Incretin treatment and risk of pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus : systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies

Objective To investigate the risk of pancreatitis associated with the use of incretin-based treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligibility criteria Randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies of treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with placebo, lifestyle modification, or active anti-diabetic drugs. Data collection and analysis Pairs of trained reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. A modified Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies were used to assess bias. We pooled data from randomised controlled trials using Peto odds ratios, and conducted four prespecified subgroup analyses and a post hoc subgroup analysis. Because of variation in outcome measures and forms of data, we describe the results of observational studies without a pooled analysis. Results 60 studies (n=353 639), consisting of 55 randomised controlled trials (n=33 350) and five observational studies (three retrospective cohort studies, and two case-control studies; n=320 289) were included. Pooled estimates of 55 randomised controlled trials (at low or moderate risk of bias involving 37 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.11%) did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis with incretins versus control (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 2.17). Estimates by type of incretin suggested similar results (1.05 (0.37 to 2.94) for GLP-1 agonists v control; 1.06 (0.46 to 2.45) for DPP-4 inhibitors v control). Analyses according to the type of control, mode, duration of treatment, and individual incretin agents suggested no differential effect by subgroups, and sensitivity analyses by alternative statistical modelling and effect measures did not show important differences in effect estimates. Three retrospective cohort studies (moderate to high risk of bias, involving 1466 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.47%) also did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis associated with either exenatide (adjusted odds ratios 0.93 (0.63 to 1.36) in one study and 0.9 (0.6 to 1.5) in another) or sitagliptin (adjusted hazard ratio 1.0, 0.7 to 1.3); a case-control study at moderate risk of bias (1003 cases, 4012 controls) also suggested no significant association (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.69 to 1.38). Another case-control study (1269 cases, 1269 controls) at moderate risk of bias, however, suggested that the use of either exenatide or sitagliptin was associated with significantly increased odds of acute pancreatitis (use within two years v no use, adjusted odds ratio 2.07, 1.36 to 3.13). Conclusions The available evidence suggests that the incidence of pancreatitis among patients using incretins is low and that the drugs do not increase the risk of pancreatitis. Current evidence, however, is not definitive, and more carefully designed and conducted observational studies are warranted to definitively establish the extent, if any, of increased risk

Agreement Between Cardiovascular Disease Risk Scores in Resource-Limited Settings: Evidence from 5 Peruvian Sites.

It is unclear how well currently available risk scores predict cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in low-income and middle-income countries. We aim to compare the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Pooled Cohort risk equations (ACC/AHA model) with 6 other CVD risk tools to assess the concordance of predicted CVD risk in a random sample from 5 geographically diverse Peruvian populations. We used data from 2 Peruvian, age and sex-matched, population-based studies across 5 geographical sites. The ACC/AHA model were compared with 6 other CVD risk prediction tools: laboratory Framingham risk score for CVD, non-laboratory Framingham risk score for CVD, Reynolds risk score, systematic coronary risk evaluation, World Health Organization risk charts, and the Lancet chronic diseases risk charts. Main outcome was in agreement with predicted CVD risk using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient. Two thousand one hundred and eighty-three subjects, mean age 54.3 (SD ± 5.6) years, were included in the analysis. Overall, we found poor agreement between different scores when compared with ACC/AHA model. When each of the risk scores was used with cut-offs specified in guidelines, ACC/AHA model depicted the highest proportion of people at high CVD risk predicted at 10 years, with a prevalence of 29.0% (95% confidence interval, 26.9-31.0%), whereas prevalence with World Health Organization risk charts was 0.6% (95% confidence interval, 0.2-8.6%). In conclusion, poor concordance between current CVD risk scores demonstrates the uncertainty of choosing any of them for public health and clinical interventions in Latin American populations. There is a need to improve the evidence base of risk scores for CVD in low-income and middle-income countries

