BACKGROUND Patients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both have an increased risk of adverse outcomes and high health care costs. We conducted a study to determine whether coordinated care management of multiple conditions improves disease control in these patients. METHODS We conducted a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial in 14 primary care clinics in an integrated health care system in Washington State, involving 214 participants with poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both and coexisting depression. Patients were randomly assigned to the usual-care group or to the intervention group, in which a medically supervised nurse, working with each patient’s primary care physician, provided guideline-based, collaborative care management, with the goal of controlling risk factors associated with multiple diseases. The primary outcome was based on simultaneous modeling of glycated hemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and systolic blood-pressure levels and Symptom Checklist–20 (SCL-20) depression outcomes at 12 months; this modeling allowed estimation of a single overall treatment effect. RESULTS As compared with controls, patients in the intervention group had greater overall 12-month improvement across glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, 0.58%), LDL cholesterol levels (difference, 6.9 mg per deciliter [0.2 mmol per liter]), systolic blood pressure (difference, 5.1 mm Hg), and SCL-20 depression scores (difference, 0.40 points) (P<0.001). Patients in the intervention group also were more likely to have one or more adjustments of insulin (P = 0.006), antihypertensive medications (P<0.001), and antidepressant medications (P<0.001), and they had better quality of life (P<0.001) and greater satisfaction with care for diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both (P<0.001) and with care for depression (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS As compared with usual care, an intervention involving nurses who provided guideline-based, patient-centered management of depression and chronic disease significantly improved control of medical disease and depression. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468676.)

To determine the relationship between insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, we quantified the insulin sensitivity index using the minimal model in 93 relatively young, apparently healthy human subjects of varying degrees of obesity (55 male, 38 female; 18-44 yr of age; body mass index 19.5-52.2 kg/m2) and with fasting glucose levels < 6.4 mM. SI was compared with measures of body adiposity and beta-cell function. Although lean individuals showed a wide range of SI, body mass index and SI were related in a curvilinear manner (P < 0.0001) so that on average, an increase in body mass index was associated generally with a lower value for SI. The relationship between the SI and the beta-cell measures was more clearly curvilinear and reciprocal for fasting insulin (P < 0.0001), first-phase insulin response (AIRglucose; P < 0.0001), glucose potentiation slope (n = 56; P < 0.005), and beta-cell secretory capacity (AIRmax; n = 43; P < 0.0001). The curvilinear relationship between SI and the beta-cell measures could not be distinguished from a hyperbola, i.e., SI x beta-cell function = constant. This hyperbolic relationship described the data significantly better than a linear function (P < 0.05). The nature of this relationship is consistent with a regulated feedback loop control system such that for any difference in SI, a proportionate reciprocal difference occurs in insulin levels and responses in subjects with similar carbohydrate tolerance. We conclude that in human subjects with normal glucose tolerance and varying degrees of obesity, beta-cell function varies quantitatively with differences in insulin sensitivity.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The incidence of foot ulcers in this cohort of patients with diabetes was nearly 2.0% per year. For those who developed ulcers, morbidity, mortality, and excess care costs were substantial compared with those for patients without foot ulcers. The results appear to support the value of foot-ulcer prevention programs for patients with diabetes.

No abstract