Diagnosing microalbuminuria and consequences for the drug treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a European survey in primary care

PSA measurement and prostate cancer--overdiagnosis and overtreatment?

BACKGROUND

Growing attention is being paid to PSA testing and the risk of overdiagnosis of prostate cancer. This paper investigates how the number of PSA tests has developed over time in Norwegian counties, and relates this development to the incidence of cancer in the various counties and the rates of prostate cancer surgery.

METHOD

Data on incidence, survival and mortality were obtained from public registers. The numbers of PSA tests carried out were acquired from Norwegian laboratories. The PSA testing rates per county and correlation with prostate cancer incidence rates and surgery rates were surveyed. Developments in Sogn og Fjordane, which has the highest incidence of prostate cancer in Norway, were examined separately. A net-based survey of primary doctors' attitudes and practice was carried out.

RESULTS

The number of PSA tests increased substantially in the period 1999-2011 and in 2011 corresponded to testing of 45% of the total male population aged over 40 in Norway. The number of PSA tests in 2011 correlated with the incidence by county of prostate cancer in the previous period (Pearson's r = 0.41). The correlation between the incidence of cancer and surgical procedures was 0.66. In Sogn og Fjordane, the prostate cancer incidence and survival are rising steeply, while mortality is at the same level as in Norway generally. Primary doctors often comply with their patients' wish for PSA testing and find it difficult not to refer them to specialists if values are elevated.

INTERPRETATION

There is probably a correlation between the increased incidence of prostate cancer and the amount of PSA testing. Compliance with the guidelines for testing should be better and clinicians could practice more watchful waiting with regard to further treatment in cases of elevated PSA values.

Is albuminuria screening and treatment optimal in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care? Observational data of the GIANTT cohort

BACKGROUND

Failure of diagnosing and treatment of albuminuria play a role in morbidity and mortality in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We evaluated guideline adherence and factors associated with albuminuria screening and treatment in T2DM patients in primary care.

METHODS

Guidelines recommend annual measurement of albuminuria and, if increased, treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers. We performed a cohort study of T2DM patients managed by 182 Dutch general practitioners (GPs; Groningen Initiative to Analyse Type 2 diabetes Treatment database), and evaluated guideline adherence in the years 2007-2009. We assessed whether demographic, clinical, organizational or provider factors determined guideline adherence with multilevel analyses.

RESULTS

Data were available for 14 120 T2DM patients [47.6% male, mean age 67.3 ± 11.7 years, median diabetes duration 6 (IQR: 3-10) years]. The albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) was measured in 45.2% in 2007, 57.4% in 2008 and 56.8% in 2009. Only 23.7% of all patients were measured every year and 21.4% were never measured. The ACR was more often measured in patients <75 years, with a previous ACR measurement, using anti-diabetic medication, and receiving additional care by a diabetes support facility. RAAS treatment was prescribed to 78.4% of patients with prevalent micro/macroalbuminuria, 66.5% with incident micro/macroalbuminuria, 59.3% with normoalbuminuria and 52.1% of those without ACR measurements. In those not treated with RAAS blockers, it was initiated in 14.3, 12.3, 3.0 and 2.3%, respectively. The presence of micro/macroalbuminuria, higher blood pressure, incidence of cardiovascular events and treatment with antihypertensive medication were the determinants of RAAS-treatment initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline implementation regarding the management of albuminuria in T2DM patients in primary care should be further improved.

How do laboratory specialists advise clinicians concerning the use and interpretation of renal tests?

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to elucidate how laboratory specialists advise clinicians concerning renal parameters and to compare their advice with guideline recommendations.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to laboratory specialists in Norway and The Netherlands together with two case histories from a primary health-care setting and one from a hospital setting, simulating questions from clinicians. The investigations that laboratory specialists suggested were compared to a test panel that was predefined based on clinical practice guideline recommendations (the 'recommended test panel'). The critical differences between two test results (creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] and albumin/creatinine ratio [ACR]) and the anticipated precision of the MDRD equation were evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-two of the 100 laboratory specialists responded, and most of these were regularly contacted by clinicians to discuss laboratory results. Less than 30% would suggest using the recommended test panel to evaluate renal function in the two primary-care patients. For creatinine and eGFR, median changes stated to signal improvement or deterioration in renal function (creatinine: -14% and +14%, respectively; eGFR: +18% and -13%, respectively) were similar to what could be calculated using information on analytical and within-subject variation from the literature. There were variable critical differences for the ACR results (median values of -50% for improvement and +67% for deterioration). Only 23% of the participants would recommend a gold standard clearance examination for a patient who was to undergo nephrotoxic chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Questions from GPs about renal parameters are answered differently by laboratory specialists, and adherences to guideline recommendations are low on some issues.

A longitudinal study examining adherence to guidelines in diabetes care according to different definitions of adequacy and timeliness

BACKGROUND

Performance indicators assessing quality of diabetes care often look at single processes, e.g. whether an HbA1c test was conducted. Adequate care, however, consists of consecutive processes which should be taken in time (clinical pathways). We assessed quality of diabetes care by looking at single processes versus clinical pathways. In addition, we evaluated the impact of time period definitions on this quality assessment.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a cohort study in 2007-2008 using the GIANTT (Groningen Initiative to Analyse type 2 diabetes Treatment) database. Proportions of patients adequately managed for HbA1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C), and albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) were calculated for the pathway of (1) risk factor level testing, (2) treatment intensification when indicated, (3) response to treatment evaluation. Strict and wide time periods for each step were defined. Proportions of patients adequately managed regarding the overall pathway and single steps, using strict or wide time periods were compared using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.

FINDINGS

Of 11,176 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, 9439 with complete follow-up were included. The majority received annual examination of HbA1c (86%) and SBP (86%), whereas this was 67% for LDL-C and 49% for ACR. Adequate management regarding the three-step pathway was observed in 73%, 53%, 46%, 41% of patients for HbA1c, SBP, LDL-C, and ACR respectively. Quality scores reduced significantly due to the second step (OR 0.43, 0.18, 0.44, 0.74), but were not much further reduced by the third step. Timely treatment evaluation occurred in 88% for HbA1c, 87% for SBP, 83% for LDL-C, and 76% for ACR. The overall score was not significantly changed by using strict time windows.

CONCLUSION

Quality estimates of glycemic, blood pressure and cholesterol management are substantially reduced when looking at clinical pathways as compared to estimates based on commonly used simple process measures.