diabetes mellitus

The pretravel management of the international traveler should be based on risk management principles. Prevention strategies and medical interventions should be based on the itinerary, preexisting health factors, and behaviors that are unique to the traveler. A structured approach to the patient interaction provides a general framework for an efficient consultation. Vaccine-preventable diseases play an important role in travel-related illnesses, and their impact is not restricted to exotic diseases in developing countries. Therefore, an immunization encounter before travel is an ideal time to update all age-appropriate immunizations as well as providing protection against diseases that pose additional risk to travelers that may be delineated by their destinations or activities. This review focuses on indications for each travel-related vaccine together with a structured synthesis and graphics that show the geographic distribution of major travel-related diseases and highlight particularly high-risk destinations and behaviors. Dosing, route of administration, need for boosters, and possible accelerated regimens for vaccines administered prior to travel are presented. Different underlying illnesses and medications produce different levels of immunocompromise, and there is much unknown in this discipline. Recommendations regarding vaccination of immunocompromised travelers have less of an evidence base than for other categories of travelers. The review presents a structured synthesis of issues pertinent to considerations for 5 special populations of traveler: child traveler, pregnant traveler, severely immunocompromised traveler, HIV-infected traveler, and traveler with other chronic underlying disease including asplenia, diabetes, and chronic liver disease.

PURPOSE:

We compared the transformation experience of 2 family medicine practices that implemented the Primary Care Redesign (PCR) team-based model to improve access, quality, and experience without increasing cost. The University of Colorado's A.F. Williams Family Medicine clinic (pilot practice) implemented the model in February 2015, and a smaller, community-based practice (wave 2 practice) did so 2 years later, in February 2017.

METHODS:

The PCR model increased the ratio of medical assistants to clinicians from about 1:2 to 2.5:1 while expanding the role of the medical assistants, through enhanced rooming procedures, in-room support (eg, scribing), postclinician wrap-up, and in-basket assistance. We assessed access, clinical quality metrics, staffing costs, and clinician and staff experience and burnout for at least 7 months before and 42 months after the intervention.

RESULTS:

In the pilot practice, compared with preimplementation, there were improvements in total appointments and rates of hypertension control, colorectal cancer screening, and most diabetic quality metrics. In the wave 2 practice, total appointments increased slightly when clinicians were added pre-PCR and then increased substantially after implementation; initially variable hypertension control improved rapidly after implementation. The wave 2 practice's colorectal cancer screening improved gradually, then accelerated postimplementation, while diabetic metrics initially remained stable or declined, then improved postimplementation. New patient appointments began to increase for both practices in late 2015, but grew faster in the pilot practice under PCR. Over time, all experiential domains improved for clinicians; most remained stable for staff. Clinician burnout was reduced by at least one-half in both practices except during low staffing periods, which also adversely affected staff. After a ramp-up period, the number of staff hours per visit remained stable.

CONCLUSIONS:

The PCR model is associated with simultaneous improvements in quality, access, and clinician experience, as well as reductions in burnout, while maintaining staffing costs.

The American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes is updated and published annually in a supplement to the January issue of Diabetes Care. The ADA’s Professional Practice Committee, which includes physicians, diabetes educators, registered dietitians (RDs), and public health experts, develops the Standards. The Standards include the most current evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adults and children with all forms of diabetes. ADA’s grading system uses A, B, C, or E to show the evidence level that supports each recommendation.

• A—Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable randomized controlled trials that are adequately powered

• B—Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies

• C—Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies

• E—Expert consensus or clinical experience

This is an abridged version of the 2019 Standards containing the evidence-based recommendations most pertinent to primary care. The tables and figures have been renumbered from the original document to match this version. The complete 2019 Standards of Care document, including all supporting references, is available at professional.diabetes.org/standards.

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide, but few effective long-term treatments are available. In cardiovascular trials of inhibitors of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), exploratory results have suggested that such drugs may improve renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease to receive canagliflozin, an oral SGLT2 inhibitor, at a dose of 100 mg daily or placebo. All the patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 30 to <90 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area and albuminuria (ratio of albumin [mg] to creatinine [g], >300 to 5000) and were treated with renin–angiotensin system blockade. The primary outcome was a composite of end-stage kidney disease (dialysis, transplantation, or a sustained estimated GFR of <15 ml per minute per 1.73 m2), a doubling of the serum creatinine level, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Prespecified secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee. At that time, 4401 patients had undergone randomization, with a median follow-up of 2.62 years. The relative risk of the primary outcome was 30% lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group, with event rates of 43.2 and 61.2 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.82; P=0.00001). The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P<0.001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.86; P=0.002). The canagliflozin group also had a lower risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01) and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of amputation or fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, the risk of kidney failure and cardiovascular events was lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 2.62 years. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; CREDENCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02065791.)