Management and efficacy of intensified insulin therapy starting in outpatients

Diabetic patients under multiple injection insulin therapy (i.e., intensified insulin therapy, IIT) usually start this treatment during hospitalization. We report here on the logistics, efficacy, and safety of IIT, started in outpatients. Over 8 months, 52 type I and type II diabetics were followed up whose insulin regimens consecutively had been changed from conventional therapy to IIT. Two different IIT strategies were compared: free mixtures of regular and intermediate (12 hrs)-acting insulin versus the basal and prandial insulin treatment with preprandial injections of regular insulin, and ultralente (24 hrs-acting) or intermediate insulin for the basal demand. After 8 months HbA1 levels had decreased from 10.6%±2.4% to 8.0%±1.3% (means±SD). There was no difference between the two regimens with respect to metabolic control; but type II patients maintained the lowered HbA1 levels better than type I patients. Only two patients were hospitalized during the follow-up time because of severe hypoglycemia. An increase of body weight due to the diet liberalization during IIT became a problem in one-third of the patients. Our results suggest that outpatient initiation of IIT is safe and efficacious with respect to near-normoglycemic control. Weight control may become a problem in IIT patients

Patients' Experience of therapeutic footwear whilst living at risk of neuropathic diabetic foot ulceration: an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA).

BACKGROUND: Previous work has found that people with diabetes do not wear their therapeutic footwear as directed, but the thinking behind this behaviour is unclear. Adherence to therapeutic footwear advice must improve in order to reduce foot ulceration and amputation risk in people with diabetes and neuropathy. Therefore this study aimed to explore the psychological influences and personal experiences behind the daily footwear selection of individuals with diabetes and neuropathy. METHODS: An interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach was used to explore the understanding and experience of therapeutic footwear use in people living at risk of diabetic neuropathic foot ulceration. This study benefited from the purposive selection of a small sample of four people and used in-depth semi structured interviews because it facilitated the deep and detailed examination of personal thoughts and feelings behind footwear selection. FINDINGS: Four overlapping themes that interact to regulate footwear choice emerged from the analyses: a) Self-perception dilemma; resolving the balance of risk experienced by people with diabetes and neuropathy day to day, between choosing to wear footwear to look and feel normal and choosing footwear to protect their feet from foot ulceration; b) Reflective adaption; The modification and individualisation of a set of values about footwear usage created in the minds of people with diabetes and neuropathy; c) Adherence response; The realignment of footwear choice with personal values, to reinforce the decision not to change behaviour or bring about increased footwear adherence, with or without appearance management; d) Reality appraisal; A here and now appraisal of the personal benefit of footwear choice on emotional and physical wellbeing, with additional consideration to the preservation of therapeutic footwear. CONCLUSION: For some people living at risk of diabetic neuropathic foot ulceration, the decision whether or not to wear therapeutic footwear is driven by the individual 'here and now', risks and benefits, of footwear choice on emotional and physical well-being for a given social context

The association between foot-care self efficacy beliefs and actual foot-care behaviour in people with peripheral neuropathy: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>People with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy often do not implement the foot-care behavioural strategies that are suggested by many health professionals. The concept of self-efficacy has been shown to be an effective predictor of behaviour in many areas of health. This study investigated the relationships between foot-care self-efficacy beliefs, self-reported foot-care behaviour and history of diabetes-related foot pathology in people with diabetes and loss of protective sensation in their feet.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ninety-six participants were included in this cross-sectional study undertaken in a regional city of Australia. All participants had diabetes and clinically diagnosed loss of protective sensation in their feet. The participants completed a self-report pen-paper questionnaire regarding foot-care self efficacy beliefs (the "Foot Care Confidence Scale") and two aspects of actual foot-care behaviour-preventative behaviour and potentially damaging behaviour. Pearson correlation coefficients were then calculated to determine the association between foot-care self-efficacy beliefs and actual reported foot-care behaviour. Multiple analysis of variance was undertaken to compare mean self-efficacy and behaviour subscale scores for those with a history of foot pathology, and those that did not.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A small positive correlation (r = 0.2, p = 0.05) was found between self-efficacy beliefs and preventative behaviour. There was no association between self-efficacy beliefs and potentially damaging behaviour. There was no difference in self-efficacy beliefs in people that had a history of foot pathology compared to those that did not.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is little association between foot-care self-efficacy beliefs and actual foot-care behaviour. The usefulness of measuring foot-care self-efficacy beliefs to assess actual self foot-care behaviour using currently available instruments is limited in people with diabetes and loss of protective sensation.</p

