Econstudentlog

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Rates of Diabetic Ketoacidosis: International Comparison With 49,859 Pediatric Patients With Type 1 Diabetes From England, Wales, the U.S., Austria, and Germany.

“Rates of DKA in youth with type 1 diabetes vary widely nationally and internationally, from 15% to 70% at diagnosis (4) to 1% to 15% per established patient per year (911). However, data from systematic comparisons between countries are limited. To address this gap in the literature, we analyzed registry and audit data from three organizations: the Prospective Diabetes Follow-up Registry (DPV) in Germany and Austria, the National Paediatric Diabetes Audit (NPDA) in England and Wales, and the T1D Exchange (T1DX) in the U.S. These countries have similarly advanced, yet differing, health care systems in which data on DKA and associated factors are collected. Our goal was to identify indicators of risk for DKA admissions in pediatric patients with >1-year duration of disease with an aim to better understand where targeted preventive programs might lead to a reduction in the frequency of this complication of management of type 1 diabetes.”

RESULTS The frequency of DKA was 5.0% in DPV, 6.4% in NPDA, and 7.1% in T1DX […] Mean HbA1c was lowest in DPV (63 mmol/mol [7.9%]), intermediate in T1DX (69 mmol/mol [8.5%]), and highest in NPDA (75 mmol/mol [9.0%]). […] In multivariable analyses, higher odds of DKA were found in females (odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 99% CI 1.10–1.37), ethnic minorities (OR 1.27, 99% CI 1.11–1.44), and HbA1c ≥7.5% (≥58 mmol/mol) (OR 2.54, 99% CI 2.09–3.09 for HbA1c from 7.5 to <9% [58 to <75 mmol/mol] and OR 8.74, 99% CI 7.18–10.63 for HbA1c ≥9.0% [≥75 mmol/mol]).”

Poor metabolic control is obviously very important, but it’s important to remember that poor metabolic control is in itself an outcome that needs to be explained. I would note that the mean HbA1c values here, especially that 75 mmol/mol one, seem really high; this is not a very satisfactory level of glycemic control and corresponds to an average glucose level of 12 mmol/l. And that’s a population average, meaning that many individuals have values much higher than this. Actually the most surprising thing to me about these data is that the DKA event rates are not much higher than they are, considering the level of metabolic control achieved. Another slightly surprising finding is that teenagers (13-17 yrs) were not actually all that much more likely to have experienced DKA than small children (0-6 yrs); the OR is only ~1.5. Of course this can not be taken as an indication that DKA in teenagers do not make up a substantial proportion of the total amount of DKA events in pediatric samples, as the type 1 prevalence is much higher in teenagers than in small children (incidence peaks in adolescence).

“In 2004–2009 in the U.S., the mean hospital cost per pediatric DKA admission was $7,142 (range $4,125–11,916) (6), and insurance claims data from 2007 reported an excess of $5,837 in annual medical expenditures for youth with insulin-treated diabetes with DKA compared with those without DKA (7). In Germany, pediatric patients with diabetes with DKA had diabetes-related costs that were up to 3.6-fold higher compared with those without DKA (8).”

“DKA frequency was lower in pump users than in injection users (OR 0.84, 99% CI 0.76–0.93). Heterogeneity in the association with DKA between registries was seen for pump use and age category, and the overall rate should be interpreted accordingly. A lower rate of DKA in pump users was only found in T1DX, in contrast to no association of pump use with DKA in DPV or NPDA. […] In multivariable analyses […], age, type 1 diabetes duration, and pump use were not significantly associated with DKA in the fully adjusted model. […] pump use was associated with elevated odds of DKA in the <6-year-olds and in the 6- to <13-year-olds but with reduced odds of DKA in the 13- to <18-year-olds.”

Pump use should probably all else equal increase the risk of DKA, but all else is never equal and in these data pump users actually had a lower DKA event rate than did diabetics treated with injections. One should not conclude from this finding that pump use decreases the risk of DKA, selection bias and unobserved heterogeneities are problems which it is almost impossible to correct for in an adequate way – I find it highly unlikely that selection bias is only a potential problem in the US (see below). There are many different ways selection bias can be a relevant problem, financial- and insurance-related reasons (relevant particularly in the US and likely the one the authors are considering) is far from the only one; I could easily imagine selection dynamics playing a major role even in a setting where all new-diagnosed children were started on pump therapy as a matter of course. In such a setting you might have a situation where very poorly controlled individuals would have 10 DKA events in a short amount of time because they didn’t take the necessary amount of blood glucose tests/disregarded alarms/forgot or postponed filling up the pump when it’s near-empty/failed to switch the battery in time/etc. etc., and then what might happen would be that the diabetologist/endocrinologist would then proceed to recommend these patients doing very poorly on pump treatment to switch to injection therapy, and what you would end up with would be a compliant/motivated group of patients on pump therapy and a noncompliant/poorly motivated group on injection therapy. This would happen even if everybody started on pump therapy and so pump therapy exposure was completely unrelated to outcomes. Pump therapy requires more of the patient than does injection therapy, and if the patient is unwilling/unable to put in the work required that treatment option will fail. In my opinion the default here should be that these treatment groups are (‘significantly’) different, not that they are similar.

A few more quotes from the paper:

“The major finding of these analyses is high rates of pediatric DKA across the three registries, even though DKA events at the time of diagnosis were not included. In the prior 12 months, ∼1 in 20 (DPV), 1 in 16 (NPDA), and 1 in 14 (T1DX) pediatric patients with a duration of diabetes ≥1 year were diagnosed with DKA and required treatment in a health care facility. Female sex, ethnic minority status, and elevated HbA1c were consistent indicators of risk for DKA across all three registries. These indicators of increased risk for DKA are similar to previous reports (10,11,18,19), and our rates of DKA are within the range in the pediatric diabetes literature of 1–15% per established patient per year (10,11).

Compared with patients receiving injection therapy, insulin pump use was associated with a lower risk of DKA only in the U.S. in the T1DX, but no difference was seen in the DPV or NPDA. Country-specific factors on the associations of risk factors with DKA require further investigation. For pump use, selection bias may play a role in the U.S. The odds of DKA in pump users was not increased in any registry, which is a marked difference from some (10) but not all historic data (20).”

ii. Effect of Long-Acting Insulin Analogs on the Risk of Cancer: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.

NPH insulin has been the mainstay treatment for type 1 diabetes and advanced type 2 diabetes since the 1950s. However, this insulin is associated with an increased risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia, and its relatively short half-life requires frequent administration (1,2). Consequently, structurally modified insulins, known as long-acting insulin analogs (glargine and detemir), were developed in the 1990s to circumvent these limitations. However, there are concerns that long-acting insulin analogs may be associated with an increased risk of cancer. Indeed, some laboratory studies showed long-acting insulin analogs were associated with cancer cell proliferation and protected against apoptosis via their higher binding affinity to IGF-I receptors (3,4).

In 2009, four observational studies associated the use of insulin glargine with an increased risk of cancer (58). These studies raised important concerns but were also criticized for important methodological shortcomings (913). Since then, several observational studies assessing the association between long-acting insulin analogs and cancer have been published but yielded inconsistent findings (1428). […] Several meta-analyses of observational studies have investigated the association between insulin glargine and cancer risk (3437). These meta-analyses assessed the quality of included studies, but the methodological issues particular to pharmacoepidemiologic research were not fully considered. In addition, given the presence of important heterogeneity in this literature, the appropriateness of pooling the results of these studies remains unclear. We therefore conducted a systematic review of observational studies examining the association between long-acting insulin analogs and cancer incidence, with a particular focus on methodological strengths and weaknesses of these studies.”

“[W]e assessed the quality of studies for key components, including time-related biases (immortal time, time-lag, and time-window), inclusion of prevalent users, inclusion of lag periods, and length of follow-up between insulin initiation and cancer incidence.

Immortal time bias is defined by a period of unexposed person-time that is misclassified as exposed person-time or excluded, resulting in the exposure of interest appearing more favorable (40,41). Time-lag bias occurs when treatments used later in the disease management process are compared with those used earlier for less advanced stages of the disease. Such comparisons can result in confounding by disease duration or severity of disease if duration and severity of disease are not adequately considered in the design or analysis of the study (29). This is particularly true for chronic disease with dynamic treatment processes such as type 2 diabetes. Currently, American and European clinical guidelines suggest using basal insulin (e.g., NPH, glargine, and detemir) as a last line of treatment if HbA1c targets are not achieved with other antidiabetic medications (42). Therefore, studies that compare long-acting insulin analogs to nonbasal insulin may introduce confounding by disease duration. Time-window bias occurs when the opportunity for exposure differs between case subjects and control subjects (29,43).

The importance of considering a lag period is necessary for latency considerations (i.e., a minimum time between treatment initiation and the development of cancer) and to minimize protopathic and detection bias. Protopathic bias, or reverse causation, is present when a medication (exposure) is prescribed for early symptoms related to the outcome of interest, which can lead to an overestimation of the association. Lagging the exposure by a predefined time window in cohort studies or excluding exposures in a predefined time window before the event in case-control studies is a means of minimizing this bias (44). Detection bias is present when the exposure leads to higher detection of the outcome of interest due to the increased frequency of clinic visits (e.g., newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes or new users of another antidiabetic medication), which also results in an overestimation of risk (45). Thus, including a lag period, such as starting follow-up after 1 year of the initiation of a drug, simultaneously considers a latency period while also minimizing protopathic and detection bias.”

“We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 2000 to 2014 to identify all observational studies evaluating the relationship between the long-acting insulin analogs and the risk of any and site-specific cancers (breast, colorectal, prostate). […] 16 cohort and 3 case-control studies were included in this systematic review (58,1428). All studies evaluated insulin glargine, with four studies also investigating insulin detemir (15,17,25,28). […] The study populations ranged from 1,340 to 275,164 patients […]. The mean or median durations of follow-up and age ranged from 0.9 to 7.0 years and from 52.3 to 77.4 years, respectively. […] Thirteen of 15 studies reported no association between insulin glargine and detemir and any cancer. Four of 13 studies reported an increased risk of breast cancer with insulin glargine. In the quality assessment, 7 studies included prevalent users, 11 did not consider a lag period, 6 had time-related biases, and 16 had short (<5 years) follow-up.”

“Of the 19 studies in this review, immortal time bias may have been introduced in one study based on the time-independent exposure and cohort entry definitions that were used in this cohort study […] Time-lag bias may have occurred in four studies […] A variation of time-lag bias was observed in a cohort study of new insulin users (28). For the exposure definition, highest duration since the start of insulin use was compared with the lowest. It is expected that the risk of cancer would increase with longer duration of insulin use; however, the opposite was reported (with RRs ranging from 0.50 to 0.90). The protective association observed could be due to competing risks (e.g., death from cardiovascular-related events) (47,48). Patients with diabetes have a higher risk of cardiovascular-related deaths compared with patients with no diabetes (49,50). Therefore, patients with diabetes who die of cardiovascular-related events do not have the opportunity to develop cancer, resulting in an underestimation of the risk of cancer. […] Time-window bias was observed in two studies (18,22). […] HbA1c and diabetes duration were not accounted for in 15 of the 19 studies, resulting in likely residual confounding (7,8,1418,2026,28). […] Seven studies included prevalent users of insulin (8,15,18,20,21,23,25), which is problematic because of the corresponding depletion of susceptible subjects in other insulin groups compared with long-acting insulin analogs. Protopathic or detection bias could have resulted in 11 of the 19 studies because a lag period was not incorporated in the study design (6,7,1416,1821,23,28).”

CONCLUSIONS The observational studies examining the risk of cancer associated with long-acting insulin analogs have important methodological shortcomings that limit the conclusions that can be drawn. Thus, uncertainty remains, particularly for breast cancer risk.”

iii. Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality in 24,947 Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes.

“Socioeconomic status (SES) is a powerful predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and death. We examined the association in a large cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes. […] Clinical data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register were linked to national registers, whereby information on income, education, marital status, country of birth, comorbidities, and events was obtained. […] Type 1 diabetes was defined on the basis of epidemiologic data: treatment with insulin and a diagnosis at the age of 30 years or younger. This definition has been validated as accurate in 97% of the cases listed in the register (14).”

“We included 24,947 patients. Mean (SD) age and follow-up was 39.1 (13.9) and 6.0 (1.0) years. Death and fatal/nonfatal CVD occurred in 926 and 1378 individuals. Compared with being single, being married was associated with 50% lower risk of death, cardiovascular (CV) death, and diabetes-related death. Individuals in the two lowest quintiles had twice as great a risk of fatal/nonfatal CVD, coronary heart disease, and stroke and roughly three times as great a risk of death, diabetes-related death, and CV death as individuals in the highest income quintile. Compared with having ≤9 years of education, individuals with a college/university degree had 33% lower risk of fatal/nonfatal stroke.”

“Individuals with 10–12 years of education were comparable at baseline (considering distribution of age and sex) with those with a college/university degree […]. Individuals with a college/university degree had higher income, had 5 mmol/mol lower HbA1c, were more likely to be married/cohabiting, used insulin pump more frequently (17.5% vs. 14.5%), smoked less (5.8% vs. 13.1%), and had less albuminuria (10.8% vs. 14.2%). […] Women had substantially lower income and higher education, were more often married, used insulin pump more frequently, had less albuminuria, and smoked more frequently than men […] Individuals with high income were more likely to be married/cohabiting, had lower HbA1c, and had lower rates of smoking as well as albuminuria”.

CONCLUSIONS Low SES increases the risk of CVD and death by a factor of 2–3 in type 1 diabetes.”

“The effect of SES was striking despite rigorous adjustments for risk factors and confounders. Individuals in the two lowest income quintiles had two to three times higher risk of CV events and death than those in the highest income quintile. Compared with low educational level, having high education was associated with ∼30% lower risk of stroke. Compared with being single, individuals who were married/cohabiting had >50% lower risk of death, CV death, and diabetes-related death. Immigrants had 20–40% lower risk of fatal/nonfatal CVD, all-cause death, and diabetes-related death. Additionally, we show that males had 44%, 63%, and 29% higher risk of all-cause death, CV death, and diabetes-related death, respectively.

Despite rigorous adjustments for covariates and equitable access to health care at a negligible cost (20,21), SES and sex were robust predictors of CVD disease and mortality in type 1 diabetes; their effect was comparable with that of smoking, which represented an HR of 1.56 (95% CI 1.29–1.91) for all-cause death. […] Our study shows that men with type 1 diabetes are at greater risk of CV events and death compared with women. This should be viewed in the light of a recent meta-analysis of 26 studies, which showed higher excess risk in women compared with men. Overall, women had 40% greater excess risk of all-cause mortality, and twice the excess risk of fatal/nonfatal vascular events, compared with men (29). Thus, whereas the excess risk (i.e., the risk of patients with diabetes compared with the nondiabetic population) of vascular disease is higher in women with diabetes, we show that men with diabetes are still at substantially greater risk of all-cause death, CV death, and diabetes death compared with women with diabetes. Other studies are in line with our findings (10,11,13,3032).”

iv. Interventions That Restore Awareness of Hypoglycemia in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

“Hypoglycemia remains the major limiting factor toward achieving good glycemic control (1). Recurrent hypoglycemia reduces symptomatic and hormone responses to subsequent hypoglycemia (2), associated with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH). IAH occurs in up to one-third of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (3,4), increasing their risk of severe hypoglycemia (SH) sixfold (3) and contributing to substantial morbidity, with implications for employment (5), driving (6), and mortality. Distribution of risk of SH is skewed: one study showed that 5% of subjects accounted for 54% of all SH episodes, with IAH one of the main risk factors (7). “Dead-in-bed,” related to nocturnal hypoglycemia, is a leading cause of death in people with T1D <40 years of age (8).”

“This systematic review assessed the clinical effectiveness of treatment strategies for restoring hypoglycemia awareness (HA) and reducing SH risk in those with IAH and performed a meta-analysis, where possible, for different approaches in restoring awareness in T1D adults. Interventions to restore HA were broadly divided into three categories: educational (inclusive of behavioral), technological, and pharmacotherapeutic. […] Forty-three studies (18 randomized controlled trials, 25 before-and-after studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 27 educational, 11 technological, and 5 pharmacological interventions. […] A meta-analysis for educational interventions on change in mean SH rates per person per year was performed. Combining before-and-after and RCT studies, six studies (n = 1,010 people) were included in the meta-analysis […] A random-effects meta-analysis revealed an effect size of a reduction in SH rates of 0.44 per patient per year with 95% CI 0.253–0.628. [here’s the forest plot, US] […] Most of the educational interventions were observational and mostly retrospective, with few RCTs. The overall risk of bias is considered medium to high and the study quality moderate. Most, if not all, of the RCTs did not use double blinding and lacked information on concealment. The strength of association of the effect of educational interventions is moderate. The ability of educational interventions to restore IAH and reduce SH is consistent and direct with educational interventions showing a largely positive outcome. There is substantial heterogeneity between studies, and the estimate is imprecise, as reflected by the large CIs. The strength of evidence is moderate to high.”

v. Trends of Diagnosis-Specific Work Disability After Newly Diagnosed Diabetes: A 4-Year Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study.

“There is little evidence to show which specific diseases contribute to excess work disability among those with diabetes. […] In this study, we used a large nationwide register-based data set, which includes information on work disability for all working-age inhabitants of Sweden, in order to investigate trends of diagnosis-specific work disability (sickness absence and disability pension) among people with diabetes for 4 years directly after the recorded onset of diabetes. We compared work disability trends among people with diabetes with trends among those without diabetes. […] The register data of diabetes medication and in- and outpatient hospital visits were used to identify all recorded new diabetes cases among the population aged 25–59 years in Sweden in 2006 (n = 14,098). Data for a 4-year follow-up of ICD-10 physician-certified sickness absence and disability pension days (2007‒2010) were obtained […] Comparisons were made using a random sample of the population without recorded diabetes (n = 39,056).”

RESULTS The most common causes of work disability were mental and musculoskeletal disorders; diabetes as a reason for disability was rare. Most of the excess work disability among people with diabetes compared with those without diabetes was owing to mental disorders (mean difference adjusted for confounding factors 18.8‒19.8 compensated days/year), musculoskeletal diseases (12.1‒12.8 days/year), circulatory diseases (5.9‒6.5 days/year), diseases of the nervous system (1.8‒2.0 days/year), and injuries (1.0‒1.2 days/year).”

CONCLUSIONS The increased risk of work disability among those with diabetes is largely attributed to comorbid mental, musculoskeletal, and circulatory diseases. […] Diagnosis of diabetes as the cause of work disability was rare.”

August 19, 2017 Posted by | Cancer/oncology, Cardiology, Diabetes, Medicine, Statistics | Leave a comment

Type 1 Diabetes Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Fracture Across the Life Span

Type 1 Diabetes Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Fracture Across the Life Span: A Population-Based Cohort Study Using The Health Improvement Network (THIN).

I originally intended to include this paper in a standard diabetes post like this one, but the post gradually got more and more unwieldy as I added more stuff and so in the end I decided – like in this case – that it might be a better idea to just devote an entire post to the paper and then postpone my coverage of some of the other papers included in the post.

I’ve talked about this stuff before, but I’m almost certain the results of this paper were not included in Czernik and Fowlkes’ book as this paper was published at almost exactly the same time as was the book. It provides further support of some of the observations included in C&F’s publication. This is a very large and important study in the context of the relationship between type 1 diabetes and skeletal health. I have quoted extensively from the paper below, and also added some observations of my own along the way in order to provide a little bit of context where it might be needed:

“There is an emerging awareness that diabetes adversely affects skeletal health and that type 1 diabetes affects the skeleton more severely than type 2 diabetes (5). Studies in humans and animal models have identified a number of skeletal abnormalities associated with type 1 diabetes, including deficits in bone mineral density (BMD) (6,7) and bone structure (8), decreased markers of bone formation (9,10), and variable alterations in markers of bone resorption (10,11).

Previous studies and two large meta-analyses reported that type 1 diabetes is associated with an increased risk of fracture (1219). However, most of these studies were conducted in older adults and focused on hip fractures. Importantly, most affected individuals develop type 1 diabetes in childhood, before the attainment of peak bone mass, and therefore may be at increased risk of fracture throughout their life span. Moreover, because hip fractures are rare in children and young adults, studies limited to this outcome may underestimate the overall fracture burden in type 1 diabetes.

We used The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database to conduct a population-based cohort study to determine whether type 1 diabetes is associated with increased fracture incidence, to delineate age and sex effects on fracture risk, and to determine whether fracture site distribution is altered in participants with type 1 diabetes compared with participants without diabetes. […] 30,394 participants aged 0–89 years with type 1 diabetes were compared with 303,872 randomly selected age-, sex-, and practice-matched participants without diabetes. Cox regression analysis was used to determine hazard ratios (HRs) for incident fracture in participants with type 1 diabetes. […] A total of 334,266 participants, median age 34 years, were monitored for 1.9 million person-years. HR were lowest in males and females age <20 years, with HR 1.14 (95% CI 1.01–1.29) and 1.35 (95% CI 1.12–1.63), respectively. Risk was highest in men 60–69 years (HR 2.18 [95% CI 1.79–2.65]), and in women 40–49 years (HR 2.03 [95% CI 1.73–2.39]). Lower extremity fractures comprised a higher proportion of incident fractures in participants with versus those without type 1 diabetes (31.1% vs. 25.1% in males, 39.3% vs. 32% in females; P < 0.001). Secondary analyses for incident hip fractures identified the highest HR of 5.64 (95% CI 3.55–8.97) in men 60–69 years and the highest HR of 5.63 (95% CI 2.25–14.11) in women 30–39 years.”

“Conditions identified by diagnosis codes as covariates of interest were hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, adrenal insufficiency, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, vitamin D deficiency, fracture before the start of the follow-up period, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic neuropathy. All variables, with the exception of prior fracture, were treated as time-varying covariates. […] Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to assess confounding by covariates of interest. Final models were stratified by age category (<20, 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and ≥70 years) after age was found to be a significant predictor of fracture and to violate the assumption of proportionality of hazards […] Within each age stratum, models were again assessed for proportionality of hazards and further stratified where appropriate.”

A brief note on a few of those covariates. Some of them are obvious, other perhaps less so. Retinopathy is probably included mainly due to the associated vision issues, rather than some sort of direct pathophysiological linkage between the conditions; vision problems may increase the risk of falls, particularly in the elderly, and falls increase the fracture risk (they note this later on in the paper). Neuropathy could in my opinion affect risk in multiple ways, not only through an increased fall risk, but either way it certainly makes a lot of sense to include that variable if it’s available. Thyroid disorders can cause bone problems, and the incidence of thyroid disorders is elevated in type 1 – to the extent that e.g. the Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine recommends screening people with diabetes mellitus for abnormalities in thyroid function on the annual review. Both Addison‘s (adrenal insufficiency) and thyroid disorders in type 1 diabetics may be specific components of a more systemic autoimmune disease (relevant link here, see the last paragraph), by some termed autoimmune polyendocrine syndromes. When you treat people with Addison’s you give them glucocorticoids, and this treatment can have deleterious effects on bone density especially in the long run – they note in the paper that exposure to corticosteroids is a significant fracture predictor in their models, which is not surprising. In one of the chapters included in Horowitz & Samson‘s book (again, I hope to cover it in more detail later…) the authors note that the combination of coeliac disease and diabetes may lead to protein malabsorption (among other things), which can obviously affect bone health, and they also observe e.g. that common lab abnormalities found in patients with coeliac include “low levels of haemoglobin, albumin, calcium, potassium, magnesium and iron” and furthermore that “extra-intestinal symptoms [include] muscle cramps, bone pain due to osteoporotic fractures or osteomalacia” – coeliac is obviously relevant here, especially as the condition is much more common in type 1 diabetics than in non-diabetics (“The prevalence of coeliac disease in type 1 diabetic children varies from 1.0% to 3.5%, which is at least 15 times higher than the prevalence among children without diabetes” – also an observation from H&S’s book, chapter 5).

Moving on…

“During the study period, incident fractures occurred in 2,615 participants (8.6%) with type 1 diabetes compared with 18,624 participants (6.1%) without diabetes. […] The incidence in males was greatest in the 10- to 20-year age bracket, at 297.2 and 261.3 fractures per 10,000 person-years in participants with and without type 1 diabetes, respectively. The fracture incidence in women was greatest in the 80- to 90-year age bracket, at 549.1 and 333.9 fractures per 10,000 person-years in participants with and without type 1 diabetes, respectively.”

It’s important to note that the first percentages reported above (8.6% vs 6.1%) may be slightly misleading as the follow-up periods for the two groups were dissimilar; type 1s in the study were on average followed for a shorter amount of time than were the controls (4.7 years vs 3.89 years), meaning that raw incident fracture risk estimates like these cannot be translated directly into person-year estimates. The risk differential is thus at least slightly higher than these percentages would suggest. A good view of how the person-year risk difference evolves as a function of age/time are displayed in the paper’s figure 2.

“Hip fractures alone comprised 5.5% and 11.6% of all fractures in males and females with type 1 diabetes, compared with 4.1% and 8.6% in males and females without diabetes (P = 0.04 for males and P = 0.001 for females). Participants with type 1 diabetes with a lower extremity fracture were more likely to have retinopathy (30% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001) and neuropathy (5.4% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.001) compared with those with fractures at other sites. The median average HbA1c did not differ between the two groups.”

I’ll reiterate this because it’s important: They care about lower-extremity fractures because some of those kinds of fractures, especially hip fractures, have a really poor prognosis. It’s not that it’s annoying and you’ll need a cast; I’ve seen estimates suggesting that roughly one-third of diabetics who sustain a hip fracture die within a year; a prognosis like that is much worse than many cancers. A few relevant observations from Czernik and Fowlkes:

“Together, [studies conducted during the last 15 years on type 1 diabetics] demonstrate an unequivocally increased fracture risk at the hip [compared to non-diabetic controls], with most demonstrating a six to ninefold increase in relative risk. […] type I DM patients have hip fractures at a younger age on average, with a mean of 43 for women and 41 for men in one study. Almost 7 % of people with type I DM can be expected to have sustained a hip fracture by age 65 [7] […] Patients with DM and hip fracture are at a higher risk of mortality than patients without DM, with 1-year rates as high as 32 % vs. 13 % of nondiabetic patients”.

Back to the paper:

“Incident hip fracture risk was increased in all age categories for female participants with type 1 diabetes, and in age categories >30 years in men. […] Type 1 diabetes remained significantly associated with fracture after adjustment for covariates in all previously significant sex and age strata, with the exception of women aged 40–49. […] Each 1% (11 mmol/mol) greater average HbA1c level was associated with a 5% greater risk of incident fracture in males and an 11% greater risk of fracture in females. Diabetic neuropathy was a significant risk factor for incident fracture in males (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03–1.72) and females (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.19–1.92); however, diabetic retinopathy was significant only in males (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.01–1.28). […] The presence of celiac disease was associated with an increased risk of fractures in females, with an HR of 1.8 (95% CI 1.18–2.76), but not in males. A higher BMI was protective against fracture. Smoking was a risk factor for fracture in males in the 13,763 participants with type 1 diabetes with smoking and BMI data available for analysis.”

The Hba1c-link was interesting to me because the relationships between glycemic control and fracture risk has in other contexts been somewhat unclear; one problem is that Hba1c levels in the lower ranges increase the risk of hypoglycemic episodes, and such episodes may increase the risk of fractures, so even if chronic hyperglycemia is bad for bone health if you don’t have access e.g. to event-level/-rate data on hypoglycemic episodes confounding may be an issue causing a (very plausible) chronic hyperglycemia-fracture risk link to perhaps be harder to detect than it otherwise might have been. It’s of note that these guys did not have access to data on hypoglycemic episodes. They observe later in the paper that: “If hypoglycemia was a major contributing factor, we might have expected a negative effect of HbA1c on fracture risk; our data indicated the opposite.” I don’t think you can throw out hypoglycemia as a contributing factor that easily.

Anyway, a few final observations from the paper:

CONCLUSIONS Type 1 diabetes was associated with increased risk of incident fracture that began in childhood and extended across the life span. Participants with type 1 diabetes sustained a disproportionately greater number of lower extremity fractures. These findings have important public health implications, given the increasing prevalence of type 1 diabetes and the morbidity and mortality associated with hip fractures.”

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that the increased fracture risk in type 1 diabetes begins in childhood. This finding has important implications for researchers planning future studies and for clinicians caring for patients in this population. Although peak bone mass is attained by the end of the third decade of life, peak bone accrual occurs in adolescence in conjunction with the pubertal growth spurt (31). This critical time for bone accrual may represent a period of increased skeletal vulnerability and also a window of opportunity for the implementation of therapies to improve bone formation (32). This is an especially important consideration in the population with type 1 diabetes, because the incidence of this disease peaks in early adolescence. Three-quarters of individuals will develop the condition before 18 years of age, and therefore before attainment of peak bone mass (33). The development and evaluation of therapies aimed at increasing bone formation and strength in adolescence may lead to a lifelong reduction in fracture risk.”

“The underlying mechanism for the increased fracture risk in patients with type 1 diabetes is not fully understood. Current evidence suggests that bone quantity and quality may both be abnormal in this condition. Clinical studies using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and peripheral quantitative computed tomography have identified mild to modest deficits in BMD and bone structure in both pediatric and adult participants with type 1 diabetes (6,8,34). Deficits in BMD are unlikely to be the only factor contributing to skeletal fragility in type 1 diabetes, however, as evidenced by a recent meta-analysis that found that the increased fracture risk seen in type 1 diabetes could not be explained by deficits in BMD alone (16). Recent cellular and animal models have shown that insulin signaling in osteoblasts and osteoblast progenitor cells promotes postnatal bone acquisition, suggesting that the insulin deficiency inherent in type 1 diabetes is a significant contributor to the pathogenesis of skeletal disease (35). Other proposed mechanisms contributing to skeletal fragility in type 1 diabetes include chronic hyperglycemia (36), impaired production of IGF-1 (37), and the accumulation of advanced glycation end products in bone (38). Our results showed that a higher average HbA1c was associated with an increased risk of fracture in participants with type 1 diabetes, supporting the hypothesis that chronic hyperglycemia and its sequelae contribute to skeletal fragility.”

“In summary, our study found that participants of all ages with type 1 diabetes were at increased risk of fracture. The adverse effect of type 1 diabetes on the skeleton is an underrecognized complication that is likely to grow into a significant public health burden given the increasing incidence and prevalence of this disease. […] Our novel finding that children with type 1 diabetes were already at increased risk of fracture suggests that therapeutic interventions aimed at children and adolescents may have an important effect on reducing lifelong fracture risk.”

August 15, 2017 Posted by | Diabetes, Epidemiology, Medicine, Studies | Leave a comment

Depression and Heart Disease (II)

Below I have added some more observations from the book, which I gave four stars on goodreads.

“A meta-analysis of twin (and family) studies estimated the heritability of adult MDD around 40% [16] and this estimate is strikingly stable across different countries [17, 18]. If measurement error due to unreliability is taken into account by analysing MDD assessed on two occasions, heritability estimates increase to 66% [19]. Twin studies in children further show that there is already a large genetic contribution to depressive symptoms in youth, with heritability estimates varying between 50% and 80% [20–22]. […] Cardiovascular research in twin samples has suggested a clear-cut genetic contribution to hypertension (h2 = 61%) [30], fatal stroke (h2 = 32%) [31] and CAD (h2 = 57% in males and 38% in females) [32]. […] A very important, and perhaps underestimated, source of pleiotropy in the association of MDD and CAD are the major behavioural risk factors for CAD: smoking and physical inactivity. These factors are sometimes considered ‘environmental’, but twin studies have shown that such behaviours have a strong genetic component [33–35]. Heritability estimates for [many] established risk factors [for CAD – e.g. BMI, smoking, physical inactivity – US] are 50% or higher in most adult twin samples and these estimates remain remarkably similar across the adult life span [41–43].”

“The crucial question is whether the genetic factors underlying MDD also play a role in CAD and CAD risk factors. To test for an overlap in the genetic factors, a bivariate extension of the structural equation model for twin data can be used [57]. […] If the depressive symptoms in a twin predict the IL-6 level in his/her co-twin, this can only be explained by an underlying factor that affects both depression and IL-6 levels and is shared by members of a family. If the prediction is much stronger in MZ than in DZ twins, this signals that the underlying factor is their shared genetic make-up, rather than their shared (family) environment. […] It is important to note clearly here that genetic correlations do not prove the existence of pleiotropy, because genes that influence MDD may, through causal effects of MDD on CAD risk, also become ‘CAD genes’. The absence of a genetic correlation, however, can be used to falsify the existence of genetic pleiotropy. For instance, the hypothesis that genetic pleiotropy explains part of the association between depressive symptoms and IL-6 requires the genetic correlation between these traits to be significantly different from zero. [Furthermore,] the genetic correlation should have a positive value. A negative genetic correlation would signal that genes that increase the risk for depression decrease the risk for higher IL-6 levels, which would go against the genetic pleiotropy hypothesis. […] Su et al. [26] […] tested pleiotropy as a possible source of the association of depressive symptoms with Il-6 in 188 twin pairs of the Vietnam Era Twin (VET) Registry. The genetic correlation between depressive symptoms and IL-6 was found to be positive and significant (RA = 0.22, p = 0.046)”

“For the association between MDD and physical inactivity, the dominant hypothesis has not been that MDD causes a reduction in regular exercise, but instead that regular exercise may act as a protective factor against mood disorders. […] we used the twin method to perform a rigorous test of this popular hypothesis [on] 8558 twins and their family members using their longitudinal data across 2-, 4-, 7-, 9- and 11-year follow-up periods. In spite of sufficient statistical power, we found only the genetic correlation to be significant (ranging between *0.16 and *0.44 for different symptom scales and different time-lags). The environmental correlations were essentially zero. This means that the environmental factors that cause a person to take up exercise do not cause lower anxiety or depressive symptoms in that person, currently or at any future time point. In contrast, the genetic factors that cause a person to take up exercise also cause lower anxiety or depressive symptoms in that person, at the present and all future time points. This pattern of results falsifies the causal hypothesis and leaves genetic pleiotropy as the most likely source for the association between exercise and lower levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms in the population at large. […] Taken together, [the] studies support the idea that genetic pleiotropy may be a factor contributing to the increased risk for CAD in subjects suffering from MDD or reporting high counts of depressive symptoms. The absence of environmental correlations in the presence of significant genetic correlations for a number of the CAD risk factors (CFR, cholesterol, inflammation and regular exercise) suggests that pleiotropy is the sole reason for the association between MDD and these CAD risk factors, whereas for other CAD risk factors (e.g. smoking) and CAD incidence itself, pleiotropy may coexist with causal effects.”

“By far the most tested polymorphism in psychiatric genetics is a 43-base pair insertion or deletion in the promoter region of the serotonin transporter gene (5HTT, renamed SLC6A4). About 55% of Caucasians carry a long allele (L) with 16 repeat units. The short allele (S, with 14 repeat units) of this length polymorphism repeat (LPR) reduces transcriptional efficiency, resulting in decreased serotonin transporter expression and function [83]. Because serotonin plays a key role in one of the major theories of MDD [84], and because the most prescribed antidepressants act directly on this transporter, 5HTT is an obvious candidate gene for this disorder. […] The dearth of studies attempting to associate the 5HTTLPR to MDD or related personality traits tells a revealing story about the fate of most candidate genes in psychiatric genetics. Many conflicting findings have been reported, and the two largest studies failed to link the 5HTTLPR to depressive symptoms or clinical MDD [85, 86]. Even at the level of reviews and meta-analyses, conflicting conclusions have been drawn about the role of this polymorphism in the development of MDD [87, 88]. The initially promising explanation for discrepant findings – potential interactive effects of the 5HTTLPR and stressful life events [89] – did not survive meta-analysis [90].”

“Across the board, overlooking the wealth of candidate gene studies on MDD, one is inclined to conclude that this approach has failed to unambiguously identify genetic variants involved in MDD […]. Hope is now focused on the newer GWA [genome wide association] approach. […] At the time of writing, only two GWA studies had been published on MDD [81, 95]. […] In theory, the strategy to identify potential pleiotropic genes in the MDD–CAD relationship is extremely straightforward. We simply select the genes that occur in the lists of confirmed genes from the GWA studies for both traits. In practice, this is hard to do, because genetics in psychiatry is clearly lagging behind genetics in cardiology and diabetes medicine. […] What is shown by the reviewed twin studies is that some genetic variants may influence MDD and CAD risk factors. This can occur through one of three mechanisms: (a) the genetic variants that increase the risk for MDD become part of the heritability of CAD through a causal effect of MDD on CAD risk factors (causality); (b) the genetic variants that increase the risk for CAD become part of the heritability of MDD through a direct causal effect of CAD on MDD (reverse causality); (c) the genetic variants influence shared risk factors that independently increase the risk for MDD as well as CAD (pleiotropy). I suggest that to fully explain the MDD–CAD association we need to be willing to be open to the possibility that these three mechanisms co-exist. Even in the presence of true pleiotropic effects, MDD may influence CAD risk factors, and having CAD in turn may worsen the course of MDD.”

“Patients with depression are more likely to exhibit several unhealthy behaviours or avoid other health-promoting ones than those without depression. […] Patients with depression are more likely to have sleep disturbances [6]. […] sleep deprivation has been linked with obesity, diabetes and the metabolic syndrome [13]. […] Physical inactivity and depression display a complex, bidirectional relationship. Depression leads to physical inactivity and physical inactivity exacerbates depression [19]. […] smoking rates among those with depression are about twice that of the general population [29]. […] Poor attention to self-care is often a problem among those with major depressive disorder. In the most severe cases, those with depression may become inattentive to their personal hygiene. One aspect of this relationship that deserves special attention with respect to cardiovascular disease is the association of depression and periodontal disease. […] depression is associated with poor adherence to medical treatment regimens in many chronic illnesses, including heart disease. […] There is some evidence that among patients with an acute coronary syndrome, improvement in depression is associated with improvement in adherence. […] Individuals with depression are often socially withdrawn or isolated. It has been shown that patients with heart disease who are depressed have less social support [64], and that social isolation or poor social support is associated with increased mortality in heart disease patients [65–68]. […] [C]linicians who make recommendations to patients recovering from a heart attack should be aware that low levels of social support and social isolation are particularly common among depressed individuals and that high levels of social support appear to protect patients from some of the negative effects of depression [78].”

“Self-efficacy describes an individual’s self-confidence in his/her ability to accomplish a particular task or behaviour. Self-efficacy is an important construct to consider when one examines the psychological mechanisms linking depression and heart disease, since it influences an individual’s engagement in behaviour and lifestyle changes that may be critical to improving cardiovascular risk. Many studies on individuals with chronic illness show that depression is often associated with low self-efficacy [95–97]. […] Low self-efficacy is associated with poor adherence behaviour in patients with heart failure [101]. […] Much of the interest in self-efficacy comes from the fact that it is modifiable. Self-efficacy-enhancing interventions have been shown to improve cardiac patients’ self-efficacy and thereby improve cardiac health outcomes [102]. […] One problem with targeting self-efficacy in depressed heart disease patients is [however] that depressive symptoms reduce the effects of self-efficacy-enhancing interventions [105, 106].”

