Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Multidisciplinary treatment of patients with diabetes and hypertension: experience of a Brazilian center

  • 1, 2, 3Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome201810:3

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-017-0305-2

  • Received: 12 December 2017
  • Accepted: 29 December 2017
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Although multidisciplinary treatment is recommended for type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension (HTN), there is a lack of scientific literature supporting the hypothesis of extending this treatment strategy to patients with both diabetes and HTN. Aiming to report results of long-term multidisciplinary treatment for these patients and identify strategies to improve their management, we conducted this study.

Methods

Data of patients with diabetes and HTN with regular follow-up visits in a multidisciplinary HTN treatment center from Brazil’s Midwest were retrospectively assessed. Patients ≥ 18 years enrolled in the service by June 2017 with a minimum of three visits were included. Anthropometric, blood pressure (BP), laboratory, pharmacological treatment, lifestyle, and cardiovascular events data were collected from first (V1), intermediate (V2) and most recent (V3) visits to the service. BP < 130 × 80 mmHg, LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) < 70 mg/dL and HbA1C < 7.0% were defined as treatment targets. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare variables along study visits. A linear regression model was built to identify variables associated with better overall patient control.

Results

A total of 162 patients were included (mean age of 56.5 ± 10.8 years). Median follow-up time was 60 (IQR 40–109) months, 80.2% of the sample was female and 83.3% had no cardiovascular event history. BP, total cholesterol, LDL-C, triglycerides and HbA1C values showed a significant trend to improve along the study visits (p < 0.001). Growing trend in aspirin (p = 0.045) and statins (p < 0.001) use was found, in addition to treatment compliance increase (p < 0.001). Significant improvement trends in BP (p < 0.001), LDL-C (p = 0.004) and HbA1C (p = 0.002) control were also found across visits. Control rates of BP, LDL-C and HbA1C in combination were low in V1, V2 and V3 (1.2, 1.9 and 6.8%, respectively), but showed significant improvement trend (p < 0.001). Treatment compliance (β-coefficient = 1.20; 95% CI 1.07–1.34; p < 0.001) was positively associated with better overall patients control.

Conclusions

Multidisciplinary treatment of patients with diabetes and HTN significantly improved clinical and laboratory parameters, despite ageing of population evaluated. Although combined control of HbA1C, BP and LDL-cholesterol increased along follow-up, management of all these three conditions needs to improve, and focus on treatment compliance should be given to attain this goal.

Keywords

  • Hypertension
  • Diabetes
  • Multidisciplinary treatment

Background

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension (HTN) are multifaceted clinical syndromes commonly associated [1]. Since both are considered risk factors for coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, renal failure and congestive heart failure, treatment of both conditions is essential [2]. Additionally, patients with diabetes are particularly vulnerable to hypertensive injury, and the coexistence of HTN has a significant impact on the poor prognosis of patients with diabetes because of its synergic deleterious effects on the micro and macro vasculature [3].

Since T2DM and HTN are degenerative diseases, their natural history is expected to be progressive, particularly when people adopt urban westernized lifestyles [4]. As a consequence both diseases tend to aggravate, and patients’ management become more challenging as times goes by [5]. Usually, in clinical practice, increasingly worse results in blood pressure (BP), hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) levels and other risk factors control are found.

Multidisciplinary treatment for T2DM and HTN is recommended by most international guidelines addressing the two conditions individually [69], and much of these recommendations are due to the complexity of dealing with these patients. Although it is reasonable to assume that multidisciplinary treatment should be extended to patients with both T2DM and HTN, there is a lack of scientific literature supporting this hypothesis.

Aiming to report the results of a long-term multidisciplinary treatment approach for patients with HTN and T2DM treated in a Brazilian center, to show whether this treatment was capable to improve clinical and laboratory parameters, and additionally to identify strategies to improve the overall management of these patients we conducted this study.

Methods

Data of patients with both HTN and T2DM with regular follow-up visits in a multidisciplinary HTN treatment center from Brazil’s Midwest were retrospectively assessed.

