Physical activity and sedentary behaviour of Bahraini people with type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study.

Objective: Study patterns of physical activity and sedentary behaviour and the influence of demographics and body mass index (BMI) on these behaviours amongst Bahraini adults with type 2 diabetes over 10 weeks using an activity tracker. Method: This cross-sectional observational study was conducted at a Bahrain government health centre. Thirty-three Bahraini Arab adults, 30-60 years old, with controlled type 2 diabetes, wore a Fitbit Flex 2TM activity tracker for 10 weeks. Data on age, sex, marital and employment status, education and BMI were collected at the start of the study. Results: A total of N = 32 participants completed the study. The average steps per day were 7859 ± 4131, and there were no differences between baseline, week 5 and 10. A third of participants were sedentary, based on a threshold of 5000 steps/day. Females accumulated fewer average daily steps than males (6728 ± 2936 vs. 10,281 ± 4623, p = 0.018). Daily averages for physical activity intensity were as follows: sedentary (786 ± 109 min), light (250 ± 76 min), moderate (9 ± 10 min) and vigorous (12 ± 18 min). Males had higher daily averages versus females for moderate (13 ± 9 vs. 5 ± 9 min, p = 0.018) and vigorous physical activity (21 ± 23 vs. 5 ± 7 min, p = 0.034). 91% of participants wore the device ≥10 h/day. The adherence rate was 79% based on percentage of days the device was worn continuously over 10 weeks. Conclusion: Future physical activity interventions should target sedentary and female participants with type 2 diabetes. In addition, we need to understand the facilitators and barriers to physical activity and the physical activity preferences of these two subgroups.

Safety and efficacy of COVID-19 prime-boost vaccinations: Homologous BBIBP-CorV versus heterologous BNT162b2 boosters in BBIBP-CorV-primed individuals.

BACKGROUND: Booster vaccine doses against SARS-CoV-2 have been advocated to address evidence of waning immunity, breakthrough infection, and the emergence of immune-evasive variants. A heterologous prime-boost vaccine strategy may offer advantages over a homologous approach, but the safety and efficacy of this approach with the mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (BNT: Pfizer) and inactivated BBIBP-CorV (BBIBT: Sinopharm) vaccines have not been studied. METHODS: We conducted a non-randomized, non-blinded phase II observational community trial acrossBahrain, investigating the reactogenic and immunogenic responseof participants who had previously received two doses of BBIBP, followed by a third booster dose of either BBIBP (homologous booster) or BNT (heterologous booster). Immunogenicity through serological statuswas determined at baseline and on the following 8thweek. Reactogenicity data (safety and adverse events) were collected throughout study period, in addition to participant-led electronic journaling. RESULTS: 305 participants (152 BBIBP and 153 BNT booster) were enrolled in the study,with 246 (127 BBIBP and 119 BNT booster) included in the final analysis. There was a significant increase in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels post booster administration in both groups; however, the heterologous BNT arm demonstrated a significantly larger mean increase in the level of spike (S) antigen-specific antibodies (32.7-fold increase versus 2.6, p < 0.0001) and sVNT neutralising antibodies (3.4-fold increase versus 1.8, p < 0.0001), whereas the homologous arm demonstrated a significant increase in the levels of nucleocapsid (N) antigen-specific antibodies (3.8-fold increase versus none). Non-serious adverse events (injection site pain, fever, and fatigue) were more commonly reported in the heterologous arm, but no serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Heterologous prime-boost vaccination with the mRNA BNT162b2 (Pfizer) vaccine in those who had received two doses of inactivated virus BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm) vaccine demonstrated a more robust immune response against SARS-CoV-2 than the homologous BBIBP booster and appears safe and well tolerated. Clinical Trial Registry Number (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT04993560.

Effect of Date Fruit Consumption on the Glycemic Control of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Objective. Date fruit has been reported to have benefits in type 2 diabetes (T2D), though there is a concern, given the high sugar content, about its effects on glycemic control. Design and Setting. Prospective, interventional, randomized, parallel study. Participants. In total, 79 patients with T2D (39 male and 40 female). Intervention. Participants were randomly allocated to either 60 g date fruit or 60 g raisins daily of the equivalent glycemic index (amount split, given as midmorning and midafternoon snack) for 12 weeks. Main Outcome Measures. The primary outcome was to investigate the effect of date fruit on HbA1c and fasting blood glucose, and their variability, in patients with T2D in comparison to the same glycemic load of raisins. The secondary outcomes were to determine whether date fruit affected cardiovascular risk by measuring fasting lipids, C-reactive protein (CRP), blood pressure, and insulin resistance (IR) as measured by Homeostatic Model Assessment (HOMA-IR). Results. In total, 61 (27 female and 34 male) of 79 patients completed the study. There was no difference between or within groups for HbA1c or HbA1c variability, fasting glucose or glucose variability, insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), insulin sensitivity (HOMA-S), beta cell function (HOMA-B), the disposition index, lipids, systolic (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP), or C-reactive protein (CRP) (p > 0.05). Conclusion. No improvement in glycemic indices was seen following supplementation of 60 g daily date fruit or raisins, though neither had a deleterious effect on glycemic control over a 12-week period, indicating their safety when consumed in T2D. Additionally, no beneficial therapeutic effects of date fruit on other cardiovascular indices in T2D were seen.

Randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy against standard therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 disease.

Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy in COVID-19 disease may improve clinical outcome in severe disease. This pilot study was undertaken to inform feasibility and safety of further definitive studies. This was a prospective, interventional and randomized open label pilot trial in patients with severe COVID-19. Twenty COVID-19 patients received two 200 ml transfusions of convalescent patient CP over 24-h compared with 20 who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the requirement for ventilation (non-invasive or mechanical ventilation). The secondary outcomes were biochemical parameters and mortality at 28 days. The CP group were a higher risk group with higher ferritin levels (p < 0.05) though respiratory indices did not differ. The primary outcome measure was required in 6 controls and 4 patients on CP (risk ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.22-2.0, p = 0.72); mean time on ventilation (NIV or MV) did not differ. There were no differences in secondary measures at the end of the study. Two patients died in the control and one patient in the CP arm. There were no significant differences in the primary or secondary outcome measures between CP and standard therapy, although a larger definitive study is needed for confirmation. However, the study did show that CP therapy appears to be safe in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypoxia.Clinical trials registration NCT04356534: 22/04/2020.