Ethnic Variability in Glucose and Insulin Response to Rice Among Healthy Overweight Adults: A Randomized Cross-Over Study.

Background: The influence of ethnicity on postprandial glucose and insulin responses has been reported earlier and rice is a major contributor to the overall glycaemic load of Asian and Arab diets. This study aims to compare postprandial glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to rice among healthy overweight Asian, Arab and European participants. Methods: In a randomized crossover design, 47 healthy overweight participants (23 Asian, 16 Arab, and 8 European) consumed 75 grams of glucose beverage or ate 270 grams of cooked basmati rice (75 g of available carbohydrate) on two separate occasions, separated by a one 1-week washout period. Blood glucose and insulin levels were determined at fasting 0 (fasting), 30, 60, and 120 minutes and used to determine the incremental area under the curve (iAUC). Results: The three groups were matched on body mass index and gender. Although no differences were noted statistically in most clinical features, a wide range of variation was noted in age, systolic, diastolic blood pressure. The fasting blood glucose and insulin levels were highest among Asians, followed by Arabs and Europeans (p < 0.01). According to the HOMA-IR test and the Matsuda index, Asians have a higher insulin resistance than Arabs or Europeans when consuming a glucose beverage (p < 0.001) and rice (p < 0.01). Postprandial glucose and insulin responses to glucose beverage did not differ between ethnic groups (p = 0.28; p = 0.10). Based on an unadjusted regression model, European participants had significantly lower iAUC-glucose (p = 0.02) and iAUC-insulin (p = 0.01) after rice consumption than Asian participants. In the adjusted model, the difference between the two groups remained for iAUC-insulin (p = 0.04) but not for iAUC-glucose (p = 0.07). Conclusion: Our study found that ethnic differences exist among healthy overweight adults in terms of insulin resistance, glycaemic response and insulinaemic response to rice. As a result of their high insulin resistance, Asian participants had a higher postprandial insulin spike than Europeans after eating rice. These findings could have substantial implications for nutrition recommendations based on ethnicity, particularly for Asians.

Lifestyle intervention in early pregnancy can prevent gestational diabetes in high-risk pregnant women in the UAE: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: A prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is approximately three times higher than the global rate in the UAE. However, it has not yet been studied whether a 12-week moderate-intensity lifestyle intervention can prevent gestational diabetes among pregnant women at high risk in this region. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pragmatic, open-label, randomized clinical trial was conducted. Sixty-three women aged 18 to 45 years, with ≤12 weeks of gestation, singleton pregnancy, and having ≥ two risk factors for GDM were randomly assigned to the Lifestyle Intervention (LI) group (n = 30) or Usual Care (UC) group (n = 33). The women in the LI group received a 12-week, moderate-intensity lifestyle intervention with individualized counseling on a diet, physical activity, and behavior change by a licensed dietitian. The women in the UC group received usual antenatal care. The primary outcome was the incidence of GDM based on the IADPSG criteria at 24-28 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: The incidence of GDM was 33.3% in LI group and 57.5% in UC group. The crude relative risk (RR) for GDM was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.32-1.04, p = 0.05). The multivariable logistic regression model without adjustment showed OR = 0.37 (95% CI, 0.13-1.02, p = 0.05) and after adjusting with Age, BMI and family history of diabetes reported OR = 0.26, 95%CI 0.07, 0.92, p = 0.04. in LI vs UC. The daily dietary intake of calories (- 120 kcal, p = < 0.01), carbohydrates (- 19 g, p < 0.01), and fat (- 5 g, p = 0.03) was reduced, and physical activity time (+ 52 min, p = 0.05) increased in the LI group after the intervention. However, the LI had no significant effect on maternal and neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: A 12-week moderate intensity lifestyle intervention in early pregnancy could reduce the relative risk of GDM by 41% among high-risk pregnant women in the UAE. These findings could impact public health outcomes in the region. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration Retrospectively registered NCT04273412,18/02/2020.

Limitation of tube thoracostomy in treating pneumothorax in COVID-19 infected patients. A retrospective cohort study.

