ABCD
: Appropriate Blood pressure Control in Diabetes
ABI
: ankle–brachial index
ABPM
: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
ACCESS
: Acute Candesartan Cilexetil Therapy in Stroke Survival
ACCOMPLISH
: Avoiding Cardiovascular Events in Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension
ACCORD
: Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes
ACE
: angiotensin-converting enzyme
ACTIVE I
: Atrial Fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for Prevention of Vascular Events
ADVANCE
: Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron-MR Controlled Evaluation
AHEAD
: Action for HEAlth in Diabetes
ALLHAT
: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart ATtack
ALTITUDE
: ALiskiren Trial In Type 2 Diabetes Using Cardio-renal Endpoints
ANTIPAF
: ANgioTensin II Antagonist In Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
APOLLO
: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Aliskiren in the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Elderly People
ARB
: angiotensin receptor blocker
ARIC
: Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities
ARR
: aldosterone renin ratio
ASCOT
: Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial
ASCOT-LLA
: Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial—Lipid Lowering Arm
ASTRAL
: Angioplasty and STenting for Renal Artery Lesions
A-V
: atrioventricular
BB
: beta-blocker
BMI
: body mass index
BP
: blood pressure
BSA
: body surface area
CA
: calcium antagonist
CABG
: coronary artery bypass graft
CAPPP
: CAPtopril Prevention Project
CAPRAF
: CAndesartan in the Prevention of Relapsing Atrial Fibrillation
CHD
: coronary heart disease
CHHIPS
: Controlling Hypertension and Hypertension Immediately Post-Stroke
CKD
: chronic kidney disease
CKD-EPI
: Chronic Kidney Disease—EPIdemiology collaboration
CONVINCE
: Controlled ONset Verapamil INvestigation of CV Endpoints
CT
: computed tomography
CV
: cardiovascular
CVD
: cardiovascular disease
D
: diuretic
DASH
: Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension
DBP
: diastolic blood pressure
DCCT
: Diabetes Control and Complications Study
DIRECT
: DIabetic REtinopathy Candesartan Trials
DM
: diabetes mellitus
DPP-4
: dipeptidyl peptidase 4
EAS
: European Atherosclerosis Society
EASD
: European Association for the Study of Diabetes
ECG
: electrocardiogram
EF
: ejection fraction
eGFR
: estimated glomerular filtration rate
ELSA
: European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis
ESC
: European Society of Cardiology
ESH
: European Society of Hypertension
ESRD
: end-stage renal disease
EXPLOR
: Amlodipine–Valsartan Combination Decreases Central Systolic Blood Pressure more Effectively than the Amlodipine–Atenolol Combination
FDA
: U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FEVER
: Felodipine EVent Reduction study
GISSI-AF
: Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto Miocardico-Atrial Fibrillation
HbA1c
: glycated haemoglobin
HBPM
: home blood pressure monitoring
HOPE
: Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation
HOT
: Hypertension Optimal Treatment
HRT
: hormone replacement therapy
HT
: hypertension
HYVET
: HYpertension in the Very Elderly Trial
IMT
: intima-media thickness
I-PRESERVE
: Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Systolic Function
INTERHEART
: Effect of Potentially Modifiable Risk Factors associated with Myocardial Infarction in 52 Countries
INVEST
: INternational VErapamil SR/T Trandolapril
ISH
: Isolated systolic hypertension
JNC
: Joint National Committee
JUPITER
: Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin
LAVi
: left atrial volume index
LIFE
: Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertensives
LV
: left ventricle/left ventricular
LVH
: left ventricular hypertrophy
LVM
: left ventricular mass
MDRD
: Modification of Diet in Renal Disease
MRFIT
: Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial
MRI
: magnetic resonance imaging
NORDIL
: The Nordic Diltiazem Intervention study
OC
: oral contraceptive
OD
: organ damage
ONTARGET
: ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial
PAD
: peripheral artery disease
PATHS
: Prevention And Treatment of Hypertension Study
PCI
: percutaneous coronary intervention
PPAR
: peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor
PREVEND
: Prevention of REnal and Vascular ENdstage Disease
PROFESS
: Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Secondary Strokes
PROGRESS
: Perindopril Protection Against Recurrent Stroke Study
PWV
: pulse wave velocity
QALY
: Quality adjusted life years
RAA
: renin-angiotensin-aldosterone
RAS
: renin-angiotensin system
RCT
: randomized controlled trials
RF
: risk factor
ROADMAP
: Randomized Olmesartan And Diabetes MicroAlbuminuria Prevention
SBP
: systolic blood pressure
SCAST
: Angiotensin-Receptor Blocker Candesartan for Treatment of Acute STroke
SCOPE
: Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly
SCORE
: Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation
SHEP
: Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program
STOP
: Swedish Trials in Old Patients with Hypertension
STOP-2
: The second Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension
SYSTCHINA
: SYSTolic Hypertension in the Elderly: Chinese trial
SYSTEUR
: SYSTolic Hypertension in Europe
TIA
: transient ischaemic attack
TOHP
: Trials Of Hypertension Prevention
TRANSCEND
: Telmisartan Randomised AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease
UKPDS
: United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study
VADT
: Veterans' Affairs Diabetes Trial
VALUE
: Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation
WHO
: World Health Organization

