О распространении кольцевых гомеоморфизмов на границу

Samenvatting Koekkoek PS, Rutten GEHM, Van den Berg E, Kappelle LJ, Biessels GJ. Test Your Memory-test: een alternatief voor de MMSE. Huisarts Wet 2014;57(1):618-21. De Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is de meest gebruikte screeningstest om een indruk over het cognitieve functioneren te krijgen. Deze test kost relatief veel tijd en kan niet door patiënt zelfstandig uitgevoerd worden. De Test Your Memory-test (TYM) is een potentieel alternatief. In dit onderzoek worden uitkomsten van de TYM en de MMSE vergeleken met een neuropsychologisch onderzoek (NPO) in een populatie die niet met klinisch relevante cognitieve stoornissen bekend was. Mensen zonder bekende cognitieve stoornissen, ondergingen een NPO inclusief MMSE en een TYM. De relatie tussen de TYM, de MMSE en een NPO werd onderzocht met correlatieanalyses, ROC-curves voor discriminatie tussen ‘normale’ cognitie en ‘lichte cognitieve tekorten’ (≥ 1 SD onder het gemiddelde), en bland-altmanplots. 86 mensen vulden de TYM in (gemiddelde leeftijd 69 jaar; 59% man). De correlatie met een volledig NPO was significant sterker voor de TYM dan de MMSE (r = 0,78 versus r = 0,55; Steiger’s Z = 2,66, p < 0,01). De oppervlakte onder de ROC-curve was 0,88 (TYM) versus 0,71 (MMSE). Bland-altmanplots laten zien dat de TYM beter overeenkomt met het NPO dan de MMSE. De TYM komt beter overeen met een NPO dan de MMSE en maakt een beter onderscheid tussen ‘lichte cognitieve tekorten’ en normaal cognitief functioneren. Hiermee is de TYM een veelbelovende test voor gebruik in de huisartsenpraktijk

Diabetes care providers' opinions and working methods after four years of experience with a diabetes patient web portal; a survey among health care providers in general practices and an outpatient clinic

Prevention, Population and Disease management (PrePoD)Public Health and primary car

Lifetime health effects and costs of diabetes treatment

BACKGROUND: This article presents cost-effectiveness analyses of the major diabetes interventions as formulated in the revised Dutch guidelines for diabetes type 2 patients in primary and secondary care. The analyses consider two types of care: diabetes control and the treatment of complications, each at current care level and according to the guidelines. METHODS: A validated probabilistic diabetes model describes diabetes and its complications over a lifetime in the Dutch population, computing quality-adjusted life years and medical costs. Effectiveness data and costs of diabetes interventions are from observational current care studies and intensive care experiments. Lifetime consequences of in total sixteen intervention mixes are compared with a baseline glycaemic control of 10% HBA1C. RESULTS: The interventions may reduce the cumulative incidence of blindness, lower-extremity amputation, and end-stage renal disease by >70% in primary care and >60% in secondary care. All primary care guidelines together add 0.8 quality-adjusted life years per lifetime. CONCLUSION: In case of few resources, treating complications according to guidelines yields the most health benefits. Current care of diabetes complications is inefficient. If there are sufficient resources, countries may implement all guidelines, also on diabetes control, and improve efficiency in diabetes care

Peer support to decrease diabetes-related distress in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus:Design of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Many type 2 diabetes mellitus patients face difficulties self-managing their illness, which can lead to high levels of diabetes-related distress. Diabetes distress may be decreased by peer support, as peers understand and have dealt with similar problems, and can help motivate each other. A recent systematic review concluded that evidence of benefits of peer support in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is too inconsistent due to weak theoretical foundation of the interventions. This study describes the design of a trial evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based, peer support programme with a strong theoretical foundation on diabetes-related distress in type 2 diabetes patients. METHODS: This is a parallel group randomised controlled trial of a six session group-based peer support intervention, delivered by peer leaders and group psychotherapists, compared with one educational meeting on diabetes. At least 152 patients with a type 2 diabetes duration of three years or more and between 50 and 70 years of age, recruited via their general practitioner, will be randomised to receive the peer support intervention or one educational meeting. The intervention is developed in line with three key stages of research development of the Medical Research Council framework. The primary outcome measure for this study is diabetes-related distress. Secondary outcomes include self-management behaviour, well-being and health-related quality of life. Perceived social support is a process measure. Outcomes will be measured one month before, and 6, and 12 months after the intervention by means of self-reported questionnaires. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: This article contains a description of the design of a study that will investigate the effect of a group-based, peer support intervention on diabetes-related distress in type 2 diabetes patients. The intervention was developed in recognition of the limited evidence, and the importance of a theoretical foundation and its implementation. Findings will contribute to knowledge in the field of peer support and patient-important outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry: NTR347

Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, Non–High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, Triglycerides, and Apolipoprotein B and Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With Manifest Arterial Disease

