Risk stratification by endocrinologists of patients with type 2 diabetes in a Danish specialised outpatient clinic:a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: To target optimised medical care the Danish guidelines for diabetes recommend stratification of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) into three levels according to risk and complexity of treatment. The aim was to describe the T2D population in an outpatient clinic, measure the compliance of the endocrinologists’ to perform risk stratification, and investigate the level of concordance between stratification performed by the endocrinologists and objective assessments. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with data collected from medical records and laboratory databases. The Danish risk stratification model contained the following criteria: HbA(1c), blood pressure, metabolic complications, microvascular and macrovascular complications. Stratification levels encompassed: level 1 (uncomplicated), level 2 (intermediate risk) and level 3 (high risk). Objective assessments were conducted independently by two health professionals, and compared with the endocrinologists’ assessments. In order to test the degree of concordance, we conducted Cohen's kappa, McNemar’s test for marginal homogeneity, and Bowker’s test for symmetry. RESULTS: Of 245 newly referred patients, 209 (85 %) were stratified by the endocrinologists to level 1 (16 %), level 2 (55 %) and level 3 (29 %). By objective assessments, 4 % were stratified to level 1, 51 % to level 2 and 45 % to level 3. Of 419 long-term follow-up patients, 380 (91 %) were stratified by the endocrinologists to level 1 (5 %), level 2 (57 %), level 3 (38 %). By objective assessments, 3 % were stratified to level 1, 58 % to level 2 and 39 % to level 3. The concordance rate between endocrinologists’ and objective assessments was 63 % among newly referred (kappa 0.39; fair agreement) and 67 % for long-term follow-up (kappa 0.45; moderate agreement). Among newly referred patients, the endocrinologists stratified less patients at level 3 compared to objective assessments (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in marginal distribution within long-term follow-up patients. CONCLUSION: Type 2 diabetes patients, newly referred to or allocated for long-term follow-up in the out-patient clinic, were mainly intermediate and high-risk, complicated patients (96 % and 95 %, respectively). Compliance of stratification by endocrinologists was high. The concordance between endocrinologists’ and objective assessments was not strong. Our data suggest that clinician-support for stratification level categorisation might be needed

Mycoplasma bovis in Nordic European Countries: Emergence and Dominance of a New Clone

Mycoplasma (M.) bovis is an important pathogen of cattle implicated in a broad range of clinical manifestations that adversely impacts livestock production worldwide. In the absence of a safe, effective, commercial vaccine in Europe, reduced susceptibility to reported antimicrobials for this organism has contributed to difficulties in controlling infection. Despite global presence, some countries have only recently experienced outbreaks of this pathogen. In the present study, M. bovis isolates collected in Denmark between 1981 and 2016 were characterized to determine (i) genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships using whole genome sequencing and various sequence-based typing methods and (ii) patterns of antimicrobial resistance compared to other European isolates. The M. bovis population in Denmark was found to be highly homogeneous genomically and with respect to the antimicrobial resistance profile. Previously dominated by an old genotype shared by many other countries (ST17 in the PubMLST legacy scheme), a new predominant type represented by ST94-adh1 has emerged. The same clone is also found in Sweden and Finland, where M. bovis introduction is more recent. Although retrieved from the Netherlands, it appears absent from France, two countries with a long history of M. bovis infection where the M. bovis population is more diverse

Outcomes of a 12-week ecologically valid observational study of first treatment with methylphenidate in a representative clinical sample of drug naïve children with ADHD

Randomized placebo-controlled trials have reported efficacy of methylphenidate (MPH) for Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); however, selection biases due to strict entry criteria may limit the generalizability of the findings. Few ecologically valid studies have investigated effectiveness of MPH in representative clinical populations of children. This independently funded study aims to describe treatment responses and their predictors during the first 12 weeks of MPH treatment using repeated measurements of symptoms and adverse reactions (ARs) to treatment in 207 children recently diagnosed with ADHD. The children were consecutively included from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Centre, Mental Health Services, The Capital Region of Denmark. The children (mean age, 9.6 years [range 7–12], 75.4% males) were titrated with MPH, based on weekly assessments of symptoms (18-item ADHD-rating scale scores, ADHD-RS-C) and ARs. At study-end 187 (90.8%) children reached a mean end-dose of 1.0 mg/kg/day. A normalisation/borderline normalisation on ADHD-RS-C was achieved for 168 (81.2%) children on the Inattention and/or the Hyperactivity-Impulsivity subscale in week 12, and 31 (15.0%) children were nonresponders, which was defined as absence of normalisation/borderline normalisation (n = 19) or discontinuation due to ARs (n = 12), and eight (3.8%) children dropped out from follow-up. Nonresponders were characterised by more severe symptoms of Hyperactivity-Impulsivity and global impairment before the treatment. ARs were few; the most prominent were appetite reduction and weight loss. A decrease in AR-like symptoms during the treatment period questions the validity of currently available standard instruments designed to measure ARs of MPH. This ecologically valid observational study supports prior randomized placebo-controlled trials; 81.2% of the children responded favourably in multiple domains with few harmful effects to carefully titrated MPH. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov with registration number NCT04366609