers to healthcare providers' failure to modify therapy appropriately when treatment goals are not met. TI therefore relates to the prescribing decisions made by healthcare professionals, such as doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. The known causes of TI include factors at the level of the physician (50%), patient (30%), and health system (20%). Although TI is often multifactorial, the literature suggests that 28% of strategies are targeted at multiple levels of causes, 38% at the patient level, 26% at the healthcare professional level, and only 8% at the healthcare system level. The most effective interventions against TI are shorter intervals until revisit appointments and empowering nurses, diabetes educators, and pharmacists to review treatments and modify prescriptions.