Search

Abstract Background In recent years, the use of non- and semi-parametric models which estimate hazard ratios for analysing time-to-event outcomes is continuously criticized in terms of interpretation, technical implementation, and flexibility. Hazard ratios in particular are critically discussed for their misleading interpretation as relative risks and their non-collapsibility. Additive hazard models do not have these drawbacks but are rarely used because they assume a non- or semi-parametric additive hazard which renders computation and interpretation complicated. Methods As a remedy, we propose a new parametric additive hazard model that allows results to be reported on the original time rather than on the hazard scale. Being an essentially parametric model, survival, hazard and probability density functions are directly available. Parameter estimation is straightforward by maximizing the log-likelihood function. Results Applying the model to different parametric distributions in a simulation study and in an exemplary application using data from a study investigating medical care to lung cancer patients, we show that the approach works well in practice. Conclusions Our proposed parametric additive hazard model can serve as a powerful tool to analyze time-to-event outcomes due to its simple interpretation, flexibility and facilitated parameter estimation.

Abstract The aim was to investigate prevalence of dry eye syndrome (DES) in a population-based sample in Germany. The association between coexisting eye diseases and DES was also of interest. We recontacted participants of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall study between 2018 and 2021 by postal questionnaire that included the Women’s Health Study questionnaire on DES. We estimated prevalence of DES and examined DES-associated factors among 2095 participants aged 62–91 years. We performed interaction analyses between sex and coexisting eye diseases in relation to the DES prevalence and performed bias analyses to examine the robustness of the results. The DES prevalence was 31.5% (34–36% after correction for potential non-response bias, 24.1% after correction for outcome misclassification) and it was almost 2.1-times higher in women than in men (women 42.3%, men 20.4%). Among DES subjects, 70.3% had received treatment in the previous 12 months. There was synergism between female sex and coexisting eye diseases (cataract, glaucoma, macular degeneration) in terms of DES prevalence. The extrapolated numbers of patients aged 62–91 years with DES in Germany are 1.1–1.3 million men and 6.1–6.8 million women. The observed synergism may be explained by differences in ocular physiology, subjective perception and response behavior. Women with eye diseases (cataract, glaucoma, macula degeneration) appear to have a markedly higher susceptibility to suffer from DES than men, so that a diagnostic workup of DES symptoms is particularly justified in women with these eye diseases.

Abstract Background/objectives Findings from epidemiological studies showed controversial findings between dietary sugar intake and the development of diabetes. Most of these studies assessed dietary sugar intake by self-reports which might be prone to bias. Urinary sucrose, an objective biomarker of sucrose intake, might provide better insights into this association. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the associations between sucrose intake, measured via self-reports and urinary sucrose, with incident diabetes and to detect the impact of obesity on this association. Subjects/methods Data of a sub-group (n = 2996) from the prospective EPIC-Norfolk cohort were investigated. Sucrose intake was assessed by self-reports (validated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and 7-day diet diaries (7DD)) and as an objective urinary sucrose biomarker. Cox proportional hazard models were conducted to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations between urinary and dietary sucrose intake and incident diabetes. Mediation analysis was performed to investigate the mediated percentage of body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) on this association. Results The mean age of the participants was 60.6 ± 9.5 years and 53% were women. After a mean follow-up of 11.2 ± 2.9 years, 97 participants developed diabetes. Findings suggested inverse associations regarding incident diabetes for self-reported sucrose intake per 50 g/d via 7DD [HR: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.91)], and a tendency via FFQ [HR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.46, 1.42)]. Urinary sucrose indicated a positive association with incident diabetes for each increase of 100 µM [HR: 1.14 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.36)]. The proportion mediated of BMI and WC for this association was 16 and 22%. Conclusions These findings indicate that sucrose measured as objective urinary biomarker points to a positive association with incident diabetes. BMI might partly mediate this association. However, to obtain more precise results, more studies are warranted that consider this objective biomarker.

