American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes 2017.
TL;DR: Clinical significant hypoglycemia is now defined at blood glucose levels <54 mg/dL, whereas blood sugar levels <70mg/dL should be used as an “alert value” to help individuals avoid more severe hypoglycesmia.
Abstract: The American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) 2017 Standards of Care were published in Diabetes Care on 15 December 2016. Notable changes in the new guidelines include the recommendation of sodiumglucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor empagliflozin and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients at high risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Data from the Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) trial and the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial are now included in the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management. In addition, fixed-ratio combinations of a basal insulin and a GLP-1 agonist are included in the algorithm for combination therapy, just weeks after the first of these products, Novo Nordisk’s (Copenhagen, Denmark) Xultophy (insulin degludec/liraglutide) and Sanofi’s (Paris, France) Soliqua (insulin glargine/lixisenatide), were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prescription in the US. Based on recommendations from the International Hypoglycemia Study Group, the ADA’s 2017 Standards of Care features a new classification for hypoglycemia: clinically significant hypoglycemia is now defined at blood glucose levels <54 mg/dL, whereas blood glucose levels <70 mg/dL should be used as an “alert value” to help individuals avoid more severe hypoglycemia. The ADA’s new guidelines also include a greater emphasis on cost of diabetes drugs, T2D prevention (with a push for more frequent prediabetes screenings), and psychosocial support in diabetes care, especially for adolescents and pediatric patients.
Citations
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
Maastricht University1, University of Bologna2, University of Melbourne3, University of Leicester4, Federation University Australia5, University of British Columbia6, Imperial College London7, University of London8, Public Health Foundation of India9, Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute10, University of Western Australia11, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens12, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre13, University of Manchester14, Boston University15, University College London16, The George Institute for Global Health17, North-West University18, University of New South Wales19
TL;DR: Document reviewers: Hind Beheiry (Sudan), Irina Chazova (Russia), Albertino Damasceno (Mozambique), Anna Dominiczak (UK), Stephen Harrap (Australia), Hiroshi Itoh (Japan), Tazeen Jafar (Singapore), Marc Jaffe (USA), Patricio Jaramillo-Lopez (Colombia), Kazuomi Kario (Japan).
Abstract: Document reviewers: Hind Beheiry (Sudan), Irina Chazova (Russia), Albertino Damasceno (Mozambique), Anna Dominiczak (UK), Anastase Dzudie (Cameroon), Stephen Harrap (Australia), Hiroshi Itoh (Japan), Tazeen Jafar (Singapore), Marc Jaffe (USA), Patricio Jaramillo-Lopez (Colombia), Kazuomi Kario (Japan), Giuseppe Mancia (Italy), Ana Mocumbi (Mozambique), Sanjeevi N.Narasingan (India), Elijah Ogola (Kenya), Srinath Reddy (India), Ernesto Schiffrin (Canada), Ann Soenarta (Indonesia), Rhian Touyz (UK), Yudah Turana (Indonesia), Michael Weber (USA), Paul Whelton (USA), Xin Hua Zhang, (Australia), Yuqing Zhang (China).
1,657 citations
Shanghai Jiao Tong University1, University of Science and Technology of China2, Nanjing University3, Peking University4, Central South University5, Second Military Medical University6, Shandong University7, Tianjin Medical University8, Harbin Medical University9, China Medical University (PRC)10, Chongqing Medical University11, Fudan University12, Sichuan University13, Peking Union Medical College Hospital14, Fujian Medical University15
TL;DR: The main contents include epidemiology of type 2 diabetes in China; diagnosis and classification of diabetes; primary, secondary, and tertiary diabetes prevention; diabetes education and management support; blood glucose monitoring; integrated control targets for type 1 diabetes and treatments for hyperglycaemia.
Abstract: The prevalence of diabetes in China has increased rapidly from 0.67% in 1980 to 10.4% in 2013, with the aging of the population and westernization of lifestyle. Since its foundation in 1991, the Chinese Diabetes Society (CDS) has been dedicated to improving academic exchange and the academic level of diabetes research in China. From 2003 to 2014, four versions of Chinese diabetes care guidelines have been published. The guidelines have played an important role in standardizing clinical practice and improving the status quo of diabetes prevention and control in China. Since September 2016, the CDS has invited experts in cardiovascular diseases, psychiatric diseases, nutrition, and traditional Chinese medicine to work with endocrinologists from the CDS to review the new clinical research evidence related to diabetes over the previous 4 years. Over a year of careful revision, this has resulted in the present, new version of guidelines for prevention and care of type 2 diabetes in China. The main contents include epidemiology of type 2 diabetes in China; diagnosis and classification of diabetes; primary, secondary, and tertiary diabetes prevention; diabetes education and management support; blood glucose monitoring; integrated control targets for type 2 diabetes and treatments for hyperglycaemia; medical nutrition therapy; exercise therapy for type 2 diabetes; smoking cessation; pharmacologic therapy for hyperglycaemia; metabolic surgery for type 2 diabetes; prevention and treatment of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes; hypoglycaemia; chronic diabetic complications; special types of diabetes; metabolic syndrome; and diabetes and traditional Chinese medicine.
