Diagnostic criteria for diabetes revisited: making use of combined criteria

BACKGROUND: Existing cut-offs for fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and post-load glucose (2hPG) criteria are not equivalent in the diagnosis of diabetes and glucose intolerance. Adjusting cut-offs of single measurements have not helped so we undertook this project to see if they could be complementary. METHODS: We performed oral glucose tolerance tests and mean levels of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurements on 43 patients referred to a diabetes clinic for possible diabetes. Results of single and combined use of the FPG and 2hPG criteria were evaluated against the levels of HbA1c and results re-interpreted in the light of existing reports in the literature. RESULTS: Our results confirm that the FPG and the 2hPG, being specific and sensitive respectively for the presence of glucose intolerance or diabetes, are not equivalent. They are shown to be indeed complementary and a re-definition of diagnostic criteria based on their combined use is proposed. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that altering single measurement cut-offs for the diagnosis of diabetes and altered glucose tolerance will not result in better outcomes. We present the case for a combined criteria in the diagnosis and definition of diabetes with a FPG≥7 mmol/L AND 2-hour glucose ≥7.8 mmol/L being used to define diabetes while a FPG<7 mmol/L AND 2-hour glucose <7.8 mmol/L being used to define normality. Discordant values will define impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). This proposal requires prospective evaluation in a large cohort

Brachial artery pulse pressure and common carotid artery diameter: mutually independent associations with mortality in subjects with a recent history of impaired glucose tolerance

BACKGROUND: Decreased large artery function, as reflected by increased brachial artery pulse pressure and increased carotid artery diameter and stiffness, may contribute to the increased mortality risk that is observed in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. We therefore investigated the association between brachial artery pulse pressure and carotid artery diameter and stiffness, which are estimates of central artery stiffness and arterial remodelling, respectively, and mortality in subjects with a recent history of impaired glucose tolerance. DESIGN: A prospective, population-based cohort study. We measured brachial artery pulse pressure by oscillometric blood pressure measurements, and common carotid artery diameter and distensibility and compliance coefficients by ultrasound in 140 subjects with a recent history of impaired glucose tolerance. During a median 6.6-year follow-up, 16 subjects died. RESULTS: Brachial artery pulse pressure and common carotid artery diameter were positively related to all-cause mortality [hazard ratios per standard deviation, 1.7 (1.2-2.5) and 2.1 (1.3-3.3), respectively]. Results were similar after adjustment for gender, age, waist-to-hip ratio, body mass index, total cholesterol concentration, pre-existent cardiovascular disease, and hypertension, and after additional mutual adjustment. Common carotid artery distensibility and compliance coefficients were not statistically significantly associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Among subjects with a recent history of impaired glucose tolerance, brachial artery pulse pressure and common carotid artery diameter are independently associated with mortality risk. Stiffness of the central arteries may explain the association between pulse pressure and mortality risk. The association between carotid diameter and mortality risk is more likely to reflect arterial remodelling in response to atherosclerosis than that in response to increased local stiffness

The Magpie Trial follow up study: outcome after discharge from hospital for women and children recruited to a trial comparing magnesium sulphate with placebo for pre-eclampsia

Contributing member: Caroline Crowther is listed as a member of the Magpie Trial Follow Up Study Collaborative GroupBACKGROUND: The Magpie Trial compared magnesium sulphate with placebo for women with pre-eclampsia. 10,141 women were recruited, 8804 before delivery. Overall, 9024 children were included in the analysis of outcome at discharge from hospital. Magnesium sulphate more than halved the risk of eclampsia, and probably reduced the risk of maternal death. There did not appear to be any substantive harmful effects on the baby, in the short term. It is now important to assess whether these benefits persist, and to provide adequate reassurance about longer term safety. The main objective of the Magpie Trial Follow Up Study is to assess whether in utero exposure to magnesium sulphate has a clinically important effect on the child's chance of surviving without major neurosensory disability. Other objectives are to assess long term outcome for the mother, and to develop and assess appropriate strategies for following up large numbers of children in perinatal trials. STUDY DESIGN: Follow up is only feasible in selected centres. We therefore anticipate contacting 2800–3350 families, for 2435–2915 of whom the woman was randomised before delivery. A further 280–335 children would have been eligible for follow up if they had survived. The total sample size for the children is therefore 3080–3685, 2680–3210 of whom will have been born to women randomised before delivery. Families eligible for the follow up will be contacted, and surviving children screened using the Ages and Stages Questionnaires. Children who screen positive, and a sample of those who screen negative, will whenever possible have a paediatric and neurodevelopmental assessment. When women are contacted to ask how their child is, they will also be asked about their own health. The primary outcome is a composite measure of death or neurosensory disability for the child at 18 months. DISCUSSION: The Follow Up Study began in 2002, and now involves collaborators in 19 countries. Data collection will close at the end of 2003

Association between vascular endothelial growth factor and hypertension in children and adolescents type I diabetes mellitus

The aim of the study was to analyse the relationship between the serum level of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and the incidence of hypertension (HT) in children and adolescents with type I diabetes mellitus (T1DM). One hundred and five patients with T1DM were enrolled in the study. The control group consisted of 30 healthy controls. All the T1DM patients were subjected to biochemical analyses, ophthalmologic examination and 24-h blood pressure monitoring. Besides, all the patients and healthy controls had serum VEGF levels measured with the use of the ELISA methodology. The essence of our research is that patients with T1DM and HT and with microalbuminuria (MA) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) (MA/DR) are characterized by a significantly higher level of VEGF (340.23±93.22 pg ml–1) in blood serum in comparison with the group of T1DM patients without HT and MA/DR (183.6±96.6 pg ml–1) and with healthy controls (145.32±75.58 pg ml–1). In addition, the VEGF level was significantly higher in T1DM patients, who presented all three complications, that is HT, retinopathy and MA in comparison with T1DM patients without HT, but with MA/DR (P=0.036). On the other hand, no statistically significant differences (P=0.19) were noted in the level of VEGF in serum between T1DM patients without HT and MA/DR and the healthy control group. At a further stage of analysis, using the method of multiple regression, it was shown that systolic pressure, HbA1c and duration of disease are independent factors influencing the concentration of VEGF. Summarizing, the measurement of VEGF serum levels allows for the identification of groups of patients who have the highest risk of HT and, subsequently, progression of vascular complications

Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations. The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors. To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin. The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic. Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as: - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability, - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician, - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences, - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders, - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless, - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs. The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II)