Citations

OBJECTIVE—Growing evidence supports that nonenzymatic glycation products may cause hyperglycemia-induced diabetes complications. Amadori-modified proteins are the intermediate products of nonenzymatic glycation and constitute the forms of glycated proteins in diabetes. The objective of the current study was to utilize two-dimensional gel electrophoresis, Western blot, and mass spectrometry to identify Amadori-modified plasma proteins in type 2 diabetic patients with poor glycemic control and assess the impact of short-term insulin treatment on the glycation of these proteins. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We compared eight type 2 diabetic subjects (aged 56 ± 3 years and BMI 29.7 ± 0.9 kg/m2) with an average diabetes duration of 8.5 years (range 3–19) with equal numbers of weight-matched (aged 56 ± 2 years and BMI 30.1 ± 10.0 kg/m2) and lean (aged 58 ± 2 years and BMI 25 ± 00.5 kg/m2) nondiabetic subjects who have no first-degree relatives with diabetes. Two separate blood samples were collected from the type 2 diabetic subjects, one following 2 weeks of withdrawal of all antidiabetic medications (T2D−; plasma glucose 12.6 ± 1.0 mmol/l) and another following 10 days of intensive insulin treatment (T2D+; plasma glucose 5.5 ± 0.2 mmol/l). Plasma proteins were separated using single and two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Western blot analysis was performed, and several proteins, which reacted with the Amadori-antibody (1-deoxyfructosyl lysine), were identified by tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS—No significant differences in the glycation of proteins between the obese and lean groups were noted, but type 2 diabetic patients had several proteins with higher glycation than the control groups. We identified 12 plasma proteins with reduced reaction to the anti-Amadori antibody upon intensive insulin treatment. A significant (P < 0.03) difference in Amadori modification was observed between the T2D− and control subjects for all these proteins except the Ig light chain. Insulin treatment reduced Amadori modification of albumin (23.2%, P < 0.02), fibrin (34.6%, P < 0.001), Ig heavy chain constant region (20.7%, P < 0.05), transferrin (25.4%, P < 0.04), and Ig light chain (13%, P < 0.02). In addition, Western blot analysis of two-dimensional gel electrophoresis identified α-fibrinogen precursor, β-fibrinogen precursor, fibrinogen γ-B chain precursor, hemopexin, vitamin D binding protein, and serine protease inhibitor as proteins with a reduced reaction to anti-Amadori antibody upon intensive insulin treatment. CONCLUSIONS—The current approach offers the opportunity to identify Amadori modification of many proteins that may cause functional alterations and offers the potential for monitoring short-term glycemic control in diabetic patients.

OBJECTIVE—Birth weight is a risk factor for both diabetes and mortality. Diabetes is a risk factor for mortality. Whether the excess mortality observed for diabetes varies with birth weight is unclear. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Among all 2,508 Rochester, Minnesota, residents who first met research criteria for adult-onset diabetes in 1960–1995, 171 were born locally in-hospital after 1922 (i.e., birth weights available) as singleton, term infants. Each case subject and two age- and sex-matched nondiabetic control subjects (born locally, residing locally when the case subject met the criteria for diabetes) were followed through 31 December 2000 for vital status. RESULTS—Of the diabetic case subjects, 16% (27 of 171) died vs. 7% (25 of 342) of control subjects (P = 0.004). The difference was less for normal-birth-weight (NBW) (2,948–<3,856 g) individuals (12% [12 of 102] vs. 8% [20 of 246], P = 0.31) than for abnormal-birth-weight individuals (low birth weight [LBW] 20% [8 of 39] vs. 2% [1 of 46], P = 0.01; high birth weight [HBW] 23% [7 of 30] vs. 8% [4 of 50], P = 0.16), as confirmed with age- and sex-adjusted Cox proportional hazards (diabetes-associated hazard ratio 1.4 [95% CI 0.69–2.90] for NBW vs. 4.8 [1.7–13.3] for abnormal birth weight, test for interaction P = 0.056). The observed diabetes deaths were greater than expected, based on mortality for the general population (27 vs. 13.3, P < 0.001), with 70% of excess deaths occurring among LBW (8 vs. 2.2, P < 0.001) and HBW (7 vs. 3.1, P = 0.03) individuals. CONCLUSIONS—The excess mortality observed for diabetes appears disproportionately concentrated among abnormal-birth-weight individuals, thus identifying a subset of at-risk diabetic individuals and reinforcing the importance of NBW deliveries.

