INTRODUCTION: Practice guidelines advise caution on the use of metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This review aims to examine the evidence for the benefits and risks of metformin use in patients with T2DM and CKD. METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed were searched; the references of selected papers were hand searched. Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case series and case-control studies were included. The full text of selected articles was reviewed. The outcomes studied were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular complications, lactic acidosis and worsening of renal function. Recommendations were graded according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network system. RESULTS: A total of 139 unique articles were identified, 14 of which met the inclusion criteria and were selected for full-text review. Four cohort studies reported an association between metformin use and improved all-cause mortality in CKD stage 4 and better. Two cohort studies reported improved cardiovascular outcomes with metformin use. Four cohort studies, 1 case series and 1 case-control study reported no significant association between metformin use and an increased risk of lactic acidosis in CKD. There is a moderate level of evidence to support reduced mortality, improved cardiovascular outcomes and a low risk of lactic acidosis with metformin use in patients with T2DM and with CKD stage 4 and above. CONCLUSION Existing recommendations to restrict metformin use in diabetes patients with CKD need to be reviewed in light of emerging evidence supporting its overall benefits in these patients.

INTRODUCTIONNew-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) is an increasingly recognised metabolic complication of kidney transplantation that is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to determine the incidence of NODAT and identify risk factors for development of NODAT among kidney allograft recipients in a single centre.

MATERIALS AND METHODSWe retrospectively reviewed all kidney allograft recipients in our centre between 1998 and 2007. NODAT were determined using criteria as per American Diabetes Association guidelines. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of NODAT.

RESULTSAmong 388 patients included in the analysis, NODAT was reported in 94 patients (24.2%) after a median follow-up time of 52.1 months. The cumulative incidence of NODAT was 15.8%, 22.8% and 24.5% at 1, 3, and 5 years following transplantation. Seven clinical factors were independent predictors of NODAT: older age, HLA B13 and B15 phenotypes, use of sirolimus, acute rejections, higher pre-transplant and post-transplant (day 1) plasma glucose levels. Patients with NODAT had poorer outcomes in both graft and patient survival.

CONCLUSIONOur study demonstrates a significant risk and burden of NODAT in an Asian transplant population. Risk stratification and aggressive monitoring of blood glucose early post-transplantation is necessary to identify high-risk patients so that appropriate tailoring of immunosuppression and early institution of lifestyle modifications can be implemented.

Adult ; Blood Glucose ; analysis ; Diabetes Mellitus ; etiology ; genetics ; Female ; Graft Rejection ; complications ; HLA-B Antigens ; analysis ; Humans ; Immunosuppressive Agents ; Kidney Transplantation ; adverse effects ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Risk Factors

INTRODUCTION: The cost-effectiveness of screening asymptomatic non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients remains debatable, with current studies assuming lifelong benefits of NAFLD screening while neglecting cardiovascular outcomes. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of NAFLD screening among type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, and to establish a price threshold for NAFLD treatment, when it becomes available. METHOD: A Markov model was constructed comparing 4 screening strategies (versus no screening) to identify NAFLD with advanced fibrosis among T2DM patients: fibrosis-4 (FIB-4), vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), FIB-4 and VCTE (simultaneous), and FIB-4 and VCTE (sequential). Sensitivity analyses and price threshold analyses were performed to assess parameter uncertainties in the results. RESULTS: VCTE was the most cost-effective NAFLD screening strategy (USD24,727/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), followed by FIB-4 (USD36,800/QALY), when compared to no screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a higher degree of certainty for VCTE as a cost-effective strategy compared to FIB-4 (90.7% versus 73.2%). The duration of expected screening benefit is the most influential variable based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio tornado analysis. The minimum duration of screening benefit for NAFLD screening to be cost-effective was at least 2.6 years. The annual cost of NAFLD treatment should be less than USD751 for NAFLD screening to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION Both VCTE and FIB-4 are cost-effective NAFLD screening strategies among T2DM patients in Singapore. However, given the lack of access to VCTE at primacy care and potential budget constraints, FIB-4 can also be considered for NAFLD screening among T2DM patients in Singapore.
Humans ; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease/diagnosis* ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis* ; Research ; Fibrosis

Objective: To look into the glucose tolerance test characteristics and determine complications in non-gestational diabetes pregnant subjects. Methods: From 2006 to 2009 all non-gestational diabetes mellitus (non-GDM) pregnant women who delivered macrosomia at the North Australia's Townsville Hospital were retrospectively reviewed by extracting data from clinical record. Glucose tolerance tests results were analysed in the light of an earlier diagnosis of non-GDM. Results: Ninety-one non-GDM mothers with macrosomia were studied and compared with 41 normoglycemic subjects without macrosomia. Of the subjects with non-GDM macrosomia, 45 (49.4%) had normal 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) without further testing, another 8 (8.8%) had abnormal GCT but normal 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). A total of 4 (4.4%) subjects had normal GCT and OGTT. Interestingly, 14 out of 16 (87.5%) subjects who were tested with OGTT owing to past history of macrosomia had normal results but delivered macrosomic babies. Only 12 subjects had both GCT and OGTT, the rest of the cohort had either of the two tests. Subjects with non-GDM macrosomia had higher frequency of neonatal hypoglycaemia 34% as compared to 10% in non-macrosomic babies (P=0.003). Other feto-maternal complications were similar in both groups. Conclusions: No significant pattern of glucose tolerance characteristics was identified in non-GDM mothers with macrosomic babies. In spite of being normoglycemic significant neonatal hypoglycaemia was recorded in non-GDM macrosomic babies. Further prospective studies on a larger population are needed to verify our findings.

OBJECTIVETo look into the glucose tolerance test characteristics and determine complications in non-gestational diabetes pregnant subjects.

METHODSFrom 2006 to 2009 all non-gestational diabetes mellitus (non-GDM) pregnant women who delivered macrosomia at the North Australia's Townsville Hospital were retrospectively reviewed by extracting data from clinical record. Glucose tolerance tests results were analysed in the light of an earlier diagnosis of non-GDM.

RESULTSNinety-one non-GDM mothers with macrosomia were studied and compared with 41 normoglycemic subjects without macrosomia. Of the subjects with non-GDM macrosomia, 45 (49.4%) had normal 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) without further testing, another 8 (8.8%) had abnormal GCT but normal 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). A total of 4 (4.4%) subjects had normal GCT and OGTT. Interestingly, 14 out of 16 (87.5%) subjects who were tested with OGTT owing to past history of macrosomia had normal results but delivered macrosomic babies. Only 12 subjects had both GCT and OGTT, the rest of the cohort had either of the two tests. Subjects with non-GDM macrosomia had higher frequency of neonatal hypoglycaemia 34% as compared to 10% in non-macrosomic babies (P=0.003). Other feto-maternal complications were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONSNo significant pattern of glucose tolerance characteristics was identified in non-GDM mothers with macrosomic babies. In spite of being normoglycemic significant neonatal hypoglycaemia was recorded in non-GDM macrosomic babies. Further prospective studies on a larger population are needed to verify our findings.