4.6 Article

Type 2 diabetes mellitus in France in 2012: Results from the ObEpi survey

Journal

DIABETES & METABOLISM
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 55-61

Publisher

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabet.2014.11.007

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes mellitus; Epidemiology; Prevalence; Comorbidity; Treatment

Funding

  1. Roche SAS
  2. Roche

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim. - This analysis estimates the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in French adults participating in the ObEpi (obesity epidemiology) 2012 survey and also proposes a description of that population, according to comorbidities, treatments and sociodemographic factors related to the disease. Methods. - A self-administered questionnaire was posted to 20,000 households from the Kantar Health panel. In total, 25,714 adults aged >= 18 years and representative of the French population completed the survey between January and March 2012. Results. - The prevalence of T2DM was 5.5 +/- 0.3% (95% CI) in this representative sample of the adult French population. Average age of patients was 65.9 years; 55% were men. Mean body mass index was 29.9 kg/m(2) (men: 29.4 kg/m(2), women: 30.6 kg/m2; P < 0.01); the prevalence of obesity was 43.1% (men: 39.9%, women: 47.1%; P < 0.01). Patient-reported treatments for comorbidities were frequent: high blood pressure, 59.1%; dyslipidaemia, 59.9%; myocardial infarction/angina pectoris, 9.7%; revascularization, 7.8%; heart failure, 7.4%; sleep apnoea, 8.3%; and osteoarthritis, 10.7%. With regards to known treatments, 81.4% of patients were taking oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), and 15.3% were using insulin therapy. Also, 18.8% of diabetic respondents reported financial hardship. Conclusion. - T2DM remains a disease of major concern: compared with the non-diabetic population, all parameters surveyed showed unfavourable ratings, particularly for women. (C) 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available