Socioeconomic inequalities in health-related functioning among people with type 2 Diabetes: longitudinal analyses in the Maastricht Study.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a common chronic disease that disproportionally affects disadvantaged groups. People with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) have increased risk of T2DM and people with a low SEP and T2DM have higher HbA1c-levels compared to people with T2DM and high SEP. The aim of this study is to analyze longitudinal socioeconomic differences in health-related functioning in people with T2DM. METHODS: Longitudinal data from 1,537 participants of The Maastricht Study with T2DM were used (32.6% female, mean (SD) age 62.9 (7.7) years). SEP was determined by baseline measures of education, occupation and income. Health-related functioning (physical, mental and social) was measured with the Short-Form Health Survey and the Impact on Participation and Autonomy survey (all scored from 0 to 100). Associations of SEP and health-related functioning were studied annually over a 10-year period (median (IQR) 7.0 (5.0) years, baseline 2010-2018) using linear mixed methods adjusting for demographics, HbA1c-levels and lifestyle factors. RESULTS: Participants with a low SEP had significantly worse health-related functioning compared to those with a high SEP. For example, participants with low income had lower scores for physical (-4.49[CI -5.77;-3.21]), mental (-2.61[-3.78,-1.44]) and social functioning (-9.76[-12.30;-7.23]) compared to participants with high income on a scale from 0 to 100. In addition, participants with a low education significantly declined more over time in mental (score for interaction education with time - 0.23[-0.37;-0.09]) and social functioning (-0.44[-0.77;-0.11]) compared to participants with high education. Participants with low and intermediate incomes significantly declined more over time in physical functioning (-0.17 [-0.34, -0.01 and - 0.18 [-0.36, 0.00]) compared to participants with high income. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with T2DM, those with a lower SEP had worse health-related functioning in general than people with a higher SEP. Additionally, people with T2DM and low education developed poorer mental and social functioning over time compared to people with T2DM and high education. People with T2DM and low or intermediate income declined more in physical functioning over time than those with high incomes. In addition to HbA1c-levels and lifestyle patterns, more attention is needed for socioeconomic differences in health-related functioning for people living with T2DM.

SUGAR-DIP trial: oral medication strategy versus insulin for diabetes in pregnancy, study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM. METHODS: The SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6134; Pre-results.