Trends in hyperlipidemia and hypertension management in type 2 diabetes patients from 1998–2004: a longitudinal observational study

BACKGROUND: Lack of treatment initiation or intensification might explain why some patients with type 2 diabetes do not reach target goals. The objective is to assess trends in risk factor treatment, and identify determinants for medication adjustments in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and/or hyperlipidemia. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using data from the Zwolle Outpatient Diabetes project Integrated Available Care (ZODIAC)-study in The Netherlands. Management of hypertension and hyperlipidemia was assessed yearly from 1998-2004 by measuring the percentage of patients receiving a treatment initiation or intensification among all patients with elevated risk factor levels. Generalized estimating equation analyses were performed. RESULTS: During the study period, the percentage of patients with an elevated total cholesterol/high-density lipoproteins ratio (>6) decreased considerably (from 29% to 4%) whereas the percentage of hypertensive patients decreased only slightly (>or= 150/85 mmHg; from 58% to 51%). Initiation of lipid-lowering therapy and intensification of antihypertensive therapy was higher in more recent years. However, still two-third of patients with insufficiently controlled blood pressure in 2003 did not receive an initiation or intensification of antihypertensive treatment in the following year. Treatment changes were mainly determined by elevated levels of the corresponding risk factor. We did not observe increased initiation rates for lipid-lowering therapy in patients with both hypertension and hyperlipidemia. CONCLUSION: Hypertension and hyperlipidemia management in type 2 diabetes patients has improved in the past decade but further improvement is possible. Greater effort is needed to stimulate medication adjustments in patients with insufficiently controlled hypertension and combined risk factors

Chromium does not belong in the diabetes treatment arsenal:Current evidence and future perspectives

Chromium is considered to have positive effects on insulin sensitivity and is marketed as an adjunctive therapy for inducing glucose tolerance in cases of insulin resistance ("the glucose tolerance factor"). Case reports on patients who received prolonged parenteral nutrition indeed showed that the absence of trivalent chromium caused insulin resistance and diabetes. However, whether patients with type 2 diabetes can develop a clinically relevant chromium deficiency is unclear. This review summarizes the available evidence regarding the potential effectiveness of chromium supplementation on glycemic control (Hemoglobin A1c levels) in patients with type 2 diabetes. No studies investigating the long-term safety of chromium in humans were found. All clinical trials that have been performed had a relative short follow-up period. None of the trials investigated whether the patients had risk factors for chromium deficiency. The evidence from randomized trials in patients with type 2 diabetes demonstrated that chromium supplementation does not effectively improve glycemic control. The meta-analyses showed that chromium supplementation did not improve fasting plasma glucose levels. Moreover, there were no clinically relevant chromium effects on body weight in individuals with or without diabetes. Future studies should focus on reliable methods to estimate chromium status to identify patients at risk for pathological alterations in their metabolism associated with chromium deficiency. Given the present data, there is no evidence that supports advising patients with type 2 diabetes to take chromium supplements

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes: an overview:an overview

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in noninsulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) remains unclear. We aimed to review the trials investigating the effects of SMBG in this population. METHODS: Medline was searched until June 29, 2009. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration were included. Data on the following aspects were gathered: patient and study characteristics, effects on HbA(1c), quality of life and treatment satisfaction, and methodological quality. RESULTS: The search revealed 9 original RCTs. These studies were very heterogeneous, and 5 were classified as of high quality. The studies with the best methodology did not show an effect of SMBG on HbA(1c), the studies with the worst methodological quality did. Two out of the 4 studies that assessed quality of life showed a significant change in favor of the control group, 1 study showed a significant change in favor of SMBG. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We found an inverse relation between study quality and efficacy of SMBG. At this moment, there is no basis for general use of SMBG in noninsulin-treated T2DM patients

Device-guided breathing exercises for the treatment of hypertension:An overview

The American Heart Association considers device-guided breathing as a reasonable treatment modality in their statement on non-pharmacological options for lowering blood pressure. This review discusses all randomized controlled trials that have investigated the effects of device-guided breathing on blood pressure in patients with hypertension. Thirteen studies were included in this review. In total, 627 patients were included, of which 365 patients were allocated to device-guided breathing. Only 6 studies used acceptable control groups: listening to music, meditative relaxation exercises, or a sham-device. Two sponsored trials showed beneficial effects of device-guided breathing, both used listening to music as a control group. The remaining 4 studies, which had no employees of the manufacturer listed as co-author, observed no beneficial effects on blood pressure. There is only 1 study that used a sham device as a control group. All other studies were to some extend methodologically flawed. Based on the studies with an acceptable methodological quality, there is no clear evidence supporting a short-term beneficial effect on blood pressure by using device-guided breathing

Fifteen-year follow-up of quality of life in type 1 diabetes mellitus

AIM: To evaluate metabolic control and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) population. METHODS: As part of a prospective cohort study, 283 T1DM patients treated with various insulin treatment modalities including multiple daily injections (MDI) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) were examined annually. HRQOL was measured using the SF-36 and EuroQol questionnaires. Data regarding HRQOL, glycaemic and metabolic control from baseline and follow-up measures in 2002 and 2010 were analysed. Linear mixed models were used to calculate estimated values and differences between the three moments in time and the three treatment modalities. RESULTS: Significant changes [mean Δ (95%CI)] in body mass index [2.4 kg/m(2) (1.0, 3.8)], systolic blood pressure [-6.4 mmHg (-11.4, -1.3)] and EuroQol-VAS [-7.3 (-11.4, -3.3)] were observed over time. In 2010, 168 patients were lost to follow-up. Regarding mode of therapy, 52 patients remained on MDI, 28 remained on CSII, and 33 patients switched from MDI to CSII during follow-up. Among patients on MDI, HRQOL decreased significantly over time: mental component summary [-9.8 (-16.3, -3.2)], physical component summary [-8.6 (-15.3, -1.8)] and EuroQol-VAS [-8.1 (-14.0, -2.3)], P < 0.05 for all. For patients using CSII, the EuroQol-VAS decreased [-9.6 (-17.5, -1.7)]. None of the changes over time in HRQOL differed significantly with the changes over time within the other treatment groups. CONCLUSION: No differences with respect to metabolic and HRQOL parameters between the various insulin treatment modalities were observed after 15 years of follow-up in T1DM patients