根据初级保健2型糖尿病指南评估风险分层——来自丹麦图表项目的见解。

Morten H Charles, Karoline Schousboe, Tanja Thybo, Esben Krogh Hall-Andersen, Søren Tang Knudsen
{"title":"根据初级保健2型糖尿病指南评估风险分层——来自丹麦图表项目的见解。","authors":"Morten H Charles, Karoline Schousboe, Tanja Thybo, Esben Krogh Hall-Andersen, Søren Tang Knudsen","doi":"10.1016/j.pcd.2025.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate how Danish General Practitioners (GPs) apply Type 2 diabetes guideline recommendations for risk stratification and management across patient subgroups defined by existing chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart failure (HF), cardiovascular disease (CVD), or elevated risk of incident CVD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>131 GPs responded to a questionnaire on guideline usage and reviewed randomised patient electronic medical records (EMRs), noting demographics, treatment, comorbidities, and presence of six prespecified CVD risk factors. Patients without comorbidities but with ≥ 3 risk factors were deemed at Higher CVD Risk. When missing data prevented allocation to risk groups, CVD risk was Undefined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1964 EMRs meeting inclusion criteria, 641 (33 %) had ≥ 1 cardiorenal comorbidity. Of 1307 without comorbidities, 513 (26 %) were at Higher CVD Risk; risk was Undefined for 668 (34 %). Organ-protective antihyperglycaemic agents were used in 1114/1964 (57 %), and more frequently (61-68 %) across comorbidity subgroups, while CVD risk group status did not correlate with guideline-directed organ-protective treatment. Finally, whereas GPs allocated 379 (19 %) patients to CKD, 596 (30 %) EMRs included laboratory data suggesting presence of CKD.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Organ-protective treatment patterns suggest that GPs distinguish patients by comorbidity status but find guideline-defined CVD risk challenging to apply. Additionally, CKD may be underdiagnosed in T2D patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":94177,"journal":{"name":"Primary care diabetes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating risk stratification according to Type 2 diabetes guidelines in primary care - Insights from the Danish DIAGRAM project.\",\"authors\":\"Morten H Charles, Karoline Schousboe, Tanja Thybo, Esben Krogh Hall-Andersen, Søren Tang Knudsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pcd.2025.05.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate how Danish General Practitioners (GPs) apply Type 2 diabetes guideline recommendations for risk stratification and management across patient subgroups defined by existing chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart failure (HF), cardiovascular disease (CVD), or elevated risk of incident CVD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>131 GPs responded to a questionnaire on guideline usage and reviewed randomised patient electronic medical records (EMRs), noting demographics, treatment, comorbidities, and presence of six prespecified CVD risk factors. Patients without comorbidities but with ≥ 3 risk factors were deemed at Higher CVD Risk. When missing data prevented allocation to risk groups, CVD risk was Undefined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1964 EMRs meeting inclusion criteria, 641 (33 %) had ≥ 1 cardiorenal comorbidity. Of 1307 without comorbidities, 513 (26 %) were at Higher CVD Risk; risk was Undefined for 668 (34 %). Organ-protective antihyperglycaemic agents were used in 1114/1964 (57 %), and more frequently (61-68 %) across comorbidity subgroups, while CVD risk group status did not correlate with guideline-directed organ-protective treatment. Finally, whereas GPs allocated 379 (19 %) patients to CKD, 596 (30 %) EMRs included laboratory data suggesting presence of CKD.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Organ-protective treatment patterns suggest that GPs distinguish patients by comorbidity status but find guideline-defined CVD risk challenging to apply. Additionally, CKD may be underdiagnosed in T2D patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Primary care diabetes\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Primary care diabetes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2025.05.002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary care diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2025.05.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估丹麦全科医生(gp)如何应用2型糖尿病指南建议,对现有慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)、心力衰竭(HF)、心血管疾病(CVD)或心血管疾病发生率升高的患者亚组进行风险分层和管理。方法:131名全科医生回答了一份关于指南使用的问卷,并回顾了随机患者电子病历(emr),注意到人口统计学、治疗、合并症和六种预先指定的心血管疾病危险因素的存在。无合并症但危险因素≥ 3的患者被认为是高CVD风险。当缺少数据无法分配给风险组时,CVD风险为未定义。结果:在符合纳入标准的1964例emr中,641例(33 %)有≥ 1例心肾合并症。在1307名无合并症的患者中,513名(26% %)心血管疾病风险较高;668例(34% %)风险未确定。在1114/1964中(57 %)使用了器官保护抗高血糖药物,在合并症亚组中使用的频率更高(61-68 %),而CVD危险组状态与指南指导的器官保护治疗无关。最后,尽管全科医生将379例(19% %)患者分配为CKD,但596例(30 %)emr包含提示CKD存在的实验室数据。结论:器官保护治疗模式提示全科医生根据合并症状况区分患者,但发现指南定义的心血管疾病风险难以应用。此外,慢性肾病在T2D患者中可能未被充分诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating risk stratification according to Type 2 diabetes guidelines in primary care - Insights from the Danish DIAGRAM project.

Aims: To evaluate how Danish General Practitioners (GPs) apply Type 2 diabetes guideline recommendations for risk stratification and management across patient subgroups defined by existing chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart failure (HF), cardiovascular disease (CVD), or elevated risk of incident CVD.

Methods: 131 GPs responded to a questionnaire on guideline usage and reviewed randomised patient electronic medical records (EMRs), noting demographics, treatment, comorbidities, and presence of six prespecified CVD risk factors. Patients without comorbidities but with ≥ 3 risk factors were deemed at Higher CVD Risk. When missing data prevented allocation to risk groups, CVD risk was Undefined.

Results: Of 1964 EMRs meeting inclusion criteria, 641 (33 %) had ≥ 1 cardiorenal comorbidity. Of 1307 without comorbidities, 513 (26 %) were at Higher CVD Risk; risk was Undefined for 668 (34 %). Organ-protective antihyperglycaemic agents were used in 1114/1964 (57 %), and more frequently (61-68 %) across comorbidity subgroups, while CVD risk group status did not correlate with guideline-directed organ-protective treatment. Finally, whereas GPs allocated 379 (19 %) patients to CKD, 596 (30 %) EMRs included laboratory data suggesting presence of CKD.

Conclusions: Organ-protective treatment patterns suggest that GPs distinguish patients by comorbidity status but find guideline-defined CVD risk challenging to apply. Additionally, CKD may be underdiagnosed in T2D patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信