Implementation of foot thermometry plus mHealth to prevent diabetic foot ulcers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot neuropathy (DFN) is one of the most important complications of diabetes mellitus; its early diagnosis and intervention can prevent foot ulcers and the need for amputation. Thermometry, measuring the temperature of the feet, is a promising emerging modality for diabetic foot ulcer prevention. However, patient compliance with at-home monitoring is concerning. Delivering messages to remind patients to perform thermometry and foot care might be helpful to guarantee regular foot monitoring. This trial was designed to compare the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) between participants who receive thermometry alone and those who receive thermometry as well as mHealth (SMS and voice messaging) over a year-long study period. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an evaluator-blinded, randomized, 12-month trial. Individuals with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, aged between 18-80 years, having a present dorsalis pedis pulse in both feet, are in risk group 2 or 3 using the diabetic foot risk classification system (as specified by the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot), have an operating cell phone or a caregiver with an operating cell phone, and have the ability to provide informed consent will be eligible to participate in the study. Recruitment will be performed in diabetes outpatient clinics at two Ministry of Health tertiary hospitals in Lima, Peru. INTERVENTIONS: participants in both groups will receive education about foot care at the beginning of the study and they will be provided with a thermometry device (TempStat™). TempStat™ is a tool that captures a thermal image of the feet, which, depending on the temperature of the feet, shows different colors. In this study, if a participant notes a single yellow image or variance between one foot and the contralateral foot, they will be prompted to notify a nurse to evaluate their activity within the previous 2 weeks and make appropriate recommendations. In addition to thermometry, participants in the intervention arm will receive an mHealth component in the form of SMS and voice messages as reminders to use the thermometry device, and instructions to promote foot care. OUTCOMES: the primary outcome is foot ulceration, evaluated by a trained nurse, occurring at any point during the study. DISCUSSION: This study has two principal contributions towards the prevention of DFU. First, the introduction of messages to promote self-management of diabetes foot care as well as using reminders as a strategy to improve adherence to daily home-based measurements. Secondly, the implementation of a thermometry-based strategy complemented by SMS and voice messages in an LMIC setting, with wider implications for scalability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT02373592

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and risk of heart failure in type 2 diabetes : systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies

Objectives To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the risk of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov searched up to 25 June 2015, and communication with experts. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared DPP-4 inhibitors against placebo, lifestyle modification, or active antidiabetic drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes, and explicitly reported the outcome of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure. Data collection and analysis Teams of paired reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data using standardised, pilot tested forms. Data from trials and observational studies were pooled separately; quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. Results Eligible studies included 43 trials (n=68 775) and 12 observational studies (nine cohort studies, three nested case-control studies; n=1 777 358). Pooling of 38 trials reporting heart failure provided low quality evidence for a possible similar risk of heart failure between DPP-4 inhibitor use versus control (42/15 701 v 33/12 591; odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.56); risk difference 2 fewer (19 fewer to 28 more) events per 1000 patients with type 2 diabetes over five years). The observational studies provided effect estimates generally consistent with trial findings, but with very low quality evidence. Pooling of the five trials reporting admission for heart failure provided moderate quality evidence for an increased risk in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors versus control (622/18 554 v 552/18 474; 1.13 (1.00 to 1.26); 8 more (0 more to 16 more)). The pooling of adjusted estimates from observational studies similarly suggested (with very low quality evidence) a possible increased risk of admission for heart failure (adjusted odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.09) in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors (exclusively sitagliptin) versus no use. Conclusions The relative effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on the risk of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes is uncertain, given the relatively short follow-up and low quality of evidence. Both randomised controlled trials and observational studies, however, suggest that these drugs may increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure in those patients with existing cardiovascular diseases or multiple risk factors for vascular diseases, compared with no use

A1C as a Diagnostic Criteria for Diabetes in Low- and Middle-Income Settings: Evidence from Peru

