RESUMEN
AIM: To compare open-source AndroidAPS (AAPS) and commercially available Control-IQ (CIQ) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using AAPS by their own decision entered the first 3-month AAPS phase then were switched to CIQ for 3 months. The results of this treatment were compared with those after the 3-month AAPS phase. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (% TIR; 70-80 mg/dL). RESULTS: Twenty-five people with diabetes (mean age 34.32 ± 11.07 years; HbA1c 6.4% ± 3%) participated in this study. CIQ was comparable with AAPS in achieving TIR (85.72% ± 7.64% vs. 84.24% ± 8.46%; P = .12). Similarly, there were no differences in percentage time above range (> 180 and > 250 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose (130.3 ± 13.9 vs. 128.3 ± 16.9 mg/dL; P = .21) or HbA1c (6.3% ± 2.1% vs. 6.4% ± 3.1%; P = .59). Percentage time below range (< 70 and < 54 mg/dL) was significantly lower using CIQ than AAPS. Even although participants were mostly satisfied with CIQ (63.6% mostly agreed, 9.1% strongly agreed), they did not plan to switch to CIQ. CONCLUSIONS: The CODIAC study is the first prospective study investigating the switch between open-source and commercially available AID systems. CIQ and AAPS were comparable in achieving TIR. However, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with CIQ.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Insulinas , Adulto , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto Joven , Glucemia , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea/métodos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamiento farmacológico , Hemoglobina Glucada , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Sistemas de Infusión de Insulina , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, health care professionals, and other stakeholders. METHODS: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) conducted literature searches for relevant articles published from 2012 to 2021. A task force of medical experts developed evidence-based guideline recommendations based on a review of clinical evidence, expertise, and informal consensus, according to established AACE protocol for guideline development. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes of interest included hemoglobin A1C, rates and severity of hypoglycemia, time in range, time above range, and time below range. RESULTS: This guideline includes 37 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for advanced diabetes technology and contains 357 citations that inform the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were developed regarding the efficacy and safety of devices for the management of persons with diabetes mellitus, metrics used to aide with the assessment of advanced diabetes technology, and standards for the implementation of this technology. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced diabetes technology can assist persons with diabetes to safely and effectively achieve glycemic targets, improve quality of life, add greater convenience, potentially reduce burden of care, and offer a personalized approach to self-management. Furthermore, diabetes technology can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical decision-making. Successful integration of these technologies into care requires knowledge about the functionality of devices in this rapidly changing field. This information will allow health care professionals to provide necessary education and training to persons accessing these treatments and have the required expertise to interpret data and make appropriate treatment adjustments.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Diabetes Mellitus , Glucemia , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea , Diabetes Mellitus/terapia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Sistemas de Infusión de Insulina , Calidad de Vida , Tecnología , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of U500-R delivered by a novel, specifically designed U500-R insulin pump with U-500R delivered by multiple daily injections (MDI). METHODS: The phase 3 VIVID study randomized people with type 2 diabetes to U-500R by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or MDI. Participants (aged 18-85 years) had HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤12.0% and a total daily dose of insulin >200 and ≤600 U/day. After a 2-week transition to three times daily injections of U-500R, participants were treated for 24 weeks with U-500R by CSII or MDI. Treatment arms were compared using mixed model repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: The study randomized 420 participants (CSII: 209, MDI: 211) with 365 completers. Mean changes from baseline were: HbA1c, -1.27% (-13.9 mmol/mol) with CSII and -0.85% (-9.3 mmol/mol) with MDI (difference - 0.42% [-4.6 mmol/mol], P <0.001); fasting plasma glucose, -33.9 mg/dL (-1.9 mmol/L) with CSII and 1.7 mg/dL (0.09 mmol/L) with MDI (difference - 35.6 mg/dL [-2.0 mmol/L], P <0.001); total daily dose, 2.8 U with CSII and 51.3 U with MDI (P < 0.001). Weight changes and rates of documented symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were similar between groups; the CSII group had a higher rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: In type 2 diabetes requiring high doses of insulin, both methods of U-500R delivery lowered HbA1c. However, the CSII group attained greater HbA1c reduction with significantly less insulin. Individualized dose titration will be important to balance glycaemic control with hypoglycaemia risk.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Adulto , Glucemia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Hemoglobina Glucada/análisis , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Inyecciones Subcutáneas , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Sistemas de Infusión de InsulinaRESUMEN
The treatment of lipid disorders begins with lifestyle therapy to improve nutrition, physical activity, weight, and other factors that affect lipids. Secondary causes of lipid disorders should be addressed, and pharmacologic therapy initiated based on a patient's risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Patients at extreme ASCVD risk should be treated with high-intensity statin therapy to achieve a goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of <55 mg/dL, and those at very high ASCVD risk should be treated to achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL. Treatment for moderate and high ASCVD risk patients may begin with a moderate-intensity statin to achieve an LDL-C <100 mg/dL, while the LDL-C goal is <130 mg/dL for those at low risk. In all cases, treatment should be intensified, including the addition of other LDL-C-lowering agents (i.e., proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, colesevelam, or bempedoic acid) as needed to achieve treatment goals. When targeting triglyceride levels, the desirable goal is <150 mg/dL. Statin therapy should be combined with a fibrate, prescription-grade omega-3 fatty acid, and/or niacin to reduce triglycerides in all patients with triglycerides ≥500 mg/dL, and icosapent ethyl should be added to a statin in any patient with established ASCVD or diabetes with ≥2 ASCVD risk factors and triglycerides between 135 and 499 mg/dL to prevent ASCVD events. Management of additional risk factors such as elevated lipoprotein(a) and statin intolerance is also described.