ObjectiveStudies have shown an increased incidence of pediatric type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the detailed role of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the incidence increase in type 1 diabetes remains unclear. We investigated the spatiotemporal association of pediatric type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 incidence at the district level in Germany.MethodsFor the period from March 2020 to June 2022, nationwide data on incident type 1 diabetes among children and adolescents aged

Introduction Automated insulin delivery (AID), also known as artificial pancreas system or ‘closed-loop system’, represents a novel option for current treatments for type 1 diabetes (T1D). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of AID systems in comparison with current intensified insulin therapy for glycaemic control and patient-reported outcomes in individuals with T1D.Methods and analysis Studies will be eligible if they are randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with T1D of all ages, and if they compare an AID system for self-administration during the day and night period with any other type of insulin therapy for at least 3 weeks. The primary outcome will be time in the glucose target range of 70–180 mg/dL. A systematic review will be conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov registries from their inception dates. Two authors will independently screen all references based on titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. For data extraction, standard forms will be developed and tested before extraction. All information will be assessed independently by at least two reviewers. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. The data synthesis will include a random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) in a frequentist framework. Where applicable and if sufficient RCTs are available, sensitivity analyses will be performed, and heterogeneity and publication bias will be assessed. The certainty of evidence from the NMA will be evaluated following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group guidance.Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval is needed. The results will be reported to the funder, presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and at conferences, and disseminated via press release, social media and public events.PROSPERO registration number CRD42023395492.

Abstract Aims Absolute treatment effects—i.e. numbers needed to treat (NNTs)—of novel antidiabetic drugs for cardiovascular outcomes have not been comprehensively evaluated. We aimed to perform a meta‐analysis of digitalized individual patient outcomes to display and compare absolute treatment effects. Methods and results Individual patient time‐to‐event information from Kaplan–Meier plots of cardiovascular mortality (CM) and/or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) endpoints from cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) evaluating dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitors, glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists, and sodium glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors vs. placebo were digitalized using WebPlotDigitizer 4.2 and the R code of Guyot et al.; Weibull regression models were generated, validated, and used to estimate NNT for individual trials; random‐effects meta‐analysis generated Meta‐NNT with 95% confidence intervals. Sixteen CVOTs reported time‐to‐event information (14 in primary diabetes and 2 in primary heart failure populations). Thirteen studies including 96 860 patients were meta‐analysed for CM: At the median follow‐up of 30 months, Meta‐NNTs were 178 (64 to ∞ to −223) for DPP‐4 inhibitors, 261 (158 to 745) for GLP‐1 receptor agonists, and 118 (68 to 435) for SGLT2 inhibitors. Ten studies including 96 128 patients were meta‐analysed for HHF: At the median follow‐up of 29 months, estimated Meta‐NNTs were −644 (229 to ∞ to −134) for DPP‐4 inhibitors, 441 (184 to ∞ to −1100) for GLP‐1 receptor agonists, and 126 (91 to 208) for SGLT2 inhibitors. SGLT2 inhibitors were especially effective for HHF in primary heart failure populations [Meta‐NNT 25 (19 to 39)] vs. primary diabetes populations [Meta‐NNT 233 (167 to 385)] at 16 months of follow‐up. Conclusions We found only modest treatment benefits of GLP‐1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for CM and HHF in primary type 2 diabetes mellitus populations. In primary heart failure populations, SGLT2 inhibitor benefits were substantial and comparable in efficacy to established heart failure medication.

Abstract Background Meta-analyses are used to summarise the results of several studies on a specific research question. Standard methods for meta-analyses, namely inverse variance random effects models, have unfavourable properties if only very few (2 – 4) studies are available. Therefore, alternative meta-analytic methods are needed. In the case of binary data, the “common-rho” beta-binomial model has shown good results in situations with sparse data or few studies. The major concern of this model is that it ignores the fact that each treatment arm is paired with a respective control arm from the same study. Thus, the randomisation to a study arm of a specific study is disrespected, which may lead to compromised estimates of the treatment effect. Therefore, we extended this model to a version that respects randomisation. The aim of this simulation study was to compare the “common-rho” beta-binomial model and several other beta-binomial models with standard meta-analyses models, including generalised linear mixed models and several inverse variance random effects models. Methods We conducted a simulation study comparing beta-binomial models and various standard meta-analysis methods. The design of the simulation aimed to consider meta-analytic situations occurring in practice. Results No method performed well in scenarios with only 2 studies in the random effects scenario. In this situation, a fixed effect model or a qualitative summary of the study results may be preferable. In scenarios with 3 or 4 studies, most methods satisfied the nominal coverage probability. The “common-rho” beta-binomial model showed the highest power under the alternative hypothesis. The beta-binomial model respecting randomisation did not improve performance. Conclusion The “common-rho” beta-binomial appears to be a good option for meta-analyses of very few studies. As residual concerns about the consequences of disrespecting randomisation may still exist, we recommend a sensitivity analysis with a standard meta-analysis method that respects randomisation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the occupational risk for a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a nationwide sample of German workers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 February–31 August 2020). METHODS: We used the data of 108 960 workers who participated in a COVID follow-up survey of the German National Cohort (NAKO). Occupational characteristics were derived from the German Classification of Occupations 2010 (Klassifikation der Berufe 2010). PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were assessed from self-reports. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using robust Poisson regression, adjusted for person-time at risk, age, sex, migration background, study center, working hours, and employment relationship. RESULTS: The IR was 3.7 infections per 1000 workers [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3–4.1]. IR differed by occupational sector, with the highest rates observed in personal (IR 4.8, 95% CI 4.0–5.6) and business administration (IR 3.4, 95% CI 2.8–3.9) services and the lowest rates in occupations related to the production of goods (IR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5–2.6). Infections were more frequent among essential workers compared with workers in non-essential occupations (IRR 1.95, 95% CI 1.59–2.40) and among highly skilled compared with skilled professions (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07–1.72). CONCLUSIONS: The results emphasize higher infection risks in essential occupations and personal-related services, especially in the healthcare sector. Additionally, we found evidence that infections were more common in higher occupational status positions at the beginning of the pandemic.

