Association of weight loss and weight loss maintenance following diabetes diagnosis by screening and incidence of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: An observational analysis of the ADDITION-Europe trial.

AIMS: Short-term weight loss may lead to remission of type 2 diabetes but the effect of maintained weight loss on cardiovascular disease (CVD) is unknown. We quantified the associations between changes in weight 5 years following a diagnosis of diabetes, and incident CVD events and mortality up to 10 years after diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational analysis of the ADDITION-Europe trial of 2730 adults with screen-detected type 2 diabetes from the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands. We defined weight change based on the maintenance at 5 years of weight loss achieved during the year after diabetes diagnosis, and as 5-year overall change in weight. Incident CVD events (n = 229) and all-cause mortality (n = 225) from 5 to 10 years follow-up were ascertained from medical records. RESULTS: Gaining >2% weight during the year after diabetes diagnosis was associated with higher hazard of all-cause mortality versus maintaining weight [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 3.18 (1.30-7.82)]. Losing ≥5% weight 1 year after diagnosis was also associated with mortality, whether or not weight loss was maintained at 5 years: 2.47 (0.99-6.21) and 2.72 (1.17-6.30), respectively. Losing ≥10% weight over 5 years was associated with mortality among those with body mass index <30 kg/m2 [4.62 (1.87-11.42)]. Associations with CVD incidence were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Both weight loss and weight gain after screen-detected diabetes diagnosis were associated with higher mortality, but not CVD events, particularly among participants without obesity. The clinical implications of weight loss following a diagnosis of diabetes probably depend on its magnitude and timing, and may differ by body mass index status. Personalization of weight loss advice and support may be warranted.

Overtreatment of older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care.

Given that there are indications of overtreatment in older patients with type 2 diabetes in both the United States and Europe, we assessed the level of personalized diabetes treatment for older patients in primary care, focusing on overtreatment. Based on Dutch guidelines individuals aged ≥70 years were classified into 3 glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) treatment target groups: 7% (53 mmol/mol), 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) and 8% (64 mmol/mol). In our cohort of 1002 patients (n = 319 aged ≥70 years), the 165 patients with HbA1c targets >7% had more micro- and macrovascular complications, more often used ≥5 medicines and were more often frail compared with those with an HbA1c target ≤7%. Of these 165 patients, 64 (38.8%) were overtreated; that is, 20% of all people aged ≥70 years. The majority of overtreated people were frail and used ≥5 medicines. Hypoglycaemia occurred in 20.3% of these patients and almost 30% reported accidents involving falls. Personalized treatment in older people with type 2 diabetes is not common practice. A substantial number of older people are overtreated, with probable harmful consequences. To prevent overtreatment, definition of lower HbA1c limits might be helpful.

Effectiveness of diabetes self-management education via a smartphone application in insulin treated type 2 diabetes patients - design of a randomised controlled trial ('TRIGGER study').

BACKGROUND: Health care providers aim to stimulate self-management in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients. However, they have a limited number of patient contacts to do this. With the growing number of T2DM patients, innovative and cost-effective interventions to promote self-management are needed. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of diabetes self-management education via a smartphone app in T2DM patients on insulin therapy. METHODS: Non-blinded two-arm multi-centre randomised controlled superiority trial with parallel-groups and equal randomisation ('TRIGGER study'). Eligible patients are 40-70 years, on insulin therapy since at least 3 months, with HbA1c > 53 mmol/mol (> 7%). In total 228 patients will be recruited. The intervention group (n = 114) will receive diabetes self-management education via a smartphone app to trigger diabetes self-management: unidirectional text messages, free of charge, evidence and psychological theory based, with regard to dietary habits, physical activity, hypoglycaemia and glucose variability. Patients choose their preferred frequency (two to six times per week), topics (two or three additionally to hypoglycaemia, which is an obligatory topic), and duration (6 or 9 months). The control group (n = 114) will receive care-as-usual. The primary study endpoint is the HbA1c level after a follow-up of 6 months. The percentage of patients who achieve an HbA1c level ≤ 53 mmol/mol (≤7%) without hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose < 3.5 mmol/L (< 63 mg/dL)) is a co-primary outcome. Secondary outcomes are body mass index, waist circumference, insulin dose, lipid profile, blood pressure, number of hypoglycaemic events, glycaemic variability, self-management (SDSCA), food habits (FFQ), physical activity (IPAQ), health status (EQ-5D-5 L, SF36), diabetes-dependent quality of life (ADDQoL), diabetes treatment satisfaction (DTSQ), satisfaction with the app, the cost-effectiveness of the intervention after 3 months, and sustainability of the intervention effect (3 months extra follow-up in intervention group to compare prolonged to discontinued use of the app). We will use the intention-to-treat principle to analyse data. DISCUSSION: Innovative solutions are needed to improve the (cost-) effectiveness of self-management for the increasing number of T2DM patients. This trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of a newly developed smartphone app, designed to trigger diabetes self-management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR5515 , registration date: 18 November 2015 (prospectively registered).

