IntroductionTo investigate associations between genetic variants related to beta-cell (BC) dysfunction or insulin resistance (IR) in type 2 diabetes (T2D) and bile acids (BAs), as well as the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).Research design and methodsWe organized a case-control study of 230 women with GDM and 217 without GDM nested in a large prospective cohort of 22 302 Chinese women in Tianjin, China. Two weighted genetic risk scores (GRSs), namely BC-GRS and IR-GRS, were established by combining 39 and 23 single nucleotide polymorphisms known to be associated with BC dysfunction and IR, respectively. Regression and mediation analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship of GRSs with BAs and GDM.ResultsWe found that the BC-GRS was inversely associated with taurodeoxycholic acid (TDCA) after adjustment for confounders (Beta (SE)=−0.177 (0.048); p=2.66×10−4). The BC-GRS was also associated with the risk of GDM (OR (95% CI): 1.40 (1.10 to 1.77); p=0.005), but not mediated by TDCA. Compared with individuals in the low tertile of BC-GRS, the OR for GDM was 2.25 (95% CI 1.26 to 4.01) in the high tertile. An interaction effect of IR-GRS with taurochenodeoxycholic acid (TCDCA) on the risk of GDM was evidenced (p=0.005). Women with high IR-GRS and low concentration of TCDCA had a markedly higher OR of 14.39 (95% CI 1.59 to 130.16; p=0.018), compared with those with low IR-GRS and high TCDCA.ConclusionsGenetic variants related to BC dysfunction and IR in T2D potentially influence BAs at early pregnancy and the development of GDM. The identification of both modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors may facilitate the identification of high-risk individuals to prevent GDM.

Background: Inadequate bowel preparation leads to lower polyp detection rates, longer procedure times and lower cecal intubation rates. However, there is no consensus about high-quality bowel preparation, so our study evaluated graphical education and appropriate time before elective colonoscopy. Patients and Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of a national colorectal cancer screening programme of 738 patients. The patients were divided into a group given a graphical information manual ( n = 242) or a word-only one ( n = 496). They were also divided into groups according to the interval between bowel preparation and colonoscopy: 6–8 h (Group 1, n = 106), 9–12 h (Group 2, n = 228) and 13–17 h (Group 3, n = 402). All patients were scored according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) during the examination. Results: The bowel preparation of the graphical group was significantly better than the text group ( P < 0.001). After adjustment, the bowel preparation score of Group 1 and Group 2 were both significantly higher than that of Group 3 ( P = 0.012 and P = 0.032). Maximum BBPS was 6.31 when the interval time was 6.52 h (95% confidence interval: 5.95–6.66), and when the interval was <10 h, the BBPS was ≥6. Conclusion: High-quality bowel preparation was linked to graphical education and appropriate time before colonoscopy. We suggest that the interval between taking the first laxative and colonoscopy should be <10 h, preferably 6.5 h. Prospective multicentre research is needed to give more evidence of high-quality bowel preparation methods.