Women with current or previous asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have an increased risk for developing Type 2 diabetes, show study findings.

Respiratory conditions have been reported as comorbidities with Type 2 diabetes, but whether prior or current asthma or COPD actively increase the risk for developing Type 2 diabetes is less clear.

Writing in the journal Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Yiqing Song (Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA) and colleagues report results from the Women’s Health Study.

Overall, 1808 women had COPD alone, 3368 had asthma alone, and 32,248 had no history of COPD or asthma at enrollment in 1991. The participants were all aged 45 years or above.

They found that women with a history of asthma or COPD at enrollment had a respective 37% and 38% increased risk for Type 2 diabetes 12.2 years later at study completion compared with those without such a history.

These associations were not altered by adjustment for age, smoking status, physical activity, body mass index, alcohol intake, hormone replacement therapy, or randomized treatment.

“Our study provides clear information on the relation of asthma and COPD with comorbid diabetes mellitus, indicating the importance of increasing awareness and promotion of diabetes risk reduction for patients with these chronic lung diseases,” write the authors.

“Future evidence-based preventive strategies should be developed and implemented to improve the overall health burden in adults with asthma and/or COPD who are also at high risk for other chronic comorbidities,” they conclude.

MedWire (www.medwire-news.md) is an independent clinical news service provided by Current Medicine Group, a trading division of Springer Healthcare Limited. © Springer Healthcare Ltd; 2010

Free abstract

Patients with Type 2 diabetes have lower lung diffusion capacity (DLCO) than nondiabetic patients, making them more susceptible to hospitalization for pneumonia, say researchers.

Previous cohort studies have demonstrated that diabetic patients have reduced forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity, which are both markers of lung function, and there has also been some evidence in case series for decreased DLCO in these patients.

As patients with Type 2 diabetes are more likely to have microangiopathic complications and be hospitalized with pneumonia than nondiabetics, Oana Klein (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA) and colleagues investigated whether DLCO is impaired in diabetic patients and whether it has an impact on pneumonia hospitalization.

Writing in the journal Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Klein et al report results from a study of 560 people with Type 2 diabetes and 3504 without diabetes who underwent pulmonary function testing.

They found that DLCO was significantly lower in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients, at 15.7 versus 17.0 ml/min/mmHg. The mean DLCO level in the cohort was 16.62 ml/min/mmHg.

The team found that diabetic patients who had a DLCO below the mean were a significant 2.4 times more likely to be admitted to hospital with pneumonia compared with those with a DLCO above the mean. The association remained valid after adjustment for factors such as age, gender, diabetes control and severity, and presence of comorbidities.

“The underlying lung inflammation and microangiopathy resulting in a reduced DLCO in people with diabetes mellitus may lower the threshold for clinical manifestations of lung diseases,” write the researchers.

“Our results suggest that the increased risk of hospitalization for pneumonia in people with diabetes mellitus is not due solely to hyperglycemia, but impaired lung function may contribute as well.”

They conclude: “Further prospective research is needed to validate these possible clinical and therapeutical implications.”

MedWire (www.medwire-news.md) is an independent clinical news service provided by Current Medicine Group, a trading division of Springer Healthcare Limited. © Springer Healthcare Ltd; 2011

Free abstract

A variant in the monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 gene (MCP1) could help identify patients with Type 2 diabetes who are at increased risk for developing carotid atherosclerosis, say researchers.

“MCP1 is a potent chemokine and plays an important role in cardiovascular diseases,” explain Sachiko Yuasa (Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan) and colleagues.

Such diseases are important causes of morbidity and mortality in patients with Type 2 diabetes. In this study, Yuasa and team assessed whether genotype of the MCP1 A-2518G single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) was related to the development of carotid atherosclerosis in 303 Japanese patients, aged 68 years on average, with Type 2 diabetes.

The researchers assessed for the presence of subclinical atherosclerosis by measuring carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in the participants using ultrasonography.

As reported in the journal Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, the researchers found that patients who were A-2518G G allele carriers had significantly greater carotid IMT than AA homozygotes, at 0.84 versus 0.70 mm.

Factors associated with carotid IMT included age, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, having the G allele of A-2518G, and level of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c).

Following multiple regression analysis, the G allele of A-2518G was the third strongest determinant of carotid IMT, subsequent to age and systolic blood pressure, in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

“Although medical therapy targeting MCP1 has not yet been established, from our findings about the strong correlation between the MCP1 polymorphism and atherosclerosis in this study, we suggest that MCP-1 may be a potential therapeutic target,” conclude Yuasa et al.

“These data suggest that in patients with Type 2 diabetes, the MCP1 A-2518G polymorphism may be helpful to predict atherosclerosis progression and determine the need for intensive medical therapy for atherosclerosis.”