Introduction To investigate the associations of a lifestyle score with various cardiovascular risk markers, indicators for fatty liver disease as well as MRI-determined total, subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue mass in adults with new-onset diabetes.Research design and methods This cross-sectional analysis included 196 individuals with type 1 (median age: 35 years; median body mass index (BMI): 24 kg/m²) and 272 with type 2 diabetes (median age: 53 years; median BMI: 31 kg/m²) from the German Diabetes Study. A healthy lifestyle score was generated based on healthy diet, moderate alcohol consumption, recreational activity, non-smoking and non-obese BMI. These factors were summed to form a score ranging from 0 to 5. Multivariable linear and non-linear regression models were used.Results In total, 8.1% of the individuals adhered to none or one, 17.7% to two, 29.7% to three, 26.7% to four, and 17.7% to all five favorable lifestyle factors. High compared with low adherence to the lifestyle score was associated with more favorable outcome measures, including triglycerides (β (95% CI) −49.1 mg/dL (−76.7; −21.4)), low-density lipoprotein (−16.7 mg/dL (−31.3; −2.0)), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (13.5 mg/dL (7.6; 19.4)), glycated hemoglobin (−0.5% (−0.8%; −0.1%)), high-sensitivity C reactive protein (−0.4 mg/dL (−0.6; −0.2)), as well as lower hepatic fat content (−8.3% (−11.9%; −4.7%)), and visceral adipose tissue mass (−1.8 dm³ (−2.9; −0.7)). The dose–response analyses showed that adherence to every additional healthy lifestyle factor was associated with more beneficial risk profiles.Conclusions Adherence to each additional healthy lifestyle factor was beneficially associated with cardiovascular risk markers, indicators of fatty liver disease and adipose tissue mass. Strongest associations were observed for adherence to all healthy lifestyle factors in combination.Trial registration number NCT01055093.

Objective: We investigated whether COVID-19 vaccination had an impact on diabetes risk. Methods: We used data of 6,198 patients (mean age 64.3 years) from the nationwide Disease Analyzer database, a representative panel of physicians’ practices in Germany. Patients received their first COVID-19 vaccination between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022, and all were newly diagnosed with diabetes within 183 days before or after this vaccination. Incident rates of diabetes after vaccination were compared to incident rates before vaccination. Results: The incidence rate of diabetes was lower after vaccination than before vaccination (incidence rate ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.75–0.83). The number of incident cases of diabetes was not greater in 2021 than in 2019. Conclusion: Our study did not confirm an increased risk of diabetes after COVID-19 vaccination. Further studies are needed to show whether the vaccination may be associated with a reduced diabetes risk.

