Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026
Hyperlipidaemia in youth with type 1 diabetes: Are current guidelines clinically useful?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rodrigues Farrah, White Mary, O'Connell Michele A
Аннотация
AIMS: Dyslipidaemia in youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) is emerging as an important modifiable cardiovascular risk factor. International consensus guidelines to screen this entity have evolved over time. To further evaluate this in an Australian context, we investigated adherence to such guidelines over the course of patient care. Additionally, once a diagnosis of dyslipidaemia was made, the trajectory and clinical management of these patients were explored.
METHODS: A retrospective audit was undertaken in paediatric patients diagnosed with T1D. Clinical and ancillary laboratory data were collected.
RESULTS: Of the 335 patients identified, 263 (78%) followed initial lipid screening guidelines. Mean interval of testing was 17 months (SD 8 months), rather than the recommended 5-year interval. One or more abnormal lipid test parameters were identified in 55% (n = 183/335) of individuals. Average age at diagnosis of dyslipidaemia was 15.6 years (SD 2.0 years). In this cohort, 69 individuals (25%, 69/280) had an abnormal low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) level, of whom 15 individuals (n = 15/69, 22%) had a level > 3.4 mmol/L, and 4 individuals had a level > 4.1 mmol/L (4/69, 6%). Only 1 of the 69 individuals was referred to a dietician. No patient was commenced on pharmacotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Overall, our data indicate low adherence to international guidelines for dyslipidaemia screening and management. The reasons for this cannot be defined by a retrospective study but may reflect low clinician confidence, competing therapeutic priorities or difficulty in following current guidelines.
METHODS: A retrospective audit was undertaken in paediatric patients diagnosed with T1D. Clinical and ancillary laboratory data were collected.
RESULTS: Of the 335 patients identified, 263 (78%) followed initial lipid screening guidelines. Mean interval of testing was 17 months (SD 8 months), rather than the recommended 5-year interval. One or more abnormal lipid test parameters were identified in 55% (n = 183/335) of individuals. Average age at diagnosis of dyslipidaemia was 15.6 years (SD 2.0 years). In this cohort, 69 individuals (25%, 69/280) had an abnormal low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) level, of whom 15 individuals (n = 15/69, 22%) had a level > 3.4 mmol/L, and 4 individuals had a level > 4.1 mmol/L (4/69, 6%). Only 1 of the 69 individuals was referred to a dietician. No patient was commenced on pharmacotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Overall, our data indicate low adherence to international guidelines for dyslipidaemia screening and management. The reasons for this cannot be defined by a retrospective study but may reflect low clinician confidence, competing therapeutic priorities or difficulty in following current guidelines.