Mary de Groot
doi : 10.2337/dci20-0058
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44 (3): 633-640
This article is adapted from a speech Dr. de Groot delivered in June 2020 as President, Health Care & Education, of the American Diabetes Association at the Association’s 80th Scientific Sessions, which was held online as a result of coronavirus disease 2019. Dr. de Groot is an Associate Professor of Medicine in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism at Indiana University (IU) School of Medicine. She serves as the Acting Director of the IU Diabetes Translational Research Center. Dr. de Groot is the 2020 recipient of the Rachmiel Levine Medal for Leadership from the American Diabetes Association.
Ele Ferrannini1? and Julio Rosenstock2
doi : 10.2337/dc20-0913
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 641-646.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have become the gold standard of clinical evidence and the staple of guided clinical practice. RCTs are based on a complex set of principles and procedures heavily strung by statistical analysis, primarily designed to answer a specific question in a clinical experiment. Readers of clinical trials need to apply critical appraisal skills before blindly accepting the results and conclusions of trials, lest they misinterpret and misapply the findings. We introduce the fundamentals of an RCT and discuss the relationship between relative risk (RR) and absolute risk (AR) in terms of the different information each conveys. The top results of some recent cardiovascular outcome trials using sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes are used to exemplify the merit of assessing both RR and AR changes for a balanced translation of findings into shrewd clinical judgment. We also suggest practical points to assist with a clinically useful interpretation of both within-trial and across-trial reports. Finally, we mention an alternative approach, namely, the restricted mean survival time, to obtaining unbiased estimates of the mean time of missed events in the treatment versus placebo arm for the duration of the trial.
Andrea Giaccari1,2, Anna Solini3, Simona Frontoni4,5 and Stefano Del Prato6?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1964
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 647-654.
Since the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), metformin has been considered the first-line medication for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Though direct evidence from specific trials is still lacking, several studies have suggested that metformin may protect from diabetes- and nondiabetes-related comorbidities, including cardiovascular, renal, neurological, and neoplastic diseases. In the past few decades, several mechanisms of action have been proposed to explain metformin’s protective effects, none being final. It is certain, however, that metformin increases lactate production, concentration, and, possibly, oxidation. Once considered a mere waste product of exercising skeletal muscle or anaerobiosis, lactate is now known to act as a major energy shuttle, redistributed from production sites to where it is needed. Through the direct uptake and oxidation of lactate produced elsewhere, all end organs can be rapidly supplied with fundamental energy, skipping glycolysis and its possible byproducts. Increased lactate production (and consequent oxidation) could therefore be considered a positive mechanism of action of metformin, except when, under specific circumstances, metformin and lactate become excessive, increasing the risk of lactic acidosis. We are proposing that, rather than considering metformin-induced lactate production as dangerous, it could be considered a mechanism through which metformin exerts its possible protective effect on the heart, kidneys, and brain and, to some extent, its antineoplastic action.
Laili Soleimani1?, Ramit Ravona-Springer2,3,4, Hung-Mo Lin5, Xiaoyu Liu5, Mary Sano1,6, Anthony Heymann4,7 and Michal Schnaider Beeri1,2
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2031
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 655-662.
OBJECTIVE Depression is highly frequent in older adults with type 2 diabetes and is associated with cognitive impairment, yet little is known about how various depression dimensions differentially affect cognition. We investigated longitudinal associations of specific depression dimensions with cognitive decline.
Zhangling Chen1,2?, Jean-Philippe Drouin-Chartier1,3, Yanping Li1, Megu Y. Baden1, JoAnn E. Manson4,5,6, Walter C. Willett1,4,6, Trudy Voortman2, Frank B. Hu1,4,6 and Shilpa N. Bhupathiraju1,6?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1636
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 663-671.
OBJECTIVE We evaluated the associations between changes in plant-based diets and subsequent risk of type 2 diabetes.
