RESUMO
Type 2 diabetes and its associated cardiovascular risk is an escalating epidemic that represents a significant public health burden due to increased morbidity and mortality, disproportionately affecting disadvantaged communities. Poor glycaemic control exacerbates this burden by increasing retinal, renal, and cardiac damage and raising healthcare costs. This predicament underscores the urgent need for research into cost-effective approaches to preventing diabetes complications. An important but often overlooked strategy to improve metabolic control in diabetic patients is the treatment of periodontitis. Our aim is to assess whether the inclusion of periodontitis treatment in diabetes management strategies can effectively improve metabolic control, and to advocate for its inclusion from an equity perspective. We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature from 2000 to 2023. We analyzed the pathophysiological links between periodontitis, diabetes, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, all of which have inflammation as a central component. We also examined the inequalities in health care spending in this context. Our findings suggest that incorporating routine screening and treatment of periodontitis into national health programs, with coordinated efforts between physicians and dentists, is a cost-effective measure to improve metabolic control, reduce complications and improve the overall quality of life of people with diabetes.
Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Epidemias , Periodontite , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/terapia , Doenças Cardiovasculares/terapia , Qualidade de Vida , Periodontite/epidemiologia , Periodontite/terapiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To examine the performances of an alternative strategy to decide initiating BP-lowering drugs called Proportional Benefit (PB). It selects candidates addressing the inequity induced by the high-risk approach since it distributes the gains proportionally to the burden of disease by genders and ages. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Mild hypertensives from a Realistic Virtual Population by genders and 10-year age classes (range 35-64 years) received simulated treatment over 10 years according to the PB strategy or the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines (ESH/ESC). Primary outcomes were the relative life-year gain (life-years gained-to-years of potential life lost ratio) and the number needed to treat to gain a life-year. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of changes introduced by the ESH/ESC guidelines appeared in 2013 on these outcomes. RESULTS: The 2007 ESH/ESC relative life-year gains by ages were 2%; 10%; 14% in men, and 0%; 2%; 11% in women, this gradient being abolished by the PB (relative gain in all categories = 10%), while preserving the same overall gain in life-years. The redistribution of benefits improved the profile of residual events in younger individuals compared to the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines. The PB strategy was more efficient (NNT = 131) than the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines, whatever the level of evidence of the scenario adopted (NNT = 139 and NNT = 179 with the evidence-based scenario and the opinion-based scenario, respectively), although the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines remained the most efficient strategy (NNT = 114). CONCLUSION: The Proportional Benefit strategy provides the first response ever proposed against the inequity of resource use when treating highest risk people. It occupies an intermediate position with regards to the efficiency expected from the application of historical and current ESH/ESC hypertension guidelines. Our approach allows adapting recommendations to the risk and resources of a particular country.
Assuntos
Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Anti-Hipertensivos/farmacologia , Pressão Sanguínea/efeitos dos fármacos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Humanos , Hipertensão/fisiopatologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Fatores de Risco , Fatores SexuaisRESUMO
BACKGROUND: People with no previous cardiovascular events or cardiovascular disease represent a primary prevention population. The benefits and harms of treating mild hypertension in primary prevention patients are not known at present. This review examines the existing randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence. OBJECTIVE: Primary objective: To quantify the effects of antihypertensive drug therapy on mortality and morbidity in adults with mild hypertension (systolic blood pressure (BP) 140-159 mmHg and/or diastolic BP 90-99 mmHg) and without cardiovascular disease. METHODS: Search: We searched CENTRAL (2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to May 2011), EMBASE (1980 to May 2011) and reference lists of articles. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) were searched for previous reviews and meta-analyses of anti-hypertensive drug treatment compared to placebo or no treatment trials up until the end of 2011. Selection criteria: RCTs of at least 1 year duration. Data collection and analysis: The outcomes assessed were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), total cardiovascular events (CVS), and withdrawals due to adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: Of 11 RCTs identified 4 were included in this review, with 8,912 participants. Treatment for 4 to 5 years with antihypertensive drugs as compared to placebo did not reduce total mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63, 1.15). In 7,080 participants treatment with antihypertensive drugs as compared to placebo did not reduce coronary heart disease (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80, 1.57), stroke (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24, 1.08), or total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72, 1.32). Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased by drug therapy (RR 4.80, 95% CI 4.14, 5.57), ARR 9%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antihypertensive drugs used in the treatment of adults (primary prevention) with mild hypertension (systolic BP 140-159 mmHg and/or diastolic BP 90-99 mmHg) have not been shown to reduce mortality or morbidity in RCTs. Treatment caused 9% of patients to discontinue treatment due to adverse effects. More RCTs are needed in this prevalent population to know whether the benefits of treatment exceed the harms.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The prediction of the public health impact of a preventive strategy provides valuable support for decision-making. International guidelines for hypertension management have introduced the level of absolute cardiovascular risk in the definition of the treatment target population. The public health impact of implementing such a recommendation has not been measured. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We assessed the efficiency of three treatment scenarios according to historical and current versions of practice guidelines on a Realistic Virtual Population representative of the French population aged from 35 to 64 years: 1) BP≥160/95 mm Hg; 2) BP≥140/90 mm Hg and 3) BP≥140/90 mm Hg plus increased CVD risk. We compared the eligibility following the ESC guidelines with the recently observed proportion of treated amongst hypertensive individuals reported by the Etude Nationale Nutrition Santé survey. Lowering the threshold to define hypertension multiplied by 2.5 the number of eligible individuals. Applying the cardiovascular risk rule reduced this number significantly: less than 1/4 of hypertensive women under 55 years and less than 1/3 of hypertensive men below 45 years of age. This was the most efficient strategy. Compared to the simulated guidelines application, men of all ages were undertreated (between 32 and 60%), as were women over 55 years (70%). By contrast, younger women were over-treated (over 200%). CONCLUSION: The global CVD risk approach to decide for treatment is more efficient than the simple blood pressure level. However, lack of screening rather than guideline application seems to explain the low prescription rates among hypertensive individuals in France. Multidimensional analyses required to obtain these results are possible only through databases at the individual level: realistic virtual populations should become the gold standard for assessing the impact of public health policies at the national level.