The center has been conducting its activities for more than 25 years, dedicated to hypertensive patients’ care, health professional’s teaching and research. The multidisciplinary team consists of physicians (general practitioners, cardiologists, endocrinologists and nephrologists), nurses, dietitians, physical therapists, physical education instructors, psychologists and musical therapists. Aiming to improve treatment compliance and reduce loss of follow-up, the maximum interval between each patient appointment is 3-months. Additionally, educational and health promotion activities are routinely performed with the patients [10]. Since the beginning of this multidisciplinary service, consultations have been registered in a standardized form. All healthcare professionals directly involved in patients care are routinely trained to fill this form, ensuring data reliability and reproducibility throughout the follow-up years [11].

This study included all patients with T2DM and HTN aged 18 years and older enrolled in the service by June 2017. A minimum of three visits to the service reported in the medical record was also required.

Hypertension was defined according to the 7th Brazilian Guideline of Arterial Hypertension (chapter 2): (1) office BP ≥ 140 × 90 mmHg; ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) ≥ 130 × 80 mmHg; (3) home BP monitoring ≥ 135 × ≥ 85 mmHg [12]. Patients receiving HTN treatment were also considered as hypertensives.

Diabetes definition followed the recommendations of the last Guidelines of the Brazilian Society of Diabetes [13]: (1) symptoms of polyuria, polydipsia and weight loss plus casual blood glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL (casual blood glucose—values obtained at any time of the day regardless of meal times); (2) fasting blood glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL (diagnosis should be confirmed by repeat testing on another day in case of small blood sugar elevations); (3) 2-h plasma glucose value after a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test ≥ 200 mg/dL. Diabetes treatment registered in medical records was also considered as diagnosis criteria.

Data collection

Data from the first (V1), an intermediate (V2) and the most recent visit to the service (V3) were collected, regardless the healthcare professional responsible for the visit. V1 was defined as the first visit to the service after being diagnosed as diabetic. V2 was defined depending on the total number of visits (median point of the total number of visits, regardless the time elapsed between visits). V3 was defined as the most recent visit to the service. Follow-up time between visits was calculated from the differences between visits dates, and the results are given in months.

The following data were collected from medical records:

Anthropometric data

Weight, height and body mass index (BMI) calculated using the Quetelet formula (BMI = weight in kg/height2 in meter).

Blood pressure

A minimum of three BP measurements, with at least 1-min interval, was taken. All measurements were performed after 5 min of rest, on the upper limb, with the individual sitting and the arm supported. Appropriate cuffs were used depending on arm diameter. Mean values of last two measurements were considered for data analyses. BP measurements were performed with a mercury-column manometer until December 2012. From that date on, BP measurements were performed with oscillometric devices (OMRON semi-automatic equipment, model HEM-705CP). This routine was adopted in the service to avoid observer bias.

Laboratory data

  • Renal function with creatinine measured in mg/dL;

  • Glomerular filtration rate given in mL/min and estimated by the MDRD formula [14];

  • Fasting glycemia and lipid profile: collected after a 12-h fasting, and observing the recommendation of no alcoholic beverage consumption in the preceding 48 h. The enzymatic colorimetric method was used to determine total cholesterol (TC), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), serum triglycerides (TG) and glycemia. The low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) level was estimated with the Friedewald formula: LDL = TC − (HDL + TG/5) [15]. All values are given in mg/dL.

All tests were performed at the same laboratory, no more than 30 days prior to the visits.

Pharmacological treatment

  • Anti-hypertensive drugs: assessing number of agents and use of angiotensin converter enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

  • Diabetes treatment: oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin.

  • Other drugs: aspirin and statins.

Patients were also asked if they have been compliant to drug treatments since their most recent visit to the center (yes or no).

Lifestyle

  • Smoking: current smoker or nonsmoker;

  • Alcohol consumption: any alcohol consumption since the most recent visit;

  • Sedentary lifestyle: no leisure physical activity, regardless duration and intensity.

