Подготовка ИТ-консультантов в российских вузах в разрезе проблематики консалтинга

Differences in clinical effectiveness between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the primary treatment of hypertension are unknown. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the prevention of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients treated with ARBs or ACEis. Patients initiated on enalapril or candesartan treatment in 71 Swedish primary care centers between 1999 and 2007 were included. Medical records data were extracted and linked with nationwide hospital discharge and cause of death registers. The 11 725 patients initiated on enalapril and 4265 on candesartan had similar baseline characteristics. During a mean follow-up of 1.84 years, 36 482 patient-years, the risk of new diabetes onset was lower in the candesartan group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.96, P = 0.01) compared with the enalapril group. No difference between the groups was observed in CVD risk (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P = 0.86). More patients discontinued treatment in the enalapril group (38.1%) vs the candesartan group (27.2%). In a clinical setting, patients initiated on candesartan treatment had a lower risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes and lower rates of drug discontinuation compared with patients initiated on enalapril. No differences in CVD risk were observed

Updated risk factors should be used to predict development of diabetes

Aims: Predicting incident diabetes could inform treatment strategies for diabetes prevention, but the incremental benefit of recalculating risk using updated risk factors is unknown. We used baseline and 1-year data from the Nateglinide and Valsartan in Impaired Glucose Tolerance Outcomes Research (NAVIGATOR) Trial to compare diabetes risk prediction using historical or updated clinical information. Methods: Among non-diabetic participants reaching 1 year of follow-up in NAVIGATOR, we compared the performance of the published baseline diabetes risk model with a “landmark” model incorporating risk factors updated at the 1-year time point. The C-statistic was used to compare model discrimination and reclassification analyses to demonstrate the relative accuracy of diabetes prediction. Results: A total of 7527 participants remained non-diabetic at 1 year, and 2375 developed diabetes during a median of 4 years of follow-up. The C-statistic for the landmark model was higher (0.73 [95% CI 0.72–0.74]) than for the baseline model (0.67 [95% CI 0.66–0.68]). The landmark model improved classification to modest (< 20%), moderate (20%–40%), and high (> 40%) 4-year risk, with a net reclassification index of 0.14 (95% CI 0.10–0.16) and an integrated discrimination index of 0.01 (95% CI 0.003–0.013). Conclusions: Using historical clinical values to calculate diabetes risk reduces the accuracy of prediction. Diabetes risk calculations should be routinely updated to inform discussions about diabetes prevention at both the patient and population health levels

Prevention of diabetes and cardiovascular disease in patients with impaired glucose tolerance: Rationale and design of the Nateglinide And Valsartan in Impaired Glucose Tolerance Outcomes Research (NAVIGATOR) Trial

Patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) have increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lifestyle modification and medication can prevent or delay progression to diabetes (PD), but whether such interventions also reduce the risk of CVD has not been rigorously tested. The Nateglinide And Valsartan in Impaired Glucose Tolerance Outcomes Research (NAVIGATOR) trial is a multinational, randomized, double-blind, 2 x 2 factorial trial in subjects with IGT (on a screening oral glucose tolerance test [OGTT]) aged >= 50 years with known CVD or aged >= 55 years with >= 1 CVD risk factor. Enrollment began in January 2002 and was completed January 2004, with 9,518 patients randomized to receive 1 of 4 possible treatment combinations as follows: nateglinide with valsartan, nateglinide with valsartan-placebo, noteglinide-placebo with valsartan, or noteglinide-placebo with valsortan-placebo. All subjects are participating in a clinic-based and telephone-based lifestyle intervention aimed at reducing weight and dietary fat and increasing physical activity. The 3 coprimary end points are new onset of T2DM, a "core" composite of major cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure), and an "extended" composite including the components of the core composite plus coronary revascularization and hospitalization for unstable angina. The study was designed to evaluate whether reducing postprandial hyperglycemia, blockade of the renin-angiotensin-alclosterone system, or both interventions reduce the risk of T2DM or cardiovascular events in patients with IGT