How frequently the clinical practice recommendations for nephropathy are achieved in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a primary health-care setting?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of DM2 patients in primary health-care setting who meet clinical practice recommendations for nephropathy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 735 patients were included in this cross-sectional study. Nephropathy was defined as glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or albuminuria > or = 30 mg/day. To estimate the proportion of patients meeting clinical practice recommendations, the achieved level was classified according to NKF -K/DOQI, ADA, IDF, JNC 7 report, and NCEP-ATPIII. RESULTS: A high frequency of kidney disease and cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, alcoholism, obesity) was observed. Adequate levels were attained in 13% for fasting glucose, 45% for blood pressure, 71% for albuminuria, and 30% for lipids. Nephropathy was diagnosed in 41%. Adequate systolic blood pressure was observed in 40% of patients with nephropathy vs. 49% without nephropathy (p = 0.03). In both groups, body mass index was acceptable in one fifth of patients, and waist circumference in two thirds of men and one third of women (p = NS). Patients with nephropathy used more antihypertensives, particularly angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (nephropathy 49% vs. no nephropathy 38%, p = 0.004). Subjects with nephropathy received more frequently (p = 0.05) insulin (11%) than those without nephropathy (7%). In both groups, there was low use of statins (nephropathy 14% vs. no nephropathy 17%, p = 0.23), and aspirin (nephropathy 7% vs. no nephropathy 5%, p = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Recommended goals for adequate control of DM2 patients attending primary health-care units are rarely achieved, and this was independent of the presence of nephropathy. These findings are disturbing, as poor clinical and metabolic control may eventually cause that patients without nephropathy develop renal damage, and those subjects already with renal disease progress to renal insufficiency.

Utility of the Dipstick Micraltest II in the screening of microalbuminuria of diabetes mellitus type 2 and essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: In Mexico, diabetes mellitus type 2 and hypertension are leading causes of end-stage renal disease. Diagnosis of early renal damage with detection of microalbuminuria (microAlbU) is fundamental for treatment and prevention, and so avoiding the catastrophes of renal failure. For screening purposes, several simplified tests, including dipstick methods, fulfill the accuracy requirements for microAlbU detection compared with gold standards; however, no study has established the reliability of such tests in our setting. AIM: To evaluate the utility of micraltest II as a screening test for microAlbU compared with nephelometry in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 and non-diabetic patients with essential hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 as well as patients with essential hypertension of any age, sex and time of evolution, attending to three primary health-care units (UMF No. 3, 92 and 93, Guadalajara, Jalisco) were included. Patients with transitory albuminuria, secondary hypertension and serum creatinine > or = 2 mg/dL were excluded. Micraltest II was performed in the first morning urine sample, and nephelometry was performed in a 24-h urine collection. Diagnostic accuracy of the dipstick test was then determined. RESULTS: 245 patients were studied: 71 (29%) were diabetics without hypertension, 95 (39%) were diabetics with hypertension, and 79 (32%) had only essential hypertension. In diabetic patients, micraltest II sensitivity was 83%, specificity 96%, and positive and negative predictive values were 95% and 88%, respectively. Correlation between nephelometry and micraltest II results was 0.81 (p < 0.001). The best cut-off point for microAlbU was 30.5 mg/L, and area under the curve (+/- SEM) was 0.91 +/- 0.03 (confidence interval 95%: 0.85-0.96). In non-diabetic patients with essential hypertension, micraltest II sensitivity was 75%, specificity 95%, and positive and negative predictive values were 43% and 99%, respectively. Correlation between nephelometry and micraltest II results was 0.43 (p < 0.001). The best cut-off point for microAlbU was 28.2 mg/L, and area under the curve was 0.85 +/- 0.13 (0.60-1.10). CONCLUSION: Micraltest II dispstick is a rapid, valid and reliable method for albuminuria screening in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 and in those non-diabetic patients with essential hypertension in our setting.