Guo-Chong Chen1, Rhonda Arthur1, Li-Qiang Qin2, Li-Hua Chen2, Zhendong Mei3, Yan Zheng3, Yang Li1, Tao Wang1, Thomas E. Rohan1 and Qibin Qi1,4?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2328
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 672-680.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate associations of oily and nonoily fish consumption and fish oil supplements with incident type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Claire L. Meek1,2?, Diana Tundidor3,4, Denice S. Feig5, Jennifer M. Yamamoto6,7, Eleanor M. Scott8, Diane D. Ma9, Jose A. Halperin9, Helen R. Murphy10,11 and Rosa Corcoy4,12,13?, on behalf of the CONCEPTT Collaborative Group*
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2360
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 681-689.
OBJECTIVE The optimal method of monitoring glycemia in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the predictive performance of HbA1c, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics, and alternative biochemical markers of glycemia to predict obstetric and neonatal outcomes.
Ying Shang1?, Laura Fratiglioni1,2, Davide Liborio Vetrano1,3, Abigail Dove1, Anna-Karin Welmer1,2,4,5 and Weili Xu1,6?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2232
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 690-698.
OBJECTIVE Diabetes is linked to functional decline, but the impact of prediabetes on physical function is unknown. We aimed to examine and compare the impact of prediabetes and diabetes on physical function and disability progression and to explore whether cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) mediate these associations.
Michael Fang and Elizabeth Selvin?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2304
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 699-706.
OBJECTIVE To assess the prevalence of and trends in complications among U.S. adults with newly diagnosed diabetes.
Qi Jin1, Ni Shi2, Desmond Aroke2, Dong Hoon Lee3, Joshua J. Joseph4, Macarius Donneyong5, Darwin L. Conwell6, Phil A. Hart6, Xuehong Zhang3,7, Steven K. Clinton1,2,8, Zobeida Cruz-Monserrate1,2,6, Theodore M. Brasky2,8, Rebecca Jackson4, Lesley F. Tinker9, Simin Liu10, Lawrence S. Phillips11,12, Aladdin H. Shadyab13, Rami Nassir14, Wei Bao15 and Fred K. Tabung1,2,3,8,16?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2216
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 707-714.
OBJECTIVE The empirical dietary index for hyperinsulinemia (EDIH) and empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) scores assess the insulinemic and inflammatory potentials of habitual dietary patterns, irrespective of the macronutrient content, and are based on plasma insulin response or inflammatory biomarkers, respectively. The glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) assess postprandial glycemic potential based on dietary carbohydrate content. We tested the hypothesis that dietary patterns promoting hyperinsulinemia, chronic inflammation, or hyperglycemia may influence type 2 diabetes risk.
Kirthi Menon1, Barbora de Courten2, Danny Liew1, Zanfina Ademi1, Alice J. Owen1, Dianna J. Magliano1,3 and Ella Zomer1?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1429
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 715-721.
OBJECTIVE Diabetes imposes a heavy burden on both health and productivity. In this study, we sought to estimate the potential productivity gains associated with the prevention of type 2 diabetes over the next 10 years in Australia.
Emma J. Hamilton1,2, Wendy A. Davis1, Ranita Siru2, Mendel Baba3, Paul E. Norman1,4 and Timothy M.E. Davis1?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1743
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 722-730.
OBJECTIVE To determine whether, reflecting trends in other chronic complications, incident hospitalization for diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU) has declined over recent decades in type 2 diabetes.
Jenny Riley1, Christina Antza2,3, Punith Kempegowda2, Anuradhaa Subramanian1, Joht Singh Chandan1, Krishna Gokhale1, Neil Thomas1, Christopher Sainsbury1, Abd A. Tahrani2,3,4? and Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar1
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1027
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 731-739.
OBJECTIVE To investigate the relationship between social deprivation and incident diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes.
Jessica Bengtsson1,2?, Andreas Rieckmann2, Bendix Carstensen1, Jannet Svensson3, Marit E. J?rgensen1,4 and Naja H. Rod2
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1130
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 740-747.
OBJECTIVE Experiencing adversities in childhood may increase the risk of type 1 diabetes through hyperactivation of the stress response system, but the empirical evidence is conflicting. We aim to describe the age-specific incidence of type 1 diabetes for males and females separately in five predefined groups covering the most common trajectories of adversity among Danish children.