Asunto(s)
Anticolesterolemiantes , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Dislipidemias , Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas , Algoritmos , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/prevención & control , Consenso , Dislipidemias/tratamiento farmacológico , Dislipidemias/epidemiología , Endocrinólogos , Humanos , Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas/uso terapéutico , Factores de Riesgo , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
An online survey was conducted to assess the perspectives and use of diabetes technologies by a sample of U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) and endocrinologists to optimize intensive insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Overall, endocrinologists reported using diabetes technologies more frequently than PCPs for patients with type 2 diabetes requiring basal-bolus insulin therapy. PCPs and endocrinologists who were highly focused on diabetes management with insulin therapy reported using insulin delivery devices (insulin pumps and wearable tube-free patches) when patients are not achieving their A1C target while taking basal plus three or more prandial injections of insulin daily.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of the C-peptide and beta-cell autoantibody testing required by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on costs/utilization for patients with diabetes mellitus initiating continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy. METHODS: This retrospective study used propensity score-matched patients. Analysis 1 compared patients 1-year pre- and 2-years post-CSII adoption who met or did not meet CMS criteria. Analysis 2 compared Medicare Advantage patients using CSII or multiple daily injections (MDI) who did not meet CMS criteria for 1-year pre- and 1-year post-CSII adoption. Analysis 3 extended analysis 2 to 2 years postindex and also included a subset of patients ≥55 years old but not yet in Medicare Advantage. RESULTS: Analysis 1 resulted in significantly slower growth in hospital admissions ( P = .0453) in CSII-treated patients who did not meet the criteria. Analyses 2 and 3 showed numerically slower growth in inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department (ED) costs for CSII versus MDI patients (both not meeting criteria). Analysis 3 showed significantly slower growth in ED costs and hospital admissions for CSII versus MDI Medicare Advantage patients before propensity matching (both P<.05). In patients ≥55 years old, ED costs grew more slowly for CSII than MDI therapy ( P = .0678). CONCLUSION: Numerically slower growth in hospital admissions was seen for pump adopters who did not meet CMS C-peptide criteria, while medical costs growth was similar. For CSII users who did not meet the CMS criteria, numerically slower growth in inpatient, outpatient, ED costs, and hospital admissions occurred versus MDI. ABBREVIATIONS: CMS = Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; DM = diabetes mellitus; DME = durable medical equipment; ED = emergency department; MDI = multiple daily injections (of insulin).