Utility of the Dipstick Micraltest II TM in the screening of microalbuminuria of diabetes mellitus type 2 and essential hypertension / Utilidad de la tira reactiva Micraltest II TMen el escrutinio de microalbuminuria en diabetes mellitus tipo 2 e hipertensión esencial

Background. In Mexico, diabetes mellitus type 2 and hypertension are leading causes of end-stage renal disease. Diagnosis of early renal damage with detection of microalbuminuria (microAlbU) is fundamental for treatment and prevention, and so avoiding the catastrophes of renal failure. For screening purposes, several simplified tests, including dipstick methods, fulfill the accuracy requirements for microAlbU detection compared with gold standards; however, no study has established the reliability of such tests in our setting. Aim. To evaluate the utility of micraltest II TM as a screening test for microAlbU compared with nephelometry in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 and non-diabetic patients with essential hypertension. Patients and methods. Patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 as well as patients with essential hypertension of any age, sex and time of evolution, attending to three primary health-care units (UMF No. 3, 92 and 93, Guadalajara, Jalisco) were included. Patients with transitory albuminuria, secondary hypertension and serum creatinine > 2 mg/dL were excluded. Micraltest II TM was performed in the first morning urine sample, and nephelometry was performed in a 24-h urine collection. Diagnostic accuracy of the dipstick test was then determined. Results. 245 patients were studied: 71 (29%) were diabetics without hypertension, 95 (39%) were diabetics with hypertension, and 79 (32%) had only essential hypertension. In diabetic patients, micraltest II TM sensitivity was 83%, specificity 96%, and positive and negative predictive values were 95% and 88%, respectively. Correlation between nephelometry and micraltest II TM results was 0.81 (p < 0.001). The best cut-off point for microAlbU was 30.5 mg/L, and area under the curve (± SEM) was 0.91 ± 0.03 (confidence interval 95%: 0.85-0.96). In non-diabetic patients with essential hypertension, micraltest II TM sensitivity was 75%, specificity 95%, and positive and negative predictive values were 43% and 99%, respectively. Correlation between nephelometry and micraltest II TM results was 0.43 (p < 0.001). The best cut-off point for microAlbU was 28.2 mg/L, and area under the curve was 0.85 ± 0.13 (0.60-1.10). Conclusion. Micraltest II TM dispstick is a rapid, valid and reliable method for albuminuria screening in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 and in those non-diabetic patients with essential hypertension in our setting.

Antecedentes. En México, la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 y la hipertensión son las principales causas de insuficiencia renal crónica terminal. El diagnóstico temprano con detección de microalbuminuria (microAlbU) es fundamental para el tratamiento y prevención, y así evitar las catástrofes de la falla renal. Con el fin de tamizaje, varias pruebas simples, incluyendo las tiras reactivas, cumplen con los requerimientos de exactitud para detección de microAlbU comparados con esténdares de oro; sin embargo, ningún estudio ha establecido la confiabilidad de dichos métodos en nuestro medio. Objetivo. Evaluar la utilidad del micraltest II TM como prueba de tamizaje para microAlbU comparada con nefelometría en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 y pacientes no diabáticos con hipertensión arterial esencial. Pacientes y métodos. Se incluyeron pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2, así como pacientes con hipertensión arterial esencial de cualquiera de los dos sexos, sexo y tiempo de evolución que atendían a tres unidades de Medicina Familiar (UMF No. 3, 92 y 93, Guadalajara, Jalisco). Se excluyeron pacientes con albuminuria transitoria, hipertensión secundaria y creatinina sárica > 2 mg/dL. El micraltest II TM se realizó en la primera muestra matutina de orina, y la nefelometría en recolecciones de orina de 24 horas. La exactitud diagnóstica de la tira reactiva fue luego determinada. Resultados. Doscientos cuarenta y cinco pacientes fueron estudiados: 71 (29%) eran diabáticos sin hipertensión, 95 (39%) eran diabáticos con hipertensión, y 79 (32%) tenían sólo hipertensión arterial esencial. En los pacientes diabáticos, el micraltest II TM tuvo una sensibilidad de 83%, especificidad de 96%, y valores predictivos positivo y negativo de 95% y 88%, respectivamente. La correlación entre la nefelometría y el micraltest II TM fue 0.81 (p < 0.001). El mejor punto de corte para la detección de microAlbU fue 30.5 mg/L, y el área bajo la curva (± EE) fue 0.91 ± 0.03 (intervalo de confianza 95%: 0.85-0.96). En los pacientes no diabáticos con hipertensión esencial, el micraltest II TM tuvo una sensibilidad de 75%, especificidad de 95%, y valores predictivos positivo y negativo de 43 y 99%, respectivamente. La correlación entre los resultados de nefelometría y micraltest II TM fue 0.43 (p < 0.001). El mejor punto de corte para microAlbU fue 28.2 mg/L, y el área bajo la curva fue 0.85 ± 0.13 (intervalo de confianza 95%:0.60-1.10). Conclusión. La tira reactiva micraltest II TM es un método rápido, válido y confiable para el tamizaje de albuminuria en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 y pacientes no diabáticos con hipertensión arterial esencial en nuestro medio.

