PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Maria-Teresa Cuddihy

Publications and source records attributed to Maria-Teresa Cuddihy.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Use of clinical prediction rules in detecting osteoporosis in a population-based sample of postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis clinical prediction rules attempt to identify the postmenopausal women in whom, on the basis of individual risk factors, bone densitometry will detect low bone mass. We assessed and compared the diagnostic properties of the following 3 osteoporosis clinical prediction rules: the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation, Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, and National Osteoporosis Foundation practice guidelines. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of an existing population-based sample of postmenopausal women 45 years or older (N = 202) in Rochester, Minn. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, and positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios were calculated using the World Health Organization diagnosis of osteoporosis as the reference standard. The Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 29%, PPV of 27%, NPV of 100%, LR+ of 1.4, and LR- of 0. The Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument had a sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 40%, PPV of 29%, NPV of 77%, LR+ of 1.4, and LR- of 0.4. The National Osteoporosis Foundation practice guidelines had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 10%, PPV of 27%, NPV of 100%, LR+ of 1.1, and LR- of 0. The Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument were much more specific in postmenopausal women younger than 65 years compared with those 65 years or older. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that these clinical prediction rules do not perform well as a general screening method to identify postmenopausal women who are more likely to have osteoporosis; however, the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation may be useful in identifying some women who need not undergo testing, especially younger postmenopausal women.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗
PubMed2005

Predictors of blood pressure control in patients with diabetes and hypertension seen in primary care clinics.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) is not well controlled in the majority of patients with both diabetes and hypertension. This study was designed to identify predictors of BP control in patients with both diabetes and hypertension who are seen in primary care clinics. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted by identifying a cohort of patients diagnosed with diabetes before January 1, 2000 (inception) who met predefined criteria for hypertension at inception and who received primary care in the ensuing 3-year study period (January 1, 2000, to February 31, 2002). Using the mean of all BP values between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2002, subjects were divided into two groups: those with controlled BP and those with uncontrolled BP. The distribution of clinical predictors was compared between the two groups. Independent predictors were identified using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Predictors of poor BP control were as follows: 1) isolated systolic hypertension at inception (OR= 0.62, CI = 0.47 to 0.82); 2) uncontrolled BP at inception (OR = 0.71, CI = 0.55 to 0.93); 3) use of oral hypoglycemic drugs versus diet and exercise alone or insulin use (OR = 0.73, CI = 0.56 to 0.95); 4) use of three or more antihypertensive drugs (OR = 0.74, CI = 0.56 to 0.97); and 5) older age (OR = 0.98, CI = 0.97 to 0.99). Predictors of better control were 1) use of nitrates (OR = 1.82, CI = 1.26 to 2.64); 2) history of coronary heart disease (OR = 1.47, CI = 1.08 to 2.00); and 3) at least one annual visit to subspecialist physician (OR = 1.43, CI = 1.09 to 1.88). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with both diabetes and hypertension who are older, have isolated systolic hypertension, use oral hypoglycemic drugs, or use three or more antihypertensive drugs should be targeted for better BP control. The roles of nitrate medication and subspecialist physicians in achieving better BP control needs further study.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Women with diabetes have poorer control of blood pressure than men.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is associated with a higher coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in women compared with men. Less aggressive control of the CHD risk factors in women can contribute to this excess mortality. Because hypertension has a high prevalence in subjects with diabetes, we compared the control of this risk factor between men and women. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing blood pressure levels and trends over a 1-year period between men and women with diabetes receiving primary care. Using a chronic disease registry database, subjects with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, aged >or=18, were identified for inclusion. Mean weighted systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were calculated for subjects with multiple longitudinal readings. Subjects were classified into four blood pressure control categories based on the mean weighted blood pressure. Comparisons were made between men and women before and after controlling for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 3181 subjects (46% women) were included in the study. More women than men were in the moderate and severely elevated blood pressure categories (40% and 6% compared with 32% and 5%, respectively, p<0.001). The unadjusted mean SBP was 3 mm Hg higher in women (139 mm Hg in women compared with 136 in men, p<0.001). These differences remained significant after controlling for baseline variables. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with diabetes receiving medical care, women had poorer control of blood pressure and a significantly higher mean SBP compared with men. These findings might partially explain the excess CHD mortality in women with diabetes.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

A prospective clinical practice intervention to improve osteoporosis management following distal forearm fracture.

Secondary prevention of osteoporosis after fracture is underutilized, despite cost-effective therapies. This clinical practice intervention aimed to improve osteoporosis care of the postfracture patient. Residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, USA, > or = age 45 who sustained a moderate trauma distal forearm fracture were identified, and participants received educational materials, referral for bone densitometry and physician consultation to address osteoporosis in January 1999 through October 2000. Osteoporosis educational materials were provided to patients at the time of recruitment, and primary care physicians provided osteoporosis practice guidelines. Outcomes included: completion of bone densitometry, acceptance of interventions at the first postfracture primary care physician visit, and adherence to advice at 6 months. There were 105 patients identified (80% women), but only 58 agreed to participate (88% women). Women with lower T-scores (< -1.5) had an 89% initial treatment rate, and 67% were adherent to treatment at 6 months. All women with normal bone density (T-score above -1.5) were advised by their primary care physicians about antiresorptive treatment, and 100% adhered to these recommendations, even though they were not eligible for such treatment based on the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines. None of the men accepted the treatments offered, despite T-scores that fell at or below the NOF treatment threshold. Bone densitometry and consultation improved osteoporosis interventions after index fracture from a 16% baseline rate in the population (1993-1997) to a 45% overall rate for the study population. In summary, while referral for bone densitometry and discussion by a physician about postfracture osteoporosis preventive treatments did increase treatment rate, the majority of patients at highest risk did not accept interventions. Further initiatives are needed to overcome both system and patient barriers.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗
PubMed2002

Osteoporosis intervention following distal forearm fractures: a missed opportunity?

BACKGROUND: Fractures are a manifestation of osteoporosis, but therapeutic interventions to reduce the risk of recurrent fractures are not widespread. OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of osteoporosis treatment in postmenopausal women following distal forearm fracture. METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study included all postmenopausal women, 45 years or older, residing in Olmsted County, Minnesota, who sustained a distal forearm fracture due to minimal trauma (a fall from standing height or under) in 1993 to 1997. Complete medical records were reviewed for each subject and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the relationship of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics to therapeutic interventions for osteoporosis within 12 months following the fracture. RESULTS: A total of 343 women with a mean age of 70.5 years had a minimal trauma distal forearm fracture. Within 12 months, 83% had seen a nonorthopedic physician. Of these, 17% had a pharmacologic osteoporosis intervention and the 12-month actuarially estimated cumulative incidence of any intervention was 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14%-22%). In a multivariate analysis, treatment was more likely to be offered to those with a prior diagnosis of osteoporosis (relative risk [RR], 2.08; 95% CI, 1.21-3.58), previous distal forearm fracture (RR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.30-4.34), or history of cigarette smoking (RR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.11-3.12). CONCLUSIONS: Effective osteoporosis interventions are underutilized among postmenopausal women who experience an osteoporotic fracture. Further work is needed to overcome barriers to optimal osteoporosis management in these women who are at high risk for future complications of osteoporosis.

Cohort Studies↗