| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Chaturvedi, Nish, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of candesartan on prevention (DIRECT-Prevent 1) and progression (DIRECT-Protect 1) of retinopathy in type 1 diabetes: randomised, placebo-controlled trials.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 372:9647, s. 1394-402
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Results of previous studies suggest that renin-angiotensin system blockers might reduce the burden of diabetic retinopathy. We therefore designed the DIabetic REtinopathy Candesartan Trials (DIRECT) Programme to assess whether candesartan could reduce the incidence and progression of retinopathy in type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Two randomised, double-blind, parallel-design, placebo-controlled trials were done in 309 centres worldwide. Participants with normotensive, normoalbuminuric type 1 diabetes without retinopathy were recruited to the DIRECT-Prevent 1 trial and those with existing retinopathy were recruited to DIRECT-Protect 1, and were assigned to candesartan 16 mg once a day or matching placebo. After 1 month, the dose was doubled to 32 mg. Investigators and participants were unaware of the treatment allocation status. The primary endpoints were incidence and progression of retinopathy and were defined as at least a two-step and at least a three-step increase on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale, respectively. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00252733 for DIRECT-Prevent 1 and NCT00252720 for DIRECT-Protect 1. FINDINGS: 1421 participants (aged 18-50 years) were randomly assigned to candesartan (n=711) or to placebo (n=710) in DIRECT-Prevent 1, and 1905 (aged 18-55 years) to candesartan (n=951) or to placebo (n=954) in DIRECT-Protect 1. Incidence of retinopathy was seen in 178 (25%) participants in the candesartan group versus 217 (31%) in the placebo group. Progression of retinopathy occurred in 127 (13%) participants in the candesartan group versus 124 (13%) in the placebo group. Hazard ratio (HR for candesartan vs placebo) was 0.82 (95% CI 0.67-1.00, p=0.0508) for incidence of retinopathy and 1.02 (0.80-1.31, p=0.85) for progression of retinopathy. The post-hoc outcome of at least a three-step increase for incidence yielded an HR of 0.65 (0.48-0.87, p=0.0034), which was attenuated but still significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics (0.71, 0.53-0.95, p=0.046). Final ETDRS level was more likely to have improved with candesartan treatment in both DIRECT-Prevent 1 (odds 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.30, p=0.0048) and DIRECT-Protect 1 (1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25, p=0.0264). Adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Although candesartan reduces the incidence of retinopathy, we did not see a beneficial effect on retinopathy progression.
|
|
| 3. |
- Lim, Lee Ling, et al.
(författare)
-
Aspects of Multicomponent Integrated Care Promote Sustained Improvement in Surrogate Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Diabetes care. - : American Diabetes Association. - 1935-5548 .- 0149-5992. ; 41:6, s. 1312-1320
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The implementation of the Chronic Care Model (CCM) improves health care quality. We examined the sustained effectiveness of multicomponent integrated care in type 2 diabetes.We searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE (January 2000-August 2016) and identified randomized controlled trials comprising two or more quality improvement strategies from two or more domains (health system, health care providers, or patients) lasting ≥12 months with one or more clinical outcomes. Two reviewers extracted data and appraised the reporting quality.In a meta-analysis of 181 trials (N = 135,112), random-effects modeling revealed pooled mean differences in HbA1c of -0.28% (95% CI -0.35 to -0.21) (-3.1 mmol/mol [-3.9 to -2.3]), in systolic blood pressure (SBP) of -2.3 mmHg (-3.1 to -1.4), in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of -1.1 mmHg (-1.5 to -0.6), and in LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) of -0.14 mmol/L (-0.21 to -0.07), with greater effects in patients with LDL-C ≥3.4 mmol/L (-0.31 vs. -0.10 mmol/L for <3.4 mmol/L; Pdifference = 0.013), studies from Asia (HbA1c -0.51% vs. -0.23% for North America [-5.5 vs. -2.5 mmol/mol]; Pdifference = 0.046), and studies lasting >12 months (SBP -3.4 vs. -1.4 mmHg, Pdifference = 0.034; DBP -1.7 vs. -0.7 mmHg, Pdifference = 0.047; LDL-C -0.21 vs. -0.07 mmol/L for 12-month studies, Pdifference = 0.049). Patients with median age <60 years had greater HbA1c reduction (-0.35% vs. -0.18% for ≥60 years [-3.8 vs. -2.0 mmol/mol]; Pdifference = 0.029). Team change, patient education/self-management, and improved patient-provider communication had the largest effect sizes (0.28-0.36% [3.0-3.9 mmol/mol]).Despite the small effect size of multicomponent integrated care (in part attenuated by good background care), team-based care with better information flow may improve patient-provider communication and self-management in patients who are young, with suboptimal control, and in low-resource settings.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ogle, Graham D, et al.