Disentangling the effect of illness perceptions on health status in people with type 2 diabetes after an acute coronary event.

BACKGROUND: Chronically ill patients such as people with type 2 diabetes develop perceptions of their illness, which will influence their coping behaviour. Perceptions are formed once a health threat has been recognised. Many people with type 2 diabetes suffer from multimorbidity, for example the combination with cardiovascular disease. Perceptions of one illness may influence perceptions of the other condition. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effect of an intervention in type 2 diabetes patients with a first acute coronary event on change in illness perceptions and whether this mediates the intervention effect on health status. The current study is a secondary data analysis of a RCT. METHODS: Two hundred one participants were randomised (1:1 ratio) to the intervention (n = 101, three home visits) or control group (n = 100). Outcome variables were diabetes and acute coronary event perceptions, assessed with the two separate Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaires (BIPQs); and health status (Euroqol Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS)). The intervention effect was analysed using ANCOVA. Linear regression analyses were used to assess whether illness perceptions mediated the intervention effect on health status. RESULTS: A positive intervention effect was found on the BIPQ diabetes items coherence and treatment control (F = 8.19, p = 0.005; F = 14.01, p < 0.001). No intervention effect was found on the other BIPQ diabetes items consequence, personal control, identity, illness concern and emotional representation. Regarding the acute coronary event, a positive intervention effect on treatment control was found (F = 7.81, p = 0.006). No intervention effect was found on the other items of the acute coronary event BIPQ. Better diabetes coherence was associated with improved health status, whereas perceiving more treatment control was not. The mediating effect of the diabetes perception 'coherence' on health status was not significant. CONCLUSION: Targeting illness perceptions of people with diabetes after an acute coronary event has no effect on most domains, but can improve the perceived understanding of their diabetes. Discussing perceptions prevents people with type 2 diabetes who recently experienced an acute coronary event from the perception that they will lose control of both their diabetes and the acute coronary event. Illness perceptions of diabetes patients should therefore be discussed in the dynamic period after an acute coronary event. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands trial register; NTR3076 , Registered September 20 2011.

Diabetes care providers' opinions and working methods after four years of experience with a diabetes patient web portal; a survey among health care providers in general practices and an outpatient clinic.

BACKGROUND: To gain insight into the opinions and working methods of diabetes care providers after using a diabetes web portal for 4 years in order to understand the role of the provider in patients' web portal use. METHODS: Survey among physicians and nurses from general practices and an outpatient clinic, correlated with data from the common web portal. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight questionnaires were analysed (response rate 56.6%). Responders' mean age was 46.2 ± 9.8 years and 43.8% were physicians. The majority was of opinion that the portal improves patients' diabetes knowledge (90.6%) and quality of care (72.7%). Although uploading glucose diary (93.6%) and patient access to laboratory and clinical notes (91.2 and 71.0%) were considered important, these features were recommended to patients in only 71.8 and 19.5% respectively. 64.8% declared they informed their patients about the portal and 45.3% handed-out the information leaflet and website address. The portal was especially recommended to type 1 diabetes patients (78.3%); those on insulin (84.3%) and patients aged< 65 years (72.4%). Few found it timesaving (21.9%). Diabetes care providers' opinions were not associated with patients' portal use. CONCLUSIONS: Providers are positive about patients web portals but still not recommend or encourage the use to all patients. There seems room for improvement in their working methods.

