Patterns of eating behavior in people with severe obesity seeking weight loss treatment: An exploratory study.

Although subjects with severe obesity need specific interventions, knowledge about their eating behavior, physical and mental health profiles remains insufficient. This cross-sectional study aimed to identify profiles of individuals with severe obesity based on clinical, psychological and eating behavior characteristics. We included 126 participants (103 women; mean age: 47.2 ± 13.9 years; mean BMI: 41.0 ± 5.7 kg/m2). Cluster analyses were performed to identify profiles based on age, waist circumference, eating behavior, depressive symptoms, food-related quality of life and physical activity. Metabolic syndrome components and type 2 diabetes prevalence were compared between the clusters. Three clusters were identified. Cluster 1 labeled struggling with food (48% of the population) had high scores on both emotional eating and uncontrolled eating, low score on comfort with food and they had depressive symptoms. Cluster 2, low loss of eating control (29%), had low scores on emotional eating and uncontrolled eating, and high quality of life in the psychosocial dimension. Cluster 3, pleasure from eating (22%), had the greatest score on comfort with food, the highest physical activity level, and depressive symptoms. In cluster 2, prevalence of type 2 diabetes was higher, although not statistically significant. Otherwise, no differences were found between clusters. Conclusion: Subjects with severe obesity have different profiles, partly explained by their eating behavior, associated with clinical and behavioral patterns. Further studies should confirm this cluster structure and assess how these profiles impact the evolution of obesity and whether they can help to improve the personalization of care programs.

Medication errors at hospital admission and discharge in Type 1 and 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To assess the prevalence and characteristics of medication errors at hospital admission and discharge in people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, and identify potential risk factors for these errors. METHODS: This prospective observational study included all people with Type 1 (n = 163) and Type 2 diabetes (n = 508) admitted to the Diabetology-Department of the University Hospital of Montpellier, France, between 2013 and 2015. Pharmacists conducted medication reconciliation within 24 h of admission and at hospital discharge. Medication history collected from different sources (patient/family interviews, prescriptions/medical records, contact with community pharmacies/general practitioners/nurses) was compared with admission and discharge prescriptions to detect unintentional discrepancies in medication indicating involuntary medication changes. Medication errors were defined as unintentional medication discrepancies corrected by physicians. Risk factors for medication errors and serious errors (i.e. errors that may cause harm) were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 322 medication errors were identified and were mainly omissions. Prevalence of medication errors in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes was 21.5% and 22.2% respectively at admission, and 9.0% and 12.2% at discharge. After adjusting for age and number of treatments, people with Type 1 diabetes had nearly a twofold higher odds of having medication errors (odds ratio (OR) 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-2.94) and serious errors (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.02-4.76) at admission compared with those with Type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Medication reconciliation identified medication errors in one third of individuals. Clinical pharmacists should focus on poly-medicated individuals, but also on other high-risk people, for example, those with Type 1 diabetes.

Evolution of silent myocardial ischaemia prevalence and cardiovascular disease risk factor management in Type 2 diabetes over a 10-year period: an observational study.

AIMS: To assess the evolution of silent myocardial ischaemia prevalence and of cardiovascular disease risk factor management over 10 years in people with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This repeated cross-sectional study prospectively included 770 people with Type 2 diabetes who presented at our centre in the period 1999-2009. All had at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor, no history of coronary disease and were screened for silent myocardial ischaemia using myocardial perfusion imaging. The prevalence of silent myocardial ischaemia, clinical and biological variables and treatments were collected and compared among participants screened in three periods: 1999 to 2002; 2003 to 2005; and 2006 to 2009. We also identified predictive factors for silent myocardial ischaemia. RESULTS: Participants had a mean ± sd age of 62.3 ± 9.3 years, 57.4% were men and the mean time from diagnosis of diabetes was 13.4 ± 9.3 years. Overall, silent myocardial ischaemia screening was positive in 13.9% of participants. This prevalence decreased sharply over the 10-year study period (22.6% in 1999-2002, 13.7% in 2003-2005 and 5.9% in 2006-2009; P<0.0001). In parallel, diastolic and systolic blood pressure, HbA1c and LDL cholesterol significantly decreased and glitazone and statin use increased (all P<0.001). Male gender, peripheral artery disease, diastolic blood pressure >80 mmHg and LDL cholesterol >2.6 mmol/l were independently associated with silent myocardial ischaemia. Further adjustment showed the screening period had a significant effect, which erased the effects of diastolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of silent myocardial ischaemia decreased sharply over time, and control of the main cardiovascular disease risk factors improved. Although the causality link cannot be established, the present study supports current recommendations advocating glycaemic control and intensive management of cardiovascular factors instead of systematic screening.

Patient-controlled oral analgesia versus nurse-controlled parenteral analgesia after caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial.

We assessed the effectiveness of early patient-controlled oral analgesia compared with parenteral analgesia in a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of women undergoing elective caesarean section under regional anaesthesia. Seventy-seven women received multimodal paracetamol, ketoprofen and morphine analgesia. The woman having patient-controlled oral analgesia were administered four pillboxes on the postnatal ward containing tablets and instructions for self-medication, the first at 7 h after the spinal injection and then three more at 12-hourly intervals. Pain at rest and on movement was evaluated using an 11-point verbal rating scale at 2 h and then at 6-hourly intervals for 48 h. The pre-defined non-inferiority limit for the difference in mean pain scores (patient-controlled oral analgesia minus parenteral) was one. The one-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean pain scores was significantly lower than one at all time-points at rest and on movement, demonstrating non-inferiority of patient-controlled oral analgesia. More women used morphine in the patient-controlled oral analgesia group (22 (58%)) than in the parenteral group (9 (23%); p = 0.002). The median (IQR [range]) number of morphine doses in the patient-controlled oral analgesia group was 2 (1-3 [1-7]) compared with 1 (1-1 [1-2]); p = 0.006) in the parenteral group. Minor drug errors or omissions were identified in five (13%) women receiving patient-controlled oral analgesia. Pruritus was more frequent in the patient-controlled oral analgesia group (14 (37%) vs 6 (15%) respectively; p = 0.03), but no differences were noted for other adverse events and maternal satisfaction. After elective caesarean section, early patient-controlled oral analgesia is non-inferior to standard parenteral analgesia for pain management, and can be one of the steps of an enhanced recovery process.