The affective and somatic side of depression: subtypes of depressive symptoms show diametrically opposed associations with glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

While depression has been linked to serious adverse outcomes in diabetes, associations with glycemic control are not conclusive. Inconsistencies could be due to the complex symptomatology of depression. Aim of this study was to analyze the associations of depressive subtypes with glycemic control in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Patients completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale which comprises affective, somatic, and anhedonic symptoms. These subtypes were analyzed in a joint linear regression analysis with glycemic control as a dependent variable. Subtype scores were calculated as mean item scores. Separate analyses for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes were conducted. All analyses were controlled for demographic and medical confounders.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 604 patients with type 1 and 382 patients with type 2 diabetes. In people with type 1 diabetes, the somatic and affective subtype showed diametrically opposed associations with glycemic control (somatic: β =+0.23, p < .05; affective: β = -0.23, p < .05). Anhedonia was not significantly associated with glycemic control. In people with type 2 diabetes, none of the depressive subtypes was significantly associated with glycemic control.

CONCLUSIONS

For people with type 1 diabetes, the distinction of subtypes offered a detailed picture of the associations of depressive symptoms with glycemic control. However, due to the cross-sectional design, inferences about the direction of these associations cannot be made. In clinical practice, instead of focusing on overall depression, healthcare providers should examine the nature of depressive symptoms and how they might be related to having diabetes.

Reduction of diabetes-related distress predicts improved depressive symptoms: A secondary analysis of the DIAMOS study

Objective

Depressive symptoms in people with diabetes are associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. Although successful psychosocial treatment options are available, little is known about factors that facilitate treatment response for depression in diabetes. This prospective study aims to examine the impact of known risk factors on improvement of depressive symptoms with a special interest in the role of diabetes-related distress.

Methods

181 people with diabetes participated in a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes-related distress was assessed using the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale; depressive symptoms were assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. Multiple logistic and linear regression analyses were used to assess associations between risk factors for depression (independent variables) and improvement of depressive symptoms (dependent variable). Reliable change indices were established as criteria of meaningful reductions in diabetes distress and depressive symptoms.

Results

A reliable reduction of diabetes-related distress (15.43 points in the PAID) was significantly associated with fourfold increased odds for reliable improvement of depressive symptoms (OR = 4.25, 95% CI: 2.05–8.79; P<0.001). This result was corroborated using continuous measures of diabetes distress and depressive symptoms, showing that greater reduction of diabetes-related distress independently predicted greater improvement in depressive symptoms (ß = -0.40; P<0.001). Higher age had a positive (Odds Ratio = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.21–3.43; P<0.01) and type 2 diabetes had a negative effect on the meaningful reduction of depressive symptoms (Odds Ratio = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04–0.35; P<0.001).

Conclusions

The reduction of diabetes distress is a statistical predictor of improvement of depressive symptoms. Diabetes patients with comorbid depressive symptomatology might benefit from treatments to reduce diabetes-related distress.

Depression is linked to hyperglycaemia via suboptimal diabetes self-management: A cross-sectional mediation analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyse if the association between depressive symptoms and hyperglycaemia is mediated by diabetes self-management.

METHODS

430 people with diabetes (57.7% type 1, 42.3% type 2) were cross-sectionally assessed using validated self-report scales for depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)) and diabetes self-management (Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ)); HbA_1c was analysed simultaneously in a central laboratory. Structural equation modelling was used to test if the association between depressive symptoms and hyperglycaemia (HbA_1c) was mediated by suboptimal self-management in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

The hypothesised model of depressive symptoms, diabetes self-management and hyperglycaemia fit the data well for both diabetes types (SRMR≤0.04, TLI≥0.99, CFI>0.99, RMSEA≤0.02 for both models). In both the type 1 and type 2 diabetes group, higher depressive symptoms were associated with lower self-management (P<0.001) and lower self-management was associated with higher HbA_1c (P<0.001). Results indicated that the association between depressive symptoms and hyperglycaemia was significantly mediated by suboptimal diabetes self-management in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients (P<0.001). Significant direct associations between depressive symptoms and hyperglycaemia, not mediated by self-management, could not be observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides good evidence supporting that depression is linked to hyperglycaemia via suboptimal diabetes self-management in both major diabetes types.

How Much Accuracy of Interstitial Glucose Measurement Is Enough? Is There a Need for New Evidence?

This analytical comment discusses what standards are needed for the evaluation of the accuracy of glucose measurement systems continuously measuring glucose in the interstitial fluid. Since accuracy standards for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)/flash glucose monitoring (FGM) systems are currently based on modeling studies or consensus of experts, we raised the question whether non-inferiority trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of CGM/FGM measurements compared to capillary blood glucose measurement with point-of-care devices could help to establish clarity about the needed accuracy standards of CGM/FGM. Such trials could also support the replacement of capillary blood glucose measurements by modern CGM/FGM systems.

