Glycaemic control in the diabetes and Lifestyle Cohort Twente: A cross-sectional assessment of lifestyle and pharmacological management on Hba1c target achievement.

The majority of patients with type 2 diabetes do not reach target levels of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c < 7%). We investigated the prevalence of HbA1c-target achievement and opportunities afforded by lifestyle and pharmacological treatment to increase target achievement. We performed cross-sectional analyses of baseline data from the Diabetes and Lifestyle Cohort Twente-1 (DIALECT-1). Patients were divided according to (1) HbA1c <53 and ≥53 mmol/mol (<7%) and (2) non-insulin treatment and tertiles of daily insulin use. We found that 161 (36%) patients achieved the target HbA1c level. Patients with HbA1c ≥53 mmol/mol had a longer duration of diabetes (13 [8-20] vs 9 [4-14] years; P < .001) and more frequently were insulin-users (76% vs 41%, P < .001). Patients in the highest tertile of insulin use had a higher body mass index than those in the lowest tertile (35.8 ± 5.5 vs 29.8 ± 5.5 kg/m2 ; P < .001). Achievement of target HbA1c is low in this type 2 diabetes population. High resistance to pharmacological treatment, paralleled with high body mass index, illustrates that increasing insulin sensitivity through lifestyle intervention is the best opportunity to improve HbA1c target achievement in this real-life population.

Real-life achievement of lipid-lowering treatment targets in the DIAbetes and LifEstyle Cohort Twente: systemic assessment of pharmacological and nutritional factors.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) in type 2 diabetes mellitus is of paramount importance in preventing cardiovascular disease. However, treatment targets for LDLc are often not reached. We studied the prevalence of LDLc target achievement in a real-life population of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in secondary care, and investigated whether in those not on target, there is room for intensifying pharmacological and lifestyle management according to current treatment guidelines. SUBJECTS/METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis in the DIAbetes and LifEstyle Cohort Twente-1 (DIALECT-1; n = 450, age 63 ± 9 years, 58% men, diabetes duration 11 (7-18) years). At baseline, we determined plasma LDLc concentration, pharmacological treatment (i.e., statin use), and lifestyle (physical activity and dietary intake). Patients were divided according to LDLc < 1.8, LDLc 1.8-2.5, and LDLc > 2.5 mmol/l. Dietary intake was collected from a validated Food Frequency Questionnaire (177 items) and we determined guideline adherence for different food groups. Physical activity was assessed with the Short Questionnaire to ASsess Health enhancing behavior. RESULTS: LDLc data were available in 428 type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. LDLc ≤ 2.5 mmol/l was achieved in 317 patients (76%). In total, 76% of patients used statins, in those with LDLc > 2.5 mmol/l, this was 44%. Adherence to lifestyle guidelines was not different between the LDLc groups and was as follows: body mass index 6%, physical activity 59%, vegetables 7%, fruit 28%, legumes 59%, nuts 14%, dairy 19%, fish 36%, tea 8%, fats 66%, red meat 12%, processed meat 2%, alcohol 71%, sweetened beverages 34%, and sodium 12%. CONCLUSIONS: In type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in secondary health care, the target LDLc is achieved by three quarters of patients. Increasing statin treatment could be a first step to improve LDLc. In addition, there are ample opportunities for lifestyle management through increasing adherence to lifestyle guidelines.

Whole dairy matrix or single nutrients in assessment of health effects: current evidence and knowledge gaps.

Foods consist of a large number of different nutrients that are contained in a complex structure. The nature of the food structure and the nutrients therein (i.e., the food matrix) will determine the nutrient digestion and absorption, thereby altering the overall nutritional properties of the food. Thus, the food matrix may exhibit a different relation with health indicators compared to single nutrients studied in isolation. The evidence for a dairy matrix effect was presented and discussed by an expert panel at a closed workshop, and the following consensus was reached: 1) Current evidence does not support a positive association between intake of dairy products and risk of cardiovascular disease (i.e., stroke and coronary heart disease) and type 2 diabetes. In contrast, fermented dairy products, such as cheese and yogurt, generally show inverse associations. 2) Intervention studies have indicated that the metabolic effects of whole dairy may be different than those of single dairy constituents when considering the effects on body weight, cardiometabolic disease risk, and bone health. 3) Different dairy products seem to be distinctly linked to health effects and disease risk markers. 4) Different dairy structures and common processing methods may enhance interactions between nutrients in the dairy matrix, which may modify the metabolic effects of dairy consumption. 5) In conclusion, the nutritional values of dairy products should not be considered equivalent to their nutrient contents but, rather, be considered on the basis of the biofunctionality of the nutrients within dairy food structures. 6) Further research on the health effects of whole dairy foods is warranted alongside the more traditional approach of studying the health effects of single nutrients. Future diet assessments and recommendations should carefully consider the evidence of the effects of whole foods alongside the evidence of the effects of individual nutrients. Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for priorities in future research on dairy were identified and presented.

Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence.

BACKGROUND: There is scepticism about health effects of dairy products in the public, which is reflected in an increasing intake of plant-based drinks, for example, from soy, rice, almond, or oat. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to assess the scientific evidence mainly from meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised controlled trials, on dairy intake and risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cancer, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The most recent evidence suggested that intake of milk and dairy products was associated with reduced risk of childhood obesity. In adults, intake of dairy products was shown to improve body composition and facilitate weight loss during energy restriction. In addition, intake of milk and dairy products was associated with a neutral or reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly stroke. Furthermore, the evidence suggested a beneficial effect of milk and dairy intake on bone mineral density but no association with risk of bone fracture. Among cancers, milk and dairy intake was inversely associated with colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, and breast cancer, and not associated with risk of pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, or lung cancer, while the evidence for prostate cancer risk was inconsistent. Finally, consumption of milk and dairy products was not associated with all-cause mortality. Calcium-fortified plant-based drinks have been included as an alternative to dairy products in the nutrition recommendations in several countries. However, nutritionally, cow's milk and plant-based drinks are completely different foods, and an evidence-based conclusion on the health value of the plant-based drinks requires more studies in humans. CONCLUSION: The totality of available scientific evidence supports that intake of milk and dairy products contribute to meet nutrient recommendations, and may protect against the most prevalent chronic diseases, whereas very few adverse effects have been reported.

Cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus : management strategies.

There is an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and morbidity in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus compared with the general population as shown by epidemiologic studies measuring cardiovascular endpoints, as well as by autopsy, angiographic, and coronary calcification studies. Most of the excess CVD risk associated with type 1 diabetes is concentrated in the subset of approximately 35% of patients who develop diabetic nephropathy (after 20 years of diabetes duration), who also typically have dyslipidemias, elevated blood pressure, and hyperglycemia, factors contributing to CVD. For reasons that remain speculative, the relative risks from CVD are higher in women than in men with type 1 diabetes compared with the general population, which effectively eliminates the gender differences in CVD. As in the general population and in patients with type 2 diabetes, education and lifestyle changes, interventions to reduce hyperglycemia, blood pressure, micro-albuminuria, lipid control, and the use of aspirin are important management areas in order to reduce the increased risk of CVD. Whether management with aspirin and statins should be started in type 1 diabetic patients at a younger age or at a lower risk score than in the general population is still under investigation. There is a need for a better understanding of the pathophysiology of vascular complications in type 1 diabetes, more specific risk engines in type 1 diabetes, and accurate estimations of the absolute and relative risk for CVD in order to improve management of CVD in these high-risk patients.