Citizen Science in Archaeology : Developing a Collaborative Web Service for Archaeological Finds in Finland

Peer reviewe

Glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus during and after cancer treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Cancer and Diabetes Mellitus (DM) are leading causes of death worldwide and the prevalence of both is escalating. People with co-morbid cancer and DM have increased morbidity and premature mortality compared with cancer patients with no DM. The reasons for this are likely to be multifaceted but will include the impact of hypo/hyperglycaemia and diabetes therapies on cancer treatment and disease progression. A useful step toward addressing this disparity in treatment outcomes is to establish the impact of cancer treatment on diabetes control. Aim The aim of this review is to identify and analyse current evidence reporting glycaemic control (HbA1c) during and after cancer treatment. Methods Systematic searches of published quantitative research relating to comorbid cancer and type 2 diabetes mellitus were conducted using databases, including Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science (February 2017). Full text publications were eligible for inclusion if they: were quantitative, published in English language, investigated the effects of cancer treatment on glycaemic control, reported HbA1c (%/mmols/mol) and included adult populations with diabetes. Means, standard deviations and sample sizes were extracted from each paper; missing standard deviations were imputed. The completed datasets were analysed using a random effects model. A mixed-effects analysis was undertaken to calculate mean HbA1c (%/mmols/mol) change over three time periods compared to baseline. Results The available literature exploring glycaemic control post-diagnosis was mixed. There was increased risk of poor glycaemic control during this time if studies of surgical treatment for gastric cancer are excluded, with significant differences between baseline and 12 months (p < 0.001) and baseline and 24 months (p = 0.002). Conclusion We found some evidence to support the contention that glycaemic control during and/or after non-surgical cancer treatment is worsened, and the reasons are not well defined in individual studies. Future studies should consider the reasons why this is the case

Type 2 diabetes mellitus as a risk factor for the onset of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims/hypothesis: An earlier meta-analysis showed that diabetes is a risk factor for the development and/or recurrence of depression. Yet whether this risk is different for studies using questionnaires than for those relying on diagnostic criteria for depression has not been examined. This study examined the association of diabetes and the onset of depression by reviewing the literature and conducting a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies on this topic. Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycInfo were searched for articles published up to September 2009. All studies that examined the relationship between type 2 diabetes and the onset of depression were included. Pooled relative risks were calculated using fixed and random effects models. Results: Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. Based on the pooled data, including 48,808 cases of type 2 diabetes without depression at baseline, the pooled relative risk was 1.24 (95% CI 1.09–1.40) for the random effects model. This risk was significantly higher for studies relying on diagnostic criteria of depression than for studies using questionnaires. However, this difference was no longer significant when controlled for year of publication. Conclusions/interpretation: Compared with non-diabetic controls, people with type 2 diabetes have a 24% increased risk of developing depression. The mechanisms underlying this relationship are still unclear and warrant further research

Ethnic differences in the +405 and -460 vascular endothelial growth factor polymorphisms and peripheral neuropathy in patients with diabetes residing in a North London, community in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: There are marked ethnic differences in the susceptibility to the long-term diabetic vascular complications including sensory neuropathy. The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) +405 (C/G) and -460 (T/C) polymorphisms are associated with retinopathy and possibly with nephropathy, however no information is available on their relationship with peripheral neuropathy. Therefore, we examined the prevalence of these VEGF genotypes in a multi-ethnic cohort of patients with diabetes and their relationship with evident peripheral diabetic neuropathy. METHODS: In the current investigation, we studied 313 patients with diabetes mellitus of African-Caribbean, Indo-Asian and Caucasian ethnic origin residing in an inner-city community in London, United Kingdom attending a single secondary care centre. Genotyping was performed for the VEGF +405 and VEGF -460 polymorphisms using a pyrosequencing technique. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (15.6%) had clinical evidence of peripheral neuropathy. Compared to Caucasian patients, African-Caribbean and Indo-Asian patients had lower incidence of neuropathy (24.6%, 14.28%, 6.7%, respectively; P = 0.04). The frequency of the VEGF +405 GG genotype was more common in Indo-Asian patients compared to African-Caribbean and Caucasian patients (67.5%, 45.3%, 38.4%, respectively; p ≤ 0.02). The G allele was more common in patients with type 2 diabetes of Indo-Asian origin compared to African-Caribbean and Caucasian origin (p ≤ 0.02). There was no difference between the ethnic groups in VEGF -460 genotypes. The distributions of the VEGF +405 and VEGF -460 genotypes were similar between the diabetic patients with and without neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients, VEGF +405 and VEGF -460 polymorphisms were not associated with evident diabetic peripheral neuropathy, however an association was found between VEGF +405 genotypes and Indo-Asian which might have relevance to their lower rates of ulceration and amputation. This finding highlights the need for further investigation of any possible relationship between VEGF genotype, circulating VEGF concentrations and differential vulnerability to peripheral neuropathy amongst diabetic patients of different ethnic backgrounds

Development of a supported self-management intervention for adults with type 2 diabetes and a learning disability

Background: Although supported self-management is a well-recognised part of chronic disease management, it has not been routinely used as part of healthcare for adults with a learning disability. We developed an intervention for adults with a mild or moderate learning disability and type 2 diabetes, building on the principles of supported self-management with reasonable adjustments made for the target population. Methods: In five steps, we: 1. Clarified the principles of supported self-management as reported in the published literature 2. Identified the barriers to effective self-management of type 2 diabetes in adults with a learning disability 3. Reviewed existing materials that aim to support self-management of diabetes for people with a learning disability 4. Synthesised the outputs from the first three phases and identified elements of supported self-management that were (a) most relevant to the needs of our target population and (b) most likely to be acceptable and useful to them 5. Implemented and field tested the intervention Results: The final intervention had four standardised components: (1) establishing the participant’s daily routines and lifestyle, (2) identifying supporters and their roles, (3) using this information to inform setting realistic goals and providing materials to the patient and supporter to help them be achieved and (4) monitoring progress against goals. Of 41 people randomised in a feasibility RCT, thirty five (85%) completed the intervention sessions, with over three quarters of all participants (78%) attending at least three sessions. Twenty-three out of 40 (58%) participants were deemed to be very engaged with the sessions and 12/40 (30%) with the materials; 30 (73%) participants had another person present with them during at least one of their sessions; 15/41 (37%) were reported to have a very engaged main supporter, and 18/41 (44%) had a different person who was not their main supporter but who was engaged in the intervention implementation. Conclusions: The intervention was feasible to deliver and, as judged by participation and engagement, acceptable to participants and those who supported them. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033 (registered 21/01/2013)