RESUMEN

Type 2 diabetes is a major health burden in the United States, and population trends suggest this burden will increase. High interest in, and increased availability of, testing for genetic risk of type 2 diabetes presents a new opportunity for reducing type 2 diabetes risk for many patients; however, to date, there is little evidence that genetic testing positively affects type 2 diabetes prevention. Genetic information may not fit patients' illness representations, which may reduce the chances of risk-reducing behavior changes. The present study aimed to examine illness representations in a clinical sample who are at risk for type 2 diabetes and interested in genetic testing. The authors used the Common Sense Model to analyze survey responses of 409 patients with type 2 diabetes risk factors. Patients were interested in genetic testing for type 2 diabetes risk and believed in its importance. Most patients believed that genetic factors are important to developing type 2 diabetes (67%), that diet and exercise are effective in preventing type 2 diabetes (95%), and that lifestyle changes are more effective than drugs (86%). Belief in genetic causality was not related to poorer self-reported health behaviors. These results suggest that patients' interest in genetic testing for type 2 diabetes might produce a teachable moment that clinicians can use to counsel behavior change.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Statin adherence is often limited by side effects. The SLCO1B1*5 variant is a risk factor for statin side effects and exhibits statin-specific effects: highest with simvastatin/atorvastatin and lowest with pravastatin/rosuvastatin. The effects of SLCO1B1*5 genotype guided statin therapy (GGST) are unknown. Primary care patients (n = 58) who were nonadherent to statins and their providers received SLCO1B1*5 genotyping and guided recommendations via the electronic medical record (EMR). The primary outcome was the change in Beliefs about Medications Questionnaire, which measured patients' perceived needs for statins and concerns about adverse effects, measured before and after SLCO1B1*5 results. Concurrent controls (n = 59) were identified through the EMR to compare secondary outcomes: new statin prescriptions, statin utilization, and change in LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c). GGST patients had trends (p = 0.2) towards improved statin necessity and concerns. The largest changes were the "need for statin to prevent sickness" (p < 0.001) and "concern for statin to disrupt life" (p = 0.006). GGST patients had more statin prescriptions (p < 0.001), higher statin use (p < 0.001), and greater decrease in LDL-c (p = 0.059) during follow-up. EMR delivery of SLCO1B1*5 results and recommendations is feasible in the primary care setting. This novel intervention may improve patients' perceptions of statins and physician behaviors that promote higher statin adherence and lower LDL-c.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is a prevalent chronic condition globally that results in extensive morbidity, decreased quality of life, and increased health services utilization. Lifestyle changes can prevent the development of diabetes, but require patient engagement. Genetic risk testing might represent a new tool to increase patients' motivation for lifestyle changes. Here we describe the rationale, development, and design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessing the clinical and personal utility of incorporating type 2 diabetes genetic risk testing into comprehensive diabetes risk assessments performed in a primary care setting. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients are recruited in the laboratory waiting areas of two primary care clinics and enrolled into one of three study arms. Those interested in genetic risk testing are randomized to receive either a standard risk assessment (SRA) for type 2 diabetes incorporating conventional risk factors plus upfront disclosure of the results of genetic risk testing ("SRA+G" arm), or the SRA alone ("SRA" arm). Participants not interested in genetic risk testing will not receive the test, but will receive SRA (forming a third, "no-test" arm). Risk counseling is provided by clinic staff (not study staff external to the clinic). Fasting plasma glucose, insulin levels, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference are measured at baseline and 12 months, as are patients' self-reported behavioral and emotional responses to diabetes risk information. Primary outcomes are changes in insulin resistance and BMI after 12 months; secondary outcomes include changes in diet patterns, physical activity, waist circumference, and perceived risk of developing diabetes. DISCUSSION: The utility, feasibility, and efficacy of providing patients with genetic risk information for common chronic diseases in primary care remain unknown. The study described here will help to establish whether providing type 2 diabetes genetic risk information in a primary care setting can help improve patients' clinical outcomes, risk perceptions, and/or their engagement in healthy behavior change. In addition, study design features such as the use of existing clinic personnel for risk counseling could inform the future development and implementation of care models for the use of individual genetic risk information in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00849563.