Aims/hypothesis. To compare causes of death assessed by a clinical review committee, the information given on death certificates, and ICD-codes provided by the State Documentation Office in deceased persons with Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus. Methods. A cohort of 3674 patients were monitored for 10±3 (mean ± SD) years. Vital status and endstage diabetic complications were documented for 97%; 251 patients had died. Causes of death were assessed by a clinical review committee and compared to the information provided by death certificates and ICD-9 codes. Results. The review committee defined a leading cause of death in 94% of cases, whereas death certificates were available for 73% and ICD-codes for 79% of patients; 10% of death certificates could not be evaluated due to insufficient information. Diabetes was mentioned on 71% of death certificates, and renal disease in 75% of cases with renal replacement therapy. There was acceptable agreement between the committee, death certificates and ICD-codes only for deaths due to neoplasma, and between the committee and death certificates for deaths due to acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events and accidents. In only one out of four deaths due to hypoglycaemia and in four of seven deaths due to ketoacidosis was this diagnosis mentioned on the death certificate. No death due to hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis and 41% due to suicide were identifiable by ICD-codes. Conclusion/interpretation. Reliance on death certificates or ICD-codes as the only sources of information on the cause of specific mortality does not provide data of sufficient reliability for evaluation of clinical outcome in Type I diabetes. [Diabetologia (2002[Diabetologia ( ) 45:1490[Diabetologia ( -1497
Based on animal experiments it has been proposed that antihypertensive agents may differentially influence albuminuria through their divergent effects on glomerular haemodynamics or glomerular sieving properties and may beneficially influence the progression of diabetic nephropathy even without an effect on blood pressure. However, to date this hypothesis has not been tested in normotensive patients with diabetic nephropathy. The main aim of this study was therefore to investigate the effects of the administration of two antihypertensive agents on albuminuria during rest and exercise. The study consisted of 3 x 3 randomised, cross-over periods with five days double blind administration of enalapril (E: 2.5 mg bid), nitrendipine (N: 5 mg bid) and placebo (P) on 18 Type 1 normotensive (blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg) diabetic patients with incipient diabetic nephropathy (albuminuria 30-300 mg/24 h, normal glomerular filtration rate, diabetes duration > 6 years and presence of diabetic reinopathy. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of enalapril and nitrendipine on blood pressure values and albuminuria during exercise challenge (bicycle ergometry: 20 min at 75 W and 20 min at 100 W) in comparison to the placebo. Albumin excretion rates during pre-exercise rest (mean +/- SD; E: 6.2 +/- 6.0; N: 7.1 +/- 8.0; P: 7.7 +/- 7.0 mg/mmol creatinine) and during exercise (E: 8.7 +/- 9.4; N: 8.2 +/- 8.2; P: 11.1 +/- 11.4 mg/mmol creatinine) were comparable between the drugs and not significantly different after administration of placebo. Blood pressure values were significantly different between the medications (systolic blood pressure: p = 0.0269; diastolic blood pressure: p = 0.0021, ANOVA for repeated measurements). There were no significant correlations between blood pressure values and albuminuria at any time. In normotensive patients with incipient diabetic nephropathy low-dose administration of enalapril, nitrendipine and placebo does not result in clear cut differences in albuminuria.
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.