The rising burden of type 2 diabetes is a major concern in healthcare worldwide. This research aimed to analyze the global epidemiology of type 2 diabetes. We analyzed the incidence, prevalence, and burden of suffering of diabetes mellitus based on epidemiological data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) current dataset from the Institute of Health Metrics, Seattle. Global and regional trends from 1990 to 2017 of type 2 diabetes for all ages were compiled. Forecast estimates were obtained using the SPSS Time Series Modeler. In 2017, approximately 462 million individuals were affected by type 2 diabetes corresponding to 6.28% of the world’s population (4.4% of those aged 15–49 years, 15% of those aged 50–69, and 22% of those aged 70+), or a prevalence rate of 6059 cases per 100,000. Over 1 million deaths per year can be attributed to diabetes alone, making it the ninth leading cause of mortality. The burden of diabetes mellitus is rising globally, and at a much faster rate in developed regions, such as Western Europe. The gender distribution is equal, and the incidence peaks at around 55 years of age. Global prevalence of type 2 diabetes is projected to increase to 7079 individuals per 100,000 by 2030, reflecting a continued rise across all regions of the world. There are concerning trends of rising prevalence in lower-income countries. Urgent public health and clinical preventive measures are warranted.

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (is-CGM) have shown to effectively manage diabetes in the specialty setting, but their efficacy in the primary care setting remains unknown. Does CGM/is-CGM improve glycemic control, decrease rates of hypoglycemia, and improve staff/physician satisfaction in primary care? If so, what subgroups of patients with diabetes are most likely to benefit? Methods: A comprehensive search in seven databases was performed in June 2021 for primary studies examining any continuous glucose monitoring system in primary care. We excluded studies with fewer than 20 participants, specialty care only, or hospitalized participants. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation were used for the quality assessment. The weighted mean difference (WMD) of HbA1c between CGM/is-CGM and usual care with 95% confidence interval was calculated. A narrative synthesis was conducted for change of time in, above, or below range (TIR, TAR, and TBR) hypoglycemic events and staff/patient satisfaction. Results: From ten studies and 4006 participants reviewed, CGM was more effective at reducing HbA1c compared with usual care (WMD −0.43%). There is low certainty of evidence that CGM/is-CGM improves TIR, TAR, or TBR over usual care. The CGM can reduce hypoglycemic events and staff/patient satisfaction is high. Patients with intensive insulin therapy may benefit more from CGM/is-CGM. Conclusions: Compared with usual care, CGM/is-CGM can reduce HbA1c, but most studies had notable biases, were short duration, unmasked, and were sponsored by industry. Further research needs to confirm the long-term benefits of CGM/is-CGM in primary care.

ObjectivesCardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction models are useful tools for identifying those at high risk of cardiovascular events in a population. No studies have evaluated the performance of such risk models in an Arab population. Therefore, in this study, the accuracy and clinical usefulness of two commonly used Framingham-based risk models and the 2013 Pooled Cohort Risk Equation (PCE) were assessed in a United Arab Emirates (UAE) national population.DesignA 10-year retrospective cohort study.SettingOutpatient clinics at a tertiary care hospital, Al-Ain, UAE.ParticipantsThe study cohort included 1041 UAE nationals aged 30–79 who had no history of CVD at baseline. Patients were followed until 31 December 2019. Eligible patients were grouped into the PCE and the Framingham validation cohorts.ExposureThe 10-year predicted risk for CVD for each patient was calculated using the 2008 Framingham risk model, the 2008 office-based Framingham risk model, and the 2013 PCE model.Primary outcome measureThe discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness of the three models for predicting 10-year cardiovascular risk were assessed.ResultsIn women, the 2013 PCE model showed marginally better discrimination (C-statistic: 0.77) than the 2008 Framingham models (C-statistic: 0.74–0.75), whereas all three models showed moderate discrimination in men (C-statistic: 0.69‒0.70). All three models overestimated CVD risk in both men and women, with higher levels of predicted risk. The 2008 Framingham risk model (high-risk threshold of 20%) classified only 46% of women who subsequently developed incident CVD within 10 years as high risk. The 2013 PCE risk model (high-risk threshold of 7.5%) classified 74% of men who did not develop a cardiovascular event as high risk.ConclusionsNone of the three models is accurate for predicting cardiovascular risk in UAE nationals. The performance of the models could potentially be improved by recalibration.

IntroductionStudies demonstrate that optimal glycaemic control reduces morbidity from diabetes mellitus but remains elusive in a significant portion of patients. Although research shows that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) improves glycaemic control in selected subsets of patients with diabetes in specialty practices, we found no systematic reviews evaluating the use of CGM/FGM in primary care, where the majority of patients with diabetes are cared for.This systematic review aims to answer the questions: ‘compared with usual care of self-monitoring blood glucose and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), does the addition of CGM/FGM use in the primary care of patients with diabetes improve glycaemic control, decrease rates of hypoglycaemia, and improve patient and physician satisfaction?’ and if so, ‘what subgroups of primary care patients with diabetes are most likely to benefit?’.Methods and analysisAligning with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines, a search will be conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. We will include studies investigating CGM/FGM use and reporting the primary outcome measure of HbA1c and secondary outcome measures of hypoglycaemia, time in range, time below range, time above range and patient/staff satisfaction. We will examine which patient populations appear to benefit from CGM/FGM. Three independent researchers will use the Covidence systematic review software for blinded screening and study selection. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to assess the risk of bias and quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationThe systematic review methodology does not require ethics approval due to the nature of the study design. Study findings will be publicly available to a wide readership across disciplines and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021229416.

Introduction Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of death both globally and in the United Arab Emirates. Despite public health measures and health education, the rates of death from CVD remain stable. Barriers previously identified to lifestyle changes include cultural reasons, boredom, and lack of family support. The Emirates Heart Health Project (EHHP) seeks to support healthy lifestyle changes through a family-based intervention using a health coach and fitness tracker. Methods and analysis The EHHP is a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial with each cluster comprised of members of an extended family. Eligible participants will be ≥ 18 years of age, with BMI ≥ 25, have Emirati citizenship and be able to give informed consent for study participation. The cluster will have 16 weekly teaching sessions in the participants’ family home by a health coach who will review individual weight, diet and exercise (monitored by a wearable fitness tracker). The clusters will have pre-intervention assessments of their weight and CVD risk profile and enter the intervention in randomized order. Each cluster will have a post-intervention assessment of the same measures. The primary outcome is weight reduction from baseline. Secondary outcomes will include change in CVD risk factors such as systolic and diastolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, waist circumference, and BMI. A mixed linear model will be used for analysis, where the parameters measured at the end of each 16-week episode will be the outcome values. These will be analyzed such that baseline values (measured just prior to the start of an episode) will be fixed covariables. Random effects are the family units. This trial has been registered with the NIH at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04688684) and is being reported using the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and TIDieR (Template for intervention description and replication) framework. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04688684.