Validity and reliability of a Malay version of the brief illness perception questionnaire for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Illness perceptions involve the personal beliefs that patients have about their illness and may influence health behaviours considerably. Since an instrument to measure these perceptions for Malay population in Malaysia is lacking, we translated and examined the psychometric properties of the Malay version of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (MBIPQ) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: The MBIPQ has nine items, all use a 0-10 response scale, except the ninth item about causal factors, which is an open-ended item. A standard procedure was used to translate and adapt the English BIPQ into Malay language. Construct validity was examined comparing item scores and scores on the Diabetes Management Self-Efficacy Scale, the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, the World Health Organization Quality of Life-brief, the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale, HbA1c and the presence of complications. In addition, 2-week and 4-week test-retest reliability were studied. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients completed the MBIPQ. Out of this, 97 and 215 patients completed the 2- or 4-weeks test-retest reliability questionnaire, respectively. Moderate inter-items correlations were observed between illness perception dimensions (r = -0.31 to 0.53). MBIPQ items showed the expected correlations with self-efficacy (r = 0.35), medication adherence (r = 0.29), quality of life (r = -0.17 to 0.31) and depressive symptoms (r = -0.18 to 0.21). People with severe diabetes-related distress also were more concern (t-test = 4.01, p < 0.001) and experienced lower personal control (t-test = 2.07, p = 0.031). People with any diabetes-related complication perceived the consequences as more serious (t-test = 2.04, p = 0.044). The 2-week and 4-week test-retest reliabilities varied between ICCagreement 0.39 to 0.70 and 0.58 to 0.78, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric properties of items in the MBIPQ are moderate. The MBIPQ showed good cross-cultural validity and moderate construct validity. Test-retest reliability was moderate. Despite the moderate psychometric properties, the MBIPQ may be useful in clinical practice as it is a useful instrument to elicit and communicate on patient's personal thoughts and feelings. Future research is needed to establish its responsiveness and predictive validity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02730754 registered on March 29, 2016; NCT02730078 registered on March 29, 2016.

The effectiveness of a value-based EMOtion-cognition-Focused educatIonal programme to reduce diabetes-related distress in Malay adults with Type 2 diabetes (VEMOFIT): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients experience many psychosocial problems related to their diabetes. These often lead to emotional disorders such as distress, stress, anxiety and depression, resulting in decreased self-care, quality of life and disease control. The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief value-based emotion-focused educational programme in adults with T2DM on diabetes-related distress (DRD), depressive symptoms, illness perceptions, quality of life, diabetes self-efficacy, self-care and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in 10 public health clinics in Malaysia, all providing diabetes care according to national clinical practice guidelines. Patients' inclusion criteria: Malay, ≥ 18 years with T2DM for at least 2 years, on regular follow-up with one of three biomarkers HbA1c, systolic blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol sub-optimally controlled, and with a mean 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS-17) score ≥ 3. The intervention consists of four sessions and one booster over a period of 4 months that provide information and skills to assist patients in having proper perceptions of their T2DM including an understanding of the treatment targets, understanding and managing their emotions and goal-setting. The comparator is an attention-control group with three meetings over a similar period. With an estimated intra-cluster correlation coefficient ρ of 0.015, a cluster size of 20 and 20% non-completion, the trial will need to enroll 198 patients. PRIMARY OUTCOME: the between groups difference in proportion of patients achieving a mean DDS-17 score < 3 (non-significant distress) at 6 months post-intervention. Secondary outcomes will be the differences in the above mentioned variables between groups. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that primary and secondary outcomes will improve significantly after the intervention compared to the comparator group. The results of this study can contribute to better care for T2DM patients with DRD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02730078 . Registered on 29 March 2016, last updated on 4 January 2017.

Psychological interventions for diabetes-related distress in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Many adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) experience a psychosocial burden and mental health problems associated with the disease. Diabetes-related distress (DRD) has distinct effects on self-care behaviours and disease control. Improving DRD in adults with T2DM could enhance psychological well-being, health-related quality of life, self-care abilities and disease control, also reducing depressive symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions for diabetes-related distress in adults with T2DM. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, BASE, WHO ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was December 2014 for BASE and 21 September 2016 for all other databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of psychological interventions for DRD in adults (18 years and older) with T2DM. We included trials if they compared different psychological interventions or compared a psychological intervention with usual care. Primary outcomes were DRD, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure, diabetes-related complications, all-cause mortality and socioeconomic effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified publications for inclusion and extracted data. We classified interventions according to their focus on emotion, cognition or emotion-cognition. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to compute overall estimates. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 30 RCTs with 9177 participants. Sixteen trials were parallel two-arm RCTs, and seven were three-arm parallel trials. There were also seven cluster-randomised trials: two had four arms, and the remaining five had two arms. The median duration of the intervention was six months (range 1 week to 24 months), and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 12 months). The trials included a wide spectrum of interventions and were both individual- and group-based.A meta-analysis of all psychological interventions combined versus usual care showed no firm effect on DRD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.03; P = 0.17; 3315 participants; 12 trials; low-quality evidence), HRQoL (SMD 0.01; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; P = 0.87; 1932 participants; 5 trials; low-quality evidence), all-cause mortality (11 per 1000 versus 11 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% CI 0.17 to 6.03; P = 0.99; 1376 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence) or adverse events (17 per 1000 versus 41 per 1000; RR 2.40; 95% CI 0.78 to 7.39; P = 0.13; 438 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). We saw small beneficial effects on self-efficacy and HbA1c at medium-term follow-up (6 to 12 months): on self-efficacy the SMD was 0.15 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.30; P = 0.05; 2675 participants; 6 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions; on HbA1c there was a mean difference (MD) of -0.14% (95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; P = 0.05; 3165 participants; 11 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions. Our included trials did not report diabetes-related complications or socioeconomic effects.Many trials were small and were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as well as possible performance and detection biases in the subjective questionnaire-based outcomes assessment, and some appeared to be at risk of selective reporting. There are four trials awaiting further classification. These are parallel RCTs with cognition-focused and emotion-cognition focused interventions. There are another 18 ongoing trials, likely focusing on emotion-cognition or cognition, assessing interventions such as diabetes self-management support, telephone-based cognitive behavioural therapy, stress management and a web application for problem solving in diabetes management. Most of these trials have a community setting and are based in the USA. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence showed that none of the psychological interventions would improve DRD more than usual care. Low-quality evidence is available for improved self-efficacy and HbA1c after psychological interventions. This means that we are uncertain about the effects of psychological interventions on these outcomes. However, psychological interventions probably have no substantial adverse events compared to usual care. More high-quality research with emotion-focused programmes, in non-US and non-European settings and in low- and middle-income countries, is needed.