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 abstract

Managing Diabetes Naturally has constantly been in my mind since seven years ago, during a periodical check-up, I was told I had type 2 diabetes. The doctor explained to me the diverse diabetes treatments, the complications like Neuropathy that Diabetes can cause, the symptoms of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia and the life style changes I had to apply:

? Try to lose fat

? Reduce the fat and calorie intake

? Avoid trans fats and animal fats

? Eat abundance of fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, whole grains and fish

? Eat carboydrates with a low GI (glycemic index rating)

? Exercise for 20 - 30 minutes daily

Then he prescribed me a drug to control my glucose. The outcome wasn’t too good as I only managed to bring down my blood sugar analysis by about 30mmol/l hence the doctor increased the dosage of my medication. In the mean time five years went by taking my diabetes treatment and I started having side effects to the medication. My head felt light, my thought were confused, I suffered lack of concentration and was feeling always drowsy.

Managing Diabetes Naturally, I thought at that point, was the only alternative therapy and I started searching the Internet as you are doing now. After reading Diabetes Research Studies and all the other information I could find, I realized that the drug the doctor prescribed me wouldn’t reverse diabetes and cure it, while there was on the market a product that could do so restoring my body capability to process glucose. It was a product backed by University Researches. The end result, they said, won’t appear overnight as different persons react differently but I would have start seeing some changes in three month to one year time.

Any time, I thought, was better than a life time of popping pills. As I’m always been a believer in a diabetes natural cure, I wanted to try to reverse diabetes so I decided to give it a go. At the start I was disappointed as I was hoping to see some results quickly but it was after about six months that my blood sugar level started falling slowly but steadily.

My perseverance started paying off. Slowly I started reducing my diabetes treatment (prescription Drugs). Today, after one year and a half, my sugar level hardly reaches 110mmol/l and thanks to this incredible diabetes natural cure I have managed to reverse diabetes. Yes, I’m conscious of what I eat, I walk regularly and try not to stress but I do not need any more diabetes treatments.

I wanted to share my story in brief with you so that you too can make the first step in managing your diabetes and you can reclaim your life back and, as me, regain your health. I fill compelled to let everyone know of this product as it has delivered to me all it has promised. The name of the product is ELEOTIN (R). It was initially developed by the scientists at the Julia McFarlane Diabetes Research Center (JMDRC) at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada. The JMDRC is a leader in research on the cause, cure, and prevention of Type I and Type II diabetes. After the initial development by the JMDRC, research and development continued on by Eastwood Bio-Medical Research Inc. (EMBR) and other researchers.

ELEOTIN (R) is a safe health food that restores the body’s own ability to control blood glucose levels. ELEOTIN (R) gently helps to control blood glucose levels not only temporarily, but also results in long term permanent or semi-permanent molecular level changes. ELEOTIN (R) helps to regenerate the insulin receptors of muscle or liver cells. It also helps to regenerate the insulin producing ? (beta) cells in the pancreas. These two molecular level changes improve insulin production and binding, and therefore assist the body to control blood glucose levels independently. These changes, in turn, assist the body to recover glucose metabolism normalcy. ELEOTIN? usage may then be diminished or eliminated as the body restores its own ability to control blood glucose levels. Also, ELEOTIN (R) can lead to the reduction and possible total elimination for dependency on synthetic medication and insulin injections to control glucose levels. It is an all-natural, safe, and gentle herbal product with no harmful side effects..

Almost no matter your current health, you can control your blood glucose and roll back many of the effects of diabetes blood sugar levels. Diabetes research is progressing rapidly. There’s no reason for you not to lead a healthy life.

What follows is some of the best breakthrough lessons for preventing or reversing the impact of blood glucose problems.

Pay attention to the new advances in insulin.

Of course you want to eat to match your cooking intake to your insulin supply. Each normal body works in the back up. Your pancreas matches your insulin supply to the amount of cooking entering the blood stream. But your body isn’t working that way any more. So you need to take your fast-acting insulin just before meals. But short-acting insulin still takes 30 minutes to kick in and as long as your meal is delayed, it can leave you hypoglycemic. New rapid-acting lispro insulin begins to decrease glucose within 5 minutes of injection. So, It’s possible for you to hold off administering your insulin until right before you eat. Ask your doctor if you’re a good candidate.

Make your natural regimen more effective than medicine.

Once you’re on a daily treatment plan, you’ve got to take it seriously and do it correctly. discover which medicines you take with food and which without food. Make sure you follow the schedule. And follow it religiously. Failing to take medication is the leading reason that diabetic patients’ health conditions don’t improve. With type 2 diabetes, following a good diet plan and exercise plan can delay the onset of symptoms for years or indefinitely. In fact, diet and exercise are more effective in preventing diabetes than metformin, the most commonly prescribed medication. But you have to do them.

