Cholesterol confusion and climate change

Photo by Malcolm Koo (Creative Commons)

There are two types of people in the world - those who repeatedly suggest there are two types of people in the world and those who don't.

When it comes to cholesterol and heart disease however, there seem to be three types of people in the world: Firstly those who think fat is bad, cholesterol causes heart disease and statins should basically be put in the water supply; Secondly those who suggest cholesterol is a natural healthy substance, saturated fat is fine and doesn't affect serum cholesterol anyway and that statins are at best ineffective and at worst part of an evil plot by Big Pharma to make vast sums of money and hang the consequences to anyone who takes them. Thirdly there is the group that watches the two extremes bicker and squabble. That reads report after report each debunking the other's 'evidence' shrugs our shoulders and wonders what on earth to make of it all.

You may be able to tell that I am firmly in the third group.

I have tried to write this post many times before. Almost always after the release of some study or other which shines light on it (from either direction) in a pretty conclusive way. But each time this happens, almost without fail, within a day or two I will see something else that eloquently argues exactly the opposite point of view - and I find myself back at square one. So I have given up waiting until I have made up my mind one way or another and decided to just pour it all out. To try to explain my confusion - probably mostly to myself. It will be rambling, contradictory, borderline-incoherent, and in reality I should probably re-read it and get rid of at least two thirds of it. But I'm not going to spare you that, dear reader. You will just have to suffer along with me.

At the outset it is crucial to remind you that I have absolutely NO medical expertise whatsoever. This is not advice (perish the thought!). I don't understand most of this stuff enough to apply it to my own situation, let alone anyone else's. I know people that take Statins and get on well with them. I know people that have had terrible experiences with Statins and would not touch them with a bargepole.

The last time I nearly wrote this post was April this year when I read this report of the HOPE trial. I found this particularly interesting, because it talks specifically about 'primary prevention'. That's medical shorthand for giving people some medicine to prevent a thing happening that they might be at increased risk of.

“Statins work beautifully, resulting in a high significant relative risk reduction of 25%,” said Yusuf. Further, statins were “relatively safe,” though there was a small excess in muscle pain, but not rhabdomyolysis, in the statin-treated group.

Wow! 25% less chance of heart attack or stroke. Sounds pretty worthwhile. And HOPE-3 focussed on a population at 'intermediate risk'. So these are benefits that were shown to exist even where increased risk was only fairly modest. This caught my eye because you don't have to live with type 1 diabetes for long before people start telling you that you are going to die of a heart attack. That's what does for most of us, apparently. However perky your blood glucose management is generally, living with T1 you will almost certainly be having significant glucose excursions that 'nonnys' would never have. Of course you can significantly reduce your theoretical risk by keeping a lid on your blood glucose levels and HbA1c - but therein lies the snag for people trying to view any of this research and apply it to their own situation. Risk calculators don't work if you have T1. And primary prevention studies that take a cohort of people with a UK-average HbA1c of 9% or so, might have a different risk to you as an individual depending on your own fortunes wrestling the Diabetes Gremlins. Benefit shown to those at 'intermediate risk' was certainly interesting though. I've not had a heart attack, I'd like to keep it that way and I'm getting older year by year.

I had promised my clinic that I would continue to keep an open mind about the cholesterol issue, and perhaps this was it - the primary prevention study I had needed to convince me that it was worth trying a Statin and seeing how I got on with it, in the hope that my undoubted increased risk of heart-based shenanigans might be reduced by 25%.

The elephant in the room, of course, is the term 'relative risk'. Studies, particularly Statin studies, are quite keen on using that frame of reference as it usually gives a nice Big Attention Grabbing Number. So if your risk of something happening was 0.1% and it dropped to 0.08% it might sound pretty meagre. But you could express the same change as a 20% reduction in relative risk, which sounds much more weighty. Hmmmmmmm.

Hot on it's heels, if not chronologically but more in terms of the way I stumbled across things was this rather sensationalised tabloid reference to a study by Professor Harumi Okuyama, of Nagoya City University, Japan. This time, taking Statins can actually apparently *make things worse*. Harden your arteries and increase your risk of heart attack.

This was followed swiftly by this piece by Cardiologist and confirmed Statin sceptic Dr Aseem Malhotra which raises some well-worn questions over the entire evidence-base behind cholesterol-lowering drugs and the refusal of the companies to release the raw data on side-effects.

"biased reporting in medical journals, commercial conflicts of interest and medical curricula that fail to teach doctors how to understand and communicate health statistics was contributing to an epidemic of misinformed doctors and misinformed patients."

reputed French Cardiologist Dr Michel De Lorgeril's own analysis reveals that all studies published after 2006 reveal “no benefit” of statins for cardiovascular prevention in all groups of patients.

I'm not even going to open the can of worms that links Statins prescribed to people without heart disease and a doubling of their risk of developing Type 2 Diabetes. Frankly I have enough on my plate with the diabetes I already have.

And again here, from just this week. Another article that confidently suggests nails in the coffin of the cholesterol hypothesis.

Dr John Abramson, a health policy expert from Harvard Medical School, looked at the HOPE-3 trial and told me the effects were meagre indeed: “91 people have to be treated with a statin for 5.6 years in order to prevent 1 non-fatal heart attack or stroke.” Another way to say this is 90 of the 91 people who take statins for that long won’t see a benefit (and some will experience adverse side effects).

The observant among you will be smiling that exactly the same HOPE trial mentioned above with glowing 25% reductions in risk and very low side effects is now being interpreted as having almost no effect whatever *except* the possibility of side-effects. Though of course, for the 1 person out of 91, the 'not having had a heart attack' would probably be seen as quite a benefit. I wonder how you get to know that you are that 1 person and not one of the other 90. How exactly you notice that something is not happening to you because of a tablet rather than it just not happening to all the others.

And yet... and yet... Most doctors and scientists in the world seem to remain convinced of the link between heart health and lower cholesterol.

My basic problem
Over the last 4 or 5 years I have read a number of posts and articles from people who raise questions over the whole lipid/fat/cholesterol/heart hypothesis. I know that for some of you this will ring alarming tin-foil-hat klaxons, but articles like this (higher cholesterol associated with lower mortality overall *including* heart disease) and this (what causes heart disease anyway) are an entertaining read - and I cannot help it - but they do seem make a lot of sense to me.

I know that for some (many? most?) healthcare professionals some of these characters are a sort of... well, if not exactly laughing stock - certainly not voices to be taken seriously. People who insist that everyone else has it wrong and only they know the truth. Eyes roll. "OK then, if you say so. Never mind dear."