Asunto(s)
Péptido C/análisis , Anciano , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Hemoglobina Glucada , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes , Inyecciones Subcutáneas , Insulina , Sistemas de Infusión de Insulina , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) has created a dysglycemia-based chronic disease (DBCD) multimorbidity care model consisting of four distinct stages along the insulin resistance-prediabetes-type 2 diabetes (T2D) spectrum that are actionable in a preventive care paradigm to reduce the potential impact of T2D, cardiometabolic risk, and cardiovascular events. The controversy of whether there is value, cost-effectiveness, or clinical benefit of diagnosing and/or managing the prediabetes state is resolved by regarding the problem, not in isolation, but as an intermediate stage in the continuum of a progressive chronic disease with opportunities for multiple concurrent prevention strategies. In this context, stage 1 represents "insulin resistance," stage 2 "prediabetes," stage 3 "type 2 diabetes," and stage 4 "vascular complications." This model encourages earliest intervention focusing on structured lifestyle change. Further scientific research may eventually reclassify stage 2 DBCD prediabetes from a predisease to a true disease state. This position statement is consistent with a portfolio of AACE endocrine disease care models, including adiposity-based chronic disease, that prioritize patient-centered care, evidence-based medicine, complexity, multimorbid chronic disease, the current health care environment, and a societal mandate for a higher value attributed to good health. Ultimately, transformative changes in diagnostic coding and reimbursement structures for prediabetes and T2D can provide improvements in population-based endocrine health care. Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1c; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ABCD = adiposity-based chronic disease; CVD = cardiovascular disease; DBCD = dysglycemia-based chronic disease; FPG = fasting plasma glucose; GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide-1; MetS = metabolic syndrome; T2D = type 2 diabetes.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Endocrinología , Glucemia , Enfermedad Crónica , Endocrinólogos , Hemoglobina Glucada , Humanos , Obesidad , Estado Prediabético , Sociedades Médicas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Where there are no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician. AACE/ACE Task Force on Integration of Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Management of Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Chair George Grunberger, MD, FACP, FACE Task Force Members Yehuda Handelsman, MD, FACP, FNLA, MACE Zachary T. Bloomgarden, MD, MACE Vivian A. Fonseca, MD, FACE Alan J. Garber, MD, PhD, FACE Richard A. Haas, MD, FACE Victor L. Roberts, MD, MBA, FACP, FACE Guillermo E. Umpierrez, MD, CDE, FACP, FACE Abbreviations: AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACE = American College of Endocrinology A1C = glycated hemoglobin BGM = blood glucose monitoring CGM = continuous glucose monitoring CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion DM = diabetes mellitus FDA = Food & Drug Administration MDI = multiple daily injections T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus SAP = sensor-augmented pump SMBG = self-monitoring of blood glucose STAR 3 = Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy for A1C Reduction phase 3 trial.
Asunto(s)
Glucemia/análisis , Consenso , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Sistemas de Infusión de Insulina , Insulina/administración & dosificación , Glucemia/metabolismo , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea/normas , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea/estadística & datos numéricos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/sangre , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangre , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Endocrinólogos/organización & administración , Endocrinólogos/normas , Endocrinología/organización & administración , Endocrinología/normas , Humanos , Sistemas de Infusión de Insulina/normas , Sistemas de Infusión de Insulina/estadística & datos numéricos , Monitoreo Fisiológico/instrumentación , Monitoreo Fisiológico/métodos , Monitoreo Fisiológico/normas , Educación del Paciente como Asunto/normas , Sociedades Médicas/organización & administración , Sociedades Médicas/normas , Integración de Sistemas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There are currently over 40 different drugs in 12 distinct classes approved in the USA to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This review summarizes our current knowledge about potential side effects of antidiabetic therapy and attempts to apply it to a clinical practice setting. RECENT FINDINGS: Given the heterogeneity of both the patients and the disease, it is mathematically impossible to test every available drug combination in long-term outcome, prospective, randomized blinded fashion before a clinician decides which agent(s) to prescribe to a specific patient in a given situation. To complicate the clinician's dilemma, there is lack of available tests to predict an individual's response or propensity to side effects. Further, the data available are derived from small, short-term registration trials and typically focus on relative rather than absolute risks of any given drug and do not address the potential adverse outcomes if a patient's diabetes remains untreated. Clinicians have to personalize their choice of antidiabetic therapy based both on the specific characteristics of the patient in front of them (stage of diabetes and its complications, overall health status, socioeconomic situation, other medications present, desire to improve control of diabetes, etc.) and the current knowledge about the relative and absolute balance of benefits and risks of any individual medication in that specific patient. It has to be recognized that this requires constant re-evaluation as database of our experience with antidiabetic therapy expands.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Biguanidas/efectos adversos , Biguanidas/uso terapéutico , Receptor del Péptido 1 Similar al Glucagón/agonistas , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Compuestos de Sulfonilurea/efectos adversos , Compuestos de Sulfonilurea/uso terapéutico , Tiazolidinedionas/efectos adversos , Tiazolidinedionas/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
