Search

Aims: Change in weight, HbA1c, lipids, blood pressure and cardiometabolic events over time is variable in individuals with type 2 diabetes. We hypothesised that people with a genetic predisposition to a more favourable adiposity distribution could have a less severe clinical course/progression. Methods: We involved people with type 2 diabetes from two UK‐based cohorts: 11,914 individuals with GP follow‐up data from the UK Biobank and 723 from Salford. We generated a 'favourable adiposity' genetic score and conducted cross‐sectional and longitudinal studies to test its association with weight, BMI, lipids, blood pressure, medication use and risk of myocardial infarction and stroke using 15 follow‐up time points with 1‐year intervals. Results: The 'favourable adiposity' genetic score was cross‐sectionally associated with higher weight (effect size per 1 standard deviation higher genetic score: 0.91 kg [0.59,1.23]) and BMI (0.30 kg/m2 [0.19,0.40]), but higher high‐density lipoprotein (0.02 mmol/L [0.01,0.02]) and lower triglycerides (−0.04 mmol/L [−0.07, −0.02]) in the UK Biobank at baseline, and this pattern of association was consistent across follow‐up. There was a trend for participants with higher 'favourable adiposity' genetic score to have lower risk of myocardial infarction and/or stroke (odds ratio 0.79 [0.62, 1.00]) compared to those with lower score. A one standard deviation higher score was associated with lower odds of using lipid‐lowering (0.91 [0.86, 0.97]) and anti‐hypertensive medication (0.95 [0.91, 0.99]). Conclusions: In individuals with type 2 diabetes, having more 'favourable adiposity' alleles is associated with a marginally better lipid profile long‐term and having lower odds of requiring lipid‐lowering or anti‐hypertensive medication in spite of relatively higher adiposity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Delay in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is common and contemporary UK studies are lacking. Aim: To determine factors associated with, and the consequences of, a prolonged time to diagnosis in IBD. Methods: This quality improvement study included 304 adults with a new IBD diagnosis made between January 2014 and December 2017 across 49 general practices (GP) and gastroenterology secondary care services. Outcome measures were demographic, clinical and laboratory factors associated with a delayed time, defined as greater than upper quartile, to: (a) patient presentation (b) GP referral (c) secondary care diagnosis, and factors associated with a complicated disease course (hospitalisation and/or surgery and/or biologic treatment) in the year after diagnosis. Results: The median [IQR] diagnosis sub‐intervals were: (a) patient = 2.1 months [0.9‐5.1]; (b) GP = 0.3 months [0.0‐0.9]; (c) secondary care = 1.1 months [0.5‐2.1]. 50% of patients were diagnosed within 4 months and 92% were diagnosed within 2 years of symptom onset. Diagnostic delay was more common in Crohn's disease (7.6 months [3.1‐15.0]) than ulcerative colitis (3.3 months [1.9‐7.3]) (P < 0.001). Patients who presented as an emergency (P < 0.001) but not those with a delayed overall time to diagnosis (P = 0.35) were more likely to have a complicated disease course. Conclusion: Time to patient presentation is the largest component of time to IBD diagnosis. Emergency presentation is common and, unlike a delayed time to diagnosis, is associated with a complicated disease course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]