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Increasing evidence suggests that a large proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes do not meet glycemic targets. Early diagnosis, realistic goal setting, improved patient adherence, and a better understanding of the pharmacotherapeutic treatment options are crucial to improving diabetes treatment outcomes in the United States. There are many reasons why patients do not achieve glycemic control. Barriers faced by clinicians, such as clinical inertia, lack of education time, and inappropriate use and titration of medications, need to be overcome to improve patient care. At the same time, patients are challenged by lifestyle management, lack of understanding of therapeutic options, and failing to see themselves as partners in their own care. Successful diabetes management programs incorporate several key features, including proactive reminders, consistent follow-up procedures, and use of clinical information systems to improve patient adherence and overall quality of care. Both clinicians and patients face barriers to advancing to injectable medications. Patients' attitudes may include fears of injections, technical challenges, and "punishment" for "failing" treatment. Clinicians have concerns about inadequate resources to address the needs of patients, patient nonadherence, and hypoglycemic events associated with certain injectable medications. Many of the strategies to overcome these barriers are reviewed.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Ruboxistaurin is a potent and specific inhibitor of the beta isoform of protein kinase C. Overactivation of protein kinase C has been demonstrated in patients with type 2 diabetes, and is postulated to play a major role in the pathogenesis of diabetic microvascular complications, which include diabetic retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy. The role of protein kinase C in promoting tissue injury in patients with diabetes, and the pharmacologic and clinical studies illustrating the potential of ruboxistaurin to reduce the burden of diabetic microvascular complications will be discussed in this article.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To review current clinical data regarding the pharmacologic actions of ruboxistaurin (LY333531) mesylate, an inhibitor of protein kinase C (PKC) beta, and its role to potentially reduce the development and/or the progression of diabetic microvascular complications. DATA SOURCES: Primary literature was obtained via a MEDLINE search (1966-August 2004) and through review of pertinent abstracts and presentations at major medical meetings. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Literature relevant to PKC physiology, the pharmacokinetics of ruboxistaurin, and data evaluating the use of ruboxistaurin in treating diabetic microvascular complications in human and relevant animal models was reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: PKC is part of a group of intracellular signaling molecules activated in response to various specific hormonal, neuronal, and growth factor stimuli. Hyperglycemia leads to PKC beta 1 and 2 isoform activation, which experimentally has been shown to contribute to the development and progression of diabetic microvascular complications (retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy) through various biochemical mechanisms. Animal and/or human studies using ruboxistaurin mesylate, a novel, highly selective inhibitor of PKC beta, have shown delay in the progression and, in some cases, reversal of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Ruboxistaurin mesylate, by inhibiting excessive activation of certain PKC isoforms, has the potential to reduce the burden of microvascular complications for patients with diabetes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To review the physiology, pharmacology, and clinical efficacy of glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) and the incretin mimetics exenatide and liraglutide in clinical studies. DATA SOURCES: Primary literature obtained via MEDLINE (1966-April 2004) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-April 2004) searches; abstracts obtained from meeting sources and manufacturers. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All English-language studies and abstracts evaluating GLP-1, exenatide, and liraglutide in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes were reviewed. Data from animal studies were also included if human data were not available. Primary and review articles related to the physiology, development, and evaluation of GLP-1s were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: GLP-1, exenatide (exendin-4, AC2993), and liraglutide (NN2211) are incretin mimetics that have been shown in human studies to be an effective treatment to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Mechanisms by which these compounds improve glycemic control include enhancing glucose-dependent pancreatic secretion of insulin in response to nutrient intake, inhibiting glucagon secretion, delaying gastric emptying, and promoting early satiety. GLP-1 has been shown to promote pancreatic progenitor cell differentiation and improve beta-cell function and lifespan. Reported adverse effects of exenatide and liraglutide include nausea, vomiting, and transient headache, as well as increased risk of hypoglycemia when used with sulfonylureas. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical studies show that GLP-1, exenatide, and liraglutide improve glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes through unique mechanisms not available with current pharmaceutical products. Ongoing Phase III studies will help to further position these compounds as treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Asunto(s)