Econstudentlog

Occupational Epidemiology (III)

This will be my last post about the book.

Some observations from the final chapters:

“Often there is confusion about the difference between systematic reviews and metaanalyses. A meta-analysis is a quantitative synthesis of two or more studies […] A systematic review is a synthesis of evidence on the effects of an intervention or an exposure which may also include a meta-analysis, but this is not a prerequisite. It may be that the results of the studies which have been included in a systematic review are reported in such a way that it is impossible to synthesize them quantitatively. They can then be reported in a narrative manner.10 However, a meta-analysis always requires a systematic review of the literature. […] There is a long history of debate about the value of meta-analysis for occupational cohort studies or other occupational aetiological studies. In 1994, Shapiro argued that ‘meta-analysis of published non-experimental data should be abandoned’. He reasoned that ‘relative risks of low magnitude (say, less than 2) are virtually beyond the resolving power of the epidemiological microscope because we can seldom demonstrably eliminate all sources of bias’.13 Because the pooling of studies in a meta-analysis increases statistical power, the pooled estimate may easily become significant and thus incorrectly taken as an indication of causality, even though the biases in the included studies may not have been taken into account. Others have argued that the method of meta-analysis is important but should be applied appropriately, taking into account the biases in individual studies.14 […] We believe that the synthesis of aetiological studies should be based on the same general principles as for intervention studies, and the existing methods adapted to the particular challenges of cohort and case-control studies. […] Since 2004, there is a special entity, the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group, that is responsible for the preparing and updating of reviews of occupational safety and health interventions […]. There were over 100 systematic reviews on these topics in the Cochrane Library in 2012.”

“The believability of a systematic review’s results depends largely on the quality of the included studies. Therefore, assessing and reporting on the quality of the included studies is important. For intervention studies, randomized trials are regarded as of higher quality than observational studies, and the conduct of the study (e.g. in terms of response rate or completeness of follow-up) also influences quality. A conclusion derived from a few high-quality studies will be more reliable than when the conclusion is based on even a large number of low-quality studies. Some form of quality assessment is nowadays commonplace in intervention reviews but is still often missing in reviews of aetiological studies. […] It is tempting to use quality scores, such as the Jadad scale for RCTs34 and the Downs and Black scale for non-RCT intervention studies35 but these, in their original format, are insensitive to variation in the importance of risk areas for a given research question. The score system may give the same value to two studies (say, 10 out of 12) when one, for example, lacked blinding and the other did not randomize, thus implying that their quality is equal. This would not be a problem if randomization and blinding were equally important for all questions in all reviews, but this is not the case. For RCTs an important development in this regard has been the Cochrane risk of bias tool.36 This is a checklist of six important domains that have been shown to be important areas of bias in RCTs: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting.”

“[R]isks of bias tools developed for intervention studies cannot be used for reviews of aetiological studies without relevant modification. This is because, unlike interventions, exposures are usually more complicated to assess when we want to attribute the outcome to them alone. These scales do not cover all items that may need assessment in an aetiological study, such as confounding and information bias relating to exposures. […] Surprisingly little methodological work has been done to develop validated tools for aetiological epidemiology and most tools in use are not validated,38 […] Two separate checklists, for observational studies of incidence and prevalence and for risk factor assessment, have been developed and validated recently.40 […] Publication and other reporting bias is probably a much bigger issue for aetiological studies than for intervention studies. This is because, for clinical trials, the introduction of protocol registration, coupled with the regulatory system for new medications, has helped in assessing and preventing publication and reporting bias. No such checks exist for observational studies.”

“Most ill health that arises from occupational exposures can also arise from nonoccupational exposures, and the same type of exposure can occur in occupational and non-occupational settings. With the exception of malignant mesothelioma (which is essentially only caused by exposure to asbestos), there is no way to determine which exposure caused a particular disorder, nor where the causative exposure occurred. This means that usually it is not possible to determine the burden just by counting the number of cases. Instead, approaches to estimating this burden have been developed. There are also several ways to define burden and how best to measure it.”

“The population attributable fraction (PAF) is the proportion of cases that would not have occurred in the absence of an occupational exposure. It can be estimated by combining two measures — a risk estimate (usually relative risk (RR) or odds ratio) of the disorder of interest that is associated with exposure to the substance of concern; and an estimate of the proportion of the population exposed to the substance at work (p(E)). This approach has been used in several studies, particularly for estimating cancer burden […] There are several possible equations that can be used to calculate the PAF, depending on the available data […] PAFs cannot in general be combined by summing directly because: (1) summing PAFs for overlapping exposures (i.e. agents to which the same ‘ever exposed’ workers may have been exposed) may give an overall PAF exceeding 100%, and (2) summing disjoint (not concurrently occurring) exposures also introduces upward bias. Strategies to avoid this include partitioning exposed numbers between overlapping exposures […] or estimating only for the ‘dominant’ carcinogen with the highest risk. Where multiple exposures remain, one approach is to assume that the exposures are independent and their joint effects are multiplicative. The PAFs can then be combined to give an overall PAF for that cancer using a product sum. […] Potential sources of bias for PAFs include inappropriate choice of risk estimates, imprecision in the risk estimates and estimates of proportions exposed, inaccurate risk exposure period and latency assumptions, and a lack of separate risk estimates in some cases for women and/or cancer incidence. In addition, a key decision is the choice of which diseases and exposures are to be included.”

“The British Cancer Burden study is perhaps the most detailed study of occupationally related cancers in that it includes all those relevant carcinogens classified at the end of 2008 […] In the British study the attributable fractions ranged from less than 0.01% to 95% overall, the most important cancer sites for occupational attribution being, for men, mesothelioma (97%), sinonasal (46%), lung (21.1%), bladder (7.1%), and non-melanoma skin cancer (7.1%) and, for women, mesothelioma (83%), sinonasal (20.1%), lung (5.3%), breast (4.6%), and nasopharynx (2.5%). Occupation also contributed 2% or more overall to cancers of the larynx, oesophagus, and stomach, and soft tissue sarcoma with, in addition for men, melanoma of the eye (due to welding), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. […] The overall results from the occupational risk factors component of the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study illustrate several important aspects of burden studies.14 Of the estimated 850 000 occupationally related deaths worldwide, the top three causes were: (1) injuries (just over a half of all deaths); (2) particulate matter, gases, and fumes leading to COPD; and (3) carcinogens. When DALYs were used as the burden measure, injuries still accounted for the highest proportion (just over one-third), but ergonomic factors leading to low back pain resulted in almost as many DALYs, and both were almost an order of magnitude higher than the DALYs from carcinogens. The difference in relative contributions of the various risk factors between deaths and DALYs arises because of the varying ages of those affected, and the differing chronicity of the resulting conditions. Both measures are valid, but they represent a different aspect of the burden arising from the hazardous exposures […]. Both the British and Global Burden of Disease studies draw attention to the important issues of: (1) multiple occupational carcinogens causing specific types of cancer, for example, the British study evaluated 21 lung carcinogens; and (2) specific carcinogens causing several different cancers, for example, IARC now defines asbestos as a group 1 or 2A carcinogen for seven cancer sites. These issues require careful consideration for burden estimation and for prioritizing risk reduction strategies. […] The long latency of many cancers means that estimates of current burden are based on exposures occurring in the past, often much higher than those existing today. […] long latency [also] means that risk reduction measures taken now will take a considerable time to be reflected in reduced disease incidence.”

“Exposures and effects are linked by dynamic processes occurring across time. These processes can often be usefully decomposed into two distinct biological relationships, each with several components: 1. The exposure-dose relationship […] 2. The dose-effect relationship […] These two component relationships are sometimes represented by two different mathematical models: a toxicokinetic model […], and a disease process model […]. Depending on the information available, these models may be relatively simple or highly complex. […] Often the various steps in the disease process do not occur at the same rate, some of these processes are ‘fast’, such as cell killing, while others are ‘slow’, such as damage repair. Frequently a few slow steps in a process become limiting to the overall rate, which sets the temporal pattern for the entire exposure-response relationship. […] It is not necessary to know the full mechanism of effects to guide selection of an exposure-response model or exposure metric. Because of the strong influence of the rate-limiting steps, often it is only necessary to have observations on the approximate time course of effects. This is true whether the effects appear to be reversible or irreversible, and whether damage progresses proportionately with each unit of exposure (actually dose) or instead occurs suddenly, and seemingly without regard to the amount of exposure, such as an asthma attack.”

“In this chapter, we argue that formal disease process models have the potential to improve the sensitivity of epidemiology for detecting new and emerging occupational and environmental risks where there is limited mechanistic information. […] In our approach, these models are often used to create exposure or dose metrics, which are in turn used in epidemiological models to estimate exposure-disease associations. […] Our goal is a methodology to formulate strong tests of our exposure-disease hypotheses in which a hypothesis is developed in as much biological detail as it can be, expressed in a suitable dynamic (temporal) model, and tested by its fit with a rich data set, so that its flaws and misperceptions of reality are fully displayed. Rejecting such a fully developed biological hypothesis is more informative than either rejecting or failing to reject a generic or vaguely defined hypothesis.” For example, the hypothesis ‘truck drivers have more risk of lung cancer than non-drivers’13 is of limited usefulness for prevention […]. Hypothesizing that a particular chemical agent in truck exhaust is associated with lung cancer — whether the hypothesis is refuted or supported by data — is more likely to lead to successful prevention activities. […] we believe that the choice of models against which to compare the data should, so far as possible, be guided by explicit hypotheses about the underlying biological processes. In other words, you can get as much as possible from epidemiology by starting from well-thought-out hypotheses that are formalized as mathematical models into which the data will be placed. The disease process models can serve this purpose.2″

“The basic idea of empirical Bayes (EB) and semiBayes (SB) adjustments for multiple associations is that the observed variation of the estimated relative risks around their geometric mean is larger than the variation of the true (but unknown) relative risks. In SB adjustments, an a priori value for the extra variation is chosen which assigns a reasonable range of variation to the true relative risks and this value is then used to adjust the observed relative risks.7 The adjustment consists in shrinking outlying relative risks towards the overall mean (of the relative risks for all the different exposures being considered). The larger the individual variance of the relative risks, the stronger the shrinkage, so that the shrinkage is stronger for less reliable estimates based on small numbers. Typical applications in which SB adjustments are a useful alternative to traditional methods of adjustment for multiple comparisons are in large occupational surveillance studies, where many relative risks are estimated with few or no a priori beliefs about which associations might be causal.7″

“The advantage of [the SB adjustment] approach over classical Bonferroni corrections is that on the average it produces more valid estimates of the odds ratio for each occupation/exposure. If we do a study which involves assessing hundreds of occupations, the problem is not only that we get many ‘false positive’ results by chance. A second problem is that even the ‘true positives’ tend to have odds ratios that are too high. For example, if we have a group of occupations with true odds ratios around 1.5, then the ones that stand out in the analysis are those with the highest odds ratios (e.g. 2.5) which will be elevated partly because of real effects and partly by chance. The Bonferroni correction addresses the first problem (too many chance findings) but not the second, that the strongest odds ratios are probably too high. In contrast, SB adjustment addresses the second problem by correcting for the anticipated regression to the mean that would have occurred if the study had been repeated, and thereby on the average produces more valid odds ratio estimates for each occupation/exposure. […] most epidemiologists write their Methods and Results sections as frequentists and their Introduction and Discussion sections as Bayesians. In their Methods and Results sections, they ‘test’ their findings as if their data are the only data that exist. In the Introduction and Discussion, they discuss their findings with regard to their consistency with previous studies, as well as other issues such as biological plausibility. This creates tensions when a small study has findings which are not statistically significant but which are consistent with prior knowledge, or when a study finds statistically significant findings which are inconsistent with prior knowledge. […] In some (but not all) instances, things can be made clearer if we include Bayesian methods formally in the Methods and Results sections of our papers”.

“In epidemiology, risk is most often quantified in terms of relative risk — i.e. the ratio of the probability of an adverse outcome in someone with a specified exposure to that in someone who is unexposed, or exposed at a different specified level. […] Relative risks can be estimated from a wider range of study designs than individual attributable risks. They have the advantage that they are often stable across different groups of people (e.g. of different ages, smokers, and non-smokers) which makes them easier to estimate and quantify. Moreover, high relative risks are generally unlikely to be explained by unrecognized bias or confounding. […] However, individual attributable risks are a more relevant measure by which to quantify the impact of decisions in risk management on individuals. […] Individual attributable risk is the difference in the probability of an adverse outcome between someone with a specified exposure and someone who is unexposed, or exposed at a different specified level. It is the critical measure when considering the impact of decisions in risk management on individuals. […] Population attributable risk is the difference in the frequency of an adverse outcome between a population with a given distribution of exposures to a hazardous agent, and that in a population with no exposure, or some other specified distribution of exposures. It depends on the prevalence of exposure at different levels within the population, and on the individual attributable risk for each level of exposure. It is a measure of the impact of the agent at a population level, and is relevant to decisions in risk management for populations. […] Population attributable risks are highest when a high proportion of a population is exposed at levels which carry high individual attributable risks. On the other hand, an exposure which carries a high individual attributable risk may produce only a small population attributable risk if the prevalence of such exposure is low.”

“Hazard characterization entails quantification of risks in relation to routes, levels, and durations of exposure. […] The findings from individual studies are often used to determine a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL), lowest observed effect level (LOEL), or benchmark dose lower 95% confidence limit (BMDL) for relevant effects […] [NOAEL] is the highest dose or exposure concentration at which there is no discernible adverse effect. […] [LOEL] is the lowest dose or exposure concentration at which a discernible effect is observed. If comparison with unexposed controls indicates adverse effects at all of the dose levels in an experiment, a NOAEL cannot be derived, but the lowest dose constitutes a LOEL, which might be used as a comparator for estimated exposures or to derive a toxicological reference value […] A BMDL is defined in relation to a specified adverse outcome that is observed in a study. Usually, this is the outcome which occurs at the lowest levels of exposure and which is considered critical to the assessment of risk. Statistical modelling is applied to the experimental data to estimate the dose or exposure concentration which produces a specified small level of effect […]. The BMDL is the lower 95% confidence limit for this estimate. As such, it depends both on the toxicity of the test chemical […], and also on the sample sizes used in the study (other things being equal, larger sample sizes will produce more precise estimates, and therefore higher BMDLs). In addition to accounting for sample size, BMDLs have the merit that they exploit all of the data points in a study, and do not depend so critically on the spacing of doses that is adopted in the experimental design (by definition a NOAEL or LOEL can only be at one of the limited number of dose levels used in the experiment). On the other hand, BMDLs can only be calculated where an adverse effect is observed. Even if there are no clear adverse effects at any dose level, a NOAEL can be derived (it will be the highest dose administered).”

Advertisements

December 8, 2017 Posted by | Books, Cancer/oncology, Epidemiology, Medicine, Statistics | Leave a comment

Occupational Epidemiology (II)

Some more observations from the book below.

“RD [Retinal detachment] is the separation of the neurosensory retina from the underlying retinal pigment epithelium.1 RD is often preceded by posterior vitreous detachment — the separation of the posterior vitreous from the retina as a result of vitreous degeneration and shrinkage2 — which gives rise to the sudden appearance of floaters and flashes. Late symptoms of RD may include visual field defects (shadows, curtains) or even blindness. The success rate of RD surgery has been reported to be over 90%;3 however, a loss of visual acuity is frequently reported by patients, particularly if the macula is involved.4 Since the natural history of RD can be influenced by early diagnosis, patients experiencing symptoms of posterior vitreous detachment are advised to undergo an ophthalmic examination.5 […] Studies of the incidence of RD give estimates ranging from 6.3 to 17.9 cases per 100 000 person-years.6 […] Age is a well-known risk factor for RD. In most studies the peak incidence was recorded among subjects in their seventh decade of life. A secondary peak at a younger age (20–30 years) has been identified […] attributed to RD among highly myopic patients.6 Indeed, depending on the severity,
myopia is associated with a four- to ten-fold increase in risk of RD.7 [Diabetics with retinopathy are also at increased risk of RD, US] […] While secondary prevention of RD is current practice, no effective primary prevention strategy is available at present. The idea is widespread among practitioners that RD is not preventable, probably the consequence of our historically poor understanding of the aetiology of RD. For instance, on the website of the Mayo Clinic — one of the top-ranked hospitals for ophthalmology in the US — it is possible to read that ‘There’s no way to prevent retinal detachment’.9

“Intraocular pressure […] is influenced by physical activity. Dynamic exercise causes an acute reduction in intraocular pressure, whereas physical fitness is associated with a lower baseline value.29 Conversely, a sudden rise in intraocular pressure has been reported during the Valsalva manoeuvre.30-32 […] Occupational physical activity may […] cause both short- and long-term variations in intraocular pressure. On the one hand, physically demanding jobs may contribute to decreased baseline levels by increasing physical fitness but, on the other hand, lifting tasks may cause an important acute increase in pressure. Moreover, the eye of a manual worker who performs repeated lifting tasks involving the Valsalva manoeuvre may undergo several dramatic changes in intraocular pressure within a single working shift. […] A case-control study was carried out to test the hypothesis that repeated lifting tasks involving the Valsalva manoeuvre could be a risk factor for RD. […] heavy lifting was a strong risk factor for RD (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.6–13). Intriguingly, body mass index (BMI) also showed a clear association with RD (top quartile: OR 6.8, 95% CI 1.6–29). […] Based on their findings, the authors concluded that heavy occupational lifting (involving the Valsalva manoeuvre) may be a relevant risk factor for RD in myopics.

“The proportion of the world’s population over 60 is forecast to double from 11.6% in 2012 to 21.8% in 2050.1 […] the International Labour Organization notes that, worldwide, just 40% of the working age population has legal pension coverage, and only 26% of the working population is effectively covered by old-age pension schemes. […] in less developed regions, labour force participation in those over 65 is much higher than in more developed regions.8 […] Longer working lives increase cumulative exposures, as well as increasing the time since exposure — important when there is a long latency period between exposure and resultant disease. Further, some exposures may have a greater effect when they occur to older workers, e.g. carcinogens that are promoters rather than initiators. […] Older workers tend to have more chronic health conditions. […] Older workers have fewer injuries, but take longer to recover. […] For some ‘knowledge workers’, like physicians, even a relatively minor cognitive decline […] might compromise their competence. […]  Most past studies have treated age as merely a confounding variable and rarely, if ever, have considered it an effect modifier. […]  Jex and colleagues24 argue that conceptually we should treat age as the variable of interest so that other variables are viewed as moderating the impact of age. […] The single best improvement to epidemiological research on ageing workers is to conduct longitudinal studies, including follow-up of workers into retirement. Cross-sectional designs almost certainly incur the healthy survivor effect, since unhealthy workers may retire early.25 […] Analyses should distinguish ageing per se, genetic factors, work exposures, and lifestyle in order to understand their relative and combined effects on health.”

“Musculoskeletal disorders have long been recognized as an important source of morbidity and disability in many occupational populations.1,2 Most musculoskeletal disorders, for most people, are characterized by recurrent episodes of pain that vary in severity and in their consequences for work. Most episodes subside uneventfully within days or weeks, often without any intervention, though about half of people continue to experience some pain and functional limitations after 12 months.3,4 In working populations, musculoskeletal disorders may lead to a spell of sickness absence. Sickness absence is increasingly used as a health parameter of interest when studying the consequences of functional limitations due to disease in occupational groups. Since duration of sickness absence contributes substantially to the indirect costs of illness, interventions increasingly address return to work (RTW).5 […] The Clinical Standards Advisory Group in the United Kingdom reported RTW within 2 weeks for 75% of all low back pain (LBP) absence episodes and suggested that approximately 50% of all work days lost due to back pain in the working population are from the 85% of people who are off work for less than 7 days.6″

Any RTW curve over time can be described with a mathematical Weibull function.15 This Weibull function is characterized by a scale parameter λ and a shape parameter k. The scale parameter λ is a function of different covariates that include the intervention effect, preferably expressed as hazard ratio (HR) between the intervention group and the reference group in a Cox’s proportional hazards regression model. The shape parameter k reflects the relative increase or decrease in survival time, thus expressing how much the RTW rate will decrease with prolonged sick leave. […] a HR as measure of effect can be introduced as a covariate in the scale parameter λ in the Weibull model and the difference in areas under the curve between the intervention model and the basic model will give the improvement in sickness absence days due to the intervention. By introducing different times of starting the intervention among those workers still on sick leave, the impact of timing of enrolment can be evaluated. Subsequently, the estimated changes in total sickness absence days can be expressed in a benefit/cost ratio (BC ratio), where benefits are the costs saved due to a reduction in sickness absence and costs are the expenditures relating to the intervention.15″

“A crucial factor in understanding why interventions are effective or not is the timing of the enrolment of workers on sick leave into the intervention. The RTW pattern over time […] has important consequences for appropriate timing of the best window for effective clinical and occupational interventions. The evidence presented by Palmer and colleagues clearly suggests that [in the context of LBP] a stepped care approach is required. In the first step of rapid RTW, most workers will return to work even without specific interventions. Simple, short interventions involving effective coordination and cooperation between primary health care and the workplace will be sufficient to help the majority of workers to achieve an early RTW. In the second step, more expensive, structured interventions are reserved for those who are having difficulties returning, typically between 4 weeks and 3 months. However, to date there is little evidence on the optimal timing of such interventions for workers on sick leave due to LBP.14,15 […] the cost-benefits of a structured RTW intervention among workers on sick leave will be determined by the effectiveness of the intervention, the natural speed of RTW in the target population, the timing of the enrolment of workers into the intervention, and the costs of both the intervention and of a day of sickness absence. […] The cost-effectiveness of a RTW intervention will be determined by the effectiveness of the intervention, the costs of the intervention and of a day of sickness absence, the natural course of RTW in the target population, the timing of the enrolment of workers into the RTW intervention, and the time lag before the intervention takes effect. The latter three factors are seldom taken into consideration in systematic reviews and guidelines for management of RTW, although their impact may easily be as important  as classical measures of effectiveness, such as effect size or HR.”

“In order to obtain information of the highest quality and utility, surveillance schemes have to be designed, set up, and managed with the same methodological rigour as high-calibre prospective cohort studies. Whether surveillance schemes are voluntary or not, considerable effort has to be invested to ensure a satisfactory and sufficient denominator, the best numerator quality, and the most complete ascertainment. Although the force of statute is relied upon in some surveillance schemes, even in these the initial and continuing motivation of the reporters (usually physicians) is paramount. […] There is a surveillance ‘pyramid’ within which the patient’s own perception is at the base, the GP is at a higher level, and the clinical specialist is close to the apex. The source of the surveillance reports affects the numerator because case severity and case mix differ according to the level in the pyramid.19 Although incidence rate estimates may be expected to be lower at the higher levels in the surveillance pyramid this is not necessarily always the case. […] Although surveillance undertaken by physicians who specialize in the organ system concerned or in occupational disease (or in both aspects) may be considered to be the medical ‘gold standard’ it can suffer from a more limited patient catchment because of various referral filters. Surveillance by GPs will capture numerator cases as close to the base of the pyramid as possible, but may suffer from greater diagnostic variation than surveillance by specialists. Limiting recruitment to GPs with a special interest, and some training, in occupational medicine is a compromise between the two levels.20

“When surveillance is part of a statutory or other compulsory scheme then incident case identification is a continuous and ongoing process. However, when surveillance is voluntary, for a research objective, it may be preferable to sample over shorter, randomly selected intervals, so as to reduce the demands associated with the data collection and ‘reporting fatigue’. Evidence so far suggests that sampling over shorter time intervals results in higher incidence estimates than continuous sampling.21 […] Although reporting fatigue is an important consideration in tempering conclusions drawn from […] multilevel models, it is possible to take account of this potential bias in various ways. For example, when evaluating interventions, temporal trends in outcomes resulting from other exposures can be used to control for fatigue.23,24 The phenomenon of reporting fatigue may be characterized by an ‘excess of zeroes’ beyond what is expected of a Poisson distribution and this effect can be quantified.27 […] There are several considerations in determining incidence from surveillance data. It is possible to calculate an incidence rate based on the general population, on the population of working age, or on the total working population,19 since these denominator bases are generally readily available, but such rates are not the most useful in determining risk. Therefore, incidence rates are usually calculated in respect of specific occupations or industries.22 […] Ideally, incidence rates should be expressed in relation to quantitative estimates of exposure but most surveillance schemes would require additional data collection as special exercises to achieve this aim.” [for much more on these topics, see also M’ikanatha & Iskander’s book.]

“Estimates of lung cancer risk attributable to occupational exposures vary considerably by geographical area and depend on study design, especially on the exposure assessment method, but may account for around 5–20% of cancers among men, but less (<5%) among women;2 among workers exposed to (suspected) lung carcinogens, the percentage will be higher. […] most exposure to known lung carcinogens originates from occupational settings and will affect millions of workers worldwide.  Although it has been established that these agents are carcinogenic, only limited evidence is available about the risks encountered at much lower levels in the general population. […] One of the major challenges in community-based occupational epidemiological studies has been valid assessment of the occupational exposures experienced by the population at large. Contrary to the detailed information usually available for an industrial population (e.g. in a retrospective cohort study in a large chemical company) that often allows for quantitative exposure estimation, community-based studies […] have to rely on less precise and less valid estimates. The choice of method of exposure assessment to be applied in an epidemiological study depends on the study design, but it boils down to choosing between acquiring self-reported exposure, expert-based individual exposure assessment, or linking self-reported job histories with job-exposure matrices (JEMs) developed by experts. […] JEMs have been around for more than three decades.14 Their main distinction from either self-reported or expert-based exposure assessment methods is that exposures are no longer assigned at the individual subject level but at job or task level. As a result, JEMs make no distinction in assigned exposure between individuals performing the same job, or even between individuals performing a similar job in different companies. […] With the great majority of occupational exposures having a rather low prevalence (<10%) in the general population it is […] extremely important that JEMs are developed aiming at a highly specific exposure assessment so that only jobs with a high likelihood (prevalence) and intensity of exposure are considered to be exposed. Aiming at a high sensitivity would be disastrous because a high sensitivity would lead to an enormous number of individuals being assigned an exposure while actually being unexposed […] Combinations of the methods just described exist as well”.

“Community-based studies, by definition, address a wider range of types of exposure and a much wider range of encountered exposure levels (e.g. relatively high exposures in primary production but often lower in downstream use, or among indirectly exposed individuals). A limitation of single community-based studies is often the relatively low number of exposed individuals. Pooling across studies might therefore be beneficial. […] Pooling projects need careful planning and coordination, because the original studies were conducted for different purposes, at different time periods, using different questionnaires. This heterogeneity is sometimes perceived as a disadvantage but also implies variations that can be studied and thereby provide important insights. Every pooling project has its own dynamics but there are several general challenges that most pooling projects confront. Creating common variables for all studies can stretch from simple re-naming of variables […] or recoding of units […] to the re-categorization of national educational systems […] into years of formal education. Another challenge is to harmonize the different classification systems of, for example, diseases (e.g. International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9 versus ICD-10), occupations […], and industries […]. This requires experts in these respective fields as well as considerable time and money. Harmonization of data may mean losing some information; for example, ISCO-68 contains more detail than ISCO-88, which makes it possible to recode ISCO-68 to ISCO-88 with only a little loss of detail, but it is not possible to recode ISCO-88 to ISCO-68 without losing one or two digits in the job code. […] Making the most of the data may imply that not all studies will qualify for all analyses. For example, if a study did not collect data regarding lung cancer cell type, it can contribute to the overall analyses but not to the cell type-specific analyses. It is important to remember that the quality of the original data is critical; poor data do not become better by pooling.”

December 6, 2017 Posted by | Books, Cancer/oncology, Demographics, Epidemiology, Health Economics, Medicine, Ophthalmology, Statistics | Leave a comment

Occupational Epidemiology (I)

Below some observations from the first chapters of the book, which I called ‘very decent’ on goodreads.

“Coal workers were amongst the first occupational groups to be systematically studied in well-designed epidemiological research programmes. As a result, the causes and spectrum of non-malignant respiratory disease among coal workers have been rigorously explored and characterized.1,2 While respirable silica (quartz) in mining has long been accepted as a cause of lung disease, the important contributing role of coal mine dust was questioned until the middle of the twentieth century.3 Occupational exposure to coal mine dust has now been shown unequivocally to cause excess mortality and morbidity from non-malignant respiratory disease, including coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The presence of respirable quartz, often a component of coal mine dust, contributes to disease incidence and severity, increasing the risk of morbidity and mortality in exposed workers.”

Coal is classified into three major coal ranks: lignite, bituminous, and anthracite from lowest to highest carbon content and heating value. […] In the US, the Bureau of Mines and the Public Health Service actively studied anthracite and bituminous coal mines and miners throughout the mid-1900s.3 These studies showed significant disease among workers with minimal silica exposure, suggesting that coal dust itself was toxic; however, these results were suppressed and not widely distributed. It was not until the 1960s that a popular movement of striking coal miners and their advocates demanded legislation to prevent, study, and compensate miners for respiratory diseases caused by coal dust exposure. […] CWP [Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis] is an interstitial lung disease resulting from the accumulation of coal mine dust in miners’ lungs and the tissue reaction to its presence. […] It is classified […] as simple or complicated; the latter is also known as progressive massive fibrosis (PMF) […] PMF is a progressive, debilitating disease which is predictive of disability and mortality […] A causal exposure-response relationship has been established between cumulative coal mine dust exposure and risk of developing both CWP and PMF,27-31 and with mortality from pneumoconiosis and PMF.23-26, 30 Incidence, the stage of CWP, and progression to PMF, as well as mortality, are positively associated with increasing proportion of respirable silica in the coal mine dust32 and higher coal rank. […] Not only do coal workers experience occupational mortality from CWP and PMF,12, 23-26 they also have excess mortality from COPD compared to the general population. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies […] have demonstrated an exposure-response relationship between cumulative coal mine dust exposure and chronic bronchitis,36-40 respiratory symptoms,41 and pulmonary function even in the presence of normal radiographic findings.42 The relationship between the rate of decline of lung function and coal mine dust exposure is not linear, the greatest reduction occurring in the first few years of exposure.43

“Like most occupational cohort studies, those of coal workers are affected by the healthy worker effect. A strength of the PFR and NCS studies is the ability to use internal analysis (i.e. comparing workers by exposure level) which controls for selection bias at hire, one component of the effect.59 However, internal analyses may not fully control for ongoing selection bias if symptoms of adverse health effects are related to exposure (referred to as the healthy worker survivor effect) […] Work status is a key component of the healthy worker survivor effect, as are length of time since entering the industry and employment duration.61 Both the PFR and NCS studies have consistently found higher rates of symptoms and disease among former miners compared with current miners, consistent with a healthy worker survivor effect.62,63″

“Coal mining is rapidly expanding in the developing world. From 2007 to 2010 coal production declined in the US by 6% and Europe by 10% but increased in Eurasia by 9%, in Africa by 3%, and in Asia and Oceania by 19%.71 China saw a dramatic increase of 39% from 2007 to 2011. There have been few epidemiological studies published that characterize the disease burden among coal workers during this expansion but, in one study conducted among miners in Liaoning Province, China, rates of CWP were high.72 There are an estimated six million underground miners in China at present;73 hence even low disease rates will cause a high burden of illness and excess premature mortality.”

“Colonization with S. aureus may occur on mucous membranes of the respiratory or intestinal tract, or on other body surfaces, and is usually asymptomatic. Nasal colonization with S. aureus in the human population occurs among around 30% of individuals. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) are strains that have developed resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics […] and, as a result, may cause difficult-to-treat infections in humans. Nasal colonization with MRSA in the general population is low; the highest rate reported in a population-based survey was 1.5%.2,3 Infections with MRSA are associated with treatment failure and increased severity of disease.4,5 […] In 2004 a case of, at that time non-typeable, MRSA was reported in a 6-month-old girl admitted to a hospital in the Netherlands. […] Later on, this strain and some related strains appeared strongly associated with livestock production, and were labelled livestock-associated MRSA (LA-MRSA) and are nowadays referred to as MRSA ST398. […] It is common knowledge that the use of antimicrobial agents in humans, animals, and plants promotes the selection and spread of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria and resistance genes through genetic mutations and gene transfer.15 Antimicrobial agents are widely used in veterinary medicine and modern food animal production depends on the use of large amounts of antimicrobials for disease control. Use of antimicrobials probably played an important role in the emergence of MRSA ST398.”

MRSA was rarely isolated from animals before 2000. […] Since 2005 onwards, LA-MRSA has been increasingly frequently reported in different food production animals, including cattle, pigs, and poultry […] The MRSA case illustrates the rapid emergence, and transmission from animals to humans, of a new strain of resistant micro-organisms from an animal reservoir, creating risks for different occupational groups. […] High animal-to-human transmission of ST398 has been reported in pig farming, leading to an elevated prevalence of nasal MRSA carriage ranging from a few per cent in Ireland up to 86% in German pig farmers […]. One study showed a clear association between the prevalence of MRSA carriage among participants from farms with MRSA colonized pigs (50%) versus 3% on farms without colonized pigs […] MRSA prevalence is low among animals from alternative breeding systems with low use of antimicrobials, also leading to low carriage rates in farmers.71 […] Veterinarians are […] frequently in direct contact with livestock, and are clearly at elevated risk of LA-MRSA carriage when compared to the general population. […] Of all LA-MRSA carrying individuals, a fraction appear to be persistent carriers. […] Few studies have examined transmission from humans to humans. Generally, studies among family members of livestock farmers show a considerably lower prevalence than among the farmers with more intense animal contact. […] Individuals who are ST398 carriers in the general population usually have direct animal contact.43,44 On the other hand, the emergence of ST398 isolates without known risk factors for acquisition and without a link to livestock has been reported.45 In addition, a human-specific ST398 clone has recently been identified and thus the spread of LA-MRSA from occupational populations to the general population cannot be ruled out.46 Transmission dynamics, especially between humans not directly exposed to animals, remain unclear and might be changing.”

“Enterobacteriaceae that produce ESBLs are an emerging concern in public health. ESBLs inactivate beta-lactam antimicrobials by hydrolysis and therefore cause resistance to various beta-lactam antimicrobials, including penicillins and cephalosporins.54 […] The genes encoding for ESBLs are often located on plasmids which can be transferred between different bacterial species. Also, coexistence with other types of antimicrobial resistance occurs. In humans, infections with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae are associated with increased burden of disease and costs.58 A variety of ESBLs have been identified in bacteria derived from food-producing animals worldwide. The occurrence of different ESBL types depends on the animal species and the geographical area. […] High use of antimicrobials and inappropriate use of cephalosporins in livestock production are considered to be associated with the emergence and high prevalence of ESBL-producers in the animals.59-60 Food-producing animals can serve as a reservoir for ESBL producing Enterobacteriaceae and ESBL genes. […] recent findings suggest that transmission from animals to humans may occur through (in)direct contact with livestock during work. This may thus pose an occupational health risk for farmers and potentially for other humans with regular contact with this working population. […] Compared to MRSA, the dynamics of ESBLs seem more complex. […] The variety of potential ESBL transmission routes makes it complex to determine the role of direct contact with livestock as an occupational risk for ESBL carriage. However, the increasing occurrence of ESBLs in livestock worldwide and the emerging insight into transmission through direct contact suggests that farmers have a higher risk of becoming a carrier of ESBLs. Until now, there have not been sufficient data available to quantify the relevant importance of this route of transmission.”

“Welders die more often from pneumonia than do their social class peers. This much has been revealed by successive analyses of occupational mortality for England and Wales. The pattern can now be traced back more than seven decades. During 1930–32, 285 deaths were observed with 171 expected;3 in 1949–53, 70 deaths versus 31 expected;4 in 1959–63, 101 deaths as compared with 54.9 expected;5 and in 1970–72, 66 deaths with 42.0 expected.6 […] The finding that risks decline after retirement is an argument against confounding by lifestyle variables such as smoking, as is the specificity of effect to lobar rather than bronchopneumonia. […] Analyses of death certificates […] support a case for a hazard that is reversible when exposure stops. […] In line with the mortality data, hospitalized pneumonia [has also] prove[n] to be more common among welders and other workers with exposure to metal fume than in workers from non-exposed jobs. Moreover, risks were confined to exposures in the previous 12 months […] Recently, inhalation experiments have confirmed that welding fume can promote bacterial growth in animals. […] A coherent body of evidence thus indicates that metal fume is a hazard for pneumonia. […] Presently, knowledge is lacking on the exposure-response relationship and what constitutes a ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’ level or pattern of exposure to metal fume. […]  The pattern of epidemiological evidence […] is generally compatible with a hazard from iron in metal fume. Iron could promote infective risk in at least one of two ways: by acting as a growth nutrient for microorganisms, or as a cause of free radical injury. […] the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, on behalf of the Department of Health in England, decided in November 2011 to recommend that ‘welders who have not received the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) previously should be offered a single dose of 0.5ml of PPV23 vaccine’ and that ‘employers should ensure that provision is in place for workers to receive PPV23’.”

December 2, 2017 Posted by | Books, Epidemiology, Infectious disease, Medicine | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Thirty Years of Research on the Dawn Phenomenon: Lessons to Optimize Blood Glucose Control in Diabetes.

“More than 30 years ago in Diabetes Care, Schmidt et al. (1) defined “dawn phenomenon,” the night-to-morning elevation of blood glucose (BG) before and, to a larger extent, after breakfast in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Shortly after, a similar observation was made in type 2 diabetes (T2D) (2), and the physiology of glucose homeostasis at night was studied in normal, nondiabetic subjects (35). Ever since the first description, the dawn phenomenon has been studied extensively with at least 187 articles published as of today (6). […] what have we learned from the last 30 years of research on the dawn phenomenon? What is the appropriate definition, the identified mechanism(s), the importance (if any), and the treatment of the dawn phenomenon in T1D and T2D?”

“Physiology of glucose homeostasis in normal, nondiabetic subjects indicates that BG and plasma insulin concentrations remain remarkably flat and constant overnight, with a modest, transient increase in insulin secretion just before dawn (3,4) to restrain hepatic glucose production (4) and prevent hyperglycemia. Thus, normal subjects do not exhibit the dawn phenomenon sensu strictiori because they secrete insulin to prevent it.

In T1D, the magnitude of BG elevation at dawn first reported was impressive and largely secondary to the decrease of plasma insulin concentration overnight (1), commonly observed with evening administration of NPH or lente insulins (8) (Fig. 1). Even in early studies with intravenous insulin by the “artificial pancreas” (Biostator) (2), plasma insulin decreased overnight because of progressive inactivation of insulin in the pump (9). This artifact exaggerated the dawn phenomenon, now defined as need for insulin to limit fasting hyperglycemia (2). When the overnight waning of insulin was prevented by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) […] or by the long-acting insulin analogs (LA-IAs) (8), it was possible to quantify the real magnitude of the dawn phenomenon — 15–25 mg/dL BG elevation from nocturnal nadir to before breakfast […]. Nocturnal spikes of growth hormone secretion are the most likely mechanism of the dawn phenomenon in T1D (13,14). The observation from early pioneering studies in T1D (1012) that insulin sensitivity is higher after midnight until 3 a.m. as compared to the period 4–8 a.m., soon translated into use of more physiological replacement of basal insulin […] to reduce risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia while targeting fasting near-normoglycemia”.

“In T2D, identification of diurnal changes in BG goes back decades, but only quite recently fasting hyperglycemia has been attributed to a transient increase in hepatic glucose production (both glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis) at dawn in the absence of compensatory insulin secretion (1517). Monnier et al. (7) report on the overnight (interstitial) glucose concentration (IG), as measured by continuous ambulatory IG monitoring, in three groups of 248 subjects with T2D […] Importantly, the dawn phenomenon had an impact on mean daily IG and A1C (mean increase of 0.39% [4.3 mmol/mol]), which was independent of treatment. […] Two messages from the data of Monnier et al. (7) are important. First, the dawn phenomenon is confirmed as a frequent event across the heterogeneous population of T2D independent of (oral) treatment and studied in everyday life conditions, not only in the setting of specialized clinical research units. Second, the article reaffirms that the primary target of treatment in T2D is to reestablish near-normoglycemia before and after breakfast (i.e., to treat the dawn phenomenon) to lower mean daily BG and A1C (8). […] the dawn phenomenon induces hyperglycemia not only before, but, to a larger extent, after breakfast as well (7,18). Over the years, fasting (and postbreakfast) hyperglycemia in T2D worsens as result of progressively impaired pancreatic B-cell function on the background of continued insulin resistance primarily at dawn (8,1518) and independently of age (19). Because it is an early metabolic abnormality leading over time to the vicious circle of “hyperglycemia begets hyperglycemia” by glucotoxicity and lipotoxicity, the dawn phenomenon in T2D should be treated early and appropriately before A1C continues to increase (20).”

“Oral medications do not adequately control the dawn phenomenon, even when given in combination (7,18). […] The evening replacement of basal insulin, which abolishes the dawn phenomenon by restraining hepatic glucose production and lipolysis (21), is an effective treatment as it mimics the physiology of glucose homeostasis in normal, nondiabetic subjects (4). Early use of basal insulin in T2D is an add-on option treatment after failure of metformin to control A1C <7.0% (20). However, […] it would be wise to consider initiation of basal insulin […] before — not after — A1C has increased well beyond 7.0%, as usually it is done in practice currently.”

ii. Peripheral Neuropathy in Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes From the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Follow-up Cohort.

“Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is among the most distressing of all the chronic complications of diabetes and is a cause of significant disability and poor quality of life (4). Depending on the patient population and diagnostic criteria, the prevalence of DPN among adults with diabetes ranges from 30 to 70% (57). However, there are insufficient data on the prevalence and predictors of DPN among the pediatric population. Furthermore, early detection and good glycemic control have been proven to prevent or delay adverse outcomes associated with DPN (5,8,9). Near-normal control of blood glucose beginning as soon as possible after the onset of diabetes may delay the development of clinically significant nerve impairment (8,9). […] The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for DPN in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes at diagnosis and 5 years after diagnosis for those with type 1 diabetes, followed by annual evaluations thereafter, using simple clinical tests (10). Since subclinical signs of DPN may precede development of frank neuropathic symptoms, systematic, preemptive screening is required in order to identify DPN in its earliest stages.

There are various measures that can be used for the assessment of DPN. The Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI) is a simple, sensitive, and specific tool for the screening of DPN (11). It was validated in large independent cohorts (12,13) and has been widely used in clinical trials and longitudinal cohort studies […] The aim of this pilot study was to provide preliminary estimates of the prevalence of and factors associated with DPN among children and adolescents with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.”

“A total of 399 youth (329 with type 1 and 70 with type 2 diabetes) participated in the pilot study. Youth with type 1 diabetes were younger (mean age 15.7 ± 4.3 years) and had a shorter duration of diabetes (mean duration 6.2 ± 0.9 years) compared with youth with type 2 diabetes (mean age 21.6 ± 4.1 years and mean duration 7.6 ± 1.8 years). Participants with type 2 diabetes had a higher BMI z score and waist circumference, were more likely to be smokers, and had higher blood pressure and lipid levels than youth with type 1 diabetes (all P < 0.001). A1C, however, did not significantly differ between the two groups (mean A1C 8.8 ± 1.8% [73 ± 2 mmol/mol] for type 1 diabetes and 8.5 ± 2.9% [72 ± 3 mmol/mol] for type 2 diabetes; P = 0.5) but was higher than that recommended by the ADA for this age-group (A1C ≤7.5%) (10). The prevalence of DPN (defined as the MNSIE score >2) was 8.2% among youth with type 1 diabetes and 25.7% among those with type 2 diabetes. […] Youth with DPN were older and had a longer duration of diabetes, greater central obesity (increased waist circumference), higher blood pressure, an atherogenic lipid profile (low HDL cholesterol and marginally high triglycerides), and microalbuminuria. A1C […] was not significantly different between those with and without DPN (9.0% ± 2.0 […] vs. 8.8% ± 2.1 […], P = 0.58). Although nearly 37% of youth with type 2 diabetes came from lower-income families with annual income <25,000 USD per annum (as opposed to 11% for type 1 diabetes), socioeconomic status was not significantly associated with DPN (P = 0.77).”

