Diabesity in the Arabian Gulf: Challenges and Opportunities

Diabesity (diabetes associated with obesity) is a major global and local public health concern, which has almost reached an epidemic order of magnitude in the countries of the Arabian Gulf and worldwide. We sought to review the lifestyle trends in this region and to highlight the challenges and opportunities that health care professionals face and attempt to address and correct them. In this regard, we aimed to review the regional data and widely held expert opinions in the Arabian Gulf and provide a thematic review of the size of the problem of diabesity and its risk factors, challenges, and opportunities. We also wished to delineate the barriers to health promotion, disease prevention, and identify social customs contributing to these challenges. Lastly, we wished to address specific problems with particular relevance to the region such as minimal exercise and unhealthy nutrition, concerns during pregnancy, the subject of childhood obesity, the impact of Ramadan fasting, and the expanding role of bariatric surgery. Finally, general recommendations for prevention, evidence-based, and culturally competent management strategies are presented to be considered at the levels of the individual, community, and policymakers

Blood Group and Response to Bariatric Surgery in Morbidly Obese Patients: A Retrospective Study in Saudi Arabia

Objectives: To explore the relationship between the blood group of patients and their response to bariatric surgery and to identify predictors of better outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity between 2014 and 2020 at King Saud University Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Results: This study included 1434 individuals. The mean change in BMI (pre- versus post-BMI) differed statistically significantly between blood groups (p ≤ 0.01). The greatest drop in body weight was seen in individuals with the AB-negative blood type (56.0 (21.4) kg), which corresponds to the greatest percentage of reduction from baseline (47.7% (14.8)). The mean BMI of the patients decreased by 34.7% (9.2) from a mean pre-operation BMI of 45.5 (8.4) kg/m2 to 29.7 (6.1) kg/m2 (p ≤ 0.001). After laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, male patients and those with the B-negative blood type are more likely to see a greater BMI reduction (pre-operation compared to post-operation) (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions: For morbidly obese patients, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy demonstrated promising weight loss outcomes. Blood groups may be able to predict the success rate of bariatric surgery in morbidly obese patients

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population

Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics in Evaluation of LIXisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome, a long-term cardiovascular end point trial of lixisenatide versus placebo

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Furthermore, patients with T2DM and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have a particularly high risk of CV events. The glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, lixisenatide, improves glycemia, but its effects on CV events have not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: ELIXA (www.clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT01147250) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study of lixisenatide in patients with T2DM and a recent ACS event. The primary aim is to evaluate the effects of lixisenatide on CV morbidity and mortality in a population at high CV risk. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of time to CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Data are systematically collected for safety outcomes, including hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, and malignancy. RESULTS: Enrollment began in July 2010 and ended in August 2013; 6,068 patients from 49 countries were randomized. Of these, 69% are men and 75% are white; at baseline, the mean ± SD age was 60.3 ± 9.7 years, body mass index was 30.2 ± 5.7 kg/m(2), and duration of T2DM was 9.3 ± 8.2 years. The qualifying ACS was a myocardial infarction in 83% and unstable angina in 17%. The study will continue until the positive adjudication of the protocol-specified number of primary CV events. CONCLUSION: ELIXA will be the first trial to report the safety and efficacy of a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist in people with T2DM and high CV event risk