Effectiveness of shared goal setting and decision making to achieve treatment targets in type 2 diabetes patients: A cluster-randomized trial (OPTIMAL).

OBJECTIVE: About 20% of patients with type 2 diabetes achieve all their treatment targets. Shared decision making (SDM) using a support aid based on the 5-years results of the ADDITION study on multifactorial treatment, could increase this proportion. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cluster-randomized trial in 35 former ADDITION primary care practices. Practices were randomized to SDM or care as usual (1:1). Both ADDITION and non-ADDITION type 2 diabetes patients, 60-80 years, known with diabetes for 8-12 years, were included. In the intervention group, patients were presented evidence about the relationship between treatment intensity and cardiovascular events. They chose intensive or less intensive treatment and prioritized their targets. After 1 year priorities could be rearranged. FOLLOW-UP: 24 months. Intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: proportion of patients that achieved all three treatment targets. RESULTS: At baseline 26.4% in the SDM group (n=72) had already achieved all three treatment goals (CG: 23.5%, n=81). In the SDM group 44 patients chose intensive treatment, 25 continued their former less intensive treatment and three people switched from the more to the less intensive protocol. After 24 months 31.8% of the patients in the SDM group achieved all three treatment targets (CG: 25.3%), RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.81-1.95). Mean systolic blood pressure decreased in the SDM group (-5.4 mm Hg, P<.01), mean HbA1c and total cholesterol did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an already high baseline level of diabetes care, we found strong indications that SDM on both intensity of treatment and prioritizing treatment goals further improved outcomes.

How to choose the most appropriate cognitive test to evaluate cognitive complaints in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Despite the wealth of research devoted to the performance of individual cognitive tests for diagnosing cognitive impairment (including mild cognitive impairment and dementia), it can be difficult for general practitioners to choose the most appropriate test for a patient with cognitive complaints in daily practice. In this paper we present a diagnostic algorithm for the evaluation of cognitive complaints in primary care. The rationale behind this algorithm is that the likelihood of cognitive impairment -which can be determined after history taking and an informant interview- should determine which cognitive test is most suitable. METHODS: We distinguished three likelihoods of cognitive impairment: not likely, possible or likely. We selected cognitive tests based on pre-defined required test features for each of these three situations and a review of the literature. We incorporated the cognitive tests in a practical diagnostic algorithm. RESULTS: Based on the available literature, in patients with complaints but where cognitive impairment is considered to be unlikely the clock-drawing test can be used to rule out cognitive impairment. When cognitive impairment is possible the Montreal cognitive assessment can be used to rule out cognitive impairment or to make cognitive impairment more likely. When cognitive impairment is likely the Mini-Mental State Examination can be used to confirm the presence of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a diagnostic algorithm to increase the efficiency of ruling out or diagnosing cognitive impairment in primary care. Further study is needed to validate and evaluate this stepwise diagnostic algorithm.

Oral Hypoglycemic Agents Added to Insulin Monotherapy for Type 2 Diabetes.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who do not achieve optimal glycemic control with insulin monotherapy, is the addition of oral hypoglycemic agents associated with benefits (measured by lowering of hemoglobin A1c) or adverse effects? BOTTOM LINE: Adding a sulfonylurea to insulin was associated with more hypoglycemic events compared with insulin alone, but this association was not observed for metformin. Adding a sulfonylurea or metformin to insulin was associated with a decrease in hemoglobin A1c of approximately 1.0%.

Insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on insulin monotherapy who do not achieve adequate glycaemic control should continue insulin as monotherapy or can benefit from adding oral glucose-lowering agents to the insulin therapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin monotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of articles. The date of the last search was November 2015 for all databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials of at least two months' duration comparing insulin monotherapy with combinations of insulin with one or more oral glucose-lowering agent in people with type 2 diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated overall quality of the evidence using GRADE. We summarised data statistically if they were available, sufficiently similar and of sufficient quality. We performed statistical analyses according to the statistical guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 37 trials with 40 treatment comparisons involving 3227 participants. The duration of the interventions ranged from 2 to 12 months for parallel trials and two to four months for cross-over trials.The majority of trials had an unclear risk of bias in several risk of bias domains. Fourteen trials showed a high risk of bias, mainly for performance and detection bias. Insulin monotherapy, including once-daily long-acting, once-daily intermediate-acting, twice-daily premixed insulin, and basal-bolus regimens (multiple injections), was compared to insulin in combination with sulphonylureas (17 comparisons: glibenclamide = 11, glipizide = 2, tolazamide = 2, gliclazide = 1, glimepiride = 1), metformin (11 comparisons), pioglitazone (four comparisons), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (four comparisons: acarbose = 3, miglitol = 1), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) (three comparisons: vildagliptin = 1, sitagliptin = 1, saxagliptin = 1) and the combination of metformin and glimepiride (one comparison). No trials assessed all-cause mortality, diabetes-related morbidity or health-related quality of life. Only one trial assessed patients' treatment satisfaction and showed no substantial differences between the addition of either glimepiride or metformin and glimepiride to insulin compared with insulin monotherapy.Insulin-sulphonylurea combination therapy (CT) compared with insulin monotherapy (IM) showed a MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of -1% (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 316 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. Insulin-metformin CT compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.9% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 698 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. We could not pool the results of adding pioglitazone to insulin. Insulin combined with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.2); P < 0.01; 448 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). Insulin combined with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.4); P < 0.01; 265 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence. In most trials the participants with CT needed less insulin, whereas insulin requirements increased or remained stable in participants with IM.We did not perform a meta-analysis for hypoglycaemic events because the included studies used different definitions.. In most trials the insulin-sulphonylurea combination resulted in a higher number of mild episodes of hypoglycaemia, compared to the IM group (range: 2.2 to 6.1 episodes per participant in CT versus 2.0 to 2.6 episodes per participant in IM; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT also resulted in more mild to moderate hypoglycaemic episodes compared with IM (range 15 to 90 episodes versus 9 to 75 episodes, respectively; low-quality evidence. The trials that reported hypoglycaemic episodes in the other combinations found comparable numbers of mild to moderate hypoglycaemic events (low-quality evidence).The addition of sulphonylureas resulted in an additional weight gain of 0.4 kg to 1.9 kg versus -0.8 kg to 2.1 kg in the IM group (220 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT caused more weight gain compared to IM: MD 3.8 kg (95% CI 3.0 to 4.6); P < 0.01; 288 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence. Metformin CT was associated with weight loss: MD -2.1 kg (95% CI -3.2 to -1.1), P < 0.01; 615 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors CT showed weight gain of -0.7 to 1.3 kg versus 0.6 to 1.1 kg in the IM group (362 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). Alpha-glucosidase CT compared to IM showed a MD of -0.5 kg (95% CI -1.2 to 0.3); P = 0.26; 241 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence.Users of metformin CT (range 7% to 67% versus 5% to 16%), and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors CT (14% to 75% versus 4% to 35%) experienced more gastro-intestinal adverse effects compared to participants on IM. Two trials reported a higher frequency of oedema with the use of pioglitazone CT (range: 16% to 18% versus 4% to 7% IM). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The addition of all oral glucose-lowering agents in people with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control who are on insulin therapy has positive effects on glycaemic control and insulin requirements. The addition of sulphonylureas results in more hypoglycaemic events. Additional weight gain can only be avoided by adding metformin to insulin. Other well-known adverse effects of oral glucose-lowering agents have to be taken into account when prescribing oral glucose-lowering agents in addition to insulin therapy.