OBJECTIVE—Management of diabetes is frequently suboptimal in primary care settings, where providers often fail to intensify therapy when glucose levels are high, a problem known as clinical inertia. We asked whether interventions targeting clinical inertia can improve outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A controlled trial over a 3-year period was conducted in a municipal hospital primary care clinic in a large academic medical center. We studied all patients (4,138) with type 2 diabetes who were seen in continuity clinics by 345 internal medicine residents and were randomized to be control subjects or to receive one of three interventions. Instead of consultative advice, the interventions were hard copy computerized reminders that provided patient-specific recommendations for management at the time of each patient’s visit, individual face-to-face feedback on performance for 5 min every 2 weeks, or both. RESULTS—Over an average patient follow-up of 15 months within the intervention site, improvements in and final HbA1c (A1C) with feedback + reminders (ΔA1C 0.6%, final A1C 7.46%) were significantly better than control (ΔA1C 0.2%, final A1C 7.84%, P < 0.02); changes were smaller with feedback only and reminders only (P = NS vs. control). Trends were similar but not significant with systolic blood pressure (sBP) and LDL cholesterol. Multivariable analysis showed that the feedback intervention independently facilitated attainment of American Diabetes Association goals for both A1C and sBP. Over a 2-year period, overall glycemic control improved in the intervention site but did not change in other primary care sites (final A1C 7.5 vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS—Feedback on performance aimed at overcoming clinical inertia and given to internal medicine resident primary care providers improves glycemic control. Partnering generalists with diabetes specialists may be important to enhance diabetes management in other primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE—Multiple daily insulin injection programs are commonly accompanied by considerable glycemic variation and hypoglycemia. We conducted a randomized crossover design clinical trial to compare glargine with ultralente insulin as a basal insulin in type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—To determine whether the use of glargine insulin as a basal insulin would result in a comparable HbA1c and less glycemic variation and hypoglycemia than ultralente insulin, 22 individuals (aged 44 ± 14 years [±SD], 55% men) with type 1 diabetes who were experienced with multiple daily insulin injections and had an HbA1c of <7.8% were randomized in a crossover design to receive either glargine or ultralente as the basal insulin for 4 months. Aspart insulin was used as the prandial insulin. Physicians providing insulin dose adjustment advice were masked to the type of basal insulin. RESULTS—Treatment with glargine resulted in lower mean HbA1c (6.82 ± 0.13 vs. 7.02 ± 0.13, difference: 0.2 ± 0.08, P = 0.026), less nocturnal variability (plasma glucose 49.06 ± 4.74 vs. 62.36 ± 5.21 mg/dl, P = 0.04), and less hypoglycemia (24.5 ± 2.99 vs. 31.3 ± 4.04 events, P = 0.05), primarily due to less daytime hypoglycemia (P = 0.002). On the other hand, serious hypoglycemia and average glucose concentration measured with continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring did not differ. CONCLUSIONS—We conclude that while use of either ultralente or glargine as a basal insulin can result in excellent glycemic control, treatment with glargine is associated with slightly but significantly lower HbA1c and less nocturnal glycemic variability and hypoglycemia.

