Can we predict future improvement in glycaemic control?

Alcohol use of diabetes patients: the need for assessment and intervention

It is well known that diabetes self-care behaviors are critical to disease progression. Unfortunately, many patients do not adhere to diabetes self-care recommendations despite their importance. Alcohol use has been identified as a barrier to diabetes self-care adherence. Excessive alcohol consumption not only negatively impacts diabetes self-care adherence but also affects the course of diabetes. Diabetes patients who are at-risk drinkers are likely to have poor diabetes treatment adherence, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Alcohol consumption by diabetes patients is often inadequately assessed and addressed in their medical care. Brief interventions to reduce at-risk drinking have been well validated in a variety of patient populations and offer the potential to improve diabetes treatment adherence and outcome. Assessment and treatment of at-risk drinking could be readily incorporated into routine diabetes care. Strategies for brief assessment of and intervention for at-risk drinking are offered.

Exploring reasons for very poor glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes

AIM

The aim was to determine prevalence and reasons for very poor glycaemic control (HbA1c≥10% [86 mmol/mol]) amongst people with Type 2 diabetes in an ethnically diverse urban population.

METHODS

Databases of three primary health centres were searched for patients with Type 2 diabetes ≥1 year, most recent HbA1c≥10% [86 mmol/mol]. Patients were invited to explore reasons for poor glycaemic control and develop an individualised management plan. Review of glycaemic control was undertaken at 6 months.

RESULTS

Of a total population of 28,677, 1261 had Type 2 diabetes (4.4%). 143 (11.3%) had last recorded HbA1c≥10% [86 mmol/mol]; 128 were reviewed (46.9% South Asian). People with poorer control had longer duration of diabetes and more South Asian ethnicity. Reasons for poor glycaemic control were:

THERAPY

lack of titration of tablets (7.8%) or insulin (12.5%), poor concordance with medication (14.0%), insulin refusal (11.7%), side effects (16.4%); Engagement: poor concordance with lifestyle (26.5%), lack of knowledge of diabetes (14.0%), infrequent attendance at clinic (16.4%); Psychosocial/mental health: denial that diabetes was a problem (7.0%), mental health problem (9.4%), social issues (10.9%); Occupation: refusal of insulin due to occupation (1.6%); difficulty in attending reviews (5.5%). At six month review, 54.5% of patients had improved HbA1c≥1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor control affects 1 in 10 of our population. We have determined a number of factors which may explain most causes. Individualised management using care planning can significantly improve control.

Self-care behaviors and health indicators in adults with type 2 diabetes

This descriptive correlational study aimed to analyze self-care behaviors and their relationship with health indicators represented by glycemic control, lipid profile, Body Mass Index [BMI], waist circumference and body fat percentage in a sample of 98 adults with type 2 diabetes in an area of Nuevo Leon, Mexico (August 2005/May 2006). The results showed a low self-care behaviors index (X = 36.94, SD=15.14). A significant relationship was found between self-care behaviors and glycosilated hemoglobin [HbA1c] (r s=-.379, p<.001), triglycerides (r s=-.208, p=.040), BMI (r s=-.248, p=.014) and body fat percentage (r s=-.221, p=.029). Multivariate analysis revealed the influence of self-care behaviors on HbA1c, BMI and body fat percentage with explained variances of 9 to 41% (p < .05). From all self-care dimensions, diet was the most predictive for health indicators, moderated by gender and understanding of diabetes contents (p< .05).

Relationships among self-management, patient perceptions of care, and health economic outcomes for decision-making and clinical practice in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment involves complex interactions between biological, psychological, and behavioral factors of care, requiring multifaceted efforts in clinical practice and disease management to reduce health and economic burdens. We aimed to quantify correlations among these factors and characterize their level of inclusion in economic analyses that are part of informed medical decision-making.

METHODS

A comprehensive, stepwise systematic literature review was performed on published articles dated 1993 to 2008 using medical subject heading and keyword searches in electronic reference libraries. Data were collected using standardized techniques and were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 97 articles fulfilling all inclusion criteria were reviewed, including 16 on economic models (17% of articles). Most studies were retrospective (41 of 97; 42%) and from managed care perspectives (66%). Oral antidiabetic drugs were a central focus, appearing in 83% of studies. Patient behaviors, particularly medication adherence and persistence in real-world settings, are well researched (n=65) and may influence diabetes outcomes, cardiovascular risk, mortality rates, and treatment-specific resource use (e.g., hospitalizations) and costs (<or=$3400 annually per patient). Nevertheless, they are absent from current economic models.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong correlations exist between patient behaviors, perspectives of care, health outcomes, and costs in T2D. Enhancing their inclusion in pharmacoeconomic modeling, notably the influence on clinical effectiveness of variation in self-management between treatments, should ultimately lead to more accurate estimates of comparative cost-effectiveness, and thereby improve value-based resource allocation and patient access to appropriate therapy.

Good glycaemic control: an international perspective on bridging the gap between theory and practice in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Good glycaemic control is crucial in reducing the risk of diabetes-related complications. Despite the availability of evidence-based treatment guidelines, glycaemic control appears to remain suboptimal in most countries.

OBJECTIVES

In this commentary we outline the extent to which diabetes guideline targets on HbA(1c) are being met in clinical practice and--where targets are being missed--to identify potential reasons for this shortfall. Furthermore, we discuss possible actions that may improve glycaemic control.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE using 20 core terms was conducted to help assess the state of glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes worldwide.

RESULTS

Despite clinical guidelines, evidence suggests that glycaemic control is suboptimal in most parts of the world, with average HbA(1c) values varying from 7.0% to 12.6% and thus above virtually all HbA(1c) recommendations. The potential reasons for this shortfall are numerous. However, lack of diabetes education and awareness of HbA(1c) appear to be particularly important. A number of education initiatives from around the world have been shown to improve HbA(1c) levels significantly and thus improve standards of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes appears to be a worldwide problem. As the global rise in diabetes (and its complications) seems destined to affect many less affluent countries, it is essential that appropriate steps are taken to address the barriers to good glycaemic control and ultimately improve outcomes for all people with type 2 diabetes.