Perhaps it is precisely because I am not medically educated, that I have not learned and trusted the basics of the 'status-quo'. I have less invested in one way of thinking about cholesterol and heart health - and so it is easier for me to read these other arguments and think, 'Well that's interesting.'

Of course, proponents of the mainstream viewpoint will point to decades of scientific research and understanding that have brought us to where we are. For them the lipid-heart hypothesis is an unshakeable fact. And this or that or the other study* has shown that lowering cholesterol really does work. Most of their peers think the same. So take your tablets and feel safer.

*('Funded and published by the people that make the tablets!!' cry the sceptics)

And around and around I go...

• Lots of studies over many years show (apparently) convincing benefit of Statins for heart disease with very low risk of side effects
• Sceptics say the 'adverse event' data are under-reported and the pharma companies refuse to release the raw information for independent analysis
• When it comes to secondary prevention (people who have already had a heart attack) the evidence is much clearer. Most people seem to agree that they work and work well
• Even among cholesterol sceptics or neutrals there is a thought that it might be some activity of Statins other than cholesterol reduction (such as reduction of inflammation or stabilisation of plaques) that confer benefit
• Statins are the most profitable drug in the history of the world - vested interest doesn't even begin to cover it
• And yet I do not subscribe to the view that All Big Pharma Is Evil either - of course pharmaceuticals is a business and the companies have a requirement to make money for their stockholders - but I do think that it is in their interest to create 'products' actually help people, those will be much easier to shift after all

Climate change
The other day, all this made me think about climate change. A decade ago there was a funny little film by Davis Guggenheim and Al Gore called 'The Inconvenient Truth'. We don't even think about it much any more really. As I am sure many of you will remember, the eponymous 'truth' was that the actions of the human race had built up over time and were affecting the climate of the entire planet. Greenhouse gasses, climate change and all that. What struck me was the way that the voices that first raised these ideas from as early as 1896 were initially dismissed perhaps even ridiculed for their line of thinking. Not only that, but now that global warming has been firmly adopted into the scientific mainstream there are still contrary voices. Voices who will insist that for all the evidence that it is unmistakeably happening all around us that climate change is Nothing To Do With Us. That the whole thing is a hoax. A scam. Deniers who will wrap their arguments in convincing-seeming scientific language of planetary cycles, solar variation and internal radiative forcing. There's a conspiracy theory for everything it seems.

And I wonder where we are with cholesterol and heart health? Who is on which side? Will the ones who are being ridiculed ultimately turn out to have got it right? Or at least, made steps in the right direction? Will the mainstream position change in the light of more and better and more independent evidence? Or has the mainstream got it right already and are the cholesterol-deniers just confusing everyone.

I really wish I knew the answer. Because however many times I try to unpick this I always end up here. Shrugging and thinking... well I don't know! Which doesn't really do enough to convince me to take a tablet every day for the rest of my life.

Your Diabetes May Vary (again!) - BG variation after food

Two different carbohydrates, yesterday. (CC)

Which would hit your bloodstream faster, a banana or a biscuit? Pure glucose or a slice of white bread?

Well, in news that will come as a bit of a shock to some (and not at all to others), you can't actually know without checking for yourself.

Anyone with diabetes who has spent much time monitoring blood glucose levels before and after meals (especially if they have then compared their results with anyone else), may well already be familiar with this conversation: Person A: "I find porridge is great in the morning, it releases really steadily until lunchtime"
Person B: "Really?!? I can't go near porridge - it hits me like a train. All breakfast cereal does. Which is odd really, because Mars bars cause me no BG problems at all" etc etc. Rinse. Repeat.

Well a recent study published in 'Cell' by the Weizmann Institute of Science has demonstrated once and for all what we pancreatically-challenged types have suspected for a long time. That blood glucose responses to different foods are infuriatingly and often bewilderingly individual.

The study took 800 people without diabetes, around 54% of them were overweight and 22% classified as obese (with a BMI of over 30 kg/m²). They were connected to a Continuous Glucose Monitor for a week at a time, but the CGM was 'blinded' so participants had no way of seeing what was happening to their levels. CGM consists of a small sensor placed under the skin which records interstitial glucose values every 5 minutes, 24 hours a day. These values generally lag behind true blood glucose values by 10 minutes or so, but give a complete picture of what is happening before and after food and during sleep. People in the study recorded their food intake, levels of activity and so on using a smartphone app. They followed their normal routine, and ate as they normally would with the exception of breakfast, where they were assigned one of 4 standardised meals containing 50g of carbohydrate.

If you have spent much time online, sharing experiences with people with diabetes you may get a nice warm fuzzy feeling of "Aha! I *knew* it!" at the results. Here are a few things that came out of the research that caught my eye:

Responses to different foods were highly individual. Many people's BG rose rapidly after a standardised glucose meal as you would expect, but others were relatively untroubled by pure glucose, while eating bread sent their BG levels through the roof.

A graph comparing two participants shows an almost exact inverse response between, for example, cookies and bananas. In the light of this, any lists of 'foods which release slowly' can only ever be viewed as a general guide. Your own response to any food could well be very different.

In general, people who had higher BG responses after eating carried more weight than those with lower responses. The paper doesn't offer any thoughts as to whether these higher BGs make people put on weight, or whether the excess weight causes the elevated post-meal BGs, but in either case this association did not just occur at the extreme ends, but as a continuous range across the various weights.

The highest post-meal responses 'significantly correlated' with elevated (but still non-diabetic) HbA1c, waking glucose level, BMI and also age - all known to be risk factors for developing Type 2 diabetes. It looks to me like these are people whose metabolisms are already beginning to struggle.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, post-meal responses were shown to be very different to the same foods if eaten after resting/sleeping vs after exercising. Apparently the Pope is also Catholic.

A 100 people took part in a further study which allowed the researchers to develop an algorithm that successfully predicted post-meal BG responses from a variety of clinical, physical and 'microbiome' (eg gut bacteria) factors. Personalised diets were then able to reduce post-meal BGs effectively. In the Diabetes Online Community we simply call this ‘eat to your meter’.

The scientists wonder if working directly on reducing post-meal BGs would, over time, reduce some of the other associated risk factors including reducing weight, HbA1c and lowering risk of fatty liver disease.

What do I think this means for me?
Well first of all, it helps me realise that it's not just me being 'weird' after all. Different people really do react differently to different foods. Sometimes in completely inexplicable ways. I spent almost 20 years eating things that had been recommended as 'slow release' before beginning to systematically test my own responses to foods and discovering a few surprises and several absolute shockers that I had always believed were 'pretty safe'.

In general, it is easy to see that the proportion of carbohydrate in a meal could have a fairly direct impact on post-meal BGs, but this research goes some way to explain many of those 'Huh??!?' moments, and demonstrates that there's a lot more to it than that for each individual.

