OBJECTIVE -The purpose of this study was to compare prevalence and risk factors for diabetic retinopathy among U.K. residents of South Asian or white European ethnicity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-This was a community-based cross-sectional study involving 10 general practices; 1,035 patients with type 2 diabetes were studied: 421 of South Asian and 614 of white European ethnicity. Diabetic retinopathy, sight-threatening retinopathy, maculopathy, and previous laser photocoagulation therapy were assessed after grading of retinal photographs. Data were collected on risk factors including age, duration, and treatment of diabetes, blood pressures, serum total cholesterol, and A1C.RESULTS -Patients of South Asian ethnicity had significantly higher systolic (144 vs. 137 mmHg, P Ͻ 0.0001) and diastolic (84 vs. 74 mmHg, P Ͻ 0.0001) blood pressure, A1C (7.9 vs. 7.5%, P Ͻ 0.0001), and total cholesterol (4.5 vs. 4.2 mmol/l, P Ͻ 0.0001). Diabetic retinopathy was detected in 414 (40%) patients (189 South Asian [45%] versus 225 white European [37%]; P ϭ 0.0078). Sight-threatening retinopathy was detected in 142 (14%) patients (68 South Asian [16%] versus 74 white European [12%]; P ϭ 0.0597). After adjustment for confounders, there were significantly elevated risks of any retinopathy and maculopathy for South Asian versus white European patients.CONCLUSIONS -Patients of South Asian ethnicity had a significantly higher prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy, with significantly elevated systolic and diastolic blood pressure, A1C, and total cholesterol; lower attained age; and younger age at diagnosis. Earlier onset of disease and higher levels of modifiable risk factors make early detection of diabetes, annual referral for retinal screening, and intensive risk factor control key elements in addressing this health inequality. Diabetes Care 32:410-415, 2009

Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 12/209/51. The contractual start date was in May 2014. The final report began editorial review in August 2016 and was accepted for publication in April 2017. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health and Social Care. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Departm...

Introduction/backgroundVitamin D deficiency further increases circulating parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism (pHPT), with potential detrimental effects on bone mass.MethodsThis was an observational clinical study in consecutive conservatively treated postmenopausal women (n=40) with pHPT and coexistent 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency (25OHD ≤50 nmol/l (≤20 ng/ml)). Patients who showed an increase in serum 25OHD above the threshold of vitamin D deficiency (>50 nmol/l; n=28) using treatment with various commonly prescribed vitamin D preparations were, for the purposes of statistical analyses, allocated to the treatment group. Patients who were retrospectively identified as having received no treatment with vitamin D and/or remained vitamin D deficient were considered as non-responders/controls (n=12). Adjusted calcium (adjCa), PTH and 25OHD concentrations were monitored in all subjects up to 54 months (mean observation period of 18±2 months).ResultsProlonged increased vitamin D intake, regardless of the source (serum 25OHD, increase from 32.2±1.7 nmol/l at baseline to 136.4±11.6 nmol/l, P<0.0001), significantly reduced serum PTH (13.3±1.1 vs 10.5±1.0 pmol/l, P=0.0001), with no adverse effects on adjCa levels (2.60±0.03 vs 2.60±0.02 mmol/l, P=0.77) and renal function tests (P>0.73). In contrast, serum PTH remained unchanged (15.8±2.6 vs 16.3±1.9 pmol/l, P=0.64) in patients who remained vitamin D deficient, with a significant difference between groups in changes of PTH (P=0.0003). Intrapartial correlation analyses showed an independent negative correlation of changes in 25OHD with PTH levels (r ic=−0.41, P=0.014).ConclusionsProlonged treatment with vitamin D in various commonly prescribed preparations appeared to be safe and significantly reduced PTH levels by 21%.

No abstract

No abstract