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

EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines : management of hepatocellular carcinoma

CA : A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

EASL–EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) define the use of surveillance, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies recommended for patients with this type of cancer. This is the first European joint effort by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to provide common guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. These guidelines update the recommendations reported by the EASL panel of experts in HCC published in 2001 [1]. Several clinical and scientific advances have occurred during the past decade and, thus, a modern version of the document is urgently needed. The purpose of this document is to assist physicians, patients, health-care providers, and health-policy makers from Europe and worldwide in the decision-making process according to evidencebased data. Users of these guidelines should be aware that the recommendations are intended to guide clinical practice in circumstances where all possible resources and therapies are available. Thus, they should adapt the recommendations to their local regulations and/or team capacities, infrastructure, and cost– benefit strategies. Finally, this document sets out some recommendations that should be instrumental in advancing the research and knowledge of this disease and ultimately contribute to improve patient care. The EASL–EORTC CPG on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma provide recommendations based on the level of evidence and the strength of the data (the classification of evidence is adapted from National Cancer Institute [2]) (Table 1A) and the strength of recommendations following previously reported systems (GRADE systems) (Table 1B).

http://www.bclc.cat/download/easl-guidelines.pdf

EASL-EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma European Association for the Study of the Liver ⇑ , European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_231442_EN_INT17_easl-recommendations-on-treatment-of-hepatitis-C.pdf

EASL Recommendations on Treatment of Hepatitis C

Background/Aims
Increased prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been reported. However, the effects of NAFLD on the outcome of IBD remains unclear. We investigated whether the presence of NAFLD could influence the outcomes of patients with IBD.


Methods
We recruited 3,356 eligible patients with IBD into our study between November 2005 and November 2020. Hepatic steatosis and fibrosis were diagnosed using hepatic steatosis index of ≥30 and fibrosis-4 of ≥1.45, respectively. The primary outcome was clinical relapse, defined based on the following: IBD-related admission, surgery, or first use of corticosteroids, immunomodulators, or biologic agents for IBD.


Results
The prevalence of NAFLD in patients with IBD was 16.7%. Patients with hepatic steatosis and advanced fibrosis were older, had a higher body mass index, and were more likely to have diabetes (all p<0.05).


Conclusions
Hepatic steatosis was independently associated with increased risks of clinical relapse in patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, whereas fibrotic burden in the liver was not. Future studies should investigate whether assessment and therapeutic intervention for NAFLD will improve the clinical outcomes of patients with IBD.

https://www.gutnliver.org/journal/download_pdf.php?doi=10.5009/gnl220409

Do Young Kim

Papers

Hepatic Steatosis but Not Fibrosis Is Independently Associated with Poor Outcomes in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Bacterial Communities Associated with the Rhizosphere of Transgenic Chrysanthemum