Diabetes is a straining and inconvenient syndrome that leaves a lasting impact on daily life. The constant need for diabetes patients to maintain their disorder with testing and lifestyle choices can be a large hindrance on the quality of life a person has. Luckily for those patients suffering with diabetes there are scores of helpful diabetic supply providers eager to make daily diabetic upkeep a breeze.

To facilitate the supply process most companies will gladly handle the billing process on their own and minimize paperwork. This allows the patient to put their pay process out of mind and let the diabetic supply company handle it. This is usually in the form of a cycle, which will repeat, ensuring that fresh supplies arrive monthly.

Establishing a consistent delivery cycle is an important part of guaranteeing that your supplies arrive on time when you need them. Any quality supply company will have measures in order to allow you to select the frequency and the amount of supplies needed. Finding a company willing to work with you and give you the utmost flexibility and options is key in making your supply worries a thing of the past.

Every patient has different needs and will require varying supply types and amounts. It’s important to find a company with a wide selection of supplies including a robust catalogue of meters and testing strips. Getting the right supplies to meet your needs is very important and having a company willing to work with you and ensure you’re taken care of is a convenience nobody should pass up.

Often enough patients will encounter technical or mechanical problems with their meters and supplies. Many quality supply companies will provide comprehensive technical support for their products and will assist patients in the use and understanding of their diabetic supplies. The security of knowing that any questions a patient may have or assistance they may need will receive diligent attention and detailed answers is invaluable to someone facing the prospect of needing diabetic supplies.

One of the most important steps that any diabetes patient should take is to contact their insurance company and see what kinds of coverage they can expect and what companies their insurance company recommends. Finding an accredited supply provider will go a long way in helping ease the financial dent that purchasing diabetic supplies will make in the pocket of any patient.

Developing a close network of support with your family, insurance company and supply provider is key to handling diabetes with courage and ease. Handling the different facets of this syndrome and maintaining them is paramount to the overall control of diabetes and the quality of life a patient leads.

Patients with Type 2 diabetes who are carriers for the A allele of the uncoupling protein 2 gene (UCP2) variant G-866A have lower survival rates post-myocardial infarction (MI) than non-diabetic carriers, report researchers.

The UCP2 G-866A variant is found in the promoter region of the gene and influences the level of expression of the UCP2 protein. It has also been associated with increased levels of oxidative stress markers and future risk of coronary heart disease-related events in individuals with and without Type 2 diabetes.

In this study, Barry Palmer (University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand) and team assessed the effect of the G-866A variant on 5-year survival in a cohort of 793 nondiabetic and 108 diabetic post-MI patients.

The overall genotype frequencies for UCP2 G-866A were 15.5%, 45.5%, and 39.0% for AA, GA, and GG genotype individuals, respectively.

G-866A genotype was not associated with survival in the overall cohort, with a 5-year mortality of 15.6%, 16.8%, and 19.4% for AA, GA, and GG genotype individuals, respectively.

But diabetic patients who were A allele carriers (AA+GA) had a higher mortality than GG homozygotes. The attributable risk for death for AA and GA genotype diabetics was 23.3% and 18.7%, respectively.

Levels of the proinflammatory enzyme myeloperoxidase were also higher in diabetic A allele carriers compared with GG homozygotes, although this association was only significant in male patients with Type 2 diabetes (64.3 vs 44.9 ng/ml).

“A growing body of evidence supports the UCP2 G-866A polymorphism as a marker of cardiovascular risk,” say Palmer et al.

They conclude in the journal Cardiovascular Diabetology: “Our data provide support for the idea that modulation of UCP2 expression might be an important novel target for reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly amongst diabetic patients.”

MedWire (www.medwire-news.md) is an independent clinical news service provided by Current Medicine Group, a part of Springer Science+Business Media. © Current Medicine Group Ltd; 2009

Free fulltext [pdf]

A 5-year study shows no evidence of increased risk for development or progression of diabetic retinopathy with insulin glargine compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, report researchers in the journal Diabetologia.

In an open-label study to confirm the retinal safety profile of insulin glargine, Julio Rosenstock (Dallas Diabetes and Endocrine Center at Medical City, Dallas, Texas, USA) and colleagues randomly assigned 1017 patients with Type 2 diabetes to receive twice-daily NPH insulin or once-daily basal insulin glargine for 5 years.

Patients had no or non-proliferative retinopathy and were treated with oral antidiabetes agents, insulin, or both for at least 1 year prior to screening.

In both groups, insulin doses were titrated over the first 3 years of the study to achieve target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels of less than or equal to 6.7 mmol/l. This target was reduced to less than or equal to 5.5 mmol/l for the last 2 years of the study.

The study used 7-field fundus photography and the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale to evaluate retinopathy progression. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with three or more step progression from baseline on the ETDRS scale.

The mean basal insulin dose at endpoint was lower for insulin glargine than for NPH insulin, at 62 IU compared with 72 IU, respectively.

Diabetic retinopathy at baseline was more prevalent in the insulin glargine than the NPH group (15.6% vs 12.1%) and baseline ETDRS score was greater (3.06 vs 2.85). Despite this, three or more step progression of retinopathy was no more frequent in the insulin-glargine than NPH-insulin group (14.2% vs 15.7%).

Other measures of retinopathy, including the development of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and progression to clinically significant macular edema, occurred to a similar degree in each treatment group.

The study also provides important information on the long-term safety of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin, with no unexpected adverse events emerging during the 5-year study. NPH insulin was associated with a higher incidence of severe hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine.

Although not a primary endpoint of the trial, a slightly lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level was seen with NPH insulin (7.6% vs 7.8%) at the end of the study.

The authors suggest that as control of FPG was similar between the two groups, the lower HbA1c in the NPH group was probably due to lower glucose levels during the day related to the higher insulin doses with the twice-daily NPH regimen.

“These results demonstrate that treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus with insulin glargine over 5 years was not associated with an increase in progression of diabetic retinopathy, compared with NPH insulin treatment,” conclude the authors.

MedWire (www.medwire-news.md) is an independent clinical news service provided by Current Medicine Group, a pa