Development of type 2 diabetes mellitus in people with inter | Figure 1

%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-14%27%20transform=%27translate(13.000000,%20103.176124)%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-Copy-5%27%20transform=%27translate(0.000000,%20182.676124)%27%3e%3crect%20id=%27Rectangle-8%27%20fill=%27%23E2E0DE%27%20x=%270%27%20y=%270%27%20width=%2736%27%20height=%2736%27%20rx=%2718%27%3e%3c/rect%3e%3cpath%20d=%27M28,27.6503435%20C28,22.127496%2023.5228474,17.6503435%2018,17.6503435%20C12.4771525,17.6503435%208,22.127496%208,27.6503435%20M18,16.3472505%20C20.8165136,16.3472505%2023.099749,14.0640151%2023.099749,11.2475015%20C23.099749,8.43098783%2020.8165136,6.1477524%2018,6.1477524%20C15.1834863,6.1477524%2012.9002509,8.43098783%2012.9002509,11.2475015%20C12.9002509,14.0640151%2015.1834863,16.3472505%2018,16.3472505%20Z%27%20id=%27Combined-Shape%27%20fill=%27%23FFFFFF%27%20fill-rule=%27nonzero%27%3e%3c/path%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)

Deleted account

Some actions are only available when you log in.

Report case

Report this to our moderators

Development of type 2 diabetes mellitus in people with intermediate hyperglycaemia ('prediabetes')

You can view up to 4 cases without signing up Sign up for unlimited access

Does raised blood sugar ('prediabetes') increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and how many of these people return to having normal blood sugar levels (normoglycaemia)?

Cochrane Review; 103 observational studies, monitoring people over 1 to 24 years. More than 250,000 participants began the studies.

Key results

Generally, the development of new type 2 diabetes in people with prediabetes increased over time. However, many participants also reverted from prediabetes back to normal blood glucose levels. Compared to people with normoglycaemia, those with prediabetes showed an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, but results showed wide differences and depended on how prediabetes was measured. There were no clear differences with regard to several regions in the world or different populations. Because people with prediabetes may develop diabetes but may also change back to normoglycaemia almost any time, doctors should be careful about treating prediabetes because we are not sure whether this will result in more benefit than harm, especially when done on a global scale affecting many people worldwide.

The certainty of the evidence for overall prognosis was moderate because results varied widely. The certainty of evidence for studies comparing prediabetic with normoglycaemic people was low because the results were not precise and varied widely.

Read the full Cochrane Review here

Comment

Sign up to add a comment

More about this case

ResolvedVerified literature

Why you should join Figure 1

Sign up to explore now

Similar cases

\ \ Cochrane Review; 11 studies (2531 people); comparing resistance testing with no resistance testing in HIV‐positive people.\ Main results\ Resistance testing probably made little or no difference to the risk of dying (moderate‐certainty evidence) or progression to AIDS (moderate‐certainty evidence). Resistance testing probably increased the chance of successful suppression of HIV replication (low‐certainty evidence) but probably made little or no difference in CD4 cell counts (cells affected by HIV) (moderate‐certainty evidence). Resistance testing made little or no difference in the number of people who experience medication side effects (low‐certainty evidence). No studies examined how many people developed a new opportunistic infection, and no studies examined patient quality of life.\ Conclusion\ For people for whom treatment no longer works, the use of resistance tests to select new treatments led to suppression of the HIV virus as measured by a blood test, but probably did not reduce the risk of death or progression to AIDS. Whether or not resistance testing provides any benefit for patients who are starting HIV treatment for the first time remains uncertain because no studies have evaluated this. These conclusions are based on studies conducted up to 12 years ago and included very few participants from low‐ and middle‐income countries.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/303e0313-78b1-4ace-8733-6564ffac7343)