Sometimes it seems that popular diabetes research may have forgotten it’s objective, but there are certainly things diabetics can do to treat themselves. In fact, even the ADA agrees with this notion. This idea is suggested in one of their publications called, Diabetes A to Z: What you Need to know About Diabetes; Simply Put. It is now in it’s 5th edition.

When reporting the results of diabetes research, it is quite acceptable to say something like the following statement in a news release or report: “new drug shows promise for treatment.” You have to be careful, however, in saying something like, “ancient practice of using certain natural dietary supplements limits incidence of type 2 diabetes among Mayan descendants”. No claims of treatment or cure can be made regarding any naturally available product used as food or food supplement without approval. This FDA technicality shows the tilt of the play field - it’s not towards the sufferers of this degenerative disease, but towards the drug manufacturing industry.

However, before we examine the pitiful state of metabolic disease research any further, I want to share some interesting bit of information on type 2 diabetes; in particular some new research study on a natural food supplement. I actually “tore” out a piece of the page of the report and posted it on the web.

Let us consider one commendable effort by a research organization as seen in a January 2009 article. We read that that US Olympic swimmer, Gary Hall, Jr. was “tapped as spokesman for new study that explores benefits of exercise on autoimmune diseases.” Mr. Hall, who competed in the Olympics from 1996 through 2004 and won 5 gold, 3 silver, and 2 bronze medals in 3 Olympics was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1999.

Scientists conducting diabetes research to investigate the effect of physical exercise on autoimmune response in type 1 diabetes believe that regular aerobic activity increases insulin sensitivity. But this has been known and practiced for some time now. One exercise physiologist to whom I have listened several times even told of clients who simply exercise and then eat in order to control their blood sugars. I am not sure I would advocate anyone working so hard for every meal, but it shows the effectiveness and importance of physical activity in regulating blood sugar.

Diabetes research has been chasing the money

With all the knowledge and experience gained from various diabetic research studies that prove the effectiveness of proper diet and exercise very little is being done to promote healthy lifestyle intervention especially among the high risk groups. Diet and lifestyle regulation can help in not only controlling, but preventing, the onset of type 2 diabetes. Instead, science continues to chase the “so-called” genetic factors and the development of more drugs to tackle the epidemic. Why?

Well, since it is difficult to “patent” a freely growing plant that can be used in dietary supplementation, then expensive research has to follow the money. However, even the researchers agree that there are things we can do to treat ourselves, and we should. After all, our health is the result of choices we make daily.

Recent double-blind clinical studies have shown very satisfactory results for controlling blood glucose level using common, easily available, traditionally used, and natural dietary supplements. Having tried some of the ingredients individually, it is particularly thrilling to see new combinations and special blends of these traditionally safe products. One question still hangs unanswered, however. Will the established arm of the pharmaceutical and medical industries still keep this information under their clipboard, or will they help spread the news to diabetics?

Vildagliptin provides similar glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reductions to metformin but with superior gastrointestinal tolerability in drug-naïve elderly patients with Type 2 diabetes, research shows.

Elderly people with diabetes are a challenging population to treat because of an increased risk for renal impairment, a high number of comorbidities and concomitant drug use, and a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors.

In the first study with vildagliptin to be conducted exclusively in Type 2 diabetes patients aged at least 65 years, Anja Schweizer (Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland) and colleagues compared its efficacy and tolerability with that of metformin.

The 24-week study included 335 patients with an HbA1c of 7??”9% who had not received oral glucose-lowering agents for more than 3 consecutive months at any time in the past and no agents for at least 12 weeks prior to screening.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive vildagliptin 100 mg daily (given as a once-daily dose) or metformin titrated to a maximum of 1500 mg daily (given as 1000 mg in the morning and 500 mg in the evening).

The results, reported in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, show that patients receiving vildagliptin achieved similar HbA1c reductions to those taking metformin, at 0.64% and 0.75%, respectively, from baseline, and establish non-inferiority of vildagliptin to metformin.

As expected, the decrease in HbA1c with either agent was greater in patients with a baseline HbA1c greater than 8%, with mean HbA1c reductions from baseline of 0.93% with vildagliptin) and 1.02% with metformin.

Body weight decreased with both agents, although to a greater degree with metformin (0.45 kg versus 1.25 kg, respectively).

One or more adverse events were reported by 44.3% of patients receiving vildagliptin and 50.3% of patients receiving metformin. A low incidence of hypoglycemia was observed in both treatment groups.

In patients receiving vildagliptin, the most frequent adverse events were nasopharyngitis and dizziness, whereas gastrointestinal events were more frequently reported with metformin.

“We conclude that vildagliptin is effective and well tolerated in drug-naïve elderly patients with Type 2 diabetes in whom it could represent a valuable treatment option,” write the authors.

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 abstract