Risk factors and classification of diabetes in South Africa.

Masters Degree. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban.Diabetes prevalence has been seen to be on the increase in recent years, globally and in South Africa. The number of people with diabetes globally has risen from 108 million in 1980 to 442 million in 2014. It was estimated that, of the 1.8 million people between 20 and 79 years old with diabetes in South Africa in 2017, 84.8% were undiagnosed. Diabetes was the 2nd leading underlying cause of death in South Africa in 2016. Identifying risk factors for diabetes will assist in raising public awareness and assist public authorities to develop prevention programs. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and risk factors associated with diabetes in the South African population aged 15 years and older, as well as explore various statistical methods of classifying a person’s diabetic status. This study made use of the South African Demographic Health Survey 2016 data which involved a two-stage sampling design. The study participants included 6442 individuals aged 15 years and older. Of the individuals sampled, 11%, 67% and 22% were found to be non-diabetic, pre-diabetic and diabetic, respectively. Classification methods, namely, a decision tree, random forest and Bayesian neural network, were used to assess classification of diabetic status based on the risk factors. Of the classification methods, the Bayesian neural network gave the highest accuracy (75.9%). These methods however, failed to account for the complex survey design and sampling weights. In addition, these methods are not able to provide the estimated effect that a risk factor has on the diabetic status. Regression models were employed to identify the significant risk factors. Due to the ordinal nature of diabetic status, initially the proportional odds model was fit. However, the proportional odds assumption was found to be violated. A multinomial generalized linear mixed model was fitted to account for the complexity of the design. However, the model’s residuals were found to be spatially autocorrelated. Accordingly, a spatial generalized additive mixed model, which accounts for the complexity of the survey structure as well as incorporates nonlinear spatial effects, was adopted. The highest accuracy from the regression models considered was obtained from this adjusted surface correlation model (accuracy = 70.8%). Individuals of the Black/African race were more likely to be diabetic (OR = 1.429; 95% CI: 1.032-1.978) than other races. Individuals taking high blood pressure medication were 1.444 times more likely to be diabetic than pre-diabetic (95% CI: 1.167-1.786) compared to those not taking high blood pressure medication.Author's note about publications is on page i

Assessment of prevalence and risk factors of diabetes and pre‑diabetes in South Africa

AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS : This study utilized existing survey datasets that are in the public domain and freely available from https://www.dhsprogram.com/data/dataset_admin/ login_main.cfm with the permission from the DHS Program.BACKGROUND : Diabetes prevalence, as well as that of pre-diabetes, is rapidly increasing in South Africa. Individuals with pre-diabetes have a high risk of developing type 2 diabetes, which is reversible with a change in lifestyle. If left untreated, diabetes can lead to serious health complications. Our objective was to assess the prevalence of diabetes and pre-diabetes, and to investigate the associated risk factors of each in the South African population. METHOD : This study made use of the South African Demographic Health Survey 2016 data. The study participants included 6442 individuals aged 15 years and older. A generalized additive mixed model was employed to account for the complex survey design of the study as well as well spatial autocorrelation in the data. RESULTS : The observed prevalence of pre-diabetes and diabetes was 67% and 22%, respectively. Among those who had never been tested for diabetes prior to the survey, 10% of females and 6% of males were found to be diabetic, and 67% of both males and females were found to be pre-diabetic. Thus, a large proportion of the South African population remains undiagnosed. The model revealed both common and uncommon factors significantly associated with pre-diabetes and diabetes. This highlights the importance of considering diabetic status as a three-level categorical outcome, rather than binary. In addition, significant interactions between some of the lifestyle factors, demographic factors and anthropometric measures were revealed, which indicates that the effects each these factors have on the likelihood of an individual being pre-diabetic or diabetic is confounded by other factors. CONCLUSION : The risk factors for diabetes and pre-diabetes are many and complicated. Individuals need to be aware of their diabetic status before health complications arise. It is therefore important for all stakeholders in government and the private sector of South Africa to get involved in providing education and creating awareness about diabetes. Regular testing of diabetes, as well as leading a healthy lifestyle, should be encouraged.The South African Medical Research Council through its Division of Research Capacity Development under the Biostatistics Capacity Development partnership with the Belgian Development Agency (Enabel) under its framework of Building Academic Partnerships for Economic Development (BAPED).am2023Statistic

