Search

William H Polonsky,1,2 Robert R Henry2,3 1Behavioral Diabetes Institute, San Diego, 2University of California, San Diego, 3Center for Metabolic Research, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA Abstract: At least 45% of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) fail to achieve adequate glycemic control (HbA1c

Given the importance of glycemic control in the development of diabetes complications, the plethora of tools now available to monitor the day-to-day trends in glycemia is remarkable. In this regard, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been considered a key component of patient management. Arguably, there remains almost universal agreement that SMBG should be available to all diabetic patients regardless of current treatment strategy. However, recently there have been reports that have challenged the current paradigm that all patients should use SMBG and concluded that SMBG for type 2 diabetic patients not on insulin may not be beneficial on glycemic control and must be weighed against the expense and inconvenience. In the counterpoint narrative following the contribution by Malanda et al., Drs. Polonsky and Fisher provide a compelling argument suggesting that while it is evident that implementing SMBG in unstructured ways without training patients and clinicians is likely to be a waste of resources, there are effective and powerful ways to use structured SMBG in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients. -William T. Cefalu, MD Editor in Chief, Diabetes Care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify the pattern of relationships between the 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS17) and diabetes variables to establish scale cut points for high distress among patients with type 2 diabetes.Research Design and Methods: Recruited were 506 study 1 and 392 study 2 adults with type 2 diabetes from community medical groups. Multiple regression equations associated the DDS17, a 17-item scale that yields a mean-item score, with HbA(1c), diabetes self-efficacy, diet, and physical activity. Associations also were undertaken for the two-item DDS (DDS2) screener. Analyses included control variables, linear, and quadratic (curvilinear) DDS terms.Results: Significant quadratic effects occurred between the DDS17 and each diabetes variable, with increases in distress associated with poorer outcomes: study 1 HbA(1c) (P < 0.02), self-efficacy (P < 0.001), diet (P < 0.001), physical activity (P < 0.04); study 2 HbA(1c) (P < 0.03), self-efficacy (P < 0.004), diet (P < 0.04), physical activity (P = NS). Substantive curvilinear associations with all four variables in both studies began at unexpectedly low levels of DDS17: the slope increased linearly between scores 1 and 2, was more muted between 2 and 3, and reached a maximum between 3 and 4. This suggested three patient subgroups: little or no distress, <2.0; moderate distress, 2.0-2.9; high distress, ≥3.0. Parallel findings occurred for the DDS2.Conclusions: In two samples of type 2 diabetic patients we found a consistent pattern of curvilinear relationships between the DDS and HbA(1c), diabetes self-efficacy, diet, and physical activity. The shape of these relationships suggests cut points for three patient groups: little or no, moderate, and high distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background: We evaluated how a structured patient/physician self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) intervention influenced the timing, frequency, and effectiveness of primary care physicians' treatment changes with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients over 12 months. Methods: The Structured Testing Program (STeP) study was a cluster-randomized, multicenter trial with 483 poorly controlled, insulin-naive T2DM subjects. Primary care practices were randomized to the Active Control Group (ACG) or the Structured Testing Group (STG), the latter of which included quarterly review of structured SMBG results. STG patients used a paper tool that graphs seven-point glucose profiles over 3 consecutive days; physicians received a treatment algorithm based on SMBG patterns. Impact of structured SMBG on physician treatment modification recommendations (TMRs) and glycemic outcomes was examined. Results: More STG than ACG patients received a TMR at each study visit (P < 0.0001). Of patients who received at least one TMR, STG patients demonstrated a greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) than ACG patients (-1.2% vs. -0.8%, P < 0.03). Patients with a baseline HbA1c >=8.5% who received a TMR at the Month 1 visit experienced greater reductions in HbA1c (P = 0.002) than patients without an initial TMR. More STG than ACG patients were started on incretins (P < 0.01) and on thiazolidinediones (P = 0.004). The number of visits with a TMR was unrelated to HbA1c change over time. Conclusions: Patient-provided SMBG data contribute to glycemic improvement when blood glucose patterns are easy to detect, and well-trained physicians take timely action. Collaborative use of structured SMBG data leads to earlier, more frequent, and more effective TMRs for poorly controlled, non-insulin-treated T2DM subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of structured blood glucose testing in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes.Research Design and Methods: This 12-month, prospective, cluster-randomized, multicenter study recruited 483 poorly controlled (A1C ≥ 7.5%), insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic subjects from 34 primary care practices in the U.S. Practices were randomized to an active control group (ACG) with enhanced usual care or a structured testing group (STG) with enhanced usual care and at least quarterly use of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). STG patients and physicians were trained to use a paper tool to collect/interpret 7-point glucose profiles over 3 consecutive days. The primary end point was A1C level measured at 12 months.Results: The 12-month intent-to-treat analysis (ACG, n = 227; STG, n = 256) showed significantly greater reductions in mean (SE) A1C in the STG compared with the ACG: -1.2% (0.09) vs. -0.9% (0.10); Δ = -0.3%; P = 0.04. Per protocol analysis (ACG, n = 161; STG, n = 130) showed even