Detection of early nephropathy in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of early nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) attending primary care medical units and to identify risk factors for nephropathy in this population. METHOD: Seven hundred fifty-six patients with DM2 attending 3 primary care medical units were randomly selected. In a first interview, an albuminuria dipstick and a detailed clinical examination were performed, and a blood sample was obtained. If the albuminuria dipstick was positive, then a 24-hour urine collection was obtained within the next 2 weeks to quantify the albuminuria. In the blood sample, glucose, creatinine, and lipids were determined. Glomerular filtration rate was calculated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation. Demographics and medical history were recorded from clinical examination and medical charts. RESULTS: Prevalence of early nephropathy (EN) was 40%, normal function (NF) was found in 31%, and overt nephropathy (ON) in 29%. Patients with more severe kidney damage were older (NF: 54 +/- 10; EN: 60 +/- 11; ON: 63 +/- 10 years, P < 0.05) and had a higher proportion of illiteracy (NF: 11%, EN: 17%; ON: 25%, P < 0.05). The more severe the nephropathy, the longer the median duration of DM2 (NF: 6.0; EN: 7.0; ON: 11.0 years; P < 0.05); the higher the frequency of hypertension (NF: 38%; EN: 52%; ON: 68%; P < 0.05); and the higher the systolic blood pressure (NF: 126 +/- 21; EN: 130 +/- 19; ON: 135 +/- 23 mm Hg; P < 0.05). Both nephropathy groups had a significantly higher proportion of family history of nephropathy (NF: 4%; EN: 9%; ON: 13%) and a higher frequency of cardiovascular disease (NF: 5%; EN: 12%; ON: 25%), whereas only patients with ON had peripheral neuropathy (NF: 21%; EN: 22%; ON: 43%) and retinopathy (NF: 12%; EN: 18%; ON: 42%) more frequently than others. Fasting glucose was poorly controlled in all groups (NF: 186 +/- 70; EN: 173 +/- 62; ON: 183 +/- 73 mg/dL). Large body mass index (NF: 29.3 +/- 5.3; EN: 29.7 +/- 5.6; ON: 29.6 +/- 5.5 kg/m(2)), smoking (NF: 45%; EN: 43%; ON: 44%), and alcoholism (NF: 29%, EN: 29%; ON: 26%) were frequently found in this population, although there were no significant differences. In the multivariate analysis, only age, duration of DM2, and presence of retinopathy, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease were significantly associated with nephropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Two thirds of Mexican patients with DM2 attending primary health care medical units had nephropathy, 40% of whom were at an early stage of the disease. Many modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors were present in these patients, but the most significant predictors for nephropathy are older age, longer duration of diabetes, and the presence of retinopathy, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.