“In the unadjusted logistic regression model, the odds of having DPN was nearly four times higher among those with type 2 diabetes compared with youth with type 1 diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 3.8 [95% CI 1.9–7.5, P < 0.0001). This association was attenuated, but remained significant, after adjustment for age and sex (OR 2.3 [95% CI 1.1–5.0], P = 0.03). However, this association was no longer significant (OR 2.1 [95% CI 0.3–15.9], P = 0.47) when additional covariates […] were added to the model […] The loss of the association between diabetes type and DPN with addition of covariates in the fully adjusted model could be due to power loss, given the small number of youth with DPN in the sample, or indicative of stronger associations between these covariates and DPN such that conditioning on them eliminates the observed association between DPN and diabetes type.”

“The prevalence of DPN among type 1 diabetes youth in our pilot study is lower than that reported by Eppens et al. (15) among 1,433 Australian adolescents with type 1 diabetes assessed by thermal threshold testing and VPT (prevalence of DPN 27%; median age and duration 15.7 and 6.8 years, respectively). A much higher prevalence was also reported among Danish (62.5%) and Brazilian (46%) cohorts of type 1 diabetes youth (16,17) despite a younger age (mean age among Danish children 13.7 years and Brazilian cohort 12.9 years). The prevalence of DPN among youth with type 2 diabetes (26%) found in our study is comparable to that reported among the Australian cohort (21%) (15). The wide ranges in the prevalence estimates of DPN among the young cannot solely be attributed to the inherent racial/ethnic differences in this population but could potentially be due to the differing criteria and diagnostic tests used to define and characterize DPN.”

“In our study, the duration of diabetes was significantly longer among those with DPN, but A1C values did not differ significantly between the two groups, suggesting that a longer duration with its sustained impact on peripheral nerves is an important determinant of DPN. […] Cho et al. (22) reported an increase in the prevalence of DPN from 14 to 28% over 17 years among 819 Australian adolescents with type 1 diabetes aged 11–17 years at baseline, despite improvements in care and minor improvements in A1C (8.2–8.7%). The prospective Danish Study Group of Diabetes in Childhood also found no association between DPN (assessed by VPT) and glycemic control (23).”

“In conclusion, our pilot study found evidence that the prevalence of DPN in adolescents with type 2 diabetes approaches rates reported in adults with diabetes. Several CVD risk factors such as central obesity, elevated blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and microalbuminuria, previously identified as predictors of DPN among adults with diabetes, emerged as independent predictors of DPN in this young cohort and likely accounted for the increased prevalence of DPN in youth with type 2 diabetes.

iii. Disturbed Eating Behavior and Omission of Insulin in Adolescents Receiving Intensified Insulin Treatment.

“Type 1 diabetes appears to be a risk factor for the development of disturbed eating behavior (DEB) (1,2). Estimates of the prevalence of DEB among individuals with type 1 diabetes range from 10 to 49% (3,4), depending on methodological issues such as the definition and measurement of DEB. Some studies only report the prevalence of full-threshold diagnoses of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and eating disorders not otherwise specified, whereas others also include subclinical eating disorders (1). […] Although different terminology complicates the interpretation of prevalence rates across studies, the findings are sufficiently robust to indicate that there is a higher prevalence of DEB in type 1 diabetes compared with healthy controls. A meta-analysis reported a three-fold increase of bulimia nervosa, a two-fold increase of eating disorders not otherwise specified, and a two-fold increase of subclinical eating disorders in patients with type 1 diabetes compared with controls (2). No elevated rates of anorexia nervosa were found.”

“When DEB and type 1 diabetes co-occur, rates of morbidity and mortality are dramatically increased. A Danish study of comorbid type 1 diabetes and anorexia nervosa showed that the crude mortality rate at 10-year follow-up was 2.5% for type 1 diabetes and 6.5% for anorexia nervosa, but the rate increased to 34.8% when occurring together (the standardized mortality rates were 4.06, 8.86, and 14.5, respectively) (9). The presence of DEB in general also can severely impair metabolic control and advance the onset of long-term diabetes complications (4). Insulin reduction or omission is an efficient weight loss strategy uniquely available to patients with type 1 diabetes and has been reported in up to 37% of patients (1012). Insulin restriction is associated with poorer metabolic control, and previous research has found that self-reported insulin restriction at baseline leads to a three-fold increased risk of mortality at 11-year follow-up (10).

Few population-based studies have specifically investigated the prevalence of and relationship between DEBs and insulin restriction. The generalizability of existing research remains limited by relatively small samples and a lack of males. Further, many studies have relied on generic measures of DEBs, which may not be appropriate for use in individuals with type 1 diabetes. The Diabetes Eating Problem Survey–Revised (DEPS-R) is a newly developed and diabetes-specific screening tool for DEBs. A recent study demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the DEPS-R among children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes 11–19 years of age (13). […] This study aimed to assess young patients with type 1 diabetes to assess the prevalence of DEBs and frequency of insulin omission or restriction, to compare the prevalence of DEB between males and females across different categories of weight and age, and to compare the clinical features of participants with and without DEBs and participants who restrict and do not restrict insulin. […] The final sample consisted of 770 […] children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes 11–19 years of age. There were 380 (49.4%) males and 390 (50.6%) females.”

27.7% of female and 9% of male children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes receiving intensified insulin treatment scored above the predetermined cutoff on the DEPS-R, suggesting a level of disturbed eating that warrants further attention by treatment providers. […] Significant differences emerged across age and weight categories, and notable sex-specific trends were observed. […] For the youngest (11–13 years) and underweight (BMI <18.5) categories, the proportion of DEB was <10% for both sexes […]. Among females, the prevalence of DEB increased dramatically with age to ∼33% among 14 to 16 year olds and to nearly 50% among 17 to 19 year olds. Among males, the rate remained low at 7% for 14 to 16 year olds and doubled to ∼15% for 17 to 19 year olds.

A similar sex-specific pattern was detected across weight categories. Among females, the prevalence of DEB increased steadily and significantly from 9% among the underweight category to 23% for normal weight, 42% for overweight, and 53% for the obese categories, respectively. Among males, ∼6–7% of both the underweight and normal weight groups reported DEB, with rates increasing to ∼15% for both the overweight and obese groups. […] When separated by sex, females scoring above the cutoff on the DEPS-R had significantly higher HbA1c (9.2% [SD, 1.9]) than females scoring below the cutoff (8.4% [SD, 1.3]; P < 0.001). The same trend was observed among males (9.2% [SD, 1.6] vs. 8.4% [SD, 1.3]; P < 0.01). […] A total of 31.6% of the participants reported using less insulin and 6.9% reported skipping their insulin dose entirely at least occasionally after overeating. When assessing the sexes separately, we found that 36.8% of females reported restricting and 26.2% reported skipping insulin because of overeating. The rates for males were 9.4 and 4.5%, respectively.”

“The finding that DEBs are common in young patients with type 1 diabetes is in line with previous literature (2). However, because of different assessment methods and different definitions of DEB, direct comparison with other studies is complicated, especially because this is the first study to have used the DEPS-R in a prevalence study. However, two studies using the original DEPS have reported similar results, with 37.9% (23) and 53.8% (24) of the participants reporting engaging in unhealthy weight control practices. In our study, females scored significantly higher than males, which is not surprising given previous studies demonstrating an increased risk of development of DEB in nondiabetic females compared with males. In addition, the prevalence rates increased considerably by increasing age and weight. A relationship between eating pathology and older age and higher BMI also has been demonstrated in previous research conducted in both diabetic and nondiabetic adolescent populations.”

“Consistent with existent literature (1012,27), we found a high frequency of insulin restriction. For example, Bryden et al. (11) assessed 113 males and females (aged 17–25 years) with type 1 diabetes and found that a total of 37% of the females (no males) reported a history of insulin omission or reduction for weight control purposes. Peveler et al. (12) investigated 87 females with type 1 diabetes aged 11–25 years, and 36% reported intentionally reducing or omitting their insulin doses to control their weight. Finally, Goebel-Fabbri et al. (10) examined 234 females 13–60 years of age and found that 30% reported insulin restriction. Similarly, 36.8% of the participants in our study reported reducing their insulin doses occasionally or more often after overeating.”

iv. Clinical Inertia in People With Type 2 Diabetes. A retrospective cohort study of more than 80,000 people.

“Despite good-quality evidence of tight glycemic control, particularly early in the disease trajectory (3), people with type 2 diabetes often do not reach recommended glycemic targets. Baseline characteristics in observational studies indicate that both insulin-experienced and insulin-naïve people may have mean HbA1c above the recommended target levels, reflecting the existence of patients with poor glycemic control in routine clinical care (810). […] U.K. data, based on an analysis reflecting previous NICE guidelines, show that it takes a mean of 7.7 years to initiate insulin after the start of the last OAD [oral antidiabetes drugs] (in people taking two or more OADs) and that mean HbA1c is ~10% (86 mmol/mol) at the time of insulin initiation (12). […] This failure to intensify treatment in a timely manner has been termed clinical inertia; however, data are lacking on clinical inertia in the diabetes-management pathway in a real-world primary care setting, and studies that have been carried out are, relatively speaking, small in scale (13,14). This retrospective cohort analysis investigates time to intensification of treatment in people with type 2 diabetes treated with OADs and the associated levels of glycemic control, and compares these findings with recommended treatment guidelines for diabetes.”

“We used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database. This is the world’s largest computerized database, representing the primary care longitudinal records of >13 million patients from across the U.K. The CPRD is representative of the U.K. general population, with age and sex distributions comparable with those reported by the U.K. National Population Census (15). All information collected in the CPRD has been subjected to validation studies and been proven to contain consistent and high-quality data (16).”

“50,476 people taking one OAD, 25,600 people taking two OADs, and 5,677 people taking three OADs were analyzed. Mean baseline HbA1c (the most recent measurement within 6 months before starting OADs) was 8.4% (68 mmol/mol), 8.8% (73 mmol/mol), and 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) in people taking one, two, or three OADs, respectively. […] In people with HbA1c ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) taking one OAD, median time to intensification with an additional OAD was 2.9 years, whereas median time to intensification with insulin was >7.2 years. Median time to insulin intensification in people with HbA1c ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) taking two or three OADs was >7.2 and >7.1 years, respectively. In people with HbA1c ≥7.5% or ≥8.0% (≥58 or ≥64 mmol/mol) taking one OAD, median time to intensification with an additional OAD was 1.9 or 1.6 years, respectively; median time to intensification with insulin was >7.1 or >6.9 years, respectively. In those people with HbA1c ≥7.5% or ≥8.0% (≥58 or ≥64 mmol/mol) and taking two OADs, median time to insulin was >7.2 and >6.9 years, respectively; and in those people taking three OADs, median time to insulin intensification was >6.1 and >6.0 years, respectively.”

“By end of follow-up, treatment of 17.5% of people with HbA1c ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) taking three OADs was intensified with insulin, treatment of 20.6% of people with HbA1c ≥7.5% (≥58 mmol/mol) taking three OADs was intensified with insulin, and treatment of 22.0% of people with HbA1c ≥8.0% (≥64 mmol/mol) taking three OADs was intensified with insulin. There were minimal differences in the proportion of patients intensified between the groups. […] In people taking one OAD, the probability of an additional OAD or initiation of insulin was 23.9% after 1 year, increasing to 48.7% by end of follow-up; in people taking two OADs, the probability of an additional OAD or initiation of insulin was 11.4% after 1 year, increasing to 30.1% after 2 years; and in people taking three OADs, the probability of an additional OAD or initiation of insulin was 5.7% after 1 year, increasing to 12.0% by the end of follow-up […] Mean ± SD HbA1c in patients taking one OAD was 8.7 ± 1.6% in those intensified with an additional OAD (n = 14,605), 9.4 ± 2.3% (n = 1,228) in those intensified with insulin, and 8.7 ± 1.7% (n = 15,833) in those intensified with additional OAD or insulin. Mean HbA1c in patients taking two OADs was 8.8 ± 1.5% (n = 3,744), 9.8 ± 1.9% (n = 1,631), and 9.1 ± 1.7% (n = 5,405), respectively. In patients taking three OADs, mean HbA1c at intensification with insulin was 9.7 ± 1.6% (n = 514).”

This analysis shows that there is a delay in intensifying treatment in people with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic control, with patients remaining in poor glycemic control for >7 years before intensification of treatment with insulin. In patients taking one, two, or three OADs, median time from initiation of treatment to intensification with an additional OAD for any patient exceeded the maximum follow-up time of 7.2–7.3 years, dependent on subcohort. […] Despite having HbA1c levels for which diabetes guidelines recommend treatment intensification, few people appeared to undergo intensification (4,6,7). The highest proportion of people with clinical inertia was for insulin initiation in people taking three OADs. Consequently, these people experienced prolonged periods in poor glycemic control, which is detrimental to long-term outcomes.”

“Previous studies in U.K. general practice have shown similar findings. A retrospective study involving 14,824 people with type 2 diabetes from 154 general practice centers contributing to the Doctors Independent Network Database (DIN-LINK) between 1995 and 2005 observed that median time to insulin initiation for people prescribed multiple OADs was 7.7 years (95% CI 7.4–8.5 years); mean HbA1c before insulin was 9.85% (84 mmol/mol), which decreased by 1.34% (95% CI 1.24–1.44%) after therapy (12). A longitudinal observational study from health maintenance organization data in 3,891 patients with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. observed that, despite continued HbA1c levels >7% (>53 mmol/mol), people treated with sulfonylurea and metformin did not start insulin for almost 3 years (21). Another retrospective cohort study, using data from the Health Improvement Network database of 2,501 people with type 2 diabetes, estimated that only 25% of people started insulin within 1.8 years of multiple OAD failure, if followed for 5 years, and that 50% of people delayed starting insulin for almost 5 years after failure of glycemic control with multiple OADs (22). The U.K. cohort of a recent, 26-week observational study examining insulin initiation in clinical practice reported a large proportion of insulin-naïve people with HbA1c >9% (>75 mmol/mol) at baseline (64%); the mean HbA1c in the global cohort was 8.9% (74 mmol/mol) (10). Consequently, our analysis supports previous findings concerning clinical inertia in both U.K. and U.S. general practice and reflects little improvement in recent years, despite updated treatment guidelines recommending tight glycemic control.

v. Small- and Large-Fiber Neuropathy After 40 Years of Type 1 Diabetes. Associations with glycemic control and advanced protein glycation: the Oslo Study.

“How hyperglycemia may cause damage to the nervous system is not fully understood. One consequence of hyperglycemia is the generation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) that can form nonenzymatically between glucose, lipids, and amino groups. It is believed that AGEs are involved in the pathophysiology of neuropathy. AGEs tend to affect cellular function by altering protein function (11). One of the AGEs, N-ε-(carboxymethyl)lysine (CML), has been found in excessive amounts in the human diabetic peripheral nerve (12). High levels of methylglyoxal in serum have been found to be associated with painful peripheral neuropathy (13). In recent years, differentiation of affected nerves is possible by virtue of specific function tests to distinguish which fibers are damaged in diabetic polyneuropathy: large myelinated (Aα, Aβ), small thinly myelinated (Aδ), or small nonmyelinated (C) fibers. […] Our aims were to evaluate large- and small-nerve fiber function in long-term type 1 diabetes and to search for longitudinal associations with HbA1c and the AGEs CML and methylglyoxal-derived hydroimidazolone.”

“27 persons with type 1 diabetes of 40 ± 3 years duration underwent large-nerve fiber examinations, with nerve conduction studies at baseline and years 8, 17, and 27. Small-fiber functions were assessed by quantitative sensory thresholds (QST) and intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) at year 27. HbA1c was measured prospectively through 27 years. […] Fourteen patients (52%) reported sensory symptoms. Nine patients reported symptoms of a sensory neuropathy (reduced sensibility in feet or impaired balance), while three of these patients described pain. Five patients had symptoms compatible with carpal tunnel syndrome (pain or paresthesias within the innervation territory of the median nerve […]. An additional two had no symptoms but abnormal neurological tests with absent tendon reflexes and reduced sensibility. A total of 16 (59%) of the patients had symptoms or signs of neuropathy. […] No patient with symptoms of neuropathy had normal neurophysiological findings. […] Abnormal autonomic testing was observed in 7 (26%) of the patients and occurred together with neurophysiological signs of peripheral neuropathy. […] Twenty-two (81%) had small-fiber dysfunction by QST. Heat pain thresholds in the foot were associated with hydroimidazolone and HbA1c. IENFD was abnormal in 19 (70%) and significantly lower in diabetic patients than in age-matched control subjects (4.3 ± 2.3 vs. 11.2 ± 3.5 mm, P < 0.001). IENFD correlated negatively with HbA1c over 27 years (r = −0.4, P = 0.04) and CML (r = −0.5, P = 0.01). After adjustment for age, height, and BMI in a multiple linear regression model, CML was still independently associated with IENFD.”

Our study shows that small-fiber dysfunction is more prevalent than large-fiber dysfunction in diabetic neuropathy after long duration of type 1 diabetes. Although large-fiber abnormalities were less common than small-fiber abnormalities, almost 60% of the participants had their large nerves affected after 40 years with diabetes. Long-term blood glucose estimated by HbA1c measured prospectively through 27 years and AGEs predict large- and small-nerve fiber function.”

vi. Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Type 1 Diabetes. A prospective cohort study of 4,083 patients with diabetes.

“Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a life-threatening cerebrovascular event, which is usually caused by a rupture of a cerebrovascular aneurysm. These aneurysms are mostly found in relatively large-caliber (≥1 mm) vessels and can often be considered as macrovascular lesions. The overall incidence of SAH has been reported to be 10.3 per 100,000 person-years (1), even though the variation in incidence between countries is substantial (1). Notably, the population-based incidence of SAH is 35 per 100,000 person-years in the adult (≥25 years of age) Finnish population (2). The incidence of nonaneurysmal SAH is globally unknown, but it is commonly believed that 5–15% of all SAHs are of nonaneurysmal origin. Prospective, long-term, population-based SAH risk factor studies suggest that smoking (24), high blood pressure (24), age (2,3), and female sex (2,4) are the most important risk factors for SAH, whereas diabetes (both types 1 and 2) does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of SAH (2,3).

An increased risk of cardiovascular disease is well recognized in people with diabetes. There are, however, very few studies on the risk of cerebrovascular disease in type 1 diabetes since most studies have focused on type 2 diabetes alone or together with type 1 diabetes. Cerebrovascular mortality in the 20–39-year age-group of people with type 1 diabetes is increased five- to sevenfold in comparison with the general population but accounts only for 15% of all cardiovascular deaths (5). Of the cerebrovascular deaths in patients with type 1 diabetes, 23% are due to hemorrhagic strokes (5). However, the incidence of SAH in type 1 diabetes is unknown. […] In this prospective cohort study of 4,083 patients with type 1 diabetes, we aimed to determine the incidence and characteristics of SAH.”

“52% [of participants] were men, the mean age was 37.4 ± 11.8 years, and the duration of diabetes was 21.6 ± 12.1 years at enrollment. The FinnDiane Study is a nationwide multicenter cohort study of genetic, clinical, and environmental risk factors for microvascular and macrovascular complications in type 1 diabetes. […] all type 1 diabetic patients in the FinnDiane database with follow-up data and without a history of stroke at baseline were included. […] Fifteen patients were confirmed to have an SAH, and thus the crude incidence of SAH was 40.9 (95% CI 22.9–67.4) per 100,000 person-years. Ten out of these 15 SAHs were nonaneurysmal SAHs […] The crude incidence of nonaneurysmal SAH was 27.3 (13.1–50.1) per 100,000 person-years. None of the 10 nonaneurysmal SAHs were fatal. […] Only 3 out of 10 patients did not have verified diabetic microvascular or macrovascular complications prior to the nonaneurysmal SAH event. […] Four patients with type 1 diabetes had a fatal SAH, and all these patients died within 24 h after SAH.”

The presented study results suggest that the incidence of nonaneurysmal SAH is high among patients with type 1 diabetes. […] It is of note that smoking type 1 diabetic patients had a significantly increased risk of nonaneurysmal and all-cause SAHs. Smoking also increases the risk of microvascular complications in insulin-treated diabetic patients, and these patients more often have retinal and renal microangiopathy than never-smokers (8). […] Given the high incidence of nonaneurysmal SAH in patients with type 1 diabetes and microvascular changes (i.e., diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy), the results support the hypothesis that nonaneurysmal SAH is a microvascular rather than macrovascular subtype of stroke.”

“Only one patient with type 1 diabetes had a confirmed aneurysmal SAH. Four other patients died suddenly due to an SAH. If these four patients with type 1 diabetes and a fatal SAH had an aneurysmal SAH, which, taking into account the autopsy reports and imaging findings, is very likely, aneurysmal SAH may be an exceptionally deadly event in type 1 diabetes. Population-based evidence suggests that up to 45% of people die during the first 30 days after SAH, and 18% die at emergency rooms or outside hospitals (9). […] Contrary to aneurysmal SAH, nonaneurysmal SAH is virtually always a nonfatal event (1014). This also supports the view that nonaneurysmal SAH is a disease of small intracranial vessels, i.e., a microvascular disease. Diabetic retinopathy, a chronic microvascular complication, has been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients with diabetes (15,16). Embryonically, the retina is an outgrowth of the brain and is similar in its microvascular properties to the brain (17). Thus, it has been suggested that assessments of the retinal vasculature could be used to determine the risk of cerebrovascular diseases, such as stroke […] Most interestingly, the incidence of nonaneurysmal SAH was at least two times higher than the incidence of aneurysmal SAH in type 1 diabetic patients. In comparison, the incidence of nonaneurysmal SAH is >10 times lower than the incidence of aneurysmal SAH in the general adult population (21).”

vii. HbA1c and the Risks for All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality in the General Japanese Population.

Keep in mind when looking at these data that this is type 2 data. Type 1 diabetes is very rare in Japan and the rest of East Asia.

“The risk for cardiovascular death was evaluated in a large cohort of participants selected randomly from the overall Japanese population. A total of 7,120 participants (2,962 men and 4,158 women; mean age 52.3 years) free of previous CVD were followed for 15 years. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs among categories of HbA1c (<5.0%, 5.0–5.4%, 5.5–5.9%, 6.0–6.4%, and ≥6.5%) for participants without treatment for diabetes and HRs for participants with diabetes were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS During the study, there were 1,104 deaths, including 304 from CVD, 61 from coronary heart disease, and 127 from stroke (78 from cerebral infarction, 25 from cerebral hemorrhage, and 24 from unclassified stroke). Relations to HbA1c with all-cause mortality and CVD death were graded and continuous, and multivariate-adjusted HRs for CVD death in participants with HbA1c 6.0–6.4% and ≥6.5% were 2.18 (95% CI 1.22–3.87) and 2.75 (1.43–5.28), respectively, compared with participants with HbA1c <5.0%. Similar associations were observed between HbA1c and death from coronary heart disease and death from cerebral infarction.

CONCLUSIONS High HbA1c levels were associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality and death from CVD, coronary heart disease, and cerebral infarction in general East Asian populations, as in Western populations.”

November 15, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Medicine, Neurology, Pharmacology, Studies | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Impact of Sex and Age at Onset of Diabetes on Mortality From Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

“The study examined long-term IHD-specific mortality in a Finnish population-based cohort of patients with early-onset (0–14 years) and late-onset (15–29 years) T1D (n = 17,306). […] Follow-up started from the time of diagnosis of T1D and ended either at the time of death or at the end of 2011. […] ICD codes used to define patients as having T1D were 2500B–2508B, E10.0–E10.9, or O24.0. […] The median duration of diabetes was 24.4 (interquartile range 17.6–32.2) years. Over a 41-year study period totaling 433,782 person-years of follow-up, IHD accounted for 27.6% of the total 1,729 deaths. Specifically, IHD was identified as the cause of death in 478 patients, in whom IHD was the primary cause of death in 303 and a contributory cause in 175. […] Within the early-onset cohort, the average crude mortality rate in women was 33.3% lower than in men (86.3 [95% CI 65.2–112.1] vs. 128.2 [104.2–156.1] per 100,000 person-years, respectively, P = 0.02). When adjusted for duration of diabetes and the year of diabetes diagnosis, the mortality RR between women and men of 0.64 was only of borderline significance (P = 0.05) […]. In the late-onset cohort, crude mortality in women was, on average, only one-half that of men (117.2 [92.0–147.1] vs. 239.7 [210.9–271.4] per 100,000 person-years, respectively, P < 0.0001) […]. An RR of 0.43 remained highly significant after adjustment for duration of diabetes and year of diabetes diagnosis. Every year of duration of diabetes increased the risk 10–13%”

“The number of deaths from IHD in the patients with T1D were compared with the number of deaths from IHD in the background population, and the SMRs were calculated. For the total cohort (early and late onset pooled), the SMR was 7.2 (95% CI 6.4–8.0) […]. In contrast to the crude mortality rates, the SMRs were higher in women (21.6 [17.2–27.0]) than in men (5.8 [5.1–6.6]). When stratified by the age at onset of diabetes, the SMR was considerably higher in patients with early onset (16.9 [13.5–20.9]) than in those with late onset (5.9 [5.2–6.8]). In both the late- and the early-onset cohorts, there was a striking difference in the SMRs between women and men, and this was especially evident in the early-onset cohort where the SMR for women was 52.8 (36.3–74.5) compared with 12.1 (9.2–15.8) for men. This higher risk of death from IHD compared with the background population was evident in all women, regardless of age. However, the most pronounced effect was seen in women in the early-onset cohort <40 years of age, who were 83 times more likely to die of IHD than the age-matched women in the background population. This compares with a 37 times higher risk of death from IHD in women aged >40 years. The corresponding SMRs for men aged <40 and ≥40 years were 19.4 and 8.5, respectively.”

“Overall, the 40-year cumulative mortality for IHD was 8.8% (95% CI 7.9–9.7%) in all patients […] The 40-year cumulative IHD mortality in the early-onset cohort was 6.3% (4.8–7.8%) for men and 4.5% (3.1–5.9%) for women (P = 0.009 by log-rank test) […]. In the late-onset cohort, the corresponding cumulative mortality rates were 16.6% (14.3–18.7%) in men and 8.5% (6.5–10.4%) in women (P < 0.0001 by log-rank test)”

“The major findings of the current study are that women with early-onset T1D are exceptionally vulnerable to dying from IHD, which is especially evident in those receiving a T1D diagnosis during the prepubertal and pubertal years. Crude mortality rates were similar for women compared with men, highlighting the loss of cardioprotection in women. […] Although men of all ages have greater crude mortality rates than women regardless of the age at onset of T1D, the current study shows that mortality from IHD attributable to diabetes is much more pronounced in women than in men. […] it is conceivable that one of the underlying reasons for the loss of female sex as a protective factor against the development of CVD in the setting of diabetes may be the loss of ovarian hormones. Indeed, women with T1D have been shown to have reduced levels of plasma estradiol compared with age-matched nondiabetic women (23) possibly because of idiopathic ovarian failure or dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis.”

“One of the novelties of the present study is that the risk of death from IHD highly depends on the age at onset of T1D. The data show that the SMR was considerably higher in early-onset (0–14 years) than in late-onset (15–29 years) T1D in both sexes. […] the risk of dying from IHD is high in both women and men receiving a diagnosis of T1D at a young age.

ii. Microalbuminuria as a Risk Predictor in Diabetes: The Continuing Saga.

“The term “microalbuminuria” (MA) originated in 1964 when Professor Harry Keen first used it to signify a small amount of albumin in the urine of patients with type 1 diabetes (1). […] Whereas early research focused on the relevance of MA as a risk factor for diabetic kidney disease, research over the past 2 decades has shifted to examine whether MA is a true risk factor. To appreciate fully the contribution of MA to overall cardiorenal risk, it is important to distinguish between a risk factor and risk marker. A risk marker is a variable that identifies a pathophysiological state, such as inflammation or infection, and is not necessarily involved, directly or causally, in the genesis of a specified outcome (e.g., association of a cardiovascular [CV] event with fever, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], or MA). Conversely, a risk factor is involved clearly and consistently with the cause of a specified event (e.g., a CV event associated with persistently elevated blood pressure or elevated levels of LDL). Both a risk marker and a risk factor can predict an adverse outcome, but only one lies within the causal pathway of a disease. Moreover, a reduction (or alteration in a beneficial direction) of a risk factor (i.e., achievement of blood pressure goal) generally translates into a reduction of adverse outcomes, such as CV events; this is not necessarily true for a risk marker.”

“The data sources included in this article were all PubMed-referenced articles in English-language peer-reviewed journals since 1964. Studies selected had to have a minimum follow-up of 1 year; include at least 100 participants; be either a randomized trial, a systematic review, a meta-analysis, or a large observational cohort study in patients with any type of diabetes; or be trials of high CV risk that included at least 50% of patients with diabetes. All studies had to assess changes in MA tied to CV or CKD outcomes and not purely reflect changes in MA related to blood pressure, unless they were mechanistic studies. On the basis of these inclusion criteria, 31 studies qualified and provide the data used for this review.”

“Early studies in patients with diabetes supported the concept that as MA increases to higher levels, the risk of CKD progression and CV risk also increases […]. Moreover, evidence from epidemiological studies in patients with diabetes suggested that the magnitude of urine albumin excretion should be viewed as a continuum of CV risk, with the lower the albumin excretion, the lower the CV risk (15,16). However, MA values can vary daily up to 100% (11). These large biological variations are a result of a variety of conditions, with a central core tied to inflammation associated with factors ranging from increased blood pressure variability, high blood glucose levels, high LDL cholesterol, and high uric acid levels to high sodium ingestion, smoking, and exercise (17) […]. Additionally, any febrile illness, regardless of etiology, will increase urine albumin excretion (18). Taken together, these data support the concept that MA is highly variable and that values over a short time period (i.e., 3–6 months) are meaningless in predicting any CV or kidney disease outcome.”

“Initial studies to understand the mechanisms of MA examined changes in glomerular membrane permeability as a key determinant in patients with diabetes […]. Many factors affect the genesis and level of MA, most of which are linked to inflammatory conditions […]. A good evidence base, however, supports the concept that MA directly reflects the amount of inflammation and vascular “leakiness” present in patients with diabetes (16,18,19).

More recent studies have found a number of other factors that affect glomerular permeability by modifying cytokines that affect permeability. Increased amounts of glycated albumin reduce glomerular nephrin and increase vascular endothelial growth factor (20). Additionally, increases in sodium intake (21) as well as intraglomerular pressure secondary to high protein intake or poorly controlled blood pressure (22,23) increase glomerular permeability in diabetes and, hence, MA levels.

In individuals with diabetes, albumin is glycated and associated with the generation of reactive oxygen species. In addition, many other factors such as advanced glycation end products, reactive oxygen species, and other cellular toxins contribute to vascular injury. Once such injury occurs, the effect of pressor hormones, such as angiotensin II, is magnified, resulting in a faster progression of vascular injury. The end result is direct injury to the vascular smooth muscle cells, endothelial cells, and visceral epithelial cells (podocytes) of the glomerular capillary wall membrane as well as to the proximal tubular cells and podocyte basement membrane of the nephron (20,24,25). All these contribute to the development of MA. […] better glycemic control is associated with far lower levels of inflammatory markers (31).”

“MA is accepted as a CV risk marker for myocardial infarction and stroke, regardless of diabetes status. […] there is good evidence in those with type 2 diabetes that the presence of MA >100 mg/day is associated with higher CV events and greater likelihood of kidney disease development (6). Evidence for this association comes from many studies and meta-analyses […] a meta-analysis by Perkovic et al. (37) demonstrated a dose-response relationship between the level of albuminuria and CV risk. In this meta-analysis, individuals with MA were at 50% greater risk of coronary heart disease (risk ratio 1.47 [95% CI 1.30–1.66]) than those without. Those with macroalbuminuria (i.e., >300 mg/day) had more than a twofold risk for coronary heart disease (risk ratio 2.17 [95% CI 1.87–2.52]) (37). Despite these data indicating a higher CV risk in patients with MA regardless of diabetes status and other CV risk factors, there is no consensus that the addition of MA to conventional CV risk stratification for the general population (e.g., Framingham or Reynolds scoring systems) is of any clinical value, and that includes patients with diabetes (38).”

“Given that MA was evaluated in a post hoc manner in almost all interventional studies, it is likely that the reduction in MA simply reflects the effects of either renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade on endothelial function or significant blood pressure reduction rather than the MA itself being implicated as a CV disease risk factor (18). […] associations of lowering MA with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) does not prove a direct benefit on CV event lowering associated with MA reduction in diabetes. […] Four long-term, appropriately powered trials demonstrated an inverse relationship between reductions in MA and primary event rates for CV events […]. Taken together, these studies support the concept that MA is a risk marker in diabetes and is consistent with data of other inflammatory markers, such as hs-CRP [here’s a relevant link – US], such that the higher the level, the higher the risk (15,39,42). The importance of MA as a CV risk marker is exemplified further by another meta-analysis that showed that MA has a similar magnitude of CV risk as hs-CRP and is a better predictor of CV events (43). Thus, the data supporting MA as a risk marker for CV events are relatively consistent, clearly indicate that an association exists, and help to identify the presence of underlying inflammatory states, regardless of etiology.”

“In people with early stage nephropathy (i.e., stage 2 or 3a [GFR 45–89 mL/min/1.73 m2]) and MA, there is no clear benefit on slowing GFR decline by reducing MA with drugs that block the RAS independent of lowering blood pressure (16). This is exemplified by many trials […]. Thus, blood pressure lowering is the key goal for all patients with early stage nephropathy associated with normoalbuminuria or MA. […] When albuminuria levels are in the very high or macroalbuminuria range (i.e., >300 mg/day), it is accepted that the patient has CKD and is likely to progress ultimately to ESRD, unless they die of a CV event (39,52). However, only one prospective randomized trial evaluated the role of early intervention to reduce blood pressure with an ACE inhibitor versus a calcium channel blocker in CKD progression by assessing change in MA and creatinine clearance in people with type 2 diabetes (Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes [ABCD] trial) (23). After >7 years of follow-up, there was no relationship between changes in MA and CKD progression. Moreover, there was regression to the mean of MA.”

“Many observational studies used development of MA as indicating the presence of early stage CKD. Early studies by the individual groups of Mogensen and Parving demonstrated a relationship between increases in MA and progression to nephropathy in type 1 diabetes. These groups also showed that use of ACE inhibitors, blood pressure reduction, and glucose control reduced MA (9,58,59). However, more recent studies in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes demonstrated that only a subgroup of patients progress from MA to >300 mg/day albuminuria, and this subgroup accounts for those destined to progress to ESRD (29,32,6063). Thus, the presence of MA alone is not predictive of CKD progression. […] some patients with type 2 diabetes progress to ESRD without ever having developed albuminuria levels of ≥300 mg/day (67). […] Taken together, data from outcome trials, meta-analyses, and observations demonstrate that MA [Micro-Albuminuria] alone is not synonymous with the presence of clearly defined CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] in diabetes, although it is used as part of the criteria for the diagnosis of CKD in the most recent CKD classification and staging (71). Note that only a subgroup of ∼25–30% of people with diabetes who also have MA will likely progress to more advanced stages of CKD. Predictors of progression to ESRD, apart from family history, and many years of poor glycemic and blood pressure control are still not well defined. Although there are some genetic markers, such as CUBN and APOL1, their use in practice is not well established.”

“In the context of the data presented in this article, MA should be viewed as a risk marker associated with an increase in CV risk and for kidney disease, but its presence alone does not indicate established kidney disease, especially if the eGFR is well above 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Increases in MA, with blood pressure and other CV risk factors controlled, are likely but not proven to portend a poor prognosis for CKD progression over time. Achieving target blood pressure (<140/80 mmHg) and target HbA1c (<7%) should be priorities in treating patients with MA. Recent guidelines from both the American Diabetes Association and the National Kidney Foundation provide a strong recommendation for using agents that block the RAS, such as ACE inhibitors and ARBs, as part of the regimen for those with albuminuria levels >300 mg/day but not MA (73). […] maximal antialbuminuric effects will [however] not be achieved with these agents unless a low-sodium diet is strictly followed.”

iii. The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study: Rationale, Findings, and Future Directions.

“The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth (SEARCH) study was initiated in 2000, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, to address major knowledge gaps in the understanding of childhood diabetes. SEARCH is being conducted at five sites across the U.S. and represents the largest, most diverse study of diabetes among U.S. youth. An active registry of youth diagnosed with diabetes at age <20 years allows the assessment of prevalence (in 2001 and 2009), annual incidence (since 2002), and trends by age, race/ethnicity, sex, and diabetes type. Prevalence increased significantly from 2001 to 2009 for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes in most age, sex, and race/ethnic groups. SEARCH has also established a longitudinal cohort to assess the natural history and risk factors for acute and chronic diabetes-related complications as well as the quality of care and quality of life of persons with diabetes from diagnosis into young adulthood. […] This review summarizes the study methods, describes key registry and cohort findings and their clinical and public health implications, and discusses future directions.”

“SEARCH includes a registry and a cohort study […]. The registry study identifies incident cases each year since 2002 through the present with ∼5.5 million children <20 years of age (∼6% of the U.S. population <20 years) under surveillance annually. Approximately 3.5 million children <20 years of age were under surveillance in 2001 at the six SEARCH recruitment centers, with approximately the same number at the five centers under surveillance in 2009.”

“The prevalence of all types of diabetes was 1.8/1,000 youth in 2001 and was 2.2/1,000 youth in 2009, which translated to at least 154,000 children/youth in the U.S. with diabetes in 2001 (5) and at least 192,000 in 2009 (6). Overall, between 2001 and 2009, prevalence of type 1 diabetes in youth increased by 21.1% (95% CI 15.6–27.0), with similar increases for boys and girls and in most racial/ethnic and age groups (2) […]. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes also increased significantly over the same time period by 30.5% (95% CI 17.3–45.1), with increases observed in both sexes, 10–14- and 15–19-year-olds, and among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white and African American youth (2). These data on changes in type 2 are consistent with smaller U.S. studies (711).”

“The incidence of diabetes […] in 2002 to 2003 was 24.6/100,000/year (12), representing ∼15,000 new patients every year with type 1 diabetes and 3,700 with type 2 diabetes, increasing to 18,436 newly diagnosed type 1 and 5,089 with type 2 diabetes in 2008 to 2009 (13). Among non-Hispanic white youth, the incidence of type 1 diabetes increased by 2.7% (95% CI 1.2–4.3) annually between 2002 and 2009. Significant increases were observed among all age groups except the youngest age group (0–4 years) (14). […] The underlying factors responsible for this increase have not yet been identified.”

Over 50% of youth are hospitalized at diabetes onset, and ∼30% of children newly diagnosed with diabetes present with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (19). Prevalence of DKA at diagnosis was three times higher among youth with type 1 diabetes (29.4%) compared with youth with type 2 diabetes (9.7%) and was lowest in Asian/Pacific Islanders (16.2%) and highest among Hispanics (27.0%).”

“A significant proportion of youth with diabetes, particularly those with type 2 diabetes, have very poor glycemic control […]: 17% of youth with type 1 diabetes and 27% of youth with type 2 diabetes had A1C levels ≥9.5% (≥80 mmol/mol). Minority youth were significantly more likely to have higher A1C levels compared with non-Hispanic white youth, regardless of diabetes type. […] Optimal care is an important component of successful long-term management for youth with diabetes. While there are high levels of adherence for some diabetes care indicators such as blood pressure checks (95%), urinary protein tests (83%), and lipid assessments (88%), approximately one-third of youth had no documentation of eye or A1C values at appropriate intervals and therefore were not meeting the American Diabetes Association (ADA)-recommended screening for diabetic control and complications (40). Participants ≥18 years old, particularly those with type 2 diabetes, and minority youth with type 1 diabetes had fewer tests of all kinds performed. […] Despite current treatment options, the prevalence of poor glycemic control is high, particularly among minority youth. Our initial findings suggest that a substantial number of youth with diabetes will develop serious, debilitating complications early in life, which is likely to have significant implications for their quality of life, as well as economic and health care implications.”

“Because recognition of the broader spectrum of diabetes in children and adolescents is recent, there are no gold-standard definitions for differentiating the types of diabetes in this population, either for research or clinical purposes or for public health surveillance. The ADA classification of diabetes as type 1 and type 2 does not include operational definitions for the specific etiologic markers of diabetes type, such as types and numbers of diabetes autoantibodies or measures of insulin resistance, hallmarks of type 1 and 2 diabetes, respectively (43). Moreover, obese adolescents with a clinical phenotype suggestive of type 2 diabetes can present with ketoacidosis (44) or have evidence of autoimmunity (45).”

“Using the ADA framework (43), we operationalized definitions of two main etiologic markers, autoimmunity and insulin sensitivity, to identify four etiologic subgroups based on the presence or absence of markers. Autoimmunity was based on presence of one or more diabetes autoantibodies (GAD65 and IA2). Insulin sensitivity was estimated using clinical variables (A1C, triglyceride level, and waist circumference) from a formula that was highly associated with estimated insulin sensitivity measured using a euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp among youth with type 1 and 2 and normal control subjects (46). Participants were categorized as insulin resistant […] and insulin sensitive (47). Using this approach, 54.5% of SEARCH cases were classified as typical type 1 (autoimmune, insulin-sensitive) diabetes, while 15.9% were classified as typical type 2 (nonautoimmune, insulin-resistant) diabetes. Cases that were classified as autoimmune and insulin-resistant likely represent individuals with type 1 autoimmune diabetes and concomitant obesity, a phenotype becoming more prevalent as a result of the recent increase in the frequency of obesity, but is unlikely to be a distinct etiologic entity.”

“Ten percent of SEARCH participants had no evidence of either autoimmunity or insulin resistance and thus require additional testing, including additional measurements of diabetes-related autoantibodies (only two antibodies were measured in SEARCH) as well as testing for monogenic forms of diabetes to clarify etiology. Among antibody-negative youth, 8% of those tested had a mutation in one or more of the hepatocyte nuclear factor-1α (HNF-1α), glucokinase, and HNF-4α genes, an estimated monogenic diabetes population prevalence of at least 1.2% (48).”

iv. Does the Prevailing Hypothesis That Small-Fiber Dysfunction Precedes Large-Fiber Dysfunction Apply to Type 1 Diabetic Patients?

The short answer is ‘yes, it does’. Some observations from the paper:

“Diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP) is a common complication of diabetes, affecting 28–55% of patients (1). A prospective Finnish study found evidence of probable or definite neuropathy in 8.3% of diabetic patients at the time of diagnosis, 16.7% after 5 years, and 41.9% after 10 years (2). Diabetes-related peripheral neuropathy results in serious morbidity, including chronic neuropathic pain, leg weakness and falls, sensory loss and foot ulceration, and amputation (3). Health care costs associated with diabetic neuropathy were estimated at $10.9 billion in the U.S. in 2003 (4). However, despite the high prevalence of diabetes and DSP, and the important public health implications, there is a lack of serum- or tissue-based biomarkers to diagnose and follow patients with DSP longitudinally. Moreover, numerous attempts at treatment have yielded negative results.”

“DSP is known to cause injury to both large-diameter, myelinated (Aα and Aβ) fibers and small-diameter, unmyelinated nerve (Aδ and C) fibers; however, the sequence of nerve fiber damage remains uncertain. While earlier reports seemed to indicate simultaneous loss of small- and large-diameter nerve fibers, with preserved small/large ratios (5), more recent studies have suggested the presence of early involvement of small-diameter Aδ and C fibers (611). Some suggest a temporal relationship of small-fiber impairment preceding that of large fibers. For example, impairment in the density of the small intraepidermal nerve fibers in symptomatic patients with impaired glucose tolerance (prediabetes) have been observed in the face of normal large-fiber function, as assessed by nerve conduction studies (NCSs) (9,10). In addition, surveys of patients with DSP have demonstrated an overwhelming predominance of sensory and autonomic symptoms, as compared with motor weakness. Again, this has been interpreted as indicative of preferential small-fiber dysfunction (12). Though longitudinal studies are limited, such studies have lead to the current prevailing hypothesis for the natural history of DSP that measures of small-fiber morphology and function decline prior to those of large fibers. One implication of this hypothesis is that small-fiber testing could serve as an earlier, subclinical primary end point in clinical trials investigating interventions for DSP (13).