To determine whether baseline characteristics had an impact on clinical outcomes in the LixiLan-O trial (N = 1170), we compared the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U (iGlar) and lixisenatide (Lixi) with iGlar or Lixi alone in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on oral therapy. Subgroups according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; <8% or ≥8% [<64 or ≥64 mmol/mol]), T2DM disease duration (<7 or ≥7 years) and body mass index (BMI; <30 or ≥30 kg/m2 ) were investigated. In all subpopulations, iGlarLixi was consistently statistically superior to iGlar and Lixi alone in reducing HbA1c from baseline to week 30; higher proportions of patients achieved HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) with iGlarLixi vs iGlar and Lixi alone. Compared with iGlar, iGlarLixi resulted in a substantial decrease in 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose levels, and mitigation of weight gain, with no differences among subpopulations in incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia. iGlarLixi consistently improved glycaemic control compared with iGlar and Lixi alone, without weight gain or increase in hypoglycaemic risk compared with iGlar in the subpopulations tested, regardless of baseline HbA1c, disease duration and BMI.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Hemoglobina Glucada/análisis , Hiperglucemia/prevención & control , Hipoglucemia/prevención & control , Insulina Glargina/administración & dosificación , Obesidad/complicaciones , Péptidos/administración & dosificación , Índice de Masa Corporal , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicaciones , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/metabolismo , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/fisiopatología , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Combinación de Medicamentos , Resistencia a Medicamentos , Quimioterapia Combinada/efectos adversos , Receptor del Péptido 1 Similar al Glucagón/agonistas , Receptor del Péptido 1 Similar al Glucagón/metabolismo , Humanos , Hipoglucemia/inducido químicamente , Insulina Glargina/efectos adversos , Insulina Glargina/uso terapéutico , Persona de Mediana Edad , Péptidos/efectos adversos , Péptidos/uso terapéutico , Periodo Posprandial , Aumento de Peso/efectos de los fármacosRESUMEN
This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Where there were no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position and consensus statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician. ABBREVIATIONS: BPCIA = Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; FFDC = Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act; PHS = Public Health Services Act; TE = therapeutic equivalence.
Asunto(s)
Productos Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Enfermedades del Sistema Endocrino/tratamiento farmacológico , Endocrinología , HumanosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols. RESULTS: The Executive Summary of this document contains 87 recommendations of which 45 are Grade A (51.7%), 18 are Grade B (20.7%), 15 are Grade C (17.2%), and 9 (10.3%) are Grade D. These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world medical care. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for Executive Summary Recommendations. This update contains 695 citations of which 203 (29.2 %) are EL 1 (strong), 137 (19.7%) are EL 2 (intermediate), 119 (17.1%) are EL 3 (weak), and 236 (34.0%) are EL 4 (no clinical evidence). CONCLUSION: This CPG is a practical tool that endocrinologists, other health care professionals, health-related organizations, and regulatory bodies can use to reduce the risks and consequences of dyslipidemia. It provides guidance on screening, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations for a range of individuals with various lipid disorders. The recommendations emphasize the importance of treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in some individuals to lower goals than previously endorsed and support the measurement of coronary artery calcium scores and inflammatory markers to help stratify risk. Special consideration is given to individuals with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, women, and youth with dyslipidemia. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness data are provided to support treatment decisions. ABBREVIATIONS: 4S = Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study A1C = glycated hemoglobin AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists AAP = American Academy of Pediatrics ACC = American College of Cardiology ACE = American College of Endocrinology ACS = acute coronary syndrome ADMIT = Arterial Disease Multiple Intervention Trial ADVENT = Assessment of Diabetes Control and Evaluation of the Efficacy of Niaspan Trial AFCAPS/TexCAPS = Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study AHA = American Heart Association AHRQ = Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AIM-HIGH = Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides trial ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ATP = Adult Treatment Panel apo = apolipoprotein BEL = best evidence level BIP = Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention trial BMI = body mass index CABG = coronary artery bypass graft CAC = coronary artery calcification CARDS = Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study CDP = Coronary Drug Project trial CI = confidence interval CIMT = carotid intimal media thickness CKD = chronic kidney disease CPG(s) = clinical practice guideline(s) CRP = C-reactive protein CTT = Cholesterol Treatment Trialists CV = cerebrovascular CVA = cerebrovascular accident EL = evidence level FH = familial hypercholesterolemia FIELD = Secondary Endpoints from the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes trial FOURIER = Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk trial HATS = HDL-Atherosclerosis Treatment Study HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HHS = Helsinki Heart Study HIV = human immunodeficiency virus HoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HPS = Heart Protection Study HPS2-THRIVE = Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events trial HR = hazard ratio HRT = hormone replacement therapy hsCRP = high-sensitivity CRP IMPROVE-IT = Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial IRAS = Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study JUPITER = Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol Lp-PLA2 = lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 MACE = major cardiovascular events MESA = Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis MetS = metabolic syndrome MI = myocardial infarction MRFIT = Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial NCEP = National Cholesterol Education Program NHLBI = National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PCOS = polycystic ovary syndrome PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 Post CABG = Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft trial PROSPER = Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk trial QALY = quality-adjusted life-year ROC = receiver-operator characteristic SOC = standard of care SHARP = Study of Heart and Renal Protection T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus TG = triglycerides TNT = Treating to New Targets trial VA-HIT = Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial VLDL-C = very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol WHI = Women's Health Initiative.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , LDL-Colesterol , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Dislipidemias , Endocrinólogos , Femenino , Humanos , Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Proproteína Convertasa 9 , Estudios Prospectivos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: Each Recommendation is based on a diligent review of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors. RESULTS: The Executive Summary of this document contains 87 Recommendations of which 45 are Grade A (51.7%), 18 are Grade B (20.7%), 15 are Grade C (17.2%), and 9 (10.3%) are Grade D. These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world medical care. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for Executive Summary Recommendations. This update contains 695 citations of which 202 (29.1 %) are evidence level (EL) 1 (strong), 137 (19.7%) are EL 2 (intermediate), 119 (17.1%) are EL 3 (weak), and 237 (34.1%) are EL 4 (no clinical evidence). CONCLUSION: This CPG is a practical tool that endocrinologists, other healthcare professionals, regulatory bodies and health-related organizations can use to reduce the risks and consequences of dyslipidemia. It provides guidance on screening, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations for a range of patients with various lipid disorders. These recommendations emphasize the importance of treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in some individuals to lower goals than previously recommended and support the measurement of coronary artery calcium scores and inflammatory markers to help stratify risk. Special consideration is given to patients with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, women, and pediatric patients with dyslipidemia. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness data are provided to support treatment decisions. ABBREVIATIONS: A1C = hemoglobin A1C ACE = American College of Endocrinology ACS = acute coronary syndrome AHA = American Heart Association ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ATP = Adult Treatment Panel apo = apolipoprotein BEL = best evidence level CKD = chronic kidney disease CPG = clinical practice guidelines CVA = cerebrovascular accident EL = evidence level FH = familial hypercholesterolemia HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HIV = human immunodeficiency virus HoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia hsCRP = high-sensitivity C-reactive protein LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol Lp-PLA2 = lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 MESA = Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis MetS = metabolic syndrome MI = myocardial infarction NCEP = National Cholesterol Education Program PCOS = polycystic ovary syndrome PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus TG = triglycerides VLDL-C = very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/prevención & control , Dislipidemias/terapia , Endocrinología/normas , Prevención Primaria/normas , Adulto , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/economía , Niño , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Técnicas de Diagnóstico Endocrino/economía , Técnicas de Diagnóstico Endocrino/normas , Dislipidemias/diagnóstico , Dislipidemias/economía , Endocrinólogos/organización & administración , Endocrinólogos/normas , Endocrinología/organización & administración , Femenino , Humanos , Tamizaje Masivo/economía , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Tamizaje Masivo/normas , Prevención Primaria/economía , Prevención Primaria/métodos , Sociedades Médicas/organización & administración , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Management of patients with diabetes mellitus who require intensive insulin therapy has changed dramatically. From urine and then whole blood glucose monitoring patients can now wear personal continuous glucose monitors; from using multiple insulin injections they can now deliver subcutaneous insulin continuously using ever-more sophisticated insulin pumps. With the current integration of continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps a new era is arriving when "smart" insulin pumps can automate insulin delivery to assure more stable glycemic control while minimizing episodes of hypoglycemia. This review briefly summarizes results of key research studies demonstrating feasibility of the technology. It also discusses patient selection and potential challenges faced by attempting to incorporate diabetes technology into daily clinical practice. Finally, an overview of integrated systems in current and planned clinical trials is presented.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Hipoglucemiantes , Glucemia , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Hipoglucemia , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Sistemas de Infusión de InsulinaRESUMEN
