Prevalence of suspected abuse of non-institutionalized older people treated in primary care. PRESENCIA study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of suspected abuse of non-institutionalised elderly people and the associated variables. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, multicentre study in patients aged 65 years or older, non-institutionalised, consecutively selected in primary care (PC). The EASI questionnaires (Suspected Elderly Abuse Index), the EAI questionnaire (Suspected Abuse Index in patients with cognitive impairment), the Barthel index, and the EUROQOL-5D questionnaire were used with patients, and the CASE questionnaire and the Zarit test were used with caregivers. Socio-demographic, health, and quality of life variables were analysed in all patients. RESULTS: Eight hundred four patients were included, mean age 78.9±7.9 years, 58.3% women. The prevalence of suspected abuse was 11.3% (95% CI: 9.1%-13.9%). Suspected abuse was more frequent in women than in men (14.4% vs. 7.1%; odds ratio (OR)=1.97; 95% CI=1.1-3.4; p=0.016) and in those who lived with two or more people compared to those who lived alone (18.4% vs. 7.3%; OR=2.42; 95% CI=1.1-5.0; p=0.017). Among older patients, the lower their dependency, the lower the prevalence of suspected abuse (30.0% in highly dependent vs. 8.7% in non-dependent: p-trend=0.006); and the better the perceived health status, the lower the prevalence of suspected abuse (29.6% in poor health status vs. 6.9% in optimal health status; p-trend=<0.001). Among caregivers, the prevalence of suspected abuse was 20.4% (95% CI=12.8%-28.0%). A trend of higher prevalence of suspected abuse could be observed with higher scores on the CASE questionnaire (56.3% at high risk and 9.6% with no risk of abuse; p-trend=0.007). In the case of the ZARIT questionnaire with scores below 47, the prevalence of suspected abuse was 9.1%, and for scores above 55, it was 52.6% (p-trend<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the PRESENCIA study show that approximately 1 in 10 patients aged ≥65 meet the criteria for suspected abuse. The probability of abuse increases in women, in patients with greater dependency and in patients with poorer perceived health status. Caregivers with greater overload and greater risk presented a greater suspicion of elder abuse.

Vulnerabilidad y determinantes sociales en diabetes / Vulnerability and social determinants in diabetes

Los determinantes sociales de la salud influyen significativamente en el desarrollo y en la progresión de enfermedades crónicas como la diabetes tipo2 (DM2). Este artículo examina los determinantes sociales clave, incluidos la educación, la estabilidad económica, el vecindario, así como la procedencia, la raza o la religión, que afectan a las personas con DM2. También se explora el papel del género como determinante social, enfatizando la necesidad de consideraciones específicas de género en la gestión y en la investigación de la DM2. Además, se analiza el impacto de la pobreza en los resultados de salud, destacando la relación bidireccional entre pobreza y enfermedad. Las medidas integrales que abordan estos determinantes son cruciales para mejorar la salud y el bienestar de las personas con DM2. Abordar las desigualdades sociales a través de intervenciones específicas puede contribuir a mejores resultados de tratamiento y a una atención médica equitativa (AU)

Social determinants of health significantly influence the development and progression of chronic diseases such as type2 diabetes (T2DM). This article examines key social determinants including education, economic stability, neighborhood, and factors such as ethnicity, race, or religion that impact individuals with T2DM. The role of gender as a social determinant is also explored, emphasizing the need for gender-specific considerations in T2DM management and research. Additionally, the impact of poverty on health outcomes is analyzed, highlighting the bidirectional relationship between poverty and disease. Comprehensive measures addressing these determinants are crucial to improving the health and well-being of individuals with T2DM. Addressing social inequalities through targeted interventions can contribute to better treatment outcomes and equitable healthcare (AU)

[Vulnerability and social determinants in diabetes]. / Vulnerabilidad y determinantes sociales en diabetes.

Social determinants of health significantly influence the development and progression of chronic diseases such as type2 diabetes (T2DM). This article examines key social determinants including education, economic stability, neighborhood, and factors such as ethnicity, race, or religion that impact individuals with T2DM. The role of gender as a social determinant is also explored, emphasizing the need for gender-specific considerations in T2DM management and research. Additionally, the impact of poverty on health outcomes is analyzed, highlighting the bidirectional relationship between poverty and disease. Comprehensive measures addressing these determinants are crucial to improving the health and well-being of individuals with T2DM. Addressing social inequalities through targeted interventions can contribute to better treatment outcomes and equitable healthcare.

