Inpatient Diabetes Management.

Management of diabetes in hospitalized patients requires interdisciplinary, coordinated care that includes communication between physicians in the hospital and primary care providers. As the clinical condition of hospitalized patients can change quickly, insulin dosing must be altered in a timely manner to avoid adverse events.

Masqueraders: how to identify atypical diabetes in primary care.

Diabetes mellitus is a complex set of conditions that impacts 34 million Americans. While type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, and gestational diabetes are most frequently encountered, there are many other types of diabetes with which healthcare providers are less familiar. These atypical forms of diabetes make up nearly 10% of diabetes cases and can masquerade as type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM), and the treatment may not be optimized if the diagnosis is not accurate. Atypical forms include monogenic diabetes (formally known as maturity-onset diabetes of the young [MODY]), latent autoimmune diabetes of the adult (LADA), ketosis-prone diabetes, and secondary diabetes. This paper will detail the defining characteristics of each atypical form and demonstrate how they can masquerade as type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. Gestational diabetes mellitus will not be discussed in this article.

The necessary evolution of diabetes fellowships in the United States.

The number of Americans affected by diabetes continues to increase but the number of endocrinologists with specialty training to treat this population has not kept up with demand. Primary care outpatient visits can also not meet the projected diabetes population demands or the needs for other complex diabetes management issues. Treatments for diabetes including both medications and technologies continue to expand and become more complex. In response to these challenges there have been primary care physicians seeking specialized training to become diabetologists. This can fill some of the gaps left by a lack of resources in the U.S. healthcare system.

Primary Care Diabetes Fellowship Programs: Developing National Standards.

The rapid and constant increase in the number of people living with diabetes has outstripped the capacity of specialists to fully address this chronic disease alone. Furthermore, although most people with diabetes are treated in the primary care setting, most primary care providers feel under-prepared and under-resourced to fully address the needs of their patients with diabetes. Addressing this care gap will require a multifaceted approach centering on primary care training in diabetes and its complications. One-year diabetology fellowship programs are well situated to provide this training. Previous research has shown that the higher the diabetes-specific volume of patients seeing a primary care physician was, the better the quality outcomes were across six quality indicators (eye examinations, LDL cholesterol testing, A1C testing, prescriptions for ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, prescriptions for statins, and emergency department visits for hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia). Primary care diabetes fellowships have existed for many years, but the number of fellowships and fellowship positions has recently grown dramatically. This article proposes a standardized curriculum for such programs and makes the case for increasing their number in the United States.

Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and chronic kidney disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with poor outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of the study was to compare zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents used during primary PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and CKD. METHODS: We selected 854 consecutive ST-elevation MI patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) undergoing primary PCI who were followed up for 12 months. They were divided into two groups based on type of stents implanted: (1) zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) and (2) everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The study end point was the 12-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE) which included all-cause death, non-fatal MI, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). RESULTS: The average number of stents used per vessel was 1.4 ± 0.7. A total of 433 patients received ZES and 421 patients received EES. There was no significant difference in the incidence of 12-month MI, TLR, or TVR. All-cause death was found to be borderline significant between two groups (2.8% in ZES vs 0.9% in EES, p=0.05). The incidence of 12-month MACE in ZES and EES was 5.7% and 2.6% respectively, p=0.022. Stent thrombosis did not differ between groups (p=0.677). Kaplan-Meier analysis did not show significant difference for 12-month MACE-free survival between groups (log-rank p=0.158). It remained the same even after propensity adjustment for multiple confounders in Cox model (p=0.326). CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of ZES or EES provided comparable clinical outcomes with similar risk of 12-month MACE and death in STEMI patients with CKD undergoing primary PCI.

Safety and efficacy of overlapping homogenous drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.

The aim of this study was to compare safety and efficacy of 4 homogenous overlapping drug-eluting stents (DES) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. We selected 1,349 consecutive patients (62.1 ± 14.9 yr, 69.4% male) who received homogenous overlapping DESs in diffuse de novo coronary lesions from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry from April 2006 through September 2010. They were divided into 4 groups based on type of DES implanted - Paclitaxel (PES), Sirolimus (SES), Zotarolimus (ZES) and Everolimus (EES)-eluting stents. Primary endpoint was 12-month MACE. We also studied EES versus other DESs (PES + SES + ZES). Mean stent length was 26.2 ± 7.5 mm and mean stent diameter was 3.1 ± 0.4 mm. Average number of stents used per vessel was 2.2 ± 0.5. Incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in PES, SES, ZES, and EES groups were 9.5%, 9.2%, 7.5%, and 3.8%, respectively (P = 0.013). In EES group, overall MACE and repeat revascularization were lowest, and no incidence of stent thrombosis was observed. Non-fatal MI was highest in PES, almost similar in SES and EES with no incidence in ZES group (P = 0.044). Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed no differences in the incidence of primary endpoint (P = 0.409). This study shows no significant differences in 12-month MACE among 4 groups.

Coronary Stents in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Chronic Kidney Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with poor outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to compare different coronary stents used during primary PCI in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and CKD. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We selected 2408 consecutive STEMI patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) undergoing primary PCI and divided them into 5 groups based on the type of stent implanted: 1) bare metal stent (BMS), 2) paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), 3) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), 4) zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES), or 5) everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The study endpoint was the number of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the incidence of 12-month myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or target vessel revascularization between stent groups; however, the overall rate of repeat revascularization differed significantly between groups. All-cause death differed significantly among the groups. The incidence of 12-month MACE in BMS, PES, SES, ZES, and EES was 8.3%, 9.8%, 8.6%, 5.5%, and 2.6%, respectively (p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis did not show a significant differences in 12-month MACE-free survival among the groups (log-rank p=0.076). This finding remained the same after adjusting for multiple confounders (p=0.147). CONCLUSION: Any of the 5 stents can be used to treat STEMI patients with CKD undergoing primary PCI; all have similar risk of 12-month MACE. This result is hypothesis-generating and warrants further evaluation with a long-term randomized study.