Frequency of blood glucose monitoring in relation to glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE--The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between blood glucose level, measured as HbA(1c), and frequency of self-monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Daily self-monitoring is believed to be important for patients treated with insulin or oral agents to detect asymptomatic hypoglycemia and to guide patient and provider behavior toward reaching blood glucose goals. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--A national sample of patients with type 2 diabetes was studied in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Data on therapy for diabetes, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, and HbA(1c) values were obtained by structured questionnaires and by clinical and laboratory assessments. RESULTS--According to the data, 29% of patients treated with insulin, 65% treated with oral agents, and 80% treated with diet alone had never monitored their blood glucose or monitored it less than once per month. Self-monitoring at least once per day was practiced by 39% of those taking insulin and 5-6% of those treated with oral agents or diet alone. For all patients combined, the proportion of patients who tested their blood glucose increased with an increasing HbA(1c) value. However, when examined by diabetes therapy category, there was little relationship between HbA(1c) value and the proportion testing at least once per day or the proportion testing at least once per week. CONCLUSIONS--In this cross-sectional study of patients with type 2 diabetes, the increase in frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose with increasing HbA(1c) value was associated with the higher proportion of insulin-treated patients in higher HbA(1c) categories. Within diabetes therapy categories, the frequency of self-monitoring was not related to glycemic control, as measured by HbA(1c) level.     

Ambulatory blood pressure, microalbuminuria, and autonomic neuropathy in adolescents with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between 24-h blood pressure (BP) measurements, urinary albumin excretion rates, and autonomic neuropathy (AN) in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 31 patients with microalbuminuria (MA), 20 patients with intermittent MA (I-MA) and 11 patients with persistent MA (P-MA) were identified from the diabetes clinics at two major Australian tertiary care pediatric hospitals. Two control groups were used; one consisted of 19 age-, sex-, and diabetes duration-matched adolescents with normoalbuminuria (NA), and the other consisted of 46 age- and sex-matched nondiabetic control subjects. A medical history and physical examination were followed by a series of noninvasive tests of cardiovascular and pupillary autonomic function and then by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). RESULTS: ABPM showed an incremental increase in all BP parameters from nondiabetic control subjects through subjects with NA. A parallel incremental increase in diurnal and nocturnal ambulatory heart rates was also evident. Subjects with MA had significantly reduced pupillary adaptation to darkness compared with nondiabetic subjects and subjects with NA. The above results paralleled an incremental increase in HbAlc levels in adolescents with type 1 diabetes from subjects with NA to subjects with P-MA. CONCLUSIONS: Higher 24-h BP values and evidence of subclinical signs of AN are present before P-MA develops and may have important implications for timing the introduction of treatments designed to prevent or retard the microvascular complications of type 1 diabetes in adolescents.     

Efficacy of blood glucose self-monitoring on glycemic control in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of blood glucose self-monitoring on glycemic control in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes by performing a meta-analysis.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of blood glucose self-monitoring were collected from the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and VIP databases. Data were analyzed by RevMan 5.1 software.ResultsSeven RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that blood glucose self-monitoring significantly reduced the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level by 0.41%. Subgroup analysis showed that while implementation of a diabetes management regimen based on the blood glucose self-monitoring results effectively reduced the HbA1c level by 0.42%, no significant improvement in HbA1c level control was observed with the implementation of blood glucose self-monitoring alone.ConclusionBlood glucose self-monitoring combined with diabetes management effectively improves glycemic control in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.     