People make a lot of noise over 'low carb' vs 'high carb', but in truth, those definitions are of little interest to me. What I'm after is a varied, enjoyable, sustainable, LOW BG SPIKE diet that suits *me*. This research encourages me to continue looking for it.

"Your Diabetes May Vary", and all that.

Freestyle Libre - Going for the hat-trick?

Abbott have been able to announce a couple of really exciting bits of news in the last few weeks. Just in case you hadn't heard here they are...

Libre approved for use in children
The lovely Lesley Joseph from INPUT was attending ATTD 2016 (Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes) in Milan last week and was excited to share a glimpse of one of the presentations where Abbott announced that they had achieved a license for Libre in children. This was enthusiastically shared on social media along with another of the slides from the conference with some of the details from the study.

This is really good news for parents of children with diabetes who have been wanting to try the Libre as part of their diabetes management toolkit. It also reassures those who jumped in early before approval and used the Libre 'off license' for their children that they can now contact Abbott with a happy heart if they have any problems or need any advice.

Not to be outdone, Abbott themselves made an official announcement soon afterwards. Unsurprisingly choosing overnight testing as a particularly useful time to have a Libre in use. A lot less hassle to wave a reader through the duvet than to have to get a lancet out at 3am and rouse your slumbering child.

This welcome news came pretty hot on the heels of another long-awaited update in the story of the Libre...

No more waiting list
Following the launch of their new high volume production facility in January, Abbott have been able to clear the UK waiting list and the Libre can now be bought by anyone without having to wait. I heard about this a good few weeks back, but was a little cautious to mention it until I could actually see the results (we have been here before remember). However a week or so ago the news on TwitFace and other Social Bloggings was that, yes, the waiting list is no more. Hurrah!

At the same time, I had also heard from Abbott that they were beginning to roll out an official smartphone app that allows people who have a phone with an NFC chip to dispense with the reader and just use their phone to take Libre readings. I can't say much more than that as it has currently only launched in Sweden, but being able to ditch the separate meter certainly appeals to me. There are a couple of 'home spun' Android apps that attempt to do the same, but an official one from Abbott would reassure users that it has had to be put through all of the regulatory rigours of the handset itself. I will watch this one with interest (though I suspect as it stands no iPhone version will be possible because of the way Apple limits access to the iPhone 6's NFC chip).

I have not heard any more information about plans to launch either the Libre itself, or the app in more countries (though I know the UK is next on the list for app launch), but I have been promised a bit of a catch-up with Abbott in the near future and will keep you posted if I hear anything else.

The next big thing?
What would make this perfect for UK readers, of course, would be the announcement that the Libre was to become available on prescription via the NHS. Rumours and grapevine whisperings suggest that this might be tantalisingly close, but as yet remains elusive.

It seems there was much talk at ATTD about CGM (and other continuous monitoring options) and sensor-augmented pump therapy (Smartguard and other Artificial Pancreas dual or triple hormone technologies) so we will all be watching with interest.

If you hear any juicy gossip or rumours, do share them in the comments below.

New NICE Guidelines for Type 1 Diabetes Published (at last!)

As some of you may know, over the last three years (THREE YEARS??!?) I have been working with a wonderful group of fiercely clever and passionate people as one of two 'patient representatives' on the NICE 'Guideline Development Group' which was revising and updating the NICE Guidelines for type 1 diabetes in adults. Expert consultants, eminent physicians, nurses, pharmacists, GPs, educators, editors, along with a host of other specialists including researchers and health economists who gathered and organised an almost unimaginable quantity of research data for the group to filter through and consider.

It has been a huge privilege to work with them all, not least Professor Amiel, the chair of the group, who is a complete inspiration and quite the nicest person you could meet. We have not been permitted to mention anything much connected with the discussions until publication, but at last, today, the guideline launches here: ‘Type 1 diabetes in adults: diagnosis and management'.

Hooray!

If you have been living in a cave for the last 16 years and have never heard of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), they are an independent body working as part of the Department of Health who publish guidance on all manner of healthcare topics which aims to set the 'gold standard' of evidence-based care, balancing clinical outcomes, patient preference and quality of life against the cold hard reality of NHS budgets (ie Yes! You can have something expensive... but only if published research shows it's reeeeeally good for most people).

As a patient, I *love* the fact that I can have a weighty, official, authoritative document that describes what has been shown to be the very best in diabetes care. It gives me something to consult to measure my own experience in clinic, and the right kind of pointy questions to ask if I think I should be getting something that isn't being offered. Plus if I think something should be available that isn't, the documentation is so comprehensive that (if I wanted to) I can dig down into the 'linking evidence to recommendations' section to unpick the reseach and discussions that underpinned the recommendations.

NICE seems to get a hard time in the press off and on (either for denying treatment, or for recommending it) and is frequently accused of bias or an almost corrupt collusion with the pharmaceutical industry. I have to say this could not be further from my experience of the guideline development process. Each meeting included a new declaration of 'conflict of interest' and anyone with a conflict, financial or otherwise, however minor, was not permitted to contribute to the discussion or was asked to leave the meeting entirely.

I am very proud to have been part of the process, and believe that this updated guideline, if fully implemented has has enormous potential to improve the lives of adults living with type 1 diabetes in the UK.

Here are a few things I'm really pleased made it into the final version:

Structured education

Offer all adults with type 1 diabetes a structured education programme of proven benefit, for example the DAFNE (dose-adjustment for normal eating) programme. Offer this programme 6–12 months after diagnosis.

If a structured education programme has not been undertaken by an adult with type 1 diabetes by 12 months after diagnosis, offer it at any time that is clinically appropriate and suitable for the person, regardless of duration of type 1 diabetes.

My feelings about the lack of structured education formed no small part of my journey toward joining this NICE committee. Carb counting, dose adjustment, correction factors, basal testing, guidance about exercise, alcohol and sick day rules. How can people be expected to make a decent go at managing their type 1 diabetes without these skills? And yet the number of people who have ever attended such a course is pitifully small. Unless I'm mis-remembering it's something like 6.5%. Let's hope that during the life of this guideline that changes significantly.

Access to test strips

Support adults with type 1 diabetes to test at least 4 times a day, and up to 10 times a day if any of the following apply:

• the desired target for blood glucose control, measured by HbA1c level (see recommendation 1.6.6), is not achieved
• the frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes increases
• there is a legal requirement to do so (such as before driving, in line with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency [DVLA] At a glance guide to the current medical standards of fitness to drive)
• during periods of illness
• before, during and after sport
• when planning pregnancy, during pregnancy and while breastfeeding (see the NICE guideline on diabetes in pregnancy)
• if there is a need to know blood glucose levels more than 4 times a day for other reasons (for example, impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, high-risk activities).

