The Effect of Smoking Cessation on Body Weight and Other Metabolic Parameters with Focus on People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Smokers with diabetes mellitus substantially lower their risks of microvascular and macrovascular diabetic complications, in particular cardiovascular disease, by quitting smoking. However, subsequent post-smoking-cessation weight gain may attenuate some of the beneficial effects of smoking cessation and discourage attempts to quit. Weight gain can temporarily exacerbate diabetes and deteriorate glycemic control and metabolic profile. The molecular mechanisms by which quitting smoking leads to weight gain are largely associated with the removal of nicotine's effects on the central nervous system. This review addresses mechanisms of post-smoking-cessation weight gain, by reviewing the effects of nicotine on appetite, food intake, eating behaviour, energy expenditure, fat oxidation and appetite-regulating peptides. We also highlight correlations between post-cessation weight gain and risk of type 2 diabetes, consequences of weight gain in people with type 2 diabetes and the role of pharmacotherapies, which combine treatment of nicotine addiction and promotion of weight control.

The beneficial short-term effects of a high-protein/low-carbohydrate diet on glycaemic control assessed by continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To compare the effects of three different but isocaloric dietary patterns, high-protein/low-carbohydrate (HPD) with 20% of calories as carbohydrates, Mediterranean/low glycaemic index (MED) with 40% carbohydrates, and a reference diet (REF) with 50% carbohydrates, in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a randomized crossover study, 15 patients with T1D were assigned to the three dietary patterns for three separate weeks, with 7-day washout periods in between. Continuous glucose monitoring was applied during the intervention periods. The primary outcome was glycaemic control, as measured by the percentage of time patients spent within the euglycaemic range (TIR70-140 mg/dl ). Other key glycaemic metrics were also investigated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: TIR70-140 was not statistically different between HPD, MED and REF (p = .105). Pairwise analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between HPD and REF at the .05 level, which was not retained after applying Bonferroni correction (54.87% ± 14.11% vs. 48.33% ± 13.72%; p = .018). During the HPD period, 11 out of 15 participants spent more time within TIR70-140 compared with either the REF or MED. The HPD performed significantly better than the REF in terms of TIR70-180 (74.33% ± 12.85% vs. 67.53% ± 12.73%; p = .012), glycaemic variability (coefficient of variation: 36.18% ± 9.30% vs. 41.48% ± 8.69%; p = .016) and time spent in the hypoglycaemic range (TBR70 mg/dl ; median: 12, IQR: 16 vs. median: 14, IQR: 20; p = .007), whereas no statistically significant differences were observed between MED and HPD or REF. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with REF and MED, an HPD plan may have a positive impact on glycaemic control in patients with T1D. During the HPD, patients spent a shorter time in hypoglycaemia and exhibited lower glycaemic variability.

Twenty-year trends in the prescription costs of Type 2 diabetes: Real world data and empirical analysis in Greece.

AIMS: To estimate and compare the prescription costs for the management of patients with diabetes over a period of 20 years in Greece, based on real world data. METHODS: The records of outpatients with T2D, monitored at three diabetes centres, were examined in four cross-sections (1998, 2006, 2012, 2018). Prescribed medicines per patient, along with a set of clinical indicators were recorded. Annual costs of pharmaceutical treatment per patient were calculated by using each year's nominal retail prices, as well as by adjusting for 2018 price levels, in order to account for price differences over time. RESULTS: 4066 patients were included in the analysis. Prescription patterns indicate a quick uptake of the new classes of glucose-lowering drugs and a reduction in the proportional use of sulfonylurea and glitazone. Adjusting for 2018 prices, the average total annual prescription cost per patient was 381.54 Euros (s.d. 297.44) in 1998 and 1147.21 Euros (s.d. 814.39) in 2018. Glucose-lowering drug costs per patient increase from 1998 onwards, whereas the costs of antihypertensive, antiplatelet and lipid-lowering treatment declined gradually, especially after 2006. CONCLUSIONS: Per patient prescription costs for glucose-lowering drugs present a steep increase, in Greece over the last 20 years. Real-world evidence studies that compare this increase with the changes in patient outcomes are essential in order to examine whether a costs-vs-outcomes balance is optimal.