Health care effects and medical benefits of a smartphone-based diabetes self-management application: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management is a mainstay of diabetes care, but the implementation of self-management regimens into daily life is complex and often results in discouragement and distress. Modern approaches such as smartphone-based self-management applications are therefore needed to support people with diabetes. Since reimbursability would increase the availability of such digital applications to people with diabetes, we designed a study that meets all scientific and methodological requirements set by the German Digital Healthcare Act to allow reimbursement for a specific application (mySugr PRO). Here, we report the protocol of this study that aims at evaluating the efficacy of the digital self-management application with regard to patient-reported outcomes and medical benefits. METHODS/DESIGN: This multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, controlled trial will evaluate the health care effects and medical benefits of mySugr PRO. A total of 466 people with diabetes will be randomly allocated (2:1 randomization) to the interventional group (n = 311) that will use the digital self-management application during the 12-week study period or the control group (n = 155; no usage of the application). Baseline and follow-up examinations will assess diabetes distress as the primary endpoint as well as empowerment, HbA1c, blood glucose data, self-management, general well-being, and treatment satisfaction as secondary endpoints. Statistical analyses will use an intention-to-treat procedure (using multiple imputation for missing values) as well as a per-protocol approach for sensitivity analysis. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this study will be one of the largest diabetes-specific evaluations of a digital health application supporting people with diabetes in their diabetes self-management that follow the requirements of the German Digital Healthcare Act. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00022923 . Registered on 22 October 2020.

Trends in diabetes self-management education: where are we coming from and where are we going? A narrative review.

AIMS: To summarize the history, development and efficacy of diabetes self-management education on glycaemic control and mental health in adults and children or adolescents with type 1 diabetes and people with type 2 diabetes. A further aim was to review the status of implementation of diabetes self-management education into routine care and outline current gaps in implementation and research. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Google scholar for German- and English-language articles regarding diabetes self-management education, glycaemic control and mental health, and restricted this search to meta-analyses. RESULTS: Diabetes education has evolved from a compliance- and knowledge-oriented approach to an empowerment- and self-management-oriented approach. Diabetes self-management education seems to have a greater impact on glycaemic outcomes than on mental health outcomes, but the latter are rarely assessed. Technological development and digitalization can provide chances and challenges for diabetes self-management education. Digital solutions show promising results and great potential for improving the efficacy of diabetes self-management education further and providing ongoing support. The implementation of diabetes self-management education into routine clinical care frequently remains a challenge. CONCLUSION: Diabetes self-management education has been acknowledged as an essential part of diabetes therapy; however, current gaps regarding the efficacy of diabetes self-management education on mental health, and the need for education on the use of diabetes technology, are future avenues for research.

The effect of an education programme (MEDIAS 2 BSC) of non-intensive insulin treatment regimens for people with Type 2 diabetes: a randomized, multi-centre trial.

AIMS: A self-management oriented education programme (MEDIAS 2 BSC) for people with Type 2 diabetes who are on a non-intensive insulin treatment regimen was developed. In a randomized, multi-centre trial, the effect of MEDIAS 2 BSC was compared with an established education programme that acted as a control group. METHODS: The primary outcome was the impact of MEDIAS 2 BSC on glycaemic control. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemia unawareness, diabetes-related distress, diabetes knowledge, quality of life and self-care behaviour. RESULTS: In total, 182 participants were randomized to the control group or MEDIAS 2 BSC [median age 64.0 (interquartile range 58.0-68.5) vs. 63.5 (57.0-70.0) years; HbA1c 62.8 ± 12.7 mmol/mol vs. 63.7 ± 14.0 mmol/mol; 7.9% ± 1.2% vs. 8.0% ± 1.3%]. After a 6-month follow-up, there was a mean decrease in HbA1c of 3.5 mmol/mol (0.32%) in the control group and 6.7 mmol/mol (0.61%) in MEDIAS 2 BSC. After adjusting for baseline differences and study centre, the mean difference between the groups was -3.3 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.54 to -5.90 mmol/mol] [-0.30% (95% CI -0.05 to -0.54)] in favour of MEDIAS 2 BSC (P = 0.018). There were no increases in severe hypoglycaemia or hypoglycaemia unawareness. The education programmes had no significant effects on psychosocial outcome variables. CONCLUSION: MEDIAS 2 BSC was more effective in lowering HbA1c than the control condition. MEDIAS 2 BSC is a safe educational tool that improves glycaemic control without increasing the risk for hypoglycaemia. (Clinical Trials Registry No; NCT 02748239).

