Search

There is a very well known correlation between diabetes and cardiovascular disease but many health care professionals are just concerned with glycemic control, ignoring the paramount importance of controlling other risk factors involved in the pathogenesis of serious cardiovascular diseases. This Position Statement from the Brazilian Diabetes Society was developed to promote increased awareness in relation to six crucial topics dealing with diabetes and cardiovascular disease: Glicemic Control, Cardiovascular Risk Stratification and Screening Coronary Artery Disease, Treatment of Dyslipidemia, Hypertension, Antiplatelet Therapy and Myocardial Revascularization. The issue of what would be the best algorithm for the use of statins in diabetic patients received a special attention and a new Brazilian algorithm was developed by our editorial committee. This document contains 38 recommendations which were classified by their levels of evidence (A, B, C and D). The Editorial Committee included 22 specialists with recognized expertise in diabetes and cardiology.

Background: Renal transplant candidates are at high risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to develop a new risk score model to determine the pre-test probability of the occurrence of significant CAD in renal transplant candidates., Methods: A total of 1,060 renal transplant candidates underwent a comprehensive cardiovascular risk evaluation. Patients considered at high risk of CAD (age ≥50 years, with either diabetes mellitus (DM) or cardiovascular disease (CVD)), or having noninvasive testing suggestive of CAD were referred for coronary angiography (n = 524). Significant CAD was defined by the presence of luminal stenosis ≥70%. A binary logistic regression model was built, and the resulting logistic regression coefficient B for each variable was multiplied by 10 and rounded to the next whole number. For each patient, a corresponding risk score was calculated and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed., Results: The final equation for the model was risk score = (age × 0.4) + (DM × 9) + (CVD × 14) and for the probability of CAD (%) = (risk score × 2) - 23. The corresponding ROC for the accuracy of the diagnosis of CAD was 0.75 (P <0.0001) in the developmental model., Conclusions: We developed a simple clinical risk score to determine the pre-test probability of significant CAD in renal transplant candidates. This model may help those directly involved in the care of patients with end-stage renal disease being considered for transplantation in an attempt to reduce the rate of cardiovascular events that presently hampers the long-term prognosis of such patients.

Background: Population ageing is a worldwide phenomenon that has recently challenged public healthcare systems. The knowledge of the burden of chronic musculoskeletal disorders in elders is still limited, particularly in the developing world. This systematic review aimed to investigate the prevalence of chronic musculoskeletal disorders in elderly Brazilians., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in five electronic databases (from inception to January 2012) and completed by additional searches in reference lists. Two review authors independently selected the eligible studies and extracted data on participants' characteristics and rates of chronic musculoskeletal disorders. One review author extracted methodological quality data. We performed a critical synthesis of the results, which were grouped into the diagnoses "chronic musculoskeletal pain" or "specific musculoskeletal diagnoses"., Results: Twenty five studies reporting on a total of 116,091 elderly Brazilians were included. Eight studies (32%) were of high methodological quality. There was a large variation in the measure of prevalence used by individual studies and in their definition of chronic pain. Prevalence estimates reached 86% for chronic musculoskeletal pain in any location. Studies investigating multiple pain sites found the lower limb and the spine to be the most prevalent complaints (50% each). Arthritis and rheumatism (including osteoarthritis) were the most prevalent specific musculoskeletal diagnoses (9% to 40%), followed by herniated disc (6% to 27%)., Conclusions: Despite the growth of the elderly population worldwide, high-quality research on the burden of chronic musculoskeletal disorders in the elderly is still scarce. Future healthcare research focusing on this age group should be a priority in developing countries since their public healthcare systems are not yet fully prepared to accommodate the needs of an aging population.

Background: Low back pain is a highly prevalent and disabling condition worldwide. Clinical guidelines for the management of patients with acute low back pain recommend first-line treatment consisting of advice, reassurance and simple analgesics. Exercise is also commonly prescribed to these patients. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term effect of adding the McKenzie method to the first-line care of patients with acute low back pain., Methods: A multi-centre randomized controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up was conducted between September 2005 and June 2008. Patients seeking care for acute non-specific low back pain from primary care medical practices were screened. Eligible participants were assigned to receive a treatment programme based on the McKenzie method and first-line care (advice, reassurance and time-contingent acetaminophen) or first-line care alone, for 3 weeks. Primary outcome measures included pain (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) over the first seven days, pain at 1 week, pain at 3 weeks and global perceived effect (-5 to 5 scale) at 3 weeks. Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models., Results: One hundred and forty-eight participants were randomized into study groups, of whom 138 (93%) completed the last follow-up. The addition of the McKenzie method to first-line care produced statistically significant but small reductions in pain when compared to first-line care alone: mean of -0.4 points (95% confidence interval, -0.8 to -0.1) at 1 week, -0.7 points (95% confidence interval, -1.2 to -0.1) at 3 weeks, and -0.3 points (95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.0) over the first 7 days. Patients receiving the McKenzie method did not show additional effects on global perceived effect, disability, function or on the risk of persistent symptoms. These patients sought less additional health care than those receiving only first-line care (P = 0.002)., Conclusions: When added to the currently recommended first-line care of acute low back pain, a treatment programme based on the McKenzie method does not produce appreciable additional short-term improvements in pain, disability, function or global perceived effect. However, the McKenzie method seems to reduce health utilization although it does not reduce patient's risk of developing persistent symptoms., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12605000032651.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem. Effective treatment of acute LBP is important because it prevents patients from developing chronic LBP, the stage of LBP that requires costly and more complex treatment. Physiotherapists commonly use a system of diagnosis and exercise prescription called the McKenzie Method to manage patients with LBP. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of the McKenzie Method for these patients. We have designed a randomised controlled trial to evaluate whether the addition of the McKenzie Method to general practitioner care results in better outcomes than general practitioner care alone for patients with acute LBP., Methods/design: This paper describes the protocol for a trial examining the effects of the McKenzie Method in the treatment of acute non-specific LBP. One hundred and forty eight participants who present to general medical practitioners with a new episode of acute non-specific LBP will be randomised to receive general practitioner care or general practitioner care plus a program of care based on the McKenzie Method. The primary outcomes are average pain during week 1, pain at week 1 and 3 and global perceived effect at week 3., Discussion: This trial will provide the first rigorous test of the effectiveness of the McKenzie Method for acute non-specific LBP.