Cardiovascular events

  • Acute myocardial infarction (AMI): reported in medical records and confirmed by hospital discharge summary and/or high levels of myocardial necrosis biomarkers;

  • Angina: reported in medical records and confirmed by hospital discharge summary;

  • Stroke: reported in the medical record and confirmed by hospital discharge summary and/or imaging exam suggestive of cerebrovascular event;

  • Coronary artery bypass grafting or angioplasty: reported in the medical record and confirmed by hospital discharge summary, surgeon’s report and/or angioplasty report.

Cardiovascular risk estimation

The 10-year predicted cardiovascular risks were estimated by the Framingham risk function for total cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk [16]. The 10-year cardiovascular event rate for low, intermediate, high, and very high risk categories were respectively: < 10, 10–20, 20–30, and > 30%.

BP, LDL-cholesterol and diabetes control definitions

Management of patients at this multidisciplinary center has always been based on national guidelines. The recommendations of these guidelines changed over time, leading to different treatment goals. Since, there was a great variation on visit dates even within V1, V2 and V3, and only minor changes in guidelines recommendations for diabetic patients occurred, we adopted the recommendations of the last Brazilian Guidelines of hypertension (chapter 8) [17], dyslipidemia [18] and diabetes [13] for the analyses.
  • BP control was defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 130 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 80 mmHg.

  • LDL control was defined as LDL < 70 mg/dL.

  • HbA1C control as a proxy for diabetes control was defined as HbA1C < 7.0%.

Multidisciplinary service set-up

The medical team assessed symptoms, lifestyle habits and medications being used, performed complete physical examination, interpreted complementary tests and established patient management (pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments prescription; complementary tests request; and follow-up visits schedule). In addition, if acute clinical decompensation was identified in the medical visit, patients were referred to emergency care or hospitalization.

The nurse team assessed symptoms, vital signs, lifestyle habits and medications being used, in addition to instructing about treatment compliance in both pharmacological and nonpharmacological aspects. They defined the interval of the nurse follow-up appointment and referred patients for medical consultation if clinically necessary or to ensure a maximum interval between two medical visits of 6 months.

The group of dietitians emphasized nonpharmacological aspects of care, specifically the diet. They collected dietary data and assessed anthropometric data and vital signs. The management was aimed at dietary guidance with emphasis on salt restriction and prescription of diets for patients with diabetes.

The other health care professionals of the service did not conduct formal appointments, but rather a series of educational interventions to promote patients’ health. Physical therapists and physical education instructors conducted periodical meetings previously scheduled or met with patients at the waiting room. They emphasized the importance of regular physical activity; discussed preventive measures for injuries and falls; and additionally, they promoted assisted group physical activity for patients. Similarly, the psychology and musical therapy teams acted mainly in the waiting room, providing instructions and interventions aimed at stress reduction and waiting time improvement.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the software STATA V14 (StataCorp., College Station, Texas, USA). Continuous variables are presented as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range. Categorical variables are presented as n and %. Paired T-test was used to compare continuous variables and Chi Square test was used to compare categorical ones. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the variables along the study visits and results for the comparisons are presented as p value for trends [19]. A linear regression model was built to identify the variables independently associated to the number of conditions controlled (HTN, LDL-C and diabetes). Treatment compliance, age, follow-up time, sex, and number of anti-HTN were used as predictors in the model. The significance level adopted was p < 0.05.

Results

A total of 162 patients were included, with a mean age of 56.5 ± 10.8 years. The median follow-up time was 60 (IQR 40–109) months, and the date of the first observation was May 20th, 1991. The majority of the sample was female (80.2%) and had no previous history of cardiovascular event (83.3%). The study population characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Table 1

Study population baseline characteristics

n

162

Age (years)

56.5 (± 10.8)

Female

130 (80.2%)

Body mass index (kg/m2)

30.9 (± 5.4)

Cardiovascular eventa

27 (16.7%)

Predicted Framingham 10-year cardiovascular risk (%)

28.0 (± 18.0)

Follow-up time V1–V2 (months)b

34 (14–56)

Follow-up time V2–V3 (months)b

35 (19–53)

