The effect of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia on sleep and glycemic outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial

Study objectives: Investigate whether aiding sleep by online cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) can improve glycemic and metabolic control, mood, quality of life (QoL) and insomnia symptoms in people with type 2 diabetes and assess the mediating role of lifestyle factors. Methods: Adults with type 2 diabetes and insomnia symptoms were randomly assigned to CBT-I or care as usual. At baseline, three and six months we assessed HbA1c as primary outcome and glycemic control, metabolic outcomes, sleep, mood and QoL as secondary outcomes. Mixed models were used to determine within-person and between-persons differences in outcomes and mediation analysis for lifestyle factors. Results: We randomized 29 participants to CBT-I and 28 to care as usual. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant differences in glycemic control, metabolic outcomes, anger, distress or QoL, but showed a significantly larger decrease in insomnia (−1.37(2.65: 0.09)) and depressive symptoms (−0.92(-1.77: 0.06)) and increase in BMI (0.29 kg/m2(0.00:0.57)) in the intervention compared to the control group. Only half of the intervention participants completed the CBT-I. Per protocol analysis showed a not statistically significant decrease in HbA1c (−2.10 mmol/l(-4.83:0.63)) and glucose (−0.39 mmol/l(-1.19:0.42)), metabolic outcomes and increase in QoL. Furthermore, the intervention group showed a significant decrease in insomnia (−2.22(-3.65: 0.78)) and depressive symptoms (−1.18(-2.17: 0.19)) compared to the control group. Lifestyle factors partially mediated the effect of the intervention. Conclusions: CBT-I might improve insomnia symptoms and mood, and perhaps improves glycemic control, albeit not significant, in people with type 2 diabetes and insomnia symptoms, compared to care as usual

Genetic studies of abdominal MRI data identify genes regulating hepcidin as major determinants of liver iron concentration

Background & Aims: Excess liver iron content is common and is linked to hepatic and extrahepatic disease risk. We aimed to identify genetic variants influencing liver iron content and use genetics to understand its link to other traits and diseases. Methods: First, we performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) in 8,289 individuals in UK Biobank with MRI quantified liver iron, and validated our findings in an independent cohort (n=1,513 from IMI DIRECT). Second, we used Mendelian randomisation to test the causal effects of 29 predominantly metabolic traits on liver iron content. Third, we tested phenome-wide associations between liver iron variants and 770 anthropometric traits and diseases. Results: We identified three independent genetic variants (rs1800562 (C282Y) and rs1799945 (H63D) in HFE and rs855791 (V736A) in TMPRSS6) associated with liver iron content that reached the GWAS significance threshold (p<5x10-8). The two HFE variants account for ~85% of all cases of hereditary haemochromatosis. Mendelian randomisation analysis provided evidence that higher central obesity plays a causal role in increased liver iron content. Phenome-wide association analysis demonstrated shared aetiopathogenic mechanisms for elevated liver iron, high blood pressure, cirrhosis, malignancies, neuropsychiatric and rheumatological conditions, while also highlighting inverse associations with anaemias, lipidaemias and ischaemic heart disease. Conclusion: Our study provides genetic evidence that mechanisms underlying higher liver iron content are likely systemic rather than organ specific, that higher central obesity is causally associated with higher liver iron, and that liver iron shares common aetiology with multiple metabolic and non-metabolic diseases

Using dynamic vegetation models to simulate plant range shifts

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Sharing data for future research-engaging participants' views about data governance beyond the original project:a DIRECT Study

Purpose: Biomedical data governance strategies should ensure that data are collected, stored, and used ethically and lawfully. However, research participants’ preferences for how data should be governed is least studied. The Diabetes Research on Patient Stratification (DIRECT) project collected substantial amounts of health and genetic information from patients at risk of, and with type II diabetes. We conducted a survey to understand participants’ future data governance preferences. Results will inform the postproject data governance strategy. Methods: A survey was distributed in Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Results: In total 855 surveys were returned. Ninety-seven percent were supportive of sharing data postproject, and 90% were happy to share data with universities, and 56% with commercial companies. The top three priorities for data sharing were highly secure database, DIRECT researchers to monitor data used by other researchers, and researchers cannot identify participants. Respondents frequently suggested that a postproject Data Access Committee should involve a DIRECT researcher, diabetes clinician, patient representative, and a DIRECT participant. Conclusion: Preferences of how data should be governed, and what data could be shared and with whom varied between countries. Researchers are considered as key custodians of participant data. Engaging participants aids in designing governance to support their choices

Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study

Background Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. Methods This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. Results Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI − 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI − 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021)

