Reach Out Churches: A Community-Based Participatory Research Pilot Trial to Assess the Feasibility of a Mobile Health Technology Intervention to Reduce Blood Pressure Among African Americans.

Innovative strategies are needed to reduce the hypertension epidemic among African Americans. Reach Out was a faith-collaborative, mobile health, randomized, pilot intervention trial of four mobile health components to reduce high blood pressure (BP) compared to usual care. It was designed and tested within a community-based participatory research framework among African Americans recruited and randomized from churches in Flint, Michigan. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of the Reach Out processes. Feasibility was assessed by willingness to consent (acceptance of randomization), proportion of weeks participants texted their BP readings (intervention use), number lost to follow-up (retention), and responses to postintervention surveys and focus groups (acceptance of intervention). Of the 425 church members who underwent BP screening, 94 enrolled in the study and 73 (78%) completed the 6-month outcome assessment. Median age was 58 years, and 79% were women. Participants responded with their BPs on an average of 13.7 (SD = 10.7) weeks out of 26 weeks that the BP prompts were sent. All participants reported satisfaction with the intervention. Reach Out, a faith-collaborative, mobile health intervention was feasible. Further study of the efficacy of the intervention and additional mobile health strategies should be considered.

Prevalence and Determinants of Glycemic Abnormalities in Cardiac Surgery Patients without a History of Diabetes: A Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and persistence of postoperative glycemic abnormalities in patients without a history of diabetes, undergoing cardiac surgery (CS). METHODS: Ninety-two patients without diabetes with planned elective CS procedures at a tertiary institution were evaluated preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively for measures of glucose control including hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, 2-h post oral glucose load, and insulin levels. Data from the hospital course were recorded. RESULTS: Valid data were available from 61 participants at 3 months; 59% had prediabetes and 10% had diabetes preoperatively by one or more diagnostic criteria and continued to be dysglycemic at 3 months. Preoperative A1C was an independent predictor of postoperative hyperglycemia (p = 0.02). Insulin resistance and BMI rather than glycemic abnormalities before surgery were associated with a longer duration of the postoperative insulin infusion (p = 0.004, p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: Seventy percent of CS patients without known diabetes met criteria for diabetes or prediabetes preoperatively, and these abnormalities persisted after surgery.

Detemir plus aspart and glulisine induced lipoatrophy: 2015 literature review and report of a new case.

BACKGROUND: In the first and only literature review, conducted in 2009, of human insulin analog- induced lipoatrophy, there were 12 published cases, including 1 with aspart, 1 with detemir, 1 with NovoMix 30 and none with detemir plus aspart. It is perceived that insulin analog induced-lipoatrophy is increasing. We conducted a 2015 literature review of published reports of lipoatrophy induced by aspart, detemir, detemir plus aspart, and NovoMix30. We also report a new case of detemir plus aspart and glulisine induced lipoatrophy. METHODS: Our focused literature searches (limited to 1995-2014) in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, using a combination of insulin analog and lipoatrophy terminology, was conducted in early January 2015. RESULTS: From the 520 unique citations there were 33 (from 13 papers and 9 abstracts) lipoatrophy cases induced by detemir (n = 5), aspart (n = 21), detemir plus aspart (n = 4) and NovoMix 30 (n = 3), representing 30 new cases since 2009. Many of these reported cases were females (76 %), had type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) (94 %) and were in young persons (61 %). A 41-year-old T1DM woman developed lipoatrophy on her upper thighs, arms and abdomen 14 months after injecting detemir plus aspart at the same sites. Later on, after a year on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) using aspart and then glulisine, she developed lipoatrophy at the infusion sites. When CSII insulin was switched to lispro she did not develop lipoatrophy after 10 months. Meanwhile, the original lipoatrophy sites significantly improved. CONCLUSIONS: Our literature review uncovered 30 new published cases of aspart, detemir, aspart plus detemir and NovoMix 30-induced lipoatrophy since 2009. The largest increase in cases was in aspart- induced lipoatrophy. Recent surveys showed most rapid acting insulin analog-induced lipoatrophy were associated with CSII. In our review of the reported cases, 85.7 % cases of aspart-induced lipoatrophy were associated with CSII. As in previous reports, we showed lipoatrophy was more common in females, T1DM and young persons. Our patient may be the 5th published case of detemir plus aspart-induced lipoatrophy and possibly the first case report of glulisine induced lipoatrophy. She believed both detemir plus aspart and glulisine induced the lipoatrophy.

Evaluation of hemoglobin A1c criteria to assess preoperative diabetes risk in cardiac surgery patients.

OBJECTIVE: Hemoglobin A1c (A1C) has recently been recommended for diagnosing diabetes mellitus and diabetes risk (prediabetes). Its performance compared with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2-h post-glucose load (2HPG) is not well delineated. We compared the performance of A1C with that of FPG and 2HPG in preoperative cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: Data from 92 patients without a history of diabetes were analyzed. Patients were classified with diabetes or prediabetes using established cutoffs for FPG, 2HPG, and A1C. Sensitivity and specificity of the new A1C criteria were evaluated. RESULTS: All patients diagnosed with diabetes by A1C also had impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, or diabetes by other criteria. Using FPG as the reference, sensitivity and specificity of A1C for diagnosing diabetes were 50% and 96%, and using 2HPG as the reference they were 25% and 95%. Sensitivity and specificity for identifying prediabetes with FPG as the reference were 51% and 51%, respectively, and with 2HPG were 53% and 51%, respectively. One-third each of patients with prediabetes was identified using FPG, A1C, or both. When testing A1C and FPG concurrently, the sensitivity of diagnosing dysglycemia increased to 93% stipulating one or both tests are abnormal; specificity increased to 100% if both tests were required to be abnormal. CONCLUSIONS: In patients before cardiac surgery, A1C criteria identified the largest number of patients with diabetes and prediabetes. For diagnosing prediabetes, A1C and FPG were discordant and characterized different groups of patients, therefore altering the distribution of diabetes risk. Simultaneous measurement of FGP and A1C may be a more sensitive and specific tool for identifying high-risk individuals with diabetes and prediabetes.