No abstract

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a structured group education programme on biomedical, psychosocial, and lifestyle measures in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Design Multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care with randomisation at practice level. Setting 207 general practices in 13 primary care sites in the United Kingdom. Participants 824 adults (55% men, mean age 59.5 years). Intervention A structured group education programme for six hours delivered in the community by two trained healthcare professional educators compared with usual care. Main outcome measures Haemoglobin A 1c levels, blood pressure, weight, blood lipid levels, smoking status, physical activity, quality of life, beliefs about illness, depression, and emotional impact of diabetes at baseline and up to 12 months. Main results Haemoglobin A 1c levels at 12 months had decreased by 1.49% in the intervention group compared with 1.21% in the control group. After adjusting for baseline and cluster, the difference was not significant: 0.05% (95% confidence interval −0.10% to 0.20%). The intervention group showed a greater weight loss: −2.98 kg (95% confidence interval −3.54 to −2.41) compared with 1.86 kg (−2.44 to −1.28), P=0.027 at 12 months. The odds of not smoking were 3.56 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 11.45), P=0.033 higher in the intervention group at 12 months. The intervention group showed significantly greater changes in illness belief scores (P=0.001); directions of change were positive indicating greater understanding of diabetes. The intervention group had a lower depression score at 12 months: mean difference was −0.50 (95% confidence interval −0.96 to −0.04); P=0.032. A positive association was found between change in perceived personal responsibility and weight loss at 12 months (β=0.12; P=0.008). Conclusion A structured group education programme for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes resulted in greater improvements in weight loss and smoking cessation and positive improvements in beliefs about illness but no difference in haemoglobin A 1c levels up to 12 months after diagnosis. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17844016.

BackgroundDifferentiating between type 1 and type 2 diabetes is fundamental to ensuring appropriate management of patients, but can be challenging, especially when treating with insulin. The 2010 UK Practical Classification Guidelines for Diabetes were developed to help make the differentiation.AimTo assess diagnostic accuracy of the UK guidelines against ‘gold standard’ definitions of type 1 and type 2 diabetes based on measured C-peptide levels.Design and settingIn total, 601 adults with insulin-treated diabetes and diabetes duration ≥5 years were recruited in Devon, Northamptonshire, and Leicestershire.MethodBaseline information and home urine sample were collected. Urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR) measures endogenous insulin production. Gold standard type 1 diabetes was defined as continuous insulin treatment within 3 years of diagnosis and absolute insulin deficiency (UCPCR<0.2 nmol/mmol ≥5 years post-diagnosis); all others classed as having type 2 diabetes. Diagnostic performance of the clinical criteria was assessed and other criteria explored using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.ResultsUK guidelines correctly classified 86% of participants. Most misclassifications occurred in patients classed as having type 1 diabetes who had significant endogenous insulin levels (57 out of 601; 9%); most in those diagnosed ≥35 years and treated with insulin from diagnosis, where 37 out of 66 (56%) were misclassified. Time to insulin and age at diagnosis performed best in predicting long-term endogenous insulin production (ROC AUC = 0.904 and 0.871); BMI was a less strong predictor of diabetes type (AUC = 0.824).ConclusionCurrent UK guidelines provide a pragmatic clinical approach to classification reflecting long-term endogenous insulin production; caution is needed in older patients commencing insulin from diagnosis, where misclassification rates are increased.

No abstract

Age at diagnosis has a variable impact on different types of diabetic tissue damage and may thus be an important variable in epidemiological and intervention studies in NIDDM. Regular ophthalmologic surveillance and examination of the feet increase in importance with increasing age since the diagnosis of NIDDM.