Montori, Víctor M.

OBJECTIVES— To systematically review the incidence of posttransplantation diabetes (PTD), risk factors for its development, prognostic implications, and optimal management.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS— We searched databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and others) from inception to September 2000, reviewed bibliographies in reports retrieved, contacted transplantation experts, and reviewed specialty journals. Two reviewers independently determined report inclusion (original studies, in all languages, of PTD in adults with no history of diabetes before transplantation), assessed study methods, and extracted data using a standardized form. Meta-regression was used to explain between-study differences in incidence.RESULTS— Nineteen studies with 3,611 patients were included. The 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD is lower (<10% in most studies) than it was 3 decades ago. The type of immunosuppression explained 74% of the variability in incidence (P = 0.0004). Risk factors were patient age, nonwhite ethnicity, glucocorticoid treatment for rejection, and immunosuppression with high-dose cyclosporine and tacrolimus. PTD was associated with decreased graft and patient survival in earlier studies; later studies showed improved outcomes. Randomized trials of treatment regimens have not been conducted.CONCLUSIONS— Physicians should consider modification of immunosuppressive regimens to decrease the risk of PTD in high-risk transplant recipients. Randomized trials are needed to evaluate the use of oral glucose-lowering agents in transplant recipients, paying particular attention to interactions with immunosuppressive drugs.

OBJECTIVE—The Mayo Health System Diabetes Translation Project sought to assess models of community-based diabetes care and use of a diabetes electronic management system (DEMS). Planned care is a redesigned model of chronic disease care that involves guideline implementation, support of self-management, and use of clinical information systems. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We studied adult diabetic patients attending three primary care practice sites in Wisconsin and Minnesota. We implemented planned care at all sites and DEMS in the practice of 16 primary care providers. We assessed quality of diabetes care using standard indicators for 200 patients randomly selected from each site at baseline and at 24 months of implementation. We used multivariable analyses to estimate the association between planned care and DEMS and each quality indicator. RESULTS—Planned care was associated with improvements in measurement of HbA1c (odds ratio 7.0 [95% CI 4.2–11.6]), HDL cholesterol (5.6 [4.1–7.5]), and microalbuminuria (5.3 [3.5–8.0]), as well as the provision of tobacco advice (6.9 [4.7–10.1]), among other performance measures. DEMS use was associated with improvements in all indicators, including microalbuminuria (3.2 [1.9–5.2]), retinal examination (2.4 [1.5–3.9]), foot examinations (2.3 [1.2–4.4]), and self-management support (2.6 [1.7–3.8]). Although planned care was associated with improvements in metabolic control, we observed no additional metabolic benefit when providers used DEMS. CONCLUSIONS—Planned care was associated with improved performance and metabolic outcomes in primary care. DEMS use augmented the impact of planned care on performance outcomes but not on metabolic outcomes. Optimal identification of the best translation of evidence to diabetes practice will require longer follow-up or new care-delivery models.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of fish oil supplementation on lipid levels and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, Lilacs, the Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry bibliographies of relevant papers, and expert input updated through September 1998 was undertaken. All randomized placebo-controlled trials were included in which fish oil supplementation was the only intervention in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Three investigators performed data extraction and quality scoring independently with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Eighteen trials including 823 subjects followed for a mean of 12 weeks were included. Doses of fish oil used ranged from 3 to 18 g/day The outcomes studied were glycemic control and lipid levels. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of pooled data demonstrated a statistically significant effect of fish oil on lowering triglycerides (-0.56 mmol/l [95% CI -0.71 to -0.41]) and raising LDL cholesterol (0.21 mmol/l [0.02 to 0.41]). No statistically significant effect was observed for fasting glucose. HbA1c total cholesterol, or HDL cholesterol. The triglyceride-lowering effect and the elevation in LDL cholesterol were most marked in those trials that recruited hypertriglyceridemic subjects and used higher doses of fish oil. Heterogeneity was observed and explained by the recruitment of subjects with baseline hypertriglyceridemia in some studies. CONCLUSIONS: Fish oil supplementation in type 2 diabetes lowers triglycerides, raises LDL cholesterol, and has no statistically significant effect on glycemic control. Trials with hard clinical end points are needed.

OBJECTIVE—We sought to systematically ascertain the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We identified the 10 most recently published trials as of 31 October 2003 in each of six general medical, five diabetes, and five metabolism and nutrition journals and further enriched our sample with 10 additional RCTs from each of five journals that published the most eligible RCTs in a year. We explored the association between trial characteristics and reporting quality using univariate analyses and a preplanned multivariate regression model. RESULTS—After excluding redundant reports of included trials and one trial that measured outcomes on the health system and not on patients, we included 199 RCTs: 119 assessed physiological and other laboratory outcomes, 42 assessed patient-important outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality, quality of life), and 38 assessed surrogate outcomes (e.g., disease progression or regression, HbA1c, cholesterol). Fifty-three percent were of low methodological quality, as were one-third (36–40%) of trials reporting patient-important or surrogate outcomes and two-thirds (64%) of laboratory investigations. Independent predictors of low quality were nonprofit funding source (odds ratio 3.1 [95% CI 1.5–6.2]), measure of physiological and laboratory outcomes (2.3 [1.2–4.4]), and cross-over design (2.3 [1.1–4.8]), all characteristics of laboratory clinical investigations. CONCLUSIONS—There is ample room for improving the quality of diabetes trials. To enhance the practice of evidence-based diabetes care, trialists need to pay closer attention to the rigorous implementation and reporting of important methodological safeguards against bias in randomized trials.