Diabetes Distress Among Persons With Type 1 Diabetes.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate associations between diabetes distress and a range of psychological health behaviors and concerns among persons with type 1 diabetes for the benefit of enhancing early identification and intervention of at-risk individuals. Methods Persons with type 1 diabetes (n = 268; 57.1% female, 91.0% white, 76.8% <18 years of age, average A1C 8.4%) completed the 2-item Diabetes Distress Screening Scale (DDS2) and a battery of psychometrically sound instruments measuring satisfaction with life, self-esteem, self-efficacy, depression, perfectionism, body image satisfaction, dietary restraint and eating, and shape and weight concerns. Each subscale score was compared within age groups (<18 years vs ≥18 years) between groups (diabetes distress level [low, moderate, high]) using analysis of variance (with Bonferroni correction or the Kruskal-Wallis test if the variables were not normally distributed). Results For both age groups, high diabetes distress was independently associated with greater A1C values, higher depression scores and eating, and shape and weight concerns than those with low or moderate distress. For patients <18 years of age, those with high diabetes distress scored lower on measures of satisfaction with life, self-esteem, and self-efficacy and higher on dietary restraint and several areas of perfectionism than those with low or moderate distress. Conclusions Individuals with type 1 diabetes who have high diabetes distress also report higher A1C values and poorer psychological health concerns. A brief diabetes distress questionnaire can help to identify those who need additional screening, education and support, and treatment for overall health and well-being.

Diurnal glucose exposure profiles of patients treated with lixisenatide before breakfast or the main meal of the day: An analysis using continuous glucose monitoring.

BACKGROUND: In the parent study of this analysis, patients with type 2 diabetes received lixisenatide before breakfast or the main meal of the day. This substudy was designed to examine the effect of lixisenatide administered before breakfast or the main meal of the day on continuously assessed 24-hour patient glucose profiles. METHODS: A subset of patients from the parent study underwent 2 14-day periods of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) at the start and end of the 24-week study. Ambulatory glucose profile analysis was used to measure changes over time in detailed aspects of the glucose profiles. The breakfast group consumed a standardized meal during both CGM periods to determine change in 4-hour glycemic response. RESULTS: Data were available for 69 patients in the substudy, 40 from the original breakfast group and 29 from the main meal group. Between baseline and end of study, mean (standard deviation) total glucose exposure decreased from 4198.1 (652.3) to 3681.2 (699.6) mg/dL*24 h in the breakfast group (P < .0001) and from 4127.9 (876.8) to 3880.9 (1165.0) mg/dL*24 h in the main meal group (P = .0224). For patients included in the substudy, HbA1c decreased by approximately 0.6% in both groups. Mean (standard deviation) 4-hour total glucose exposure fell by 168.9 (158.4) mg/dL*4 h (P < .0001) from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that lixisenatide has beneficial effects on components of the 24-hour glucose profile, which endure beyond the meal at which it is administered. Continuous glucose monitoring analysis detects changes not captured using HbA1c alone.

2016 Health Care & Education Presidential Address: If DSME Were a Pill, Would You Prescribe It?

This address was delivered by Margaret A. Powers, PhD, RD, CDE, President, Health Care & Education, of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), at the ADA's 76th Scientific Sessions in New Orleans, LA, on 11 June 2016. Dr. Powers conducts research and has a clinical practice as a registered dietitian and diabetes educator at the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet in Minneapolis. Her research focuses on improving diabetes outcomes including factors that affect the clinical, psychosocial, and behavioral aspects of diabetes. Dr. Powers has been an ADA volunteer for more than 25 years, including serving as a founding editor of Diabetes Spectrum She is the lead author of the 2015 joint Position Statement on Diabetes Self-management Education and Support published by the ADA, American Association of Diabetes Educators, and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. She is the recipient of the ADA's Outstanding Educator in Diabetes Award and has published research, authored numerous articles and chapters, published five books, and is an international presenter. Dr. Powers holds a doctorate in education with a focus on performance improvement from Capella University. She received her Master of Science from the University of Illinois at Chicago and her Bachelor of Science from Michigan State University. She completed her dietetic internship at Cook County Hospital in Chicago.

Determining the influence of type 1 diabetes on two common eating disorder questionnaires.

PURPOSE: This research evaluated the level of influence that having type 1 diabetes (T1DM) has on responses to questions about food choices, eating concerns, dietary restraint, and others that are included on two widely used, validated eating disorder (ED) questionnaires and examined responses to these two questionnaires from patients with T1DM and an eating disorder (ED-T1DM) and an ED-no-diabetes. METHOD: An expert panel rated each item on the Eating Disorders Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) and Eating Disorders Inventory, version 3 (EDI-3) regarding T1DM level of influence on item interpretation. These questionnaires were completed by 2 matched samples (ED-T1DM, n = 48 and ED-no-diabetes, n = 96); responses were compared between the samples with particular attention to items of high T1DM influence. RESULTS: The expert panel identified that 50% (19/38) of the items on the EDE-Q and 6.6% (6/91) on the EDI-3 could be highly influenced by having T1DM. Before Bonferroni correction, the 2 groups responded statistically different on 9 out of 38 items on the EDE-Q and 27 out of 91 items on the EDI-3; generally responses were healthier for those with ED-T1DM than ED-no-diabetes. Of these items, on the EDE-Q, 5 were rated high T1DM influence and on the EDI-3, 3 were rated high. CONCLUSION: Having T1DM influences responses on ED questionnaires developed for the general population. This influence may be greater when questionnaires focus on eating, weight, and shape and result in misinterpretation of total and subscale scores by even well-trained clinicians. A careful review of individual item responses by the treatment team is warranted.