The hypothesis described above has been investigated exclusively in type 2 diabetic or prediabetic patients. Through the study of a cohort of healthy volunteers and type 1 diabetic subjects […], we had the opportunity to evaluate in cross-sectional analysis the relationship between measures of large-fiber function and small-fiber structure and function. Under the hypothesis that small-fiber abnormalities precede large-fiber dysfunction in the natural history of DSP, we sought to determine if: 1) the majority of subjects who meet criteria for large-fiber dysfunction have concurrent evidence of small-fiber dysfunction and 2) the subset of patients without DSP includes a spectrum with normal small-fiber tests (indicating lack of initiation of nerve injury) as well as abnormal small-fiber tests (indicating incipient DSP).”

“Overall, 57 of 131 (43.5%) type 1 diabetic patients met DSP criteria, and 74 of 131 (56.5%) did not meet DSP criteria. Abnormality of CCM [link] was present in 30 of 57 (52.6%) DSP patients and 6 of 74 (8.1%) type 1 diabetic patients without DSP. Abnormality of CDT [Cooling Detection Thresholds, relevant link] was present in 47 of 56 (83.9%) DSP patients and 17 of 73 (23.3%) without DSP. Abnormality of LDIflare [laser Doppler imaging of heat-evoked flare] was present in 30 of 57 (52.6%) DSP patients and 20 of 72 (27.8%) without DSP. Abnormality of HRV [Heart Rate Variability] was present in 18 of 45 (40.0%) DSP patients and 6 of 70 (8.6%) without DSP. […] sensitivity analysis […] revealed that abnormality of any one of the four small-fiber measures was present in 55 of 57 (96.5%) DSP patients […] and 39 of 74 (52.7%) type 1 diabetic patients without DSP. Similarly, abnormality of any two of the four small-fiber measures was present in 43 of 57 (75.4%) DSP patients […] and 9 of 74 (12.2%) without DSP. Finally, abnormality of either CDT or CCM (with these two tests selected based on their high reliability) was noted in 53 of 57 (93.0%) DSP patients and 21 of 74 (28.4%) patients without DSP […] When DSP was defined based on symptoms and signs plus abnormal sural SNAP [sensory nerve action potential] amplitude or conduction velocity, there were 68 of 131 patients who met DSP criteria and 63 of 131 who did not. Abnormality of any one of the four small-fiber measures was present in 63 of 68 (92.6%) DSP patients and 31 of 63 (49.2%) type 1 diabetic patients without DSP. […] Finally, if DSP was defined based on clinical symptoms and signs alone, with TCNS ≥5, there were 68 of 131 patients who met DSP criteria and 63 of 131 who did not. Abnormality of any one of the four small-fiber measures was present in 62 of 68 (91.2%) DSP patients and 32 of 63 (50.8%) type 1 diabetic patients without DSP.”

“Qualitative analysis of contingency tables shows that the majority of patients with DSP have concurrent evidence of small-fiber dysfunction, and patients without DSP include a spectrum with normal small-fiber tests (indicating lack of initiation of nerve injury) as well as abnormal small-fiber tests. Evidence of isolated large-fiber injury was much less frequent […]. These findings suggest that small-fiber damage may herald the onset of DSP in type 1 diabetes. In addition, the above findings remained true when alternative definitions of DSP were explored in a sensitivity analysis. […] The second important finding was the linear relationships noted between small-fiber structure and function tests (CDT, CNFL, LDIflare, and HRV) […] and the number of NCS abnormalities (a marker of large-fiber function). This might indicate that once the process of large-fiber nerve injury in DSP has begun, damage to large and small nerve fibers occurs simultaneously.”

v. Long-Term Complications and Mortality in Young-Onset Diabetes.

“Records from the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Diabetes Clinical Database, established in 1986, were matched with the Australian National Death Index to establish mortality outcomes for all subjects until June 2011. Clinical and mortality outcomes in 354 patients with T2DM, age of onset between 15 and 30 years (T2DM15–30), were compared with T1DM in several ways but primarily with 470 patients with T1DM with a similar age of onset (T1DM15–30) to minimize the confounding effect of age on outcome.

RESULTS For a median observation period of 21.4 (interquartile range 14–30.7) and 23.4 (15.7–32.4) years for the T2DM and T1DM cohorts, respectively, 71 of 824 patients (8.6%) died. A significant mortality excess was noted in T2DM15–30 (11 vs. 6.8%, P = 0.03), with an increased hazard for death (hazard ratio 2.0 [95% CI 1.2–3.2], P = 0.003). Death for T2DM15–30 occurred after a significantly shorter disease duration (26.9 [18.1–36.0] vs. 36.5 [24.4–45.4] years, P = 0.01) and at a relatively young age. There were more cardiovascular deaths in T2DM15–30 (50 vs. 30%, P < 0.05). Despite equivalent glycemic control and shorter disease duration, the prevalence of albuminuria and less favorable cardiovascular risk factors were greater in the T2DM15–30 cohort, even soon after diabetes onset. Neuropathy scores and macrovascular complications were also increased in T2DM15–30 (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS Young-onset T2DM is the more lethal phenotype of diabetes and is associated with a greater mortality, more diabetes complications, and unfavorable cardiovascular disease risk factors when compared with T1DM.

“Only a few previous studies have looked at comparative mortality in T1DM and T2DM onset in patients <30 years of age. In a Swedish study of patients with diabetes aged 15–34 years compared with a general population, the standardized mortality ratio was higher for the T2DM than for the T1DM cohort (2.9 vs. 1.8) (17). […] Recently, Dart et al. (19) examined survival in youth aged 1–18 years with T2DM versus T1DM. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a statistically significant lower survival probability for the youth with T2DM, although the number at risk was low after 10 year’s duration. Taken together, these findings are in keeping with the present observations and are supportive evidence for a higher mortality in young-onset T2DM than in T1DM. The majority of deaths appear to be from cardiovascular causes and significantly more so for young T2DM.”

“Although the age of onset of T1DM diabetes is usually in little doubt because of a more abrupt presentation, it is possible that the age of onset of T2DM was in fact earlier than recognized. With a previously published method for estimating time delay until diagnosis of T2DM (26) by plotting the prevalence of retinopathy against duration and extrapolating to a point of zero retinopathy, we found that there is no difference in the slope and intercept of this relationship between the T2DM and the T1DM cohorts […] delay in diagnosis is unlikely to be an explanation for the differences in observed outcome.”

vi. Cardiovascular Risk Factors Are Associated With Increased Arterial Stiffness in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes.

“Increased arterial stiffness independently predicts all-cause and CVD mortality (3), and higher pulse pressure predicts CVD mortality, incidence, and end-stage renal disease development among adults with type 1 diabetes (1,4,5). Several reports have shown that youth and adults with type 1 diabetes have elevated arterial stiffness, though the mechanisms are largely unknown (6). The etiology of advanced atherosclerosis in type 1 diabetes is likely multifactorial, involving metabolic, behavioral, and diabetes-specific cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Aging, high blood pressure (BP), obesity, the metabolic syndrome (MetS), and type 2 diabetes are the main contributors of sustained increased arterial stiffness in adults (7,8). However, the natural history, the age-related progression, and the possible determinants of increased arterial stiffness in youth with type 1 diabetes have not been studied systematically. […] There are currently no data examining the impact of CV risk factors and their clustering in youth with type 1 diabetes on subsequent CVD morbidity and mortality […]. Thus, the aims of this report were: 1) to describe the progression of arterial stiffness, as measured by pulse wave velocity (PWV), over time, among youth with type 1 diabetes, and 2) to explore the association of CV risk factors and their clustering as MetS with PWV in this cohort.”

“Youth were age 14.5 years (SD 2.8) and had an average disease duration of 4.8 (3.8) years at baseline, 46.3% were female, and 87.6% were of NHW race/ethnicity. At baseline, 10.0% had high BP, 10.9% had a large waist circumference, 11.6% had HDL-c ≤40 mg/dL, 10.9% had a TG level ≥110 mg/dL, and 7.0% had at least two of the above CV risk factors (MetS). In addition, 10.3% had LDL-c ≥130 mg/dL, 72.0% had an HbA1c ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and 9.2% had ACR ≥30 μg/mL. Follow-up measures were obtained on average at age 19.2 years, when the average duration of diabetes was 10.1 (3.9) years.”

“Over an average follow-up period of ∼5 years, there was a statistically significant increase of 0.7 m/s in PWV (from 5.2 to 5.9 m/s), representing an annual increase of 2.8% or 0.145 m/s. […] Based on our data, if this rate of change is stable over time, the estimated average PWV by the time these youth enter their third decade of life will be 11.3 m/s, which was shown to be associated with a threefold increased hazard for major CV events (26). There are no similar studies in youth to compare these findings. In adults, the rate of change in PWV was 0.081 m/s/year in nondiabetic normotensive patients, although it was higher in hypertensive adults (0.147 m/s/year) (7). We also showed that the presence of central adiposity and elevated BP at baseline, as well as clustering of at least two CV risk factors, was associated with significantly worse PWV over time, although these baseline factors did not significantly influence the rate of change in PWV over this period of time. Changes in CV risk factors, specifically increases in central adiposity, LDL-c levels, and worsening glucose control, were independently associated with worse PWV over time. […] Our inability to detect a difference in the rate of change in PWV in our youth with MetS (vs. those without MetS) may be due to several factors, including a combination of a relatively small sample size, short period of follow-up, and young age of the cohort (thus with lower baseline PWV levels).”

 

November 8, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Genetics, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Studies | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Chronic Fatigue in Type 1 Diabetes: Highly Prevalent but Not Explained by Hyperglycemia or Glucose Variability.

“Fatigue is a classical symptom of hyperglycemia, but the relationship between chronic fatigue and diabetes has not been systematically studied. […] glucose control [in diabetics] is often suboptimal with persistent episodes of hyperglycemia that may result in sustained fatigue. Fatigue may also sustain in diabetic patients because it is associated with the presence of a chronic disease, as has been demonstrated in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and various neuromuscular disorders (2,3).

It is important to distinguish between acute and chronic fatigue, because chronic fatigue, defined as severe fatigue that persists for at least 6 months, leads to substantial impairments in patients’ daily functioning (4,5). In contrast, acute fatigue can largely vary during the day and generally does not cause functional impairments.

Literature provides limited evidence for higher levels of fatigue in diabetic patients (6,7), but its chronicity, impact, and determinants are unknown. In various chronic diseases, it has been proven useful to distinguish between precipitating and perpetuating factors of chronic fatigue (3,8). Illness-related factors trigger acute fatigue, while other factors, often cognitions and behaviors, cause fatigue to persist. Sleep disturbances, low self-efficacy concerning fatigue, reduced physical activity, and a strong focus on fatigue are examples of these fatigue-perpetuating factors (810). An episode of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia could trigger acute fatigue for diabetic patients (11,12). However, variations in blood glucose levels might also contribute to chronic fatigue, because these variations continuously occur.

The current study had two aims. First, we investigated the prevalence and impact of chronic fatigue in a large sample of type 1 diabetic (T1DM) patients and compared the results to a group of age- and sex-matched population-based controls. Secondly, we searched for potential determinants of chronic fatigue in T1DM.”

“A significantly higher percentage of T1DM patients were chronically fatigued (40%; 95% CI 34–47%) than matched controls (7%; 95% CI 3–10%). Mean fatigue severity was also significantly higher in T1DM patients (31 ± 14) compared with matched controls (17 ± 9; P < 0.001). T1DM patients with a comorbidity_mr [a comorbidity affecting patients’ daily functioning, based on medical records – US] or clinically relevant depressive symptoms [based on scores on the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care – US] were significantly more often chronically fatigued than patients without a comorbidity_mr (55 vs. 36%; P = 0.014) or without clinically relevant depressive symptoms (88 vs. 31%; P < 0.001). Patients who reported neuropathy, nephropathy, or cardiovascular disease as complications of diabetes were more often chronically fatigued […] Chronically fatigued T1DM patients were significantly more impaired compared with nonchronically fatigued T1DM patients on all aspects of daily functioning […]. Fatigue was the most troublesome symptom of the 34 assessed diabetes-related symptoms. The five most troublesome symptoms were overall sense of fatigue, lack of energy, increasing fatigue in the course of the day, fatigue in the morning when getting up, and sleepiness or drowsiness”.

“This study establishes that chronic fatigue is highly prevalent and clinically relevant in T1DM patients. While current blood glucose level was only weakly associated with chronic fatigue, cognitive behavioral factors were by far the strongest potential determinants.”

“Another study found that type 2 diabetic, but not T1DM, patients had higher levels of fatigue compared with healthy controls (7). This apparent discrepancy may be explained by the relatively small sample size of this latter study, potential selection bias (patients were not randomly selected), and the use of a different fatigue questionnaire.”

“Not only was chronic fatigue highly prevalent, fatigue also had a large impact on T1DM patients. Chronically fatigued T1DM patients had more functional impairments than nonchronically fatigued patients, and T1DM patients considered fatigue as the most burdensome diabetes-related symptom.

Contrary to what was expected, there was at best a weak relationship between blood glucose level and chronic fatigue. Chronically fatigued T1DM patients spent slightly less time in hypoglycemia, but average glucose levels, glucose variability, hyperglycemia, or HbA1c were not related to chronic fatigue. In type 2 diabetes mellitus also, no relationship was found between fatigue and HbA1c (7).”

“Regarding demographic characteristics, current health status, diabetes-related factors, and fatigue-related cognitions and behaviors as potential determinants of chronic fatigue, we found that sleeping problems, physical activity, self-efficacy concerning fatigue, age, depression, and pain were significantly associated with chronic fatigue in T1DM. Although depression was strongly related, it could not completely explain the presence of chronic fatigue (38), as 31% was chronically fatigued without having clinically relevant depressive symptoms.”

Some comments may be worth adding here. It’s important to note to people who may not be aware of this that although chronic fatigue is a weird entity that’s hard to get a handle on (and, to be frank, is somewhat controversial), specific organic causes have been identified that greatly increases the risk. Many survivors of cancer experience chronic fatigue (see e.g. this paper, or wikipedia), and chronic fatigue is also not uncommon in a kidney failure setting (“The silence of renal disease creeps up on us (doctors and patients). Do not dismiss odd chronic symptoms such as fatigue or ‘not being quite with it’ without considering checking renal function” (Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine, 9th edition. My italics – US)). As observed above, linkage with RA and some neuromuscular disorders has also been observed. The brief discussion of related topics in Houghton & Grey made it clear to me that some people with chronic fatigue are almost certainly suffering from an organic illness which has not been diagnosed or treated. Here’s a relevant quote from that book’s coverage: “it is unusual to find a definite organic cause for fatigue. However, consider anaemia, thyroid dysfunction, Addison’s disease and hypopituitarism.” It’s sort of neat, if you think about the potential diabetes-fatigue link investigated by the guys above, that these diseases are likely to be relevant, as type 1 diabetics are more likely to develop them (anemia is not linked to diabetes, as far as I know, but the rest of them clearly are) due to their development being caused by some of the same genetic mutations which cause type 1 diabetes – the combinations of some of these diseases even have fancy names of their own, like ‘Type I Polyglandular Autoimmune Syndrome’ and ‘Schmidt Syndrome’ (if you’re interested here are a couple of medscape links). It’s noteworthy that although most of these diseases are uncommon in the general population, their incidence is likely to be greatly increased in type 1 diabetics due to the common genetic pathways at play (variants regulating T-cell function seem to be important, but there’s no need to go into these details here). Sperling et al. note in their book that: “Hypothyroid or hyperthyroid AITD [autoimmune thyroid disease] has been observed in 10–24% of patients with type 1 diabetes”. In one series including 151 patients with APS [/PAS]-2, when they looked at disease combinations they found that: “Of combinations of the component diseases, [type 1] diabetes with thyroid disease was the most common, occurring in 33%. The second, diabetes with adrenal insufficiency, made up 15%” (same source).

It seems from estimates like these likely that a not unsubstantial proportion of type 1 diabetics over time go on to develop other health problems that might if unaddressed/undiagnosed cause fatigue, and this may in my opinion be a potentially much more important cause than direct metabolic effects such as hyperglycemia, or chronic inflammation. If this is the case you’d however expect to see a substantial sex difference, as the autoimmune syndromes are in general much more likely to hit females than males. I’m not completely sure how to interpret a few of the results reported, but to me it doesn’t look like the sex differences in this study are anywhere near ‘large enough’ to support such an explanatory model, though. Another big problem is also that fatigue seems to be more common in young patients, which is weird; most long-term complications display significant (positive) duration dependence, and when diabetes is a component of an autoimmune syndrome diabetes tend to develop first, with other diseases hitting later, usually in middle age. Duration and age are strongly correlated, and a negative duration dependence in a diabetes complication setting is a surprising and unusual finding that needs to be explained, badly; it’s unexpected and may in my opinion be the sign of a poor disease model. It’d make more sense for disease-related fatigue to present late, rather than early, I don’t really know what to make of that negative age gradient. ‘More studies needed’ (preferably by people familiar with those autoimmune syndromes..), etc…

ii. Risk for End-Stage Renal Disease Over 25 Years in the Population-Based WESDR Cohort.

“It is well known that diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in many regions, including the U.S. (1). Type 1 diabetes accounts for >45,000 cases of ESRD per year (2), and the incidence may be higher than in people with type 2 diabetes (3). Despite this, there are few population-based data available regarding the prevalence and incidence of ESRD in people with type 1 diabetes in the U.S. (4). A declining incidence of ESRD has been suggested by findings of lower incidence with increasing calendar year of diagnosis and in comparison with older reports in some studies in Europe and the U.S. (58). This is consistent with better diabetes management tools becoming available and increased renoprotective efforts, including the greater use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin type II receptor blockers, over the past two to three decades (9). Conversely, no reduction in the incidence of ESRD across enrollment cohorts was found in a recent clinic-based study (9). Further, an increase in ESRD has been suggested for older but not younger people (9). Recent improvements in diabetes care have been suggested to delay rather than prevent the development of renal disease in people with type 1 diabetes (4).

A decrease in the prevalence of proliferative retinopathy by increasing calendar year of type 1 diabetes diagnosis was previously reported in the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy (WESDR) cohort (10); therefore, we sought to determine if a similar pattern of decline in ESRD would be evident over 25 years of follow-up. Further, we investigated factors that may mediate a possible decline in ESRD as well as other factors associated with incident ESRD over time.”

“At baseline, 99% of WESDR cohort members were white and 51% were male. Individuals were 3–79 years of age (mean 29) with diabetes duration of 0–59 years (mean 15), diagnosed between 1922 and 1980. Four percent of individuals used three or more daily insulin injections and none used an insulin pump. Mean HbA1c was 10.1% (87 mmol/mol). Only 16% were using an antihypertensive medication, none was using an ACE inhibitor, and 3% reported a history of renal transplant or dialysis (ESRD). At 25 years, 514 individuals participated (52% of original cohort at baseline, n = 996) and 367 were deceased (37% of baseline). Mean HbA1c was much lower than at baseline (7.5%, 58 mmol/mol), the decline likely due to the improvements in diabetes care, with 80% of participants using intensive insulin management (three or more daily insulin injections or insulin pump). The decline in HbA1c was steady, becoming slightly steeper following the results of the DCCT (25). Overall, at the 25-year follow-up, 47% had proliferative retinopathy, 53% used aspirin daily, and 54% reported taking antihypertensive medications, with the majority (87%) using an ACE inhibitor. Thirteen percent reported a history of ESRD.”

“Prevalence of ESRD was negligible until 15 years of diabetes duration and then steadily increased with 5, 8, 10, 13, and 14% reporting ESRD by 15–19, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, and 35+ years of diabetes duration, respectively. […] After 15 years of diagnosis, prevalence of ESRD increased with duration in people diagnosed from 1960 to 1980, with the lowest increase in people with the most recent diagnosis. People diagnosed from 1922 to 1959 had consistent rather than increasing levels of ESRD with duration of 20+ years. If not for their greater mortality (at the 25-year follow-up, 48% of the deceased had been diagnosed prior to 1960), an increase with duration may have also been observed.

From baseline, the unadjusted cumulative 25-year incidence of ESRD was 17.9% (95% CI 14.3–21.5) in males, 10.3% (7.4–13.2) in females, and 14.2% (11.9–16.5) overall. For those diagnosed in 1970–1980, the cumulative incidence at 14, 20, and 25 years of follow-up (or ∼15–25, 20–30, and 25–35 years diabetes duration) was 5.2, 7.9, and 9.3%, respectively. At 14, 20, and 25 years of follow-up (or 35, 40, and 45 up to 65+ years diabetes duration), the cumulative incidence in those diagnosed during 1922–1969 was 13.6, 16.3, and 18.8%, respectively, consistent with the greater prevalence observed for these diagnosis periods at longer duration of diabetes.”

“The unadjusted hazard of ESRD was reduced by 70% among those diagnosed in 1970–1980 as compared with those in 1922–1969 (HR 0.29 [95% CI 0.19–0.44]). Duration (by 10%) and HbA1c (by an additional 10%) partially mediated this association […] Blood pressure and antihypertensive medication use each further attenuated the association. When fully adjusted for these and [other risk factors included in the model], period of diagnosis was no longer significant (HR 0.89 [0.55–1.45]). Sensitivity analyses for the hazard of incident ESRD or death due to renal disease showed similar findings […] The most parsimonious model included diabetes duration, HbA1c, age, sex, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and history of antihypertensive medication […]. A 32% increased risk for incident ESRD was found per increasing year of diabetes duration at 0–15 years (HR 1.32 per year [95% CI 1.16–1.51]). The hazard plateaued (1.01 per year [0.98–1.05]) after 15 years of duration of diabetes. Hazard of ESRD increased with increasing HbA1c (1.28 per 1% or 10.9 mmol/mol increase [1.14–1.45]) and blood pressure (1.51 per 10 mmHg increase in systolic pressure [1.35–1.68]; 1.12 per 5 mmHg increase in diastolic pressure [1.01–1.23]). Use of antihypertensive medications increased the hazard of incident ESRD nearly fivefold [this finding is almost certainly due to confounding by indication, as also noted by the authors later on in the paper – US], and males had approximately two times the risk as compared with females. […] Having proliferative retinopathy was strongly associated with increased risk (HR 5.91 [3.00–11.6]) and attenuated the association between sex and ESRD.”

“The current investigation […] sought to provide much-needed information on the prevalence and incidence of ESRD and associated risk specific to people with type 1 diabetes. Consistent with a few previous studies (5,7,8), we observed decreased prevalence and incidence of ESRD among individuals with type 1 diabetes diagnosed in the 1970s compared with prior to 1970. The Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications (EDC) Study, another large cohort of people with type 1 diabetes followed over a long period of time, reported cumulative incidence rates of 2–6% for those diagnosed after 1970 and with similar duration (7), comparable to our findings. Slightly higher cumulative incidence (7–13%) reported from older studies at slightly lower duration also supports a decrease in incidence of ESRD (2830). Cumulative incidences through 30 years in European cohorts were even lower (3.3% in Sweden [6] and 7.8% in Finland [5]), compared with the 9.3% noted for those diagnosed during 1970–1980 in the WESDR cohort. The lower incidence could be associated with nationally organized care, especially in Sweden where a nationwide intensive diabetes management treatment program was implemented at least a decade earlier than recommendations for intensive care followed from the results of the DCCT in the U.S.”

“We noted an increased risk of incident ESRD in the first 15 years of diabetes not evident at longer durations. This pattern also demonstrated by others could be due to a greater earlier risk among people most genetically susceptible, as only a subset of individuals with type 1 diabetes will develop renal disease (27,28). The risk plateau associated with greater durations of diabetes and lower risk associated with increasing age may also reflect more death at longer durations and older ages. […] Because age and duration are highly correlated, we observed a positive association between age and ESRD only in univariate analyses, without adjustment for duration. The lack of adjustment for diabetes duration may have, in part, explained the increasing incidence of ESRD shown with age for some people in a recent investigation (9). Adjustment for both age and duration was found appropriate after testing for collinearity in the current analysis.”

In conclusion, this U.S. population-based report showed a lower prevalence and incidence of ESRD among those more recently diagnosed, explained by improvements in glycemic and blood pressure control over the last several decades. Even lower rates may be expected for those diagnosed during the current era of diabetes care. Intensive diabetes management, especially for glycemic control, remains important even in long-standing diabetes as potentially delaying the development of ESRD.

iii. Earlier Onset of Complications in Youth With Type 2 Diabetes.

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in youth is increasing worldwide, coinciding with the rising obesity epidemic (1,2). […] Diabetes is associated with both microvascular and macrovascular complications. The evolution of these complications has been well described in type 1 diabetes (6) and in adult type 2 diabetes (7), wherein significant complications typically manifest 15–20 years after diagnosis (8). Because type 2 diabetes is a relatively new disease in children (first described in the 1980s), long-term outcome data on complications are scant, and risk factors for the development of complications are incompletely understood. The available literature suggests that development of complications in youth with type 2 diabetes may be more rapid than in adults, thus afflicting individuals at the height of their individual and social productivity (9). […] A small but notable proportion of type 2 diabetes is associated with a polymorphism of hepatic nuclear factor (HNF)-1α, a transcription factor expressed in many tissues […] It is not yet known what effect the HNF-1α polymorphism has on the risk of complications associated with diabetes.”

“The main objective of the current study was to describe the time course and risk factors for microvascular complications (nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy) and macrovascular complications (cardiac, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular diseases) in a large cohort of youth [diagnosed with type 2 diabetes] who have been carefully followed for >20 years and to compare this evolution with that of youth with type 1 diabetes. We also compared vascular complications in the youth with type 2 diabetes with nondiabetic control youth. Finally, we addressed the impact of HNF-1α G319S on the evolution of complications in young patients with type 2 diabetes.”

“All prevalent cases of type 2 diabetes and type 1 diabetes (control group 1) seen between January 1986 and March 2007 in the DER-CA for youth aged 1–18 years were included. […] The final type 2 diabetes cohort included 342 youth, and the type 1 diabetes control group included 1,011. The no diabetes control cohort comprised 1,710 youth matched to the type 2 diabetes cohort from the repository […] Compared with the youth with type 1 diabetes, the youth with type 2 diabetes were, on average, older at the time of diagnosis and more likely to be female. They were more likely to have a higher BMIz, live in a rural area, have a low SES, and have albuminuria at diagnosis. […] one-half of the type 2 diabetes group was either a heterozygote (GS) or a homozygote (SS) for the HNF-1α polymorphism […] At the time of the last available follow-up in the DER-CA, the youth with diabetes were, on average, between 15 and 16 years of age. […] The median follow-up times in the repository were 4.4 (range 0–27.4) years for youth with type 2 diabetes, 6.7 ( 0–28.2) years for youth with type 1 diabetes, and 6.0 (0–29.9) years for nondiabetic control youth.”

“After controlling for low SES, sex, and BMIz, the risk associated with type 2 versus type 1 diabetes of any complication was an HR of 1.47 (1.02–2.12, P = 0.04). […] In the univariate analysis, youth with type 2 diabetes were at significantly higher risk of developing any vascular (HR 6.15 [4.26–8.87], P < 0.0001), microvascular (6.26 [4.32–9.10], P < 0.0001), or macrovascular (4.44 [1.71–11.52], P < 0.0001) disease compared with control youth without diabetes. In addition, the youth with type 2 diabetes had an increased risk of opthalmologic (19.49 [9.75–39.00], P < 0.0001), renal (16.13 [7.66–33.99], P < 0.0001), and neurologic (2.93 [1.79–4.80], P ≤ 0.001) disease. There were few cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular disease events in all groups (five or fewer events per group). Despite this, there was still a statistically significant higher risk of peripheral vascular disease in the type 2 diabetes group (6.25 [1.68–23.28], P = 0.006).”

“Differences in renal and neurologic complications between the two diabetes groups began to occur before 5 years postdiagnosis, whereas differences in ophthalmologic complications began 10 years postdiagnosis. […] Both cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications were rare in both groups, but peripheral vascular complications began to occur 15 years after diagnosis in the type 2 diabetes group […] The presence of HNF-1α G319S polymorphism in youth with type 2 diabetes was found to be protective of complications. […] Overall, major complications were rare in the type 1 diabetes group, but they occurred in 1.1% of the type 2 diabetes cohort at 10 years, in 26.0% at 15 years, and in 47.9% at 20 years after diagnosis (P < 0.001) […] youth with type 2 diabetes have a higher risk of any complication than youth with type 1 diabetes and nondiabetic control youth. […] The time to both renal and neurologic complications was significantly shorter in youth with type 2 diabetes than in control youth, whereas differences were not significant with respect to opthalmologic and cardiovascular complications between cohorts. […] The current study is consistent with the literature, which has shown high rates of cardiovascular risk factors in youth with type 2 diabetes. However, despite the high prevalence of risk, this study reports low rates of clinical events. Because the median follow-up time was between 5 and 8 years, it is possible that a longer follow-up period would be required to correctly evaluate macrovascular outcomes in young adults. Also possible is that diagnoses of mild disease are not being made because of a low index of suspicion in 20- and 30-year-old patients.”

In conclusion, youth with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of complications early in the course of their disease. Microvascular complications and cardiovascular risk factors are highly prevalent, whereas macrovascular complications are rare in young adulthood. HbA1c is an important modifiable risk factor; thus, optimizing glycemic control should remain an important goal of therapy.”

iv. HbA1c and Coronary Heart Disease Risk Among Diabetic Patients.

“We prospectively investigated the association of HbA1c at baseline and during follow-up with CHD risk among 17,510 African American and 12,592 white patients with type 2 diabetes. […] During a mean follow-up of 6.0 years, 7,258 incident CHD cases were identified. The multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios of CHD associated with different levels of HbA1c at baseline (<6.0 [reference group], 6.0–6.9, 7.0–7.9, 8.0–8.9, 9.0–9.9, 10.0–10.9, and ≥11.0%) were 1.00, 1.07 (95% CI 0.97–1.18), 1.16 (1.04–1.31), 1.15 (1.01–1.32), 1.26 (1.09–1.45), 1.27 (1.09–1.48), and 1.24 (1.10–1.40) (P trend = 0.002) for African Americans and 1.00, 1.04 (0.94–1.14), 1.15 (1.03–1.28), 1.29 (1.13–1.46), 1.41 (1.22–1.62), 1.34 (1.14–1.57), and 1.44 (1.26–1.65) (P trend <0.001) for white patients, respectively. The graded association of HbA1c during follow-up with CHD risk was observed among both African American and white diabetic patients (all P trend <0.001). Each one percentage increase of HbA1c was associated with a greater increase in CHD risk in white versus African American diabetic patients. When stratified by sex, age, smoking status, use of glucose-lowering agents, and income, this graded association of HbA1c with CHD was still present. […] The current study in a low-income population suggests a graded positive association between HbA1c at baseline and during follow-up with the risk of CHD among both African American and white diabetic patients with low socioeconomic status.”

A few more observations from the conclusions:

“Diabetic patients experience high mortality from cardiovascular causes (2). Observational studies have confirmed the continuous and positive association between glycemic control and the risk of cardiovascular disease among diabetic patients (4,5). But the findings from RCTs are sometimes uncertain. Three large RCTs (79) designed primarily to determine whether targeting different glucose levels can reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes failed to confirm the benefit. Several reasons for the inconsistency of these studies can be considered. First, small sample sizes, short follow-up duration, and few CHD cases in some RCTs may limit the statistical power. Second, most epidemiological studies only assess a single baseline measurement of HbA1c with CHD risk, which may produce potential bias. The recent analysis of 10 years of posttrial follow-up of the UKPDS showed continued reductions for myocardial infarction and death from all causes despite an early loss of glycemic differences (10). The scientific evidence from RCTs was not sufficient to generate strong recommendations for clinical practice. Thus, consensus groups (AHA, ACC, and ADA) have provided a conservative endorsement (class IIb recommendation, level of evidence A) for the cardiovascular benefits of glycemic control (11). In the absence of conclusive evidence from RCTs, observational epidemiological studies might provide useful information to clarify the relationship between glycemia and CHD risk. In the current study with 30,102 participants with diabetes and 7,258 incident CHD cases during a mean follow-up of 6.0 years, we found a graded positive association by various HbA1c intervals of clinical relevance or by using HbA1c as a continuous variable at baseline and during follow-up with CHD risk among both African American and white diabetic patients. Each one percentage increase in baseline and follow-up HbA1c was associated with a 2 and 5% increased risk of CHD in African American and 6 and 11% in white diabetic patients. Each one percentage increase of HbA1c was associated with a greater increase in CHD risk in white versus African American diabetic patients.”

v. Blood Viscosity in Subjects With Normoglycemia and Prediabetes.

“Blood viscosity (BV) is the force that counteracts the free sliding of the blood layers within the circulation and depends on the internal cohesion between the molecules and the cells. Abnormally high BV can have several negative effects: the heart is overloaded to pump blood in the vascular bed, and the blood itself, more viscous, can damage the vessel wall. Furthermore, according to Poiseuille’s law (1), BV is inversely related to flow and might therefore reduce the delivery of insulin and glucose to peripheral tissues, leading to insulin resistance or diabetes (25).

It is generally accepted that BV is increased in diabetic patients (68). Although the reasons for this alteration are still under investigation, it is believed that the increase in osmolarity causes increased capillary permeability and, consequently, increased hematocrit and viscosity (9). It has also been suggested that the osmotic diuresis, consequence of hyperglycemia, could contribute to reduce plasma volume and increase hematocrit (10).

Cross-sectional studies have also supported a link between BV, hematocrit, and insulin resistance (1117). Recently, a large prospective study has demonstrated that BV and hematocrit are risk factors for type 2 diabetes. Subjects in the highest quartile of BV were >60% more likely to develop diabetes than their counterparts in the lowest quartile (18). This finding confirms previous observations obtained in smaller or selected populations, in which the association between hemoglobin or hematocrit and occurrence of type 2 diabetes was investigated (1922).

These observations suggest that the elevation in BV may be very early, well before the onset of diabetes, but definite data in subjects with normal glucose or prediabetes are missing. In the current study, we evaluated the relationship between BV and blood glucose in subjects with normal glucose or prediabetes in order to verify whether alterations in viscosity are appreciable in these subjects and at which blood glucose concentration they appear.”

“According to blood glucose levels, participants were divided into three groups: group A, blood glucose <90 mg/dL; group B, blood glucose between 90 and 99 mg/dL; and group C, blood glucose between 100 and 125 mg/dL. […] Hematocrit (P < 0.05) and BV (P between 0.01 and 0.001) were significantly higher in subjects with prediabetes and in those with blood glucose ranging from 90 to 99 mg/dL compared with subjects with blood glucose <90 mg/dL. […] The current study shows, for the first time, a direct relationship between BV and blood glucose in nondiabetic subjects. It also suggests that, even within glucose values ​​considered completely normal, individuals with higher blood glucose levels have increases in BV comparable with those observed in subjects with prediabetes. […] Overall, changes in viscosity in diabetic patients are accepted as common and as a result of the disease. However, the relationship between blood glucose, diabetes, and viscosity may be much more complex. […] the main finding of the study is that BV significantly increases already at high-normal blood glucose levels, independently of other common determinants of hemorheology. Intervention studies are needed to verify whether changes in BV can influence the development of type 2 diabetes.”

vi. Higher Relative Risk for Multiple Sclerosis in a Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetic Population: Analysis From DPV Database.

“Type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis (MS) are organ-specific inflammatory diseases, which result from an autoimmune attack against either pancreatic β-cells or the central nervous system; a combined appearance has been described repeatedly (13). For children and adolescents below the age of 21 years, the prevalence of type 1 diabetes in Germany and Austria is ∼19.4 cases per 100,000 population, and for MS it is 7–10 per 100,000 population (46). A Danish cohort study revealed a three times higher risk for the development of MS in patients with type 1 diabetes (7). Further, an Italian study conducted in Sardinia showed a five times higher risk for the development of type 1 diabetes in MS patients (8,9). An American study on female adults in whom diabetes developed before the age of 21 years yielded an up to 20 times higher risk for the development of MS (10).

These findings support the hypothesis of clustering between type 1 diabetes and MS. The pathogenesis behind this association is still unclear, but T-cell cross-reactivity was discussed as well as shared disease associations due to the HLA-DRB1-DQB1 gene loci […] The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of MS in a diabetic population and to look for possible factors related to the co-occurrence of MS in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using a large multicenter survey from the Diabetes Patienten Verlaufsdokumentation (DPV) database.”

“We used a large database of pediatric and adolescent type 1 diabetic patients to analyze the RR of MS co-occurrence. The DPV database includes ∼98% of the pediatric diabetic population in Germany and Austria below the age of 21 years. In children and adolescents, the RR for MS in type 1 diabetes was estimated to be three to almost five times higher in comparison with the healthy population.”

November 2, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Genetics, Immunology, Medicine, Nephrology, Statistics, Studies | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. The Pharmacogenetics of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review.

“We performed a systematic review to identify which genetic variants predict response to diabetes medications.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We performed a search of electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database) and a manual search to identify original, longitudinal studies of the effect of diabetes medications on incident diabetes, HbA1c, fasting glucose, and postprandial glucose in prediabetes or type 2 diabetes by genetic variation.

RESULTS Of 7,279 citations, we included 34 articles (N = 10,407) evaluating metformin (n = 14), sulfonylureas (n = 4), repaglinide (n = 8), pioglitazone (n = 3), rosiglitazone (n = 4), and acarbose (n = 4). […] Significant medication–gene interactions for glycemic outcomes included 1) metformin and the SLC22A1, SLC22A2, SLC47A1, PRKAB2, PRKAA2, PRKAA1, and STK11 loci; 2) sulfonylureas and the CYP2C9 and TCF7L2 loci; 3) repaglinide and the KCNJ11, SLC30A8, NEUROD1/BETA2, UCP2, and PAX4 loci; 4) pioglitazone and the PPARG2 and PTPRD loci; 5) rosiglitazone and the KCNQ1 and RBP4 loci; and 5) acarbose and the PPARA, HNF4A, LIPC, and PPARGC1A loci. Data were insufficient for meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS We found evidence of pharmacogenetic interactions for metformin, sulfonylureas, repaglinide, thiazolidinediones, and acarbose consistent with their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.”

“In this systematic review, we identified 34 articles on the pharmacogenetics of diabetes medications, with several reporting statistically significant interactions between genetic variants and medications for glycemic outcomes. Most pharmacogenetic interactions were only evaluated in a single study, did not use a control group, and/or did not report enough information to judge internal validity. However, our results do suggest specific, biologically plausible, gene–medication interactions, and we recommend confirmation of the biologically plausible interactions as a priority, including those for drug transporters, metabolizers, and targets of action. […] Given the number of comparisons reported in the included studies and the lack of accounting for multiple comparisons in approximately 53% of studies, many of the reported findings may [however] be false positives.”

ii. Insights Offered by Economic Analyses.

“This issue of Diabetes Care includes three economic analyses. The first describes the incremental costs of diabetes over a lifetime and highlights how interventions to prevent diabetes may reduce lifetime costs (1). The second demonstrates that although an expensive, intensive lifestyle intervention for type 2 diabetes does not reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes over 10 years, it significantly reduces the costs of non-intervention−related medical care (2). The third demonstrates that although the use of the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria for the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) results in a threefold increase in the number of people labeled as having GDM, it reduces the risk of maternal and neonatal adverse health outcomes and reduces costs (3). The first report highlights the enormous potential value of intervening in adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes to prevent its development. The second illustrates the importance of measuring economic outcomes in addition to standard clinical outcomes to fully assess the value of new treatments. The third demonstrates the importance of rigorously weighing the costs of screening and treatment against the costs of health outcomes when evaluating new approaches to care.”

“The costs of diabetes monitoring and treatment accrue as of function of the duration of diabetes, so adults who are younger at diagnosis are more likely to survive to develop the late, expensive complications of diabetes, thus they incur higher lifetime costs attributable to diabetes. Zhuo et al. report that people with diabetes diagnosed at age 40 spend approximately $125,000 more for medical care over their lifetimes than people without diabetes. For people diagnosed with diabetes at age 50, the discounted lifetime excess medical spending is approximately $91,000; for those diagnosed at age 60, it is approximately $54,000; and for those diagnosed at age 65, it is approximately $36,000 (1).

These results are very consistent with results reported by the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) Research Group, which assessed the cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention. […] In the simulated lifetime economic analysis [included in that study] the lifestyle intervention was more cost-effective in younger participants than in older participants (5). By delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes, the lifestyle intervention delayed or prevented the need for diabetes monitoring and treatment, surveillance of diabetic microvascular and neuropathic complications, and treatment of the late, expensive complications and comorbidities of diabetes, including end-stage renal disease and cardiovascular disease (5). Although this finding was controversial at the end of the randomized, controlled clinical trial, all but 1 of 12 economic analyses published by 10 research groups in nine countries have demonstrated that lifestyle intervention for the prevention of type 2 diabetes is very cost-effective, if not cost-saving, compared with a placebo intervention (6).

Empiric, within-trial economic analyses of the DPP have now demonstrated that the incremental costs of the lifestyle intervention are almost entirely offset by reductions in the costs of medical care outside the study, especially the cost of self-monitoring supplies, prescription medications, and outpatient and inpatient care (7). Over 10 years, the DPP intensive lifestyle intervention cost only ∼$13,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained when the analysis used an intent-to-treat approach (7) and was even more cost-effective when the analysis assessed outcomes and costs among adherent participants (8).”

“The American Diabetes Association has reported that although institutional care (hospital, nursing home, and hospice care) still account for 52% of annual per capita health care expenditures for people with diabetes, outpatient medications and supplies now account for 30% of expenditures (9). Between 2007 and 2012, annual per capita expenditures for inpatient care increased by 2%, while expenditures for medications and supplies increased by 51% (9). As the costs of diabetes medications and supplies continue to increase, it will be even more important to consider cost savings arising from the less frequent use of medications when evaluating the benefits of nonpharmacologic interventions.”

iii. The Lifetime Cost of Diabetes and Its Implications for Diabetes Prevention. (This is the Zhuo et al. paper mentioned above.)

“We aggregated annual medical expenditures from the age of diabetes diagnosis to death to determine lifetime medical expenditure. Annual medical expenditures were estimated by sex, age at diagnosis, and diabetes duration using data from 2006–2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys, which were linked to data from 2005–2008 National Health Interview Surveys. We combined survival data from published studies with the estimated annual expenditures to calculate lifetime spending. We then compared lifetime spending for people with diabetes with that for those without diabetes. Future spending was discounted at 3% annually. […] The discounted excess lifetime medical spending for people with diabetes was $124,600 ($211,400 if not discounted), $91,200 ($135,600), $53,800 ($70,200), and $35,900 ($43,900) when diagnosed with diabetes at ages 40, 50, 60, and 65 years, respectively. Younger age at diagnosis and female sex were associated with higher levels of lifetime excess medical spending attributed to diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS Having diabetes is associated with substantially higher lifetime medical expenditures despite being associated with reduced life expectancy. If prevention costs can be kept sufficiently low, diabetes prevention may lead to a reduction in long-term medical costs.”

The selection criteria employed in this paper are not perfect; they excluded all individuals below the age of 30 “because they likely had type 1 diabetes”, which although true is only ‘mostly true’. Some of those individuals had(/have) type 2, but if you’re evaluating prevention schemes it probably makes sense to error on the side of caution (better to miss some type 2 patients than to include some type 1s), assuming the timing of the intervention is not too important. This gets more complicated if prevention schemes are more likely to have large and persistent effects in young people – however I don’t think that’s the case, as a counterpoint drug adherence studies often seem to find that young people aren’t particularly motivated to adhere to their treatment schedules compared to their older counterparts (who might have more advanced disease and so are more likely to achieve symptomatic relief by adhering to treatments).

A few more observations from the paper:

“The prevalence of participants with diabetes in the study population was 7.4%, of whom 54% were diagnosed between the ages of 45 and 64 years. The mean age at diagnosis was 55 years, and the mean length of time since diagnosis was 9.4 years (39% of participants with diabetes had been diagnosed for ≤5 years, 32% for 6–15 years, and 27% for ≥16 years). […] The observed annual medical spending for people with diabetes was $13,966—more than twice that for people without diabetes.”

