Aims/hypothesis Data on type 1 diabetes incidence and prevalence are limited, particularly for adults. This study aims to estimate global numbers of incident and prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes in 2017 for all age groups, by country and areas defined by income and region. Methods Incidence rates of type 1 diabetes in children (available from 94 countries) from the IDF Atlas were used and extrapolated to countries without data. Age-specific incidence rates in adults (only known across full age range for fewer than ten countries) were obtained by applying scaling ratios for each adult age group relative to the incidence rate in children. Age-specific incidence rates were applied to population estimates to obtain incident case numbers. Duration of diabetes was estimated from available data and adjusted using differences in childhood mortality rate between countries from United Nations demographic data. Prevalent case numbers were derived by modelling the relationship between prevalence, incidence and disease duration. Sensitivity analyses were performed to quantify the impact of alternative assumptions and model inputs. Results Global numbers of incident and prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes were estimated to be 234,710 and 9,004,610, respectively, in 2017. High-income countries, with 17% of the global population, accounted for 49% of global incident cases and 52% of prevalent cases. Asia, which has the largest proportion of the world’s population (60%), had the largest number of incident (32%) and prevalent (31%) cases of type 1 diabetes. Globally, 6%, 35%, 43% and 16% of prevalent cases were in the age groups 0–14, 15–39, 40–64 and 65+ years, respectively. Based on sensitivity analyses, the estimates could deviate by ±15%. Conclusions/interpretation Globally, type 1 diabetes represents about 2% of the estimated total cases of diabetes, ranging from less than 1% in certain Pacific countries to more than 15% in Northern European populations in 2017. This study provides information for the development of healthcare and policy approaches to manage type 1 diabetes. The estimates need further validation due to limitations and assumptions related to data availability and estimation methods. Graphical abstract

Background The prevalence of depression and the exposure to antidepressants are high among women of reproductive age and during pregnancy. Duloxetine is a selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) approved in the United States and Europe in 2004 for the treatment of depression. Fetal safety of duloxetine is not well established. The present study evaluates the association of exposure to duloxetine during pregnancy and the risk of major and minor congenital malformations and the risk of stillbirths. Methods and findings A population-based observational study was conducted based on data from registers in Sweden and Denmark. All registered births and stillbirths in the medical birth registers between 2004 and 2016 were included. Malformation diagnoses were identified up to 1 year after birth. Logistic regression analyses were used. Potential confounding was addressed through multiple regression, propensity score (PS) matching, and sensitivity analyses. Confounder variables included sociodemographic information (income, education, age, year of birth, and country), comorbidity and comedication, previous psychiatric contacts, and birth-related information (smoking during pregnancy and previous spontaneous abortions and stillbirths). Duloxetine-exposed women were compared with 4 comparators: (1) duloxetine-nonexposed women; (2) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)-exposed women; (3) venlafaxine-exposed women; and (4) women exposed to duloxetine prior to, but not during, pregnancy. Exposure was defined as redemption of a prescription during the first trimester and throughout pregnancy for the analyses of malformations and stillbirths, respectively. Outcomes were major and minor malformations and stillbirths gathered from the national patient registers. The cohorts consisted of more than 2 million births with 1,512 duloxetine-exposed pregnancies. No increased risk for major malformations, minor malformations, or stillbirth was found across comparison groups in adjusted and PS-matched analyses. Duloxetine-exposed versus duloxetine-nonexposed PS-matched analyses showed odds ratio (OR) 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 1.30, p = 0.909) for major malformations, OR 1.09 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.45, p = 0.570) for minor malformation, and 1.18 (95% CI 0.43 to 3.19, p = 0.749) for stillbirths. For the individual malformation subtypes, some findings were statistically significant but were associated with large statistical uncertainty due to the extremely small number of events. The main limitations for the study were that the indication for duloxetine and a direct measurement of depression severity were not available to include as covariates. Conclusions Based on this observational register-based nationwide study with data from Sweden and Denmark, no increased risk of major or minor congenital malformations or stillbirth was associated with exposure to duloxetine during pregnancy.

Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular (CV) event. The European guidelines recommend low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels < 1.8 mmol/L and early initiation of intensive lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) to reduce CV risk. In order to reduce the risk of further cardiac events, the study aimed to evaluate LDL-C goal attainment and LLT intensity in an incident ACS population. Methods: A cohort study of patients with residency at Funen in Denmark at a first-ever ACS event registered within the period 2010-2015. Information on LLT use and LDL-C levels was extracted from national population registers and a Laboratory database at Odense University Hospital. Treatments and lipid patterns were evaluated during index hospitalization, at 6-month and 12-month follow-up. Results: Among 3040 patients with an LDL-C measurement during index hospitalization, 40.7 and 39.0% attained the recommended LDL-C target value (< 1.8 mmol/L) within 6-and 12-month follow-up, respectively. During 6-and 12-month follow-up, a total of 89.2% (20.2%) and 88.4% (29.7%) used LLT (intensive LLT). Of the intensive LLT users, 43.4 and 47.7% reached the LDL-C target value at 6-and 12-month follow-up. The frequency of lipid monitoring was low: 69.5, 77.7 and 53.6% in patients with a first-ever ACS during index hospitalization, 6-and 12-month followup, respectively. Conclusion: Using national health registers and laboratory data, a considerably gap was observed between treatment guidelines and clinical practice in the management of dyslipidemia leaving very high-risk patients without adequate lipid management strategy. Therefore, improved lipid management strategies aimed at reaching treatment targets are warranted.

No abstract

Background We aimed to investigate trends in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement (LDL-C<1.8 mmol/L, equivalent to 70 mg/dL), initiation of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and changes in LLT intensity in individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) at very high risk of recurrent cardiovascular disease. Methods A cohort study design was used including individuals with incident ASCVD and LDL-C≥1.8 mmol/L in 2010–2015. Data were obtained from national, population-based registers (patient, prescription, income, and laboratory). Results We included 11,997 individuals. Acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and stable angina pectoris accounted for 79.6% of the qualifying ASCVD events. At inclusion, 37.2% were in LLT. Mean LDL-C before or during ASCVD hospitalization was 3.1 mmol/L (120 mg/dL). LDL-C goal achievement increased within the first two years after inclusion from 40.5% to 50.6%. LLT initiation within the first 90 days increased from 48.6% to 56.0%. Initiation of intensive LLT increased from 9.6% to 32.8%. The largest change in LLT intensity was seen in the period 180 days before to 90 days after discharge with 2.2% in 2010 to 12.1% in 2015. Conclusion LDL-C goal achievement within the first 2 years after inclusion increased from 40.5% in 2010 to 50.6% in 2015. LLT initiation within the first year after inclusion increased, especially for intensive LLT, although only one third initiated intensive LLT in 2015. Despite trends show improvements in LDL-C goal achievement, 49.4% of individuals at very high risk of a CV event did not achieve the LDL-C goal within 2 years after ASCVD hospitalization.