\ \ Anticoagulant drugs or antiplatelet drugs, or both, for reducing the risk of blood clots and stroke in people with antiphospholipid syndrome\ Review question\ This review aimed to find out which type of treatment works best for preventing stroke and other blood clotting (thrombotic) events in people with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).\ Background\ APS is a disease where the immune system produces antibodies against the person's own cells. The presence of such antibodies increases the risk of developing blood clots (thrombosis) in blood vessels (veins or arteries, or both) and can cause pregnancy‐related complications such as miscarriage. Blood clots in arteries can cause strokes. Two types of drugs are commonly used to prevent blood clots in people with APS: anticoagulants such as warfarin (which interfere with proteins that form blood clots) and antiplatelet drugs such as aspirin (which prevent cells called platelets from sticking together).\ Study characteristics\ The evidence is current to 22 November 2019. We looked for studies that randomly allocated people with APS to different treatments, including anticoagulants, antiplatelet drugs, or both. We identified eight studies involving 811 participants, with the average age between 36 and 50 years. Three studies compared rivaroxaban (a new oral anticoagulant) with standard‐dose warfarin (a vitamin K antagonist – VKA). Two studies compared two intensities of VKA anticoagulation: high versus standard. One study compared standard‐dose VKA plus aspirin versus standard‐dose VKA alone. The remaining studies compared different combinations of anticoagulants or antiplatelet drugs (e.g. aspirin). One study compared dual antiplatelet drugs versus single antiplatelet drugs. Interventions lasted from 180 days to a median of 58.4 months.\ Key results\ In three studies comparing rivaroxaban (NOAC) with standard‐dose VKA there were similar proportions of participants with blood clots, bleeding, or death (moderate‐certainty evidence), but there were more participants with stroke in the NOAC group than in the VKA group (moderate‐certainty evidence). In the two studies comparing high‐dose versus a standard‐dose VKA, similar proportions of participants had blood clotting and major bleeding problems (low‐certainty evidence), but participants in the high‐dose group had a greater risk of minor and any bleeding problems (low‐certainty evidence). A study comparing standard VKA plus an antiplatelet drug with standard‐dose VKA observed more participants with any thromboembolic event with combined treatment (low‐certainty evidence) and similar proportions of participants for other outcomes (very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence).\ The remaining studies comparing different combinations of antiplatelet drug and/or VKA were inconclusive regarding benefits or harms (low‐ or very low‐certainty evidence).\ We identified two ongoing studies and three studies are awaiting classification.\ Certainty of the evidence\ Most of the results were imprecise and did not clearly indicate benefit or harm.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/4bcffb92-c828-4f87-9dcd-0ce357e8133d)

\ \ We analysed evidence from randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) investigating probiotic supplements alone or in combination with drug or non‐drug interventions for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).\ What is the issue?\ GDM is a condition where the mother develops high blood sugar levels, usually after 13 weeks of pregnancy. GDM is different from type 2 diabetes in that blood sugar levels are normal before pregnancy, and the levels usually return to normal after pregnancy. GDM is associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes later in life. Women with GDM are at increased risk of high blood pressure with protein in the urine (pre‐eclampsia) and instrumental delivery or caesarean section. Their infants are more likely to be born large for their gestational age. Probiotics are 'good bacteria' that are usually taken in the form of capsules or drinks to add to the gut bacteria. We are dependent on our gut bacteria to help digest our food, produce certain vitamins, regulate our immune system and keep us healthy by protecting us against disease‐causing bacteria. Probiotics could change a person's metabolism and play a role in the prevention of GDM.\ Why is this important?\ Women who are overweight or obese, had GDM in a previous pregnancy or have an immediate family member with diabetes are at increased risk of GDM. Current treatment for GDM includes diet with or without medication but does not always prevent the problems associated with GDM. Probiotics could be a simple method for preventing GDM. This review looked at whether there is evidence to show if this is true.\ What evidence did we find?\ We searched for evidence from randomised controlled trials in March 2020 and identified seven studies with 1647 pregnant women comparing probiotics with inactive placebo (pretend treatment). Two studies were in overweight and obese women, two in obese women and three did not exclude women based on their weight. The overall risk of bias was low except for one study where the risk of bias was unclear.\ It is unclear how probiotics affect the risk of developing GDM due to the wide variation in the results of six studies (1440 women, low‐quality evidence). Probiotics increase the risk of developing pre‐eclampsia (4 studies, 955 women; high‐quality evidence). Probiotics make little to no difference to the risk of needing a caesarean section (6 studies, 1520 women; high‐quality evidence), and probably make little to no difference to weight gain during pregnancy (4 studies, 853 women; moderate‐quality evidence) or to the risk of giving birth to a big baby (4 studies, 919 women; moderate‐quality evidence). None of the studies reported information about the risk of perineal trauma (tears during vaginal birth or a surgical incision (episiotomy)), postnatal depression or developing subsequent diabetes.\ We do not know if probiotics affect the infant having medical problems after birth because of the variation in results between studies (2 studies, 623 infants; low‐quality evidence). It is also uncertain how probiotics affect infant death (either before birth or as a newborn) (3 studies, 709 infants; low‐certainty evidence), low blood sugar (2 studies, 586 infants; low‐certainty evidence) or body fat (2 studies, 320 infants; low‐certainty evidence). None of the studies reported information about the risk of infants developing diabetes or long‐term conditions that affect brain development.\ What does this mean?\ Low‐quality evidence from six trials has not clearly identified the effect of probiotics on the risk of GDM. However, high‐quality evidence suggests that probiotics probably increase the risk of pre‐eclampsia. Therefore, there is currently evidence of possible harm with little observed benefit for widespread use of probiotics in pregnancy.\ There are eight studies currently ongoing that may help to provide more clarity on the effects of probiotics. It is also important to explore the relationship between probiotics and pre‐eclampsia further.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/4dda97c1-6e16-4a50-85af-b81dfd072f2c)

