Monogenic diabetes in children and young adults: Challenges for researcher, clinician and patient

Monogenic diabetes results from one or more mutations in a single gene which might hence be rare but has great impact leading to diabetes at a very young age. It has resulted in great challenges for researchers elucidating the aetiology of diabetes and related features in other organ systems, for clinicians specifying a diagnosis that leads to improved genetic counselling, predicting of clinical course and changes in treatment, and for patients to altered treatment that has lead to coming off insulin and injections with no alternative (Glucokinase mutations), insulin injections being replaced by tablets (e.g. low dose in HNFα or high dose in potassium channel defects -Kir6.2 and SUR1) or with tablets in addition to insulin (e.g. metformin in insulin resistant syndromes). Genetic testing requires guidance to test for what gene especially given limited resources. Monogenic diabetes should be considered in any diabetic patient who has features inconsistent with their current diagnosis (unspecified neonatal diabetes, type 1 or type 2 diabetes) and clinical features of a specific subtype of monogenic diabetes (neonatal diabetes, familial diabetes, mild hyperglycaemia, syndromes). Guidance is given by clinical and physiological features in patient and family and the likelihood of the proposed mutation altering clinical care. In this article, I aimed to provide insight in the genes and mutations involved in insulin synthesis, secretion, and resistance, and to provide guidance for genetic testing by showing the clinical and physiological features and tests for each specified diagnosis as well as the opportunities for treatment

Effect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the long-term effect on cardiovascular events of adding sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 14,671 patients to add either sitagliptin or placebo to their existing therapy. Open-label use of antihyperglycemic therapy was encouraged as required, aimed at reaching individually appropriate glycemic targets in all patients. To determine whether sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo, we used a relative risk of 1.3 as the marginal upper boundary. The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.0 years, there was a small difference in glycated hemoglobin levels (least-squares mean difference for sitagliptin vs. placebo, -0.29 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.32 to -0.27). Overall, the primary outcome occurred in 839 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.4%; 4.06 per 100 person-years) and 851 patients in the placebo group (11.6%; 4.17 per 100 person-years). Sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.09; P<0.001). Rates of hospitalization for heart failure did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.20; P = 0.98). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of acute pancreatitis (P = 0.07) or pancreatic cancer (P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, adding sitagliptin to usual care did not appear to increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, or other adverse events