Insulin glulisine provides improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: Insulin glulisine is a novel analog of human insulin designed for use as a rapid-acting insulin. This study compared the safety and efficacy of glulisine with regular human insulin (RHI) in combination with NPH insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In total, 876 relatively well-controlled patients with type 2 diabetes (mean HbA1c 7.55%) were randomized and treated with glulisine/NPH (n = 435) or RHI/NPH (n = 441) for up to 26 weeks in this randomized, multicenter, multinational, open-label, parallel-group study. Subjects were allowed to continue the same dose of prestudy regimens of oral antidiabetic agent (OAD) therapy (unless hypoglycemia necessitated a dose change). RESULTS: A slightly greater reduction from baseline to end point of HbA1c was seen in the glulisine group versus RHI (-0.46 vs. -0.30% with RHI; P = 0.0029). Also, at end point, lower postbreakfast (156 vs. 162 mg/dl [8.66 vs. 9.02 mmol/l]; P < 0.05) and postdinner (154 vs. 163 mg/dl [8.54 vs. 9.05 mmol/l]; P < 0.05) blood glucose levels were noted. Symptomatic hypoglycemia (overall, nocturnal, and severe) and weight gain were comparable between the two treatment groups. There were no between-group differences in baseline-to-end point changes in insulin dose. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily glulisine associated with NPH can provide small improvements in glycemic control compared with RHI in patients with type 2 diabetes who are already relatively well controlled on insulin alone or insulin plus OADs. The clinical relevance of such a difference remains to be established.     

Weight change in diabetes and glycemic and blood pressure control

OBJECTIVE—Weight loss in type 2 diabetes is undisputedly important, and data from community settings are limited. We evaluated weight change and resulting glycemic and blood pressure control in type 2 diabetic patients at an HMO.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Using electronic medical records, this retrospective cohort study identified 2,574 patients aged 21–75 years who received a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes between 1997 and 2002. We estimated 3-year weight trajectories using growth curve analyses, grouped similar trajectories into four categories using cluster analysis, compared category characteristics, and predicted year-4 above-goal A1C and blood pressure by group.RESULTS—The weight-trajectory groups were defined as higher stable weight (n = 418; 16.2%), lower stable weight (n = 1,542; 59.9%), weight gain (n = 300; 11.7%), and weight loss (n = 314; 12.2%). The latter had a mean weight loss of 10.7 kg (−9.8%; P < 0.001) by 18 months, with near-complete regain by 36 months. After adjusting for age, sex, baseline control, and related medication use, those with higher stable weight, lower stable weight, or weight-gain patterns were more likely than those who lost weight to have above-goal A1C (odds ratio [OR] 1.66 [95% CI 1.12–2.47], 1.52 [1.08–2.14], and 1.77 [1.15–2.72], respectively). Those with higher stable weight or weight-gain patterns were more likely than those who lost weight to have above-goal blood pressure (1.83 [1.31–2.57] and 1.47 [1.03–2.10], respectively).CONCLUSIONS—A weight-loss pattern after new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes predicted improved glycemic and blood pressure control despite weight regain. The initial period postdiagnosis may be a critical time to apply weight-loss treatments to improve risk factor control.Almost all adults with diabetes are overweight; more than half are obese (1). Obesity is associated with worse blood glucose and other cardiovascular risk factor control (2). Results from the Look AHEAD trial show that weight loss in diabetes improves glycemic control, reduces blood pressure, and improves blood lipids (3). Observational studies also support a likely link between weight loss and reduced mortality in people with diabetes (2).Limited data describe the extent to which weight loss, as well as resulting levels of glycemic and blood pressure control, is achieved in community-living people with type 2 diabetes (4,5). Most weight information on these subjects comes from research volunteers (4,5). Prior studies of health effects of weight change have been plagued by confounding of low weight by disease burden and by difficulty separating intentional from unintentional weight loss (6,7).This study used electronic medical records data to evaluate weight trajectories in the initial years following a new type 2 diabetes diagnosis, associated demographic and comorbidity factors, and resulting glycemic and blood pressure control. The initial period after a diabetes diagnosis is of particular interest because this may be a time of heightened patient and clinician interest in patient behavior change (8).     

Food insecurity and glycemic control among low-income patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether food insecurity—the inability to reliably afford safe and nutritious food—is associated with poor glycemic control and whether this association is mediated by difficulty following a healthy diet, diabetes self-efficacy, or emotional distress related to diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used multivariable regression models to examine the association between food insecurity and poor glycemic control using a cross-sectional survey and chart review of 711 patients with diabetes in safety net health clinics. We then examined whether difficulty following a diabetic diet, self-efficacy, or emotional distress related to diabetes mediated the relationship between food insecurity and glycemic control.

