PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10649724

Optimizing diabetes management.

Abstract

Diabetes mellitus is the fastest growing cause of end-stage renal disease and an important source of comorbidity among renal patients. A better understanding of diabetic pathophysiology has contributed to the development of effective prevention or treatment of many of its complications. The systematic application of several therapeutic recommendations based on clinical evidence can significantly reduce the rate of diabetic complications and improve the quality of life of the diabetic patient. Some of the most important recommendations are: (1) meticulous glycemic control to maintain HbA1c < or = 7.2%; (2) control of arterial blood pressure to normal levels (< 130/85 mmHg); (3) tobacco abstinence; (4) avoidance of excessive protein intake in the early stages of nephropathy; (5) aggressive nutritional monitoring and support; (6) early myocardial revascularization; (7) avoidance of unnecessary use of radiographic contrast media; and (8) appropriate initiation of dialysis with adequate delivered dose. Every effort should be made to provide effective education of the patient and health professionals. We must also develop regimens that interfere minimally with lifestyles in order to improve patient compliance with therapy.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J A Diaz-Buxo. 1998. Optimizing diabetes management.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10649724/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A randomized trial comparing intensive and passive education in patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Patient education is a cornerstone of treatment in diabetes mellitus, but there is not unanimity of opinion as to how it should be delivered. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a single, intensive group educational program would improve glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels when compared with passive education. METHODS: A total of 106 patients with HbA(1c) levels greater than 8.5% were randomized to either an intensive (n = 50) or a passive education (n = 56) group. The intensive education group received 3.5 days of a structured curriculum involving a physician, nurse, nutritionist, pharmacist, exercise physiologist, and a social worker. The passive education group received material sent by mail every 3 months providing basic information on topics related to diabetes management. Patients continued care with their diabetes care provider during the study period. Levels of HbA(1c) were measured at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. A matched control group of individuals who declined participation also had HbA(1c) levels measured at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD HbA(1c) levels fell significantly (P<.001) from baseline (9.9% +/- 1.3%) in both the intensive (-2.0%) and passive (-1.9%) education groups at 12 months, and there was no difference between the groups at any evaluation time. Both groups had significantly greater decline (P<.03) in HbA(1c) levels than a matched control group (-1.2%) with similar baseline HbA(1c) levels that did not receive education. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with elevated HbA(1c) levels who were receptive to education had substantial improvement in HbA(1c) levels after receiving an educational intervention. In this population, intensive or passive methods of delivering patient education seemed to have similar effect on improving glycemic control.

Diabetes Mellitus↗