### 1.1 Principles

The 2013 guidelines on hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and the European Society of Cardiology …

/pdf/2013-esh-esc-guidelines-for-the-management-of-arterial-4ydvs5ifsx.pdf

2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

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

Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines (guidelines) with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. In 2013, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Advisory

http://kidneys.zaslavsky.com.ua/article/download/122220/118980

2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

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.

https://www.science-open.com/document_file/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279/PubMedCentral/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000597

OBJECTIVE To synthesize the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to prevent and control diabetes, its complications, and comorbidities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a systematic review of literature on the CE of diabetes interventions recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and published between January 1985 and May 2008. We categorized the strength of evidence about the CE of an intervention as strong, supportive, or uncertain. CEs were classified as cost saving (more health benefit at a lower cost), very cost-effective (≤$25,000 per life year gained [LYG] or quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), cost-effective ($25,001 to $50,000 per LYG or QALY), marginally cost-effective ($50,001 to $100,000 per LYG or QALY), or not cost-effective (>$100,000 per LYG or QALY). The CE classification of an intervention was reported separately by country setting (U.S. or other developed countries) if CE varied by where the intervention was implemented. Costs were measured in 2007 U.S. dollars. RESULTS Fifty-six studies from 20 countries met the inclusion criteria. A large majority of the ADA recommended interventions are cost-effective. We found strong evidence to classify the following interventions as cost saving or very cost-effective: (I) Cost saving— 1 ) ACE inhibitor (ACEI) therapy for intensive hypertension control compared with standard hypertension control; 2 ) ACEI or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy to prevent end-stage renal disease (ESRD) compared with no ACEI or ARB treatment; 3 ) early irbesartan therapy (at the microalbuminuria stage) to prevent ESRD compared with later treatment (at the macroalbuminuria stage); 4 ) comprehensive foot care to prevent ulcers compared with usual care; 5 ) multi-component interventions for diabetic risk factor control and early detection of complications compared with conventional insulin therapy for persons with type 1 diabetes; and 6 ) multi-component interventions for diabetic risk factor control and early detection of complications compared with standard glycemic control for persons with type 2 diabetes. (II) Very cost-effective— 1 ) intensive lifestyle interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes among persons with impaired glucose tolerance compared with standard lifestyle recommendations; 2 ) universal opportunistic screening for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in African Americans between 45 and 54 years old; 3 ) intensive glycemic control as implemented in the UK Prospective Diabetes Study in persons with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes compared with conventional glycemic control; 4 ) statin therapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease compared with no statin therapy; 5 ) counseling and treatment for smoking cessation compared with no counseling and treatment; 6 ) annual screening for diabetic retinopathy and ensuing treatment in persons with type 1 diabetes compared with no screening; 7 ) annual screening for diabetic retinopathy and ensuing treatment in persons with type 2 diabetes compared with no screening; and 8 ) immediate vitrectomy to treat diabetic retinopathy compared with deferred vitrectomy. CONCLUSIONS Many interventions intended to prevent/control diabetes are cost saving or very cost-effective and supported by strong evidence. Policy makers should consider giving these interventions a higher priority.