How to assess diabetes distress: comparison of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS).

AIMS: To compare the properties of the two most commonly used assessment tools for diabetes distress, the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), in order to discriminate their psychometric capabilities and functions. METHODS: Six hundred and twenty-eight people with diabetes (67% Type 1, 33% Type 2) were cross-sectionally assessed with the PAID, the DDS and further self-report scales regarding coping, quality of life, depressive symptoms and self-care, and medical data were gained. We analysed the PAID and DDS for areas of contentual/psychometric divergence in assessing diabetes distress and compared their associations with criteria of interest. RESULTS: Content analysis: The PAID covers a greater variety of emotional concerns and shows a stronger focus on food-related problems and complications. The DDS is more reflective of physician-related distress and problems concerning diabetes self-management. Psychometric analysis: Exploratory factor analyses revealed four-factor structures of both scales, explaining 60% (PAID) and 67% (DDS) of variance. Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed that single-factor and four-factor models fit the data. Total scales proved high and subscales mostly satisfactory reliability. Associations with criteria of interest: The PAID was significantly more strongly associated with dysfunctional coping styles, quality of life and depressive symptoms. The DDS showed significantly stronger associations with diabetes self-care and metabolic outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our results support both PAID and DDS as good self-report measures of diabetes distress. The observed contentual/psychometric differences suggest that a justified choice with regard to the intended clinical or scientific purpose can improve the acquisition of the required data.

Longitudinal relationship of diabetes-related distress and depressive symptoms: analysing incidence and persistence.

AIM: To investigate the longitudinal bi-directionality of diabetes-related distress and depressive symptoms. METHODS: A total of 509 patients receiving intensified insulin therapy completed the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale questionnaire for the assessment of depressive symptoms as well as the Problem Areas in Diabetes questionnaire for the assessment of diabetes-related distress at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. Separate logistic and linear regression analyses for incidence and persistence were performed with demographic (age, gender, BMI) and medical (diabetes type, HbA1c , diabetes duration, late complications) control variables. RESULTS: Diabetes-related distress at baseline increased the risk of the incidence of elevated depressive symptoms by 2.56-fold (odds ratio 2.56; 95% CI 1.15-5.72; P = 0.02) when controlling for demographic and medical variables. In addition, diabetes-related distress at baseline doubled the chance of the persistence of elevated depressive symptoms (odds ratio 2.04, 95% CI 1.04-3.99; P = 0.04) when controlling for demographic and medical variables. The chance of having persistent elevated diabetes-related distress was increased 5.94-fold (odds ratio 5.94, 95% CI 2.60-13.59; P < 0.0001) when elevated depressive symptoms were present at baseline. None of the medical variables had an influence on incidence or persistence. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes-related distress was identified as a risk factor for the incidence and persistence of depressive symptoms. Reducing diabetes-related distress could help to prevent the development of elevated depressive symptoms. Furthermore, depressive symptoms were identified as an amplifier for diabetes-related distress. Diabetes-related distress and depressive symptoms were independent risk factors for each other and should be monitored in routine care to disentangle their influence.

Assessment of diabetes acceptance can help identify patients with ineffective diabetes self-care and poor diabetes control.

AIMS: To estimate the associations between insufficient diabetes acceptance and relevant diabetes outcomes. METHODS: A total of 320 patients completed questionnaires on diabetes non-acceptance (the Acceptance and Action Diabetes Questionnaire), diabetes distress (the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale), depressive mood (the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), coping with illness (the Freiburg Questionnaire of Coping with Illness), self-care activities (the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure) and quality of life (the Short Form-36 Health Questionnaire). A six-item version of the Acceptance and Action Diabetes Questionnaire showing good reliability and validity was established, and the associations between insufficient acceptance and clinical outcomes were estimated. RESULTS: Higher diabetes non-acceptance correlated significantly with less active coping (-0.37), reduced self-care (-0.43) and higher HbA1c levels (0.31), higher diabetes distress (0.53) and more depressive symptoms (0.36). Correlations of diabetes non-acceptance with diabetes self-care/glycaemic control were significantly higher than were those of depressive mood or diabetes distress with these criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Low diabetes acceptance is associated with impaired self-care and glycaemic control. Assessment of diabetes acceptance may facilitate the detection of patients at high risk and may present an essential target for treatments to improve diabetes control that is more relevant than elevated depressive mood or diabetes distress.

