Barriers to the delivery of diabetes care in the Middle East and South Africa: a survey of 1,082 practising physicians in five countries.

AIMS: Developing countries face a high and growing burden of type 2 diabetes. We surveyed physicians in a diverse range of countries in the Middle East and Africa (Egypt, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, South Africa and Lebanon) with regard to their perceptions of barriers to type 2 diabetes care identified as potentially important in the literature and by the authors. METHODS: One thousand and eighty-two physicians completed a questionnaire developed by the authors. RESULTS: Most physicians enrolled in the study employed guideline-driven care; 80-100% of physicians prescribed metformin (with lifestyle intervention, where there are no contraindications) for newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, with lifestyle intervention alone used where metformin was not prescribed. Sulfonylureas were prescribed widely, consistent with the poor economic status of many patients. About one quarter of physicians were not undertaking any form of continuing medical education, and relatively low proportions of practices had their own diabetes educators, dieticians or diabetic foot specialists. Physicians identified the deficiencies of their patients (unhealthy lifestyles, lack of education and poor diet) as the most important barriers to optimal diabetes care. Low-treatment compliance was not ranked highly. Access to physicians did not appear to be a problem, as most patients were seen multiple times per year. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians in the Middle East and South Africa identified limitations relating to their patients as the main barrier to delivering care for diabetes, without giving high priority to issues relating to processes of care delivery. Further study would be needed to ascertain whether these findings reflect an unduly physician-centred view of their practice. More effective provision of services relating to the prevention of complications and improved lifestyles may be needed.

Comparison of NovoPen 3 and syringes/vials in the acceptance of insulin therapy in NIDDM patients with secondary failure to oral hypoglycaemic agents.

This open, randomised, cross-over study compared the acceptance and safety of NovoPen 3 with that of conventional syringes and vials when initiating insulin treatment in 96 NIDDM patients with secondary failure to oral hypoglycaemic agents. These patients had not previously been treated with insulin. All patients used each insulin administration system for 12 weeks. Group A started therapy using NovoPen 3 and crossed over to syringe/vial administration; Group B started with syringe/vial administration followed by NovoPen 3. In total, 78 patients completed the study. Most patients in Group A initially found the insulin injections very easy or easy and many of those who found injections easy at first found them very easy by the end of week 12. During the first period, patients in Group B found insulin administration more difficult than those in Group A. Injection pain was significantly lower with NovoPen 3 than with syringes and vials (P = 0.0018). Patients in Group B reported a significantly lower level of injection pain after the switch to using NovoPen 3 (P = 0.0003). Acceptance of insulin injections was significantly higher by patients using NovoPen 3 than by those using syringes and vials (P = 0.0059). Setting and drawing up the dose of insulin was also easier for patients using NovoPen 3 (P = 0.0490). At the end of the study, most patients (89.5% (68/76 replies)) said that they preferred NovoPen 3 to syringes and vials. Glycaemic control improved compared with baseline after starting insulin therapy, with no differences between Groups A and B, or between the two injection systems. The number of reported hypoglycaemic episodes was very low and was not significantly different between Groups A and B, or between the two administration systems. No treatment-related adverse events were reported. We conclude that use of NovoPen 3 provides better acceptance of insulin injection than use of conventional syringes and vials during initiation of insulin therapy in NIDDM patients with secondary failure to treatment with oral hypoglycaemic agents.

Muslims with non-insulin dependent diabetes fasting during Ramadan: treatment with glibenclamide.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of two glibenclamide regimens in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes who were fasting during Ramadan and regular glibenclamide treatment in the non-fasting group. DESIGN: Non-randomised control group of patients who did not fast during Ramadan and two groups of patients who fasted randomised equally to one of two regimens: to take their usual morning dose of glibenclamide in the evening and their usual evening dose before dawn; or to follow this pattern but to reduce the total dose by a quarter. SETTING: Two university hospitals, one private hospital, and two private clinics in Casablanca and Rabat, Morocco. SUBJECTS: 591 diabetic patients (198 men, 391 women, two unspecified) with similar duration of diabetes and length and amount of glibenclamide treatment, of whom 542 completed the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serum fructosamine and total glycated haemoglobin concentrations and number of hypoglycaemic events. RESULTS: At the end of Ramadan there were no significant differences between the groups in fructosamine concentration (400 mumol/l in controls and 381 mumol/l and 376 mumol/l in the fasting groups); percentage of glycated haemoglobin (14.7%, 14.0%, and 13.6%); or number of hypoglycaemic events during Ramadan (11, 14, and 10). CONCLUSION: Glibenclamide is effective and safe for patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes who fast during Ramadan. The easiest regimen is to take the normal morning dose (together with any midday dose) at sunset and any evening dose before dawn.

Correlation between amount of carbohydrate in mixed meals and insulin delivery by artificial pancreas in seven IDDM subjects.

The effects of mixed meals containing varying amounts of carbohydrate (CHO) on blood glucose levels and insulin delivery by an artificial pancreas were studied in seven insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus subjects. Each patient received, at random over 3 consecutive days, three mixed meals containing 60, 80, and 140 g complex CHOs. There was a high and linear correlation between total amount of insulin delivered to restore blood glucose values and amount of CHO consumed: 12.1 +/- 1.3 to 31.2 +/- 5.2 U insulin were needed for 116 +/- 16 to 198 +/- 24 min. However, neither the time lapse between the beginning of meal intake and blood glucose increase nor the peaking time for blood glucose variation were significantly different between meals. We suggest that some of the data obtained in this study might be useful in programming an open-loop insulin-infusion system.