Search

Background: Lowering dietary salt intake reduces albuminuria, an early marker of renal damage and a sensitive predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The mechanisms underlying this effect are uncertain but small changes in serum sodium concentration may be important: this retrospective cohort study investigated the hypothesis that higher serum sodium concentration is a risk factor for albuminuria (defined as a urine albumin:creatinine ratio [UACR], ≥3 mg/mmol)., Methods: Primary care data from the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre were used to identify 47,294 individuals with a UACR result available between April 2010 and March 2015, and no known albuminuria prior to this. Exclusion criteria were missing or abnormal serum sodium concentration at baseline (<135 or >146 mmol/L); age <18 years; diabetes mellitus; decompensated liver disease; heart failure; and stage 5 chronic kidney disease., Results: After adjustment for known risk factors, there was a significant "U-shaped" relationship between serum sodium concentration and albuminuria. The lowest risk was associated with a serum sodium of 138-140 mmol/L. In comparison, the risk of albuminuria was 18% higher with a serum sodium of 135-137 mmol/L and 19% higher with a serum sodium of 144-146 mmol/L. There was no association between serum sodium concentration and blood pressure., Conclusion: The finding of a positive association between higher serum sodium concentration and albuminuria is in support of the hypothesis, but the inverse relationship between serum sodium concentration and albuminuria at lower concentrations warrants further explanation., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: Anemia is common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and reduced quality of life, but is often sub-optimally managed. Most patients are managed in primary care alongside other comorbidities. Interventions to improve the management of anemia in CKD in this setting are needed., Methods: We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate how an audit-based education (ABE) intervention might improve the management of anemia in CKD. We explored outcomes that would be relevant to practitioners and patients, that exposed variation of practice from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, and whether the intervention was feasible and acceptable., Results: Practitioners (n = 5 groups) and patients (n = 7) from 4 London general practices participated in discussions. Practitioners welcomed the evidence-based step-wise intervention. However, prescribing erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) was felt to be outside of their scope of practice. There was a gap between NICE guidance and clinical practice in primary care. Iron studies were not well understood and anemia management was often conservative or delayed. Patients were often unaware of having CKD, and were more concerned about their other comorbidities, but largely trusted their GPs to manage them appropriately., Conclusions: The first steps of the intervention were welcomed by practitioners, but they expressed concerns about independently prescribing ESAs. Renal physicians and GPs could develop shared care protocols for ESA use in primary care. There is scope to improve awareness of renal anemia, and enhance knowledge of guideline recommendations; and our intervention should be modified accordingly.

Aim: To determine whether achieving early glycaemic control, and any subsequent glycaemic variability, was associated with any change in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)., Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre database-a large, English primary care network-was conducted. We followed newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes, on or after 1 January 2005, aged 25 years or older at diagnosis, with HbA1c measurements at both diagnosis and after 1 year, plus five or more measurements of HbA1c thereafter. Three glycaemic bands were created: groups A (HbA1c < 58 mmol/mol [<7.5%]), B (HbA1c ≥ 58 to 75 mmol/mol [7.5%-9.0%]) and C (HbA1c ≥ 75 mmol/mol [≥9.0%]). Movement between bands was determined from diagnosis to 1 year. Additionally, for data after the first 12 months, a glycaemic variability score was calculated from the number of successive HbA1c readings differing by 0.5% or higher (≥5.5 mmol/mol). Risk of MACE from 1 year postdiagnosis was assessed using time-varying Cox proportional hazards models, which included the first-year transition and the glycaemic variability score., Results: From 26 180 patients, there were 2300 MACE. Compared with group A->A transition over 1 year, those with C->A transition had a reduced risk of MACE (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.60-0.94; P = .014), whereas group C->C had HR 1.21 (0.81-1.81; P = .34). Compared with the lowest glycaemic variability score, the greatest variability increased the risk of MACE (HR 1.51; 1.11-2.06; P = .0096)., Conclusion: Early control of HbA1c improved cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes, although subsequent glycaemic variability had a negative effect on an individual's risk., (© 2022 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Social distancing and other nonpharmaceutical interventions to reduce the spread of COVID-19 infection in the United Kingdom have led to substantial changes in delivering ongoing care for patients with chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Clinical guidelines for the management and prevention of complications for people with T2DM delivered in primary care services advise routine annual reviews and were developed when face-to-face consultations were the norm. The shift in consultations from face-to-face to remote consultations caused a reduction in direct clinical contact and may impact the process of care for people with T2DM., Objective: The aim of this study is to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic's first year on the monitoring of people with T2DM using routine annual reviews from a national primary care perspective in England., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of adults with T2DM will be performed using routinely collected primary care data from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). We will describe the change in the rate of monitoring of hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) between the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) and the preceding year (2019). We will also report any change in the eight checks that make up the components of these reviews. The change in HbA 1c monitoring rates will be determined using a multilevel logistic regression model, adjusting for patient and practice characteristics, and similarly, the change in a composite measure of the completeness of all eight checks will be modeled using ordinal regression. The models will be adjusted for the following patient-level variables: age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, COVID-19 shielding status, duration of diabetes, and comorbidities. The model will also be adjusted for the following practice-level variables: urban versus rural, practice size, Quality and Outcomes Framework achievement, the National Health Service region, and the proportion of face-to-face consultations. Ethical approval was provided by the University of Oxford Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee (September 2, 2021, reference R77306/RE001)., Results: The analysis of the data extract will include 3.96 million patients with T2DM across 700 practices, which is 6% of the available Oxford-RCGP RSC adult population. The preliminary results will be submitted to a conference under the domain of primary care. The resulting publication will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal on diabetes and endocrinology., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the delivery of care, but little is known about the process of caring for people with T2DM. This study will report the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these processes of care., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/35971., (©Mekha Mathew, Jeremy van Vlymen, Bernardo Meza-Torres, William Hinton, Gayathri Delanerolle, Ivelina Yonova, Michael Feher, Xuejuan Fan, Harshana Liyanage, Mark Joy, Fabrizio Carinci, Simon de Lusignan. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 22.04.2022.)

Background: Valproate is a teratogenic drug that should be avoided during the preconception period and pregnancy. The aim was to explore general practitioners' (GPs) prescription patterns over time, describe trends, and explore inter-practice variation within primary care., Methods: We identified women of childbearing age (12-46 years old) in the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network. We performed repeated cross-sectional analyses from 2004 to 2018 to determine rates of prescription and a retrospective cohort estimated the prevalence of use of valproate during pregnancy., Results: In 2004, 0.31% (95% Confidence Interval (95%CI):0.18 to 0.44%) women were prescribed valproate, decreasing to 0.16% (95%CI:0.07 to 0.24%) by 2018. Among women with epilepsy, the rate fell from 15.2% (95%CI:14.4 to 16.0%) to 8.8% (95% CI:8.2 to 9.7%) over the same period. In 2018, almost two thirds (62.2%) of women who were prescribed valproate had epilepsy only, whereas bipolar disorder and migraine accounted for 15.8% and 7.4% respectively. Contraceptive prescriptions did not increase over time, and only in 2018 was there greater odds of being prescribed contraception (OR 1.41, 95%CI:1.08 to 1.45). Just under a fifth (19.7%) of women were prescribed valproate during their pregnancy; two out of three of these pregnancies were preceded by folic acid prescription (5 mg). While some practices reduced their rate of valproate prescription, others did not., Conclusions: Regulatory guidelines have changed GPs' prescription patterns in women of childbearing potential for valproate but not for contraception. Further research is needed to identify the barriers of GPs and women of childbearing potential to undertaking contraception., (© 2022. The Author(s).)