“Taken together, [the] SADHART and ENRICHD [studies] suggest, but do not prove, that antidepressant drug therapy in general, and SSRI treatment in particular, improve cardiovascular outcomes in depressed post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. […] even large epidemiological studies of depression and antidepressant treatment are not usually informative, because they confound the effects of depression and antidepressant treatment. […] However, there is one Finnish cohort study in which all subjects […] were followed up through a nationwide computerised database [17]. The purpose of this study was not to examine the relationship between depression and cardiac mortality, but rather to look at the relationship between antidepressant use and suicide. […] unexpectedly, ‘antidepressant use, and especially SSRI use, was associated with a marked reduction in total mortality (=49%, p < 0.001), mostly attributable to a decrease in cardiovascular deaths’. The study involved 15 390 patients with a mean follow-up of 3.4 years […] One of the marked differences between the SSRIs and the earlier tricyclic antidepressants is that the SSRIs do not cause cardiac death in overdose as the tricyclics do [41]. There has been literature that suggested that tricyclics even at therapeutic doses could be cardiotoxic and more problematic than SSRIs [42, 43]. What has been surprising is that both in the clinical trial data from ENRICHD and the epidemiological data from Finland, tricyclic treatment has also been associated with a decreased risk of mortality. […] Given that SSRI treatment of depression in the post-ACS period is safe, effective in reducing depressed mood, able to improve health behaviours and may reduce subsequent cardiac morbidity and mortality, it would seem obvious that treating depression is strongly indicated. However, the vast majority of post-ACS patients will not see a psychiatrically trained professional and many cases are not identified [33].”

“That depression is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is no longer open to question. Similarly, there is no question that the risk of morbidity and mortality increases with increasing severity of depression. Questions remain about the mechanisms that underlie this association, whether all types of depression carry the same degree of risk and to what degree treating depression reduces that risk. There is no question that the benefits of treating depression associated with coronary artery disease far outweigh the risks.”

“Two competing trends are emerging in research on psychotherapy for depression in cardiac patients. First, the few rigorous RCTs that have been conducted so far have shown that even the most efficacious of the current generation of interventions produce relatively modest outcomes. […] Second, there is a growing recognition that, even if an intervention is highly efficacious, it may be difficult to translate into clinical practice if it requires intensive or extensive contacts with a highly trained, experienced, clinically sophisticated psychotherapist. It can even be difficult to implement such interventions in the setting of carefully controlled, randomised efficacy trials. Consequently, there are efforts to develop simpler, more efficient interventions that can be delivered by a wider variety of interventionists. […] Although much more work remains to be done in this area, enough is already known about psychotherapy for comorbid depression in heart disease to suggest that a higher priority should be placed on translation of this research into clinical practice. In many cases, cardiac patients do not receive any treatment for their depression.”

August 14, 2017 Posted by | Books, Cardiology, Diabetes, Genetics, Medicine, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Long-term Glycemic Variability and Risk of Adverse Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

“This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the association between HbA1c variability and micro- and macrovascular complications and mortality in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. […] Seven studies evaluated HbA1c variability among patients with type 1 diabetes and showed an association of HbA1c variability with renal disease (risk ratio 1.56 [95% CI 1.08–2.25], two studies), cardiovascular events (1.98 [1.39–2.82]), and retinopathy (2.11 [1.54–2.89]). Thirteen studies evaluated HbA1c variability among patients with type 2 diabetes. Higher HbA1c variability was associated with higher risk of renal disease (1.34 [1.15–1.57], two studies), macrovascular events (1.21 [1.06–1.38]), ulceration/gangrene (1.50 [1.06–2.12]), cardiovascular disease (1.27 [1.15–1.40]), and mortality (1.34 [1.18–1.53]). Most studies were retrospective with lack of adjustment for potential confounders, and inconsistency existed in the definition of HbA1c variability.

CONCLUSIONS HbA1c variability was positively associated with micro- and macrovascular complications and mortality independently of the HbA1c level and might play a future role in clinical risk assessment.”

Two observations related to the paper: One, although only a relatively small number of studies were included in the review, the number of patients included in some of those included studies was rather large – the 7 type 1 studies thus included 44,021 participants, and the 13 type 2 studies included in total 43,620 participants. Two, it’s noteworthy that some of the associations already look at least reasonably strong, despite interest in HbA1c variability being a relatively recent phenomenon. Confounding might be an issue, but then again it almost always might be, and to give an example, out of 11 studies analyzing the association between renal disease and HbA1c variability included in the review, ten of them support a link and the only one which does not was a small study on pediatric patients which was almost certainly underpowered to investigate such a link in the first place (the base rate of renal complications is, as mentioned before here on this blog quite recently (link 3), quite low in pediatric samples).

ii. Risk of Severe Hypoglycemia in Type 1 Diabetes Over 30 Years of Follow-up in the DCCT/EDIC Study.

(I should perhaps note here that I’m already quite familiar with the context of the DCCT/EDIC study/studies, and although readers may not be, and although background details are included in the paper, I decided not to cover such details here although they would make my coverage of the paper easier to understand. I instead decided to limit my coverage of the paper to a few observations which I myself found to be of interest.)

“During the DCCT, the rates of SH [Severe Hypoglycemia, US], including episodes with seizure or coma, were approximately threefold greater in the intensive treatment group than in the conventional treatment group […] During EDIC, the frequency of SH increased in the former conventional group and decreased in the former intensive group so that the difference in SH event rates between the two groups was no longer significant (36.6 vs. 40.8 episodes per 100 patient-years, respectively […] By the end of DCCT, with an average of 6.5 years of follow-up, 65% of the intensive group versus 35% of the conventional group experienced at least one episode of SH. In contrast, ∼50% of participants within each group reported an episode of SH during the 20 years of EDIC.”

“Of [the] participants reporting episodes of SH, during the DCCT, 54% of the intensive group and 30% of the conventional group experienced four or more episodes, whereas in EDIC, 37% of the intensive group and 33% of the conventional group experienced four or more events […]. Moreover, a subset of participants (14% [99 of 714]) experienced nearly one-half of all SH episodes (1,765 of 3,788) in DCCT, and a subset of 7% (52 of 709) in EDIC experienced almost one-third of all SH episodes (888 of 2,813) […] Fifty-one major accidents occurred during the 6.5 years of DCCT and 143 during the 20 years of EDIC […] The most frequent type of major accident was that involving a motor vehicle […] Hypoglycemia played a role as a possible, probable, or principal cause in 18 of 28 operator-caused motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) during DCCT […] and in 23 of 54 operator-caused MVAs during EDIC”.

“The T1D Exchange Clinic Registry recently reported that 8% of 4,831 adults with T1D living in the U.S. had a seizure or coma event during the 3 months before their most recent annual visit (11). During EDIC, we observed that 27% of the cohort experienced a coma or seizure event over the 20 years of 3-month reporting intervals (∼1.4% per year), a much lower annual risk than in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. In part, the open enrollment of patients into the T1D Exchange may be reflected without the exclusion of participants with a history of SH as in the DCCT and other clinical trials. The current data support the clinical perception that a small subset of individuals is more susceptible to SH (7% of patients with 11 or more SH episodes during EDIC, which represents 32% of all SH episodes in EDIC) […] a history of SH during DCCT and lower current HbA1c levels were the two major factors associated with an increased risk of SH during EDIC. Safety concerns were the reason why a history of frequent SH events was an exclusion criterion for enrollment in DCCT. […] Of note, we found that participants who entered the DCCT as adolescents were more likely to experience SH during EDIC.”

“In summary, although event rates in the DCCT/EDIC cohort seem to have fallen and stabilized over time, SH remains an ever-present threat for patients with T1D who use current technology, occurring at a rate of ∼36–41 episodes per 100 patient-years, even among those with longer diabetes duration. Having experienced one or more such prior events is the strongest predictor of a future SH episode.”

I didn’t actually like that summary. If a history of severe hypoglycemia was an exclusion criterion in the DCCT trial, which it was, then the event rate you’d get from this data set is highly likely to provide a biased estimator of the true event rate, as the Exchange Clinic Registry data illustrate. The true population event rate in unselected samples is higher.

Another note which may also be important to add is that many diabetics who do not have a ‘severe event’ during a specific time period might still experience a substantial number of hypoglycemic episodes; ‘severe events’ (which require the assistance of another individual) is a somewhat blunt instrument in particular for assessing quality-of-life aspects of hypoglycemia.

iii. The Presence and Consequence of Nonalbuminuric Chronic Kidney Disease in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

“This study investigated the prevalence of nonalbuminuric chronic kidney disease in type 1 diabetes to assess whether it increases the risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes as well as all-cause mortality. […] This was an observational follow-up of 3,809 patients with type 1 diabetes from the Finnish Diabetic Nephropathy Study. […] mean age was 37.6 ± 11.8 years and duration of diabetes 21.2 ± 12.1 years. […] During 13 years of median follow-up, 378 developed end-stage renal disease, 415 suffered an incident cardiovascular event, and 406 died. […] At baseline, 78 (2.0%) had nonalbuminuric chronic kidney disease. […] Nonalbuminuric chronic kidney disease did not increase the risk of albuminuria (hazard ratio [HR] 2.0 [95% CI 0.9–4.4]) or end-stage renal disease (HR 6.4 [0.8–53.0]) but did increase the risk of cardiovascular events (HR 2.0 [1.4–3.5]) and all-cause mortality (HR 2.4 [1.4–3.9]). […] ESRD [End-Stage Renal Disease] developed during follow-up in 0.3% of patients with nonalbuminuric non-CKD [CKD: Chronic Kidney Disease], in 1.3% of patients with nonalbuminuric CKD, in 13.9% of patients with albuminuric non-CKD, and in 63.0% of patients with albuminuric CKD (P < 0.001).”

CONCLUSIONS Nonalbuminuric chronic kidney disease is not a frequent finding in patients with type 1 diabetes, but when present, it is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and all-cause mortality but not with renal outcomes.”

iv. Use of an α-Glucosidase Inhibitor and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Diabetes: A Nationwide, Population-Based Cohort Study.

This one relates closely to stuff covered in Horowitz & Samsom’s book about Gastrointestinal Function in Diabetes Mellitus which I just finished (and which I liked very much). Here’s a relevant quote from chapter 7 of that book (which is about ‘Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Function’):

“Several studies have provided evidence that the risk of pancreatic cancer is increased in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus [136,137]. In fact, diabetes has been associated with an increased risk of several cancers, including those of the pancreas, liver, endometrium and kidney [136]. The pooled relative risk of pancreatic cancer for diabetics vs. non-diabetics in a meta-analysis was 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.6–2.8). Patients presenting with diabetes mellitus within a period of 12 months of the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were excluded because in these cases diabetes may be an early presenting sign of pancreatic cancer rather than a risk factor [137]”.

They don’t mention colon cancer there, but it’s obvious from the research which has been done – and which is covered extensively in that book – that diabetes has the potential to cause functional changes in a large number of components of the digestive system (and I hope to cover this kind of stuff in a lot more detail later on) so the fact that some of these changes may lead to neoplastic changes should hardly be surprising. However evaluating causal pathways is more complicated here than it might have been, because e.g. pancreatic diseases may also themselves cause secondary diabetes in some patients. Liver pathologies like hepatitis B and C also display positive associations with diabetes, although again causal pathways here are not completely clear; treatments used may be a contributing factor (interferon-treatment may induce diabetes), but there are also suggestions that diabetes should be considered one of the extrahepatic manifestations of hepatitis. This stuff is complicated.

The drug mentioned in the paper, acarbose, is incidentally a drug also discussed in some detail in the book. It belongs to a group of drugs called alpha glucosidase inhibitors, and it is ‘the first antidiabetic medication designed to act through an influence on intestinal functions.’ Anyway, some quotes from the paper:

“We conducted a nationwide, population-based study using a large cohort with diabetes in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients with newly diagnosed diabetes (n = 1,343,484) were enrolled between 1998 and 2010. One control subject not using acarbose was randomly selected for each subject using acarbose after matching for age, sex, diabetes onset, and comorbidities. […] There were 1,332 incident cases of colorectal cancer in the cohort with diabetes during the follow-up period of 1,487,136 person-years. The overall incidence rate was 89.6 cases per 100,000 person-years. Patients treated with acarbose had a 27% reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer compared with control subjects. The adjusted HRs were 0.73 (95% CI 0.63–0.83), 0.69 (0.59–0.82), and 0.46 (0.37–0.58) for patients using >0 to <90, 90 to 364, and ≥365 cumulative defined daily doses of acarbose, respectively, compared with subjects who did not use acarbose (P for trend < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS Acarbose use reduced the risk of incident colorectal cancer in patients with diabetes in a dose-dependent manner.”

It’s perhaps worth mentioning that the prevalence of type 1 is relatively low in East Asian populations and that most of the patients included were type 2 (this is also clearly indicated by this observation from the paper: “The median age at the time of the initial diabetes diagnosis was 54.1 years, and the median diabetes duration was 8.9 years.”). Another thing worth mentioning is that colon cancer is a very common type of cancer, and so even moderate risk reductions here at the individual level may translate into a substantial risk reduction at the population level. A third thing, noted in Horowitz & Samsom’s coverage, is that the side effects of acarbose are quite mild, so widespread use of the drug is not out of the question, at least poor tolerance is not likely to be an obstacle; the drug may cause e.g. excessive flatulence and something like 10% of patients may have to stop treatment because of gastrointestinal side effects, but although the side effects are annoying and may be unacceptable to some patients, they are not dangerous; it’s a safe drug which can be used even in patients with renal failure (a context where some of the other oral antidiabetic treatments available are contraindicated).

v. Diabetes, Lower-Extremity Amputation, and Death.

“Worldwide, every 30 s, a limb is lost to diabetes (1,2). Nearly 2 million people living in the U.S. are living with limb loss (1). According to the World Health Organization, lower-extremity amputations (LEAs) are 10 times more common in people with diabetes than in persons who do not have diabetes. In the U.S. Medicare population, the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers is ∼6 per 100 individuals with diabetes per year and the incidence of LEA is 4 per 1,000 persons with diabetes per year (3). LEA in those with diabetes generally carries yearly costs between $30,000 and $60,000 and lifetime costs of half a million dollars (4). In 2012, it was estimated that those with diabetes and lower-extremity wounds in the U.S. Medicare program accounted for $41 billion in cost, which is ∼1.6% of all Medicare health care spending (47). In 2012, in the U.K., it was estimated that the National Health Service spent between £639 and 662 million on foot ulcers and LEA, which was approximately £1 in every £150 spent by the National Health Service (8).”

“LEA does not represent a traditional medical complication of diabetes like myocardial infarction (MI), renal failure, or retinopathy in which organ failure is directly associated with diabetes (2). An LEA occurs because of a disease complication, usually a foot ulcer that is not healing (e.g., organ failure of the skin, failure of the biomechanics of the foot as a unit, nerve sensory loss, and/or impaired arterial vascular supply), but it also occurs at least in part as a consequence of a medical plan to amputate based on a decision between health care providers and patients (9,10). […] 30-day postoperative mortality can approach 10% […]. Previous reports have estimated that the 1-year post-LEA mortality rate in people with diabetes is between 10 and 50%, and the 5-year mortality rate post-LEA is between 30 and 80% (4,1315). More specifically, in the U.S. Medicare population mortality within a year after an incident LEA was 23.1% in 2006, 21.8% in 2007, and 20.6% in 2008 (4). In the U.K., up to 80% will die within 5 years of an LEA (8). In general, those with diabetes with an LEA are two to three times more likely to die at any given time point than those with diabetes who have not had an LEA (5). For perspective, the 5-year death rate after diagnosis of malignancy in the U.S. was 32% in 2010 (16).”

“Evidence on why individuals with diabetes and an LEA die is based on a few mainly small (e.g., <300 subjects) and often single center–based (13,1720) studies or <1 year duration of evaluation (11). In these studies, death is primarily associated with a previous history of cardiovascular disease and renal insufficiency, which are also major complications of diabetes; these complications are also associated with an increased risk of LEA. The goal of our study was to determine whether complications of diabetes well-known to be associated with death in those with diabetes such as cardiovascular disease and renal failure fully explain the higher rate of death in those who have undergone an LEA.”

“This is the largest and longest evaluation of the risk of death among those with diabetes and LEA […] Between 2003 and 2012, 416,434 individuals met the entrance criteria for the study. This cohort accrued an average of 9.0 years of follow-up and a total of 3.7 million diabetes person-years of follow-up. During this period of time, 6,566 (1.6%) patients had an LEA and 77,215 patients died (18.5%). […] The percentage of individuals who died within 30 days, 1 year, and by year 5 of their initial code for an LEA was 1.0%, 9.9%, and 27.2%, respectively. For those >65 years of age, the rates were 12.2% and 31.7%, respectively. For the full cohort of those with diabetes, the rate of death was 2.0% after 1 year of follow up and 7.3% after 5 years of follow up. In general, those with an LEA were more than three times more likely to die during a year of follow-up than an individual with diabetes who had not had an LEA. […] In any given year, >5% of those with diabetes and an LEA will die.”

“From 2003 to 2012, the HR [hazard rate, US] for death after an LEA was 3.02 (95% CI 2.90, 3.14). […] our a priori assumption was that the HR associating LEA with death would be fully diminished (i.e., it would become 1) when adjusted for the other risk factor variables. However, the fully adjusted LEA HR was diminished only ∼22% to 2.37 (95% CI 2.27, 2.48). With the exception of age >65 years, individual risk factors, in general, had minimal effect (<10%) on the HR of the association between LEA and death […] We conducted sensitivity analyses to determine the general statistical parameters of an unmeasured risk factor that could remove the association of LEA with death. We found that even if there existed a very strong risk factor with an HR of death of three, a prevalence of 10% in the general diabetes population, and a prevalence of 60% in those who had an LEA, LEA would still be associated with a statistically significant and clinically important risk of 1.30. These findings are describing a variable that would seem to be so common and so highly associated with death that it should already be clinically apparent. […] In summary, individuals with diabetes and an LEA are more likely to die at any given point in time than those who have diabetes but no LEA. While some of this variation can be explained by other known complications of diabetes, the amount that can be explained is small. Based on the results of this study, including a sensitivity analysis, it is highly unlikely that a “new” major risk factor for death exists. […] LEA is often performed because of an end-stage disease process like chronic nonhealing foot ulcer. By the time a patient has a foot ulcer and an LEA is offered, they are likely suffering from the end-stage consequence of diabetes. […] We would […] suggest that patients who have had an LEA require […] vigilant follow-up and evaluation to assure that their medical care is optimized. It is also important that GPs communicate to their patients about the risk of death to assure that patients have proper expectations about the severity of their disease.”

vi. Trends in Health Care Expenditure in U.S. Adults With Diabetes: 2002–2011.

Before quoting from the paper, I’ll remind people reading along here that ‘total medical expenditures’ != ‘total medical costs’. Lots of relevant medical costs are not included when you focus only on direct medical expenditures (sick days, early retirement, premature mortality and productivity losses associated therewith, etc., etc.). With that out of the way…

“This study examines trends in health care expenditures by expenditure category in U.S. adults with diabetes between 2002 and 2011. […] We analyzed 10 years of data representing a weighted population of 189,013,514 U.S. adults aged ≥18 years from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. […] Relative to individuals without diabetes ($5,058 [95% CI 4,949–5,166]), individuals with diabetes ($12,180 [11,775–12,586]) had more than double the unadjusted mean direct expenditures over the 10-year period. After adjustment for confounders, individuals with diabetes had $2,558 (2,266–2,849) significantly higher direct incremental expenditures compared with those without diabetes. For individuals with diabetes, inpatient expenditures rose initially from $4,014 in 2002/2003 to $4,183 in 2004/2005 and then decreased continuously to $3,443 in 2010/2011, while rising steadily for individuals without diabetes. The estimated unadjusted total direct expenditures for individuals with diabetes were $218.6 billion/year and adjusted total incremental expenditures were approximately $46 billion/year. […] in the U.S., direct medical costs associated with diabetes were $176 billion in 2012 (1,3). This is almost double to eight times the direct medical cost of other chronic diseases: $32 billion for COPD in 2010 (10), $93 billion for all cancers in 2008 (11), $21 billion for heart failure in 2012 (12), and $43 billion for hypertension in 2010 (13). In the U.S., total economic cost of diabetes rose by 41% from 2007 to 2012 (2). […] Our findings show that compared with individuals without diabetes, individuals with diabetes had significantly higher health expenditures from 2002 to 2011 and the bulk of the expenditures came from hospital inpatient and prescription expenditures.”

 

August 10, 2017 Posted by | Books, Cancer/oncology, Cardiology, Diabetes, Economics, Epidemiology, Gastroenterology, Medicine, Nephrology, Pharmacology | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Clinically Relevant Cognitive Impairment in Middle-Aged Adults With Childhood-Onset Type 1 Diabetes.

“Modest cognitive dysfunction is consistently reported in children and young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (1). Mental efficiency, psychomotor speed, executive functioning, and intelligence quotient appear to be most affected (2); studies report effect sizes between 0.2 and 0.5 (small to modest) in children and adolescents (3) and between 0.4 and 0.8 (modest to large) in adults (2). Whether effect sizes continue to increase as those with T1D age, however, remains unknown.

A key issue not yet addressed is whether aging individuals with T1D have an increased risk of manifesting “clinically relevant cognitive impairment,” defined by comparing individual cognitive test scores to demographically appropriate normative means, as opposed to the more commonly investigated “cognitive dysfunction,” or between-group differences in cognitive test scores. Unlike the extensive literature examining cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes, we know of only one prior study examining cognitive impairment in T1D (4). This early study reported a higher rate of clinically relevant cognitive impairment among children (10–18 years of age) diagnosed before compared with after age 6 years (24% vs. 6%, respectively) or a non-T1D cohort (6%).”

“This study tests the hypothesis that childhood-onset T1D is associated with an increased risk of developing clinically relevant cognitive impairment detectable by middle age. We compared cognitive test results between adults with and without T1D and used demographically appropriate published norms (1012) to determine whether participants met criteria for impairment for each test; aging and dementia studies have selected a score ≥1.5 SD worse than the norm on that test, corresponding to performance at or below the seventh percentile (13).”

“During 2010–2013, 97 adults diagnosed with T1D and aged <18 years (age and duration 49 ± 7 and 41 ± 6 years, respectively; 51% female) and 138 similarly aged adults without T1D (age 49 ± 7 years; 55% female) completed extensive neuropsychological testing. Biomedical data on participants with T1D were collected periodically since 1986–1988.  […] The prevalence of clinically relevant cognitive impairment was five times higher among participants with than without T1D (28% vs. 5%; P < 0.0001), independent of education, age, or blood pressure. Effect sizes were large (Cohen d 0.6–0.9; P < 0.0001) for psychomotor speed and visuoconstruction tasks and were modest (d 0.3–0.6; P < 0.05) for measures of executive function. Among participants with T1D, prevalent cognitive impairment was related to 14-year average A1c >7.5% (58 mmol/mol) (odds ratio [OR] 3.0; P = 0.009), proliferative retinopathy (OR 2.8; P = 0.01), and distal symmetric polyneuropathy (OR 2.6; P = 0.03) measured 5 years earlier; higher BMI (OR 1.1; P = 0.03); and ankle-brachial index ≥1.3 (OR 4.2; P = 0.01) measured 20 years earlier, independent of education.”

“Having T1D was the only factor significantly associated with the between-group difference in clinically relevant cognitive impairment in our sample. Traditional risk factors for age-related cognitive impairment, in particular older age and high blood pressure (24), were not related to the between-group difference we observed. […] Similar to previous studies of younger adults with T1D (14,26), we found no relationship between the number of severe hypoglycemic episodes and cognitive impairment. Rather, we found that chronic hyperglycemia, via its associated vascular and metabolic changes, may have triggered structural changes in the brain that disrupt normal cognitive function.”

Just to be absolutely clear about these results: The type 1 diabetics they recruited in this study were on average not yet fifty years old, yet more than one in four of them were cognitively impaired to a clinically relevant degree. This is a huge effect. As they note later in the paper:

“Unlike previous reports of mild/modest cognitive dysfunction in young adults with T1D (1,2), we detected clinically relevant cognitive impairment in 28% of our middle-aged participants with T1D. This prevalence rate in our T1D cohort is comparable to the prevalence of mild cognitive impairment typically reported among community-dwelling adults aged 85 years and older (29%) (20).”

The type 1 diabetics included in the study had had diabetes for roughly a decade more than I have. And the number of cognitively impaired individuals in that sample corresponds roughly to what you find when you test random 85+ year-olds. Having type 1 diabetes is not good for your brain.

ii. Comment on Nunley et al. Clinically Relevant Cognitive Impairment in Middle-Aged Adults With Childhood-Onset Type 1 Diabetes.

This one is a short comment to the above paper, below I’ve quoted ‘the meat’ of the comment:

“While the […] study provides us with important insights regarding cognitive impairment in adults with type 1 diabetes, we regret that depression has not been taken into account. A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2014 identified significant objective cognitive impairment in adults and adolescents with depression regarding executive functioning, memory, and attention relative to control subjects (2). Moreover, depression is two times more common in adults with diabetes compared with those without this condition, regardless of type of diabetes (3). There is even evidence that the co-occurrence of diabetes and depression leads to additional health risks such as increased mortality and dementia (3,4); this might well apply to cognitive impairment as well. Furthermore, in people with diabetes, the presence of depression has been associated with the development of diabetes complications, such as retinopathy, and higher HbA1c values (3). These are exactly the diabetes-specific correlates that Nunley et al. (1) found.”

“We believe it is a missed opportunity that Nunley et al. (1) mainly focused on biological variables, such as hyperglycemia and microvascular disease, and did not take into account an emotional disorder widely represented among people with diabetes and closely linked to cognitive impairment. Even though severe or chronic cases of depression are likely to have been excluded in the group without type 1 diabetes based on exclusion criteria (1), data on the presence of depression (either measured through a diagnostic interview or by using a validated screening questionnaire) could have helped to interpret the present findings. […] Determining the role of depression in the relationship between cognitive impairment and type 1 diabetes is of significant importance. Treatment of depression might improve cognitive impairment both directly by alleviating cognitive depression symptoms and indirectly by improving treatment nonadherence and glycemic control, consequently lowering the risk of developing complications.”

iii. Prevalence of Diabetes and Diabetic Nephropathy in a Large U.S. Commercially Insured Pediatric Population, 2002–2013.

“[W]e identified 96,171 pediatric patients with diabetes and 3,161 pediatric patients with diabetic nephropathy during 2002–2013. We estimated prevalence of pediatric diabetes overall, by diabetes type, age, and sex, and prevalence of pediatric diabetic nephropathy overall, by age, sex, and diabetes type.”

“Although type 1 diabetes accounts for a majority of childhood and adolescent diabetes, type 2 diabetes is becoming more common with the increasing rate of childhood obesity and it is estimated that up to 45% of all new patients with diabetes in this age-group have type 2 diabetes (1,2). With the rising prevalence of diabetes in children, a rise in diabetes-related complications, such as nephropathy, is anticipated. Moreover, data suggest that the development of clinical macrovascular complications, neuropathy, and nephropathy may be especially rapid among patients with young-onset type 2 diabetes (age of onset <40 years) (36). However, the natural history of young patients with type 2 diabetes and resulting complications has not been well studied.”

I’m always interested in the identification mechanisms applied in papers like this one, and I’m a little confused about the high number of patients without prescriptions (almost one-third of patients); I sort of assume these patients do take (/are given) prescription drugs, but get them from sources not available to the researchers (parents get prescriptions for the antidiabetic drugs, and the researchers don’t have access to these data? Something like this..) but this is a bit unclear. The mechanism they employ in the paper is not perfect (no mechanism is), but it probably works:

“Patients who had one or more prescription(s) for insulin and no prescriptions for another antidiabetes medication were classified as having type 1 diabetes, while those who filled prescriptions for noninsulin antidiabetes medications were considered to have type 2 diabetes.”

When covering limitations of the paper, they observe incidentally in this context that:

“Klingensmith et al. (31) recently reported that in the initial month after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes around 30% of patients were treated with insulin only. Thus, we may have misclassified a small proportion of type 2 cases as type 1 diabetes or vice versa. Despite this, we found that 9% of patients had onset of type 2 diabetes at age <10 years, consistent with the findings of Klingensmith et al. (8%), but higher than reported by the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study (<3%) (31,32).”

Some more observations from the paper:

“There were 149,223 patients aged <18 years at first diagnosis of diabetes in the CCE database from 2002 through 2013. […] Type 1 diabetes accounted for a majority of the pediatric patients with diabetes (79%). Among these, 53% were male and 53% were aged 12 to <18 years at onset, while among patients with type 2 diabetes, 60% were female and 79% were aged 12 to <18 years at onset.”

“The overall annual prevalence of all diabetes increased from 1.86 to 2.82 per 1,000 during years 2002–2013; it increased on average by 9.5% per year from 2002 to 2006 and slowly increased by 0.6% after that […] The prevalence of type 1 diabetes increased from 1.48 to 2.32 per 1,000 during the study period (average increase of 8.5% per year from 2002 to 2006 and 1.4% after that; both P values <0.05). The prevalence of type 2 diabetes increased from 0.38 to 0.67 per 1,000 during 2002 through 2006 (average increase of 13.3% per year; P < 0.05) and then dropped from 0.56 to 0.49 per 1,000 during 2007 through 2013 (average decrease of 2.7% per year; P < 0.05). […] Prevalence of any diabetes increased by age, with the highest prevalence in patients aged 12 to <18 years (ranging from 3.47 to 5.71 per 1,000 from 2002 through 2013).” […] The annual prevalence of diabetes increased over the study period mainly because of increases in type 1 diabetes.”

“Dabelea et al. (8) reported, based on data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, that the annual prevalence of type 1 diabetes increased from 1.48 to 1.93 per 1,000 and from 0.34 to 0.46 per 1,000 for type 2 diabetes from 2001 to 2009 in U.S. youth. In our study, the annual prevalence of type 1 diabetes was 1.48 per 1,000 in 2002 and 2.10 per 1,000 in 2009, which is close to their reported prevalence.”

“We identified 3,161 diabetic nephropathy cases. Among these, 1,509 cases (47.7%) were of specific diabetic nephropathy and 2,253 (71.3%) were classified as probable cases. […] The annual prevalence of diabetic nephropathy in pediatric patients with diabetes increased from 1.16 to 3.44% between 2002 and 2013; it increased by on average 25.7% per year from 2002 to 2005 and slowly increased by 4.6% after that (both P values <0.05).”

Do note that the relationship between nephropathy prevalence and diabetes prevalence is complicated and that you cannot just explain an increase in the prevalence of nephropathy over time easily by simply referring to an increased prevalence of diabetes during the same time period. This would in fact be a very wrong thing to do, in part but not only on account of the data structure employed in this study. One problem which is probably easy to understand is that if more children got diabetes but the same proportion of those new diabetics got nephropathy, the diabetes prevalence would go up but the diabetic nephropathy prevalence would remain fixed; when you calculate the diabetic nephropathy prevalence you implicitly condition on diabetes status. But this just scratches the surface of the issues you encounter when you try to link these variables, because the relationship between the two variables is complicated; there’s an age pattern to diabetes risk, with risk (incidence) increasing with age (up to a point, after which it falls – in most samples I’ve seen in the past peak incidence in pediatric populations is well below the age of 18). However diabetes prevalence increases monotonously with age as long as the age-specific death rate of diabetics is lower than the age-specific incidence, because diabetes is chronic, and then on top of that you have nephropathy-related variables, which display diabetes-related duration-dependence (meaning that although nephropathy risk is also increasing with age when you look at that variable in isolation, that age-risk relationship is confounded by diabetes duration – a type 1 diabetic at the age of 12 who’s had diabetes for 10 years has a higher risk of nephropathy than a 16-year old who developed diabetes the year before). When a newly diagnosed pediatric patient is included in the diabetes sample here this will actually decrease the nephropathy prevalence in the short run, but not in the long run, assuming no changes in diabetes treatment outcomes over time. This is because the probability that that individual has diabetes-related kidney problems as a newly diagnosed child is zero, so he or she will unquestionably only contribute to the denominator during the first years of illness (the situation in the middle-aged type 2 context is different; here you do sometimes have newly-diagnosed patients who have developed complications already). This is one reason why it would be quite wrong to say that increased diabetes prevalence in this sample is the reason why diabetic nephropathy is increasing as well. Unless the time period you look at is very long (e.g. you have a setting where you follow all individuals with a diagnosis until the age of 18), the impact of increasing prevalence of one condition may well be expected to have a negative impact on the estimated risk of associated conditions, if those associated conditions display duration-dependence (which all major diabetes complications do). A second factor supporting a default assumption of increasing incidence of diabetes leading to an expected decreasing rate of diabetes-related complications is of course the fact that treatment options have tended to increase over time, and especially if you take a long view (look back 30-40 years) the increase in treatment options and improved medical technology have lead to improved metabolic control and better outcomes.

That both variables grew over time might be taken to indicate that both more children got diabetes and that a larger proportion of this increased number of children with diabetes developed kidney problems, but this stuff is a lot more complicated than it might look and it’s in particular important to keep in mind that, say, the 2005 sample and the 2010 sample do not include the same individuals, although there’ll of course be some overlap; in age-stratified samples like this you always have some level of implicit continuous replacement, with newly diagnosed patients entering and replacing the 18-year olds who leave the sample. As long as prevalence is constant over time, associated outcome variables may be reasonably easy to interpret, but when you have dynamic samples as well as increasing prevalence over time it gets difficult to say much with any degree of certainty unless you crunch the numbers in a lot of detail (and it might be difficult even if you do that). A factor I didn’t mention above but which is of course also relevant is that you need to be careful about how to interpret prevalence rates when you look at complications with high mortality rates (and late-stage diabetic nephropathy is indeed a complication with high mortality); in such a situation improvements in treatment outcomes may have large effects on prevalence rates but no effect on incidence. Increased prevalence is not always bad news, sometimes it is good news indeed. Gleevec substantially increased the prevalence of CML.

In terms of the prevalence-outcomes (/complication risk) connection, there are also in my opinion reasons to assume that there may be multiple causal pathways between prevalence and outcomes. For example a very low prevalence of a condition in a given area may mean that fewer specialists are educated to take care of these patients than would be the case for an area with a higher prevalence, and this may translate into a more poorly developed care infrastructure. Greatly increasing prevalence may on the other hand lead to a lower level of care for all patients with the illness, not just the newly diagnosed ones, due to binding budget constraints and care rationing. And why might you have changes in prevalence; might they not sometimes rather be related to changes in diagnostic practices, rather than changes in the True* prevalence? If that’s the case, you might not be comparing apples to apples when you’re comparing the evolving complication rates. There are in my opinion many reasons to believe that the relationship between chronic conditions and the complication rates of these conditions is far from simple to model.

All this said, kidney problems in children with diabetes is still rare, compared to the numbers you see when you look at adult samples with longer diabetes duration. It’s also worth distinguishing between microalbuminuria and overt nephropathy; children rarely proceed to develop diabetes-related kidney failure, although poor metabolic control may mean that they do develop this complication later, in early adulthood. As they note in the paper:

“It has been reported that overt diabetic nephropathy and kidney failure caused by either type 1 or type 2 diabetes are uncommon during childhood or adolescence (24). In this study, the annual prevalence of diabetic nephropathy for all cases ranged from 1.16 to 3.44% in pediatric patients with diabetes and was extremely low in the whole pediatric population (range 2.15 to 9.70 per 100,000), confirming that diabetic nephropathy is a very uncommon condition in youth aged <18 years. We observed that the prevalence of diabetic nephropathy increased in both specific and unspecific cases before 2006, with a leveling off of the specific nephropathy cases after 2005, while the unspecific cases continued to increase.”

iv. Adherence to Oral Glucose-Lowering Therapies and Associations With 1-Year HbA1c: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis in a Large Primary Care Database.

“Between a third and a half of medicines prescribed for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), a condition in which multiple medications are used to control cardiovascular risk factors and blood glucose (1,2), are not taken as prescribed (36). However, estimates vary widely depending on the population being studied and the way in which adherence to recommended treatment is defined.”

“A number of previous studies have used retrospective databases of electronic health records to examine factors that might predict adherence. A recent large cohort database examined overall adherence to oral therapy for T2DM, taking into account changes of therapy. It concluded that overall adherence was 69%, with individuals newly started on treatment being significantly less likely to adhere (19).”

“The impact of continuing to take glucose-lowering medicines intermittently, but not as recommended, is unknown. Medication possession (expressed as a ratio of actual possession to expected possession), derived from prescribing records, has been identified as a valid adherence measure for people with diabetes (7). Previous studies have been limited to small populations in managed-care systems in the U.S. and focused on metformin and sulfonylurea oral glucose-lowering treatments (8,9). Further studies need to be carried out in larger groups of people that are more representative of the general population.

The Clinical Practice Research Database (CPRD) is a long established repository of routine clinical data from more than 13 million patients registered with primary care services in England. […] The Genetics of Diabetes and Audit Research Tayside Study (GoDARTS) database is derived from integrated health records in Scotland with primary care, pharmacy, and hospital data on 9,400 patients with diabetes. […] We conducted a retrospective cohort study using [these databases] to examine the prevalence of nonadherence to treatment for type 2 diabetes and investigate its potential impact on HbA1c reduction stratified by type of glucose-lowering medication.”

“In CPRD and GoDARTS, 13% and 15% of patients, respectively, were nonadherent. Proportions of nonadherent patients varied by the oral glucose-lowering treatment prescribed (range 8.6% [thiazolidinedione] to 18.8% [metformin]). Nonadherent, compared with adherent, patients had a smaller HbA1c reduction (0.4% [4.4 mmol/mol] and 0.46% [5.0 mmol/mol] for CPRD and GoDARTs, respectively). Difference in HbA1c response for adherent compared with nonadherent patients varied by drug (range 0.38% [4.1 mmol/mol] to 0.75% [8.2 mmol/mol] lower in adherent group). Decreasing levels of adherence were consistently associated with a smaller reduction in HbA1c.”

“These findings show an association between adherence to oral glucose-lowering treatment, measured by the proportion of medication obtained on prescription over 1 year, and the corresponding decrement in HbA1c, in a population of patients newly starting treatment and continuing to collect prescriptions. The association is consistent across all commonly used oral glucose-lowering therapies, and the findings are consistent between the two data sets examined, CPRD and GoDARTS. Nonadherent patients, taking on average <80% of the intended medication, had about half the expected reduction in HbA1c. […] Reduced medication adherence for commonly used glucose-lowering therapies among patients persisting with treatment is associated with smaller HbA1c reductions compared with those taking treatment as recommended. Differences observed in HbA1c responses to glucose-lowering treatments may be explained in part by their intermittent use.”

“Low medication adherence is related to increased mortality (20). The mean difference in HbA1c between patients with MPR <80% and ≥80% is between 0.37% and 0.55% (4 mmol/mol and 6 mmol/mol), equivalent to up to a 10% reduction in death or an 18% reduction in diabetes complications (21).”

v. Health Care Transition in Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Perspectives of Adult Endocrinologists in the U.S.

“Empiric data are limited on best practices in transition care, especially in the U.S. (10,1316). Prior research, largely from the patient perspective, has highlighted challenges in the transition process, including gaps in care (13,1719); suboptimal pediatric transition preparation (13,20); increased post-transition hospitalizations (21); and patient dissatisfaction with the transition experience (13,1719). […] Young adults with type 1 diabetes transitioning from pediatric to adult care are at risk for adverse outcomes. Our objective was to describe experiences, resources, and barriers reported by a national sample of adult endocrinologists receiving and caring for young adults with type 1 diabetes.”

“We received responses from 536 of 4,214 endocrinologists (response rate 13%); 418 surveys met the eligibility criteria. Respondents (57% male, 79% Caucasian) represented 47 states; 64% had been practicing >10 years and 42% worked at an academic center. Only 36% of respondents reported often/always reviewing pediatric records and 11% reported receiving summaries for transitioning young adults with type 1 diabetes, although >70% felt that these activities were important for patient care.”

“A number of studies document deficiencies in provider hand-offs across other chronic conditions and point to the broader relevance of our findings. For example, in two studies of inflammatory bowel disease, adult gastroenterologists reported inadequacies in young adult transition preparation (31) and infrequent receipt of medical histories from pediatric providers (32). In a study of adult specialists caring for young adults with a variety of chronic diseases (33), more than half reported that they had no contact with the pediatric specialists.

Importantly, more than half of the endocrinologists in our study reported a need for increased access to mental health referrals for young adult patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly in nonacademic settings. Report of barriers to care was highest for patient scenarios involving mental health issues, and endocrinologists without easy access to mental health referrals were significantly more likely to report barriers to diabetes management for young adults with psychiatric comorbidities such as depression, substance abuse, and eating disorders.”

