MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross sectional prospective study done in 18 public hospitals in Malaysia from 7/4/2019 to 2/7/2019. Data was collected prospectively with universal sampling. All adult Muslim patients with previous diagnosis of diabetes, who were admitted for hypoglycemia, DKA or HHS were included if they had fasted and had intentions to fast.
RESULTS: 295 admissions for diabetes emergencies were analyzed. The pre-Ramadan period recorded the highest number of admissions (119) followed by during (106) and post-Ramadan (70). Admissions for hyperglycemic emergencies accounted for 2/3 of total admissions. 37% of admissions for hypoglycemia occurred during pre-Ramadan period compared to 32.1% during Ramadan. Contributing factors included use of sulphonylurea (59.6%), presence of nephropathy (54.5%) and past history of hypoglycemia (45.5%). Admissions for DKA were more common than HHS (119 versus 77) and highest during Ramadan period (36.1%). Most of the admissions for hyperglycemic emergencies were among those with Type 2 diabetes (75.9% for DKA and 97.4% for HHS). Only 31.5% of patients admitted for diabetes emergencies recalled having received Ramadan advice in the past.
DISCUSSION: Admissions for diabetes emergencies were highest during pre-Ramadan period followed by Ramadan and post-Ramadan period. This suggests that fasting during Ramadan does not increase admissions for diabetes emergencies.
Methodology: We conducted a prospective study in patients with T2DM on twice-daily MHI with or without metformin therapy. Blinded continuous glucose monitoring was performed at baseline and following 6 weeks of Vildagliptin therapy.
Results: Twelve patients with mean (SD) age of 55.8 (13.1) years and duration of disease of 14.0 (6.6) years were recruited. The addition of Vildagliptin significantly reduced GV indices (mmol/L): SD from 2.73 (IQR 2.12-3.66) to 2.11 (1.76-2.55), p=0.015; mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) 6.94(2.61) to 5.72 (1.87), p=0.018 and CV 34.05 (8.76) to 28.19 (5.36), p=0.010. In addition, % time in range (3.9-10 mmol/l) improved from 61.17 (20.50) to 79.67 (15.33)%, p=0.001; % time above range reduced from 32.92 (23.99) to 18.50 (15.62)%, p=0.016; with reduction in AUC for hyperglycemia from 1.24 (1.31) to 0.47 (0.71) mmol/day, p=0.015. Hypoglycemic events were infrequent and the reduction in time below range and AUC for hypoglycemia did not reach statistical significance.
Conclusion: The addition of DPP4-I to commonly prescribed twice-daily MHI in patients with T2DM improves GV and warrants further exploration.
METHODS: Participants were consented to answer a physician-administered questionnaire following Ramadan 2020. Impact of COVID-19 on the decision of fasting, intentions to fast and duration of Ramadan and Shawal fasting, hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia events were assessed. Specific analysis comparing age categories of <65 years and ≥65 years were performed.
RESULTS: Among the 5865 participants, 22.5% were ≥65 years old. Concern for COVID-19 affected fasting decision for 7.6% (≥65 years) vs 5.4% (<65 years). More participants ≥65 years old did not fast (28.8% vs 12.7%, <65 years). Of the 83.6%, participants fulfilling Ramadan-fasting, 94.8% fasted ≥15 days and 12.6% had to break fast due to diabetes-related illness. The average number of days fasting within and post-Ramadan were 27 and 6 days respectively, regardless of age. Hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia occurred in 15.7% and 16.3% of participants respectively, with 6.5% and 7.4% requiring hospital care respectively. SMBG was performed in 73.8% of participants and 43.5% received Ramadan-focused education.
CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, universally high rates of Ramadan-fasting were observed regardless of fasting risk level. Glycemic complications occurred frequently with older adults requiring higher rates of acute hospital care. Risk stratification is essential followed by pre-Ramadan interventions, Ramadan-focused diabetes education and self-monitoring to reduce and prevent complications, with particular emphasis in older adults.
DESIGN: In the present SCOT-PA survey, we have investigated the diversity of approaches utilized for each diagnostic step in different expert centers through a survey using Google questionnaires. A total of 33 centers from 3 continents participated.
RESULTS: We demonstrated a prominent diversity in the conditions of blood sampling, assay methods for aldosterone and renin, and the methods and diagnostic cutoff for screening and confirmatory tests. The most standard measures were modification of antihypertensive medication and sitting posture for blood sampling, measurement of plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) and active renin concentration by chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay, a combination of aldosterone-to-renin ratio with PAC as an index for screening, and saline infusion test in a seated position for confirmatory testing. The cutoff values for screening and confirmatory testing showed significant variation among centers.
CONCLUSIONS: Diversity of the diagnostic steps may lead to an inconsistent diagnosis of PA among centers and limit comparison of evidence for PA between different centers. We expect the impact of this diversity to be most prominent in patients with mild PA. The survey raises 2 issues: the need for standardization of the diagnostic process and revisiting the concept of mild PA. Further standardization of the diagnostic process/criteria will improve the quality of evidence and management of patients with PA.