Chronic kidney disease in type 2 diabetic patients followed-up by primary care physicians in Switzerland: prevalence and prescription of antidiabetic drugs.

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among type 2 diabetic patients in primary care settings in Switzerland, and to analyse the prescription of antidiabetic drugs in CKD according to the prevailing recommendations. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, each participating physician was asked to introduce anonymously in a web database the data from up to 15 consecutive diabetic patients attending her/his office between December 2013 and June 2014. Demographic, clinical and biochemical data were analysed. CKD was classified with the KDIGO nomenclature based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. RESULTS: A total of 1 359 patients (mean age 66.5 ± 12.4 years) were included by 109 primary care physicians. CKD stages 3a, 3b and 4 were present in 13.9%, 6.1%, and 2.4% of patients, respectively. Only 30.6% of patients had an entry for urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. Among them, 35.6% were in CKD stage A2, and 4.1% in stage A3. Despite prevailing limitations, metformin and sulfonylureas were prescribed in 53.9% and 16.5%, respectively, of patients with advanced CKD (eGFR <30 ml/min). More than a third of patients were on a dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor across all CKD stages. Insulin use increased progressively from 26.8% in CKD stage 1-2 to 50% in stage 4. CONCLUSIONS: CKD is frequent in patients with type 2 diabetes attending Swiss primary care practices, with CKD stage 3 and 4 affecting 22.4% of cases. This emphasizes the importance of routine screening of diabetic nephropathy based on both eGFR and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, the latter being largely underused by primary care physicians. A careful individual drug risk/benefit balance assessment is mandatory to avoid the frequently observed inappropriate prescription of antidiabetic drugs in CKD patients.

Travellers' profile, travel patterns and vaccine practices-a 10-year prospective study in a Swiss Travel Clinic.

BACKGROUND: The travel clinic in Lausanne serves a catchment area of 700 000 of inhabitants and provides pre- and post-travel consultations. This study describes the profile of attendees before departure, their travel patterns and the travel clinic practices in terms of vaccination over time. METHODS: We included all pre-travel first consultation data recorded between November 2002 and December 2012 by a custom-made program DIAMM/G. We analysed client profiles, travel characteristics and vaccinations prescribed over time. RESULTS: Sixty-five thousand and forty-six client-trips were recorded. Fifty-one percent clients were female. Mean age was 32 years. In total, 0.1% were aged <1 year and 0.2% ≥80 years. Forty-six percent of travellers had pre-existing medical conditions. Forty-six percent were travelling to Africa, 35% to Asia, 20% to Latin America and 1% (each) to Oceania and Europe; 19% visited more than one country. India was the most common destination (9.6% of travellers) followed by Thailand (8.6%) and Kenya (6.4%). Seventy-three percent of travellers were planning to travel for ≤ 4 weeks. The main reasons for travel were tourism (75%) and visiting friends and relatives (18%). Sixteen percent were backpackers. Pre-travel advice were sought a median of 29 days before departure. Ninety-nine percent received vaccine(s). The most frequently administered vaccines were hepatitis A (53%), tetanus-diphtheria (46%), yellow fever (39%), poliomyelitis (38%) and typhoid fever (30%). CONCLUSIONS: The profile of travel clinic attendees was younger than the general Swiss population. A significant proportion of travellers received vaccinations that are recommended in the routine national programme. These findings highlight the important role of travel clinics to (i) take care of an age group that has little contact with general practitioners and (ii) update vaccination status. The most commonly prescribed travel-related vaccines were for hepatitis A and yellow fever. The question remains to know whether clients do attend travel clinics because of compulsory vaccinations or because of real travel health concern or both.