scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Robert A. Vigersky

Bio: Robert A. Vigersky is an academic researcher from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Glycemic & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 32, co-authored 99 publications receiving 5297 citations. Previous affiliations of Robert A. Vigersky include National Institutes of Health & Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The evidence about the impact of hypoglycemia on patients with diabetes that has become available since the past reviews by the American Diabetes Association and The Endocrine Society is reviewed to provide guidance about how this new information should be incorporated into clinical practice.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE To review the evidence about the impact of hypoglycemia on patients with diabetes that has become available since the past reviews of this subject by the American Diabetes Association and The Endocrine Society and to provide guidance about how this new information should be incorporated into clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS Five members of the American Diabetes Association and five members of The Endocrine Society with expertise in different aspects of hypoglycemia were invited by the Chair, who is a member of both, to participate in a planning conference call and a 2-day meeting that was also attended by staff from both organizations. Subsequent communications took place via e-mail and phone calls. The writing group consisted of those invitees who participated in the writing of the manuscript. The workgroup meeting was supported by educational grants to the American Diabetes Association from Lilly USA, LLC and Novo Nordisk and sponsorship to the American Diabetes Association from Sanofi. The sponsors had no input into the development of or content of the report. EVIDENCE The writing group considered data from recent clinical trials and other studies to update the prior workgroup report. Unpublished data were not used. Expert opinion was used to develop some conclusions. CONSENSUS PROCESS Consensus was achieved by group discussion during conference calls and face-to-face meetings, as well as by iterative revisions of the written document. The document was reviewed and approved by the American Diabetes Association’s Professional Practice Committee in October 2012 and approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors in November 2012 and was reviewed and approved by The Endocrine Society’s Clinical Affairs Core Committee in October 2012 and by Council in November 2012. CONCLUSIONS The workgroup reconfirmed the previous definitions of hypoglycemia in diabetes, reviewed the implications of hypoglycemia on both short- and long-term outcomes, considered the implications of hypoglycemia on treatment outcomes, presented strategies to prevent hypoglycemia, and identified knowledge gaps that should be addressed by future research. In addition, tools for patients to report hypoglycemia at each visit and for clinicians to document counseling are provided.

1,180 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The evidence about the impact of hypoglycemia on patients with diabetes that has become available since the past reviews by the American Diabetes Association and The Endocrine Society is reviewed to provide guidance about how this new information should be incorporated into clinical practice.
Abstract: Objective: To review the evidence about the impact of hypoglycemia on patients with diabetes that has become available since the past reviews of this subject by the American Diabetes Association and The Endocrine Society and to provide guidance about how this new information should be incorporated into clinical practice. Participants: Five members of the American Diabetes Association and five members of The Endocrine Society with expertise in different aspects of hypoglycemia were invited by the Chair, who is a member of both, to participate in a planning conference call and a 2-day meeting that was also attended by staff from both organizations. Subsequent communications took place via e-mail and phone calls. The writing group consisted of those invitees who participated in the writing of the manuscript. The workgroup meeting was supported by educational grants to the American Diabetes Association from Lilly USA, LLC and Novo Nordisk and sponsorship to the American Diabetes Association from Sanofi. The s...

387 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The International Hypoglycaemia Study Group recommends that the frequency of detection of a glucose concentration <3.0 mmol/l (<54 mg/dl), which it considers to be clinically significant biochemical hypoglycaemic, be included in reports of clinical trials of glucoselowering drugs evaluated for the treatment of diabetes mellitus.
Abstract: Position Statement The International Hypoglycaemia Study Group recommends that the frequency of detection of a glucose concentration <3.0 mmol/l (<54 mg/dl), which it considers to be clinically significant biochemical hypoglycaemia, be included in reports of clinical trials of glucose-lowering drugs evaluated for the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

321 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: TIR assessed by CGM is associated with DR in type 2 diabetes, and adjustment of GV metrics partially attenuated these associations, although the link between TIR and the presence of any DR remained significant.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has provided new measures of glycemic control that link to diabetes complications. This study investigated the association between the time in range (TIR) assessed by CGM and diabetic retinopathy (DR). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 3,262 patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited. TIR was defined as the percentage of time spent within the glucose range of 3.9–10.0 mmol/L during a 24-h period. Measures of glycemic variability (GV) were assessed as well. DR was determined by using fundus photography and graded as 1 ) non-DR; 2 ) mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR); 3 ) moderate NPDR; or 4 ) vision-threatening DR (VTDR). RESULTS The overall prevalence of DR was 23.9% (mild NPDR 10.9%, moderate NPDR 6.1%, VTDR 6.9%). Patients with more advanced DR had significantly less TIR and higher measures of GV (all P for trend P for trend r = −0.147; P P = 0.018; moderate NPDR, P = 0.014; VTDR, P = 0.019) after controlling for age, sex, BMI, diabetes duration, blood pressure, lipid profile, and HbA 1c . Further adjustment of GV metrics partially attenuated these associations, although the link between TIR and the presence of any DR remained significant. CONCLUSIONS TIR assessed by CGM is associated with DR in type 2 diabetes.

