Objective The relationship between the white-coat effect (WCE), defined as white-coat hypertension under treatment, and the frequency of orthostatic hypotension (OH) is not known. We conducted an orthostatic test in patients with WCE to determine the frequency of OH. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of 5631 patients with hypertension visiting general practitioners nationwide, in which 4305 patients with hypertension recorded their home blood pressure (BP) and consented to the orthostatic test. Patients with hypertension were divided into four groups: controlled hypertension (CHT), masked hypertension (MHT), sustained hypertension (SHT), and WCE. The orthostatic test was performed, and BP and pulse rate were measured immediately and 1 min after orthostasis. Results The OH frequencies immediately after standing in CHT, WCE, SHT, and MHT patients were 7, 11.7, 12.1, and 6.6%, respectively, and those at 1 min after standing were 7.1, 13.1, 11.6 and 6.9%, respectively (Chi-square test, P < 0.01, respectively). Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the relationship between WCE and the frequency of OH. The frequency of OH immediately after standing was significantly increased [adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 1.702; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.246–2.326; P < 0.01]. The frequency of OH at 1 min after standing was also significantly higher (AOR, 1.897; 95% CI, 1.396–2.578; P < 0.01). Conclusion When the standing test was performed for patients with WCE, the frequency of OH increased. Thus, it is important to recognize the possibility of OH in patients with WCE to avoid adverse events associated with excessive hypotension.

Introduction: Considering the increase in the number of patients with diabetes, the quality of diabetes care provided by general practitioners (GP) is critical for preventing complications. We performed a nationwide survey to determine whether the diabetic management provided to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by Japanese practitioners is appropriate. Methods: We randomly selected 463 clinics throughout Japan; 8070 patients with T2DM (6525 and 1545 under the care of GP and specialists [SP], respectively) were enrolled. We obtained information on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, age, height, body weight, diabetes type and treatment modality, blood pressure (BP), and hypertension or dyslipidemia from each patient. Additionally, we surveyed the collaborations among physicians. Results: The median HbA1c level of patients treated by GP was lower than that of patients treated by SP (6.8 [6.2-7.3], median [interquartile range] vs. 6.9 [6.5-7.5], p \ 0.0001). The percentage of patients receiving insulin therapy was also higher (23.8%) among patients treated by SP than among those treated by GP (8.6%). Patients not receiving insulin therapy showed lower median HbA1c levels than those receiving insulin therapy, irrespective of the care provider. The mean body mass index of patients with HbA1c levels \ 6.9% or [ 9.0% cared for by SP was lower than that of those cared for by GP. The rate of target BP (\ 140/90 mmHg) achievement was 73.2% and 73.3% among patients with T2DM and hypertension cared for by GP and SP, respectively. Furthermore, 88.2% of GP reported that consulting with SP was easy.

Introduction Periodontal disease is a common inflammation worldwide and is not only the foremost cause of tooth loss but also a cause of deterioration of glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus. In addition, effective glycemic management improves the control of periodontitis infection. The aim of this study was to clarify whether awareness of the need to refer their patients with diabetes to dentists differs between general practitioners and diabetes specialists. This was achieved by secondary analysis of data from the 2018 Nationwide Survey on Actual Intervention for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) by Japanese Practitioners (NSAID Study). Methods Data from 380 general practitioners and 79 diabetes specialists who participated in the NSAID study and responded to the question of whether they referred T2DM patients to the dentist were analyzed in this study. Results The proportion of general practitioners who referred T2DM patients to dentists was significantly lower than that of diabetes specialists (35.4% vs. 64.1%, respectively). Conclusion This result suggests that the general practitioners who participated in this study were less cognizant of oral hygiene in patients with diabetes than those who specialized in diabetes. It is also necessary to increase the opportunities for education of physicians who provide diabetic care to promote appropriate dental referrals.

No abstract