Citations

ABSTRACTThe sulfonamides were the first drugs with antituberculous effects. Their use was abandoned and basically forgotten with the advent of streptomycin and isoniazid combination treatment. There is a widespread belief, apparently based on testing a single isolate on questionable media, thatMycobacterium tuberculosisis resistant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX). We saw a complex immunocompromised patient with tuberculosis who was initially treated with TMP-SMX without antituberculous drugs and defervesced on this treatment. An isolate ofM. tuberculosisfrom this patient was found to be sensitive to TMP-SMX. We examined how frequentlyM. tuberculosisis sensitive to TMP-SMX. Isolates were tested for susceptibility to TMP-SMX on supplemented Middlebrook 7H10 plates. We found that 43 of 44 (98%) isolates ofM. tuberculosiswere susceptible to the combination of ≤1 μg/ml of TMP and 19 μg/ml of SMX (≤1/19 μg/ml). Thus, the vast majority of ourM. tuberculosisisolates were susceptible to TMP-SMX at an MIC similar to that forMycobacterium kansasii,Mycobacterium marinum, and sensitive rapidly growing mycobacteria, organisms successfully treated with TMP-SMX as part of the treatment regimen. It is possible that TMP-SMX may be useful in treating patients with multiple-drug-resistant and extended drug-resistant tuberculosis. We feel that a clinical trial looking at the effectiveness of TMP-SMX as an antituberculous drug is worthwhile.

OBJECTIVE—The aims of this study were to provide estimates of 1) the risk of mortality for individuals with both diabetes and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) relative to that for individuals with either condition alone and 2) the association between PAD progression and mortality for individuals with diabetes, PAD, and both conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—This longitudinal cohort study was conducted in Rochester, Minnesota. Local residents age 50–70 years with a prior diagnosis of PAD and/or diabetes were identified from the Mayo Clinic diagnostic registry and invited to a baseline examination (1977–1978). Those who met inclusion criteria were assessed for PAD progression at 2 and 4 years and followed for vital status through 31 December 1999. RESULTS—The numbers who met criteria for PAD, diabetes, and both conditions at baseline were 149, 238, and 186, respectively. Within each group, observed survival was less than expected (P < 0.001). The adjusted risk of death for both conditions was 2.2 times that for PAD alone. Among the 449 who returned at 4 years, the risk of subsequent death was greater for those whose PAD had progressed; among individuals with diabetes alone at baseline, 100% (17 of 17) who met criteria for PAD progression were dead by 31 December 1999 compared with 62% (111 of 178) of those who had not met criteria (adjusted relative hazard 2.29 [95% CI 1.30–4.02], P = 0.004). The increased mortality associated with PAD progression was significant only for individuals with diabetes (alone or with PAD). CONCLUSIONS—Diabetes is a risk factor for both PAD and PAD-associated mortality, emphasizing the critical need to detect and monitor PAD in diabetic patients.

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 compare the compliance with diabetes care performance indicators by diabetes specialists using a diabetes electronic management system (DEMS) and by those using the traditional paper medical record. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A DEMS has been gradually introduced into our subspecialty practice for diabetes care. To assess the value of this DEMS as a disease management tool, we completed a retrospective review of the medical records of 82 randomly selected patients attending a subspecialty diabetes clinic (DC) during the first quarter of 1996. Eligible patients were defined by the suggested criteria from the American Diabetes Association Provider Recognition Program. During the first quarter of 1996, ∼ one half of the providers began using the DEMS for some but not all of their patient encounters. Neither abstractors nor providers were aware of the intent to examine performance in relationship to use of the DEMS. RESULTS Several measures were positively influenced when providers used the DEMS. The number of foot examinations, the number of blood pressure readings, and a weighted criterion score were greater (P < 0.01) for providers using the DEMS. There was evidence, although not statistically significant, for lower mean diastolic blood pressures (P = 0.043) in patients and for number of glycated hemoglobins documented (P = 0.018) by users of the DEMS. CONCLUSIONS Performance and documentation of the process of care for patients with diabetes in a subspecialty clinic are greater with the use of a DEMS than with the traditional paper record.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate both the concordance in the classification of diabetes by clinical and C-peptide criteria and, prospectively, the consistency of the classification by C-peptide. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Individuals with diabetes who were enlisted in the prospective epidemiological study of diabetic neuropathy (Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study [RDNS]) were classified clinically by National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) criteria to IDDM and NIDDM at entry to the study. In addition, C-peptide response to 1 mg glucagon was measured at entry for the classification to IDDM (basal C-peptide, < 0.17 pmol/ml; increment above basal, < 0.07 pmol/ml) and NIDDM (all other responses) and for concordance with the clinical classification made. The consistency of the C-peptide response was assessed every 2 years for up to 8 years. RESULTS Among 346 individuals with diabetes, 84 were classified as IDDM and 262 as NIDDM by clinical algorithm. COncordance with the C-peptide response occurred in 89% of the patients and remained consistent during 8 years of follow-up. Among the 37 patients with discordant clinical and C-peptide classification, those considered clinically to have NIDDM had a consistent IDDM C-peptide response during follow-up, and most of those considered to have IDDM clinically eventually showed an IDDM C-peptide response during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Clinical criteria for the classification of diabetes are highly correlated with the assessment of insulin secretory reserve. A small number of individuals considered to have NIDDM clinically or by C-peptide have or develop an IDDM peptide response.