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, in three groups of Peruvian adults, using fasting glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This study included adults from the PERU MIGRANT Study who had fasted ≥ 8 h. Fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL and A1C ≥ 6.5% were used, separately, to define diabetes. Subjects with a current diagnosis of diabetes were excluded. 964 of 988 subjects were included in this analysis. Overall, 0.9% (95%CI 0.3-1.5) and 3.5% (95%CI 2.4-4.7) had diabetes using fasting glucose and A1C criteria, respectively. Compared to those classified as having diabetes using fasting glucose, newly classified subjects with diabetes using A1C (n = 25), were older, poorer, thinner and more likely to come from rural areas. Of these, 40% (10/25) had impaired fasting glucose (IFG). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the use of A1C as diagnostic criteria for type 2 diabetes mellitus identifies people of different characteristics than fasting glucose. In the PERU MIGRANT population using A1C to define diabetes tripled the prevalence; the increase was more marked among poorer and rural populations. More than half the newly diagnosed people with diabetes using A1C had normal fasting glucose

Toward Improving Early Diagnosis of Congenital Chagas Disease in an Endemic Setting.

BACKGROUND: Congenital Trypanosoma cruzi transmission is now estimated to account for 22% of new infections, representing a significant public health problem across Latin America and internationally. Treatment during infancy is highly efficacious and well tolerated, but current assays for early detection fail to detect >50% of infected neonates, and 9-month follow-up is low. METHODS: Women who presented for delivery at 2 urban hospitals in Santa Cruz Department, Bolivia, were screened by rapid test. Specimens from infants of infected women were tested by microscopy (micromethod), quantitative PCR (qPCR), and immunoglobulin (Ig)M trypomastigote excreted-secreted antigen (TESA)-blots at birth and 1 month and by IgG serology at 6 and 9 months. RESULTS: Among 487 infants of 476 seropositive women, congenital T. cruzi infection was detected in 38 infants of 35 mothers (7.8%). In cord blood, qPCR, TESA-blot, and micromethod sensitivities/specificities were 68.6%/99.1%, 58.3%/99.1%, and 16.7%/100%, respectively. When birth and 1-month results were combined, cumulative sensitivities reached 84.2%, 73.7%, and 34.2%, respectively. Low birthweight and/or respiratory distress were reported in 11 (29%) infected infants. Infants with clinical signs had higher parasite loads and were significantly more likely to be detected by micromethod. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of T. cruzi-infected infants with clinical signs has fallen since the 1990s, but symptomatic congenital Chagas disease still represents a significant, albeit challenging to detect, public health problem. Molecular methods could facilitate earlier diagnosis and circumvent loss to follow-up but remain logistically and economically prohibitive for routine screening in resource-limited settings

From the Trenches: A Cross-Sectional Study Applying the GRADE Tool in Systematic Reviews of Healthcare Interventions

Background: GRADE was developed to address shortcomings of tools to rate the quality of a body of evidence. While much has been published about GRADE, there are few empirical and systematic evaluations. Objective: To assess GRADE for systematic reviews (SRs) in terms of inter-rater agreement and identify areas of uncertainty. Design: Cross-sectional, descriptive study. Methods: We applied GRADE to three SRs (n = 48, 66, and 75 studies, respectively) with 29 comparisons and 12 outcomes overall. Two reviewers graded evidence independently for outcomes deemed clinically important a priori. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using kappas for four main domains (risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision) and overall quality of evidence. Results: For the first review, reliability was: k = 0.41 for risk of bias; 0.84 consistency; 0.18 precision; and 0.44 overall quality. Kappa could not be calculated for directness as one rater assessed all items as direct; assessors agreed in 41 % of cases. For the second review reliability was: 0.37 consistency and 0.19 precision. Kappa could not be assessed for other items; assessors agreed in 33 % of cases for risk of bias; 100 % directness; and 58 % overall quality. For the third review, reliability was: 0.06 risk of bias; 0.79 consistency; 0.21 precision; and 0.18 overall quality. Assessors agreed in 100 % of cases for directness. Precision created the most uncertainty due to difficulties in identifying ‘‘optimal’ ’ information size and ‘‘clinica