Total follow-up time (months)b

60 (40–109)

Values given in means (± SD) or n (%)

aCardiovascular event—history of acute myocardial infarction, angina, cerebrovascular event, or revascularization (prior to study enrollment)

bValues give in median and interquartile range

BP, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and HbA1C values showed a statistically significant trend to improve along the study visits. Oppositely, glomerular filtration rate values deteriorate throughout visits. Regarding lifestyle, alcohol consumption decreased across visits. Variables description along study visits are shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Variables description along study visits (n = 162), Goiânia—GO

 

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

p valuea

Systolic BP (mmHg)

140.2 (± 19.9)

136.2 (± 20.2)

133.5 (± 18.6)

0.002

Diastolic BP (mmHg)

87.7 (± 12.9)

83.7 (± 12.0)

79.6 (± 11.1)

< 0.001

Total cholesterol (mg/dL)

206.8 (± 52.0)

187.3 (± 47.1)

175.8 (± 43.2)

< 0.001

LDL-cholesterol (mg/dL)

120.8 (± 43.4)

107.6 (± 37.1)

100.3 (± 35.8)

< 0.001

HDL-cholesterol (mg/dL)

42.2 (± 9.9)

42.1 (± 10.3)

43.2 (± 9.9)

0.207

Triglycerides (mg/dL)

220.0 (± 160.7)

200.7 (± 173.7)

176.4 (± 125.7)

< 0.001

Fasting glucose (mg/dL)

149.6 (± 65.8)

137.0 (± 49.7)

147.8 (± 53.6)

0.515

HbA1C (%)

7.9 (± 1.6)

7.7 (± 1.7)

7.3 (± 1.5)

< 0.001

GFR (mL/min)

78.3 (± 21.5)

72.8 (± 21.1)

66.3 (± 21.0)

< 0.001

Smoke

8 (4.9%)

5 (3.1%)

5 (3.1%)

0.378

Alcohol consumption

14 (8.6%)

7 (4.3%)

5 (3.1%)

0.026

Sedentary lifestyle

20 (12.4%)

34 (21.0%)

26 (16.1%)

0.369

Predicted Framingham 10-year cardiovascular risk

 Low

19 (11.7%)

16 (9.9%)

15 (9.3%)

0.465

 Intermediate

44 (27.2%)

53 (32.7%)

55 (33.9%)

0.188

 High

42 (25.9%)

40 (24.7%)

40 (24.7%)

0.798

 Very high

57 (35.2%)

53 (32.7%)

52 (32.1%)

0.556

Values given in means (± SD) or n (%)

GFR glomerular filtration rate

ap value for trends across visits; statistically significant at α < 0.05

Pharmacological treatment assessment showed a statistically significant growing trend in all variables along the study visits (number of anti-HTN, ACE inhibitors/ARBs, aspirin, statins, oral hypoglycemic agents, insulin, and treatment compliance) (Table 3).
Table 3

Medication variables description along study visits (n = 162), Goiânia—GO

 

Visit 1

Visit 2

Visit 3

p valuea

Number of anti-HTN

1.6 (± 0.9)

2.1 (± 0.9)

2.8 (± 0.8)

< 0.001

ACE inhibitors/ARBs

102 (63.0%)

134 (82.7%)

150 (92.6%)

< 0.001

Aspirin

27 (16.7%)

47 (29.0%)

52 (32.1%)

0.045

Statins

46 (28.4%)

66 (40.7%)

98 (60.5%)

< 0.001

Oral hypoglycemic agents

84 (51.9%)

146 (90.1%)

150 (92.6%)

< 0.001

Insulin

12 (7.4%)

19 (11.7%)

33 (20.4%)

0.001

Treatment compliance

55 (34.0%)

84 (51.9%)

111 (68.9%)

