Article

Self-Report of Hypoglycemia and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Division of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Endocrine Practice (Impact Factor: 2.59). 06/2013; 19(5):1-28. DOI: 10.4158/EP12382.OR
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objective: To establish the prevalence of patient-reported hypoglycemia among ambulatory patients with diabetes and assess its impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL).Methods: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of a postal survey disbursed during quarter 1 of 2010 to 875 adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes identified on the basis of an index clinical encounter for diabetes management between August 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006. The survey included questions about hypoglycemia, self-rating of health, and questions adapted from the Confidence in Diabetes Self-Care, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, EuroQol5-D, and Hypoglycemic Fear Survey. Data was analyzed using two sample t-test for continuous and Chi-square for categorical variables, with multivariate analysis to adjust for age, gender, diabetes duration, and Charlson comorbidity index.Results: The survey was completed by 418 patients (47.8% response rate). Of the respondents, 26 of 92 (28.3%) with type 1 and 55 of 326 (16.9%) with type 2 diabetes reported at least one episode of severe hypoglycemia within 6 months. Fear of hypoglycemia, including engagement in anticipatory avoidance behaviors, was highest in patients with type 2 diabetes reporting severe hypoglycemia and all patients with type 1 diabetes (p < 0.001). HRQoL was lower in patients with type 2, but not type 1, diabetes reporting severe hypoglycemia (p < 0.01).Conclusion: Clinicians and health systems should incorporate screening for hypoglycemia into routine health assessment of all patients with diabetes. It places patients at risk for counterproductive behaviors, impairs HRQoL, and should be used in individualizing glycemic goals.

1 Follower
 · 
110 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Obesity and sedentary lifestyle are major health problems and key features to develop cardiovascular disease. Data on the effects of lifestyle interventions in diabetics with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have been conflicting. Study DesignSystematic review. PopulationDiabetes patients with CKD stage 3 to 5. Search Strategy and SourcesMedline, Embase and Central were searched to identify papers. InterventionEffect of a negative energy balance on hard outcomes in diabetics with CKD. OutcomesDeath, cardiovascular events, glycaemic control, kidney function, metabolic parameters and body composition. ResultsWe retained 11 studies. There are insufficient data to evaluate the effect on mortality to promote negative energy balance. None of the studies reported a difference in incidence of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events. Reduction of energy intake does not alter creatinine clearance but significantly reduces proteinuria (mean difference from -0.66 to -1.77 g/24 h). Interventions with combined exercise and diet resulted in a slower decline of eGFR (-9.2 vs. -20.7 mL/min over two year observation; p<0.001). Aerobic and resistance exercise reduced HbA1c (-0.51 (-0.87 to -0.14); p = 0.007 and -0.38 (-0.72 to -0.22); p = 0.038, respectively). Exercise interventions improve the overall functional status and quality of life in this subgroup. Aerobic exercise reduces BMI (-0.74% (-1.29 to -0.18); p = 0.009) and body weight (-2.2 kg (-3.9 to -0.6); p = 0.008). Resistance exercise reduces trunk fat mass (-0,7±0,1 vs. +0,8 kg ±0,1 kg; p = 0,001-0,005). In none of the studies did the intervention cause an increase in adverse events. LimitationsAll studies used a different intervention type and mixed patient groups. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effect of negative energy balance interventions on mortality in diabetic patients with advanced CKD. Overall, these interventions have beneficial effects on glycaemic control, BMI and body composition, functional status and quality of life, and no harmful effects were observed.
    PLoS ONE 11/2014; 9(11):e113667. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0113667 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Closed-loop insulin delivery is a promising option to improve glycaemic control and reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia. We aimed to assess whether overnight home use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery would improve glucose control. Methods We did this open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled, crossover study between Dec 1, 2012, and Dec 23, 2014, recruiting patients from three centres in the UK. Patients aged 18 years or older with type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive 4 weeks of overnight closed-loop insulin delivery (using a model-predictive control algorithm to direct insulin delivery), then 4 weeks of insulin pump therapy (in which participants used real-time display of continuous glucose monitoring independent of their pumps as control), or vice versa. Allocation to initial treatment group was by computer-generated permuted block randomisation. Each treatment period was separated by a 3–4 week washout period. The primary outcome was time spent in the target glucose range of 3·9–8·0 mmol/L between 0000 h and 0700 h. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440140. Findings We randomly assigned 25 participants to initial treatment in either the closed-loop group or the control group, patients were later crossed over into the other group; one patient from the closed-loop group withdrew consent after randomisation, and data for 24 patients were analysed. Closed loop was used over a median of 8·3 h (IQR 6·0–9·6) on 555 (86%) of 644 nights. The proportion of time when overnight glucose was in target range was significantly higher during the closed-loop period compared to during the control period (mean difference between groups 13·5%, 95% CI 7·3–19·7; p=0·0002). We noted no severe hypoglycaemic episodes during the control period compared with two episodes during the closed-loop period; these episodes were not related to closed-loop algorithm instructions. Interpretation Unsupervised overnight closed-loop insulin delivery at home is feasible and could improve glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes. Funding Diabetes UK.
    09/2014; DOI:10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70114-7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures have been increasingly used in economic evaluations for policy guidance. We investigate the impact of 11 self-reported long-standing health conditions on HRQoL using the EQ-5D in a UK sample. We used data from 13,955 patients in the South Yorkshire Cohort study collected between 2010 and 2012 containing the EQ-5D, a preference-based measure. Ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit and two-part regression analyses were undertaken to estimate the impact of 11 long-standing health conditions on HRQoL at the individual level. The results varied significantly with the regression models employed. In the OLS and Tobit models, pain had the largest negative impact on HRQoL, followed by depression, osteoarthritis and anxiety/nerves, after controlling for all other conditions and sociodemographic characteristics. The magnitude of coefficients was higher in the Tobit model than in the OLS model. In the two-part model, these four long-standing health conditions were statistically significant, but the magnitude of coefficients decreased significantly compared to that in the OLS and Tobit models and was ranked from pain followed by depression, anxiety/nerves and osteoarthritis. Pain, depression, osteoarthritis and anxiety/nerves are associated with the greatest losses of HRQoL in the UK population. The estimates presented in this article should be used to inform economic evaluations when assessing health care interventions, though improvements can be made in terms of diagnostic information and obtaining longitudinal data.
    The European Journal of Health Economics 01/2014; 16(2). DOI:10.1007/s10198-013-0559-z · 2.10 Impact Factor