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

Background Obesity is associated with increased mortality. Weight loss improves cardiovascular risk factors, but no prospective interventional studies have reported whether weight loss decreases overall mortality. In fact, many observational studies suggest that weight reduction is associated with increased mortality. Methods The prospective, controlled Swedish Obese Subjects study involved 4047 obese subjects. Of these subjects, 2010 underwent bariatric surgery (surgery group) and 2037 received conventional treatment (matched control group). We report on overall mortality during an average of 10.9 years of follow-up. At the time of the analysis (November 1, 2005), vital status was known for all but three subjects (follow-up rate, 99.9%). Results The average weight change in control subjects was less than ±2% during the period of up to 15 years during which weights were recorded. Maximum weight losses in the surgical subgroups were observed after 1 to 2 years: gastric bypass, 32%; vertical-banded gastropl...

/pdf/effects-of-bariatric-surgery-on-mortality-in-swedish-obese-1hxcpfu6t3.pdf

Effects of bariatric surgery on mortality in Swedish obese subjects.

https://www.chpso.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/chest-2008-geerts-381s-453s.pdf

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism* American College of Chest Physicians Evidence- Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)

Allergic rhinitis is a symptomatic disorder of the nose induced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the membranes lining the nose. It is a global health problem that causes major illness and disability worldwide. Over 600 million patients from all countries, all ethnic groups and of all ages suffer from allergic rhinitis. It affects social life, sleep, school and work and its economic impact is substantial. Risk factors for allergic rhinitis are well identified. Indoor and outdoor allergens as well as occupational agents cause rhinitis and other allergic diseases. The role of indoor and outdoor pollution is probably very important, but has yet to be fully understood both for the occurrence of the disease and its manifestations.

In 1999, during the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) WHO workshop, the expert panel proposed a new classification for allergic rhinitis which was subdivided into 'intermittent' or 'persistent' disease.

This classification is now validated. The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often quite easy, but in some cases it may cause problems and many patients are still under-diagnosed, often because they do not perceive the symptoms of rhinitis as a disease impairing their social life, school and work.

The management of allergic rhinitis is well established and the ARIA expert panel based its recommendations on evidence using an extensive review of the literature available up to December 1999. The statements of evidence for the development of these guidelines followed WHO rules and were based on those of Shekelle et al. A large number of papers have been published since 2000 and are extensively reviewed in the 2008 Update using the same evidence-based system. Recommendations for the management of allergic rhinitis are similar in both the ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update. In the future, the GRADE approach will be used, but is not yet available.

Another important aspect of the ARIA guidelines was to consider co-morbidities. Both allergic rhinitis and asthma are systemic inflammatory conditions and often co-exist in the same patients. In the 2008 Update, these links have been confirmed.

The ARIA document is not intended to be a standard-of-care document for individual countries. It is provided as a basis for physicians, health care professionals and organizations involved in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma in various countries to facilitate the development of relevant local standard-of-care documents for patients.

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-aria-2008-update-13eqfzaw4u.pdf

Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) 2008 update (in collaboration with the World Health Organization, GA(2)LEN and AllerGen)

High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review
 of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often
 inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an
 international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement
 (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT
 Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to
 include in a clinical trial protocol. This SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important
 information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations. For
 each checklist item, we provide a rationale and detailed description; a model
 example from an actual protocol; and relevant references supporting its
 importance. We strongly recommend that this explanatory paper be used in
 conjunction with the SPIRIT Statement. A website of resources is also available
 (www.spirit-statement.org). The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper, together with the Statement,
 should help with the drafting of trial protocols. Complete documentation of key
 trial elements can facilitate transparency and protocol review for the benefit
 of all stakeholders.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/346/bmj.e7586.full.pdf

SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials

Surgery for severe obesity.

Dr. Robert Steinbrook writes that since ranibizumab and bevacizumab have never been directly compared, physicians can only speculate about which drug is superior with regard to safety, efficacy, and frequency of administration. The price difference is also too big to ignore.

The Price of Sight — Ranibizumab, Bevacizumab, and the Treatment of Macular Degeneration

On February 17, President Barack Obama signed into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package. Dr. Robert Steinbrook reports on the approximately $150 billion in new funds that are directed to health care.

Health Care and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

A rapid increase in the rate of organ recovery from deceased persons has occurred in the category of donation after “cardiac death.” Dr. Robert Steinbrook writes that these donations remain troubling to some and are not as widely accepted as donations after brain death. Drs. Francis Delmonico and Michael Grodin debate the benefits, risks, and ethics of organ donation after cardiac death rather than brain death. Dr. Francis Delmonico is chief of transplant services at Massachusetts General Hospital and medical director of the New England Organ Bank. Michael Grodin is professor of health law, bioethics, and human rights at the Boston University School of Public Health.

Organ Donation after Cardiac Death

To stimulate more evaluation of the safety and efficacy of medications in children, two federal regulations were established. The pediatric exclusivity provision gives an additional six months of p...

Robert Steinbrook

Papers

Surgery for severe obesity.

The Price of Sight — Ranibizumab, Bevacizumab, and the Treatment of Macular Degeneration

Health Care and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Organ Donation after Cardiac Death

Testing medications in children.