Charles C. Wykoff1?, Rahul N. Khurana2, Quan Dong Nguyen3, Scott P. Kelly4, Flora Lum4, Rebecca Hall4, Ibrahim M. Abbass5, Anna M. Abolian5, Ivaylo Stoilov5, Tu My To5 and Vincent Garmo5
doi : 10.2337/dc20-0413
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 748-756.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between initial diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity/risk of blindness in patients with newly diagnosed DR/good vision in the U.S.
Zobida Islam1?, Shamima Akter1, Yosuke Inoue1, Huan Hu1, Keisuke Kuwahara1,2, Tohru Nakagawa3, Toru Honda3, Shuichiro Yamamoto3, Hiroko Okazaki4, Toshiaki Miyamoto5, Takayuki Ogasawara6, Naoko Sasaki6, Akihiko Uehara7, Makoto Yamamoto8, Takeshi Kochi9, Masafumi Eguchi9, Taiki Shirasaka9, Makiko Shimizu10, Satsue Nagahama11, Ai Hori12, Teppei Imai13, Akiko Nishihara14, Kentaro Tomita15, Tomofumi Sone16, Maki Konishi1, Isamu Kabe17, Tetsuya Mizoue1 and Seitaro Dohi4, for the Japan Epidemiology Collaboration on Occupational Health Study Group*
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1213
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 757-764.
OBJECTIVE Prediabetes has been suggested to increase risk for death; however, the definitions of prediabetes that can predict death remain elusive. We prospectively investigated the association of multiple definitions of prediabetes with the risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer in Japanese workers.
Juan P. Frias1, Enzo Bonora2, Luis Nevarez Ruiz3, Ying G. Li4, Zhuoxin Yu4, Zvonko Milicevic4, Raleigh Malik4, M. Angelyn Bethel4 and David A. Cox4?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1473
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 765-773.
OBJECTIVE To compare efficacy and safety of dulaglutide at doses of 3.0 and 4.5 mg versus 1.5 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin.
Lawrence Blonde1?, Julio Rosenstock2, Juan Frias3, Andreas L. Birkenfeld4,5, Elisabeth Niemoeller6, Elisabeth Souhami7, Chen Ji8, Stefano Del Prato9 and Vanita R. Aroda10,11
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2023
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 774-780.
OBJECTIVE In the LixiLan-G trial, switching to iGlarLixi, a once-daily titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 units/mL and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) lixisenatide, improved glucose control in type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with GLP-1 RAs over 26 weeks versus continuing prior GLP-1 RA. A prespecified, 26-week, single-arm extension of LixiLan-G aimed to determine the durability of iGlarLixi efficacy and safety over 52 weeks.
Risa M. Wolf1, T.Y. Alvin Liu2, Chrystal Thomas1, Laura Prichett3, Ingrid Zimmer?Galler2, Kerry Smith2, Michael D. Abramoff4,5,6,7,8 and Roomasa Channa2,9?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1671
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 781-787.
OBJECTIVE Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of vision loss worldwide. Screening for DR is recommended in children and adolescents, but adherence is poor. Recently, autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been developed for early detection of DR and have been included in the American Diabetes Association’s guidelines for screening in adults. We sought to determine the diagnostic efficacy of autonomous AI for the diabetic eye exam in youth with diabetes.
Eleni Rebelos1, Marco Bucci1, Tomi Karjalainen1, Vesa Oikonen1, Alessandra Bertoldo2, Jarna C. Hannukainen1, Kirsi A. Virtanen1,3, Aino Latva-Rasku1, Jussi Hirvonen4, Ilkka Heinonen1,5, Riitta Parkkola4, Markku Laakso6, Ele Ferrannini7, Patricia Iozzo1,7, Lauri Nummenmaa1,8 and Pirjo Nuutila1,9?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1549
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 788-794.
OBJECTIVE Whereas insulin resistance is expressed as reduced glucose uptake in peripheral tissues, the relationship between insulin resistance and brain glucose metabolism remains controversial. Our aim was to examine the association of insulin resistance and brain glucose uptake (BGU) during a euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp in a large sample of study participants across a wide range of age and insulin sensitivity.
Kalie L. Tommerdahl1,2,3,4, Karl Baumgartner1, Michal Sch?fer1,5, Petter Bjornstad1,3,4, Isabella Melena1, Shannon Hegemann1, Amy D. Baumgartner1, Laura Pyle1,6, Melanie Cree-Green1,3, Uyen Truong5,7, Lorna Browne8, Judith G. Regensteiner3,9, Jane E.B. Reusch3,10,11 and Kristen J. Nadeau1,3?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1879
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 795-803.
