Association of kidney disease measures with risk of renal function worsening in patients with type 1 diabetes

Background: Albuminuria has been classically considered a marker of kidney damage progression in diabetic patients and it is routinely assessed to monitor kidney function. However, the role of a mild GFR reduction on the development of stage 653 CKD has been less explored in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic role of kidney disease measures, namely albuminuria and reduced GFR, on the development of stage 653 CKD in a large cohort of patients affected by T1DM. Methods: A total of 4284 patients affected by T1DM followed-up at 76 diabetes centers participating to the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists (Associazione Medici Diabetologi, AMD) initiative constitutes the study population. Urinary albumin excretion (ACR) and estimated GFR (eGFR) were retrieved and analyzed. The incidence of stage 653 CKD (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) or eGFR reduction > 30% from baseline was evaluated. Results: The mean estimated GFR was 98 \ub1 17 mL/min/1.73m2 and the proportion of patients with albuminuria was 15.3% (n = 654) at baseline. About 8% (n = 337) of patients developed one of the two renal endpoints during the 4-year follow-up period. Age, albuminuria (micro or macro) and baseline eGFR < 90 ml/min/m2 were independent risk factors for stage 653 CKD and renal function worsening. When compared to patients with eGFR > 90 ml/min/1.73m2 and normoalbuminuria, those with albuminuria at baseline had a 1.69 greater risk of reaching stage 3 CKD, while patients with mild eGFR reduction (i.e. eGFR between 90 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) show a 3.81 greater risk that rose to 8.24 for those patients with albuminuria and mild eGFR reduction at baseline. Conclusions: Albuminuria and eGFR reduction represent independent risk factors for incident stage 653 CKD in T1DM patients. The simultaneous occurrence of reduced eGFR and albuminuria have a synergistic effect on renal function worsening

PRAVASTATIN VS GEMFIBROZIL IN THE TREATMENT OF PRIMARY HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA RID A-6707-2012

An increase in total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations is related to the incidence of cardiovascular heart disease. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of pravastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, versus gemfibrozil, a fibrate, in the treatment of primary hypercholesterolaemia. 855 subjects (males and females, aged between 18 and 70 years) with total cholesterol (TC) concentrations > 240 mg/dl and triglyceride (TG) concentrations < 250 mg/dl were enrolled. After a pretreatment diet period, patients received either pravastatin 20 mg/day (659 patients) or gemfibrozil 1200 mg/day (196 patients). At the end of the 12-week treatment period, reductions in TC (-23%) and LDL-C (-31%) were noted in the pravastatin group. Gemfibrozil reduced TC by 16% and LDL by 20%. High density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentrations increased in a similar way in the two groups: pravastatin +10%, gemfibrozil +11%. Triglycerides decreased by 14% with pravastatin and by 22% with gemfibrozil. Pravastatin and gemfibrozil were both well tolerated. No significant adverse events or variations in laboratory parameters occurred during this study

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

N-3 fatty acids in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors

BACKGROUND: Trials have shown a beneficial effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients with a previous myocardial infarction or heart failure. We evaluated the potential benefit of such therapy in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors or atherosclerotic vascular disease who had not had a myocardial infarction. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we enrolled a cohort of patients who were followed by a network of 860 general practitioners in Italy. Eligible patients were men and women with multiple cardiovascular risk factors or atherosclerotic vascular disease but not myocardial infarction. Patients were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids (1 g daily) or placebo (olive oil). The initially specified primary end point was the cumulative rate of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. At 1 year, after the event rate was found to be lower than anticipated, the primary end point was revised as time to death from cardiovascular causes or admission to the hospital for cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: Of the 12,513 patients enrolled, 6244 were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids and 6269 to placebo. With a median of 5 years of follow-up, the primary end point occurred in 1478 of 12,505 patients included in the analysis (11.8%), of whom 733 of 6239 (11.7%) had received n-3 fatty acids and 745 of 6266 (11.9%) had received placebo (adjusted hazard ratio with n-3 fatty acids, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.08; P=0.58). The same null results were observed for all the secondary end points. CONCLUSIONS: In a large general-practice cohort of patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, daily treatment with n-3 fatty acids did not reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Copyright © 2013 Massachusetts Medical Society