scholarly journals Role of a registered dietitian in pediatric type 1 and type 2 diabetes

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracie J. Steinke ◽  
Elena L. O’Callahan ◽  
Jennifer L. York
2009 ◽  
Vol 88 (10) ◽  
pp. 1153-1157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie E. Inkster ◽  
Tom P. Fahey ◽  
Peter T. Donnan ◽  
Graham P. Leese ◽  
Gary J. Mires ◽  
...  

Cell Calcium ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 481-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W. Ramadan ◽  
Stephen R. Steiner ◽  
Christina M. O’Neill ◽  
Craig S. Nunemaker

1999 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 44-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Varon ◽  
Lynn Mack-Shipman

Abstract Diabetes mellitus, specifically type 2 diabetes, is one of the major public health issues facing the world in the 21st Century. This article summarizes the rapid changes in the management of diabetes and its impact on dental practice. The reader will find many “hyperlinks” to other diabetes information on the Internet throughout this article as these links provide greater detail. The incidence of type 1 diabetes has increased slowly, while that of type 2 diabetes has increased explosively. The worldwide incidence of type 2 is likely to double by the year 2010 due in large part to changing lifestyles, longer life expectancy, and rapid growth of ethnic and racial populations that have high prevalence rates. There are 15.7 million people or 5.9% of the population in the United States who have diabetes. While an estimated 10.3 million have been diagnosed, it is unfortunate that 5.4 million people are not aware they have the disease. Diabetic dental patient management strategies are presented. Dental professionals are urged to remain current in their knowledge of this disease in order to provide proper care for their patients.


Diabetes Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Martin ◽  
Elena P. Sorokin ◽  
E. Louise Thomas ◽  
Naveed Sattar ◽  
Madeleine Cule ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVE Fat content and volume of liver and pancreas are associated with risk of diabetes in observational studies; whether these associations are causal is unknown. We conducted a Mendelian randomization (MR) study to examine causality of such associations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used genetic variants associated (P < 5 × 10−8) with the exposures (liver and pancreas volume and fat content) using MRI scans of UK Biobank participants (n = 32,859). We obtained summary-level data for risk of type 1 (9,358 cases) and type 2 (55,005 cases) diabetes from the largest available genome-wide association studies. We performed inverse–variance weighted MR as main analysis and several sensitivity analyses to assess pleiotropy and to exclude variants with potential pleiotropic effects. RESULTS Observationally, liver fat and volume were associated with type 2 diabetes (odds ratio per 1 SD higher exposure 2.16 [2.02, 2.31] and 2.11 [1.96, 2.27], respectively). Pancreatic fat was associated with type 2 diabetes (1.42 [1.34, 1.51]) but not type 1 diabetes, and pancreas volume was negatively associated with type 1 diabetes (0.42 [0.36, 0.48]) and type 2 diabetes (0.73 [0.68, 0.78]). MR analysis provided evidence only for a causal role of liver fat and pancreas volume in risk of type 2 diabetes (1.27 [1.08, 1.49] or 27% increased risk and 0.76 [0.62, 0.94] or 24% decreased risk per 1SD, respectively) and no causal associations with type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS Our findings assist in understanding the causal role of ectopic fat in the liver and pancreas and of organ volume in the pathophysiology of type 1 and 2 diabetes.


2021 ◽  
pp. 286-292
Author(s):  
G. E. Runova

Glycemic control represents an integral part of diabetes mellitus (DM) therapy. It is not surprising that diabetes technology is evolving to not only create new routes of insulin administration, but also to improve the measurement of glycemia. A significant number of new glucose monitoring systems have been launched to the market over the past 10 years. Nevertheless, only 30% of patients with type 1 diabetes and very few patients with type 2 diabetes use continuous or flash glucose monitoring. The reason for this is not only the cost and technical difficulties of continuous glucose monitoring, but also its clinical appropriateness. There is indisputable evidence that patients who receive intensified insulin therapy, especially those with type 1 diabetes, need frequent self-monitoring / continuous glucose monitoring. As for patients with type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin and / or other antihyperglycemic therapy, the data received seem to be contradictory and uncertain. However, most of the recommendations simmer down to the need for self-monitoring of blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. The diabetes technology section of the American Diabetes Association guidelines 2021 goes into details about the role of self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes management, including the need for continuous patient education on the principles and rules of self-monitoring, interpretation and practical use of the results of self-monitoring, various standards of glucometers, factors affecting the accuracy of the results. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document