“Prior research (34,35) has uncovered the lack of mental health resources in diabetes care. In the large cross-national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) study (36) […] diabetes providers often reported not having the resources to manage mental health problems; half of specialist diabetes physicians felt unable to provide psychiatric support for patients and one-third did not have ready access to outside expertise in emotional or psychiatric matters. Our results, which resonate with the DAWN findings, are particularly concerning in light of the vulnerability of young adults with type 1 diabetes for adverse medical and mental health outcomes (4,34,37,38). […] In a recent report from the Mental Health Issues of Diabetes conference (35), which focused on type 1 diabetes, a major observation included the lack of trained mental health professionals, both in academic centers and the community, who are knowledgeable about the mental health issues germane to diabetes.”

August 3, 2017 Posted by | Diabetes, Epidemiology, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Statistics, Studies | Leave a comment

A New Classification System for Diabetes: Rationale and Implications of the β-Cell–Centric Classification Schema

When I started writing this post I intended to write a standard diabetes post covering a variety of different papers, but while I was covering one of the papers I intended to include in the post I realized that I felt like I had to cover that paper in a lot of detail, and I figured I might as well make a separate post about it. Here’s a link to the paper: The Time Is Right for a New Classification System for Diabetes: Rationale and Implications of the β-Cell–Centric Classification Schema.

I have frequently discussed the problem of how best to think about and -categorize the various disorders of glucose homeostasis which are currently lumped together into the various discrete diabetes categories, both online and offline, see e.g. the last few paragraphs of this recent post. I have frequently noted in such contexts that simplistic and very large ‘boxes’ like ‘type 1’ and ‘type 2’ leave out a lot of details, and that some of the details that are lost by employing such a categorization scheme might well be treatment-relevant in some contexts. Individualized medicine is however expensive, so I still consider it an open question to which extent valuable information – which is to say, information that could potentially be used cost-effectively in the treatment context – is lost on account of the current diagnostic practices, but information is certainly lost and treatment options potentially neglected. Relatedly, what’s not cost-effective today may well be tomorrow.

As I decided to devote an entire post to this paper, it is of course a must-read if you’re interested in these topics. I have quoted extensively from the paper below:

“The current classification system presents challenges to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), in part due to its conflicting and confounding definitions of type 1 DM, type 2 DM, and latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA). The current schema also lacks a foundation that readily incorporates advances in our understanding of the disease and its treatment. For appropriate and coherent therapy, we propose an alternate classification system. The β-cell–centric classification of DM is a new approach that obviates the inherent and unintended confusions of the current system. The β-cell–centric model presupposes that all DM originates from a final common denominator — the abnormal pancreatic β-cell. It recognizes that interactions between genetically predisposed β-cells with a number of factors, including insulin resistance (IR), susceptibility to environmental influences, and immune dysregulation/inflammation, lead to the range of hyperglycemic phenotypes within the spectrum of DM. Individually or in concert, and often self-perpetuating, these factors contribute to β-cell stress, dysfunction, or loss through at least 11 distinct pathways. Available, yet underutilized, treatments provide rational choices for personalized therapies that target the individual mediating pathways of hyperglycemia at work in any given patient, without the risk of drug-related hypoglycemia or weight gain or imposing further burden on the β-cells.”

“The essential function of a classification system is as a navigation tool that helps direct research, evaluate outcomes, establish guidelines for best practices for prevention and care, and educate on all of the above. Diabetes mellitus (DM) subtypes as currently categorized, however, do not fit into our contemporary understanding of the phenotypes of diabetes (16). The inherent challenges of the current system, together with the limited knowledge that existed at the time of the crafting of the current system, yielded definitions for type 1 DM, type 2 DM, and latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) that are not distinct and are ambiguous and imprecise.”

“Discovery of the role played by autoimmunity in the pathogenesis of type 1 DM created the assumption that type 1 DM and type 2 DM possess unique etiologies, disease courses, and, consequently, treatment approaches. There exists, however, overlap among even the most “typical” patient cases. Patients presenting with otherwise classic insulin resistance (IR)-associated type 2 DM may display hallmarks of type 1 DM. Similarly, obesity-related IR may be observed in patients presenting with “textbook” type 1 DM (7). The late presentation of type 1 DM provides a particular challenge for the current classification system, in which this subtype of DM is generally termed LADA. Leading diabetes organizations have not arrived at a common definition for LADA (5). There has been little consensus as to whether this phenotype constitutes a form of type 2 DM with early or fast destruction of β-cells, a late manifestation of type 1 DM (8), or a distinct entity with its own genetic footprint (5). Indeed, current parameters are inadequate to clearly distinguish any of the subforms of DM (Fig. 1).

https://i2.wp.com/care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/39/2/179/F1.medium.gif

The use of IR to define type 2 DM similarly needs consideration. The fact that many obese patients with IR do not develop DM indicates that IR is insufficient to cause type 2 DM without predisposing factors that affect β-cell function (9).”

“The current classification schema imposes unintended constraints on individualized medicine. Patients diagnosed with LADA who retain endogenous insulin production may receive “default” insulin therapy as treatment of choice. This decision is guided largely by the categorization of LADA within type 1 DM, despite the capacity for endogenous insulin production. Treatment options that do not pose the risks of hypoglycemia or weight gain might be both useful and preferable for LADA but are typically not considered beyond use in type 2 DM (10). […] We believe that there is little rationale for limiting choice of therapy solely on the current definitions of type 1 DM, type 2 DM, and LADA. We propose that choice of therapy should be based on the particular mediating pathway(s) of hyperglycemia present in each individual patient […] the issue is not “what is LADA” or any clinical presentation of DM under the current system. The issue is the mechanisms and rate of destruction of β-cells at work in all DM. We present a model that provides a more logical approach to classifying DM: the β-cell–centric classification of DM. In this schema, the abnormal β-cell is recognized as the primary defect in DM. The β-cell–centric classification system recognizes the interplay of genetics, IR, environmental factors, and inflammation/immune system on the function and mass of β-cells […]. Importantly, this model is universal for the characterization of DM. The β-cell–centric concept can be applied to DM arising in genetically predisposed β-cells, as well as in strongly genetic IR syndromes, such as the Rabson-Mendenhall syndrome (28), which may exhaust nongenetically predisposed β-cells. Finally, the β-cell–centric classification of all DM supports best practices in the management of DM by identifying mediating pathways of hyperglycemia that are operative in each patient and directing treatment to those specific dysfunctions.”

“A key premise is that the mediating pathways of hyperglycemia are common across prediabetes, type 1 DM, type 2 DM, and other currently defined forms of DM. Accordingly, we believe that the current antidiabetes armamentarium has broader applicability across the spectrum of DM than is currently utilized.

The ideal treatment paradigm would be one that uses the least number of agents possible to target the greatest number of mediating pathways of hyperglycemia operative in the given patient. It is prudent to use agents that will help patients reach target A1C levels without introducing drug-related hypoglycemia or weight gain. Despite the capacity of insulin therapy to manage glucotoxicity, there is a concern for β-cell damage due to IR that has been exacerbated by exogenous insulin-induced hyperinsulinemia and weight gain (41).”

“We propose that the β-cell–centric model is a conceptual framework that could help optimize processes of care for DM. A1C, fasting blood glucose, and postprandial glucose testing remain the basis of DM diagnosis and monitoring. Precision medicine in the treatment of DM could be realized by additional diagnostic testing that could include C-peptide (1), islet cell antibodies or other markers of inflammation (1,65), measures of IR, improved assays for β-cell mass, and markers of environmental damage and by the development of markers for the various mediating pathways of hyperglycemia.

We uphold that there is, and will increasingly be, a place for genotyping in DM standard of care. Pharmacogenomics could help direct patient-level care (6669) and holds the potential to spur on research through the development of DM gene banks for analyzing genetic distinctions between type 1 DM, LADA, type 2 DM, and maturity-onset diabetes of the young. The cost for genotyping has become increasingly affordable.”

“The ideal treatment regimens should not be potentially detrimental to the long-term integrity of the β-cells. Specifically, sulfonylureas and glinides should be ardently avoided. Any benefits associated with sulfonylureas and glinides (including low cost) are not enduring and are far outweighed by their attendant risks (and associated treatment costs) of hypoglycemia and weight gain, high rate of treatment failure and subsequent enhanced requirements for antihyperglycemic management, potential for β-cell exhaustion (42), increased risk of cardiovascular events (74), and potential for increased risk of mortality (75,76). Fortunately, there are a large number of classes now available that do not pose these risks.”

“Newer agents present alternatives to insulin therapy, including in patients with “advanced” type 2 DM with residual insulin production. Insulin therapy induces hypoglycemia, weight gain, and a range of adverse consequences of hyperinsulinemia with both short- and long-term outcomes (77–85). Newer antidiabetes classes may be used to delay insulin therapy in candidate patients with endogenous insulin production (19). […] When insulin therapy is needed, we suggest it be incorporated as add-on therapy rather than as substitution for noninsulin antidiabetes agents. Outcomes research is needed to fully evaluate various combination therapeutic approaches, as well as the potential of newer agents to address drivers of β-cell dysfunction and loss.

The principles of the β-cell–centric model provide a rationale for adjunctive therapy with noninsulin regimens in patients with type 1 DM (7,1216). Thiazolidinedione (TZD) therapy in patients with type 1 DM presenting with IR, for example, is appropriate and can be beneficial (17). Clinical trials in type 1 DM show that incretins (20) or SGLT-2 inhibitors (25,88) as adjunctive therapy to exogenous insulin appear to reduce plasma glucose variability.”

July 24, 2017 Posted by | Diabetes, Medicine, Papers | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Long-Acting C-Peptide and Neuropathy in Type 1 Diabetes: A 12-Month Clinical Trial.

“Lack of C-peptide in type 1 diabetes may be an important contributing factor in the development of microvascular complications. Replacement of native C-peptide has been shown to exert a beneficial influence on peripheral nerve function in type 1 diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a long-acting C-peptide in subjects with type 1 diabetes and mild to moderate peripheral neuropathy. […] C-peptide, an integral component of the insulin biosynthesis, is the 31-amino acid peptide that makes up the connecting segment between the parts of the proinsulin molecule that become the A and B chains of insulin. It is split off from proinsulin and secreted together with insulin in equimolar amounts. Much new information on C-peptide physiology has appeared during the past 20 years […] Studies in animal models of diabetes and early clinical trials in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) demonstrate that C-peptide in physiological replacement doses elicits beneficial effects on early stages of diabetes-induced functional and structural abnormalities of the peripheral nerves, the autonomic nervous system, and the kidneys (9). Even though much is still to be learned about C-peptide and its mechanism of action, the available evidence presents the picture of a bioactive peptide with therapeutic potential.”

“This was a multicenter, phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. The study screened 756 subjects and enrolled 250 at 32 clinical sites in the U.S. (n = 23), Canada (n = 2), and Sweden (n = 7). […] A total of 250 patients with type 1 diabetes and peripheral neuropathy received long-acting (pegylated) C-peptide in weekly dosages […] for 52 weeks. […] Once-weekly subcutaneous administration of long-acting C-peptide for 52 weeks did not improve SNCV [sural nerve conduction velocity], other electrophysiological variables, or mTCNS [modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score] but resulted in marked improvement of VPT [vibration perception threshold] compared with placebo. […] During the course of the 12-month study period, there were no significant changes in fasting blood glucose. Levels of HbA1c remained stable and varied within the treatment groups on average less than 0.1% (0.9 mmol/mol) between baseline and 52 weeks. […] There was a gradual lowering of VPT, indicating improvement in subjects receiving PEG–C-peptide […] after 52 weeks, subjects in the low-dose group had lowered their VPT by an average of 31% compared with baseline; the corresponding value for the high-dose group was 19%. […] The difference in VPT response between the dose groups did not attain statistical significance. In contrast to the SNCV results, VPT in the placebo group changed very little from baseline during the study […] The mTCNS, pain, and sexual function scores did not change significantly during the study nor did subgroup analysis involving the subjects most affected at baseline reveal significant differences between subjects treated with PEG–C-peptide or placebo subjects.”

“Evaluation of the safety population showed that PEG–C-peptide was well tolerated and that there was a low and similar incidence of treatment-related adverse events (11.3–16.4%) in all three treatment groups […] A striking finding in the current study is the observation of a progressive improvement in VPT during the 12-month treatment with PEG–C-peptide […], despite nonsignificant changes in SNCV. This finding may reflect differences in the mechanisms of conduction versus transduction of neural impulses. Changes in transduction reflect membrane receptor characteristics limited to the distal extreme of specific subtypes of sensory axons. In the case of vibration, the principal receptor is Pacinian corpuscles in the skin that are innervated by Aβ fibers. Transduction takes place uniquely at the distal extreme of the axon and is largely influenced by the integrity of this limited segment. Studies have documented that the initial effect of toxic neuropathy is a loss of the surface area of the pseudopod extensions of the distal axon within the Pacinian corpuscle and a consequent diminution of transduction (30). In contrast, changes in the speed of conduction are largely a function of factors that influence the elongated tract of the nerve, including the cross-sectional diameter of axons, the degree of myelination, and the integrity of ion clusters at the nodes of Ranvier (31). Thus, it is reasonable that some aspects of distal sensory function may be influenced by a treatment option that has little or no direct effect on nerve conduction velocity. The alternative is the unsupported belief that any intervention in the onset and progression of a sensory neuropathy must alter conduction velocity.

The marked VPT improvement observed in the current study, although associated with nonsignificant changes in SNCV, other electrophysiological variables, or mTCNS, can be interpreted as targeted improvement in a key aspect of sensory function (e.g., the conversion of mechanical energy to neural signals — transduction). […] Because progressive deficits in sensation are often considered the hallmark of diabetic polyneuropathy, the observed effects of C-peptide in the current study are an important finding.”

ii. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Does Not Reduce Indications for Amputation in Patients With Diabetes With Nonhealing Ulcers of the Lower Limb: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

“Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). The controlled evidence for the efficacy of this treatment is limited. The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy of HBOT in reducing the need for major amputation and improving wound healing in patients with diabetes and chronic DFUs.”

“Patients with diabetes and foot lesions (Wagner grade 2–4) of at least 4 weeks’ duration participated in this study. In addition to comprehensive wound care, participants were randomly assigned to receive 30 daily sessions of 90 min of HBOT (breathing oxygen at 244 kPa) or sham (breathing air at 125 kPa). Patients, physicians, and researchers were blinded to group assignment. At 12 weeks postrandomization, the primary outcome was freedom from meeting the criteria for amputation as assessed by a vascular surgeon. Secondary outcomes were measures of wound healing. […] One hundred fifty-seven patients were assessed for eligibility, with 107 randomly assigned and 103 available for end point adjudication. Criteria for major amputation were met in 13 of 54 patients in the sham group and 11 of 49 in the HBOT group (odds ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.37, 2.28], P = 0.846). Twelve (22%) patients in the sham group and 10 (20%) in the HBOT group were healed (0.90 [0.35, 2.31], P = 0.823).”

CONCLUSIONS HBOT does not offer an additional advantage to comprehensive wound care in reducing the indication for amputation or facilitating wound healing in patients with chronic DFUs.”

iii. Risk Factors Associated With Severe Hypoglycemia in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

“Older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are a growing but underevaluated population (14). Of particular concern in this age group is severe hypoglycemia, which, in addition to producing altered mental status and sometimes seizures or loss of consciousness, can be associated with cardiac arrhythmias, falls leading to fractures, and in some cases, death (57). In Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, hospitalizations related to hypoglycemia are now more frequent than those for hyperglycemia and are associated with high 1-year mortality (6). Emergency department visits due to hypoglycemia also are common (5). […] The T1D Exchange clinic registry reported a remarkably high frequency of severe hypoglycemia resulting in seizure or loss of consciousness in older adults with long-standing T1D (9). One or more such events during the prior year was reported by 1 in 5 of 211 participants ≥65 years of age with ≥40 years’ duration of diabetes (9).”

“Despite the high frequency of severe hypoglycemia in older adults with long-standing T1D, little information is available about the factors associated with its occurrence. We conducted a case-control study in adults ≥60 years of age with T1D of ≥20 years’ duration to assess potential contributory factors for the occurrence of severe hypoglycemia, including cognitive and functional measurements, social support, depression, hypoglycemia unawareness, various aspects of diabetes management, residual insulin secretion (as measured by C-peptide levels), frequency of biochemical hypoglycemia, and glycemic control and variability. […] A case-control study was conducted at 18 diabetes centers in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. […] Case subjects (n = 101) had at least one severe hypoglycemic event in the prior 12 months. Control subjects (n = 100), frequency-matched to case subjects by age, had no severe hypoglycemia in the prior 3 years.”

RESULTS Glycated hemoglobin (mean 7.8% vs. 7.7%) and CGM-measured mean glucose (175 vs. 175 mg/dL) were similar between case and control subjects. More case than control subjects had hypoglycemia unawareness: only 11% of case subjects compared with 43% of control subjects reported always having symptoms associated with low blood glucose levels (P < 0.001). Case subjects had greater glucose variability than control subjects (P = 0.008) and experienced CGM glucose levels <60 mg/dL for ≥20 min on 46% of days compared with 33% of days in control subjects (P = 0.10). […] When defining high glucose variability as a coefficient of variation greater than the study cohort’s 75th percentile (0.481), 38% of case and 12% of control subjects had high glucose variability (P < 0.001).”

CONCLUSIONS In older adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes, greater hypoglycemia unawareness and glucose variability are associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia.”

iv. Type 1 Diabetes and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

“Even though PCOS is mainly an androgen excess disorder, insulin resistance and compensatory endogenous hyperinsulinemia, in close association with obesity and abdominal adiposity, are implicated in the pathogenesis of PCOS in many patients (3,4). In agreement, women with PCOS are at high risk for developing type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes mellitus (3). […] Type 1 diabetes is a disease produced by an autoimmune injury to the endocrine pancreas that results in the abolition of endogenous insulin secretion. We hypothesized 15 years ago that PCOS could be associated with type 1 diabetes (8). The rationale was that women with type 1 diabetes needed supraphysiological doses of subcutaneous insulin to reach insulin concentrations at the portal level capable of suppressing hepatic glucose secretion, thus leading to exogenous systemic hyperinsulinism. Exogenous hyperinsulinism could then contribute to androgen excess in predisposed women, leading to PCOS as happens in insulin-resistance syndromes.

We subsequently published the first report of the association of PCOS with type 1 diabetes consisting of the finding of a threefold increase in the prevalence of this syndrome compared with that of women from the general population […]. Of note, even though this association was confirmed by all of the studies that addressed the issue thereafter (1016), with prevalences of PCOS as high as 40% in some series (10,16), this syndrome is seldom diagnosed and treated in women with type 1 diabetes.

With the aim of increasing awareness of the frequent association of PCOS with type 1 diabetes, we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of PCOS and associated hyperandrogenic traits in adolescent and adult women with type 1 diabetes. […] Nine primary studies involving 475 adolescent or adult women with type 1 diabetes were included. The prevalences of PCOS and associated traits in women with type 1 diabetes were 24% (95% CI 15–34) for PCOS, 25% (95% CI 17–33) for hyperandrogenemia, 25% (95% CI 16–36) for hirsutism, 24% (95% CI 17–32) for menstrual dysfunction, and 33% (95% CI 24–44) for PCOM. These figures are considerably higher than those reported earlier in the general population without diabetes.”

CONCLUSIONS PCOS and its related traits are frequent findings in women with type 1 diabetes. PCOS may contribute to the subfertility of these women by a mechanism that does not directly depend on glycemic/metabolic control among other negative consequences for their health. Hence, screening for PCOS and androgen excess should be included in current guidelines for the management of type 1 diabetes in women.”

v. Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycemia in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Is Not Associated With Autonomic Dysfunction or Peripheral Neuropathy.

“Impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH), defined as a diminished ability to perceive the onset of hypoglycemia, is associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia in people with insulin-treated diabetes (13). Elucidation of the pathogenesis of IAH may help to minimize the risk of severe hypoglycemia.

The glycemic thresholds for counterregulatory responses, generation of symptoms, and cognitive impairment are reset at lower levels of blood glucose in people who have developed IAH (4). This cerebral adaptation appears to be induced by recurrent exposure to hypoglycemia, and failure of cerebral autonomic mechanisms may be implicated in the pathogenesis (4). Awareness may be improved by avoidance of hypoglycemia (57), but this is very difficult to achieve and does not restore normal awareness of hypoglycemia (NAH) in all people with IAH. Because the prevalence of IAH in adults with type 1 diabetes increases with progressive disease duration (2,8,9), mechanisms that involve diabetic complications have been suggested to underlie the development of IAH.

Because activation of the autonomic nervous system is a fundamental physiological response to hypoglycemia and provokes many of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, autonomic neuropathy was considered to be a cause of IAH for many years (10). […] Studies of people with type 1 diabetes that have examined the glycemic thresholds for symptom generation in those with and without autonomic neuropathy (13,14,16) have [however] found no differences, and autonomic symptom generation was not delayed. […] The aim of the current study was […] to evaluate a putative association between IAH and the presence of autonomic neuropathy using composite Z (cZ) scores based on a battery of contemporary methods, including heart rate variability during paced breathing, the cardiovascular response to tilting and the Valsalva maneuver, and quantitative light reflex measurements by pupillometry.”

“Sixty-six adults with type 1 diabetes were studied, 33 with IAH and 33 with normal awareness of hypoglycemia (NAH), confirmed by formal testing. Participants were matched for age, sex, and diabetes duration. […] The [study showed] no difference in measures of autonomic function between adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes who had IAH, and carefully matched adults with type 1 diabetes with NAH. In addition, no differences between IAH and NAH participants were found with respect to the NCS [nerve conduction studies], thermal thresholds, and clinical pain or neuropathy scores. Neither autonomic dysfunction nor somatic neuropathy was associated with IAH. We consider that this study provides considerable value and novelty in view of the rigorous methodology that has been used. Potential confounding variables have been controlled for by the use of well-matched groups of participants, validated methods for classification of awareness, a large battery of neurophysiological tests, and a novel statistical approach to provide very high sensitivity for the detection of between-group differences.”

vi. Glucose Variability: Timing, Risk Analysis, and Relationship to Hypoglycemia in Diabetes.

“Glucose control, glucose variability (GV), and risk for hypoglycemia are intimately related, and it is now evident that GV is important in both the physiology and pathophysiology of diabetes. However, its quantitative assessment is complex because blood glucose (BG) fluctuations are characterized by both amplitude and timing. Additional numerical complications arise from the asymmetry of the BG scale. […] Our primary message is that diabetes control is all about optimization and balance between two key markers — frequency of hypoglycemia and HbA1c reflecting average BG and primarily driven by the extent of hyperglycemia. GV is a primary barrier to this optimization […] Thus, it is time to standardize GV measurement and thereby streamline the assessment of its two most important components — amplitude and timing.”

“Although reducing hyperglycemia and targeting HbA1c values of 7% or less result in decreased risk of micro- and macrovascular complications (14), the risk for hypoglycemia increases with tightening glycemic control (5,6). […] Thus, patients with diabetes face a lifelong optimization problem: reducing average glycemic levels and postprandial hyperglycemia while simultaneously avoiding hypoglycemia. A strategy for achieving such an optimization can only be successful if it reduces glucose variability (GV). This is because bringing average glycemia down is only possible if GV is constrained — otherwise blood glucose (BG) fluctuations would inevitably enter the range of hypoglycemia (9).”

“In health, glucose metabolism is tightly controlled by a hormonal network including the gut, liver, pancreas, and brain to ensure stable fasting BG levels and transient postprandial glucose fluctuations. In other words, BG fluctuations in type 1 diabetes result from the activity of a complex metabolic system perturbed by behavioral challenges. The frequency and extent of these challenges and the ability of the person’s system to absorb them determine the stability of glycemic control. The degree of system destabilization depends on each individual’s physiological parameters of glucose–insulin kinetics, including glucose appearance from food, insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity, and counterregulatory response.”

“There is strong evidence that feeding behavior is abnormal in both uncontrolled diabetes and hypoglycemia and that feeding signals within the brain and hormones affecting feeding, such as leptin and ghrelin, are implicated in diabetes (1214). Insulin secretion and action vary with the type and duration of diabetes. In type 1 diabetes, insulin secretion is virtually absent, which destroys the natural insulin–glucagon feedback loop and thereby diminishes the dampening effect of glucagon on hypoglycemia. In addition, insulin is typically administered subcutaneously, which adds delays to insulin action and thereby amplifies the amplitude of glucose fluctuations. […] impaired hypoglycemia counterregulation and increased GV in the hypoglycemic range are particularly relevant to type 1 diabetes: It has been shown that glucagon response is impaired (15), and epinephrine response is typically attenuated as well (16). Antecedent hypoglycemia shifts down BG thresholds for autonomic and cognitive responses, thereby further impairing both the hormonal defenses and the detection of hypoglycemia (17). Studies have established relationships between intensive therapy, hypoglycemia unawareness, and impaired counterregulation (16,1820) and concluded that recurrent hypoglycemia spirals into a “vicious cycle” known as hyperglycemia-associated autonomic failure (HAAF) (21). Our studies showed that increased GV and the extent and frequency of low BG are major contributors to hypoglycemia and that such changes are detectable by frequent BG measurement (2225).”

“The traditional statistical calculation of BG includes standard deviation (SD) (27), coefficient of variation (CV), or other metrics, such as the M-value introduced in 1965 (28), the mean amplitude of glucose excursions (MAGE) introduced in 1970 (29), the glycemic lability index (30), or the mean absolute glucose (MAG) change (31,32). […] the low BG index (LBGI), high BG index (HBGI), and average daily risk range (ADRR) […] are [all] based on a transformation of the BG measurement scale […], which aims to correct the substantial asymmetry of the BG measurement scale. Numerically, the hypoglycemic range (BG <70 mg/dL) is much narrower than that in the hyperglycemic range (BG >180 mg/dL) (34). As a result, whereas SD, CV, MAGE, and MAG are inherently biased toward hyperglycemia and have a relatively weak association with hypoglycemia, the LBGI and ADRR account well for the risk of hypoglycemic excursions. […] The analytical form of the scale transformation […] was based on accepted clinical assumptions, not on a particular data set, and was fixed 17 years ago, which made the approach extendable to any data set (34). On the basis of this transformation, we have developed our theory of risk analysis of BG data (35), defining a computational risk space that proved to be very suitable for quantifying the extent and frequency of glucose excursions. The utility of the risk analysis has been repeatedly confirmed (9,25,3638). We first introduced the LBGI and HBGI, which were specifically designed to be sensitive only to the low and high end of the BG scale, respectively, accounting for hypo- and hyperglycemia without overlap (24). Then in 2006, we introduced the ADRR, a measure of GV that is equally sensitive to hypo- and hyperglycemic excursions and is predictive of extreme BG fluctuations (38). Most recently, corrections were introduced that allowed the LBGI and HBGI to be computed from CGM data with results directly comparable to SMBG [self-monitoring of BG] (39).”

“[A]lthough GV has richer information content than just average glucose (HbA1c), its quantitative assessment is not straightforward because glucose fluctuations carry two components: amplitude and timing.

The standard assessment of GV is measuring amplitude. However, when measuring amplitude we should be mindful that deviations toward hypoglycemia are not equal to deviations toward hyperglycemia—a 20 mg/dL decline in BG levels from 70 to 50 mg/dL is clinically more important than a 20 mg/dL raise of BG from 160 to 180 mg/dL. We explained how to fix that with a well-established rescaling of the BG axis introduced more than 15 years ago (34). […] In addition, we should be mindful of the timing of BG fluctuations. There are a number of measures assessing GV amplitude from routine SMBG, but the timing of readings is frequently ignored even if the information is available (42). Yet, contrary to widespread belief, BG fluctuations are a process in time and the speed of transition from one BG state to another is of clinical importance. With the availability of CGM, the assessment of GV timing became not only possible but also required (32). Responding to this necessity, we should keep in mind that the assessment of temporal characteristics of GV benefits from mathematical computations that go beyond basic arithmetic. Thus, some assistance from the theory and practice of time series and dynamical systems analysis would be helpful. Fortunately, these fields are highly developed, theoretically and computationally, and have been used for decades in other areas of science […] The computational methods are standardized and available in a number of software products and should be used for the assessment of GV. […] There is no doubt that the timing of glucose fluctuations is clinically important, but there is a price to pay for its accurate assessment—a bit higher level of mathematical complexity. This, however, should not be a deterrent.”

vii. Predictors of Increased Carotid Intima-Media Thickness in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: The SEARCH CVD Study.

“Adults with childhood-onset type 1 diabetes are at increased risk for premature cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality compared with the general population (1). The antecedents of CVD begin in childhood (2), and early or preclinical atherosclerosis can be detected as intima-media thickening in the artery wall (3). Carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) is an established marker of atherosclerosis because of its associations with CVD risk factors (4,5) and CVD outcomes, such as myocardial infarction and stroke in adults (6,7).

Prior work […] has shown that youth with type 1 diabetes have higher carotid IMT than control subjects (813). In cross-sectional studies, risk factors associated with higher carotid IMT include younger age at diabetes onset, male sex, adiposity, higher blood pressure (BP) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and lower vitamin C levels (8,9,11). Only one study has evaluated CVD risk factors longitudinally and the association with carotid IMT progression in youth with type 1 diabetes (14). In a German cohort of 70 youth with type 1 diabetes, Dalla Pozza et al. (14) demonstrated that CVD risk factors, including BMI z score (BMIz), systolic BP, and HbA1c, worsened over time. They also found that baseline HbA1c and baseline and follow-up systolic BP were significant predictors of change in carotid IMT over 4 years.”

“Before the current study, no published reports had assessed the impact of changes in CVD risk factors and carotid IMT in U.S. adolescents with type 1 diabetes. […] Participants in this study were enrolled in SEARCH CVD, an ancillary study to the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth that was conducted in two of the five SEARCH centers (Colorado and Ohio). […] This report includes 298 youth who completed both baseline and follow-up SEARCH CVD visits […] At the initial visit, youth with type 1 diabetes were a mean age of 13.3 ± 2.9 years (range 7.6–21.3 years) and had an average disease duration of 3.6 ± 3.3 years. […] Follow-up data were obtained at a mean age of 19.2 ± 2.7 years, when the average duration of type 1 diabetes was 10.1 ± 3.9 years. […] In the current study, we show that older age (at baseline) and male sex were significantly associated with follow-up IMT. By using AUC measurements, we also show that a higher BMIz exposure over ∼5 years was significantly associated with IMT at follow-up. From baseline to follow-up, the mean BMI increased from within normal limits (21.1 ± 4.3 kg/m2) to overweight (25.1 ± 4.8 kg/m2), defined as a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 in adults (26,27). This large change in BMI may explain why BMIz was the only modifiable risk factor to be associated with follow-up IMT in the final models. Whether the observed increase in BMIz over time is part of the natural evolution of diabetes, aging in an obesogenic society, or a consequence of intensive insulin therapy is not known.”

“Data from the DCCT/EDIC cohorts have suggested nontraditional risk factors, including acute phase reactants, thrombolytic factors, cytokines/adipokines (34), oxidized LDL, and advanced glycation end products (30) may be important biomarkers of increased CVD risk in adults with type 1 diabetes. However, many of these nontraditional risk factors […] were not found to associate with IMT until 8–12 years after the DCCT ended, at the time when traditional CVD risk factors were also found to predict IMT. Collectively, these findings suggest that many traditional and nontraditional risk factors are not identified as relevant until later in the atherosclerotic process and highlight the critical need to better identify risk factors that may influence carotid IMT early in the course of type 1 diabetes because these may be important modifiable CVD risk factors of focus in the adolescent population. […] Although BMIz was the only identified risk factor to predict follow-up IMT at this age [in our study], it is possible that increases in dyslipidemia, BP, smoking, and HbA1c are related to carotid IMT but only after longer duration of exposure.”

July 13, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Medicine, Neurology, Studies | Leave a comment

A few SSC comments

I recently left a few comments in an open thread on SSC, and I figured it might make sense to crosspost some of the comments made there here on the blog. I haven’t posted all my contributions to the debate here, rather I’ve just quoted some specific comments and observations which might be of interest. I’ve also added some additional remarks and comments which relate to the topics discussed. Here’s the main link (scroll down to get to my comments).

“One thing worth keeping in mind when evaluating pre-modern medicine characterizations of diabetes and the natural history of diabetes is incidentally that especially to the extent that one is interested in type 1 survivorship bias is a major problem lurking in the background. Prognostic estimates of untreated type 1 based on historical accounts of how long people could live with the disease before insulin are not in my opinion likely to be all that reliable, because the type of patients that would be recognized as (type 1) diabetics back then would tend to mainly be people who had the milder forms, because they were the only ones who lived long enough to reach a ‘doctor’; and the longer they lived, and the milder the sub-type, the more likely they were to be studied/’diagnosed’. I was a 2-year old boy who got unwell on a Tueday and was hospitalized three days later. Avicenna would have been unlikely to have encountered me, I’d have died before he saw me. (Similar lines of reasoning might lead to an argument that the incidence of diseases like type 1 diabetes may also today be underdiagnosed in developing countries with poorly developed health care systems.)”

Douglas Knight mentioned during our exchange that medical men of the far past might have been more likely to attend to patients with acute illnesses than patients with chronic conditions, making them more likely to attend to such cases than would otherwise be the case, a point I didn’t discuss in any detail during the exchange. I did however think it important to note here that information exchange was significantly slower, and transportation costs were much higher, in the past than they are today. This should make such a bias less relevant, all else equal. Avicenna and his colleagues couldn’t take a taxi, or learn by phone that X is sick. He might have preferentially attended to the acute cases he learned about, but given high transportation costs and inefficient communication channels he might often never arrive in time, or at all. A particular problem here is that there are no good data on the unobserved cases, because the only cases we know about today are the ones people like him have told us about.

Some more comments:

“One thing I was considering adding to my remarks about survivorship bias is that it is not in my opinion unlikely that what you might term the nature of the disease has changed over the centuries; indeed it might still be changing today. Globally the incidence of type 1 has been increasing for decades and nobody seems to know why, though there’s consensus about an environmental trigger playing a major role. Maybe incidence is not the only thing that’s changed, maybe e.g. the time course of the ‘average case’ has also changed? Maybe due to secondary factors; better nutritional status now equals slower progression of beta cell failure than was the case in the past? Or perhaps the other way around: Less exposure to bacterial agents the immune system throughout evolutionary time has been used to having to deal with today means that the autoimmune process is accelerated today, compared to in the far past where standards of hygiene were different. Who knows? […] Maybe survivorship bias wasn’t that big of a deal, but I think one should be very cautious about which assumptions one might implicitly be making along the way when addressing questions of this sort of nature. Some relevant questions will definitely be unknowable due to lack of good data which we will never be able to obtain.”

I should perhaps interpose here that even if survivorship bias ‘wasn’t that big of a deal’, it’s still sort of a big problem in the analytical setting because it seems perfectly plausible to me to be making the assumption that it might even so have been a big deal. These kinds of problems magnify our error bars and reduce confidence in our conclusions, regardless of the extent to which they actually played a role. When you know the exact sign and magnitude of a given moderating effect you can try to correct for it, but this is very difficult to do when a large range of moderator effect sizes might be considered plausible. It might also here be worth mentioning explicitly that biases such as the survivorship bias mentioned can of course impact a lot of things besides just the prognostic estimates; for example if a lot of cases never come to the attention of the medical people because these people were unavailable (due to distance, cost, lack of information, etc.) to the people who were sick, incidence and prevalence will also implicitly be underestimated. And so on. Back to the comments:

“Once you had me thinking that it might have been harder [for people in the past] to distinguish [between type 1 and type 2 diabetes] than […] it is today, I started wondering about this, and the comments below relate to this topic. An idea that came to mind in relation to the type 1/type 2 distinction and the ability of people in the past to make this distinction: I’ve worked on various identification problems present in the diabetes context before, and I know that people even today make misdiagnoses and e.g. categorize type 1 diabetics as type 2. I asked a diabetes nurse working in the local endocrinology unit about this at one point, and she told me they had actually had a patient not long before then who had been admitted a short while after having been diagnosed with type 2. Turned out he was type 1, so the treatment failed. Misdiagnoses happen for multiple reasons, one is that obese people also sometimes develop type 1, and if it’s an acute onset setting the weight loss is not likely to be very significant. Patient history should in such a case provide the doctor with the necessary clues, but if the guy making the diagnosis is a stressed out GP who’s currently treating a lot of obese patients for type 2, mistakes happen. ‘Pre-scientific method’ this sort of individual would have been inconvenient to encounter, because a ‘counter-example’ like that supposedly demonstrating that the obese/thin(/young/old, acute/protracted…) distinction was ‘invalid’ might have held a lot more weight than it hopefully would today in the age of statistical analysis. A similar problem would be some of the end-stage individuals: A type 1 pre-insulin would be unlikely to live long enough to develop long term complications of the disease, but would instead die of DKA. The problem is that some untreated type 2 patients also die of DKA, though the degree of ketosis varies in type 2 patients. DKA in type 2 could e.g. be triggered by a superimposed cardiovascular event or an infection, increasing metabolic demands to an extent that can no longer be met by the organism, and so might well present just as acutely as it would in a classic acute-onset type 1 case. Assume the opposite bias you mention is playing a role; the ‘doctor’ in the past is more likely to see the patients in such a life-threatening setting than in the earlier stages. He observes a 55 year old fat guy dying in a very similar manner to the way a 12 year old girl died a few months back – very characteristic symptoms, breath smells fruity, Kussmaul respiration, polyuria and polydipsia…). What does he conclude? Are these different diseases?”

Making the doctor’s decision problem even harder is of course the fact that type 2 diabetes even today often goes undiagnosed until complications arise. Some type 2 patients get their diagnosis only after they had their first heart attack as a result of their illness. So the hypothetical obese middle-aged guy presenting with DKA might not have been known by anyone to be ‘a potentially different kind of diabetic’.

‘The Nybbler’ asked this question in the thread: “Wouldn’t reduced selection pressure be a major reason for increase of Type I diabetes? Used to be if you had it, chance of surviving to reproduce was close to nil.”

I’ll mention here that I’ve encountered this kind of theorizing before, but that I’ve never really addressed it – especially the second part – explicitly, though I’ve sometimes felt like doing that. I figured this post might be a decent place to at least scratch the surface. The idea that there are more type 1 diabetics now than there used to be because type 1 diabetics used to die of their disease and now they don’t (…and so now they are able to transmit their faulty genes to subsequent generations, leading to more diabetic individuals over time) sounds sort of reasonable if you don’t know very much about diabetes, but it sounds less reasonable to people who do. Genes matter, and changed selection pressures have probably played a role, but I find it hard to believe this particular mechanism is a major factor. I have included both my of my replies to ‘Nybbler’ below:

First comment:

“I’m not a geneticist and this is sort-of-kind-of near the boundary area of where I feel comfortable providing answers (given that others may be more qualified to evaluate questions like this than I am). However a few observations which might be relevant are the following:

i) Although I’ll later go on to say that vertical transmission is low, I first have to point out that some people who developed type 1 diabetes in the past did in fact have offspring, though there’s no doubt about the condition being fitness-reducing to a very large degree. The median age of diagnosis of type 1 is somewhere in the teenage years (…today. Was it the same way 1000 years ago, or has the age profile changed over time? This again relates to questions asked elsewhere in this discussion…), but people above the age of 30 get type 1 too.

ii) Although type 1 display some level of familia[l] clustering, most cases of type 1 are not the result of diabetics having had children who then proceed to inherit their parents’ disease. To the extent that reduced selection is a driver of increased incidence, the main cause would be broad selection effects pertaining to immune system functioning in general in the total population at risk (i.e. children in general, including many children with what might be termed suboptimal immune system functioning, being more likely to survive and later develop type 1 diabetes), not effects derived from vertical transmission of the disease (from parent to child). Roughly 90% of newly diagnosed type 1 diabetics in population studies have a negative family history of the disease, and on average only 2% of the children of type 1 diabetic mothers, and 5% of the children of type 1 diabetic fathers, go on to develop type 1 diabetes themselves.

iii) Historically vertical transmission has even in modern times been low. On top of the quite low transmission rates mentioned above, until well into the 80es or 90es many type 1 diabetic females were explicitly advised by their medical care providers not to have children, not because of the genetic risk of disease transmission but because pregnancy outcomes were likely to be poor; and many of those who disregarded the advice gave birth to offspring who were at a severe fitness disadvantage from the start. Poorly controlled diabetes during pregnancy leads to a very high risk of birth defects and/or miscarriage, and may pose health risks to the mother as well through e.g. an increased risk of preeclampsia (relevant link). It is only very recently that we’ve developed the knowledge and medical technology required to make pregnancy a reasonably safe option for female diabetics. You still had some diabetic females who gave birth before developing diabetes, like in the far past, and the situation was different for males, but either way I feel reasonably confident claiming that if you look for genetic causes of increasing incidence, vertical transmission should not be the main factor to consider.

iv) You need to be careful when evaluating questions like these to keep a distinction between questions relating to drivers of incidence and questions relating to drivers of prevalence at the back of your mind. These two sets of questions are not equivalent.

v) If people are interested to know more about the potential causes of increased incidence of type 1 diabetes, here’s a relevant review paper.”

