Aims. To investigate the epidemiology of diabetes diagnosis and screening in Australian general practice. Methods. Cross-sectional study using electronic health records of 1,522,622 patients aged 18+ years attending 544 Australian general practices (MedicineInsight database). The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes and diabetes screening was explored using all recorded diagnoses, laboratory results, and prescriptions between 2016 and 2018. Their relationship with patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics was also investigated. Results. Overall, 7.5 (95 CI 7.3, 7.8) of adults had diabetes diagnosis, 0.7 (95 CI 0.6, 0.7) prediabetes, and 0.3 (95 CI 0.3, 0.3) unrecorded diabetes/prediabetes (elevated glucose levels without a recorded diagnosis). Patients with unrecorded diabetes/prediabetes had clinical characteristics similar to those with recorded diabetes, except for a lower prevalence of overweight/obesity (55.5 and 69.9, respectively). Dyslipidaemia was 1.8 times higher (36.2 vs. 19.7), and hypertension was 15 more likely (38.6 vs. 33.8) among patients with prediabetes than with diabetes. Diabetes screening (last three years) among people at high risk of diabetes was 55.2 (95 CI 52.7, 57.7), with lower rates among young or elderly males. Conclusions. Unrecorded diabetes/prediabetes is infrequent in Australian general practice, but prediabetes diagnosis was also lower than expected. Diabetes screening among high-risk individuals can be improved, especially in men, to enhance earlier diabetes diagnosis and management.

We aimed to systematically compare literature on prevalence of modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for early compared to late-onset coronary heart disease (CHD). PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched (review protocol registered in PROSPERO CRD42020173216). Study quality was assessed using the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute tool for observational and case-control studies. Review Manager 5.3 was used for meta-analysis. Effect sizes were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD)/standardised MD (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical and continuous variables. Individuals presenting with early-onset CHD (age <65 years) compared to late-onset CHD had higher mean body mass index (MD 1.07 kg/m²; 95% CI 0.31-1.83), total cholesterol (SMD 0.43; 95% CI 0.23-0.62), low-density lipoprotein (SMD 0.26; 95% CI 0.15-0.36) and triglycerides (SMD 0.50; 95% CI 0.22-0.68) with lower high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (SMD 0.26; 95% CI -0.42--0.11). They were more likely to be smokers (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.39-2.22) and have a positive family history of CHD (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.74-2.48). They had lower mean systolic blood pressure (MD 4.07 mmHg; 95% CI -7.36--0.78) and were less likely to have hypertension (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.57), diabetes mellitus (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.51-0.61) or stroke (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.24-0.42). A focus on weight management and smoking cessation and aggressive management of dyslipidaemia in young adults may reduce the risk of early-onset CHD.

Background: Continuous glucose monitorings (CGMs) have been used to manage diabetes with reasonable glucose control amongst patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in recent decades. CGMs measure interstitial fluid glucose levels to provide information about glucose levels, which identify fluctuation that would not have been identified with conventional self-monitoring. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a classical tool to measure glycaemic changes. However, the effectiveness of glucose control, hypoglycemia, weight change, quality of life and user satisfaction, are needed to evaluate and compare CGMs and SMBG amongst adults with T2D. Methods: The review will compare the various forms of CGM systems (i.e flash CGM, real-time CGM, retrospective CGM) versus SMBG or usual intervention regarding diabetes management amongst adults with T2D. The following databases will be searched: Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and grey literature (ClinicalTrials.gov, PsycEXTRA, ProQuest Dissertations, Google Scholar and Theses Global) for the identification of studies. The studies involving adults (aged ≥ 18 years old) will be included. We will only include and summarise randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with respect to authors, publication type, year, status and type of devices. Studies published in English between February 2010 and March 2020, will be included as the field of CGMs amongst T2D patients has emerged over the last decade. Primary outcomes will be HbA1c (glycosylated haemoglobin level) (mmol/L), body weight (kg), time spent with hypoglycaemia (< 70 mg/dl) or hyperglycaemia (≥ 180 mg/dl), blood pressure (< 140/90 mmHg is considered as good management) and quality of life (understanding and feeling of living situation based on culture and value system). Secondary outcome measures will be user satisfaction (patient or treatment/intervention satisfaction or satisfaction scale) and barriers (physical and mental difficulties or issues). Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be conducted independently by at least two reviewers. A third reviewer will determine and resolve discrepancies. Moreover, the quality of the evidence of the review will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool (GRADE). Discussion: The review will synthesise evidence on the comparison between using CGMs and SMBG. The results will support researchers and health professionals to determine the most effective methods/technologies in the overall diabetes management. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020149212

Introduction Studies suggest that continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) play an important role in the management of diabetes. Although general acceptance has been reported by patients with type 2 diabetes towards the use of CGMs, potential barriers exist like pain due to sensor insertion, accidental removal of the device or adhesive strip, impacts of daily activities, skin reactions to sensor adhesive, etc. This systematic review of qualitative studies aims to explore the perspectives, experiences and narratives of patients and caregivers about CGM use, and its barriers and facilitators. Methods and analysis This review will include qualitative studies and cross-sectional and longitudinal cohort studies using open-ended questions, published in English by 30 October 2021. The following electronic databases will be searched: Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus. A search of grey literature will be conducted via an online search of Google Scholar, WorldCat, ClinicalTrials.gov and OpenGrey A combined search strategy using medical subject headings (MeSH), controlled vocabulary and ‘free-text’ terms will be appropriately revised to suit each database. Primary outcomes will include patient and caregiver perspectives on diabetes management regarding glucose control; living with CGM (quality of life, experience of wearing a CGM); psychological aspects (anxiety, depression, emotional burden); barriers (technical issues, financial issues) to use of CGM and thoughts (interpretation, understanding) on the CGM report. A qualitative meta-synthesis will be conducted employing a systematic literature search of existing literature, quality assessment using study-specific tools and an aggregative thematic synthesis by a multidisciplinary team. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required since this is a systematic review. The results will help improve clinical implementation of CGMs on part of both patients and caregivers. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020152211.