ABSTRACT
BackgroundSouth Asia has become a major epicentre of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding South Asians awareness, attitudes and experiences of early measures for the prevention of COVID-19 is key to improving the effectiveness and mitigating the social and economic impacts of pandemic responses at a critical time for the Region. MethodsWe assessed the knowledge, behaviours, health and socio-economic circumstances of 29,809 adult men and women, at 93 locations across four South Asian countries. Data were collected during the national lockdowns implemented from March to July 2020, and compared with data collected prior to the pandemic as part of an ongoing prospective surveillance initiative. ResultsParticipants were 61% female, mean age 45.1 years. Almost half had one or more chronic disease, including diabetes (16%), hypertension (23%) or obesity (16%). Knowledge of the primary COVID-19 symptoms and transmission routes was high, but access to hygiene and personal protection resources was low (running water 63%, hand sanitisers 53%, paper tissues 48%). Key preventive measures were not widely adopted. Knowledge, access to, and uptake of COVID-19 prevention measures were low amongst people from disadvantaged socio-economic groups. Fifteen percent of people receiving treatment for chronic diseases reported loss of access to long-term medications; 40% reported symptoms suggestive of anxiety or depression. The prevalence of unemployment rose from 9.3% to 39.4% (P<0.001), and household income fell by 52% (P<0.001) during the lockdown. Younger people and those from less affluent socio-economic groups were most severely impacted. Sedentary time increased by 32% and inadequate fruit and vegetable intake increased by 10% (P<0.001 for both), while tobacco and alcohol consumption dropped by 41% and 80%, respectively (P<0.001), during the lockdown. ConclusionsOur results identified important knowledge, access and uptake barriers to the prevention of COVID-19 in South Asia, and demonstrated major adverse impacts of the pandemic on chronic disease treatment, mental health, health-related behaviours, employment and household finances. We found important sociodemographic differences for impact, suggesting a widening of existing inequalities. Our findings underscore the need for immediate large-scale action to close gaps in knowledge and access to essential resources for prevention, along with measures to safeguard economic production and mitigate socio-economic impacts on the young and the poor.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Metabolic heterogeneity among obese individuals is thought to translate into variations in cardiovascular risk. Identifying obese people with an unfavourable metabolic profile may allow preventive strategies to be targeted at high-risk groups. This study aimed to identify clinical, biochemical and immunological differences between insulin-sensitive and insulin-resistant obese subgroups, to understand the population-specific pathophysiological basis of the adverse cardiovascular risk profile in the latter group.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Cardiovascular risk indicators, including anthropometric parameters, blood pressure, acanthosis nigricans area, and related biochemical, endocrine and inflammatory markers, were determined in 255 healthy South Asian volunteers aged 18-45 years, with a 2:1 ratio of obese/overweight to normal-weight individuals. Lifetime atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk was also calculated.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Body mass index (BMI) and insulin sensitivity-based tertiles independently showed incremental trends in waist-hip ratio, skinfold thickness, acanthosis nigricans area, blood pressure, serum lipids, hepatic enzymes, adipokines, inflammatory markers and ten-year ASCVD risk. The anthropometric, biochemical and inflammatory parameters of obese insulin-sensitive and obese insulin-resistant groups differed significantly. Extreme group analysis after excluding the middle tertiles of both insulin resistance and BMI also showed significant difference in anthropometric indicators of cardiovascular risk and estimated lifetime ASCVD risk between the two obese subgroups.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Obese insulin-sensitive individuals had a favourable metabolic profile compared to the obese insulin-resistant group. The most consistent discriminative factor between these phenotypic classes was anthropometric parameters, which underscores the importance of clinical parameters as cardiovascular risk indicators in obesity.</p>
ABSTRACT
<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>With advancement in the understanding of the pathogenesis underlying diabetes mellitus (DM), the boundary between type 1 and type 2 DM (T1DM and T2DM) does not seem to be as clear cut as previously thought. This study was designed to test the possibility of overlap between the spectra of immune-mediated DM and insulin resistance.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>To test for the possibility of overlap, we looked for autoantibodies typical of T1DM in patients with classical T2DM, and insulin resistance in patients with T1DM. Autoantibodies against islet cell antigen, glutamic acid decarboxylase-65 and insulinoma-associated antigen-2 were tested in 82 patients with T2DM and 27 patients with T1DM. The patients had been diagnosed on clinical criteria using standard laboratory techniques. Clinical parameters of diagnostic importance were noted, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated using fasting insulin and fasting blood glucose ratio.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Autoantibodies against one or more beta cell antigens were detected in 12.19% of patients clinically diagnosed to have T2DM, and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR > 2.5) was diagnosed in 37.03% of patients with T1DM. It was not possible to identify any combination of clinical or biochemical markers that could predict autoantibody positivity in T2DM patients. T1DM patients with insulin resistance had a significantly higher body mass index than their insulin-sensitive counterparts (p = 0.02).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Autoantibodies against beta cell antigens are detectable in insulin-resistant T2DM patients, and insulin resistance may be present in relatively overweight T1DM patients. No differentiating clinical features that might predict autoantibody positivity in T2DM patients were found.</p>