“Regardless of diabetes status, the survival-adjusted annual medical spending decreased after age 60 years, primarily because of a decreasing probability of survival. Because the probability of survival decreased more rapidly in people with diabetes than in those without, corresponding spending declined as people died and no longer accrued medical costs. For example, among men diagnosed with diabetes at age 40 years, 34% were expected to survive to age 80 years; among men of the same age who never developed diabetes, 55% were expected to survive to age 80 years. The expected annual expenditure for a person diagnosed with diabetes at age 40 years declined from $8,500 per year at age 40 years to $3,400 at age 80 years, whereas the expenses for a comparable person without diabetes declined from $3,900 to $3,200 over that same interval. […] People diagnosed with diabetes at age 40 years lived with the disease for an average of 34 years after diagnosis. Those diagnosed when older lived fewer years and, therefore, lost fewer years of life. […] The annual excess medical spending attributed to diabetes […] was smaller among people who were diagnosed at older ages. For men diagnosed at age 40 years, annual medical spending was $3,700 higher than that of similar men without diabetes; spending was $2,900 higher for those diagnosed at age 50 years; $2,200 higher for those diagnosed at age 60 years; and $2,000 higher for those diagnosed at age 65 years. Among women diagnosed with diabetes, the excess annual medical spending was consistently higher than for men of the same age at diagnosis.”

“Regardless of age at diagnosis, people with diabetes spent considerably more on health care after age 65 years than their nondiabetic counterparts. Health care spending attributed to diabetes after age 65 years ranged from $23,900 to $40,900, depending on sex and age at diagnosis. […] Of the total excess lifetime medical spending among an average diabetic patient diagnosed at age 50 years, prescription medications and inpatient care accounted for 44% and 35% of costs, respectively. Outpatient care and other medical care accounted for 17% and 4% of costs, respectively.”

“Our findings differed from those of studies of the lifetime costs of other chronic conditions. For instance, smokers have a lower average lifetime medical cost than nonsmokers (29) because of their shorter life spans. Smokers have a life expectancy about 10 years less than those who do not smoke (30); life expectancy is 16 years less for those who develop smoking-induced cancers (31). As a result, smoking cessation leads to increased lifetime spending (32). Studies of the lifetime costs for an obese person relative to a person with normal body weight show mixed results: estimated excess lifetime medical costs for people with obesity range from $3,790 less to $39,000 more than costs for those who are nonobese (33,34). […] obesity, when considered alone, results in much lower annual excess medical costs than diabetes (–$940 to $1,150 for obesity vs. $2,000 to $4,700 for diabetes) when compared with costs for people who are nonobese (33,34).”

iv. Severe Hypoglycemia and Mortality After Cardiovascular Events for Type 1 Diabetic Patients in Sweden.

“This study examines factors associated with all-cause mortality after cardiovascular complications (myocardial infarction [MI] and stroke) in patients with type 1 diabetes. In particular, we aim to determine whether a previous history of severe hypoglycemia is associated with increased mortality after a cardiovascular event in type 1 diabetic patients.

Hypoglycemia is the most common and dangerous acute complication of type 1 diabetes and can be life threatening if not promptly treated (1). The average individual with type 1 diabetes experiences about two episodes of symptomatic hypoglycemia per week, with an annual prevalence of 30–40% for hypoglycemic episodes requiring assistance for recovery (2). We define severe hypoglycemia to be an episode of hypoglycemia that requires hospitalization in this study. […] Patients with type 1 diabetes are more susceptible to hypoglycemia than those with type 2 diabetes, and therefore it is potentially of greater relevance if severe hypoglycemia is associated with mortality (6).”

“This study uses a large linked data set comprising health records from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR), which were linked to administrative records on hospitalization, prescriptions, and national death records. […] [The] study is based on data from four sources: 1) risk factor data from the Swedish NDR […], 2) hospital records of inpatient episodes from the National Inpatients Register (IPR) […], 3) death records […], and 4) prescription data records […]. A study comparing registered diagnoses in the IPR with information in medical records found positive predictive values of IPR diagnoses were 85–95% for most diagnoses (8). In terms of NDR coverage, a recent study found that 91% of those aged 18–34 years and with type 1 diabetes in the Prescribed Drug Register could be matched with those in the NDR for 2007–2009 (9).”

“The outcome of the study was all-cause mortality after a major cardiovascular complication (MI or stroke). Our sample for analysis included patients with type 1 diabetes who visited a clinic after 2002 and experienced a major cardiovascular complication after this clinic visit. […] We define type 1 diabetes as diabetes diagnosed under the age of 30 years, being reported as being treated with insulin only at some clinic visit, and when alive, having had at least one prescription for insulin filled per year between 2006 and 2010 […], and not having filled a prescription for metformin at any point between July 2005 and December 2010 (under the assumption that metformin users were more likely to be type 2 diabetes patients).”

“Explanatory variables included in both models were type of complication (MI or stroke), age at complication, duration of diabetes, sex, smoking status, HbA1c, BMI, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, chronic kidney disease status based on estimated glomerular filtration rate, microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria status, HDL, LDL, total–to–HDL cholesterol ratio, triglycerides, lipid medication status, clinic visits within the year prior to the CVD event, and prior hospitalization events: hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, MI, stroke, heart failure, AF, amputation, PVD, ESRD, IHD/unstable angina, PCI, and CABG. The last known value for each clinical risk factor, prior to the cardiovascular complication, was used for analysis. […] Initially, all explanatory variables were included and excluded if the variable was not statistically significant at a 5% level (P < 0.05) via stepwise backward elimination.” [Aaaaaaargh! – US. These guys are doing a lot of things right, but this is not one of them. Just to mention this one more time: “Generally, hypothesis testing is a very poor basis for model selection […] There is no statistical theory that supports the notion that hypothesis testing with a fixed α level is a basis for model selection.” (Burnham & Anderson)]

“Patients who had prior hypoglycemic events had an estimated HR for mortality of 1.79 (95% CI 1.37–2.35) in the first 28 days after a CVD event and an estimated HR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.02–1.53) of mortality after 28 days post CVD event in the backward regression model. The univariate analysis showed a similar result compared with the backward regression model, with prior hypoglycemic events having an estimated HR for mortality of 1.79 (95% CI 1.38–2.32) and 1.35 (95% CI 1.11–1.65) in the logistic and Cox regressions, respectively. Even when all explanatory factors were included in the models […], the mortality increase associated with a prior severe hypoglycemic event was still significant, and the P values and SE are similar when compared with the backward stepwise regression. Similarly, when explanatory factors were included individually, the mortality increase associated with a prior severe hypoglycemic event was also still significant.” [Again, this sort of testing scheme is probably not a good approach to getting at a good explanatory model, but it’s what they did – US]

“The 5-year cumulative estimated mortality risk for those without complications after MI and stroke were 40.1% (95% CI 35.2–45.1) and 30.4% (95% CI 26.3–34.6), respectively. Patients with prior heart failure were at the highest estimated 5-year cumulative mortality risk, with those who suffered an MI and stroke having a 56.0% (95% CI 47.5–64.5) and 44.0% (95% CI 35.8–52.2) 5-year cumulative mortality risk, respectively. Patients who had a prior severe hypoglycemic event and suffered an MI had an estimated 5-year cumulative mortality risk at age 60 years of 52.4% (95% CI 45.3–59.5), and those who suffered a stroke had a 5-year cumulative mortality risk of 39.8% (95% CI 33.4–46.3). Patients at age 60 years who suffer a major CVD complication have over twofold risk of 5-year mortality compared with the general type 1 diabetic Swedish population, who had an estimated 5-year mortality risk of 13.8% (95% CI 12.0–16.1).”

“We found evidence that prior severe hypoglycemia is associated with reduced survival after a major CVD event but no evidence that prior severe hypoglycemia is associated with an increased risk of a subsequent CVD event.

Compared with the general type 1 diabetic Swedish population, a major CVD complication increased 5-year mortality risk at age 60 years by >25% and 15% in patients with an MI and stroke, respectively. Patients with a history of a hypoglycemic event had an even higher mortality after a major CVD event, with approximately an additional 10% being dead at the 5-year mark. This risk was comparable with that in those with late-stage kidney disease. This information is useful in determining the prognosis of patients after a major cardiovascular event and highlights the need to include this as a risk factor in simulation models (18) that are used to improve decision making (19).”

“This is the first study that has found some evidence of a dose-response relationship, where patients who experienced two or more severe hypoglycemic events had higher mortality after a cardiovascular event compared with those who experienced one severe hypoglycemic event. A lack of statistical power prevented us from investigating this further when we tried to stratify by number of prior severe hypoglycemic events in our regression models. There was no evidence of a dose-response relationship between repeated episodes of severe hypoglycemia and vascular outcomes or death in previous type 2 diabetes studies (5).”

v. Alterations in White Matter Structure in Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes.

“Careful regulation of insulin dosing, dietary intake, and activity levels are essential for optimal glycemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes. However, even with optimal treatment many children with type 1 diabetes have blood glucose levels in the hyperglycemic range for more than half the day and in the hypoglycemic range for an hour or more each day (1). Brain cells may be especially sensitive to aberrant blood glucose levels, as glucose is the brain’s principal substrate for its energy needs.

Research in animal models has shown that white matter (WM) may be especially sensitive to dysglycemia-associated insult in diabetes (24). […] Early childhood is a period of rapid myelination and brain development (6) and of increased sensitivity to insults affecting the brain (6,7). Hence, study of the developing brain is particularly important in type 1 diabetes.”

“WM structure can be measured with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), a method based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that uses the movement of water molecules to characterize WM brain structure (8,9). Results are commonly reported in terms of mathematical scalars (representing vectors in vector space) such as fractional anisotropy (FA), axial diffusivity (AD), and radial diffusivity (RD). FA reflects the degree of diffusion anisotropy of water (how diffusion varies along the three axes) within a voxel (three-dimensional pixel) and is determined by fiber diameter and density, myelination, and intravoxel fiber-tract coherence (increases in which would increase FA), as well as extracellular diffusion and interaxonal spacing (increases in which would decrease FA) (10). AD, a measure of water diffusivity along the main axis of diffusion within a voxel, is thought to reflect fiber coherence and structure of axonal membranes (increases in which would increase AD), as well as microtubules, neurofilaments, and axonal branching (increases in which would decrease AD) (11,12). RD, the mean of the diffusivities perpendicular to the vector with the largest eigenvalue, is thought to represent degree of myelination (13,14) (more myelin would decrease RD values) and axonal “leakiness” (which would increase RD). Often, however, a combination of these WM characteristics results in opposing contributions to the final observed FA/AD/RD value, and thus DTI scalars should not be interpreted globally as “good” or “bad” (15). Rather, these scalars can show between-group differences and relationships between WM structure and clinical variables and are suggestive of underlying histology. Definitive conclusions about histology of WM can only be derived from direct microscopic examination of biological tissue.”

“Children (ages 4 to <10 years) with type 1 diabetes (n = 127) and age-matched nondiabetic control subjects (n = 67) had diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging scans in this multisite neuroimaging study. Participants with type 1 diabetes were assessed for HbA1c history and lifetime adverse events, and glucose levels were monitored using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) device and standardized measures of cognition.

RESULTS Between-group analysis showed that children with type 1 diabetes had significantly reduced axial diffusivity (AD) in widespread brain regions compared with control subjects. Within the type 1 diabetes group, earlier onset of diabetes was associated with increased radial diffusivity (RD) and longer duration was associated with reduced AD, reduced RD, and increased fractional anisotropy (FA). In addition, HbA1c values were significantly negatively associated with FA values and were positively associated with RD values in widespread brain regions. Significant associations of AD, RD, and FA were found for CGM measures of hyperglycemia and glucose variability but not for hypoglycemia. Finally, we observed a significant association between WM structure and cognitive ability in children with type 1 diabetes but not in control subjects. […] These results suggest vulnerability of the developing brain in young children to effects of type 1 diabetes associated with chronic hyperglycemia and glucose variability.”

“The profile of reduced overall AD in type 1 diabetes observed here suggests possible axonal damage associated with diabetes (30). Reduced AD was associated with duration of type 1 diabetes suggesting that longer exposure to diabetes worsens the insult to WM structure. However, measures of hyperglycemia and glucose variability were either not associated or were positively associated with AD values, suggesting that these measures did not contribute to the observed decreased AD in the type 1 diabetes group. A possible explanation for these observations is that several biological processes influence WM structure in type 1 diabetes. Some processes may be related to insulin insufficiency or C-peptide levels independent of glucose levels (31,32) and may affect WM coherence (and reduce AD values as observed in the between-group results). Other processes related to hyperglycemia and glucose variability may target myelin (resulting in reduced FA and increased RD) as well as reduced axonal branching (both would result in increased AD values). Alternatively, these seemingly conflicting AD observations may be due to a dominant effect of age, which could overshadow effects from dysglycemia.

Early age of onset is one of the most replicable risk factors for cognitive impairments in type 1 diabetes (33,34). It has been hypothesized that young children are especially vulnerable to brain insults resulting from episodes of chronic hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and acute hypoglycemic complications of type 1 diabetes (seizures and severe hypoglycemic episodes). In addition, fear of hypoglycemia often results in caregivers maintaining relatively higher blood glucose to avoid lows altogether (1), especially in very young children. However, our study suggests that this approach of aggressive hypoglycemia avoidance resulting in hyperglycemia may not be optimal and may be detrimental to WM structure in young children.

Neuronal damage (reflected in altered WM structure) may affect neuronal signal transfer and, thus, cognition (35). Cognitive domains commonly reported to be affected in children with type 1 diabetes include general intellectual ability, visuospatial abilities, attention, memory, processing speed, and executive function (3638). In our sample, even though the duration of illness was relatively short (2.9 years on average), there were modest but significant cognitive differences between children with type 1 diabetes and control subjects (24).”

“In summary, we present results from the largest study to date investigating WM structure in very young children with type 1 diabetes. We observed significant and widespread brain differences in the WM microstructure of children with type 1 diabetes compared with nondiabetic control subjects and significant associations between WM structure and measures of hyperglycemia, glucose variability, and cognitive ability in the type 1 diabetic population.”

vi. Ultrasound Findings After Surgical Decompression of the Tarsal Tunnel in Patients With Painful Diabetic Polyneuropathy: A Prospective Randomized Study.

“Polyneuropathy is a common complication in diabetes. The prevalence of neuropathy in patients with diabetes is ∼30%. During the course of the disease, up to 50% of the patients will eventually develop neuropathy (1). Its clinical features are characterized by numbness, tingling, or burning sensations and typically extend in a distinct stocking and glove pattern. Prevention plays a key role since poor glucose control is a major risk factor in the development of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) (1,2).

There is no clear definition for the onset of painful diabetic neuropathy. Different hypotheses have been formulated.

Hyperglycemia in diabetes can lead to osmotic swelling of the nerves, related to increased glucose conversion into sorbitol by the enzyme aldose reductase (2,3). High sorbitol concentrations might also directly cause axonal degeneration and demyelination (2). Furthermore, stiffening and thickening of ligamental structures and the plantar fascia make underlying structures more prone to biomechanical compression (46). A thicker and stiffer retinaculum might restrict movements and lead to alterations of the nerve in the tarsal tunnel.

Both swelling of the nerve and changes in the tarsal tunnel might lead to nerve damage through compression.

Furthermore, vascular changes may diminish endoneural blood flow and oxygen distribution. Decreased blood supply in the (compressed) nerve might lead to ischemic damage as well as impaired nerve regeneration.

Several studies suggest that surgical decompression of nerves at narrow anatomic sites, e.g., the tarsal tunnel, is beneficial and has a positive effect on pain, sensitivity, balance, long-term risk of ulcers and amputations, and quality of life (3,710). Since the effect of decompression of the tibial nerve in patients with DPN has not been proven with a randomized clinical trial, its contribution as treatment for patients with painful DPN is still controversial. […] In this study, we compare the mean CSA and any changes in shape of the tibial nerve before and after decompression of the tarsal tunnel using ultrasound in order to test the hypothesis that the tarsal tunnel leads to compression of the tibial nerve in patients with DPN.”

“This study, with a large sample size and standardized sonographic imaging procedure with a good reliability, is the first randomized controlled trial that evaluates the effect of decompression of the tibial nerve on the CSA. Although no effect on CSA after surgery was found, this study using ultrasound demonstrates a larger and swollen tibial nerve and thicker flexor retinaculum at the ankle in patients with DPN compared with healthy control subjects.”

I would have been interested to know if there were any observable changes in symptom relief measures post-surgery, even if such variables are less ‘objective’ than measures like CSA (less objective, but perhaps more relevant to the patient…), but the authors did not look at those kinds of variables.

vii. Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Is Independently Associated With an Increased Incidence of Chronic Kidney Disease in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

“Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has reached epidemic proportions worldwide (1). Up to 30% of adults in the U.S. and Europe have NAFLD, and the prevalence of this disease is much higher in people with diabetes (1,2). Indeed, the prevalence of NAFLD on ultrasonography ranges from ∼50 to 70% in patients with type 2 diabetes (35) and ∼40 to 50% in patients with type 1 diabetes (6,7). Notably, patients with diabetes and NAFLD are also more likely to develop more advanced forms of NAFLD that may result in end-stage liver disease (8). However, accumulating evidence indicates that NAFLD is associated not only with liver-related morbidity and mortality but also with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) and other serious extrahepatic complications (810).”

“Increasing evidence indicates that NAFLD is strongly associated with an increased risk of CKD [chronic kidney disease, US] in people with and without diabetes (11). Indeed, we have previously shown that NAFLD is associated with an increased prevalence of CKD in patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (1517), and that NAFLD independently predicts the development of incident CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes (18). However, many of the risk factors for CKD are different in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and to date, it is uncertain whether NAFLD is an independent risk factor for incident CKD in type 1 diabetes or whether measurement of NAFLD improves risk prediction for CKD, taking account of traditional risk factors for CKD.

Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate 1) whether NAFLD is associated with an increased incidence of CKD and 2) whether measurement of NAFLD improves risk prediction for CKD, adjusting for traditional risk factors, in type 1 diabetic patients.”

“Using a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study design, we have initially identified from our electronic database all Caucasian type 1 diabetic outpatients with preserved kidney function (i.e., estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2) and with no macroalbuminuria (n = 563), who regularly attended our adult diabetes clinic between 1999 and 2001. Type 1 diabetes was diagnosed by the typical presentation of disease, the absolute dependence on insulin treatment for survival, the presence of undetectable fasting C-peptide concentrations, and the presence of anti–islet cell autoantibodies. […] Overall, 261 type 1 diabetic outpatients were included in the final analysis and were tested for the development of incident CKD during the follow-up period […] All participants were periodically seen (every 3–6 months) for routine medical examinations of glycemic control and chronic complications of diabetes. No participants were lost to follow-up. […] For this study, the development of incident CKD was defined as occurrence of eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and/or macroalbuminuria (21). Both of these outcome measures were confirmed in all participants in a least two consecutive occasions (within 3–6 months after the first examination).”

“At baseline, the mean eGFRMDRD was 92 ± 23 mL/min/1.73 m2 (median 87.9 [IQR 74–104]), or eGFREPI was 98.6 ± 19 mL/min/1.73 m2 (median 99.7 [84–112]). Most patients (n = 234; 89.7%) had normal albuminuria, whereas 27 patients (10.3%) had microalbuminuria. NAFLD was present in 131 patients (50.2%). […] At baseline, patients who developed CKD at follow-up were older, more likely to be female and obese, and had a longer duration of diabetes than those who did not. These patients also had higher values of systolic blood pressure, A1C, triglycerides, serum GGT, and urinary ACR and lower values of eGFRMDRD and eGFREPI. Moreover, there was a higher percentage of patients with hypertension, metabolic syndrome, microalbuminuria, and some degree of diabetic retinopathy in patients who developed CKD at follow-up compared with those remaining free from CKD. The proportion using antihypertensive drugs (that always included the use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) was higher in those who progressed to CKD. Notably, […] this patient group also had a substantially higher frequency of NAFLD on ultrasonography.”

“During follow-up (mean duration 5.2 ± 1.7 years, range 2–10), 61 patients developed CKD using the MDRD study equation to estimate eGFR (i.e., ∼4.5% of participants progressed every year to eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or macroalbuminuria). Of these, 28 developed an eGFRMDRD <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 with abnormal albuminuria (micro- or macroalbuminuria), 21 developed a reduced eGFRMDRD with normal albuminuria (but 9 of them had some degree of diabetic retinopathy at baseline), and 12 developed macroalbuminuria alone. None of them developed kidney failure requiring chronic dialysis. […] The annual eGFRMDRD decline for the whole cohort was 2.68 ± 3.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year. […] NAFLD patients had a greater annual decline in eGFRMDRD than those without NAFLD at baseline (3.28 ± 3.8 vs. 2.10 ± 3.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year, P < 0.005). Similarly, the frequency of a renal functional decline (arbitrarily defined as ≥25% loss of baseline eGFRMDRD) was greater among those with NAFLD than among those without the disease (26 vs. 11%, P = 0.005). […] Interestingly, BMI was not significantly associated with CKD.”

“Our novel findings indicate that NAFLD is strongly associated with an increased incidence of CKD during a mean follow-up of 5 years and that measurement of NAFLD improves risk prediction for CKD, independently of traditional risk factors (age, sex, diabetes duration, A1C, hypertension, baseline eGFR, and microalbuminuria [i.e., the last two factors being the strongest known risk factors for CKD]), in type 1 diabetic adults. Additionally, although NAFLD was strongly associated with obesity, obesity (or increased BMI) did not explain the association between NAFLD and CKD. […] The annual cumulative incidence rate of CKD in our cohort of patients (i.e., ∼4.5% per year) was essentially comparable to that previously described in other European populations with type 1 diabetes and similar baseline characteristics (∼2.5–9% of patients who progressed every year to CKD) (25,26). In line with previously published information (2528), we also found that hypertension, microalbuminuria, and lower eGFR at baseline were strong predictors of incident CKD in type 1 diabetic patients.”

“There is a pressing and unmet need to determine whether NAFLD is associated with a higher risk of CKD in people with type 1 diabetes. It has only recently been recognized that NAFLD represents an important burden of disease for type 2 diabetic patients (11,17,18), but the magnitude of the problem of NAFLD and its association with risk of CKD in type 1 diabetes is presently poorly recognized. Although there is clear evidence that NAFLD is closely associated with a higher prevalence of CKD both in those without diabetes (11) and in those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (1517), only four prospective studies have examined the association between NAFLD and risk of incident CKD (18,2931), and only one of these studies was published in patients with type 2 diabetes (18). […] The underlying mechanisms responsible for the observed association between NAFLD and CKD are not well understood. […] The possible clinical implication for these findings is that type 1 diabetic patients with NAFLD may benefit from more intensive surveillance or early treatment interventions to decrease the risk for CKD. Currently, there is no approved treatment for NAFLD. However, NAFLD and CKD share numerous cardiometabolic risk factors, and treatment strategies for NAFLD and CKD should be similar and aimed primarily at modifying the associated cardiometabolic risk factors.”

 

October 25, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Genetics, Health Economics, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Pharmacology, Statistics, Studies | Leave a comment

Infectious Disease Surveillance (IV)

I have added some more observations from the second half of the book below.

“The surveillance systems for all stages of HIV infection, including stage 3 (AIDS), are the most highly developed, complex, labor-intensive, and expensive of all routine infectious disease surveillance systems. […] Although some behaviorally based prevention interventions (e.g., individual counseling and testing) are relatively inexpensive and simple to implement, others are expensive and difficult to maintain. Consequently, HIV control programs have added more treatment-based methods in recent years. These consist primarily of routine and, in some populations, repeated and frequent testing for HIV with an emphasis on diagnosing every infected person as quickly as possible, linking them to clinical care, prescribing ART, monitoring for retention in care, and maintaining an undetectable viral load. This approach is referred to as “treatment as prevention.” […] Prior to the advent of HAART in the mid-1990s, surveillance consisted primarily of collecting initial HIV diagnosis, followed by monitoring of progression to AIDS and death. The current need to monitor adherence to treatment and care has led to surveillance to collect results of all CD4 count and viral load tests conducted on HIV-infected persons. Treatment guidelines recommend such testing quarterly [11], leading to dozens of laboratory tests being reported for each HIV-infected person in care; hence, the need to receive laboratory results electronically and efficiently has increased. […] The standard set by CDC for completeness is that at least 85% of diagnosed cases are reported to public health within the year of diagnosis. […] As HIV-infected persons live longer as a consequence of ART, the scope of HIV surveillance has expanded […] A critical part of collecting HIV data is maintaining the database.”

“The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 8.7 million new cases of TB and 1.4 million deaths from TB occurred in 2011 worldwide [2]. […] WHO estimates that one of every three individuals worldwide is infected with TB [6]. An estimated 5–10% of persons with LTBI [latent TB infection] in the general population will eventually develop active TB disease. Persons with latent infection who are immune suppressed for any reason are more likely to develop active disease. It is estimated that people infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are 21–34 times more likely to progress from latent to active TB disease […] By 2010, the percentage of all TB cases tested for HIV was 65% and the prevalence of coinfection was 6% [in the United States] [4]. […] From a global perspective, the United States is considered a low morbidity and mortality country for TB. In 2010, the national annual incidence rate for TB was 3.6 per 100,000 persons with 11,182 reported cases of TB  […] In 1953, 113,531 tuberculosis cases were reported in the United States […] Tuberculosis surveillance in the United States has changed a great deal in depth and quality since its inception more than a century ago. […] To assure uniformity and standardization of surveillance data, all TB programs in the United States report verified TB cases via the Report of Verified Case of Tuberculosis (RVCT) [43]. The RVCT collects demographic, diagnostic, clinical, and risk-factor information on incident TB cases […] A companion form, the Follow-up 1 (FU-1), records the date of specimen collection and results of the initial drug susceptibility test at the time of diagnosis for all culture-confirmed TB cases. […]  The Follow-up 2 (FU-2) form collects outcome data on patient treatment and additional clinical and laboratory information. […] Since 1993, the RVCT, FU-1, and FU-2 have been used to collect demographic and clinical information, as well as laboratory results for all reported TB cases in the United States […] The RVCT collects information about known risk factors for TB disease; and in an effort to more effectively monitor TB caused by drug-resistant strains, CDC also gathers information regarding drug susceptibility testing for culture-confirmed cases on the FU-2.”

“Surveillance data may come from widely different systems with different specific purposes. It is essential that the purpose and context of any specific system be understood before attempting to analyze and interpret the surveillance data produced by that system. It is also essential to understand the methodology by which the surveillance system collects data. […] The most fundamental challenge for analysis and interpretation of surveillance data is the identification of a baseline. […] For infections characterized by seasonal outbreaks, the baseline range will vary by season in a generally predictable manner […] The comparison of observations to the baseline range allows characterization of the impact of intentional interventions or natural phenomenon and determination of the direction of change. […] Resource investment in surveillance often occurs in response to a newly recognized disease […] a suspected change in the frequency, virulence, geography, or risk population of a familiar disease […] or following a natural disaster […] In these situations, no baseline data are available against which to judge the significance of data collected under newly implemented surveillance.”

“Differences in data collection methods may result in apparent differences in disease occurrence between geographic regions or over time that are merely artifacts resulting from variations in surveillance methodology. Data should be analyzed using standard periods of observation […] It may be helpful to examine the same data by varied time frames. An outbreak of short duration may be recognizable through hourly, daily, or weekly grouping of data but obscured if data are examined only on an annual basis. Conversely, meaningful longer-term trends may be recognized more efficiently by examining data on an annual basis or at multiyear intervals. […] An early approach to analysis of infectious disease surveillance data was to convert observation of numbers into observations of rates. Describing surveillance observations as rates […] standardizes the data in a way that allows comparisons of the impact of disease across time and geography and among different populations”.

“Understanding the sensitivity and specificity of surveillance systems is important. […] Statistical methods based on tests of randomness have been applied to infectious disease surveillance data for the purpose of analysis of aberrations. Methods include adaptations of quality control charts from industry; Bayesian, cluster, regression, time series, and bootstrap analyses; and application of smoothing algorithms, simulation, and spatial statistics [1,14].[…] Time series forecasting and regression methods have been fitted to mortality data series to forecast future epidemics of seasonal diseases, most commonly influenza, and to estimate the excess associated mortality. […] While statistical analysis can be applied to surveillance data, the use of statistics for this purpose is often limited by the nature of surveillance data. Populations under surveillance are often not random samples of a general population, and may not be broadly representative, complicating efforts to use statistics to estimate morbidity and mortality impacts on populations. […] The more information an epidemiologist has about the purpose of the surveillance system, the people who perform the reporting, and the circumstances under which the data are collected and conveyed through the system, the more likely it is that the epidemiologist will interpret the data correctly. […] In the context of public health practice, a key value of surveillance data is not just in the observations from the surveillance system but also in the fact that these data often stimulate action to collect better data, usually through field investigations. Field investigations may improve understanding of risk factors that were suggested by the surveillance data itself. Often, field investigations triggered by surveillance observations lead to research studies such as case control comparisons that identify and better define the strength of risk factors.”

“The increasing frequency of disease outbreaks that have spread across national borders has led to the development of multicountry surveillance networks. […] Countries that participate in surveillance networks typically agree to share disease outbreak information and to collaborate in efforts to control disease spread. […] Multicountry disease surveillance networks now exist in many parts of the world, such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, Southeastern Europe, and East Africa. […] Development of accurate and reliable diagnoses of illnesses is a fundamental challenge in global surveillance. Clinical specimen collection, analysis, and laboratory confirmation of the etiology of disease outbreaks are important components of any disease surveillance system [37]. In many areas of the world, however, insufficient diagnostic capacity leads to no or faulty diagnoses, inappropriate treatments, and disease misreporting. For example, surveillance for malaria is challenged by a common reliance on clinical symptoms for diagnosis, which has been shown to be a poor predictor of actual infection [38,39]. […] A WHO report indicates that more than 60% of laboratory equipment in countries with limited resources is outdated or not functioning [46]. Even when there is sufficient laboratory capacity, laboratory-based diagnosis of disease can also be slow, delaying detection of outbreaks. For example, it can take more than a month to determine whether a patient is infected with drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis. […] The International Health Regulations (IHR) codify the measures that countries must take to limit the international spread of disease while ensuring minimum interference with trade and travel. […] From the perspective of an individual nation, there are few incentives to report an outbreak of a disease to the international community. Rather, the decision to report diseases may result in adverse consequences — significant drops in tourism and trade, closings of borders, and other measures that the IHR are supposed to prevent.”

“Concerns about biological terrorism have raised the profile of infectious disease surveillance in the United States and around the globe [14]. […] Improving global surveillance for biological terrorism and emerging infectious diseases is now a major focus of the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) threat reduction programs [17]. DoD spends more on global health surveillance than any other U.S. governmental agency [18].”

“Zoonoses, or diseases that can transmit between humans and animals, have been responsible for nearly two-thirds of infectious disease outbreaks that have occurred since 1950 and more than $200 billion in worldwide economic losses in the last 10 years [52]. Despite the significant economic and health threats caused by these diseases, worldwide capacity for surveillance of zoonotic diseases is insufficient [52]. […] Over the last few decades, there have been significant changes in the way in which infectious disease surveillance is practiced. New regulations and goals for infectious disease surveillance have given rise to the development of new surveillance approaches and methods and have resulted in participation by nontraditional sectors, including the security community. Though most of these developments have positively shaped global surveillance, there remain key challenges that stand in the way of continued improvements. These include insufficient diagnostic capabilities and lack of trained staff, lack of integration between human and animal-health surveillance efforts, disincentives for countries to report disease outbreaks, and lack of information exchange between public health agencies and other sectors that are critical for surveillance.

“The biggest limitations to the development and sustainment of electronic disease surveillance systems, particularly in resource-limited countries, are the ease with which data are collected, accessed, and used by public health officials. Systems that require large amounts of resources, whether that is in the form of the workforce or information technology (IT) infrastructure, will not be successful in the long term. Successful systems run on existing hardware that can be maintained by modestly trained IT professionals and are easy to use by end users in public health [20].”

October 20, 2017 Posted by | Books, Epidemiology, Infectious disease, Medicine, Statistics | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Burden of Diabetic Foot Ulcers for Medicare and Private Insurers.

Some observations from the paper (my bold):

According to the American Diabetes Association, the annual cost of diabetes, which affects 22.3 million people in the U.S., was $245 billion in 2012: $176 billion in excess health care expenditures and $69 billion in reduced workforce productivity (1). While much of the excess health care cost is attributable to treatment of diabetes itself, a substantial amount of the cost differential arises via treatment of chronic complications such as those related to the heart, kidneys, and nervous system (1).

One common complication of diabetes is the development of foot ulcers. Historically, foot ulcers have been estimated to affect 1–4% of patients with diabetes annually (2,3) and as many as 25% of the patients with diabetes over their lifetimes (2). More recently, Margolis et al. (3) have estimated that the annual incidence of foot ulcers among patients with diabetes may be as high as 6%. Treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) includes conventional wound management (e.g., debridement, moist dressings, and offloading areas of high pressure or friction) as well as more sophisticated treatments such as bioengineered cellular technologies and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) (4).

DFUs often require extensive healing time and are associated with increased risk for infections and other sequelae that can result in severe and costly outcomes (4). […] DFU patients have a low survival prognosis, with a 3-year cumulative mortality rate of 28% (6) and rates among amputated patients approaching 50% (7).”

“While DFU patients can require substantial amounts of resource use, little is known about the burden of DFUs imposed on the U.S. health care system and payers. In fact, we are aware of only two studies to date that have estimated the incremental medical resource use and costs of DFU beyond that of diabetes alone (6,8). Neither of these analyses, however, accounted for the many underlying differences between DFU and non-DFU patient populations, such as disproportionate presence of costly underlying comorbid conditions among DFU patients […] Other existing literature on the burden of DFUs in the U.S. calculated the overall health care costs (as opposed to incremental) without reference to a non-DFU control population (911). As a result of the variety of data and methodologies used, it is not surprising that the burden of DFUs reported in the literature is wide-ranging, with the average per-patient costs, for example, ranging from $4,595 per episode (9) to over $35,000 annually for all services (6).

The objective of this study was to expand and improve on previous research to provide a more robust, current estimate of incremental clinical and economic burden of DFUs. To do so, this analysis examined the differences in medical resource use and costs between patients with DFUs during a recent time period (January 2007–September 2011) and a matched control population with diabetes but without DFUs, using administrative claims records from nationally representative databases for Medicare and privately insured populations. […] [Our] criteria resulted in a final analytic sample of 231,438 Medicare patients, with 29,681 (12.8%) identified as DFU patients and the remaining 201,757 comprising the potential control population of non-DFU diabetic patients. For private insurance, 119,018 patients met the sample selection criteria, with 5,681 (4.8%) DFU patients and 113,337 potential controls (Fig. 1).”

Prior to matching, DFU patients were statistically different from the non-DFU control population on nearly every dimension examined during the 12-month preindex period. […] The matching process resulted in the identification of 27,878 pairs of DFU and control patients for Medicare and 4,536 pairs for private insurance that were very similar with regards to preindex patient characteristics […] [I]mportantly, the matched DFU and control groups had comparable health care costs during the 12 months prior to the index date (Medicare, $17,744 DFU and controls; private insurance, $14,761 DFU vs. $14,766 controls). […] Despite having matched the groups to ensure similar patient characteristics, DFU patients used significantly (P < 0.0001) more medical resources during the 12-month follow-up period than did the matched controls […]. Among matched Medicare patients, DFU patients had 138.2% more days hospitalized, 85.4% more days of home health care, 40.6% more ED visits, and 35.1% more outpatient/physician office visits. The results were similar for the privately insured DFU patients, who had 173.5% more days hospitalized, 230.0% more days of home health care, 109.0% more ED visits, and 42.5% more outpatient/physician office visits than matched controls. […] The rate of lower limb amputations was 3.8% among matched Medicare DFU patients and 5.0% among matched privately insured DFU patients. In contrast, observed lower limb amputation rates among diabetic patients without foot ulcer were only 0.04% in Medicare and 0.02% in private insurance.”

Increased medical resource utilization resulted in DFU patients having approximately twice the costs as the matched non-DFU controls […], with annual incremental per-patient medical costs ranging from $11,710 for Medicare ($28,031 vs. $16,320; P < 0.0001) to $15,890 for private insurance ($26,881 vs. $10,991; P < 0.0001). All places of service (i.e., inpatient, ED, outpatient/physician office, home health care, and other) contributed approximately equally to the cost differential among Medicare patients. For the privately insured, however, increased inpatient costs ($17,061 vs. $6,501; P < 0.0001) were responsible for nearly two-thirds of the overall cost differential, […] resulting in total incremental direct health care (i.e., medical + prescription drug) costs of $16,883 ($31,419 vs. $14,536; P < 0.0001). Substantial proportions of the incremental medical costs were attributable to claims with DFU-related diagnoses or procedures for both Medicare (45.1%) and privately insured samples (60.3%).”

“Of the 4,536 matched pairs of privately insured patients, work-loss information was available for 575 DFU patients and 857 controls. DFU patients had $3,259 in excess work-loss costs ($6,311 vs. $3,052; P < 0.0001) compared with matched controls, with disability and absenteeism comprising $1,670 and $1,589 of the overall differential, respectively […] The results indicate that compared with diabetic patients without foot ulcers, DFU patients miss more days of work due to medical-related absenteeism and to disability, imposing additional burden on employers.”

“These estimates indicate that DFU imposes substantial burden on payers beyond that required to treat diabetes itself. For example, prior research has estimated annual per-patient incremental health care expenditures for patients with diabetes (versus those without diabetes) of approximately $7,900 (1). The estimates of this analysis suggest that the presence of DFU further compounds these incremental treatment costs by adding $11,710 to $16,883 per patient. Stated differently, the results indicate that the excess health care costs of DFU are approximately twice that attributable to treatment of diabetes itself, and that the presence of DFU approximately triples the excess cost differential versus a population of patients without diabetes.

“Using estimates of the total U.S. diabetes population (22.3 million) (1) and the midpoint (3.5%) of annual DFU incidence estimates (1–6%) (2,3), the results of this analysis suggest an annual incremental payer burden of DFU ranging from $9.1 billion (22.3 million patients with diabetes × 3.5% DFU incidence × $11,710 Medicare cost differential) to $13.2 billion (22.3 million patients with diabetes × 3.5% DFU incidence × $16,883 private insurance cost differential). These estimates, moreover, likely understate the actual burden of DFU because the incremental costs referenced in this calculation do not include excess work-loss costs described above, prescription drug costs for Medicare patients, out-of-pocket costs paid by the patient, costs borne by supplemental insurers, and other (non-work loss) indirect costs such as those associated with premature mortality, reduced quality of life, and informal caregiving.”

ii. Contributors to Mortality in High-Risk Diabetic Patients in the Diabetes Heart Study.

“Rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are two- to fourfold greater in individuals with type 2 diabetes compared with nondiabetic individuals, and up to 65% of all-cause mortality among individuals with type 2 diabetes is attributed to CVD (1,2). However, the risk profile is not uniform for all individuals affected by diabetes (35). Coronary artery calcified plaque (CAC), determined using computed tomography, is a measure of CVD burden (6,7). CAC scores have been shown to be an independent predictor of CVD outcomes and mortality in population-based studies (810) and a powerful predictor of all-cause and CVD mortality in individuals affected by type 2 diabetes (4,1115).

In the Diabetes Heart Study (DHS), individuals with CAC >1,000 were found to have greater than 6-fold (16) and 11-fold (17) increased risk for all-cause mortality and CVD mortality, respectively, after 7 years of follow-up. With this high risk for adverse outcomes, it is noteworthy that >50% of the DHS sample with CAC >1,000 have lived with this CVD burden for (now) an average of over 12 years. This suggests that outcomes vary in the type 2 diabetic patient population, even among individuals with the highest risk. This study examined the subset of DHS participants with CAC >1,000 and evaluated whether differences in a range of clinical factors and measurements, including modifiable CVD risk factors, provided further insights into risk for mortality.”

“This investigation focused on 371 high-risk participants (from 260 families) […] The goal of this analysis was to identify clinical and other characteristics that influence risk for all-cause mortality in high-risk (baseline CAC >1,000) DHS participants. […] a predominance of traditional CVD risk factors, including older age, male sex, elevated BMI, and high rates of dyslipidemia and hypertension, was evident in this high-risk subgroup (Table 1). These participants were followed for 8.2 ± 3.0 years (mean ± SD), over which time 41% died. […] a number of indices continued to significantly predict outcome following adjustment for other CVD risk factors (including age, sex, and medication use) […]. Higher cholesterol and LDL concentrations were associated with an increased risk (∼1.3-fold) for mortality […] Slightly larger increases in risk for mortality were observed with changes in kidney function (1.3- to 1.4-fold) and elevated CRP (∼1.4-fold) […] use of cholesterol-lowering medication was less common among the deceased participants; those reporting no use of cholesterol-lowering medication at baseline were at a 1.4-fold increased risk of mortality […] these results confirm that, even among this high-risk group, heterogeneity in known CVD risk factors and associations with adverse outcomes are still observed and support their ongoing consideration as useful tools for individual risk assessment. Finally, the data presented here suggest that use of cholesterol-lowering medication was strongly associated with protection, supporting the known beneficial effects of cholesterol management on CVD risk (28,29). […] data suggest that cholesterol-lowering medications may be used less than recommended and need to be more aggressively targeted as a critical modifiable risk factor.”

iii. Neurological Consequences of Diabetic Ketoacidosis at Initial Presentation of Type 1 Diabetes in a Prospective Cohort Study of Children.

“Patients aged 6–18 years with and without DKA at diagnosis were studied at four time points: <48 h, 5 days, 28 days, and 6 months postdiagnosis. Patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and spectroscopy with cognitive assessment at each time point. Relationships between clinical characteristics at presentation and MRI and neurologic outcomes were examined using multiple linear regression, repeated-measures, and ANCOVA analyses.”

“With DKA, cerebral white matter showed the greatest alterations with increased total white matter volume and higher mean diffusivity in the frontal, temporal, and parietal white matter. Total white matter volume decreased over the first 6 months. For gray matter in DKA patients, total volume was lower at baseline and increased over 6 months. […] Of note, although changes in total and regional brain volumes over the first 5 days resolved, they were associated with poorer delayed memory recall and poorer sustained and divided attention at 6 months. Age at time of presentation and pH level were predictors of neuroimaging and functional outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS DKA at type 1 diabetes diagnosis results in morphologic and functional brain changes. These changes are associated with adverse neurocognitive outcomes in the medium term.”

“This study highlights the common nature of transient focal cerebral edema and associated impaired mental state at presentation with new-onset type 1 diabetes in children. We demonstrate that alterations occur most markedly in cerebral white matter, particularly in the frontal lobes, and are most prominent in the youngest children with the most dramatic acidemia. […] early brain changes were associated with persisting alterations in attention and memory 6 months later. Children with DKA did not differ in age, sex, SES, premorbid need for school assistance/remediation, or postdiagnosis clinical trajectory. Earlier diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children may avoid the complication of DKA and the neurological consequences documented in this study and is worthy of a major public health initiative.”

“In relation to clinical risk factors, the degree of acidosis and younger age appeared to be the greatest risk factors for alterations in cerebral structure. […] cerebral volume changes in the frontal, temporal, and parietal regions in the first week after diagnosis were associated with lower attention and memory scores 6 months later, suggesting that functional information processing difficulties persist after resolution of tissue water increases in cerebral white matter. These findings have not been reported to date but are consistent with the growing concern over academic performance in children with diabetes (2). […] Brain injury should no longer be considered a rare complication of DKA. This study has shown that it is both frequent and persistent.” (my bold)

iv. Antihypertensive Treatment and Resistant Hypertension in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes by Stages of Diabetic Nephropathy.