< 0.001

Values given in means (± SD) or n (%)

ap value for trends across visits; statistically significant at α < 0.05

Significant improvement trends in control of BP, LDL-cholesterol and diabetes were also found across study visits. When control of these three conditions was assessed in combination, low control percentages were found in V1, V2 and V3 (1.2, 1.9 and 6.8%, respectively), but also with a significant improvement trend (p < 0.001). These results are shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Blood pressure, LDL-cholesterol and HbA1C under control along study visits (n = 162). Goiânia—GO. p value for trends across visits; statistically significant at α < 0.05

A comparison between patients who achieved treatment goals in V3 to those who did not achieve was conducted to find which factors may have influenced the different results between groups. Treatment compliance was higher among patients with BP, LDL-cholesterol and diabetes controlled in V3, and was the only variable with significant difference in the groups’ comparison (Table 4).
Table 4

Patients who achieved treatment goalsa in visit 3 compared to those whom did not achieve (n = 162), Goiânia—GO

 

Treatment goals in visit 3

Not achieved

Treatment goals in visit 3

Achieved

p valueb

N

151

11

 

Female

122 (80.8%)

8 (72.7%)

0.520

Age (years)

62.57 (± 11.54)

68.00 (± 10.15)

0.130

Total follow-up time (months)c

60 (37–105)

64 (51–150)

0.210

Number of anti-HTN

2.81 (± 0.84)

3.00 (± 0.77)

0.460

ACE inhibitors/ARBs

141 (93.4%)

9 (81.8%)

0.160

Body mass index (kg/m2)

30.77 (5.61)

27.48 (3.86)

0.057

Insulin

33 (21.9%)

0 (0.0%)

0.082

Oral hypoglycemic agents

141 (93.4%)

9 (81.8%)

0.160

Aspirin

47 (31.1%)

5 (45.5%)

0.330

Statins

94 (62.3%)

4 (36.4%)

0.090

Cardiovascular eventd

48 (31.8%)

3 (27.3%)

0.760

Sedentary lifestyle

25 (16.6%)

1 (9.1%)

0.510

Smoke

5 (3.3%)

0 (0.0%)

0.540

Alcohol consumption

5 (3.3%)

0 (0.0%)

0.540

Treatment compliance

100 (66.7%)

11 (100.0%)

0.021

Predicted Framingham 10-year cardiovascular risk

 Low

14 (9.3%)

1 (9.1%)

0.980

 Intermediate

50 (33.1%)

5 (45.4%)

0.400

 High

38 (25.2%)

2 (18.2%)

0.600

 Very high

49 (32.4%)

3 (27.3%)

0.720

Values given in means (± SD) or n (%)

aBlood pressure < 130 × 80 mmHg, LDL-cholesterol < 70 mg/dL, HbA1C < 7.0%

bStatistically significant at α = 0.05

cValues give in median and interquartile range

dCardiovascular event—history of acute myocardial infarction, angina, cerebrovascular event, or revascularization

Aiming to identify ways to improve the overall control of the patient with diabetes and HTN we built a linear regression model assessing the variables independently associated with the number of conditions (BP, LDL-cholesterol and diabetes) under control in the most recent visit. In this analysis, treatment compliance (β-coefficient = 1.20; 95% CI 1.07–1.34; p < 0.001) was the only variable positively associated with a better overall control of these patients (Table 5).
Table 5

Linear regression coefficients for the number of diseases under controla (n = 162), Goiânia—GO

Variables

β-coefficient

[95% CI]

p valueb

Treatment compliant

1.20

1.07 to 1.34

< 0.001

Age

0.00

− 0.01 to 0.01

0.555

Follow-up time

0.01

− 0.02 to 0.03

0.869

Male sex

0.09

− 0.22 to 0.41

0.543

Number of anti-HTN

0.07

− 0.08 to 0.22

0.336

aBlood pressure < 130 × 80 mmHg, LDL-cholesterol < 70 mg/dL, HbA1C < 7.0%

bStatistically significant at α = 0.05

Discussion

This is the first study showing the results of a multidisciplinary treatment strategy addressing specifically the patient with diabetes and hypertension. A significant trend to improve laboratorial and clinical parameters was found. Despite the low number of patients with BP, LDL and HbA1C controlled in combination along the study visits, a trend to improve this number was also found. Additionally, control rates of each condition individually improved along the study. The only variable independently associated with a better overall control of the patient with T2DM and HTN was treatment compliance.

