scholarly journals Additional value of carotid artery intima-media thickness in cardiovascular risk assessment by Framingham risk-score in Type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 188-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hayriye Esra ATAOGLU ◽  
Tayyibe SALER ◽  
Isil UZUNHASAN ◽  
Mustafa YENIGUN ◽  
Zehra YIGIT ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Robinson ◽  
C Raina Elley ◽  
Sue Wells ◽  
Elizabeth Robinson ◽  
Tim Kenealy ◽  
...  

INTRODUCTION: New Zealand (NZ) guidelines recommend treating people for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk on the basis of five-year absolute risk using a NZ adaptation of the Framingham risk equation. A diabetes-specific Diabetes Cohort Study (DCS) CVD predictive risk model has been developed and validated using NZ Get Checked data. AIM: To revalidate the DCS model with an independent cohort of people routinely assessed using PREDICT, a web-based CVD risk assessment and management programme. METHODS: People with Type 2 diabetes without pre-existing CVD were identified amongst people who had a PREDICT risk assessment between 2002 and 2005. From this group we identified those with sufficient data to allow estimation of CVD risk with the DCS models. We compared the DCS models with the NZ Framingham risk equation in terms of discrimination, calibration, and reclassification implications. RESULTS: Of 3044 people in our study cohort, 1829 people had complete data and therefore had CVD risks calculated. Of this group, 12.8% (235) had a cardiovascular event during the five-year follow-up. The DCS models had better discrimination than the currently used equation, with C-statistics being 0.68 for the two DCS models and 0.65 for the NZ Framingham model. DISCUSSION: The DCS models were superior to the NZ Framingham equation at discriminating people with diabetes who will have a cardiovascular event. The adoption of a DCS model would lead to a small increase in the number of people with diabetes who are treated with medication, but potentially more CVD events would be avoided. KEYWORDS: Cardiovascular disease; diabetes; prevention; risk assessment; reliability and validity


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Boon-How Chew ◽  
Husni Hussain ◽  
Ziti Akthar Supian

Abstract Background Good-quality evidence has shown that early glycaemic, blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol control in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) leads to better outcomes. In spite of that, diseases control have been inadequate globally, and therapeutic inertia could be one of the main cause. Evidence on therapeutic inertia has been lacking at primary care setting. This retrospective cohort study aimed to determine the proportions of therapeutic inertia when treatment targets of HbA1c, blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol were not achieved in adults with T2D at three public health clinics in Malaysia. Methods The index prescriptions were those that when the annual blood tests were reviewed. Prescriptions of medication were verified, compared to the preceding prescriptions and classified as 1) no change, 2) stepping up and 3) stepping down. The treatment targets were HbA1c < 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), blood pressure (BP) < 140/90 mmHg and LDL-cholesterol < 2.6 mmol/L. Therapeutic inertia was defined as no change in the medication use in the present of not reaching the treatment targets. Descriptive, univariable, multivariable logistic regression and sensitive analyses were conducted. Results A total of 552 cohorts were available for the assessment of therapeutic inertia (78.9% completion rate). The mean (SD) age and diabetes duration were 60.0 (9.9) years and 5.0 (6.0) years, respectively. High therapeutic inertia were observed in oral anti-diabetic (61–72%), anti-hypertensive (34–65%) and lipid-lowering therapies (56–77%), and lesser in insulin (34–52%). Insulin therapeutic inertia was more likely among those with shorter diabetes duration (adjusted OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.87, 0.98). Those who did not achieve treatment targets were less likely to experience therapeutic inertia: HbA1c ≥ 7.0%: adjusted OR 0.10 (0.04, 0.24); BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg: 0.28 (0.16, 0.50); LDL-cholesterol ≥ 2.6 mmol/L: 0.37 (0.22, 0.64). Conclusions Although therapeutic intensifications were more likely in the presence of non-achieved treatment targets but the proportions of therapeutic inertia were high. Possible causes of therapeutic inertia were less of the physician behaviours but might be more of patient-related non-adherence or non-availability of the oral medications. These observations require urgent identification and rectification to improve disease control, avoiding detrimental health implications and costly consequences. Trial registration Number NCT02730754, April 6, 2016.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document