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/33/8/1872.full.pdf

Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent and control diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.

Aims The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of community health workers in supporting the care of persons with diabetes.

Methods  Computerized searches were conducted of multiple electronic bibliographic dababases until March 2004. We identified studies in any language and of any design that examined the effectiveness of diabetes-related interventions involving community health workers and reported outcomes in persons with diabetes. Results were synthesized narratively.

Results  Eighteen studies were identified, including eight randomized controlled trials. Most studies focused on minority populations in the USA. The roles and duties of community health workers in diabetes care were varied, ranging from substantial involvement in patient care to providing instrumental assistance in education sessions taught by other health professionals. Participants were generally satisfied with their contacts with community health workers and participant knowledge increased. Improvements in physiological measures were noted for some interventions and positive changes in lifestyle and self-care were noted in a number of studies. There were few data on economic outcomes, but several studies demonstrated a decrease in inappropriate health care utilization.

Conclusions  Diabetes programmes include community health workers as team members in a variety of roles. There are some preliminary data demonstrating improvements in participant knowledge and behaviour. Much additional research, however, is needed to understand the incremental benefit of community health workers in multicomponent interventions and to identify appropriate settings and optimal roles for community health workers in the care of persons with diabetes.

Effectiveness of community health workers in the care of persons with diabetes

Most persons with prediabetes (impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose) are overweight, and obesity worsens the metabolic and physiologic abnormalities associated with this condition. Prediabetes is an important risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes. The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of dietary, physical activity, and behavioural weight loss, and weight control interventions for adults with prediabetes.

/pdf/long-term-non-pharmacological-weight-loss-interventions-for-rsox8bwtrx.pdf

Long‐term non‐pharmacological weight loss interventions for adults with prediabetes

Although people with diabetes mellitus have a high risk of depression and depression may increase mortality among people with other conditions, the impact of depression on mortality risk among people with diabetes needs further examination. Using survival analysis, the authors analyzed longitudinal data from the NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study (1982-1992). The findings showed that the presence of severe depressive symptoms significantly elevated mortality risk among US adults with diabetes; the same pattern was not observed among people without diabetes. After results were controlled for sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health-status variables, diabetic persons with Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale scores of 16 or more had 54% greater mortality than those with scores under 16 (p = 0.004). After exclusion of participants who died during the first year of follow-up, mortality remained higher among those with CES-D scores greater than or equal to 22 as compared with those with CES-D scores less than 16, but not among those with CES-D scores between 16 and 21. No significant relation between depression and mortality was found in the nondiabetic population. This analysis indicates that diabetes modifies the effect of depression on mortality. It also demonstrates the importance of observing subgroups, rather than aggregated populations, when examining the effect of depression on mortality.

Depressive Symptoms and Mortality among Persons with and without Diabetes

We examined ranges of A1C useful for identifying persons at high risk for diabetes prior to preventive intervention by conducting a systematic review. From 16 included studies, we found that annualized diabetes incidence ranged from 0.1% at A1C or=6.1%. Findings from 7 studies that examined incident diabetes across a broad range of A1C categories showed 1) risk of incident diabetes increased steeply with A1C across the range of 5.0 to 6.5%; 2) the A1C range of 6.0 to 6.5% was associated with a highly increased risk of incident diabetes, 25 to 50% incidence over 5 years; 3) the A1C range of 5.5 to 6.0% was associated with a moderately increased relative risk, 9 to 25% incidence over 5 years; and 4) the A1C range of 5.0 to 5.5% was associated with an increased incidence relative to those with A1C <5%, but the absolute incidence of diabetes was less than 9% over 5 years. Our systematic review demonstrated that A1C values between 5.5 and 6.5% were associated with a substantially increased risk for developing diabetes.

/pdf/a1c-level-and-future-risk-of-diabetes-a-systematic-review-1zkt2u5ti6.pdf

Xuanping Zhang

Papers

Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent and control diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.

Effectiveness of community health workers in the care of persons with diabetes

Long‐term non‐pharmacological weight loss interventions for adults with prediabetes

Depressive Symptoms and Mortality among Persons with and without Diabetes

A1C level and future risk of diabetes: a systematic review.