Patterns of care of subjects with type 1 and type 2 diabetes according to their cardiovascular risk

AIM OF THE STUDY To explore the distribution by cardiovascular risk groups according to the classification promoted by the ESC (European Society of Cardiology) of subjects with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes cared for by Italian diabetologists and to describe the quality indicators of care, with particular regard to cardiovascular risk factors. DESIGN AND METHODS The study is based on data extracted from electronic medical records of patients treated at the 258 diabetes centers participating in the Annals AMD initiative and active in the year 2018. Patients with T1D or T2D were stratified by cardiovascular risk, in accordance with the recent ESC guidelines. General descriptive indicators and measures of intermediate outcomes, intensity/appropriateness of pharmacological treatment for diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, presence of other complications and overall quality of care were evaluated. RESULTS Overall, 29,368 adults with T1D and 473,740 subjects with T2D were evaluated. Among subjects with T1D: 64.7% were at very high cardiovascular risk, 28.5% at high risk and the remaining 6.8% at moderate risk. Among subjects with T1D at very high-risk: 54.7% had retinopathy, 29.0% had albuminuria, 7.3% had a history of major cardiovascular event, 47.3% had organ damage, 48.9% had three or more risk factors, and 70.6% had a diabetes duration of over 20 years. Among subjects with T2D: 78.5% were at very high cardiovascular risk, 20.9% at high risk and the remaining 0.6% at moderate risk. Among those with T2D at very high risk: 39.0% had organ damage, 89.1% had three or more risk factors, 18.7% had a previous major cardiovascular event, 26,4% had retinopathy, 39.5% had albuminuria. With regard to the glucose-lowering drugs: the use of DPPIV-i increased markedly as cardiovascular risk increased; the use of secretagogues also increased and, although within low percentages, also the use of GLP1-RA tended to increase. The use of SGLT2-i is also still limited, and only slightly higher in subjects with very high cardiovascular risk. In both types of diabetes, the overall quality of care, as summarized by the Q score values, tended to be lower as the level of cardiovascular riskincreased. CONCLUSIONS The analysis of a large population such as that of the AMD Annals database allowed to highlight the characteristics and quality indicators of care of subjects with T1D and T2D in relation to cardiovascular risk classes. A large proportion of subjects appear to be at high or very high risk. Glucose-lowering drug therapies seem not to be adequately used with respect to the potential advantages in terms of reduction of cardiovascular risk of some drug categories (GLP1-RA and SGLT2-i) and, conversely, with respect to the potential risks related to the use of other pharmacological classes (sulfonylureas). Several actions are necessary to optimize care and improve the quality of care for both subjects with T1D and T2D. KEY WORDS type 1 diabetes; type 2 diabetes; cardiovascular risk; quality indicators of care.