Does occupational driving increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes?

Occupational driving may increase cardiovascular events. We studied the risk of overall cardiovascular events in occupational professional drivers against matched controls in a cohort of people with diabetes (N=6563). There was an increase in overall cardiovascular events in occupational drivers despite similar risk factors. This particular occupational risk factor may need to be addressed.

Association between glycemic control and hip fracture.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether tight glycemic control is associated with greater risk of hip fractures in individuals being treated for type 2 diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Cases were selected from all individuals with diabetes mellitus admitted between 2005 and 2010 to Changi General Hospital for hip fracture (N = 932). Cases were included if their glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) had been measured within 3 months of the fracture and they were undergoing treatment with oral hypoglycemic medications or insulin. Each case was matched with one control for sex, age, race, duration of diabetes mellitus, and comorbidities. MEASUREMENTS: Information on baseline characteristics, HbA1c, and use of diabetic medications was obtained. The likelihood of hip fracture was determined comparing four different values of HbA1c [<6%, 6.1-7.0%, 7.1-8.0%, >8% (reference group)] and use of diabetic medications. RESULTS: The mean age of cases was 77.3 ± 7.7, and 73.3% were female. After adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and other covariates, participants with tighter glycemic control (HbA1c < 6% and 6.1-7.0%) were more likely to have a hip fracture than those with HbA1c >8% (odds ratio (OR) = 3.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.01-4.51, P < .001; and OR = 2.34, 95% CI=1.71-3.22, P < .001, respectively). The use of insulin and sulfonylurea was similar between cases and controls. CONCLUSION: The present study found an association between tight glycemic control (when HbA1c < 7%) and greater risk of hip fracture in individuals being treated for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Greater caution needs to be exercised in treating older patients with diabetes mellitus.

The effect of iron and erythropoietin treatment on the A1C of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of intravenous iron and erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) on glycemic control and A1C of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD stage IIIB or IV undergoing intravenous iron (group A) and/or ESA (group B). Full blood profiles were determined over the study period. Glycemic control was monitored using A1C, seven-point daily glucose three times weekly, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESULTS: There were 15 patients in both group A and group B. Mean A1C (95% CI) values fell in both groups (7.40% [6.60-8.19] to 6.96% [6.27-7.25], P<0.01, with intravenous iron and 7.31% [6.42-8.54] to 6.63% [6.03-7.36], P=0.013, ESA). There was no change in mean blood glucose in group A (9.55 mmol/l [8.20-10.90] vs. 9.71 mmol/l [8.29-11.13], P=0.07) and in group B (8.72 mmol/l [7.31-10.12] vs. 8.78 mmol/l [7.47-9.99], P=0.61) over the study period. Hemoglobin and hematocrit values significantly increased following both treatments. There was no linear relationship found between the change in A1C values and the rise of hemoglobin following either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both iron and ESA cause a significant fall in A1C values without a change to glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD. At the present time, regular capillary glucose measurements and the concurrent use of CGM remain the best alternative measurements of glycemic control in this patient group.

Sulphonyurea as a cause of severe hypoglycaemia in the community.

INTRODUCTION: Hypoglycaemia is a well recognised side effect of insulin and sulphonyurea therapy in the treatment of, patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who developed severe hypoglycaemia in Hull and, East Yorkshire, United Kingdom over a 4-month period to assess the different therapies that contribute the most to the problem and the patient groups who are at greatest risk. RESULTS: Of the 75 patients with diabetes mellitus who developed severe hypoglycaemia, 61 (80%) were taking, insulin, 5 in combination with metformin. Ten (13%) patients were taking SU therapy; 5 in, combination with metformin, 2 in combination with a thiazolidinedione and 1 in combination with, insulin. When the SU-treated and non-SU treated groups were compared, patients taking SU therapy were, significantly older and had significantly lower HbA1c levels. CONCLUSIONS: All patients taking SU and insulin treatment are potentially at risk of developing hypoglycaemia. Our, analysis shows that almost 15% of patients in our region who suffered from severe hypoglycaemia, were on SU therapy. Patients in this group were older and had lower levels of HbA1c. Whilst national HbA1c targets may be useful for clinicians to define glycaemic targets for their, population, this has to be tempered by what is in the best interests of the patient and not what is, dictated by the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Possible alternatives to SU therapy should be, considered especially if hypoglycaemia is a concern.