331 citations
Cites methods from "American Diabetes Association Stand..."
...If the above examinations cannot be confirmed, differential diagnosis is needed and can be done by electromyography.(4,121,122) The diagnostic flowchart of DPSN is shown in Figure 4....
[...]
TL;DR: James L. Januzzi, Jr, MD, FACC, Chair Tariq Ahmad,MD, MPH, F ACC Brendan Everett, MD , FACC William Hucker, MD PHD Dharam J. Kumbhani, MD.
241 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the effects of probiotic consumption on glycemic control, lipid profile, inflammation, oxidative stress and short chain fatty acids in Type 2 diabetes patients were investigated in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
238 citations
References
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
TL;DR: Patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events who received empagliflozin, as compared with placebo, had a lower rate of the primary composite cardiovascular outcome and of death from any cause when the study drug was added to standard care.
Abstract: BACKGROUND The effects of empagliflozin, an inhibitor of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2, in addition to standard care, on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk are not known. METHODS We randomly assigned patients to receive 10 mg or 25 mg of empagliflozin or placebo once daily. The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, as analyzed in the pooled empagliflozin group versus the placebo group. The key secondary composite outcome was the primary outcome plus hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS A total of 7020 patients were treated (median observation time, 3.1 years). The primary outcome occurred in 490 of 4687 patients (10.5%) in the pooled empagliflozin group and in 282 of 2333 patients (12.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the empagliflozin group, 0.86; 95.02% confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.99; P = 0.04 for superiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of myocardial infarction or stroke, but in the empagliflozin group there were significantly lower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (3.7%, vs. 5.9% in the placebo group; 38% relative risk reduction), hospitalization for heart failure (2.7% and 4.1%, respectively; 35% relative risk reduction), and death from any cause (5.7% and 8.3%, respectively; 32% relative risk reduction). There was no significant between-group difference in the key secondary outcome (P = 0.08 for superiority). Among patients receiving empagliflozin, there was an increased rate of genital infection but no increase in other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS Patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events who received empagliflozin, as compared with placebo, had a lower rate of the primary composite cardiovascular outcome and of death from any cause when the study drug was added to standard care. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPA-REG OUTCOME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01131676.)
7,705 citations
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center1, Harvard University2, Novo Nordisk3, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg4, Ruhr University Bochum5, Cleveland Clinic6, University of London7, Imperial College London8, George Washington University9, University of Toronto10, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill11
TL;DR: In the time-to-event analysis, the rate of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, orNonfatal stroke among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was lower with liraglutide than with placebo.
Abstract: BackgroundThe cardiovascular effect of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, when added to standard care in patients with type 2 diabetes, remains unknown. MethodsIn this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk to receive liraglutide or placebo. The primary composite outcome in the time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The primary hypothesis was that liraglutide would be noninferior to placebo with regard to the primary outcome, with a margin of 1.30 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. No adjustments for multiplicity were performed for the prespecified exploratory outcomes. ResultsA total of 9340 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 3.8 years. The primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the liraglutide group (608 of 4668 patients [13.0%]) than in the placebo ...
4,409 citations
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
TL;DR: In patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high cardiovascular risk, the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, orNonfatal stroke was significantly lower among patients receiving semaglutide than among those receiving placebo, an outcome that confirmed the noninferiority of semag lutide.
Abstract: BackgroundRegulatory guidance specifies the need to establish cardiovascular safety of new diabetes therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes in order to rule out excess cardiovascular risk. The cardiovascular effects of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue with an extended half-life of approximately 1 week, in type 2 diabetes are unknown. MethodsWe randomly assigned 3297 patients with type 2 diabetes who were on a standard-care regimen to receive once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg) or placebo for 104 weeks. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. We hypothesized that semaglutide would be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome. The noninferiority margin was 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. ResultsAt baseline, 2735 of the patients (83.0%) had established cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or both. The primary outcome occurred in 10...
3,551 citations