Identification of the Inappropriate Clinical Actions (DON'T) to Improve the Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Failing Basal Insulin Supported Oral Treatment: Results of Survey for a Panel of Diabetes Specialists in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the development of several recommendations, glycemic control in a large proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes, including those treated with insulin, remains suboptimal. This study is aimed to identify a set of actions to promote the reduction of inappropriate clinical practices in type 2 diabetes failing basal insulin supported oral therapy (BOT). METHODS: A panel of diabetes specialists was assembled to identify a list of ten corrective actions, "things not to do," for the management of type 2 diabetes: five concerning treatments, procedures and diagnostic tests and five about relationship, communication and information. The Choosing Wisely methodology and approach were the inspiration. RESULTS: A total of 73/73 (100%) panelists responded to the survey. Twenty-four actions were proposed. The final list of inappropriate actions deemed most important to improve the management of patients with type 2 diabetes failing BOT were: (1) do not use secretagogues-do not neglect the use of innovative glucose-lowering agents; (2) do not underestimate the risk of lack of hypoglycemia awareness; (3) do not underestimate the benefit of personalization of therapy; (4) do not delay insulin intensification; (5) do not delay modification of the therapeutic regimen. In the area of patient communication, the following actions were identified: (1) do not fail to train in the management of hypoglycemia; (2) do not underestimate whether the patient has understood the modification of therapy; (3) do not prescribe injection therapy without adequately instructing the patient to titrate it; (4) do not ignore the patient's adherence; (5) do not stop listening to the patient and verify learning. CONCLUSION: A set of corrective experience-based actions to enact in a timely manner, which can assist physicians in improving clinical outcomes and patients' needs in terms of communications and interaction, is proposed. The list is intended to promote discussions among diabetes specialists to provide high-value diabetes care.

Lipids and renal disease.

Chronic renal disease is accompanied by characteristic abnormalities of lipid metabolism, which appear as a consequence of nephrotic syndrome or renal insufficiency and are reflected in an altered apolipoprotein profile as well as elevated plasma lipid levels. Experimental and clinical studies have suggested a correlation between the progression of renal disease and dyslipidemia. High cholesterol and triglyceride plasma levels have been demonstrated to be independent risk factors for progression of renal disease in humans. The underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms for the relationship between lipid levels and progression of renal disease are not yet fully understood, although there are data that oxidative stress and insulin resistance may mediate the lipid-induced renal damage. In the animal model, lipid-lowering agents seem to ameliorate glomerular damage, preventing glomerulosclerosis and interstitial fibrosis. Although evidence from clinical studies indicates that statin therapy is associated with significant benefit in individuals with established chronic renal failure, whether lipid reduction can slow the renal functional decline awaits a primary renal outcome lipid-lowering therapy study.

Preventing microalbuminuria in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The multicenter double-blind, randomized Bergamo Nephrologic Diabetes Complications Trial (BENEDICT) was designed to assess whether angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and non-dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, alone or in combination, prevent microalbuminuria in subjects with hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and normal urinary albumin excretion. METHODS: We studied 1204 subjects, who were randomly assigned to receive at least three years of treatment with trandolapril (at a dose of 2 mg per day) plus verapamil (sustained-release formulation, 180 mg per day), trandolapril alone (2 mg per day), verapamil alone (sustained-release formulation, 240 mg per day), or placebo. The target blood pressure was 120/80 mm Hg. The primary end point was the development of persistent microalbuminuria (overnight albumin excretion, > or =20 microg per minute at two consecutive visits). RESULTS: The primary outcome was reached in 5.7 percent of the subjects receiving trandolapril plus verapamil, 6.0 percent of the subjects receiving trandolapril, 11.9 percent of the subjects receiving verapamil, and 10.0 percent of control subjects receiving placebo. The estimated acceleration factor (which quantifies the effect of one treatment relative to another in accelerating or slowing disease progression) adjusted for predefined baseline characteristics was 0.39 for the comparison between verapamil plus trandolapril and placebo (P=0.01), 0.47 for the comparison between trandolapril and placebo (P=0.01), and 0.83 for the comparison between verapamil and placebo (P=0.54). Trandolapril plus verapamil and trandolapril alone delayed the onset of microalbuminuria by factors of 2.6 and 2.1, respectively. Serious adverse events were similar in all treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with type 2 diabetes and hypertension but with normoalbuminuria, the use of trandolapril plus verapamil and trandolapril alone decreased the incidence of microalbuminuria to a similar extent. The effect of verapamil alone was similar to that of placebo.