Although BP, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and HbA1C values showed a statistically significant trend to improve along the study visits, no changes in the predicted cardiovascular risk categories distribution were found. These results can be explained by the increasing age of the population along the study visits, since it is well stablished that age is a fundamental predictor of CVD risk [20].

A remarkable aspect of our results, which is clear from Fig. 1, is that blood pressure control was much better than the other factors. Although our multidisciplinary service has always focused on the overall patient management it is primarily specialized in hypertension treatment, which can explain this finding. Previous studies conducted in the same setting also showed good results in blood pressure management [11, 21] which must be simultaneously seen as extremely positive and as a call for action to improve management of other co-morbidities.

Morbidity in the diabetic patient is a consequence of both macro- and microvascular disease [22]. Once present, the progression of these complications can be slowed with drug interventions such as: ACE inhibitors or ARBs, aspirin, statins and optimization of oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin [23]. We found an increase in the number of individuals using ACE inhibitors/ARBs, aspirin, statins, oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin along the follow-up visits, suggesting an improvement in the pharmacological therapy prescribed. Similar results have been shown with the multidisciplinary treatment when addressing very elderly hypertensive patients [11].

The suboptimal management of patients with diabetes and HTN shown here by poor combined control of T2DM, HTN and dyslipidemia is consistent with previous reports from developed countries. The 1999–2000 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that only 7.3% of the adults with diabetes achieved the recommended therapeutic goals of HbA1c, BP and cholesterol [24], and this value improved, as shown along our follow-up, to 10.2% in the 2003–2006 NHANES survey [25]. Cross-sectional studies conducted in Poland [26] and China [27], less developed countries, found that among patients with diabetes and HTN, only 1.4 and 5.6% respectively, met all three targets. Even more concerning are the results from the randomized Steno-2 Study, conducted to evaluate the effect an intensified multifactorial intervention comprising behavior modification and polypharmacologic therapy aimed at several modifiable risk factors in patients with T2DM [28]. Although, the Steno-2 Study showed sustained beneficial effects with respect to vascular complications and on rates of cardiovascular deaths, it is notable that only one patient reached all five treatment goals (HbA1C, cholesterol, triglycerides, SBP and DBP) at the end of follow-up [28].

It is well established that HbA1C, BP and LDL-cholesterol control in each patient with diabetes and HTN needs to be optimized [29]. Therefore, the linear regression model we built assessing the variables independently associated with the number of conditions (BP, LDL-cholesterol and diabetes) under control, is a strength of our study that needs to be highlighted. In this model, treatment compliance was the only variable positively associated with management of patients with diabetes and HTN. Additionally to identifying treatment compliance as a variable associated with management of these patients, the simple and objective way we assessed compliance is another positive point. Instead of using complexes and sometimes unreliable methods to assess compliance [30], patients were asked if they have been compliant to drug treatments since their most recent visit to the center. This simple approach can be widely used in clinical practice and a negative answer to the question needs to warn and be a call for action for all health care providers dealing with these patients.

A potential limitation of this study is its design. We conducted a retrospectively single center with no control group study. Despite that, since all medical records are objective in this center, and the completion of its mandatory fields is exhaustively trained, the ability of generating reliable data is assured. Additionally, although a comparison with a control group would be ideal, the results we found can foster future studies and help informing the healthcare community about the optimal way to manage this specific population.

Another limitation is related to physical activity. Since we used just leisure physical activity in our definition, which accounts specifically for planned or formal physical activity (walking, running, cycling, swimming, strength training, etc.), daily physical activities were not considered. Therefore, the sedentary lifestyle results we found were probably overestimated.

