Primary care diabetes · 2015
Glycemic control and use of A1c in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Alonso-Fernández Margarita, Mancera-Romero José, Mediavilla-Bravo José Javier, Comas-Samper José Manuel, López-Simarro Flora, Pérez-Unanua Ma Paz, Iturralde-Iriso Jesús, Work Group of Diabetes SEMERGEN (Sociedad Española de Médicos de Atención Primaria)
Аннотация
AIMS: To evaluate the degree of glycemic control and its relationship with disease characteristics and antidiabetic treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), as well as the frequency of A1c use.
METHODS: For this purpose, an observational, cross-sectorial, and multicenter study was performed. A total of 443 patients were monitored in 17 Spanish primary healthcare centers. Demographic and clinical variables were recorded from the clinical history of patients.
RESULTS: Mean age was 68.9±12.0 years. Time of evolution of DM was 9.2±6.4 years. Mean A1c was 7.38±1.34% and 45% of patients achieved A1c <7%. There was a no significant relationship between the degree of control and time of evolution of DM. In 16% of patients no A1c determination was performed in the previous twelve months. In those patients in whom A1c was determined, 95% received pharmacologic treatment, and 31% insulin therapy. 66% of patients on monotherapy attained A1C <7%, compared with 39% and 23% of those receiving double- and triple-oral therapy, respectively (p<0.001). Only 21% of patients on insulin therapy achieved A1c <7%. The worst-controlled patients were those receiving oral antidiabetic agents and insulin (24% had A1c levels ≥9%).
CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients are poorly controlled. Poor control increases according to complexity of treatment. A1c is underdetermined in many patients, likely related to clinical inertia.
METHODS: For this purpose, an observational, cross-sectorial, and multicenter study was performed. A total of 443 patients were monitored in 17 Spanish primary healthcare centers. Demographic and clinical variables were recorded from the clinical history of patients.
RESULTS: Mean age was 68.9±12.0 years. Time of evolution of DM was 9.2±6.4 years. Mean A1c was 7.38±1.34% and 45% of patients achieved A1c <7%. There was a no significant relationship between the degree of control and time of evolution of DM. In 16% of patients no A1c determination was performed in the previous twelve months. In those patients in whom A1c was determined, 95% received pharmacologic treatment, and 31% insulin therapy. 66% of patients on monotherapy attained A1C <7%, compared with 39% and 23% of those receiving double- and triple-oral therapy, respectively (p<0.001). Only 21% of patients on insulin therapy achieved A1c <7%. The worst-controlled patients were those receiving oral antidiabetic agents and insulin (24% had A1c levels ≥9%).
CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients are poorly controlled. Poor control increases according to complexity of treatment. A1c is underdetermined in many patients, likely related to clinical inertia.