We thank van Tongeren et al for responding to our study on occupational disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection risks during the first pandemic wave in Germany (1). The authors address the potential for bias resulting from differential testing between occupational groups and propose an alternative analytical strategy for dealing with selective testing. In the following, we want to discuss two aspects of this issue, namely (i) the extent and reasons of differential testing in our cohort and (ii) the advantages and disadvantages of different analytical approaches to study risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study relied on nationwide prospective cohort data including more than 100 000 workers in order to compare the incidence of infections between different occupations and occupational status positions. We found elevated infection risks in personal services and business administration, in essential occupations (including health care) and among people in higher occupational status positions (ie, managers and highly skilled workers) during the first pandemic wave in Germany (2). Van Tongeren’s et al main concern is that the correlations found could be affected by a systematic bias because people in healthcare professions get tested more often than employees in other professions. A second argument is that better-off people could be more likely to use testing as they are less affected by direct costs (prices for testing) and the economic hardship associated with a positive test result (eg, loss of earnings in the event of sick leave). We share the authors’ view that differential testing must be considered when analysing and interpreting the data. Thus, in our study, we examined the proportion of tests conducted in each occupational group as part of the sensitivity analyses (see supplementary figure S1, accessible at www.sjweh.fi/article/4037). As expected, testing proportions were exceptionally high in medical occupations (due to employer requirements). However, we did not observe systematic differences among non-medical occupations or when categorising by skill-level or managerial responsibility. This might be explained by several reasons. First, SARS-CoV-2 testing was free of charge during the first pandemic wave in Germany, but reporting a risk contact or having symptoms was a necessary condition for testing ( https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/coronavirus/chronik-coronavirus.html (accessed 5 September 2022). The newspaper article cited by van Tongeren et al is misleading as it refers to a calendar date after our study period. Second, different motivation for testing due to economic hardship in case of a positive test result is an unlikely explanation, because Germany has a universal healthcare system, including paid sick leave and sickness benefits for all workers (3). Self-employed people carry greater financial risks in case of sickness. We therefore included self-employment in the multivariable analyses to address this potential source of bias. While the observed inverse social gradient may be surprising, it actually matches with findings of ecological studies from Germany (4, 5), the United States (6, 7) as well as Spain, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands, Israel, and Hong Kong (8), all of which observed higher infection rates in wealthier neighbourhoods during the initial outbreak phase of the pandemic. One possible explanation is the higher mobility of managers and better educated workers, who are more likely to participate in meetings and engage in business travel and holiday trips like skiing. Given the increasing number of studies providing evidence for this hypothesis, we conclude that the inverse social gradient in our study likely reflects different exposure probabilities and is not a result of systematic bias. This also holds true for the elevated infection risks in essential workers, which is actually corroborated by a large body of research (9–11). Regarding differential likelihood of testing, van Tongeren et al state that “[i]t is relatively simple to address this problem by using a test-negative design” (1). As van Tongeren et al describe, this is a case–control approach only including individuals who were tested (without considering those who were not tested). However, the proposed analytical strategy can lead to another (more serious) selection bias if testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups (12). This can be easily illustrated when comparing the results based on a time-incidence design with those obtained by a test-negative design as shown in table 1 (see PDF). Both approaches show similar results in terms of vertical occupational differences. Infection was more common if individuals had a high skill level or had a managerial position, but associations were stronger in the time-incidence design and did not reach statistical significance in the test-negative design (as indicated by the confidence intervals overlapping “1”). Unfortunately, the test-negative approach relies on a strongly reduced sample size and thus results in greater statistical uncertainty and loss of statistical power (13). In contrast, the test-negative design yields a different picture when estimating the association between essential occupation and infection risk: In this analysis, essential workers did not differ from non-essential workers in their chance of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the test-negative design even exhibits a lower chance for essential workers). This is rather counter-intuitive and is not in accordance with what we know about the occupational hazards of healthcare workers during the pandemic (14). The main problem is that proportions of positive tests are highly unreliable when testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups. As essential workers were tested more often without being symptomatic (due to employer requirements), a lower proportion of positive tests in this group does not necessarily correspond to a lower risk of infection. Consequently, we are not convinced that the test-negative design should be the ‘gold standard’ for studying risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infections (15). Especially problematic is the loss of statistical power (increasing the probability of a type II error) and the low validity of the test-positivity when test criteria and/or test proportions differ between groups. References 1. van Tongeren M, Rhodes S, Pearce N. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48(7):586-587. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4052. 2. Reuter M, Rigó M, Formazin M, Liebers F, Latza U, Castell S, et al. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48:446–56. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4037. 3. Busse R, Blümel M, Knieps F, Bärnighausen T. Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition. Lancet 2017;390:882–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31280-1. 4. Wachtler B, Michalski N, Nowossadeck E, Diercke M, Wahrendorf M, Santos-Hövener C, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection – First results from an analysis of surveillance data from Germany. J Heal Monit 2020;5:18–29. https://doi.org/10.25646/7057. 5. Plümper T, Neumayer E. The pandemic predominantly hits poor neighbourhoods? SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 fatalities in German districts. Eur J Public Health 2020;30:1176–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa168. 6. Abedi V, Olulana O, Avula V, Chaudhary D, Khan A, Shahjouei S, et al. Racial, Economic, and Health Inequality and COVID-19 Infection in the United States. J Racial Ethn Heal Disparities 2021;8:732–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00833-4. 7. Mukherji N. The Social and Economic Factors Underlying the Incidence of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in US Counties During the Initial Outbreak Phase. Rev Reg Stud 2022;52. https://doi.org/10.52324/001c.35255. 8. Beese F, Waldhauer J, Wollgast L, Pförtner T, Wahrendorf M, Haller S, et al. Temporal Dynamics of Socioeconomic Inequalities in COVID-19 Outcomes Over the Course of the Pandemic—A Scoping Review. Int J Public Health 2022;67:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2022.1605128. 9. Nguyen LH, Drew DA, Graham MS, Joshi AD, Guo C-G, Ma W, et al. Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Heal 2020;5:e475–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30164-X. 10. Chou R, Dana T, Buckley DI, Selph S, Fu R, Totten AM. Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers. Ann Intern Med 2020;173:120–36. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1632. 11. Stringhini S, Zaballa M-E, Pullen N, de Mestral C, Perez-Saez J, Dumont R, et al. Large variation in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among essential workers in Geneva, Switzerland. Nat Commun 2021;12:3455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23796-4. 12. Accorsi EK, Qiu X, Rumpler E, Kennedy-Shaffer L, Kahn R, Joshi K, et al. How to detect and reduce potential sources of biases in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36:179–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00727-7. 13. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Editio. New York: Routledge; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587. 14. The Lancet. The plight of essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020;395:1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31200-9. 15. Vandenbroucke JP, Brickley EB, Pearce N, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE. The Evolving Usefulness of the Test-negative Design in Studying Risk Factors for COVID-19. Epidemiology 2022;33:e7–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001438.

