Body mass index among Melanesian and Indian Fijians aged ≥ 40 years living in Fiji.

To determine the distribution and sociodemographic associations of body mass index (BMI; kg/m(2)) among Melanesian and Indian Fijians aged ≥40 years living in Fiji, a population-based cross-sectional survey with multistage random sampling was conducted in 2009. Melanesians were more likely to have BMI ≥25 (odds ratio [OR] = 4.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.57-6.28; P < .001) and BMI ≥30 (OR = 3.84; 95% CI = 2.94-5.03; P < .001). Among Melanesians, gender and educational attainment were predictive of BMI ≥25 on multivariate analysis. Women were more likely to be overweight (OR = 2.03; 95% CI = 1.34-3.06) or obese (OR = 1.92; 95% CI = 1.43-2.59). Among Indians, gender and age were predictive of BMI ≥25. Again, women were more likely to be overweight (OR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.69-3.73) or obese (OR = 3.71; 95% CI = 2.19-6.29). Gender-age-domicile-adjusted, and extrapolating across Fiji, 0.3%, 84.5%, and 51.7% of Melanesians aged ≥40 years had BMI <18.5, ≥25, and ≥30, respectively. Among Indians, these values were 5.8%, 54.2%, and 21.2%, respectively.

Diabetic eye disease among adults in Fiji with previously undiagnosed diabetes.

BACKGROUND: To determine the prevalence and severity of diabetic eye disease among adults aged ≥40 years with unrecognized diabetes in Fiji. DESIGN: Population-based cross-sectional survey using multistage cluster random sampling. PARTICIPANTS: 1381 (=73.0% participation). METHODS: Interview-based questionnaire; visual acuity measured; dilated ocular examination performed; glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration determined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence and grade of diabetic retinopathy/maculopathy. RESULTS: Sample prevalence of diabetes was 44.8% (95%CI 42.2-47.5%), with 63.4% (95%CI 59.5-67.1%) previously undiagnosed (384/606). Predictors of undiagnosed compared with previously diagnosed diabetes were female gender (P = 0.001), rural residence (P = 0.049) and not having a relative with known diabetes (P < 0.001). Twenty-two retinae of participants with previously undiagnosed diabetes were unexaminable (predominantly cataract). Of the remaining 746 eyes, 3.5% (95%CI 2.4-5.1%) had diabetic retinopathy/maculopathy, 1 (0.1%) had proliferative retinopathy and 4 (0.5%) had active significant maculopathy. Of eyes with diabetic disease, two (7.7%, 95%CI 1.0-25.3%) had diabetes-related vision impairment (3/60; 6/60). Sixteen previously undiagnosed participants (4.2%, 95%CI 2.5-6.7%) had diabetic disease evident in at least one eye: for four (all Melanesian women aged >50 years), this was vision-threatening (1.0%; 95%CI 0.3-2.8). Mean HbA1c (10.7 ± 2.6%) of participants undiagnosed and with diabetes eye disease was higher (P < 0.001) than that of those undiagnosed and without. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of diabetic eye disease was low among this cohort, but where present, severe vision-threatening retinopathy/maculopathy was relatively common. If diabetic eye disease is to be avoided or ameliorated in Fiji, then community awareness of and access to diabetes diagnostic services must improve, particularly for women and rural dwellers.

Diabetic eye disease among adults in Fiji with self-reported diabetes.

BACKGROUND: To characterize diabetic eye disease and its management among adults aged ≥40 years with self-reported diabetes in Fiji. METHODS: During a population-based cross-sectional survey using multistage cluster random sampling, participants reported health information, including whether a doctor had diagnosed diabetes. HbA1c and visual acuity were measured. Diabetic eye disease was assessed using 90-dioptre lens dilated funduscopy. RESULTS: Of those enumerated, 1381 (73.0%) participated, with 222 reporting diabetes. Twenty fundi were not examined (19 due to cataract). Of the remaining 424 eyes, 75.5% had no diabetic disease, 1.2% had proliferative retinopathy, 7.5% had active significant maculopathy and 0.7% had burnt-out/treated disease. By person, 27.2% had retinopathy and/or maculopathy in at least one eye. Mean HbA1c (9.9 ± 2.3%) for this group was significantly higher (P = 0.004) than for those without eye disease. Vision-threat occurred in at least one eye of 11.5%. Diabetes (predominantly maculopathy) caused pinhole acuity <6/18, <6/60 and <3/60 for 3.8%, 1.1% and 0.7% of eyes, respectively. No person was bilaterally blind (<6/60) due to diabetes, but 2.3% (all on oral antiglycaemics alone) were 6/60 bilaterally. Compared with recent diabetes diagnosis, diagnosis >10 years ago was predictive of any (odds ratio [OR] 8.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.28-20.21; P < 0.001) and vision-threatening (OR 5.25; 95% CI 1.71-16.12; P = 0.004) eye disease. Although 80.6% claimed regular general diabetes checkups, only 36.5% recalled previous dilated ocular examination. Four eyes had received laser treatment. CONCLUSION: There was evidence of failure of management of diabetes and its eye complications. Both need to be improved if increasing diabetes-related visual disability is to be avoided.