OBJECTIVETo investigate the quality of type 2 diabetes care according to sex.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSClinical data collected during the year 2009 were extracted from electronic medical records; quality-of-care indicators were evaluated. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was applied to estimate the likelihood of women versus men to be monitored for selected parameters, to reach clinical outcomes, and to be treated with specific classes of drugs. The intercenter variability in the proportion of men and women achieving the targets was also investigated.RESULTSOverall, 415,294 patients from 236 diabetes outpatient centers were evaluated, of whom 188,125 (45.3%) were women and 227,169 (54.7%) were men. Women were 14% more likely than men to have HbA1c >9.0% in spite of insulin treatment (odds ratio 1.14 [95% CI 1.10–1.17]), 42% more likely to have LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥130 mg/dL (1.42 [1.38–1.46]) in spite of lipid-lowering treatment, and 50% more likely to have BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (1.50 [1.50–1.54]). Women were less likely to be monitored for foot and eye complications. In 99% of centers, the percentage of men reaching the LDL-C target was higher than in women, the proportion of patients reaching the HbA1c target was in favor of men in 80% of the centers, and no differences emerged for blood pressure.CONCLUSIONSWomen show a poorer quality of diabetes care than men. The attainment of the LDL-C target seems to be mainly related to pathophysiological factors, whereas patient and physician attitudes can play an important role in other process measures and outcomes.
Every 10 years, the Diabetic Pregnancy Study Group, a study group of the EASD, conducts an audit meeting to review the achievements of the preceding decade and to set the directions for research and clinical practice improvements for the next decade. The most recent meeting focused on the following areas: improving pregnancy outcomes for women with pregestational type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes; the influence of obesity and gestational diabetes on pregnancy outcomes; the determinants and assessment of fetal growth and development; and public health issues, including consideration of transgenerational consequences and economic burden. The audit meeting also considered the likely impact of 'omics' on research within the field and the potential of these technologies to enable precision-medicine approaches to management. Through sharing of the findings and ideas of audit meeting participants, the DPSG hopes to promote networking, research and advances in clinical care, to improve outcomes for all women and their offspring affected by diabetes and obesity in pregnancy.
A deep investigation on the factors associated with adverse neonatal outcomes requires a risk stratification. In particular, great attention must be paid to the prevention and treatment of obesity.
Background. Dyslipidemia contribute to the excess of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk observed in women with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) is the major target for CHD prevention, and T2DM women seem to reach LDL-C targets less frequently than men. Aim. To explore age- and gender-related differences in LDL-C management in a large sample of outpatients with T2DM. Results. Overall, 415.294 patients (45.3% women) from 236 diabetes centers in Italy were included. Women were older and more obese, with longer diabetes duration, higher total-cholesterol, LDL-C, and HDL-C serum levels compared to men (P < 0.0001). Lipid profile was monitored in ~75% of subjects, women being monitored less frequently than men, irrespective of age. More women did not reach the LDL-C target as compared to men, particularly in the subgroup treated with lipid-lowering medications. The between-genders gap in reaching LDL-C targets increased with age and diabetes duration, favouring men in all groups. Conclusions. LDL-C management is worst in women with T2DM, who are monitored and reach targets less frequently than T2DM men. Similarly to men, they do not receive medications despite high LDL-C. These gender discrepancies increase with age and diabetes duration, exposing older women to higher CHD risk.
Aims/hypothesis The aim of this systematic review was to develop core outcome sets (COSs) for trials evaluating interventions for the prevention or treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Methods We identified previously reported outcomes through a systematic review of the literature. These outcomes were presented to key stakeholders (including patient representatives, researchers and clinicians) for prioritisation using a three-round, e-Delphi study. A priori consensus criteria informed which outcomes were brought forward for discussion at a face-to-face consensus meeting where the COS was finalised. Results Our review identified 74 GDM prevention and 116 GDM treatment outcomes, which were presented to stakeholders in round 1 of the e-Delphi study. Round 1 was completed by 173 stakeholders, 70% (121/173) of whom went on to complete round 2; 84% (102/121) of round 2 responders completed round 3. Twenty-two GDM prevention outcomes and 30 GDM treatment outcomes were discussed at the consensus meeting. Owing to significant overlap between included prevention and treatment outcomes, consensus meeting stakeholders agreed to develop a single prevention/treatment COS. Fourteen outcomes were included in the final COS. These consisted of six maternal outcomes (GDM diagnosis, adherence to the intervention, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, requirement and type of pharmacological therapy for hyperglycaemia, gestational weight gain and mode of birth) and eight neonatal outcomes (birthweight, large for gestational age, small for gestational age, gestational age at birth, preterm birth, neonatal hypoglycaemia, neonatal death and stillbirth). Conclusions/interpretation This COS will enable future GDM prevention and treatment trials to measure similar outcomes that matter to stakeholders and facilitate comparison and combination of these studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.