The purchase of the Diabetic Healthy Food Basket in Cyprus results in cost savings: is it affordable among the low-income population?

OBJECTIVE: The main objective was to assess the cost, acceptability and affordability of the Cypriot Diabetic Healthy Food Basket (DHFB). DESIGN: The development of DHFB was based on the Cypriot HFB with adjustments based on the nutritional guidelines for diabetes as developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and information retrieved through the questionnaires. Two DHFB were constructed for adult women and adult men (±40 years) diagnosed with diabetes. Affordability was defined as the cost of DHFB as a percentage of the Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI). SETTING: Cyprus. PARTICIPANTS: 422 diabetic patients aged 18-87 years from different socioeconomic backgrounds. RESULTS: DHFB consists of eight food categories, similar to Cypriot HFB, but different specific food items. The total monthly budget for a diabetic woman is about 15 % (25·68 Euros less) lower compared with HFB, and the relative percentage for a diabetic man is about 16 % (37·58 Euros less). The total monthly budget for a diabetic woman is about 30 % lower (60·32 Euros less) compared with that of a diabetic man. For low-income adults receiving GMI, the proportion of income that would need to be spent on DHFB ranges from around 30 to 42 % for women and men, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of DHFB is lower compared with HFB, meaning that nutritional treatment based on the practice guidelines for diabetes could be a cost-efficient therapy for these patients. DHFB is still not affordable among low-income persons.

The route of administration (oral vs intravenous) does not influence dose or outcome in Graves' disease and unifocal autonomy.

PURPOSE: In a prospective randomised study, we investigated the influence of the route of administration of radioiodide on dosimetry and therapy outcome. METHODS: Fifty-four patients suffering from Graves' disease (GD) and 60 patients with unifocal autonomy (UA) participated in the study and were randomly treated with either orally or intravenously administered radioiodide. Pretherapeutic dosimetry was based on single uptake measurements with a calibrated uptake probe system. The radioiodine kinetics during hospitalisation was assessed by daily bedside uptake measurements. Therapeutic dose was determined by half-life and thyroid uptake at the time of discharge using the same uptake probe as for the radioiodine test. RESULTS: No improvement in accuracy of dosimetry was achieved when radioiodide was administered intravenously. Mean therapeutic doses were identical following intravenous or oral administration. Variation in the achieved dose was slightly higher in the patients receiving oral administration, this being attributable to larger deviations in discrete activities of the capsules administered as compared with the values determined by dosimetry. No differences according to treatment modality were found with regard to therapeutic outcome. Eighty-seven patients attended 6-month follow-up after therapy. In the UA group, successful treatment, defined as a normal or elevated TSH level, was observed in 94% of patients after oral administration and in 80% after intravenous administration; corresponding figures in the GD group were 68% and 65%. CONCLUSION: The causes of individual differences between targeted and therapeutically achieved doses remain undetermined. Variations in the bioavailability of radioiodide or other parameters affecting thyroid status may be involved, and further investigations are needed to clarify this.