Normative Scores for CrossFit^® Open Workouts: 2011–2022

To create normative scores for all CrossFit® Open (CFO) workouts and compare male and female performances, official scores were collected from the official competition leaderboard for all competitors of the 2011–2022 CFO competitions. Percentiles were calculated for athletes (18–54 years) who completed all workouts within a single year ‘as prescribed’ and met minimum scoring thresholds. Independent t-tests revealed significant (p small to large differences (d = 0.22–0.81), whereas women completed more repetitions in 6 workouts by small to medium differences (d = 0.36–0.77). When workouts were scored by time to completion, men were faster in 10 workouts by small to large differences (d = 0.23–1.12), while women were faster in 3 workouts by small differences (d = 0.46). In three workouts scored by load lifted, men lifted more weight by large differences (d = 2.00–2.98). All other differences were either trivial or not significant. Despite adjusted programming for men and women, the persistence of performance differences across all CFO workouts suggests that resultant challenges are not the same. These normative values may be useful for training and research in male and female CrossFit® athletes

Normative Scores for CrossFit® Open Workouts: 2011–2022

To create normative scores for all CrossFit® Open (CFO) workouts and compare male and female performances, official scores were collected from the official competition leaderboard for all competitors of the 2011–2022 CFO competitions. Percentiles were calculated for athletes (18–54 years) who completed all workouts within a single year ‘as prescribed’ and met minimum scoring thresholds. Independent t-tests revealed significant (p < 0.05) sex differences for 56 of 60 workouts. In workouts scored by repetitions completed, men completed more repetitions in 18 workouts by small to large differences (d = 0.22–0.81), whereas women completed more repetitions in 6 workouts by small to medium differences (d = 0.36–0.77). When workouts were scored by time to completion, men were faster in 10 workouts by small to large differences (d = 0.23–1.12), while women were faster in 3 workouts by small differences (d = 0.46). In three workouts scored by load lifted, men lifted more weight by large differences (d = 2.00–2.98). All other differences were either trivial or not significant. Despite adjusted programming for men and women, the persistence of performance differences across all CFO workouts suggests that resultant challenges are not the same. These normative values may be useful for training and research in male and female CrossFit® athletes

Outcomes and Adverse Effects of Baricitinib Versus Tocilizumab in the Management of Severe COVID-19∗

Objectives: The National Institutes of Health and Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend tocilizumab or baricitinib in the management of severe COVID-19. Despite clinical trials on the individual agents, there are no large-scale studies comparing the two agents to guide the selection of one versus the other. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes and adverse effects of baricitinib versus tocilizumab in the management of severe COVID-19. Design: Retrospective, observational cohort study. Setting: Eleven acute care hospitals in a large health system in Georgia. Patients: Adult patients with severe COVID-19 who received at least one dose of either baricitinib or tocilizumab between June 2021 and October 2021. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The key secondary outcome was occurrence rate of adverse effects. A total of 956 patients were identified. The median age was 57 years, and 53% were of male sex. The median body mass index was 33.5, and more than 94% of the population was unvaccinated. Propensity score matching by baseline characteristics resulted in a total of 582 patients, 291 in each group. There was no difference in mortality between the two groups; however, the occurrence rate of adverse effects was significantly higher in the tocilizumab group compared with baricitinib: secondary infections (32% vs 22%; p \u3c 0.01); thrombotic events (24% vs 16%; p \u3c 0.01); and acute liver injury (8% vs 3%; p \u3c 0.01). Conclusions: Our propensity score-matched, retrospective, observational study in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 showed no difference in mortality but significantly fewer adverse effects with baricitinib compared with tocilizumab. Our data suggest that baricitinib may be a better choice when treating patients with severe COVID-19, but additional prospective, randomized trials are needed to help clinicians choose the most optimal drug