BackgroundThe World Health Organization recommends 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (PA), which translates to approximately 7000 to 10,000 steps per day for adults. In Germany, less than half of the population in this age range meets this recommendation, highlighting the need for population-based intervention approaches for promoting daily PA. ObjectiveThe complex community-based PA intervention “10,000 Steps Ghent,” which was originally developed in Belgium and was shown to be effective for PA promotion, has been adapted for implementation and evaluation in 2 German cities. The original Belgian study is currently being replicated, and we aim to examine the effectiveness of the adapted intervention among adults living in intervention city districts in Duesseldorf when compared with those living in control city districts in Wuppertal, over the course of 1 year. MethodsA controlled intervention trial examining the effects of an intervention addressing multiple levels (eg, individual level: website; organizational level: PA promotion in companies; community level: media campaigns and environmental changes) is being conducted. PA and various secondary outcomes will be assessed in 2 random samples of adults aged 25 to 75 years (n=399 in each city) at baseline and after 1 year. ResultsFunding for this study was obtained in March 2020. Recruitment for this study and baseline data collection were conducted from May 2021 to March 2022 (as of March 2022, 626 participants were enrolled in the study). The intervention will be implemented in Duesseldorf for 1 year from April 2022 onward, and follow-up assessments will be conducted, starting in May 2023 (until September 2023). Data analysis will be performed in fall 2023, and the results will be published in spring 2024. ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first research project (currently underway in Germany) that is aimed at replicating the effects of a complex intervention for PA promotion that was previously shown to be effective in another European country. Trial RegistrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00024873; https://tinyurl.com/4c9e8azh International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/39175

