Effect of device-guided breathing exercises on blood pressure in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus:A randomized controlled trial

Objective In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2), it is hard to reach treatment objectives for blood pressure (BP) with classical treatment options. Recently, reducing breathing frequency has been advocated as a method to reduce BP. We examined if an electronic device such as Resperate, by reducing breathing frequency, would lead to BP reduction in a population of patients with DM2 and hypertension. Our secondary objective was to study the effect of this device on quality of life (QOL). Methods A randomized, single-blind, controlled trial was conducted over a period of 8 weeks to evaluate the effect of this therapy on BP and QOL. The control group listened to music and used no other therapeutic device. BP and QOL changes were studied in 30 patients with DM2 and hypertension. Results There was no significant difference in change in BP between groups; -7.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) -12.7, -2.3]/-1.0 (95% CI -5.5, 3.6) mmHg in the intervention group and -12.2 (95% CI -17.4, -7.0)/-5.5 (95% CI -9.7, -1.4) mmHg in the control group. Whether or not the target breathing frequency of 10 breaths/min was reached did not affect BP. There were no significant changes in QOL. Conclusions The effects of Resperate on BP and QOL were not significantly different from those found in the control group. Furthermore, 40% of patients did not reach the target breathing frequency, making this device less suitable for clinical practice in patients with DM2

Health-Related Quality of Life, Treatment Satisfaction, and Costs Associated With Intraperitoneal Versus Subcutaneous Insulin Administration in Type 1 Diabetes: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE - To investigate the effects of continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion (CIPII) compared with subcutaneous insulin on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and treatment satisfaction, and to perform a cost analysis in type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - We used an open-label, prospective, crossover, randomized, 16-month study (N = 24). HRQOL and patient satisfaction were assessed with questionnaires (the 36-item short-form health survey [SF-36], the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index [WHO-5], and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire [DTSQ]). Direct costs of CIPII and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) were compared. RESULTS - Questionnaire scores were higher with CIPII than with subcutaneous therapy. Yearly direct pump- and procedure-associated costs for CIPII were estimated at 10,910 compared with 4,810 for CSII. C CONCLUSIONS - Apart from improving glycemic control, CIPII improved HRQOL and treatment satisfaction compared with subcutaneous insulin. Direct pump- and procedure-associated costs are considerably higher for CIPII, however