\ \ Does pioglitazone prevent or delay type 2 diabetes and its complications in people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus?\ What is type 2 diabetes?\ Type 2 diabetes, also known as adult‐onset diabetes, is the most common type of diabetes. It prevents the body from using insulin properly ‐ insulin is a hormone that helps the body to regulate blood sugar levels. People with type 2 diabetes may suffer long‐term effects (diabetic complications), such as eye or kidney disease, or develop foot ulcers. People with moderately elevated blood sugar levels (often referred to as 'prediabetes') are said to have an increased risk of developing diabetes. Pioglitazone is a blood sugar‐lowering medicine, which is used to treat people with type 2 diabetes.\ What did we want to find out?\ We wanted to know whether pioglitazone can also be used to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in people at increased risk of developing the condition. We examined the effects of pioglitazone on important outcomes for patients, such as complications of diabetes, death from any cause, health‐related quality of life and unwanted effects of the treatment.\ What did we do?\ We searched for studies that investigated pioglitazone used to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes. Participants had to have elevated blood sugar levels, but lower than diagnostic levels for diabetes, and they needed to be free from other diseases. Studies had to apply the intervention (pioglitazone) for at least 24 weeks.\ What we found\ We found 27 randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) with a total of 4186 participants. The studies compared pioglitazone with other antidiabetic drugs, diet and exercise, placebo (a 'sham' treatment), or no intervention. Twenty‐three out of 27 studies were conducted in China. The studies lasted between 24 weeks and three years.\ This evidence is up to date as of November 2019.\ Key results\ Five studies compared pioglitazone with other antidiabetic drugs (metformin, acarbose or repaglinide) and one study compared pioglitazone with diet and exercise. There were no clear beneficial or harmful effects on the risk of developing diabetes comparing the drugs.\ Six studies compared pioglitazone with placebo. There was a reduction or delay in the development of type 2 diabetes: 188 out of 1000 people treated with placebo developed type 2 diabetes compared with 75 per 1000 people treated with pioglitazone (possible spread: 32 per 1000 to 179 per 1000).\ Twenty‐three studies compared pioglitazone with no intervention. There was a reduction or delay in the development of type 2 diabetes: 193 out of 1000 people with no intervention developed type 2 diabetes compared with 60 per 1000 treated with pioglitazone (possible spread: 44 per 1000 to 77 per 1000).\ Only a few studies reported death from any cause, serious unwanted effects, non‐fatal heart‐attacks or strokes. We were not able to detect any clear benefits or harms of pioglitazone for these outcomes. None of the included studies reported health‐related quality of life or socioeconomic effects (such as costs of the intervention, absence from work, medication consumption).\ We found two ongoing studies that we could potentially include in this review. These studies may contribute data from around 2694 participants to future updates of our review.\ Future research should focus on whether the effect of pioglitazone is sustained after people stop taking it. Furthermore, research should focus on patient‐important outcomes such as unwanted effects and complications of diabetes.\ Quality of the evidence\ All studies had problems in their methods or the way they reported results. Moreover, many outcomes were reported by no or just a few studies. We are therefore uncertain whether pioglitazone prevents or delays type 2 diabetes in people at risk of developing the condition.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/5089d9a7-60d9-4474-88fe-7ba67eb301d0)

Trending now

\ \ A 52-year-old man presented with a 20-minute history of chest pain radiating to the left shoulder and neck, associated with dyspnea and diaphoresis.\ He had a history of hypertension, long-term smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle.\ On physical examination, bibasilar crackles were noted on lung auscultation. An electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed in the primary care setting, and the patient was promptly referred to the emergency department.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/ae0fe999-6875-4474-94f0-ad823dbb9b3a)

\ \ A 28-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of intense pruritus over the lower back. She reported no recent travel or exposure to new environments. She cares for a small kennel with approximately eight dogs rescued from the streets.\ Physical examination revealed multiple small vesicles, some clustered and others scattered, predominantly involving the lumbar region and the left gluteal area.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/c271070f-2bc7-4052-9895-635277e1a7d5)

\ \ A 4-month-old male infant presented with skin lesions localized to the chin for the past 3 days. Physical examination revealed multiple small pustules with surrounding inflammatory signs on the chin, along with a few scattered papules on the chest.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/48f41642-b9db-4089-b120-a94ee52328de)

\ \ patient in late teens presenting after a collapse, no chest pain, no previous cardiac history, no history of sudden death in family, are there any features in this ekg that would warrant further work-up or is this just a pediatric ekg?](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2af390e1-ace8-40ed-ba1c-98fb2d72f4c5)