Dataset Information

Statin diabetogenicity: guidance for clinicians.

ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a strong, independent risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) and cerebrovascular outcomes. Meta-analysis of five randomised clinical trials (n = 33,040) showed that, although intensive versus standard glycaemic control significantly reduced CV events in people with T2D, the reduction was less than that achieved with lipid-lowering or antihypertensive treatment. Furthermore, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations were a modest predictor for CV risk in people without T2D. Thus, although effective glycaemic control is important for the prevention/management of T2D, other risk factors must be addressed to effectively reduce CV risk. Reducing low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels using statins significantly reduces CV risk in people with and without T2D. Although statins are generally safe and well tolerated, conflicting data exist regarding the diabetogenic effects of some statins. Based on recent clinical trial data, the US Food and Drug Administration have changed the labelling of all statins to include 'an effect of statins on incident diabetes and increases in haemoglobin A1c and/or FPG'. However, the literature suggests that the beneficial effects of most statins on CV risk continue to outweigh their diabetogenic risks and that statins should remain as first-line therapy for the majority of people with dyslipidaemia and metabolic syndrome or T2D. Mechanisms explaining the potentially higher incidence of T2D with statin therapy have not been confirmed. However, independent predictors for statin-associated T2D appear to include elevated levels of baseline FPG, BMI, blood pressure and fasting triglycerides. Moreover, although some statins (for example, atorvastatin) are associated with increased haemoglobin A1c levels in patients receiving intensive but not moderate therapy, other statins (for example, pitavastatin) have demonstrated neutral or favourable effects on glucose control in patients with and without T2D or metabolic syndrome. The potential diabetogenic effects of statins may therefore differ between drugs. In conclusion, conflicting data exist regarding the diabetogenic effects of statins. Further studies are required to understand whether all statins have the same effect and whether some patient groups are at higher risk than others. Meanwhile, results suggest that the net CV benefit favours the use of statin therapy in patients with dyslipidaemia, irrespective of T2D risk.

SUBMITTER: Ray K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3668177 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Statin diabetogenicity: guidance for clinicians.

Ray Kausik K

Cardiovascular diabetology 20130530

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a strong, independent risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) and cerebrovascular outcomes. Meta-analysis of five randomised clinical trials (n = 33,040) showed that, although intensive versus standard glycaemic control significantly reduced CV events in people with T2D, the reduction was less than that achieved with lipid-lowering or antihypertensive treatment. Furthermore, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations were a modest predictor for CV risk in people without T2D ...[more]

PMID: 23819776

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents unique challenges in health care, including mental health care provision. Telepsychiatry can provide an alternative to face-to-face assessment and can also be used creatively with other technologies to enhance care, but clinicians and patients may feel underconfident about embracing this new way of working.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to produce an open-access, easy-to-consult, and reliable source of information and guidance about telepsychiatry and COVID-19 using an evidence-based approach.MethodsWe systematically searched existing English language guidelines and websites for information on telepsychiatry in the context of COVID-19 up to and including May 2020. We used broad search criteria and included pre-COVID-19 guidelines and other digital mental health topics where relevant. We summarized the data we extracted as answers to specific clinical questions.ResultsFindings from this study are presented as both a short practical checklist for clinicians and detailed textboxes with a full summary of all the guidelines. The summary textboxes are also available on an open-access webpage, which is regularly updated. These findings reflected the strong evidence base for the use of telepsychiatry and included guidelines for many of the common concerns expressed by clinicians about practical implementation, technology, information governance, and safety. Guidelines across countries differ significantly, with UK guidelines more conservative and focused on practical implementation and US guidelines more expansive and detailed. Guidelines on possible combinations with other digital technologies such as apps (eg, from the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Health Service Apps Library, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) are less detailed. Several key areas were not represented. Although some special populations such as child and adolescent, and older adult, and cultural issues are specifically included, important populations such as learning disabilities, psychosis, personality disorder, and eating disorders, which may present particular challenges for telepsychiatry, are not. In addition, the initial consultation and follow-up sessions are not clearly distinguished. Finally, a hybrid model of care (combining telepsychiatry with other technologies and in-person care) is not explicitly covered by the existing guidelines.ConclusionsWe produced a comprehensive synthesis of guidance answering a wide range of clinical questions in telepsychiatry. This meets the urgent need for practical information for both clinicians and health care organizations who are rapidly adapting to the pandemic and implementing remote consultation. It reflects variations across countries and can be used as a basis for organizational change in the short- and long-term. Providing easily accessible guidance is a first step but will need cultural change to implement as clinicians start to view telepsychiatry not just as a replacement but as a parallel and complementary form of delivering therapy with its own advantages and benefits as well as restrictions. A combination or hybrid approach can be the most successful approach in the new world of mental health post-COVID-19, and guidance will need to expand to encompass the use of telepsychiatry in conjunction with other in-person and digital technologies, and its use across all psychiatric disorders, not just those who are the first to access and engage with remote treatment.