How to assess diabetes distress: comparison of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS)

AIMS

To compare the properties of the two most commonly used assessment tools for diabetes distress, the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), in order to discriminate their psychometric capabilities and functions.

METHODS

Six hundred and twenty-eight people with diabetes (67% Type 1, 33% Type 2) were cross-sectionally assessed with the PAID, the DDS and further self-report scales regarding coping, quality of life, depressive symptoms and self-care, and medical data were gained. We analysed the PAID and DDS for areas of contentual/psychometric divergence in assessing diabetes distress and compared their associations with criteria of interest.

RESULTS

Content analysis: The PAID covers a greater variety of emotional concerns and shows a stronger focus on food-related problems and complications. The DDS is more reflective of physician-related distress and problems concerning diabetes self-management. Psychometric analysis: Exploratory factor analyses revealed four-factor structures of both scales, explaining 60% (PAID) and 67% (DDS) of variance. Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed that single-factor and four-factor models fit the data. Total scales proved high and subscales mostly satisfactory reliability. Associations with criteria of interest: The PAID was significantly more strongly associated with dysfunctional coping styles, quality of life and depressive symptoms. The DDS showed significantly stronger associations with diabetes self-care and metabolic outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our results support both PAID and DDS as good self-report measures of diabetes distress. The observed contentual/psychometric differences suggest that a justified choice with regard to the intended clinical or scientific purpose can improve the acquisition of the required data.

Assessing Diabetes Self-Management with the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ) Can Help Analyse Behavioural Problems Related to Reduced Glycaemic Control

AIM

To appraise the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ)'s measurement of diabetes self-management as a statistical predictor of glycaemic control relative to the widely used SDSCA.

METHODS

248 patients with type 1 diabetes and 182 patients with type 2 diabetes were cross-sectionally assessed using the two self-report measures of diabetes self-management DSMQ and SDSCA; the scales were used as competing predictors of HbA1c. We developed a structural equation model of self-management as measured by the DSMQ and analysed the amount of variation explained in HbA1c; an analogue model was developed for the SDSCA.

RESULTS

The structural equation models of self-management and glycaemic control showed very good fit to the data. The DSMQ's measurement of self-management showed associations with HbA1c of -0.53 for type 1 and -0.46 for type 2 diabetes (both P < 0.001), explaining 21% and 28% of variation in glycaemic control, respectively. The SDSCA's measurement showed associations with HbA1c of -0.14 (P = 0.030) for type 1 and -0.31 (P = 0.003) for type 2 diabetes, explaining 2% and 10% of glycaemic variation. Predictive power for glycaemic control was significantly higher for the DSMQ (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the DSMQ as the preferred tool when analysing self-reported behavioural problems related to reduced glycaemic control. The scale may be useful for clinical assessments of patients with suboptimal diabetes outcomes or research on factors affecting associations between self-management behaviours and glycaemic control.

Development of a New Tool to Assess Bolus Calculation and Carbohydrate Estimation

BACKGROUND

Carbohydrate estimation and bolus calculation are two important skills for handling intensive insulin therapy and effectively using bolus calculators. Structured assessment of both skills is lacking. A new tool for the assessment of skills in carbohydrate estimation and bolus calculation was developed and evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A new assessment tool (SMART) was developed that included 10 items for bolus calculation and 12 items for carbohydrate estimation. In total, 411 patients on intensive insulin treatment were recruited. Different parameters of glycemic control were used as validity criteria.

RESULTS

The SMART tool achieved good reliability for the assessment of bolus calculation (Cronbach's α = 0.78) and sufficient reliability for the assessment of carbohydrate estimation (Cronbach's α = 0.67). A good bolus calculation skill was significantly associated with lower glycated hemoglobin values (r = -0.27), lower mean blood glucose levels (r = -0.29), and higher fluctuation of blood glucose control (r = -0.43). A good carbohydrate estimation skill was significantly associated with a lower frequency of severe hyperglycemia (r = -0.27) and a higher frequency of euglycemia (r = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

SMART is a reliable and valid tool for the assessment of both skills. Bolus calculation as well as carbohydrate estimation was associated with glycemic control. With the help of SMART, important skills for the management of intensive insulin therapy can be assessed separately. Thus, in clinical practice patients in need of assistance from a bolus calculator can be identified.

Comparison of the Efficacy of a Diabetes Education Programme for Type 1 Diabetes (PRIMAS) in a Randomised Controlled Trial Setting and the Effectiveness in a Routine Care Setting: Results of a Comparative Effectiveness Study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of an intervention in clinical practice is often reduced compared to the efficacy demonstrated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). In this comparative effectiveness study, the RCT-proven efficacy of a diabetes education programme for type 1 diabetic patients (PRIMAS) was compared to the effectiveness observed in an implementation trial (IT) under routine care conditions.

METHODS

75 patients with type 1 diabetes received PRIMAS through an RCT, whereas 179 patients were observed in an implementation trial. Baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes at the 6-month follow-up (improvement of HbA1c, hypoglycaemia problems, and diabetes-related distress) were compared.

RESULTS

At baseline, the type 1 diabetic patients in the RCT had a significant longer diabetes duration (18.7 ± 12.3 vs. 13.8 ± 12.7 yrs., p = .005), lower self-efficacy scores (21.9 ± 4.7 vs. 23.7 ± 6.1, p = .02) and a greater number of diabetes complications (0.8 ± 1.3 vs. 0.4 ± 0.9, p = .02). After 6 months, PRIMAS achieved comparable effects under RCT and implementation trial conditions, as demonstrated by improvement in HbA1c (-0.36% ± 1.1 vs. -0.37 ± 1.2; Δ -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.31) and hypoglycaemia unawareness (-0.5 ± 1.4 vs. -0.3 ± 1.4; Δ 0.18, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.57). The likelihood of clinical improvement did not depend on the trial setting (RCT vs. IT: OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.33). The participants with worse glycaemic control (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.92), hypoglycaemia problems (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.97) or elevated diabetes distress (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.89) had a better chance of clinical improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of PRIMAS under routine care conditions was comparable to the efficacy demonstrated in the RCT. Clinical improvement was independent of the setting in which PRIMAS was evaluated. The PRIMAS education programme for type 1 diabetes can be delivered under conditions of routine care without a loss of effectiveness, compared to its original evaluation in an RCT.

Longitudinal relationship of diabetes-related distress and depressive symptoms: analysing incidence and persistence

AIM

To investigate the longitudinal bi-directionality of diabetes-related distress and depressive symptoms.

METHODS

A total of 509 patients receiving intensified insulin therapy completed the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale questionnaire for the assessment of depressive symptoms as well as the Problem Areas in Diabetes questionnaire for the assessment of diabetes-related distress at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. Separate logistic and linear regression analyses for incidence and persistence were performed with demographic (age, gender, BMI) and medical (diabetes type, HbA1c , diabetes duration, late complications) control variables.

RESULTS

Diabetes-related distress at baseline increased the risk of the incidence of elevated depressive symptoms by 2.56-fold (odds ratio 2.56; 95% CI 1.15-5.72; P = 0.02) when controlling for demographic and medical variables. In addition, diabetes-related distress at baseline doubled the chance of the persistence of elevated depressive symptoms (odds ratio 2.04, 95% CI 1.04-3.99; P = 0.04) when controlling for demographic and medical variables. The chance of having persistent elevated diabetes-related distress was increased 5.94-fold (odds ratio 5.94, 95% CI 2.60-13.59; P < 0.0001) when elevated depressive symptoms were present at baseline. None of the medical variables had an influence on incidence or persistence.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes-related distress was identified as a risk factor for the incidence and persistence of depressive symptoms. Reducing diabetes-related distress could help to prevent the development of elevated depressive symptoms. Furthermore, depressive symptoms were identified as an amplifier for diabetes-related distress. Diabetes-related distress and depressive symptoms were independent risk factors for each other and should be monitored in routine care to disentangle their influence.

The effect of a diabetes education programme (PRIMAS) for people with type 1 diabetes: results of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

In a randomized, multi-centre trial, the efficacy of a self-management-oriented education programme (PRIMAS) for people with type 1 diabetes was compared with an established education programme as control group (CG). Primary outcome was the effect on glycaemic control in a 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the impact on emotional aspects, self-management related aspects and hypoglycaemia problems.

METHODS

The study was conducted in an outpatient setting. 160 participants were randomized. Baseline characteristics in PRIMAS and CG were similar (age 45.1±13.5 vs. 45.9±13.1 years, p=.716; diabetes duration 18.8±12.3 vs. 19.8±13.4 years, p=.615; BMI 26.5±4.6 vs. 27.5±5.0kg/m(2), p=.236; HbA1c 8.3±1.1 vs. 8.1±1.0%, p=.236).

RESULTS

At follow-up there was a significant 0.4 percentage points greater reduction of HbA1c in PRIMAS compared to CG (Δ -0.4±1.0% vs. Δ 0.0±0.6%; p=.012). Also, diabetes-related distress (Δ -0.3±0.7 vs. -0.1±0.4, p=.032) and dissatisfaction with diabetes treatment (Δ -3.3±6.9 vs. -1.9±5.6, p=.024) decreased more in PRIMAS. Diabetes empowerment (Δ 2.6±5.9 vs. 0.8±5.1, p=.037) and diabetes self-efficacy (Δ 1.4±3.6 vs. 0.2±4.0, p=.013) increased in PRIMAS. Incidence of severe hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia awareness, diabetes knowledge, and self-care behaviour improved in both groups with no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

PRIMAS is more effective in lowering HbA1c than a previously established education programmes and also showed superiority in reducing diabetes-related distress and increasing diabetes empowerment, diabetes self-efficacy and satisfaction with insulin therapy.