The aim of the present study was to assess the hypoglycaemia risk and safety of dapagliflozin compared with sulphonylurea during the fasting month of Ramadan. In this 12-week, randomized, open-label, two-arm parallel group study, 110 patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving sulphonylurea and metformin were randomized either to receive 10 mg (n = 58) of dapagliflozin daily or to continue receiving sulphonylurea (n = 52). The primary outcome was to compare the effects of dapagliflozin and sulphonylurea on the proportions of patients with at least one episode of hypoglycaemia during Ramadan, as well as to assess the safety of dapagliflozin when used to treat patients observing Ramadan. A lower proportion of patients had reported or documented hypoglycaemia in the dapagliflozin group than in the sulphonylurea group: 4 (6.9%) versus 15 (28.8%); p = 0.002. The relative risk of any reported or documented hypoglycaemia in the 4th week of Ramadan was significantly lower in the dapagliflozin group: RR=0.24, 95%CI: 0.09, 0.68; p=0.002. No significance differences were observed between the two groups regarding postural hypotension (13.8 vs 3.8%; p = 0.210) or urinary tract infections (10.3 vs 3.8%; p = 0.277). In conclusion, fewer patients exhibited hypoglycaemia in the dapagliflozin group than in the sulphonylurea group.

The DAR Global survey of Ramadan-fasting during the COVID-19 pandemic aimed to describe the characteristics and care in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with a specific comparison between those <65 years and !65 years.Methods: Participants were consented to answer a physician-administered questionnaire following Ramadan 2020. Impact of COVID-19 on the decision of fasting, intentions to fast and duration of Ramadan and Shawal fasting, hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia events

BackgroundThe use of lengthy, detailed, and complex informed consent forms (ICFs) is of paramount concern in biomedical research as it may not truly promote the rights and interests of research participants. The extent of information in ICFs has been the subject of debates for decades; however, no clear guidance is given. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the perspectives of research participants about the type and extent of information they need when they are invited to participate in biomedical research.MethodsThis multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).ResultsOf the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be ‘moderately important’ to ‘very important’ for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively).ConclusionsResearch participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-018-0318-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract