Dyslipidemia: The untreated metabolic dysfunction in people with type 2 diabetes in Latin America. ARETAEUS study outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAHA) and/or statin treatment initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and time from diagnosis to both types of treatment initiation and intensification. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We reviewed 662 retrospective medical records of patients with T2D diagnosed by 31 general practitioner or specialist sites across Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. Demographic and clinical information was abstracted from patients' medical records and summarized using descriptive statistics. Between-group differences were assessed with Student's t-test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. The starting time of each therapy (OAHA and statins, separately) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: At diagnosis, patients' mean age was 53 years; 44% had hypertension, 42% were obese, and 23% had dyslipidemia. During the 2-year follow-up, 95% of patients received OAHAs but only 29% of those eligible for statins received this prescription. Mean ±â€¯SD and median (Q1, Q3) time to first OAHA was 59 ±â€¯141 days and 1 (1, 31) day, respectively, and 230 ±â€¯232 days and 132 (30, 406) days, respectively, for a statin. During follow-up, 51-53% of patients with HbA1c/FPG values above target did not intensify hyperglycemia treatment. CONCLUSION: Dyslipidemia treatment in patients with T2D was delayed despite its known deleterious effect on atherosclerosis development and ß-cell mass/function. Anti-hyperglycemic treatment was not intensified when targets were not attained. This prescriptive inertia needs to be corrected because attainment of HbA1c treatment goals becomes more difficult, favoring the development of diabetes complications.

Evidence-to-policy gap on hepatitis A vaccine adoption in 6 countries: Literature vs. policymakers' beliefs.

BACKGROUND: National vaccine adoption decisions may be better understood by linking multiple data sources. When examining countries' decisions to adopt the hepatitis A vaccine, applying multiple research methods can facilitate assessments of gaps between evidence and policy. We conducted a literature review on hepatitis A and stakeholder interviews about decisions to adopt the vaccine in six countries (Chile, India, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted across five literature databases. The review identified and abstracted 340 articles, supplemented by internet search. In addition, we interviewed 62 experts and opinion leaders on hepatitis A and/or vaccines. Data from the two sources were analyzed to identify gaps around epidemiologic data, economic data, and barriers/facilitators of hepatitis A vaccine adoption. RESULTS: Epidemiologic data gaps were found in Chile and Russia, where stakeholders believed data to be more solid than the literature documented. Economic data on hepatitis A was found to be weak across all countries despite stakeholders' agreement on its importance. Barriers and facilitators of vaccine adoption such as political will, prioritization among vaccines, and global or local recommendations were discussed more by stakeholders than the literature. Stakeholders in India and Mexico were not concerned with the lack of data, despite growing recognition in the literature of the epidemiological transition and threat of outbreaks. CONCLUSIONS: Triangulation of results from two methods captured a richer story behind vaccine adoption decisions for hepatitis A. The discrepancy between policymakers' beliefs and existing data suggest a decline in priority of hepatitis A or weak investment in data collection. Filling the confirmed data gaps in seroprevalence or economic data is important to help guide policy decisions. Greater communication of the risk of hepatitis A and the benefits of the vaccine may help countries undergoing the epidemiologic transition.