Diabetes Care
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garancini, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Riccardi, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Garancini, M. P.
Right arrow Articles by Riccardi, G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Diabetes Care, Vol 20, Issue 11 1659-1663, Copyright © 1997 by American Diabetes Association

ARTICLES

Factors related to glycemic control in IDDM and insulin-treated NIDDM patients in current practice. A comparison of care policies. SIEMTIC Group. Studio Italiano Epidemiologico Multicentrico su Terapia Insulin e Controllo Metabolico

MP Garancini, G Gallus, D Cucinotta, A Rossi and G Riccardi
Epidemiology Unit, S. Raffaele Institute, University of Milan, Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, under routine conditions, the relation between different diabetes care policies and glycemic control through a by-center analysis procedure aimed at reducing some drawbacks of cross-sectional data. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A survey on insulin-treated diabetes care management (IDDM and NIDDM) involved 16 Italian randomly selected diabetes outpatient clinics. A total of 2,142 representative patients were investigated. The standardized HbA1c average value of each center was related, by regression models, to some indicators of center care policy (average number of injections, average BMI, proportion of cases with recent fundus oculi examinations, or frequent visits) as well as to patients' average social levels (employment type). Homogeneity in patient admission criteria is assumed among the investigated centers as a basic condition for the procedure validity. Some known imbalance were controlled for both design and analysis. RESULTS: HbA1c showed a univariate inverse relation with daily number of injections in IDDM (P = 0.0009, r2 = 0.56) but not in NIDDM (P = 0.33). It was inversely related to both fundus examination (IDDM P = 0.04; NIDDM P = 0.099) and qualified employment (IDDM P = 0.06; NIDDM P = 0.026). A stepwise regression analysis left in the model insulin injections (P = 0.0002) in IDDM (total r2 = 0.68) and qualified employment (P = 0.016) and fundus examination (P = 0.14) in NIDDM (total r2 = 0.53), after controlling for age, sex, disease duration, insulin therapy starting delay, and insulin dose per kilogram. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the confirmed benefits of a multiple-injection regimen in IDDM cannot be simply extrapolated to NIDDM, where patients' awareness and medical attention to complications proved to be the most important factors in current practice.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The Diabetes EducatorHome page
S. A. Brown, R. B. Harrist, E. T. Villagomez, M. Segura, S. A. Barton, and C. L. Hanis
Gender and Treatment Differences in Knowledge, Health Beliefs, and Metabolic Control in Mexican Americans With Type 2 Diabetes
The Diabetes Educator, May 1, 2000; 26(3): 425 - 438.
[PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Diabetes Diabetes Care Clinical Diabetes Diabetes Spectrum
Copyright © 1997 by the American Diabetes Association.