Although more than 90% of patients with T2DM receive their routine care from primary care providers [31], a major unresolved controversy is the place of the generalist and the specialist in the treatment of these patients. Studies comparing care by specialists and generalists have generated conflicting findings [3134]. In our case, care was delivered by a health care team in coordination with physicians from three different specialties: cardiology, nephrology and endocrinology. Notably, the presence of these three specialties is not required at the service concomitantly. Since we are reporting positive results the format adopted in our service can be a model for other centers handling patients diagnosed with both diabetes and HTN and aiming to implement a multidisciplinary strategy.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary treatment of patients with diabetes and hypertension has shown significant improvements in clinical and laboratory parameters, despite ageing of the population evaluated. Although combined control of HbA1C, BP and LDL-cholesterol increased along follow-up, management of all these three conditions needs to improve, and focus on treatment compliance should be given to attain this goal.

Abbreviations

ABPM: 

ambulatory BP monitoring

ACE: 

angiotensin converter enzyme

AMI: 

acute myocardial infarction

ARB: 

inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker

BMI: 

body mass index

BP: 

blood pressure

CVD: 

cardiovascular disease

DBP: 

diastolic blood pressure

T2DM: 

type 2 diabetes mellitus

HbA1C: 

hemoglobin A1C

HDL: 

high density lipoprotein cholesterol

HTN: 

hypertension

LDL: 

low density lipoprotein cholesterol

SBP: 

systolic blood pressure

TC: 

total cholesterol

TG: 

serum triglycerides

V1: 

first visit

V2: 

intermediate visit

V3: 

most recent visit

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

All authors have made substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, have been involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee in Human Medical Research from the Federal University of Goias Clinics Hospital (Protocol No 1.822.180 of November 16th, 2016).

Funding

The project received no funding.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Hypertension League, Federal University of Goias, 1ª Avenida, S/N.-Setor Universitário, Goiânia, GO, CEP 74085-300, Brazil
(2)
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA
(3)
Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health-Department of Health Policy and Management, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02115, USA