I followed up with a second comment a while later, because I figured a few points of interest might not have been sufficiently well addressed in my first comment:

“@Nybbler:

A few additional remarks.

i) “Temporal trends in chronic disease incidence rates are almost certainly environmentally induced. If one observes a 50% increase in the incidence of a disorder over 20 yr, it is most likely the result of changes in the environment because the gene pool cannot change that rapidly. Type 1 diabetes is a very dynamic disease. […] results clearly demonstrate that the incidence of type 1 diabetes is rising, bringing with it a large public health problem. Moreover, these findings indicate that something in our environment is changing to trigger a disease response. […] With the exception of a possible role for viruses and infant nutrition, the specific environmental determinants that initiate or precipitate the onset of type 1 diabetes remain unclear.” (Type 1 Diabetes, Etiology and Treatment. Just to make it perfectly clear that although genes matter, environmental factors are the most likely causes of the rising levels of incidence we’ve seen in recent times.)

ii. Just as you need to always keep incidence and prevalence in mind when analyzing these things (for example low prevalence does not mean incidence is necessarily low, or was low in the past; low prevalence could also be a result of a combination of high incidence and high case mortality. I know from experience that even diabetes researchers tend to sometimes overlook stuff like this), you also need to keep the distinction between genotype and phenotype in mind. Given the increased importance of one or more environmental triggers in modern times, penetrance is likely to have changed over time. This means for example that ‘a diabetic genotype’ may have been less fitness reducing in the past than it is today, even if the associated ‘diabetic phenotype’ may on the other hand have been much more fitness reducing than it is now; people who developed diabetes died, but many of the people who might in the current environment be considered high-risk cases may not have been high risk in the far past, because the environmental trigger causing disease was absent, or rarely encountered. Assessing genetic risk for diabetes is complicated, and there’s no general formula for calculating this risk either in the type 1 or type 2 case; monogenic forms of diabetes do exist, but they account for a very small proportion of cases (1-5% of diabetes in young individuals) – most cases are polygenic and display variable levels of penetrance. Note incidentally that a story of environmental factors becoming more important over time is actually implicitly also, to the extent that diabetes is/has been fitness-reducing, a story of selection pressures against diabetic genotypes potentially increasing over time, rather than the opposite (which seems to be the default assumption when only taking into account stuff like the increased survival rates of type 1 diabetics over time). This stuff is complicated.”

I wasn’t completely happy with my second comment (I wrote it relatively fast and didn’t have time to go over it in detail after I’d written it), so I figured it might make sense to add a few details here. One key idea here is of course that you need to distinguish between people who are ‘vulnerable’ to developing type 1 diabetes, and people who actually do develop the disease. If fewer people who today would be considered ‘vulnerable’ developed the disease in the past than is the case now, selection against the ‘vulnerable’ genotype would – all else equal – have been lower throughout evolutionary time than it is today.

All else is not equal because of insulin treatment. But a second key point is that when you’re interested in fitness effects, mortality is not the only variable of interest; many diabetic women who were alive because of insulin during the 20th century but who were also being discouraged from having children may well have left no offspring. Males who committed suicide or died from kidney failure in their twenties likely also didn’t leave many offspring. Another point related to the mortality variable is that although diabetes mortality might in the past have been approximated reasonably well by a simple binary outcome variable/process (no diabetes = alive, diabetes = dead), type 1 diabetes has had large effects on mortality rates also throughout the chunk of history during which insulin has been a treatment option; mortality rates 3 or 4 times higher than those of non-diabetics are common in population studies, and such mortality rates add up over time even if base rates are low, especially in a fitness context, as they for most type 1 diabetics are at play throughout the entire fertile period of the life history. Type 2 diabetes is diagnosed mainly in middle-aged individuals, many of whom have already completed their reproductive cycle, but type 1 diabetes is very different in that respect. Of course there are multiple indirect effects at play as well here, e.g. those of mate choice; which is the more attractive potential partner, the individual with diabetes or the one without? What if the diabetic also happens to be blind?

A few other quotes from the comments:

“The majority of patients on insulin in the US are type 2 diabetics, and it is simply wrong that type 2 diabetics are not responsive to insulin treatment. They were likely found to be unresponsive in early trials because of errors of dosage, as they require higher levels of the drug to obtain the same effect as will young patients diagnosed with type 1 (the primary group on insulin in the 30es). However, insulin treatment is not the first-line option in the type 2 context because the condition can usually be treated with insulin-sensitizing agents for a while, until they fail (those drugs will on average fail in something like ~50% of subjects within five years of diagnosis, which is the reason – combined with the much (order(/s, depending on where you are) of magnitude) higher prevalence of type 2 – why a majority of patients on insulin have type 2), and these tend to a) be more acceptable to the patients (a pill vs an injection) and b) have fewer/less severe side effects on average. One reason which also played a major role in delaying the necessary use of insulin to treat type 2 diabetes which could not be adequately controlled via other means was incidentally the fact that insulin ca[u]ses weight gain, and the obesity-type 2 link was well known.”

“Type 1 is autoimmune, and most cases of type 2 are not, but some forms of type 2 seem to have an autoimmune component as well (“the overall autoantibody frequency in type 2 patients varies between 6% and 10%” – source) (these patients, who can be identified through genetic markers, will on average proceed to insulin dependence because of treatment failure in the context of insulin sensitizing-agents much sooner than is usually the case in patients with type 2). In general type 1 is caused by autoimmune beta cell destruction and type 2 mainly by insulin resistance, but combinations of the two are also possible […], and patients with type 1 can develop insulin resistance just as patients with type 2 can lose beta cells via multiple pathways. The major point here being that the sharp diagnostic distinction between type 1 and type 2 is a major simplification of what’s really going on, and it’s hiding a lot of heterogeneity in both samples. Some patients with type 1 will develop diabetes acutely or subacutely, within days or hours, whereas others will have elevated blood glucose levels for months before medical attention is received and a diagnosis is made (you can tell whether or not blood glucose has been elevated pre-diagnosis by looking at one of the key diagnostic variables, Hba1c, which is a measure of the average blood glucose over the entire lifetime of a red blood cell (~3-4 months) – in some newly diagnosed type 1s, this variable is elevated, in others it is not. Some type 1 patients will develop other autoimmune conditions later on, whereas others will not, and some will be more likely to develop complications than others who have the same level of glycemic control.

Type 1 and type 2 diabetes are quite different conditions, but in terms of many aspects of the diseases there are significant degrees of overlap (for example they develop many of the same complications, for similar (pathophysiological) reasons), yet they are both called diabetes. You don’t want to treat a type 2 diabetic with insulin if he can be treated with metformin, and treating a type 1 with metformin will not help – so different treatments are required.”

“In terms of whether it’s ideal to have one autistic diagnostic group or two (…or three, or…) [this question was a starting point for the debate from which I quote, but I decided not to go much into this topic here], I maintain that to a significant extent the answer to that question relates to what the diagnosis is supposed to accomplish. If it makes sense for researchers to be able to distinguish, which it probably does, but it is not necessary for support organizers/providers to know the subtype in order to provide aid, then you might end up with one ‘official’ category and two (or more) ‘research categories’. I would be fine with that (but again I don’t find this discussion interesting). Again a parallel might be made to diabetes research: Endocrinologists are well aware that there’s a huge amount of variation in both the type 1 and type 2 samples, to the extent that it’s sort of silly to even categorize these illnesses using the same name, but they do it anyway for reasons which are sort of obvious. If you’re type 1 diabetic and you have an HLA mutation which made you vulnerable to diabetes and you developed diabetes at the age of 5, well, we’ll start you on insulin, try to help you achieve good metabolic control, and screen you regularly for complications. If on the other hand you’re an adult guy who due to a very different genetic vulnerability developed type 1 diabetes at the age of 30 (and later on Graves’ disease at the age of 40, due to the same mutation), well, we’ll start you on insulin, try to help you achieve good metabolic control, and screen you regularly for complications. The only thing type 1 diabetics have in common is the fact that their beta cells die due to some autoimmune processes. But it could easily be conceived of instead as literally hundreds of different diseases. Currently the distinctions between the different disease-relevant pathophysiological processes don’t matter very much in the treatment context, but they might do that at some point in the future, and if that happens the differences will start to become more important. People might at that point start to talk about type 1a diabetes, which might be the sort you can delay or stop with gene therapy, and type 1b which you can’t delay or stop (…yet). Lumping ‘different’ groups together into one diagnostic category is bad if it makes you overlook variation which is important, and this may be a problem in the autism context today, but regardless of the sizes of the diagnostic groups you’ll usually still end up with lots of residual (‘unexplained’) variation.”

I can’t recall to which extent I’ve discussed this last topic – the extent to which type 1 diabetes is best modeled as one illness or many – but it’s an important topic to keep at the back of your mind when you’re reading the diabetes literature. I’m assuming that in some contexts the subgroup heterogeneities, e.g. in terms of treatment response, will be much more important than in other contexts, so you probably need specific subject matter knowledge to make any sort of informed decision about to which extent potential unobserved heterogeneities may be important in a specific setting, but even if you don’t have that ‘a healthy skepticism’, derived from keeping the potential for these factors to play a role in mind, is likely to be more useful than the alternative. In that context I think the (poor, but understandable) standard practice of lumping together type 1 and type 2 diabetics in studies may lead many people familiar with the differences between the two conditions to think along the lines that as long as you know the type, you’re good to go – ‘at least this study only looked at type 1 individuals, not like those crappy studies which do not distinguish between type 1 and type 2, so I can definitely trust these results to apply to the subgroup of type 1 diabetics in which I’m interested’ – and I think this tendency, to the extent that it exists, is unfortunate.

July 8, 2017 Posted by | autism, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Genetics, Medicine, Psychology | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. An Inverse Relationship Between Age of Type 2 Diabetes Onset and Complication Risk and Mortality: The Impact of Youth-Onset Type 2 Diabetes.

“This study compared the prevalence of complications in 354 patients with T2DM diagnosed between 15 and 30 years of age (T2DM15–30) with that in a duration-matched cohort of 1,062 patients diagnosed between 40 and 50 years (T2DM40–50). It also examined standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) according to diabetes age of onset in 15,238 patients covering a wider age-of-onset range.”

“After matching for duration, despite their younger age, T2DM15–30 had more severe albuminuria (P = 0.004) and neuropathy scores (P = 0.003). T2DM15–30 were as commonly affected by metabolic syndrome factors as T2DM40–50 but less frequently treated for hypertension and dyslipidemia (P < 0.0001). An inverse relationship between age of diabetes onset and SMR was seen, which was the highest for T2DM15–30 (3.4 [95% CI 2.7–4.2]). SMR plots adjusting for duration show that for those with T2DM15–30, SMR is the highest at any chronological age, with a peak SMR of more than 6 in early midlife. In contrast, mortality for older-onset groups approximates that of the background population.”

“Young people with type 2 diabetes are likely to be obese, with a clustering of unfavorable cardiometabolic risk factors all present at a very early age (3,4). In adolescents with type 2 diabetes, a 10–30% prevalence of hypertension and an 18–54% prevalence of dyslipidemia have been found, much greater than would be expected in a population of comparable age (4).”

CONCLUSIONS The negative effect of diabetes on morbidity and mortality is greatest for those diagnosed at a young age compared with T2DM of usual onset.”

It’s important to keep base rates in mind when interpreting the reported SMRs, but either way this is interesting.

ii. Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Hypoglycemia-Induced Cognitive Impairment and Recovery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE To ascertain whether hypoglycemia in association with sleep deprivation causes greater cognitive dysfunction than hypoglycemia alone and protracts cognitive recovery after normoglycemia is restored.”

CONCLUSIONS Hypoglycemia per se produced a significant decrement in cognitive function; coexisting sleep deprivation did not have an additive effect. However, after restoration of normoglycemia, preceding sleep deprivation was associated with persistence of hypoglycemic symptoms and greater and more prolonged cognitive dysfunction during the recovery period. […] In the current study of young adults with type 1 diabetes, the impairment of cognitive function that was associated with hypoglycemia was not exacerbated by sleep deprivation. […] One possible explanation is that hypoglycemia per se exerts a ceiling effect on the degree of cognitive dysfunction as is possible to demonstrate with conventional tests.”

iii. Intensive Diabetes Treatment and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 1 Diabetes: The DCCT/EDIC Study 30-Year Follow-up.

“The DCCT randomly assigned 1,441 patients with type 1 diabetes to intensive versus conventional therapy for a mean of 6.5 years, after which 93% were subsequently monitored during the observational Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study. Cardiovascular disease (nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke, cardiovascular death, confirmed angina, congestive heart failure, and coronary artery revascularization) was adjudicated using standardized measures.”

“During 30 years of follow-up in DCCT and EDIC, 149 cardiovascular disease events occurred in 82 former intensive treatment group subjects versus 217 events in 102 former conventional treatment group subjects. Intensive therapy reduced the incidence of any cardiovascular disease by 30% (95% CI 7, 48; P = 0.016), and the incidence of major cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) by 32% (95% CI −3, 56; P = 0.07). The lower HbA1c levels during the DCCT/EDIC statistically account for all of the observed treatment effect on cardiovascular disease risk.”

CONCLUSIONS Intensive diabetes therapy during the DCCT (6.5 years) has long-term beneficial effects on the incidence of cardiovascular disease in type 1 diabetes that persist for up to 30 years.”

I was of course immediately thinking that perhaps they had not considered if this might just be the result of the Hba1c differences achieved during the trial being maintained long-term (during follow-up), and so what they were doing was not as much measuring the effect of the ‘metabolic memory’ component as they were just measuring standard population outcome differences resulting from long-term Hba1c differences. But they (of course) had thought about that, and that’s not what’s going on here, which is what makes it particularly interesting:

“Mean HbA1c during the average 6.5 years of DCCT intensive therapy was ∼2% (20 mmol/mol) lower than that during conventional therapy (7.2 vs. 9.1% [55.6 vs. 75.9 mmol/mol], P < 0.001). Subsequently during EDIC, HbA1c differences between the treatment groups dissipated. At year 11 of EDIC follow-up and most recently at 19–20 years of EDIC follow-up, there was only a trivial difference between the original intensive and conventional treatment groups in the mean level of HbA1c

They do admittedly find a statistically significant difference between the Hba1cs of the two groups when you look at (weighted) Hba1cs long-term, but that difference is certainly nowhere near large enough to explain the clinical differences in outcomes you observe. Another argument in favour of the view that what’s driving these differences is metabolic memory is the observation that the difference in outcomes between the treatment and control groups are smaller now than they were ten years ago (my default would probably be to if anything expect the outcomes of the two groups to converge long-term if the samples were properly randomized to start with, but this is not the only plausible model and it sort of depends on how you model the risk function, as they also talk about in the paper):

“[T]he risk reduction of any CVD with intensive therapy through 2013 is now less than that reported previously through 2004 (30% [P = 0.016] vs. 47% [P = 0.005]), and likewise, the risk reduction per 10% lower mean HbA1c through 2013 was also somewhat lower than previously reported but still highly statistically significant (17% [P = 0.0001] vs. 20% [P = 0.001]).”

iv. Commonly Measured Clinical Variables Are Not Associated With Burden of Complications in Long-standing Type 1 Diabetes: Results From the Canadian Study of Longevity in Diabetes.

“The Canadian Study of Longevity in Diabetes actively recruited 325 individuals who had T1D for 50 or more years (5). Subjects completed a questionnaire, and recent laboratory tests and eye reports were provided by primary care physicians and eye specialists, respectively. […] The 325 participants were 65.5 ± 8.5 years old with diagnosis at age 10 years (interquartile range [IQR] 6.0, 16) and duration of 54.9 ± 6.4 years.”

“In univariable analyses, the following were significantly associated with a greater burden of complications: presence of hypertension, statin, aspirin and ACE inhibitor or ARB use, higher Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) scores, and higher levels of triglycerides and HbA1c. The following were significantly associated with a lower burden of complications: current physical activity, higher quality of life, and higher HDL cholesterol.”

“In the multivariable analysis, a higher PAID score was associated with a greater burden of complications (risk ratio [RR] 1.15 [95% CI 1.06–1.25] for each 10-point-higher score). Aspirin and statin use were also associated with a greater burden of complications (RR 1.24 [95% CI 1.01–1.52] and RR 1.34 [95% CI 1.05–1.70], respectively) (Table 1), whereas HbA1c was not.”

“Our findings indicate that in individuals with long-standing T1D, burden of complications is largely not associated with historical characteristics or simple objective measurements, as associations with statistical significance likely reflect reverse causality. Notably, HbA1c was not associated with burden of complications […]. This further confirms that other unmeasured variables such as genetic, metabolic, or physiologic characteristics may best identify mechanisms and biomarkers of complications in long-standing T1D.”

v. Cardiovascular Risk Factor Targets and Cardiovascular Disease Event Risk in Diabetes: A Pooling Project of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and Jackson Heart Study.

“Controlling cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in diabetes mellitus (DM) reduces the number of CVD events, but the effects of multifactorial risk factor control are not well quantified. We examined whether being at targets for blood pressure (BP), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) together are associated with lower risks for CVD events in U.S. adults with DM. […] We studied 2,018 adults, 28–86 years of age with DM but without known CVD, from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), and Jackson Heart Study (JHS). Cox regression examined coronary heart disease (CHD) and CVD events over a mean 11-year follow-up in those individuals at BP, LDL-C, and HbA1c target levels, and by the number of controlled risk factors.”

“Of 2,018 DM subjects (43% male, 55% African American), 41.8%, 32.1%, and 41.9% were at target levels for BP, LDL-C, and HbA1c, respectively; 41.1%, 26.5%, and 7.2% were at target levels for any one, two, or all three factors, respectively. Being at BP, LDL-C, or HbA1c target levels related to 17%, 33%, and 37% lower CVD risks and 17%, 41%, and 36% lower CHD risks, respectively (P < 0.05 to P < 0.0001, except for BP in CHD risk); those subjects with one, two, or all three risk factors at target levels (vs. none) had incrementally lower adjusted risks of CVD events of 36%, 52%, and 62%, respectively, and incrementally lower adjusted risks of CHD events of 41%, 56%, and 60%, respectively (P < 0.001 to P < 0.0001). Propensity score adjustment showed similar findings.”

“In our pooled analysis of subjects with DM in three large-scale U.S. prospective studies, the more factors among HbA1c, BP, and LDL-C that were at goal levels, the lower are the observed CHD and CVD risks (∼60% lower when all three factors were at goal levels compared with none). However, fewer than one-tenth of our subjects were at goal levels for all three factors. These findings underscore the value of achieving target or lower levels of these modifiable risk factors, especially in combination, among persons with DM for the future prevention of CHD and CVD events.”

In some studies you see very low proportions of patients reaching target variables because the targets are stupid (to be perfectly frank about it). The HbA1c target applied in this study was a level <53.0 mmol/mol (7%), which is definitely not crazy if the majority of the individuals included were type 2, which they almost certainly were. You can argue about the BP goal, but it’s obvious here that the authors are perfectly aware of the contentiousness of this variable.

It’s incidentally noteworthy – and the authors do take note of it, of course – that one of the primary results of this study (~60% lower risk when all risk factors reach the target goal), which includes a large proportion of African Americans in the study sample, is almost identical to the results of the Danish Steno-2 clinical trial, which included only Danish white patients (and the results of which I have discussed here on the blog before). In the Steno study, the result was “a 57% reduction in CVD death and a 59% reduction in CVD events.”

vi. Illness Identity in Adolescents and Emerging Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Introducing the Illness Identity Questionnaire.

“The current study examined the utility of a new self-report questionnaire, the Illness Identity Questionnaire (IIQ), which assesses the concept of illness identity, or the degree to which type 1 diabetes is integrated into one’s identity. Four illness identity dimensions (engulfment, rejection, acceptance, and enrichment) were validated in adolescents and emerging adults with type 1 diabetes. Associations with psychological and diabetes-specific functioning were assessed.”

“A sample of 575 adolescents and emerging adults (14–25 years of age) with type 1 diabetes completed questionnaires on illness identity, psychological functioning, diabetes-related problems, and treatment adherence. Physicians were contacted to collect HbA1c values from patients’ medical records. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate the IIQ. Path analysis with structural equation modeling was used to examine associations between illness identity and psychological and diabetes-specific functioning.”

“The first two identity dimensions, engulfment and rejection, capture a lack of illness integration, or the degree to which having diabetes is not well integrated as part of one’s sense of self. Engulfment refers to the degree to which diabetes dominates a person’s identity. Individuals completely define themselves in terms of their diabetes, which invades all domains of life (9). Rejection refers to the degree to which diabetes is rejected as part of one’s identity and is viewed as a threat or as unacceptable to the self. […] Acceptance refers to the degree to which individuals accept diabetes as a part of their identity, besides other social roles and identity assets. […] Enrichment refers to the degree to which having diabetes results in positive life changes, benefits one’s identity, and enables one to grow as a person (12). […] These changes can manifest themselves in different ways, including an increased appreciation for life, a change of life priorities, and a more positive view of the self (14).”

“Previous quantitative research assessing similar constructs has suggested that the degree to which individuals integrate their illness into their identity may affect psychological and diabetes-specific functioning in patients. Diabetes intruding upon all domains of life (similar to engulfment) [has been] related to more depressive symptoms and more diabetes-related problems […] In contrast, acceptance has been related to fewer depressive symptoms and diabetes-related problems and to better glycemic control (6,15). Similarly, benefit finding has been related to fewer depressive symptoms and better treatment adherence (16). […] The current study introduces the IIQ in individuals with type 1 diabetes as a way to assess all four illness identity dimensions.”

“The Cronbach α was 0.90 for engulfment, 0.84 for rejection, 0.85 for acceptance, and 0.90 for enrichment. […] CFA indicated that the IIQ has a clear factor structure, meaningfully differentiating four illness identity dimensions. Rejection was related to worse treatment adherence and higher HbA1c values. Engulfment was related to less adaptive psychological functioning and more diabetes-related problems. Acceptance was related to more adaptive psychological functioning, fewer diabetes-related problems, and better treatment adherence. Enrichment was related to more adaptive psychological functioning. […] the concept of illness identity may help to clarify why certain adolescents and emerging adults with diabetes show difficulties in daily functioning, whereas others succeed in managing developmental and diabetes-specific challenges.”

June 30, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Medicine, Psychology, Studies | Leave a comment

Neurology Grand Rounds – Typical and Atypical Diabetic Neuropathy

The lecture is not particularly easy to follow if you’re not a neurologist, and/but I assume even neurologists might have difficulties with Liewluck’s (? the second guy’s…) contribution because that guy’s English pronunciation is not great. But if you’re the sort of person who watches neurology lectures online it’s well worth watching.

Said noted in his book on these topics that: “In general pharmacological treatments will not cause anywhere near complete pain relief: “For patients receiving pharmacological treatment, the average pain reduction is about 20-30%, and only 20-35% of patients will achieve at least a 50% pain reduction with available drugs. […] often only partial pain relief from neuropathic pain can be expected, and […] sensory deficits are unlikely to respond to treatment.” Treatment of neuropathic pain is often a trial-and-error process.”

These guys make an even stronger point than Said did: Diabetics who develop painful neuropathies do not get rid of the pain even with treatment – the pain can be managed, but it’s permanent in (…almost? …a few young type 1 diabetics, maybe? But the 60-year old neurologist had never encountered one of those, so odds are against you being one of the lucky ones…) every single case. This of course has some consequences for how patients should be managed – for example you want to devote some time and effort to managing expectations, so people don’t get/have unrealistic ideas about what the treatments which are available may actually accomplish. Another aspect related to this is which sort of treatment options to consider in such a setting, as also noted in the lecture – tolerance development is for example an easily foreseeable problem with opiate treatment which is likely to cause problems down the line if not addressed (but as I pointed out a few years ago, my impression is that: “‘it may not work particularly well in the long run, and there are a lot of side-effects’ is a better argument against [chronic opioid treatment] than the potential for addiction”).

June 23, 2017 Posted by | Diabetes, Lectures, Medicine, Neurology, Pharmacology | Leave a comment

A few papers

i. Quality of life of adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: comparison to adolescents with diabetes.

“The goals of our study were to clarify the consequences of autistic disorder without mental retardation on […] adolescents’ daily lives, and to consider them in comparison with the impact of a chronic somatic disease (diabetes) […] Scores for adolescents with ASD were significantly lower than those of the control and the diabetic adolescents, especially for friendships, leisure time, and affective and sexual relationships. On the other hand, better scores were obtained for the relationships with parents and teachers and for self-image. […] For subjects with autistic spectrum disorders and without mental retardation, impairment of quality of life is significant in adolescence and young adulthood. Such adolescents are dissatisfied with their relationships, although they often have real motivation to succeed with them.”

As someone who has both conditions, that paper was quite interesting. A follow-up question of some personal interest to me would of course be this: How do the scores/outcomes of these two groups compare to the scores of the people who have both conditions simultaneously? This question is likely almost impossible to answer in any confident manner, certainly if the conditions are not strongly dependent (unlikely), considering the power issues; global prevalence of autism is around 0.6% (link), and although type 1 prevalence is highly variable across countries, the variation just means that in some countries almost nobody gets it whereas in other countries it’s just rare; prevalence varies from 0.5 per 100.000 to 60 per 100.000 children aged 0-15 years. Assuming independence, if you look at combinations of the sort of conditions which affect one in a hundred people with those affecting one in a thousand, you’ll need on average in the order of 100.000 people to pick up just one individual with both of the conditions of interest. It’s bothersome to even try to find people like that, and good luck doing any sort of sensible statistics on that kind of sample. Of course type 1 diabetes prevalence increases with age in a way that autism does not because people continue to be diagnosed with it into late adulthood, whereas most autistics are diagnosed as children, so this makes the rarity of the condition less of a problem in adult samples, but if you’re looking at outcomes it’s arguable whether it makes sense to not differentiate between someone diagnosed with type 1 diabetes as a 35 year old and someone diagnosed as a 5 year old (are these really comparable diseases, and which outcomes are you interested in?). At least that is the case for developed societies where people with type 1 diabetes have high life expectancies; in less developed societies there may be stronger linkage between incidence and prevalence because of high mortality in the patient group (because people who get type 1 diabetes in such countries may not live very long because of inadequate medical care, which means there’s a smaller disconnect between how many new people get the disease during each time period and how many people in total have the disease than is the case for places where the mortality rates are lower). You always need to be careful about distinguishing between incidence and prevalence when dealing with conditions like T1DM with potential high mortality rates in settings where people have limited access to medical care because differential cross-country mortality patterns may be important.

ii. Exercise for depression (Cochrane review).

Background

Depression is a common and important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Depression is commonly treated with antidepressants and/or psychological therapy, but some people may prefer alternative approaches such as exercise. There are a number of theoretical reasons why exercise may improve depression. This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2009.

Objectives

To determine the effectiveness of exercise in the treatment of depression in adults compared with no treatment or a comparator intervention. […]

Selection criteria 

Randomised controlled trials in which exercise (defined according to American College of Sports Medicine criteria) was compared to standard treatment, no treatment or a placebo treatment, pharmacological treatment, psychological treatment or other active treatment in adults (aged 18 and over) with depression, as defined by trial authors. We included cluster trials and those that randomised individuals. We excluded trials of postnatal depression.

Thirty-nine trials (2326 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which 37 provided data for meta-analyses. There were multiple sources of bias in many of the trials; randomisation was adequately concealed in 14 studies, 15 used intention-to-treat analyses and 12 used blinded outcome assessors.For the 35 trials (1356 participants) comparing exercise with no treatment or a control intervention, the pooled SMD for the primary outcome of depression at the end of treatment was -0.62 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.81 to -0.42), indicating a moderate clinical effect. There was moderate heterogeneity (I² = 63%).

When we included only the six trials (464 participants) with adequate allocation concealment, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded outcome assessment, the pooled SMD for this outcome was not statistically significant (-0.18, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.11). Pooled data from the eight trials (377 participants) providing long-term follow-up data on mood found a small effect in favour of exercise (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03). […]

Authors’ conclusions

Exercise is moderately more effective than a control intervention for reducing symptoms of depression, but analysis of methodologically robust trials only shows a smaller effect in favour of exercise. When compared to psychological or pharmacological therapies, exercise appears to be no more effective, though this conclusion is based on a few small trials.”

iii. Risk factors for suicide in individuals with depression: A systematic review.

“The search strategy identified 3374 papers for potential inclusion. Of these, 155 were retrieved for a detailed evaluation. Thirty-two articles fulfilled the detailed eligibility criteria. […] Nineteen studies (28 publications) were included. Factors significantly associated with suicide were: male gender (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.08–2.86), family history of psychiatric disorder (OR = 1.41, 95% CI= 1.00–1.97), previous attempted suicide (OR = 4.84, 95% CI = 3.26–7.20), more severe depression (OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.05–4.60), hopelessness (OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.49–3.23) and comorbid disorders, including anxiety (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.03–2.45) and misuse of alcohol and drugs (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.77–2.66).
Limitations: There were fewer studies than suspected. Interdependence between risk factors could not be examined.”

iv. Cognitive behaviour therapy for social anxiety in autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.

“Individuals who have autism spectrum disorders (ASD) commonly experience anxiety about social interaction and social situations. Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is a recommended treatment for social anxiety (SA) in the non-ASD population. Therapy typically comprises cognitive interventions, imagery-based work and for some individuals, behavioural interventions. Whether these are useful for the ASD population is unclear. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review to summarise research about CBT for SA in ASD.”

I mostly include this review here to highlight how reviews aren’t everything – I like them, but you can’t do reviews when a field hasn’t been studied. This is definitely the case here. The review was sort of funny, but also depressing. So much work for so little insight. Here’s the gist of it:

“Using a priori criteria, we searched for English-language peer-reviewed empirical studies in five databases. The search yielded 1364 results. Titles, abstracts and relevant publications were independently screened by two reviewers. Findings: Four single case studies met the review inclusion criteria; data were synthesised narratively. Participants (three adults and one child) were diagnosed with ASD and social anxiety disorder.”

You search the scientific literature systematically, you find more than a thousand results, and you carefully evaluate which ones of them should be included in this kind of study …and what you end up with is 4 individual case studies…

(I won’t go into the results of the study as they’re pretty much worthless.)

v. Immigrant Labor Market Integration across Admission Classes.

“We examine patterns of labor market integration across immigrant groups. The study draws on Norwegian longitudinal administrative data covering labor earnings and social insurance claims over a 25‐year period and presents a comprehensive picture of immigrant‐native employment and social insurance differentials by admission class and by years since entry.”

Some quotes from the paper:

“A recent study using 2011 administrative data from Sweden finds an average employment gap to natives of 30 percentage points for humanitarian migrants (refugees) and 26 percentage point for family immigrants (Luik et al., 2016).”

“A considerable fraction of the immigrants leaves the country after just a few years. […] this is particularly the case for immigrants from the old EU and for students and work-related immigrants from developing countries. For these groups, fewer than 50 percent remain in the country 5 years after entry. For refugees and family migrants, the picture is very different, and around 80 percent appear to have settled permanently in the country. Immigrants from the new EU have a settlement pattern somewhere in between, with approximately 70 percent settled on a permanent basis. An implication of such differential outmigration patterns is that the long-term labor market performance of refugees and family immigrants is of particular economic and fiscal importance. […] the varying rates of immigrant inflows and outflows by admission class, along with other demographic trends, have changed the composition of the adult (25‐66) population between 1990 and 2015. In this population segment, the overall immigrant share increased from 4.9 percent in 1990 to 18.7 percent in 2015 — an increase by a factor of 3.8 over 25 years. […] Following the 2004 EU enlargement, the fraction of immigrants in Norway has increased by a steady rate of approximately one percentage point per year.”

“The trends in population and employment shares varies considerably across admission classes, with employment shares of refugees and family immigrants lagging their growth in population shares. […] In 2014, refugees and family immigrants accounted for 12.8 percent of social insurance claims, compared to 5.7 percent of employment (and 7.7 percent of the adult population). In contrast, the two EU groups made up 9.3 percent of employment (and 8.8 percent of the adult population) but only 3.6 percent of social insurance claimants. Although these patterns do illuminate the immediate (short‐term) fiscal impacts of immigration at each particular point in time, they are heavily influenced by each year’s immigrant composition – in terms of age, years since migration, and admission classes – and therefore provide little information about long‐term consequences and impacts of fiscal sustainability. To assess the latter, we need to focus on longer‐term integration in the Norwegian labor market.”

Which they then proceed to do in the paper. From the results of those analyses:

“For immigrant men, the sample average share in employment (i.e., whose main source of income is work) ranges from 58 percent for refugees to 89 percent for EU immigrants, with family migrants somewhere between (around 80 percent). The average shares with social insurance as the main source of income ranges from only four percent for EU immigrants to as much as 38 percent for refugees. The corresponding shares for native men are 87 percent in employment and 12 percent with social insurance as their main income source. For women, the average shares in employment vary from 46 percent for refugees to 85 percent for new EU immigrants, whereas the average shares in social insurance vary from five percent for new EU immigrants to 42 percent for refugees. The corresponding rates for native women are 80 percent in employment and 17 percent with social insurance as their main source of income.”

“The profiles estimated for refugees are particularly striking. For men, we find that the native‐immigrant employment gap reaches its minimum value at 20 percentage points after five to six years of residence. The gap then starts to increase quite sharply again, and reaches 30 percentage points after 15 years. This development is mirrored by a corresponding increase in social insurance dependency. For female refugees, the employment differential reaches its minimum of 30 percentage points after 5‐9 years of residence. The subsequent decline is less dramatic than what we observe for men, but the differential stands at 35 percentage points 15 years after admission. […] The employment difference between refugees from Bosnia and Somalia is fully 22.2 percentage points for men and 37.7 points for women. […] For immigrants from the old EU, the employment differential is slightly in favor of immigrants regardless of years since migration, and the social insurance differentials remain consistently negative. In other words, employment of old EU immigrants is almost indistinguishable from that of natives, and they are less likely to claim social insurance benefits.”

vi. Glucose Peaks and the Risk of Dementia and 20-Year Cognitive Decline.

“Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), a measure of average blood glucose level, is associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive impairment. However, the role of glycemic variability or glucose excursions in this association is unclear. We examined the association of glucose peaks in midlife, as determined by the measurement of 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) level, with the risk of dementia and 20-year cognitive decline.”

“Nearly 13,000 participants from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study were examined. […] Over a median time of 21 years, dementia developed in 1,105 participants. Among persons with diabetes, each 5 μg/mL decrease in 1,5-AG increased the estimated risk of dementia by 16% (hazard ratio 1.16, P = 0.032). For cognitive decline among participants with diabetes and HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol), those with glucose peaks had a 0.19 greater z score decline over 20 years (P = 0.162) compared with those without peaks. Among participants with diabetes and HbA1c ≥7% (53 mmol/mol), those with glucose peaks had a 0.38 greater z score decline compared with persons without glucose peaks (P < 0.001). We found no significant associations in persons without diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS Among participants with diabetes, glucose peaks are a risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia. Targeting glucose peaks, in addition to average glycemia, may be an important avenue for prevention.”

vii. Gaze direction detection in autism spectrum disorder.

“Detecting where our partners direct their gaze is an important aspect of social interaction. An atypical gaze processing has been reported in autism. However, it remains controversial whether children and adults with autism spectrum disorder interpret indirect gaze direction with typical accuracy. This study investigated whether the detection of gaze direction toward an object is less accurate in autism spectrum disorder. Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (n = 33) and intelligence quotients–matched and age-matched controls (n = 38) were asked to watch a series of synthetic faces looking at objects, and decide which of two objects was looked at. The angle formed by the two possible targets and the face varied following an adaptive procedure, in order to determine individual thresholds. We found that gaze direction detection was less accurate in autism spectrum disorder than in control participants. Our results suggest that the precision of gaze following may be one of the altered processes underlying social interaction difficulties in autism spectrum disorder.”

“Where people look at informs us about what they know, want, or attend to. Atypical or altered detection of gaze direction might thus lead to impoverished acquisition of social information and social interaction. Alternatively, it has been suggested that abnormal monitoring of inner states […], or the lack of social motivation […], would explain the reduced tendency to follow conspecific gaze in individuals with ASD. Either way, a lower tendency to look at the eyes and to follow the gaze would provide fewer opportunities to practice GDD [gaze direction detection – US] ability. Thus, impaired GDD might either play a causal role in atypical social interaction, or conversely be a consequence of it. Exploring GDD earlier in development might help disentangle this issue.”

June 1, 2017 Posted by | Diabetes, Economics, Epidemiology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Studies | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Cost-Effectiveness of Prevention and Treatment of the Diabetic Foot.

“A risk-based Markov model was developed to simulate the onset and progression of diabetic foot disease in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes managed with care according to guidelines for their lifetime. Mean survival time, quality of life, foot complications, and costs were the outcome measures assessed. Current care was the reference comparison. Data from Dutch studies on the epidemiology of diabetic foot disease, health care use, and costs, complemented with information from international studies, were used to feed the model.

RESULTS—Compared with current care, guideline-based care resulted in improved life expectancy, gain of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and reduced incidence of foot complications. The lifetime costs of management of the diabetic foot following guideline-based care resulted in a cost per QALY gained of <$25,000, even for levels of preventive foot care as low as 10%. The cost-effectiveness varied sharply, depending on the level of foot ulcer reduction attained.

CONCLUSIONS—Management of the diabetic foot according to guideline-based care improves survival, reduces diabetic foot complications, and is cost-effective and even cost saving compared with standard care.”

I won’t go too deeply into the model setup and the results but some of the data they used to feed the model were actually somewhat interesting in their own right, and I have added some of these data below, along with some of the model results.

“It is estimated that 80% of LEAs [lower extremity amputations] are preceded by foot ulcers. Accordingly, it has been demonstrated that preventing the development of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes reduces the frequency of LEAs by 49–85% (6).”

“An annual ulcer incidence rate of 2.1% and an amputation incidence rate of 0.6% were among the reference country-specific parameters derived from this study and adopted in the model.”

“The health outcomes results of the cohort following standard care were comparable to figures reported for diabetic patients in the Netherlands. […] In the 10,000 patients followed until death, a total of 1,780 ulcer episodes occurred, corresponding to a cumulative ulcer incidence of 17.8% and an annual ulcer incidence of 2.2% (mean annual ulcer incidence for the Netherlands is 2.1%) (17). The number of amputations observed was 362 (250 major and 112 minor), corresponding to a cumulative incidence of 3.6% and an annual incidence of 0.4% (mean annual amputation incidence reported for the Netherlands is 0.6%) (17).”