greater mean (SE) A1C reductions in the STG compared with the ACG: -1.3% (0.11) vs. -0.8% (0.11); Δ = -0.5%; P < 0.003. Significantly more STG patients received a treatment change recommendation at the month 1 visit compared with ACG patients, regardless of the patient's initial baseline A1C level: 179 (75.5%) vs. 61 (28.0%); <0.0001. Both STG and ACG patients displayed significant (P < 0.0001) improvements in general well-being (GWB).Conclusions: Appropriate use of structured SMBG significantly improves glycemic control and facilitates more timely/aggressive treatment changes in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes without decreasing GWB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to discuss practical approaches to the use of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in clinical practice using paired glucose testing. A rationale for SMBG use and innovative tools for data collection and analysis are presented. Method Health care professionals from various medical specialties collaborated to review current evidence regarding the value and utility of SMBG and to formulate professional opinions regarding use of SMBG. The literature review included key SMBG studies from 2002 through 2009. Established guidelines, position papers, and other evidence were also reviewed for this report. Reference Manager Software was used to search ISI Web of Science, PubMed, and Z39.50 site databases. RESULTS: Although the utility of SMBG in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes remains controversial, a recent report from the International Diabetes Federation recommends SMBG use in this population if it is used to educate/motivate individuals and/or monitor and adjust therapy. Health care providers must develop strategies to use SMBG in ways that address these criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Paired SMBG (testing before/after specific events) promotes diabetes knowledge and self-management skills and facilitates assessment of the impact of behavioral changes, medical nutrition therapy, and pharmacologic interventions on glycemic levels. New tools have been developed to assist in using paired testing in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background: The purpose of this study was to determine if primary care physicians could utilize data collection tools to accurately identify glycemic abnormalities in structured, episodic self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) data from patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and whether use of these SMBG data would influence their therapeutic decisions. Methods: Twenty-three case studies demonstrating several glycemic states (normoglycemia, elevated fasting glucose, elevated postprandial glucose, all elevated glucose, and hypoglycemia) were presented to 61 primary care physicians who evaluated the cases based upon A1C data, alone and then in combination with SMBG data. SMBG data were presented in five formats. Participants were to identify the specific glucose pattern, determine the necessity for therapy change, and select specific therapeutic changes. Participant assessments were compared with assessments made by a panel of diabetes care specialists. Results: Most (78%) participants identified the same primary blood glucose feature identified by the diabetes specialists; 93.8% agreed with the diabetes care specialists regarding the need for therapy modification. The majority (77%) of participants changed the way they would manage the case after evaluating case studies with SMBG data made available to them. Eighty-six percent of participants considered the SMBG data to be of equal value or more valuable than an A1C test result; 71% of participants strongly agreed that they are now more likely to recommend structured, episodic SMBG to their non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Conclusions: Primary care physicians can correctly identify glycemic abnormalities in SMBG data obtained through structured, episodic SMBG. Additional studies are needed to determine the clinical impact of similar testing regimens in primary care practice settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The authors evaluated the ability of a brief educational program to enhance patients' self-care behavior and their familiarity with the meaning and utility of 5 of the major clinical tests in diabetes (A1C, blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol, microalbumin, and the dilated eye examination). METHODS: Adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were invited to attend a free, 90-minute, small-group workshop about diabetes care, which included on-site metabolic testing that provided patients with immediate results and personalized feedback to understand those results. In total, 221 individuals with diabetes participated and completed baseline and 3-month follow-up questionnaires. RESULTS: From baseline to 3 months, participants reported significant improvement in following recommendations for meal planning (P < .001), regular exercise (P < .002), and blood glucose monitoring (P < .05) and a significant rise in test awareness for A1C, blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and microalbumin (in all cases, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A brief educational intervention appeared effective in encouraging patients toward better self-management and more regular metabolic testing and to become more aware of their own test results. Future research should aim to replicate and extend these findings in a randomized controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the development of the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), a new instrument for the assessment of diabetes-related emotional distress, based on four independent patient samples.Research Design and Methods: In consultation with patients and professionals from multiple disciplines, a preliminary scale of 28 items was developed, based a priori on four distress-related domains: emotional burden subscale, physician-related distress subscale, regimen-related distress subscale, and diabetes-related interpersonal distress. The new instrument was included in a larger battery of questionnaires used in diabetes studies at four diverse sites: waiting room at a primary care