Biomedical Issues of Dietary fiber β-Glucan

β-glucan is a polysaccharide in the form of fiber and the main element of fiber in grains such as barley, oats, yeast and mushrooms. Many studies have examined the efficacy of β-glucan in terms of the lipid lowering effects, blood sugar reduction, weight reduction, immune modulator, and anticarcinogenic effect. However, there is no comprehensive review article on the biomedical issues regarding β-glucan. The authors searched for systematic reviews and clinical experiments for each relevant topic and reviewed the biomedical effects of β-glucan, for the purpose of developing research strategies for the future

Evaluation of the impact of universal testing for gestational diabetes mellitus on maternal and neonatal health outcomes: a retrospective analysis

Background: Gestational diabetes (GDM) affects a substantial proportion of women in pregnancy and is associated with increased risk of adverse perinatal and long term outcomes. Treatment seems to improve perinatal outcomes, the relative effectiveness of different strategies for identifying women with GDM however is less clear. This paper describes an evaluation of the impact of a change in policy from selective risk factor based offering, to universal offering of an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to identify women with GDM on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: Retrospective six year analysis of 35,674 births at the Women’s and Newborn unit, Bradford Royal Infirmary, United Kingdom. Results: The proportion of the whole obstetric population diagnosed with GDM increased almost fourfold following universal offering of an OGTT compared to selective offering of an OGTT; Rate Ratio (RR) 3.75 (95% CI 3.28 to 4.29), the proportion identified with severe hyperglycaemia doubled following the policy change; 1.96 (1.50 to 2.58). The case detection rate however, for GDM in the whole population and severe hyperglycaemia in those with GDM reduced by 50-60%; 0.40 (0.35 to 0.46) and 0.51 (0.39 to 0.67) respectively. Universally offering an OGTT was associated with an increased induction of labour rate in the whole obstetric population and in women with GDM; 1.43 (1.35 to 1.50) and 1.21 (1.00 to1.49) respectively. Caesarean section, macrosomia and perinatal mortality rates in the whole population were similar. For women with GDM, rate of caesarean section; 0.70 (0.57 to 0.87), macrosomia; 0.22 (0.15 to 0.34) and perinatal mortality 0.12 (0.03 to 0.46) decreased following the policy change. Conclusions: Universally offering an OGTT was associated with increased identification of women with GDM and severe hyperglycaemia and with neonatal benefits for those with GDM. There was no evidence of benefit or adverse effects in neonatal outcomes in the whole obstetric population

Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus

Background: Multiple laboratory tests are used to diagnose and manage patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these tests varies substantially. Approach: An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory testing for patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Draft guidelines were posted on the Internet and presented at the 2007 Arnold O. Beckman Conference. The document was modified in response to oral and written comments, and a revised draft was posted in 2010 and again modified in response to written comments. The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and the Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry jointly reviewed the guidelines, which were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequently approved by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association. Content: In addition to long-standing criteria based on measurement of plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased blood hemoglobin A$_{1c}$ (HbA$_{1c}$) concentrations. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by self-monitoring of plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of HbA$_{1c}$. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed. Summary: The guidelines provide specific recommendations that are based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes have minimal clinical value at present, and their measurement is not recommended

Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations. The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors. To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin. The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic. Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as: - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability, - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician, - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences, - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders, - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless, - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs. The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II)