'Proper' testing frequencies of up to 10x a day (and making use of the results) shown to be more effective AND cost-effective. No more shocked looks permitted from non-specialist Drs or nurses suggesting a couple of times a week should be fine.

HbA1c Target

Support adults with type 1 diabetes to aim for a target HbA1c level of 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) or lower, to minimise the risk of long-term vascular complications.

Agree an individualised HbA1c target with each adult with type 1 diabetes, taking into account factors such as the person’s daily activities, aspirations, likelihood of complications, comorbidities, occupation and history of hypoglycaemia.

I've written about this before. Personally, as a patient, I am really pleased with the balance between these recommendations. Don't tell me to be happy with an A1c approaching 8% if there is real evidence that lower is better to guard against long-term complications. Don't tell people who have no problematic hypoglycaemia that their A1c is 'too low' because it's in the 6s (can't get used to the new numbers yet, sorry!). On the flip side, treat me as an individual, don't label me as a failure because you have a magic number in your head that I am working toward, but I'm not there yet.

Not exactly 'CGM for all', but...

Consider real-time continuous glucose monitoring for adults with type 1 diabetes who are willing to commit to using it at least 70% of the time and to calibrate it as needed, and who have any of the following despite optimised use of insulin therapy and conventional blood glucose monitoring:

• More than 1 episode a year of severe hypoglycaemia with no obviously preventable precipitating cause.
• Complete loss of awareness of hypoglycaemia.
• Frequent (more than 2 episodes a week) asymptomatic hypoglycaemia that is causing problems with daily activities.
• Extreme fear of hypoglycaemia.
• Hyperglycaemia (HbA1c level of 75 mmol/litre [9%] or higher) that persists despite testing at least 10 times a day (see recommendations 1.6.11 and 1.6.12). Continue real-time continuous glucose monitoring only if HbA1c can be sustained at or below 53 mmol/mol (7%) and/or there has been a fall in HbA1c of 27 mmol/mol (2.5%) or more.

'Consider' is NICEspeak for a much weaker recommendation. It should be on the table, but it's not for everyone. The evidence for effectiveness of CGM was just not compelling enough to do anything else at it's current eye-watering pricetag. To be honest I was shocked at how weak it was, given the experience of people I know who self-fund CGM. Continuous Glucose Monitoring it seems just doesn't do well enough in Randomised Controlled Trials. But at least, here, it *might* be available on the NHS to the people who really need it.

And finally
It was great to see bi-modal (mixed) insulins being given the heave-ho, unless people really wanted to use them. From now on people should be able to start off on a proper flexible MDI regimen from the outset, along with some good education and support.

It was also really heartening to see how NICE reacted to the subject of language. The editors were updating the old recommendations for clarity and new styling (for example 'adult with type 1 diabetes' rather than 'diabetic' or 'patient'). I raised the question of the word control which is a difficult term for some people. Personally I cannot 'control' my diabetes - I do not have the ability to affect all the variables. At best I can limit some, and try to react to, or work around the others. I don't control my diabetes, I manage it. Because of the timing of the discussion, it was not possible given the time-restrictions to change the terminology used in the full guideline (though discussions will be had within NICE for future versions). I was very pleased though that for the 'Information for the Public' version, the phrase 'diabetes control' has been replaced.

What do you think? Will the new NICE guideline make any difference to you? Were you even aware that there was one to cover type 1 diabetes? Let me know in the comments below.

Thoughts from the Diabetes UK Professional Conference 2015

I'm a bit late posting this, but I just wanted to jot down a few thoughts following last week's Diabetes UK Professional Conference 2015 (#dpc15). I was, as the saying goes, dead chuffed to be invited to be one of the bloggers/tweeters co-opted onto Diabetes UK's Press Team for the three day conference in London's sunny docklands where the great and the good of the world's diabetes healthcare professionals, researchers and pharma companies gather for a good old chinwag about all things pancreatically challenged.

DPC is one of the biggest events in the global diabetes calendar and patients are not normally allowed to attend for complex reasons involving a Pharmaceutical Industry code of practice (and possibly also so that they can speak fluent doctor-technobabble unhindered and don't have to watch what they are saying about how bloomin' annoying patients are and how the whole business would be much easier without us). However as honourary members of the Press Team we were encouraged to tweet, blog and generally feed information from the conference to the world at large, including you lot.

It was the first time I have been at an event anything like this and it was absolutely huge. Whatever presentation you were attending you got the distinct impression that there were at least six other things running simultaneously that you'd like to be having a look at. Attendance this year was apparently bigger than ever, though #DOC peeps who had been to previous conferences commented that Excel's cavernous spaces made it seem a bit more spread out.

At least as valuable as the presentations themselves seem to be the incidental networking and bumping-into opportunities. Everywhere you went people near you were meeting up, rekindling connections and sharing information. People who have attended more than a few of these conferences must have quite a hard time getting to any sessions at all, because there are so many people to chat with as you move from one place to another.

On a personal level it was great to be able to meet again, or for the first time with so many amazing members of the DOC incuding, Grumps, Annie A, Laura, Sandy, Charlotte, Hannah, John, Annie C, Kath, Roz, Lis, Partha, Pratik, Pete, Neil and others whom I have doubtless forgotten (sorry!). It was also a great privilege to meet with Barbara Young, Chief Executive of Diabetes UK who took time out of her hectic schedule to meet with the bloggers/tweeters and stayed chatting longer than she had intended. She was quite an inspiration, and seemed genuinely interested in listening to feedback and input from the diabetes coal face - about what matters to people with diabetes and their families. Someone commented that Diabetes UK often get a hard time about occasional gaffes, but rarely seem to blow their own trumpet when they do make a positive impact (like here, where they have got the Government to change ther mind about prescription fines). It was only a brief conversation, but it was quite uplifting and I got the feeling that DUK was in very safe hands. It was great too to be able to meet up with representatives of various pharma and device companies that I have bumped into over the last few years to get a feel for any exciting new toys that might be in the pipeline.

Between us, the bloggers/tweeters tried to divide up and 'live tweet' from as many sessions as possible. This proved to be quite a challenge as the talks are short and intensely packed with information, new research data and other interesting snippets. By the time you have tried to compose a phrase which is as close to a quote as you can remember, with or without a photo of the projected slide and then edited for 140 characters, the speaker has chased on at a rate of knots and you are playing catch up.