(författare)
-
Levels of type 1 diabetes care in children and adolescents for countries at varying resource levels.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Pediatric diabetes. - : Hindawi Limited. - 1399-5448 .- 1399-543X. ; 20:1, s. 93-98
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Optimal care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes is well described in guidelines, such as those of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes. High-income countries can usually provide this, but the cost of this care is generally prohibitive for lower-income countries. Indeed, in most of these countries, very little care is provided by government health systems, resulting in high mortality, and high complications rates in those who do survive. As lower-income countries work toward establishing guidelines-based care, it is helpful to describe the levels of care that are potentially affordable, cost-effective, and result in substantially improved clinical outcomes. We have developed a levels of care concept with three tiers: "minimal care," "intermediate care," and "comprehensive (guidelines-based) care." Each tier contains levels, which describe insulin and blood glucose monitoring regimens, requirements for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing, complications screening, diabetes education, and multidisciplinary care. The literature provides various examples at each tier, including from countries where the life for a child and the changing diabetes in children programs have assisted local diabetes centres to introduce intermediate care. Intra-clinic mean HbA1c levels range from 12.0% to 14.0% (108-130 mmol/mol) for the most basic level of minimal care, 8.0% to 9.5% (64-80 mmol/mol) for intermediate care, and 6.9% to 8.5% (52-69 mmol/mol) for comprehensive care. Countries with sufficient resources should provide comprehensive care, working to ensure that it is accessible by all in need, and that resulting HbA1c levels correspond with international recommendations. All other countries should provide Intermediate care, while working toward the provision of comprehensive care.
|
|
| 5. |
- Sjölie, Anne Katrin, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of candesartan on progression and regression of retinopathy in type 2 diabetes (DIRECT-Protect 2): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 372:9647, s. 1385-93
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy remains a leading cause of visual loss in people of working age. We examined whether candesartan treatment could slow the progression and, secondly, induce regression of retinopathy in people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial in 309 centres worldwide. We recruited normoalbuminuric, normotensive, or treated hypertensive people with type 2 diabetes with mild to moderately severe retinopathy and assigned them to candesartan 16 mg once a day or placebo. After a month, the dose was doubled to 32 mg once per day. Investigators and patients were unaware of the treatment allocation status. Progression of retinopathy was the primary endpoint, and regression was a secondary endpoint. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00252694. FINDINGS: 1905 participants (aged 37-75 years) were randomised to candesartan (n=951) or placebo (n=954). 161 (17%) patients in the candesartan group and 182 (19%) in the placebo group had progression of retinopathy by three steps or more on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale. The risk of progression of retinopathy was non-significantly reduced by 13% in patients on candesartan compared with those on placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.70-1.08, p=0.20). Regression on active treatment was increased by 34% (1.34, 1.08-1.68, p=0.009). HRs were not attenuated by adjustment for baseline risk factors or changes in blood pressure during the trial. An overall change towards less severe retinopathy by the end of the trial was observed in the candesartan group (odds 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30, p=0.003). Adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with candesartan in type 2 diabetic patients with mild to moderate retinopathy might induce improvement of retinopathy.
|
|