OBJECTIVE—To determine the efficacy of telecare (modem transmission of glucometer data and clinician feedback) to support intensive insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Thirty-one patients with type 1 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy and with HbA1c >7.8% were randomized to telecare (glucometer transmission with feedback) or control (glucometer transmission without feedback) for 6 months. The primary end point was 6-month HbA1c. To place our findings in context, we pooled HbA1c change from baseline reported in randomized trials of telecare identified in a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS—Compared with the control group, telecare patients had a significantly lower 6-month HbA1c (8.2 vs. 7.8%, P = 0.03, after accounting for HbA1c at baseline) and a nonsignificant fourfold greater chance of achieving 6-month HbA1c ≤7% (29 vs. 7%; risk difference 21.9%, 95% CI −4.7 to 50.5). Nurses spent 50 more min/patient giving feedback on the phone with telecare patients than with control patients. Meta-analysis of seven randomized trials of adult patients with type 1 diabetes found a 0.4% difference (95% CI 0–0.8) in HbA1c mean change from baseline between the telecare and control groups. CONCLUSIONS—Telecare is associated with small effects on glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy but with inadequate glycemic control.

OBJECTIVE—The prevalence of autonomic symptoms and deficits in certain systems is known, but a comprehensive autonomic symptom profile in diabetes is not available. We aimed to estimate this using a laboratory evaluation of autonomic function and a validated self-report measure of autonomic symptoms in patients and matched control subjects from the population-based Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Participants included 231 patients with diabetes (type 1, n = 83; type 2, n = 148) and 245 healthy age-matched control subjects. We assessed symptoms using a validated self-report instrument (Autonomic Symptom Profile) and evaluated the severity and distribution of autonomic deficits (cardiovagal, sudomotor, adrenergic) with the objective, laboratory-based Composite Autonomic Severity Score (CASS). RESULTS—Autonomic symptoms were present more commonly in type 1 than in type 2 diabetes, with symptoms of orthostatic intolerance, secretomotor, urinary control, diarrhea, and sleep disturbance and pupillomotor, vasomotor, and erectile dysfunction significantly increased over healthy control subjects in type 2 diabetic patients. The prevalence of autonomic impairment was 54% in type 1 and 73% in type 2 diabetic patients. Severity of autonomic failure was mild overall (mean CASS 2.3; maximum 10), with orthostatic hypotension occurring in 8.4 and 7.4% of type 1 and 2 diabetic patients, respectively. Fourteen percent of patients had a CASS ≥5, indicating moderate to severe generalized autonomic failure. The correlation of symptoms with autonomic deficits (CASS) was better in type 1 than type 2 diabetic subjects and was weak overall. CONCLUSIONS—These findings indicate that autonomic symptoms and deficits are common in diabetes, but mild in severity, and that the correlation between symptom scores and deficits is overall weak in mild diabetic neuropathy, emphasizing the need to separately evaluate autonomic symptoms.

OBJECTIVE—The aims of this study were to provide estimates of 1) the risk of mortality for individuals with both diabetes and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) relative to that for individuals with either condition alone and 2) the association between PAD progression and mortality for individuals with diabetes, PAD, and both conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—This longitudinal cohort study was conducted in Rochester, Minnesota. Local residents age 50–70 years with a prior diagnosis of PAD and/or diabetes were identified from the Mayo Clinic diagnostic registry and invited to a baseline examination (1977–1978). Those who met inclusion criteria were assessed for PAD progression at 2 and 4 years and followed for vital status through 31 December 1999. RESULTS—The numbers who met criteria for PAD, diabetes, and both conditions at baseline were 149, 238, and 186, respectively. Within each group, observed survival was less than expected (P < 0.001). The adjusted risk of death for both conditions was 2.2 times that for PAD alone. Among the 449 who returned at 4 years, the risk of subsequent death was greater for those whose PAD had progressed; among individuals with diabetes alone at baseline, 100% (17 of 17) who met criteria for PAD progression were dead by 31 December 1999 compared with 62% (111 of 178) of those who had not met criteria (adjusted relative hazard 2.29 [95% CI 1.30–4.02], P = 0.004). The increased mortality associated with PAD progression was significant only for individuals with diabetes (alone or with PAD). CONCLUSIONS—Diabetes is a risk factor for both PAD and PAD-associated mortality, emphasizing the critical need to detect and monitor PAD in diabetic patients.