Nationwide Survey on Actual Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes by Japanese Practitioners (NSAID Study-1): Glycemic, Weight, and Blood Pressure Management

Introduction Considering the increase in the number of patients with diabetes, the quality of diabetes care provided by general practitioners (GP) is critical for preventing complications. We performed a nationwide survey to determine whether the diabetic management provided to patients with type 2...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Diabetes therapy 2020-07, Vol.11 (7), p.1497-1511
Main Authors: Arai, Keiko, Nishikawa, Tetsuo, Yuasa, Shohei, Shirabe, Shin-Ichiro, Matsuzawa, Yoko, Ohtsu, Shigeyuki, Hirao, Koich, Mori, Hisao
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Blood pressure
Cardiology
Care and treatment
Diabetes
Drug therapy
Endocrinology
Hypertension
Insulin
Internal Medicine
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Original Research
Physicians (General practice)
Practice
Specialties and specialists
Surveys
Type 2 diabetes
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction Considering the increase in the number of patients with diabetes, the quality of diabetes care provided by general practitioners (GP) is critical for preventing complications. We performed a nationwide survey to determine whether the diabetic management provided to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by Japanese practitioners is appropriate. Methods We randomly selected 463 clinics throughout Japan; 8070 patients with T2DM (6525 and 1545 under the care of GP and specialists [SP], respectively) were enrolled. We obtained information on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, age, height, body weight, diabetes type and treatment modality, blood pressure (BP), and hypertension or dyslipidemia from each patient. Additionally, we surveyed the collaborations among physicians. Results The median HbA1c level of patients treated by GP was lower than that of patients treated by SP (6.8 [6.2–7.3], median [interquartile range] vs. 6.9 [6.5–7.5], p  
ISSN:1869-6953
1869-6961
DOI:10.1007/s13300-020-00837-7