References

  1. Turner RC, Holman RR, Matthews DR, Bassett PA, Coster R, Stratton IM, Cull C, Peto R, Frighi V, Kennedy I, Manley S. Hypertension in Diabetes Study (HDS): I. Prevalence of hypertension in newly presenting type 2 diabetic patients and the association with risk factors for cardiovascular and diabetic complications. J Hypertens. 1993;11(3):309–17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Grossman A, Grossman E. Blood pressure control in type 2 diabetic patients. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2017;16(1):3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Chew BH, Mastura I, Shariff-Ghazali S, Lee PY, Cheong AT, Ahmad Z, Taher SW, Haniff J, Mustapha FI, Bujang MA. Determinants of uncontrolled hypertension in adult type 2 diabetes mellitus: an analysis of the Malaysian diabetes registry 2009. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2012;11(1):54.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Pickering TG. The natural history of hypertension: prehypertension or masked hypertension? J Clin Hypertens. 2007;9(10):807–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Phillips LS, Ratner RE, Buse JB, Kahn SE. We can change the natural history of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(10):2668.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Redon J, Zanchetti A, Böhm M, Christiaens T, Cifkova R, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, et al. 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(28):2159.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ryden L, Grant PJ, Anker SD, Berne C, Cosentino F, Danchin N, Deaton C, Escaned J, Hammes HP, Huikuri H, et al. ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD: the Task Force on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and developed in collaboration with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eur Heart J. 2013;34(39):3035–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Standards of Medical Care in. Diabetes-2017: summary of revisions. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(Suppl 1):S4–5.Google Scholar
  9. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE, Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, DePalma SM, Gidding S, Jamerson KA, Jones DW, et al. ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults. J Am College Cardiol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.006 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  10. Pereira DA, Costa NMdSC, Sousa ALL, Jardim PCBV, Zanini CRdO. The effect of educational intervention on the disease knowledge of diabetes mellitus patients. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem. 2012;20:478–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jardim LMSSV, Jardim TV, de Souza WK, Pimenta CD, Sousa ALL, Jardim PCBV. Multiprofessional treatment of high blood pressure in very elderly patients. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia. 2017;108(1):53–9.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Malachias MVB, Gomes MAM, Nobre F, Alessi A, Feitosa AD, Coelho EB. 7th Brazilian guideline of arterial hypertension: chapter 2—diagnosis and classification. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2016;107(3 Suppl 3):7–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Diretrizes da Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes (2015–2016). In: Edited by Diabetes SBd: Grupo Editorial Nacional; 2016.Google Scholar
  14. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(6):461–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972;18(6):499–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Agostino RB Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, Wolf PA, Cobain M, Massaro JM, Kannel WB. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117(6):743–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Malachias MVB, Amodeo C, Paula RB, Cordeiro Júnior AC, Magalhães L, Bodanese LC. 7(th) Brazilian guideline of arterial hypertension: chapter 8—hypertension and associated clinical conditions. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia. 2016;107(3 Suppl 3):44–8.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Faludi AA, Izar MCO, Saraiva JFK, Chacra APM, Bianco HT, Afiune AN, Bertolami A, Pereira AC, Lottenberg AM, Sposito AC, et al. Atualização da Diretriz Brasileira de Dislipidemias e Prevenção da Aterosclerose – 2017. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2017;109(2 Supl 1):1–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cuzick J. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med. 1985;4(1):87–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dhingra R, Vasan RS. Age as a cardiovascular risk factor. Med Clin N Am. 2012;96(1):87–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sousa AC, Jardim TV, Costa TO, Magalhães FG, Montelo MPM, Souza WKB, Jardim PCBV, Sousa ALL. Hypertensive diabetic patients: incidence of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in a historical cohort over 11 years. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2017;9(1):98.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Harris MI, Klein R, Welborn TA, Knuiman MW. Onset of NIDDM occurs at least 4–7 year before clinical diagnosis. Diabetes Care. 1992;15(7):815.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregg EW, Li Y, Wang J, Rios Burrows N, Ali MK, Rolka D, Williams DE, Geiss L. Changes in diabetes-related complications in the United States, 1990–2010. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(16):1514–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Saydah SH, Fradkin J, Cowie CC. Poor control of risk factors for vascular disease among adults with previously diagnosed diabetes. JAMA. 2004;291(3):335–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wong K, Glovaci D, Malik S, Franklin SS, Wygant G, Iloeje U, Kan H, Wong ND. Comparison of demographic factors and cardiovascular risk factor control among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes by insulin treatment classification. J Diabetes Complicat. 2012;26(3):169–74.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Bala MM, Placzkiewicz-Jankowska E, Topor-Madry R, Lesniak W, Jaeschke R, Sieradzki J, Grzeszczak W, Banasiak W. Is newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes treated according to the guidelines? Results of the Polish ARETAEUS1 study. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2011;121(1–2):7–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ji L, Hu D, Pan C, Weng J, Huo Y, Ma C, Mu Y, Hao C, Ji Q, Ran X, et al. Primacy of the 3B approach to control risk factors for cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes patients. Am J Med. 2013;126(10):925.e911–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Gæde P, Lund-Andersen H, Parving H-H, Pedersen O. Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(6):580–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gæde P, Vedel P, Larsen N, Jensen GVH, Parving H-H, Pedersen O. Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(5):383–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. García-Pérez L-E, Álvarez M, Dilla T, Gil-Guillén V, Orozco-Beltrán D. Adherence to therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther. 2013;4(2):175–94.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Zgibor JC, Songer TJ, Kelsey SF, Drash AL, Orchard TJ. Influence of health care providers on the development of diabetes complications: long-term follow-up from the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(9):1584–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ho M, Marger M, Beart J, Yip I, Shekelle P. Is the quality of diabetes care better in a diabetes clinic or in a general medicine clinic? Diabetes Care. 1997;20(4):472–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenfield S, Rogers W, Mangotich M, Carney MF, Tarlov AR. Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialties. Results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA. 1995;274(18):1436–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Verlato G, Muggeo M, Bonora E, Corbellini M, Bressan F, de Marco R. Attending the diabetes center is associated with increased 5-year survival probability of diabetic patients: the Verona Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(3):211–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement