ObjectivesTo summarise incidence and prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) for the overall patient population and different subgroups (age, sex, geographical region, ethnicity and type of insulin administration).DesignSystematic literature review (SLR).Data sourcesMedline (via PubMed) and Embase (1 January 2000 to 23 June 2016).Study selectionPeer-reviewed observational studies with reported data on the incidence or prevalence of DKA in T1D adults were included. A single reviewer completed the study screening and selection process and a second reviewer performed an additional screening of approximately 20% of the publications; two reviewers independently conducted the quality assessment; the results were narratively synthesised.ResultsOut of 1082 articles, 19 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with two additional studies identified that did not specify the patient age range and are therefore not included in the SLR. Overall, eight studies reported incidence with a range of 0–56 per 1000 person-years (PYs), with one outlying study reporting an incidence of 263 per 1000 PYs. Eleven studies reported prevalence with a range of 0–128 per 1000 people. Prevalence of DKA decreased with increasing age. Subgroup analyses were performed using data from no more than two studies per subgroup. There was a higher prevalence of DKA reported in women, non-whites and patients treated with insulin injections compared with men, whites and patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pumps, respectively.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first SLR on the epidemiology of DKA in T1D adults. Despite an increasing prevalence of T1D in recent years, DKA in adults has been poorly characterised. In an era when the benefit–risk profiles of new antidiabetic therapies are being evaluated, including the potential risk of DKA, there is a clear need to better elucidate the expected rate of DKA among T1D adults.

Aims/hypothesis This study aimed to systematically review what has been reported on the incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents, to scrutinise the methodological issues observed in the included studies and to prepare recommendations for future research and surveillances. Methods PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from inception to February 2013. Population-based studies on incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents were summarised and methodologically evaluated. Owing to substantial methodological heterogeneity and considerable differences in study populations a quantitative meta-analysis was not performed. Results Among 145 potentially relevant studies, 37 population-based studies met the inclusion criteria. Variations in the incidence and prevalence rates of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents were mainly related to age of the study population, calendar time, geographical regions and ethnicity, resulting in a range of 0-330 per 100,000 personyears for incidence rates, and 0-5,300 per 100,000 population for prevalence rates. Furthermore, a substantial variation in the methodological characteristics was observed for response rates (60-96%), ascertainment rates (53-99%), diagnostic tests and criteria used to diagnose type 2 diabetes. Conclusions/interpretation Worldwide incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents vary substantially among countries, age categories and ethnic groups and this can be explained by variations in population characteristics and methodological dissimilarities between studies.

Background. In view of the alarming incidence of obesity in children, insight into the epidemiology of the prediabetic state insulin resistance (IR) seems important. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to give an overview of all population-based studies reporting on the prevalence and incidence rates of IR in childhood. Methods. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched in order to find all available population-based studies describing the epidemiology of IR in pediatric populations. Prevalence rates together with methods and cut-off values used to determine IR were extracted and summarized with weight and sex specific prevalence rates of IR if available. Results. Eighteen population-based studies were identified, describing prevalence rates varying between 3.1 and 44%, partly explained by different definitions for IR. Overweight and obese children had higher prevalence rates than normal weight children. In seven out of thirteen studies reporting sex specific results, girls seemed to be more affected than boys. Conclusion. Prevalence rates of IR reported in children vary widely which is partly due to the variety of definitions used. Overweight and obese children had higher prevalence and girls were more insulin resistant than boys. Consensus on the definition for IR in children is needed to allow for comparisons between different studies.

Background: Comorbidities may differently affect treatment response and cause-specific outcomes in heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF) vs. mid-range/mildly-reduced (HFmrEF) vs. reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (EF), complicating trial design. In patients with HF, we performed a comprehensive analysis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), atrial fibrillation (AF) chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cause-specific outcomes. Methods and results: Of 42,583 patients from the Swedish HF registry (23% HFpEF, 21% HFmrEF, 56% HFrEF), 24% had T2DM, 51% CKD, 56% AF, and 8% all three comorbidities. HFpEF had higher prevalence of CKD and AF, HFmrEF had intermediate prevalence of AF, and prevalence of T2DM was similar across the EF spectrum. Patients with T2DM, AF and/or CKD were more likely to have also other comorbidities and more severe HF. Risk of cardiovascular (CV) events was highest in HFrEF vs. HFpEF and HFmrEF; non-CV risk was highest in HFpEF vs. HFmrEF vs. HFrEF. T2DM increased CV and non-CV events similarly but less so in HFpEF. CKD increased CV events somewhat more than non-CV events and less so in HFpEF. AF increased CV events considerably more than non-CV events and more so in HFpEF and HFmrEF. Conclusion: HFpEF is distinguished from HFmrEF and HFrEF by more comorbidities, non-CV events, but lower effect of T2DM and CKD on events. CV events are most frequent in HFrEF. To enrich for CV vs. non-CV events, trialists should not exclude patients with lower EF, AF and/or CKD, who report higher CV risk.