The Barmer study: impact of standardized warming of the injection site to enhance insulin absorption and reduce prandial insulin requirements and hypoglycemia in obese patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this prospective controlled study was to investigate the impact of standardized injection-site warming on prandial rapid acting insulin dose and glycemic control when studied under real-world conditions. METHODS: All 145 participating patients (51 female, 94 male, 13 type 1 and 132 type 2 patients, age: 61.6 ± 8.4 yrs, HbA1c: 7.19 ± 0.50%) were treated with intensive insulin glargine and short-acting insulin analog therapy. After a 4 week treatment optimization run-in period, patients were randomized to continue therapy for three months without (control) or with a local injection-site warming device (InsuPad * ). Observation parameters included HbA1c, insulin dose, frequency of hypoglycemia, body weight and adverse events. RESULTS: HbA1c improved in both arms until study end (control group: 6.3 ± 0.5%; injection-site warming device: 6.3 ± 0.5%; both p < 0.001 vs. baseline). To achieve this good control, patients in the control group needed to increase the daily prandial insulin dose by 8.1% (from 66 ± 31 U to 71 ± 38 U, p < 0.05) with stable basal insulin requirements. Patients who used the injection-site warming device required less prandial insulin (70 ± 43 U to 55 ± 34 U; -19%, p < 0.001) and slightly more basal insulin (+3.9%). Total daily insulin dose increased in the control group (+3.7%) and decreased with warming device use (-8.6%, p < 0.001). The number of hypoglycemic events (<63 mg/dL) during the observation period was higher in the control group (6.2 ± 9.9/patient vs. injection-site warming device: 3.3 ± 4.8/patient, p < 0.05). Main study limitations can be seen in the open label design reliability of the collected dose information and the very obese patient cohort. CONCLUSION: When treating obese patients to target with insulin therapy, use of an injection-site warming device for 3 months resulted in a lower frequency of hypoglycemic events and a reduction in prandial insulin analog requirements. If these results are confirmed in other patient populations, an injection-site warming device may be useful in achieving treatment targets with a safer and more efficient basal bolus therapy in insulin-treated patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs second study (DAWN2™): cross-national benchmarking indicators for family members living with people with diabetes.

AIMS: The second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study examined the experiences of family members of people with diabetes for benchmarking and identifying unmet needs or areas for improvement to assist family members and those with diabetes to effectively self-manage. METHODS: In total, 2057 family members of people with diabetes participated in an online, telephone or in-person survey designed to assess the impact of diabetes on family life, family support for people with diabetes and educational and community support. RESULTS: Supporting a relative with diabetes was perceived as a burden by 35.3% (range across countries 10.6-61.7%) of respondents. Over half of respondents [51.4% (22.5-76.0%)] rated their quality of life as 'good' or 'very good'. However, distress about the person with diabetes was high, with 61.3% (31.5-86.4%) worried about hypoglycaemia. The impact of diabetes on aspects of life was felt by 51.8% (46.9-58.6%). The greatest negative effect was on emotional well-being [44.6% (31.8-63.0%)], although depression was less common [11.6% (4.2-20.0%)]. Many respondents did not know how to help the person with diabetes [37.1% (17.5-53.0%)] and wanted to be more involved in their care [39.4% (15.5-61.7%)]. Participation in diabetes educational programmes was low [23.1% (9.4-43.3%)], although most of those who participated found them helpful [72.1% (42.1-90.3%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes has a negative impact on family members of people with diabetes. DAWN2 provides benchmarking indicators of family members' psychosocial needs that will help identify the support required for, and from, them to improve the lives of people with diabetes and their families.

Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs second study (DAWN2™): cross-national comparisons on barriers and resources for optimal care--healthcare professional perspective.

AIMS: The second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study sought cross-national comparisons of perceptions on healthcare provision for benchmarking and sharing of clinical practices to improve diabetes care. METHODS: In total, 4785 healthcare professionals caring for people with diabetes across 17 countries participated in an online survey designed to assess diabetes healthcare provision, self-management and training. RESULTS: Between 61.4 and 92.9% of healthcare professionals felt that people with diabetes needed to improve various self-management activities; glucose monitoring (range, 29.3-92.1%) had the biggest country difference, with a between-country variance of 20%. The need for a major improvement in diabetes self-management education was reported by 60% (26.4-81.4%) of healthcare professionals, with a 12% between-country variance. Provision of diabetes services differed among countries, with many healthcare professionals indicating that major improvements were needed across a range of areas, including healthcare organization [30.6% (7.4-67.1%)], resources for diabetes prevention [78.8% (60.4-90.5%)], earlier diagnosis and treatment [67.9% (45.0-85.5%)], communication between team members and people with diabetes [56.1% (22.3-85.4%)], specialist nurse availability [63.8% (27.9-90.7%)] and psychological support [62.7% (40.6-79.6%)]. In some countries, up to one third of healthcare professionals reported not having received any formal diabetes training. Societal discrimination against people with diabetes was reported by 32.8% (11.4-79.6%) of participants. CONCLUSIONS: This survey has highlighted concerns of healthcare professionals relating to diabetes healthcare provision, self-management and training. Identifying between-country differences in several areas will allow benchmarking and sharing of clinical practices.

Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs second study (DAWN2™): cross-national benchmarking of diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes for people with diabetes.

AIMS: The second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study aimed to assess psychosocial outcomes in people with diabetes across countries for benchmarking. METHODS: Surveys included new and adapted questions from validated questionnaires that assess health-related quality of life, self-management, attitudes/beliefs, social support and priorities for improving diabetes care. Questionnaires were conducted online, by telephone or in person. RESULTS: Participants were 8596 adults with diabetes across 17 countries. There were significant between-country differences for all benchmarking indicators; no one country's outcomes were consistently better or worse than others. The proportion with likely depression [WHO-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5) score ≤ 28] was 13.8% (country range 6.5-24.1%). Diabetes-related distress [Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale 5 (PAID-5) score ≥ 40] was reported by 44.6% of participants (17.2-67.6%). Overall quality of life was rated 'poor' or 'very poor' by 12.2% of participants (7.6-26.1%). Diabetes had a negative impact on all aspects investigated, ranging from 20.5% on relationship with family/friends to 62.2% on physical health. Approximately 40% of participants (18.6-64.9%) reported that their medication interfered with their ability to live a normal life. The availability of person-centred chronic illness care and support for active involvement was rated as low. Following self-care advice for medication and diet was most common, and least common for glucose monitoring and foot examination, with marked country variation. Only 48.8% of respondents had participated in diabetes educational programmes/activities to help manage their diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-national benchmarking using psychometrically validated indicators can help identify areas for improvement and best practices to drive changes that improve outcomes for people with diabetes.

Take action to prevent diabetes--the IMAGE toolkit for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in Europe.

When we ask people what they value most, health is usually top of the list. While effective care is available for many chronic diseases, the fact remains that for the patient, the tax payer and the whole of society: prevention is better than cure. Diabetes and its complications are a serious threat to the survival and well-being of an increasing number of people. It is predicted that one in ten Europeans aged 20-79 will have developed diabetes by 2030. Once a disease of old age, diabetes is now common among adults of all ages and is beginning to affect adolescents and even children. Diabetes accounts for up to 18 % of total healthcare expenditure in Europe. The good news is that diabetes is preventable. Compelling evidence shows that the onset of diabetes can be prevented or delayed greatly in individuals at high risk (people with impaired glucose regulation). Clinical research has shown a reduction in risk of developing diabetes of over 50 % following relatively modest changes in lifestyle that include adopting a healthy diet, increasing physical activity, and maintaining a healthy body weight. These results have since been reproduced in real-world prevention programmes. Even a delay of a few years in the progression to diabetes is expected to reduce diabetes-related complications, such as heart, kidney and eye disease and, consequently, to reduce the cost to society. A comprehensive approach to diabetes prevention should combine population based primary prevention with programmes targeted at those who are at high risk. This approach should take account of the local circumstances and diversity within modern society (e.g. social inequalities). The challenge goes beyond the healthcare system. We need to encourage collaboration across many different sectors: education providers, non-governmental organisations, the food industry, the media, urban planners and politicians all have a very important role to play. Small changes in lifestyle will bring big changes in health. Through joint efforts, more people will be reached. The time to act is now.

