Targeting self-care adherence for glycaemic control in multimorbid type 2 diabetes mellitus with depression using bupropion: a protocol for cross-over randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes and depression are among the 10 biggest health burdens globally. They often coexist and exhibit a strong bidirectional relationship. Depression leads to decreased adherence to self-care activities. This impacts glycaemic control and worsens type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). Both conditions have a synergistic effect and lead to greater complications, hospitalisations, healthcare expenditure and a worse quality of life. There is no consensus on managing people with comorbid T2D and depression. Bupropion is an efficacious antidepressant with many properties suitable for T2D with depression, including a favourable metabolic profile, persistent weight loss and improvement in sexual dysfunction. We will assess the efficacy and safety of add-on bupropion compared with standard care in people with T2D and mild depression. This study can give valuable insights into managing the multimorbidity of T2D and depression. This can help mitigate the health, social and economic burden of both these diseases. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This cross-over randomised controlled trial will recruit people with T2D (for 5 years or more) with mild depression. They will be randomised to add-on bupropion and standard care. After 3 months of treatment, there will be a washout period of 1 month (without add-on bupropion while standard treatment will continue). Following this, the two arms will be swapped. Participants will be assessed for glycosylated haemoglobin, adherence to diabetes self-care activities, lipid profile, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, autonomic function, sexual function, quality of life and adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Ethics Committee at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur has approved this study (AIIMS/IEC/2022/4172, 19 September 2022). We plan to disseminate the research findings via closed group discussions at the site of study, scientific conferences, peer-reviewed published manuscripts and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2022/10/046411.

Evaluation of Utility of Invasive Electroencephalography for Definitive Surgery in Patients with Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

When noninvasive tests are unable to define the epileptogenic zone in patients, intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) is a method of localizing the epileptogenic zone. Compared with noninvasive evaluations, it offers more precise information about patterns of epileptiform activity, which results in useful diagnostic information that supports surgical decision-making. The primary aim of the present study was to assess the utility of iEEG for definitive surgery for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Online databases such as PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore were searched for MeSH terms and free-text keywords. The ROBINS I (risk of bias in non-randomized studies - of interventions) critical appraisal tool was used for quality assessment. The prevalence from different studies was pooled together using the inverse variance heterogeneity method. Egger's regression analysis and funnel plot were used to evaluate publication bias. The systematic review included 18 studies, and the meta-analysis included 10 studies to estimate the prevalence of seizure freedom (Engel class I) in patients undergoing surgery after iEEG. A total of 526 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 10 years. The overall pooled estimate of the prevalence of seizure freedom (Engel class I) for patients undergoing surgery after iEEG was 53% (95% confidence interval, 44%-62%). The results additionally demonstrated that 12 studies had a moderate risk of bias and 6 had a low risk. Future studies are crucial to enhance our understanding of iEEG to guide patient choices and unravel their implications.

Newborn Hearing Screening with Two-Step Protocol and Risk Factor Identification: Our Experience at a Tertiary Care Centre in Eastern India.

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of hearing loss and identify the high-risk factors among neonates with hearing loss. Methods: Retrospective study done on 1054 infants in a tertiary care centre in Eastern India from 2020 to 2021 and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee. A two-step protocol is used for screening. In the well-nursed group, OAE and BOA were performed. In the case of REFER results for automated ABR following OAE evaluation in well-nursed babies, a detailed audiological evaluation was scheduled to be carried out using diagnostic ABR within one month of age. In the high-risk group, hearing screening includes OAE, BOA, and AABR evaluations. AABR evaluation was performed as a part of the screening protocol irrespective of the results of OAE screening as PASS or REFER. Results: In our study among 1053 neonates screened, 375 were in the risk category, and 679 were without risk factors. The overall prevalence of hearing loss in neonates was 22.78 per 1000 screened neonates and 56 per 1000 among high-risk neonates. In the high-risk group, we were able to identify 4 cases of Auditory spectrum neuropathy disorder with the use of AABR during 1st step of screening. In multivariate regression analysis, the risk factors for hearing loss identified were NICU stay (OR = 3.6, 95% CI = 1.1-12.03) and Craniofacial anomalies (OR = 55.37, 95% CI = 16.48- 186.01). Conclusion: Early neonatal screening helps in the detection, intervention, and rehabilitation of hearing loss. The use of AABR in risk infant screening enhanced the chance of detection of auditory spectrum neuropathy disorder (ASND) cases. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-023-03723-3.