OBJECTIVE Insulin resistance and obesity are independently associated with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and are known risk factors for cardiovascular and kidney diseases, the leading causes of death in T1D. We evaluated the effect of BMI on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in youth with T1D versus control youth with normal weight or obesity and youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D).
David T.W. Lui1, Ching-Lung Cheung2, Alan C.H. Lee1, Ying Wong1, Sammy W.M. Shiu1 and Kathryn C.B. Tan1?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2186
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 804-809.
OBJECTIVE Carbamylation is part of the aging process and causes adverse changes in the structure and function of proteins. Lipoproteins are subjected to carbamylation. We investigated the usefulness of carbamylated HDL as a prognostic indicator of survival in patients with type 2 diabetes and the association with mortality outcomes.
Maryam Saeed1,2?, German Tapia3, Inger Ariansen3, Lars C. Stene3, Ingebj?rg Seljeflot2,4, Grethe S. Tell3,5, Torild Skrivarhaug1,2 and Geir Joner1,2
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1712
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 810-816.
OBJECTIVE To study whether serum galectin-3 and other biomarkers of inflammation predict coronary heart disease (CHD) in subjects with long-standing childhood-onset type 1 diabetes.
Silva A. Arslanian1, Laure El ghormli2?, Joon Young Kim3, Ashley H. Tjaden2, Elena Barengolts4, Sonia Caprio5, Tamara S. Hannon6, Kieren J. Mather6,7, Kristen J. Nadeau8, Kristina M. Utzschneider9 and Steven E. Kahn9, for the RISE Consortium*
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2134
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 817-825.
OBJECTIVE We examined the glucose response curves (biphasic [BPh], monophasic [MPh], incessant increase [IIn]) during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and their relationship to insulin sensitivity (IS) and ?-cell function (?CF) in youth versus adults with impaired glucose tolerance or recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes.
Elisabetta Patorno1?, Ajinkya Pawar1, Lily G. Bessette1, Dae H. Kim1,2,3, Chintan Dave1,4, Robert J. Glynn1, Medha N. Munshi2,5, Sebastian Schneeweiss1, Deborah J. Wexler6 and Seoyoung C. Kim1
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1464
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 826-835.
OBJECTIVE Both sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) demonstrated cardiovascular benefits in randomized controlled trials of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) generally <65 years old and mostly with cardiovascular disease. We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA among real-world older adults.
Helga Blauw1,2?, A. Joannet Onvlee2,3, Michel Klaassen2, Arianne C. van Bon3 and J. Hans DeVries1
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2106
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 836-838.
OBJECTIVE To demonstrate the performance and safety of a bihormonal (insulin and glucagon) artificial pancreas (AP) in adults with type 1 diabetes.
Louis Potier1,2, Boris Hansel1,2, Etienne Larger3, Jean-François Gautier2,4, Daphné Carreira1,5, Rachel Assemien1,5, Olivier Lantieri1,6, Jean-Pierre Riveline2,4 and Ronan Roussel1,2?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2019
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 839-843.
OBJECTIVE To investigate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown on glycemic control and associated factors in people living with type 1 diabetes.
Coralie Amadou1,2?, Sylvia Franc1,3,4, Pierre-Yves Benhamou5, Sandrine Lablanche5, Erik Huneker6, Guillaume Charpentier1,3 and Alfred Penfornis1,2, on behalf of the Diabeloop Consortium
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1809
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 844-846.
OBJECTIVE To analyze safety and efficacy of the Diabeloop Generation 1 (DBLG1) hybrid closed-loop artificial pancreas system in patients with type 1 diabetes in real-world conditions.
Shivani Agarwal1,2?, Justin Mathew2, Georgia M. Davis3, Alethea Shephardson2, Ann Levine2, Rita Louard1,2, Agustina Urrutia3, Citlalli Perez-Guzman3, Guillermo E. Umpierrez3, Limin Peng3 and Francisco J. Pasquel3
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2219
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 847-849.
