Displaying all 6 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Teoh ST, Hussain S, Hong JYH
    J ASEAN Fed Endocr Soc, 2022;37(2):49-59.
    PMID: 36578892 DOI: 10.15605/jafes.037.02.08
    OBJECTIVES: This study described and compared glycaemic changes with the use of the following Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) metrics: time in range, time in hyperglycaemia and time in hypoglycaemia from retrospective CGM data among children and adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM), before and during Ramadan to better understand the impact of fasting during this season.

    METHODOLOGY: This study was conducted in 2 tertiary centres: Hospital Putrajaya (HPJ) and Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM) from February to May 2020. Muslim T1DM patients between ages 8 to18 who intended to fast during Ramadan were given Ramadan-focused education. CGM iPro2® (Medtronic) was used before and during Ramadan, complemented by finger-prick glucose monitoring or self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG).

    RESULTS: Of the 32 patients, only 24 (12 female) were analysed. Mean age was 13.6 ± 3.1 years old, mean HbAlc was 9.6 ± 1.9% and mean duration of illness was 5.4 ± 3.4 years. Majority (91.7%) were on multiple dose injections (MDI) while only 8.3% were on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). All fasted in Ramadan without acute complications. Retrospective CGM analysis revealed similar results in time in range (TIR), time in hyperglycaemia and time in hypoglycaemia before and during Ramadan, indicating no increased hypoglycaemic or hyperglycaemic events related to fasting. Glycaemic variability before Ramadan as measured by the LBGI, HBGI and MAG, were similar to values during Ramadan.

    CONCLUSION: Ramadan fasting among T1DM children and adolescents, by itself, is not associated with short-term glycaemic deterioration. T1DM youths can fast safely in Ramadan with the provision of focused education and regular SMBG.

    Matched MeSH terms: Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods
  2. Bonakdaran SH, Khajeh-Dalouie M
    Med J Malaysia, 2011 Dec;66(5):447-50.
    PMID: 22390099
    OBJECTIVE: Safety of fasting in Ramadan for diabetic patients is not clearly known. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of fasting on glycemic excursions by continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS).
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pilot, observational study conducted in the Endocrine Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IRAN, in Ramadan 2008. Seventeen well controlled patients with diabetes type 2 who were taking oral agents underwent 72 hour monitoring of glycemic excursions by CGMS one month before Ramadan and during Ramadan. The extent and duration of hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic events were evaluated and compared.
    RESULTS: A significant reduction in hyperglycemic events was observed during Ramadan. The extent and duration of hypoglycemic events was not significantly different between two states (Ramadan and before). A significant increase in number of hypoglycemic events in Ramadan was found in patients who take sulfonylurea compared with those who take only metformin.
    CONCLUSION: Fasting in Ramadan can be safe for well controlled patients with type 2 diabetes.
    Matched MeSH terms: Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods*
  3. Bukhsh A, Lee SWH, Pusparajah P, Schmitt A, Khan TM
    Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2017 Oct 12;15(1):200.
    PMID: 29025432 DOI: 10.1186/s12955-017-0776-8
    BACKGROUND: Numerous study tools on diabetes self-care have been introduced; however, most existing tools do not show expectable and meaningful correlations with patients' glycaemic control. The Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) was designed to appraise self-care activities which can predict glycaemic control outcomes. However, this tool has not been validated in Pakistan. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate and examine the psychometric properties of the Urdu version of DSMQ among type 2 diabetes patients.

    METHOD: Standard forward-backward translation was used to translate the DSMQ into Urdu language. A convenience sample of 130 patients with type 2 diabetes was collected to assess the Urdu version's psychometric properties. Reliability was assessed by Cronbach's coefficient α and validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis and criterion-related correlations.

    RESULTS: High internal consistency was found for all DSMQ scales (Sum scale: α = 0.96, Glucose Management: 0.91; Dietary Control: 0.88; Physical Activity: 0.89; Health-Care Use: 0.73). The DSMQ subscales showed significant correlations with HbA1c (Glucose Management: -0.75; Dietary Control: -0.76; Physical Activity: -0.71; Health-Care Use: -0.64; Sum Scale: -0.78; all p  0.05). Adequate fit to the data was achieved for single factor model after successively modelling all significant correlations between the items' error terms, with Chi2 = 106.6, df = 84, p = 0.049; TLI = 0.98, CFI = 0.99 and RMSEA = 0.05 (90% CI 0.01-0.07). Whereas a comparatively lower fit indices to data were observed in case of four factor model.

    CONCLUSION: The findings support the Urdu version of the DSMQ as a reliable and valid instrument for assessing self-care activities associated with glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes patients.
    Matched MeSH terms: Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods*
  4. Paramasivam SS, Chinna K, Singh AKK, Ratnasingam J, Ibrahim L, Lim LL, et al.
    Diabet Med, 2018 08;35(8):1118-1129.
    PMID: 29663517 DOI: 10.1111/dme.13649
    AIMS: To determine if therapeutic, retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves HbA1c with less hypoglycaemia in women with insulin-treated gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

    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

    Matched MeSH terms: Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods
  5. Lee JY, Wong CP, Tan CSS, Nasir NH, Lee SWH
    Sci Rep, 2017 08 31;7(1):10119.
    PMID: 28860546 DOI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC55790
    We determined the impact of a remote blood glucose telemonitoring program with feedback in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients fasting during Ramadan compared to conventional self-monitoring method. A twelve-week cluster randomised study, with 85 participants who wish to fast for at least 15 days during Ramadan was conducted. Self-measurement and transmission of blood glucose results were performed six times daily during Ramadan. Results were transmitted to a secure website for review with feedback from case manager if necessary. The control group received usual care. The main outcome was the number of participants experiencing hypoglycaemia during Ramadan and at the end of the study. During Ramadan, the number of participants reporting hypoglycaemia was significantly lower in the telemonitoring group [Odds ratio (OR): 0.186, 95% confidence interval: 0.04-0.936; p = 0.04]. Similarly, the proportion of participants reporting symptomatic hypoglycaemia at the end of the study was significantly lower in the telemonitoring group (OR: 0.257, 95% CI: 0.07-0.89; p = 0.03). A reduction of 1.07% in glycated haemoglobin levels was observed in the telemonitoring group compared to 0.24% in the control group (p 
    Matched MeSH terms: Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods*
  6. Moy FM, Ray A, Buckley BS, West HM
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017 Jun 11;6(6):CD009613.
    PMID: 28602020 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009613.pub3
    BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is recommended as a key component of the management plan for diabetes therapy during pregnancy. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of various techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear.

    OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

    SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.

    SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

    MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.

    AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.

    Matched MeSH terms: Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods*
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links