Search

Objective: Diabetic retinopathy affects >60% of people with type 2 diabetes during the first 2 decades of the disease and is ameliorated by good glycemic control. This study tested whether intensive diabetes case management could prevent or delay diabetic retinopathy in patients with established type 2 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: This study was part of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of diabetes case management in type 2 diabetes in southern California counties serving low income ethnic minority populations. Subjects were randomized to intervention (diabetes case management) or control (traditional treatment) groups. Subjects with at least two retinal photographs (n = 149) were included in this analysis to assess the effect of intervention on development or progression of diabetic retinopathy., Results: Progression of retinopathy in the intervention group was not significantly less than in the control group (P = 0.226). However, those in the intervention group with no evidence of retinopathy at baseline were less likely to develop diabetic retinal changes (5/48) during a mean follow-up of 23.1 months than those in the control group (10/34, chi(2) = 4.805, P = 0.028). This difference remained significant in a logistic regression model that controlled for potential confounders (odds ratio 5.35 [95% CI 1.14-25.12])., Conclusions: This study shows that a relatively short duration of case management instituted before the onset of clinically identifiable retinopathy significantly diminished the risk of developing retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. The findings also emphasized the retinal disease burden in this population, with development and progression of retinopathy occurring in <2 years.

Objective: To improve the treatment of risk factors of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for older patients with diabetes after a cardiac event by using a low-literacy reminder card describing these risk factors in community settings., Study Design: A multicenter, randomized, interventional study., Methods: Patients aged 55 years or older with diabetes hospitalized with an acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure exacerbation, or unstable angina were eligible to enter the study. Control and experimental patients were recruited from 4 sites and were enrolled in the study before discharge from the hospital. Experimental subjects received education and a reminder card describing risk factors of CVD. They were instructed to discuss the risk factors described on the reminder card with their primary care physician on their first appointment after discharge. Control subjects did not receive any intervention but were given consent to be able to review their charts., Results: One hundred sixty patients completed the study, 82 in the control group and 78 in the experimental group. At the end of the study there was no difference in blood pressure control, lipid levels, and glycosylated hemoglobin levels between the control and experimental patients. Aspirin use and ACE inhibitor use were found to be significantly higher in the control group (P = .001 and .03, respectively)., Conclusions: Reminder cards given to patients to discuss with their primary care providers in community settings did not improve process measures of CVD risk in patients with documented CVD and diabetes. Other approaches will be needed to improve the treatment of risk factors in these high-risk patients.

Objectives: To compare the daily glycemic profile reflected by continuous versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), and to evaluate possible differences in treatment strategy based on the two monitoring methods., Materials and Methods: The study sample consisted of 57 women with gestational diabetes, 47 in Israel and ten in California. Gestational age ranged from 24 to 32 weeks in the Israeli women, and 32 to 36 weeks in the American women. Data derived from the Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System (MiniMed) for 72 h were compared to fingerstick glucose measurements (6-8 times a day). During continuous monitoring, patients documented the timing of food intake, insulin injections and hypoglycemic events., Results: In the Israeli group, 23 women were treated by diet alone, and 24 by diet plus insulin. An average of 763 +/- 62 glucose measurements was recorded for each patient with continuous glucose monitoring. The mean total time of hyperglycemia (glucose level > 140 mg/dl) undetected by the fingerstick method was 132 +/- 31 min/day in the insulin-treated group and 94 +/- 23 min/day in the diet-treated group. Nocturnal hypoglycemic events (glucose levels < 50 mg/dl) were recorded in 14 patients, all insulin-treated. On the basis of the additional information provided by continuous monitoring, the therapeutic regimen (insulin therapy, diet adjustment, or both) was changed in 36 of the 47 patients. All ten American women were treated with insulin. The mean time of undetected hyperglycemia for a total group monitoring time of 30 days was 78 +/- 13 min/day. Eight women had nocturnal hypoglycemia on at least one of the three nights of monitoring for a total of 12 nights. A change in insulin dosage was made in all women on the basis of the data provided by continuous glucose monitoring., Conclusion: Continuous glucose monitoring is helpful for monitoring women with GDM and for adjusting diabetes therapy. It can accurately detect high postprandial blood glucose levels and nocturnal hypoglycemic events that may go unrecognized by intermittent blood glucose monitoring. A large prospective study on maternal and neonatal outcome is needed to determine the clinical implications of this new monitoring technique.