Glycemic management and clinical outcomes in underserved minority kidney transplant recipients with type 2 and posttransplantation diabetes: A single-center retrospective study.

AIMS: Little is known about glycemic management, particularly with novel cardio-nephroprotecive agents, in underserved minority kidney transplant recipients with pre-transplant type 2 (T2DM) and posttransplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM). We assessed glycemic management and outcomes in this high-risk population. METHODS: We reviewed records of patients who received kidney transplants between June 2012 and December 2014 at a single center. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and prescribed glucose-lowering medications were examined, and mortality was compared between T2DM, PTDM, and no diabetes (NoDM) patients. RESULTS: We followed 302 patient records (41.1% Hispanic, 41.1% non-Hispanic black) for a median (IQR) of 45.5 (37.0, 53.0) months post-transplant. Pre-transplant T2DM was present in 152 (50.3%), while 58 (19.2%) developed PTDM and 92 (30.4%) remained NoDM. At 1-year post-transplant, the average HbA1c was 8.1 ± 1.8% in T2DM and 6.6 ± 1.3% in PTDM. No glucose-lowering agents were prescribed in 3.4% of T2DM and 44.8% of PTDM. When treated, both received mostly insulin and metformin. Diabetes, HbA1c and insulin therapy were not independently associated with risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic management was suboptimal and relied on older medications. Further studies are needed to assess longer-term outcomes of more rigorous glycemic management, and the value of novel cardio-nephroprotective agents in kidney transplant recipients.

Two-stage screening for early dementia in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare two screening strategies for dementia in an urban primary care clinic, serving a low-education, minority community composed largely of Latino and African American patients. METHOD: Two hundred and fifty-seven patients underwent two-stage patient-based screening (PBS) and informant-based screening (IBS) followed by a diagnostic evaluation. In the first stage, PBS included brief tests of episodic memory (Memory Impairment Screen), semantic memory (Animal Fluency), and executive function (Reciting Months Backwards). For IBS, the first stage consisted of the short Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly, administered to a family member or friend. Patients who screened positive in the first stage of either strategy underwent testing with the picture version of the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test with Immediate Recall to identify memory impairment. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were computed for various cutoffs of each test and combination of tests. Dementia was diagnosed using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria without access to the screening test results. RESULTS: We identified 66 patients (25.7%) with previously undiagnosed dementia. Sensitivity was the same (77%) for both strategies but specificity was higher for IBS than for PBS (92% versus 83%). IBS's higher specificity makes it the preferred strategy if a knowledgeable informant is available. CONCLUSION: Unrecognized dementia is common in primary care. Case-finding can be improved using either PBS or IBS two-stage screening strategies.