Chronic kidney disease in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 or hypertension in general practice

Background The prevalence and severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care patients with diabetes or hypertension is unknown. Aim To assess the prevalence and severity of CKD in patients with diabetes and hypertension; and identify whether age, sex, diabetes, and hypertension are associated with CKD. Design of study Cross-sectional survey. Setting Two Dutch primary health care centres (15 954 enlisted patients). Method Patients, aged >= 25 years, with known diabetes type 2 (n = 471) or hypertension (n = 960), were selected on 1 October 2006. Initial screening uptake rates were assessed from the electronic patient records, and patients were invited when blood or urine measurements were missing. The presence of albuminuria was determined, glomerular filtration rate estimated, and clinical characteristics extracted. Results Initial screening uptake rates were 93% and 69% for. diabetes and hypertension, respectively, and increased to 97% (n = 455) and 87% (n = 836) after active invitation. The prevalence of CKD was 28%. in diabetes and 21% in hypertension only. The presence of diabetes was independently associated with albuminuria (odds ratio [OR] 4.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.67 to 6.71), but not with decreased estimated GFR (eGFR) (OR 0.75; 95% CI = 0.54 to 1.04). Age showed the strongest association with decreased eGFR (OR 2.73; 95% CI = 2.02 to 3.70). Conclusion In primary care, more than one-quarter of patients with diabetes and about one-fifth of patients with hypertension have CKD. The high prevalence justifies longitudinal follow-up in order to evaluate whether intensified cardiovascular risk management is beneficial in this primary care population

Ribavirin concentration determines treatment success of first-generation DAA-based chronic HCV therapy

BACKGROUND: Monitoring ribavirin concentrations during hepatitis C treatment with dual therapy can help optimize treatment response and minimize anaemia. A defined therapeutic range for ribavirin during direct-acting antiviral-based therapies is lacking. This analysis explores whether a therapeutic range for ribavirin concentrations can be defined in patients treated with boceprevir- or telaprevir-based triple therapies. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients from ADVANCE, ILLUMINATE, OPTIMIZE and SPRINT-2, and treatment-experienced patients from RESPOND-2 were included. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate whether ribavirin concentrations were an independent predictor of sustained virological response or anaemia. Optimal cutoff values and the percentage of patients within the proposed therapeutic range were determined, along with the associated chance of response. RESULTS: Overall, 1,502 patients were included. In both regimens, ribavirin concentrations were significantly associated with anaemia (haemoglobin level <10 g/dl) at all time points (1.75 < odds ratio [OR] <2.45) and sustained virological response was associated with ribavirin concentrations at week 8 (OR=1.43 for telaprevir and 1.78 for boceprevir). A therapeutic range for ribavirin at week 8 of 2.2-3.5 mg/l was defined for telaprevir treatment. Of the 48% of patients with a concentration within this range, 81% achieved sustained virological response and only 5.1% reported anaemia. For boceprevir treatment, the week 8 optimal range was defined as 2.2-3.6 mg/l and 50% of patients had a concentration within this range, of whom 69% achieved sustained virological response and 46% developed anaemia. CONCLUSIONS: We established the therapeutic range for ribavirin in boceprevir- and telaprevir-based therapy that balances safety and efficacy