The Contemporary Prevalence of Diabetic Neuropathy in Type 1 Diabetes: Findings From the T1D Exchange

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the contemporary prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in participants with type 1 diabetes in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry throughout the U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS DPN was assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument Questionnaire (MNSIQ) in adults with ≥5 years of type 1 diabetes duration. A score of ≥4 defined DPN. Associations of demographic, clinical, and laboratory factors with DPN were assessed. RESULTS Among 5,936 T1D Exchange participants (mean ± SD age 39 ± 18 years, median type 1 diabetes duration 18 years [interquartile range 11, 31], 55% female, 88% non-Hispanic white, mean glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 8.1 ± 1.6% [65.3 ± 17.5 mmol/mol]), DPN prevalence was 11%. Compared with those without DPN, DPN participants were older, had higher HbA1c, had longer duration of diabetes, were more likely to be female, and were less likely to have a college education and private insurance (all P &amp;lt; 0.001). DPN participants also were more likely to have cardiovascular disease (CVD) (P &amp;lt; 0.001), worse CVD risk factors of smoking (P = 0.008), hypertriglyceridemia (P = 0.002), higher BMI (P = 0.009), retinopathy (P = 0.004), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = 0.02), and Charcot neuroarthropathy (P = 0.002). There were no differences in insulin pump or continuous glucose monitor use, although DPN participants were more likely to have had severe hypoglycemia (P = 0.04) and/or diabetic ketoacidosis (P &amp;lt; 0.001) in the past 3 months. CONCLUSIONS The prevalence of DPN in this national cohort with type 1 diabetes is lower than in prior published reports but is reflective of current clinical care practices. These data also highlight that nonglycemic risk factors, such as CVD risk factors, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower socioeconomic status, may also play a role in DPN development. </jats:sec

Social determinants of health influence disease activity and functional disability in Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

Abstract Background Social determinants of health (SDH) greatly influence outcomes during the first year of treatment in rheumatoid arthritis, a disease similar to polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA). We investigated the correlation of community poverty level and other SDH with the persistence of moderate to severe disease activity and functional disability over the first year of treatment in pJIA patients enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. Methods In this cohort study, unadjusted and adjusted generalized linear mixed effects models analyzed the effect of community poverty and other SDH on disease activity, using the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score-10, and disability, using the Child Health Assessment Questionnaire, measured at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Results One thousand six hundred eighty-four patients were identified. High community poverty (≥20% living below the federal poverty level) was associated with increased odds of functional disability (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.28-2.60) but was not statistically significant after adjustment (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 0.81-1.86) and was not associated with increased disease activity. Non-white race/ethnicity was associated with higher disease activity (aOR 2.48, 95% CI: 1.41-4.36). Lower self-reported household income was associated with higher disease activity and persistent functional disability. Public insurance (aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06-2.29) and low family education (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.14-3.12) was associated with persistent functional disability. Conclusion High community poverty level was associated with persistent functional disability in unadjusted analysis but not with persistent moderate to high disease activity. Race/ethnicity and other SDH were associated with persistent disease activity and functional disability. </jats:sec

Community poverty level influences time to first pediatric rheumatology appointment in Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

Abstract Background The impact of social determinants of health on children with polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) is poorly understood. Prompt initiation of treatment for pJIA is important to prevent disease morbidity; however, a potential barrier to early treatment of pJIAs is delayed presentation to a pediatric rheumatologist. We examined the impact of community poverty level, a key social determinant of health, on time from patient reported symptom onset to first pediatric rheumatology visit among pJIA patients enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry. Methods This is a cohort study of pJIA patients in the CARRA registry who lived in the United States from July 2015–February 2020. The primary exposure was community poverty level derived by geocoding patient addresses. The primary outcome was time to first rheumatology appointment. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to analyze time to first rheumatologist visit, stratified by community poverty and family income. Log-rank tests were used to identify differences between groups. Adjusted cox proportional-hazards models were used to determine the relationship between community poverty level and time from onset of disease symptoms to date first seen by rheumatologist. Results A total of 1684 patients with pJIA meeting study inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified. Median age of onset of pJIA was 7 years (IQR 3, 11), 79% were female, 17.6% identified as minority race and/or ethnicity, and 19% were from communities with ≥20% community poverty level. Kaplan-Meier analysis by community poverty level (&lt; 20% vs ≥20%) yielded no significant differences with time to initial presentation to a pediatric rheumatologist (p = 0.6). The Cox proportional hazards model showed that patients with ≥20% community poverty level were 19% less likely (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67–0.99, p = 0.038) to be seen by a rheumatologist compared to patients with &lt; 20% community poverty level, at the same time point, after adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, education level, morning stiffness, RF status, and baseline CHAQ. Conclusion In this study of pJIA patients in the CARRA registry, increased community poverty level is associated with longer time to presentation to a pediatric rheumatologist after symptom onset. </jats:sec

Evaluating the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Using Randomized Data From the ISCHEMIA Trial

BACKGROUND: The appropriate use criteria for revascularization of stable ischemic heart disease have not been evaluated using randomized data. Using data from the randomized ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches; July 2012 to January 2018, 37 countries), the health status benefits of an invasive strategy over a conservative one were examined within appropriate use criteria scenarios. METHODS: Among 1833 participants mapped to 36 appropriate use criteria scenarios, symptom status was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 at 1 year for each scenario and for each of the 6 patient characteristics used to define the scenarios. Coronary anatomy and SYNTAX(Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and cardiac surgery) scores were measured using coronary computed tomography angiography. Treatment effects are expressed as an odds ratio for a better health status outcome with an invasive versus conservative treatment strategy using Bayesian hierarchical proportional odds models. Differences in the primary clinical outcome were similarly examined. RESULTS: The mean age was 63 years, 81% were male, and 71% were White. Diabetes was present in 28% and multivessel disease in 51%. Most clinical scenarios favored invasive for better 1-year health status. The benefit of an invasive strategy on Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency scores was reduced for asymptomatic patients (odds ratio [95% credible interval], 1.16 [0.66-1.71] versus 2.26 [1.75-2.80]), as well as for those on no antianginal medications. Diabetes, number of diseased vessels, proximal left anterior descending coronary artery location, and SYNTAX score did not effectively identify patients with better health status after invasive treatment, and minimal differences in clinical events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the randomization scheme from the ISCHEMIA trial to appropriate clinical scenarios revealed baseline symptoms and antianginal therapy to be the primary drivers of health status benefits from invasive management. Consideration should be given to reducing the patient characteristics collected to generate appropriateness ratings to improve the feasibility of future data collection

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used