Kosten für Spätkomplikationen bei Diabetes mellitus Typ 2 in Deutschland

Liebl, Andreas; Spannheimer, A; Reitberger, U; Görtz, A

doi:10.1007/s00063-002-1215-z

Cited by 26 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the German DETECT study of diabetic patients recruited from a nationwide sample of general practices, half of patients with type-2 diabetes (50.2%) had at least one diabetes-related micro- or macrovascular complication [17]. Similar results were also found in other studies conducted in Germany [18,51]. In a population of patients with diabetes identified from South Glamorgan in the UK, Morgan et al found that 25.2%, 9.6%, 18.1%, 16.5% and 2.0% of diabetic patients had CHD, cerebrovascular disease, diabetic foot, retinopathy and nephropathy, respectively, while 52% of diabetic patients had none of these studied micro- and macro-vascular complications [52].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Prevalence and comorbidity of diabetes mellitus among non-institutionalized older adults in Germany - results of the national telephone health interview survey ‘German Health Update (GEDA)’ 2009

Heidemann

Gößwald

et al. 2013

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite the major public health impact of diabetes, recent population-based data regarding its prevalence and comorbidity are sparse.MethodsThe prevalence and comorbidity of diabetes mellitus were analyzed in a nationally representative sample (N = 9133) of the non-institutionalized German adult population aged 50 years and older. Information on physician-diagnosed diabetes and 20 other chronic health conditions was collected as part of the national telephone health interview survey ‘German Health Update (GEDA)’ 2009. Overall, 51.2% of contacted persons participated. Among persons with diabetes, diabetes severity was defined according to the type and number of diabetes-concordant conditions: no diabetes-concordant condition (grade 1); hypertension and/or hyperlipidemia only (grade 2); one comorbidity likely to represent diabetes-related micro- or macrovascular end-organ damage (grade 3); several such comorbidities (grade 4). Determinants of diabetes severity were analyzed by multivariable ordinal regression.ResultsThe 12-month prevalence of diabetes was 13.6% with no significant difference between men and women. Persons with diabetes had a significantly higher prevalence and average number of diabetes-concordant as well as diabetes-discordant comorbidities than persons without diabetes. Among persons with diabetes, 10.2%, 46.8%, 35.6% and 7.4% were classified as having severity grade 1–4, respectively. Determinants of diabetes severity included age (cumulative odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.07, per year) and number of discordant comorbidities (1.40, 1.25-1.55). With respect to specific discordant comorbidities, diabetes severity was correlated to depression (2.15, 1.29-3.56), respiratory disease (2.75, 1.72-4.41), musculoskeletal disease (1.53, 1.06-2.21), and severe hearing impairment (3.00, 1.21-7.41).ConclusionsDiabetes is highly prevalent in the non-institutionalized German adult population 50 years and older. Diabetes comorbidities including diabetes-concordant and diabetes-discordant conditions need to be considered in epidemiological studies, in order to monitor disease burden and quality of diabetes care. Definitional standards of diabetes severity need to be refined and consented.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Prevalence and comorbidity of diabetes mellitus among non-institutionalized older adults in Germany - results of the national telephone health interview survey ‘German Health Update (GEDA)’ 2009

Heidemann

Gößwald

et al. 2013

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Diabetes mellitus · DUTY Registry · Cardiovascular risk factors · Guideline conform therapy [4,9]. Aus der Perspektive der Krankenkassen ist eine Therapieoptimierung als kostendämpfende Maßnah-me zu sehen, sodass das Register als Qualitätssicherungsmaßnahme im Sinne des § 137 SGB V zu betrachten wäre.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Erhebung und Verbesserung der Behandlungssituation von Patienten mit Diabetes mellitus

Krone

Böhm

2004

Bundesgesundheitsbl - Gesundheitsforsch - Gesundheitsschutz

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients with diabetes mellitus require consistent risk management that fulfills risk reduction guidelines for patients suffering from CHD (coronary heart disease). The aim of the DUTY Registry (diabetes mellitus needs unrestricted evaluation of patient data to yield treatment progress) was to show whether the guidelines of the Deutsche Diabetes-Gesellschaft (DDG) are incorporated consistently into daily practice. Therefore 59,035 patients suffering from diabetes mellitus type 1 and type 2 were examined by general practitioners. The physician was requested to enter 20 consecutive patients with existing or newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus into the registry. A total of 45,605 patients showed up for the final examination after 9 months. The results presented show that too many patients suffering from diabetes mellitus do not receive consistent therapy for cardiovascular risk factors according to guidelines and therefore the required target values were rarely reached.

show abstract

“…Dies li egt an seiner Chroni zi tät und sei ner hohen, zunehmen den Präv alen z [ 11], den k om pl exen Behan dlun gserforderni ssen sow ie den schw eren Folgeerkran ku ngen . Unt ersuchun gen au s den USA und Europa zeigen, dass die für Diabeti ker aufgew andt en Kosten deutl ich höher li egen al s di e für Nicht -Di abetiker [1,3,7,15,17,18] und wesentlich durch die Komplikationen bestim mt w erden [2,6,13,16,18].Die KoDi M-Studie (Kost en des Diabetes M el li tus) i st eine prävalenzbasiert e Krankheit skostenstudie, in der auf der Basi s von Routi nedaten der geset zli chen Krank en-u nd Pflegeversi cher un g in ei ner großen Diabeti ker populat ion die di rekten Pro-Kopf-Kosten "bott om up ", d. h. für j eden Pat i ent en ei nzel n, ermi tt el t w erden. Di e Datenbasis erm ögl icht ei ne di f-ferenzierte Kost enanalyse nach Pat i ent enm erkm alen und verschiedenen Versorgungsbereichen der Kranken-und Pflegeversicherung.…”

unclassified