Population Based Study of 12 Autoimmune Diseases in Sardinia, Italy: Prevalence and Comorbidity

BACKGROUND: The limited availability of prevalence data based on a representative sample of the general population, and the limited number of diseases considered in studies about co-morbidity are the critical factors in study of autoimmune diseases. This paper describes the prevalence of 12 autoimmune diseases in a representative sample of the general population in the South of Sardinia, Italy, and tests the hypothesis of an overall association among these diseases. METHODS: Data were obtained from 21 GPs. The sample included 25,885 people. Prevalence data were expressed with 95% Poisson C.I. The hypothesis of an overall association between autoimmune diseases was tested by evaluating the co-occurrence within individuals. RESULTS: Prevalence per 100,000 are: 552 rheumatoid arthritis, 124 ulcerative colitis, 15 Crohn's disease, 464 type 1 diabetes, 81 systemic lupus erythematosus, 124 celiac disease, 35 myasthenia gravis, 939 psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, 35 systemic sclerosis, 224 multiple sclerosis, 31 Sjogren's syndrome, and 2,619 autoimmune thyroiditis. An overall association between autoimmune disorders was highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: The comparisons with prevalence reported in current literature do not show outlier values, except possibly for a few diseases like celiac disease and myasthenia gravis. People already affected by a first autoimmune disease have a higher probability of being affected by a second autoimmune disorder. In the present study, the sample size, together with the low overall prevalence of autoimmune diseases in the population, did not allow us to examine which diseases are most frequently associated with other autoimmune diseases. However, this paper makes available an adequate control population for future clinical studies aimed at exploring the co-morbidity of specific pairs of autoimmune disease

Can plasma glucose and HbA1c predict fetal growth in mothers with different glucose tolerance levels?

To assess whether HbA1c and plasma glucose predicts abnormal fetal growth, 758 pregnant women attending 5 Diabetic Centers were screened for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). On glucose challenge (GCT) at 24-27 weeks of gestation (g.w.), negative cases formed the normal control group (N1). Positive cases took an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT): those found negative were classed as false positives screening test (N2); if they had an OGTT result at least as high as their normal glucose levels, they were classed as having one abnormal glucose value (OAV) at OGTT; two values as GDM. HbA1c was assayed on the day of GCT. We considered fetal macrosomia, large for gestational age (LGA), ponderal index and mean growth percentile. Mean age, pre-pregnancy BMI, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c were progressively higher from N1 to GDM patients. The newborn of N2 mothers were heavier than those with N1 or GDM. The mean growth percentile was significantly higher in N2 than in N1. More LGA babies were born to OAV than to N1 or N2 women. Macrosomia and ponderal index did not differ significantly in the four groups. At logistic regression only plasma glucose at GCT could predict LGA babies and a ponderal index above 2.85. At risk analysis, GDM and OAV significantly predicted LGA babies, and GDM a ponderal index >2.85. In conclusion, FPG at GCT could predict fetal overgrowth and plasma glucose >85mg/dl doubles the risk of LGA infants. HbA1c at 24-27g.w. does not predict fetal overgrowth. Mild alterations in glucose tolerance correlate with fetal overgrowth and needs monitoring and treatment

Reference intervals for hemoglobin A(1c) in pregnant women: Data from an Italian Multicenter study

BACKGROUND: The reference intervals for hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) in pregnant women without diabetes are not well defined, and few examples of reference intervals established by networks of different laboratories are available. METHODS: Five Italian Diabetic Care Units were involved in the study. Data were collected from 445 pregnant women without diabetes, selected on the basis of glucose challenge test results, and from 384 nonpregnant control women. The Hb A1c measurements were performed with HPLC systems aligned to the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Plasma glucose measurements were also performed locally. Both Hb A1c and glucose measurements were harmonized by running appropriate external quality assessment schemes. The reference intervals were calculated in terms of nonparametric 2.5th to 97.5th percentiles with 0.90 confidence intervals. RESULTS: The Hb A1c measurements were reproducible (CV = 2.0%) and accurate [mean (SE) difference from the target values, -0.10 (0.06)%]. Glucose measurements were also reproducible (mean CV = 3.2%) and accurate [difference from the target values, -0.01 (0.04) mmol/L]. To calculate common reference intervals, we merged the data collected in the different centers. The Hb A1c reference intervals were 4.0%-5.5% for pregnant nondiabetic women and 4.8%-6.2% for nonpregnant controls. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy pregnant women have lower Hb A1c concentrations than nonpregnant women. The reference intervals for Hb A1c in pregnant women should therefore be lower than those currently in use

AMD Annals: a model of continuous monitoring and improvement of the quality of diabetes care

