BACKGROUND: The Diabetes Management Project is investigating the clinical, behavioural and psychosocial barriers to optimal diabetes care in individuals with and without diabetic retinopathy. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and twenty-three and 374 patients without and with diabetic retinopathy, respectively. METHODS: All individuals underwent a comprehensive dilated eye test, anthropometric measurements, blood and urine samples, and psychosocial questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Good glycaemic control was defined as glycosylated haemoglobin < 7%, good blood pressure control as systolic and diastolic values ≤130 and 80 mmHg, respectively, and good diabetes control as glycosylated haemoglobin < 7% and blood pressure values ≤130 and 80 mmHg. RESULTS: Four hundred and one males (65.4%) and 212 females (34.6%) aged 26-90 years (mean age ± standard deviation = 64.6 ± 11.6) were examined. The median glycosylated haemoglobin for all participants was 7.5% (interquartile range = 1.7%). Average systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were 139.7 mmHg (standard deviation = 18.8) and 92.7 mmHg (standard deviation = 30.9), respectively. Initial data analyses indicate that over two-thirds of participants with diabetes have poor glycaemic control, which was worse in those with diabetic retinopathy compared with those without (76.3% vs. 49.3%; P < 0.001). Blood pressure control was similar for those with and without diabetic retinopathy, with almost a third (28.5%) of the total sample having poor blood pressure control. Overall, those with diabetic retinopathy had poorer diabetes control than those without (24.3% vs. 13.7%; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings substantiate the implementation of the Diabetes Management Project, developed to assess factors associated with suboptimal diabetes care.
BACKGROUND: The Diabetes Management Project is investigating the clinical, behavioural and psychosocial barriers to optimal diabetes care in individuals with and without diabetic retinopathy. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and twenty-three and 374 patients without and with diabetic retinopathy, respectively. METHODS: All individuals underwent a comprehensive dilated eye test, anthropometric measurements, blood and urine samples, and psychosocial questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Good glycaemic control was defined as glycosylated haemoglobin < 7%, good blood pressure control as systolic and diastolic values ≤130 and 80 mmHg, respectively, and good diabetes control as glycosylated haemoglobin < 7% and blood pressure values ≤130 and 80 mmHg. RESULTS: Four hundred and one males (65.4%) and 212 females (34.6%) aged 26-90 years (mean age ± standard deviation = 64.6 ± 11.6) were examined. The median glycosylated haemoglobin for all participants was 7.5% (interquartile range = 1.7%). Average systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were 139.7 mmHg (standard deviation = 18.8) and 92.7 mmHg (standard deviation = 30.9), respectively. Initial data analyses indicate that over two-thirds of participants with diabetes have poor glycaemic control, which was worse in those with diabetic retinopathy compared with those without (76.3% vs. 49.3%; P < 0.001). Blood pressure control was similar for those with and without diabetic retinopathy, with almost a third (28.5%) of the total sample having poor blood pressure control. Overall, those with diabetic retinopathy had poorer diabetes control than those without (24.3% vs. 13.7%; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings substantiate the implementation of the Diabetes Management Project, developed to assess factors associated with suboptimal diabetes care.
Authors: Daniel Shu Wei Ting; Carol Yim-Lui Cheung; Gilbert Lim; Gavin Siew Wei Tan; Nguyen D Quang; Alfred Gan; Haslina Hamzah; Renata Garcia-Franco; Ian Yew San Yeo; Shu Yen Lee; Edmund Yick Mun Wong; Charumathi Sabanayagam; Mani Baskaran; Farah Ibrahim; Ngiap Chuan Tan; Eric A Finkelstein; Ecosse L Lamoureux; Ian Y Wong; Neil M Bressler; Sobha Sivaprasad; Rohit Varma; Jost B Jonas; Ming Guang He; Ching-Yu Cheng; Gemmy Chui Ming Cheung; Tin Aung; Wynne Hsu; Mong Li Lee; Tien Yin Wong Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lawrence Blonde; Pablo Aschner; Clifford Bailey; Linong Ji; Lawrence A Leiter; Stephan Matthaei Journal: Diab Vasc Dis Res Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 3.291
Authors: Eva K Fenwick; Jing Xie; Ryan E K Man; Charumathi Sabanayagam; Lyndell Lim; Gwyn Rees; Tien Y Wong; Ecosse L Lamoureux Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 3.240