diabetes-related complications decreasing


NEJM with recent article on the trend in diabetes-related complications from 1990 to 2010 (see dm complic decrease nejm 2014 in dropbox, or DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310799), comparing age-standardized incidence of lower-extremity amputation, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), acute MI, stroke, and death from hyperglycemic crisis (either DKA or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state). results:

        --acute MI: -67.8% (95.6 fewer cases per 10,000 persons per year)
        --death from hyperglycemic crisis: -64.4% (2.7 fewer cases per 10,000 persons per year)
        --stroke: -52.7% (58.9 fewer cases per 10,000 persons per year)
        --amputations: -51.4% (30 fewer cases per 10,000 persons per year)
        --ESRD: -28.3% (7.9 fewer cases per 10,000 persons per year)

        --these rate reductions were first noted in 1995 and were consistent thereafter. 
        --the greatest decline in absolute and relative terms was in people >75 yo (except from ESRD): ie, the difference between rates of disease in older people vs younger narrowed considerably
        --of note, the decline was dramatically more pronounced in diabetics vs nondiabetics: in diabetics, acute MI had 2x the decline, stroke 10x, amputation 4x, ESRD decreased 28.3% as noted above, but increased 65% in nondiabetics

so, what does all this mean??  good news overall (for a change), but should be tempered by the fact that a larger % of the population has diabetes [eg, only the rates for hyperglycemic crisis (-42%) and MI (-32.3%) decreased when the increase in diabetes incidence factored in, rates of amputation and stroke did not change, and ESRD increased by 90.9%)]. clearly a lot of things changed during this time period: there was better blood pressure control, improved lipid levels and more aggressive use of highly effective statins, decreased smoking, decreased A1c levels (which, i believe, also parallels increased and more aggressive use of metformin, the drug with the best data for lowering macrovascular complications), improved hospital care (and better ability to handle the hyperglycemic crises), dietary changes (fewer trans fats), improved management of renal disease and peripheral vascular disease. also, maybe earlier detection of diabetes and more aggressive risk factor management at an earlier stage? 

so, what this really means is that despite the dramatic increases in diabetes incidence (MMWR came out with data comparing 1995-7 vs 2005-7, finding a doubling!! of the age-adjusted rate of diabetes in the US, from 4.8 to 9.1 cases/1000 people in only one decade), we are basically compensating for diabetic medical complications by advances in many medical and social aspects of care (decreased smoking, better medications, higher percentages of people controlling risk factors), with a combination of significant improvements in heart disease, breaking even in amputation and stroke, and losing ground in ESRD.

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more