Abstract Background Application of mixed meal tolerance tests (MMTT) to measure beta-cell function in long-term studies is limited by modification of the commercial products occurring over time. This study assessed the intra-individual reliability of MMTTs and compared the effects of liquid meals differing in macronutrient composition on the estimation of beta-cell function in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Methods To test the reliability of MMTTs, 10 people with T2DM (age 58 ± 11 years, body mass index 30.0 ± 4.9 kg/m2) received Boost® high Protein 20 g protein three times. For comparing different meals, another 10 persons with T2DM (58 ± 5 years, 31.9 ± 5.3 kg/m2) ingested either Boost® high Protein 20 g protein or the isocaloric Boost® high Protein 15 g protein containing 35% less protein and 18% more carbohydrates. C-peptide, insulin and glucose release were assessed from the incremental area under the concentration time curve (iAUC) and the intra- and inter-individual variation of these parameters from the coefficients of variations (CV). Results Repetitive ingestion of one meal revealed intra-individual CVs for the iAUCs of C-peptide, insulin and glucose, which were at least 3-times lower than the inter-individual variation of these parameters (18.2%, 19.7% and 18.9% vs. 74.2%, 70.5% and 207.7%) indicating a good reliability. Ingestion of two different meals resulted in comparable intra-individual CVs of the iAUCs of C-peptide and insulin (16.9%, 20.5%). Conclusion MMTTs provide reliable estimation of beta-cell function in people with T2DM. Furthermore, moderate differences in the protein and carbohydrate contents in a standardized liquid meal do not result in relevant changes of C-peptide and insulin responses. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier number: NCT01055093. Registered 22 January 2010 – Retrospectively registered, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01055093

Introduction Diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) affects approximately 30% of people with diabetes, while around half of cases are symptomatic. Currently, there are only few pathogenetically oriented pharmacotherapies for DSPN, one of which is benfotiamine, a prodrug of thiamine with a high bioavailability and favourable safety profile. While benfotiamine has shown positive effects in preclinical and short-term clinical studies, no long-term clinical trials are available to demonstrate disease-modifying effects on DSPN using a comprehensive set of disease-related endpoints.Methods and analysis The benfotiamine on morphometric, neurophysiological and clinical measures in patients with type 2 diabetes trial is a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group monocentric phase II clinical trial to assess the effects of treatment with benfotiamine compared with placebo in participants with type 2 diabetes and mild to moderate symptomatic DSPN. Sixty participants will be 1:1 randomised to treatment with benfotiamine 300 mg or placebo two times a day over 12 months. The primary endpoint will be the change in corneal nerve fibre length assessed by corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) after 12 months of benfotiamine treatment compared with placebo. Secondary endpoints will include other CCM measures, skin biopsy and function indices, variables from somatic and autonomic nerve function tests, clinical examination and questionnaires, general health, health-related quality of life, cost, safety and blood tests.Ethics and dissemination The trial was approved by the competent authority and the local independent ethics committee. Trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, conference abstracts, and via online and print media.Trial registration number DRKS00014832.

Introduction Women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with women who never had GDM. Consequently, the question of structured aftercare for GDM has emerged. In all probability, many women do not receive care according to the guidelines. In particular, the process and interaction between obstetrical, diabetic, gynaecological, paediatric and general practitioner care lacks clear definitions. Thus, our first goal is to analyse the current aftercare situation for women with GDM in Germany, for example, the participation rate in aftercare diabetes screening, as well as reasons and attitudes stated by healthcare providers to offer these services and by patients to participate (or not). Second, we want to develop an appropriate, effective and patient-centred care model.Methods and analysis This is a population-based mixed methods study using both quantitative and qualitative research approaches. In various working packages, we evaluate data of the GestDiab register, of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians of North Rhine and the participating insurance companies (AOK Rheinland/Hamburg, BARMER, DAK Gesundheit, IKK classic, pronova BKK). In addition, quantitative (postal surveys) and qualitative (interviews) surveys will be conducted with randomly selected healthcare providers (diabetologists, gynaecologists, paediatricians and midwives) and affected women, to be subsequently analysed. All results will then be jointly examined and evaluated.Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf (Ethics Committee No.: 2019-738). Participants of the postal surveys and interviews will be informed in detail about the study and the use of data as well as the underlying data protection regulations before voluntarily participating. The study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and public information.Trial registration number DRKS00020283.

