Objectives: To evaluate if magnesium supplementation, in addition to standard therapy, improves fasting blood sugar (FBS) and/or glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) compared to placebo or other comparator. Methodology: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Acta Medica Philippina, Health Research and Development Information Network (HERDIN) and references of reviewed journals from 1966 to July 2015 using the following search terms: “magnesium” OR “magnesium supplementation” OR “magnesium replacement”, AND randomized controlled trial AND diabetes OR diabetes mellitus OR non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus OR diabetic OR diab* (with MeSH, where available). Studies were retrieved and rated independently using the standards provided by The Cochrane Collaboration. High quality trials were included in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: Of the 689 records screened, 10 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and 7 studies in the meta-analysis. Pooled data showed a non-significant trend towards improvement in glycemic control in the magnesium-treated group (mean difference -0.19, CI -0.58 to 0.21). There was a stronger but still non-significant trend in T2DM patients with hypomagnesemia (mean difference -1.16, CI -2.92 to 0.6). Conclusion Routine magnesium supplementation for improvement in glycemic control in T2DM patients cannot be recommended based on data from included studies in this meta-analysis.
Diabetes Mellitus ; Magnesium ; Meta-analysis

Objectives: To evaluate if magnesium supplementation, in addition to standard therapy, improves fasting blood sugar (FBS) and/or glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) compared to placebo or other comparator. Methodology: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Acta Medica Philippina, Health Research and Development Information Network (HERDIN) and references of reviewed journals from 1966 to July 2015 using the following search terms: “magnesium” OR “magnesium supplementation” OR “magnesium replacement”, AND randomized controlled trial AND diabetes OR diabetes mellitus OR non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus OR diabetic OR diab* (with MeSH, where available). Studies were retrieved and rated independently using the standards provided by The Cochrane Collaboration. High quality trials were included in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: Of the 689 records screened, 10 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and 7 studies in the meta-analysis. Pooled data showed a non-significant trend towards improvement in glycemic control in the magnesium-treated group (mean difference -0.19, CI -0.58 to 0.21). There was a stronger but still non-significant trend in T2DM patients with hypomagnesemia (mean difference -1.16, CI -2.92 to 0.6). Conclusion Routine magnesium supplementation for improvement in glycemic control in T2DM patients cannot be recommended based on data from included studies in this meta-analysis.
Magnesium ; Glycemic Control ; Meta-Analysis

Background: Sepsis is a leading cause of mortality both locally and worldwide. Despite this, early diagnosis of sepsis remains challenging, with a significant number not fulfilling SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome) criteria. In 2016, the Sepsis-3 guidelines modified its definition to include the qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score in an attempt to include a significant number of SIRS-negative septic patients.

Methods: To compare the two, 295 adult patients in the emergency room with suspected infection were included in the study and simultaneously determined their qSOFA score and SIRS criteria. Three infection specialists adjudicated the presence of sepsis, and outcomes within the first 48 hours were acquired. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values for qSOFA and SIRS were computed using constructed confusion matrices, and overall predictive accuracy was measured by the Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) curve.

Results: Of the 295 patients included in the study, 95 (32.2%) were deemed sepsis positive via adjudication. The qSOFA score was a specific (95.5%) but a poorly sensitive (46.3%) test compared to the SIRS criteria (sensitivity 73.7% and specificity 60%). Both qSOFA and the SIRS criteria significantly correlated with sepsis positivity, but the qSOFA score had superior overall predictive accuracy at 70.9% compared to the SIRS criteria. The adjudicators had moderate strength in agreement (Fleiss' kappa = 0.39) and a percentage agreement of 60%.

Conclusion: We concluded that the qSOFA score was a more accurate predictor of sepsis and a reliable pre-dictor of in-hospital mortality, but should not be used as a sepsis screening tool due to the low sensitivity. We recommend that the SIRS criteria be maintained as a screening tool and to use the qSOFA score concurrently for time management.

Key Words: Sepsis, qSOFA, SIRS

INTRODUCTION: Accurate determination of volume status for patients with end-stage renal disease is essential in determining ultrafiltration rate during hemodialysis (HD). To complement the current dry weight method, inferior vena cava (IVC) collapsibility, made accessible by pointof-care ultrasonography, is considered. This study determined the utility of IVC measurement in estimating the volume status of patients during HD in comparison to clinical parameters. METHODS: A single-center cross-sectional design including 53 HD patients was conducted, with IVC measurements done through the Butterfly iQ ultrasound (Butterfly Network, Burlington, Massachusetts). RESULTS: Most patients were hypervolemic before HD based on weight (94.3%) and IVC collapsibility index (IVC CI; 75.5%), but only 30% had clinical symptoms. Body weight, maximum IVC diameter, minimum IVC diameter, and indexed IVC size significantly decreased after HD, whereas IVC-CI, blood pressure, and heart rate were unchanged. For the subset of patients with symptoms, absolute values of IVC measures were higher, but did not significantly change after HD, unlike in those without symptoms. For volume classification, there are discrepancies in the classifications based on the different measures, with most improvement seen when weight was used, but which was not reflected in IVC-CI. Change in weight and IVC measures were not significantly correlated. DISCUSSION This pilot study showed that the current dry weight method provides ultrafiltration rate estimation without causing intradialytic events. However, IVC can be a supplemental parameter to set higher targets and increase volume removal enough to cause intravascular change, especially in symptomatic patients. The incongruencies in classifying volume status suggest that there is no single measure to determine hemodynamic status and that using multiple parameters may provide a more reliable estimate.

Dyslipidemia is a cardiovascular risk factor that is increasing in prevalence in the country. The need to treat and manage elevated cholesterol levels, both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic, is of utmost importance. Different medical societies and groups bonded together to formulate the 2020 Philippine Clinical Practice Guidelines for dyslipidemia. The group raised nine clinical questions that are important in dyslipidemia management. A technical working group analyzed the clinical questions dealing with non-pharmacologic management, primary prevention for both non-diabetic and individuals with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, secondary prevention, adverse events of statins and the use of other lipid parameters as measurement of risk for cardiovascular disease. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses were included in the GRADE-PRO analysis to come up with the statements answering the clinical questions. The statements were presented to a panel consisting of government agencies, members of the different medical societies, and private institutions, and the statements were voted upon to come up with the final statements of the 2020 practice guidelines. The 2020 CPG is aimed for the Filipino physician to confidently care for the individual with dyslipidemia and eventually lower his risk for cardiovascular disease.
Dyslipidemias ; Hyperlipoproteinemia Type II ; Diabetes Mellitus