MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410482918 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf236.275

To improve the quality of secondary prevention strategies in diabetic patients: the BRING-UP Prevention study results

2025· article· en· W4410482918 on OpenAlexaff
Aldo P. Maggioni, Gianna Fabbri, Francesco Fattirolli, Domenico Gabrielli, Lucio Gonzini, Michele Massimo Gulizia, Fabrizio Oliva, Francesco Orso, Carmine Riccio, Pier Luigi Temporelli, F Colivicchi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeHeart Care Foundation of IndiaAmgen
KeywordsMedicineSecondary preventionQuality (philosophy)Primary preventionIntensive care medicineInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes, making secondary prevention strategies critical to improving patient outcomes. The role of lipid-lowering therapy and blood pressure control is well established, but novel therapies such as SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA are also showing favourable results in reducing cardiovascular events. In addition, optimising glycaemic control and promoting lifestyle changes remain cornerstone strategies for reducing long-term CV risk. Purpose To try to narrow the gap between what is recommended and what is implemented in clinical practice in type 2 diabetic patients, we designed a national implementation science project, BRING-UP Prevention, based on educational programmes and patient data collection. Methods BRING-UP Prevention is a nationwide, observational, prospective, multicentre study enrolling patients with a documented prior atherothrombotic event in 2 enrolment phases preceded by an educational intervention to discuss guideline recommendations. Primary endpoint: Rate of patients achieving target LDL cholesterol. Secondary endpoints: rate of patients achieving target blood pressure (<130/80 mmHg) rate of diabetic patients achieving target HbA1c (<7%) rate of overweight patients (BMI >27 kg/m2) achieving at least 10% weight loss. The first phase has recently been completed. Results 189 cardiology centres collected data on 4790 patients, of whom 1317 (27.5%) had diabetes. Follow-up data were available for 1229/1317 patients (93.3%). The figure shows LDL cholesterol levels at baseline and after 6 months. The rate of diabetic patients with LDL cholesterol <55 mg/dL increased from 43.4% to 65.5% with treatment based on statins and ezetimibe in 65.8% of patients. PCSK9 inhibitors were used in 5.6% of patients. HbA1c, measured at follow-up in only 61.8% of patients, was <7% in only 46.7% of patients. Pts with blood pressure <130/80 mmHg were 36.5% at baseline and 42.5% at follow-up. The rate of pts doing light physical activity increased from 36.2% to 50.1%. At baseline, 46.1% of patients had a BMI >27, which decreased to 43.3% at follow-up. 11.3% of overweight patients lost more than 10% of their body weight during follow-up. The most commonly prescribed antidiabetic medications at both baseline and follow-up were metformin (51.1%), SGLT2 inhibitors (49.6%), insulin (27.1%), and GLP-1 RA (19.4%). Conclusions This study shows that it is possible to improve adherence to the guideline target for LDL cholesterol with cost-effective drugs. There seems to be a need for more intensive strategies to improve blood pressure, HbA1c levels and lifestyle changes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionFrench-language works237,207