Here are a few thoughts from some of the sessions I covered, based on the hasty notes I took:

Could intermittent fasting have a role in diabetes management? Michelle Harvie, Manchester
Short answer, yes. For people with type 2 diabetes various intermittent fasting apporaches (eg 5:2) seem to be easier to stick to and more effective for weight loss than continual energy restricted approaches. Fasting days in the research data tended to be approx 650cals and low carb, but results were equally good if low carb but not calorie restricted. For those in whom the approach worked there tended to be an effect on the non-fasting days too. Even though people *could* eat more freely, they did not necessarily do so.

Fermentable carbohydrates: Their role in diabetes management Nicola Guess, London
Not something I'd really heard of, but fermentable carbohydrate (think dietary fibre... pulses... resistant starch... oats...) seem to have promising effect in the context of type 2 diabetes. Results were a little mixed across different studies, not least perhaps because it can be quite hard to evaluate how much FC is in different foods. It may act as a sort of appetite suppressant. When 21g was given as a dietary supplement it resulted in reduced energy intake for the diet of people with Type 2 even if they were not asked to eat less. Fermentable carb was shown to have a positive effect on the phase 1 insulin response of people with type2 and even non diagnosed family members. Insulin sensitivity has been shown to improve in the presence of fermentable carb too. Unfortunately too much fermentable carb can have unfortunate gastric side effects - the gas released from the fermentation of pulses in the gut being an obvious example.

Advancing inpatient diabetes care 5 presentations chaired by Gerry Rayman, Ipswich
This was an extremely data-rich overview from some new JBDS data, including effective new protocols for management of people on corticosteroids and variable rate insulin infusion (sliding scale) in inpatient settings. Also presented a was a huge new piece of research by Norfolk and Norwich Hospitals into nationwide outcomes/detail of DKA management. Some of which was pretty scary stuff - the risk to inpatients with diabetes of experiencing Severe Hypoglycaemia for people with diabetes is 1 in 50 and risk of developing DKA while in hospital is 1 in 200. As alarming as this presentation might have been there was certainly a sense of concerted effort to tackle the challenges of inpatient management of diabetes and establish effective protocols that improve outcomes.

3DFD Integrating Diabetes Care into an individual's world Mary McKinnon Lecture by Carol Gayle and Khalida Ismail, London
I was really taken by this presentation. It outlined a 'three dimensional' model for improving diabetes care by fully integrating clinical, psychological and social approaches. Both type 1 and type 2 diabetes are associated with every major type of psychological disorder, and people with any of these mental health challenges find self-management of this complex and fickle condition additionally challenging. In addition, people living with severe social deprivation are significantly less able to self-manage. Put simply, diabetes is way down on their list of priorities. Address other areas in patients' lives (housing/debt/mental health) and they are released into better self care.

The 3DFD is a short-term intervention with a lasting impact and has moved from an interesting research idea to become a commissioned service in several UK locations. Initially seen as a 'luxury service' it is not only cost-effective, but actually pays for itself several times over in terms of savings made in other areas.

Lessons from the study of hypoglycaemia RD Lawrence Lecture, Rory McCrimmon, Dundee
Some really interesting stuff here about what happens when the body is subjected to repeated mild hypoglycaemia. The exact brain and body chemistry that is at work in the loss of hypo warning signs, and also the loss of counter-regulatory hormone response (epinephrine/glucagon/liver dump). Initially the brain fires all it's warning bells when blood glucose levels drop too low, but soon enough it learns to adapt. Attempting to 'perform better' at those lower levels and not expending the energy of those warning signs. Ultimately though, the brain can no longer function at the lower and lower glucose concentrations that can be reached without warning. Avoidance of hypoglycaemia can reverse this and 'reset the switch', but many struggle with undetected nocturnal hypoglycaemia which sets back their efforts.

Integration of psychologists into paediatric services 3 presentations chaired by Mark Davies
It was really good to see psychological support given so much coverage at the conference. Particularly in relation to children and young people where effective and timely psychological interventions can have such a dramatic effect.

Workshop: Psychological techniques for addressing hypoglycaemia unawareness Nicole de Zoysa and Victoria Francis, London
Great stuff here from the folks behind DAFNE HART, a successful pilot which demonstrates the importance of psychological support in changing people's behavior and understanding of their own relationship with hypoglycaemia. It was particularly good to see the 'compare and contrast' conversation scenarios between healthcare provider and PWD. The difference between people feeling told off/lectured and people being supported to make positive change through responsive listening and motivational interviewing.

Social Media, Why Bother with a Fad? Partha Kar, Annie Cooper, Roz Davies and Laura Cleverly
Great to see social media and peer support getting such a good response at a conference like this. Topics covered ranged from social media in support of nursing practice; tackling isolation and the building of patient communities; and whether social media could be the 'missing part' of someone's diabetes care. Not only that, but Partha Kar opened his talk by suggesting that the term 'non compliant' be removed from the diabetes phrasebook as a result of some social media interactions at the conference. The session ended with a frantic live Tweet Chat and I just hope that some of those who saw the presentations might begin to consider how to integrate social media/peer support into their own practice.

Cognitive decline in people with diabetes 3 presentations chaired by Richard Holt, Southampton
A bit of a mixed bag across these three presentations. Both type 1 and type 2 diabetes seem to associate with 'cognitive decrement' (which I don't like the sound of to be honest), though this only subtle and does not seem to worsen over time. When it comes to type 2 diabetes the Edinburgh study suggests that vascular changes may be the predominant factor. Blood pressuse has little effect, HbA1c has a small effect but smoking has much more of an effect. Overall, improved diabetes management and lack of diabetes complications seem to be a good thing as far as keeping your marbles is concerned. Conversely people with both Alzheimers and T2D are at significantly increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia.

When it comes to young people, there did not seem to be much evidence that mild hypoglycaemia was associated with impaired cognitive function in the long term. Though there may be small risks to very young children who experience severe hypoglycaemia and coma, the brain quickly becomes more resilient in older children and young people.

Hot topics - Diabetes and cardio-vascular risk 4 presentations chaired by Naveed Sattar and Jiten Vora
I was particuarly struck during Miles Fisher's presentation about assessing cardio-vascular risk in people with diabetes when he described the decision to recommend statins for the primary prevention of CVD in people with type 1 diabetes as an 'OBSAT' decision. With a twinkle in his eye he explained the acronym as 'old boys sat around a table'. He suggested that the research evidence did not support the recommendation and that there was a risk of 'over medicalising' the population. His opinion was that the presence of micro-abuminuria was a more reliable marker for prescribing statins for primary prevention in T1D.

In general terms intensively managing blood glucose levels, the earlier the better, significantly protects against CHD for people with diabetes.