“High blood pressure (BP) is a risk factor for coronary artery disease, heart failure, and stroke, as well as for chronic kidney disease. Furthermore, hypertension has been estimated to affect ∼30% of patients with type 1 diabetes (1,2) and both parallels and precedes the worsening of kidney disease in these patients (35). […] Despite strong evidence that intensive treatment of elevated BP reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease and microvascular complications, as well as improves the prognosis of patients with diabetic nephropathy (especially with the use of ACE inhibitors [ACEIs] and angiotensin II antagonists [angiotensin receptor blockers, ARBs]) (1,911), treatment targets and recommendations seem difficult to meet in clinical practice (1215). This suggests that the patients might either show poor adherence to the treatment and lifestyle changes or have a suboptimal drug regimen. It is evident that most patients with hypertension might require multiple-drug therapy to reach treatment goals (16). However, certain subgroups of the patients have been considered to have resistant hypertension (RH). RH is defined as office BP that remains above target even after using a minimum of three antihypertensive drugs at maximal tolerated doses, from different classes, one of which is a diuretic. Also, patients with controlled BP using four or more antihypertensive drugs are considered resistant to treatment (17).”

“The true prevalence of RH is unknown, but clinical trials suggest a share between 10 and 30% of the hypertensive patients in the general population (18). […] Only a few studies have considered BP control and treatment in patients with type 1 diabetes (2,15,22). Typically these studies have been limited to a small number of participants, which has not allowed stratifying of the patients according to the nephropathy status. The rate of RH is therefore unknown in patients with type 1 diabetes in general and with respect to different stages of diabetic nephropathy. Therefore, we estimated to what extent patients with type 1 diabetes meet the BP targets proposed by the ADA guidelines. We also evaluated the use of antihypertensive medication and the prevalence of RH in the patients stratified by stage of diabetic nephropathy.”

“[A]ll adult patients with type 1 diabetes from >80 hospitals and primary healthcare centers across Finland were asked to participate. Type 1 diabetes was defined by age at onset of diabetes <40 years, C-peptide ≤0.3 nmol/L, and insulin treatment initiated within 1 year of diagnosis, if C-peptide was not measured. […] we used two different ADA BP targets: <130/85 mmHg, which was the target until 2000 (6), and <130/80 mmHg, which was the target between 2001 and 2012 (7). Patients were divided into groups based on whether their BP had reached the target or not and whether the antihypertensive drug was in use or not. […] uncontrolled hypertension was defined as failure to achieve target BP, based on these two different ADA guidelines, despite use of antihypertensive medication. RH was defined as failure to achieve the goal BP (<130/85 mmHg) even after using a minimum of three antihypertensive drugs, from different classes, one of which was a diuretic. […] On the basis of eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) level, patients were classified into five groups according to the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guidelines: stage 1 eGFR ≥90, stage 2 eGFR 60–89, stage 3 eGFR 30–59, stage 4 eGFR 15–29, and stage 5 eGFR <15. Patients who were on dialysis were classified into stage 5. […] A total of 3,678 patients with complete data on systolic and diastolic BP and nephropathy status were identified from the FinnDiane database. […] The mean age was 38.0 ± 12.0 and mean duration of diabetes 22.1 ± 12.3 years.  […] The patients with advanced diabetic nephropathy had higher BP, worse dyslipidemia, poorer glycemic control, and more insulin resistance and macrovascular complications. BMI values were lower in the dialysis patients, probably due to renal cachexia.”

“Of all patients, 60.9% did not reach the BP target <130/85 mmHg, and the proportion was 70.3% with the target of <130/80 mmHg. […] The patients who were not on target had higher age and longer duration of diabetes and were more likely to be men. They also had poorer glycemic and lipid control as well as more micro- and macrovascular complications. […] Based on the BP target <130/85 mmHg, more than half of the patients in the normoalbuminuria group did not reach the BP target, and the share increased along with the worsening of nephropathy; two-thirds of the patients in the microalbuminuria group and fourfifths in the macroalbuminuria group were not on target, while even 90% of the dialysis and kidney transplant patients did not reach the target (Fig. 1A). Based on the stricter BP target of <130/80 mmHg, the numbers were obviously worse, but the trend was the same (Fig. 1B).”

“About 37% of the FinnDiane patients had antihypertensive treatment […] Whereas 14.1% of the patients with normal AER [Albumin Excretion Rate] had antihypertensive treatment, the proportions were 60.5% in the microalbuminuric, 90.3% in the macroalbuminuric, 88.6% in the dialysis, and 91.2% in the kidney transplant patients. However, in all groups, only a minority of the patients had BP values on target with the antihypertensive drug treatment they were prescribed […] The mean numbers of antihypertensive drugs varied within the nephropathy groups between those who had BP on target and those who did not […]. However, only in the micro- (P = 0.02) and macroalbuminuria (P = 0.003) groups were the mean numbers of the drugs higher if the BP was not on target, compared with those who had reached the targets. Notably, among the patients with normoalbuminuria who had not reached the BP target, 58% and, of the patients with microalbuminuria, 61% were taking only one antihypertensive drug. In contrast, more than half of the dialysis and 40% of the macroalbuminuric and transplanted patients, who had not reached the targets, had at least three drugs in their regimen. Moreover, one-fifth of the dialysis, 15% of the macroalbuminuric, and 10% of the transplanted patients had at least four antihypertensive drugs in use without reaching the target (Table 2). Almost all patients treated with antihypertensive drugs in the normo-, micro-, and macroalbuminuria groups (76% of normo-, 93% of micro-, and 89% of macrolbuminuric patients) had ACEIs or ARBs in the regimen. The proportions were lower in the ESRD groups: 42% of the dialysis and 29% of the transplanted patients were taking these drugs.”

“In general, the prevalence of RH was 7.9% for all patients with type 1 diabetes (n = 3,678) and 21.2% for the antihypertensive drug–treated patients (n = 1,370). The proportion was higher in men than in women (10.0 vs. 5.7%, P < 0.0001) […] When the patients were stratified by nephropathy status, the figures changed; in the normoalbuminuria group, the prevalence of RH was 1.2% of all and 8.7% of the drug treated patients. The corresponding numbers were 4.7 and 7.8% for the microalbuminuric patients, 28.1 and 31.2% for the macroalbuminuric patients, 36.6 and 41.3% for the patients on dialysis, and 26.3 and 28.8% for the kidney-transplanted patients, respectively […] The prevalence of RH also increased along with the worsening of renal function. The share was 1.4% for all and 7.4% for drug-treated patients at KDOQI stage 1. The corresponding numbers were 3.8 and 10.0% for the patients at stage 2, 26.6 and 30.0% for the patients at stage 3, 54.8 and 56.0% for the patients at stage 4, and 48.0 and 52.1% for those at stage 5, when kidney transplantation patients were excluded. […] In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, higher age, lower eGFR, higher waist-to-hip ratio, higher triglycerides, as well as microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria, when normoalbuminuria was the reference category, were independently associated with RH […] A separate analysis also showed that dietary sodium intake, based on urinary sodium excretion rate, was independently associated with RH.”

“The current study shows that the prevalence of RH in patients with type 1 diabetes increases alongside the worsening of diabetic nephropathy. Whereas less than one-tenth of the antihypertensive drug–treated patients with normo- or microalbuminuria met the criteria for RH, the proportions were substantially higher among the patients with overt nephropathy: one-third of the patients with macroalbuminuria or a transplanted kidney and even 40% of the patients on dialysis. […] the prevalence of RH for the drug-treated patients was even higher (56%) in patients at the predialysis stage (eGFR 15–29). The findings are consistent with other studies that have demonstrated that chronic kidney disease is a strong predictor of failure to achieve BP targets despite the use of three or more different types of antihypertensive drugs in the general hypertensive population (26).”

“The prevalence of RH was 21.2% of the patients treated with antihypertensive drugs. Previous studies have indicated a prevalence of RH of 13% among patients being treated for hypertension (1921,27). […] the prevalence [of RH] seems to be […] higher among the drug-treated type 1 diabetic patients. These figures can only partly be explained by the use of a lower treatment target for BP, as recommended for patients with diabetes (6), since even when we used the BP target recommended for hypertensive patients (<140/90 mmHg), our data still showed a higher prevalence of RH (17%).”

“The study also confirmed previous findings that a large number of patients with type 1 diabetes do not achieve the recommended BP targets. Although the prevalence of RH increased with the severity of diabetic nephropathy, our data also suggest that patients with normo- and microalbuminuria might have a suboptimal drug regimen, since the majority of those who had not reached the BP target were taking only one antihypertensive drug. […] There is therefore an urgent need to improve antihypertensive treatment, not only in patients with overt nephropathy but also in those who have elevated BP without complications or early signs of renal disease. Moreover, further emphasis should be placed on the transplanted patients, since it is well known that hypertension affects both graft and patient survival negatively (30).” (my bold)

v. Association of Autoimmunity to Autonomic Nervous Structures With Nerve Function in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: A 16-Year Prospective Study.

“Neuropathy is a chronic complication that includes a number of distinct syndromes and autonomic dysfunctions and contributes to increase morbidity and mortality in the diabetic population. In particular, cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) is an independent risk factor for mortality in type 1 diabetes and is associated with poor prognosis and poor quality of life (13). Cardiovascular (CV) autonomic regulation rests upon a balance between sympathetic and parasympathetic innervation of the heart and blood vessels controlling heart rate and vascular dynamics. CAN encompasses several clinical manifestations, from resting tachycardia to fatal arrhythmia and silent myocardial infarction (4).

The mechanisms responsible for altered neural function in diabetes are not fully understood, and it is assumed that multiple mutually perpetuating pathogenic mechanisms may concur. These include dysmetabolic injury, neurovascular insufficiency, deficiency of neurotrophic growth factors and essential fatty acids, advanced glycosylation products (5,6), and autoimmune damage. Independent cross-sectional and prospective (713) studies identified circulating autoantibodies to autonomic nervous structures and hypothesized that immune determinants may be involved in autonomic nerve damage in type 1 diabetes. […] However, demonstration of a cause–effect relationship between antibodies (Ab) and diabetic autonomic neuropathy awaits confirmation.”

“We report on a 16-year follow-up study specifically designed to prospectively examine a cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes and aimed at assessing whether the presence of circulating Ab to autonomic nervous structures is associated with increased risk and predictive value of developing CAN. This, in turn, would be highly suggestive of the involvement of autoimmune mechanisms in the pathogenesis of this complication.”

“The present prospective study, conducted in young patients without established autonomic neuropathy at recruitment and followed for over 16 years until adulthood, strongly indicates that a cause–effect relationship may exist between auto-Ab to autonomic nervous tissues and development of diabetic autonomic neuropathy. Incipient or established CAN (22) reached a prevalence of 68% among the Ab-positive patients, significantly higher compared with the Ab-negative patients. […] Logistic regression analysis indicates that auto-Ab carry an almost 15-fold increased RR of developing an abnormal DB [deep breathing] test over 16 years and an almost sixfold increase of developing at least one abnormal CV [cardiovascular] test, independent of other variables. […] Circulating Ab to autonomic structures are associated with the development of autonomic dysfunction in young diabetic patients independent of glycemic control. […] autoimmune mechanisms targeting sympathetic and parasympathetic structures may play a primary etiologic role in the development and progression of autonomic dysfunction in type 1 diabetes in the long term. […] positivity for auto-Ab had a high positive predictive value for the later development of autonomic neuropathy.”

“Diabetic autonomic neuropathy, possibly the least recognized and most overlooked of diabetes complications, has increasingly gained attention as an independent predictor of silent myocardial ischemia and mortality, as consistently indicated by several cross-sectional studies (2,3,33). The pooled prevalence rate risk for silent ischemia is estimated at 1.96 by meta-analysis studies (5). In this report, established CAN (22) was detected in nearly 20% of young adult patients with acceptable metabolic control, after over approximately 23 years of diabetes duration, against 12% of patients of the same cohort with subtle asymptomatic autonomic dysfunction (one abnormal CV test) a decade earlier, in line with other studies in type 1 diabetes (2,24). Approximately 30% of the patients developed signs of peripheral somatic neuropathy not associated with autonomic dysfunction. This discrepancy suggests the participation of pathogenic mechanisms different from metabolic control and a distinct clinical course, as indicated by the DCCT study, where hyperglycemia had a less robust relationship with autonomic than somatic neuropathy (6).”

“Furthermore, this study shows that autonomic neuropathy, together with female sex and the occurrence of severe hypoglycemia, is a major determinant for poor quality of life in patients with type 1 diabetes. This is in agreement with previous reports (35) and linked to such invalidating symptoms as orthostatic hypotension and chronic diarrhea. […] In conclusion, the current study provides persuasive evidence for a primary pathogenic role of autoimmunity in the development of autonomic diabetic neuropathy. However, the mechanisms through which auto-Ab impair their target organ function, whether through classical complement action, proapoptotic effects of complement, enhanced antigen presentation, or channelopathy (26,39,40), remain to be elucidated.” (my bold)

vi. Body Composition Is the Main Determinant for the Difference in Type 2 Diabetes Pathophysiology Between Japanese and Caucasians.

“According to current understanding, the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes is different in Japanese compared with Caucasians in the sense that Japanese are unable to compensate insulin resistance with increased insulin secretion to the same extent as Caucasians. Prediabetes and early stage diabetes in Japanese are characterized by reduced β-cell function combined with lower degree of insulin resistance compared with Caucasians (810). In a prospective, cross-sectional study of individuals with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), it was demonstrated that Japanese in Japan were more insulin sensitive than Mexican Americans in the U.S. and Arabs in Israel (11). The three populations also differed with regards to β-cell response, whereas the disposition index — a measure of insulin secretion relative to insulin resistance — was similar across ethnicities for NGT and IGT participants. These studies suggest that profound differences in type 2 diabetes pathophysiology exist between different populations. However, few attempts have been made to establish the underlying demographic or lifestyle-related factors such as body composition, physical fitness, and physical activity leading to these differences.”

“The current study aimed at comparing Japanese and Caucasians at various glucose tolerance states, with respect to 1) insulin sensitivity and β-cell response and 2) the role of demographic, genetic, and lifestyle-related factors as underlying predictors for possible ethnic differences in insulin sensitivity and β-cell response. […] In our study, glucose profiles from OGTTs [oral glucose tolerance tests] were similar in Japanese and Caucasians, whereas insulin and C-peptide responses were lower in Japanese participants compared with Caucasians. In line with these observations, measures of β-cell response were generally lower in Japanese, who simultaneously had higher insulin sensitivity. Moreover, β-cell response relative to the degree of insulin resistance as measured by disposition indices was virtually identical in the two populations. […] We […] confirmed the existence of differences in insulin sensitivity and β-cell response between Japanese and Caucasians and showed for the first time that a major part of these differences can be explained by differences in body composition […]. On the basis of these results, we propose a similar pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes in Caucasians and Japanese with respect to insulin sensitivity and β-cell function.”

October 12, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Health Economics, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Pharmacology, Studies | Leave a comment

Diabetes and the Brain (V)

I have blogged this book in some detail in the past, but I never really finished my intended coverage of the book. This post is an attempt to rectify this.

Below I have added some quotes and observations from some of the chapters I have not covered in my previous posts about the book. I bolded some key observations along the way.

A substantial number of studies have assessed the effect of type 2 diabetes on cognitive functioning with psychometric tests. The majority of these studies reported subtle decrements in individuals with type 2 diabetes relative to non-diabetic controls (2, 4). […] the majority of studies in patients with type 2 diabetes reported moderate reductions in neuropsychological test performance, mainly in memory, information-processing speed, and mental flexibility, a pattern that is also observed in aging-related cognitive decline. […] the observed cognitive decrements are relatively subtle and rather non-specific. […] All in all, disturbances in glucose and insulin metabolism and associated vascular risk factors are associated with modest reductions in cognitive performance in “pre-diabetic stages.” Consequently, it may well be that the cognitive decrements that can be observed in patients with type 2 diabetes also start to develop before the actual onset of the diabetes. […] Because the different vascular and metabolic risk factors that are clustered in the metabolic syndrome are strongly interrelated, the contribution of each of the individual factor will be difficult to assess.” 

“Aging-related changes on brain imaging include vascular lesions and focal and global atrophy. Vascular lesions include (silent) brain infarcts and white-matter hyperintensities (WMHs). WMHs are common in the general population and their prevalence increases with age, approaching 100% by the age of 85 (69). The prevalence of lacunar infarcts also increases with age, up to 5% for symptomatic infarcts and 30% for silent infarcts by the age of 80 (70). In normal aging, the brain gradually reduces in size, which becomes particularly evident after the age of 70 (71). This loss of brain volume is global […] age-related changes of the brain […] are often relatively more pronounced in older patients with type 2 […] A recent systematic review showed that patients with diabetes have a 2-fold increased risk of (silent) infarcts compared to non-diabetic persons (75). The relationship between type 2 diabetes and WMHs is subject to debate. […] there are now clear indications that diabetes is a risk factor for WMH progression (82). […] The presence of the APOE ε4 allele is a risk factor for the development of Alzheimer’s disease (99). Patients with type 2 diabetes who carry the APOE ε4 allele appeared to have a 2-fold increased risk of dementia compared to persons with either of these risk factors in isolation (100, 101).”

In adults with type 1 diabetes the occurrence of microvascular complications is associated with reduced cognitive performance (137) and accelerated cognitive decline (138). Moreover, type 1 diabetes is associated with decreased white-matter volume of the brain and diminished cognitive performance in particular in patients with retinopathy (139). Microvascular complications are also thought to play a role in the development of cognitive decline in patients with type 2 diabetes, but studies that have specifically examined this association are scarce. […] Currently there are no established specific treatment measures to prevent or ameliorate cognitive impairments in patients with diabetes.”

“Clinicians should be aware of the fact that cognitive decrements are relatively more common among patients with diabetes. […] it is important to note that cognitive complaints as spontaneously expressed by the patient are often a poor indicator of the severity of cognitive decrements. People with moderate disturbances may express marked complaints, while people with marked disturbances of cognition often do not complain at all. […] Diabetes is generally associated with relatively mild impairments, mainly in attention, memory, information-processing speed, and executive function. Rapid cognitive decline or severe cognitive impairment, especially in persons under the age of 60 is indicative of other underlying pathology. Potentially treatable causes of cognitive decline such as depression should be excluded. People who are depressed often present with complaints of concentration or memory.”

“Insulin resistance increases with age, and the organism maintains normal glucose levels as long as it can produce enough insulin (hyperinsulinemia). Some individuals are less capable than others to mount sustained hyperinsulinemia and will develop glucose intolerance and T2D (23). Other individuals with insulin resistance will maintain normal glucose levels at the expense of hyperinsulinemia but their pancreas will eventually “burn out,” will not be able to sustain hyperinsulinemia, and will develop glucose intolerance and diabetes (23). Others will continue having insulin resistance, may have or not have glucose intolerance, will not develop diabetes, but will have hyperinsulinemia and suffer its consequences. […] Elevations of adiposity result in insulin resistance, causing the pancreas to increase insulin to abnormal levels to sustain normal glucose, and if and when the pancreas can no longer sustain hyperinsulinemia, glucose intolerance and diabetes will ensue. However, the overlap between these processes is not complete (26). Not all persons with higher adiposity will develop insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia, but most will. Not all persons with insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia will develop glucose intolerance and diabetes, and this depends on genetic and other susceptibility factors that are not completely understood (25, 26). Some adults develop diabetes without going through insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia, but it is thought that most will. The susceptibility to adiposity, that is, the risk of developing the above-described sequence in response to adiposity, varies by gender (4) and particularly by ethnicity. […] Chinese and Southeast Asians are more susceptible than Europeans to developing insulin resistance with comparable increases of adiposity (2).”

There is very strong evidence that adiposity, hyperinsulinemia, and T2D are related to cognitive impairment syndromes, whether AD [Alzheimer’s Disease], VD [Vascular Dementia], or MCI [Mild Cognitive Impairment], and whether the main mechanism is cerebrovascular disease or non-vascular mechanisms. However, more evidence is needed to establish causation. If the relation between these conditions and dementia were to be causal, the public health implications are enormous. […] Diabetes mellitus affects about 20% of adults older than 65 years of age […] two-thirds of the adult population in the United States are overweight or obese, and the short-term trend is for this to worsen. These trends are also being observed worldwide. […] We estimated that in New York City the presence of diabetes or hyperinsulinemia in elderly people could account for 39% of cases of AD (78).”

Psychiatric illnesses in general may be more common among persons with diabetes than in community-based samples, specifically affective and anxiety-related disorders (4). Persons with diabetes are twice as likely to have depression as non-diabetic persons (5). A review of 20 studies on the comorbidity of depression and diabetes found that the average prevalence was about 15%, and ranged from 8.5 to 40%, three times the rate of depressive disorders found in the general adult population of the United States (4–7). The rates of clinically significant depressive symptoms among persons with diabetes are even higher – ranging from 21.8 to 60.0% (8). Recent studies have indicated that persons with type II diabetes, accompanied by either major or minor depression, have significantly higher mortality rates than non-depressed persons with diabetes (9–10) […] A recent meta-analysis reported that patients with type 2 diabetes have a 2-fold increased risk of depression compared to non-diabetic persons (142). The prevalence of major depressive disorder in patients with type 2 diabetes was estimated at 11% and depressive symptoms were observed in 31% of the patients.” (As should be obvious from the above quotes the range of estimates vary a lot here, but the estimates tend to be high – US.)

Depression is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease (Glassman, Maj & Sartorius is a decent book on these topics), and diabetes is also an established risk factor. Might this not lead to a hypothesis that diabetics who are depressed may do particularly poorly, with higher mortality rates and so on? Yes. …and it seems that this is also what people tend to find when they look at this stuff:

Persons with diabetes and depressive symptoms have mortality rates nearly twice as high as persons with diabetes and no depressive symptomatology (9). Persons with co-occurring medical illness and depression also have higher health care utilization leading to higher direct and indirect health care costs (12–13) […]. A meta-analysis of the relationship between depression and diabetes (types I and II) indicated that an increase in the number of depressive symptoms is associated with an increase in the severity and number of diabetic complications, including retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy (15–17). Compared to persons with either diabetes or depression alone, individuals with co-occurring diabetes and depression have shown poorer adherence to dietary and physical activity recommendations, decreased adherence to hypoglycemic medication regimens, higher health care costs, increases in HgbA1c levels, poorer glycemic control, higher rates of retinopathy, and macrovascular complications such as stroke and myocardial infarction, higher ambulatory care use, and use of prescriptions (14, 18–22). Diabetes and depressive symptoms have been shown to have strong independent effects on physical functioning, and individuals experiencing either of these conditions will have worse functional outcomes than those with neither or only one condition (19–20). Nearly all of diabetes management is conducted by the patient and those with co-occurring depression may have poorer outcomes and increased risk of complications due to less adherence to glucose, diet, and medication regimens […] There is some evidence that treatment of depression with antidepressant and/or cognitive-behavioral therapies can improve glycemic control and glucose regulation without any change in the treatment for diabetes (27, 28) […] One important finding is [also] that treatment of depression seems to be able to halt atrophy of the hippocampus and may even lead to stimulation of neurogenesis of hippocampal cells (86).”

Diabetic neuropathy is a severe, disabling chronic condition that affects a significant number of individuals with diabetes. Long considered a disease of the peripheral nervous system, there is mounting evidence of central nervous system involvement. Recent advances in neuroimaging methods have led to a better understanding and refinement of how diabetic neuropathy affects the central nervous system. […] spinal cord atrophy is an early process being present not only in established-DPN [diabetic peripheral neuropathy] but also even in subjects with relatively modest impairments of nerve function (subclinical-DPN) […] findings […] show that the neuropathic process in diabetes is not confined to the peripheral nerve and does involve the spinal cord. Worryingly, this occurs early in the neuropathic process. Even at the early DPN stage, extensive and perhaps even irreversible damage may have occurred. […] it is likely that the insult of diabetes is generalised, concomitantly affecting the PNS and CNS. […] It is noteworthy that a variety of therapeutic interventions specifically targeted at peripheral nerve damage in DPN have thus far been ineffective, and it is possible that this may in part be due to inadequate appreciation of the full extent of CNS involvement in DPN.

Interestingly, if the CNS is also involved in the pathogenesis of (‘human’) diabetic neuropathy it may have some relevance to the complaint that some methods of diabetes-induction in animal models cause (secondary) damage to central structures in animal models – a complaint which I’ve previously made a note of e.g. in the context of my coverage of Horowitz & Samson’s book. The relevance of this depends quite a bit on whether it’s the same central structures that are affected in the animal models and in humans. It probably isn’t. These guys also discuss this stuff in some detail, though I won’t go into too much detail here. Some observations on related topics are however worth including here:

“Several studies examining behavioral learning have shown progressive deficits in diabetic rodents, whereas simple avoidance tasks are preserved. Impaired spatial learning and memory as assessed by the Morris water maze paradigm occur progressively in both the spontaneously diabetic BB/Worrat and STZ-induced diabetic rodents (1, 11, 12, 22, 41, 42). The cognitive components reflected by impaired Morris water maze performances involve problem-solving, enhanced attention and storage, and retrieval of information (43). […] Observations regarding cognition and plasticity in models characterized by hyperglycemia and insulin deficiency (i.e., alloxan or STZ-diabetes, BB/Wor rats, NOD-mice), often referred to as models of type 1 diabetes, are quite consistent. With respect to clinical relevance, it should be noted that the level of glycemia in these models markedly exceeds that observed in patients. Moreover, changes in cognition as observed in these models are much more rapid and severe than in adult patients with type 1 diabetes […], even if the relatively shorter lifespan of rodents is taken into account. […] In my view these models of “type 1 diabetes” may help to understand the pathophysiology of the effects of severe chronic hyperglycemia–hypoinsulinemia on the brain, but mimic the impact of type 1 diabetes on the brain in humans only to a limited extent.”

“Abnormalities in cognition and plasticity have also been noted in the majority of models characterized by insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, and (modest) hyperglycemia (e.g., Zucker fa/fa rat, Diabetic Zucker rat, db/db mouse, GK rat, OLETF rat), often referred to as models of type 2 diabetes. With regard to clinical relevance, it is important to note that although the endocrinological features of these models do mimic certain aspects of type 2 diabetes, the genetic defect that underlies each of them is not the primary defect encountered in humans with type 2 diabetes. Some of the genetic abnormalities that lead to a “diabetic phenotype” may also have a direct impact on the brain. […] some studies using these models report abnormalities in cognition and plasticity, even in the absence of hyperglycemia […] In addition, in the majority of available models insulin resistance and associated metabolic abnormalities develop at a relatively early age. Although this is practical for research purposes it needs to be acknowledged that type 2 diabetes is typically a disease of older age in humans. […] It is therefore still too early to determine the clinical significance of the available models in understanding the impact of type 2 diabetes on the brain. Further efforts into the development of a valid model are warranted.”

[A] key problem in clinical studies is the complexity and multifactorial nature of cerebral complications in relation to diabetes. Metabolic factors in patients (e.g., glucose levels, insulin levels, insulin sensitivity) are strongly interrelated and related to other factors that may affect the brain (e.g., blood pressure, lipids, inflammation, oxidative stress). Derangements in these factors in the periphery and the brain may be dissociated, for example, through the role of the blood–brain barrier, or adaptations of transport across this barrier, or through differences in receptor functions and post-receptor signaling cascades in the periphery and the brain. The different forms of treatments that patients receive add to the complexity. A key contribution of animal studies may be to single out individual components and study them in isolation or in combination with a limited number of other factors in a controlled fashion.

October 9, 2017 Posted by | Books, Cardiology, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Medicine, Neurology, Pharmacology | Leave a comment

Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease

“Despite the known higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), the pathophysiology underlying the relationship between cardiovascular events, CVD risk factors, and T1DM is not well understood. […] The present review will focus on the importance of CVD in patients with T1DM. We will summarize recent observations of potential differences in the pathophysiology of T1DM compared with T2DM, particularly with regard to atherosclerosis. We will explore the implications of these concepts for treatment of CVD risk factors in patients with T1DM. […] The statement will identify gaps in knowledge about T1DM and CVD and will conclude with a summary of areas in which research is needed.”

The above quote is from this paper: Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association.

I originally intended to cover this one in one of my regular diabetes posts, but I decided in the end that there was simply too much stuff to cover here for it to make sense not to devote an entire post to it. I have quoted extensively from the paper/statement below and I also decided to bold a few of the observations I found particularly important/noteworthy(/worth pointing out to people reading along?).

“T1DM has strong human leukocyte antigen associations to the DQA, DQB, and DRB alleles (2). One or more autoantibodies, including islet cell, insulin, glutamic acid decarboxylase 65 (GAD65), zinc transporter 8 (3), and tyrosine phosphatase IA-2β and IA-2β antibodies, can be detected in 85–90% of individuals on presentation. The rate of β-cell destruction varies, generally occurring more rapidly at younger ages. However, T1DM can also present in adults, some of whom can have enough residual β-cell function to avoid dependence on insulin until many years later. When autoantibodies are present, this is referred to as latent autoimmune diabetes of adulthood. Infrequently, T1DM can present without evidence of autoimmunity but with intermittent episodes of ketoacidosis; between episodes, the need for insulin treatment can come and go. This type of DM, called idiopathic diabetes (1) or T1DM type B, occurs more often in those of African and Asian ancestry (4). Because of the increasing prevalence of obesity in the United States, there are also obese individuals with T1DM, particularly children. Evidence of insulin resistance (such as acanthosis nigricans); fasting insulin, glucose, and C-peptide levels; and the presence of islet cell, insulin, glutamic acid decarboxylase, and phosphatase autoantibodies can help differentiate between T1DM and T2DM, although both insulin resistance and insulin insufficiency can be present in the same patient (5), and rarely, T2DM can present at an advanced stage with low C-peptide levels and minimal islet cell function.”

Overall, CVD events are more common and occur earlier in patients with T1DM than in nondiabetic populations; women with T1DM are more likely to have a CVD event than are healthy women. CVD prevalence rates in T1DM vary substantially based on duration of DM, age of cohort, and sex, as well as possibly by race/ethnicity (8,11,12). The Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications (EDC) study demonstrated that the incidence of major coronary artery disease (CAD) events in young adults (aged 28–38 years) with T1DM was 0.98% per year and surpassed 3% per year after age 55 years, which makes it the leading cause of death in that population (13). By contrast, incident first CVD in the nondiabetic population ranges from 0.1% in 35- to 44-year-olds to 7.4% in adults aged 85–94 years (14). An increased risk of CVD has been reported in other studies, with the age-adjusted relative risk (RR) for CVD in T1DM being ≈10 times that of the general population (1517). One of the most robust analyses of CVD risk in this disease derives from the large UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD), comprising data from >7,400 patients with T1DM with a mean ± SD age of 33 ± 14.5 years and a mean DM duration of 15 ± 12 years (8). CVD events in the UK GPRD study occurred on average 10 to 15 years earlier than in matched nondiabetic control subjects.”

“When types of CVD are reported separately, CHD [coronary heart disease] predominates […] The published cumulative incidence of CHD ranges between 2.1% (18) and 19% (19), with most studies reporting cumulative incidences of ≈15% over ≈15 years of follow-up (2022). […] Although stroke is less common than CHD in T1DM, it is another important CVD end point. Reported incidence rates vary but are relatively low. […] the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy (WESDR) reported an incidence rate of 5.9% over 20 years (≈0.3%) (21); and the European Diabetes (EURODIAB) Study reported a 0.74% incidence of cerebrovascular disease per year (18). These incidence rates are for the most part higher than those reported in the general population […] PAD [peripheral artery disease] is another important vascular complication of T1DM […] The rate of nontraumatic amputation in T1DM is high, occurring at 0.4–7.2% per year (28). By 65 years of age, the cumulative probability of lower-extremity amputation in a Swedish administrative database was 11% for women with T1DM and 20.7% for men (10). In this Swedish population, the rate of lower-extremity amputation among those with T1DM was nearly 86-fold that of the general population.

“Abnormal vascular findings associated with atherosclerosis are also seen in patients with T1DM. Coronary artery calcification (CAC) burden, an accepted noninvasive assessment of atherosclerosis and a predictor of CVD events in the general population, is greater in people with T1DM than in nondiabetic healthy control subjects […] With regard to subclinical carotid disease, both carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) and plaque are increased in children, adolescents, and adults with T1DM […] compared with age- and sex-matched healthy control subjects […] Endothelial function is altered even at a very early stage of T1DM […] Taken together, these data suggest that preclinical CVD can be seen more frequently and to a greater extent in patients with T1DM, even at an early age. Some data suggest that its presence may portend CVD events; however, how these subclinical markers function as end points is not clear.”

“Neuropathy in T1DM can lead to abnormalities in the response of the coronary vasculature to sympathetic stimulation, which may manifest clinically as resting tachycardia or bradycardia, exercise intolerance, orthostatic hypotension, loss of the nocturnal decline in BP, or silent myocardial ischemia on cardiac testing. These abnormalities can lead to delayed presentation of CVD. An early indicator of cardiac autonomic neuropathy is reduced heart rate variability […] Estimates of the prevalence of cardiac autonomic neuropathy in T1DM vary widely […] Cardiac neuropathy may affect as many as ≈40% of individuals with T1DM (45).”

CVD events occur much earlier in patients with T1DM than in the general population, often after 2 decades of T1DM, which in some patients may be by age 30 years. Thus, in the EDC study, CVD was the leading cause of death in T1DM patients after 20 years of disease duration, at rates of >3% per year (13). Rates of CVD this high fall into the National Cholesterol Education Program’s high-risk category and merit intensive CVD prevention efforts (48). […] CVD events are not generally expected to occur during childhood, even in the setting of T1DM; however, the atherosclerotic process begins during childhood. Children and adolescents with T1DM have subclinical CVD abnormalities even within the first decade of DM diagnosis according to a number of different methodologies”.

Rates of CVD are lower in premenopausal women than in men […much lower: “Cardiovascular disease develops 7 to 10 years later in women than in men” – US]. In T1DM, these differences are erased. In the United Kingdom, CVD affects men and women with T1DM equally at <40 years of age (23), although after age 40 years, men are affected more than women (51). Similar findings on CVD mortality rates were reported in a large Norwegian T1DM cohort study (52) and in the Allegheny County (PA) T1DM Registry (13), which reported the relative impact of CVD compared with the general population was much higher for women than for men (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] 13.2 versus 5.0 for total mortality and 24.7 versus 8.8 for CVD mortality, women versus men). […] Overall, T1DM appears to eliminate most of the female sex protection seen in the nondiabetic population.”

“The data on atherosclerosis in T1DM are limited. A small angiographic study compared 32 individuals with T1DM to 31 nondiabetic patients matched for age and symptoms (71). That study found atherosclerosis in the setting of T1DM was characterized by more severe (tighter) stenoses, more extensive involvement (multiple vessels), and more distal coronary findings than in patients without DM. A quantitative coronary angiographic study in T1DM suggested more severe, distal disease and an overall increased burden compared with nondiabetic patients (up to fourfold higher) (72).”

“In the general population, inflammation is a central pathological process of atherosclerosis (79). Limited pathology data suggest that inflammation is more prominent in patients with DM than in nondiabetic control subjects (70), and those with T1DM in particular are affected. […] Knowledge of the clinical role of inflammatory markers in T1DM and CVD prediction and management is in its infancy, but early data suggest a relationship with preclinical atherosclerosis. […] Studies showed C-reactive protein is elevated within the first year of diagnosis of T1DM (80), and interleukin-6 and fibrinogen levels are high in individuals with an average disease duration of 2 years (81), independent of adiposity and glycemia (82). Other inflammatory markers such as soluble interleukin-2 receptor (83) and CD40 ligand (84,85) are higher in patients with T1DM than in nondiabetic subjects. Inflammation is evident in youth, even soon after the diagnosis of T1DM. […] The mechanisms by which inflammation operates in T1DM are likely multiple but may include hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, excess adiposity or altered body fat distribution, thrombosis, and adipokines. Several recent studies have demonstrated a relationship between acute hypoglycemia and indexes of systemic inflammation […] These studies suggest that acute hypoglycemia in T1DM produces complex vascular effects involved in the activation of proinflammatory, prothrombotic, and proatherogenic mechanisms. […] Fibrinogen, a prothrombotic acute phase reactant, is increased in T1DM and is associated with premature CVD (109), and it may be important in vessel thrombosis at later stages of CVD.”

“Genetic polymorphisms appear to influence the progression and prognosis of CVD in T1DM […] Like fibrinogen, haptoglobin is an acute phase protein that inhibits hemoglobin-induced oxidative tissue damage by binding to free hemoglobin (110). […] In humans, there are 2 classes of alleles at the haptoglobin locus, giving rise to 3 possible genotypes: haptoglobin 1-1, haptoglobin 2-1, and haptoglobin 2-2. […] In T1DM, there is an independent twofold increased incidence of CAD in haptoglobin 2-2 carriers compared with those with the haptoglobin 1-1 genotype (117); the 2-1 genotype is associated with an intermediate effect of increased CVD risk. More recently, an independent association was reported in T1DM between the haptoglobin 2-2 genotype and early progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (118). In the CACTI study group, the presence of the haptoglobin 2-2 genotype also doubled the risk of CAC [coronary artery calcification] in patients free from CAC at baseline, after adjustment for traditional CVD risk factors (119). […] At present, genetic testing for polymorphisms in T1DM [however] has no clear clinical utility in CVD prediction or management.”

“Dysglycemia is often conceived of as a vasculopathic process. Preclinical atherosclerosis and epidemiological studies generally support this relationship. Clinical trial data from the DCCT supplied definitive findings strongly in favor of beneficial effects of better glycemic control on CVD outcomes. Glycemia is associated with preclinical atherosclerosis in studies that include tests of endothelial function, arterial stiffness, cIMT, autonomic neuropathy, and left ventricular (LV) function in T1DM […] LV mass and function improve with better glycemic control (126,135,136). Epidemiological evidence generally supports the relationship between hyperglycemia and clinical CHD events in T1DM. […] A large Swedish database review recently reported a reasonably strong association between HbA1c and CAD in T1DM (HR, 1.3 per 1% HbA1c increase) (141). […] findings support the recommendation that early optimal glycemic control in T1DM will have long-term benefits for CVD reduction.”

“Obesity is a known independent risk factor for CVD in nondiabetic populations, but the impact of obesity in T1DM has not been fully established. Traditionally, T1DM was a condition of lean individuals, yet the prevalence of overweight and obesity in T1DM has increased significantly […] This is related to epidemiological shifts in the population overall, tighter glucose control leading to less glucosuria, more frequent/greater caloric intake to fend off real and perceived hypoglycemia, and the specific effects of intensive DM therapy, which has been shown to increase the prevalence of obesity (152). Indeed, several clinical trials, including the DCCT, demonstrate that intensive insulin therapy can lead to excessive weight gain in a subset of patients with T1DM (152). […] No systematic evaluation has been conducted to assess whether improving insulin sensitization lowers rates of CVD. Ironically, the better glycemic control associated with insulin therapy may lead to weight gain, with a superimposed insulin resistance, which may be approached by giving higher doses of insulin. However, some evidence from the EDC study suggests that weight gain in the presence of improved glycemic control is associated with an improved CVD risk profile (162). […] Although T1DM is characteristically a disease of absolute insulin deficiency (154), insulin resistance appears to contribute to CHD risk in patients with T1DM. For example, having a family history of T2DM, which suggests a genetic predisposition for insulin resistance, has been associated with an increased CVD risk in patients with T1DM (155).”

“In general, the lipid levels of adults with well-controlled T1DM are similar to those of individuals without DM […] Worse glycemic control, higher weight (164), and more insulin resistance as measured by euglycemic clamp (165) are associated with a more atherogenic cholesterol distribution in men and women with T1DM […] Studies in pediatric and young adult populations suggest higher lipid values than in youth without T1DM, with glycemic control being a significant contributor (148). […] Most studies show that as is true for the general population, dyslipidemia is a risk factor for CVD in T1DM. Qualitative differences in lipid and lipoprotein fractions are being investigated to determine whether abnormal lipid function may contribute to this. The HDL-C fraction has been of particular interest because the metabolism of HDL-C in T1DM may be altered because of abnormal lipoprotein lipase and hepatic lipase activities related to exogenously administered insulin […] Additionally, as noted earlier, the less efficient handling of heme by the haptoglobin 2-2 genotype in patients with T1DM leaves these complexes less capable of being removed by macrophages, which allows them to associate with HDL, which renders it less functional (116). […] Conventionally, pharmacotherapy is used more aggressively for patients with T1DM and lipid disorders than for nondiabetic patients; however, recommendations for treatment are mostly extrapolated from interventional trials in adults with T2DM, in which rates of CVD events are equivalent to those in secondary prevention populations. Whether this is appropriate for T1DM is not clear […] Awareness of CVD risk and screening for hypercholesterolemia in T1DM have increased over time, yet recent data indicate that control is suboptimal, particularly in younger patients who have not yet developed long-term complications and might therefore benefit from prevention efforts (173). Adults with T1DM who have abnormal lipids and additional risk factors for CVD (e.g., hypertension, obesity, or smoking) who have not developed CVD should be treated with statins. Adults with CVD and T1DM should also be treated with statins, regardless of whether they have additional risk factors.”

“Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a complication of T1DM that is strongly linked to CVD. DKD can present as microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria, impaired GFR, or both. These represent separate but complementary manifestations of DKD and are often, but not necessarily, sequential in their presentation. […] the risk of all-cause mortality increased with the severity of DKD, from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria to ESRD. […] Microalbuminuria is likely an indicator of diffuse vascular injury. […] Microalbuminuria is highly correlated with CVD (49,180182). In the Steno Diabetes Center (Gentofte, Denmark) cohort, T1DM patients with isolated microalbuminuria had a 4.2-fold increased risk of CVD (49,180). In the EDC study, microalbuminuria was associated with mortality risk, with an SMR of 6.4. In the FinnDiane study, mortality risk was also increased with microalbuminuria (SMR, 2.8). […] A recent review summarized these data. In patients with T1DM and microalbuminuria, there was an RR of all-cause mortality of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.5–2.1) that was unaffected by adjustment for confounders (183). Similar RRs were found for mortality from CVD (1.9; 95% CI, 1.3–2.9), CHD (2.1; 95% CI, 1.2–3.5), and aggregate CVD mortality (2.0; 95% CI, 1.5–2.6).”

“Macroalbuminuria represents more substantial kidney damage and is also associated with CVD. Mechanisms may be more closely related to functional consequences of kidney disease, such as higher LDL-C and lower HDL-C. Prospective data from Finland indicate the RR for CVD is ≈10 times greater in patients with macroalbuminuria than in those without macroalbuminuria (184). Historically, in the [Danish] Steno cohort, patients with T1DM and macroalbuminuria had a 37-fold increased risk of CVD mortality compared with the general population (49,180); however, a more recent report from EURODIAB suggests a much lower RR (8.7; 95% CI, 4.03–19.0) (185). […] In general, impaired GFR is a risk factor for CVD, independent of albuminuria […] ESRD [end-stage renal disease, US], the extreme form of impaired GFR, is associated with the greatest risk of CVD of all varieties of DKD. In the EDC study, ESRD was associated with an SMR for total mortality of 29.8, whereas in the FinnDiane study, it was 18.3. It is now clear that GFR loss and the development of eGFR <60 mL · min−1 · 1.73 m−2 can occur without previous manifestation of microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria (177,178). In T1DM, the precise incidence, pathological basis, and prognosis of this phenotype remain incompletely described.”

“Prevention of DKD remains challenging. Although microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria are attractive therapeutic targets for CVD prevention, there are no specific interventions directed at the kidney that prevent DKD. Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is an attractive option but has not been demonstrated to prevent DKD before it is clinically apparent. […] In contrast to prevention efforts, treatment of DKD with agents that inhibit the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is effective. […] angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce the progression of DKD and death in T1DM (200). Thus, once DKD develops, treatment is recommended to prevent progression and to reduce or minimize other CVD risk factors, which has a positive effect on CVD risk. All patients with T1DM and hypertension or albuminuria should be treated with an ACE inhibitor. If an ACE inhibitor is not tolerated, an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) is likely to have similar efficacy, although this has not been studied specifically in patients with T1DM. Optimal dosing for ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the setting of DKD is not well defined; titration may be guided by BP, albuminuria, serum potassium, and creatinine. Combination therapy of ACE and ARB blockade cannot be specifically recommended at this time.”

