AimsTo compare the prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency and peripheral neuropathy between two groups of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients treated with or without metformin, and to determine factors associated with vitamin B12 deficiency therapy and dietary intake of vitamin B12.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we recruited 412 individuals with T2DM: 319 taking metformin, and 93 non-metformin users. Demographics, dietary assessment for vitamin B12 intakes, and medical history were collected. Participants were assessed for peripheral neuropathy. Blood specimens were collected and checked for serum vitamin B12 levels. The differences between the two groups were analyzed using an independent t-test for continuous data, and the Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test was used for categorical data. The relationship of vitamin B12 deficiency with demographics and clinical characteristics was modeled using logistic regression.ResultsThe prevalence of B12 deficiency was 7.8% overall, but 9.4% and 2.2% in metformin users and non-metformin users, respectively. The odds ratio for serum vitamin B12 deficiency in metformin users was 4.72 (95% CI, 1.11–20.15, P = 0.036). There were no significant differences in a test of peripheral neuropathy between the metformin users and non-metformin users (P > 0.05). Low levels of vitamin B12 occurred when metformin was taken at a dose of more than 2,000 mg/day (AOR, 21.67; 95% CI, 2.87–163.47) or for more than 4 years (AOR, 6.35; 95% CI, 1.47–24.47).ConclusionIndividuals with T2DM treated with metformin, particularly those who use metformin at large dosages (> 2,000 mg/day) and for a longer duration (> 4 years), should be regularly screened for vitamin B12 deficiency and metformin is associated with B12 deficiency, but this is not associated with peripheral neuropathy.

Introduction Routine diabetes care changed during the COVID-19 pandemic due to precautionary measures such as lockdowns, cancellation of in-person visits, and patients’ fear of being infected when attending clinics. Because of the pandemic, virtual clinics were implemented to provide diabetes care. Therefore, we conducted this study to assess the impact of these virtual clinics on glycaemic control among high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods A prospective single-cohort pre-/post telemedicine care intervention study was conducted on 130 patients with type 2 DM attending a virtual integrated care clinic at a chronic Illness center in a family and community medicine department in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results The mean age of the participants was 57 years (standard deviation (SD) = 12) and the mean (SD) duration of diabetes was 14 (7) years. Over a period of 4 months, the HbA1c decreased significantly from 9.98 ± 1.33 pre-intervention to 8.32 ± 1.31 post-intervention (mean difference 1.66 ± 1.29; CI = 1.43–1.88; P <0.001). In addition, most in-person care visits were successfully replaced, as most patients (64%) needed only one or two in-person visits during the 4-month period, compared with typically one visit every 1–2 weeks in the integrated care programme before the pandemic for this group of high-risk patients. Discussion The current study found a significant positive impact of telemedicine care on glycaemic control among high-risk patients with DM during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, it showed that telemedicine could be integrated into diabetic care to successfully replace many of the usual in-person care visits. Consequently, health policy makers need to consider developing comprehensive guidelines in Saudi Arabia for telemedicine care to, ensure the quality of care and address issues such as financial reimbursement and patient information privacy.

No abstract

Background Ramadan fasting is regarded as a form of worship amongst Muslims. However, patients with a high risk of diabetic complications are advised to avoid fasting, as the practice is associated with significant impacts on several health factors for type 2 diabetic patients, including glycaemic control. Thus, a lack of focused education before Ramadan may result in negative health outcomes. Aim To evaluate the impact of a Ramadan‐focused diabetes education programme on hypoglycaemic risk and other clinical and metabolic parameters. Methods A systematic literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies meeting the inclusion criteria from inception. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement and guidelines were followed when performing the search and identification of appropriate studies. Results Seventeen studies were included in this systemic review; five of them met the criteria to compile for a meta‐analysis. The included studies were with various study designs, including randomised controlled trials, quasi‐experimental and non‐randomised studies. Overall, the results revealed a significant reduction of hypoglycemia risk (81% reduction) for fasting patients in intervention groups who received Ramadan‐focused education compared with patients receiving conventional care (OR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.08‐0.46). Moreover, HbA1c significantly improved amongst patients who received a Ramadan‐focused diabetes education intervention, compared with those receiving conventional care. Conclusion Ramadan‐focused diabetes education had a significant impact on hypoglycemia and glycaemic control, with no significant effect on body weight, blood lipids or blood pressure.

Background and aim: Telemedicine could be used to provide diabetes care with positive clinical outcomes. Consequently, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine for patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (i.e. HbA1c >9). Patients and methods: This was a retrospective chart review of patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes attending an outpatient integrated care clinic. The study consisted of two arms, namely a telemedicine care model and a traditional care model with 100 patients in each. The clinical effectiveness (i.e. reduction in HbA1c) and the total cost in both arms were determined, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. This study adopted propensity score matching. Results: The patients in the telemedicine care model had a mean reduction in their HbA1c level of 1.82 (95% CI = 1.56–2.09, p < 0.001), while those in the traditional care model had a mean reduction of 1.54 (95% CI = 1.23–1.85, p < 0.001). Consequently, the incremental effect was 0.28 (95% CI = −0.194 to 0.546). The mean total costs were SAR 4819.76 (US$1285.27) and SAR 4150.69 (US$1106.85) for patients in the telemedicine and traditional care models, respectively. Consequently, the incremental cost was SAR 669.07 (US$178.42) [95% CI = SAR 593.7 (US$158.32)–SAR 1013.64 (US$270.30)]. The ICER was estimated to be SAR 2372.52 (US$632.67) per 1% reduction in the level of HbA1c. Moreover, the telemedicine care model resulted in a higher cost and better outcome (i.e. reduction in the HbA1c level) with an 81.80% confidence level. Conclusion: Telemedicine care is cost-effective in managing type 2 patients with poorly controlled diabetes. Consequently, we believe that telemedicine care can be further expanded and incorporated into routine diabetes care.

No abstract

Introduction: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) is a class of hypoglycemic medications. Semaglutide once-weekly (QW) and liraglutide once-daily (OD) significantly improved glycemic control compared to placebo. To date, no long-term phase III trials directly comparing semaglutide and liraglutide are available. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare the long-term efficacy of semaglutide and liraglutide. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception until June 2019 to identify relevant articles. Nine long-term randomized controlled trials comparing once-weekly semaglutide or liraglutide with placebo or other active comparisons were identified. The outcomes of interest were changes in HbA1c and weight after 52 weeks. A Bayesian framework and NMA were used for data synthesis. This is a sub-study of the protocol registered in PROSPERO (number CRD42018091598). Results: The data showed significant superiority in HbA1c reduction of semaglutide 1 mg QW over liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg with a treatment difference of 0.47% and 0.3%, respectively. Semaglutide 0.5 mg QW was found to be significantly superior to liraglutide 1.2 mg in HbA1c reduction with a treatment difference of 0.17%. Regarding weight reduction analysis, semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg QW were significantly associated with a greater reduction than liraglutide 0.6 mg with a treatment difference of 2.42 and 3.06 kg, respectively. However, no significant reduction was found in comparison to liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg. Conclusions: Semaglutide improved the control of blood glucose and body weight. The capacity of long-term glycemic control and body weight control of semaglutide appears to be more effective than other GLP-1 RAs, including liraglutide. However, considering the number of included studies and potential limitations, more large-scale, head-to-head, well-designed randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to confirm these findings.