305 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is concluded that hypothalamic dysfunction may be caused by weight loss per se and not related to anorexia nervosa.
Abstract: We tested hypothalamic, pituitary and endocrine function in 19 patients with secondary amenorrhea associated with simple weight loss who did not have anorexia nervosa to evaluate the effects of weight loss on these systems. Thermoregulation at 10 degrees C and 49 degrees C was abnormal and correlated with the percentage below ideal body weight (r = 0.62, P less than 0.02, and r = 0.55, P less than 0.05, respectively). Partial diabetes insipidus was found in 27 per cent of patients with simple weight loss. They had delayed peak plasma luteinizing hormone levels after 10 microgram of luteinizing-hormone-releasing factor, which was correlated with percentage below ideal body weight (r = 0.49, P less than 0.05). Delayed peak plasma thyrotropin levels after 500 microgram of thyrotropin-releasing factor were found. No prolactin, pituitary, thyroid or adrenal abnormalities were present. These findings are qualitatively similar to results of studies in 29 patients with anorexia nervosa, but less severe and less frequently present. We conclude that hypothalamic dysfunction may be caused by weight loss per se.

289 citations


Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: 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.

9,618 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Considering that vitamin D deficiency is very common in all age groups and that few foods contain vitamin D, the Task Force recommended supplementation at suggested daily intake and tolerable upper limit levels, depending on age and clinical circumstances.
Abstract: Objective: The objective was to provide guidelines to clinicians for the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency with an emphasis on the care of patients who are at risk for deficiency. Participants: The Task Force was composed of a Chair, six additional experts, and a methodologist. The Task Force received no corporate funding or remuneration. Consensus Process: Consensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions during several conference calls and e-mail communications. The draft prepared by the Task Force was reviewed successively by The Endocrine Society's Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee, Clinical Affairs Core Committee, and cosponsoring associations, and it was posted on The Endocrine Society web site for member review. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated needed changes. Conclusions: Considering that vitamin D deficiency is very common in all age groups and that few foods contain vitamin D, the Task Force recomme...

7,113 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The Task Force as discussed by the authors provided guidelines to clinicians for the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency with an emphasis on the care of patients who are at risk for deficiency, based on systematic reviews of evidence and discussions during several conference calls and e-mail communications.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE The objective was to provide guidelines to clinicians for the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency with an emphasis on the care of patients who are at risk for deficiency. PARTICIPANTS The Task Force was composed of a Chair, six additional experts, and a methodologist. The Task Force received no corporate funding or remuneration. CONSENSUS PROCESS Consensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions during several conference calls and e-mail communications. The draft prepared by the Task Force was reviewed successively by The Endocrine Society's Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee, Clinical Affairs Core Committee, and cosponsoring associations, and it was posted on The Endocrine Society web site for member review. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated needed changes. CONCLUSIONS Considering that vitamin D deficiency is very common in all age groups and that few foods contain vitamin D, the Task Force recommended supplementation at suggested daily intake and tolerable upper limit levels, depending on age and clinical circumstances. The Task Force also suggested the measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level by a reliable assay as the initial diagnostic test in patients at risk for deficiency. Treatment with either vitamin D(2) or vitamin D(3) was recommended for deficient patients. At the present time, there is not sufficient evidence to recommend screening individuals who are not at risk for deficiency or to prescribe vitamin D to attain the noncalcemic benefit for cardiovascular protection.

6,998 citations

01 Feb 2009
TL;DR: This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale, and what might be coming next.
Abstract: Secret History: Return of the Black Death Channel 4, 7-8pm In 1348 the Black Death swept through London, killing people within days of the appearance of their first symptoms. Exactly how many died, and why, has long been a mystery. This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale. And they ask, what might be coming next?

5,234 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support 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, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general 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. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, 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. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

4,266 citations