Search

OBJECTIVE Multifaceted care has been shown to reduce mortality and complications in type 2 diabetes. We hypothesized that structured care would reduce renal complications in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 205 Chinese type 2 diabetic patients from nine public hospitals who had plasma creatinine levels of 150–350 μmol/l were randomly assigned to receive structured care (n = 104) or usual care (n = 101) for 2 years. The structured care group was managed according to a prespecified protocol with the following treatment goals: blood pressure 500 μmol/l or dialysis). RESULTS Of these 205 patients (mean ± SD age 65 ± 7.2 years; disease duration 14 ± 7.9 years), the structured care group achieved better control than the usual care group (diastolic blood pressure 68 ± 12 vs. 71 ± 12 mmHg, respectively, P = 0.02; A1C 7.3 ± 1.3 vs. 8.0 ± 1.6%, P < 0.01). After adjustment for age, sex, and study sites, the structured care (23.1%, n = 24) and usual care (23.8%, n = 24; NS) groups had similar end points, but more patients in the structured care group attained ≥3 treatment goals (61%, n = 63, vs. 28%, n = 28; P < 0.001). Patients who attained ≥3 treatment targets (n = 91) had reduced risk of the primary end point (14 vs. 34; relative risk 0.43 [95% CI 0.21–0.86] compared with that of those who attained ≤2 targets (n = 114). CONCLUSIONS Attainment of multiple treatment targets reduced the renal end point and death in type 2 diabetes. In addition to protocol, audits and feedback are needed to improve outcomes.

Mutations in the LMNA gene (encoding lamin A/C) underlie familial partial lipodystrophy, a syndrome of monogenic insulin resistance and diabetes. LMNA maps to the well-replicated diabetes-linkage region on chromosome 1q, and there are reported associations between LMNA single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (particularly rs4641; H566H) and metabolic syndrome components. We examined the relationship between LMNA variation and type 2 diabetes (using six tag SNPs capturing >90% of common variation) in several large datasets. Analysis of 2,490 U.K. diabetic case and 2,556 control subjects revealed no significant associations at either genotype or haplotype level: the minor allele at rs4641 was no more frequent in case subjects (allelic odds ratio [OR] 1.07 [95% CI 0.98-1.17], P = 0.15). In 390 U.K. trios, family-based association analyses revealed nominally significant overtransmission of the major allele at rs12063564 (P = 0.01), which was not corroborated in other samples. Finally, genotypes for 2,817 additional subjects from the International 1q Consortium revealed no consistent case-control or family-based associations with LMNA variants. Across all our data, the OR for the rs4641 minor allele approached but did not attain significance (1.07 [0.99-1.15], P = 0.08). Our data do not therefore support a major effect of LMNA variation on diabetes risk. However, in a meta-analysis including other available data, there is evidence that rs4641 has a modest effect on diabetes susceptibility (1.10 [1.04-1.16], P = 0.001).