XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

ContextClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to improve the
quality of health care for many chronic conditions. Pay-for-performance initiatives
assess physician adherence to interventions that may reflect CPG recommendations.ObjectiveTo evaluate the applicability of CPGs to the care of older individuals
with several comorbid diseases.Data SourcesThe National Health Interview Survey and a nationally representative
sample of Medicare beneficiaries (to identify the most prevalent chronic diseases
in this population); the National Guideline Clearinghouse (for locating evidence-based
CPGs for each chronic disease).Study SelectionOf the 15 most common chronic diseases, we selected hypertension, chronic
heart failure, stable angina, atrial fibrillation, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes
mellitus, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and osteoporosis,
which are usually managed in primary care, choosing CPGs promulgated by national
and international medical organizations for each.Data ExtractionTwo investigators independently assessed whether each CPG addressed
older patients with multiple comorbid diseases, goals of treatment, interactions
between recommendations, burden to patients and caregivers, patient preferences,
life expectancy, and quality of life. Differences were resolved by consensus.
For a hypothetical 79-year-old woman with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, hypertension, and osteoarthritis, we aggregated
the recommendations from the relevant CPGs.Data SynthesisMost CPGs did not modify or discuss the applicability of their recommendations
for older patients with multiple comorbidities. Most also did not comment
on burden, short- and long-term goals, and the quality of the underlying scientific
evidence, nor give guidance for incorporating patient preferences into treatment
plans. If the relevant CPGs were followed, the hypothetical patient would
be prescribed 12 medications (costing her $406 per month) and a complicated
nonpharmacological regimen. Adverse interactions between drugs and diseases
could result.ConclusionsThis review suggests that adhering to current CPGs in caring for an
older person with several comorbidities may have undesirable effects. Basing
standards for quality of care and pay for performance on existing CPGs could
lead to inappropriate judgment of the care provided to older individuals with
complex comorbidities and could create perverse incentives that emphasize
the wrong aspects of care for this population and diminish the quality of
their care. Developing measures of the quality of the care needed by older
patients with complex comorbidities is critical to improving their care.

/pdf/clinical-practice-guidelines-and-quality-of-care-for-older-4dkwbw3b1x.pdf

Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is an expanding global health problem, closely linked to the epidemic of obesity. Individuals with T2DM are at high risk for both microvascular complications (including retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy) and macrovascular complications (such as cardiovascular comorbidities), owing to hyperglycaemia and individual components of the insulin resistance (metabolic) syndrome. Environmental factors (for example, obesity, an unhealthy diet and physical inactivity) and genetic factors contribute to the multiple pathophysiological disturbances that are responsible for impaired glucose homeostasis in T2DM. Insulin resistance and impaired insulin secretion remain the core defects in T2DM, but at least six other pathophysiological abnormalities contribute to the dysregulation of glucose metabolism. The multiple pathogenetic disturbances present in T2DM dictate that multiple antidiabetic agents, used in combination, will be required to maintain normoglycaemia. The treatment must not only be effective and safe but also improve the quality of life. Several novel medications are in development, but the greatest need is for agents that enhance insulin sensitivity, halt the progressive pancreatic β-cell failure that is characteristic of T2DM and prevent or reverse the microvascular complications. For an illustrated summary of this Primer, visit: http://go.nature.com/V2eGfN.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Diabetic neuropathies are the most prevalent chronic complications of diabetes. This heterogeneous group of conditions affects different parts of the nervous system and presents with diverse clinical manifestations. The early recognition and appropriate management of neuropathy in the patient with diabetes is important for a number of reasons: 

1. Diabetic neuropathy is a diagnosis of exclusion. Nondiabetic neuropathies may be present in patients with diabetes and may be treatable by specific measures.

2. A number of treatment options exist for symptomatic diabetic neuropathy.

3. Up to 50% of diabetic peripheral neuropathies may be asymptomatic. If not recognized and if preventive foot care is not implemented, patients are at risk for injuries to their insensate feet.

4. Recognition and treatment of autonomic neuropathy may improve symptoms, reduce sequelae, and improve quality of life.

Among the various forms of diabetic neuropathy, distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSPN) and diabetic autonomic neuropathies, particularly cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN), are by far the most studied (1–4). There are several atypical forms of diabetic neuropathy as well (1–4). Patients with prediabetes may also develop neuropathies that are similar to diabetic neuropathies (5–10). Table 1 provides a comprehensive classification scheme for the diabetic neuropathies.

View this table:

Table 1 
Classification for diabetic neuropathies



Due to a lack of treatments that target the underlying nerve damage, prevention is the key component of diabetes care. Screening for symptoms and signs of diabetic neuropathy is also critical in clinical practice, as it may detect the earliest stages of neuropathy, enabling early intervention. Although screening for rarer atypical forms of diabetic neuropathy may be warranted, DSPN and autonomic neuropathy are the most common forms encountered in practice. The strongest available evidence regarding treatment pertains to these forms.