“Hypertension is more common in patients with T1DM and is a powerful risk factor for CVD, regardless of whether an individual has DKD. In the CACTI [Coronary Artery Calcification in Type 1 Diabetes] study, hypertension was much more common in patients with T1DM than in age- and sex-matched control subjects (43% versus 15%, P < 0.001); in fact, only 42% of all T1DM patients met the Joint National Commission 7 goal (BP <130/80 mmHg) (201). Hypertension also affects youth with T1DM. The SEARCH trial of youth aged 3–17 years with T1DM (n = 3,691) found the prevalence of elevated BP was 5.9% […] Abnormalities in BP can stem from DKD or obesity. Hyperglycemia may also contribute to hypertension over the long term. In the DCCT/EDIC cohort, higher HbA1c was strongly associated with increased risk of hypertension, and intensive DM therapy reduced the long-term risk of hypertension by 24% (203). […] There are few published trials about the ideal pharmacotherapeutic agent(s) for hypertension in T1DM.”

“Smoking is a major risk factor for CVD, particularly PAD (213); however, there is little information on the prevalence or effects of smoking in T1DM. […] The added CVD risk of smoking may be particularly important in patients with DM, who are already vulnerable. In patients with T1DM, cigarette smoking [has been shown to increase] the risk of DM nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy (214,215) […] Smoking increases CVD risk factors in T1DM via deterioration in glucose metabolism, lipids, and endothelial function (216). Unfortunately, smoking cessation can result in weight gain, which may deter smokers with DM from quitting (217). […] Smoking cessation should be strongly recommended to all patients with T1DM as part of an overall strategy to lower CVD, in particular PAD.”

“CVD risk factors are more common in children with T1DM than in the general pediatric population (218). Population-based studies estimate that 14–45% of children with T1DM have ≥2 CVD risk factors (219221). As with nondiabetic children, the prevalence of CVD risk factors increases with age (221). […] The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Heart Association, and the ADA recognize patients with DM, and particularly T1DM, as being in a higher-risk group who should receive more aggressive risk factor screening and treatment than nondiabetic children […] The available data suggest many children and adolescents with T1DM do not receive the recommended treatment for their dyslipidemia and hypertension (220,222).”

“There are no CVD risk-prediction algorithms for patients with T1DM in widespread use. […] Use of the Framingham Heart Study and UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) algorithms in the EDC study population did not provide good predictive results, which suggests that neither general or T2DM risk algorithms are sufficient for risk prediction in T1DM (235). On the basis of these findings, a model has been developed with the use of EDC cohort data (236) that incorporates measures outside the Framingham construct (white blood cell count, albuminuria, DM duration). Although this algorithm was validated in the EURODIAB Study cohort (237), it has not been widely adopted, and diagnostic and therapeutic decisions are often based on global CVD risk-estimation methods (i.e., Framingham risk score or T2DM-specific UKPDS risk engine [http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/riskengine/index.php]). Other options for CVD risk prediction in patients with T1DM include the ADA risk-assessment tool (http://main.diabetes.org/dorg/mha/main_en_US.html?loc=dorg-mha) and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) risk predictor (http://www.aricnews.net/riskcalc/html/RC1.html), but again, accuracy for T1DM is not clear.”

September 25, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Genetics, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Pharmacology, Studies | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Glycated Hemoglobin and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality in Singaporean Chinese Without Diagnosed Diabetes: The Singapore Chinese Health Study.

“Previous studies have reported that elevated levels of HbA1c below the diabetes threshold (<6.5%) are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (312). Yet, this research base is not comprehensive, and data from Chinese populations are scant, especially in those without diabetes. This gap in the literature is important since Southeast Asian populations are experiencing epidemic rates of type 2 diabetes and related comorbidities with a substantial global health impact (1316).

Overall, there are few cohort studies that have examined the etiologic association between HbA1c levels and all-cause and cause-specific mortality. There is even lesser insight on the nature of the relationship between HbA1c and significant clinical outcomes in Southeast Asian populations. Therefore, we examined the association between HbA1c and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the Singapore Chinese Health Study (SCHS).”

“The design of the SCHS has been previously summarized (17). Briefly, the cohort was drawn from men and women, aged 45–74 years, who belonged to one of the major dialect groups (Hokkien or Cantonese) of Chinese in Singapore. […] Between April 1993 and December 1998, 63,257 individuals completed an in-person interview that included questions on usual diet, demographics, height and weight, use of tobacco, usual physical activity, menstrual and reproductive history (women only), medical history including history of diabetes diagnosis by a physician, and family history of cancer. […] At the follow-up interview (F1), which occurred in 1999–2004, subjects were asked to update their baseline interview information. […] The study population derived from 28,346 participants of the total 54,243 who were alive and participated at F1, who provided consent at F1 to collect subsequent blood samples (a consent rate of ∼65%). The participants for this study were a random selection of individuals from the full study population who did not report a history of diabetes or CVD at the baseline or follow-up interview and reported no history of cancer.”

“During 74,890 person-years of follow-up, there were 888 total deaths, of which 249 were due to CVD, 388 were due to cancer, and 169 were recorded as respiratory mortality. […] There was a positive association between HbA1c and age, BMI, and prevalence of self-reported hypertension, while an inverse association was observed between educational attainment and HbA1c. […] The crude mortality rate was 1,186 deaths per 100,000 person-years. The age- and sex-standardized mortality rates for all-cause, CVD, and cerebrovascular each showed a J-shaped pattern according to HbA1c level. The CHD and cancer mortality rates were higher for HbA1c ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol) and otherwise displayed no apparent pattern. […] There was no association between any level of HbA1c and respiratory causes of death.”

“Chinese men and women with no history of cancer, reported diabetes, or CVD with an HbA1c level ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol) were at a significant increased risk of mortality during follow-up relative to their peers with an HbA1c of 5.4–5.6% (36–38 mmol/mol). No other range of HbA1c was significantly associated with risk of mortality during follow-up, and in secondary analyses, when the HbA1c level ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol) was divided into four categories, this increased risk was observed in all four categories; thus, these data represent a clear threshold association between HbA1c and mortality in this population. These results are consistent with previous prospective cohort studies identifying chronically high HbA1c, outside of diabetes, to be associated with increased risk for all-cause and CVD-related mortality (312,22).”

“Hyperglycemia is a known risk factor for CVD, not limited to individuals with diabetes. This may be in part due to the vascular damage caused by oxidative stress in periods of hypo- and hyperglycemia (23,24). For individuals with impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance, increased oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction are present before the onset of diabetes (25). The association between chronically high levels of HbA1c and development of and death from cancer is not as well defined (9,2630). Abnormal metabolism may play a role in cancer development and death. This is important, considering cancer is the leading cause of death in Singapore for adults 15–59 years of age (31). Increased risk for cancer mortality was found in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance (30). […] Hyperinsulinemia and IGF-I are associated with increased cancer risk, possibly through mitogenic effects and tumor formation (27,28,37). This is the basis for the insulin-cancer hypothesis. Simply put, chronic levels of hyperinsulinemia reduce the production of IGF binding proteins 1 and 2. The absence of these proteins results in excess bioactive IGF-I, supporting tumor development (38). Chronic hyperglycemia, indicating high levels of insulin and IGF-I, may explain inhibition of cell apoptosis, increased cell proliferation, and increased cancer risk (39).”

ii. The Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Associations of Diabetic Retinopathy With Cognitive Function and Brain MRI Findings: The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Trial.

“Brain imaging studies suggest that type 2 diabetes–related microvascular disease may affect the central nervous system in addition to its effects on other organs, such as the eye and kidney. Histopathological evidence indicates that microvascular disease in the brain can lead to white matter lesions (WMLs) visible with MRI of the brain (1), and risk for them is often increased by type 2 diabetes (26). Type 2 diabetes also has recently been associated with lower brain volume, particularly gray matter volume (79).

The association between diabetic retinopathy and changes in brain tissue is of particular interest because retinal and cerebral small vessels have similar anatomy, physiology, and embryology (10). […] the preponderance of evidence suggests diabetic retinopathy is associated with increased WML burden (3,1214), although variation exists. While cross-sectional studies support a correlation between diabetic retinopathy and WMLs (2,3,6,15), diabetic retinopathy and brain atrophy (16), diabetic retinopathy and psychomotor speed (17,18), and psychomotor speed and WMLs (5,19,20), longitudinal evidence demonstrating the assumed sequence of disease development, for example, vascular damage of eye and brain followed by cognitive decline, is lacking.

Using Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) data, in which a subset of participants received longitudinal measurements of diabetic retinopathy, cognition, and MRI variables, we analyzed the 1) cross-sectional associations between diabetic retinopathy and evidence of brain microvascular disease and 2) determined whether baseline presence or severity of diabetic retinopathy predicts 20- or 40-month changes in cognitive performance or brain microvascular disease.”

“The ACCORD trial (21) was a multicenter randomized trial examining the effects of intensive glycemic control, blood pressure, and lipids on cardiovascular disease events. The 10,251 ACCORD participants were aged 40–79 years, had poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c > 7.5% [58.5 mmol/mol]), and had or were at high risk for cardiovascular disease. […] The ACCORD-Eye sample comprised 3,472 participants who did not report previous vitrectomy or photocoagulation surgery for proliferative diabetic retinopathy at baseline […] ACCORD-MIND included a subset of 2,977 ACCORD participants who completed a 30-min cognitive testing battery, 614 of whom also had useable scans from the MRI substudy (23,24). […] ACCORD-MIND had visits at three time points: baseline, 20 months, and 40 months. MRI of the brain was completed at baseline and the 40-month time point.”

“Baseline diabetic retinopathy was associated with more rapid 40-month declines in DSST and MMSE [Mini-Mental State Examination] when adjusting for demographics and lifestyle factors in model 1 […]. Moreover, increasing severity of diabetic retinopathy was associated with increased amounts of decline in DSST [Digit Symbol Substitution Test] performance (−1.30, −1.76, and −2.81 for no, mild, and moderate/severe NPDR, respectively; P = 0.003) […Be careful about how to interpret that p-value – see below, US] . The associations remained virtually unchanged after further adjusting for vascular and diabetes risk factors, depression, and visual acuity using model 2.”

“This longitudinal study provides new evidence that diabetic retinopathy is associated with future cognitive decline in persons with type 2 diabetes and confirms the finding from the Edinburgh Type 2 Diabetes Study derived from cross-sectional data that lifetime cognitive decline is associated with diabetic retinopathy (32). We found that the presence of diabetic retinopathy, independent of visual acuity, predicts greater declines in global cognitive function measured with the MMSE and that the magnitude of decline in processing speed measured with the DSST increased with increasing severity of baseline diabetic retinopathy. The association with psychomotor speed is consistent with prior cross-sectional findings in community-based samples of middle-aged (18) and older adults (17), as well as prospective studies of a community-based sample of middle-aged adults (33) and patients with type 1 diabetes (34) showing that retinopathy with different etiologies predicted a subsequent decline in psychomotor speed. This study extends these findings to patients with type 2 diabetes.”

“we tested a number of different associations but did not correct P values for multiple testing” [Aargh!, US.]

iii. Incidence of Remission in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: The Diabetes & Aging Study.

(Note to self before moving on to the paper: these people identified type 1 diabetes by self-report or diabetes onset at <30 years of age, treated with insulin only and never treated with oral agents).

“It is widely believed that type 2 diabetes is a chronic progressive condition, which at best can be controlled, but never cured (1), and that once treatment with glucose-lowering medication is initiated, it is required indefinitely and is intensified over time (2,3). However, a growing body of evidence from clinical trials and case-control studies (46) has reported the remission of type 2 diabetes in certain populations, most notably individuals who received bariatric surgery. […] Despite the clinical relevance and importance of remission, little is known about the incidence of remission in community settings (11,12). Studies to date have focused largely on remission after gastric bypass or relied on data from clinical trials, which have limited generalizability. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to describe the incidence rates and variables associated with remission among adults with type 2 diabetes who received usual care, excluding bariatric surgery, in a large, ethnically diverse population. […] 122,781 individuals met our study criteria, yielding 709,005 person-years of total follow-up time.”

“Our definitions of remission were based on the 2009 ADA consensus statement (10). “Partial remission” of diabetes was defined as having two or more consecutive subdiabetic HbA1c measurements, all of which were in the range of 5.7–6.4% [39–46 mmol/mol] over a period of at least 12 months. “Complete remission” was defined as having two or more consecutive normoglycemic HbA1c measurements, all of which were <5.7% [<39 mmol/mol] over a period of at least 12 months. “Prolonged remission” was defined as having two or more consecutive normoglycemic HbA1c measurements, all of which were <5.7% [<39 mmol/mol] over a period of at least 60 months. Each definition of remission requires the absence of pharmacologic treatment during the defined observation period.”

“The average age of participants was 62 years, 47.1% were female, and 51.6% were nonwhite […]. The mean (SD) interval between HbA1c tests in the remission group was 256 days (139 days). The mean interval (SD) between HbA1c tests among patients not in the remission group was 212 days (118 days). The median time since the diagnosis of diabetes in our cohort was 5.9 years, and the average baseline HbA1c level was 7.4% [57 mmol/mol]. The 18,684 individuals (15.2%) in the subset with new-onset diabetes, defined as ≤2 years since diagnosis, were younger, were more likely to have their diabetes controlled by diet, and had fewer comorbidities […] The incidence densities of partial, complete, and prolonged remission in the full cohort were 2.8 (95% CI 2.6–2.9), 0.24 (95% CI 0.20–0.28), and 0.04 (95% CI 0.01–0.06) cases per 1,000 person-years, respectively […] The 7-year cumulative incidences of partial, complete, and prolonged remission were 1.5% (95% CI 1.4–1.5%), 0.14% (95% CI 0.12–0.16%), and 0.01% (95% CI 0.003–0.02%), respectively. The 7-year cumulative incidence of any remission decreased with longer time since diagnosis from a high of 4.6% (95% CI 4.3–4.9%) for individuals diagnosed with diabetes in the past 2 years to a low of 0.4% (95% CI 0.3–0.5%) in those diagnosed >10 years ago. The 7-year cumulative incidence of any remission was much lower for individuals using insulin (0.05%; 95% CI 0.03–0.1%) or oral agents (0.3%; 95% CI 0.2–0.3%) at baseline compared with diabetes patients not using medication at baseline (12%; 95% CI 12–13%).”

“In this large cohort of insured adults with type 2 diabetes not treated with bariatric surgery, we found that 1.5% of individuals with recent evidence of clinical diabetes achieved at least partial remission over a 7-year period. If these results were generalized to the 25.6 million U.S. adults living with type 2 diabetes in 2010 (25), they would suggest that 384,000 adults could experience remission over the next 7 years. However, the rate of prolonged remission was extremely rare (0.007%), translating into only 1,800 adults in the U.S. experiencing remission lasting at least 5 years. To provide context, 1.7% of the cohort died, while only 0.8% experienced any level of remission, during the calendar year 2006. Thus, the chances of dying were higher than the chances of any remission. […] Although remission of type 2 diabetes is uncommon, it does occur in patients who have not undergone surgical interventions. […] Our analysis shows that remission is rare and variable. The likelihood of remission is more common among individuals with early-onset diabetes and those not treated with glucose-lowering medications at the point of diabetes diagnosis. Although rare, remission can also occur in individuals with more severe diabetes and those previously treated with insulin.”

iv. Blood pressure control for diabetic retinopathy (Cochrane review).

“Diabetic retinopathy is a common complication of diabetes and a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness. Research has established the importance of blood glucose control to prevent development and progression of the ocular complications of diabetes. Simultaneous blood pressure control has been advocated for the same purpose, but findings reported from individual studies have supported varying conclusions regarding the ocular benefit of interventions on blood pressure. […] The primary aim of this review was to summarize the existing evidence regarding the effect of interventions to control or reduce blood pressure levels among diabetics on incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy, preservation of visual acuity, adverse events, quality of life, and costs. A secondary aim was to compare classes of anti-hypertensive medications with respect to the same outcomes.”

“We included 15 RCTs, conducted primarily in North America and Europe, that had enrolled 4157 type 1 and 9512 type 2 diabetic participants, ranging from 16 to 2130 participants in individual trials. […] Study designs, populations, interventions, and lengths of follow-up (range one to nine years) varied among the included trials. Overall, the quality of the evidence for individual outcomes was low to moderate.”

“The evidence from these trials supported a benefit of more intensive blood pressure control intervention with respect to 4- to 5-year incidence of diabetic retinopathy (estimated risk ratio (RR) 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.92) and the combined outcome of incidence and progression (estimated RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97). The available evidence provided less support for a benefit with respect to 4- to 5-year progression of diabetic retinopathy (point estimate was closer to 1 than point estimates for incidence and combined incidence and progression, and the CI overlapped 1; estimated RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05). The available evidence regarding progression to proliferative diabetic retinopathy or clinically significant macular edema or moderate to severe loss of best-corrected visual acuity did not support a benefit of intervention on blood pressure: estimated RRs and 95% CIs 0.95 (0.83 to 1.09) and 1.06 (0.85 to 1.33), respectively, after 4 to 5 years of follow-up. Findings within subgroups of trial participants (type 1 and type 2 diabetics; participants with normal blood pressure levels at baseline and those with elevated levels) were similar to overall findings.”

“The available evidence supports a beneficial effect of intervention to reduce blood pressure with respect to preventing diabetic retinopathy for up to 4 to 5 years. However, the lack of evidence to support such intervention to slow progression of diabetic retinopathy or to prevent other outcomes considered in this review, along with the relatively modest support for the beneficial effect on incidence, weakens the conclusion regarding an overall benefit of intervening on blood pressure solely to prevent diabetic retinopathy.”

v. Early Atherosclerosis Relates to Urinary Albumin Excretion and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: Adolescent Type 1 Diabetes cardio-renal Intervention Trial (AdDIT).

“Children with type 1 diabetes are at greatly increased risk for the development of both renal and cardiovascular disease in later life (1,2). Evidence is accumulating that these two complications may have a common pathophysiology, with endothelial dysfunction a key early event.

Microalbuminuria is a recognized marker of endothelial damage (3) and predicts progression to proteinuria and diabetic nephropathy, as well as to atherosclerosis (4) and increased cardiovascular risk (5). It is, however, rare in adolescents with type 1 diabetes who more often have higher urinary albumin excretion rates within the normal range, which are associated with later progression to microalbuminuria and proteinuria (6).”

“The Adolescent Type 1 Diabetes cardio-renal Intervention Trial (AdDIT) (10) is designed to examine the impact of minor differences in albumin excretion in adolescents on the initiation and progression of cardiovascular and renal disease. The primary cardiovascular end point in AdDIT is carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT). Subclinical atherosclerosis can be detected noninvasively using high-resolution ultrasound to measure the intima-media thickness (IMT) of the carotid arteries, which predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (11,12). […] The primary aim of this study was to examine the relationship of increased urinary albumin excretion and cardiovascular risk factors in adolescents with type 1 diabetes with structural arterial wall changes. We hypothesized that even minor increases in albumin excretion would be associated with early atherosclerosis but that this would be detectable only in the abdominal aorta. […] A total of 406 adolescents, aged 10–16 years, with type 1 diabetes for more than 1 year, recruited in five centers across Australia, were enrolled in this cross-sectional study”.

“Structural changes in the aorta and carotid arteries could be detected in >50% of adolescents with type 1 diabetes […] The difference in aIMT [aortic intima-media thickness] between type 1 diabetic patients and age- and sex-matched control subjects was equivalent to that seen with a 5- to 6-year age increase in the type 1 diabetic patients. […] Aortic IMT was […] able to better differentiate adolescents with type 1 diabetes from control subjects than was carotid wall changes. Aortic IMT enabled detection of the very early wall changes that are present with even small differences in urinary albumin excretion. This not only supports the concept of early intervention but provides a link between renal and cardiovascular disease.

The independent relationship between aIMT and urinary albumin excretion extends our knowledge of the pathogenesis of cardiovascular and renal disease in type 1 diabetes by showing that the first signs of the development of cardiovascular disease and diabetic nephropathy are related. The concept that microalbuminuria is a marker of a generalized endothelial damage, as well as a marker of renal disease, has been recognized for >20 years (3,20,21). Endothelial dysfunction is the first critical step in the development of atherosclerosis (22). Early rises in urinary albumin excretion precede the development of microalbuminuria and proteinuria (23). It follows that the first structural changes of atherosclerosis could relate to the first biochemical changes of diabetic nephropathy. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide evidence of this.”

“In conclusion, atherosclerosis is detectable from early adolescence in type 1 diabetes. Its early independent associations are male sex, age, systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and, importantly, urinary albumin excretion. […] Early rises in urinary albumin excretion during adolescence not only are important for determining risk of progression to microalbuminuria and diabetic nephropathy but also may alert the clinician to increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”

vi. Impact of Islet Autoimmunity on the Progressive β-Cell Functional Decline in Type 2 Diabetes.

“Historically, type 2 diabetes (T2D) has not been considered to be immune mediated. However, many notable discoveries in recent years have provided evidence to support the concept of immune system involvement in T2D pathophysiology (15). Immune cells have been identified in the pancreases of phenotypic T2D patients (35). Moreover, treatment with interleukin-1 receptor agonist improves β-cell function in T2D patients (68). These studies suggest that β-cell damage/destruction mediated by the immune system may be a component of T2D pathophysiology.

Although the β-cell damage and destruction in autoimmune diabetes is most likely T-cell mediated (T), immune markers of autoimmune diabetes have primarily centered on the presence of circulating autoantibodies (Abs) to various islet antigens (915). Abs commonly positive in type 1 diabetes (T1D), especially GAD antibody (GADA) and islet cell Abs (ICA), have been shown to be more common in patients with T2D than in nondiabetic control populations, and the presence of multiple islet Abs, such as GADA, ICA, and tyrosine phosphatase-2 (insulinoma-associated protein 2 [IA-2]), have been demonstrated to be associated with an earlier need for insulin treatment in adult T2D patients (14,1620).”

“In this study, we observed development of islet autoimmunity, measured by islet Abs and islet-specific T-cell responses, in 61% of the phenotypic T2D patients. We also observed a significant association between positive islet-reactive T-cell responses and a more rapid decline in β-cell function as assessed by FCP and glucagon-SCP responses. […] The results of this pilot study led us to hypothesize that islet autoimmunity is present or will develop in a large portion of phenotypic T2D patients and that the development of islet autoimmunity is associated with a more rapid decline in β-cell function. Moreover, the prevalence of islet autoimmunity in most previous studies is grossly underestimated because these studies have not tested for islet-reactive T cells in T2D patients but have based the presence of autoimmunity on antibody testing alone […] The results of this pilot study suggest important changes to our understanding of T2D pathogenesis by demonstrating that the prevalence of islet autoimmune development is not only more prevalent in T2D patients than previously estimated but may also play an important role in β-cell dysfunction in the T2D disease process.”

September 18, 2017 Posted by | Cancer/oncology, Cardiology, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Immunology, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Ophthalmology, Studies | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Impact of Parental Socioeconomic Status on Excess Mortality in a Population-Based Cohort of Subjects With Childhood-Onset Type 1 Diabetes.

“Numerous reports have shown that individuals with lower SES during childhood have increased morbidity and all-cause mortality at all ages (10–14). Although recent epidemiological studies have shown that all-cause mortality in patients with T1D increases with lower SES in the individuals themselves (15,16), the association between parental SES and mortality among patients with childhood-onset T1D has not been reported to the best of our knowledge. Our hypothesis was that low parental SES additionally increases mortality in subjects with childhood-onset T1D. In this study, we used large population-based Swedish databases to 1) explore in a population-based study how parental SES affects mortality in a patient with childhood-onset T1D, 2) describe and compare how the effect differs among various age-at-death strata, and 3) assess whether the adult patient’s own SES affects mortality independently of parental SES.”

“The Swedish Childhood Diabetes Registry (SCDR) is a dynamic population-based cohort reporting incident cases of T1D since 1 July 1977, which to date has collected >16,000 prospective cases. […] All patients recorded in the SCDR from 1 January 1978 to 31 December 2008 were followed until death or 31 December 2010. The cohort was subjected to crude analyses and stratified analyses by age-at-death groups (0–17, 18–24, and ≥25 years). Time at risk was calculated from date of birth until death or 31 December 2010. Kaplan-Meier analyses and log-rank tests were performed to compare the effect of low maternal educational level, low paternal educational level, and family income support (any/none). Cox regression analyses were performed to estimate and compare the hazard ratios (HRs) for the socioeconomic variables and to adjust for the potential confounding variables age at onset and sex.”

“The study included 14,647 patients with childhood-onset T1D. A total of 238 deaths (male 154, female 84) occurred in 349,762 person-years at risk. The majority of mortalities occurred among the oldest age-group (≥25 years of age), and most of the deceased subjects had onset of T1D at the ages of 10–14.99 years […]. Mean follow-up was 23.9 years and maximum 46.5 years. The overall standardized mortality ratio up to the age of 47 years was 2.3 (95% CI 1.35–3.63); for females, it was 2.6 (1.28–4.66) and for males, 2.1 (1.27–3.49). […] Analyses on the effect of low maternal educational level showed an increased mortality for male patients (HR 1.43 [95% CI 1.01–2.04], P = 0.048) and a nonsignificant increased mortality for female patients (1.21 [0.722–2.018], P = 0.472). Paternal educational level had no significant effect on mortality […] Having parents who ever received income support was associated with an increased risk of death in both males (HR 1.89 [95% CI 1.36–2.64], P < 0.001) and females (2.30 [1.43–3.67], P = 0.001) […] Excluding the 10% of patients with the highest accumulated income support to parents during follow-up showed that having parents who ever received income support still was a risk factor for mortality.”

“A Cox model including maternal educational level together with parental income support, adjusting for age at onset and sex, showed that having parents who received income support was associated with a doubled mortality risk (HR 1.96 [95% CI 1.49–2.58], P < 0.001) […] In a Cox model including the adult patient’s own SES, having parents who received income support was still an independent risk factor in the younger age-at-death group (18–24 years). Among those who died at age ≥25 years of age, the patient’s own SES was a stronger predictor for mortality (HR 2.46 [95% CI 1.54–3.93], P < 0.001)”

“Despite a well-developed health-care system in Sweden, overall mortality up to the age of 47 years is doubled in both males and females with childhood-onset T1D. These results are in accordance with previous Swedish studies and reports from other comparable countries […] Previous studies indicated that low SES during childhood is associated with low glycemic control and diabetes-related morbidity in patients with T1D (8,9), and the current study implies that mortality in adulthood is also affected by parental SES. […] The findings, when stratified by age-at-death group, show that adult patients’ own need of income support independently predicted mortality in those who died at ≥25 years of age, whereas among those who died in the younger age-group (18–24 years), parental requirement of income support was still a strong independent risk factor. None of the present SES measures seem to predict mortality in the ages 0–17 years perhaps due to low numbers and, thus, power.”

ii. Exercise Training Improves but Does Not Normalize Left Ventricular Systolic and Diastolic Function in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes.

“Adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes have reduced exercise capacity (810), which increases their risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (11). The causes for this reduced exercise capacity are unclear. However, recent studies have shown that adolescents with type 1 diabetes have lower stroke volume during exercise, which has been attributed to alterations in left ventricular function (9,10). Reduced left ventricular compliance resulting in an inability to fill the left ventricle appropriately during exercise has been shown to contribute to the lower stroke volume during exercise in both adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (12).

Exercise training is recommended as part of the management of type 1 diabetes. However, the effects of exercise training on left ventricular function at rest and during exercise in adolescents with type 1 diabetes have not been investigated. In particular, it is unclear whether exercise training improves cardiac hemodynamics during exercise in adolescents with diabetes. Therefore, we aimed to assess left ventricular volumes at rest and during exercise in a group of adolescents with type 1 diabetes compared with adolescents without diabetes before and after a 20-week exercise-training program. We hypothesized that exercise training would improve exercise capacity and exercise stroke volume in adolescents with diabetes.”

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Fifty-three adolescents with type 1 diabetes (aged 15.6 years) were divided into two groups: exercise training (n = 38) and nontraining (n = 15). Twenty-two healthy adolescents without diabetes (aged 16.7 years) were included and, with the 38 participants with type 1 diabetes, participated in a 20-week exercise-training intervention. Assessments included VO2max and body composition. Left ventricular parameters were obtained at rest and during acute exercise using MRI.

RESULTS Exercise training improved aerobic capacity (10%) and stroke volume (6%) in both trained groups, but the increase in the group with type 1 diabetes remained lower than trained control subjects. […]

CONCLUSIONS These data demonstrate that in adolescents, the impairment in left ventricular function seen with type 1 diabetes can be improved, although not normalized, with regular intense physical activity. Importantly, diastolic dysfunction, a common mechanism causing heart failure in older subjects with diabetes, appears to be partially reversible in this age group.”

“This study confirms that aerobic capacity is reduced in [diabetic] adolescents and that this, at least in part, can be attributed to impaired left ventricular function and a blunted cardiac response to exercise (9). Importantly, although an aerobic exercise-training program improved the aerobic capacity and cardiac function in adolescents with type 1 diabetes, it did not normalize them to the levels seen in the training group without diabetes. Both left ventricular filling and contractility improved after exercise training in adolescents with diabetes, suggesting that aerobic fitness may prevent or delay the well-described impairment in left ventricular function in diabetes (9,10).

The increase in peak aerobic capacity (∼12%) seen in this study was consistent with previous exercise interventions in adults and adolescents with diabetes (14). However, the baseline peak aerobic capacity was lower in the participants with diabetes and improved with training to a level similar to the baseline observed in the participants without diabetes; therefore, trained adolescents with diabetes remained less fit than equally trained adolescents without diabetes. This suggests there are persistent differences in the cardiovascular function in adolescents with diabetes that are not overcome by exercise training.”

“Although regular exercise potentially could improve HbA1c, the majority of studies have failed to show this (3134). Exercise training improved aerobic capacity in this study without affecting glucose control in the participants with diabetes, suggesting that the effects of glycemic status and exercise training may work independently to improve aerobic capacity.”

….

iii. Change in Medical Spending Attributable to Diabetes: National Data From 1987 to 2011.

“Diabetes care has changed substantially in the past 2 decades. We examined the change in medical spending and use related to diabetes between 1987 and 2011. […] Using the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey and the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys in 2000–2001 and 2010–2011, we compared per person medical expenditures and uses among adults ≥18 years of age with or without diabetes at the three time points. Types of medical services included inpatient care, emergency room (ER) visits, outpatient visits, prescription drugs, and others. We also examined the changes in unit cost, defined by the expenditure per encounter for medical services.”

RESULTS The excess medical spending attributed to diabetes was $2,588 (95% CI, $2,265 to $3,104), $4,205 ($3,746 to $4,920), and $5,378 ($5,129 to $5,688) per person, respectively, in 1987, 2000–2001, and 2010–2011. Of the $2,790 increase, prescription medication accounted for 55%; inpatient visits accounted for 24%; outpatient visits accounted for 15%; and ER visits and other medical spending accounted for 6%. The growth in prescription medication spending was due to the increase in both the volume of use and unit cost, whereas the increase in outpatient expenditure was almost entirely driven by more visits. In contrast, the increase in inpatient and ER expenditures was caused by the rise of unit costs. […] The increase was observed across all components of medical spending, with the greatest absolute increase in the spending on prescription medications ($1,528 increase), followed by inpatient visits ($680 increase) and outpatient visits ($430 increase). The absolute change in the spending on ER and other medical services use was relatively small. In relative terms, the spending on ER visits grew more than five times, faster than that of prescription medication and other medical components. […] Among the total annual diabetes-attributable medical spending, the spending on inpatient and outpatient visits dropped from 40% and 23% to 31% and 19%, respectively, between 1987 and 2011, whereas spending on prescription medication increased from 27% to 41%.”

“The unit costs rose universally in all five measures of medical care in adults with and without diabetes. For each hospital admission, diabetes patients spent significantly more than persons without diabetes. The gap increased from $1,028 to $1,605 per hospital admission between 1987 and 2001, and dropped slightly to $1,360 per hospital admission in 2011. Diabetes patients also had higher spending per ER visit and per purchase of prescription medications.”

“From 1999 to 2011, national data suggest that growth in the use and price of prescription medications in the general population is 2.6% and 3.6% per year, respectively; and the growth has decelerated in recent years (22). Our analysis suggests that the growth rates in the use and prices of prescription medications for diabetes patients are considerably higher. The higher rate of growth is likely, in part, due to the growing emphasis on achieving glycemic targets, the use of newer medications, and the use of multidrug treatment strategies in modern diabetes care practice (23,24). In addition, the growth of medication spending is fueled by the rising prices per drug, particularly the drugs that are newly introduced in the market. For example, the prices for newer drug classes such as glitazones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and incretins have been 8 to 10 times those of sulfonylureas and 5 to 7 times those of metformin (9).”

“Between 1987 and 2011, medical spending increased both in persons with and in persons without diabetes; and the increase was substantially greater among persons with diabetes. As a result, the medical spending associated with diabetes nearly doubled. The growth was primarily driven by the spending in prescription medications. Further studies are needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of increased spending on drugs.”

iv. Determinants of Adherence to Diabetes Medications: Findings From a Large Pharmacy Claims Database.

“Adults with type 2 diabetes are often prescribed multiple medications to treat hyperglycemia, diabetes-associated conditions such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, and other comorbidities. Medication adherence is an important determinant of outcomes in patients with chronic diseases. For those with diabetes, adherence to medications is associated with better control of intermediate risk factors (14), lower odds of hospitalization (3,57), lower health care costs (5,79), and lower mortality (3,7). Estimates of rates of adherence to diabetes medications vary widely depending on the population studied and how adherence is defined. One review found that adherence to oral antidiabetic agents ranged from 36 to 93% across studies and that adherence to insulin was ∼63% (10).”

“Using a large pharmacy claims database, we assessed determinants of adherence to oral antidiabetic medications in >200,000 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes. […] We selected a cohort of members treated for diabetes with noninsulin medications (oral agents or GLP-1 agonists) in the second half of 2010 who had continuous prescription benefits eligibility through 2011. Each patient was followed for 12 months from their index diabetes claim date identified during the 6-month targeting period. From each patient’s prescription history, we collected the date the prescription was filled, how many days the supply would last, the National Drug Code number, and the drug name. […] Given the difficulty in assessing insulin adherence with measures such as medication possession ratio (MPR), we excluded patients using insulin when defining the cohort.”

“We looked at a wide range of variables […] Predictor variables were defined a priori and grouped into three categories: 1) patient factors including age, sex, education, income, region, past exposure to therapy (new to diabetes therapy vs. continuing therapy), and concurrent chronic conditions; 2) prescription factors including refill channel (retail vs. mail order), total pill burden per day, and out of pocket costs; and 3) prescriber factors including age, sex, and specialty. […] Our primary outcome of interest was adherence to noninsulin antidiabetic medications. To assess adherence, we calculated an MPR for each patient. The ratio captures how often patients refill their medications and is a standard metric that is consistent with the National Quality Forum’s measure of adherence to medications for chronic conditions. MPR was defined as the proportion of days a patient had a supply of medication during a calendar year or equivalent period. We considered patients to be adherent if their MPR was 0.8 or higher, implying that they had their medication supplies for at least 80% of the days. An MPR of 0.8 or above is a well-recognized index of adherence (11,12). Studies have suggested that patients with chronic diseases need to achieve at least 80% adherence to derive the full benefits of their medications (13). […] [W]e [also] determined whether a patient was persistent, that is whether they had not discontinued or had at least a 45-day gap in their targeted therapy.”

“Previous exposure to diabetes therapy had a significant impact on adherence. Patients new to therapy were 61% less likely to be adherent to their diabetes medication. There was also a clear age effect. Patients 25–44 years of age were 49% less likely to be adherent when compared with patients 45–64 years of age. Patients aged 65–74 years were 27% more likely to be adherent, and those aged 75 years and above were 41% more likely to be adherent when compared with the 45–64 year age-group. Men were significantly more likely to be adherent than women […I dislike the use of the word ‘significant’ in such contexts; there is a difference in the level of adherence, but it is not large in absolute terms; the male vs female OR is 1.14 (CI 1.12-1.16) – US]. Education level and household income were both associated with adherence. The higher the estimated academic achievement, the more likely the patient was to be adherent. Patients completing graduate school were 41% more likely to be adherent when compared with patients with a high school equivalent education. Patients with an annual income >$60,000 were also more likely to be adherent when compared with patients with a household income <$30,000.”

“The largest effect size was observed for patients obtaining their prescription antidiabetic medications by mail. Patients using the mail channel were more than twice as likely to be adherent to their antidiabetic medications when compared with patients filling their prescriptions at retail pharmacies. Total daily pill burden was positively associated with antidiabetic medication adherence. For each additional pill a patient took per day, adherence to antidiabetic medications increased by 22%. Patient out-of-pocket costs were negatively associated with adherence. For each additional $15 in out-of-pocket costs per month, diabetes medication adherence decreased by 11%. […] We found few meaningful differences in patient adherence according to prescriber factors.”

“In our study, characteristics that suggest a “healthier” patient (being younger, new to diabetes therapy, and taking few other medications) were all associated with lower odds of adherence to antidiabetic medications. This suggests that acceptance of a chronic illness diagnosis and the potential consequences may be an important, but perhaps overlooked, determinant of medication-taking behavior. […] Our findings regarding income and costs are important reminders that prescribers should consider the impact of medication costs on patients with diabetes. Out-of-pocket costs are an important determinant of adherence to statins (26) and a self-reported cause of underuse of medications in one in seven insured patients with diabetes (27). Lower income has previously been shown to be associated with poor adherence to diabetes medications (15) and a self-reported cause of cost-related medication underuse (27).”

v. The Effect of Alcohol Consumption on Insulin Sensitivity and Glycemic Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Intervention Studies.

“Moderate alcohol consumption, compared with abstaining and heavy drinking, is related to a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (1,2). Although the risk is reduced with moderate alcohol consumption in both men and women, the association may differ for men and women. In a meta-analysis, consumption of 24 g alcohol/day reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by 40% among women, whereas consumption of 22 g alcohol/day reduced the risk by 13% among men (1).

The association of alcohol consumption with type 2 diabetes may be explained by increased insulin sensitivity, anti-inflammatory effects, or effects of adiponectin (3). Several intervention studies have examined the effect of moderate alcohol consumption on these potential underlying pathways. A meta-analysis of intervention studies by Brien et al. (4) showed that alcohol consumption significantly increased adiponectin levels but did not affect inflammatory factors. Unfortunately, the effect of alcohol consumption on insulin sensitivity has not been summarized quantitatively. A review of cross-sectional studies by Hulthe and Fagerberg (5) suggested a positive association between moderate alcohol consumption and insulin sensitivity, although the three intervention studies included in their review did not show an effect (68). Several other intervention studies also reported inconsistent results (9,10). Consequently, consensus is lacking about the effect of moderate alcohol consumption on insulin sensitivity. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies investigating the effect of alcohol consumption on insulin sensitivity and other relevant glycemic measures.”

“22 articles met criteria for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis. […] Of the 22 studies, 15 used a crossover design and 7 a parallel design. The intervention duration of the studies ranged from 2 to 12 weeks […] Of the 22 studies, 2 were excluded from the meta-analysis because they did not include an alcohol-free control group (14,19), and 4 were excluded because they did not have a randomized design […] Overall, 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis”

“A random-effects model was used because heterogeneity was present (P < 0.01, I2 = 91%). […] For HbA1c, a random-effects model was used because the I2 statistic indicated evidence for some heterogeneity (I2 = 30%).” [Cough, you’re not supposed to make these decisions that way, coughUS. This is not the first time I’ve seen this approach applied, and I don’t like it; it’s bad practice to allow the results of (frequently under-powered) heterogeneity tests to influence model selection decisions. As Bohrenstein and Hedges point out in their book, “A report should state the computational model used in the analysis and explain why this model was selected. A common mistake is to use the fixed-effect model on the basis that there is no evidence of heterogeneity. As [already] explained […], the decision to use one model or the other should depend on the nature of the studies, and not on the significance of this test”]

“This meta-analysis shows that moderate alcohol consumption did not affect estimates of insulin sensitivity or fasting glucose levels, but it decreased fasting insulin concentrations and HbA1c. Sex-stratified analysis suggested that moderate alcohol consumption may improve insulin sensitivity and decrease fasting insulin concentrations in women but not in men. The meta-regression suggested no influence of dosage and duration on the results. However, the number of studies may have been too low to detect influences by dosage and duration. […] The primary finding that alcohol consumption does not influence insulin sensitivity concords with the intervention studies included in the review of Hulthe and Fagerberg (5). This is in contrast with observational studies suggesting a significant association between moderate alcohol consumption and improved insulin sensitivity (34,35). […] We observed lower levels of HbA1c in subjects consuming moderate amounts of alcohol compared with abstainers. This has also been shown in several observational studies (39,43,44). Alcohol may decrease HbA1c by suppressing the acute rise in blood glucose after a meal and increasing the early insulin response (45). This would result in lower glucose concentrations over time and, thus, lower HbA1c concentrations. Unfortunately, the underlying mechanism of glycemic control by alcohol is not clearly understood.”

vi. Predictors of Lower-Extremity Amputation in Patients With an Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcer.

“Infection is a frequent complication of diabetic foot ulcers, with up to 58% of ulcers being infected at initial presentation at a diabetic foot clinic, increasing to 82% in patients hospitalized for a diabetic foot ulcer (1). These diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are associated with poor clinical outcomes for the patient and high costs for both the patient and the health care system (2). Patients with a DFI have a 50-fold increased risk of hospitalization and 150-fold increased risk of lower-extremity amputation compared with patients with diabetes and no foot infection (3). Among patients with a DFI, ∼5% will undergo a major amputation and 20–30% a minor amputation, with the presence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) greatly increasing amputation risk (46).”

“As infection of a diabetic foot wound heralds a poor outcome, early diagnosis and treatment are important. Unfortunately, systemic signs of inflammation such as fever and leukocytosis are often absent even with a serious foot infection (10,11). As local signs and symptoms of infection are also often diminished, because of concomitant peripheral neuropathy and ischemia (12), diagnosing and defining resolution of infection can be difficult.”

“The system developed by the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) provides criteria for the diagnosis of infection of ulcers and classifies it into three categories: mild, moderate, or severe. The system was validated in three relatively small cohorts of patients […] The European Study Group on Diabetes and the Lower Extremity (Eurodiale) prospectively studied a large cohort of patients with a diabetic foot ulcer (17), enabling us to determine the prognostic value of the IWGDF system for clinically relevant lower-extremity amputations. […] We prospectively studied 575 patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer presenting to 1 of 14 diabetic foot clinics in 10 European countries. […] Among these patients, 159 (28%) underwent an amputation. […] Patients were followed monthly until healing of the foot ulcer(s), major amputation, or death — up to a maximum of 1 year.”

“One hundred and ninety-nine patients had a grade 2 (mild) infection, 338 a grade 3 (moderate), and 38 a grade 4 (severe). Amputations were performed on 159 (28%) patients (126 minor and 33 major) within the year of follow-up; 103 patients (18%) underwent amputations proximal to and including the hallux. […] The independent predictors of any amputation were as follows: periwound edema, HR 2.01 (95% CI 1.33–3.03); foul smell, HR 1.74 (1.17–2.57); purulent and nonpurulent exudate, HR 1.67 (1.17–2.37) and 1.49 (1.02–2.18), respectively; deep ulcer, HR 3.49 (1.84–6.60); positive probe-to-bone test, HR 6.78 (3.79–12.15); pretibial edema, HR 1.53 (1.02–2.31); fever, HR 2.00 (1.15–3.48); elevated CRP levels but less than three times the upper limit of normal, HR 2.74 (1.40–5.34); and elevated CRP levels more than three times the upper limit, HR 3.84 (2.07–7.12). […] In comparison with mild infection, the presence of a moderate infection increased the hazard for any amputation by a factor of 2.15 (95% CI 1.25–3.71) and 3.01 (1.51–6.01) for amputations excluding the lesser toes. For severe infection, the hazard for any amputation increased by a factor of 4.12 (1.99–8.51) and for amputations excluding the lesser toes by a factor of 5.40 (2.20–13.26). Larger ulcer size and presence of PAD were also independent predictors of both any amputation and amputations excluding the lesser toes, with HRs between 1.81 and 3 (and 95% CIs between 1.05 and 6.6).”