RESULTS

The food insecurity prevalence in our sample was 46%. Food-insecure participants were significantly more likely than food-secure participants to have poor glycemic control, as defined by hemoglobin A_1c ≥8.5% (42 vs. 33%; adjusted odds ratio 1.48 [95% CI 1.07–2.04]). Food-insecure participants were more likely to report difficulty affording a diabetic diet (64 vs. 49%, P < 0.001). They also reported lower diabetes-specific self-efficacy (P < 0.001) and higher emotional distress related to diabetes (P < 0.001). Difficulty following a healthy diet and emotional distress partially mediated the association between food insecurity and glycemic control.

CONCLUSIONS

Food insecurity is an independent risk factor for poor glycemic control in the safety net setting. This risk may be partially attributable to increased difficulty following a diabetes-appropriate diet and increased emotional distress regarding capacity for successful diabetes self-management. Screening patients with diabetes for food insecurity may be appropriate, particularly in the safety net setting.The epidemic of type 2 diabetes has hit the poor particularly hard. Low socioeconomic status is associated with a higher prevalence of diabetes and a greater risk for diabetes complications (1–3). There are likely many specific elements of poverty that predispose adults to diabetes and poor diabetes control, but a great number of these potentially predisposing factors have not been fully investigated.Food insecurity has been postulated as one mechanism by which poverty might predispose adults of low socioeconomic status to poor diabetes control (4). Food insecurity refers to going hungry or being at risk for going hungry because of the inability to afford food. It exists “whenever the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or the ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways [e.g., without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping strategies] is limited or uncertain” (5). In 2010, 14.5% of U.S. households were food-insecure, representing 32 million adults (6).A recent study conducted with a nationally representative sample (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) of low-income adults found that among patients with a known diagnosis of diabetes, 69% of food-insecure and 49% of food-secure adults were unable to achieve a hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) ≤7% (7). Studies among children with type 2 diabetes have demonstrated higher HbA_1c values among children living in food-insecure households compared with children living in food-secure households (8). However, the association between food insecurity and glycemic control has not been evaluated in clinical populations of adult patients with diabetes, and mechanisms for a relationship between food insecurity and glycemic control remain unclear.Food insecurity is a multidimensional concept, encompassing reductions in food quantity and food quality. Other studies suggest that food insecurity may increase patients’ difficulty following a diabetes-appropriate diet because they shift their dietary intake toward inexpensive, calorically dense foods, which generally include a high proportion of added fats, added sugars, and other refined carbohydrates, to maintain caloric needs (9). These foods generally make glycemic control more difficult to achieve. However, we hypothesized that additional mechanisms existed by which food insecurity may directly influence glycemic control. For example, food insecurity may reduce self-efficacy, defined as confidence in one’s ability to successfully manage all of the things necessary to take care of one’s own health, or it may increase emotional distress regarding diabetes management. Reduced self-efficacy and emotional distress related to diabetes may both interfere with patients’ ability to manage their diabetes (10–13).Our objective was to determine whether food insecurity was independently associated with poor glycemic control in a clinical population of low-income adults with diabetes. We hypothesized that the association between food insecurity and glycemic control would be mediated by increased difficulty following a healthy diet, decreased diabetes-specific self-efficacy, and greater emotional distress related to diabetes among the food-insecure participants.     

Antidiabetic prescriptions and glycemic control in German patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a retrospective database study