A systematic review on the effect of sweeteners on glycemic response and clinically relevant outcomes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The major metabolic complications of obesity and type 2 diabetes may be prevented and managed with dietary modification. The use of sweeteners that provide little or no calories may help to achieve this objective.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the comparative effectiveness of sweetener additives using Bayesian techniques. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CAB Global were searched to January 2011. Randomized trials comparing sweeteners in obese, diabetic, and healthy populations were selected. Outcomes of interest included weight change, energy intake, lipids, glycated hemoglobin, markers of insulin resistance and glycemic response. Evidence-based items potentially indicating risk of bias were assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 3,666 citations, we identified 53 eligible randomized controlled trials with 1,126 participants. In diabetic participants, fructose reduced 2-hour blood glucose concentrations by 4.81 mmol/L (95% CI 3.29, 6.34) compared to glucose. Two-hour blood glucose concentration data comparing hypocaloric sweeteners to sucrose or high fructose corn syrup were inconclusive. Based on two ≤10-week trials, we found that non-caloric sweeteners reduced energy intake compared to the sucrose groups by approximately 250-500 kcal/day (95% CI 153, 806). One trial found that participants in the non-caloric sweetener group had a decrease in body mass index compared to an increase in body mass index in the sucrose group (-0.40 vs 0.50 kg/m², and -1.00 vs 1.60 kg/m², respectively). No randomized controlled trials showed that high fructose corn syrup or fructose increased levels of cholesterol relative to other sweeteners.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Considering the public health importance of obesity and its consequences; the clearly relevant role of diet in the pathogenesis and maintenance of obesity; and the billions of dollars spent on non-caloric sweeteners, little high-quality clinical research has been done. Studies are needed to determine the role of hypocaloric sweeteners in a wider population health strategy to prevent, reduce and manage obesity and its consequences.</p

The effects of low-calorie sweeteners on energy intake and body weight: a systematic review and meta-analyses of sustained intervention studies.

Previous meta-analyses of intervention studies have come to different conclusions about effects of consumption of low-calorie sweeteners (LCS) on body weight. The present review included 60 articles reporting 88 parallel-groups and cross-over studies ≥1 week in duration that reported either body weight (BW), BMI and/or energy intake (EI) outcomes. Studies were analysed according to whether they compared (1) LCS with sugar, (2) LCS with water or nothing, or (3) LCS capsules with placebo capsules. Results showed an effect in favour of LCS vs sugar for BW (29 parallel-groups studies, 2267 participants: BW change, -1.06 kg, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.62, I2 = 51%), BMI and EI. Effect on BW change increased with 'dose' of sugar replaced by LCS, whereas there were no differences in study outcome as a function of duration of the intervention or participant blinding. Overall, results showed no difference in effects of LCS vs water/nothing for BW (11 parallel-groups studies, 1068 participants: BW change, 0.10 kg, 95% CI -0.87 to 1.07, I2 = 82%), BMI and EI; and inconsistent effects for LCS consumed in capsules (BW change: -0.28 kg, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.25, I2 = 0%; BMI change: 0.20 kg/m2, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.36, I2 = 0%). Occurrence of adverse events was not affected by the consumption of LCS. The studies available did not permit robust analysis of effects by LCS type. In summary, outcomes were not clearly affected when the treatments differed in sweetness, nor when LCS were consumed in capsules without tasting; however, when treatments differed in energy value (LCS vs sugar), there were consistent effects in favour of LCS. The evidence from human intervention studies supports the use of LCS in weight management, constrained primarily by the amount of added sugar that LCS can displace in the diet