OBJECTIVE: in recent years, several initiatives have been launched by the Associazione medici diabetologi (AMD) in the context of a national quality improvement program.These activities include: identification of specific indicators of quality of diabetes care, development of a software to calculate such indicators by using routine clinical data, creation of a network of diabetes clinics and analysis and publication of the results in ad hoc reports (AMD Annals). Through the best performer approach, each centre could compare its own performance not only with the theoretical targets suggested by existing guidelines, but also with the results achieved by the best centres operating within the same healthcare system.We evaluated whether the involvement of diabetes clinics into the AMD Annals initiative improved the quality of care over 4 years. DESIGN: a controlled before and after study was performed to compare data collected from 2004 to 2007 by two groups of centres: group A included centres that had been involved in the project since the first edition of AMD Annals; group B included centres only involved in the last edition. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: overall, 124 diabetes clinics provided data on over 100,000 type 2 diabetes patients/year seen from 2004 to 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: process indicators included the proportion of patients with at least one measurement of HbA1c, blood pressure and lipid profile during the previous 12 months. Intermediate outcomes included percentages of patients with levels of HbA1c ≤ 7%, blood pressure ≤ 130/85 mmHg and LDL-cholesterol <100 mg/dl (favourable indicators), and the percentages of patients with levels of HbA1c ≥ 9%, blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg and LDL-cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl (unfavourable indicators). Percentages of patients treated with insulin, two or more antihypertensive agents, and statins were also evaluated. A multilevel analysis adjusted for age, gender, diabetes duration, and clustering effect was applied to investigate the changes in the indicators between the two groups of centres during 4 years. RESULTS: lipid profile monitoring increased more in group A (+6.2% from 2004 to 2007) than in group B (+2.4%), while HbA1c and blood pressure monitoring did not change over time in both groups. As for the outcomes considered, the percentage of patients with HbA1c ≤ 7% increased by 6% in group A and by 1.3%in group B, while the proportion of patients achieving the blood pressure target increased in group A (+6.4%), but not in group B (-1.4%). A reduction in the percentage of patients with blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg was found in group A (-7.3%) but not in group B (-0.9%). Marked improvements in the proportion of patients with LDL-cholesterol at target were documented in both groups (group A: +10.5%; group B: +12.2%.) The proportion of patients treated with insulin increased in group A only (+5.8%), while the use of statins grew by 20%in both groups.The proportion of individuals treated with two or more antihypertensive drugs increased by 3.6% in group A and by 1.6% in group B. CONCLUSION: the AMD Annals approach can be considered as a case model for quality improvement activities in chronic diseases and a tool to evaluate the level of adoption/acceptance of guidelines in clinical practice. The considerable success documented was obtained without allocation of extra resources or financial incentives but simply through a physician-led effort made possible by the commitment of the specialists involved

[AMD Annals: a model of continuous monitoring and improvement of the quality of diabetes care].

OBJECTIVE: in recent years, several initiatives have been launched by the Associazione medici diabetologi (AMD) in the context of a national quality improvement program.These activities include: identification of specific indicators of quality of diabetes care, development of a software to calculate such indicators by using routine clinical data, creation of a network of diabetes clinics and analysis and publication of the results in ad hoc reports (AMD Annals). Through the best performer approach, each centre could compare its own performance not only with the theoretical targets suggested by existing guidelines, but also with the results achieved by the best centres operating within the same healthcare system.We evaluated whether the involvement of diabetes clinics into the AMD Annals initiative improved the quality of care over 4 years. DESIGN: a controlled before and after study was performed to compare data collected from 2004 to 2007 by two groups of centres: group A included centres that had been involved in the project since the first edition of AMD Annals; group B included centres only involved in the last edition. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: overall, 124 diabetes clinics provided data on over 100,000 type 2 diabetes patients/year seen from 2004 to 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: process indicators included the proportion of patients with at least one measurement of HbA1c, blood pressure and lipid profile during the previous 12 months. Intermediate outcomes included percentages of patients with levels of HbA1c ≤ 7%, blood pressure ≤ 130/85 mmHg and LDL-cholesterol <100 mg/dl (favourable indicators), and the percentages of patients with levels of HbA1c ≥ 9%, blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg and LDL-cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl (unfavourable indicators). Percentages of patients treated with insulin, two or more antihypertensive agents, and statins were also evaluated. A multilevel analysis adjusted for age, gender, diabetes duration, and clustering effect was applied to investigate the changes in the indicators between the two groups of centres during 4 years. RESULTS: lipid profile monitoring increased more in group A (+6.2% from 2004 to 2007) than in group B (+2.4%), while HbA1c and blood pressure monitoring did not change over time in both groups. As for the outcomes considered, the percentage of patients with HbA1c ≤ 7% increased by 6% in group A and by 1.3%in group B, while the proportion of patients achieving the blood pressure target increased in group A (+6.4%), but not in group B (-1.4%). A reduction in the percentage of patients with blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg was found in group A (-7.3%) but not in group B (-0.9%). Marked improvements in the proportion of patients with LDL-cholesterol at target were documented in both groups (group A: +10.5%; group B: +12.2%.) The proportion of patients treated with insulin increased in group A only (+5.8%), while the use of statins grew by 20%in both groups.The proportion of individuals treated with two or more antihypertensive drugs increased by 3.6% in group A and by 1.6% in group B. CONCLUSION: the AMD Annals approach can be considered as a case model for quality improvement activities in chronic diseases and a tool to evaluate the level of adoption/acceptance of guidelines in clinical practice. The considerable success documented was obtained without allocation of extra resources or financial incentives but simply through a physician-led effort made possible by the commitment of the specialists involved