OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality of diabetes care and prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Australian general practice patients with type 2 diabetes and to investigate its relationship with coronary heart disease absolute risk (CHDAR). METHODS: A total of 3286 patient records were extracted from registers of patients with type 2 diabetes held by 16 divisions of general practice (250 practices) across Australia for the year 2002. CHDAR was estimated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study algorithm with higher CHDAR set at a 10 year risk of >15%. Multivariate multilevel logistic regression investigated the association between CHDAR and diabetes care. RESULTS: 47.9% of diabetic patient records had glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >7%, 87.6% had total cholesterol >or=4.0 mmol/l, and 73.8% had blood pressure (BP) >or=130/85 mm Hg. 57.6% of patients were at a higher CHDAR, 76.8% of whom were not on lipid modifying medication and 66.2% were not on antihypertensive medication. After adjusting for clustering at the general practice level and age, lipid modifying medication was negatively related to CHDAR (odds ratio (OR) 0.84) and total cholesterol. Antihypertensive medication was positively related to systolic BP but negatively related to CHDAR (OR 0.88). Referral to ophthalmologists/optometrists and attendance at other health professionals were not related to CHDAR. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of the study the diabetes and CVD preventive care in Australian general practice was suboptimal, even after a number of national initiatives. The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) guidelines need to be modified to improve CVD preventive care in patients with type 2 diabetes.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality of diabetes care and prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Australian general practice patients with type 2 diabetes and to investigate its relationship with coronary heart disease absolute risk (CHDAR). METHODS: A total of 3286 patient records were extracted from registers of patients with type 2 diabetes held by 16 divisions of general practice (250 practices) across Australia for the year 2002. CHDAR was estimated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study algorithm with higher CHDAR set at a 10 year risk of >15%. Multivariate multilevel logistic regression investigated the association between CHDAR and diabetes care. RESULTS: 47.9% of diabeticpatient records had glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >7%, 87.6% had total cholesterol >or=4.0 mmol/l, and 73.8% had blood pressure (BP) >or=130/85 mm Hg. 57.6% of patients were at a higher CHDAR, 76.8% of whom were not on lipid modifying medication and 66.2% were not on antihypertensive medication. After adjusting for clustering at the general practice level and age, lipid modifying medication was negatively related to CHDAR (odds ratio (OR) 0.84) and total cholesterol. Antihypertensive medication was positively related to systolic BP but negatively related to CHDAR (OR 0.88). Referral to ophthalmologists/optometrists and attendance at other health professionals were not related to CHDAR. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of the study the diabetes and CVD preventive care in Australian general practice was suboptimal, even after a number of national initiatives. The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) guidelines need to be modified to improve CVD preventive care in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Authors: David W Dunstan; Paul Z Zimmet; Timothy A Welborn; Maximilian P De Courten; Adrian J Cameron; Richard A Sicree; Terry Dwyer; Stephen Colagiuri; Damien Jolley; Matthew Knuiman; Robert Atkins; Jonathan E Shaw Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Guy De Backer; Ettore Ambrosioni; Knut Borch-Johnsen; Carlos Brotons; Renata Cifkova; Jean Dallongeville; Shah Ebrahim; Ole Faergeman; Ian Graham; Giuseppe Mancia; Volkert Manger Cats; Kristina Orth-Gomér; Joep Perk; Kalevi Pyörälä; José L Rodicio; Susana Sans; Vedat Sansoy; Udo Sechtem; Sigmund Silber; Troels Thomsen; David Wood Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: David Peiris; Tim Usherwood; Katie Panaretto; Mark Harris; Jenny Hunt; Bindu Patel; Nicholas Zwar; Julie Redfern; Stephen Macmahon; Stephen Colagiuri; Noel Hayman; Anushka Patel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Michaela A Riddell; Carla Renwick; Rory Wolfe; Stephen Colgan; James Dunbar; Virginia Hagger; Pilvikki Absetz; Brian Oldenburg Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: John Furler; Justin W S Hii; Danny Liew; Irene Blackberry; James Best; Leonie Segal; Doris Young Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Mark A J Morgan; Michael J Coates; James A Dunbar; Prasuna Reddy; Kate Schlicht; Jeff Fuller Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anh T Tran; Jørund Straand; Ingvild Dalen; Kåre I Birkeland; Tor Claudi; John G Cooper; Haakon E Meyer; Anne K Jenum Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 2.655