Optimizing Ramadan fasting: A randomised controlled trial for people with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan applying the principles of the ADA/EASD consensus.

BACKGROUND: Fasting during the holy month of Ramadan is one of the five pillars of Islam. Fasting is not meant to create excessive hardship on the Muslim individual according to religious tenets. It is important that health professionals are aware of potential risks associated with fasting during the month of Ramadan (mainly hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia). AIMS: To explore the impact of applying the principles of our 2020 recommendations for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) during the month of Ramadan. METHODS: A multinational randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in five Muslim majority countries. Six hundred and sixty participants were deemed eligible for the study; however, 23% declined to participate later for various reasons. In total, 506 participants were enroled and were equally randomized to the intervention or the control group. At the end of the study, data from 231 participants in the intervention group and 221 participants from the control group were collected after 12.6% and 8.7% were, respectively, lost to follow-up. Participants were randomized to receive a Ramadan-focussed education with treatment for diabetes adjusted as per our 2020 recommendation update compared with the local usual care (control group). Results are presented using mean, standard deviation, odds ratio (OR), and percentages. RESULTS: At the end of the study, the number of hypoglycemic episodes in the intervention group was less than in participants who received usual care. The intervention group had significantly lower severe hypoglycemia compared to the control group with an OR of 0.2 [0.1-0.8]. Compared to baseline, both groups had a significant reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), but the improvements were significantly greater in the intervention group. Whilst body weight reduced and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased with the intervention, these changes were not significantly different from usual care. CONCLUSIONS: A pre-Ramadan assessment of people with T2D coupled with pre-Ramadan education and an adjustment of glucose-lowering treatment as per our updated 2020 recommendations can prevent acute complications and allow a safer fast for people with T2D. We have shown that such an approach reduces the risk of developing severe hypoglycemia and improves the metabolic outcomes in people with T2D.

Change in glycaemic control with structured diabetes self-management education in urban low-resource settings: multicentre randomised trial of effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: In high-resource settings, structured diabetes self-management education is associated with improved outcomes but the evidence from low-resource settings is limited and inconclusive. AIM: To compare, structured diabetes self-management education to usual care, in adults with type 2 diabetes, in low-resource settings. DESIGN: Single-blind randomised parallel comparator controlled multi-centre trial. Adults (> 18 years) with type 2 diabetes from two hospitals in urban Ghana were randomised 1:1 to usual care only, or usual care plus a structured diabetes self-management education program. Randomisation codes were computer-generated, and allotment concealed in opaque numbered envelopes. The intervention effect was assessed with linear mixed models. MAIN OUTCOME: Change in HbA1c after 3-month follow-up. Primary analysis involved all participants. CLINICALTRIAL: gov identifier:NCT04780425, retrospectively registered on 03/03/2021. RESULTS: Recruitment: 22nd until 29th January 2021. We randomised 206 participants (69% female, median age 58 years [IQR: 49-64], baseline HbA1c median 64 mmol/mol [IQR: 45-88 mmol/mol],7.9%[IQR: 6.4-10.2]). Primary outcome data was available for 79 and 80 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Reasons for loss to follow-up were death (n = 1), stroke(n = 1) and unreachable or unavailable (n = 47). A reduction in HbA1c was found in both groups; -9 mmol/mol [95% CI: -13 to -5 mmol/mol], -0·9% [95% CI: -1·2% to -0·51%] in the intervention group and -3 mmol/mol [95% CI -6 to 1 mmol/mol], -0·3% [95% CI: -0·6% to 0.0%] in the control group. The intervention effect was 1 mmol/mol [95%CI:-5 TO 8 p = 0.726]; 0.1% [95% CI: -0.5, 0.7], p = 0·724], adjusted for site, age, and duration of diabetes. No significant harms were observed. CONCLUSION: In low-resource settings, diabetes self-management education might not be associated with glycaemic control. Clinician's expectations from diabetes self-management education must therefore be guarded.

A disaster diplomacy perspective of acute public health events.

Conceptions of acute public health events typically assume that they are tackled exclusively or principally through technical and medical solutions. Yet health and politics are inexorably linked. To better understand this link, this paper adopts a disaster diplomacy perspective for analysing and assessing the impacts of acute public health events on diplomatic outcomes. Two gaps in understanding disaster-health-politics connections are addressed: (i) how health interventions can impact diplomatic endeavours, especially for (ii) acute public health events. Three diverse case studies are interpreted from a disaster diplomacy perspective: Cuba's medical diplomacy, China and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and polio vaccination. Disaster diplomacy permits deeper investigation and analysis of connections amongst health, disaster, and diplomatic activities by viewing efforts on acute public health events as being political through disaster risk reduction (beforehand) and disaster response (during and afterwards). Understanding improves how health interventions affect diplomacy and on disaster diplomacy's limitations.