“Cornerstones of guidelines-based care are intensive glycemic control (IGC) and optimal foot care (OFC). Although health benefits and economic efficiency of intensive blood glucose control (8) and foot care programs (914) have been individually reported, the health and economic outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of both interventions have not been determined. […] OFC according to guidelines includes professional protective foot care, education of patients and staff, regular inspection of the feet, identification of the high-risk patient, treatment of nonulcerative lesions, and a multidisciplinary approach to established foot ulcers. […] All cohorts of patients simulated for the different scenarios of guidelines care resulted in improved life expectancy, QALYs gained, and reduced incidence of foot ulcers and LEA compared with standard care. The largest effects on these outcomes were obtained when patients received IGC + OFC. When comparing the independent health effects of the two guidelines strategies, OFC resulted in a greater reduction in ulcer and amputation rates than IGC. Moreover, patients who received IGC + OFC showed approximately the same LEA incidence as patients who received OFC alone. The LEA decrease obtained was proportional to the level of foot ulcer reduction attained.”

“The mean total lifetime costs of a patient under either of the three guidelines care scenarios ranged from $4,088 to $4,386. For patients receiving IGC + OFC, these costs resulted in <$25,000 per QALY gained (relative to standard care). For patients receiving IGC alone, the ICER [here’s a relevant link – US] obtained was $32,057 per QALY gained, and for those receiving OFC alone, this ICER ranged from $12,169 to $220,100 per QALY gained, depending on the level of ulcer reduction attained. […] Increasing the effectiveness of preventive foot care in patients under OFC and IGC + OFC resulted in more QALYs gained, lower costs, and a more favorable ICER. The results of the simulations for the combined scenario (IGC + OFC) were rather insensitive to changes in utility weights and costing parameters. Similar results were obtained for parameter variations in the other two scenarios (IGC and OFC separately).”

“The results of this study suggest that IGC + OFC reduces foot ulcers and amputations and leads to an improvement in life expectancy. Greater health benefits are obtained with higher levels of foot ulcer prevention. Although care according to guidelines increases health costs, the cost per QALY gained is <$25,000, even for levels of preventive foot care as low as 10%. ICERs of this order are cost-effective according to the stratification of interventions for diabetes recently proposed (32). […] IGC falls into the category of a possibly cost-effective intervention in the management of the diabetic foot. Although it does not produce significant reduction in foot ulcers and LEA, its effectiveness resides in the slowing of neuropathy progression rates.

Extrapolating our results to a practical situation, if IGC + OFC was to be given to all diabetic patients in the Netherlands, with the aim of reducing LEA by 50% (St. Vincent’s declaration), the cost per QALY gained would be $12,165 and the cost for managing diabetic ulcers and amputations would decrease by 53 and 58%, respectively. From a policy perspective, this is clearly cost-effective and cost saving compared with current care.”

ii. Early Glycemic Control, Age at Onset, and Development of Microvascular Complications in Childhood-Onset Type 1 Diabetes.

“The aim of this work was to study the impact of glycemic control (HbA1c) early in disease and age at onset on the occurrence of incipient diabetic nephropathy (MA) and background retinopathy (RP) in childhood-onset type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—All children, diagnosed at 0–14 years in a geographically defined area in northern Sweden between 1981 and 1992, were identified using the Swedish Childhood Diabetes Registry. From 1981, a nationwide childhood diabetes care program was implemented recommending intensified insulin treatment. HbA1c and urinary albumin excretion were analyzed, and fundus photography was performed regularly. Retrospective data on all 94 patients were retrieved from medical records and laboratory reports.

RESULTS—During the follow-up period, with a mean duration of 12 ± 4 years (range 5–19), 17 patients (18%) developed MA, 45 patients (48%) developed RP, and 52% had either or both complications. A Cox proportional hazard regression, modeling duration to occurrence of MA or RP, showed that glycemic control (reflected by mean HbA1c) during the follow-up was significantly associated with both MA and RP when adjusted for sex, birth weight, age at onset, and tobacco use as potential confounders. Mean HbA1c during the first 5 years of diabetes was a near-significant determinant for development of MA (hazard ratio 1.41, P = 0.083) and a significant determinant of RP (1.32, P = 0.036). The age at onset of diabetes significantly influenced the risk of developing RP (1.11, P = 0.021). Thus, in a Kaplan-Meier analysis, onset of diabetes before the age of 5 years, compared with the age-groups 5–11 and >11 years, showed a longer time to occurrence of RP (P = 0.015), but no clear tendency was seen for MA, perhaps due to lower statistical power.

CONCLUSIONS—Despite modern insulin treatment, >50% of patients with childhood-onset type 1 diabetes developed detectable diabetes complications after ∼12 years of diabetes. Inadequate glycemic control, also during the first 5 years of diabetes, seems to accelerate time to occurrence, whereas a young age at onset of diabetes seems to prolong the time to development of microvascular complications. […] The present study and other studies (15,54) indicate that children with an onset of diabetes before the age of 5 years may have a prolonged time to development of microvascular complications. Thus, the youngest age-groups, who are most sensitive to hypoglycemia with regard to risk of persistent brain damage, may have a relative protection during childhood or a longer time to development of complications.”

It’s important to note that although some people reading the study may think this is all ancient history (people diagnosed in the 80es?), to a lot of people it really isn’t. The study is of great personal interest to me, as I was diagnosed in ’87; if it had been a Danish study rather than a Swedish one I might well have been included in the analysis.

Another note to add in the context of the above coverage is that unlike what the authors of the paper seem to think/imply, hypoglycemia may not be the only relevant variable of interest in the context of the effect of childhood diabetes on brain development, where early diagnosis has been observed to tend to lead to less favourable outcomes – other variables which may be important include DKA episodes and perhaps also chronic hyperglycemia during early childhood. See this post for more stuff on these topics.

Some more stuff from the paper:

“The annual incidence of type 1 diabetes in northern Sweden in children 0–14 years of age is now ∼31/100,000. During the time period 1981–1992, there has been an increase in the annual incidence from 19 to 31/100,000 in northern Sweden. This is similar to the rest of Sweden […]. Seventeen (18%) of the 94 patients fulfilled the criteria for MA during the follow-up period. None of the patients developed overt nephropathy, elevated serum creatinine, or had signs of any other kidney disorder, e.g., hematuria, during the follow-up period. […] The mean time to diagnosis of MA was 9 ± 3 years (range 4–15) from diabetes onset. Forty-five (48%) of the 94 patients fulfilled the criteria for RP during the follow-up period. None of the patients developed proliferative retinopathy or were treated with photocoagulation. The mean time to diagnosis of RP was 11 ± 4 years (range 4–19) from onset of diabetes. Of the 45 patients with RP, 13 (29%) had concomitant MA, and thus 13 (76.5%) of the 17 patients with MA had concomitant RP. […] Altogether, among the 94 patients, 32 (34%) had isolated RP, 4 (4%) had isolated MA, and 13 (14%) had combined RP and MA. Thus, 49 (52%) patients had either one or both complications and, hence, 45 (48%) had neither of these complications.”

“When modeling MA as a function of glycemic level up to the onset of MA or during the entire follow-up period, adjusting for sex, birth weight, age at onset of diabetes, and tobacco use, only glycemic control had a significant effect. An increase in hazard ratio (HR) of 83% per one percentage unit increase in mean HbA1c was seen. […] The increase in HR of developing RP for each percentage unit rise in HbA1c during the entire follow-up period was 43% and in the early period 32%. […] Age at onset of diabetes was a weak but significant independent determinant for the development of RP in all regression models (P = 0.015, P = 0.018, and P = 0.010, respectively). […] Despite that this study was relatively small and had a retrospective design, we were able to show that the glycemic level already during the first 5 years may be an important predictor of later development of both MA and RP. This is in accordance with previous prospective follow-up studies (16,30).”

“Previously, male sex, smoking, and low birth weight have been shown to be risk factors for the development of nephropathy and retinopathy (6,4549). However, in this rather small retrospective study with a limited follow-up time, we could not confirm these associations”. This may just be because of lack of power, it’s a relatively small study. Again, this is/was of personal interest to me; two of those three risk factors apply to me, and neither of those risk factors are modifiable.

iii. Eighteen Years of Fair Glycemic Control Preserves Cardiac Autonomic Function in Type 1 Diabetes.

“Reduced cardiovascular autonomic function is associated with increased mortality in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (14). Poor glycemic control plays an important role in the development and progression of diabetic cardiac autonomic dysfunction (57). […] Diabetic cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) can be defined as impaired function of the peripheral autonomic nervous system. Exercise intolerance, resting tachycardia, and silent myocardial ischemia may be early signs of cardiac autonomic dysfunction (9).The most frequent finding in subclinical and symptomatic CAN is reduced heart rate variability (HRV) (10). […] No other studies have followed type 1 diabetic patients on intensive insulin treatment during ≥14-year periods and documented cardiac autonomic dysfunction. We evaluated the association between 18 years’ mean HbA1c and cardiac autonomic function in a group of type 1 diabetic patients with 30 years of disease duration.”

“A total of 39 patients with type 1 diabetes were followed during 18 years, and HbA1c was measured yearly. At 18 years follow-up heart rate variability (HRV) measurements were used to assess cardiac autonomic function. Standard cardiac autonomic tests during normal breathing, deep breathing, the Valsalva maneuver, and the tilt test were performed. Maximal heart rate increase during exercise electrocardiogram and minimal heart rate during sleep were also used to describe cardiac autonomic function.

RESULTS—We present the results for patients with mean HbA1c <8.4% (two lowest HbA1c tertiles) compared with those with HbA1c ≥8.4% (highest HbA1c tertile). All of the cardiac autonomic tests were significantly different in the high- and the low-HbA1c groups, and the most favorable scores for all tests were seen in the low-HbA1c group. In the low-HbA1c group, the HRV was 40% during deep breathing, and in the high-HbA1c group, the HRV was 19.9% (P = 0.005). Minimal heart rate at night was significantly lower in the low-HbA1c groups than in the high-HbA1c group (P = 0.039). With maximal exercise, the increase in heart rate was significantly higher in the low-HbA1c group compared with the high-HbA1c group (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS—Mean HbA1c during 18 years was associated with cardiac autonomic function. Cardiac autonomic function was preserved with HbA1c <8.4%, whereas cardiac autonomic dysfunction was impaired in the group with HbA1c ≥8.4%. […] The study underlines the importance of good glycemic control and demonstrates that good long-term glycemic control is associated with preserved cardiac autonomic function, whereas a lack of good glycemic control is associated with cardiac autonomic dysfunction.”

These results are from Norway (Oslo), and again they seem relevant to me personally (‘from a statistical point of view’) – I’ve had diabetes for about as long as the people they included in the study.

iv. The Mental Health Comorbidities of Diabetes.

“Individuals living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes are at increased risk for depression, anxiety, and eating disorder diagnoses. Mental health comorbidities of diabetes compromise adherence to treatment and thus increase the risk for serious short- and long-term complications […] Young adults with type 1 diabetes are especially at risk for poor physical and mental health outcomes and premature mortality. […] we summarize the prevalence and consequences of mental health problems for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and suggest strategies for identifying and treating patients with diabetes and mental health comorbidities.”

“Major advances in the past 2 decades have improved understanding of the biological basis for the relationship between depression and diabetes.2 A bidirectional relationship might exist between type 2 diabetes and depression: just as type 2 diabetes increases the risk for onset of major depression, a major depressive disorder signals increased risk for on set of type 2 diabetes.2 Moreover, diabetes distress is now recognized as an entity separate from major depressive disorder.2 Diabetes distress occurs because virtually all of diabetes care involves self-management behavior—requiring balance of a complex set of behavioral tasks by the person and family, 24 hours a day, without “vacation” days. […] Living with diabetes is associated with a broad range of diabetes-related distresses, such as feeling over-whelmed with the diabetes regimen; being concerned about the future and the possibility of serious complications; and feeling guilty when management is going poorly. This disease burden and emotional distress in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, even at levels of severity below the threshold for a psychiatric diagnosis of depression or anxiety, are associated with poor adherence to treatment, poor glycemic control, higher rates of diabetes complications, and impaired quality of life. […] Depression in the context of diabetes is […] associated with poor self-care with respect to diabetes treatment […] Depression among individuals with diabetes is also associated with increased health care use and expenditures, irrespective of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and health insurance status.3

“Women with type 1 diabetes have a 2-fold increased risk for developing an eating disorder and a 1.9-fold increased risk for developing subthreshold eating disorders than women without diabetes.6 Less is known about eating disorders in boys and men with diabetes. Disturbed eating behaviors in women with type 1 diabetes include binge eating and caloric purging through insulin restriction, with rates of these disturbed eating behaviors reported to occur in 31% to 40% of women with type 1 diabetes aged between 15 and 30 years.6 […] disordered eating behaviors persist and worsen over time. Women with type 1 diabetes and eating disorders have poorer glycemic control, with higher rates of hospitalizations and retinopathy, neuropathy, and premature death compared with similarly aged women with type 1 diabetes without eating disorders.6 […] few diabetes clinics provide mental health screening or integrate mental/behavioral health services in diabetes clinical care.4 It is neither practical nor affordable to use standardized psychiatric diagnostic interviews to diagnose mental health comorbidities in individuals with diabetes. Brief paper-and-pencil self-report measures such as the Beck Depression Inventory […] that screen for depressive symptoms are practical in diabetes clinical settings, but their use remains rare.”

The paper does not mention this, but it is important to note that there are multiple plausible biological pathways which might help to explain bidirectional linkage between depression and type 2 diabetes. Physiological ‘stress’ (think: inflammation) is likely to be an important factor, and so are the typical physiological responses to some of the pharmacological treatments used to treat depression (…as well as other mental health conditions); multiple drugs used in psychiatry, including tricyclic antidepressants, cause weight gain and have proven diabetogenic effects – I’ve covered these topics before here on the blog. I’ve incidentally also covered other topics touched briefly upon in the paper – here’s for example a more comprehensive post about screening for depression in the diabetes context, and here’s a post with some information about how one might go about screening for eating disorders; skin signs are important. I was a bit annoyed that the author of the above paper did not mention this, as observing whether or not Russell’s sign – which is a very reliable indicator of eating disorder – is present or not is easier/cheaper/faster than performing any kind of even semi-valid depression screen.

v. Diabetes, Depression, and Quality of Life. This last one covers topics related to the topics covered in the paper above.

“The study consisted of a representative population sample of individuals aged ≥15 years living in South Australia comprising 3,010 personal interviews conducted by trained health interviewers. The prevalence of depression in those suffering doctor-diagnosed diabetes and comparative effects of diabetic status and depression on quality-of-life dimensions were measured.

RESULTS—The prevalence of depression in the diabetic population was 24% compared with 17% in the nondiabetic population. Those with diabetes and depression experienced an impact with a large effect size on every dimension of the Short Form Health-Related Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (SF-36) as compared with those who suffered diabetes and who were not depressed. A supplementary analysis comparing both depressed diabetic and depressed nondiabetic groups showed there were statistically significant differences in the quality-of-life effects between the two depressed populations in the physical and mental component summaries of the SF-36.

CONCLUSIONS—Depression for those with diabetes is an important comorbidity that requires careful management because of its severe impact on quality of life.”

I felt slightly curious about the setup after having read this, because representative population samples of individuals should not in my opinion yield depression rates of either 17% nor 24%. Rates that high suggest to me that the depression criteria used in the paper are a bit ‘laxer’/more inclusive than what you see in some other contexts when reading this sort of literature – to give an example of what I mean, the depression screening post I link to above noted that clinical or major depression occurred in 11.4% of people with diabetes, compared to a non-diabetic prevalence of 5%. There’s a long way from 11% to 24% and from 5% to 17%. Another potential explanation for such a high depression rate could of course also be some sort of selection bias at the data acquisition stage, but that’s obviously not the case here. However 3000 interviews is a lot of interviews, so let’s read on…

“Several studies have assessed the impact of depression in diabetes in terms of the individual’s functional ability or quality of life (3,4,13). Brown et al. (13) examined preference-based time tradeoff utility values associated with diabetes and showed that those with diabetes were willing to trade a significant proportion of their remaining life in return for a diabetes-free health state.”

“Depression was assessed using the mood module of the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders questionnaire. This has been validated to provide estimates of mental disorder comparable with those found using structured and longer diagnostic interview schedules (16). The mental disorders examined in the questionnaire included major depressive disorder, dysthymia, minor depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder. [So yes, the depression criteria used in this study are definitely more inclusive than depression criteria including only people with MDD] […] The Short Form Health-Related Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (SF-36) was also included to assess the quality of life of the different population groups with and without diabetes. […] Five groups were examined: the overall population without diabetes and without depression; the overall diabetic population; the depression-only population; the diabetic population without depression; and the diabetic population with depression.”

“Of the population sample, 205 (6.8%) were classified as having major depression, 130 (4.3%) had minor depression, 105 (3.5%) had partial remission of major depression, 79 (2.6%) had dysthymia, and 5 (0.2%) had bipolar disorder (depressed phase). No depressive syndrome was detected in 2,486 (82.6%) respondents. The population point prevalence of doctor-diagnosed diabetes in this survey was 5.2% (95% CI 4.6–6.0). The prevalence of depression in the diabetic population was 23.6% (22.1–25.1) compared with 17.1% (15.8–18.4) in the nondiabetic population. This difference approached statistical significance (P = 0.06). […] There [was] a clear difference in the quality-of-life scores for the diabetic and depression group when compared with the diabetic group without depression […] Overall, the highest quality-of-life scores are experienced by those without diabetes and depression and the lowest by those with diabetes and depression. […] the standard scores of those with no diabetes have quality-of-life status comparable with the population mean or slightly better. At the other extreme those with diabetes and depression experience the most severe comparative impact on quality-of-life for every dimension. Between these two extremes, diabetes overall and the diabetes without depression groups have a moderate-to-severe impact on the physical functioning, role limitations (physical), and general health scales […] The results of the two-factor ANOVA showed that the interaction term was significant only for the PCS [Physical Component Score – US] scale, indicating a greater than additive effect of diabetes and depression on the physical health dimension.”

“[T]here was a significant interaction between diabetes and depression on the PCS but not on the MCS [Mental Component Score. Do note in this context that the no-interaction result is far from certain, because as they observe: “it may simply be sample size that has not allowed us to observe a greater than additive effect in the MCS scale. Although there was no significant interaction between diabetes and depression and the MCS scale, we did observe increases on the effect size for the mental health dimensions”]. One explanation for this finding might be that depression can influence physical outcomes, such as recovery from myocardial infarction, survival with malignancy, and propensity to infection. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this, including changes to the immune system (24). Other possibilities are that depression in diabetes may affect the capacity to maintain medication vigilance, maintain a good diet, and maintain other lifestyle factors, such as smoking and exercise, all of which are likely possible pathways for a greater than additive effect. Whatever the mechanism involved, these data indicate that the addition of depression to diabetes has a severe impact on quality of life, and this needs to be managed in clinical practice.”

May 25, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Papers, Personal, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Association Between Blood Pressure and Adverse Renal Events in Type 1 Diabetes.

“The Joint National Committee and American Diabetes Association guidelines currently recommend a blood pressure (BP) target of <140/90 mmHg for all adults with diabetes, regardless of type (13). However, evidence used to support this recommendation is primarily based on data from trials of type 2 diabetes (46). The relationship between BP and adverse outcomes in type 1 and type 2 diabetes may differ, given that the type 1 diabetes population is typically much younger at disease onset, hypertension is less frequently present at diagnosis (3), and the basis for the pathophysiology and disease complications may differ between the two populations.

Prior prospective cohort studies (7,8) of patients with type 1 diabetes suggested that lower BP levels (<110–120/70–80 mmHg) at baseline entry were associated with a lower risk of adverse renal outcomes, including incident microalbuminuria. In one trial of antihypertensive treatment in type 1 diabetes (9), assignment to a lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) target of <92 mmHg (corresponding to ∼125/75 mmHg) led to a significant reduction in proteinuria compared with a MAP target of 100–107 mmHg (corresponding to ∼130–140/85–90 mmHg). Thus, it is possible that lower BP (<120/80 mmHg) reduces the risk of important renal outcomes, such as proteinuria, in patients with type 1 diabetes and may provide a synergistic benefit with intensive glycemic control on renal outcomes (1012). However, fewer studies have examined the association between BP levels over time and the risk of more advanced renal outcomes, such as stage III chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD)”.

“The primary objective of this study was to determine whether there is an association between lower BP levels and the risk of more advanced diabetic nephropathy, defined as macroalbuminuria or stage III CKD, within a background of different glycemic control strategies […] We included 1,441 participants with type 1 diabetes between the ages of 13 and 39 years who had previously been randomized to receive intensive versus conventional glycemic control in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). The exposures of interest were time-updated systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) categories. Outcomes included macroalbuminuria (>300 mg/24 h) or stage III chronic kidney disease (CKD) […] During a median follow-up time of 24 years, there were 84 cases of stage III CKD and 169 cases of macroalbuminuria. In adjusted models, SBP in the 2 (95% CI 1.05–1.21), and a 1.04 times higher risk of ESRD (95% CI 0.77–1.41) in adjusted Cox models. Every 10 mmHg increase in DBP was associated with a 1.17 times higher risk of microalbuminuria (95% CI 1.03–1.32), a 1.15 times higher risk of eGFR decline to 2 (95% CI 1.04–1.29), and a 0.80 times higher risk of ESRD (95% CI 0.47–1.38) in adjusted models. […] Because these data are observational, they cannot prove causation. It remains possible that subtle kidney disease may lead to early elevations in BP, and we cannot rule out the potential for reverse causation in our findings. However, we note similar trends in our data even when imposing a 7-year lag between BP and CKD ascertainment.”

CONCLUSIONS A lower BP (<120/70 mmHg) was associated with a substantially lower risk of adverse renal outcomes, regardless of the prior assigned glycemic control strategy. Interventional trials may be useful to help determine whether the currently recommended BP target of 140/90 mmHg may be too high for optimal renal protection in type 1 diabetes.”

It’s important to keep in mind when interpreting these results that endpoints like ESRD and stage III CKD are not the only relevant outcomes in this setting; even mild-stage kidney disease in diabetics significantly increase the risk of death from cardiovascular disease, and a substantial proportion of patients may die from cardiovascular disease before reaching a late-stage kidney disease endpoint (here’s a relevant link).

Identifying Causes for Excess Mortality in Patients With Diabetes: Closer but Not There Yet.

“A number of epidemiological studies have quantified the risk of death among patients with diabetes and assessed the causes of death (26), with highly varying results […] Overall, the studies to date have confirmed that diabetes is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, but the magnitude of this excess risk is highly variable, with the relative risk ranging from 1.15 to 3.15. Nevertheless, all studies agree that mortality is mainly attributable to cardiovascular causes (26). On the other hand, studies of cancer-related death have generally been lacking despite the diabetes–cancer association and a number of plausible biological mechanisms identified to explain this link (8,9). In fact, studies assessing the specific causes of noncardiovascular death in diabetes have been sparse. […] In this issue of Diabetes Care, Baena-Díez et al. (10) report on an observational study of the association between diabetes and cause-specific death. This study involved 55,292 individuals from 12 Spanish population cohorts with no prior history of cardiovascular disease, aged 35 to 79 years, with a 10-year follow-up. […] This study found that individuals with diabetes compared with those without diabetes had a higher risk of cardiovascular death, cancer death, and noncardiovascular noncancer death with similar estimates obtained using the two statistical approaches. […] Baena-Díez et al. (10) showed that individuals with diabetes have an approximately threefold increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, which is much higher than what has been reported by recent studies (5,6). While this may be due to the lack of adjustment for important confounders in this study, there remains uncertainty regarding the magnitude of this increase.”

“[A]ll studies of excess mortality associated with diabetes, including the current one, have produced highly variable results. The reasons may be methodological. For instance, it may be that because of the wide range of age in these studies, comparing the rates of death between the patients with diabetes and those without diabetes using a measure based on the ratio of the rates may be misleading because the ratio can vary by age [it almost certainly does vary by age, US]. Instead, a measure based on the difference in rates may be more appropriate (16). Another issue relates to the fact that the studies include patients with longstanding diabetes of variable duration, resulting in so-called prevalent cohorts that can result in muddled mortality estimates since these are necessarily based on a mix of patients at different stages of disease (17). Thus, a paradigm change may be in order for future observational studies of diabetes and mortality, in the way they are both designed and analyzed. With respect to cancer, such studies will also need to tease out the independent contribution of antidiabetes treatments on cancer incidence and mortality (1820). It is thus clear that the quantification of the excess mortality associated with diabetes per se will need more accurate tools.”

iii. Risk of Cause-Specific Death in Individuals With Diabetes: A Competing Risks Analysis. This is the paper some of the results of which were discussed above. I’ll just include the highlights here:

RESULTS We included 55,292 individuals (15.6% with diabetes and overall mortality of 9.1%). The adjusted hazard ratios showed that diabetes increased mortality risk: 1) cardiovascular death, CSH = 2.03 (95% CI 1.63–2.52) and PSH = 1.99 (1.60–2.49) in men; and CSH = 2.28 (1.75–2.97) and PSH = 2.23 (1.70–2.91) in women; 2) cancer death, CSH = 1.37 (1.13–1.67) and PSH = 1.35 (1.10–1.65) in men; and CSH = 1.68 (1.29–2.20) and PSH = 1.66 (1.25–2.19) in women; and 3) noncardiovascular noncancer death, CSH = 1.53 (1.23–1.91) and PSH = 1.50 (1.20–1.89) in men; and CSH = 1.89 (1.43–2.48) and PSH = 1.84 (1.39–2.45) in women. In all instances, the cumulative mortality function was significantly higher in individuals with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS Diabetes is associated with premature death from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and noncardiovascular noncancer causes.”

“Summary

Diabetes is associated with premature death from cardiovascular diseases (coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure), several cancers (liver, colorectal, and lung), and other diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and liver and kidney disease). In addition, the cause-specific cumulative mortality for cardiovascular, cancer, and noncardiovascular noncancer causes was significantly higher in individuals with diabetes, compared with the general population. The dual analysis with CSH and PSH methods provides a comprehensive view of mortality dynamics in the population with diabetes. This approach identifies the individuals with diabetes as a vulnerable population for several causes of death aside from the traditionally reported cardiovascular death.”

iv. Disability-Free Life-Years Lost Among Adults Aged ≥50 Years With and Without Diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Adults (n = 20,008) aged 50 years and older were followed from 1998 to 2012 in the Health and Retirement Study, a prospective biannual survey of a nationally representative sample of adults. Diabetes and disability status (defined by mobility loss, difficulty with instrumental activities of daily living [IADL], and/or difficulty with activities of daily living [ADL]) were self-reported. We estimated incidence of disability, remission to nondisability, and mortality. We developed a discrete-time Markov simulation model with a 1-year transition cycle to predict and compare lifetime disability-related outcomes between people with and without diabetes. Data represent the U.S. population in 1998.

RESULTS From age 50 years, adults with diabetes died 4.6 years earlier, developed disability 6–7 years earlier, and spent about 1–2 more years in a disabled state than adults without diabetes. With increasing baseline age, diabetes was associated with significant (P < 0.05) reductions in the number of total and disability-free life-years, but the absolute difference in years between those with and without diabetes was less than at younger baseline age. Men with diabetes spent about twice as many of their remaining years disabled (20–24% of remaining life across the three disability definitions) as men without diabetes (12–16% of remaining life across the three disability definitions). Similar associations between diabetes status and disability-free and disabled years were observed among women.

CONCLUSIONS Diabetes is associated with a substantial reduction in nondisabled years, to a greater extent than the reduction of longevity. […] Using a large, nationally representative cohort of Americans aged 50 years and older, we found that diabetes is associated with a substantial deterioration of nondisabled years and that this is a greater number of years than the loss of longevity associated with diabetes. On average, a middle-aged adult with diabetes has an onset of disability 6–7 years earlier than one without diabetes, spends 1–2 more years with disability, and loses 7 years of disability-free life to the condition. Although other nationally representative studies have reported large reductions in complications (9) and mortality among the population with diabetes in recent decades (1), these studies, akin to our results, suggest that diabetes continues to have a substantial impact on morbidity and quality of remaining years of life.”

v. Association Between Use of Lipid-Lowering Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases and Death in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes.

“People with type 1 diabetes have a documented shorter life expectancy than the general population without diabetes (1). Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the main cause of the excess morbidity and mortality, and despite advances in management and therapy, individuals with type 1 diabetes have a markedly elevated risk of cardiovascular events and death compared with the general population (2).

Lipid-lowering treatment with hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) prevents major cardiovascular events and death in a broad spectrum of patients (3,4). […] We hypothesized that primary prevention with lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in individuals with type 1 diabetes. The aim of the study was to examine this in a nationwide longitudinal cohort study of patients with no history of CVD. […] A total of 24,230 individuals included in 2006–2008 NDR with type 1 diabetes without a history of CVD were followed until 31 December 2012; 18,843 were untreated and 5,387 treated with LLT [Lipid-Lowering Therapy] (97% statins). The mean follow-up was 6.0 years. […] Hazard ratios (HRs) for treated versus untreated were as follows: cardiovascular death 0.60 (95% CI 0.50–0.72), all-cause death 0.56 (0.48–0.64), fatal/nonfatal stroke 0.56 (0.46–0.70), fatal/nonfatal acute myocardial infarction 0.78 (0.66–0.92), fatal/nonfatal coronary heart disease 0.85 (0.74–0.97), and fatal/nonfatal CVD 0.77 (0.69–0.87).

CONCLUSIONS This observational study shows that LLT is associated with 22–44% reduction in the risk of CVD and cardiovascular death among individuals with type 1 diabetes without history of CVD and underlines the importance of primary prevention with LLT to reduce cardiovascular risk in type 1 diabetes.”

vi. Prognostic Classification Factors Associated With Development of Multiple Autoantibodies, Dysglycemia, and Type 1 Diabetes—A Recursive Partitioning Analysis.

“In many prognostic factor studies, multivariate analyses using the Cox proportional hazards model are applied to identify independent prognostic factors. However, the coefficient estimates derived from the Cox proportional hazards model may be biased as a result of violating assumptions of independence. […] RPA [Recursive Partitioning Analysis] classification is a useful tool that could prioritize the prognostic factors and divide the subjects into distinctive groups. RPA has an advantage over the proportional hazards model in identifying prognostic factors because it does not require risk factor independence and, as a nonparametric technique, makes no requirement on the underlying distributions of the variables considered. Hence, it relies on fewer modeling assumptions. Also, because the method is designed to divide subjects into groups based on the length of survival, it defines groupings for risk classification, whereas Cox regression models do not. Moreover, there is no need to explicitly include covariate interactions because of the recursive splitting structure of tree model construction.”

“This is the first study that characterizes the risk factors associated with the transition from one preclinical stage to the next following a recommended staging classification system (9). The tree-structured prediction model reveals that the risk parameters are not the same across each transition. […] Based on the RPA classification, the subjects at younger age and with higher GAD65Ab [an important biomarker in the context of autoimmune forms of diabetes, US – here’s a relevant link] titer are at higher risk for progression to multiple positive autoantibodies from a single autoantibody (seroconversion). Approximately 70% of subjects with a single autoantibody were positive for GAD65Ab, much higher than for insulin autoantibody (24%) and IA-2A [here’s a relevant link – US] (5%). Our study results are consistent with those of others (2224) in that seroconversion is age related. Previous studies in infants and children at an early age have shown that progression from single to two or more autoantibodies occurs more commonly in children 25). The subjects ≤16 years of age had almost triple the 5-year risk compared with subjects >16 years of age at the same GAD65Ab titer level. Hence, not all individuals with a single islet autoantibody can be thought of as being at low risk for disease progression.”

“This is the first study that identifies the risk factors associated with the timing of transitions from one preclinical stage to the next in the development of T1D. Based on RPA risk parameters, we identify the characteristics of groups with similar 5-year risks for advancing to the next preclinical stage. It is clear that individuals with one or more autoantibodies or with dysglycemia are not homogeneous with regard to the risk of disease progression. Also, there are differences in risk factors at each stage that are associated with increased risk of progression. The potential benefit of identifying these groups allows for a more informed discussion of diabetes risk and the selective enrollment of individuals into clinical trials whose risk more appropriately matches the potential benefit of an experimental intervention. Since the risk levels in these groups are substantial, their definition makes possible the design of more efficient trials with target sample sizes that are feasible, opening up the field of prevention to additional at-risk cohorts. […] Our results support the evidence that autoantibody titers are strong predictors at each transition leading to T1D development. The risk of the development of multiple autoantibodies was significantly increased when the GAD65Ab titer level was elevated, and the risk of the development of dysglycemia was increased when the IA-2A titer level increased. These indicate that better risk prediction on the timing of transitions can be obtained by evaluating autoantibody titers. The results also suggest that an autoantibody titer should be carefully considered in planning prevention trials for T1D in addition to the number of positive autoantibodies and the type of autoantibody.”

May 17, 2017 Posted by | Diabetes, Immunology, Medicine, Nephrology, Statistics, Studies | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

A couple of weeks ago I decided to cover some of the diabetes articles I’d looked at and bookmarked in the past, but there were a lot of articles and I did not get very far. This post will cover some more of these articles I had failed to cover here despite intending to do so at some point. Considering that I these days relatively regularly peruse e.g. the Diabetes Care archives I am thinking of making this sort of post a semi-regular feature of the blog.

i. Association Between Diabetes and Hippocampal Atrophy in Elderly Japanese: The Hisayama Study.

“A total of 1,238 community-dwelling Japanese subjects aged ≥65 years underwent brain MRI scans and a comprehensive health examination in 2012. Total brain volume (TBV), intracranial volume (ICV), and hippocampal volume (HV) were measured using MRI scans for each subject. We examined the associations between diabetes-related parameters and the ratios of TBV to ICV (an indicator of global brain atrophy), HV to ICV (an indicator of hippocampal atrophy), and HV to TBV (an indicator of hippocampal atrophy beyond global brain atrophy) after adjustment for other potential confounders.”

“The multivariable-adjusted mean values of the TBV-to-ICV, HV-to-ICV, and HV-to-TBV ratios were significantly lower in the subjects with diabetes compared with those without diabetes (77.6% vs. 78.2% for the TBV-to-ICV ratio, 0.513% vs. 0.529% for the HV-to-ICV ratio, and 0.660% vs. 0.676% for the HV-to-TBV ratio; all P < 0.01). These three ratios decreased significantly with elevated 2-h postload glucose (PG) levels […] Longer duration of diabetes was significantly associated with lower TBV-to-ICV, HV-to-ICV, and HV-to-TBV ratios. […] Our data suggest that a longer duration of diabetes and elevated 2-h PG levels, a marker of postprandial hyperglycemia, are risk factors for brain atrophy, particularly hippocampal atrophy.”

“Intriguingly, our findings showed that the subjects with diabetes had significantly lower mean HV-to-TBV ratio values, indicating […] that the hippocampus is predominantly affected by diabetes. In addition, in our subjects a longer duration and a midlife onset of diabetes were significantly associated with a lower HV, possibly suggesting that a long exposure of diabetes particularly worsens hippocampal atrophy.”

The reason why hippocampal atrophy is a variable of interest to these researchers is that hippocampal atrophy is a feature of Alzheimer’s Disease, and diabetics have an elevated risk of AD. This is incidentally far from the first study providing some evidence for the existence of potential causal linkage between impaired glucose homeostasis and AD (see e.g. also this paper, which I’ve previously covered here on the blog).

ii. A Population-Based Study of All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Disease in Association With Prior History of Hypoglycemia Among Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

“Although patients with T1DM may suffer more frequently from hypoglycemia than those with T2DM (8), very few studies have investigated whether hypoglycemia may also increase the risk of CVD (6,9,10) or death (1,6,7) in patients with T1DM; moreover, the results of these studies have been inconclusive (6,9,10) because of the dissimilarities in their methodological aspects, including their enrollment of populations with T1DM with different levels of glycemic control, application of different data collection methods, and adoption of different lengths of observational periods.”

“Only a few population-based studies have examined the potential cumulative effect of repeated severe hypoglycemia on all-cause mortality or CVD incidence in T1DM (9). The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study of T2DM found a weakly inverse association between the annualized number of hypoglycemic episodes and the risk of death (11,12). By contrast, some studies find that repeated hypoglycemia may be an aggravating factor to atherosclerosis in T1DM (13,14). Studies on the compromised sympathetic-adrenal reaction in patients with repeated hypoglycemia have been inconclusive regarding whether such a reaction may further damage intravascular coagulation and thrombosis (15) or decrease the vulnerability of these patients to adverse health outcomes (12).

Apart from the lack of information on the potential dose–gradient effect associated with severe hypoglycemic events in T1DM from population-based studies, the risks of all-cause mortality/CVD incidence associated with severe hypoglycemia occurring at different periods before all-cause mortality/CVD incidence have never been examined. In this study, we used the population-based medical claims of a cohort of patients with T1DM to examine whether the risks of all-cause mortality/CVD incidence are associated with previous episodes of severe hypoglycemia in different periods and whether severe hypoglycemia may pose a dose–gradient effect on the risks of all-cause mortality/CVD incidence.”

“Two nested case-control studies with age- and sex-matched control subjects and using the time-density sampling method were performed separately within a cohort of 10,411 patients with T1DM in Taiwan. The study enrolled 564 nonsurvivors and 1,615 control subjects as well as 743 CVD case subjects and 1,439 control subjects between 1997 and 2011. History of severe hypoglycemia was identified during 1 year, 1–3 years, and 3–5 years before the occurrence of the study outcomes.”

“Prior severe hypoglycemic events within 1 year were associated with higher risks of all-cause mortality and CVD (adjusted OR 2.74 [95% CI 1.96–3.85] and 2.02 [1.35–3.01], respectively). Events occurring within 1–3 years and 3–5 years before death were also associated with adjusted ORs of 1.94 (95% CI 1.39–2.71) and 1.68 (1.15–2.44), respectively. Significant dose–gradient effects of severe hypoglycemia frequency on mortality and CVD were observed within 5 years. […] we found that a greater frequency of severe hypoglycemia occurring 1 year before death was significantly associated with a higher OR of all-cause mortality (1 vs. 0: 2.45 [95% CI 1.65–3.63]; ≥2 vs. 0: 3.49 [2.01–6.08], P < 0.001 for trend). Although the strength of the association was attenuated, a significant dose–gradient effect still existed for severe hypoglycemia occurring in 1–3 years (P < 0.001 for trend) and 3–5 years (P < 0.015 for trend) before death. […] Exposure to repeated severe hypoglycemic events can lead to higher risks of mortality and CVD.”

“Our findings are supported by two previous studies that investigated atherosclerosis risk in T1DM (13,14). The DCCT/EDIC project reported that the prevalence of coronary artery calcification, an established atherosclerosis marker, was linearly correlated with the incidence rate of hypoglycemia on the DCCT stage (14). Giménez et al. (13) also demonstrated that repeated episodes of hypoglycemia were an aggravating factor for preclinical atherosclerosis in T1DM. […] The mechanism of hypoglycemia that predisposes to all-cause mortality/CVD incidence remains unclear.”

iii. Global Estimates on the Number of People Blind or Visually Impaired by Diabetic Retinopathy: A Meta-analysis From 1990 to 2010.

“On the basis of previous large-scale population-based studies and meta-analyses, diabetic retinopathy (DR) has been recognized as one of the most common and important causes for visual impairment and blindness (1–19). These studies in general showed that DR was the leading cause of blindness globally among working-aged adults and therefore has a significant socioeconomic impact (20–22).”