Quality indicators for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in Europe--IMAGE.

BACKGROUND: The marked increase of type 2 diabetes necessitates active development and implementation of efficient prevention programs. A European level action has been taken by launching the IMAGE project to unify and improve the various prevention management concepts, which currently exist within the EU. This report describes the background and the methods used in the development of the IMAGE project quality indicators for diabetes primary prevention programs. It is targeted to the persons responsible for diabetes prevention at different levels of the health care systems. METHODS: Development of the quality indicators was conducted by a group of specialists representing different professional groups from several European countries. Indicators and measurement recommendations were produced by the expert group in consensus meetings and further developed by combining evidence and expert opinion. RESULTS: The quality indicators were developed for different prevention strategies: population level prevention strategy, screening for high risk, and high risk prevention strategy. Totally, 22 quality indicators were generated. They constitute the minimum level of quality assurance recommended for diabetes prevention programs. In addition, 20 scientific evaluation indicators with measurement standards were produced. These micro level indicators describe measurements, which should be used if evaluation, reporting, and scientific analysis are planned. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that these quality tools together with the IMAGE guidelines will provide a useful tool for improving the quality of diabetes prevention in Europe and make different prevention approaches comparable.

Short-form measures of diabetes-related emotional distress: the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID)-5 and PAID-1.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We wanted to identify a five-item short form of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale and a single-item measure for rapid screening of diabetes-related emotional distress. METHODS: Using an existing database of 1,153 patients with diabetes, we conducted a principal-components analysis to identify a set of five items and then conducted a reliability analysis and validity checks. From those five items, we identified the item with the strongest psychometric properties as a one-item screening tool. RESULTS: We identified a reliable and valid short version of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) comprising five of the emotional-distress questions of the full PAID items (PAID-5, with items 3, 6, 12, 16, 19). The PAID-5 has satisfactory sensitivity (94%) and specificity (89%) for recognition of diabetes-related emotional distress. We also identified a one-item screening tool, the PAID-1 (Question 12: Worrying about the future and the possibility of serious complications), which has concurrent sensitivity and specificity of about 80% for the recognition of diabetes-related emotional distress. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The PAID-5 and PAID-1 appear to be psychometrically robust short-form measures of diabetes-related emotional distress.

Short-term effects on patient satisfaction of continuous glucose monitoring with the GlucoDay with real-time and retrospective access to glucose values: a crossover study.

BACKGROUND: This randomized crossover trial examines the effect of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with real-time access (RTA) to glucose data versus CGM with a retrospective analysis (RA) of glucose data regarding satisfaction with CGM and other patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Participants used the CGM device (GlucoDay, Menarini Diagnostics, Florence, Italy) twice. In one study phase, patients were allowed RTA to, and in the other phase RA of, current glucose values. The order of these two conditions was randomized. At baseline and after the first and second trials, subjects completed questionnaires (Continuous Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Scale) about perceived satisfaction with CGM. They also completed the Problem Areas in Diabetes Questionnaire, a state anxiety scale (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and a depression scale (Center of Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale). RESULTS: Fifty patients with type 1 diabetes (41.7 +/- 12.3 years old, diabetes duration of 14.75 +/- 11.9 years, 48% female, hemoglobin A1c 8.1 +/- 1.5%, years of education 10.3 +/- 2.1 years) participated in this study. At baseline patients perceived CGM as rather advantageous, but after RA and RTA the perceived benefits were reduced (baseline, 101.0 +/- 16.0; RA, 95.7 +/- 20.2; RTA, 93.6 +/- 22.8; P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between RA and RTA. Also, there was no significant effect on diabetes-related distress or state anxiety, but a positive effect on depression scores. CONCLUSIONS: There was no specific, significant, negative or positive effect of RA versus RTA on satisfaction with CGM. Exposing patients with type 1 diabetes to their current glucose values does not seem to have a specific negative impact on the appraisal of CGM or more generic patient-reported outcomes.

