Beneficial Metabolic Effects of Duodenal Jejunal Bypass Liner for the Treatment of Adipose Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Analysis of Responders and Non-Responders.

Implantation of a duodenal-jejunal endoluminal bypass liner (DJBL) has shown to induce weight loss and to improve metabolic parameters. DJBL is a reversible endoduodenal sleeve mimicking duodenal bypass while lacking risks and limitations of bariatric surgery.Effects on metabolic control, body mass parameters, appetite regulation, glucose tolerance, organ health, and lipid profile were determined in 16 morbidly overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition, relevant hormones (leptin, ghrelin, gastric inhibitory peptide, glucagon-like peptide, and insulin) were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) at 0, 1, 32, and 52 weeks post-implant following a mixed meal tolerance test. Lipoprotein subclasses were analysed by proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H NMR) spectrometry. DJBL provoked weight loss, a decrease in fat mass, and an improvement in insulin resistance and hepatic function in most but not all of the patients, but in the long term did not increase gut hormone fasting levels pointing to a combined effect of more than gut parameters alone. Lipidome analysis was done in 10 patients, allowing classification to responders and non-responders by reduction of sLDL-p subfraction; and to further analyse the atherogenic profile. Responders showed an overall more pronounced effect regarding improvement of HbA1c, BMI, and HOMA index.Implantation of a DJBL in obese type 2 diabetes patients does not per se lead to an improvement of the metabolic situation. Further analyses including larger cohorts have to be performed to identify responding patients, to better treat non-responders and to analyse the key effectors.

[Sudden cardiac death in diabetes mellitus]. / Plötzlicher Herztod bei Diabetes mellitus.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) represents one of the most frequent causes of death in patients with diabetes. In contrast to patients without diabetes it has not been significantly reduced despite improvements in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction and long-term treatment of cardiovascular diseases as well as diabetes mellitus. Several mechanisms can be responsible for the high incidence of SCD in diabetics: 1. arrhythmogenic effects mediated via cardiac autonomic neuropathy, repolarization disturbances or sympathetic tone activation (hypoglycemia), 2. myocardial ischemia due to atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, platelet aggregation or thrombophilic effects, 3. myocardial disease due to inflammation, fibrosis, associated hypertension or uremia and 4. potassium imbalance due to diabetic nephropathy or hypoglycemia. This review introduces concepts of mechanisms that are responsible for SCD in patients with diabetes. Treatment of patients with diabetes should primarily consider a systematic assessment of any deterioration of this chronic disease and of complications at an early stage. Cardiovascular drug treatment corresponds to that of non-diabetics. In antidiabetic treatment drugs with a low risk of hypoglycemia should be preferred. Treatment with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) also combined with cardiac resynchronization therapy () demonstrated a high life-saving potential particularly in patients with diabetes.

A European evidence-based guideline for the prevention of type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and socioeconomic burden of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and associated co-morbidities are rising worldwide. AIMS: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for preventing T2DM. METHODS: A European multidisciplinary consortium systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening and interventions for T2DM prevention using SIGN criteria. RESULTS: Obesity and sedentary lifestyle are the main modifiable risk factors. Age and ethnicity are non-modifiable risk factors. Case-finding should follow a step-wise procedure using risk questionnaires and oral glucose tolerance testing. Persons with impaired glucose tolerance and/or fasting glucose are at high-risk and should be prioritized for intensive intervention. Interventions supporting lifestyle changes delay the onset of T2DM in high-risk adults (number-needed-to-treat: 6.4 over 1.8-4.6 years). These should be supported by inter-sectoral strategies that create health promoting environments. Sustained body weight reduction by >or= 5 % lowers risk. Currently metformin, acarbose and orlistat can be considered as second-line prevention options. The population approach should use organized measures to raise awareness and change lifestyle with specific approaches for adolescents, minorities and disadvantaged people. Interventions promoting lifestyle changes are more effective if they target both diet and physical activity, mobilize social support, involve the planned use of established behaviour change techniques, and provide frequent contacts. Cost-effectiveness analysis should take a societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention using lifestyle modifications in high-risk individuals is cost-effective and should be embedded in evaluated models of care. Effective prevention plans are predicated upon sustained government initiatives comprising advocacy, community support, fiscal and legislative changes, private sector engagement and continuous media communication.