The effect of diabetes mellitus on bone metabolism and bone mineral density is discussed controversially. Diabetes mellitus due to an autoimmune process seems to be associated with low turnover osteopenia either in the animal model or in children and adolescents. A number of factors are discussed as being involved, but in this age group clinical symptoms are missing. Adult patients of either sex with IDDM show a reduced bone mineral density when measured at peripheral sites such as the distal forearm or the femoral neck, diabetic complications such as neuropathy and microangiopathy seem to pronounce the deficit of bone mass. In these patients, osteopenia is accompanied by a high turnover situation of bone metabolism, possibly due to microvascular complications. In contrast, patients with NIDDM and here especially overweight women have a normal or even increased bone mineral density. Up to now, there is no convincing evidence for an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures in diabetic patients. Systemic diabetic osteopenia therefore does not seem to be of great epidemiological relevance.

Insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. While this can be partly explained by an impairment of direct insulin action on the endothelial cell, an independent contribution can be assigned also to the secretory dysfunction of the beta-cell. If the demand for insulin triggered by insulin resistance is arriving at a certain threshold, an insufficiency of the cleavage capacity of beta-cell carboxypeptidase H leads to an increased secretion of intact proinsulin in addition to the desired insulin molecule. Proinsulin, however, has been demonstrated to be an independent cardiovascular risk factor by stimulating plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 secretion and blocking fibrinolysis. A recently introduced intact proinsulin assay is able to distinguish between intact proinsulin and its specific and non-specific cleavage products. This assay allows for a pathophysiological staging of type 2 diabetes based on beta-cell secretion. It could be confirmed by a large epidemiological study (IRIS-2, 4,265 patients) that intact proinsulin is a highly specific marker for insulin resistance. It could also be shown in other studies that successful resistance treatment with insulin or glitazones led to a decrease in elevated proinsulin levels and, thus, to a decrease of cardiovascular risk, while the levels remained high during sulfonylurea therapy. Therefore, patients with increased fasting intact proinsulin values should be treated with a therapy focusing on insulin resistance. Assessment of beta-cell function by determination of intact proinsulin may facilitate the selection of the most promising therapy and may also serve to monitor treatment success in the further course of the disease.

In patients with Type 2 diabetes, well controlled with metformin monotherapy, addition of liraglutide improves several cardiovascular risk markers beyond glycaemic control.

Manual skills and dexterity differed between the groups, and age-corrected reduced skills were common in both T1DM and T2DM patients in this study. Our findings underline the importance of considering dexterity and manual skills when designing medical devices for patients with diabetes mellitus.

C o p y r i g h t I n f o r m a U K L i m i t e d 2 0 0 8 N o t f o r S a l e o r C o m e r c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n U n a u t h o r i z e d u s e p r o h i b i t e d . A u t h o r i s e d u s e r s c a n d o w n l o a d , Objective:The injection force and the patient perception of the Next Generation FlexPen* (NGFP) with design modifications aimed at reducing injection force was assessed. The accuracy and precision of the NGFP was also tested under standard conditions. Research design and methods: Dosing accuracy was tested (according to ISO 11608 requirements) at 1 IU, 30 IU and 60 IU doses (acceptable limits were 1 AE 1 IU (0-2 IU), 30 AE 1.5 IU (28.5-31.5 IU), and 60 AE 3 IU (57-63 IU)). Pens were tested at reference conditions (18-28 C and relative humidity 25-75%). Delivered doses were measured on a sensitive balance and corrected for the specific density of the insulin aspart used (according to ISO 11608-1). Precision was calculated from the variance around the mean delivered dose. The injection force of NGFP was measured, and user-preference of NGFP and FlexPen (FP) were compared in 50 patients with type 2 diabetes. Results:The mean injection force with NGFP and FP was 12.57 AE 1.81 N and 17.90 AE 1.51 N ( p < 0.001), respectively. Almost twice as many patients rated the injection force as 'good' or 'very good' with NGFP (80%, 72% and 38% when delivering 20 IU, 40 IU and 60 IU, respectively) compared with FP (48%, 32% and 20% when delivering 20 IU, 40 IU and 60 IU, respectively) and 76% of patients rated NGFP as superior, in terms of simplicity and comfort, to FP. NGFP accurately delivered the set doses (means [SD] were 0.98 [0.06] IU, 29.98 [0.18] IU, and 59.93 [0.24] IU for the 1 IU, 30 IU and 60 IU doses, respectively).Conclusions: These results show that NGFP has a 30% reduction in injection force compared with FP and was rated as 'more simple and comfortable to use' by patients. Furthermore, NGFP was as accurate and as precise as FP.