Validity of Ratings of Perceived Exertion in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Purpose: To examine whether a subjective measure of moderate-intensity exercise (12-13 on Borg’s ratings of perceived exertion scale; RPE) corresponds to the target heart rate for moderate-intensity exercise (40-59% heart rate reserve; %HRR) and to determine the characteristics of those for whom RPE does not appropriately estimate exercise intensity.&nbsp;Methods: 3582 individuals with type 2 diabetes (age: 58.3±6.8 years; BMI: 35.9±5.9 kg/m2) underwent a maximal exercise test and minute-by-minute HR and RPE were recorded. Linear regression was used to determine the %HRR corresponding to an RPE of 12 and 13 for each individual.&nbsp;Results: At an RPE of 12 or 13, 57% of participants fell within the target 40-59% HRR range, while 37% and 6% fell above and below this range, respectively. Participants with a %HRR ≥60% (above range) were more likely to be female (OR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.01,1.40), African American (OR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.02) or Hispanic (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.27, 1.95), have a higher BMI (OR: 1.03; 95% CI 1.01, 1.04) and HRmax (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02), and lower fitness (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.85, 0.94) and RPEmax (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.73), compared to those within the target 40-59%HRR range (p-values’&lt;0.05).&nbsp;Conclusions: RPE appropriately gauges exercise intensity in approximately half of overweight individuals with type 2 diabetes; however, more than one-third of participants were at an increased risk of exercising at a higher than prescribed intensity when using RPE. Future studies should continue to examine the characteristics of individuals for whom RPE appropriately estimates exercise intensity and for those whom it does not.Pubmed Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25485308<br

Differences in complications, cardiovascular risk factor, and diabetes management among participants enrolled at veterans affairs (VA) and non-VA medical centers in the glycemia reduction approaches in diabetes: A comparative effectiveness study (GRADE)

Aims: We evaluated differences in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) enrolled in the GRADE study at VA vs non-VA sites, focusing on cardiovascular risk factors and rates of diabetes care target achievements. Methods: We compared baseline characteristics between participants at VA (n = 1216) and non-VA (n = 3831) sites, stratifying analyses by cardiovascular disease (CVD) history. Results: VA and non-VA participants had similar diabetes duration (4.0 years), HbA1c (7.5%), and BMI (34 kg/m2); however, VA participants had more individuals ≥ 65 years (37.3% vs 19.8%, p \u3c 0.001), men (90.0% vs 55.2%, p \u3c 0.001), hypertension (75.8% vs 63.6%, p \u3c 0.001), hyperlipidemia (76.6% vs 64.6%, p \u3c 0.001), current smokers (19.0% vs 12.1%, p \u3c 0.001), nephropathy (20.4% vs 17.0%, p \u3c 0.05), albuminuria (18.4% vs 15.1%, p \u3c 0.05), and CVD (10.4% vs 5.2%, p \u3c 0.001). In those without CVD, more VA participants were treated with lipid (70.8% vs 59.5%, p \u3c 0.001) and blood pressure (74.9% vs 65.4%, p \u3c 0.001) lowering medications, and had LDL-C \u3c 70 mg/dl (32.9% vs 24.2%, p \u3c 0.05). Among those with CVD, more VA participants had BP \u3c 140/90 (80.2% vs 70.1%, p \u3c 0.05) after adjusting for demographics. Conclusion: GRADE participants at VA sites had more T2DM complications, greater CVD risk and were more likely to be treated with medications to reduce it, leading to more LDL-C at goal than non-VA participants, highlighting differences in diabetes populations and care

Lifestyle Intervention Improves Heart Rate Recovery from Exercise in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Results from the Look AHEAD Study