Policies and clinical practices relating to the management of gestational diabetes mellitus in the public health sector, South Africa – a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Women with a prior gestational diabetes have an increased lifetime risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Although post-partum follow-up for GDM women is essential to prevent progression to type 2 diabetes, it is poorly attended. The need for health systems interventions to support postpartum follow-up for GDM women is evident, but there is little knowledge of actual current practice. The aim of this study was to explore current policies and clinical practices relating to antenatal and post-natal care for women with GDM in South Africa, as well as health sector stakeholders’ perspectives on the barriers to – and opportunities for – delivering an integrated mother - baby health service that extends beyond the first week post-partum, to the infant’s first year of life. METHODS: Following a document review of policy and clinical practice guidelines, in-depth interviews were conducted with 11 key informants who were key policy makers, health service managers and clinicians working in the public health services in South Africa’s two major cities (Johannesburg and Cape Town). Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis procedures. RESULTS: The document review and interviews established that it is policy that health services adhere to international guidelines for GDM diagnosis and management, in addition to locally developed guidelines and protocols for clinical practice. All key informants confirmed that lack of postpartum follow-up for GDM women is a significant problem. Health systems barriers include fragmentation of care and the absence of standardised postnatal care for post-GDM women. Key informants also raised patient - related challenges including lack of perceived future risk of developing type 2 diabetes and non-attendance for postpartum follow up, as barriers to postnatal care for GDM women. All participants supported integrated primary health services but cautioned against overloading health workers. CONCLUSION: Although there is alignment between international guidelines, local policy and reported clinical practice in the management of GDM, there is a gap in continuation of care in the postpartum period. Health systems interventions that support and facilitate active follow-up for women with prior GDM are needed if high rates of progression to type 2 diabetes are to be avoided

Does metformin reduce excess birthweight in offspring of obese pregnant women? A randomised controlled trial of efficacy, exploration of mechanisms and evaluation of other pregnancy complications

BackgroundMaternal obesity is associated with high birthweight, obesity and premature mortality in adult offspring, probably as a result of maternal hyperglycaemia and insulin resistance. We present the results of a trial designed to test the hypothesis that metformin will improve insulin sensitivity in obese pregnant women, thereby reducing the incidence of high-birthweight babies.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of metformin (up to 2500 mg daily) given to obese pregnant women in reducing the gestational age-, parity- and sex-adjusted birthweight centile of the baby.DesignDouble-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial with embedded substudies.SettingFifteen NHS hospitals in the UK.ParticipantsPregnant women aged ≥ 16 years with a singleton fetus and a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m2.InterventionMetformin tablets (or placebo) administered between 12 and 16 weeks’ gestation until delivery of the baby.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was z-score corresponding to the gestational age-, parity- and sex-adjusted birthweight centile of live-born babies delivered at ≥ 24 weeks’ gestation. The main secondary outcome was maternal insulin resistance at 36 weeks’ gestation. Embedded substudies were included to assess the effect of metformin on insulin sensitivity using the hyperinsulinaemic–euglycaemic clamp; endothelial function; maternal and fetal fat distribution using magnetic resonance imaging; placental expression of 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase types 1 and 2 and glucocorticoid receptor; and myometrial contractility and glycogen storage.ResultsWe randomised 449 women to either placebo (n = 223) or metformin (n = 226), of whom 434 were included in the final intention-to-treat analysis. Mean birthweight at delivery was 3463 g [standard deviation (SD) 660 g] in the placebo group and 3462 g (SD 548 g) in the metformin group. The estimated effect size of metformin on the primary outcome was non-significant [adjusted mean difference in z-score –0.029, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.217 to 0.158; p = 0.7597]. There was no evidence of a reduction in the main secondary outcome of homeostatic model assessment – insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) at 36 weeks’ gestation (mean HOMA-IR 5.98 and 6.30 molar units in the placebo and metformin groups, respectively; adjusted mean ratio 0.974, 95% CI 0.865 to 1.097). Metformin had no effect on the combined adverse outcome of miscarriage, termination of pregnancy, stillbirth or neonatal death. Subjects taking metformin demonstrated increased insulin sensitivity [glucose disposal per unit plasma insulin difference between means during high-dose insulin 0.02 mg/kg, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.03 mg/kg (fat-free mass)/minute/µIU/l; p = 0.04] compared with those taking placebo and enhanced endogenous glucose production [difference between means 0.54 mg/kg, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.00 mg/kg (fat-free mass)/minute; p = 0.02]. There were no differences in endothelial function, maternal or fetal body fat distribution, placental expression of 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase types 1 and 2 and glucocorticoid receptor, or myometrial contractility and glycogen storage.ConclusionsMetformin has no clinically significant effect on birthweight centile in obese pregnant women. Follow-up studies of the children born to participants in the trial are required to determine whether or not there are any longer-term benefits or harms of maternal metformin for offspring weight, fat mass or metabolism.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN51279843.FundingThis project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership