Nationwide multicenter study on the prevalence of overweight and obesity in type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Brazilian population

AIM: To evaluate the prevalence of overweight and obesity in type 2 diabetic (DM2) outpatients from different regions of Brazil. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 2,519 randomly selected patients, from 11 hospitals, 2 endocrine and one general public care clinics from 10 cities. Overweight was defined as body-mass index (BMI) > 25 and obesity as BMI > 30 kg/m². Glycemic control (GC) was evaluated by GC index (GCI= patient's HbA1 or HbA1c/upper limit of normal for the method x 100). RESULTS: 39% of the population studied was male, the mean age was 58.8 ± 11.6 y, the duration from clinical diagnosis of DM2 was 9.0 ± 7.3y, and BMI was 28.3 ± 5.2 kg/m². No measurements of BMI were recorded from 265 patients (10.5%). Patients from the Northeast presented lower BMI as compared with those from the Midwest, Southeast and South areas, respectively (26.4 ± 4.7 vs. 27.9 ± 4.8 vs. 29.2 ± 5.1 vs. 29.4 ± 5.4 kg/m²; p 25 e obesidade um IMC > 30 kg/m². O controle glicêmico (CG) foi avaliado pelo índice de CG [ICG= HbA1 e ou HbA1c do paciente/limite superior de normalidade do método x 100]. RESULTADOS: Os pacientes tinham idade de 58,8 ± 11,6 anos, tempo de diagnóstico clínico de DM de 9,0 ± 7,3 anos, IMC de 28,3 ± 5,2 kg/m², e 39% eram do sexo masculino. Do total da amostra, 265 pacientes (10,5%) não apresentavam avaliação do IMC. Os pacientes da região Nordeste apresentaram menor IMC em comparação com os das regiões Centro-Oeste, Sudeste e Sul, respectivamente (26,4 ± 4,7 vs. 27,9 ± 4,8 vs. 29,2 ± 5,1 vs. 29,4 ± 5,4 kg/m²; p< 0,001). Houve maior prevalência de obesidade na região Sudeste e Sul em comparação à região Nordeste (p< 0,001) e nos pacientes do sexo feminino, respectivamente (69 vs. 31%; p< 0,001). Os pacientes com peso normal apresentaram menor ICG. Aqueles em tratamento com associação de duas ou mais drogas orais e associação de insulina + droga oral apresentaram maior IMC do que aqueles em tratamento com dieta, hipoglicemiante oral e insulina; p< 0,001. O IMC não diferiu entre os pacientes assistidos ou não por especialistas. CONCLUSÕES: Da população estudada, 75% não estava na faixa de peso ideal, sendo que um terço tinha obesidade. Nossos dados indicam que o sobrepeso e a obesidade já atingem um percentual de pacientes com DM2 no Brasil semelhante ao relatado em estudos europeus, mas ainda menor do que o observado nos EUA. A prevalência de obesidade nos pacientes diabéticos foi três vezes maior do que a observada na população brasileira em geral de acordo com os dados do IBGE.UERJUSPUNIFESP-EPMUNICAMPUNIFEUniversidade Federal do MaranhãoCEDEBVA Serviço de Endocrinologia e DiabetesHospital Agamenon Magalhães Serviços de EndocrinologiaSanta Casa Serviços de EndocrinologiaIAPSEB Serviços de EndocrinologiaHospital Geral Serviços de EndocrinologiaPAM Jaguaribe Serviços de EndocrinologiaSanta Casa Serviço de DiabetesSecretaria Municipal de SaúdeUNIFESP, EPMSciEL

Ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia: Subset analysis of the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding. METHODS: ASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI - 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757

Raciocínio clínico -- o processo de decisão diagnóstica e terapêutica Clinical reasoning -- the diagnostic and therapeutic decision process

O objetivo desta revisão é expor as fases e os principais constituintes do processo cognitivo que os médicos empregam no raciocínio clínico das decisões diagnósticas e terapêuticas. O processo de solução dos problemas clínicos utiliza-se do método científico hipotético-dedutivo de resolver problemas. Tão logo um médico encontra um paciente, várias hipóteses diagnósticas surgem-lhe na mente, as quais são avaliadas e refutadas ou corroboradas. A decisão diagnóstica é realizada quando uma hipótese atinge um certo grau de verossimilhança. A decisão terapêutica depende dos objetivos pretendidos e da efetividade esperada entre as diversas alternativas disponíveis.<br>The goal of this review is to demonstrate the steps and the main items of the cognitive process used by doctors in clinical reasoning of diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. The clinical problem- solving process makes use of the hypothetic deductive scientific method to solve problems. As soon as the doctor meets his (her) patient, many diagnostic hypotheses emerge in his (her) mind, which are evaluated and refuted or corroborated. The diagnostic decision occurs when a hypothesis reach a certain degree of likelihood. The therapeutic decision is based on the intended objectives and the waited efectiveness among many available alternatives

Nationwide multicenter study on the prevalence of overweight and obesity in type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Brazilian population

AIM: To evaluate the prevalence of overweight and obesity in type 2 diabetic (DM2) outpatients from different regions of Brazil. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 2,519 randomly selected patients, from 11 hospitals, 2 endocrine and one general public care clinics from 10 cities. Overweight was defined as body-mass index (BMI) > 25 and obesity as BMI > 30 kg/m². Glycemic control (GC) was evaluated by GC index (GCI= patient's HbA1 or HbA1c/upper limit of normal for the method x 100). RESULTS: 39% of the population studied was male, the mean age was 58.8 &plusmn; 11.6 y, the duration from clinical diagnosis of DM2 was 9.0 &plusmn; 7.3y, and BMI was 28.3 &plusmn; 5.2 kg/m². No measurements of BMI were recorded from 265 patients (10.5%). Patients from the Northeast presented lower BMI as compared with those from the Midwest, Southeast and South areas, respectively (26.4 &plusmn; 4.7 vs. 27.9 &plusmn; 4.8 vs. 29.2 &plusmn; 5.1 vs. 29.4 &plusmn; 5.4 kg/m²; p< 0.001). A greater prevalence of obesity was observed in the Southeast and South areas as compared to the Northeast (p< 0.001), as well as in the female group, respectively (69% vs. 31%; p< 0.001). Normal weight patients presented lower GCI. Patients being treated with two or more oral drugs and an association of insulin plus oral drug presented greater BMI values than those being treated with diet, oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin p< 0.001. The BMI of patients treated by a specialist did not differ from those treated by a generalist. CONCLUSIONS: 75% of our sample was out of adequate BMI and 30% was obese. The percentage of patients with overweight and obesity was comparable to those found in similar European studies but still lower than those found in the USA. The prevalence of obesity in diabetic patients was three times higher than in the overall Brazilian population according to data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE).OBJETIVO: Avaliar a prevalência de sobrepeso e obesidade em pacientes ambulatoriais com diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2) em diferentes regiões do Brasil. PACIENTES E MÉTODOS: Avaliamos aleatoriamente 2.519 pacientes em 11 hospitais, 2 ambulatórios especializados e um posto de saúde em 10 cidades brasileiras. Consideramos sobrepeso um índice de massa corporal (IMC) > 25 e obesidade um IMC > 30 kg/m². O controle glicêmico (CG) foi avaliado pelo índice de CG [ICG= HbA1 e ou HbA1c do paciente/limite superior de normalidade do método x 100]. RESULTADOS: Os pacientes tinham idade de 58,8 &plusmn; 11,6 anos, tempo de diagnóstico clínico de DM de 9,0 &plusmn; 7,3 anos, IMC de 28,3 &plusmn; 5,2 kg/m², e 39% eram do sexo masculino. Do total da amostra, 265 pacientes (10,5%) não apresentavam avaliação do IMC. Os pacientes da região Nordeste apresentaram menor IMC em comparação com os das regiões Centro-Oeste, Sudeste e Sul, respectivamente (26,4 &plusmn; 4,7 vs. 27,9 &plusmn; 4,8 vs. 29,2 &plusmn; 5,1 vs. 29,4 &plusmn; 5,4 kg/m²; p< 0,001). Houve maior prevalência de obesidade na região Sudeste e Sul em comparação à região Nordeste (p< 0,001) e nos pacientes do sexo feminino, respectivamente (69 vs. 31%; p< 0,001). Os pacientes com peso normal apresentaram menor ICG. Aqueles em tratamento com associação de duas ou mais drogas orais e associação de insulina + droga oral apresentaram maior IMC do que aqueles em tratamento com dieta, hipoglicemiante oral e insulina; p< 0,001. O IMC não diferiu entre os pacientes assistidos ou não por especialistas. CONCLUSÕES: Da população estudada, 75% não estava na faixa de peso ideal, sendo que um terço tinha obesidade. Nossos dados indicam que o sobrepeso e a obesidade já atingem um percentual de pacientes com DM2 no Brasil semelhante ao relatado em estudos europeus, mas ainda menor do que o observado nos EUA. A prevalência de obesidade nos pacientes diabéticos foi três vezes maior do que a observada na população brasileira em geral de acordo com os dados do IBGE.13614

Boletín del Observatorio Central Meteorológico: Año XXVIII Número 118 - 1920 Abril 27

Objetivos: Pacientes com câncer criticamente enfermos têm maior risco de lesão renal aguda, mas estudos envolvendo estes pacientes são escassos, e todos em centros únicos e realizados em unidades de terapia intensiva especializadas. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar as características e desfechos em uma coorte prospectiva de pacientes de câncer internados em diversas unidades de terapia intensiva com lesão renal aguda. Métodos: Estudo prospectivo multicêntrico de coorte realizado em unidades de terapia intensiva de 28 hospitais brasileiros em um período de dois meses. Foram utilizadas regressões logísticas univariada e multivariada para identificar os fatores associados a mortalidade hospitalar. Resultados: Dentre todas as 717 internações a unidades de terapia intensiva, 87 (12%) tiveram lesão renal aguda e 36% deles receberam terapia de substituição renal. A lesão renal se desenvolveu mais frequentemente em pacientes com neoplasias hematológicas do que em pacientes com tumores sólidos (26% x 11%; p=0,003). Isquemia/choque (76%) e sepse (67%) foram os principais fatores associados à lesão renal, e esta foi multifatorial em 79% dos pacientes. A letalidade hospitalar foi de 71%. Os escores de gravidade gerais e específicos para pacientes com lesão renal, foram imprecisos para predizer o prognóstico nestes pacientes. Na análise multivariada, a duração da internação hospitalar antes da unidade de terapia intensiva, disfunções orgânicas agudas, necessidade de ventilação mecânica e um performance status comprometido associaram-se à maior letalidade. Mais ainda, características relacionadas ao câncer não se associaram com os desfechos. Conclusões: O presente estudo demonstra que internação na unidade de terapia intensiva e suporte avançado à vida devem ser considerados em pacientes selecionados de câncer criticamente enfermos com lesão renal.Objectives: Critically ill cancer patients are at increased risk for acute kidney injury, but studies on these patients are scarce and were all single centered conducted in specialized intensive care units. The objective was to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes in a prospective cohort of cancer patients admitted to several intensive care units with acute kidney injury. Methods: Prospective multicenter cohort study conducted in intensive care units from 28 hospitals in Brazil over a two-month period. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with hospital mortality. Results: Out of all 717 intensive care unit admissions, 87 (12%) had acute kidney injury and 36% of them received renal replacement therapy. Kidney injury developed more frequently in patients with hematological malignancies than in patients with solid tumors (26% vs. 11%, P=0.003). Ischemia/shock (76%) and sepsis (67%) were the main contributing factor for and kidney injury was multifactorial in 79% of the patients. Hospital mortality was 71%. General and renal-specific severity- of-illness scores were inaccurate in predicting outcomes for these patients. In a multivariate analysis, length of hospital stay prior to intensive care unit, acute organ dysfunctions, need for mechanical ventilation and a poor performance status were associated with increased mortality. Moreover, cancer-related characteristics were not associated with outcomes. Conclusions: The present study demonstrates that intensive care units admission and advanced life-support should be considered in selected critically ill cancer patients with kidney injury