Abstract Background Little evidence exists on the impact of diabetes risk scores, e.g. on physicians and patient’s behavior, perceived risk of persons, shared-decision making and particularly on patient’s health. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of a non-invasive type 2 diabetes risk prediction model in the primary health care setting as component of routine health checks on change in physical activity. Methods Parallel group cluster randomized controlled trial including 30 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 300 participants in the region of Düsseldorf and surrounding urban and rural municipalities, West Germany. On cluster level, PCPs will be randomized into intervention or control group using a biased coin minimization technique. Participants in the control group are going to have a routine health check “Check-up 35” which is recommended biannually for all people ≥35 years of age in Germany. In the intervention group, the routine health check is expanded by usage of a non-invasive diabetes risk prediction model (German Diabetes Risk Score). Primary outcome is change in physical activity after 1 year. Secondary outcomes include aspects of targeted counseling, motivation of participant’s to change lifestyle, perceived and objectively measured diabetes risk, acceptance of diabetes risk scores, quality of life, depression and anxiety. Patients will be followed over 12 months. Hierarchical or mixed models will be conducted, including a random intercept to adjust for cluster, the respective baseline value, and covariates to compare the groups. Discussion This pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial will enhance our knowledge on the clinical impact of diabetes risk scores for the first time in the real-life primary health care setting. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03234322, registered on July 28, 2017.

Mainly because of the large number of people affected and associated significant health policy implications, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) is developing a public health surveillance system using diabetes as an example. In a first step to ensure long-term and comparable data collection and establish efficient surveillance structures, the RKI has defined a set of relevant indicators for diabetes surveillance. An extensive review of the available literature followed by a structured process of consensus provided the basis for a harmonised set of 30 core and 10 supplementary indicators. They correspond to the following four fields of activity: (1) reducing diabetes risk, (2) improving diabetes early detection and treatment, (3) reducing diabetes complications, (4) reducing the disease burden and overall costs of the disease. In future, in addition to the primary data provided by RKI health monitoring diabetes surveillance needs to also consider the results from secondary data sources. Currently, barriers to accessing this data remain, which will have to be overcome, and gaps in the data closed. The RKI intentends to continuously update this set of indicators and at some point apply it also to further chronic diseases with high public health relevance.

Abstract Background Screening and detection of cases are a common public health priority for treatable chronic conditions with long subclinical periods. However, the validity of commonly-used metrics from surveillance systems for rates of detection (or case-finding) have not been evaluated. Methods Using data from a Danish diabetes register and a recently developed illness-death model of chronic diseases with subclinical conditions, we simulate two scenarios of different performance of case-finding. We report different epidemiological indices to assess case-finding in both scenarios and compare the validity of the results. Results The commonly used ratio of detected cases over total cases may lead to misleading conclusions. Instead, the ratio of undetected cases over persons without a diagnosis is a more valid index to distinguish the quality of case-finding. However, incidence-based measures are preferable to prevalence based indicators. Conclusion Prevalence-based indices for assessing case-finding should be interpreted with caution. If possible, incidence-based indices should be preferred.

Vasculature is denser in soft than in stiff tissues. Kragl et al. suggest a mechanistic link between biomechanical tissue properties and vascularization by showing that integrin-linked kinase reduces the contractile forces of the cell cortex in endocrine pancreatic cells, facilitating their adhesion to blood vessels and enabling pancreatic islet vascularization.

Aims. To estimate the risk of microvascular complications and macrovascular risk factors among persons with early-onset (diagnosed at ages 0 to

OBJECTIVE:Early detection of diabetes and prediabetic states is beneficial for patients, but may be delayed by patients´ being overly optimistic about their own health. Therefore, we assessed how persons without known diabetes perceive their risk of having or developing diabetes, and we identified factors associated with perception of diabetes risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:1,953 participants without previously known diabetes from the population-based, German KORA FF4 Study (59.1 years, 47.8% men) had an oral glucose tolerance test. They estimated their probability of having undiagnosed diabetes mellitus (UDM) on a six category scale, and assessed whether they were at risk of developing diabetes in the future. We cross-tabulated glycemic status with risk perception, and fitted robust Poisson regression models to identify determinants of diabetes risk perception. RESULTS:74% (95% CI: 65-82) of persons with UDM believed that their probability of having undetected diabetes was low or very low. 72% (95% CI: 69-75) of persons with prediabetes believed that they were not at risk of developing diabetes. In people with prediabetes, seeing oneself at risk of diabetes was associated with self-rated poor general health (prevalence ratio (PR) = 3.1 (95% CI: 1.4-6.8), parental diabetes (PR = 2.6, 1.9-3.4), high educational level (PR = 1.9 (1.4-2.5)), lower age (PR = 0.7, 0.6-0.8, per 1 standard deviation increase), female sex (PR = 1.2, 0.9-1.5) and obesity (PR = 1.5, 1.2-2.0). CONCLUSIONS:People with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes considerably underestimate their probability of having or developing diabetes. Contrary to associations with actual diabetes risk, perceived diabetes risk was lower in men, lower educated and older persons.