“Previously published studies that have aimed to identify independent risk factors for lower-extremity amputation in patients with a DFI have noted an association with older age (5,22), the presence of fever (5), elevated acute-phase reactants (5,22,23), higher HbA1c levels (24), and renal insufficiency (5,22).”

“The new risk scores we developed for any amputation, and amputations excluding the lesser toes had higher prognostic capability, based on the area under the ROC curve (0.80 and 0.78, respectively), than the IWGDF system (0.67) […] which is currently the only one in use for infected diabetic foot ulcers. […] these Eurodiale scores were developed based on the available data of our cohort, and they will need to be validated in other populations before any firm conclusions can be drawn. The advantage of these newly developed scores is that they are easier for clinicians to perform […] These newly developed risk scores can be readily used in daily clinical practice without the necessity of obtaining additional laboratory testing.”

September 12, 2017 Posted by | Cardiology, Diabetes, Economics, Epidemiology, Health Economics, Infectious disease, Medicine, Microbiology, Statistics | Leave a comment

Infectious Disease Surveillance (III)

I have added some more observations from the book below.

“Zoonotic diseases are infections transmitted between animals and humans […]. A recent survey identified more than 1,400 species of human disease–causing agents, over half (58%) of which were zoonotic [2]. Moreover, nearly three-quarters (73%) of infectious diseases considered to be emerging or reemerging were zoonotic [2]. […] In many countries there is minimal surveillance for live animal imports or imported wildlife products. Minimal surveillance prevents the identification of wildlife trade–related health risks to the public, agricultural industry, and native wildlife [36] and has led to outbreaks of zoonotic diseases […] Southeast Asia [is] a hotspot for emerging zoonotic diseases because of rapid population growth, high population density, and high biodiversity […] influenza virus in particular is of zoonotic importance as multiple human infections have resulted from animal exposure [77–79].”

“[R]abies is an important cause of death in many countries, particularly in Africa and Asia [85]. Rabies is still underreported throughout the developing world, and 100-fold underreporting of human rabies is estimated for most of Africa [44]. Reasons for underreporting include lack of public health personnel, difficulties in identifying suspect animals, and limited laboratory capacity for rabies testing. […] Brucellosis […] is transmissible to humans primarily through consumption of unpasteurized milk or dairy products […] Brucella is classified as a category B bioterrorism agent [90] because of its potential for aerosolization [I should perhaps here mention that the book coverage does overlaps a bit with that of Fong & Alibek’s book – which I covered here – but that I decided against covering those topics in much detail here – US] […] The key to preventing brucellosis in humans is to control or eliminate infections in animals [91–93]; therefore, veterinarians are crucial to the identification, prevention, and control of brucellosis [89]. […] Since 1954 [there has been] an ongoing eradication program involving surveillance testing of cattle at slaughter, testing at livestock markets, and whole-herd testing on the farm [in the US] […] Except for endemic brucellosis in wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Area, all 50 states and territories in the United States are free of bovine brucellosis [94].”

“Because of its high mortality rate in humans in the absence of early treatment, Y. pestis is viewed as one of the most pathogenic human bacteria [101]. In the United States, plague is most often found in the Southwest where it is transmitted by fleas and maintained in rodent populations [102]. Deer mice and voles typically serve as maintenance hosts [and] these animals are often resistant to plague [102]. In contrast, in amplifying host species such as prairie dogs, ground squirrels, chipmunks, and wood rats, plague spreads rapidly and results in high mortality [103]. […] Human infections with Y. pestis can result in bubonic, pneumonic, or septicemic plague, depending on the route of exposure. Bubonic plague is most common; however, pneumonic plague poses a more serious public health risk since it can be easily transmitted person-to-person through inhalation of aerosolized bacteria […] Septicemic plague is characterized by bloodstream infection with Y. pestis and can occur secondary to pneumonic or bubonic forms of infection or as a primary infection [6,60].
Plague outbreaks are often correlated with animal die-offs in the area [104], and rodent control near human residences is important to prevent disease [103]. […] household pets can be an important route of plague transmission and flea control in dogs and cats is an important prevention measure [105]. Plague surveillance involves monitoring three populations for infection: vectors (e.g., fleas), humans, and rodents [106]. In the past 20 years, the numbers of human cases of plague reported in the United States have varied from 1 to 17 cases per year [90]. […]
Since rodent species are the main reservoirs of the bacteria, these animals can be used for sentinel surveillance to provide an early warning of the public health risk to humans [106]. […] Rodent die-offs can often be an early indicator of a plague outbreak”.

“Zoonotic disease surveillance is crucial for protection of human and animal health. An integrated, sustainable system that collects data on incidence of disease in both animals and humans is necessary to ensure prompt detection of zoonotic disease outbreaks and a timely and focused response [34]. Currently, surveillance systems for animals and humans [operate] largely independently [34]. This results in an inability to rapidly detect zoonotic diseases, particularly novel emerging diseases, that are detected in the human population only after an outbreak occurs [109]. While most industrialized countries have robust disease surveillance systems, many developing countries currently lack the resources to conduct both ongoing and real-time surveillance [34,43].”

“Acute hepatitis of any cause has similar, usually indistinguishable, signs and symptoms. Acute illness is associated with fever, fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, followed by signs of liver dysfunction, including jaundice, light to clay-colored stool, dark urine, and easy bruising. The jaundice, dark urine, and abnormal stool are because of the diminished capacity of the inflamed liver to handle the metabolism of bilirubin, which is a breakdown product of hemoglobin released as red blood cells are normally replaced. In severe hepatitis that is associated with fulminant liver disease, the liver’s capacity to produce clotting factors and to clear potential toxic metabolic products is severely impaired, with resultant bleeding and hepatic encephalopathy. […] An effective vaccine to prevent hepatitis A has been available for more than 15 years, and incidence rates of hepatitis A are dropping wherever it is used in routine childhood immunization programs. […] Currently, hepatitis A vaccine is part of the U.S. childhood immunization schedule recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) [31].”

Chronic hepatitis — persistent and ongoing inflammation that can result from chronic infection — usually has minimal to no signs or symptoms […] Hepatitis B and C viruses cause acute hepatitis as well as chronic hepatitis. The acute component is often not recognized as an episode of acute hepatitis, and the chronic infection may have little or no symptoms for many years. With hepatitis B, clearance of infection is age related, as is presentation with symptoms. Over 90% of infants exposed to HBV develop chronic infection, while <1% have symptoms; 5–10% of adults develop chronic infection, but 50% or more have symptoms associated with acute infection. Among those who acquire hepatitis C, 15–45% clear the infection; the remainder have lifelong infection unless treated specifically for hepatitis C.”

“[D]ata are only received on individuals accessing care. Asymptomatic acute infection and poor or unavailable measurements for high risk populations […] have resulted in questionable estimates of the prevalence and incidence of hepatitis B and C. Further, a lack of understanding of the different types of viral hepatitis by many medical providers [18] has led to many undiagnosed individuals living with chronic infection, who are not captured in disease surveillance systems. […] Evaluation of acute HBV and HCV surveillance has demonstrated a lack of sensitivity for identifying acute infection in injection drug users; it is likely that most cases in this population go undetected, even if they receive medical care [36]. […] Best practices for conducting surveillance for chronic hepatitis B and C are not well established. […] The role of health departments in responding to infectious diseases is typically responding to acute disease. Response to chronic HBV infection is targeted to prevention of transmission to contacts of those infected, especially in high risk situations. Because of the high risk of vertical transmission and likely development of chronic disease in exposed newborns, identification and case management of HBV-infected pregnant women and their infants is a high priority. […] For a number of reasons, states do not conduct uniform surveillance for chronic hepatitis C. There is not agreement as to the utility of surveillance for chronic HCV infection, as it is a measurement of prevalent rather than incident cases.”

“Among all nationally notifiable diseases, three STDs (chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis) are consistently in the top five most commonly reported diseases annually. These three STDs made up more than 86% of all reported diseases in the United States in 2010 [2]. […] The true burden of STDs is likely to be higher, as most infections are asymptomatic [4] and are never diagnosed or reported. A synthesis of a variety of data sources estimated that in 2008 there were over 100 million prevalent STDs and nearly 20 million incident STDs in the United States [5]. […] Nationally, 72% of all reported STDs are among persons aged 15–24 years [3], and it is estimated that 1 in 4 females aged 14–19 has an STD [7]. […] In 2011, the rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and primary and secondary syphilis among African-­Americans were, respectively, 7.5, 16.9, and 6.7 times the rates among whites [3]. Additionally, men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately infected with STDs. […] several analyses have shown risk ratios above 100 for the associations between being an MSM and having syphilis or HIV [9,10]. […] Many STDs can be transmitted congenitally during pregnancy or birth. In 2008, over 400,000 neonatal deaths and stillbirths were associated with syphilis worldwide […] untreated chlamydia and gonorrhea can cause ophthalmia neonatorum in newborns, which can result in blindness [13]. The medical and societal costs for STDs are high. […] One estimate in 2008 put national costs at $15.6 billion [15].”

“A significant challenge in STD surveillance is that the term “STD” encompasses a variety of infections. Currently, there are over 35 pathogens that can be transmitted sexually, including bacteria […] protozoa […] and ectoparasites […]. Some infections can cause clinical syndromes shortly after exposure, whereas others result in no symptoms or have a long latency period. Some STDs can be easily diagnosed using self-collected swabs, while others require a sample of blood or a physical examination by a clinician. Consequently, no one particular surveillance strategy works for all STDs. […] The asymptomatic nature of most STDs limits inferences from case­-based surveillance, since in order to be counted in this system an infection must be diagnosed and reported. Additionally, many infections never result in disease. For example, an estimated 90% of human papillomavirus (HPV) infections resolve on their own without sequelae [24]. As such, simply counting infections may not be appropriate, and sequelae must also be monitored. […] Strategies for STD surveillance include case reporting; sentinel surveillance; opportunistic surveillance, including use of administrative data and positivity in screened populations; and population-­based studies […] the choice of strategy depends on the type of STD and the population of interest.”

“Determining which diseases and conditions should be included in mandatory case reporting requires balancing the benefits to the public health system (e.g., utility of the data) with the costs and burdens of case reporting. While many epidemiologists and public health practitioners follow the mantra “the more data, the better,” the costs (in both dollars and human resources) of developing and maintaining a robust case­-based reporting system can be large. Case­-based surveillance has been mandated for chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and chancroid nationally; but expansion of state­-initiated mandatory reporting for other STDs is controversial.”

August 18, 2017 Posted by | Books, Epidemiology, Immunology, Infectious disease, Medicine | Leave a comment

Type 1 Diabetes Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Fracture Across the Life Span

Type 1 Diabetes Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Fracture Across the Life Span: A Population-Based Cohort Study Using The Health Improvement Network (THIN).

I originally intended to include this paper in a standard diabetes post like this one, but the post gradually got more and more unwieldy as I added more stuff and so in the end I decided – like in this case – that it might be a better idea to just devote an entire post to the paper and then postpone my coverage of some of the other papers included in the post.

I’ve talked about this stuff before, but I’m almost certain the results of this paper were not included in Czernik and Fowlkes’ book as this paper was published at almost exactly the same time as was the book. It provides further support of some of the observations included in C&F’s publication. This is a very large and important study in the context of the relationship between type 1 diabetes and skeletal health. I have quoted extensively from the paper below, and also added some observations of my own along the way in order to provide a little bit of context where it might be needed:

“There is an emerging awareness that diabetes adversely affects skeletal health and that type 1 diabetes affects the skeleton more severely than type 2 diabetes (5). Studies in humans and animal models have identified a number of skeletal abnormalities associated with type 1 diabetes, including deficits in bone mineral density (BMD) (6,7) and bone structure (8), decreased markers of bone formation (9,10), and variable alterations in markers of bone resorption (10,11).

Previous studies and two large meta-analyses reported that type 1 diabetes is associated with an increased risk of fracture (1219). However, most of these studies were conducted in older adults and focused on hip fractures. Importantly, most affected individuals develop type 1 diabetes in childhood, before the attainment of peak bone mass, and therefore may be at increased risk of fracture throughout their life span. Moreover, because hip fractures are rare in children and young adults, studies limited to this outcome may underestimate the overall fracture burden in type 1 diabetes.

We used The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database to conduct a population-based cohort study to determine whether type 1 diabetes is associated with increased fracture incidence, to delineate age and sex effects on fracture risk, and to determine whether fracture site distribution is altered in participants with type 1 diabetes compared with participants without diabetes. […] 30,394 participants aged 0–89 years with type 1 diabetes were compared with 303,872 randomly selected age-, sex-, and practice-matched participants without diabetes. Cox regression analysis was used to determine hazard ratios (HRs) for incident fracture in participants with type 1 diabetes. […] A total of 334,266 participants, median age 34 years, were monitored for 1.9 million person-years. HR were lowest in males and females age <20 years, with HR 1.14 (95% CI 1.01–1.29) and 1.35 (95% CI 1.12–1.63), respectively. Risk was highest in men 60–69 years (HR 2.18 [95% CI 1.79–2.65]), and in women 40–49 years (HR 2.03 [95% CI 1.73–2.39]). Lower extremity fractures comprised a higher proportion of incident fractures in participants with versus those without type 1 diabetes (31.1% vs. 25.1% in males, 39.3% vs. 32% in females; P < 0.001). Secondary analyses for incident hip fractures identified the highest HR of 5.64 (95% CI 3.55–8.97) in men 60–69 years and the highest HR of 5.63 (95% CI 2.25–14.11) in women 30–39 years.”

“Conditions identified by diagnosis codes as covariates of interest were hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, adrenal insufficiency, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, vitamin D deficiency, fracture before the start of the follow-up period, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic neuropathy. All variables, with the exception of prior fracture, were treated as time-varying covariates. […] Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to assess confounding by covariates of interest. Final models were stratified by age category (<20, 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and ≥70 years) after age was found to be a significant predictor of fracture and to violate the assumption of proportionality of hazards […] Within each age stratum, models were again assessed for proportionality of hazards and further stratified where appropriate.”

A brief note on a few of those covariates. Some of them are obvious, other perhaps less so. Retinopathy is probably included mainly due to the associated vision issues, rather than some sort of direct pathophysiological linkage between the conditions; vision problems may increase the risk of falls, particularly in the elderly, and falls increase the fracture risk (they note this later on in the paper). Neuropathy could in my opinion affect risk in multiple ways, not only through an increased fall risk, but either way it certainly makes a lot of sense to include that variable if it’s available. Thyroid disorders can cause bone problems, and the incidence of thyroid disorders is elevated in type 1 – to the extent that e.g. the Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine recommends screening people with diabetes mellitus for abnormalities in thyroid function on the annual review. Both Addison‘s (adrenal insufficiency) and thyroid disorders in type 1 diabetics may be specific components of a more systemic autoimmune disease (relevant link here, see the last paragraph), by some termed autoimmune polyendocrine syndromes. When you treat people with Addison’s you give them glucocorticoids, and this treatment can have deleterious effects on bone density especially in the long run – they note in the paper that exposure to corticosteroids is a significant fracture predictor in their models, which is not surprising. In one of the chapters included in Horowitz & Samson‘s book (again, I hope to cover it in more detail later…) the authors note that the combination of coeliac disease and diabetes may lead to protein malabsorption (among other things), which can obviously affect bone health, and they also observe e.g. that common lab abnormalities found in patients with coeliac include “low levels of haemoglobin, albumin, calcium, potassium, magnesium and iron” and furthermore that “extra-intestinal symptoms [include] muscle cramps, bone pain due to osteoporotic fractures or osteomalacia” – coeliac is obviously relevant here, especially as the condition is much more common in type 1 diabetics than in non-diabetics (“The prevalence of coeliac disease in type 1 diabetic children varies from 1.0% to 3.5%, which is at least 15 times higher than the prevalence among children without diabetes” – also an observation from H&S’s book, chapter 5).

Moving on…

“During the study period, incident fractures occurred in 2,615 participants (8.6%) with type 1 diabetes compared with 18,624 participants (6.1%) without diabetes. […] The incidence in males was greatest in the 10- to 20-year age bracket, at 297.2 and 261.3 fractures per 10,000 person-years in participants with and without type 1 diabetes, respectively. The fracture incidence in women was greatest in the 80- to 90-year age bracket, at 549.1 and 333.9 fractures per 10,000 person-years in participants with and without type 1 diabetes, respectively.”

It’s important to note that the first percentages reported above (8.6% vs 6.1%) may be slightly misleading as the follow-up periods for the two groups were dissimilar; type 1s in the study were on average followed for a shorter amount of time than were the controls (4.7 years vs 3.89 years), meaning that raw incident fracture risk estimates like these cannot be translated directly into person-year estimates. The risk differential is thus at least slightly higher than these percentages would suggest. A good view of how the person-year risk difference evolves as a function of age/time are displayed in the paper’s figure 2.

“Hip fractures alone comprised 5.5% and 11.6% of all fractures in males and females with type 1 diabetes, compared with 4.1% and 8.6% in males and females without diabetes (P = 0.04 for males and P = 0.001 for females). Participants with type 1 diabetes with a lower extremity fracture were more likely to have retinopathy (30% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001) and neuropathy (5.4% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.001) compared with those with fractures at other sites. The median average HbA1c did not differ between the two groups.”

I’ll reiterate this because it’s important: They care about lower-extremity fractures because some of those kinds of fractures, especially hip fractures, have a really poor prognosis. It’s not that it’s annoying and you’ll need a cast; I’ve seen estimates suggesting that roughly one-third of diabetics who sustain a hip fracture die within a year; a prognosis like that is much worse than many cancers. A few relevant observations from Czernik and Fowlkes:

“Together, [studies conducted during the last 15 years on type 1 diabetics] demonstrate an unequivocally increased fracture risk at the hip [compared to non-diabetic controls], with most demonstrating a six to ninefold increase in relative risk. […] type I DM patients have hip fractures at a younger age on average, with a mean of 43 for women and 41 for men in one study. Almost 7 % of people with type I DM can be expected to have sustained a hip fracture by age 65 [7] […] Patients with DM and hip fracture are at a higher risk of mortality than patients without DM, with 1-year rates as high as 32 % vs. 13 % of nondiabetic patients”.

Back to the paper:

“Incident hip fracture risk was increased in all age categories for female participants with type 1 diabetes, and in age categories >30 years in men. […] Type 1 diabetes remained significantly associated with fracture after adjustment for covariates in all previously significant sex and age strata, with the exception of women aged 40–49. […] Each 1% (11 mmol/mol) greater average HbA1c level was associated with a 5% greater risk of incident fracture in males and an 11% greater risk of fracture in females. Diabetic neuropathy was a significant risk factor for incident fracture in males (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03–1.72) and females (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.19–1.92); however, diabetic retinopathy was significant only in males (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.01–1.28). […] The presence of celiac disease was associated with an increased risk of fractures in females, with an HR of 1.8 (95% CI 1.18–2.76), but not in males. A higher BMI was protective against fracture. Smoking was a risk factor for fracture in males in the 13,763 participants with type 1 diabetes with smoking and BMI data available for analysis.”

The Hba1c-link was interesting to me because the relationships between glycemic control and fracture risk has in other contexts been somewhat unclear; one problem is that Hba1c levels in the lower ranges increase the risk of hypoglycemic episodes, and such episodes may increase the risk of fractures, so even if chronic hyperglycemia is bad for bone health if you don’t have access e.g. to event-level/-rate data on hypoglycemic episodes confounding may be an issue causing a (very plausible) chronic hyperglycemia-fracture risk link to perhaps be harder to detect than it otherwise might have been. It’s of note that these guys did not have access to data on hypoglycemic episodes. They observe later in the paper that: “If hypoglycemia was a major contributing factor, we might have expected a negative effect of HbA1c on fracture risk; our data indicated the opposite.” I don’t think you can throw out hypoglycemia as a contributing factor that easily.

Anyway, a few final observations from the paper:

CONCLUSIONS Type 1 diabetes was associated with increased risk of incident fracture that began in childhood and extended across the life span. Participants with type 1 diabetes sustained a disproportionately greater number of lower extremity fractures. These findings have important public health implications, given the increasing prevalence of type 1 diabetes and the morbidity and mortality associated with hip fractures.”

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that the increased fracture risk in type 1 diabetes begins in childhood. This finding has important implications for researchers planning future studies and for clinicians caring for patients in this population. Although peak bone mass is attained by the end of the third decade of life, peak bone accrual occurs in adolescence in conjunction with the pubertal growth spurt (31). This critical time for bone accrual may represent a period of increased skeletal vulnerability and also a window of opportunity for the implementation of therapies to improve bone formation (32). This is an especially important consideration in the population with type 1 diabetes, because the incidence of this disease peaks in early adolescence. Three-quarters of individuals will develop the condition before 18 years of age, and therefore before attainment of peak bone mass (33). The development and evaluation of therapies aimed at increasing bone formation and strength in adolescence may lead to a lifelong reduction in fracture risk.”

“The underlying mechanism for the increased fracture risk in patients with type 1 diabetes is not fully understood. Current evidence suggests that bone quantity and quality may both be abnormal in this condition. Clinical studies using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and peripheral quantitative computed tomography have identified mild to modest deficits in BMD and bone structure in both pediatric and adult participants with type 1 diabetes (6,8,34). Deficits in BMD are unlikely to be the only factor contributing to skeletal fragility in type 1 diabetes, however, as evidenced by a recent meta-analysis that found that the increased fracture risk seen in type 1 diabetes could not be explained by deficits in BMD alone (16). Recent cellular and animal models have shown that insulin signaling in osteoblasts and osteoblast progenitor cells promotes postnatal bone acquisition, suggesting that the insulin deficiency inherent in type 1 diabetes is a significant contributor to the pathogenesis of skeletal disease (35). Other proposed mechanisms contributing to skeletal fragility in type 1 diabetes include chronic hyperglycemia (36), impaired production of IGF-1 (37), and the accumulation of advanced glycation end products in bone (38). Our results showed that a higher average HbA1c was associated with an increased risk of fracture in participants with type 1 diabetes, supporting the hypothesis that chronic hyperglycemia and its sequelae contribute to skeletal fragility.”

“In summary, our study found that participants of all ages with type 1 diabetes were at increased risk of fracture. The adverse effect of type 1 diabetes on the skeleton is an underrecognized complication that is likely to grow into a significant public health burden given the increasing incidence and prevalence of this disease. […] Our novel finding that children with type 1 diabetes were already at increased risk of fracture suggests that therapeutic interventions aimed at children and adolescents may have an important effect on reducing lifelong fracture risk.”

August 15, 2017 Posted by | Diabetes, Epidemiology, Medicine, Studies | Leave a comment

Infectious Disease Surveillance (II)

Some more observation from the book below.

“There are three types of influenza viruses — A, B, and C — of which only types A and B cause widespread outbreaks in humans. Influenza A viruses are classified into subtypes based on antigenic differences between their two surface glycoproteins, hemagglutinin and neuraminidase. Seventeen hemagglutinin subtypes (H1–H17) and nine neuraminidase subtypes (N1–N9) have been identifed. […] The internationally accepted naming convention for influenza viruses contains the following elements: the type (e.g., A, B, C), geographical origin (e.g., Perth, Victoria), strain number (e.g., 361), year of isolation (e.g., 2011), for influenza A the hemagglutinin and neuraminidase antigen description (e.g., H1N1), and for nonhuman origin viruses the host of origin (e.g., swine) [4].”

“Only two antiviral drug classes are licensed for chemoprophylaxis and treatment of influenza—the adamantanes (amantadine and rimantadine) and the neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir and zanamivir). […] Antiviral resistant strains arise through selection pressure in individual patients during treatment [which can lead to treatment failure]. […] they usually do not transmit further (because of impaired virus fitness) and have limited public health implications. On the other hand, primarily resistant viruses have emerged in the past decade and in some cases have completely replaced the susceptible strains. […] Surveillance of severe influenza illness is challenging because most cases remain undiagnosed. […] In addition, most of the influenza burden on the healthcare system is because of complications such as secondary bacterial infections and exacerbations of pre-existing chronic diseases, and often influenza is not suspected as an underlying cause. Even if suspected, the virus could have been already cleared from the respiratory secretions when the testing is performed, making diagnostic confirmation impossible. […] Only a small proportion of all deaths caused by influenza are classified as influenza-related on death certificates. […] mortality surveillance based only on death certificates is not useful for the rapid assessment of an influenza epidemic or pandemic severity. Detection of excess mortality in real time can be done by establishing specific monitoring systems that overcome these delays [such as sentinel surveillance systems, US].”

“Influenza vaccination programs are extremely complex and costly. More than half a billion doses of influenza vaccines are produced annually in two separate vaccine production cycles, one for the Northern Hemisphere and one for the Southern Hemisphere [54]. Because the influenza virus evolves constantly and vaccines are reformulated yearly, both vaccine effectiveness and safety need to be monitored routinely. Vaccination campaigns are also organized annually and require continuous public health efforts to maintain an acceptable level of vaccination coverage in the targeted population. […] huge efforts are made and resources spent to produce and distribute influenza vaccines annually. Despite these efforts, vaccination coverage among those at risk in many parts of the world remains low.”

“The Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) network and its predecessor have been examples of using surveillance as information for action for over 20 years. ABCs has been used to measure disease burden, to provide data for vaccine composition and recommended-use policies, and to monitor the impact of interventions. […] sites represent wide geographic diversity and approximately reflect the race and urban-to-rural mix of the U.S. population [37]. Currently, the population under surveillance is 19–42 million and varies by pathogen and project. […] ABCs has continuously evolved to address challenging questions posed by the six pathogens (H. influenzae; GAS [Group A Streptococcus], GBS [Group B Streptococcus], S.  pneumoniae, N. meningitidis, and MRSA) and other emerging infections. […] For the six core pathogens, the objectives are (1) to determine the incidence and epidemiologic characteristics of invasive disease in geographically diverse populations in the United States through active, laboratory, and population-based surveillance; (2) to determine molecular epidemiologic patterns and microbiologic characteristics of isolates collected as part of routine surveillance in order to track antimicrobial resistance; (3) to detect the emergence of new strains with new resistance patterns and/or virulence and contribute to development and evaluation of new vaccines; and (4) to provide an infrastructure for surveillance of other emerging pathogens and for conducting studies aimed at identifying risk factors for disease and evaluating prevention policies.”

“Food may become contaminated by over 250 bacterial, viral, and parasitic pathogens. Many of these agents cause diarrhea and vomiting, but there is no single clinical syndrome common to all foodborne diseases. Most of these agents can also be transmitted by nonfoodborne routes, including contact with animals or contaminated water. Therefore, for a given illness, it is often unclear whether the source of infection is foodborne or not. […] Surveillance systems for foodborne diseases provide extremely important information for prevention and control.”

“Since 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has routinely used an automated statistical outbreak detection algorithm that compares current reports of each Salmonella serotype with the preceding 5-year mean number of cases for the same geographic area and week of the year to look for unusual clusters of infection [5]. The sensitivity of Salmonella serotyping to detect outbreaks is greatest for rare serotypes, because a small increase is more noticeable against a rare background. The utility of serotyping has led to its widespread adoption in surveillance for food pathogens in many countries around the world [6]. […] Today, a new generation of subtyping methods […] is increasing the specificity of laboratory-based surveillance and its power to detect outbreaks […] Molecular subtyping allows comparison of the molecular “fingerprint” of bacterial strains. In the United States, the CDC coordinates a network called PulseNet that captures data from standardized molecular subtyping by PFGE [pulsed field gel electrophoresis]. By comparing new submissions and past data, public health officials can rapidly identify geographically dispersed clusters of disease that would otherwise not be apparent and evaluate them as possible foodborne-disease outbreaks [8]. The ability to identify geographically dispersed outbreaks has become increasingly important as more foods are mass-produced and widely distributed. […] Similar networks have been developed in Canada, Europe, the Asia Pacifc region, Latin America and the Caribbean region, the Middle Eastern region and, most recently, the African region”.

“Food consumption and practices have changed during the past 20 years in the United States, resulting in a shift from readily detectable, point-source outbreaks (e.g., attendance at a wedding dinner), to widespread outbreaks that occur over many communities with only a few illnesses in each community. One of the changes has been establishment of large food-producing facilities that disseminate products throughout the country. If a food product is contaminated with a low level of pathogen, contaminated food products are distributed across many states; and only a few illnesses may occur in each community. This type of outbreak is often difficult to detect. PulseNet has been critical for the detection of widely dispersed outbreaks in the United States [17]. […] The growth of the PulseNet database […] and the use of increasingly sophisticated epidemiological approaches have led to a dramatic increase in the number of multistate outbreaks detected and investigated.”

“Each year, approximately 35 million people are hospitalized in the United States, accounting for 170 million inpatient days [1,2]. There are no recent estimates of the numbers of healthcare-associated infections (HAI). However, two decades ago, HAI were estimated to affect more than 2 million hospital patients annually […] The mortality attributed to these HAI was estimated at about 100,000 deaths annually. […] Almost 85% of HAI in the United States are associated with bacterial pathogens, and 33% are thought to be preventable [4]. […] The primary purpose of surveillance [in the context of HAI] is to alert clinicians, epidemiologists, and laboratories of the need for targeted prevention activities required to reduce HAI rates. HAI surveillance data help to establish baseline rates that may be used to determine the potential need to change public health policy, to act and intervene in clinical settings, and to assess the effectiveness of microbiology methods, appropriateness of tests, and allocation of resources. […] As less than 10% of HAI in the United States occur as recognized epidemics [18], HAI surveillance should not be embarked on merely for the detection of outbreaks.”

“There are two types of rate comparisons — intrahospital and interhospital. The primary goals of intrahospital comparison are to identify areas within the hospital where HAI are more likely to occur and to measure the efficacy of interventional efforts. […] Without external comparisons, hospital infection control departments may [however] not know if the endemic rates in their respective facilities are relatively high or where to focus the limited fnancial and human resources of the infection control program. […] The CDC has been the central aggregating institution for active HAI surveillance in the United States since the 1960s.”

“Low sensitivity (i.e., missed infections) in a surveillance system is usually more common than low specificity (i.e., patients reported to have infections who did not actually have infections).”

“Among the numerous analyses of CDC hospital data carried out over the years, characteristics consistently found to be associated with higher HAI rates include affiliation with a medical school (i.e., teaching vs. nonteaching), size of the hospital and ICU categorized by the number of beds (large hospitals and larger ICUs generally had higher infection rates), type of control or ownership of the hospital (municipal, nonprofit, investor owned), and region of the country [43,44]. […] Various analyses of SENIC and NNIS/NHSN data have shown that differences in patient risk factors are largely responsible for interhospital differences in HAI rates. After controlling for patients’ risk factors, average lengths of stay, and measures of the completeness of diagnostic workups for infection (e.g., culturing rates), the differences in the average HAI rates of the various hospital groups virtually disappeared. […] For all of these reasons, an overall HAI rate, per se, gives little insight into whether the facility’s infection control efforts are effective.”

“Although a hospital’s surveillance system might aggregate accurate data and generate appropriate risk-adjusted HAI rates for both internal and external comparison, comparison may be misleading for several reasons. First, the rates may not adjust for patients’ unmeasured intrinsic risks for infection, which vary from hospital to hospital. […] Second, if surveillance techniques are not uniform among hospitals or are used inconsistently over time, variations will occur in sensitivity and specificity for HAI case finding. Third, the sample size […] must be sufficient. This issue is of concern for hospitals with fewer than 200 beds, which represent about 10% of hospital admissions in the United States. In most CDC analyses, rates from hospitals with very small denominators tend to be excluded [37,46,49]. […] Although many healthcare facilities around the country aggregate HAI surveillance data for baseline establishment and interhospital comparison, the comparison of HAI rates is complex, and the value of the aggregated data must be balanced against the burden of their collection. […] If a hospital does not devote sufficient resources to data collection, the data will be of limited value, because they will be replete with inaccuracies. No national database has successfully dealt with all the problems in collecting HAI data and each varies in its ability to address these problems. […] While comparative data can be useful as a tool for the prevention of HAI, in some instances no data might be better than bad data.”

August 10, 2017 Posted by | Books, Data, Epidemiology, Infectious disease, Medicine, Statistics | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Long-term Glycemic Variability and Risk of Adverse Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

“This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the association between HbA1c variability and micro- and macrovascular complications and mortality in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. […] Seven studies evaluated HbA1c variability among patients with type 1 diabetes and showed an association of HbA1c variability with renal disease (risk ratio 1.56 [95% CI 1.08–2.25], two studies), cardiovascular events (1.98 [1.39–2.82]), and retinopathy (2.11 [1.54–2.89]). Thirteen studies evaluated HbA1c variability among patients with type 2 diabetes. Higher HbA1c variability was associated with higher risk of renal disease (1.34 [1.15–1.57], two studies), macrovascular events (1.21 [1.06–1.38]), ulceration/gangrene (1.50 [1.06–2.12]), cardiovascular disease (1.27 [1.15–1.40]), and mortality (1.34 [1.18–1.53]). Most studies were retrospective with lack of adjustment for potential confounders, and inconsistency existed in the definition of HbA1c variability.

CONCLUSIONS HbA1c variability was positively associated with micro- and macrovascular complications and mortality independently of the HbA1c level and might play a future role in clinical risk assessment.”

Two observations related to the paper: One, although only a relatively small number of studies were included in the review, the number of patients included in some of those included studies was rather large – the 7 type 1 studies thus included 44,021 participants, and the 13 type 2 studies included in total 43,620 participants. Two, it’s noteworthy that some of the associations already look at least reasonably strong, despite interest in HbA1c variability being a relatively recent phenomenon. Confounding might be an issue, but then again it almost always might be, and to give an example, out of 11 studies analyzing the association between renal disease and HbA1c variability included in the review, ten of them support a link and the only one which does not was a small study on pediatric patients which was almost certainly underpowered to investigate such a link in the first place (the base rate of renal complications is, as mentioned before here on this blog quite recently (link 3), quite low in pediatric samples).

ii. Risk of Severe Hypoglycemia in Type 1 Diabetes Over 30 Years of Follow-up in the DCCT/EDIC Study.

(I should perhaps note here that I’m already quite familiar with the context of the DCCT/EDIC study/studies, and although readers may not be, and although background details are included in the paper, I decided not to cover such details here although they would make my coverage of the paper easier to understand. I instead decided to limit my coverage of the paper to a few observations which I myself found to be of interest.)

“During the DCCT, the rates of SH [Severe Hypoglycemia, US], including episodes with seizure or coma, were approximately threefold greater in the intensive treatment group than in the conventional treatment group […] During EDIC, the frequency of SH increased in the former conventional group and decreased in the former intensive group so that the difference in SH event rates between the two groups was no longer significant (36.6 vs. 40.8 episodes per 100 patient-years, respectively […] By the end of DCCT, with an average of 6.5 years of follow-up, 65% of the intensive group versus 35% of the conventional group experienced at least one episode of SH. In contrast, ∼50% of participants within each group reported an episode of SH during the 20 years of EDIC.”

“Of [the] participants reporting episodes of SH, during the DCCT, 54% of the intensive group and 30% of the conventional group experienced four or more episodes, whereas in EDIC, 37% of the intensive group and 33% of the conventional group experienced four or more events […]. Moreover, a subset of participants (14% [99 of 714]) experienced nearly one-half of all SH episodes (1,765 of 3,788) in DCCT, and a subset of 7% (52 of 709) in EDIC experienced almost one-third of all SH episodes (888 of 2,813) […] Fifty-one major accidents occurred during the 6.5 years of DCCT and 143 during the 20 years of EDIC […] The most frequent type of major accident was that involving a motor vehicle […] Hypoglycemia played a role as a possible, probable, or principal cause in 18 of 28 operator-caused motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) during DCCT […] and in 23 of 54 operator-caused MVAs during EDIC”.

“The T1D Exchange Clinic Registry recently reported that 8% of 4,831 adults with T1D living in the U.S. had a seizure or coma event during the 3 months before their most recent annual visit (11). During EDIC, we observed that 27% of the cohort experienced a coma or seizure event over the 20 years of 3-month reporting intervals (∼1.4% per year), a much lower annual risk than in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. In part, the open enrollment of patients into the T1D Exchange may be reflected without the exclusion of participants with a history of SH as in the DCCT and other clinical trials. The current data support the clinical perception that a small subset of individuals is more susceptible to SH (7% of patients with 11 or more SH episodes during EDIC, which represents 32% of all SH episodes in EDIC) […] a history of SH during DCCT and lower current HbA1c levels were the two major factors associated with an increased risk of SH during EDIC. Safety concerns were the reason why a history of frequent SH events was an exclusion criterion for enrollment in DCCT. […] Of note, we found that participants who entered the DCCT as adolescents were more likely to experience SH during EDIC.”

“In summary, although event rates in the DCCT/EDIC cohort seem to have fallen and stabilized over time, SH remains an ever-present threat for patients with T1D who use current technology, occurring at a rate of ∼36–41 episodes per 100 patient-years, even among those with longer diabetes duration. Having experienced one or more such prior events is the strongest predictor of a future SH episode.”

I didn’t actually like that summary. If a history of severe hypoglycemia was an exclusion criterion in the DCCT trial, which it was, then the event rate you’d get from this data set is highly likely to provide a biased estimator of the true event rate, as the Exchange Clinic Registry data illustrate. The true population event rate in unselected samples is higher.

Another note which may also be important to add is that many diabetics who do not have a ‘severe event’ during a specific time period might still experience a substantial number of hypoglycemic episodes; ‘severe events’ (which require the assistance of another individual) is a somewhat blunt instrument in particular for assessing quality-of-life aspects of hypoglycemia.

iii. The Presence and Consequence of Nonalbuminuric Chronic Kidney Disease in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

“This study investigated the prevalence of nonalbuminuric chronic kidney disease in type 1 diabetes to assess whether it increases the risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes as well as all-cause mortality. […] This was an observational follow-up of 3,809 patients with type 1 diabetes from the Finnish Diabetic Nephropathy Study. […] mean age was 37.6 ± 11.8 years and duration of diabetes 21.2 ± 12.1 years. […] During 13 years of median follow-up, 378 developed end-stage renal disease, 415 suffered an incident cardiovascular event, and 406 died. […] At baseline, 78 (2.0%) had nonalbuminuric chronic kidney disease. […] Nonalbuminuric chronic kidney disease did not increase the risk of albuminuria (hazard ratio [HR] 2.0 [95% CI 0.9–4.4]) or end-stage renal disease (HR 6.4 [0.8–53.0]) but did increase the risk of cardiovascular events (HR 2.0 [1.4–3.5]) and all-cause mortality (HR 2.4 [1.4–3.9]). […] ESRD [End-Stage Renal Disease] developed during follow-up in 0.3% of patients with nonalbuminuric non-CKD [CKD: Chronic Kidney Disease], in 1.3% of patients with nonalbuminuric CKD, in 13.9% of patients with albuminuric non-CKD, and in 63.0% of patients with albuminuric CKD (P < 0.001).”

CONCLUSIONS Nonalbuminuric chronic kidney disease is not a frequent finding in patients with type 1 diabetes, but when present, it is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and all-cause mortality but not with renal outcomes.”

iv. Use of an α-Glucosidase Inhibitor and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Diabetes: A Nationwide, Population-Based Cohort Study.

This one relates closely to stuff covered in Horowitz & Samsom’s book about Gastrointestinal Function in Diabetes Mellitus which I just finished (and which I liked very much). Here’s a relevant quote from chapter 7 of that book (which is about ‘Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Function’):

“Several studies have provided evidence that the risk of pancreatic cancer is increased in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus [136,137]. In fact, diabetes has been associated with an increased risk of several cancers, including those of the pancreas, liver, endometrium and kidney [136]. The pooled relative risk of pancreatic cancer for diabetics vs. non-diabetics in a meta-analysis was 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.6–2.8). Patients presenting with diabetes mellitus within a period of 12 months of the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were excluded because in these cases diabetes may be an early presenting sign of pancreatic cancer rather than a risk factor [137]”.

They don’t mention colon cancer there, but it’s obvious from the research which has been done – and which is covered extensively in that book – that diabetes has the potential to cause functional changes in a large number of components of the digestive system (and I hope to cover this kind of stuff in a lot more detail later on) so the fact that some of these changes may lead to neoplastic changes should hardly be surprising. However evaluating causal pathways is more complicated here than it might have been, because e.g. pancreatic diseases may also themselves cause secondary diabetes in some patients. Liver pathologies like hepatitis B and C also display positive associations with diabetes, although again causal pathways here are not completely clear; treatments used may be a contributing factor (interferon-treatment may induce diabetes), but there are also suggestions that diabetes should be considered one of the extrahepatic manifestations of hepatitis. This stuff is complicated.

The drug mentioned in the paper, acarbose, is incidentally a drug also discussed in some detail in the book. It belongs to a group of drugs called alpha glucosidase inhibitors, and it is ‘the first antidiabetic medication designed to act through an influence on intestinal functions.’ Anyway, some quotes from the paper:

“We conducted a nationwide, population-based study using a large cohort with diabetes in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients with newly diagnosed diabetes (n = 1,343,484) were enrolled between 1998 and 2010. One control subject not using acarbose was randomly selected for each subject using acarbose after matching for age, sex, diabetes onset, and comorbidities. […] There were 1,332 incident cases of colorectal cancer in the cohort with diabetes during the follow-up period of 1,487,136 person-years. The overall incidence rate was 89.6 cases per 100,000 person-years. Patients treated with acarbose had a 27% reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer compared with control subjects. The adjusted HRs were 0.73 (95% CI 0.63–0.83), 0.69 (0.59–0.82), and 0.46 (0.37–0.58) for patients using >0 to <90, 90 to 364, and ≥365 cumulative defined daily doses of acarbose, respectively, compared with subjects who did not use acarbose (P for trend < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS Acarbose use reduced the risk of incident colorectal cancer in patients with diabetes in a dose-dependent manner.”

It’s perhaps worth mentioning that the prevalence of type 1 is relatively low in East Asian populations and that most of the patients included were type 2 (this is also clearly indicated by this observation from the paper: “The median age at the time of the initial diabetes diagnosis was 54.1 years, and the median diabetes duration was 8.9 years.”). Another thing worth mentioning is that colon cancer is a very common type of cancer, and so even moderate risk reductions here at the individual level may translate into a substantial risk reduction at the population level. A third thing, noted in Horowitz & Samsom’s coverage, is that the side effects of acarbose are quite mild, so widespread use of the drug is not out of the question, at least poor tolerance is not likely to be an obstacle; the drug may cause e.g. excessive flatulence and something like 10% of patients may have to stop treatment because of gastrointestinal side effects, but although the side effects are annoying and may be unacceptable to some patients, they are not dangerous; it’s a safe drug which can be used even in patients with renal failure (a context where some of the other oral antidiabetic treatments available are contraindicated).

v. Diabetes, Lower-Extremity Amputation, and Death.

“Worldwide, every 30 s, a limb is lost to diabetes (1,2). Nearly 2 million people living in the U.S. are living with limb loss (1). According to the World Health Organization, lower-extremity amputations (LEAs) are 10 times more common in people with diabetes than in persons who do not have diabetes. In the U.S. Medicare population, the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers is ∼6 per 100 individuals with diabetes per year and the incidence of LEA is 4 per 1,000 persons with diabetes per year (3). LEA in those with diabetes generally carries yearly costs between $30,000 and $60,000 and lifetime costs of half a million dollars (4). In 2012, it was estimated that those with diabetes and lower-extremity wounds in the U.S. Medicare program accounted for $41 billion in cost, which is ∼1.6% of all Medicare health care spending (47). In 2012, in the U.K., it was estimated that the National Health Service spent between £639 and 662 million on foot ulcers and LEA, which was approximately £1 in every £150 spent by the National Health Service (8).”