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) only partly represents the atherogenic lipid burden, and a growing body of evidence suggests that non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B (apoB) are more accurate in estimating lipid-related cardiovascular disease risk. Our objective was to compare the relation among LDL-C, non-HDL-C, triglycerides, and apoB and the occurrence of future vascular events and mortality in patients with manifest arterial disease. This is a prospective cohort study of 7,216 patients with clinically manifest arterial disease in the Secondary Manifestations of Arterial Disease Study. Cox proportional hazard models were used to quantify the risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE; i.e., stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular mortality) and all-cause mortality. Interaction was tested for type of vascular disease at inclusion. MACE occurred in 1,185 subjects during a median follow-up of 6.5 years (interquartile range 3.4 to 9.9 years). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of MACE per 1 SD higher were for LDL-C (HR 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 to 1.22), for non-HDL-C (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.23), for log(triglycerides) (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.19), and for apoB HR (1.12, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.28). The relation among LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and cardiovascular events was comparable in patients with cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, or polyvascular disease and absent in those with aneurysm of abdominal aorta or peripheral artery disease. In conclusion, in patients with a history of cerebrovascular, coronary artery, or polyvascular disease, but not aneurysm of abdominal aorta or peripheral artery disease, higher levels of LDL-C and non-HDL-C are related to increased risk of future MACE and of comparable magnitude

Risk factors for lobar and non-lobar intracerebral hemorrhage in patients with vascular disease

Introduction Lobar and non-lobar non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are presumably caused by different types of small vessel diseases. The aim of this study was to assess risk factors for ICH according to location. Methods In two large prospective studies, SMART (n = 9088) and ESPRIT (n = 2625), including patients with manifest cardiovascular, cerebrovascular or peripheral artery disease or with vascular risk factors, we investigated potential risk factors for ICH during follow-up according to lobar or non-lobar location by Cox proportional hazards analyses. Results During 65,156 patient years of follow up 19 patients had lobar ICH (incidence rate 29, 95% CI 19-42 per 100,000 person-years) and 24 non-lobar ICH (incidence rate 37, 95% CI 26-51 per 100,000 person-years). Age significantly increased the risk of lobar ICH (HR per 10 years increase 1.90; 95% CI 1.17-3.10) in the multivariable analysis, but not of non-lobar hemorrhage. Anticoagulant medication (HR 3.49; 95% CI 1.20-10.2) and male sex (HR 3.79; 95% CI 1.13-12.8) increased the risk of non-lobar but not lobar ICH. Conclusion This study shows an elevated risk of future ICH in patients with manifestations of, or risk factors for, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular or peripheral artery disease. Our data suggest that risk factors for ICH vary according to location, supporting the hypothesis of a differential pathophysiology of lobar and non-lobar ICH

Glycemic control and long-acting insulin analog utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes

Introduction: The objective was to compare glycemic control, insulin utilization, and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiated on insulin detemir (IDet) or insulin glargine (IGlar) in a real-life setting in the Netherlands. Methods: Insulin-naïve patients with T2D, starting treatment with IDet or IGlar between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2008, were selected from the PHARMO data network. Glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]), target rates (HbA1c <7%), daily insulin dose, and weight gain were analyzed comparing IDet and IGlar for patients with available HbA1c levels both at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. Analysis of all eligible patients (AEP) and a subgroup of patients without treatment changes (WOTC) in the follow-up period were adjusted for patient characteristics, propensity scores, and baseline HbA1c. Results: A total of 127 IDet users and 292 IGlar users were included in the WOTC analyses. The mean HbA1c dropped from 8.4%-8.6% at baseline to 7.4% after 1 year. Patients at HbA1c goal increased from 9% at baseline to 32% for IDet and 11% to 35% for IGlar, which was not significantly different (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.46, 1.24). Weight gain (n=90) was less among IDet users (+0.4kg) than among IGlar users (+1.1kg), albeit not significant. The AEP analysis (252 IDet

No additional prognostic value of genetic information in the prediction of vascular events after cerebral ischemia of arterial origin

Background: Patients who have suffered from cerebral ischemia have a high risk of recurrent vascular events. Predictive models based on classical risk factors typically have limited prognostic value. Given that cerebral ischemia has a heritable component, genetic information might improve performance of these risk models. Our aim was to develop and compare two models: one containing traditional vascular risk factors, the other also including genetic information. Methods and Results: We studied 1020 patients with cerebral ischemia and genotyped them with the Illumina Immunochip. Median follow-up time was 6.5 years; the annual incidence of new ischemic events (primary outcome, n=198) was 3.0%. The prognostic model based on classical vascular risk factors had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.69). When we added a genetic risk score based on prioritized SNPs from a genome-wide association study of ischemic stroke (using summary statistics from the METASTROKE study which included 12389 cases and 62004 controls), the AUC-ROC remained the same. Similar results were found for the secondary outcome ischemic stroke. Conclusions: We found no additional value of genetic information in a prognostic model for the risk of ischemic events in patients with cerebral ischemia of arterial origin. This is consistent with a complex, polygenic architecture, where many genes of weak effect likely act in concert to influence the heritable risk of an individual to develop (recurrent) vascular events. At present, genetic information cannot help clinicians to distinguish patients at high risk for recurrent vascular events