BACKGROUND: Understanding the relationship between serum ferritin levels and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes is crucial for improving risk stratification and guiding therapeutic interventions aimed at preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This study aimed to identify distinct clusters of individuals with type 2 diabetes who have varying risks of MACE using a data-driven clustering approach. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 49,506 individuals within a multicenter, population-based primary care registry in Catalonia, Spain. Individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at age 35 or older were recruited between January 2010 and December 2021 and followed for at least 10 years. Biomarkers associated with cardiovascular risk-including serum glucose, HbA1c, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, serum ferritin, leukocyte, and monocyte counts-were examined. Clustering analysis was applied to identify patient subgroups, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess associations with cerebrovascular events, coronary events, and composite MACE. RESULTS: Five distinct clusters were identified, characterized by differences in serum glucose, HbA1c, lipid profiles, blood pressure, and serum ferritin levels. Individuals with discordantly high serum ferritin levels relative to their body mass index (BMI) exhibited a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. In men, hazard ratios (HR) were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.87) for cerebrovascular events, 0.65 (95% CI 0.49-0.88) for coronary events, and 0.68 (95% CI 0.56-0.83) for MACE. In women, HRs were 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.92) for cerebrovascular events, 0.73 (95% CI 0.57-0.95) for coronary events, and 0.79 (95% CI 0.67-0.92) for MACE. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with type 2 diabetes who exhibit higher-than-expected serum ferritin levels relative to their BMI may have a lower risk of cardiovascular events. These findings suggest that ferritin may play a more complex role in cardiovascular risk than previously assumed and highlight the potential for refined risk stratification strategies in type 2 diabetes management.

Objective: To examine the effectiveness of a 12-month MHBC intervention in the prevention of onset depression in primary health care (PHC).Methods: Twenty-two PHC centres took part in the cluster-randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to receive either usual care or an MHBC intervention. The endpoints were onset of major depression and reduction of depressive symptoms in participants without baseline depression at a 12-month follow-up. Results: 2531 patients agreed and were eligible to participate. At baseline, around 43% were smokers, 82% were non-adherent to the Mediterranean diet and 55% did not perform enough physical activity. The intervention group exhibited a greater positive change in two or more behaviours (OR 1.75 [95%CI: 1.17 to 2.62]; p = 0.006); any behaviour (OR 1.58 [95%CI: 1.13 to 2.20]; p = 0.007); and adherence to the Mediterranean diet (OR 1.94 [95%CI: 1.29 to 2.94]; p = 0.002), while this increase was not statistically significant for smoking and physical activity. The intervention was not effective in preventing major depression (OR 1.17; [95% CI 0.53 to 2.59)]; p = 0.690) or reducing depressive symptoms (Mean difference: 0.30; [95% CI-0.77 to 1.36]; p = 0.726) during follow-up.Conclusions: As compared to usual care, the MHBC intervention provided a non-significant reduction in the incidence of major depression.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03136211.

Background: The present study describes the effectiveness of a complex intervention that addresses multiple lifestyles to promote healthy behaviours in increasing adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MD).
Methods: Cluster-randomised, hybrid clinical trial controlled with two parallel groups. The study was carried out in 26 primary Spanish healthcare centres. People aged 45-75 years who presented at least two of the following criteria were included: smoker, low adherence to the MD or insufficient level of physical activity. The intervention group (IG) had three different levels of action: individual, group, and community, with the aim of acting on the behaviours related to smoking, diet and physical activity at the same time. The individual intervention included personalised recommendations and agreements on the objectives to attain. Group sessions were adapted to the context of each healthcare centre. The community intervention was focused on the social prescription of resources and activities performed in the environment of the community of each healthcare centre. Control group (CG) received brief advice given in the usual visits to the doctor’s office. The primary outcome was the change, after 12 months, in the number of participants in each group with good adherence to the MD pattern. Secondary outcomes included the change in the total score of the MD adherence score (MEDAS) and the change in some cardiovascular risk factors.
Results: Three thousand sixty-two participants were included (IG = 1,481, CG = 1,581). Low adherence to the MD was present in 1,384 (93.5%) participants, of whom 1,233 initiated the intervention and conducted at least one individual visit with a healthcare professional. A greater increase (13.7%; 95% CI, 9.9-17.5; p < 0.001) was obtained by IG in the number of participants who reached 9 points or more (good adherence) in the MEDAS at the final visit. Moreover, the effect attributable to the intervention obtained a greater increase (0.50 points; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.66; p < 0.001) in IG. Conclusions: A complex intervention modelled and carried out by primary healthcare professionals, within a real clinical healthcare context, achieved a global increase in the adherence to the MD compared to the brief advice.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms, adopting the higher arm readings for diagnosis and management. Data to support this recommendation are lacking. We evaluated associations of higher and lower arm systolic BPs with diagnostic and treatment thresholds, and prognosis in hypertension, using data from the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference-Individual Participant Data Collaboration.
METHODS: One-stage multivariable Cox regression models, stratified by study, were used to examine associations of higher or lower reading arm BPs with cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events, in individual participant data meta-analyses pooled from 23 cohorts. Cardiovascular events were modelled for Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores. Model fit was compared throughout using Akaike information criteria. Proportions reclassified across guideline recommended intervention thresholds were also compared.
RESULTS: We analyzed 53 172 participants: mean age 60 years; 48% female. Higher arm BP, compared with lower arm, reclassified 12% of participants at either 130 or 140 mm Hg systolic BP thresholds (both P<0.001). Higher arm BP models fitted better for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events (all P<0.001). Higher arm BP models better predicted cardiovascular events with Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores (both P<0.001) and reclassified 4.6% and 3.5% of participants respectively to higher risk categories compared with lower arm BPs). CONCLUSIONS: Using BP from higher instead of lower reading arms reclassified 12% of people over thresholds used to diagnose hypertension. All prediction models performed better when using the higher arm BP. Both arms should be measured for accurate diagnosis and management of hypertension.