Manejo de perfiles de pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo2 en la práctica clínica de la atención primaria en España: Programa CONTROVERTI2 / Management of patient profiles with type2 diabetes mellitus in Primary Care in Spain: CONTROVERTI2 Program

Objetivo: Identificar controversias existentes en el manejo habitual de los pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo2 (DM2) y contrastarlas con la última evidencia científica y guías clínicas, con el fin de optimizar y homogeneizar el tratamiento de los pacientes con DM2 en la atención primaria (AP) en España. Material y métodos: 240 médicos de familia respondieron a un cuestionario online sobre el manejo de 6 perfiles de pacientes con DM2 de complejidad creciente. Resultados: Los factores clínicos más influyentes en la elección del tratamiento antihiperglucémico son una HbA1c >10% y la presencia de enfermedad cardiovascular (ECV), aunque en el paciente evolucionado cobran más relevancia la tasa de filtrado glomerular estimada y el riesgo de hipoglucemia. En el paciente recién diagnosticado con HbA1c>9% se sigue iniciando el tratamiento con monoterapia (24%). En el paciente no controlado con metformina suelen añadirse inhibidores de la dipeptidil peptidasa4 (iDPP4, 54%) seguido de inhibidores del cotransportador sodio-glucosa tipo2 (iSGLT2, 39%). Los agonistas del receptor del péptido similar al glucagón tipo1 (arGLP1) se asocian principalmente al paciente con DM2 obeso. En el paciente no controlado con metformina+sulfonilurea (SU) se prefiere sustituir la SU a añadir un tercer agente antihiperglucémico al tratamiento (77% vs. 23%). Conclusiones: Todavía persiste en AP un enfoque del tratamiento de la DM2 centrado en la reducción de la HbA1c y en la seguridad de los tratamientos. Por ello, los iDPP4 son fármacos ampliamente utilizados. Los iSGLT2 se reservan habitualmente para pacientes con DM2 y ECV y los arGLP1 para pacientes con DM2 obesos, siendo su uso muy limitado (AU)

Aim: To identify existing controversies in the routine management of patients with T2D and to contrast them with the latest scientific evidence and clinical guidelines, in order to help optimize and homogenize the treatment of patients with T2D in Primary Care (PC) in Spain. Material and methods: 240 family doctors responded to an online questionnaire about the management of 6 patient profiles with T2D of increasing complexity. Results: The main drivers for the antihyperglycemic treatment choice are an HbA1c>10% and the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), although in evolved patients, the estimated glomerular filtration rate and the risk of hypoglycemia become more relevant. In newly diagnosed patients with an HbA1c>9%, treatment is still initiated with monotherapy (24%). In patients not controlled with metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4-I, 54%) or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I, 39%) are usually added. On the other hand, type1 glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) are mainly associated with obese patients with T2D. In patients not controlled with metformin+sulfonylurea (SU), SU replacement is preferred to adding a third antihyperglycemic agent to background therapy (77% vs. 23%). Conclusions: T2D treatment in PC is still focused on HbA1c reduction and treatment safety. Thus, DPP4-I are widely used. SGLT2-I are usually preferred for patients with T2D and CVD and GLP1-RA for patients with T2D and obesity, although their use in PC is low (AU)

[Management of patient profiles with type2 diabetes mellitus in Primary Care in Spain: CONTROVERTI2 Program]. / Manejo de perfiles de pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo2 en la práctica clínica de la atención primaria en España: Programa CONTROVERTI2.

AIM: To identify existing controversies in the routine management of patients with T2D and to contrast them with the latest scientific evidence and clinical guidelines, in order to help optimize and homogenize the treatment of patients with T2D in Primary Care (PC) in Spain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 240 family doctors responded to an online questionnaire about the management of 6 patient profiles with T2D of increasing complexity. RESULTS: The main drivers for the antihyperglycemic treatment choice are an HbA1c>10% and the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), although in evolved patients, the estimated glomerular filtration rate and the risk of hypoglycemia become more relevant. In newly diagnosed patients with an HbA1c>9%, treatment is still initiated with monotherapy (24%). In patients not controlled with metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4-I, 54%) or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I, 39%) are usually added. On the other hand, type1 glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) are mainly associated with obese patients with T2D. In patients not controlled with metformin+sulfonylurea (SU), SU replacement is preferred to adding a third antihyperglycemic agent to background therapy (77% vs. 23%). CONCLUSIONS: T2D treatment in PC is still focused on HbA1c reduction and treatment safety. Thus, DPP4-I are widely used. SGLT2-I are usually preferred for patients with T2D and CVD and GLP1-RA for patients with T2D and obesity, although their use in PC is low.