“A previous meta-analysis (21) summarizing 35 studies with more than 20,000 patients with diabetes estimated a prevalence of any DR of 34.6%, of diabetic macular edema of 6.8%, and of vision-threating DR of 10.2% within the diabetes population. […] Yau et al. (21) estimated that ∼93 million people had some DR and 28 million people had sight-threatening stages of DR. However, this meta-analysis did not address the prevalence of visual impairment and blindness due to DR and thus the impact of DR on the general population. […] We therefore conducted the present meta-analysis of all available population-based studies performed worldwide within the last two decades as part of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (GBD) to estimate the number of people affected by blindness and visual impairment.”

“DR [Diabetic Retinopathy] ranks as the fifth most common cause of global blindness and of global MSVI [moderate and severe vision impairment] (25). […] this analysis estimates that, in 2010, 1 out of every 39 blind people had blindness due to DR and 1 out of every 52 people had visual impairment due to DR. […] Globally in 2010, out of overall 32.4 million blind and 191 million visually impaired people, 0.8 million were blind and 3.7 million were visually impaired because of DR, with an alarming increase of 27% and 64%, respectively, spanning the two decades from 1990 to 2010. DR accounted for 2.6% of all blindness in 2010 and 1.9% of all MSVI worldwide, increasing from 2.1% and 1.3%, respectively, in 1990. […] The number of persons with visual impairment due to DR worldwide is rising and represents an increasing proportion of all blindness/MSVI causes. Age-standardized prevalence of DR-related blindness/MSVI was higher in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.”

“Our data suggest that the percentage of blindness and MSVI attributable to DR was lower in low-income regions with younger populations than in high-income regions with older populations. There are several reasons that may explain this observation. First, low-income societies may have a higher percentage of unoperated cataract or undercorrected refractive error–related blindness and MSVI (25), which is probably related to access to visual and ocular health services. Therefore, the proportional increase in blindness and MSVI attributable to DR may be rising because of the decreasing proportion attributable to cataract (25) as a result of the increasing availability of cataract surgery in many parts of the world (29) during the past decade. Improved visualization of the fundus afforded by cataract surgery should also improve the detection of DR. The increase in the percentage of global blindness caused by DR within the last two decades took place in all world regions except Western Europe and high-income North America where there was a slight decrease. This decrease may reflect the effect of intensified prevention and treatment of DR possibly in part due to the introduction of intravitreal injections of steroids and anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) drugs (30,31).

Second, in regions with poor medical infrastructure, patients with diabetes may not live long enough to experience DR (32). This reduces the number of patients with diabetes, and, furthermore, it reduces the number of patients with DR-related vision loss. Studies in the literature have reported that the prevalence of severe DR decreased from 1990 to 2010 (21) while the prevalence of diabetes simultaneously increased (27), which implies a reduction in the prevalence of severe DR per person with diabetes. […] Third, […] younger populations may have a lower prevalence of diabetes (33). […] Therefore, considering further economic development in rural regions, improvements in medical infrastructure, the general global demographic transition to elderly populations, and the association between increasing economic development and obesity, we project the increase in the proportion of DR-related blindness and MSVI to continue to rise in the future.”

iv. Do Patient Characteristics Impact Decisions by Clinicians on Hemoglobin A1c Targets?

“In setting hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets, physicians must consider individualized risks and benefits of tight glycemic control (1,2) by recognizing that the risk-benefit ratio may become unfavorable in certain patients, including the elderly and/or those with multiple comorbidities (3,4). Customization of treatment goals based on patient characteristics is poorly understood, partly due to insufficient data on physicians’ decisions in setting targets. We used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to analyze patient-reported HbA1c targets set by physicians and to test whether targets are correlated with patient characteristics.”

“we did not find any evidence that U.S. physicians systematically consider important patient-specific information when selecting the intensity of glycemic control. […] the lack of variation with patient characteristics suggests overreliance on a general approach, without consideration of individual variation in the risks and benefits (or patient preference) of tight control.”

v. Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy, Sexual Dysfunction, and Urinary Incontinence in Women With Type 1 Diabetes.

“This study evaluated associations among cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN), female sexual dysfunction (FSD), and urinary incontinence (UI) in women with type I diabetes mellitus (T1DM). […] We studied 580 women with T1DM in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Study (DCCT/EDIC).”

“At EDIC year 17, FSD was observed in 41% of women and UI in 30%. […] We found that CAN was significantly more prevalent among women with FSD and/or UI, because 41% of women with FSD and 44% with UI had positive measures of CAN compared with 30% without FSD and 38% without UI at EDIC year 16/17. We also observed bivariate associations between FSD and several measures of CAN […] In long-standing T1DM, CAN may predict development of FSD and may be a useful surrogate for generalized diabetic autonomic neuropathy.”

“Although autonomic dysfunction has been considered an important factor in the etiology of many diabetic complications, including constipation, exercise intolerance, bladder dysfunction, erectile dysfunction, orthostatic hypotension, and impaired neurovascular function, our study is among the first to systematically demonstrate a link between CAN and FSD in a large cohort of well-characterized patients with T1DM (14).”

vi. Correlates of Medication Adherence in the TODAY Cohort of Youth With Type 2 Diabetes.

“A total of 699 youth 10–17 years old with recent-onset type 2 diabetes and ≥80% adherence to metformin therapy for ≥8 weeks during a run-in period were randomized to receive one of three treatments. Participants took two study pills twice daily. Adherence was calculated by pill count from blister packs returned at visits. High adherence was defined as taking ≥80% of medication; low adherence was defined as taking <80% of medication.”

“In this low socioeconomic cohort, high and low adherence did not differ by sex, age, family income, parental education, or treatment group. Adherence declined over time (72% high adherence at 2 months, 56% adherence at 48 months, P < 0.0001). A greater percentage of participants with low adherence had clinically significant depressive symptoms at baseline (18% vs. 12%, P = 0.0415). No adherence threshold predicted the loss of glycemic control. […] Most pediatric type 1 diabetes studies (5–7) consistently document a correlation between adherence and race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, and studies of adults with type 2 diabetes (8,9) have documented that depressed patients are less adherent to their diabetes regimen. There is a dearth of information in the literature regarding adherence to medication in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes.”

“In the cohort, the presence of baseline clinically significant depressive symptoms was associated with subsequent lower adherence. […] The TODAY cohort demonstrated deterioration in study medication adherence over time, irrespective of treatment group assignment. […] Contrary to expectation, demographic factors (sex, race-ethnicity, household income, and parental educational level) did not predict medication adherence. The lack of correlation with these factors in the TODAY trial may be explained by the limited income and educational range of the families in the TODAY trial. Nearly half of the families in the TODAY trial had an annual income of <$25,000, and, for over half of the families, the highest level of parental education was a high school degree or lower. In addition, our run-in criteria selected for more adherent subjects. All subjects had to have >80% adherence to M therapy for ≥8 weeks before they could be randomized. This may have limited variability in medication adherence postrandomization. It is also possible that selecting for more adherent subjects in the run-in period also selected for subjects with a lower frequency of depressive symptoms.”

“In the TODAY trial, baseline clinically significant depressive symptoms were more prevalent in the lower-adherence group, suggesting that regular screening for depressive symptoms should be undertaken to identify youth who were at high risk for poor medication adherence. […] Studies in adults with type 2 diabetes (2328) consistently report that depressed patients are less adherent to their diabetes regimen and experience more physical complications of diabetes. Identifying youth who are at risk for poor medication adherence early in the course of disease would make it possible to provide support and, if needed, specific treatment. Although we were not able to determine whether the treatment of depressive symptoms changed adherence over time, our findings support the current guidelines for psychosocial screening in youth with diabetes (29,30).”

vii. Increased Risk of Incident Chronic Kidney Disease, Cardiovascular Disease, and Mortality in Patients With Diabetes With Comorbid Depression.

Another depression-related paper, telling another part of the story. If depressed diabetics are less compliant/adherent, which seems – as per the above study – to be the case both in the context of the adult and pediatric patient population, then you might also expect this reduced compliance/adherence to ‘translate’ into this group having poorer metabolic control, and thus be at higher risk of developing microvascular complications such as nephropathy. This seems to be what we observe, at least according to the findings of this study:

“It is not known if patients with diabetes with depression have an increased risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We examined the association between depression and incident CKD, mortality, and incident cardiovascular events in U.S. veterans with diabetes.”

“Among a nationally representative prospective cohort of >3 million U.S. veterans with baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2, we identified 933,211 patients with diabetes. Diabetes was ascertained by an ICD-9-CM code for diabetes, an HbA1c >6.4%, or receiving antidiabetes medication during the inclusion period. Depression was defined by an ICD-9-CM code for depression or by antidepressant use during the inclusion period. Incident CKD was defined as two eGFR levels 2 separated by ≥90 days and a >25% decline in baseline eGFR.”

“Depression was associated with 20% higher risk of incident CKD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] and 95% CI: 1.20 [1.19–1.21]). Similarly, depression was associated with increased all-cause mortality (aHR and 95% CI: 1.25 [1.24–1.26]). […] The presence of depression in patients with diabetes is associated with higher risk of developing CKD compared with nondepressed patients.”

It’s important to remember that the higher reported eGFRs in the depressed patient group may not be important/significant, and they should not be taken as an indication of relatively better kidney function in this patient population – especially in the type 2 context, the relationship between eGFR and kidney function is complicated. I refer to Bakris et al.‘s text on these topics for details (blog coverage here).

May 6, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Psychology, Studies | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

1. Cognitive Dysfunction in Older Adults With Diabetes: What a Clinician Needs to Know. I’ve talked about these topics before here on the blog (see e.g. these posts on related topics), but this is a good summary article. I have added some observations from the paper below:

“Although cognitive dysfunction is associated with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, there are several distinct differences observed in the domains of cognition affected in patients with these two types. Patients with type 1 diabetes are more likely to have diminished mental flexibility and slowing of mental speed, whereas learning and memory are largely not affected (8). Patients with type 2 diabetes show decline in executive function, memory, learning, attention, and psychomotor efficiency (9,10).”

“So far, it seems that the risk of cognitive dysfunction in type 2 diabetes may be influenced by glycemic control, hypoglycemia, inflammation, depression, and macro- and microvascular pathology (14). The cumulative impact of these conditions on the vascular etiology may further decrease the threshold at which cognition is affected by other neurological conditions in the aging brain. In patients with type 1 diabetes, it seems as though diabetes has a lesser impact on cognitive dysfunction than those patients with type 2 diabetes. […] Thus, the cognitive decline in patients with type 1 diabetes may be mild and may not interfere with their functionality until later years, when other aging-related factors become important. […] However, recent studies have shown a higher prevalence of cognitive dysfunction in older patients (>60 years of age) with type 1 diabetes (5).”

“Unlike other chronic diseases, diabetes self-care involves many behaviors that require various degrees of cognitive pliability and insight to perform proper self-care coordination and planning. Glucose monitoring, medications and/or insulin injections, pattern management, and diet and exercise timing require participation from different domains of cognitive function. In addition, the recognition, treatment, and prevention of hypoglycemia, which are critical for the older population, also depend in large part on having intact cognition.

The reason a clinician needs to recognize different domains of cognition affected in patients with diabetes is to understand which self-care behavior will be affected in that individual. […] For example, a patient with memory problems may forget to take insulin doses, forget to take medications/insulin on time, or forget to eat on time. […] Cognitively impaired patients using insulin are more likely to not know what to do in the event of low blood glucose or how to manage medication on sick days (34). Patients with diminished mental flexibility and processing speed may do well with a simple regimen but may fail if the regimen is too complex. In general, older patients with diabetes with cognitive dysfunction are less likely to be involved in diabetes self-care and glucose monitoring compared with age-matched control subjects (35). […] Other comorbidities associated with aging and diabetes also add to the burden of cognitive impairment and its impact on self-care abilities. For example, depression is associated with a greater decline in cognitive function in patients with type 2 diabetes (36). Depression also can independently negatively impact the motivation to practice self-care.”

“Recently, there is an increasing discomfort with the use of A1C as a sole parameter to define glycemic goals in the older population. Studies have shown that A1C values in the older population may not reflect the same estimated mean glucose as in the younger population. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are the commonly present comorbidities that impact red cell life span (e.g., anemia, uremia, renal dysfunction, blood transfusion, erythropoietin therapy) (45,46). In addition, A1C level does not reflect glucose excursions and variability. […] Thus, it is prudent to avoid A1C as the sole measure of glycemic goal in this population. […] In patients who need insulin therapy, simplification, also known as de-intensification of the regimen, is generally recommended in all frail patients, especially if they have cognitive dysfunction (37,49). However, the practice has not caught up with the recommendations as shown by large observational studies showing unnecessary intensive control in patients with diabetes and dementia (50–52).”

“With advances in the past few decades, we now see a larger number of patients with type 1 diabetes who are aging successfully and facing the new challenges that aging brings. […] Patients with type 1 diabetes are typically proactive in their disease management and highly disciplined. Cognitive dysfunction in these patients creates significant distress for the first time in their lives; they suddenly feel a “lack of control” over the disease they have managed for many decades. The addition of autonomic dysfunction, gastropathy, or neuropathy may result in wider glucose excursions. These patients are usually more afraid of hyperglycemia than hypoglycemia — both of which they have managed for many years. However, cognitive dysfunction in older adults with type 1 diabetes has been found to be associated with hypoglycemic unawareness and glucose variability (5), which in turn increases the risk of severe hypoglycemia (54). The need for goal changes to avoid hypoglycemia and accept some hyperglycemia can be very difficult for many of these patients.”

2. Trends in Drug Utilization, Glycemic Control, and Rates of Severe Hypoglycemia, 2006–2013.

“From 2006 to 2013, use increased for metformin (from 47.6 to 53.5%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (0.5 to 14.9%), and insulin (17.1 to 23.0%) but declined for sulfonylureas (38.8 to 30.8%) and thiazolidinediones (28.5 to 5.6%; all P < 0.001). […] The overall rate of severe hypoglycemia remained the same (1.3 per 100 person-years; P = 0.72), declined modestly among the oldest patients (from 2.9 to 2.3; P < 0.001), and remained high among those with two or more comorbidities (3.2 to 3.5; P = 0.36). […] During the recent 8-year period, the use of glucose-lowering drugs has changed dramatically among patients with T2DM. […] The use of older classes of medications, such as sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones, declined. During this time, glycemic control of T2DM did not improve in the overall population and remained poor among nearly a quarter of the youngest patients. Rates of severe hypoglycemia remained largely unchanged, with the oldest patients and those with multiple comorbidities at highest risk. These findings raise questions about the value of the observed shifts in drug utilization toward newer and costlier medications.”

“Our findings are consistent with a prior study of drug prescribing in U.S. ambulatory practice conducted from 1997 to 2012 (2). In that study, similar increases in DPP-4 inhibitor and insulin analog prescribing were observed; these changes were accompanied by a 61% increase in drug expenditures (2). Our study extends these findings to drug utilization and demonstrates that these increases occurred in all age and comorbidity subgroups. […] In contrast, metformin use increased only modestly between 2006 and 2013 and remained relatively low among older patients and those with two or more comorbidities. Although metformin is recommended as first-line therapy (26), it may be underutilized as the initial agent for the treatment of T2DM (27). Its use may be additionally limited by coexisting contraindications, such as chronic kidney disease (28).”

“The proportion of patients with a diagnosis of diabetes who did not fill any glucose-lowering medications declined slightly (25.7 to 24.1%; P < 0.001).”

That is, one in four people who had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes were not taking any prescription drugs for their health condition. I wonder how many of those people have read wikipedia articles like this one

“When considering treatment complexity, the use of oral monotherapy increased slightly (from 24.3 to 26.4%) and the use of multiple (two or more) oral agents declined (from 33.0 to 26.5%), whereas the use of insulin alone and in combination with oral agents increased (from 6.0 to 8.5% and from 11.1 to 14.6%, respectively; all P values <0.001).”

“Between 1987 and 2011, per person medical spending attributable to diabetes doubled (4). More than half of the increase was due to prescription drug spending (4). Despite these spending increases and greater utilization of newly developed medications, we showed no concurrent improvements in overall glycemic control or the rates of severe hypoglycemia in our study. Although the use of newer and more expensive agents may have other important benefits (44), further studies are needed to define the value and cost-effectiveness of current treatment options.”

iii. Among Low-Income Respondents With Diabetes, High-Deductible Versus No-Deductible Insurance Sharply Reduces Medical Service Use.

“Using the 2011–2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, bivariate and regression analyses were conducted to compare demographic characteristics, medical service use, diabetes care, and health status among privately insured adult respondents with diabetes, aged 18–64 years (N = 1,461) by lower (<200% of the federal poverty level) and higher (≥200% of the federal poverty level) income and deductible vs. no deductible (ND), low deductible ($1,000/$2,400) (LD), and high deductible (>$1,000/$2,400) (HD). The National Health Interview Survey 2012–2014 was used to analyze differences in medical debt and delayed/avoided needed care among adult respondents with diabetes (n = 4,058) by income. […] Compared with privately insured respondents with diabetes with ND, privately insured lower-income respondents with diabetes with an LD report significant decreases in service use for primary care, checkups, and specialty visits (27%, 39%, and 77% lower, respectively), and respondents with an HD decrease use by 42%, 65%, and 86%, respectively. Higher-income respondents with an LD report significant decreases in specialty (28%) and emergency department (37%) visits.”

“The reduction in ambulatory visits made by lower-income respondents with ND compared with lower-income respondents with an LD or HD is far greater than for higher-income patients. […] The substantial reduction in checkup (preventive) and specialty visits by those with a lower income who have an HDHP [high-deductible health plan, US] implies a very different pattern of service use compared with lower-income respondents who have ND and with higher-income respondents. Though preventive visits require no out-of-pocket costs, reduced preventive service use with HDHPs is well established and might be the result of patients being unaware of this benefit or their concern about findings that could lead to additional expenses (31). Such sharply reduced service use by low-income respondents with diabetes may not be desirable. Patients with diabetes benefit from assessment of diabetes control, encouragement and reinforcement of behavior change and medication use, and early detection and treatment of diabetes complications or concomitant disease.”

iv. Long-term Mortality and End-Stage Renal Disease in a Type 1 Diabetes Population Diagnosed at Age 15–29 Years in Norway.

OBJECTIVE To study long-term mortality, causes of death, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at age 15–29 years.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This nationwide, population-based cohort with type 1 diabetes diagnosed during 1978–1982 (n = 719) was followed from diagnosis until death, emigration, or September 2013. Linkages to the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry and the Norwegian Renal Registry provided information on causes of death and whether ESRD was present.

RESULTS During 30 years’ follow-up, 4.6% of participants developed ESRD and 20.6% (n = 148; 106 men and 42 women) died. Cumulative mortality by years since diagnosis was 6.0% (95% CI 4.5–8.0) at 10 years, 12.2% (10.0–14.8) at 20 years, and 18.4% (15.8–21.5) at 30 years. The SMR [standardized mortality ratio] was 4.4 (95% CI 3.7–5.1). Mean time from diagnosis of diabetes to ESRD was 23.6 years (range 14.2–33.5). Death was caused by chronic complications (32.2%), acute complications (20.5%), violent death (19.9%), or any other cause (27.4%). Death was related to alcohol in 15% of cases. SMR for alcohol-related death was 6.8 (95% CI 4.5–10.3), for cardiovascular death was 7.3 (5.4–10.0), and for violent death was 3.6 (2.3–5.3).

CONCLUSIONS The cumulative incidence of ESRD was low in this cohort with type 1 diabetes followed for 30 years. Mortality was 4.4 times that of the general population, and more than 50% of all deaths were caused by acute or chronic complications. A relatively high proportion of deaths were related to alcohol.”

Some additional observations from the paper:

“Studies assessing causes of death in type 1 diabetes are most frequently conducted in individuals diagnosed during childhood (17) or without evaluating the effect of age at diagnosis (8,9). Reports on causes of death in cohorts of patients diagnosed during late adolescence or young adulthood, with long-term follow-up, are less frequent (10). […] Adherence to treatment during this age is poor and the risk of acute diabetic complications is high (1316). Mortality may differ between those with diabetes diagnosed during this period of life and those diagnosed during childhood.”

“Mortality was between four and five times higher than in the general population […]. The excess mortality was similar for men […] and women […]. SMR was higher in the lower age bands — 6.7 (95% CI 3.9–11.5) at 15–24 years and 7.3 (95% CI 5.2–10.1) at 25–34 years — compared with the higher age bands: 3.7 (95% CI 2.7–4.9) at 45–54 years and 3.9 (95% CI 2.6–5.8) at 55–65 years […]. The Cox regression model showed that the risk of death increased significantly by age at diagnosis (HR 1.1; 95% CI 1.1–1.2; P < 0.001) and was eight to nine times higher if ESRD was present (HR 8.7; 95% CI 4.8–15.5; P < 0.0001). […] the underlying cause of death was diabetes in 57 individuals (39.0%), circulatory in 22 (15.1%), cancer in 18 (12.3%), accidents or intoxications in 20 (13.7%), suicide in 8 (5.5%), and any other cause in 21 (14.4%) […] In addition, diabetes contributed to death in 29.5% (n = 43) and CVD contributed to death in 10.9% (n = 29) of the 146 cases. Diabetes was mentioned on the death certificate for 68.2% of the cohort but for only 30.0% of the violent deaths. […] In 60% (88/146) of the cases the review committee considered death to be related to diabetes, whereas in 40% (58/146) the cause was unrelated to diabetes or had an unknown relation to diabetes. According to the clinical committee, acute complications caused death in 20.5% (30/146) of the cases; 20 individuals died as a result of DKA and 10 from hypoglycemia. […] Chronic complications caused the largest proportion of deaths (47/146; 32.2%) and increased with increasing duration of diabetes […]. Among individuals dying as a result of chronic complications (n = 47), CVD caused death in 94% (n = 44) and renal failure in 6% (n = 3). ESRD contributed to death in 22.7% (10/44) of those dying from CVD. Cardiovascular death occurred at mortality rates seven times higher than those in the general population […]. ESRD caused or contributed to death in 13 of 14 cases, when present.”

“Violence (intoxications, accidents, and suicides) was the leading cause of death before 10 years’ duration of diabetes; thereafter it was only a minor cause […] Insulin was used in two of seven suicides. […] According to the available medical records and autopsy reports, about 20% (29/146) of the deceased misused alcohol. In 15% (22/146) alcohol-related ICD-10 codes were listed on the death certificate (18% [19/106] of men and 8% [3/40] of women). In 10 cases the cause of death was uncertain but considered to be related to alcohol or diabetes […] The SMR for alcohol-related death was high when considering the underlying cause of death (5.0; 95% CI 2.5–10.0), and even higher when considering all alcohol-related ICD-10 codes listed on the death certificate (6.8; 95% CI 4.5–10.3). The cause of death was associated with alcohol in 21.8% (19/87) of those who died with less than 20 years’ diabetes duration. Drug abuse was noted on the death certificate in only two cases.”

“During follow-up, 33 individuals (4.6%; 22 men and 11 women) developed ESRD as a result of diabetic nephropathy. Mean time from diagnosis of diabetes to ESRD was 23.6 years (range 14.2–33.5 years). Cumulative incidence of ESRD by years since diagnosis of diabetes was 1.4% (95% CI 0.7–2.7) at 20 years and 4.8% (95% CI 3.4–6.9) at 30 years.”

“This study highlights three important findings. First, among individuals who were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in late adolescence and early adulthood and had good access to health care, and who were followed for 30 years, mortality was four to five times that of the general population. Second, 15% of all deaths were associated with alcohol, and the SMR for alcohol-related deaths was 6.8. Third, there was a relatively low cumulative incidence of ESRD (4.8%) 30 years after the diagnosis of diabetes.

We report mortality higher than those from a large, population-based study from Finland that found cumulative mortality around 6% at 20 years’ and 15% at 30 years’ duration of diabetes among a population with age at onset and year of diagnosis similar to those in our cohort (10). The corresponding numbers in our cohort were 12% and 18%, respectively; the discrepancy was particularly high at 20 years. The SMR in the Finnish cohort was lower than that in our cohort (2.6–3.0 vs. 3.7–5.1), and those authors reported the SMR to be lower in late-onset diabetes (at age 15–29 years) compared with early-onset diabetes (at age 23). The differences between the Norwegian and Finnish data are difficult to explain since both reports are from countries with good access to health care and a high incidence of type 1 diabetes.”

However the reason for the somewhat different SMRs in these two reasonably similar countries may actually be quite simple – the important variable may be alcohol:

“Finland and Norway are appropriate to compare because they share important population and welfare characteristics. There are, however, significant differences in drinking levels and alcohol-related mortality: the Finnish population consumes more alcohol and the Norwegian population consumes less. The mortality rates for deaths related to alcohol are about three to four times higher in Finland than in Norway (30). […] The markedly higher SMR in our cohort can probably be explained by the lower mortality rates for alcohol-related mortality in the general population. […] In conclusion, the high mortality reported in this cohort with an onset of diabetes in late adolescence and young adulthood draws attention to people diagnosed during a vulnerable period of life. Both acute and chronic complications cause substantial premature mortality […] Our study suggests that increased awareness of alcohol-related death should be encouraged in clinics providing health care to this group of patients.”

April 23, 2017 Posted by | Diabetes, Economics, Epidemiology, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Papers, Pharmacology, Psychology | Leave a comment

Health econ stuff

In a post I published a few weeks ago I mentioned that I had decided against including some comments and observations I had written about health economics in that post because the post was growing unwieldy, but that I might post that stuff later on in a separate post. This post will include those observations, as well as some additional details I added to the post later. This sort of post is the sort of post that usually does not get past the ‘draft’ stage (in wordpress you can save posts you intend to publish later on as drafts), and as is usually the case for posts like these I already regret having written it, for multiple reasons. I should warn you from the start that this post is very long and will probably take you some time to read.

Anyway, the starting point for this post was some comments related to health insurance and health economics which I left on SSC in the past. A lot more people read those comments on SSC than will read this post so the motivation for posting it here was not to ‘increase awareness’ of the ideas and observations included in some kind of general sense; my primary motivation for adding this stuff here is rather that it’s a lot easier for me personally to find stuff I’ve written when it’s located here on this blog rather than elsewhere on the internet, and I figure that some of the things I wrote back then are topics which might well come up again later, and it would be convenient for me in that case to have a link at hand. Relatedly I have added many additional comments and observations in this post not included in the primary exchange, which it is no longer possible for me to do on SSC as my comments are no longer editable on that site.

Although the starting point for the post was as mentioned a comment exchange, I decided early on against just ‘quoting myself’ in this post, and I have thus made some changes in wording and structure in order to increase the precision of the statements included and in order to add a bit of context making the observations below easier to read and understand (and harder to misread). Major topics to which the observations included in this post relate are preventable diseases, the level of complexity that is present in the health care sector, and various topics which relate to health care cost growth. Included in the post are some perhaps not sufficiently well known complications which may arise in the context of the discussion of how different financing schemes may relate to various outcomes, and to cost growth. Much of the stuff included will probably be review to people who’ve read my previous posts on health economics, but that’s to be expected considering the nature of this post.

Although ‘normative stuff’ is not what interests me most – I generally tend to prefer discussions where the aim is to identify what happens if you do X, and I’ll often be happy to leave the discussion of whether outcome X or Y is ‘best’ to others – I do want to start out with stating a policy preference, as this preference was the starting point for the aforementioned debate that lead to the origination of this post. At the outset I should thus make clear that I would in general be in favour of changes to the financial structure of health care systems where people who take avoidable risks which systematically and demonstrably increase their expected health care expenditures at the population level pay a larger proportion of the cost than do people who did not take such avoidable risks.

Most developed societies have health care systems which are designed in a way that implicitly to some extent subsidize unhealthy behaviours. An important note in this context is incidentally that one way of looking at these things is that if you are not explicitly demanding people who behave in risky ways which tend to increase their expected costs to pay more for their health care (/insurance), then you are in fact by virtue of not doing this implicitly subsidizing those unhealthy individuals/behaviours. I mention this because some people might not like the idea of ‘subsidizing healthy behaviours’ (‘health fascism’) – which from a certain point of view is what you do if you charge people who behave in unhealthy ways more. Maybe some people would take issue with words like ‘subsidy’ and ‘implicit’, but regardless of what you call these things the major point that is important to have in mind here is that if one group of people (e.g. ‘unhealthy people’) cost more to treat (/are ill more often, get illnesses related to their behaviours, etc., etc.) than another group of people (‘healthy people’), then if you need to finance this shortfall – which you do, as you face a budget constraint – there are only two basic ways to do this; you can either charge the high-cost group (‘unhealthy people’) more, or you can require the other group (‘healthy people’) to make up the difference. Any scheme which deals with such a case of unequal net contribution rates are equivalent either to one of those schemes or a mix of the two, regardless of what you call things and how it’s done, and regardless of which groups we are talking about (old people also have higher health care expenditures than do young people, and most health care systems implicitly redistribute income from the young to the old). If you’re worried about ‘health fascism’ and the implications of subsidizing healthy behaviours (/’punishing’ unhealthy behaviours) you should at least keep in mind that if the health care costs of people who live healthy lives and people who do not are dissimilar then any system that deals with this issue – which all systems must – can either choose to ‘subsidize’ healthy behaviours or unhealthy behaviours; there’s no feasible way to design a ‘neutral system’ if the costs of the groups are dissimilar.

Having said all this, the very important next point is then that it is much more difficult to make simple schemes that would accomplish an outcome in which people who engage in unhealthy behaviours are required to pay more without at the same time introducing a significant number of new problems than people who are not familiar with this field would probably think it is. And it’s almost certainly much harder to evaluate if the proposed change actually accomplished what you wanted to accomplish than you think it is. Even if we are clear about what we want to accomplish and can all agree that that is what we are aiming for – i.e. we are disregarding the political preferences of large groups of voters and whether the setup in question is at all feasible to accomplish – this stuff is really much harder than it looks, for many reasons.

Let’s start out by assuming that smoking increases the risk of disease X by 50%. Say you can’t say which of the cases of X are caused by smoking, all you know is that smoking increases the risk at the population level. Say you don’t cover disease X at all if someone smokes, that is, smokers are required to pay the full treatment cost out of pocket if they contract disease X. It’s probably not too controversial to state that this approach might by some people be perceived of as not completely ‘fair’ to the many smokers who would have got disease X even if they had not smoked (a majority in this particular case, though of course the proportion will vary with the conditions and the risk factors in question). Now, a lot of the excess health care costs related to smoking are of this kind, and it is actually a pretty standard pattern in general with risk factors – smoking, alcohol, physical inactivity, etc. You know that these behaviours increase risk, but you usually can’t say for certain which of the specific cases you observe in clinical practice are actually (‘perfectly’/’completely’/’partially’?) attributable to the behaviour. And quite often the risk increase associated with a specific behaviour is actually really somewhat modest, compared to the relevant base rates, meaning that many of the people who engage in behaviours which increase risk and who get sick might well have got sick even if they hadn’t engaged in those risky behaviours.

On top of this problem usually it’s also the case that risk factors interact with each other. Smoking increases the risk of cancer of the esophagus, but so does alcohol and obesity, and if a person both smokes and drinks the potential interaction effect may not be linear – so you most likely often can’t just identify individual risk factors in specific studies and then pool them later and add them all together to get a proper risk assessment. A further complication is that behaviours may both increase as well as decrease risk – to stick with the example, diets high in fruits and vegetables both lower the risk of cancer of the esophagus. Exercise probably does as well – we know that exercise has important and highly complex effects on immune system function (see e.g. this post). Usually a large number of potential risk factors is at play at the same time, there may be multiple variables which lower risk and are also important to include if you want a proper risk assessment, and even if you knew in theory which interaction terms were likely to be relevant, you might even so find yourself in a situation unable to estimate the interaction terms of interest – this might take high-powered studies with large numbers of patients, which may not be available or the results of such high-powered studies may not apply to your specific subgroup of patients. Cost-effectiveness is also an issue – it’s expensive to assess risk properly. One take-away is that you’ll still have a lot of unfairness in a modified contribution rate model, and even evaluating fairness aspects of the change may be difficult to impossible because to some extent this question is unknowable. You might find yourself in a situation where you charge the obese guy more because obesity means he’s high risk, but in reality he is actually lower risk than is the non-fat guy who is charged a lower rate, because he also exercises and eats a lot of fruits and vegetables, which the other guy doesn’t.

Of course the above paragraph took it for granted that it was even possible to quantify the excess costs attributable to a specific condition. That may not be easy at all to do, and there may be large uncertainties involved. The estimated excess cost will depend upon a variety of factors which may or may not be of interest to the party performing the analysis, for example it may be very important which time frame you’re looking at and which discounting methodology is applied (see e.g. the last paragraph in this post). The usual average vs marginal cost problem (see the third-last paragraph in the post to which I link in the previous sentence – this post also has more on this topic) also applies here and is related to ‘the fat guy who exercises and is low-risk’-problem; ideally you’d want to charge people with higher health care utilization levels more (again, in a setting where we assume the excess cost is associated with life-style variables which are modifiable – this was our starting point), but if there’s a large amount of variation in costs across individuals in the specific subgroups of interest and you only have access to average costs rather than individual-level costs, then a scheme only taking into account the differences in the averages may be very sub-optimal when you look at it from the viewpoint of the individual. Care needs to be taken to avoid problems like e.g. Simpson’s paradox.

Risk factors are not the only things that cluster; so do diseases. An example:

“An analysis of the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI) from 2012 shows that more than 50 % of German people over 65 years suffer from at least one chronic disease, approximately 50 % suffer from two to four chronic diseases, and over a quarter suffer from five or more diseases [3].” (link)

78.3 % of the type 2 diabetics also suffered from hypertension in that study. Does this fact make it easier or harder to figure out what is ‘the true cost contribution’ of ‘type 2 diabetes’ and ‘hypertension’ (and, what we’re ultimately interested in in this setting – the ‘true cost contribution’ of the unhealthy behaviours which lead some individuals to develop type 2 diabetics and hypertension who would not otherwise have developed diabetes and/or hypertension (…/as early as they did)? It should be noted that diabetes was estimated to account for 11 % of total global healthcare expenditure on adults in 2013 (link). That already large proportion is expected to rise substantially in the decades to come – if you’re interested in cost growth trajectories, this is a major variable to account for. Attributability is really tricky here, and perhaps even more tricky in the case of hypertension – but for what it’s worth, according to a CDC estimate hypertension cost the US $46 billion per year, or ~$150/per person per year.

Anyway, you look at the data and you make guesses, but the point is that doctor Smith won’t know for certain if Mr. Hanson would have had a stroke even if he hadn’t smoked or not. A proposal of not providing payment for a health care service or medical product in the case of an ‘obviously risky-behaviour-related-health-condition’ may sometimes appear to be an appealing proposition and you sometimes see people make this sort of proposal in discussions of this nature, but it tends to be very difficult when you look at the details to figure out just what those ‘obviously risky-behaviour-related-health-conditions’ are, and even harder to make even remotely actuarially fair adjustments to the premiums and coverage patterns to reflect the risk. Smoking and lung cancer is a common example of a relatively ‘clean’ case, but most cases are ‘less clean’ and even here there are complications; a substantial proportion of lung cancer cases are not caused by tobacco – occupational exposures also cause a substantial proportion of cases, and: “If considered in its own disease category […] lung cancer in never smokers would represent the seventh leading cause of cancer mortality globally, surpassing cancers of the cervix, pancreas, and prostate,5 and among the top 10 causes of death in the United States.” (link) Occupational exposures (e.g. asbestos) are not likely to fully account for all cases, and for example it has also been found that other variables, including previous pneumonia infections and tuberculosis, affect risk (here are a couple of relevant links to some previous coverage I wrote on these topics).

I think many people who have preferences of this nature (‘if it’s their own fault they’re sick, they should pay for it themselves’) underestimate how difficult it may be to make changes which could be known with a reasonable level of certainty to actually have the intended consequences, even assuming everybody agreed on the goal to be achieved. This is in part because there are many other aspects and complications which need to be addressed as well. Withholding payment in the case of costly preventative illness may for example in some contexts increase cost, rather than decrease them. The risk of complications of some diseases – an important cost driver in the context of diabetes – tends to be dependent on post-diagnosis behavioural patterns. The risk of developing diabetes complications will depend upon the level of glycemic control. If you say you won’t cover complications at all in the case of ‘self-inflicted disease X’, then you also to some extent tend to remove the option of designing insurance schemes which might lower cost and complication rates post-diagnosis by rewarding ‘good’ (risk-minimizing) behaviours post-diagnosis and punishing ‘bad’ (risk-increasing) behaviours. This is not desirable in the context of diseases where post-diagnosis behaviour is an important component of the cost function, as it certainly is in the diabetes context. There are multiple potential mechanisms here, some of which are disease specific (e.g. suboptimal diet in a diagnosed type 2 diabetic) and some of which may not be (a more general mechanism could e.g. be lowered compliance/adherence to treatment in the uncovered populations because they can’t afford the drugs which are required to treat their illness; though the cost-compliance link is admittedly not completely clear in the general case, there are certainly multiple diseases where lowered compliance to treatment would be expected to increase cost long-term).

And again, also in the context of complications fairness issues are not as simple to evaluate as people might like them to be; some people may have a much harder time controlling their disease than others, or they may be more susceptible to complications given the same behaviour. Some may already have developed complications by the time of diagnosis. Such issues make it difficult to design simple rules which would achieve what you want them to achieve without having unfortunate side-effects; for example a rule that a microvascular diabetes-related complication is automatically ‘your own fault’ (so we won’t pay for it), which might be motivated by the substantial amount of research linking glycemic control with complication risk, would punish some diabetics who have had the disease for a longer amount of time (many complications are not only strongly linked to Hba1c but also display a substantial degree of duration-dependence; for example in type 1 diabetics one study found that diabetic retinopathy was present in 13% of patients with a duration of disease less than 5 years, whereas the corresponding figure was 90% for individuals with a disease duration of 10–15 years (Sperling et al., p. 393). I also recall reading a study finding that Hba1c itself is increasing with diabetes duration, which may be partly accounted for by the higher risk of hypoglycemia related to hypoglycemia-unawareness-syndromes in individuals with long-standing disease), individuals with diseases which are relatively hard to control (perhaps due to genetics, or maybe again due to the fact that they have had the disease for a longer amount of time; the presence of hypoglycemia unawareness is as alluded to above to a substantial degree duration-dependent, and this problem increases the risk of hospitalizations, which are expensive), diabetics who developed complications before they knew they were sick (a substantial proportion of type 2 diabetics develop some degree of microvascular damage pre-diagnosis), and diabetics with genetic variants which confer an elevated risk of complications (“observations suggest that involvement of genetic factors is increasing the risk of complications” (Sperling et al., p. 226), and for example in the DCCT trial familial clustering of both neuropathy and retinopathy was found; clustering which persisted after controlling for Hba1c – for more on these topics, see e.g. Sperling et al.’s chapter 11).

Other decision rules would similarly lead to potentially problematic incentives and fairness issues; for example requiring individuals to meet a specific Hba1c goal might be more desirable than to just not cover complications, but that one also leads to potential problems; ideally such an Hba1c goal should be individualized, because of the above-mentioned complexities and others I have not mentioned here; to require a newly-diagnosed individual to meet the same goals as someone who has had diabetes for decades does not make sense, and neither does it make sense to require these two groups to meet exactly the same Hba1c goal as the middle-aged female diabetic who desires to become pregnant (diabetes greatly increases the risk of pregnancy complications, and strict glycemic control is extremely important in this patient group). It’s important to note that these issues don’t just relate to whether or not the setup is perceived of as fair, but it also relates to whether or not you would expect the intended goals to actually be met or not when you implement the rule. If you were to require that a long-standing diabetic with severe hypoglycemia unawareness had to meet the same Hba1c goal as the newly diagnosed individual, this might well lead to higher overall cost, because said individual might suffer a large number of hypoglycemia-related hospitalizations which would have been avoidable if a more lax requirement was imposed; when you decrease Hba1c you decrease the risk of long-term complications, but you increase the risk of hypoglycemia. A few numbers might make it easier to make sense of how expensive hospitalizations really are, and why I emphasize them here. In this diabetes-care publication they assign a cost for an inpatient day for a diabetes-related hospitalization at $2,359 and an emergency visit at ~$800. The same publication estimates the total average annual excess expenditures of diabetics below the age of 45 at $4,394. Going to the hospital is really expensive (43% of the total medical costs of diabetes are accounted for by hospital inpatient care in that publication).