Effect of experimentally induced hypoglycemia and different insulin levels on feelings of hunger in type 1 diabetic patients.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigates the impacts of experimentally induced hypoglycemia and different insulin infusion rates on feelings of hunger. METHODS: Blood glucose and insulin levels were manipulated by hyperinsulinemic glucose clamp technique. Participants were 16 patients with type 1 diabetes (age 36.2+/-11.7 yrs, diabetes duration 9.0+/-6.3 yrs, HbA1c 8.2+/-2.0%). One group (n=8) received moderate, constant insulin infusion (0.8 microU/kg/min), whereas the insulin infusion was doubled in the other group (1.6 microU/kg/min). Blood glucose was lowered stepwise from euglycemia (5.6 mmol/l) to moderate hypoglycemia (2.5 mmol/l). RESULTS: As expected, there was a significant effect of hypoglycemia on feelings of hunger (F (3, 42)=41.7, p<0.01). But during high insulin infusion, feelings of hunger were significantly less intense than during moderate insulin infusion (F (1, 14)=7.2, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Peripheral insulin levels seem to be associated with the intensity of feelings of hunger.

Association of glucose levels and glucose variability with mood in type 1 diabetic patients.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to investigate the association of glucose levels and variability of glucose, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring, with mood in type 1 diabetic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six type 1 diabetic patients (77.8% male, age: 31.1 +/- 10.0 years; disease duration: 14.7 +/- 7.1 years, BMI: 26.7 +/- 5.1 kg/m2, HbA1c 8.4 +/-1.8%, 27.8% with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] therapy) used a continuous glucose monitoring system for 48.8 h. During this time the patients rated their current mood states 14.6 times on average, using the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology Mood Adjective Checklist and hand-held computers. RESULTS: Sensor performance was satisfactory, with a mean absolute difference from reference laboratory glucose measurement of 13.7%. Current glucose values were significantly associated with ratings of 'tension' (z = 2.40), 'hedonic tone' (z = -2.63) and 'energetic arousal' (z = -2.09). 'Anger' (z = 1.64) was not significantly associated with glucose values. The glucose AUC during the 60 min prior to the mood rating showed similar associations. The two parameters of glucose variability-coefficient of variation and absolute glucose change during the 60 min prior to the mood ratings-did not show any significant association with the mood ratings. The magnitude of association was significantly higher for glucose level than for glucose variability in the scales 'tension' and 'hedonic tone'. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: High glucose values had a negative impact on mood; positive mood ratings decreased, whereas negative mood ratings increased. The association between mood and glucose variability seemed to be less important than that between glucose level and mood.

Effects of self-management training in Type 2 diabetes: a randomized, prospective trial.

AIMS: The efficacy of three education programmes for Type 2 diabetic patients was tested in a randomized trial. A didactic-oriented training programme (treatment A) was compared with a self-management-oriented programme delivered in group sessions (treatment B). The latter programme was compared with a more individualized approach (treatment C). METHODS: One hundred and eighty-one Type 2 diabetic patients (age 55.6 +/- 6.3 years, diabetes duration 6.6 +/- 6.2 years, HbA(1c) 7.8 +/- 1.6%, female 49.7%) took part. Efficacy was assessed 3 months (t1) after baseline (t0) and at a follow-up 15 months (t2) after baseline. RESULTS: The fall in HbA(1c) in treatment B at t1 was sustained at t2 (t0 8.1 +/- 1.8%, t1 7.3 +/- 1.7%, t2 7.4 +/- 1.9%). In treatment A, HbA(1c) was unchanged throughout (t0 7.6 +/- 1.5%, t1 7.5 +/- 1.3%, t2 7.7 +/- 1.7%; treatment A vs. treatment B; P < 0.05). With the more individualized approach of treatment C, there was a fall in HbA(1c) at t1, but this was not sustained at t2 (t0 7.8 +/- 1.6%, t1 7.1 +/- 1.3%, t2 7.6 +/- 1.6%; treatment B vs. treatment C; P = 0.73). There were also significant benefits in treatment B subjects compared with treatment A in further medical (body mass index and fasting blood glucose), psychological (control, irritability and hunger dependency of eating behaviour, and trait anxiety) and behavioural (exercise) variables. There were no significant benefits of the more individualized treatment C compared with group treatment B. No significant differences were found regarding triglyceride levels, high-density lipoprotein, diabetes-related knowledge, negative well-being, urine or blood glucose levels or foot care. CONCLUSION: Self-management training had a significantly higher medium-term efficacy than didactic diabetes education. The group sessions were more effective than a more individualized approach.