The primary aims of this paper were (1) to evaluate the influence of intensive lifestyle weight loss and exercise intervention (ILI) compared with diabetes support and education (DSE) upon Heart Rate Recovery (HRR) from graded exercise testing (GXT) and (2) to determine the independent and combined effects of weight loss and fitness changes upon HRR. In 4503 participants (45–76 years) who completed 1 year of intervention, HRR was measured after a submaximal GXT to compare the influence of (ILI) with (DSE) upon HRR. Participants assigned to ILI lost an average 8.6% of their initial weight versus 0.7% in DSE group (P<0.001) while mean fitness increased in ILI by 20.9% versus 5.8% in DSE (P<0.001). At Year 1, all exercise and HRR variables in ILI improved (P<0.0001) versus DSE: heart rate (HR) at rest was lower (72.8±11.4 versus 77.7±11.7 b/min), HR range was greater (57.7±12.1 versus 53.1±12.4 b/min), HR at 2 minutes was lower (89.3±21.8 versus 93.0±12.1 b/min), and HRR was greater (41.25±22.0 versus 37.8±12.5 b/min). Weight loss and fitness gain produced significant separate and independent improvements in HRR

The Use of Rescue Insulin in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Type 2 Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE)

OBJECTIVE: To describe rescue insulin use and associated factors in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Type 2 Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GRADE participants (type 2 diabetes duration \u3c10 years, baseline A1C 6.8%-8.5% on metformin monotherapy, N = 5,047) were randomly assigned to insulin glargine U-100, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin and followed quarterly for a mean of 5 years. Rescue insulin (glargine or aspart) was to be started within 6 weeks of A1C \u3e7.5%, confirmed. Reasons for delaying rescue insulin were reported by staff-completed survey. RESULTS: Nearly one-half of GRADE participants (N = 2,387 [47.3%]) met the threshold for rescue insulin. Among participants assigned to glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin, rescue glargine was added by 69% (39% within 6 weeks). Rescue aspart was added by 44% of glargine-assigned participants (19% within 6 weeks) and by 30% of non-glargine-assigned participants (14% within 6 weeks). Higher A1C values were associated with adding rescue insulin. Intention to change health behaviors (diet/lifestyle, adherence to current treatment) and not wanting to take insulin were among the most common reasons reported for not adding rescue insulin within 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Proportionately, rescue glargine, when required, was more often used than rescue aspart, and higher A1C values were associated with greater rescue insulin use. Wanting to use non-insulin strategies to improve glycemia was commonly reported, although multiple factors likely contributed to not using rescue insulin. These findings highlight the persistent challenge of intensifying type 2 diabetes treatment with insulin, even in a clinical trial

Impact of an intensive lifestyle intervention on use and cost of medical services among overweight and obese adults with type 2 diabetes: the action for health in diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative impact of an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) on use and costs of health care within the Look AHEAD trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 5,121 overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to an ILI that promoted weight loss or to a comparison condition of diabetes support and education (DSE). Use and costs of health-care services were recorded across an average of 10 years. RESULTS: ILI led to reductions in annual hospitalizations (11%, P = 0.004), hospital days (15%, P = 0.01), and number of medications (6%, P \u3c 0.001), resulting in cost savings for hospitalization (10%, P = 0.04) and medication (7%, P \u3c 0.001). ILI produced a mean relative per-person 10-year cost savings of $5,280 (95% CI 3,385-7,175); however, these were not evident among individuals with a history of cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DSE over 10 years, ILI participants had fewer hospitalizations, fewer medications, and lower health-care costs

Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness of a Structured Lifestyle Intervention in Adults With Overweight/Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes: Results From the Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) Study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) compared with standard diabetes support and education (DSE) in adults with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, as implemented in the Action for Health in Diabetes study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were from 4,827 participants during their first 9 years of study participation from 2001 to 2012. Information on Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI-2) and HUI-3, Short-Form 6D (SF-6D), and Feeling Thermometer (FT), cost of delivering the interventions, and health expenditures was collected during the study. CE was measured by incremental CE ratios (ICERs) in costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Costs were in 2012 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Over the 9 years studied, the mean cumulative intervention costs and mean cumulative health care expenditures were $11,275 and$64,453 per person for ILI and $887 and$68,174 for DSE. Thus, ILI cost $6,666 more per person than DSE. Additional QALYs gained by ILI were not statistically significant measured by the HUIs and were 0.07 and 0.15, respectively, measured by SF-6D and FT. The ICERs ranged from no health benefit with a higher cost based on HUIs to$96,458/QALY and $43,169/QALY, respectively, based on SF-6D and FT. CONCLUSIONS: Whether ILI was cost-effective over the 9-year period is unclear because different health utility measures led to different conclusions