Key result
Correct cardiovascular risk stratification by physicians in simulated type 2 diabetes cases occurred in only 38.9% of cases, but improved advising on HbA1c targets (37.7% vs 15.6%, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Cardiovascular disease risk stratification is necessary in patients with type 2 diabetes but may not be routinely incorporated into diagnostic and treatment decisions by providers.
Cross-Sectional (n=241)
Absolute Event Rate: 37.7% vs 15.6%
p-value: p=<0.001
Primary care physicians and cardiologists demonstrate wide variation and frequent inaccuracies in cardiovascular risk stratification and subsequent treatment decisions for simulated patients with type 2 diabetes.
Physicians may underuse CVD risk stratification in type 2 diabetes; leaves open whether education or tools improve routine adoption.
Background Cardiovascular disease risk stratification is necessary and critically important in patients with type 2 diabetes. Despite its known benefits to guide treatment and prevention, we hypothesized that providers do not routinely incorporate this into their diagnostic and treatment decisions. Methods and Results The QuiCER DM (QURE CVD Evaluation of Risk in Diabetes Mellitus) study enrolled 161 primary care physicians and 80 cardiologists. Between March 2022 and June 2022, we measured the care variation in risk determination among these providers caring for simulated patients with type 2 diabetes. We found a wide variation in the overall assessment of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. Participants performed half of the necessary care items with quality‐of‐care scores, ranging between 13% and 84%, averaging 49.4±12.6%. Participants did not assess cardiovascular risk in 18.3% of cases and incorrectly stratified risk in 42.8% of cases. Only 38.9% of participants arrived at the correct cardiovascular risk stratification. Those who correctly identified a cardiovascular risk score were significantly more likely to order nonpharmacologic treatments, advising on their patients' nutrition (38.8% versus 29.9%, P =0.013) and the correct glycated hemoglobin target (37.7% versus 15.6%, P <0.001). Pharmacologic treatments, however, did not vary between those who correctly specified risk and those who did not. Conclusions Physician participants struggled to determine the correct cardiovascular disease risk and specify the appropriate pharmacologic interventions in simulated patients with type 2 diabetes. Additionally, there was a wide variation in the quality of care regardless of risk level, indicating opportunities to improve risk stratification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Belen et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 2 Diabetes (n=241). Correct cardiovascular risk stratification vs. Incorrect or no cardiovascular risk stratification was evaluated on Advising on correct glycated hemoglobin target (p=<0.001). Correct cardiovascular risk stratification by physicians in simulated type 2 diabetes cases occurred in only 38.9% of cases, but improved advising on HbA1c targets (37.7% vs 15.6%, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: