Prevalence of Comorbidities and Their Influence on Blood Pressure Goal Attainment in Geriatric Patients

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72595/1/j.1076-7460.2007.05543.x.pd

Assessment of quality of care given to diabetic patients at Jimma University Specialized Hospital diabetes follow-up clinic, Jimma, Ethiopia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sub-Saharan Africa is currently enduring the heaviest global burden of diabetes and diabetes care in such resource poor countries is far below standards. This study aims to describe the gaps in the care of Ethiopian diabetic patients at Jimma University Specialized Hospital.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>329 diabetic patients were selected as participants in the study, aged 15 years or greater, who have been active in follow-up for their diabetes for more than 1 year at the hospital. They were interviewed for their demographic characters and relevant clinical profiles. Their charts were simultaneously reviewed for characters related to diabetes and related morbidities. Descriptive statistics was used for most variables and Chi-square test, where necessary, was used to test the association among various variables. P-value of < 0.05 was used as statistical significance.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Blood glucose determination was done for 98.5% of patients at each of the last three visits, but none ever had glycosylated haemoglobin results. The mean fasting blood sugar (FBS) level was 171.7 ± 63.6 mg/dl and 73.1% of patients had mean FBS levels above 130 mg/dl. Over 44% of patients have already been diagnosed to be hypertensive and 64.1% had mean systolic BP of > 130 and/or diastolic > 80 mmHg over the last three visits. Diabetes eye and neurologic evaluations were ever done for 42.9% and 9.4% of patients respectively. About 66% had urine test for albumin, but only 28.2% had renal function testing over the last 5 years. The rates for lipid test, electrocardiography, echocardiography, or ultrasound of the kidneys during the same time were < 5% for each. Diabetic neuropathy (25.0%) and retinopathy (23.1%) were the most common chronic complications documented among those evaluated for complications.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The overall aspects of diabetes care at the hospital were far below any recommended standards. Hence, urgent action to improve care for patients with diabetes is mandatory. Future studies examining patterns and prevalence of chronic complications using appropriate parameters is strongly recommended to see the true burden of diabetes.</p

Association between vascular endothelial growth factor and hypertension in children and adolescents type I diabetes mellitus

The aim of the study was to analyse the relationship between the serum level of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and the incidence of hypertension (HT) in children and adolescents with type I diabetes mellitus (T1DM). One hundred and five patients with T1DM were enrolled in the study. The control group consisted of 30 healthy controls. All the T1DM patients were subjected to biochemical analyses, ophthalmologic examination and 24-h blood pressure monitoring. Besides, all the patients and healthy controls had serum VEGF levels measured with the use of the ELISA methodology. The essence of our research is that patients with T1DM and HT and with microalbuminuria (MA) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) (MA/DR) are characterized by a significantly higher level of VEGF (340.23±93.22 pg ml–1) in blood serum in comparison with the group of T1DM patients without HT and MA/DR (183.6±96.6 pg ml–1) and with healthy controls (145.32±75.58 pg ml–1). In addition, the VEGF level was significantly higher in T1DM patients, who presented all three complications, that is HT, retinopathy and MA in comparison with T1DM patients without HT, but with MA/DR (P=0.036). On the other hand, no statistically significant differences (P=0.19) were noted in the level of VEGF in serum between T1DM patients without HT and MA/DR and the healthy control group. At a further stage of analysis, using the method of multiple regression, it was shown that systolic pressure, HbA1c and duration of disease are independent factors influencing the concentration of VEGF. Summarizing, the measurement of VEGF serum levels allows for the identification of groups of patients who have the highest risk of HT and, subsequently, progression of vascular complications

Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations. The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors. To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin. The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic. Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as: - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability, - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician, - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences, - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders, - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless, - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs. The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II)