Management of patients with diabetes mellitus who require intensive insulin therapy has changed dramatically. From urine and then whole blood glucose monitoring patients can now wear personal continuous glucose monitors; from using multiple insulin injections they can now deliver subcutaneous insulin continuously using ever-more sophisticated insulin pumps. With the current integration of continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps a new era is arriving when "smart" insulin pumps can automate insulin delivery to assure more stable glycemic control while minimizing episodes of hypoglycemia. This review briefly summarizes results of key research studies demonstrating feasibility of the technology. It also discusses patient selection and potential challenges faced by attempting to incorporate diabetes technology into daily clinical practice. Finally, an overview of integrated systems in current and planned clinical trials is presented.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Hipoglucemiantes , Glucemia , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Hipoglucemia , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Sistemas de Infusión de InsulinaRESUMEN
Dulaglutide (DU) is a once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Glycaemic efficacy and safety characteristics of dulaglutide have been assessed in six Phase 3 studies in the AWARD program. The objective of this review article is to summarize these results from the six completed AWARD studies. At the primary endpoint, in five of the six studies, once weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg was superior to the active comparator [exenatide, insulin glargine (two studies), metformin, and sitagliptin], with a greater proportion of patients reaching glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets of <7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) and ≤6.5% (47.5 mmol/mol). Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was non-inferior to liraglutide in AWARD-6. Once weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg was evaluated in five of these trials and demonstrated superiority to the active comparator in four of five AWARD studies (exenatide, glargine, metformin, and sitagliptin), and non-inferiority to glargine in the AWARD-2 study. Similar to other GLP-1 receptor agonists, treatment with dulaglutide was associated with weight loss or attenuation of weight gain and low rates of hypoglycaemia when used alone or with non-insulin-secretagogue therapy. The most frequently reported adverse events were gastrointestinal, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The incidence of dulaglutide antidrug antibody formation was 1-2.8% with rare injection site reactions. In conclusion, dulaglutide is an effective treatment for T2DM and has an acceptable tolerability and safety profile. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Péptidos Similares al Glucagón/análogos & derivados , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Fragmentos Fc de Inmunoglobulinas/uso terapéutico , Proteínas Recombinantes de Fusión/uso terapéutico , Animales , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Péptidos Similares al Glucagón/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Seguridad , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Where there were no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician.
Asunto(s)
Atención Ambulatoria/normas , Glucemia/análisis , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/sangre , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangre , Monitoreo Ambulatorio/normas , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Atención Ambulatoria/métodos , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea/normas , Niño , Consenso , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Monitoreo Ambulatorio/métodosRESUMEN
ABBREVIATIONS: AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACE = American College of Endocrinology DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis EMA = European Medicines Agency FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration SGLT-2 = sodium glucosecotransporter 2 T1D = type 1 diabetes T2D = type 2 diabetes.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE/METHODS: Barriers to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use continue to hamper adoption of this valuable technology for the management of diabetes. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology convened a public consensus conference February 20, 2016, to review available CGM data and propose strategies for expanding CGM access. RESULTS: Conference participants agreed that evidence supports the benefits of CGM in type 1 diabetes and that these benefits are likely to apply whenever intensive insulin therapy is used, regardless of diabetes type. CGM is likely to reduce healthcare resource utilization for acute and chronic complications, although real-world analyses are needed to confirm potential cost savings and quality of life improvements. Ongoing technological advances have improved CGM accuracy and usability, but more innovations in human factors, data delivery, reporting, and interpretation are needed to foster expanded use. The development of a standardized data report using similar metrics across all devices would facilitate clinician and patient understanding and utilization of CGM. Expanded CGM coverage by government and private payers is an urgent need. CONCLUSION: CGM improves glycemic control, reduces hypoglycemia, and may reduce overall costs of diabetes management. Expanding CGM coverage and utilization is likely to improve the health outcomes of people with diabetes. ABBREVIATIONS: A1C = glycated hemoglobin AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACE = American College of Endocrinology ASPIRE = Automation to Simulate Pancreatic Insulin Response CGM = continuous glucose monitoring HRQOL = health-related quality of life ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio JDRF = Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation MARD = mean absolute relative difference MDI = multiple daily injections QALY = quality-adjusted life years RCT = randomized, controlled trial SAP = sensor-augmented pump SMBG = self-monitoring of blood glucose STAR = Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy for A1C Reduction T1D = type 1 diabetes T2D = type 2 diabetes.