Effect of six years intensified multifactorial treatment on levels of hs-CRP and adiponectin in patients with screen detected type 2 diabetes: the ADDITION-Netherlands randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and adiponectin, reflecting chronic inflammation, are associated with cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. The long-term effects of multifactorial therapy in type 2 diabetes patients on CRP and adiponectin are unknown. METHODS: The ADDITION-NL study is a randomized clinical trial among screen-detected type 2 diabetes patients, randomized to intensive treatment (HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol), blood pressure ≤135/85 mmHg, total cholesterol ≤3.5 mmol/L) or routine care. Hs-CRP and adiponectin were measured before and 1, 2 and 6 years after inclusion. We analysed the effectiveness of the intervention on hs-CRP and adiponectin levels using a mixed effects model, taking into account practice, baseline levels and different medications. RESULTS: A total of 424 patients were included (intensive care n = 235; routine care n = 189). Both groups were well matched. Body mass index, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol and HbA1c improved significantly more in the intensive care group compared to routine care group. Levels of hs-CRP decreased significantly in both treatment groups over time. Mean hs-CRP in the routine care group was 24% higher (p = 0.0027) than in the intensive treatment group during follow-up. After an initial increase the adiponectin values levelled off to nearly baseline values in both groups. The difference between the two groups after 6 years was 0.44 µg/mL (p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Intensified multifactorial treatment in type 2 diabetes results in an enhanced decrease in hs-CRP. Whether this is clinically meaningful remains uncertain. The link to adiponectin seems to be more complex.

Comparison of perceptions of obesity among adults with central obesity with and without additional cardiometabolic risk factors and among those who were formally obese, 3 years after screening for central obesity.

BACKGROUND: Perceptions of illness are important determinants of health behaviour. A better understanding of perceptions of obesity might allow more effective interventions that challenge these perceptions through lifestyle modification programs. Although several studies have evaluated causal attributions with regard to obesity, other domains of illness perception, such as the perceived consequences of obesity and perceived controllability, have not yet been studied. The aim of the current study was to explore perceptions regarding causes, consequences, control, concerns and time course of obesity of centrally obese adults, with and without an elevated cardiometabolic risk and with or without weight loss, 3 years after screening for metabolic syndrome, and to compare these perceptions. METHODS: Three groups were selected from a longitudinal study dependent on the baseline and 3-year follow-up profiles: individuals with central obesity and metabolic syndrome at both time points ('persistent cardiometabolic-risk group', n = 80), those with central obesity but without metabolic syndrome on either occasion ('persistent obese group', n = 63), and formerly obese individuals ('improved cardiometabolic-risk group', n = 49). Perceptions of obesity were assessed using an adapted version of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ, range 0-10). Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to compare the 'persistent cardiometabolic risk' group with the other two groups with regard to patient characteristics and BIPQ scores. RESULTS: Both males and females who improved their cardiometabolic risk perceived their obesity as shorter (median (IQR): 3.0 (4.0) vs. 6.0 (3.0), p < 0.001) and experienced greater personal control over their weight (7.0 (3.0) vs. 5.0 (3.0), p = 0.002) compared to those who did not improve. Females who improved their cardiometabolic risk experienced fewer identity and illness concerns, this was not found for males. Other scores did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Obese adults with an improved cardiometabolic risk profile felt greater personal control and considered their obesity to be of shorter duration. Persistence of central obesity with additional cardiometabolic risk factors had a larger impact on female than male participants with respect to identity and illness concerns. Whether discussing 'personal control' is a favourable element in lifestyle intervention should now be assessed in the setting of a controlled trial.

Shared decision making in type 2 diabetes with a support decision tool that takes into account clinical factors, the intensity of treatment and patient preferences: design of a cluster randomised (OPTIMAL) trial.

BACKGROUND: No more than 10-15% of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients achieve all treatment goals regarding glycaemic control, lipids and blood pressure. Shared decision making (SDM) should increase that percentage; however, not all support decision tools are appropriate. Because the ADDITION-Europe study demonstrated two (almost) equally effective treatments but with slightly different intensities, it may be a good starting point to discuss with the patients their diabetes treatment, taking into account both the intensity of treatment, clinical factors and patients' preferences. We aim to evaluate whether such an approach increases the proportion of patients that achieve all three treatment goals. METHODS: In a cluster-randomised trial including 40 general practices, that participated until 2009 in the ADDITION Study, 150 T2DM patients 60-80 years, known with T2DM for 8-15 years, will be included. Practices are randomised a second time, i.e. intervention practices in the ADDITION study could be control practices in the current study and vice versa. For the GPs from the intervention group a 2-hour training in SDM was developed as well as a decision support tool to be used during the consultation. GPs plan the first visit with the patients to decide on the intensity of the treatment, personalised targets and the priorities of treatment. The control group will continue with the treatment they were allocated to in the ADDITION study. FOLLOW-UP: 24 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who achieve all three treatment goals. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients who achieve five treatment goals (HbA1c, blood pressure, total cholesterol, body weight, not smoking), evaluation of the SDM process (SDM-Q9 and CPS), satisfaction with the treatment (DTSQ), wellbeing and quality of life (W-BQ12, ADD QoL-19), health status (SF-36, EQ-5D) and coping (DCMQ). The proportions of achieved treatment goals will be compared between both groups. For the secondary outcomes mixed models will be used. The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht has approved the study protocol (Protocol number: 11-153). DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence whether an intervention with a multi-faceted decision support tool increases the proportion of achieved personalised goals in type 2 diabetes patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02285881, November 4, 2014.

