Alteration of Visual Function in Impaired Glucose Tolerance

People with impaired glucose tolerance are considered to be prone to diabetes. To evaluate their visual function we investigated colour vision with the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue test and contrast sensitivity with Arden's grating cards in people with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), people with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) and others with type II diabetes (NIDDM). Eyes with low vision or any anterior or posterior segment abnormalities were excluded. Contrast sensitivity and color vision differed significantly between the groups (p<0.01). It thus appears that patients with IGT but without clinical diabetes could be followed up to see whether these alterations have any predictive value for the development of diabetes and diabetic retinopathy.

Quality indicators for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in Europe--IMAGE

BACKGROUND

The marked increase of type 2 diabetes necessitates active development and implementation of efficient prevention programs. A European level action has been taken by launching the IMAGE project to unify and improve the various prevention management concepts, which currently exist within the EU. This report describes the background and the methods used in the development of the IMAGE project quality indicators for diabetes primary prevention programs. It is targeted to the persons responsible for diabetes prevention at different levels of the health care systems.

METHODS

Development of the quality indicators was conducted by a group of specialists representing different professional groups from several European countries. Indicators and measurement recommendations were produced by the expert group in consensus meetings and further developed by combining evidence and expert opinion.

RESULTS

The quality indicators were developed for different prevention strategies: population level prevention strategy, screening for high risk, and high risk prevention strategy. Totally, 22 quality indicators were generated. They constitute the minimum level of quality assurance recommended for diabetes prevention programs. In addition, 20 scientific evaluation indicators with measurement standards were produced. These micro level indicators describe measurements, which should be used if evaluation, reporting, and scientific analysis are planned.

CONCLUSIONS

We hope that these quality tools together with the IMAGE guidelines will provide a useful tool for improving the quality of diabetes prevention in Europe and make different prevention approaches comparable.

Take action to prevent diabetes--the IMAGE toolkit for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in Europe

When we ask people what they value most, health is usually top of the list. While effective care is available for many chronic diseases, the fact remains that for the patient, the tax payer and the whole of society: prevention is better than cure. Diabetes and its complications are a serious threat to the survival and well-being of an increasing number of people. It is predicted that one in ten Europeans aged 20-79 will have developed diabetes by 2030. Once a disease of old age, diabetes is now common among adults of all ages and is beginning to affect adolescents and even children. Diabetes accounts for up to 18 % of total healthcare expenditure in Europe. The good news is that diabetes is preventable. Compelling evidence shows that the onset of diabetes can be prevented or delayed greatly in individuals at high risk (people with impaired glucose regulation). Clinical research has shown a reduction in risk of developing diabetes of over 50 % following relatively modest changes in lifestyle that include adopting a healthy diet, increasing physical activity, and maintaining a healthy body weight. These results have since been reproduced in real-world prevention programmes. Even a delay of a few years in the progression to diabetes is expected to reduce diabetes-related complications, such as heart, kidney and eye disease and, consequently, to reduce the cost to society. A comprehensive approach to diabetes prevention should combine population based primary prevention with programmes targeted at those who are at high risk. This approach should take account of the local circumstances and diversity within modern society (e.g. social inequalities). The challenge goes beyond the healthcare system. We need to encourage collaboration across many different sectors: education providers, non-governmental organisations, the food industry, the media, urban planners and politicians all have a very important role to play. Small changes in lifestyle will bring big changes in health. Through joint efforts, more people will be reached. The time to act is now.

A European evidence-based guideline for the prevention of type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and socioeconomic burden of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and associated co-morbidities are rising worldwide.

AIMS

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for preventing T2DM.

METHODS

A European multidisciplinary consortium systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening and interventions for T2DM prevention using SIGN criteria.

RESULTS

Obesity and sedentary lifestyle are the main modifiable risk factors. Age and ethnicity are non-modifiable risk factors. Case-finding should follow a step-wise procedure using risk questionnaires and oral glucose tolerance testing. Persons with impaired glucose tolerance and/or fasting glucose are at high-risk and should be prioritized for intensive intervention. Interventions supporting lifestyle changes delay the onset of T2DM in high-risk adults (number-needed-to-treat: 6.4 over 1.8-4.6 years). These should be supported by inter-sectoral strategies that create health promoting environments. Sustained body weight reduction by >or= 5 % lowers risk. Currently metformin, acarbose and orlistat can be considered as second-line prevention options. The population approach should use organized measures to raise awareness and change lifestyle with specific approaches for adolescents, minorities and disadvantaged people. Interventions promoting lifestyle changes are more effective if they target both diet and physical activity, mobilize social support, involve the planned use of established behaviour change techniques, and provide frequent contacts. Cost-effectiveness analysis should take a societal perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevention using lifestyle modifications in high-risk individuals is cost-effective and should be embedded in evaluated models of care. Effective prevention plans are predicated upon sustained government initiatives comprising advocacy, community support, fiscal and legislative changes, private sector engagement and continuous media communication.