Comparison of different vascular risk engines in the identification of type 2 diabetes patients with high cardiovascular risk

Background: Some authors consider that secondary prevention should be conducted for all DM2 patients, while others suggest that the drug preventive treatment should start or be increased depending on each patient''s individual CVR, estimated using cardiovascular or coronary risk functions to identify the patients with a higher CVR. The principal objective of this study was to assess three different cardiovascular risk prediction models in type 2 diabetes patients. Methods: Multicentre, cross-sectional descriptive study of 3, 041 patients with type 2 diabetes and no history of cardiovascular disease. The demographic, clinical, analytical, and cardiovascular risk factor variables associated with type 2 diabetes were analysed. The risk function and probability that a cardiovascular disease could occur were estimated using three risk engines: REGICOR, UKPDS and ADVANCE. A patient was considered to have a high cardiovascular risk when REGICOR = 10 % or UKPDS = 15 % in 10 years or when ADVANCE = 8 % in 4 years. Results: The ADVANCE and UKPDS risk engines identified a higher number of diabetic patients with a high cardiovascular risk (24.2 % and 22.7 %, respectively) compared to the REGICOR risk engine (10.2 %). The correlation using the REGICOR risk engine was low compared to UKPDS and ADVANCE (r = 0.288 and r = 0.153, respectively//p < 0.0001). The agreement values in the allocation of a particular patient to the high risk group was low between the REGICOR engine and the UKPDS and ADVANCE engines (k = 0.205 and k = 0.123, respectively//p < 0.0001) and acceptable between the ADVANCE and UKPDS risk engines (k = 0.608). Conclusions: There are discrepancies between the general population and the type 2 diabetic patient-specific risk engines. The results of this study indicate the need for a prospective study which validates specific equations for diabetic patients in the Spanish population, as well as research on new models for cardiovascular risk prediction in these patients

Recomendaciones para el tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2: control glucémico

El tratamiento personalizado es actualmente el paradigma en el abordaje terapéutico de la diabetes tipo 2. En la toma de decisiones, los clínicos han de atender a las características particulares de la enfermedad, la comorbilidad, las preferencias del paciente y los recursos disponibles. El objetivo del presente Algoritmo terapéutico de la RedGDPS es el de ayudar a los clínicos en la toma de decisiones para el manejo individualizado de la diabetes tipo 2. Contempla las situaciones clínicas, en pacientes adultos con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (excluyendo embarazadas), que se han considerado más relevantes y frecuentes en nuestra práctica habitual. Estas recomendaciones no están destinadas a servir como una norma y no sustituyen al juicio clínico ni excluyen otras opciones terapéuticas que pudieran ser igualmente válidas o complementarias. Factores limitantes administrativos o económicos pueden condicionar también las decisiones

Patient-reported outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus: patients' and primary care physicians' perspectives in the Spanish health care system

OBJECTIVE: Understanding patients' and physicians' perceptions of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management and treatment has important implications for diabetes care, allowing the identification of clinical practice issues that could be improved, leading to patients' better understanding of the illness and, consequently, healthier self-management behaviors. The objective of this study was to identify differences between physicians' and T2DM patients' perceptions related to health status, patient-reported outcomes assessments, and T2DM management and treatment, in routine clinical practice in Spain. METHODS: This was an observational, cross-sectional study including 1,012 T2DM patients and 974 physicians from 47 and 52 Spanish provinces, respectively. An electronic structured self-administered questionnaire containing 17 questions was designed aiming to address both physicians' and patient's perceptions on overall T2DM health status and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: T2DM patients perceived a worse health status (40% reported having a 'good' and 38% a 'neither good nor bad' health status) compared with physicians' perceptions (77% thought patients had a 'good' health status). Most patients answered being 'satisfied' or 'neither satisfied nor unsatisfied' with the given information, while physicians considered that patients were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the information for self-monitoring blood glucose and treatment administration. Fifty-seven percent of patients reported that medical recommendations were 'important', while 58% of physicians considered it as 'very important'. Fifty-three percent of patients perceived that their current T2DM treatment suited their preferences 'quite a lot', and this was lower than the proportion of physicians (69%) that believed this for their patients. Additionally, a lower percentage of patients (53%) than physicians (79%) believed that their treatment improved their health-related quality of life 'quite a lot'. All differences between patients and physicians were statistically significant (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients and physicians demonstrate different views concerning all questions related to T2DM health status and diabetes management and treatment (information, recommendations, satisfaction, and preferences)

Comparison of different vascular risk engines in the identification of type 2 diabetes patients with high cardiovascular risk