This Position Statement is based on several recent technical reviews, to which the reader is referred for detailed discussion …

/pdf/diabetic-neuropathy-a-position-statement-by-the-american-2213pwegte.pdf

Diabetic Neuropathy: A Position Statement by the American Diabetes Association

/pdf/nowy-rok-stare-problemy-ale-i-nowe-mozliwosci-4dt7l63vsh.pdf

Nowy rok, stare problemy, ale i nowe możliwości

A number of effective, low-cost strategies are available to identify and treat the person at risk for diabetic foot ulcers and lower-extremity amputation. These strategies must be more widely adopted by all diabetic care providers to maintain the integrity and function of the lower limb, and thus improve the quality of life for people with diabetes.

https://www.algeos.com/filemanager/research/Preventative%20foot%20care%20in%20people%20with%20diabetes.pdf

Preventive Foot Care in People With Diabetes

U chorych na cukrzycę główną przyczyną chorobowości, inwalidztwa, a także obciążeń emocjonalnych i fizycznych są owrzodzenia stóp oraz amputacje. Wczesne rozpoznanie i eliminacja niezależnych czynników ryzyka owrzodzeń i amputacji stóp mogą zapobiec lub odroczyć rozwój powikłania. W niniejszym opracowaniu przedstawiono zalecenia dla osób, które obecnie nie mają owrzodzeń stopy. W zarysie opisano także najskuteczniejsze sposoby rozpoznawania i zwalczania czynników ryzyka, zanim dojdzie do owrzodzenia stopy lub zagrożenia amputacją. Zalecenia te opierają się na wcześniejszym opracowaniu (technical review) dotyczącym pielęgnacji stóp i profilaktyki owrzodzeń u chorych na cukrzycę [1]. Postępowanie w przypadku istniejących owrzodzeń stóp podano w tekście uzgodnień ekspertów na ten temat (consensus statement) American Diabetes Association (ADA) [2].

Preventive foot care in diabetes.

This first of a 2-part series of articles recounts the key points presented in a collaborative symposium sponsored jointly by the Arthritis Foundation and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society with the intent to survey the state of scientific knowledge related to incidence, diagnosis, pathologic mechanisms, and injection treatment options for osteoarthritis (OA) of the foot and ankle. A meeting was held virtually on December 3, 2021. A group of experts were invited to present brief synopses of the current state of knowledge and research in this area. Part 1 overviews areas of epidemiology and pathophysiology, current approaches in imaging, diagnostic and therapeutic injections, and genetics. Opportunities for future research are discussed. The OA scientific community, including funding agencies, academia, industry, and regulatory agencies, must recognize the needs of patients that suffer from arthritis of foot and ankle. The foot and ankle contain a myriad of interrelated joints and tissues that together provide a critical functionality. When this functionality is compromised by OA, significant disability results, yet the foot and ankle are generally understudied by the research community. Level of Evidence: Level V - Review Article/Expert Opinion.

Summary Report of the Arthritis Foundation and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society’s Symposium on Targets for Osteoarthritis Research: Part 1: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Current Imaging Approaches

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: The cavovarus foot is a true challenge for both the patient and the surgeon. This complex deformity can be a result of many different causal factors including genetics, Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, diabetes and spina bifida. It may also be caused or worsened by trauma or surgical procedures. The cavovarus foot is difficult to manage conservatively as it tends to be rigid, is not a good shock absorber and causes the joints of the foot to process abnormal stresses. The mechanical construct of a cavus foot makes it susceptible to a multitude of complications and injuries like inversion ankle sprains and metatarsal stress fractures. Methods: While foot orthoses would likely be the most commonly considered conservative treatment option for the symptomatic cavus foot, other modalities like shoe modification, bespoke and/or therapeutic footwear and bracing have also proven effective. Oftentimes, a combination of the aforementioned options is employed. Given the individual complexities of each cavus foot, the conservative treatment plan is typically custom tailored to fit a particular patient's foot structure, biomechanical and corrective needs, and occupational or recreational demands. A so-called 'cookie cutter' approach is not appropriate for management of the cavovarus foot. Results: A review of published research demonstrates that foot orthoses - and other conservative modalities - are effective in the treatment of the cavus foot. These devices work by correcting the varus foot alignment (when applicable), offloading painful areas such as ball of the foot or the base of the fifth metatarsal, providing shock absorption and replacing lost motion. These applications work together to provide a more normal, safer and energy-efficient gait. Conclusion: Conservative management, specifically pedorthics, is not only a viable treatment option for the cavovarus foot but should be considered integral to the overall management of the cavus foot patient. Pedorthic modalities are successfully used post-operatively or in lieu of surgical intervention. Modern pedorthics (technological advances in shoe and orthotic design, construction and materials) allows for cosmetically pleasing, affordable and comfortable management allowing patients to return to a healthy and active lifestyle in many cases.

Dennis Janisse

Papers

Preventive Foot Care in People With Diabetes

Preventive foot care in diabetes.

Summary Report of the Arthritis Foundation and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society’s Symposium on Targets for Osteoarthritis Research: Part 1: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Current Imaging Approaches

Cavovarus Foot: Conservative Management Techniques/Case Studies