The effect of an education programme (HyPOS) to treat hypoglycaemia problems in patients with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, prospective multi-centre trial, the effect of a specific training programme (HyPOS) for patients with hypoglycaemia problems was compared with a control group (CG), receiving a standardized education programme aiming at avoidance of hypoglycaemia by optimization of insulin therapy. METHODS: A total of 164 type 1 diabetes patients (age 46.0 +/- 12.5 yrs, HbA(1c) 7.3 +/- 1.0%, 50% male) were randomized. Hypoglycaemia awareness was measured by the hypoglycaemia awareness questionnaire (HAQ) and by a visual analogue scale (VAS). There were no baseline differences. RESULTS: After a 6-month follow-up, hypoglycaemia awareness significantly improved in HyPOS compared to that in the CG (Delta HAQ 0.7 [95% CL 0.1-1.2], p = 0.024, Delta VAS 0.8 [95% CL 0.2 - 1.2], p = 0.015). In HyPOS, the threshold for detection of low blood glucose (Delta 0.2 mmol/L [95% CL 0.03 - 0.04], p = 0.02) and the treatment of low blood glucose (Delta 4.6 g [95% CL 1.6 - 7.6], p = 0.03) increased significantly. The number of undetected hypogylcaemic episodes (Delta - 1.4 episodes per week [95% CL 0.4-2.5], p = 0.01) and the rate of mild hypoglycaemia dropped significantly in HyPOS (Delta 2.1% [95% CL 0.5-5.3], p = 0.015). The numbers of severe (Delta 0.3 events per patient per year [95% CL - 0.04-1.0], p = 0.037) and very severe hypoglycaemic episodes (Delta 0.3 events per patient per year [95% CL - 0.1-0.7], p = 0.09) were lower in HyPOS, but these differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: Compared to the CG, HyPOS demonstrates additional benefits in terms of improving impaired hypoglycaemia awareness, reducing mild hypoglycaemia, detecting low blood glucose, and treating low blood glucose.

Microdialysis-based 48-hour continuous glucose monitoring with GlucoDay: clinical performance and patients' acceptance.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to assess clinical performance and patients' acceptance of the minimally invasive microdialysis-based continuous glucose monitoring system Gluco- Day() (Menarini Diagnostics, Florence, Italy) with a targeted monitoring time of 48 h. METHODS: An inpatient sample of 28 patients with diabetes was studied. The analysis of clinical performance was performed using mean absolute differences (MAD) (in percent), Pearson correlations, the Bland-Altman analysis, and Clarke Error Grid Analysis (EGA). GlucoDay glucose values were compared with laboratory standard blood glucose measurements (glucohexokinase assay). The patients' acceptance of the monitoring device was assessed via two self-report scales (pain during application and discomfort while wearing device). RESULTS: A mean (+/- SD) monitoring time of 45.7 +/- 3.3 h with a total of 484 paired readings could be achieved. A correlation of r (average) = 0.91 and a MAD of 19.9% indicated satisfactory to good clinical performance. Of the paired readings, 95.5% fell into the acceptable A and B zones of the EGA. Rather wide 95% limits of agreement were revealed in the Bland-Altman analysis. Whereas virtually no pain was experienced during sensor application, discomfort associated with wearing the device was rather high. All of the participants, however, stated that they would wear the device again. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory to good performance of the GlucoDay monitor was observed, indicating the device to be suitable for routine clinical use. In particular, however, the discomfort experienced during wearing requires further improvements in its usability.