OBJECTIVE Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) in critically ill hospitalized patients holds promise; however, real-world data are needed.
Sara Pedron1,2,3,4?, Christoph F. Kurz1,2,5, Lars Schwettmann1,6 and Michael Laxy1,2,7,8
doi : 10.2337/dc20-1721
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): 850-852.
OBJECTIVE To assess the independent causal effect of BMI and type 2 diabetes (T2D) on socioeconomic outcomes by applying two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis.
Guillaume Grenet1,2?, Samia Mekhaldi2, Sabine Mainbourg2,3, Marine Auffret1,2, Catherine Cornu2,4, Jean-Luc Cracowski5, François Gueyffier2, Jean-Christophe Lega2,3 and Michel Cucherat1,2
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2018
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): e36-e37.
Kazumi Tsuchiya1? and Ryan T. Demmer2
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2453
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): e38-e39.
Jamal S. Rana1,2,3?, Howard H. Moffet1, Jennifer Y. Liu1 and Andrew J. Karter1
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2798
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): e40-e41.
Jing Li1,2,3, Jinnan Liu1, Cuiping Zhang4, Gongshu Liu4, Junhong Leng4, Leishen Wang4, Weiqin Li4, Zhijie Yu5, Gang Hu6, Juliana C.N. Chan7 and Xilin Yang1,2,3?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2750
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): e42-e44.
Alyson J. Littman1,2,3?, Andrew K. Timmons1, Kathryn P. Moore1, Chin-Lin Tseng4, Gregory Landry5, Jeffrey M. Robbins6, Anna Korpak1 and Edward J. Boyko1,3,7
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2452
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): e48-e49.
M. Citlalli Perez-Guzman1, Elizabeth Duggan2, Seid Gibanica1, Saumeth Cardona1, Andrea Corujo-Rodriguez2, Abimbola Faloye2, Michael Halkos3, Guillermo E. Umpierrez1, Limin Peng4, Georgia M. Davis1 and Francisco J. Pasquel1?
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2386
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): e50-e52.
Ari Breiner1,2?, Thanh B. Nguyen3, Bibianna Purgina4 and Pierre R. Bourque1,2
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2787
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): e53-e54.
Tim Cundy1?, Andrew Holden2 and Elizabeth Stallworthy3
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2646
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): e55-e56.
Young-Rock Hong1?, Aaron S. Kelly2, Crystal Johnson-Mann3, Dominick J. Lemas4 and Michelle I. Cardel4,5
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2748
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): e57-e58.
Geremia B. Bolli?, Francesca Porcellati, Paola Lucidi and Carmine G. Fanelli
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2575
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): e59-e60.
Roselle A. Herring1?, Fariba Shojaee-Moradie1, Robert Garesse1, Mary Stevenage1, Nicola Jackson2, Barbara A. Fielding2, Agampodi Mendis2, Sigurd Johnsen2, A. Margot Umpleby2, Melanie Davies3 and David L. Russell-Jones1
doi : 10.2337/dci20-0072
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44(3): e61-e61.
Qi Jin, Ni Shi, Desmond Aroke, Dong Hoon Lee, Joshua J. Joseph, Macarius Donneyong, Darwin L. Conwell, Phil A. Hart, Xuehong Zhang, Steven K. Clinton, Zobeida Cruz-Monserrate, Theodore M. Brasky, Rebecca Jackson, Lesley F. Tinker, Simin Liu, Lawrence S. Phillips, Aladdin H. Shadyab, Rami Nassir, Wei Bao and Fred K. Tabung
doi : 10.2337/dc20-2216
Diabetes Care 2021 Mar; 44 (3): 707-714.
OBJECTIVE The empirical dietary index for hyperinsulinemia (EDIH) and empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) scores assess the insulinemic and inflammatory potentials of habitual dietary patterns, irrespective of the macronutrient content, and are based on plasma insulin response or inflammatory biomarkers, respectively. The glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) assess postprandial glycemic potential based on dietary carbohydrate content. We tested the hypothesis that dietary patterns promoting hyperinsulinemia, chronic inflammation, or hyperglycemia may influence type 2 diabetes risk.
آیا می خواهید مدیلیب را به صفحه اصلی خود اضافه کنید؟