Asian Science Citation Index is committed to provide an authoritative, trusted and significant information by the coverage of the most important and influential journals to meet the needs of the global scientific community.  
ASCI Database
308-Lasani Town,
Sargodha Road,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-41-8815544
Contact Via Web
Suggest a Journal
Articles by J. B. Echouffo-Tcheugui
Total Records ( 2 ) for J. B. Echouffo-Tcheugui
  J. B. Echouffo-Tcheugui , L. A. Sargeant , A. T. Prevost , K. M. Williams , R. S. Barling , R. Butler , T. Fanshawe , A. L. Kinmonth , N. J. Wareham and S. J. Griffin
  Aims  To assess the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk of people with screen-detected Type 2 diabetes and to estimate the risk reduction achievable through early intensive pharmacological intervention.

Methods  In ADDITION-Cambridge, diabetic patients were identified among people aged 40-69 years through a stepwise screening procedure including a risk score, random and fasting capillary blood glucose, HbA1c and oral glucose tolerance test. In those without prior macrovascular disease, 10-year CVD risk was computed using UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and Framingham engines. The absolute risk reduction achievable and its plausible range were predicted using relative risk reductions for individual therapies from published trials and sensitivity analysis.

Results  Of the 867 individuals with undiagnosed diabetes, 19% had pre-existing CVD, 97% were overweight or obese, 86% had hypertension, 75% had dyslipidaemia, 20% had microalbuminuria and 18% were smokers. Of those with hypertension, 35% were not prescribed drugs and 42% were suboptimally treated. Of participants with dyslipidaemia, 68% were not prescribed medications and 22% were poorly controlled. Median 10-year CVD risk was 34.0%[interquartile range (IQR) 26.2-44.6] in men and 21.5% (IQR 15.7-28.7) in women using the UKPDS engine; 38.6% (IQR 27.8-53.0) in men and 24.6% (IQR 17.2-32.9) in women using Framingham equations. In the most conservative scenario (no additive effect of therapies), the absolute risk reduction achievable through multifactorial therapy ranged from 4.9 to 9.5% (UKPDS) and from 5.4 to 10.5% (Framingham). The corresponding ranges of numbers needed to treat were 11-20 and 10-19.

Conclusions  People with screen-detected diabetes have an adverse cardiovascular risk profile, which is potentially modifiable through application of existing treatment recommendations.

  J. B. Echouffo-Tcheugui , M. K. Ali , G. Roglic , R. A. Hayward and K. M. Narayan
  Screening for diabetic retinopathy can help to prevent this complication, but evidence regarding frequency of screening is uncertain. This paper systematically reviews the published literature on the relationship between screening intervals for diabetic retinopathy and the incidence of visual loss. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched until December 2012. Twenty five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, as these assessed the incidence/prevalence of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy in relation to screening frequency. The included studies comprised 15 evaluations of real-world screening programmes, three studies modelling the natural history of diabetic retinopathy and seven cost-effectiveness studies. In evaluations of diabetic retinopathy screening programmes, the appropriate screening interval ranged from one to four years, in people with no retinopathy at baseline. Despite study heterogeneity, the overall tendency observed in these programmes was that 2-year screening intervals among people with no diabetic retinopathy at diagnosis were not associated with high incidence of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. The modelling studies (non-economic and economic) assessed a range of screening intervals (1-5 years). The aggregated evidence from both the natural history and cost-effectiveness models favors a screening interval >1 year, but ≤2 years. Such an interval would be appropriate, safe and cost-effective for people with no diabetic retinopathy at diagnosis, while screening intervals ≤1 year would be preferable for people with pre-existing diabetic retinopathy. A 2-year screening interval for people with no sight threatening diabetic retinopathy at diagnosis may be safely adopted. For patients with pre-existing diabetic retinopathy, a shorter interval ≤1 year is warranted.
Copyright   |   Desclaimer   |    Privacy Policy   |   Browsers   |   Accessibility