Background: COVID19 infection is caused by the highly contagious SARS-CoV-2(Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2). The first outbreak of this infection was in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Since then, it has spread rapidly across the world, with more than 100000 new cases each day. Among those infected with SARS-COV-2 up to 20% develop severe disease requiring hospitalization. Among those who are hospitalized, one quarter will need ICU admission. Admission to the ICU is due to respiratory failure or pneumonia. The pneumonia associated with COVID19 infection may lead to respiratory failure requiring endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. An important complication of mechanical ventilation is barotrauma. Barotrauma appears to be common in COVID19 patients. Pneumothorax developed in 25% of COVID19 patients who had barotrauma. In COVID19 the percentage of patients with mild symptoms who develop a pleural effusion is 8% compared to 28% in patients who are critically ill. Most of the COVID19 infected that have a pneumothorax or pleural effusion need a thoracostomy. In trauma cases most, thoracic injuries (leading to pneumothorax or hemothorax) are effectively treated with tube thoracostomy. Objectives: First objective is to compare the therapeutic effect of tube thoracostomy on COVID19 infected patients who have pneumothorax or pleural effusion to those non-COVID19 infected patients who had traumatic pneumothorax or pleural effusion treated by tube thoracostomy. Second objective is to study the morbidity associated with tube thoracostomy in COVID19 infected patients who have pneumothorax or pleural effusion. Patients and methods: This study was conducted in Sheikh Khalifa medical city Ajman, United Arab Emirates. It is a descriptive, observational, retrospective cohort study. One hundred patients were recruited from the January 1, 2020 to the December 31, 2020. Patients were divided into two groups. First group includes fifty adult COVID 19 infected patients who had no trauma. Second group includes fifty adult COVID19 infection free patients who had trauma. Inclusion criteria for the first group: COVID 19 infected patients with an age equal to or above 18 years, of both genders, with history of pneumothorax, pleural effusion or both of them, needed insertion of thoracostomy chest tube. Inclusion criteria for the second group: Patients with an age equal to or above 18 years, of both genders, with history of traumatic pneumothorax, pleural effusion (hemothorax) or both of them, needed insertion of thoracostomy chest tube. Exclusion criteria for the first group: Children, Adult COVID19 infected patients who didn't have pneumothorax or plural effusion, adult COVID19 infected patients who had pneumothorax or plural effusion without a need for tube thoracostomy. Exclusion criteria for the second group: Adult non-COVID19 infected patients who had trauma, but didn't have pneumothorax or pleural effusion, adult non-COVID19 infected patients who had traumatic pneumothorax or pleural effusion without a need for tube thoracostomy. The collected data was revised, coded, tabulated and introduced to a PC using Statistical package for Social Science (SPSS 25). Mann Whitney Test (U test) was used to assess the statistical significance of the difference of a non-parametric variable between two study groups. Chi-Square test was used to examine the relationship between two qualitative variables. Fisher's exact test was used to examine the relationship between two qualitative variables when the expected count is less than 5 in more than 20% of cells. Results: Most of patients in trauma group (group 2) were with the age range of 20-40-year (58.8% of patients) P value was significant (<0.001). In COVID 19 infected patients' group (group 1) the age range was 40-60 year (50%of patients). P Value (<0.001) was significant too. Male was the dominant gender in group 2 (96.1% of patients were male), while in group1 (78% of patients were male), P Value was significant (0.007). No co-morbidities (diabetes, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, Asthma and dyslipidemia) were detected in group 2 (0.0%). Co-morbidity were detected in 76% of patients in group 1, P Value was significant (<0.001). Hemothorax occurred in 37.3% of patients in group 2, and no cases of hemothorax was detected in group 1. P Value was significant (<0.001). Complications of chest tube insertion took place in group 2 as follows; tube malposition in 13.7% of patients, tube blockade in 3.9% of patients. The percentage in group 1 was as follows tube malposition in 16% of patients, tube blockade in 18%. The difference between the two was not significant for tube malposition (P value 0.748) and significant for tube blockade (P value 0.023). Subcutaneous emphysema occurred in 15.7% of patients in group 2 and in 15.7% of patients in group 1. The difference was not significant (P value was 0.118). Acquired bronchopleural fistula occurred 2.0% of group 1 cases. No cases of this fistula were documented in group 2. Number of chest tubes needed to be inserted in group 2 patients was as follows (one chest tube in: 74.5% of patients, two chest tubes in: 23.5% of patients. Three chest tubes or more in 2% of patients). While in group1 patients' number of chest tubes needed to be inserted was (one in 56% of patients, two in 30% of patients. Three or more in 14% of patients). The difference was significant only in those who required insertion of three chest tubes or more (P value was 0.028). The median duration needed to keep a chest tube was 3 days in group 2, and 7 days in group 1. The difference between the two was significant (P value was 0.000). Death was the fate of 3.9% of patients in group 2 and in 64% of patients in group 1. The difference was significant (P value was< 0.001). Conclusion: Therapeutic effect of tube thoracostomy in treating Adult COVID19 patients who had pneumothorax or pleural effusion is less than that used in treating trauma non-COVID19 patients who had pneumothorax or plural effusion. Morbidity and mortality related to tube thoracostomy applied to treat pneumothorax or pleural effusion in adult COVID19 patients is more than that in trauma non COVID 19 patients.