OBJECTIVES: This study examined patterns of antidiabetic treatment among individuals with type 2 diabetes in Germany and investigated potential differences in attainment of glycemic control associated with the use of specific antidiabetic regimens. METHODS: This was a retrospective database study. Data were obtained from the German IMS Disease Analyzer-MediPlus database. Patients aged >or=20 years who were identified as having type 2 diabetes and who underwent glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) testing at least once between April 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004, were included in the analyses. Potential associations between age, sex, and diabetic complications and the use of specific antidiabetic medications were examined. Also examined were potential associations between attainment of the HbA(1c) target for glycemic control (56.5%), particular patient characteristics, and the use of specific antidiabetic medications. RESULTS: The study included data from 5135 patients with type 2 diabetes (mean age, 67 years; 2702 men, 2433 women; mean [SD] HbA(1c), 6.9% [1.2%]). The most commonly diagnosed comorbidities were hypertension (66.5%) and obesity (18.7%). There were no significant differences in mean age, sex, or comorbidities between patients categorized by HbA(1c) values 6.5%. The most commonly prescribed antidiabetic medications were metformin (20.4%), a sulfonylurea (11.7%), and oral combination therapy (10.9%). In the assessment of potential associations between selected patient characteristics and the receipt of specific antidiabetic medications, individuals were less likely to receive metformin monotherapy if they were aged >or=75 years (12.0%, compared with 21.4% of those aged 65-74 years and 24.7% of those aged <65 years; P < 0.001) or had a diagnosis of a diabetic complication (15.9%, compared with 21.2% in those without complications; P < 0.001). Among those who were more likely to receive insulin monotherapy were women (11.5%, compared with 9.6% of men; P = 0.025) and patients with diabetic complications (13.9%, compared with 9.8% of those without complications; P < 0.001). More than half (52.7%) of patients did not attain the HbA(1c) target. There were significant differences between patients attaining the HbA(1c) target and receipt of specific antidiabetic medications (P < 0.001). Patients treated with insulin monotherapy or oral plus insulin combination therapy were least likely to reach the HbA(1c) target (26.4% and 22.9%, respectively, attained glycemic control; both, P < 0.001). Only 179 (31.9%) of 562 patients treated with oral combination therapy achieved the HbA(1c) target (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over half of these German patients with type 2 diabetes failed to attain the HbA(1c) target for glycemic control. Patients who were prescribed insulin monotherapy or combination therapy were least likely to achieve the target.     

High-intensity resistance training improves glycemic control in older patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of high-intensity progressive resistance training combined with moderate weight loss on glycemic control and body composition in older patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sedentary, overweight men and women with type 2 diabetes, aged 60-80 years (n = 36), were randomized to high-intensity progressive resistance training plus moderate weight loss (RT & WL group) or moderate weight loss plus a control program (WL group). Clinical and laboratory measurements were assessed at 0, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: HbA(1c) fell significantly more in RT & WL than WL at 3 months (0.6 +/- 0.7 vs. 0.07 +/- 0.8%, P < 0.05) and 6 months (1.2 +/- 1.0 vs. 0.4 +/- 0.8%, P < 0.05). Similar reductions in body weight (RT & WL 2.5 +/- 2.9 vs. WL 3.1 +/- 2.1 kg) and fat mass (RT & WL 2.4 +/- 2.7 vs. WL 2.7 +/- 2.5 kg) were observed after 6 months. In contrast, lean body mass (LBM) increased in the RT & WL group (0.5 +/- 1.1 kg) and decreased in the WL group (0.4 +/- 1.0) after 6 months (P < 0.05). There were no between-group differences for fasting glucose, insulin, serum lipids and lipoproteins, or resting blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity progressive resistance training, in combination with moderate weight loss, was effective in improving glycemic control in older patients with type 2 diabetes. Additional benefits of improved muscular strength and LBM identify high-intensity resistance training as a feasible and effective component in the management program for older patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Once- and twice-daily dosing with rosiglitazone improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of rosiglitazone compared with placebo in reducing hyperglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After a 4-week placebo run-in period, 959 patients were randomized to placebo or rosiglitazone (total daily dose 4 or 8 mg) for 26 weeks. The primary measure of efficacy was change in the HbA1c concentration. RESULTS: Rosiglitazone produced dosage-dependent reductions in HbA1c of 0.8, 0.9, 1.1, and 1.5% in the 4 mg o.d., 2 mg b.i.d., 8 mg o.d., and 4 mg b.i.d. groups, respectively, compared with placebo. Clinically significant decreases from baseline in HbA1c were observed in drug-naive patients at all rosiglitazone doses and in patients previously treated with oral monotherapy at rosiglitazone 8 mg o.d. and 4 mg b.i.d. Clinically significant decreases from baseline in HbA1c were also observed with rosiglitazone 4 mg b.i.d. in patients previously treated with combination oral therapy. Approximately 33% of drug-naive patients treated with rosiglitazone achieved HbA1c < or =7% at study end. The proportions of patients with at least one adverse event were comparable among the rosiglitazone and placebo groups. There was no evidence of hepatotoxicity in any treatment group. There were statistically significant increases in weight and serum lipids in all rosiglitazone treatment groups compared with placebo. For LDL and HDL cholesterol, the observed increase appeared to be dose related. CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone at total daily doses of 4 and 8 mg significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and was well tolerated.     