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

The association between social jetlag and parameters of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aims to determine the association between social jetlag and parameters of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/Embase/Scopus until May 2022. Included studies described an association between social jetlag and parameters of the metabolic syndrome and/or T2D, were available full text and written in English or Dutch. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed on pre-piloted forms independently by two reviewers. Results were meta-analysed using random-effects analysis. A total of 6,290 titles/abstracts were screened, 176 papers were read full-text, 68 studies were included. Three studies were rated as low quality, 27 were moderate, and 38 were high quality. High quality studies showed that having social jetlag compared to no social jetlag was significantly associated with higher body mass index in 20 studies (0.49 kg/m2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21–0.77; I2 = 100%), higher waist circumference in seven studies (1.11 cm, 95% CI 0.42–1.80; I2 = 25%), higher systolic blood pressure in 10 studies (0.37 mmHg, 95% CI 0.00–0.74; I2 = 94%) and higher glycated haemoglobin in 12 studies (0.42%, 95% CI 0.12– 0.72; I2 = 100%). No statistically significant associations were found for obesity, abdominal obesity, high- and low-density lipoprotein levels, cholesterol, triglycerides, diastolic blood pressure, hypertension, fasting glucose, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome or T2D. Sensitivity analyses did not reduce heterogeneity. Despite substantial heterogeneity, social jetlag is associated with certain parameters of the metabolic syndrome and T2D, but not with prevalent metabolic syndrome or T2D. These findings should be interpreted with caution as the level of evidence is low and mostly based on cross-sectional data. Longitudinal studies are needed to further assess the direction of causality

Patient-reported outcome measures for assessing health-related quality of life in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are important tools to assess outcomes relevant to patients, with Health-Related Quality Of Life (HRQOL) as an important construct to be measured. Many different HRQOL PROMs are used in the type 2 diabetes field, however a complete overview of these PROMs is currently lacking. We therefore aimed to systematically describe and classify the content of all PROMs that have specifically been developed or validated to measure (aspects of) HRQOL in people with type 2 diabetes. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE until 31 December 2021. Studies on the development or validation of a PROM measuring HRQOL, or aspects of HRQOL, in people with type 2 diabetes were included. Title and abstract and full-text screening were conducted by two independent researchers and data extraction was performed independently by one of the researchers. Data were extracted on language in which the PROM was developed, target population, construct(s) being measured, names of (sub)scales and number of items per (sub)scale. In addition, all PROMs and subscales were classified according to specific aspects of HRQOL based on the Wilson & Cleary model (symptom status, functional status, general health perceptions) to aid researchers in PROM selection. In total 220 studies were identified that developed or validated PROMs that measure (aspects of) HRQOL in people with type 2 diabetes. Of the 116 unique HRQOL PROMs, 91 (of the subscales) measured symptom status, 60 measured functional status and 26 measured general health perceptions. In addition, 16 of the PROMs (subscales) measured global quality of life. 61 of the 116 PROMs (subscales) also include characteristics of the individual (e.g. aspects of personality, coping) or environment (e.g. social or financial support) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs, e.g. measure of a patient's perception of their personal experience of the healthcare they have received, e.g. treatment satisfaction), which are not part of the HRQOL construct. Only 9 of the 116 PROMs measure all aspects of HRQOL based on the Wilson & Cleary model. Finally, 8 of the 116 PROMs stating to measure HRQOL, measured no HRQOL construct. In conclusion, a large number of PROMs are available for people with type 2 diabetes, which intend to measure (aspects of) HRQOL. These PROMs measure a large variety of (sub)constructs, which are not all HRQOL constructs, with a small amount of PROMs not measuring HRQOL at all. There is a need for consensus on which aspects of HRQOL should be measured in people with type 2 diabetes and which PROMs to use in research and daily practice. PROSPERO: CRD42017071012. COMET database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/956

Motivations for data sharing—views of research participants from four European countries:A DIRECT study

The purpose of this study was to explore and compare different countries in what motivated research participants’ decisions whether to share their de-identified data. We investigated European DIRECT (Diabetes Research on Patient Stratification) research project participants’ desire for control over sharing different types of their de-identified data, and with who data could be shared in the future after the project ends. A cross-sectional survey was disseminated among DIRECT project participants. The results found that there was a significant association between country and attitudes towards advancing research, protecting privacy, and beliefs about risks and benefits to sharing data. When given the choice to have control, some participants (<50% overall) indicated that having control over what data is shared and with whom was important; and control over what data types are shared was less important than respondents deciding who data are shared with. Danish respondents indicated higher odds of desire to control data types shared, and Dutch respondents showed higher odds of desire to control who data will be shared with. Overall, what research participants expect in terms of control over data sharing needs to be considered and aligned with sharing for future research and re-use of data. Our findings show that even with de-identified data, respondents prioritise privacy above all else. This study argues to move research participants from passive participation in biomedical research to considering their opinions about data sharing and control of de-identified biomedical data