Physical activity and Type 1 3 presentations chaired by Jason Gill, Glasgow
This was my last session of the conference and the one that provoked perhaps the greatest interest on Twitter. One of the slides in Rob Andrew's presentation showed a flow chart which seemed to contradict itself. Beamed off into the ether without the explanatory dialogue many people responded, "Ehhhhhhh?!" but the presentation had moved on apace. A lesson learned perhaps in the perils of trying to share complex ideas in 140 characters at speed. There was a lot of detail from Rob Andrew about managing exercise and type 1 diabetes, you can find more information here when the site launches soon. Some interesting snippets too from Richard Bracken about bone strength in T1D. I had not realised that type 1 was associated with an increased risk of fractures, but it seems that resistance training can help improve bone condition and strength.

Summary
On the whole I was really encouraged by the conference programme, and by the tangible sense of passion and commitment from those working in the field who are aiming for better outcomes and more personalised care for people with diabetes. Huge thanks to Diabetes UK for inviting me to be a part of the event.

Disclosure: My travel, accommodation and entry to the conference were paid for by Diabetes UK. I was not paid to write this post or any tweets relating to #DPC15.

25 not out - stick THAT up your nose diabetes!

At some point during the last week (I'm not entirely sure which day) I made my quarter century of living, more or less successfully, with type 1 diabetes. Twenty five years later and I've still got both feet, my eyes are pretty much unscathed and my kidneys still seem able to cope with clearing up after all the stuff I throw at them. Not a bad effort.

Also this week, I stumbled across two interlinked snippets of information that interested me:

We're dooooooooomed!

The first came via a retweet from Dr Pratik Choudary about some research from the T1D Exchange that suggests that the longer you have lived with type 1 diabetes, the more likely you are to experience severe hypoglycaemia (needing assistance of a third party, family member, friend or paramedic to recover). I've come across Pratik's work during my sifting of research for the NICE Guidelines update, and he seems to have his finger on the pulse, so was intrigued - interesting people sharing interesting stuff...

I confess I was slightly surprised at the findings. I suppose in a sense there is a certain logic to them, older people will have any residual 'helping hand' action from their own pancreas long gone, and more opportunity to have succumbed to a degree of hypoglycaemia unawareness. Still a bit odd that incidence of severe hypoglycaemia looks to increase year on year though - I would have expected a good deal of difficulty in managing BG in early childhood (tiny doses... erratic hormones... growth spurts... irregular physical activity) and certainly during teenage years (rebellion... wanting to fit in... more growth spurts and raging hormones). Even during young adulthood and middle years there's a degree of chaos going on with life in general. Particularly if people become parents themselves - when focussing entirely on yourself tends to slip into the background, replaced with sleep deprivation and general exhaustion. By contrast my own life seems to have become slightly more settled post-40. Much more time to sort out my own stuff.

When we began writing our blog it was not at all uncommon for Jane to have to help me out early in the morning from a nasty low (thanks Lantus!). When I look back, I am ashamed that I put everyone through this for so many years and did not sort it out earlier. But thanks to the support, wit and wisdom of the DOC, over the last few years I have gone a long way to reduce my hypoglycaemia in general and severe hypoglycaemia in particular. I can't remember the least time I got so low that someone in the family had to lend me a hand - but it was probably three or four years ago.

I for one have exactly the opposite experience of the T1D Exchange findings. What about you? If you are living with type 1, are you seeing more or less severe hypoglycaemia than before? Should we accept an increase in severe hypoglycaemia as inevitable*?

* The answer, of course, is NO!

Nasal Glucagon

Photo: Mike Hoskins

The second thing that caught my eye came as an email, following a presentation at the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) conference in Paris last week, concerning a novel new glucagon treatment that is in development. Glucagon is used as an emergency treatment for severe hypoglycaemia. Currently it involves injecting sterile water into a vial of powder, mixing into solution and injecting into a person who has become so hypoglycaemic that they are either unconscious or otherwise unable to consume any high glucose treatment. Glucagon is a great treatment, but the current delivery method is pretty complex. I first came across the 'nasal puff' concept via Mike Hoskins in the US, who posted on Diabetes Mine following involvement in a trial of the device. It's ingenious! Developed by a tiny private company with parents of T1D children at the helm, it seems driven by passion and practicality.

I know that when I have tried to mention Glucagon kits to anyone among my family and friends they immediately take on a distinctly 'rabbit in the headlights' expression and start mumbling about "erm... yes... or I'd call an ambulance". The idea that at a time of extreme stress, possibly in the middle of the night, someone entirely untrained in giving injections would be able to calmly proceed through a multi-step process of mixing, drawing up, selecting injection site and administering (especially if I were thrashing about) seems crazy.

This new treatment involves simply 'puffing' dry powder up the nose. It doesn't need to be inhaled (designed for people who may be unconscious), simply pushing the base of the container ejects a cloud of dry glucagon into the nasal passages where it is absorbed directly. No needles, no mixing, no faffing about in the dark.

The device is not currently available, but phase 3 clinical trials are currently underway and I will watch the story with interest.

Disclosure: I was not paid to mention Locemia's nasal glucagon device (ha! chance would be a fine thing!). It just sounds like a great idea.

Change the world - DBlog Week Day 1

Thanks to Karen Graffeo this week is the 5th annual Diabetes Blog Week.

Today's topic is 'Change the world'.
Let’s kick off Diabetes Blog Week by talking about the diabetes causes and issues that really get us fired up. Are you passionate about 504 plans and school safety? Do diabetes misconceptions irk you? Do you fight for CGM coverage for Medicare patients, SDP funding, or test strip accuracy? Do you work hard at creating diabetes connections and bringing support? Whether or not you “formally” advocate for any cause, share the issues that are important to you. (Thanks go out to Kim of Texting my Pancreas for inspiring this topic.)

Hmmmm... Well I'd usually bang on about the power of peer support and the DOC, but since my last post was about that very thing I've decided to take this topic as more of a fantasy 'what if anything were possible' type thing.

So if it's not a cure and diabetes is continuing and if I could change anything what would I choose..?

I wish there was more honesty and fairness. Specifically when it comes to medical research and product development.

Perhaps I have got this wrong. Maybe I'm just being too jaded and cynical. I am absolutely sure that most people who undertake research are paragons of honesty and integrity, but I'm afraid I do worry about the impartiality of some research studies into new treatments which are (inevitably) funded by the companies who have invested thousands in research and development and now need to turn a profit. Small, commonplace things like studies having a 'run-in' period where carefully screened participants get to try the therapy before the trial actually starts so that people who don't get on with it don't take part. Hey-presto, when the trial data are collected - almost no drop-outs and hardly any side effects reported. Results being extrapolated and amplified with 'mathematically modelled' outcomes. If x changes to y then the model suggests that umpty bazillion people will be 50% better off (rather than simply counting the number of events that did or didn't actually happen in the sample population). Data meta-analysed to within an inch of its life and suddenly the conclusions reached 12 months ago that there was not very much benefit, get republished with a handful of results added to suddenly show something startlingly different.

