Pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline has announced an initiative designed to improve the health of employees with diabetes. Yes, the company's head honchos decided they would take the bull by the horns: if employees have difficulty taking care of their health, they determined to find out why and correct the problem. Result: an internal analysis of healthcare spending within GSK.

Turns out diabetes was one of the biggest problems for Glaxo employees. Glaxo's number-crunchers found the company spends more on diabetes medications, but less on medical care, than the national average. GSK's report states the company spent a total of $26.2 million on diabetes treatment for employees in 2005. Glaxo has now launched what it describes as a multilateral plan to address the needs of employees with diabetes. Leading the charge: a patient education campaign ("Know Your Numbers") and a physician intervention program.

Says Glaxo's US benefits chief, Michael Killian, "As a nation, we are seeing our healthcare costs soar and patients' health decline due to chronic diseases such as diabetes. GSK faces these same challenges and is prepared to meet them." Translation: prevention, prevention, prevention.

Glaxo figures there is nothing to lose, but lots to gain. Healthcare plans for employees already cost a bundle. By targeting the health issues that are hurting employees the most, the company can give those employees a better life and save a lotta money. In addition to making the results of its internal analysis available to the general public, Glaxo has invited other employers to utilize this same approach.

Oh, this is awesome news for anyone touched by the Avandia mess: manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has announced that its shares are up despite its troubles over the diabetes drug Avandia. The scandal arose over revelations that Avandia could cause heart problems. Things only escalated as details came to light, particularly the role of the US Food and Drug Administration and its completely inadequate response to the problem.

Given all this bad publicity, wouldn't you expect GSK's stocks would take a dive? Well, they did during the quarter that Avandia hit the news. However, the company's overall outlook for the year 2007 still looks pretty darn good, apparently. As a result, projections for earnings-per-share remain stable and the company is expanding its share buyback program.

So much for suffering the consequences of your actions... On the other hand, GSK has vigorously defended Avandia against claims of heart damage. They would say: "Why should we suffer? We haven't done anything wrong."

British watchdog group The Healthcare Commission just gave diabetes care in the UK a lukewarm review. Its study of the facilities in which British diabetics receive care concludes that care levels overall are basic, at best. Most of the places (73%) surveyed in the study were rated "fair," meaning patients know what medications they are supposed to be on and when they should be taking them. They also know they should be getting annual checkups. Only five percent of facilities were rated "excellent by the Commission.

The system is lacking, however, when it comes to anything beyond those most basic of services. Just like here in the US, most British people with diabetes are not receiving help with diabetes management. Studies suggest that regular consultations with a health "coach" on an individual basis could really improve patient outcomes. One reason they are helpful is because they get patients to come up with a care plan tailored for each person, making it more likely he/she will be able to stick with it.

Diabetes UK head of healthcare policy, Bridget Turner, agrees with the Commission's conclusions: "The NHS [National Health Service] has to focus more on...self-care. For people with diabetes, 95% of diabetes management is self-care."

To read more, click here or visit the Healthcare Commission's own web summary of the report.

When it comes to issues of health, perhaps the most encouraging factoid out there is this: you don't have to lose a whole lot of extra weight to experience major health benefits. This info is nothing new, of course. Heck, I remember watching Oprah espouse that very principle on her show back in the 90s. If you can't run, walk, she'd say. If you can't walk far, just walk around the block...or even the front gate. Do something for your health today!

So, what's new on this front, you ask? Well, a major study has now confirmed that modest weight loss can dramatically improve the health of people with Type 2 diabetes. The Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) study found that overweight people with Type 2 diabetes who were able to achieve around 7 to 10 percent weight loss over the course of a year experienced the following health benefits: 1.) improved blood sugar control and 2.) a reduced dependence on medications. The study involved over five thousand participants, some of whom were put on the weight-loss regimen, while others received standard medical care (that is, without an emphasis on healthy eating and exercise).

Here's the problem as I see it: how do you transfer these results to everyday life? The participants in this study who lost all that weight did so by agreeing to join the study, and they attended group meetings, ate a specially designed diet, and received advice on exercise and even had sessions with behavioral psychologists. Problem is, there's no behavioral psychologist around when you're alone at home and reaching for that second helping of pasta!

The FDA has approved a new over-the-counter weight loss drug called alli (orlistat) that is designed to absorb 25% of the fat from your meal. However, nutrition and fitness expert Dr. Len Lopez, author of "To Burn or Not to Burn, Fat is the Question" shares his reasons why the new approved weight loss drug may not be beneficial to your health.

New research is showing that medications don't make us healthier. Research is showing that losing weight with medications doesn't decrease the rate of heart attacks, strokes or diabetes. Add that to the fact that your body loses nutrients with these medications and you can easily see how these new weight loss drugs can hamper your health. Dr. Lopez discusses practical steps to losing weight which includes diet and exercise, but also covers how stress and adrenal fatigue can disrupt our hormones, such as cortisol and adrenaline. These hormonal imbalances can throw off our metabolism and take us out of our fat burning mode.

Both of Dr.Lopez's books cover a good deal of information to understand how we can correct our imbalances in piecing together the weight loss puzzle. His knowledge explores the roles of insulin and cortisol in weight gain, cravings, fatigue and more. He also explains how stress can take you out of your fat burning zone and helps you regain your blood sugar balance, as well as implementing the "Five and Two" dieting plan.

Say NO to the weight loss drugs and say YES to the empowering knowledge Dr. Lopez has to share.

A new survey reveals that most people prefer to treat diabetes by changing their diets, rather than using medicines.