Background: Some authors consider that secondary prevention should be conducted for all DM2 patients, while others suggest that the drug preventive treatment should start or be increased depending on each patient's individual CVR, estimated using cardiovascular or coronary risk functions to identify the patients with a higher CVR. The principal objective of this study was to assess three different cardiovascular risk prediction models in type 2 diabetes patients. Methods: Multicentre, cross-sectional descriptive study of 3,041 patients with type 2 diabetes and no history of cardiovascular disease. The demographic, clinical, analytical, and cardiovascular risk factor variables associated with type 2 diabetes were analysed. The risk function and probability that a cardiovascular disease could occur were estimated using three risk engines: REGICOR, UKPDS and ADVANCE. A patient was considered to have a high cardiovascular risk when REGICOR ≥ 10 % or UKPDS ≥ 15 % in 10 years or when ADVANCE ≥ 8 % in 4 years. Results: The ADVANCE and UKPDS risk engines identified a higher number of diabetic patients with a high cardiovascular risk (24.2 % and 22.7 %, respectively) compared to the REGICOR risk engine (10.2 %). The correlation using the REGICOR risk engine was low compared to UKPDS and ADVANCE (r = 0.288 and r = 0.153, respectively; p < 0.0001). The agreement values in the allocation of a particular patient to the high risk group was low between the REGICOR engine and the UKPDS and ADVANCE engines (k = 0.205 and k = 0.123, respectively; p < 0.0001) and acceptable between the ADVANCE and UKPDS risk engines (k = 0.608). Conclusions: There are discrepancies between the general population and the type 2 diabetic patient-specific risk engines. The results of this study indicate the need for a prospective study which validates specific equations for diabetic patients in the Spanish population, as well as research on new models for cardiovascular risk prediction in these patients. Keywords: Type 2 diabetes, Cardiovascular risk prediction, Cardiovascular disease, Risk prediction models, Primary predictio

Cardiometabolic Risk Profiles in Patients With Impaired Fasting Glucose and/or Hemoglobin A1c 5.7% to 6.4%: Evidence for a Gradient According to Diagnostic Criteria. The PREDAPS Study

It has been suggested that the early detection of individuals with prediabetes can help prevent cardiovascular diseases. The purpose of the current study was to examine the cardiometabolic risk profile in patients with prediabetes according to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and/or hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) criteria. Cross-sectional analysis from the 2022 patients in the Cohort study in Primary Health Care on the Evolution of Patients with Prediabetes (PREDAPS Study) was developed. Four glycemic status groups were defined based on American Diabetes Association criteria. Information about cardiovascular risk factors-body mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, uric acid, gamma-glutamyltransferase, glomerular filtration-and metabolic syndrome components were analyzed. Mean values of clinical and biochemical characteristics and frequencies of metabolic syndrome were estimated adjusting by age, sex, educational level, and family history of diabetes. A linear trend (P < 0.001) was observed in most of the cardiovascular risk factors and in all components of metabolic syndrome. Normoglycemic individuals had the best values, individuals with both criteria of prediabetes had the worst, and individuals with only one-HbA1c or FPG-criterion had an intermediate position. Metabolic syndrome was present in 15.0% (95% confidence interval: 12.6-17.4), 59.5% (54.0-64.9), 62.0% (56.0-68.0), and 76.2% (72.8-79.6) of individuals classified in normoglycemia, isolated HbA1c, isolated FPG, and both criteria groups, respectively. In conclusion, individuals with prediabetes, especially those with both criteria, have worse cardiometabolic risk profile than normoglycemic individuals. These results suggest the need to use both criteria in the clinical practice to identify those individuals with the highest cardiovascular risk, in order to offer them special attention with intensive lifestyle intervention programs

Evolución de pacientes con prediabetes en Atención Primaria de Salud (PREDAPS): resultados del primer año de seguimiento

En 2012, la Red de Grupos de Estudio de la Diabetes en Atención Primaria de la Salud (redGDPS) inició el Estudio PREDAPS con la finalidad de determinar la incidencia de diabetes en individuos con prediabetes e identificar los factores asociados al desarrollo de la enfermedad y de sus complicaciones. En la etapa basal se incluyeron 2022 participantes, formando dos cohortes: una cohorte de 838 sujetos sin alteraciones del metabolismo de la glucosa y otra cohorte de 1184 sujetos con prediabetes. Durante el año 2013 se realizó la primera visita de seguimiento. El objetivo del presente trabajo es mostrar los principales resultados obtenidos en este primer año de seguimiento y evaluar la relación entre diversos factores registrados en la etapa basal y la incidencia de diabetes en la cohorte de sujetos con prediabetes