The problem for me is that it actually takes quite a lot of effort to go into the detail. Part of my work with NICE as a patient representative on the Type 1 Adults Guideline Development Group has involved reading and reviewing many more research papers and results than I would ever have normally. It soon became clear to me that behind the confident assertions of the 'conclusions' by the authors of some papers there's a sort of hollow flimsiness to the whole thing. And in these days of 'evidence based' medicine this gives me more than a little uneasiness. Some major decisions are taken about what is or isn't an appropriate way of treating people are taken on the basis of medical research results some of which - to my inexperienced eye - looks rather less than rock solid. But who does that? NICE are pretty good at trying to filter though the mire most of the time, but so many decision makers, politicians and journalists seem only interested in the headline.

Now I'm not quite in the 'the whole thing is a complete Big Pharma Conspiracy' camp, but I do wish we lived in a world where I didn't have to worry about the motivations and financial background to all this. Where I didn't have to look for the agenda behind the research. Where new treatments and therapies and approaches were developed, adopted or dropped on the basis of what actually worked for people rather than what made the most money for the companies involved.

I realise that I am extaordinarily lucky to live in a country with an organisation as amazing as the NHS to underpin my healthcare, but there is only so much money to go around and I would love it if every single penny of that was being spent in the very best ways on the most effective treatments, interventions and (shock horror!) non-drug based methods like, er, you know, type 2s doing rather better when they eat fewer carbs.

Oh... and if I ruled the world Bakewell Tart would have absolutely no effect on blood glucose levels too.

Nano technology, non-invasive BG monitoring and smart insulin

There are some diabetes-tech buzzwords that always attract my attention. Thanks to a tweet from Nick Guerin (@Typeaware) I was treated to a triple-whammy this morning.

We have come painfully close to a 'non-invasive' BG monitor (or even better CGM) once or twice before, but it is good to see that the search continues. To be honest the breathalyser-style BG monitor (which still uses a single-use 'strip') interests me less than Smart Insulin, which I think is probably my most favouritest 'wildest tech fantasy come true' product of all time ever - see here.

"A team at North Carolina State University believes so. Prof Zhen Gu and his team are working on a couple of different systems which may achieve this ideal – effectively creating an artificial replacement to the beta cells in the islets of the pancreas, which would normally release insulin to counter high glucose levels.

"Our overall aim is to create 'smart delivery' systems for insulin provision," says Gu. "What I mean by that is that insulin is delivered at the right time, via a safe approach – avoiding too much or not enough dosage – and in a way which requires only small formulations."

One of the team's ideas in development is an injectable nanoscale sensory network, announcing earlier this year that such a system maintained normal blood sugar levels for up to 10 days in type 1 diabetic mice. The "nano-network" degrades to release insulin when glucose levels are high and the researchers are currently trying to optimise it to respond as quickly as pancreatic islet cells do naturally in the body, and to make it more biocompatible with human tissue."

And wouldn't you know it those pesky diabetic mice have beaten us to it again.

Full article is here:
TheGuardian.com - Nanomedicines set to revolutionise the treatment of diabetes

Diabetes Week - Artificial Pancreas Project

It's Diabetes Week in the UK this week and after my rather forlorn post about the apparent disappearance of C8 medisensors non-invasive CGM last week I was pleased to read this little update on the Artificial Pancreas Project (APP) from Diabetes UK today.

It's still reasonably early days, and to my mind we are still quite a way off a 'real' management solution, but step by step people are cautiously being allowed to hand over the reins overnight to an automated system in their own home rather than under strict lab conditions with technicians standing by the bedside clutching Lucozade and NovoPens.

For those of you who have *no* idea what I am going on about, the Artificial Pancreas Project is seeking to 'close the loop' between two clever bits of diabetes kit. A Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) that can measure glucose levels and an insulin pump that can provide varying doses of insulin. In fact most people who happen to see my pump tend to assume that we are there already, and assume that a pump will just somehow 'know' how much insulin is needed and provide it automatically. Sadly it's not quite that easy, and while an insulin pump is a brilliant therapy option it does still require a fair amount of effort, guesswork and to be honest more than a little luck in balancing all of the hundreds of variables involved in day-to-day BG tomfoolery.

Part of the problem with the APP of course is that the technologies involved are improving, but still rather less than perfect. Continuous Glucose Monitors make an estimate of blood glucose levels based on glucose concentration in interstitial fluid (the stuff sloshing around between cells in tissue). This tends to lag a bit behind actual BG values, and those lucky enough to have access to CGM will know that what you are really getting is 'trend' information rather than the accuracy* of blood-based fingersticks. CGM manuals/marketing are usually pretty clear that any doses/corrections made should be done after confirming results with a fingerstick test. But the closed loop system needs to use this very same stream of trend information in order to make dosing decisions.

Currently the human trials of the APP are showing relatively promising results for looking after things overnight. To know that you had a smart system carefully tweaking your levels while you slumbered would be fantastic, but of course a full Artificial Pancreas would have to go much further and tackle the thorny issue of mealtimes. Personally I think we are a looooong way off that. For one thing current 'rapid' analogue insulins are hopelessly inadequate for the task. They take far too long to get going (1 hour for corrections to start taking effect anyone?) and act over far too long a time period to give a bunch of electronics, however smart, the ability to take over entirely.

What I would hope for instead is a commercially viable 'smart pump' which combines much of the effort and user knowledge/experience that currently goes into effective pump use, but with automated AP trickery to take the edges off the errors and irritations of daily pancreas impersonation. A system whereby you would bolus for meals, set TBRs for activity and generally do the basics, but the pump would be constantly monitoring how things were going and have the ability to tweak things and make corrections to keep things on a more even keel.

Now that really would be something.




* It should be noted, of course, that fingerstick BG tests in themselves are not particularly accurate and only really serve as a general guide as to what is going on.

Unusual suspects : age at diagnosis

A short while ago I was musing about one of the questions which form part of the scope of my little side project. It got me thinking, and in order to have a slim chance of having something to say when the subject eventually comes up for discussion I began to wonder just how old people generally are when they are diagnosed with various types of diabetes.

In the old days, of course, things were much more straightforward - even the conditions themselves were referred in terms of 'juvenile' and 'maturity' onset. But I'm forever coming across folks in forums who were diagnosed with 'type 1' (which is typically thought of as a condition that develops in childhood) well into their autumn years.

