METHODS: This was an analytical cross sectional study. Ethics approval was obtained and informed consent was given by all participants. Anthropometric measurements, blood pressure, fasting blood glucose and lipid profile were taken following standard protocols.
RESULTS: Metabolic Syndrome was diagnosed in 41.4% and 38.2% participants using the modified NCEP and IDF criteria respectively. Among those diagnosed with Metabolic Syndrome by modified NCEP, 7.6% were missed by the IDF criteria. Participants diagnosed by the modified NCEP criteria had lower BMI and waist circumference but had higher cardiometabolic risks than those diagnosed with both criteria. Their blood pressure, glucose, total cholesterol and triglyceride were more adverse than the IDF group. This demonstrated that central obesity may not be a prerequisite for the development of increased cardiometabolic risks within this Malay cohort.
CONCLUSION: Metabolic syndrome is common in this Malay cohort regardless of the criterion used. The modified NCEP ATP III criteria may be more suitable in diagnosis of metabolic syndrome for this Malay cohort.
Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies published from their starting dates to Aug 7, 2018. The sex-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and their pooled ratio (women vs men) of all-cause and CHD mortality associated with type 2 diabetes were obtained through an inverse variance-weighted random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were used to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity.
Results: The 35 analyzed prospective cohort studies included 2 314 292 individuals, among whom 254 038 all-cause deaths occurred. The pooled women vs men ratio of the HRs for all-cause and CHD mortality were 1.17 (95% CI: 1.12-1.23, I2 = 81.6%) and 1.97 (95% CI: 1.49-2.61, I2 = 86.4%), respectively. The pooled estimate of the HR for all-cause mortality was approximately 1.30 in articles in which the duration of follow-up was longer than 10 years and 1.10 in articles in which the duration of follow-up was less than 10 years. The pooled HRs for all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes was 2.33 (95% CI: 2.02-2.69) in women and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.72-2.12) in men, compared with their healthy counterparts.
Conclusions: The effect of diabetes on all-cause and CHD mortality is approximately 17 and 97% greater, respectively, for women than for men.
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.
Subjects and methods: Sixty T2DM patients were recruited in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, and multicenter trial. The patients, currently using Met, were randomly grouped into those treated with either GKB extract (120 mg/day) or placebo (starch, 120 mg/day) for 90 days. Blood glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting serum glucose, serum insulin, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), insulin resistance, and visceral adiposity index (VAI) were determined before (baseline) and after 90 days of GKB extract treatment.
Results: GKB extract significantly decreased blood HbA1c (7.7%±1.2% vs baseline 8.6%±1.6%, P<0.001), fasting serum glucose (154.7±36.1 mg/dL vs baseline 194.4±66.1 mg/dL, P<0.001) and insulin (13.4±7.8 μU/mL vs baseline 18.5±8.9 μU/mL, P=0.006) levels, BMI (31.6±5.1 kg/m2 vs baseline 34.0±6.0 kg/m2, P<0.001), waist WC (102.6±10.5 cm vs baseline 106.0±10.9 cm, P<0.001), and VAI (158.9±67.2 vs baseline 192.0±86.2, P=0.007). GKB extract did not negatively impact the liver, kidney, or hematopoietic functions.
Conclusion: GKB extract as an adjuvant was effective in improving Met treatment outcomes in T2DM patients. Thus, it is suggested that GKB extract is an effective dietary supplement for the control of DM in humans.
FINDINGS: A total of 274 venous blood was collected from normal healthy adults during the community screening programmes. The performance of POC devices, Afinion and Quo-test were compared to central laboratory HPLC method; Adams A1c HA 8160. Both POC devices showed good correlation to HA 8160 with r = 0.94 (p < 0.001) and r = 0.95 (p < 0.001) for Afinion and Quo-test respectively. The means difference were statistically higher between POC and HA 8160 with 0.23% (95% CI 0.19-0.26, p < 0.001) and 0.29% (95% CI 0.24-0.34, p < 0.001) for Afinion and Quo-test respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Both POC devices could be considered in health clinics for diabetes management but not to be used for the diagnostic purposes.