clinic (n = 200), waiting room at a diabetes specialty clinic (n = 179), a diabetes management study program (n = 167), and an ongoing diabetes management program (n = 158).Results: Exploratory factor analyses revealed four factors consistent across sites (involving 17 of the 28 items) that matched the critical content domains identified earlier. The correlation between the 28-item and 17-item scales was very high (r = 0.99). The mean correlation between the 17-item total score (DDS) and the four subscales was high (r = 0.82), but the pattern of interscale correlations suggested that the subscales, although not totally independent, tapped into relatively different areas of diabetes-related distress. Internal reliability of the DDS and the four subscales was adequate (alpha > 0.87), and validity coefficients yielded significant linkages with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, meal planning, exercise, and total cholesterol. Insulin users evidenced the highest mean DDS total scores, whereas diet-controlled subjects displayed the lowest scores (P < 0.001).Conclusions: The DDS has a consistent, generalizable factor structure and good internal reliability and validity across four different clinical sites. The new instrument may serve as a valuable measure of diabetes-related emotional distress for use in research and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of disease-specific knowledge and patient satisfaction among adult Costa Ricans with type 2 diabetes. Knowledge differences between Costa Ricans and Spanish-speaking US Latinos also were tested. The psychometric viability of a Spanish-language diabetes knowledge and client satisfaction measure with Costa Ricans was reviewed. METHODS: The Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire (DKQ) and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) were administered to 162 Costa Rican adults with type 2 diabetes who were receiving services in the greater San Jose area. Sociodemographic, medical history, and anecdotal information also was collected. RESULTS: More years of education, younger age, longer diabetes duration, and home glucose monitoring predicted diabetes knowledge. Home glucose monitoring and treatment with only oral hypoglycemics predicted significantly lower patient satisfaction. Costa Ricans exhibited greater diabetes knowledge than respondents in an earlier study with Spanish-speaking Latinos. CSQ psychometric limitations with Costa Ricans were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The greater diabetes knowledge among Costa Ricans than US Latinos is likely due to more consistent, stable, and accessible care. Older, less educated, and newly diagnosed Costa Rican diabetes patients require more focused attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study evaluated the Diabetes Outpatient Intensive Treatment (DOIT) program, a multiday group education and skills training experience combined with daily medical management, followed by case management over 6 months. Using a randomized control design, the study explored how DOIT affected glycemic control and self-care behaviors over a short term. The impact of two additional factors on clinical outcomes were also examined (frequency of case management contacts and whether or not insulin was started during the program).Research Design and Methods: Patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in poor glycemic control (A1c >8.5%) were randomly assigned to DOIT or a second condition, entitled EDUPOST, which was standard diabetes care with the addition of quarterly educational mailings. A total of 167 patients (78 EDUPOST, 89 DOIT) completed all baseline measures, including A1c and a questionnaire assessing diabetes-related self-care behaviors. At 6 months, 117 patients (52 EDUPOST, 65 DOIT) returned to complete a follow-up A1c and the identical self-care questionnaire.Results: At follow-up, DOIT evidenced a significantly greater drop in A1c than EDUPOST. DOIT patients also reported significantly more frequent blood glucose monitoring and greater attention to carbohydrate and fat contents (ACFC) of food compared with EDUPOST patients. An increase in ACFC over the 6-month period was associated with improved glycemic control among DOIT patients. Also, the frequency of nurse case manager follow-up contacts was positively linked to better A1c outcomes. The addition of insulin did not appear to be a significant contributor to glycemic change.Conclusions: DOIT appears to be effective in promoting better diabetes care and positively influencing glycemia and diabetes-related self-care behaviors. However, it demands significant time, commitment, and careful coordination with many health care professionals. The role of the nurse case manager in providing ongoing follow-up contact seems important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This article reports the results of a symposium in which diabetes educators considered and discussed issues that are likely to arise when continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) becomes available and readily accessible. Methods: Fifteen certified diabetes educators and 5 others with complementary expertise participated in a discussion based on their responses to 11 questions designed to elicit perspectives on issues related to CGM. Issues for discussion and debates include those related to patient acceptance and lifestyle, implications for professional practice and reimbursement, concerns about professional liability, use of CGM data by insurers and payers, and CGM data transfer. Results: Educators offered varied and sometimes conflicting responses to CGM-related issues. Conclusions: Awareness of CGM-related issues will likely become an important part of diabetes professional development and perspectives in practice. Identifying and framing the issues before the new technologies become available allow diabetes educators to participate proactively in structuring the emerging policies, procedures, and standards of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Controlling diabetes requires patients to participate in a number of self-management tasks, many of which impose demands and restrictions. For better success, learn how to implement feasible programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]