Testicular cancer survival rates improved dramatically after cisplatin-based therapy was introduced in the 1970s. However, chemotherapy and radiation therapy are potentially carcinogenic. The purpose of this study was to estimate the risk of developing second primary cancers including the risk associated with primary histologic type (seminoma and non-seminoma) among testicular cancer survivors in Germany. We identified 16 990 and 1401 cases of testicular cancer in population-based cancer registries of East Germany (1961-1989 and 1996-2008) and Saarland (a federal state in West Germany; 1970-2008), respectively. We estimated the risk of a second primary cancer using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). To determine trends, we plotted model-based estimated annual SIRs. In East Germany, a total of 301 second primary cancers of any location were observed between 1961 and 1989 (SIR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.7-2.1), and 159 cancers (any location) were observed between 1996 and 2008 (SIR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.4-2.0). The SIRs for contralateral testicular cancer were increased in the registries with a range from 6.0 in Saarland to 13.9 in East Germany. The SIR for seminoma, in particular, was higher in East Germany compared to the other registries. We observed constant trends in the model-based SIRs for contralateral testicular cancers. The majority of reported SIRs of other cancer sites including histology-specific risks showed low precisions of estimated effects, likely due to small sample sizes. Testicular cancer patients are at increased risk especially for cancers of the contralateral testis and should receive intensive follow-ups.

Background/Aims: Dry weight estimation in hemodialysis patients is still a substantial problem. Despite meticulous clinical assessment, fluid overload is common, leading to hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Segmental calf bioimpedance spectroscopy (cBIS) is a novel tool for dry weight assessment. Here we tested the hypothesis, that its clinical routine use reduces arterial hypertension and left ventricular mass. Methods: Left ventricular mass (determined by magnetic resonance imaging), blood pressure and antihypertensive medication (defined daily doses, ddd) were assessed at baseline (BL). Thereafter post-dialytic target weight was reduced until cBIS-defined dry weight was reached (DW). During a 6-month follow up, DW was re-evaluated monthly by cBIS and end-dialytic weight was adjusted correspondingly. At the end, left ventricular mass, blood pressure and antihypertensive medication were determined a 3rd time (follow-up, FU). Results: Eleven out of 15 patients were available for analysis after 6 months. Left ventricular mass showed a declining trend during the study period (Mean±SD; BL 145±54g; DW 142±55g; FU 137±52g; p=0.61, linear mixed model). Comparable results were obtained for systolic blood pressure (BL 158±18mmHg; DW 144±19mmHg; FU 149±21mmHg; p=0.07), and antihypertensive medication (BL 3.28±2.82ddd; DW 2.86±2.81ddd; FU 3.36±3.05ddd; p=0.37). Conclusions: We conclude that attainment of dry weight assessed by cBIS tends to reduce left ventricular mass and blood pressure while antihypertensive medication remains unchanged. While the study was underpowered, its results provide an important hypothesis generating data basis for the design of larger studies.

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) in diabetes is a life threatening complication resulting in a poor prognosis for patients as well as high medical costs. The aims of this systematic review were (1) to evaluate the incidence of ESRD due to all causes and due to diabetic nephropathy in the diabetic population and differences between incidences of ESRD with respect to sex, ethnicity, age and regions, (2) to compare incidence rates in the diabetic and non-diabetic population, and (3) to investigate time trends. The systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA group guidelines by performing systematic literature searches in the biomedical databases until January 3rd 2015; thirty-two studies were included. Among patients with incident type 1 diabetes the 30-year cumulative incidence ranged from 3.3% to 7.8%. Among patients with prevalent diabetes, incidence rates of ESRD due to all causes ranged from 132.0 to 167.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas incidence rates of ESRD due to diabetic nephropathy varied from 38.4 to 804.0 per 100,000 person-years. The incidence of ESRD in the diabetic population was higher compared to the non-diabetic population, and relative risks varied from 6.2 in the white population to 62.0 among Native Americans. The results regarding time trends were inconsistent. The review conducted demonstrates the considerable variation of incidences of ESRD among the diabetic population. Consistent findings included an excess risk when comparing the diabetic to the non-diabetic population and ethnic differences. We recommend that newly designed studies should use standardized methods for the determination of ESRD and population at risk.