Effects of a lifestyle program in subjects with Impaired Fasting Glucose, a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The worldwide epidemic of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) underlines the need for diabetes prevention strategies. In this study the feasibility and effectiveness of a nurse led lifestyle program for subjects with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) is assessed. METHODS: A cluster randomized clinical trial in 26 primary care practices in the Netherlands included 366 participants older than 45 years with newly diagnosed IFG and motivated to change their lifestyle (intervention group, n = 197; usual care group, n = 169). The one-year intervention, consisting of four to five individual nurse-led consultations, was directed at improving physical activity and dietary habits. The primary outcome measure was body mass index (BMI). Linear and logistic multilevel analyses and a process evaluation were performed. RESULTS: Both groups showed small reductions in BMI at 1 and 2 years, but differences between groups were not significant. At both 1 and 2-year follow-up the number of participants physically active for at least 30 minutes at least five days a week was significantly improved in the intervention group compared to the usual care group (intervention group vs. usual care group: OR1year = 3.53; 95 % CI = 1.69-7.37 and OR2years = 1.97; 95 % CI = 1.22-3.20, respectively). The total drop-out rate was 24 %. Process evaluation revealed that participants in the intervention group received fewer consultations than advised, while some practice nurses and participants considered the RM protocol too intensive. CONCLUSIONS: This relatively simple lifestyle program in subjects with IFG resulted in a significant improvement in reported physical activity, but not in BMI. Despite its simplicity, some participants still considered the intervention too intensive. This viewpoint could be related to poor motivation and an absence of disease burden due to IFG, such that participants do not feel a need for behavioural change. Although the intervention provided some benefit, its wider use cannot be advised. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41209683 , date of registration 16/10/2013h  .

Peer support to decrease diabetes-related distress in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: design of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many type 2 diabetes mellitus patients face difficulties self-managing their illness, which can lead to high levels of diabetes-related distress. Diabetes distress may be decreased by peer support, as peers understand and have dealt with similar problems, and can help motivate each other. A recent systematic review concluded that evidence of benefits of peer support in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is too inconsistent due to weak theoretical foundation of the interventions. This study describes the design of a trial evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based, peer support programme with a strong theoretical foundation on diabetes-related distress in type 2 diabetes patients. METHODS: This is a parallel group randomised controlled trial of a six session group-based peer support intervention, delivered by peer leaders and group psychotherapists, compared with one educational meeting on diabetes. At least 152 patients with a type 2 diabetes duration of three years or more and between 50 and 70 years of age, recruited via their general practitioner, will be randomised to receive the peer support intervention or one educational meeting. The intervention is developed in line with three key stages of research development of the Medical Research Council framework. The primary outcome measure for this study is diabetes-related distress. Secondary outcomes include self-management behaviour, well-being and health-related quality of life. Perceived social support is a process measure. Outcomes will be measured one month before, and 6, and 12 months after the intervention by means of self-reported questionnaires. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: This article contains a description of the design of a study that will investigate the effect of a group-based, peer support intervention on diabetes-related distress in type 2 diabetes patients. The intervention was developed in recognition of the limited evidence, and the importance of a theoretical foundation and its implementation. Findings will contribute to knowledge in the field of peer support and patient-important outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry: NTR3474.

Repeat prescriptions of guideline-based secondary prevention medication in patients with type 2 diabetes and previous myocardial infarction in Dutch primary care.

