文献精选

Athina Stamati1  · Athanasios Christoforidis2

Received: 7 October 2024 / Accepted: 31 December 2024 / Published online: 10 January 2025 © The Author(s) 2025

Abstract

Aims To assess the efficacy and safety of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems compared to standard care in managing glycaemic control during pregnancy in women with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM).

Methods We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, registries and conference abstracts up to June 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing AID to standard care in pregnant women with T1DM. We con-ducted random effects meta-analyses for % of 24-h time in range of 63–140 mg/dL (TIR), time in hyperglycaemia (>140 mg/ dl and>180 mg/dL), hypoglycaemia (<63 mg/dl and<54 mg/dL), total insulin dose (units/kg/day), glycemic variability (%),  changes in HbA1c (%), maternal and fetal outcomes.

Results Thirteen studies (450 participants) were included. AID significantly increased TIR (Mean difference, MD 7.01%, 95% CI 3.72–10.30) and reduced time in hyperglycaemia>140 mg/dL and>180 mg/dL (MD – 5.09%, 95% CI – 9.41 to – 0.78 and MD – 2.44%, 95% CI – 4.69 to – 0.20, respectively). Additionally, glycaemic variability was significantly reduced (MD – 1.66%, 95% CI – 2.73 to – 0.58). Other outcomes did not differ significantly.

Conclusion AID systems effectively improve glycaemic control during pregnancy in women with T1DM by increasing TIR and reducing hyperglycaemia without any observed adverse short-term effects on maternal and fetal outcomes.

Keywords Automated insulin delivery · Pregnancy · Type 1 diabetes mellitus · Systematic review · Meta-analysis

Nikoline Nygaard1  · Anne Kirstine Eriksen2  · Lars Ängquist3  · Daniel Belstrøm1  · Evelina Stankevic3  · Torben Hansen3  · Anja Olsen2  · Merete Markvart1

Received: 15 August 2024 / Accepted: 22 December 2024 / Published online: 13 January 2025 © The Author(s) 2025

Abstract

Background Evidence suggests a bidirectional relationship between oral health status and type 2 diabetes (T2D) in adults. Studies on associations between childhood oral health and T2D in adulthood are lacking.

Methods This is a nationwide Danish registry-based cohort study of individuals born between 1963 and 1972, having at least one registration in the National Child Odontology Registry between 1972 and 1987 (n=627,758). Follow-up lasted from 1995 to 2018. Main exposure variables were the highest achieved levels of dental caries and gingivitis between 1972 and 1987. The outcome was T2D diagnosis during follow-up. Data was analyzed using Cox-regression, stratified on sex, with age as the underlying timescale and highest achieved level of education between age 25–30 years as Cox-strata. Main analyses were conducted with and without age-restrictions (T2D diagnosis before/after age 40).

Results Compared to lowest-level references, high levels of gingivitis associated with increased hazard ratios (HRs) of T2D in both males (HR [95% confidence interval]: 1.59 [1.47; 1.72]) and females (1.87 [1.68; 2.08]), as did severe dental caries (males: (1.15 [1.04; 1.27], in females: 1.19 [1.06; 1.35]). Below age 40, gingivitis associated with increased HRs in males (1.84 ([1.58; 2.15]) and females (1.94 [1.63; 2.30]). Above age 40, both exposures displayed higher HRs in males (high gin-givitis: 1.52 [1.39; 1.66] vs. severe caries: 1.23 [1.09; 1.38]) and females (1.83 [1.59; 2.10] vs. 1.37 [1.17; 1.59]).

Conclusions Data suggest an association between childhood dental caries and gingivitis with risk of receiving a T2D diag-nosis in adulthood. However, results are affected by residual confounding warranting further studies.

Keywords Cohort studies · Dental caries · Diabetes mellitus · Type 2 · Gingivitis

Sunita M. C. De Sousa1,2,3  · Jennifer M. N. Phan4,5 · Amanda Wells4  · Kathy H. C. Wu6,7,8,9 · Hamish S. Scott1,4,10

Received: 12 December 2024 / Accepted: 3 January 2025 / Published online: 16 January 2025 © The Author(s) 2025, corrected publication 2025

Abstract

Aims To assess the utility of reanalysing GCK variants of uncertain significance (VUS) as an intervention to improve the detection of monogenic diabetes.

Methods We examined GCK VUS in a local cohort of individuals with suspected monogenic diabetes and re-curated each variant against the recent ClinGen GCK-specific variant classification guidelines.

Results Variant reanalysis achieved a new ‘likely pathogenic’ classification (i.e., positive results) in 4/8 identified VUS.The single most common newly applied criterion indicating variant pathogenicity was a confirmed phenotype of GCK-hyperglycaemia. RNA sequencing and segregation studies were performed in two cases but not additive to reclassification.

Conclusions This is the first VUS reclassification study in monogenic diabetes using gene-specific guidelines. Within the limits of this small study, we observed a high rate (50%) of VUS upgrades to a positive result, thereby confirming the util-ity of VUS reanalysis– particularly with biochemical phenotyping– in increasing the detection of monogenic diabetes. We recommend HbA1c, fasting blood glucose and either pancreatic autoantibody negativity or a small oral glucose tolerance test increment as a feasible minimum dataset to inform variant classification at the individual patient level, noting the ongoing work of the ClinGen Monogenic Diabetes Expert Panel in systematically reviewing GCK variants at the international level.

Keywords Glucokinase · Monogenic diabetes · DNA sequencing · Genetics

Abbreviations

PVS Pathogenic very strong

PS Pathogenic strong

PM Pathogenic moderate

PP Pathogenic supporting

FHx Family history

AR Autosomal recessive

del/ins Deletion/insertion

IFG Impaired fasting glucose

OGTT Oral glucose tolerance test

Communicated by Massimo Federici, M.D.

Sunita M. C. De Sousa

该Email地址已收到反垃圾邮件插件保护。要显示它您需要在浏览器中启用JavaScript。

1 Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

2 Endocrine & Metabolic Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia

3 Adult Genetics Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia

4 Department of Genetics & Molecular Pathology, SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia

5 Flinders Medical School, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

6 Clinical Genomics, St Vincent’s Hospital, Darlinghurst, Australia

7 School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

8 Discipline of Genomic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

9 School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia

10 Centre for Cancer Biology, an alliance between SA Pathology, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

Tim Mori1,2  · Katsiaryna Prystupa2,3  · Klaus Straßburger1,2  · Marc Bonn2,4 · Oana Patricia Zaharia2,3,5  · Olaf Spörkel2,4 · Oliver Kuß1,2,6  · Michael Roden2,3,5  · Robert Wagner2,3,5

Received: 10 December 2024 / Accepted: 13 December 2024 / Published online: 17 January 2025 © The Author(s) 2025

第3页 共480页