Manejo de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en adolescentes y adultos jóvenes en atención primaria / Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adolescents and young adults in primary care

La prevalencia de la diabetes tipo 2 diagnosticada en la infancia/juventud está aumentando y se caracteriza por una disminución acelerada de la función de las células beta pancreáticas y resistencia a la insulina. Los principales factores de riesgo para su desarrollo son obesidad e inactividad física. Los criterios diagnósticos son similares a los utilizados en adultos, aunque la HbA1c como método diagnóstico está cuestionada. Las complicaciones son más agresivas que en la diabetes tipo 2 del adulto, siendo la nefropatía la más frecuente. Las complicaciones macrovasculares aparecen precozmente y su mortalidad es elevada. La alimentación saludable y el ejercicio físico continuado son los pilares básicos del tratamiento, y la metformina, insulina y liraglutide (aprobado por la FDA en Estados Unidos) las opciones farmacológicas con indicación en esta población. Es importante establecer modelos de transición de la atención pediátrica a la atención adulta para garantizar la continuidad asistencial y evitar pérdidas en el seguimiento de estos pacientes

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (DM2) diagnosed in childhood and adolescence is currently increasing, and is characterised by a rapidly progressive decline in beta-cells and insulin resistance. Physical inactivity and obesity are the main risk factors for its development. Diagnostic criteria are similar to those used in adults, although HbA1c as a diagnostic method is questioned. Diabetes-related complications are more aggressive than in adults. Diabetic nephropathy is the most frequent complication in the young population and macrovascular complications appear early, leading to high mortality rates. Healthy lifestyles are the basis of the treatment, and metformin, insulin and liraglutide (approved by FDA for its use in the United States) are the pharmacological options indicated in this population. It is important to establish models of health care transition from paediatric to adult care to ensure continuity of care and avoid patient disengagements

[Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adolescents and young adults in primary care]. / Manejo de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en adolescentes y adultos jóvenes en atención primaria.

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (DM2) diagnosed in childhood and adolescence is currently increasing, and is characterised by a rapidly progressive decline in beta-cells and insulin resistance. Physical inactivity and obesity are the main risk factors for its development. Diagnostic criteria are similar to those used in adults, although HbA1c as a diagnostic method is questioned. Diabetes-related complications are more aggressive than in adults. Diabetic nephropathy is the most frequent complication in the young population and macrovascular complications appear early, leading to high mortality rates. Healthy lifestyles are the basis of the treatment, and metformin, insulin and liraglutide (approved by FDA for its use in the United States) are the pharmacological options indicated in this population. It is important to establish models of health care transition from paediatric to adult care to ensure continuity of care and avoid patient disengagements.

Impacto de la inercia terapéutica y del grado de adherencia al tratamiento en los objetivos de control en personas con diabetes / The impact of therapeutic inertia and the degree of the medication adherence on the control goals for patients with diabetes

Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar el impacto de la baja adherencia terapéutica (AT) y la inercia terapéutica de los profesionales (IT) sobre el mal control glucémico y de los factores de riesgo cardiovasculares en personas con DM2. Material y métodos: Estudio transversal realizado en atención primaria. Se incluyeron 320 personas con DM2. Se valoró si cumplían los objetivos de control (HbA1c≤7%, PA≤130/80mmHg, LDL≤100mg/dl). Se consideró falta de AT la retirada de farmacia <80% de las recetas prescritas e IT la no modificación del tratamiento en personas mal controladas. Resultados: Presentaron buen control de HbA1c, PA y cLDL el 62,5, el 40,9 y el 35,9%, respectivamente. Las personas mal controladas presentaron cifras de AT menores y la IT no se relacionó con la AT. En sujetos mal controlados para HbA1c, presentaban IT el 25,8%, el 24,8% mala AT y el 11,9% estaban afectados por ambos comportamientos. Para cLDL, el 3,6% presentaban mala AT, el 70,4% IT y el 16,0% mala AT e IT (p<0,001). Respecto a la PA, el 3,5% tenían mala AT, el 54,6% IT y el 21,5% presentaban mala AT e IT (p<0,01). Conclusiones: La falta de AT y la IT han estado implicadas en un porcentaje elevado de personas con DM2 mal controladas. La IT ha resultado de gran relevancia en el presente estudio

Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyse both the impact of low therapeutic adherence (TA) and therapeutic inertia (TI) on poor blood glucose control and on risk factors for heart disease in patients with DM2. Material and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a Primary Halth Care centre. A total of 320 patients with DM2 were included and an assessment was made of control goals (HbA1c≤7%, blood pressure ≤130/80mmHg, and LDL-cholesterol≤100mg/dl). A pharmacy retrieval <80% was considered as a lack of TA and the non-modification of treatment in badly controlled patient as TI. Results: The percentage of patients with good control of HbA1c, blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol was 62.5%, 40.9%, and 35.9%, respectively. Lower figures of TA were present in poorly controlled patients, and TI was not found to be related to TA. In the patients with poor HbA1c control, 25.8% had TI, 24.8% poor TA, and 11.9% had both of them. As regards LDL-cholesterol, 3.6% presented poor TA, 70.4% showed TI, and 16% with poor TA and TI (P<.001). As for blood pressure, 3.5% of patients had poor TA, 54.6% had TI, and 21.5% of them had poor TA as well as TI (P<.01). Conclusions: Lack of therapeutic adherence and therapeutic inertia were found in a high percentage of poorly-controlled DM2 patients with bad control. Therapeutic inertia was found to be of great relevance in this study

[The impact of therapeutic inertia and the degree of the medication adherence on the control goals for patients with diabetes]. / Impacto de la inercia terapéutica y del grado de adherencia al tratamiento en los objetivos de control en personas con diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyse both the impact of low therapeutic adherence (TA) and therapeutic inertia (TI) on poor blood glucose control and on risk factors for heart disease in patients with DM2. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a Primary Halth Care centre. A total of 320 patients with DM2 were included and an assessment was made of control goals (HbA1c≤7%, blood pressure ≤130/80mmHg, and LDL-cholesterol≤100mg/dl). A pharmacy retrieval <80% was considered as a lack of TA and the non-modification of treatment in badly controlled patient as TI. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with good control of HbA1c, blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol was 62.5%, 40.9%, and 35.9%, respectively. Lower figures of TA were present in poorly controlled patients, and TI was not found to be related to TA. In the patients with poor HbA1c control, 25.8% had TI, 24.8% poor TA, and 11.9% had both of them. As regards LDL-cholesterol, 3.6% presented poor TA, 70.4% showed TI, and 16% with poor TA and TI (P<.001). As for blood pressure, 3.5% of patients had poor TA, 54.6% had TI, and 21.5% of them had poor TA as well as TI (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of therapeutic adherence and therapeutic inertia were found in a high percentage of poorly-controlled DM2 patients with bad control. Therapeutic inertia was found to be of great relevance in this study.

Determinaciones analíticas en el paciente diabético / Laboratory tests and the diabetic patient

En el paciente diabético se han de realizar analíticas para conocer su control metabólico, así como los factores de riesgo cardiovascular. En este artículo se analizan las determinaciones analíticas recomendadas y la frecuencia de su realización. La hemoglobina glucosilada es el parámetro que valora el control metabólico; hemos revisado el consenso para la armonización de los resultados y la reciente aceptación de esta determinación para el diagnóstico de diabetes tipo 2. Para el estudio de la dislipemia diabética hemos explicado todos los parámetros que son útiles, aunque el colesterol LDL es el aceptado para el diagnóstico y seguimiento. Para la valoración de la nefropatía diabética se utiliza la excreción urinaria de albúmina y la creatinina sérica para estimar el filtrado glomerular. Debido a que la disfunción tiroidea es común en los pacientes diabéticos, también se recomienda la determinación de TSH (AU)

Laboratory tests must be performed on diabetic patients in order to monitor metabolic control and their cardiovascular risk factors. In this paper, we review the recommended analytical determinations and the frequency of performing them. Glycosylated haemoglobin is the parameter used for assessing metabolic control. We have reviewed the Consensus for result harmonisation and the recent acceptance of this determination for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. We have explained all useful parameters for the study of diabetic dyslipidaemia, although LDL cholesterol is the accepted parameter for diagnosis and follow-up. Albumin excretion in urine is used in order to assess diabetic nephropathy and serum creatinine is used in order to assess glomerular filtration. As thyroid dysfunction is common in diabetic patients, TSH determination is recommended (AU)