A topic which was brought up in the SSC discussion was the question of the extent to which private providers have a greater incentive to ‘get things right’ in terms of assessing risk. I don’t take issue with this notion in general, but there are a lot of complicating factors in the health care context. One factor of interest is that it is costly to get things right. If you’re looking at this from an insurance perspective, larger insurance providers may be better at getting things right because they can afford to hire specialists who provide good cost estimates – getting good cost estimates is really hard, as I’ve noted above. Larger providers translate into fewer firms, which increases firm concentration and may thus increase collusion risk, which may again increase the prices of health care services. Interestingly if your aim is to minimize health care cost growth increased market power of private firms may actually be a desirable state of affairs/goal, because cost growth is a function of both unit prices and utilization levels, and higher premiums are likely to translate into lower utilization rates, which may lower overall costs and -cost growth. I decided to include this observation here also in order to illustrate that what is an optimal outcome depends on what your goal is, and in the setting of the health care sector you sometimes need to be very careful about thinking about what your actual goal is, and which other goals might be relevant.

When private insurance providers become active in a market that also includes a government entity providing a level of guaranteed coverage, total medical outlays may easily increase rather than decrease. The firms may meed an unmet need, but some of that unmet need may be induced demand (here’s a related link). Additionally, the bargaining power of various groups of medical personnel may change in such a setting, leading to changes in compensation schedules which may not be considered desirable/fair. An increase in total outlays may or may not be considered a desirable outcome, but this does illustrate once again the point that you need to be careful about what you are trying to achieve.

There’s a significant literature on how the level of health care integration, both at the vertical and horizontal level, both in terms of financial structure and e.g. in terms of service provision structure, may impact health care costs, and this is an active area of research where we in some contexts do not yet know the answers.

Even when cost minimization mechanisms are employed in the context of private firms and the firm in question is efficient, the firm may not internalize all relevant costs. This may paradoxically lead to higher overall cost, due to coverage decisions taken ‘upstream’ influencing costs ‘downstream’ in an adverse manner; I have talked about this topic on this blog before. A diabetic might be denied coverage of glucose testing materials by his private insurer, and that might mean that the diabetic instead gets hospitalized for a foreseeable and avoidable complication (hypoglycemic coma due to misdosing), but because it might not be the same people paying for the testing material and the subsequent hospitalization it might not matter to the people denying coverage of the testing materials, and/so they won’t take it into account when they’re making their coverage decisions. That sort of thing is quite common in the health care sector – different entities pay for and receive payments for different things, and this is once again a problem to keep in mind if you’re interested in health care evaluation; interventions which seem to lower cost may not do so in reality, because the intervention lead to higher health care utilization elsewhere in the system. If incentives are not well-aligned things may go badly wrong, and they are often not well-aligned in the health care sector. When both the private and public sectors are involved in either the financial arrangements and/or actual health service provision – which is the default health care system setup for developed societies – this usually leads to highly complex systems, where the scope for such problems to appear seems magnified, rather than the opposite. I would assume that in many cases it matters a lot more that incentives are well-aligned than which specific entity is providing insurance or health care in the specific context, in part a conclusion drawn from the coverage included in Simmons, Wenzel & Zgibor‘s book.

In terms of the incentive structures of the people involved in the health care sector, this stuff is of course also adding another layer of complexity. In all sectors of the economy you have people with different interests who interact with each other, and when incentives change outcomes change. Outcomes may be car batteries, or baseball bats, or lectures. Evaluating outcomes is easier in some settings than in others, and I have already touched upon some of the problems that might be present when you’re trying to evaluate outcomes in the health care context. How easy it is to evaluate outcomes will naturally vary across sub-sectors of the health care sector but a general problem which tends to surface here is the existence of various forms of asymmetrical information. There are multiple layers, but a few examples are worth mentioning. To put it bluntly, the patient tends to know his symptoms and behavioural patterns – which may be disease-relevant, and this aspect is certainly important to include when discussing preventative illnesses caused at least in part by behaviours which increase the risk of said illnesses – better than his doctor, and the doctor will in general tend to know much more about the health condition and potential treatment options than will the patient. The patient wants to get better, but he also wants to look good in the eyes of the doctor, which means he might not be completely truthful when interacting with the doctor; he might downplay how much alcohol he drinks, misrepresent how often he exercises, or he may lie about smoking habits or about how much he weighs. These things make risk-assessments more difficult than they otherwise might have been. As for the GPs, usually we here have some level of regulation which restricts their behaviour to some extent, and part of the motivation for such regulation is to reduce the level of induced demand which might otherwise be the result of information asymmetry in the context of stuff like relevant treatment effects. If a patient is not sufficiently competent to evaluate the treatments he receives (‘did the drug the doctor ordered really work, or would I have gotten better without it?’), there’s a risk he might be talked into undergoing needless procedures or take medications for which he has no need, especially if the doctor who advises him has a financial interest in the treatment modality on offer.

General physicians have different incentives from nurses and specialists working in hospitals, and all of these groups may experience conflicts of interests when they’re dealing with insurance providers and with each other. Patients as mentioned have their own set of incentives, which may not align perfectly with those of the health care providers. Different approaches to how to deal with such problems lead to different organizational setups, all of which influence both the quantity and quality of care, subject to various constraints. It’s an active area of research whether decreasing competition between stakeholders/service providers may decrease costs; one thing that is relatively clear from diabetes research with which I have familiarized myself is that when different types of care providers coordinate activities, this tends to lead to better outcomes (and sometimes, but not always, lower costs), because some of the externalized costs become internalized by virtue of the coordination. It seems very likely to me that conclusions to such questions will be different for different subsectors of the health care sector. A general point might be that more complex diseases should be expected to be more likely to generate cost savings from increased coordination than should relatively simple diseases (if you’re fuzzy about what the concept of disease complexity refers to, this post includes some relevant observations). This may be important, because complex diseases also should probably tend to be more expensive to treat in general, because the level of need in patients is higher.

It’s perhaps hardly surprising, considering the problems I’ve already discussed related to how difficult it may be to properly assess costs, that there’s a big discussion to be had about how to even estimate costs (and benefits) in specific contexts, and that people write books about these kinds of things. A lot of things have already been said on this topic and a lot more could be said, but one general point perhaps worth repeating is that it may in the health care sector be very difficult to figure out what things (‘truly’) cost (/’is worth’). If you only have a public sector entity dealing with a specific health problem and patients are not charged for receiving treatment, it may be very difficult to figure out what things ‘should’ cost because relevant prices are simply missing from the picture. You know what the government entity paid the doctors in wages and what it paid for the drugs, but the link between payment and value is sometimes a bit iffy here. There are ways to at least try to address some of these issues, but as already noted people write books about these kinds of things so I’m not going to provide all the highlights here – I refer to the previous posts I’ve written on these topics instead.

Another important related point is that medical expenditures and medical costs are not synonyms. There are many costs associated with illness which are not directly related to e.g. a payment to a doctor. People who are ill may be less productive while they are at work, they may have more sick-days, they may retire earlier, their spouse may cut down on work hours to take care of them instead of going to work, a family caretaker may become ill as a result of the demands imposed by the caretaker role (for example Alzheimer’s disease significantly increases the risk of depression in the spouse). Those costs are relevant, there are literatures on these things, and in some contexts such ‘indirect costs’ (e.g. lower productivity at work and early retirement) may make up a very substantial proportion of the total costs of a health condition. I have seen diabetes cost estimates which indicated that the indirect costs may account for as much as 50 % of the total costs.

If there’s a significant disconnect between total costs and medical expenditures then minimizing expenditures may not be desirable from an economic viewpoint. A reasonable assessment model will/should in the context of models of outlays include both a monetary cost parameter and a quality/quantity (ideally both) parameter; if you neglect to take account of the latter, in some sense you’re only dealing with what you pay out, not what you get for that payment (which is relevant). If you don’t take into account indirect costs you implicitly allow cost switching practices to potentially muddle the picture and make assessments more difficult; for example if you provide fewer long-term care facilities then the number of people involved in ‘informal care’ (e.g. family members having to take care of granny) will go up, and that is going to have secondary effects downstream which should also be assessed (you improve the budget in the context of the long-term care facilities, but you may at the same time increase demands on e.g. psychiatric institutions and marginally lower especially the female labour market participation rate. The net effect may still be positive, but the point is that an evaluation will/should include costs like these in the analysis, at least if you want anything remotely close to the full picture).

Let’s return to those smokers we talked about earlier. A general point not mentioned yet is that if you don’t cover smokers in the public sector because of cost considerations, many of them may also not be covered by private insurance either. This is because a group of individuals that is high risk and expensive to treat will be demanded high premiums (or the insurance providers would go out of business), and for the sake of this discussion we’re now assuming smokers are expensive. If that is so, many of them probably would not be able to afford the premiums demanded. Now, one of the health problems which are very common in smokers is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Admission rates for COPD patients differ as much as 10-fold between European countries, and one of the most important parameters regarding pharmacoeconomics is the hospitalization rate (both observations are from this text). What does this mean? It means that we know that admission rate from COPD is highly responsive to the treatment regime; populations well-treated have much fewer hospitalizations. 4% of all Polish hospitalizations are due to COPD. If you remove the public sector subsidies, the most likely scenario you get seems to me to be a poor-outcomes scenario with lots of hospitalizations. Paying for those is likely to be a lot more expensive than it is to treat the COPD pharmacologically in the community. And if smokers aren’t going to be paying for it, someone else will have to do that. If you both deny them health insurance and refuse them treatment if they cannot pay for it they may just die of course, but in most cost-assessment models that’s a high-cost outcome, not a low-cost outcome (e.g. due to lost work-life productivity etc. Half of people with COPD are of working age, see the text referred to above.). This is one example where the ‘more fair’ option might lead to higher costs, rather than lower costs. Some people might still consider such an outcome desirable, it depends on the maximand of interest, but such outcomes are worth considering when assessing the desirability of different systems.

A broadly similar dynamic, in the context of post-diagnosis behaviour and links to complications and costs, may be present in the context of type 2 diabetes. I know much more about diabetes than I do about respirology, but certainly in the case of diabetes this is a potentially really big problem. Diabetics who are poorly regulated tend to die a lot sooner than other people, they develop horrible complications, they stop being able to work, etc. etc. Some of those costs you can ignore if you’re willing to ‘let them die in the streets’ (as the expression goes), but a lot of those costs are indirect costs due to lower productivity, and those costs aren’t going anywhere, regardless of who may or may not be paying the medical bills of these people. Even if they have become sick due to a high-risk behaviour of their own choosing, their health care costs post-diagnosis will still be highly dependent upon their future medical care and future health insurance coverage. Denying them coverage for all diabetes-related costs post-diagnosis may, paradoxical though it may seem to some, not be the cost-minimizing option.

I already talked about information asymmetries. Another problematic aspect linked to information management also presents itself here in a model of this nature (‘deny all diabetes-related coverage to known diabetics’); people who suspect they might be having type 2 diabetes may choose not to disclose this fact to a health care provider because of the insurance aspect (denial of coverage problems). Insurance providers can of course (and will try to) counter this by things like mandatory screening protocols, but this is expensive, and even assuming they are successful you again not only potentially neglect to try to minimize the costs of the high-cost individuals in the population (the known diabetics, who might be cheaper long-term if they had some coverage), you also price a lot of non-diabetics out of the market (because premiums went up to pay for the screening). And some of those non-diabetics are diabetics to-be, who may get a delayed diagnosis as a result, with an associated higher risk of (expensive) complications. Again, as in the smoking context if the private insurer does not cover the high-cost outcomes someone else will have to do that, and the blind diabetic in a wheel-chair is not likely to be able to pay for his dialysis himself.

More information may in some situations lead to a breakdown in insurance markets. This is particularly relevant in the context of genetics and genetic tests. If you have full information, or close to it, the problem you have to some extent stops being an insurance problem and instead becomes a problem of whether or not to, and to which extent you want to-, explicitly compensate people for having been dealt a bad hand by nature. To put it in very general terms, insurance is a better framework for diseases which can in principle be cured than it is for chronic conditions where future outlays are known with a great level of certainty; the latter type of disease tends to be difficult to handle in an insurance context.

People who have one disease may develop other diseases as time progresses, and having disease X may increase or decrease the risk of disease Y. People study such disease variability patterns, and have done so for years, but there’s still a lot of stuff we don’t know – here’s a recent post on these topics. Such patterns are interesting for multiple reasons. One major motivation for studying these things is that ‘different’ diseases may have common mechanisms, and the identification of these mechanisms may lead to new treatment options. A completely different motivation for studying these things relate rather to the kind of stuff covered in this post, where you instead wonder about economic aspects; for example, if the smoker stops smoking he may gain weight and eventually develop type 2 diabetes instead of developing some smoking-related condition. Is this outcome better or worse than the other? It’s important to keep in mind when evaluating changes in compensation schedules/insurance structures that diseases are not independent, and this is a problem regardless of whether you’re interested in total costs or ‘just’ direct outlays. Say you’re ‘only’ worried about outlays and you are trying to figure out if it is a good idea to deny coverage to smokers, and you know that ex-smokers are likely to gain weight and have an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Then the relevant change in cost is not the money you save on smoking-related illness, it’s the cost change you arrive at when after you account for those savings also account for the increased cost of treating type 2 diabetes. Disease interdependencies are probably as complex as risk factor interdependencies – the two phenomena are to some extent representing the same basic phenomenon – so this makes true cost evaluation even harder than it already was. Not all relevant costs at the societal level are of course medical costs; if people live longer, and they rely partly on a pension scheme to which they are no longer contributing, that cost is also relevant.

If a group of people who live longer cost more than a group of people who do not live as long, and you need to cover the associated shortfall, then – as we concluded in the beginning – there are really only two ways to handle this: Make them pay more than the people who do not live as long, or make the people who do not live as long pay more to cover the shortfall. Another way to look at this is that in this situation you can either tax people ‘for not living long enough’, or you can tax people for ‘not dying at the appropriate time’. On the other hand (?), if a group of people who die early turns out to be the higher-cost group in the relevant comparison (perhaps because they have shorter working lives and so pay into the system for a shorter amount of time), then you can deal with this problem by… either taxing them for ‘not living long enough’ or by punishing the people who live long lives for ‘not dying at the appropriate time’. No, of course it doesn’t matter which group is high cost, the solution mechanism is the same in both cases – make one of the groups pay more. And every time you tweak things you change the incentives of various people, and implicit effects like these hide somewhere in the background.

March 31, 2017 Posted by | Cancer/oncology, Diabetes, Economics, health care, rambling nonsense | Leave a comment

Random stuff

It’s been a long time since I last posted one of these posts, so a great number of links of interest has accumulated in my bookmarks. I intended to include a large number of these in this post and this of course means that I surely won’t cover each specific link included in this post in anywhere near the amount of detail it deserves, but that can’t be helped.

i. Autism Spectrum Disorder Grown Up: A Chart Review of Adult Functioning.

“For those diagnosed with ASD in childhood, most will become adults with a significant degree of disability […] Seltzer et al […] concluded that, despite considerable heterogeneity in social outcomes, “few adults with autism live independently, marry, go to college, work in competitive jobs or develop a large network of friends”. However, the trend within individuals is for some functional improvement over time, as well as a decrease in autistic symptoms […]. Some authors suggest that a sub-group of 15–30% of adults with autism will show more positive outcomes […]. Howlin et al. (2004), and Cederlund et al. (2008) assigned global ratings of social functioning based on achieving independence, friendships/a steady relationship, and education and/or a job. These two papers described respectively 22% and 27% of groups of higher functioning (IQ above 70) ASD adults as attaining “Very Good” or “Good” outcomes.”

“[W]e evaluated the adult outcomes for 45 individuals diagnosed with ASD prior to age 18, and compared this with the functioning of 35 patients whose ASD was identified after 18 years. Concurrent mental illnesses were noted for both groups. […] Comparison of adult outcome within the group of subjects diagnosed with ASD prior to 18 years of age showed significantly poorer functioning for those with co-morbid Intellectual Disability, except in the domain of establishing intimate relationships [my emphasis. To make this point completely clear, one way to look at these results is that apparently in the domain of partner-search autistics diagnosed during childhood are doing so badly in general that being intellectually disabled on top of being autistic is apparently conferring no additional disadvantage]. Even in the normal IQ group, the mean total score, i.e. the sum of the 5 domains, was relatively low at 12.1 out of a possible 25. […] Those diagnosed as adults had achieved significantly more in the domains of education and independence […] Some authors have described a subgroup of 15–27% of adult ASD patients who attained more positive outcomes […]. Defining an arbitrary adaptive score of 20/25 as “Good” for our normal IQ patients, 8 of thirty four (25%) of those diagnosed as adults achieved this level. Only 5 of the thirty three (15%) diagnosed in childhood made the cutoff. (The cut off was consistent with a well, but not superlatively, functioning member of society […]). None of the Intellectually Disabled ASD subjects scored above 10. […] All three groups had a high rate of co-morbid psychiatric illnesses. Depression was particularly frequent in those diagnosed as adults, consistent with other reports […]. Anxiety disorders were also prevalent in the higher functioning participants, 25–27%. […] Most of the higher functioning ASD individuals, whether diagnosed before or after 18 years of age, were functioning well below the potential implied by their normal range intellect.”

Related papers: Social Outcomes in Mid- to Later Adulthood Among Individuals Diagnosed With Autism and Average Nonverbal IQ as Children, Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorders.

ii. Premature mortality in autism spectrum disorder. This is a Swedish matched case cohort study. Some observations from the paper:

“The aim of the current study was to analyse all-cause and cause-specific mortality in ASD using nationwide Swedish population-based registers. A further aim was to address the role of intellectual disability and gender as possible moderators of mortality and causes of death in ASD. […] Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for a population-based cohort of ASD probands (n = 27 122, diagnosed between 1987 and 2009) compared with gender-, age- and county of residence-matched controls (n = 2 672 185). […] During the observed period, 24 358 (0.91%) individuals in the general population died, whereas the corresponding figure for individuals with ASD was 706 (2.60%; OR = 2.56; 95% CI 2.38–2.76). Cause-specific analyses showed elevated mortality in ASD for almost all analysed diagnostic categories. Mortality and patterns for cause-specific mortality were partly moderated by gender and general intellectual ability. […] Premature mortality was markedly increased in ASD owing to a multitude of medical conditions. […] Mortality was significantly elevated in both genders relative to the general population (males: OR = 2.87; females OR = 2.24)”.

“Individuals in the control group died at a mean age of 70.20 years (s.d. = 24.16, median = 80), whereas the corresponding figure for the entire ASD group was 53.87 years (s.d. = 24.78, median = 55), for low-functioning ASD 39.50 years (s.d. = 21.55, median = 40) and high-functioning ASD 58.39 years (s.d. = 24.01, median = 63) respectively. […] Significantly elevated mortality was noted among individuals with ASD in all analysed categories of specific causes of death except for infections […] ORs were highest in cases of mortality because of diseases of the nervous system (OR = 7.49) and because of suicide (OR = 7.55), in comparison with matched general population controls.”

iii. Adhesive capsulitis of shoulder. This one is related to a health scare I had a few months ago. A few quotes:

Adhesive capsulitis (also known as frozen shoulder) is a painful and disabling disorder of unclear cause in which the shoulder capsule, the connective tissue surrounding the glenohumeral joint of the shoulder, becomes inflamed and stiff, greatly restricting motion and causing chronic pain. Pain is usually constant, worse at night, and with cold weather. Certain movements or bumps can provoke episodes of tremendous pain and cramping. […] People who suffer from adhesive capsulitis usually experience severe pain and sleep deprivation for prolonged periods due to pain that gets worse when lying still and restricted movement/positions. The condition can lead to depression, problems in the neck and back, and severe weight loss due to long-term lack of deep sleep. People who suffer from adhesive capsulitis may have extreme difficulty concentrating, working, or performing daily life activities for extended periods of time.”

Some other related links below:

The prevalence of a diabetic condition and adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder.
“Adhesive capsulitis is characterized by a progressive and painful loss of shoulder motion of unknown etiology. Previous studies have found the prevalence of adhesive capsulitis to be slightly greater than 2% in the general population. However, the relationship between adhesive capsulitis and diabetes mellitus (DM) is well documented, with the incidence of adhesive capsulitis being two to four times higher in diabetics than in the general population. It affects about 20% of people with diabetes and has been described as the most disabling of the common musculoskeletal manifestations of diabetes.”

Adhesive Capsulitis (review article).
“Patients with type I diabetes have a 40% chance of developing a frozen shoulder in their lifetimes […] Dominant arm involvement has been shown to have a good prognosis; associated intrinsic pathology or insulin-dependent diabetes of more than 10 years are poor prognostic indicators.15 Three stages of adhesive capsulitis have been described, with each phase lasting for about 6 months. The first stage is the freezing stage in which there is an insidious onset of pain. At the end of this period, shoulder ROM [range of motion] becomes limited. The second stage is the frozen stage, in which there might be a reduction in pain; however, there is still restricted ROM. The third stage is the thawing stage, in which ROM improves, but can take between 12 and 42 months to do so. Most patients regain a full ROM; however, 10% to 15% of patients suffer from continued pain and limited ROM.”

Musculoskeletal Complications in Type 1 Diabetes.
“The development of periarticular thickening of skin on the hands and limited joint mobility (cheiroarthropathy) is associated with diabetes and can lead to significant disability. The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence of cheiroarthropathy in the well-characterized Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) cohort and examine associated risk factors […] This cross-sectional analysis was performed in 1,217 participants (95% of the active cohort) in EDIC years 18/19 after an average of 24 years of follow-up. Cheiroarthropathy — defined as the presence of any one of the following: adhesive capsulitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, flexor tenosynovitis, Dupuytren’s contracture, or a positive prayer sign [related link] — was assessed using a targeted medical history and standardized physical examination. […] Cheiroarthropathy was present in 66% of subjects […] Cheiroarthropathy is common in people with type 1 diabetes of long duration (∼30 years) and is related to longer duration and higher levels of glycemia. Clinicians should include cheiroarthropathy in their routine history and physical examination of patients with type 1 diabetes because it causes clinically significant functional disability.”

Musculoskeletal disorders in diabetes mellitus: an update.
“Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with several musculoskeletal disorders. […] The exact pathophysiology of most of these musculoskeletal disorders remains obscure. Connective tissue disorders, neuropathy, vasculopathy or combinations of these problems, may underlie the increased incidence of musculoskeletal disorders in DM. The development of musculoskeletal disorders is dependent on age and on the duration of DM; however, it has been difficult to show a direct correlation with the metabolic control of DM.”

Rheumatic Manifestations of Diabetes Mellitus.

Prevalence of symptoms and signs of shoulder problems in people with diabetes mellitus.

Musculoskeletal Disorders of the Hand and Shoulder in Patients with Diabetes.
“In addition to micro- and macroangiopathic complications, diabetes mellitus is also associated with several musculoskeletal disorders of the hand and shoulder that can be debilitating (1,2). Limited joint mobility, also termed diabetic hand syndrome or cheiropathy (3), is characterized by skin thickening over the dorsum of the hands and restricted mobility of multiple joints. While this syndrome is painless and usually not disabling (2,4), other musculoskeletal problems occur with increased frequency in diabetic patients, including Dupuytren’s disease [“Dupuytren’s disease […] may be observed in up to 42% of adults with diabetes mellitus, typically in patients with long-standing T1D” – link], carpal tunnel syndrome [“The prevalence of [carpal tunnel syndrome, CTS] in patients with diabetes has been estimated at 11–30 % […], and is dependent on the duration of diabetes. […] Type I DM patients have a high prevalence of CTS with increasing duration of disease, up to 85 % after 54 years of DM” – link], palmar flexor tenosynovitis or trigger finger [“The incidence of trigger finger [/stenosing tenosynovitis] is 7–20 % of patients with diabetes comparing to only about 1–2 % in nondiabetic patients” – link], and adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder (5–10). The association of adhesive capsulitis with pain, swelling, dystrophic skin, and vasomotor instability of the hand constitutes the “shoulder-hand syndrome,” a rare but potentially disabling manifestation of diabetes (1,2).”

“The prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders was greater in diabetic patients than in control patients (36% vs. 9%, P < 0.01). Adhesive capsulitis was present in 12% of the diabetic patients and none of the control patients (P < 0.01), Dupuytren’s disease in 16% of diabetic and 3% of control patients (P < 0.01), and flexor tenosynovitis in 12% of diabetic and 2% of control patients (P < 0.04), while carpal tunnel syndrome occurred in 12% of diabetic patients and 8% of control patients (P = 0.29). Musculoskeletal disorders were more common in patients with type 1 diabetes than in those with type 2 diabetes […]. Forty-three patients [out of 100] with type 1 diabetes had either hand or shoulder disorders (37 with hand disorders, 6 with adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder, and 10 with both syndromes), compared with 28 patients [again out of 100] with type 2 diabetes (24 with hand disorders, 4 with adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder, and 3 with both syndromes, P = 0.03).”

Association of Diabetes Mellitus With the Risk of Developing Adhesive Capsulitis of the Shoulder: A Longitudinal Population-Based Followup Study.
“A total of 78,827 subjects with at least 2 ambulatory care visits with a principal diagnosis of DM in 2001 were recruited for the DM group. The non-DM group comprised 236,481 age- and sex-matched randomly sampled subjects without DM. […] During a 3-year followup period, 946 subjects (1.20%) in the DM group and 2,254 subjects (0.95%) in the non-DM group developed ACS. The crude HR of developing ACS for the DM group compared to the non-DM group was 1.333 […] the association between DM and ACS may be explained at least in part by a DM-related chronic inflammatory process with increased growth factor expression, which in turn leads to joint synovitis and subsequent capsular fibrosis.”

It is important to note when interpreting the results of the above paper that these results are based on Taiwanese population-level data, and type 1 diabetes – which is obviously the high-risk diabetes subgroup in this particular context – is rare in East Asian populations (as observed in Sperling et al., “A child in Helsinki, Finland is almost 400 times more likely to develop diabetes than a child in Sichuan, China”. Taiwanese incidence of type 1 DM in children is estimated at ~5 in 100.000).

iv. Parents who let diabetic son starve to death found guilty of first-degree murder. It’s been a while since I last saw one of these ‘boost-your-faith-in-humanity’-cases, but they in my impression do pop up every now and then. I should probably keep at hand one of these articles in case my parents ever express worry to me that they weren’t good parents; they could have done a lot worse…

v. Freedom of medicine. One quote from the conclusion of Cochran’s post:

“[I]t is surely possible to materially improve the efficacy of drug development, of medical research as a whole. We’re doing better than we did 500 years ago – although probably worse than we did 50 years ago. But I would approach it by learning as much as possible about medical history, demographics, epidemiology, evolutionary medicine, theory of senescence, genetics, etc. Read Koch, not Hayek. There is no royal road to medical progress.”

I agree, and I was considering including some related comments and observations about health economics in this post – however I ultimately decided against doing that in part because the post was growing unwieldy; I might include those observations in another post later on. Here’s another somewhat older Westhunt post I at some point decided to bookmark – I in particular like the following neat quote from the comments, which expresses a view I have of course expressed myself in the past here on this blog:

“When you think about it, falsehoods, stupid crap, make the best group identifiers, because anyone might agree with you when you’re obviously right. Signing up to clear nonsense is a better test of group loyalty. A true friend is with you when you’re wrong. Ideally, not just wrong, but barking mad, rolling around in your own vomit wrong.”

vi. Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S. in 2012.

“Approximately 59% of all health care expenditures attributed to diabetes are for health resources used by the population aged 65 years and older, much of which is borne by the Medicare program […]. The population 45–64 years of age incurs 33% of diabetes-attributed costs, with the remaining 8% incurred by the population under 45 years of age. The annual attributed health care cost per person with diabetes […] increases with age, primarily as a result of increased use of hospital inpatient and nursing facility resources, physician office visits, and prescription medications. Dividing the total attributed health care expenditures by the number of people with diabetes, we estimate the average annual excess expenditures for the population aged under 45 years, 45–64 years, and 65 years and above, respectively, at $4,394, $5,611, and $11,825.”

“Our logistic regression analysis with NHIS data suggests that diabetes is associated with a 2.4 percentage point increase in the likelihood of leaving the workforce for disability. This equates to approximately 541,000 working-age adults leaving the workforce prematurely and 130 million lost workdays in 2012. For the population that leaves the workforce early because of diabetes-associated disability, we estimate that their average daily earnings would have been $166 per person (with the amount varying by demographic). Presenteeism accounted for 30% of the indirect cost of diabetes. The estimate of a 6.6% annual decline in productivity attributed to diabetes (in excess of the estimated decline in the absence of diabetes) equates to 113 million lost workdays per year.”

vii. Total red meat intake of ≥0.5 servings/d does not negatively influence cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systemically searched meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

viii. Effect of longer term modest salt reduction on blood pressure: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Did I blog this paper at some point in the past? I could not find any coverage of it on the blog when I searched for it so I decided to include it here, even if I have a nagging suspicion I may have talked about these findings before. What did they find? The short version is this:

“A modest reduction in salt intake for four or more weeks causes significant and, from a population viewpoint, important falls in blood pressure in both hypertensive and normotensive individuals, irrespective of sex and ethnic group. Salt reduction is associated with a small physiological increase in plasma renin activity, aldosterone, and noradrenaline and no significant change in lipid concentrations. These results support a reduction in population salt intake, which will lower population blood pressure and thereby reduce cardiovascular disease.”

ix. Some wikipedia links:

Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration (featured).

Wien’s displacement law.

Kuiper belt (featured).

Treason (one quote worth including here: “Currently, the consensus among major Islamic schools is that apostasy (leaving Islam) is considered treason and that the penalty is death; this is supported not in the Quran but in the Hadith.[42][43][44][45][46][47]“).

Lymphatic filariasis.

File:World map of countries by number of cigarettes smoked per adult per year.

Australian gold rushes.

Savant syndrome (“It is estimated that 10% of those with autism have some form of savant abilities”). A small sidenote of interest to Danish readers: The Danish Broadcasting Corporation recently featured a series about autistics with ‘special abilities’ – the show was called ‘The hidden talents’ (De skjulte talenter), and after multiple people had nagged me to watch it I ended up deciding to do so. Most of the people in that show presumably had some degree of ‘savantism’ combined with autism at the milder end of the spectrum, i.e. Asperger’s. I was somewhat conflicted about what to think about the show and did consider blogging it in detail (in Danish?), but I decided against it. However I do want to add here to Danish readers reading along who’ve seen the show that they would do well to repeatedly keep in mind that a) the great majority of autistics do not have abilities like these, b) many autistics with abilities like these presumably do quite poorly, and c) that many autistics have even greater social impairments than do people like e.g. (the very likeable, I have to add…) Louise Wille from the show).

Quark–gluon plasma.

Simo Häyhä.

Chernobyl liquidators.

Black Death (“Over 60% of Norway’s population died in 1348–1350”).

Renault FT (“among the most revolutionary and influential tank designs in history”).

Weierstrass function (“an example of a pathological real-valued function on the real line. The function has the property of being continuous everywhere but differentiable nowhere”).

W Ursae Majoris variable.

Void coefficient. (“a number that can be used to estimate how much the reactivity of a nuclear reactor changes as voids (typically steam bubbles) form in the reactor moderator or coolant. […] Reactivity is directly related to the tendency of the reactor core to change power level: if reactivity is positive, the core power tends to increase; if it is negative, the core power tends to decrease; if it is zero, the core power tends to remain stable. […] A positive void coefficient means that the reactivity increases as the void content inside the reactor increases due to increased boiling or loss of coolant; for example, if the coolant acts as a neutron absorber. If the void coefficient is large enough and control systems do not respond quickly enough, this can form a positive feedback loop which can quickly boil all the coolant in the reactor. This happened in the RBMK reactor that was destroyed in the Chernobyl disaster.”).

Gregor MacGregor (featured) (“a Scottish soldier, adventurer, and confidence trickster […] MacGregor’s Poyais scheme has been called one of the most brazen confidence tricks in history.”).

Stimming.

Irish Civil War.

March 10, 2017 Posted by | Astronomy, autism, Cardiology, Diabetes, Economics, Epidemiology, History, Infectious disease, Mathematics, Medicine, Papers, Physics, Psychology, Random stuff, Wikipedia | Leave a comment

Diabetes and the brain (IV)

Here’s one of my previous posts in the series about the book. In this post I’ll cover material dealing with two acute hyperglycemia-related diabetic complications (DKA and HHS – see below…) as well as multiple topics related to diabetes and stroke. I’ll start out with a few quotes from the book about DKA and HHS:

“DKA [diabetic ketoacidosis] is defined by a triad of hyperglycemia, ketosis, and acidemia and occurs in the absolute or near-absolute absence of insulin. […] DKA accounts for the bulk of morbidity and mortality in children with T1DM. National population-based studies estimate DKA mortality at 0.15% in the United States (4), 0.18–0.25% in Canada (4, 5), and 0.31% in the United Kingdom (6). […] Rates reach 25–67% in those who are newly diagnosed (4, 8, 9). The rates are higher in younger children […] The risk of DKA among patients with pre-existing diabetes is 1–10% annual per person […] DKA can present with mild-to-severe symptoms. […] polyuria and polydipsia […] patients may present with signs of dehydration, such as tachycardia and dry mucus membranes. […] Vomiting, abdominal pain, malaise, and weight loss are common presenting symptoms […] Signs related to the ketoacidotic state include hyperventilation with deep breathing (Kussmaul’s respiration) which is a compensatory respiratory response to an underlying metabolic acidosis. Acetonemia may cause a fruity odor to the breath. […] Elevated glucose levels are almost always present; however, euglycemic DKA has been described (19). Anion-gap metabolic acidosis is the hallmark of this condition and is caused by elevated ketone bodies.”

“Clinically significant cerebral edema occurs in approximately 1% of patients with diabetic ketoacidosis […] DKA-related cerebral edema may represent a continuum. Mild forms resulting in subtle edema may result in modest mental status abnormalities whereas the most severe manifestations result in overt cerebral injury. […] Cerebral edema typically presents 4–12 h after the treatment for DKA is started (28, 29), but can occur at any time. […] Increased intracranial pressure with cerebral edema has been recognized as the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in pediatric patients with DKA (59). Mortality from DKA-related cerebral edema in children is high, up to 90% […] and accounts for 60–90% of the mortality seen in DKA […] many patients are left with major neurological deficits (28, 31, 35).”

“The hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS) is also an acute complication that may occur in patients with diabetes mellitus. It is seen primarily in patients with T2DM and has previously been referred to as “hyperglycemic hyperosmolar non-ketotic coma” or “hyperglycemic hyperosmolar non-ketotic state” (13). HHS is marked by profound dehydration and hyperglycemia and often by some degree of neurological impairment. The term hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state is used because (1) ketosis may be present and (2) there may be varying degrees of altered sensorium besides coma (13). Like DKA, the basic underlying disorder is inadequate circulating insulin, but there is often enough insulin to inhibit free fatty acid mobilization and ketoacidosis. […] Up to 20% of patients diagnosed with HHS do not have a previous history of diabetes mellitus (14). […] Kitabchi et al. estimated the rate of hospital admissions due to HHS to be lower than DKA, accounting for less than 1% of all primary diabetic admissions (13). […] Glucose levels rise in the setting of relative insulin deficiency. The low levels of circulating insulin prevent lipolysis, ketogenesis, and ketoacidosis (62) but are unable to suppress hyperglycemia, glucosuria, and water losses. […] HHS typically presents with one or more precipitating factors, similar to DKA. […] Acute infections […] account for approximately 32–50% of precipitating causes (13). […] The mortality rates for HHS vary between 10 and 20% (14, 93).”

It should perhaps be noted explicitly that the mortality rates for these complications are particularly high in the settings of either very young individuals (DKA) or in elderly individuals (HHS) who might have multiple comorbidities. Relatedly HHS often develops acutely specifically in settings where the precipitating factor is something really unpleasant like pneumonia or a cardiovascular event, so a high-ish mortality rate is perhaps not that surprising. Nor is it surprising that very young brains are particularly vulnerable in the context of DKA (I already discussed some of the research on these matters in some detail in an earlier post about this book).

This post to some extent covered the topic of ‘stroke in general’, however I wanted to include here also some more data specifically on diabetes-related matters about this topic. Here’s a quote to start off with:

“DM [Diabetes Mellitus] has been consistently shown to represent a strong independent risk factor of ischemic stroke. […] The contribution of hyperglycemia to increased stroke risk is not proven. […] the relationship between hyperglycemia and stroke remains subject of debate. In this respect, the association between hyperglycemia and cerebrovascular disease is established less strongly than the association between hyperglycemia and coronary heart disease. […] The course of stroke in patients with DM is characterized by higher mortality, more severe disability, and higher recurrence rate […] It is now well accepted that the risk of stroke in individuals with DM is equal to that of individuals with a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, but no DM (24–26). This was confirmed in a recently published large retrospective study which enrolled all inhabitants of Denmark (more than 3 million people out of whom 71,802 patients with DM) and were followed-up for 5 years. In men without DM the incidence of stroke was 2.5 in those without and 7.8% in those with prior myocardial infarction, whereas in patients with DM it was 9.6 in those without and 27.4% in those with history of myocardial infarction. In women the numbers were 2.5, 9.0, 10.0, and 14.2%, respectively (22).

That study incidentally is very nice for me in particular to know about, given that I am a Danish diabetic. I do not here face any of the usual tiresome questions about ‘external validity’ and issues pertaining to ‘extrapolating out of sample’ – not only is it quite likely I’ve actually looked at some of the data used in that analysis myself, I also know that I am almost certainly one of the people included in the analysis. Of course you need other data as well to assess risk (e.g. age, see the previously linked post), but this is pretty clean as far as it goes. Moving on…

“The number of deaths from stroke attributable to DM is highest in low-and-middle-income countries […] the relative risk conveyed by DM is greater in younger subjects […] It is not well known whether type 1 or type 2 DM affects stroke risk differently. […] In the large cohort of women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study (116,316 women followed for up to 26 years) it was shown that the incidence of total stroke was fourfold higher in women with type 1 DM and twofold higher among women with type 2 DM than for non-diabetic women (33). […] The impact of DM duration as a stroke risk factor has not been clearly defined. […] In this context it is important to note that the actual duration of type 2 DM is difficult to determine precisely […and more generally: “the date of onset of a certain chronic disease is a quantity which is not defined as precisely as mortality“, as Yashin et al. put it – I also talked about this topic in my previous post, but it’s important when you’re looking at these sorts of things and is worth reiterating – US]. […] Traditional risk factors for stroke such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and previous myocardial infarction are more common in people with DM […]. However, the impact of DM on stroke is not just due to the higher prevalence of these risk factors, as the risk of mortality and morbidity remains over twofold increased after correcting for these factors (4, 37). […] It is informative to distinguish between factors that are non-specific and specific to DM. DM-specific factors, including chronic hyperglycemia, DM duration, DM type and complications, and insulin resistance, may contribute to an elevated stroke risk either by amplification of the harmful effect of other “classical” non-specific risk factors, such as hypertension, or by acting independently.”

More than a few variables are known to impact stroke risk, but the fact that many of the risk factors are related to each other (‘fat people often also have high blood pressure’) makes it hard to figure out which variables are most important, how they interact with each other, etc., etc. One might in that context perhaps conceptualize the metabolic syndrome (-MS) as a sort of indicator variable indicating whether a relatively common set of such related potential risk factors of interest are present or not – it is worth noting in that context that the authors include in the text the observation that: “it is yet uncertain if the whole concept of the MS entails more than its individual components. The clustering of risk factors complicates the assessment of the contribution of individual components to the risk of vascular events, as well as assessment of synergistic or interacting effects.” MS confers a two-threefold increased stroke risk, depending on the definition and the population analyzed, so there’s definitely some relevant stuff included in that box, but in the context of developing new treatment options and better assess risk it might be helpful to – to put it simplistically – know if variable X is significantly more important than variable Y (and how the variables interact, etc., etc.). But this sort of information is hard to get.

