METHODS: Our study included multinational Muslims with T2DM who were during routine consultation. We collected data on demographics, fasting characteristics, and complications. Descriptive statistics, chi-square test, and multiple testing were performed.
RESULTS: 12,529 patients participated. Mean age was 55.2 ± 11.8 years; 52.4% were females. Mean diabetes duration was 9.9 ± 7.4 years; 27.7% were with HbA1c >9% (75 mmol/mol) and 70% had complications. Metformin was the most used medication followed by insulin. 85.1% fasted ≥1 day; fasting mean duration was 27.6 ± 5.6 days. Hypoglycemia occurred in 15.5% of whom 11.7% attended emergency department or were hospitalized; this was significantly associated with age and/or duration of diabetes. Hyperglycemia occurred in 14.9% of whom 6.1% attended emergency department or were hospitalized and was also associated with age or duration of diabetes. 74.2% performed SMBG during fasting. 59.2% were educated on Ramadan fasting, with 89.7% receiving it during routine consultation.
CONCLUSIONS: Ramadan fasting in T2DM is high. Multidisciplinary approach is required to mitigate complications. Our findings support current recommendations for safe fasting.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to 31 August 2018 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of studies that examined the impact of distal technology and reported any clinical or patient-related outcomes among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
RESULTS: The umbrella review identified 95 reviews, including 162 meta-analyses with 46 unique outcomes. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies supports the use of distal technology, especially telehealth and mHealth (healthcare delivered by mobile technology), in people with diabetes for improving HbA1c values by 2-4 mmol/mol (0.2-0.4%). For other health outcomes, such as changes in fasting plasma glucose levels, risk of diabetic ketoacidosis or frequency of severe hypoglycaemia, the evidence was weaker. No evidence was reported for most patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, self-efficacy and medication-taking. The evidence base was poor, with most studies rated as low to very low quality.
CONCLUSION: Distal technologies were associated with a modest improvement in glycaemic control, but it was unclear if they improved major clinical outcomes or were cost-effective in people with diabetes. More robust research to improve wider outcomes in people with diabetes is needed before such technologies can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.
METHODS: Two reviewers searched MEDLINE for studies of ≥12 weeks duration in adults with type 2 diabetes. The key search word was "gliclazide", filtered with "randomized controlled trial", "human" and "19+ years". Differences were explored in mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline (primary outcome) and risk of hypoglycemia (secondary outcome) between gliclazide and other oral insulinotropic agents; and other sulfonylureas.
RESULTS: Nine out of 181 references reported primary outcomes, of which 7 reported secondary outcomes. Gliclazide lowered HbA1c more than other oral insulinotropic agents, with a weighted mean difference of -0.11% (95%, CI -0.19 to -0.03%, P=0.008, I(2)=60%), though not more than other sulfonylureas (-0.12%; 95%, CI -0.25 to 0.01%, P=0.07, I(2)=77%). Risk of hypoglycemia with gliclazide was not different to other insulinotropic agents (RR 0.85; 95%, CI 0.66 to 1.09, P=0.20, I(2)=61%) but significantly lower than other sulfonylureas (RR 0.47; 95%, CI 0.27 to 0.79, P=0.004, I(2)=0%).
CONCLUSION: Compared with other oral insulinotropic agents, gliclazide significantly reduced HbA1c with no difference regarding hypoglycemia risk. Compared with other sulfonylureas, HbA1c reduction with gliclazide was not significantly different, but hypoglycemia risk was significantly lower.
RESULTS: There were 55.7% females, median age was 58.2 years and median duration of diabetes was 13 years. The majority (79.4%) of patients had poor diabetes control (HbA1c ≥ 7.0%) and 39.6% of patients had low medication adherence. Patients with good glycaemic control had a higher Timeline Acute/Chronic and Emotional Representations score, hence they held the correct belief that diabetes is chronic and experienced negative emotions. Highly adherent patients had a higher Illness Coherence (χ2 = 21.385, p