Hyperglycemia and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evidence-based Approach to Primary and Secondary Prevention

2003 ◽  
pp. 204-211
Author(s):  
Z. Milicevic ◽  
N. Hancu ◽  
I. Raz
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Primary And Secondary Prevention

scholarly journals Association between refill adherence to lipid-lowering medications and the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality in Swedish patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a nationwide cohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e020309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Axia Karlsson ◽  
Christel Hero ◽  
Ann-Marie Svensson ◽  
Stefan Franzén ◽  
Mervete Miftaraj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Exposure Period ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Refill Adherence

ObjectivesTo analyse the association between refill adherence to lipid-lowering medications, and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.DesignCohort study.SettingNational population-based cohort of Swedish patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Participants86 568 patients aged ≥18 years, registered with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Swedish National Diabetes Register, who filled at least one prescription for lipid-lowering medication use during 2007–2010, 87% for primary prevention.Exposure and outcome measuresRefill adherence of implementation was assessed using the medication possession ratio (MPR), representing the proportion of days with medications on hand during an 18-month exposure period. MPR was categorised by five levels (≤20%, 21%–40%, 41%–60%, 61%–80% and >80%). Patients without medications on hand for ≥180 days were defined as non-persistent. Risk of CVD (myocardial infarction, ischaemic heart disease, stroke and unstable angina) and mortality by level of MPR and persistence was analysed after the exposure period using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier, adjusted for demographics, socioeconomic status, concurrent medications and clinical characteristics.ResultsThe hazard ratios for CVD ranged 1.33–2.36 in primary prevention patients and 1.19–1.58 in secondary prevention patients, for those with MPR ≤80% (p<0.0001). The mortality risk was similar regardless of MPR level. The CVD risk was 74% higher in primary prevention patients and 33% higher in secondary prevention patients, for those who were non-persistent (p<0.0001). The mortality risk was 6% higher in primary prevention patients and 18% higher in secondary prevention patients, for non-persistent patients (p<0.0001).ConclusionsHigher refill adherence to lipid-lowering medications was associated with lower risk of CVD in primary and secondary prevention patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Use of Antiplatelet Agents for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Amongst Type 2 Diabetic Patients

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 287-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasniza Zaman Huri ◽  
Lee Qiu Yi ◽  
Rokiah Pendek ◽  
Che Zuraini Sulaiman
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Antiplatelet Agents ◽  
Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease

Background. A retrospective observational study was conducted to study the use of antiplatelet agents for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease among hospitalized type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Method. A total of 355 patients were included in the study. The compliance with the American Diabetes Association recommendation on the use of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of cardiovascular disease was studied. Results. For the primary prevention group, type 2 diabetes mellitus, patients with known dyslipidemia were more likely to receive antiplatelet therapy than those without dyslipidemia (P = 0.023). The rate of adherence to the American Diabetes Association recommendations on the use of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease was higher than for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (P = 0.001). Conclusion. In conclusion, many of the eligible patients still do not receive antiplatelet therapy, particularly in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Measures should be taken to ensure that type 2 diabetes mellitus patients receive the antiplatelet therapy and hence prevent macrovascular complications.

scholarly journals Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Circulation ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 136 (13) ◽  
pp. 1193-1203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neha J. Pagidipati ◽  
Ann Marie Navar ◽  
Karen S. Pieper ◽  
Jennifer B. Green ◽  
M. Angelyn Bethel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease

scholarly journals Gaps in Evidence‐Based Therapy Use in Insured Patients in the United States With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam J. Nelson ◽  
Maddalena Ardissino ◽  
Kevin Haynes ◽  
Sonali Shambhu ◽  
Zubin J. Eapen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Enzyme Inhibitor ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Glucagon Like Peptide 1 ◽  
Insured Patients

Background Evidence‐based therapies are generally underused for cardiovascular risk reduction; however, less is known about contemporary patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results Pharmacy and medical claims data from within Anthem were queried for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Using an index date of April 18, 2018, we evaluated the proportion of patients with a prescription claim for any of the 3 evidence‐based therapies on, or covering, the index date ±30 days: high‐intensity statin, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and sodium glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitor or glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist. The potential benefit of achieving 100% adoption of all 3 evidence‐based therapies was simulated using pooled treatment estimates from clinical trials. Of the 155 958 patients in the sample, 24.7% were using a high‐intensity statin, 53.1% were using an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and 9.9% were using either an sodium glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitor or glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists. Overall, only 2.7% of the population were covered by prescriptions for all 3 evidence‐based therapies, and 37.4% were on none of them. Over a 12‐month period, 70.6% of patients saw a cardiologist, while only 18% saw an endocrinologist. Increasing the use of evidence‐based therapies to 100% over 3 years of treatment could be expected to reduce 4546 major atherosclerotic cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) in eligible but untreated patients. Conclusions Alarming gaps exist in the contemporary use of evidence‐based therapies in this large population of insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These data provide a call to action for patients, providers, industry, regulators, professional societies, and payers to close these gaps in care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document