Search

Aim: To assess the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in type 1 diabetes, and its age‐related association with diabetes complications. Methods: Australian National Diabetes Information Audit and Benchmarking (ANDIAB) was a well‐established quality audit programme. It provided cross‐sectional data on people attending specialist diabetes services across Australia. We determined the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (WHO criteria) in adults with type 1 diabetes and its associations with diabetes complications across age groups. Results: Metabolic syndrome prevalence was 30% in 2120 adults with type 1 diabetes. Prevalence increased with age: 21% in those aged <40 years, 35% in those aged 40–60 years, and 44% in those aged >60 years (P<0.001), which was driven by an increase in hypertension rate. Metabolic syndrome was associated with a higher prevalence of microvascular, macrovascular and foot complications, with the greatest impact at a younger age. The odds ratio for macrovascular complications with metabolic syndrome, compared with without, was 5.9 (95% CI 2.1–16.4) in people aged <40 years, 2.7 (95% CI 1.7–4.2) in those aged 40–60 years, and 1.7 (95% CI 1.1–2.7) in those aged >60 years (all P < 0.05). Metformin use was higher in those with metabolic syndrome (16% vs 4%; P<0.001). Conclusions: In this large Australian cohort, metabolic syndrome was common in type 1 diabetes and identified people at increased risk of the spectrum of diabetes complications, particularly in young to middle‐aged adults. Potential clinical implications are that therapies targeting insulin resistance in this high‐risk group may reduce diabetes complications and should be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are disproportionately impacted by type 2 diabetes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology (such as Abbott Freestyle Libre 2, previously referred to as Flash Glucose Monitoring) offers real-time glucose monitoring that is convenient and easy to use compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). However, this technology's use is neither widespread nor subsidised for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with type 2 diabetes. Building on existing collaborations with a national network of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, this randomised controlled trial aims to assess the effect of CGM compared to SMBG on (i) haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), (ii) achieving blood glucose targets, (iii) reducing hypoglycaemic episodes and (iv) cost-effective healthcare in an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people health setting., Methods: This is a non-masked, parallel-group, two-arm, individually randomised, controlled trial (ACTRN12621000753853). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults with type 2 diabetes on injectable therapy and HbA1c ≥ 7.5% (n = 350) will be randomised (1:1) to CGM or SMBG for 6 months. The primary outcome is change in HbA1c level from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes include (i) CGM-derived metrics, (ii) frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes, (iii) health-related quality of life and (iv) incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained associated with the CGM compared to SMBG. Clinical trial sites include Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, Aboriginal Medical Services, primary care centres and tertiary hospitals across urban, rural, regional and remote Australia., Discussion: The trial will assess the effect of CGM compared to SMBG on HbA1c for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with type 2 diabetes in Australia. This trial could have long-term benefits in improving diabetes management and providing evidence for funding of CGM in this population., Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000753853. Registered on 15th June 2021., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: 'Food is medicine' strategies aim to integrate food-based nutrition interventions into healthcare systems and are of growing interest to healthcare providers and policy makers. 'Medically Tailored Meals' (MTM) is one such intervention, which involves the 'prescription' by healthcare providers of subsidized, pre-prepared meals for individuals to prevent or manage chronic conditions, combined with nutrition education., Objective: This study will test the efficacy of an MTM program in Australia among participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and hyperglycemia, who experience difficulties accessing and eating nutritious food., Methods: This study will be a two-arm parallel trial (goal n = 212) with individuals randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a MTM intervention group or a control group (106 per arm). Over 26 weeks, the intervention group will be prescribed 20 MTM per fortnight and up to 3 sessions with an accredited dietitian. Controls will continue with their usual care. The primary outcome is glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, %) and secondary outcomes include differences in blood pressure, blood lipids and weight, all measured at 26 weeks. Process and economic data will be analyzed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, scalability, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Recruitment commenced in the first quarter of 2023, with analyses and results anticipated to be available by March 2025., Discussion: Few randomized controlled trials have assessed the impact of MTM on clinical outcomes. This Australian-first trial will generate robust data to inform the case for sustained, large-scale implementation of MTM to improve the management of T2D among vulnerable populations., Anzctr: ACTRN12622000852752., Protocol Version: Version 1.1, July 2023., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Mozaffarian reports research funding from the National Institutes of Health, The Gates Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, Vail Innovative Global Research, and the Kaiser Permanente Fund; personal fees from Acasti Pharma and Barilla; scientific advisory board, Beren Therapeutics, Brightseed, Calibrate, Elysium Health, Filtricine, HumanCo, Instacart Health, January Inc., and Perfect Day (ended: Day Two, Season Health, and Tiny Organics); stock ownership in Calibrate and HumanCo; and chapter royalties from UpToDate. All other co-authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To identify, classify and determine the factors associated with medication discrepancies for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, referred from primary care to a tertiary ambulatory clinic., Design: Retrospective audit of outpatient clinic records., Setting: Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH) Diabetes Ambulatory Care Centre., Participants: 300 randomly selected adult T2DM patients who attended the Diabetes Centre between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2011., Main Outcome Measures: The rates and types of medication discrepancies were identified by comparing the structured nurse-patient interview (SNPI) with the primary care [General Practitioner (GP)] referral letter, where the SNPI was considered the best possible medication history. Discrepancies were identified as addition, omission, dose and insulin-type discrepancies. Each category was mutually exclusive., Results: Over 80% of referral letters contained at least one discrepancy with a median of two discrepancies per referral. Of a total of 744 discrepancies, the majority were omissions (58.9%). Insulins had the highest discrepancy rate. Factors independently associated with medication discrepancies were GP referral letter type, total number of medications and medication regimen type., Conclusions: A high rate of medication discrepancies was found in GP referral letters for patients referred to this clinic. Automated GP referral letters and inaccurate GP records may have contributed to this, highlighting the need for routine medication reconciliation at transitions of care, to ensure prescribers have access to correct medication information to inform decision-making and ensure optimal patient outcomes., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore how clinical and demographic variables impact on the management of diabetes mellitus in general practice., Design: A structured vignette survey was conducted in Australia. This included nine vignettes chosen at random from 128 developed around seven clinical variables. Respondents were asked to recommend a change in treatment and make specific recommendations. A random sample of general practitioners (GPs) were recruited. Two diabetologists involved in the development of national guidelines also participated., Results: 125 (13.8%) GPs participated. Statistical analyses were used to generate outcome measures. GPs recommended a change in treatment for most (81.1%) cases; were less likely to prescribe a statin (68.5% GPs vs. 76.3% diabetologists), less likely to treat hypertension (66.7% vs.89%) and less likely to refer for lifestyle modification (82.3% vs. 96.5%). Significant disagreement occurred around prescribing or changing oral hypoglycaemics. No GP characteristics showed significant impact. The proportion of GPs who agreed with diabetiologists on dose and choice of drugs was 35.7% for statins, 49.6% for antihypertensives and 39.6% for oral hypoglycaemics., Conclusions: There were significant differences between diabetologists and GPs on the management of diabetes. The survey suggests significant under-dosing by GPs. These findings warrant further investigation., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)