Relationship between adiponectin and glycemic control, blood lipids, and inflammatory markers in men with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: Adiponectin, synthesized in the adipose tissue, appears to play an important role in hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia, as well as in inflammatory mechanisms, which lead to a markedly increased atherosclerotic risk in diabetic subjects. However, previous studies did not evaluate the complex relationships between adiponectin and the array of metabolic abnormalities commonly observed in diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: To examine the associations between plasma levels of adiponectin and HbA(1c), blood lipids, and inflammatory markers, we obtained blood samples from 741 participants in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Plasma adiponectin levels were positively correlated with HDL cholesterol and negatively correlated with triglycerides, apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB(100)), C-reactive protein (CRP), and fibrinogen. These associations were not appreciably altered after controlling for lifestyle exposures, medical conditions, and obesity-associated variables. A 10-microg/ml higher level of plasma adiponectin was associated with lower HbA(1c) (-0.21% points, P = 0.001), triglycerides (-0.39 mmol/l, P < 0.001), apoB(100) (-0.04 g/l, P < 0.001), CRP (-0.51 mg/l, P = 0.003), and fibrinogen (-0.53 micromol/l, P < 0.001) and higher HDL cholesterol (0.13 mmol/l, P < 0.001). Associations between adiponectin and inflammatory markers were furthermore independent of HbA(1c) and HDL cholesterol, suggesting that the anti-inflammatory properties of adiponectin are not mediated by potential effects on glycemic control and blood lipids. Our results were consistent among obese and nonobese men. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the hypothesis that increased adiponectin levels might be associated with better glycemic control, better lipid profile, and reduced inflammation in diabetic subjects. Measures that increase adiponectin levels might be valuable targets for decreasing the atherosclerotic risk present in diabetes.     

Sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, decreases systolic blood pressure in Japanese hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes

Sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, is a newly developed oral hypoglycemic agent. Sitagliptin increases the level of glucagon-like polypeptide (GLP)-1 that increases insulin secretion. In addition, GLP-1 decreases salt intake and increases urinary salt excretion. Therefore, the sitagliptin treatment might lower blood pressure in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. It also remains to be examined whether the reduction in blood pressure with sitagliptin treatment is related to the blood glucose improvement and the body weight decrease. To identify beneficial effects of sitagliptin treatment, we administered sitagliptin (50 mg) on alternate days to seventeen type 2 diabetes outpatients with insufficient blood glucose control (8 males and 9 females; mean age of 67.1 years). The patients were also treated with oral hypoglycemic agents and antihypertensive drugs for six months before and during the sitagliptin administration. We measured the level of hemoglobin (Hb) A1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and body mass index (BMI) for up to six months thereafter. Their BMIs remained unchanged. The levels of HbA1c were dropped from 6.5 ± 0.3% to 5.8 ± 0.3%, while SBP was also dropped from 130.0 ± 37.2 mmHg to 119.7 ± 9.4 mmHg. However, the degree of the decrease in HbA1c levels was not significantly correlated with that of SBP (r = 0.24). In conclusion, the present findings suggest that sitagliptin lowers SBP without reducing BMI, independent of the blood glucose reduction. The hypotensive effect is apparent with the alternate-day regimen of sitagliptin at a lower dose compared to the everyday medication.     