There was an obvious answer to satisfy my curiosity - just ask you lot. So I decided to conduct a quick straw poll and asked around the good people of the DOC for their age at diagnosis. Now of course this was not carried out with much, if any scientific rigour - but I find the results fascinating nonetheless.

First off I was absolutely humbled and amazed as ever by people's generosity of spirit in the DOC. Within hours of tweeting, "I'm just curious..." I'd been inundated by responses from people who had never heard of me before and my little tweet was bouncing all over the twitosphere with RT after RT. Facebookers and forum peeps waded in and before you could say, "well I wasn't expecting that" I had over 220 responses. Two hundred. And twenty. Many of the 'proper' research projects I see and read have sample populations in the 10s. People even continued to respond for a short while after I'd gathered the results in from the various places.

While I recognise that I was asking a particularly skewed demographic, I found it interesting that after logging 70 or 80 anonymised responses into a spreadsheet the proportions of people in the different age groups remained almost entirely unchanged right up until that 221st person chipped in. So while I completely accept the limitations of the survey I do wonder whether it isn't that far off the real picture.

So what did I discover?
The first and perhaps most surprising thing I discovered was that members of the DOC are much more likely to be type 1. I'm not absolutely sure why this is - perhaps because the management of type 2 is often downplayed by healthcare professionals and people are (mistakenly) led to believe that type 2 is somehow 'less serious'. People with type 1 it seems are more likely to feel like they are struggling and to seek help and support online. So while in the UK population type 1's make up only 10% of diabetics, in my survey they represent 72% of responses!

Oldest and youngest
Of the type 1's the age at diagnosis ranged from just a few months old right up to 66. Type 2's were similarly stereotype-defying ranging from 17 up to 66 again. The average age for diagnosis with type 1 was 18, while the average age for type 2 diagnosis was 45. I didn't specifically ask the question, but at least a dozen people volunteered the information that they had first been diagnosed as type 2 and later reclassified as type 1 or LADA. The average age for the first diagnosis in this group was 35. It would seem that if you are diagnosed with diabetes in your 30s then you stand the highest chance of your Dr putting a tick in the wrong box, and if the treatment you are receiving isn't working despite your best efforts it might be worth asking for some more tests!

Just the facts ma'am
For those who fancy poring over the numbers/proportions for themselves here are the basic analysis tables that Excel squirted out:

	Type 1	Type 2	Total
Number	158	63	221
Average Dx Age	18	45
Dx uncertainty/change	12
Avg Age at initial Dx if changed	35
By age group	Type 1	Type 2	T1 %	T2 %
<= 17	90	0	57%	0%
18-34	47	7	30%	15%
35-44	14	24	9%	38%
45-64	5	29	3%	38%
65+	2	3	1%	5%

So while, as you might expect, over 50% of T1s are diagnosed by the age of 18, almost half of them aren't. Coupled with which the number of people diagnosed with type 2 in their 20s - early 30s is a pretty meagre 15%, with the several of those being later reclassified). One T1 respondent mentioned that at 18 they were told they were 'too old' to be type 1. For another this happened in their mid-20s.

It would seem that getting diagnosed at an unusual age is, well... er... not that unusual.

Beating Diabetes... anyone fancy a cure?

I'm just coming to the point in my life where I've lived longer with diabetes than I lived without it. Ever since diagnosis I have read about, or been told about exciting research which could have profound effects on those living with diabetes. I have witnessed the release and gradual acceptance of amazing new technologies and treatment options which make diabetes more controllable than ever before. Every year I've heard of breakthroughs that bring that elusive prevention or cure one step closer.

But anyone who has more than a passing experience of this condition will know that it can be an infuriatingly complex and difficult business. Most reports of dramatic research developments usually end with caveats about 'very exciting, but early days' and 'further research' being needed. Typically the timeline suggested before things come to fruition is 10 years. I don't know why they pick that number, but they always seem to. Long enough, perhaps, for everyone to have forgotten the promise.

So you might think by now I'd be all cynical and downhearted? Nope.

Before diagnosis I had never really had much to do with the medical profession. I'd not broken any limbs as a child, or needed to go to the doctor much. I had a brief stay in hospital when I was around 8 after being hit by a car crossing a road, but on the whole medics, hospitals and GPs weren't really in my frame of reference. Suddenly, in my early 20s there I was. Right in the middle of multiple appointments and practitioners, a hospital stay, armfuls of blood tests and with an on-going connection to all these people stretching out in front of me. Not only that but I became very aware of others diligently working away in quiet labs prodding and poking at diabetes, turning it over and over with a stick and trying to figure out how to make it easier to live with, and if possible disappear completely.

There has never been a better time in history to be a diabetic (and given the numbers of us around, that's quite a good thing). And tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that, someone, somewhere will have a thought, or observe some happy accident, then test it and tweak it and suddenly BAM!

No more diabetes. Ever.

That would be great, right? If you live with D, I'm pretty sure you'd like that. Quite a bit. And the fact that there were lots of thoughts and ideas earlier that didn't come to anything will not be important. The dead ends and diversions will be of no consequence because the beast will be slain, or the perfect treatment option to control it will be right there in our hands. If not 'no more diabetes', I'll settle for 'no more diabetic complications'.

If only we could speed the process. If only we could, in our own small way, play a part in that amazing story.

Well we can.

I was contacted a week or so ago by someone who asked if I could raise the profile of a campaign to help beat diabetes. The NHS's National Institute for Health Research 'Diabetes Research Network' has launched the Help Diabeates campaign to encourage people to get involved in the search for a cure or better treatment for diabetes. Because of the nature of the teaching hospital I attend for my diabetes care I have been able to take part in various research projects in the past. But this, I think, is part of the difficulty... Any researcher with a brilliant new idea to try needs to be able to make observations and test things with suitable candidates to develop their knowledge, explore their idea and push it further. If they are attached to a clinic they might be able to ask around and see if there any volunteers, but I suspect they are going to be scratching around with only a handful of people who fit the criteria.

And if they can't get their research done we can't get our cure.

In simple terms the Help Diabeates campaign offers you an easy way of offering to be involved at some point, and only if you want to for any particular project. It's a way of throwing the research net a little wider. You add your name to the database, they ask you a handful of questions. Then if there's a research project that might benefit from your involvement you get contacted and are given the chance to take part. Even if you decide you want to and then change your mind, you can back out at any stage.

What are you waiting for?

Find out more about Help Diabeates here, then sign up to take part here.

And if you dont live in the UK? Well just look around. In a lab somewhere in your country there's a clinical trial with your name on it.

Advertising message

Diabetes explained. Search for diabetes treatments at a private hospital in Nottingham.