A part from skeletal diseases, vitamin D deficiency is considered a risk factor for cardiovascular events and mortality. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations are a significant causal risk factor or are simply related to adverse outcomes because of reverse causation and confounding factors, such as obesity, reduced mobility with low sunlight exposure, poor nutrition, or inflammation. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Because high blood pressure (BP) has emerged as the leading risk factor for the global disease burden, it is important to evaluate whether vitamin D has a beneficial effect on lowering BP to clarify the potential role of vitamin D for public health. 7 Large observational studies and meta-analyses have shown that low 25(OH)D concentrations are a significant risk marker for arterial hypertension. 8,9 Molecular effects of vitamin D receptor activation, such as suppression of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), nephroprotective actions, or improvements in endothelial/vascular function, suggest Abstract-Vitamin D deficiency is a risk factor for arterial hypertension, but randomized controlled trials showed mixed effects of vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure (BP). We aimed to evaluate whether vitamin D supplementation affects 24-hour systolic ambulatory BP monitoring values and cardiovascular risk factors. The Styrian Vitamin D Hypertension Trial is a single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted from June 2011 to August 2014 at the endocrine outpatient clinic of the Medical University of Graz, Austria. We enrolled 200 study participants with arterial hypertension and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL. Study participants were randomized to receive either 2800 IU of vitamin D3 per day as oily drops (n=100) or placebo (n=100) for 8 weeks. Primary outcome measure was 24-hour systolic BP. Secondary outcome measures were 24-hour diastolic BP, N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, QTc interval, renin, aldosterone, 24-hour urinary albumin excretion, homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance, triglycerides, highdensity lipoprotein cholesterol, and pulse wave velocity. Methods Study DesignThe Styrian Vitamin D Hypertension Trial was sponsored by the Medical University of Graz, Austria, and is a single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study conducted at the Medical University of Graz, Austria. The publication of this trial adheres to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. 29 The trial was initially registered at http://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu (EudraCT number, 2009-018125-70) and was additionally registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02136771). ParticipantsEligible study participants were adults aged ≥18 years with arterial hypertension and a 25(OH)D serum concentration below 30 ng/mL (multiply by 2.496 to convert ng/mL to nmol/L). Arterial hypertension was classified in patients with an office BP of systol...

We compared the sensor performance of 3 commercially available GM systems. A total of 12 patients with type 1 diabetes were included in a single-centre, open-label study in which the sensor performance of the Abbott FreeStyle libre (Abbott), Dexcom G4 Platinum (Dexcom) and Medtronic MiniMed 640G (Medtronic) systems over 12 hours was compared during mimicked real-life conditions (meals, exercise, hypo-and hyperglycaemia). Sensor performance was determined by fulfilment of ISO 15197:2013 criteria, calculating mean absolute relative difference (MARD), and was also illustrated using Parkes error grid and Bland-Altman plots. Sensor performance during changes in metabolic variables (lactate, betahydroxybutyrate, glucagon, non-esterified-fatty-acids) was determined by Spearman's rank correlation coefficient testing. The systems fulfilled ISO 15197:2013 criteria by 73.2% (Abbott), 56.1% (Dexcom) and 52.0% (Medtronic). The MARDs AE standard deviation in the entire glycaemic range were 13.2% AE 10.9% (Abbott), 16.8% AE 12.3% (Dexcom) and 21.4% AE 17.6% (Medtronic), respectively. All sensors performed less accurately during hypoglycaemia and best during hyperglycaemia. We did not observe an influence of metabolic variables on sensor performance.

Background: This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and usability of standardized glycemic management by a computerized decision support system for non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes on four different wards.Materials and Methods: In this open, noncontrolled intervention study, glycemic management of 99 patients with type 2 diabetes (62% acute admissions; 41 females; age, 67±11 years; hemoglobin A1c, 65±21 mmol/mol; body mass index, 30.4±6.5 kg/m2) on clinical wards (Cardiology, Endocrinology, Nephrology, Plastic Surgery) of a tertiary-care hospital was guided by GlucoTab® (Joanneum Research GmbH [Graz, Austria] and Medical University of Graz [Graz, Austria]), a mobile decision support system providing automated workflow support and suggestions for insulin dosing to nurses and physicians.Results: Adherence to insulin dosing suggestions was high (96.5% bolus, 96.7% basal). The primary outcome measure, percentage of blood glucose (BG) measurements in the range of 70–140 mg/dL, occurred in 50.2±22.2% of all measurements. The overall mean BG level was 154±35 mg/dL. BG measurements in the ranges of 60–70 mg/dL, 40–60 mg/dL, and <40 mg/dL occurred in 1.4%, 0.5%, and 0.0% of all measurements, respectively. A regression analysis showed that acute admission to the Cardiology Ward (+30 mg/dL) and preexisting home insulin therapy (+26 mg/dL) had the strongest impact on mean BG. Acute admission to other wards had minor effects (+4 mg/dL). Ninety-one percent of the healthcare professionals felt confident with GlucoTab, and 89% believed in its practicality and 80% in its ability to prevent medication errors.Conclusions: An efficacious, safe, and user-accepted implementation of GlucoTab was demonstrated. However, for optimized personalized patient care, further algorithm modifications are required.

Aims: To investigate the seroconversion following first and second COVID-19 vaccination in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in relation to glycaemic control prior to vaccination and to analyse the response in comparison to individuals without diabetes.Materials and methods: This prospective, multicentre cohort study analysed people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and a glycated haemoglobin level ≤58 mmol/mol (7.5%) or >58 mmol/mol (7.5%), respectively, and healthy controls. Roche's Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay targeting the receptor-binding domain was used to quantify anti-spike protein antibodies 7 to 14 days after the first and 14 to 21 days after the second vaccination.Results: A total of 86 healthy controls were enrolled in the study, as well as 161 participants with diabetes, of whom 150 (75 with type 1 diabetes and 75 with type 2 diabetes) were eligible for the analysis. After the first vaccination, only 52.7% of participants in the type 1 diabetes group and 48.0% of those in the type 2 diabetes Caren Sourij, Norbert J. Tripolt and Faisal Aziz contributed equally and are joint first authors.Ivo Steinmetz and Harald Sourij contributed equally and are joint last authors.