“LEA does not represent a traditional medical complication of diabetes like myocardial infarction (MI), renal failure, or retinopathy in which organ failure is directly associated with diabetes (2). An LEA occurs because of a disease complication, usually a foot ulcer that is not healing (e.g., organ failure of the skin, failure of the biomechanics of the foot as a unit, nerve sensory loss, and/or impaired arterial vascular supply), but it also occurs at least in part as a consequence of a medical plan to amputate based on a decision between health care providers and patients (9,10). […] 30-day postoperative mortality can approach 10% […]. Previous reports have estimated that the 1-year post-LEA mortality rate in people with diabetes is between 10 and 50%, and the 5-year mortality rate post-LEA is between 30 and 80% (4,1315). More specifically, in the U.S. Medicare population mortality within a year after an incident LEA was 23.1% in 2006, 21.8% in 2007, and 20.6% in 2008 (4). In the U.K., up to 80% will die within 5 years of an LEA (8). In general, those with diabetes with an LEA are two to three times more likely to die at any given time point than those with diabetes who have not had an LEA (5). For perspective, the 5-year death rate after diagnosis of malignancy in the U.S. was 32% in 2010 (16).”

“Evidence on why individuals with diabetes and an LEA die is based on a few mainly small (e.g., <300 subjects) and often single center–based (13,1720) studies or <1 year duration of evaluation (11). In these studies, death is primarily associated with a previous history of cardiovascular disease and renal insufficiency, which are also major complications of diabetes; these complications are also associated with an increased risk of LEA. The goal of our study was to determine whether complications of diabetes well-known to be associated with death in those with diabetes such as cardiovascular disease and renal failure fully explain the higher rate of death in those who have undergone an LEA.”

“This is the largest and longest evaluation of the risk of death among those with diabetes and LEA […] Between 2003 and 2012, 416,434 individuals met the entrance criteria for the study. This cohort accrued an average of 9.0 years of follow-up and a total of 3.7 million diabetes person-years of follow-up. During this period of time, 6,566 (1.6%) patients had an LEA and 77,215 patients died (18.5%). […] The percentage of individuals who died within 30 days, 1 year, and by year 5 of their initial code for an LEA was 1.0%, 9.9%, and 27.2%, respectively. For those >65 years of age, the rates were 12.2% and 31.7%, respectively. For the full cohort of those with diabetes, the rate of death was 2.0% after 1 year of follow up and 7.3% after 5 years of follow up. In general, those with an LEA were more than three times more likely to die during a year of follow-up than an individual with diabetes who had not had an LEA. […] In any given year, >5% of those with diabetes and an LEA will die.”

“From 2003 to 2012, the HR [hazard rate, US] for death after an LEA was 3.02 (95% CI 2.90, 3.14). […] our a priori assumption was that the HR associating LEA with death would be fully diminished (i.e., it would become 1) when adjusted for the other risk factor variables. However, the fully adjusted LEA HR was diminished only ∼22% to 2.37 (95% CI 2.27, 2.48). With the exception of age >65 years, individual risk factors, in general, had minimal effect (<10%) on the HR of the association between LEA and death […] We conducted sensitivity analyses to determine the general statistical parameters of an unmeasured risk factor that could remove the association of LEA with death. We found that even if there existed a very strong risk factor with an HR of death of three, a prevalence of 10% in the general diabetes population, and a prevalence of 60% in those who had an LEA, LEA would still be associated with a statistically significant and clinically important risk of 1.30. These findings are describing a variable that would seem to be so common and so highly associated with death that it should already be clinically apparent. […] In summary, individuals with diabetes and an LEA are more likely to die at any given point in time than those who have diabetes but no LEA. While some of this variation can be explained by other known complications of diabetes, the amount that can be explained is small. Based on the results of this study, including a sensitivity analysis, it is highly unlikely that a “new” major risk factor for death exists. […] LEA is often performed because of an end-stage disease process like chronic nonhealing foot ulcer. By the time a patient has a foot ulcer and an LEA is offered, they are likely suffering from the end-stage consequence of diabetes. […] We would […] suggest that patients who have had an LEA require […] vigilant follow-up and evaluation to assure that their medical care is optimized. It is also important that GPs communicate to their patients about the risk of death to assure that patients have proper expectations about the severity of their disease.”

vi. Trends in Health Care Expenditure in U.S. Adults With Diabetes: 2002–2011.

Before quoting from the paper, I’ll remind people reading along here that ‘total medical expenditures’ != ‘total medical costs’. Lots of relevant medical costs are not included when you focus only on direct medical expenditures (sick days, early retirement, premature mortality and productivity losses associated therewith, etc., etc.). With that out of the way…

“This study examines trends in health care expenditures by expenditure category in U.S. adults with diabetes between 2002 and 2011. […] We analyzed 10 years of data representing a weighted population of 189,013,514 U.S. adults aged ≥18 years from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. […] Relative to individuals without diabetes ($5,058 [95% CI 4,949–5,166]), individuals with diabetes ($12,180 [11,775–12,586]) had more than double the unadjusted mean direct expenditures over the 10-year period. After adjustment for confounders, individuals with diabetes had $2,558 (2,266–2,849) significantly higher direct incremental expenditures compared with those without diabetes. For individuals with diabetes, inpatient expenditures rose initially from $4,014 in 2002/2003 to $4,183 in 2004/2005 and then decreased continuously to $3,443 in 2010/2011, while rising steadily for individuals without diabetes. The estimated unadjusted total direct expenditures for individuals with diabetes were $218.6 billion/year and adjusted total incremental expenditures were approximately $46 billion/year. […] in the U.S., direct medical costs associated with diabetes were $176 billion in 2012 (1,3). This is almost double to eight times the direct medical cost of other chronic diseases: $32 billion for COPD in 2010 (10), $93 billion for all cancers in 2008 (11), $21 billion for heart failure in 2012 (12), and $43 billion for hypertension in 2010 (13). In the U.S., total economic cost of diabetes rose by 41% from 2007 to 2012 (2). […] Our findings show that compared with individuals without diabetes, individuals with diabetes had significantly higher health expenditures from 2002 to 2011 and the bulk of the expenditures came from hospital inpatient and prescription expenditures.”

 

August 10, 2017 Posted by | Books, Cancer/oncology, Cardiology, Diabetes, Economics, Epidemiology, Gastroenterology, Health Economics, Medicine, Nephrology, Pharmacology | Leave a comment

Infectious Disease Surveillance (I)

Concepts and Methods in Infectious Disease Surveillance […] familiarizes the reader with basic surveillance concepts; the legal basis for surveillance in the United States and abroad; and the purposes, structures, and intended uses of surveillance at the local, state, national, and international level. […] A desire for a readily accessible, concise resource that detailed current methods and challenges in disease surveillance inspired the collaborations that resulted in this volume. […] The book covers major topics at an introductory-to-intermediate level and was designed to serve as a resource or class text for instructors. It can be used in graduate level courses in public health, human and veterinary medicine, as well as in undergraduate programs in public health–oriented disciplines. We hope that the book will be a useful primer for frontline public health practitioners, hospital epidemiologists, infection-control practitioners, laboratorians in public health settings, infectious disease researchers, and medical informatics specialists interested in a concise overview of infectious disease surveillance.”

I thought the book was sort of okay, but not really all that great. I assume part of the reason I didn’t like it as much as I might have is that someone like me don’t really need to know all the details about, say, the issues encountered in Florida while they were trying to implement electronic patient records, or whether or not the mandated reporting requirements for brucellosis in, say, Texas are different from those of, say, Florida – but the book has a lot of that kind of information. Useful knowledge if you work with this stuff, but if you don’t and you’re just curious about the topic ‘in a general way’ those kinds of details can subtract a bit from the experience. A lot of chapters cover similar topics and don’t seem all that well coordinated, in the sense that details which could easily have been left out of specific chapters without any significant information loss (because those details were covered elsewhere in the publication) are included anyway; we are probably told at least ten times what is the difference between active and passive surveillance. It probably means that the various chapters can be read more or less independently (you don’t need to read chapter 5 to understand the coverage in chapter 11), but if you’re reading the book from cover to cover the way I was that sort of approach is not ideal. However in terms of the coverage included in the individual chapters and the content in general, I feel reasonably confident that if you’re actually working in public health or related fields and so a lot of this stuff might be ‘work-relevant’ (especially if you’re from the US), it’s probably a very useful book to keep around/know about. I didn’t need to know how many ‘NBS-states’ there are, and whether or not South Carolina is such a state, but some people might.

As I’ve pointed out before, a two star goodreads rating on my part (which is the rating I gave this publication) is not an indication that I think a book is terrible, it’s an indication that the book is ‘okay’.

Below I’ve added some quotes and observations from the book. The book is an academic publication but it is not a ‘classic textbook’ with key items in bold etc.; I decided to use bold to highlight key concepts and observations below, to make the post easier to navigate later on (none of the bolded words below were in bold in the original text), but aside from that I have made no changes to the quotes included in this post. I would note that given that many of the chapters included in the book are not covered by copyright (many chapters include this observation: “Materials appearing in this chapter are prepared by individuals as part of their official duties as United States government employees and are not covered by the copyright of the book, and any views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the United States government.”) I may decide to cover the book in a bit more detail than I otherwise would have.

“The methods used for infectious disease surveillance depend on the type of disease. Part of the rationale for this is that there are fundamental differences in etiology, mode of transmission, and control measures between different types of infections. […] Despite the fact that much of surveillance is practiced on a disease-specific basis, it is worth remembering that surveillance is a general tool used across all types of infectious and, noninfectious conditions, and, as such, all surveillance methods share certain core elements. We advocate the view that surveillance should not be regarded as a public health “specialty,” but rather that all public health practitioners should understand the general principles underlying surveillance.”

“Control of disease spread is achieved through public health actions. Public health actions resulting from information gained during the investigation usually go beyond what an individual physician can provide to his or her patients presenting in a clinical setting. Examples of public health actions include identifying the source of infection […] identifying persons who were in contact with the index case or any infected person who may need vaccines or antiinfectives to prevent them from developing the infection; closure of facilities implicated in disease spread; or isolation of sick individuals or, in rare circumstances, quarantining those exposed to an infected person. […] Monitoring surveillance data enables public health authorities to detect sudden changes in disease occurrence and distribution, identify changes in agents or host factors, and detect changes in healthcare practices […] The primary use of surveillance data at the local and state public health level is to identify cases or outbreaks in order to implement immediate disease control and prevention activities. […] Surveillance data are also used by states and CDC to monitor disease trends, demonstrate the need for public health interventions such as vaccines and vaccine policy, evaluate public health activities, and identify future research priorities. […] The final and most-important link in the surveillance chain is the application of […] data to disease prevention and control. A surveillance system includes a functional capacity for data collection, analysis, and dissemination linked to public health programs [6].

“The majority of reportable disease surveillance is conducted through passive surveillance methods. Passive surveillance means that public health agencies inform healthcare providers and other entities of their reporting requirements, but they do not usually conduct intensive efforts to solicit all cases; instead, the public health agency waits for the healthcare entities to submit case reports. Because passive surveillance is often incomplete, public health agencies may use hospital discharge data, laboratory testing records, mortality data, or other sources of information as checks on completeness of reporting and to identify additional cases. This is called active surveillance. Active surveillance usually includes intensive activities on the part of the public health agency to identify all cases of a specific reportable disease or group of diseases. […] Because it can be very labor intensive, active surveillance is usually conducted for a subset of reportable conditions, in a defined geographic locale and for a defined period of time.”

“Active surveillance may be conducted on a routine basis or in response to an outbreak […]. When an outbreak is suspected or identified, another type of surveillance known as enhanced passive surveillance may also be initiated. In enhanced passive surveillance methods, public health may improve communication with the healthcare community, schools, daycare centers, and other facilities and request that all suspected cases be reported to public health. […] Case-based surveillance is supplemented through laboratory-based surveillance activities. As opposed to case-based surveillance, the focus is on laboratory results themselves, independent of whether or not an individual’s result is associated with a “case” of illness meeting the surveillance case definition. Laboratory-based surveillance is conducted by state public health laboratories as well as the healthcare community (e.g., hospital, private medical office, and commercial laboratories). […] State and local public health entities participate in sentinel surveillance activities. With sentinel methods, surveillance is conducted in a sample of reporting entities, such as healthcare providers or hospitals, or in a specific population known to be an early indicator of disease activity (e.g., pediatric). However, because the goal of sentinel surveillance is not to identify every case, it is not necessarily representative of the underlying population of interest; and results should be interpreted accordingly.”

Syndromic surveillance identifies unexpected changes in prediagnostic information from a variety of sources to detect potential outbreaks [56]. Sources include work- or school-absenteeism records, pharmacy sales for over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, or emergency room admission data [51]. During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, syndromic surveillance of emergency room visits for influenza-like illness correlated well with laboratory diagnosed cases of influenza [57]. […] According to a 2008 survey of U.S. health departments, 88% of respondents reported that they employ syndromic-based approaches as part of routine surveillance [21].

“Public health operated for many decades (and still does to some extent) using stand-alone, case-based information systems for collection of surveillance data that do not allow information sharing between systems and do not permit the ability to track the occurrences of different diseases in a specific person over time. One of the primary objectives of NEDSS [National Electronic Disease Surveillance System] is to promote person-based surveillance and integrated and interoperable surveillance systems. In an integrated person-based system, information is collected to create a public health record for a given person for different diseases over time. This enables public health to track public health conditions associated with a person over time, allowing analyses of public health events and comorbidities, as well as more robust public health interventions. An interoperable system can exchange information with other systems. For example, data are shared between surveillance systems or between other public health or clinical systems, such as an electronic health record or outbreak management system. Achieving the goal of establishing a public health record for an individual over time does not require one monolithic system that supports all needs; this can, instead, be achieved through integration and/or interoperability of systems.

“For over a decade, public health has focused on automation of reporting of laboratory results to public health from clinical laboratories and healthcare providers. Paper-based submission of laboratory results to public health for reportable conditions results in delays in receipt of information, incomplete ascertainment of possible cases, and missing information on individual reports. All of these aspects are improved through automation of the process [39–43].”

“During the pre-vaccine era, rotavirus infected nearly every unvaccinated child before their fifth birthday. In the absence of vaccine, multiple rotavirus infections may occur during infancy and childhood. Rotavirus causes severe diarrhea and vomiting (acute gastroenteritis [AGE]), which can lead to dehydration, electrolyte depletion, complications of viremia, shock, and death. Nearly one-half million children around the world die of rotavirus infections each year […] [In the US] this virus was responsible for 40–50% of hospitalizations because of acute gastroenteritis during the winter months in the era before vaccines were introduced. […] Because first infections have been shown to induce strong immunity against severe rotavirus reinfections [3] and because vaccination mimics such first infections without causing illness, vaccination was identified as the optimal strategy for decreasing the burden associated with severe and fatal rotavirus diarrhea. Any changes that may be later attributed to vaccination effects require knowledge of the pre-licensure (i.e., baseline) rates and trends in the target disease as a reference […] Efforts to obtain baseline data are necessary before a vaccine is licensed and introduced [13]. […] After the first year of widespread rotavirus vaccination coverage in 2008, very large and consistent decreases in rotavirus hospitalizations were noted around the country. Many of the decreases in childhood hospitalizations resulting from rotavirus were 90% or more, compared with the pre-licensure, baseline period.”

There is no single perfect data source for assessing any VPD [Vaccine-Preventable Disease, US]. Meaningful surveillance is achieved by the much broader approach of employing diverse datasets. The true impact of a vaccine or the accurate assessment of disease trends in a population is more likely the result of evaluating many datasets having different strengths and weaknesses. Only by understanding these strengths and weaknesses can a public health practitioner give the appropriate consideration to the findings derived from these data. […] In a Phase III clinical trial, the vaccine is typically administered to large numbers of people who have met certain inclusionary and exclusionary criteria and are then randomly selected to receive either the vaccine or a placebo. […] Phase III trials represent the “best case scenario” of vaccine protection […] Once the Phase III trials show adequate protection and safety, the vaccine may be licensed by the FDA […] When the vaccine is used in routine clinical practice, Phase IV trials (called post-licensure studies or post-marketing studies) are initiated. These are the evaluations conducted during the course of VPD surveillance that delineate additional performance information in settings where strict controls on who receives the vaccine are not present. […] Often, measuring vaccine performance in the broader population yields slightly lower protective results compared to Phase III clinical trials […] During these post-licensure Phase IV studies, it is not the vaccine’s efficacy but its effectiveness that is assessed. […] Administrative datasets may be created by research institutions, managed-care organizations, or national healthcare utilization repositories. They are not specifically created for VPD surveillance and may contain coded data […] on health events. They often do not provide laboratory confirmation of specific diseases, unlike passive and active VPD surveillance. […] administrative datasets offer huge sample sizes, which allow for powerful inferences within the confines of any data limitations.”

August 6, 2017 Posted by | Books, Epidemiology, Infectious disease, Medicine, Pharmacology | Leave a comment

Beyond Significance Testing (IV)

Below I have added some quotes from chapters 5, 6, and 7 of the book.

“There are two broad classes of standardized effect sizes for analysis at the group or variable level, the d family, also known as group difference indexes, and the r family, or relationship indexes […] Both families are metric- (unit-) free effect sizes that can compare results across studies or variables measured in different original metrics. Effect sizes in the d family are standardized mean differences that describe mean contrasts in standard deviation units, which can exceed 1.0 in absolute value. Standardized mean differences are signed effect sizes, where the sign of the statistic indicates the direction of the corresponding contrast. Effect sizes in the r family are scaled in correlation units that generally range from 1.0 to +1.0, where the sign indicates the direction of the relation […] Measures of association are unsigned effect sizes and thus do not indicate directionality.”

“The correlation rpb is for designs with two unrelated samples. […] rpb […] is affected by base rate, or the proportion of cases in one group versus the other, p and q. It tends to be highest in balanced designs. As the design becomes more unbalanced holding all else constant, rpb approaches zero. […] rpb is not directly comparable across studies with dissimilar relative group sizes […]. The correlation rpb is also affected by the total variability (i.e., ST). If this variation is not constant over samples, values of rpb may not be directly comparable.”

“Too many researchers neglect to report reliability coefficients for scores analyzed. This is regrettable because effect sizes cannot be properly interpreted without knowing whether the scores are precise. The general effect of measurement error in comparative studies is to attenuate absolute standardized effect sizes and reduce the power of statistical tests. Measurement error also contributes to variation in observed results over studies. Of special concern is when both score reliabilities and sample sizes vary from study to study. If so, effects of sampling error are confounded with those due to measurement error. […] There are ways to correct some effect sizes for measurement error (e.g., Baguley, 2009), but corrected effect sizes are rarely reported. It is more surprising that measurement error is ignored in most meta-analyses, too. F. L. Schmidt (2010) found that corrected effect sizes were analyzed in only about 10% of the 199 meta-analytic articles published in Psychological Bulletin from 1978 to 2006. This implies that (a) estimates of mean effect sizes may be too low and (b) the wrong statistical model may be selected when attempting to explain between-studies variation in results. If a fixed
effects model is mistakenly chosen over a random effects model, confidence intervals based on average effect sizes tend to be too narrow, which can make those results look more precise than they really are. Underestimating mean effect sizes while simultaneously overstating their precision is a potentially serious error.”

“[D]emonstration of an effect’s significance — whether theoretical, practical, or clinical — calls for more discipline-specific expertise than the estimation of its magnitude”.

“Some outcomes are categorical instead of continuous. The levels of a categorical outcome are mutually exclusive, and each case is classified into just one level. […] The risk difference (RD) is defined as pCpT, and it estimates the parameter πC πT. [Those ‘n-resembling letters’ is how wordpress displays pi; this is one of an almost infinite number of reasons why I detest blogging equations on this blog and usually do not do this – US] […] The risk ratio (RR) is the ratio of the risk rates […] which rate appears in the numerator versus the denominator is arbitrary, so one should always explain how RR is computed. […] The odds ratio (OR) is the ratio of the within-groups odds for the undesirable event. […] A convenient property of OR is that it can be converted to a kind of standardized mean difference known as logit d (Chinn, 2000). […] Reporting logit d may be of interest when the hypothetical variable that underlies the observed dichotomy is continuous.”

“The risk difference RD is easy to interpret but has a drawback: Its range depends on the values of the population proportions πC and πT. That is, the range of RD is greater when both πC and πT are closer to .50 than when they are closer to either 0 or 1.00. The implication is that RD values may not be comparable across different studies when the corresponding parameters πC and πT are quite different. The risk ratio RR is also easy to interpret. It has the shortcoming that only the finite interval from 0 to < 1.0 indicates lower risk in the group represented in the numerator, but the interval from > 1.00 to infinity is theoretically available for describing higher risk in the same group. The range of RR varies according to its denominator. This property limits the value of RR for comparing results across different studies. […] The odds ratio or shares the limitation that the finite interval from 0 to < 1.0 indicates lower risk in the group represented in the numerator, but the interval from > 1.0 to infinity describes higher risk for the same group. Analyzing natural log transformations of OR and then taking antilogs of the results deals with this problem, just as for RR. The odds ratio may be the least intuitive of the comparative risk effect sizes, but it probably has the best overall statistical properties. This is because OR can be estimated in prospective studies, in studies that randomly sample from exposed and unexposed populations, and in retrospective studies where groups are first formed based on the presence or absence of a disease before their exposure to a putative risk factor is determined […]. Other effect sizes may not be valid in retrospective studies (RR) or in studies without random sampling ([Pearson correlations between dichotomous variables, US]).”

“Sensitivity and specificity are determined by the threshold on a screening test. This means that different thresholds on the same test will generate different sets of sensitivity and specificity values in the same sample. But both sensitivity and specificity are independent of population base rate and sample size. […] Sensitivity and specificity affect predictive value, the proportion of test results that are correct […] In general, predictive values increase as sensitivity and specificity increase. […] Predictive value is also influenced by the base rate (BR), the proportion of all cases with the disorder […] In general, PPV [positive predictive value] decreases and NPV [negative…] increases as BR approaches zero. This means that screening tests tend to be more useful for ruling out rare disorders than correctly predicting their presence. It also means that most positive results may be false positives under low base rate conditions. This is why it is difficult for researchers or social policy makers to screen large populations for rare conditions without many false positives. […] The effect of BR on predictive values is striking but often overlooked, even by professionals […]. One misunderstanding involves confusing sensitivity and specificity, which are invariant to BR, with PPV and NPV, which are not. This means that diagnosticians fail to adjust their estimates of test accuracy for changes in base rates, which exemplifies the base rate fallacy. […] In general, test results have greater impact on changing the pretest odds when the base rate is moderate, neither extremely low (close to 0) nor extremely high (close to 1.0). But if the target disorder is either very rare or very common, only a result from a highly accurate screening test will change things much.”

“The technique of ANCOVA [ANalysis of COVAriance, US] has two more assumptions than ANOVA does. One is homogeneity of regression, which requires equal within-populations unstandardized regression coefficients for predicting outcome from the covariate. In nonexperimental designs where groups differ systematically on the covariate […] the homogeneity of regression assumption is rather likely to be violated. The second assumption is that the covariate is measured without error […] Violation of either assumption may lead to inaccurate results. For example, an unreliable covariate in experimental designs causes loss of statistical power and in nonexperimental designs may also cause inaccurate adjustment of the means […]. In nonexperimental designs where groups differ systematically, these two extra assumptions are especially likely to be violated. An alternative to ANCOVA is propensity score analysis (PSA). It involves the use of logistic regression to estimate the probability for each case of belonging to different groups, such as treatment versus control, in designs without randomization, given the covariate(s). These probabilities are the propensities, and they can be used to match cases from nonequivalent groups.”

August 5, 2017 Posted by | Books, Epidemiology, Papers, Statistics | Leave a comment

A few diabetes papers of interest

i. Clinically Relevant Cognitive Impairment in Middle-Aged Adults With Childhood-Onset Type 1 Diabetes.

“Modest cognitive dysfunction is consistently reported in children and young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (1). Mental efficiency, psychomotor speed, executive functioning, and intelligence quotient appear to be most affected (2); studies report effect sizes between 0.2 and 0.5 (small to modest) in children and adolescents (3) and between 0.4 and 0.8 (modest to large) in adults (2). Whether effect sizes continue to increase as those with T1D age, however, remains unknown.

A key issue not yet addressed is whether aging individuals with T1D have an increased risk of manifesting “clinically relevant cognitive impairment,” defined by comparing individual cognitive test scores to demographically appropriate normative means, as opposed to the more commonly investigated “cognitive dysfunction,” or between-group differences in cognitive test scores. Unlike the extensive literature examining cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes, we know of only one prior study examining cognitive impairment in T1D (4). This early study reported a higher rate of clinically relevant cognitive impairment among children (10–18 years of age) diagnosed before compared with after age 6 years (24% vs. 6%, respectively) or a non-T1D cohort (6%).”

“This study tests the hypothesis that childhood-onset T1D is associated with an increased risk of developing clinically relevant cognitive impairment detectable by middle age. We compared cognitive test results between adults with and without T1D and used demographically appropriate published norms (1012) to determine whether participants met criteria for impairment for each test; aging and dementia studies have selected a score ≥1.5 SD worse than the norm on that test, corresponding to performance at or below the seventh percentile (13).”

“During 2010–2013, 97 adults diagnosed with T1D and aged <18 years (age and duration 49 ± 7 and 41 ± 6 years, respectively; 51% female) and 138 similarly aged adults without T1D (age 49 ± 7 years; 55% female) completed extensive neuropsychological testing. Biomedical data on participants with T1D were collected periodically since 1986–1988.  […] The prevalence of clinically relevant cognitive impairment was five times higher among participants with than without T1D (28% vs. 5%; P < 0.0001), independent of education, age, or blood pressure. Effect sizes were large (Cohen d 0.6–0.9; P < 0.0001) for psychomotor speed and visuoconstruction tasks and were modest (d 0.3–0.6; P < 0.05) for measures of executive function. Among participants with T1D, prevalent cognitive impairment was related to 14-year average A1c >7.5% (58 mmol/mol) (odds ratio [OR] 3.0; P = 0.009), proliferative retinopathy (OR 2.8; P = 0.01), and distal symmetric polyneuropathy (OR 2.6; P = 0.03) measured 5 years earlier; higher BMI (OR 1.1; P = 0.03); and ankle-brachial index ≥1.3 (OR 4.2; P = 0.01) measured 20 years earlier, independent of education.”

“Having T1D was the only factor significantly associated with the between-group difference in clinically relevant cognitive impairment in our sample. Traditional risk factors for age-related cognitive impairment, in particular older age and high blood pressure (24), were not related to the between-group difference we observed. […] Similar to previous studies of younger adults with T1D (14,26), we found no relationship between the number of severe hypoglycemic episodes and cognitive impairment. Rather, we found that chronic hyperglycemia, via its associated vascular and metabolic changes, may have triggered structural changes in the brain that disrupt normal cognitive function.”

Just to be absolutely clear about these results: The type 1 diabetics they recruited in this study were on average not yet fifty years old, yet more than one in four of them were cognitively impaired to a clinically relevant degree. This is a huge effect. As they note later in the paper:

“Unlike previous reports of mild/modest cognitive dysfunction in young adults with T1D (1,2), we detected clinically relevant cognitive impairment in 28% of our middle-aged participants with T1D. This prevalence rate in our T1D cohort is comparable to the prevalence of mild cognitive impairment typically reported among community-dwelling adults aged 85 years and older (29%) (20).”

The type 1 diabetics included in the study had had diabetes for roughly a decade more than I have. And the number of cognitively impaired individuals in that sample corresponds roughly to what you find when you test random 85+ year-olds. Having type 1 diabetes is not good for your brain.

ii. Comment on Nunley et al. Clinically Relevant Cognitive Impairment in Middle-Aged Adults With Childhood-Onset Type 1 Diabetes.

This one is a short comment to the above paper, below I’ve quoted ‘the meat’ of the comment:

“While the […] study provides us with important insights regarding cognitive impairment in adults with type 1 diabetes, we regret that depression has not been taken into account. A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2014 identified significant objective cognitive impairment in adults and adolescents with depression regarding executive functioning, memory, and attention relative to control subjects (2). Moreover, depression is two times more common in adults with diabetes compared with those without this condition, regardless of type of diabetes (3). There is even evidence that the co-occurrence of diabetes and depression leads to additional health risks such as increased mortality and dementia (3,4); this might well apply to cognitive impairment as well. Furthermore, in people with diabetes, the presence of depression has been associated with the development of diabetes complications, such as retinopathy, and higher HbA1c values (3). These are exactly the diabetes-specific correlates that Nunley et al. (1) found.”

“We believe it is a missed opportunity that Nunley et al. (1) mainly focused on biological variables, such as hyperglycemia and microvascular disease, and did not take into account an emotional disorder widely represented among people with diabetes and closely linked to cognitive impairment. Even though severe or chronic cases of depression are likely to have been excluded in the group without type 1 diabetes based on exclusion criteria (1), data on the presence of depression (either measured through a diagnostic interview or by using a validated screening questionnaire) could have helped to interpret the present findings. […] Determining the role of depression in the relationship between cognitive impairment and type 1 diabetes is of significant importance. Treatment of depression might improve cognitive impairment both directly by alleviating cognitive depression symptoms and indirectly by improving treatment nonadherence and glycemic control, consequently lowering the risk of developing complications.”

iii. Prevalence of Diabetes and Diabetic Nephropathy in a Large U.S. Commercially Insured Pediatric Population, 2002–2013.

“[W]e identified 96,171 pediatric patients with diabetes and 3,161 pediatric patients with diabetic nephropathy during 2002–2013. We estimated prevalence of pediatric diabetes overall, by diabetes type, age, and sex, and prevalence of pediatric diabetic nephropathy overall, by age, sex, and diabetes type.”

“Although type 1 diabetes accounts for a majority of childhood and adolescent diabetes, type 2 diabetes is becoming more common with the increasing rate of childhood obesity and it is estimated that up to 45% of all new patients with diabetes in this age-group have type 2 diabetes (1,2). With the rising prevalence of diabetes in children, a rise in diabetes-related complications, such as nephropathy, is anticipated. Moreover, data suggest that the development of clinical macrovascular complications, neuropathy, and nephropathy may be especially rapid among patients with young-onset type 2 diabetes (age of onset <40 years) (36). However, the natural history of young patients with type 2 diabetes and resulting complications has not been well studied.”

I’m always interested in the identification mechanisms applied in papers like this one, and I’m a little confused about the high number of patients without prescriptions (almost one-third of patients); I sort of assume these patients do take (/are given) prescription drugs, but get them from sources not available to the researchers (parents get prescriptions for the antidiabetic drugs, and the researchers don’t have access to these data? Something like this..) but this is a bit unclear. The mechanism they employ in the paper is not perfect (no mechanism is), but it probably works:

“Patients who had one or more prescription(s) for insulin and no prescriptions for another antidiabetes medication were classified as having type 1 diabetes, while those who filled prescriptions for noninsulin antidiabetes medications were considered to have type 2 diabetes.”

When covering limitations of the paper, they observe incidentally in this context that:

“Klingensmith et al. (31) recently reported that in the initial month after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes around 30% of patients were treated with insulin only. Thus, we may have misclassified a small proportion of type 2 cases as type 1 diabetes or vice versa. Despite this, we found that 9% of patients had onset of type 2 diabetes at age <10 years, consistent with the findings of Klingensmith et al. (8%), but higher than reported by the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study (<3%) (31,32).”

Some more observations from the paper:

“There were 149,223 patients aged <18 years at first diagnosis of diabetes in the CCE database from 2002 through 2013. […] Type 1 diabetes accounted for a majority of the pediatric patients with diabetes (79%). Among these, 53% were male and 53% were aged 12 to <18 years at onset, while among patients with type 2 diabetes, 60% were female and 79% were aged 12 to <18 years at onset.”

“The overall annual prevalence of all diabetes increased from 1.86 to 2.82 per 1,000 during years 2002–2013; it increased on average by 9.5% per year from 2002 to 2006 and slowly increased by 0.6% after that […] The prevalence of type 1 diabetes increased from 1.48 to 2.32 per 1,000 during the study period (average increase of 8.5% per year from 2002 to 2006 and 1.4% after that; both P values <0.05). The prevalence of type 2 diabetes increased from 0.38 to 0.67 per 1,000 during 2002 through 2006 (average increase of 13.3% per year; P < 0.05) and then dropped from 0.56 to 0.49 per 1,000 during 2007 through 2013 (average decrease of 2.7% per year; P < 0.05). […] Prevalence of any diabetes increased by age, with the highest prevalence in patients aged 12 to <18 years (ranging from 3.47 to 5.71 per 1,000 from 2002 through 2013).” […] The annual prevalence of diabetes increased over the study period mainly because of increases in type 1 diabetes.”

“Dabelea et al. (8) reported, based on data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, that the annual prevalence of type 1 diabetes increased from 1.48 to 1.93 per 1,000 and from 0.34 to 0.46 per 1,000 for type 2 diabetes from 2001 to 2009 in U.S. youth. In our study, the annual prevalence of type 1 diabetes was 1.48 per 1,000 in 2002 and 2.10 per 1,000 in 2009, which is close to their reported prevalence.”

“We identified 3,161 diabetic nephropathy cases. Among these, 1,509 cases (47.7%) were of specific diabetic nephropathy and 2,253 (71.3%) were classified as probable cases. […] The annual prevalence of diabetic nephropathy in pediatric patients with diabetes increased from 1.16 to 3.44% between 2002 and 2013; it increased by on average 25.7% per year from 2002 to 2005 and slowly increased by 4.6% after that (both P values <0.05).”

Do note that the relationship between nephropathy prevalence and diabetes prevalence is complicated and that you cannot just explain an increase in the prevalence of nephropathy over time easily by simply referring to an increased prevalence of diabetes during the same time period. This would in fact be a very wrong thing to do, in part but not only on account of the data structure employed in this study. One problem which is probably easy to understand is that if more children got diabetes but the same proportion of those new diabetics got nephropathy, the diabetes prevalence would go up but the diabetic nephropathy prevalence would remain fixed; when you calculate the diabetic nephropathy prevalence you implicitly condition on diabetes status. But this just scratches the surface of the issues you encounter when you try to link these variables, because the relationship between the two variables is complicated; there’s an age pattern to diabetes risk, with risk (incidence) increasing with age (up to a point, after which it falls – in most samples I’ve seen in the past peak incidence in pediatric populations is well below the age of 18). However diabetes prevalence increases monotonously with age as long as the age-specific death rate of diabetics is lower than the age-specific incidence, because diabetes is chronic, and then on top of that you have nephropathy-related variables, which display diabetes-related duration-dependence (meaning that although nephropathy risk is also increasing with age when you look at that variable in isolation, that age-risk relationship is confounded by diabetes duration – a type 1 diabetic at the age of 12 who’s had diabetes for 10 years has a higher risk of nephropathy than a 16-year old who developed diabetes the year before). When a newly diagnosed pediatric patient is included in the diabetes sample here this will actually decrease the nephropathy prevalence in the short run, but not in the long run, assuming no changes in diabetes treatment outcomes over time. This is because the probability that that individual has diabetes-related kidney problems as a newly diagnosed child is zero, so he or she will unquestionably only contribute to the denominator during the first years of illness (the situation in the middle-aged type 2 context is different; here you do sometimes have newly-diagnosed patients who have developed complications already). This is one reason why it would be quite wrong to say that increased diabetes prevalence in this sample is the reason why diabetic nephropathy is increasing as well. Unless the time period you look at is very long (e.g. you have a setting where you follow all individuals with a diagnosis until the age of 18), the impact of increasing prevalence of one condition may well be expected to have a negative impact on the estimated risk of associated conditions, if those associated conditions display duration-dependence (which all major diabetes complications do). A second factor supporting a default assumption of increasing incidence of diabetes leading to an expected decreasing rate of diabetes-related complications is of course the fact that treatment options have tended to increase over time, and especially if you take a long view (look back 30-40 years) the increase in treatment options and improved medical technology have lead to improved metabolic control and better outcomes.

That both variables grew over time might be taken to indicate that both more children got diabetes and that a larger proportion of this increased number of children with diabetes developed kidney problems, but this stuff is a lot more complicated than it might look and it’s in particular important to keep in mind that, say, the 2005 sample and the 2010 sample do not include the same individuals, although there’ll of course be some overlap; in age-stratified samples like this you always have some level of implicit continuous replacement, with newly diagnosed patients entering and replacing the 18-year olds who leave the sample. As long as prevalence is constant over time, associated outcome variables may be reasonably easy to interpret, but when you have dynamic samples as well as increasing prevalence over time it gets difficult to say much with any degree of certainty unless you crunch the numbers in a lot of detail (and it might be difficult even if you do that). A factor I didn’t mention above but which is of course also relevant is that you need to be careful about how to interpret prevalence rates when you look at complications with high mortality rates (and late-stage diabetic nephropathy is indeed a complication with high mortality); in such a situation improvements in treatment outcomes may have large effects on prevalence rates but no effect on incidence. Increased prevalence is not always bad news, sometimes it is good news indeed. Gleevec substantially increased the prevalence of CML.

In terms of the prevalence-outcomes (/complication risk) connection, there are also in my opinion reasons to assume that there may be multiple causal pathways between prevalence and outcomes. For example a very low prevalence of a condition in a given area may mean that fewer specialists are educated to take care of these patients than would be the case for an area with a higher prevalence, and this may translate into a more poorly developed care infrastructure. Greatly increasing prevalence may on the other hand lead to a lower level of care for all patients with the illness, not just the newly diagnosed ones, due to binding budget constraints and care rationing. And why might you have changes in prevalence; might they not sometimes rather be related to changes in diagnostic practices, rather than changes in the True* prevalence? If that’s the case, you might not be comparing apples to apples when you’re comparing the evolving complication rates. There are in my opinion many reasons to believe that the relationship between chronic conditions and the complication rates of these conditions is far from simple to model.

All this said, kidney problems in children with diabetes is still rare, compared to the numbers you see when you look at adult samples with longer diabetes duration. It’s also worth distinguishing between microalbuminuria and overt nephropathy; children rarely proceed to develop diabetes-related kidney failure, although poor metabolic control may mean that they do develop this complication later, in early adulthood. As they note in the paper:

“It has been reported that overt diabetic nephropathy and kidney failure caused by either type 1 or type 2 diabetes are uncommon during childhood or adolescence (24). In this study, the annual prevalence of diabetic nephropathy for all cases ranged from 1.16 to 3.44% in pediatric patients with diabetes and was extremely low in the whole pediatric population (range 2.15 to 9.70 per 100,000), confirming that diabetic nephropathy is a very uncommon condition in youth aged <18 years. We observed that the prevalence of diabetic nephropathy increased in both specific and unspecific cases before 2006, with a leveling off of the specific nephropathy cases after 2005, while the unspecific cases continued to increase.”

iv. Adherence to Oral Glucose-Lowering Therapies and Associations With 1-Year HbA1c: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis in a Large Primary Care Database.

“Between a third and a half of medicines prescribed for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), a condition in which multiple medications are used to control cardiovascular risk factors and blood glucose (1,2), are not taken as prescribed (36). However, estimates vary widely depending on the population being studied and the way in which adherence to recommended treatment is defined.”

“A number of previous studies have used retrospective databases of electronic health records to examine factors that might predict adherence. A recent large cohort database examined overall adherence to oral therapy for T2DM, taking into account changes of therapy. It concluded that overall adherence was 69%, with individuals newly started on treatment being significantly less likely to adhere (19).”

“The impact of continuing to take glucose-lowering medicines intermittently, but not as recommended, is unknown. Medication possession (expressed as a ratio of actual possession to expected possession), derived from prescribing records, has been identified as a valid adherence measure for people with diabetes (7). Previous studies have been limited to small populations in managed-care systems in the U.S. and focused on metformin and sulfonylurea oral glucose-lowering treatments (8,9). Further studies need to be carried out in larger groups of people that are more representative of the general population.

The Clinical Practice Research Database (CPRD) is a long established repository of routine clinical data from more than 13 million patients registered with primary care services in England. […] The Genetics of Diabetes and Audit Research Tayside Study (GoDARTS) database is derived from integrated health records in Scotland with primary care, pharmacy, and hospital data on 9,400 patients with diabetes. […] We conducted a retrospective cohort study using [these databases] to examine the prevalence of nonadherence to treatment for type 2 diabetes and investigate its potential impact on HbA1c reduction stratified by type of glucose-lowering medication.”

“In CPRD and GoDARTS, 13% and 15% of patients, respectively, were nonadherent. Proportions of nonadherent patients varied by the oral glucose-lowering treatment prescribed (range 8.6% [thiazolidinedione] to 18.8% [metformin]). Nonadherent, compared with adherent, patients had a smaller HbA1c reduction (0.4% [4.4 mmol/mol] and 0.46% [5.0 mmol/mol] for CPRD and GoDARTs, respectively). Difference in HbA1c response for adherent compared with nonadherent patients varied by drug (range 0.38% [4.1 mmol/mol] to 0.75% [8.2 mmol/mol] lower in adherent group). Decreasing levels of adherence were consistently associated with a smaller reduction in HbA1c.”

“These findings show an association between adherence to oral glucose-lowering treatment, measured by the proportion of medication obtained on prescription over 1 year, and the corresponding decrement in HbA1c, in a population of patients newly starting treatment and continuing to collect prescriptions. The association is consistent across all commonly used oral glucose-lowering therapies, and the findings are consistent between the two data sets examined, CPRD and GoDARTS. Nonadherent patients, taking on average <80% of the intended medication, had about half the expected reduction in HbA1c. […] Reduced medication adherence for commonly used glucose-lowering therapies among patients persisting with treatment is associated with smaller HbA1c reductions compared with those taking treatment as recommended. Differences observed in HbA1c responses to glucose-lowering treatments may be explained in part by their intermittent use.”

“Low medication adherence is related to increased mortality (20). The mean difference in HbA1c between patients with MPR <80% and ≥80% is between 0.37% and 0.55% (4 mmol/mol and 6 mmol/mol), equivalent to up to a 10% reduction in death or an 18% reduction in diabetes complications (21).”

v. Health Care Transition in Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Perspectives of Adult Endocrinologists in the U.S.

“Empiric data are limited on best practices in transition care, especially in the U.S. (10,1316). Prior research, largely from the patient perspective, has highlighted challenges in the transition process, including gaps in care (13,1719); suboptimal pediatric transition preparation (13,20); increased post-transition hospitalizations (21); and patient dissatisfaction with the transition experience (13,1719). […] Young adults with type 1 diabetes transitioning from pediatric to adult care are at risk for adverse outcomes. Our objective was to describe experiences, resources, and barriers reported by a national sample of adult endocrinologists receiving and caring for young adults with type 1 diabetes.”

“We received responses from 536 of 4,214 endocrinologists (response rate 13%); 418 surveys met the eligibility criteria. Respondents (57% male, 79% Caucasian) represented 47 states; 64% had been practicing >10 years and 42% worked at an academic center. Only 36% of respondents reported often/always reviewing pediatric records and 11% reported receiving summaries for transitioning young adults with type 1 diabetes, although >70% felt that these activities were important for patient care.”

“A number of studies document deficiencies in provider hand-offs across other chronic conditions and point to the broader relevance of our findings. For example, in two studies of inflammatory bowel disease, adult gastroenterologists reported inadequacies in young adult transition preparation (31) and infrequent receipt of medical histories from pediatric providers (32). In a study of adult specialists caring for young adults with a variety of chronic diseases (33), more than half reported that they had no contact with the pediatric specialists.

Importantly, more than half of the endocrinologists in our study reported a need for increased access to mental health referrals for young adult patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly in nonacademic settings. Report of barriers to care was highest for patient scenarios involving mental health issues, and endocrinologists without easy access to mental health referrals were significantly more likely to report barriers to diabetes management for young adults with psychiatric comorbidities such as depression, substance abuse, and eating disorders.”

“Prior research (34,35) has uncovered the lack of mental health resources in diabetes care. In the large cross-national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) study (36) […] diabetes providers often reported not having the resources to manage mental health problems; half of specialist diabetes physicians felt unable to provide psychiatric support for patients and one-third did not have ready access to outside expertise in emotional or psychiatric matters. Our results, which resonate with the DAWN findings, are particularly concerning in light of the vulnerability of young adults with type 1 diabetes for adverse medical and mental health outcomes (4,34,37,38). […] In a recent report from the Mental Health Issues of Diabetes conference (35), which focused on type 1 diabetes, a major observation included the lack of trained mental health professionals, both in academic centers and the community, who are knowledgeable about the mental health issues germane to diabetes.”

August 3, 2017 Posted by | Diabetes, Epidemiology, Medicine, Nephrology, Neurology, Pharmacology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Statistics, Studies | Leave a comment