Search

AIMS: To select a core list of standard outcomes for diabetes to be routinely applied internationally, including patient-reported outcomes.METHODS: We conducted a structured systematic review of outcome measures, focusing on adults with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes. This process was followed by a consensus-driven modified Delphi panel, including a multidisciplinary group of academics, health professionals and people with diabetes. External feedback to validate the set of outcome measures was sought from people with diabetes and health professionals.RESULTS: The panel identified an essential set of clinical outcomes related to diabetes control, acute events, chronic complications, health service utilisation, and survival that can be measured using routine administrative data and/or clinical records. Three instruments were recommended for annual measurement of patient-reported outcome measures: the WHO Well-Being Index for psychological well-being; the depression module of the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression; and the Problem Areas in Diabetes scale for diabetes distress. A range of factors related to demographic, diagnostic profile, lifestyle, social support and treatment of diabetes were also identified for case-mix adjustment.CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the standard set identified in this study for use in routine practice to monitor, benchmark and improve diabetes care. The inclusion of patient-reported outcomes enables people living with diabetes to report directly on their condition in a structured way.

AIMS To assess country- and individual-level correlates of psychological outcomes, and differences among countries in the associations of individual characteristics with psychological outcomes among adults with diabetes. METHODS The second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2(™) ) study assessed self-reported characteristics of people with diabetes in 17 countries, including 1368 adults with Type 1 diabetes and 7228 with Type 2 diabetes. In each country, a sample of 500 adults, stratified by diabetes type and treatment, completed a questionnaire incorporating the validated WHO-5 wellbeing index, the WHOQOL-BREF, and the five-item Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale, as well as the newly developed Diabetes Impact on Life Dimensions that assessed impact ranging from very positive to very negative, with no impact as the midpoint. Multilevel regression analyses identified significant (P < 0.05) independent correlates of psychological outcomes. RESULTS There were significant variations in all outcomes across countries before adjustment for individual-level factors; adjustment reduced between-country disparities. Worse psychological outcomes were associated with more complications, incidence of hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemic medication, perceived burden of diabetes, family conflict and experience of discrimination. Better psychological outcomes were associated with higher self-rated health, greater access to diabetes education and healthcare, and more psychosocial support from others. The associations of many factors with the outcomes were mediated by modifiable factors. The association of all factors with the outcomes varied across (interacted with) countries, highlighting the need for country-specific analyses. CONCLUSIONS Improvements in modifiable risk factors (reductions in burden and increases in support) may lead to better psychological outcomes in adults with diabetes.

We set out to describe patterns of care of an Italian diabetic population, with reference to the recommendations of the St Vincent Declaration. We investigated different aspects of care received by 2707 patients, of whom 2196 in the charge of 35 Diabetes Outpatient Clinics (DOCs) and 511 cared for by 49 General Practitioners (GPs). Data were collected by interviewing the patients, their physicians and by reviewing medical records. Our data show that diabetes care in Italy differs in many aspects from the recommendations of the St Vincent Declaration. Glycated haemoglobin measurement was lacking in 50% of the patients in the charge of GPs and in 15% of those attending DOCs. While the control of cardiovascular risk factors was satisfactory, information on albumin excretion was not available in one third of the patients. Overall, 79% of the patients had had an eye examination in the previous 12 months. More than one-third of the patients had not received adequate information on different aspects of care, with wide variations according to the setting of care. Forty-two per cent of the patients attending DOCs and 14% of those cared for by GPs practised blood glucose self-monitoring; similarly, insulin therapy self-management was performed by 50% and 19% of the patients attending DOCs and GPs, respectively. Our data call for vigorous efforts aimed at improving the awareness of the potential for reducing major diabetic complications. Therefore, it is essential to promote the incorporation of clearly defined clinical practice guidelines at each level of care.

Peripheral neuropathy is one of the most common and disabling long-term sequelae of diabetes mellitus. Aldose reductase inhibitors (ARIs) have been proposed and are increasingly used in many countries for the prevention and treatment of diabetic neuropathy. The aim of this study was to review existing evidence on the effectiveness of ARIs in the treatment of peripheral diabetic neuropathy, with particular reference to the type and clinical relevance of the end point used and to the consistency of results across studies. Thirteen randomized clinical trials (RTCs) comparing ARIs with placebo, published between 1981 and 1993 were included in the meta-analysis. Nerve conduction velocity (NCV) was the only end point reported in all trials. Treatment effect was thus evaluated in terms of NCV mean difference in four different nerves: median motor, median sensory, peroneal motor, and sural sensory. A statistically significant reduction in decline of median motor NCV was present in the treated group as compared to the control group (mean 0.91 ms-1; 95% CI 0.41-1.42 ms-1). For peroneal motor, median sensory, and sural sensory nerves results did not show any clear benefit for patients treated with ARIs. When the analysis was limited to trials with at least 1-year treatment duration, a significant effect was present for peroneal motor NCV (mean 1.24 ms-1; 95% CI 0.32-2.15 ms-1) and a benefit of borderline statistical significance was also present for median motor NCV (mean 0.69 ms-1; 95% CI-0.07-1.45 ms-1). A heterogeneous picture emerged when looking at the results of different studies and serious inconsistencies were also present in the direction of treatment effects among nerves in the same studies. Although the results of 1-year treatment on motor NCV seem encouraging, the uncertainty about the reliability of the end-point employed and the short treatment duration do not allow any clear conclusion about the efficacy of ARIs in the treatment of peripheral diabetic neuropathy.