Effects of fosinopril on blood pressure, lipid profile, and lipoprotein(a) levels in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria: An open-label, uncontrolled study

Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus often have other cardiovascular risk factors, and alterations in lipid profile play an important role. The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are often used in these patients, particularly those with type 2 diabetes and proteinuria.Objective: This study evaluated the effects of fosinopril therapy on fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid profile, and lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), levels in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria.Methods: Normotensive (systolic blood pressure [SBP] <130 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure [DBP] <85 mm Hg) patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria and a normal lipid profile were enrolled. Patients had their diabetes controlled by diet alone or diet plus oral hypoglycemic agents. Fosinopril 10 mg/d was administered for 6 months and then interrupted for 1 month. FPG, glycosylated hemoglobin, SBP, DBP, lipid profile (total cholesterol [TC], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], and triglycerides), Lp(a), albumin excretion rate (AER), and creatinine levels were evaluated at baseline; 1, 3, and 6 months after initiation of treatment; and 1 month after interruption of treatment.Results: A total of 120 patients were enrolled (63 men, 57 women; mean age ± SD, 54 ± 10 years; duration of diabetes, 7 ± 2 years). Significant decreases versus baseline were observed in the following parameters at month 6: SBP (122 ± 7 vs 117 ± 9.1 mm Hg, P < 0.01), DBP (80 ± 4.8 vs 74 ± 4.5 mm Hg, P < 0.05), TC (186 ± 11 vs 176 ± 10 mg/dL, P < 0.05), LDL-C (124 ± 10 vs 114 ± 11 mg/dL, P < 0.05), Lp(a) (24 ± 10 vs 19 ± 7.5 mg/dL, P < 0.05), and AER (103 ± 45 vs 48 ± 21 mg/24 hours, P < 0.01). When fosinopril therapy was interrupted for 1 month, the values for all these parameters tended to return to baseline values; SBP, TC, and Lp(a) values were significantly different from month 6 values, whereas DBP, LDL-C, and AER did not change significantly during the washout period.Conclusions: Fosinopril therapy for 6 months resulted in a reduction of microalbuminuria and an improvement in lipid profile and Lp(a) levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. This suggests that fosinopril may improve lipid profile and reduce Lp(a) levels by lowering proteinuria or by other more direct actions on lipid and Lp(a) metabolism. Additional controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.     

2型糖尿病病人疾病感知、用药信念与血糖控制的相关性研究

[目的]了解2型糖尿病病人疾病感知、用药信念及血糖控制情况,探讨疾病感知、用药信念与血糖控制的关系。[方法]2016年10月-2018年10月通过方便抽样选取254例住院的2型糖尿病病人,采用一般资料调查表、改良版疾病感知问卷和用药信念量表调查2型糖尿病病人的一般资料、疾病感知及用药信念情况。[结果]2型糖尿病病人糖化血红蛋白水平为(8.72±2.44)%,病人对疾病病情的看法均分为2.29~3.68分,用药信念的均分为2.67~3.80分。相关分析显示,疾病感知的病程、治疗控制以及疾病周期性维度,用药信念的药物过度使用维度与2型糖尿病病人血糖控制水平具有显著相关性。[结论]2型糖尿病病人的血糖控制水平欠佳,疾病感知、用药信念可直接影响病人的血糖控制水平。     

Predictors of glycemic control in insulin-using adults with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To determine the characteristics that influence glycemic control among insulin-using adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied all 1,333 eligible members of a large not-for-profit health maintenance organization who responded to a 1997 survey. We tested associations among demographic, treatment, and psychometric variables with mean 1997 HbA1c values. The Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) instrument was used to assess the emotional effect of living with diabetes, and the Short Form 12 Physical Function Scale was used to assess the effect of physical limitations on daily activities. Based on differences between and within treatment groups, we built models to predict glycemic control for subgroups of subjects who were using insulin alone and those who were using insulin in combination with an oral hypoglycemic agent. RESULTS: Younger age, lower BMI, and increased emotional distress about diabetes (according to the PAID scale) were all significant predictors (P < 0.05) of worse glycemic control. However, except among individuals with an HbA1c level of >8.0 who were receiving combination therapy, only approximately 10% of the variance in glycemic control could be predicted by demographic, treatment, or psychometric characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Personal characteristics explain little of the variation in glycemic control in insulin-using adults with type 2 diabetes. Possible explanations are that the reduced complexity of control in type 2 diabetes makes the disease less sensitive to personal factors than control in type 1 diabetes, that health-related behavior is less driven by personal and environmental characteristics among older individuals, or that, in populations exposed to aggressive glycemic control with oral hypoglycemic agents and nurse care managers, personal differences become largely irrelevant.