Program is not suitable for diabetic patients
- Andrew Zambanini, Senior registrar in clinical pharmacology,
- Martin R Smith, Specialist registrar in diabetes and endocrinology,
- Michael D Feher, Senior lecturer in clinical pharmacology
- Section of Clinical Pharmacology, Imperial College School of Medicine and Beta Cell Diabetes Centre, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London SW10 9NH rnkk003@cxwms.ac.uk
- Clinical Pharmacology Unit, EA 643, Claude Bernard University, BP 3041, 69394 Lyons Cedex 03, France
- Centre for Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, University College London, Rayne Institute, London WC1E 6JJ
EDITOR—Hingorani and Vallance describe a clinic based computer program for the management of cardiovascular risk factors.1 However, the program has limitations for diabetic patients.
This program and previous methods, together with the recent joint British recommendations,2 are based on algorithms derived from the Framingham heart study of 5573 people aged 30-74 years originally screened in 1968. However, only 4% (237 subjects) of this cohort had diabetes, as defined by a random glucose concentration >9 mmol/l or the use of diabetic treatment. Importantly, diabetes was not classified according to type, and the presence of proteinuria or microalbuminuria (important cardiovascular risk factors in diabetes) were not included.
The prevalence and characteristics of other risk factors further highlight that people with diabetes are not average patients3; “diabetic dyslipidaemia,” increased prevalence of hypertension, and ethnic origin (for example, south Asian) contribute to an increased atherogenic potential. Despite the strong link between triglyceride concentration and coronary heart disease in diabetes, this important risk factor was omitted from the program.
The glycaemic state was included in the program as a risk factor both as “diabetes” and as a blood glucose concentration. The impact of glycaemia on cardiovascular events is not dichotomous, but, like blood pressure, has a continuous relation.4 The inclusion …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: How much of a social media profile can doctors have?
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Diagnosis and management of Raynaud’s phenomenon
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Is it unethical for doctors to encourage healthy adults to donate a kidney to a stranger? No
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Report predicts 20 million AIDS orphans in Africa by 2010
Published 13 February 2012
Re: On the impossibility of being expert
Published 13 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (8 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
How much of a social media profile can doctors have? (7 responses)
Published 23 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012