There’s more than one type of stroke, and the way diabetes modifies the risk of various stroke types is not completely clear:

“Most studies have consistently shown that DM is an important risk factor for ischemic stroke, while the incidence of hemorrhagic stroke in subjects with DM does not seem to be increased. Consequently, the ratio of ischemic to hemorrhagic stroke is higher in patients with DM than in those stroke patients without DM [recall the base rates I’ve mentioned before in the coverage of this book: 80% of strokes are ischemic strokes in Western countries, and 15 % hemorrhagic] […] The data regarding an association between DM and the risk of hemorrhagic stroke are quite conflicting. In the most series no increased risk of cerebral hemorrhage was found (10, 101), and in the Copenhagen Stroke Registry, hemorrhagic stroke was even six times less frequent in diabetic patients than in non-diabetic subjects (102). […] However, in another prospective population-based study DM was associated with an increased risk of primary intracerebral hemorrhage (103). […] The significance of DM as a risk factor of hemorrhagic stroke could differ depending on ethnicity of subjects or type of DM. In the large Nurses’ Health Study type 1 DM increased the risk of hemorrhagic stroke by 3.8 times while type 2 DM did not increase such a risk (96). […] It is yet unclear if DM predominantly predisposes to either large or small vessel ischemic stroke. Nevertheless, lacunar stroke (small, less than 15mm in diameter infarction, cyst-like, frequently multiple) is considered to be the typical type of stroke in diabetic subjects (105–107), and DM may be present in up to 28–43% of patients with cerebral lacunar infarction (108–110).”

The Danish results mentioned above might not be as useful to me as they were before if the type is important, because the majority of those diabetics included were type 2 diabetics. I know from personal experience that it is difficult to type-identify diabetics using the Danish registry data available if you want to work with population-level data, and any type of scheme attempting this will be subject to potentially large misidentification problems. Some subgroups can be presumably correctly identified using diagnostic codes, but a very large number of individuals will be left out of the analyses if you only rely on identification strategies where you’re (at least reasonably?) certain about the type. I’ve worked on these identification problems during my graduate work so perhaps a few more things are worth mentioning here. In the context of diabetic subgroup analyses, misidentification is in general a much larger problem in the context of type 1 results than in the context of type 2 results; unless the study design takes the large prevalence difference of the two conditions into account, the type 1 sample will be much smaller than the type 2 sample in pretty much all analytical contexts, so a small number of misidentified type 2 individuals can have large impacts on the results of the type 1 sample. Type 1s misidentified as type 2 individuals is in general to be expected to be a much smaller problem in terms of the validity of the type 2 analysis; misidentification of that type will cause a loss of power in the context of the type 1 subgroup analysis, which is already low to start with (and it’ll also make the type 1 subgroup analysis even more vulnerable to misidentified type 2s), but it won’t much change the results of the type 2 subgroup analysis in any significant way. Relatedly, even if enough type 2 patients are misidentified to cause problems with the interpretation of the type 1 subgroup analysis, this would not on its own be a good reason to doubt the results of the type 2 subgroup analysis. Another thing to note in terms of these things is that given that misidentification will tend to lead to ‘mixing’, i.e. it’ll make the subgroup results look similar, when outcomes are not similar in the type 1 and the type 2 individuals then this might be taken to be an indicator that something potentially interesting might be going on, because most analyses will struggle with some level of misidentification which will tend to reduce the power of tests of group differences.

What about stroke outcomes? A few observations were included on that topic above, but the book has a lot more stuff on that – some observations on this topic:

“DM is an independent risk factor of death from stroke […]. Tuomilehto et al. (35) calculated that 16% of all stroke mortality in men and 33% in women could be directly attributed to DM. Patients with DM have higher hospital and long-term stroke mortality, more pronounced residual neurological deficits, and more severe disability after acute cerebrovascular accidents […]. The 1-year mortality rate, for example, was twofold higher in diabetic patients compared to non-diabetic subjects (50% vs. 25%) […]. Only 20% of people with DM survive over 5 years after the first stroke and half of these patients die within the first year (36, 128). […] The mechanisms underlying the worse outcome of stroke in diabetic subjects are not fully understood. […] Regarding prevention of stroke in patients with DM, it may be less relevant than in non-DM subjects to distinguish between primary and secondary prevention as all patients with DM are considered to be high-risk subjects regardless of the history of cerebrovascular accidents or the presence of clinical and subclinical vascular lesions. […] The influence of the mode of antihyperglycemic treatment on the risk of stroke is uncertain.

Control of blood pressure is very important in the diabetic setting:

“There are no doubts that there is a linear relation between elevated systolic blood pressure and the risk of stroke, both in people with or without DM. […] Although DM and arterial hypertension represent significant independent risk factors for stroke if they co-occur in the same patient the risk increases dramatically. A prospective study of almost 50 thousand subjects in Finland followed up for 19 years revealed that the hazard ratio for stroke incidence was 1.4, 2.0, 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 and for stroke mortality was 1.5, 2.6, 3.1, 5.6, and 9.3, respectively, in subjects with an isolated modestly elevated blood pressure (systolic 140–159/diastolic 90–94 mmHg), isolated more severe hypertension (systolic >159 mmHg, diastolic >94 mmHg, or use of antihypertensive drugs), with isolated DM only, with both DM and modestly elevated blood pressure, and with both DM and more severe hypertension, relative to subjects without either of the risk factors (168). […] it remains unclear whether some classes of antihypertensive agents provide a stronger protection against stroke in diabetic patients than others. […] effective antihypertensive treatment is highly beneficial for reduction of stroke risk in diabetic patients, but the advantages of any particular class of antihypertensive medications are not substantially proven.”

Treatment of dyslipidemia is also very important, but here it does seem to matter how you treat it:

“It seems that the beneficial effect of statins is dose-dependent. The lower the LDL level that is achieved the stronger the cardiovascular protection. […] Recently, the results of the meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials of statins in 18,686 patients with DM had been published. It was calculated that statins use in diabetic patients can result in a 21% reduction of the risk of any stroke per 1 mmol/l reduction of LDL achieved […] There is no evidence from trials that supports efficacy of fibrates for stroke prevention in diabetic patients. […] No reduction of stroke risk by fibrates was shown also in a meta-analysis of eight trials enrolled 12,249 patients with type 2 DM (204).”

Antiplatelets?

“Significant reductions in stroke risk in diabetic patients receiving antiplatelet therapy were found in large-scale controlled trials (205). It appears that based on the high incidence of stroke and prevalence of stroke risk factors in the diabetic population the benefits of routine aspirin use for primary and secondary stroke prevention outweigh its potential risk of hemorrhagic stroke especially in patients older than 30 years having at least one additional risk factor (206). […] both guidelines issued by the AHA/ADA or the ESC/EASD on the prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with DM support the use of aspirin in a dose of 50–325 mg daily for the primary prevention of stroke in subjects older than 40 years of age and additional risk factors, such as DM […] The newer antiplatelet agent, clopidogrel, was more efficacious in prevention of ischemic stroke than aspirin with greater risk reduction in the diabetic cohort especially in those treated with insulin compared to non-diabetics in CAPRIE trial (209). However, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel does not appear to be more efficacious and safe compared to clopidogrel or aspirin alone”.

When you treat all risk factors aggressively, it turns out that the elevated stroke risk can be substantially reduced. Again the data on this stuff is from Denmark:

“Gaede et al. (216) have shown in the Steno 2 study that intensive multifactorial intervention aimed at correction of hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and microalbuminuria along with aspirin use resulted in a reduction of cardiovascular morbidity including non-fatal stroke […] recently the results of the extended 13.3 years follow-up of this study were presented and the reduction of cardiovascular mortality by 57% and morbidity by 59% along with the reduction of the number of non-fatal stroke (6 vs. 30 events) in intensively treated group was convincingly demonstrated (217). Antihypertensive, hypolipidemic treatment, use of aspirin should thus be recommended as either primary or secondary prevention of stroke for patients with DM.”

March 3, 2017 Posted by | Books, Cardiology, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Medicine, Neurology, Pharmacology, Statistics | Leave a comment

Biodemography of aging (I)

“The goal of this monograph is to show how questions about the connections between and among aging, health, and longevity can be addressed using the wealth of available accumulated knowledge in the field, the large volumes of genetic and non-genetic data collected in longitudinal studies, and advanced biodemographic models and analytic methods. […] This monograph visualizes aging-related changes in physiological variables and survival probabilities, describes methods, and summarizes the results of analyses of longitudinal data on aging, health, and longevity in humans performed by the group of researchers in the Biodemography of Aging Research Unit (BARU) at Duke University during the past decade. […] the focus of this monograph is studying dynamic relationships between aging, health, and longevity characteristics […] our focus on biodemography/biomedical demography meant that we needed to have an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary biodemographic perspective spanning the fields of actuarial science, biology, economics, epidemiology, genetics, health services research, mathematics, probability, and statistics, among others.”

The quotes above are from the book‘s preface. In case this aspect was not clear from the comments above, this is the kind of book where you’ll randomly encounter sentences like these:

The simplest model describing negative correlations between competing risks is the multivariate lognormal frailty model. We illustrate the properties of such model for the bivariate case.

“The time-to-event sub-model specifies the latent class-specific expressions for the hazard rates conditional on the vector of biomarkers Yt and the vector of observed covariates X …”

…which means that some parts of the book are really hard to blog; it simply takes more effort to deal with this stuff here than it’s worth. As a result of this my coverage of the book will not provide a remotely ‘balanced view’ of the topics covered in it; I’ll skip a lot of the technical stuff because I don’t think it makes much sense to cover specific models and algorithms included in the book in detail here. However I should probably also emphasize while on this topic that although the book is in general not an easy read, it’s hard to read because ‘this stuff is complicated’, not because the authors are not trying. The authors in fact make it clear already in the preface that some chapters are more easy to read than are others and that some chapters are actually deliberately written as ‘guideposts and way-stations‘, as they put it, in order to make it easier for the reader to find the stuff in which he or she is most interested (“the interested reader can focus directly on the chapters/sections of greatest interest without having to read the entire volume“) – they have definitely given readability aspects some thought, and I very much like the book so far; it’s full of great stuff and it’s very well written.

I have had occasion to question a few of the observations they’ve made, for example I was a bit skeptical about a few of the conclusions they drew in chapter 6 (‘Medical Cost Trajectories and Onset of Age-Associated Diseases’), but this was related to what some would certainly consider to be minor details. In the chapter they describe a model of medical cost trajectories where the post-diagnosis follow-up period is 20 months; this is in my view much too short a follow-up period to draw conclusions about medical cost trajectories in the context of type 2 diabetes, one of the diseases included in the model, which I know because I’m intimately familiar with the literature on that topic; you need to look 7-10 years ahead to get a proper sense of how this variable develops over time – and it really is highly relevant to include those later years, because if you do not you may miss out on a large proportion of the total cost given that a substantial proportion of the total cost of diabetes relate to complications which tend to take some years to develop. If your cost analysis is based on a follow-up period as short as that of that model you may also on a related note draw faulty conclusions about which medical procedures and -subsidies are sensible/cost effective in the setting of these patients, because highly adherent patients may be significantly more expensive in a short run analysis like this one (they show up to their medical appointments and take their medications…) but much cheaper in the long run (…because they take their medications they don’t go blind or develop kidney failure). But as I say, it’s a minor point – this was one condition out of 20 included in the analysis they present, and if they’d addressed all the things that pedants like me might take issue with, the book would be twice as long and it would likely no longer be readable. Relatedly, the model they discuss in that chapter is far from unsalvageable; it’s just that one of the components of interest –  ‘the difference between post- and pre-diagnosis cost levels associated with an acquired comorbidity’ – in the case of at least one disease is highly unlikely to be correct (given the authors’ interpretation of the variable), because there’s some stuff of relevance which the model does not include. I found the model quite interesting, despite the shortcomings, and the results were definitely surprising. (No, the above does not in my opinion count as an example of coverage of a ‘specific model […] in detail’. Or maybe it does, but I included no equations. On reflection I probably can’t promise much more than that, sometimes the details are interesting…)

Anyway, below I’ve added some quotes from the first few chapters of the book and a few remarks along the way.

“The genetics of aging, longevity, and mortality has become the subject of intensive analyses […]. However, most estimates of genetic effects on longevity in GWAS have not reached genome-wide statistical significance (after applying the Bonferroni correction for multiple testing) and many findings remain non-replicated. Possible reasons for slow progress in this field include the lack of a biologically-based conceptual framework that would drive development of statistical models and methods for genetic analyses of data [here I was reminded of Burnham & Anderson’s coverage, in particular their criticism of mindless ‘Let the computer find out’-strategies – the authors of that chapter seem to share their skepticism…], the presence of hidden genetic heterogeneity, the collective influence of many genetic factors (each with small effects), the effects of rare alleles, and epigenetic effects, as well as molecular biological mechanisms regulating cellular functions. […] Decades of studies of candidate genes show that they are not linked to aging-related traits in a straightforward fashion (Finch and Tanzi 1997; Martin 2007). Recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have supported this finding by showing that the traits in late life are likely controlled by a relatively large number of common genetic variants […]. Further, GWAS often show that the detected associations are of tiny size (Stranger et al. 2011).”

I think this ties in well with what I’ve previously read on these and related topics – see e.g. the second-last paragraph quoted in my coverage of Richard Alexander’s book, or some of the remarks included in Roberts et al. Anyway, moving on:

“It is well known from epidemiology that values of variables describing physiological states at a given age are associated with human morbidity and mortality risks. Much less well known are the facts that not only the values of these variables at a given age, but also characteristics of their dynamic behavior during the life course are also associated with health and survival outcomes. This chapter [chapter 8 in the book, US] shows that, for monotonically changing variables, the value at age 40 (intercept), the rate of change (slope), and the variability of a physiological variable, at ages 40–60, significantly influence both health-span and longevity after age 60. For non-monotonically changing variables, the age at maximum, the maximum value, the rate of decline after reaching the maximum (right slope), and the variability in the variable over the life course may influence health-span and longevity. This indicates that such characteristics can be important targets for preventive measures aiming to postpone onsets of complex diseases and increase longevity.”

The chapter from which the quotes in the next two paragraphs are taken was completely filled with data from the Framingham Heart Study, and it was hard for me to know what to include here and what to leave out – so you should probably just consider the stuff I’ve included below as samples of the sort of observations included in that part of the coverage.

“To mediate the influence of internal or external factors on lifespan, physiological variables have to show associations with risks of disease and death at different age intervals, or directly with lifespan. For many physiological variables, such associations have been established in epidemiological studies. These include body mass index (BMI), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), pulse pressure (PP), blood glucose (BG), serum cholesterol (SCH), hematocrit (H), and ventricular rate (VR). […] the connection between BMI and mortality risk is generally J-shaped […] Although all age patterns of physiological indices are non-monotonic functions of age, blood glucose (BG) and pulse pressure (PP) can be well approximated by monotonically increasing functions for both genders. […] the average values of body mass index (BMI) increase with age (up to age 55 for males and 65 for females), and then decline for both sexes. These values do not change much between ages 50 and 70 for males and between ages 60 and 70 for females. […] Except for blood glucose, all average age trajectories of physiological indices differ between males and females. Statistical analysis confirms the significance of these differences. In particular, after age 35 the female BMI increases faster than that of males. […] [When comparing women with less than or equal to 11 years of education [‘LE’] to women with 12 or more years of education [HE]:] The average values of BG for both groups are about the same until age 45. Then the BG curve for the LE females becomes higher than that of the HE females until age 85 where the curves intersect. […] The average values of BMI in the LE group are substantially higher than those among the HE group over the entire age interval. […] The average values of BG for the HE and LE males are very similar […] However, the differences between groups are much smaller than for females.”

They also in the chapter compared individuals with short life-spans [‘SL’, died before the age of 75] and those with long life-spans [‘LL’, 100 longest-living individuals in the relevant sample] to see if the variables/trajectories looked different. They did, for example: “trajectories for the LL females are substantially different from those for the SL females in all eight indices. Specifically, the average values of BG are higher and increase faster in the SL females. The entire age trajectory of BMI for the LL females is shifted to the right […] The average values of DBP [diastolic blood pressure, US] among the SL females are higher […] A particularly notable observation is the shift of the entire age trajectory of BMI for the LL males and females to the right (towards an older age), as compared with the SL group, and achieving its maximum at a later age. Such a pattern is markedly different from that for healthy and unhealthy individuals. The latter is mostly characterized by the higher values of BMI for the unhealthy people, while it has similar ages at maximum for both the healthy and unhealthy groups. […] Physiological aging changes usually develop in the presence of other factors affecting physiological dynamics and morbidity/mortality risks. Among these other factors are year of birth, gender, education, income, occupation, smoking, and alcohol use. An important limitation of most longitudinal studies is the lack of information regarding external disturbances affecting individuals in their day-today life.”

I incidentally noted while I was reading that chapter that a relevant variable ‘lurking in the shadows’ in the context of the male and female BMI trajectories might be changing smoking habits over time; I have not looked at US data on this topic, but I do know that the smoking patterns of Danish males and females during the latter half of the last century were markedly different and changed really quite dramatically in just a few decades; a lot more males than females smoked in the 60es, whereas the proportions of male- and female smokers today are much more similar, because a lot of males have given up smoking (I refer Danish readers to this blog post which I wrote some years ago on these topics). The authors of the chapter incidentally do look a little at data on smokers and they observe that smokers’ BMI are lower than non-smokers (not surprising), and that the smokers’ BMI curve (displaying the relationship between BMI and age) grows at a slower rate than the BMI curve of non-smokers (that this was to be expected is perhaps less clear, at least to me – the authors don’t interpret these specific numbers, they just report them).

The next chapter is one of the chapters in the book dealing with the SEER data I also mentioned not long ago in the context of my coverage of Bueno et al. Some sample quotes from that chapter below:

“To better address the challenge of “healthy aging” and to reduce economic burdens of aging-related diseases, key factors driving the onset and progression of diseases in older adults must be identified and evaluated. An identification of disease-specific age patterns with sufficient precision requires large databases that include various age-specific population groups. Collections of such datasets are costly and require long periods of time. That is why few studies have investigated disease-specific age patterns among older U.S. adults and there is limited knowledge of factors impacting these patterns. […] Information collected in U.S. Medicare Files of Service Use (MFSU) for the entire Medicare-eligible population of older U.S. adults can serve as an example of observational administrative data that can be used for analysis of disease-specific age patterns. […] In this chapter, we focus on a series of epidemiologic and biodemographic characteristics that can be studied using MFSU.”

“Two datasets capable of generating national level estimates for older U.S. adults are the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registry data linked to MFSU (SEER-M) and the National Long Term Care Survey (NLTCS), also linked to MFSU (NLTCS-M). […] The SEER-M data are the primary dataset analyzed in this chapter. The expanded SEER registry covers approximately 26 % of the U.S. population. In total, the Medicare records for 2,154,598 individuals are available in SEER-M […] For the majority of persons, we have continuous records of Medicare services use from 1991 (or from the time the person reached age 65 after 1990) to his/her death. […] The NLTCS-M data contain two of the six waves of the NLTCS: namely, the cohorts of years 1994 and 1999. […] In total, 34,077 individuals were followed-up between 1994 and 1999. These individuals were given the detailed NLTCS interview […] which has information on risk factors. More than 200 variables were selected”

In short, these data sets are very large, and contain a lot of information. Here are some results/data:

“Among studied diseases, incidence rates of Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, and heart failure increased with age, while the rates of lung and breast cancers, angina pectoris, diabetes, asthma, emphysema, arthritis, and goiter became lower at advanced ages. [..] Several types of age-patterns of disease incidence could be described. The first was a monotonic increase until age 85–95, with a subsequent slowing down, leveling off, and decline at age 100. This pattern was observed for myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, ulcer, and Alzheimer’s disease. The second type had an earlier-age maximum and a more symmetric shape (i.e., an inverted U-shape) which was observed for lung and colon cancers, Parkinson’s disease, and renal failure. The majority of diseases (e.g., prostate cancer, asthma, and diabetes mellitus among them) demonstrated a third shape: a monotonic decline with age or a decline after a short period of increased rates. […] The occurrence of age-patterns with a maximum and, especially, with a monotonic decline contradicts the hypothesis that the risk of geriatric diseases correlates with an accumulation of adverse health events […]. Two processes could be operative in the generation of such shapes. First, they could be attributed to the effect of selection […] when frail individuals do not survive to advanced ages. This approach is popular in cancer modeling […] The second explanation could be related to the possibility of under-diagnosis of certain chronic diseases at advanced ages (due to both less pronounced disease symptoms and infrequent doctor’s office visits); however, that possibility cannot be assessed with the available data […this is because the data sets are based on Medicare claims – US]”

“The most detailed U.S. data on cancer incidence come from the SEER Registry […] about 60 % of malignancies are diagnosed in persons aged 65+ years old […] In the U.S., the estimated percent of cancer patients alive after being diagnosed with cancer (in 2008, by current age) was 13 % for those aged 65–69, 25 % for ages 70–79, and 22 % for ages 80+ years old (compared with 40 % of those aged younger than 65 years old) […] Diabetes affects about 21 % of the U.S. population aged 65+ years old (McDonald et al. 2009). However, while more is known about the prevalence of diabetes, the incidence of this disease among older adults is less studied. […] [In multiple previous studies] the incidence rates of diabetes decreased with age for both males and females. In the present study, we find similar patterns […] The prevalence of asthma among the U.S. population aged 65+ years old in the mid-2000s was as high as 7 % […] older patients are more likely to be underdiagnosed, untreated, and hospitalized due to asthma than individuals younger than age 65 […] asthma incidence rates have been shown to decrease with age […] This trend of declining asthma incidence with age is in agreement with our results.”

“The prevalence and incidence of Alzheimer’s disease increase exponentially with age, with the most notable rise occurring through the seventh and eight decades of life (Reitz et al. 2011). […] whereas dementia incidence continues to increase beyond age 85, the rate of increase slows down [which] suggests that dementia diagnosed at advanced ages might be related not to the aging process per se, but associated with age-related risk factors […] Approximately 1–2 % of the population aged 65+ and up to 3–5 % aged 85+ years old suffer from Parkinson’s disease […] There are few studies of Parkinsons disease incidence, especially in the oldest old, and its age patterns at advanced ages remain controversial”.

“One disadvantage of large administrative databases is that certain factors can produce systematic over/underestimation of the number of diagnosed diseases or of identification of the age at disease onset. One reason for such uncertainties is an incorrect date of disease onset. Other sources are latent disenrollment and the effects of study design. […] the date of onset of a certain chronic disease is a quantity which is not defined as precisely as mortality. This uncertainty makes difficult the construction of a unified definition of the date of onset appropriate for population studies.”

“[W]e investigated the phenomenon of multimorbidity in the U.S. elderly population by analyzing mutual dependence in disease risks, i.e., we calculated disease risks for individuals with specific pre-existing conditions […]. In total, 420 pairs of diseases were analyzed. […] For each pair, we calculated age patterns of unconditional incidence rates of the diseases, conditional rates of the second (later manifested) disease for individuals after onset of the first (earlier manifested) disease, and the hazard ratio of development of the subsequent disease in the presence (or not) of the first disease. […] three groups of interrelations were identified: (i) diseases whose risk became much higher when patients had a certain pre-existing (earlier diagnosed) disease; (ii) diseases whose risk became lower than in the general population when patients had certain pre-existing conditions […] and (iii) diseases for which “two-tail” effects were observed: i.e., when the effects are significant for both orders of disease precedence; both effects can be direct (either one of the diseases from a disease pair increases the risk of the other disease), inverse (either one of the diseases from a disease pair decreases the risk of the other disease), or controversial (one disease increases the risk of the other, but the other disease decreases the risk of the first disease from the disease pair). In general, the majority of disease pairs with increased risk of the later diagnosed disease in both orders of precedence were those in which both the pre-existing and later occurring diseases were cancers, and also when both diseases were of the same organ. […] Generally, the effect of dependence between risks of two diseases diminishes with advancing age. […] Identifying mutual relationships in age-associated disease risks is extremely important since they indicate that development of […] diseases may involve common biological mechanisms.”

“in population cohorts, trends in prevalence result from combinations of trends in incidence, population at risk, recovery, and patients’ survival rates. Trends in the rates for one disease also may depend on trends in concurrent diseases, e.g., increasing survival from CHD contributes to an increase in the cancer incidence rate if the individuals who survived were initially susceptible to both diseases.”

March 1, 2017 Posted by | Biology, Books, Cancer/oncology, Cardiology, Demographics, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Genetics, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology | Leave a comment

Diabetes and the Brain (III)

Some quotes from the book below.

Tests that are used in clinical neuropsychology in most cases examine one or more aspects of cognitive domains, which are theoretical constructs in which a multitude of cognitive processes are involved. […] By definition, a subdivision in cognitive domains is arbitrary, and many different classifications exist. […] for a test to be recommended, several criteria must be met. First, a test must have adequate reliability: the test must yield similar outcomes when applied over multiple test sessions, i.e., have good test–retest reliability. […] Furthermore, the interobserver reliability is important, in that the test must have a standardized assessment procedure and is scored in the same manner by different examiners. Second, the test must have adequate validity. Here, different forms of validity are important. Content validity is established by expert raters with respect to item formulation, item selection, etc. Construct validity refers to the underlying theoretical construct that the test is assumed to measure. To assess construct validity, both convergent and divergent validities are important. Convergent validity refers to the amount of agreement between a given test and other tests that measure the same function. In turn, a test with a good divergent validity correlates minimally with tests that measure other cognitive functions. Moreover, predictive validity (or criterion validity) is related to the degree of correlation between the test score and an external criterion, for example, the correlation between a cognitive test and functional status. […] it should be stressed that cognitive tests alone cannot be used as ultimate proof for organic brain damage, but should be used in combination with more direct measures of cerebral abnormalities, such as neuroimaging.”

“Intelligence is a theoretically ill-defined construct. In general, it refers to the ability to think in an abstract manner and solve new problems. Typically, two forms of intelligence are distinguished, crystallized intelligence (academic skills and knowledge that one has acquired during schooling) and fluid intelligence (the ability to solve new problems). Crystallized intelligence is better preserved in patients with brain disease than fluid intelligence (3). […] From a neuropsychological viewpoint, the concept of intelligence as a unitary construct (often referred to as g-factor) does not provide valuable information, since deficits in specific cognitive functions may be averaged out in the total IQ score. Thus, in most neuropsychological studies, intelligence tests are included because of specific subtests that are assumed to measure specific cognitive functions, and the performance profile is analyzed rather than considering the IQ measure as a compound score in isolation.”

“Attention is a concept that in general relates to the selection of relevant information from our environment and the suppression of irrelevant information (selective or “focused” attention), the ability to shift attention between tasks (divided attention), and to maintain a state of alertness to incoming stimuli over longer periods of time (concentration and vigilance). Many different structures in the human brain are involved in attentional processing and, consequently, disorders in attention occur frequently after brain disease or damage (21). […] Speed of information processing is not a localized cognitive function, but depends greatly on the integrity of the cerebral network as a whole, the subcortical white matter and the interhemispheric and intrahemispheric connections. It is one of the cognitive functions that clearly declines with age and it is highly susceptible to brain disease or dysfunction of any kind.”

“The MiniMental State Examination (MMSE) is a screening instrument that has been developed to determine whether older adults have cognitive impairments […] numerous studies have shown that the MMSE has poor sensitivity and specificity, as well as a low-test–retest reliability […] the MMSE has been developed to determine cognitive decline that is typical for Alzheimer’s dementia, but has been found less useful in determining cognitive decline in nondemented patients (44) or in patients with other forms of dementia. This is important since odds ratios for both vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s dementia are increased in diabetes (45). Notwithstanding this increased risk, most patients with diabetes have subtle cognitive deficits (46, 47) that may easily go undetected using gross screening instruments such as the MMSE. For research in diabetes a high sensitivity is thus especially important. […] ceiling effects in test performance often result in a lack of sensitivity. Subtle impairments are easily missed, resulting in a high proportion of false-negative cases […] In general, tests should be cognitively demanding to avoid ceiling effects in patients with mild cognitive dysfunction.[…] sensitive domains such as speed of information processing, (working) memory, attention, and executive function should be examined thoroughly in diabetes patients, whereas other domains such as language, motor function, and perception are less likely to be affected. Intelligence should always be taken into account, and confounding factors such as mood, emotional distress, and coping are crucial for the interpretation of the neuropsychological test results.”

“The life-time risk of any dementia has been estimated to be more than 1 in 5 for women and 1 in 6 for men (2). Worldwide, about 24 million people have dementia, with 4.6 million new cases of dementia every year (3). […] Dementia can be caused by various underlying diseases, the most common of which is Alzheimer’s disease (AD) accounting for roughly 70% of cases in the elderly. The second most common cause of dementia is vascular dementia (VaD), accounting for 16% of cases. Other, less common, causes include dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). […] It is estimated that both the incidence and the prevalence [of AD] double with every 5-year increase in age. Other risk factors for AD include female sex and vascular risk factors, such as diabetes, hypercholesterolaemia and hypertension […] In contrast with AD, progression of cognitive deficits [in VaD] is mostly stepwise and with an acute or subacute onset. […] it is clear that cerebrovascular disease is one of the major causes of cognitive decline. Vascular risk factors such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension have been recognized as risk factors for VaD […] Although pure vascular dementia is rare, cerebrovascular pathology is frequently observed on MRI and in pathological studies of patients clinically diagnosed with AD […] Evidence exists that AD and cerebrovascular pathology act synergistically (60).”

“In type 1 diabetes the annual prevalence of severe hypoglycemia (requiring help for recovery) is 30–40% while the annual incidence varies depending on the duration of diabetes. In insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, the frequency is lower but increases with duration of insulin therapy. […] In normal health, blood glucose is maintained within a very narrow range […] The functioning of the brain is optimal within this range; cognitive function rapidly becomes impaired when the blood glucose falls below 3.0 mmol/l (54 mg/dl) (3). Similarly, but much less dramatically, cognitive function deteriorates when the brain is exposed to high glucose concentrations” (I did not know the latter for certain, but I certainly have had my suspicions for a long time).

“When exogenous insulin is injected into a non-diabetic adult human, peripheral tissues such as skeletal muscle and adipose tissue rapidly take up glucose, while hepatic glucose output is suppressed. This causes blood glucose to fall and triggers a series of counterregulatory events to counteract the actions of insulin; this prevents a progressive decline in blood glucose and subsequently reverses the hypoglycemia. In people with insulin-treated diabetes, many of the homeostatic mechanisms that regulate blood glucose are either absent or deficient. [If you’re looking for more details on these topics, it should perhaps be noted here that Philip Cryer’s book on these topics is very nice and informative]. […] The initial endocrine response to a fall in blood glucose in non-diabetic humans is the suppression of endogenous insulin secretion. This is followed by the secretion of the principal counterregulatory hormones, glucagon and epinephrine (adrenaline) (5). Cortisol and growth hormone also contribute, but have greater importance in promoting recovery during exposure to prolonged hypoglycemia […] Activation of the peripheral sympathetic nervous system and the adrenal glands provokes the release of a copious quantity of catecholamines, epinephrine, and norepinephrine […] Glucagon is secreted from the alpha cells of the pancreatic islets, apparently in response to localized neuroglycopenia and independent of central neural control. […] The large amounts of catecholamines that are secreted in response to hypoglycemia exert other powerful physiological effects that are unrelated to counterregulation. These include major hemodynamic actions with direct effects on the heart and blood pressure. […] regional blood flow changes occur during hypoglycemia that encourages the transport of substrates to the liver for gluconeogenesis and simultaneously of glucose to the brain. Organs that have no role in the response to acute stress, such as the spleen and kidneys, are temporarily under-perfused. The mobilisation and activation of white blood cells are accompanied by hemorheological effects, promoting increased viscosity, coagulation, and fibrinolysis and may influence endothelial function (6). In normal health these acute physiological changes probably exert no harmful effects, but may acquire pathological significance in people with diabetes of long duration.”

“The more complex and attention-demanding cognitive tasks, and those that require speeded responses are more affected by hypoglycemia than simple tasks or those that do not require any time restraint (3). The overall speed of response of the brain in making decisions is slowed, yet for many tasks, accuracy is preserved at the expense of speed (8, 9). Many aspects of mental performance become impaired when blood glucose falls below 3.0 mmol/l […] Recovery of cognitive function does not occur immediately after the blood glucose returns to normal, but in some cognitive domains may be delayed for 60 min or more (3), which is of practical importance to the performance of tasks that require complex cognitive functions, such as driving. […] [the] major changes that occur during hypoglycemia – counterregulatory hormone secretion, symptom generation, and cognitive dysfunction – occur as components of a hierarchy of responses, each being triggered as the blood glucose falls to its glycemic threshold. […] In nondiabetic individuals, the glycemic thresholds are fixed and reproducible (10), but in people with diabetes, these thresholds are dynamic and plastic, and can be modified by external factors such as glycemic control or exposure to preceding (antecedent) hypoglycemia (11). Changes in the glycemic thresholds for the responses to hypoglycemia underlie the effects of the acquired hypoglycemia syndromes that can develop in people with insulin-treated diabetes […] the incidence of severe hypoglycemia in people with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes increases steadily with duration of insulin therapy […], as pancreatic beta-cell failure develops. The under-recognized risk of severe hypoglycemia in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes is of great practical importance as this group is numerically much larger than people with type 1 diabetes and encompasses many older, and some very elderly, people who may be exposed to much greater danger because they often have co-morbidities such as macrovascular disease, osteoporosis, and general frailty.”

“Hypoglycemia occurs when a mismatch develops between the plasma concentrations of glucose and insulin, particularly when the latter is inappropriately high, which is common during the night. Hypoglycemia can result when too much insulin is injected relative to oral intake of carbohydrate or when a meal is missed or delayed after insulin has been administered. Strenuous exercise can precipitate hypoglycemia through accelerated absorption of insulin and depletion of muscle glycogen stores. Alcohol enhances the risk of prolonged hypoglycemia by inhibiting hepatic gluconeogenesis, but the hypoglycemia may be delayed for several hours. Errors of dosage or timing of insulin administration are common, and there are few conditions where the efficacy of the treatment can be influenced by so many extraneous factors. The time–action profiles of different insulins can be modified by factors such as the ambient temperature or the site and depth of injection and the person with diabetes has to constantly try to balance insulin requirement with diet and exercise. It is therefore not surprising that hypoglycemia occurs so frequently. […] The lower the median blood glucose during the day, the greater the frequency
of symptomatic and biochemical hypoglycemia […] Strict glycemic control can […] induce the acquired hypoglycemia syndromes, impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (a major risk factor for severe hypoglycemia), and counterregulatory hormonal deficiencies (which interfere with blood glucose recovery). […] Severe hypoglycemia is more common at the extremes of age – in very young children and in elderly people.
[…] In type 1 diabetes the frequency of severe hypoglycemia increases with duration of diabetes (12), while in type 2 diabetes it is associated with increasing duration of insulin treatment (18). […] Around one quarter of all episodes of severe hypoglycemia result in coma […] In 10% of episodes of severe hypoglycemia affecting people with type 1 diabetes and around 30% of those in people with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, the assistance of the emergency medical services is required (23). However, most episodes (both mild and severe) are treated in the community, and few people require admission to hospital.”

“Severe hypoglycemia is potentially dangerous and has a significant mortality and morbidity, particularly in older people with insulin-treated diabetes who often have premature macrovascular disease. The hemodynamic effects of autonomic stimulation may provoke acute vascular events such as myocardial ischemia and infarction, cardiac failure, cerebral ischemia, and stroke (6). In clinical practice the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular consequences of hypoglycemia are frequently overlooked because the role of hypoglycemia in precipitating the vascular event is missed. […] The profuse secretion of catecholamines in response to hypoglycemia provokes a fall in plasma potassium and causes electrocardiographic (ECG) changes, which in some individuals may provoke a cardiac arrhythmia […]. A possible mechanism that has been observed with ECG recordings during hypoglycemia is prolongation of the QT interval […]. Hypoglycemia-induced arrhythmias during sleep have been implicated as the cause of the “dead in bed” syndrome that is recognized in young people with type 1 diabetes (40). […] Total cerebral blood flow is increased during acute hypoglycemia while regional blood flow within the brain is altered acutely. Blood flow increases in the frontal cortex, presumably as a protective compensatory mechanism to enhance the supply of available glucose to the most vulnerable part of the brain. These regional vascular changes become permanent in people who are exposed to recurrent severe hypoglycemia and in those with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia, and are then present during normoglycemia (41). This probably represents an adaptive response of the brain to recurrent exposure to neuroglycopenia. However, these permanent hypoglycemia-induced changes in regional cerebral blood flow may encourage localized neuronal ischemia, particularly if the cerebral circulation is already compromised by the development of cerebrovascular disease associated with diabetes. […] Hypoglycemia-induced EEG changes can persist for days or become permanent, particularly after recurrent severe hypoglycemia”.

“In the large British Diabetic Association Cohort Study of people who had developed type 1 diabetes before the age of 30, acute metabolic complications of diabetes were the greatest single cause of excess death under the age of 30; hypoglycemia was the cause of death in 18% of males and 6% of females in the 20–49 age group (47).”

“[The] syndromes of counterregulatory hormonal deficiencies and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) develop over a period of years and ultimately affect a substantial proportion of people with type 1 diabetes and a lesser number with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. They are considered to be components of hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure (HAAF), through down-regulation of the central mechanisms within the brain that would normally activate glucoregulatory responses to hypoglycemia, including the release of counterregulatory hormones and the generation of warning symptoms (48). […] The glucagon secretory response to hypoglycemia becomes diminished or absent within a few years of the onset of insulin-deficient diabetes. With glucagon deficiency alone, blood glucose recovery from hypoglycemia is not noticeably affected because the secretion of epinephrine maintains counterregulation. However, almost half of those who have type 1 diabetes of 20 years duration have evidence of impairment of both glucagon and epinephrine in response to hypoglycemia (49); this seriously delays blood glucose recovery and allows progression to more severe and prolonged hypoglycemia when exposed to low blood glucose. People with type 1 diabetes who have these combined counterregulatory hormonal deficiencies have a 25-fold higher risk of experiencing severe hypoglycemia if they are subjected to intensive insulin therapy compared with those who have lost their glucagon response but have retained epinephrine secretion […] Impaired awareness is not an “all or none” phenomenon. “Partial” impairment of awareness may develop, with the individual being aware of some episodes of hypoglycemia but not others (53). Alternatively, the intensity or number of symptoms may be reduced, and neuroglycopenic symptoms predominate. […] total absence of any symptoms, albeit subtle, is very uncommon […] IAH affects 20–25% of patients with type 1 diabetes (11, 55) and less than 10% with type 2 diabetes (24), becomes more prevalent with increasing duration of diabetes (12) […], and predisposes the patient to a sixfold higher risk of severe hypoglycemia than people who retain normal awareness (56). When IAH is associated with strict glycemic control during intensive insulin therapy or has followed episodes of recurrent severe hypoglycemia, it may be reversible by relaxing glycemic control or by avoiding further hypoglycemia (11), but in many patients with type 1 diabetes of long duration, it appears to be a permanent defect. […] The modern management of diabetes strives to achieve strict glycemic control using intensive therapy to avoid or minimize the long-term complications of diabetes; this strategy tends to increase the risk of hypoglycemia and promotes development of the acquired hypoglycemia syndromes.”

February 5, 2017 Posted by | Books, Cardiology, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychology | Leave a comment