According to a survey of 1,022 adults (515 women and 507 men), 69% of Americans would prefer to try a dietary approach, whereas only 21% preferred treating diabetes with medicines. The survey reinforces results from clinical research on diabetes, which has consistently found that people with diabetes adapt well to low-fat vegetarian diets and gain important health benefits. A dietary approach to diabetes based on scientific research shows that a low-fat vegan diet can lower high blood sugar levels three times more effectively than oral medications.

Among the results: women are even more likely than men to prefer food changes over pills. People with more education and higher incomes were especially likely to favor a diet approach. For the financially savvy - this makes a lot of sense. You MUST buy food. You might as well buy healthier foods and curtail your Rx costs. Furthermore, Americans aged 45 to 64 were more enthusiastic about diet changes, compared with older Americans. I'll bet it's the convenience factor. A little less medication, a little more supper, please. The most pill-happy generation was the 18- to 24-year-olds. Don't look at me like that - I'm 28 and favor the flavor over medication, any day. Bon appetit!

I just read that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that it is re-classifying the drug NovoLog to allow its use by women with Type 1 diabetes who are pregnant. NovoLog is manufactured by drug-producing giant Novo Nordisk. The change came after a trial which found that pregnant women with T1 diabetes who took NovoLog had HbA1c levels and rates of maternal hypoglycemia comparable to women on regular insulin. The study did not, however, evaluate whether babies whose moms take the drug while pregnant have a greater risk of congenital malformations. On the other hand, women taking NovoLog benefited from a lower risk of diabetes-related pregnancy dangers such as preterm delivery.

Pregnancy and drugs. It's a complicated issue. What's safe? What's not? If only it were so simple as dividing all drugs into one category or the other - the Good or the Bad. Unfortunately, many common medications are in a third category - the Ugly? These drugs, known as category B drugs, constitute a sort of pharmaceutical no-man's land. You see, these meds have not been proven to cause harm to unborn children, like category C drugs. Yet they have not been proven safe, either, like category A drugs. This means, as I discovered when I was pregnant in 2006, if you're sick and could benefit from some specific No-Man's-Land drug, odds are your doc will offer to write you a prescription for it. He or she will warn you that it's possible the drug causes harm and leave the decision of whether or not to take it up to you. Now, I don't want to go back to the Bad Old Days when doctors told patients "do this" or "do that," "take this" or "take that," and, by golly, you did it and didn't ask questions. But wouldn't it be nice to just know what to do? Or to know that your doc knows all the answers? What's a gal to do??

Canadian researchers report that the drug, Avandia, approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, may help prevent the disease from developing in high-risk individuals.

In the Diabetes Reduction Assessment with Ramipril and Rosiglitazone Medications (DREAM) trial, the Canadian team randomly assigned nearly 5,300 adults from clinics in 21 countries to get 8 milligrams of Avandia or a placebo daily for three years. All of the participants were at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes, having already shown signs of poor blood-sugar control. Over the course of the trial, 280 people (12 percent) taking Avandia went on to develop type 2 diabetes compared with 658 people (26 percent) who received the placebo, the researchers report.

The DREAM researchers announced their findings at a meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, in Copenhagen. The results of the Avandia arm of the study are also published in the Sept. 15 online edition of The Lancet. The results of the Altace arm of the study will appear in the Oct. 12 print edition of the New England Journal of Medicine; the findings were released Friday, to coincide with the presentation in Copenhagen.

The president for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association, Dr. Larry C. Deeb is horrified by the diabetic explosion going on around us. He fears that diabetes prevention is becoming a pharmacological intervention. People would rather pop a pill than implement a healthier diet and exercising. Sadly, I must agree with you, Larr. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The US Department of Homeland Security reacted to revelations of a plot to blow up planes flying from Britain to US destinations with a new round of air travel restrictions. The new rules include the banning of all liquids, gels, lotions and creams in carry-on luggage. I'll admit, these restrictions are likely to cause a lot of frustration (in the form of long lines, etc.) for air travelers no matter how well prepared they may be. However, being prepared does give you an edge and makes it easier for you to get through security and onto your flight. Diabetics, in particular, would be smart to learn about the new requirements and how they impact people with diabetes.

The television show dLife has issued a helpful rundown of what you should know. First and foremost, know that essential medications, including insulin, are excluded from the ban. However, prescription meds must be clearly labeled as such and must clearly belong to the passenger who is carrying them. Second, allow plenty of time to get through security and understand that you will make everyone's lives easier if you announce upfront to airport security that you are diabetic and are carrying your meds with you. It would also be sensible to pack your meds all together, in a clear, zip-lock plastic bag, so that they can be easily handed to airport security personnel for examination. All in all, it's worth going to a little trouble before your flight so as to ensure you get through security as quickly as possible.

According to new survey results, a majority of UK diabetics are not aware that failing to properly manage their condition could lead to very serious health consequences. How about a few examples? A third of those surveyed were unaware that diabetes is a life-long condition! One third were unaware that having diabetes is a big risk factor for heart conditions, while one fifth did not know that poor diabetes management can lead to limb amputations.

Experts blame this sort of patient ignorance for the fact that nearly two thirds of UK diabetics are not taking their prescribed medications. According to the study, one in five diabetics are suffering needlessly from conditions that could have been prevented if they'd taken their medicines. In addition, half are depressed.

The study was released by Diabetes UK, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, and another group, Ask About Patients. I think this is interesting and would be willing to bet that a similar study conducted here in the US would produce the same results.