BACKGROUND We wanted to identify differences between diabetic patients who smoke and those who do not smoke to design more effective strategies to improve their diabetes care and encourage smoking cessation.METHODS A random sample of adult health plan members with diabetes were mailed a survey questionnaire, with telephone follow-up, asking about their attitudes and behaviors regarding diabetes care and smoking. Among the 1,352 respondents (response rate 82.4%), we found 188 current smokers whose answers we compared with those of 1,264 nonsmokers, with statistical adjustment for demographic characteristics and duration of diabetes. RESULTSSmokers with diabetes were more likely to report fair or poor health (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5, P = .03) and often feeling depressed (OR = 1.7, P = .004). Relative to nonsmokers, smokers had lower rates of checking blood glucose levels, were less physically active, and had fewer diabetes care visits, glycated hemoglobin (A 1c ) tests, foot examinations, eye examinations, and dental checkups (P ≤.01). Smokers also reported receiving and desiring less support from family and friends for specifi c diabetic self-management activities and had lower readiness to quit smoking than has been observed in other population groups.CONCLUSIONS Clinicians should be aware that diabetic patients who smoke are more likely to report often feeling depressed and, even after adjusting for depression, are less likely to be active in self-care or to comply with diabetes care recommendations. Diabetic patients who smoke are special clinical challenges and are likely to require more creative and consistent clinical interventions and support. INTRODUCTIONS moking has long been known to worsen the prognosis of patients with diabetes. Mulhauser' s literature review in 1990 1 concluded that the frequency of smoking in adults with diabetes was comparable to that in the general population and that smoking is a major risk factor for both macrovascular and microvascular complications. Subsequent systematic reviews have strengthened these conclusions while adding evidence that smoking increases insulin resistance, worsens diabetes control, and may even induce the disease.2,3 Many cross-sectional and prospective studies of patients who have diabetes also show that cardiovascular and all-cause mortality is higher in those who smoke than in those who do not smoke. [4][5][6][7] Thus, the 1 in 5 persons with diabetes who also smoke represent a particularly important target for intervention, both by clinicians and by policy makers in health plans and public health.Despite this information, and despite strong evidence that clinician support of smoking cessation is effective for smokers among the general population and those with diabetes, [8][9][10] only 58% of patients with diabetes who smoke reported that a physician had ever advised them to stop or cut down on their smoking. In the past, many diabetes care specialists and some professional organizations have concentrated largely on glucose-oriented diabetes ca...

Bioavailability of nitric oxide is lower in persons with a strong FH of T2D. Glycemic burden, even in the nondiabetic range, can contribute to endothelial dysfunction. Abnormalities of endothelial function may contribute to atherosclerosis before development of overt diabetes.

How can we encourage ongoing development, refinement, and evaluation of practices to identify and build an evidence base for best practices? On the basis of a review of the literature and expert input, we worked iteratively to create a framework with 2 interrelated components. The first — public health impact — consists of 5 elements: effectiveness, reach, feasibility, sustainability, and transferability. The second — quality of evidence — consists of 4 levels, ranging from weak to rigorous. At the intersection of public health impact and quality of evidence, a continuum of evidence-based practice emerges, representing the ongoing development of knowledge across 4 stages: emerging, promising, leading, and best. This conceptual framework brings together important aspects of impact and quality to provide a common lexicon and criteria for assessing and strengthening public health practice. We hope this work will invite and advance dialogue among public health practitioners and decision makers to build and strengthen a diverse evidence base for public health programs and strategies.

Structured lifestyle interventions can reduce diabetes incidence and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among persons with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), but it is unclear whether they should be implemented among persons without IGT. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions on CVD risk among adults without IGT or diabetes. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and PsychInfo databases, from inception to May 4, 2016. We selected randomized controlled trials of lifestyle interventions, involving physical activity (PA), dietary (D), or combined strategies (PA+D) with follow-up duration ≥12 months. We excluded all studies that included individuals with IGT, confirmed by 2-hours oral glucose tolerance test (75g), but included all other studies recruiting populations with different glycemic levels. We stratified studies by baseline glycemic levels: (1) low-range group with mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <5.5mmol/L or glycated hemoglobin (A1C) <5.5%, and (2) high-range group with FPG ≥5.5mmol/L or A1C ≥5.5%, and synthesized data using random-effects models. Primary outcomes in this review included systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), total cholesterol (TC), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides (TG). Totally 79 studies met inclusion criteria. Compared to usual care (UC), lifestyle interventions achieved significant improvements in SBP (-2.16mmHg[95%CI, -2.93, -1.39]), DBP (-1.83mmHg[-2.34, -1.31]), TC (-0.10mmol/L[-0.15, -0.05]), LDL-C (-0.09mmol/L[-0.13, -0.04]), HDL-C (0.03mmol/L[0.01, 0.04]), and TG (-0.08mmol/L[-0.14, -0.03]). Similar effects were observed among both low-and high-range study groups except for TC and TG. Similar effects also appeared in SBP and DBP categories regardless of follow-up duration. PA+D interventions had larger improvement effects on CVD risk factors than PA alone interventions. In adults without IGT or diabetes, lifestyle interventions resulted in significant improvements in SBP, DBP, TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, and TG, and might further reduce CVD risk.