Modifiable risk factors associated with prediabetes in men and women: a cross-sectional analysis of the cohort study in primary health care on the evolution of patients with prediabetes (PREDAPS-Study)

Background: Prediabetes is a high-risk state for diabetes development, but little is known about the factors associated with this state. The aim of the study was to identify modifiable risk factors associated with the presence of prediabetes in men and women. Methods: Cohort Study in Primary Health Care on the Evolution of Patients with Prediabetes (PREDAPS-Study) is a prospective study on a cohort of 1184 subjects with prediabetes and another cohort of 838 subjects without glucose metabolism disorders. It is being conducted by 125 general practitioners in Spain. Data for this analysis were collected during the baseline stage in 2012. The modifiable risk factors included were: smoking habit, alcohol consumption, low physical activity, inadequate diet, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity. To assess independent association between each factor and prediabetes, odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using logistic regression models. Results: Abdominal obesity, low plasma levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-cholesterol), and hypertension were independently associated with the presence of prediabetes in both men and women. After adjusting for all factors, the respective ORs (95% Confidence Intervals) were 1.98 (1.41-2.79), 1.88 (1.23-2.88) and 1.86 (1.39-2.51) for men, and 1.89 (1.36-2.62), 1.58 (1.12-2.23) and 1.44 (1.07-1.92) for women. Also, general obesity was a risk factor in both sexes but did not reach statistical significance among men, after adjusting for all factors. Risky alcohol consumption was a risk factor for prediabetes in men, OR 1.49 (1.00-2.24). Conclusions: Obesity, low HDL-cholesterol levels, and hypertension were modifiable risk factors independently related to the presence of prediabetes in both sexes. The magnitudes of the associations were stronger for men than women. Abdominal obesity in both men and women displayed the strongest association with prediabetes. The findings suggest that there are some differences between men and women, which should be taken into account when implementing specific recommendations to prevent or delay the onset of diabetes in adult population. Keywords: Prediabetes, Modifiable risk factors, Primary health care, Men, Women, Spai

Recomendaciones para el tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2: control glucémico

El tratamiento personalizado es actualmente el paradigma en el abordaje terapéutico de la diabetes tipo 2. En la toma de decisiones, los clínicos han de atender a las características particulares de la enfermedad, la comorbilidad, las preferencias del paciente y los recursos disponibles. El objetivo del presente Algoritmo terapéutico de la RedGDPS es el de ayudar a los clínicos en la toma de decisiones para el manejo individualizado de la diabetes tipo 2. Contempla las situaciones clínicas, en pacientes adultos con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (excluyendo embarazadas), que se han considerado más relevantes y frecuentes en nuestra práctica habitual. Estas recomendaciones no están destinadas a servir como una norma y no sustituyen al juicio clínico ni excluyen otras opciones terapéuticas que pudieran ser igualmente válidas o complementarias. Factores limitantes administrativos o económicos pueden condicionar también las decisiones

Patient-reported outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus: patients' and primary care physicians' perspectives in the Spanish health care system

OBJECTIVE: Understanding patients' and physicians' perceptions of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management and treatment has important implications for diabetes care, allowing the identification of clinical practice issues that could be improved, leading to patients' better understanding of the illness and, consequently, healthier self-management behaviors. The objective of this study was to identify differences between physicians' and T2DM patients' perceptions related to health status, patient-reported outcomes assessments, and T2DM management and treatment, in routine clinical practice in Spain. METHODS: This was an observational, cross-sectional study including 1,012 T2DM patients and 974 physicians from 47 and 52 Spanish provinces, respectively. An electronic structured self-administered questionnaire containing 17 questions was designed aiming to address both physicians' and patient's perceptions on overall T2DM health status and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: T2DM patients perceived a worse health status (40% reported having a 'good' and 38% a 'neither good nor bad' health status) compared with physicians' perceptions (77% thought patients had a 'good' health status). Most patients answered being 'satisfied' or 'neither satisfied nor unsatisfied' with the given information, while physicians considered that patients were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the information for self-monitoring blood glucose and treatment administration. Fifty-seven percent of patients reported that medical recommendations were 'important', while 58% of physicians considered it as 'very important'. Fifty-three percent of patients perceived that their current T2DM treatment suited their preferences 'quite a lot', and this was lower than the proportion of physicians (69%) that believed this for their patients. Additionally, a lower percentage of patients (53%) than physicians (79%) believed that their treatment improved their health-related quality of life 'quite a lot'. All differences between patients and physicians were statistically significant (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients and physicians demonstrate different views concerning all questions related to T2DM health status and diabetes management and treatment (information, recommendations, satisfaction, and preferences)