General anaesthesia for obstetric surgery has distinct characteristics that may contribute towards a higher risk of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, experience and psychological implications of unintended conscious awareness during general anaesthesia in obstetric patients. From May 2017 to August 2018, 3115 consenting patients receiving general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals in England were recruited to the study. Patients received three repetitions of standardised questioning over 30 days, with responses indicating memories during general anaesthesia that were verified using interviews and record interrogation. A total of 12 patients had certain/ probable or possible awareness, an incidence of 1 in 256 (95%CI 149-500) for all obstetric surgery. The incidence was 1 in 212 (95%CI 122-417) for caesarean section surgery. Distressing experiences were reported by seven (58.3%) patients, paralysis by five (41.7%) and paralysis with pain by two (16.7%). Accidental awareness occurred during induction and emergence in nine (75%) of the patients who reported awareness. Factors associated with accidental awareness during general anaesthesia were: high BMI (25-30 kg.m -2 ); low BMI (<18.5 kg.m -2 ); out-of-hours surgery; and use of ketamine or thiopental for induction. Standardised psychological impact scores at 30 days were significantly higher in awareness patients (median (IQR [range]) 15 (2.7-52.0 [2-56]) than in patients without awareness 3 (1-9 [0-64]), p = 0.010. Four patients had a provisional diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. We conclude that direct postoperative questioning reveals high rates of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery, which has implications for anaesthetic practice, consent and follow-up.

Background and Aims: Liver transplantation has become an effective therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease. The risk of new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) and posttransplant metabolic syndrome (PTMS) is high among patients after liver transplantation. These are thought to be associated with increased risks of graft rejection, infection, cardiovascular disease, and death. Our study aimed to document the incidence of NODAT and PTMS and analyze pre and posttransplant predictive factors for their development in patients undergoing a liver transplant. Methods: This was a prospective comparative study on 51 patients who underwent live donor liver transplantation. They were evaluated at baseline, 3 and 6 months after transplantation with fasting glucose, lipids, serum insulin levels, C-peptide, and HbA1C. They were followed up at 5 years to document any cardiovascular events or rejection. Results: The incidence of preoperative diabetes mellitus (DM) in the study group was 25/51 (49%). The incidence of NODAT was 38.5% (10/26 patients) and PTMS 29% (10/35), respectively. Age (47.7 ± 5.4 vs 41.5 ± 12.7 years), HOMA2 - IR (2.3 ± 1.8 vs 2.1 ± 1.6), serum insulin (16.1 ± 12.0 vs 17.9 ± 14.5), and C-peptide (4.6 ± 0.5 vs 4.8 ± 0.7) were similar at baseline in the NODAT group compared to those who did not develop it. Mean tacrolimus levels were higher in PTMS group (6.8 ± 2.9 vs 5.0. ± 2.0 P value = 0.042). By the end of 5 years, 7 patients expired; 6 due to rejection and one due to cardiovascular disease. Moreover, 2 of these patients had preexisting DM and 2 had NODAT. Conclusions: None of the baseline metabolic factors in patients undergoing liver transplant were predictive of the development of NODAT or PTMS. Mean tacrolimus levels were significantly higher in the PTMS group. A 5-year follow-up showed no excess risk of cardiovascular events or rejection in those with preexisting DM or in those who developed NODAT.

Objectives: The accurate and precise measurement of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) is important in the assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (ASCVD) in people with diabetes mellitus. This study aimed at comparing directly measured LDL-C with Friedewald formula (FF)-calculated LDL-C (c-LDL-C) in people with type-2 diabetes. Methods: Fasting lipid profiles of 1905 people with type-2 diabetes, whose LDL-C was estimated by direct LDL assay, were chosen for the study. In the same group, LDL-C was calculated with FF. Correlation and agreement between these methods were analyzed at various strata of triglycerides (TGs). The possibility of misclassifying people at various levels of LDL-C targets proposed in literature was calculated. Results: The mean LDL-C levels were lower in the c-LDL-C group across various TG strata. A significant correlation was found between c-LDL-C and direct LDL-C for all the study samples ( r = 0.948, P < .001) and across all TG strata. Analysis of agreement showed a positive bias for direct LDL-C which increased at higher strata of TGs. c-LDL-C underestimated ASCVD by misclassifying people at various LDL-C target levels. Conclusion: There is a difference between direct LDL-C and c-LDL-C values in people with diabetes and this may result in misclassifying ASCVD especially at lower levels of LDL-C and higher levels of TGs.

Graves’ disease (GD) is the most common cause of hyperthyroidism in iodine-sufficient areas. It is important to distinguish GD from other causes of hyperthyroidism for optimal management. Thyroid stimulating hormone receptor antibody (TRAb) test is a commonly used test for this purpose. However, the sensitivity for this test in routine clinical practice may be affected by various factors leading to fallacies in diagnosis. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed to assess the utility of an automated electrochemiluminescence TRAb immunoassay (Roche) in differentiating GD from non-Graves’ disease (NGD) in routine clinical practice. Results: In 227 subjects, 146 had GD and 81 had NGD. Total T3, Total T4, Free T4, and TRAb were significantly higher in people with GD in comparison to NGD. The area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the assay was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.926 to 0.984, P < 0.0001). The optimal threshold for the test derived from the ROC was 3.37 IU/L, which is more than the cut-off of 1.75 IU/L suggested by the manufacturer. The sensitivity/specificity of TRAb in the diagnosis of GD at presentation was 98.4%/62.9% at 1.75 IU/L and 91.2%/90.12% at 3.37 IU/L, respectively. Conclusion: The TRAb test is a sensitive test to differentiate between subjects with GD and NGD presenting with hyperthyroidism. However, the cutoff (1.75 IU/L) as per the kit manufacturer may lead to a lower specificity for diagnosis. A modified cut-off of 3.37 IU/L should be considered for optimizing the diagnostic efficacy of the test.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Progression of type 2 diabetes will necessitate the use of injectable therapies in a significant number of people. Co-formulations of degludec with liraglutide (IDeg­Lira) and glargine with lixisenatide (IGlarLixi) are currently recommended for intensification in people with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin or glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) alone or in people with type 2 diabetes who are naïve to insulin with very high glycated haemoglobin. Co-formulation of aspart with degludec (IDegAsp) is recommended as a substitute for premixed insulin. The aim of this article is to review the evidence in the use of co-formulations as the first injectable in type 2 diabetes and its clinical implications. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> In people with type 2 diabetes who are naïve to insulin or GLP-1RA, IDegLira and IGlarLixi achieved stable and durable glycaemic control over a wide range of baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. People on IDegLira and IGlarLixi had lesser risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain in studies compared to basal insulin and lesser gastrointestinal adverse effects in comparison to GLP-1RA. IDegAsp achieved similar glycaemic control to basal and premixed insulin with lesser risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> IDegLira, IGlarLixi, and IDegAsp can be used as the first injectable in people with type 2 diabetes with very high glycated haemoglobin on oral antidiabetic drugs. These co-formulations combine efficacy and durability with lesser injection burden. The components of these agents have proven cardiovascular and renal safety. Their limitations in flexibility of dosing, renal and cardiovascular considerations, and adverse effects are discussed.