BACKGROUND: Secondary prevention is efficient in reducing morbidity and mortality after a myocardial infarction (MI). However, both short-term and long-term mortality after MI remains relativity high in type 2 diabetes patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate repeat prescriptions of secondary prevention medication (anti-thrombotic agent, beta-blocker and statin) in type 2 diabetes patients with a previous MI. METHODS: Data of 1009 type 2 diabetes patients with a previous MI were extracted from the Julius General Practitioners' Network database. The proportion of patients with recent repeat prescriptions of guideline-based medication was determined. Furthermore, repeat prescriptions was determined 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years after MI. Generalized linear models were used to examine changes over time. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyse the association between patient characteristics and prescription. RESULTS: Only 46% of all type 2 diabetes patients with a previous MI had a recent repeat prescription for all three medicines. An increase in prescription over time was found for statins (P = 0.001). Older aged people [odds ratio (OR): 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.00] were less likely to receive the combination of all three. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of type 2 diabetes patients with a previous MI did not receive guideline-based secondary prevention. Prescription rates were quite stable over time. This study confirms the need for a different approach to achieve an improvement of secondary prevention in type 2 diabetes patient with a previous MI. GPs can play an important role in this respect by being extra alert that prescription occurs according to the guidelines.

Living with diabetes: a group-based self-management support programme for T2DM patients in the early phases of illness and their partners, study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The present article presents the protocol for a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a group-based self-management support programme for recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients (one to three years post-diagnosis) and their partners. The course aims to support T2DM patients and their partners in successfully integrating diabetes care into their daily lives and hereby enhance self-management and diabetes-specific health-related quality of life. The content of the course is based on the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM). Furthermore, principles from the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and social support theories are integrated. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to recruit 160 recently diagnosed T2DM patients and their partners from general practices in six different regions in the Netherlands. Patients need to be diagnosed with T2DM for one to three years and have to experience some degree of diabetes-related difficulties, as measured with a three-item screener. Participating patients and their partners are randomly allocated to the intervention or control condition. Participants in the intervention condition receive three monthly group sessions and a booster session three months later. Participants in the control condition receive a single information meeting. Data will be collected at baseline (T0), directly after the programme (T1) and six months post-programme (T2), including: self-management, diabetes-specific health-related quality of life, illness perceptions, attitudes, social support and empowerment. A three-level multilevel model will be used to compare change-scores between the conditions (intervention/control) on each outcome. DISCUSSION: Our study will be the first to determine whether a group-based support programme based on the CSM is effective in enhancing self-management and diabetes-specific health-related quality of life in recently diagnosed T2DM patients. The important role of patients' partners in effective diabetes care is also acknowledged in the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) NTR3302.

Reasons and barriers for using a patient portal: survey among patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The use of a Web portal for patients with diabetes mellitus to access their own personal health record may result in improved diabetes outcomes. However, the adoption by patients is slow. This may be caused by patient characteristics, but also by the content, layout, and promotion of the portal. Detailed knowledge about this could help increase patients' participation in Web portals. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to study the opinions of patients with diabetes and identify perceived barriers to using a Web portal to optimize its use. METHODS: We conducted a survey among patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus from 62 primary care practices and 1 outpatient hospital clinic in the central area of the Netherlands who all used the same electronic health record with a Web portal. Questionnaires about patient characteristics, opinions about reasons for use or nonuse, and about portal content were sent to 1500 patients with a login and 3000 patients without a login to the Web portal. Patient groups were stratified according to login frequency. Demographic and diabetes-related variables were analyzed with multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: The total response rate was 66.63% (2391/4399); 1390 of 4399 patients (31.60%) were eligible for analysis. There were 413 regular users (login frequency more than once) and 758 nonusers (no login). Most nonusers (72.4%) stated that the main reason for not requesting a login was that they were unaware of the existence of the portal. Other barriers reported by patients were disinterest in managing their own disease (28.5%, 216/758) and feelings of inadequacy with the use of computers and Internet (11.6%, 88/758). Patients treated by a general practitioner were more frequently nonusers compared to patients treated by an internist (78.8%, 666/846 vs 28.3%, 92/325; P<.001) and more users than nonusers became aware of the Web portal through their physician (94.9%, 392/413 vs 48.8%, 102/209; P<.001). Nonusers perceived specific portal content as not as useful as regular users did, especially access to laboratory values (71.7%, 383/534 vs 92.3%, 372/403), rereading clinic visits (61.3%, 320/522 vs 89.6%, 360/402), e-messaging (52.0%, 262/504 vs 74.6%, 299/401), and uploading results to the glucose diary (45.3%, 229/506 vs 74.0%, 288/400; all P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that unawareness of the patient portal is the main barrier of enrollment. Users and nonusers perceive the usefulness of the portal differently and do not have the same recommendations for additional functionalities. To increase patients' participation in a Web portal, the unawareness of its existence and its possibilities need to be addressed by their health care professionals.