Project description:ImportanceStatins reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, but less than one-half of individuals in America who meet guideline criteria for a statin are actively prescribed this medication.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether nudges to clinicians, patients, or both increase initiation of statin prescribing during primary care visits.Design, setting, and participantsThis cluster randomized clinical trial evaluated statin prescribing of 158 clinicians from 28 primary care practices including 4131 patients. The design included a 12-month preintervention period and a 6-month intervention period between October 19, 2019, and April 18, 2021.InterventionsThe usual care group received no interventions. The clinician nudge combined an active choice prompt in the electronic health record during the patient visit and monthly feedback on prescribing patterns compared with peers. The patient nudge was an interactive text message delivered 4 days before the visit. The combined nudge included the clinician and patient nudges.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was initiation of a statin prescription during the visit.ResultsThe sample comprised 4131 patients with a mean (SD) age of 65.5 (10.5) years; 2120 (51.3%) were male; 1210 (29.3%) were Black, 106 (2.6%) were Hispanic, 2732 (66.1%) were White, and 83 (2.0%) were of other race or ethnicity, and 933 (22.6%) had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In unadjusted analyses during the preintervention period, statins were prescribed to 5.6% of patients (105 of 1876) in the usual care group, 4.8% (97 of 2022) in the patient nudge group, 6.0% (104 of 1723) in the clinician nudge group, and 4.7% (82 of 1752) in the combined group. During the intervention, statins were prescribed to 7.3% of patients (75 of 1032) in the usual care group, 8.5% (100 of 1181) in the patient nudge group, 13.0% (128 of 981) in the clinician nudge arm, and 15.5% (145 of 937) in the combined group. In the main adjusted analyses relative to usual care, the clinician nudge significantly increased statin prescribing alone (5.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.4 to 7.8 percentage points; P = .01) and when combined with the patient nudge (7.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.1 to 9.1 percentage points; P = .001). The patient nudge alone did not change statin prescribing relative to usual care (0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 2.5 percentage points; P = .32).Conclusions and relevanceNudges to clinicians with and without a patient nudge significantly increased initiation of a statin prescription during primary care visits. The patient nudge alone was not effective.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04307472.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence to inform communication between emergency department clinicians and public health agencies is limited. In the context of diverse, emerging public health incidents, communication is urgent, as emergency department clinicians must implement recommendations to protect themselves and the public. The objectives of this study were to: explore current practices, barriers and facilitators at the local level for communicating public health guidance to emergency department clinicians in emerging public health incidents; and develop a framework that promotes effective communication of public health guidance to clinicians during emerging incidents.MethodsA qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 26 key informants from emergency departments and public health agencies in Ontario, Canada. Data were analyzed inductively and the analytic approach was guided by concepts of complexity theory.ResultsEmergent themes corresponded to challenges and strategies for effective communication of public health guidance. Important challenges related to the coordination of communication across institutions and jurisdictions, and differences in work environments across sectors. Strategies for effective communication were identified as the development of partnerships and collaboration, attention to specific methods of communication used, and the importance of roles and relationship-building prior to an emerging public health incident. Following descriptive analysis, a framework was developed that consists of the following elements: 1) Anticipate; 2) Invest in building relationships and networks; 3) Establish liaison roles and redundancy; 4) Active communication; 5) Consider and respond to the target audience; 6) Leverage networks for coordination; and 7) Acknowledge and address uncertainty. The qualities inherent in local relationships cut across framework elements.ConclusionsThis research indicates that relationships are central to effective communication between public health agencies and emergency department clinicians at the local level. Our framework which is grounded in qualitative evidence focuses on strategies to promote effective communication in the emerging public health incident setting and may be useful in informing practice.

Project description:IntroductionNetwork meta-analyses (NMAs) are complex methodological approaches that may be challenging for non-technical end-users, such as policymakers and clinicians, to understand. Consideration should be given to identifying optimal approaches to presenting NMAs that help clarify analyses. It is unclear what guidance researchers currently have on how to present and tailor NMAs to different end-users.MethodsA systematic review of NMA guidelines was conducted to identify guidance on how to present NMAs. Electronic databases and supplementary sources were searched for NMA guidelines. Presentation format details related to sample formats, target audiences, data sources, analysis methods and results were extracted and frequencies tabulated. Guideline quality was assessed following criteria developed for clinical practice guidelines.ResultsSeven guidelines were included. Current guidelines focus on how to conduct NMAs but provide limited guidance to researchers on how to best present analyses to different end-users. None of the guidelines provided reporting templates. Few guidelines provided advice on tailoring presentations to different end-users, such as policymakers. Available guidance on presentation formats focused on evidence networks, characteristics of individual trials, comparisons between direct and indirect estimates and assumptions of heterogeneity and/or inconsistency. Some guidelines also provided examples of figures and tables that could be used to present information.ConclusionsLimited guidance exists for researchers on how best to present NMAs in an accessible format, especially for non-technical end-users such as policymakers and clinicians. NMA guidelines may require further integration with end-users' needs, when NMAs are used to support healthcare policy and practice decisions. Developing presentation formats that enhance understanding and accessibility of NMAs could also enhance the transparency and legitimacy of decisions informed by NMAs.

Dataset Information

Statin diabetogenicity: guidance for clinicians.

Publications

Statin diabetogenicity: guidance for clinicians.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets