Response to drugs can vary between individuals and between different ethnic populations. The biological (age, gender, disease and genetics), cultural and environmental factors which contribute to these variations are considered in this review. The most important aspect is the genetic variability between individuals in their ability to metabolize drugs due to expression of 'polymorphic' enzymes. Polymorphism enables division of individuals within a given population into at least two groups, poor metabolisers (PMs) and extensive metabolisers (EMs) of certain drugs. The two most extensively studied genetic polymorphisms are those involving cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) and CYP2C19. CYP2D6 metabolizes a number of antidepressants, antipsychotics, beta-adrenoceptor blockers, and antiarrhythmic drugs. About 7% of Caucasians and 1% of Asians are PMs of CYP2D6 substrates. CYP2C19 enzyme participates in the metabolism of omeprazole, propranolol and psychotropic drugs such as hexobarbital, diazepam, citalopram, imipramine, clomipramine and amitriptyline. The incidence of PMs of CYP2C19 substrates is much higher in Asians (15-30%) than in Caucasians (3-6%). Variations in metabolism of psychotropic drugs result in variations in their pharmacokinetic parameters. This may lead to clinically significant intra- and inter-ethnic differences in pharmacological responses. Such variations are discussed in this review. Differential receptor-mediated response may play a role in ethnic differences in responses to antipsychotics and tricyclic antidepressants, but such pharmacodynamic factors remain to be systematically investigated. The results of studies of ethnic differences in response to psychopharmacotherapy appear to be discrepant, most probably due to limitations of study design, small sample size, inadequately defined study sample, and lack of control of confounding factors. The clinical value of understanding pharmacogenetics is in its use to optimize therapeutic efficacy, to prevent toxicity of those drugs whose metabolism is catalysed by polymorphic isoenzymes, and to contribute to the rational design of new drugs. Finally, applications and impact of pharmacogenetics in the field of psychopharmacotherapy are discussed.

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease that necessitates continuing treatment and patient self-care education. Monitoring of blood glucose to near normal level without hypoglycemia becomes a challenge in the management of diabetes. Although self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) can provide daily monitoring of blood glucose level and help to adjust therapy, it cannot detect hypoglycemic unawareness and nocturnal hypoglycemia which occurred mostly in T1DM pediatrics. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) offers continuous glucose data every 5 minutes to adjust insulin therapy especially for T1DM patients and to monitor lifestyle intervention especially for T2DM patients by care providers or even patients themselves. The main objective of this study was to assess the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glycemic control in Type 1 diabetic pediatrics and Type 2 diabetic adults by collecting randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE (pubmed), SCOPUS, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library up to May 2013 and historical search through the reference lists of relevant articles. There are two types of CGM device: real-time CGM and retrospective CGM and both types of the device were included in the analysis. In T1DM pediatrics, CGM use was no more effective than SMBG in reducing HbA1c [mean difference – 0.13% (95% CI -0.38% to 0.11%,]. This effect was independent of HbA1c level at baseline. Subgroup analysis indicated that retrospective CGM was not superior to SMBG [mean difference -0.05% (95% CI -0.46% to 0.35%)]. In contrast, real-time CGM revealed better effect in lowering HbA1c level compared with SMBG [mean difference -0.18% (95% CI -0.35% to -0.02%, p = 0.02)]. In T2DM adults, significant reduction in HbA1c level was detected with CGM compared with SMBG [mean difference – 0.31% (95% CI -0.6% to -0.02%, p = 0.04)].This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that real-time CGM can be more effective than SMBG in T1DM pediatrics, though retrospective CGM was not. CGM provided better glycemic control in T2DM adults compared with SMBG.

The available evidence suggests favourable effects of chromium supplementation on glycaemic control in patients with diabetes. Chromium monosupplement may additionally improve triglycerides and HDL-C levels. Chromium supplementation at usual doses does not increase the risk of adverse events compared with placebo. Data on chromium combined supplementation are limited and inconclusive. Long-term benefit and safety of chromium supplementation remain to be further investigated.

The available evidence suggests the usefulness of SMBG in improving glycemic control in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes as demonstrated by the reduction of HbA(1c) levels. In particular, SMBG proved to be useful in the subgroup of patients whose baseline HbA(1c) was >or=8%.

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of treating pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus in comparison to usual antenatal care.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by including randomized controlled trials comparing any form of therapeutic intervention in comparison to usual antenatal care. A literature search was conducted using electronic databases together with a hand search of relevant journals and conference proceedings.ResultsTen studies involving 3,881 patients contributed to meta-analysis. Our results indicated that gestational diabetes mellitus treatment significantly reduced the risk for macrosomia (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38–0.57), large for gestational age births (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45–0.67), shoulder dystocia (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23–0.77) and gestational hypertension (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53–0.87) without causing any significant increase in the risk for small for gestational age babies. However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding perinatal/neonatal mortality, neonatal hypoglycemia, birth trauma, preterm births, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section and labor induction.ConclusionTreating GDM reduces risk for many important adverse pregnancy outcomes and its association with any harm seems unlikely.