The challenge of living with diabetes in women and younger adults: A structural equation model.

BACKGROUND: Attitudes toward diabetes care are different between genders and age-groups. Furthermore, diabetes related challenges may cause psychosocial problems. Therefore, we were to compare the psychosocial status and glycemic control in women and men with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in different age-groups. METHODS: 441 adults with T2D were recruited. Demographic, self-care behavior, resources and affective variables as well as the health related quality of life (HRQoL) were measured. The median age of 55 was used as the cut-off for the age comparison. Structured equation modeling (SEM) investigated the relationship between age, gender, psychosocial factors and glycemic control. RESULTS: Finally, 203 women and 177 men completed the study (86.1%). There was no significant difference in mean duration of T2D, or glycemic control between genders or age-groups. Women, especially those below the median age of 55, had significantly higher level of diabetes-related distress (2.16±0.94 vs. 1.92±0.81), depression (9.67±5.37 vs. 7.54±5.06), and anxiety (19.81±12.04 vs. 12.81±9.04, P<0.05 for all comparisons), while people above the age of 55 reported better self-management and patient-physician relationship. HRQoL was lower in women compared to men (0.77±0.23 vs. 0.81±0.18, P=0.02). The final SEM suggested that the effect (standardized ß coefficient) of gender and age on affective variables was 0.25 and -0.19 (P<0.05), respectively, though psychosocial factors did not directly influence HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that psychosocial factors are associated with age and gender in patients with T2D; with younger women demonstrating higher level of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and diabetes-related distress independent of status of glycemic control.

Biphasic insulin Aspart 30 vs. NPH plus regular human insulin in type 2 diabetes patients; a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, costs, and cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with NPH plus regular human insulin (NPH/Reg) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: It was a Single-center, parallel-group, randomized, clinical trial (Trial Registration: NCT01889095). One hundred and seventy four T2DM patients with poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 8 % (63.9 mmol/mol)) were randomly assigned to trial arms (BIAsp 30 and NPH/Reg) and were followed up for 48 weeks. BIAsp 30 was started at an initial dose of 0.2-0.6 IU/Kg in two divided doses and was titrated according to the glycemic status of the patient. Similarly, NPH/Reg insulin was initiated at a dose of 0.2-0.6 IU/Kg with a 2:1 ratio and was subsequently titrated. Level of glycemic control, hypoglycemic events, direct and indirect costs, quality adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio have been assessed. RESULTS: HbA1c, Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and two-hour post-prandial glucose (PPG) were improved in both groups during the study (P < 0.05 for all analyses). Lower frequencies of minor, major, and nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes were observed with BIAsp 30 (P < 0.05). Additionally, BIAsp 30 was associated with less weight gain and also higher QALYs (P < 0.05). Total medical and non-medical costs were significantly lower with BIAsp 30 as compared with NPH/Reg (930.55 ± 81.43 USD vs. 1101.24 ± 165.49 USD, P = 0.004). Moreover, BIAsp 30 showed lower ICER as a dominant alternative. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being more expensive, BIAsp 30 offers the same glycemic control as to NPH/Reg dose-dependently and also appears to cause fewer hypoglycemic events and to be more cost-effective in Iranian patients with type 2 diabetes.