A practical evidence-based approach to management of type 2 diabetes in children and young people (CYP): UK consensus.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes in young people is an aggressive disease with a greater risk of complications leading to increased morbidity and mortality during the most productive years of life. Prevalence in the UK and globally is rising yet experience in managing this condition is limited. There are no consensus guidelines in the UK for the assessment and management of paediatric type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Multidisciplinary professionals from The Association of Children's Diabetes Clinicians (ACDC) and the National Type 2 Diabetes Working Group reviewed the evidence base and made recommendations using the Grading Of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Young people with type 2 diabetes should be managed within a paediatric diabetes team with close working with adult diabetes specialists, primary care and other paediatric specialties. Diagnosis of diabetes type can be challenging with many overlapping features. Diabetes antibodies may be needed to aid diagnosis. Co-morbidities and complications are frequently present at diagnosis and should be managed holistically. Lifestyle change and metformin are the mainstay of early treatment, with some needing additional basal insulin. GLP1 agonists should be used as second-line agents once early ketosis and symptoms are controlled. Glycaemic control improves microvascular but not cardiovascular risk. Reduction in excess adiposity, smoking prevention, increased physical activity and reduction of hypertension and dyslipidaemia are essential to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: This evidence-based guideline aims to provide a practical approach in managing this condition in the UK.

The genetic architecture of type 2 diabetes pharmacotherapy: the emerging genomic evidence.

Response to anti-diabetic medications is not always predictable or favourable even in phenotypically similar type-2 diabetes (T2D) cases. This is not only due to patient's compliance and access to care but is also considered to be an effect of idiosyncratic differences among individuals, stemming from the combination of their unique genetic background and environmental exposures. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarise the available evidence on pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic studies of oral agents for T2D that are currently in the market and describe the agents studied, the targeted loci in regards to the efficacy and the toxicity profile of the agents included. We included 53 studies published between 2003-2012, which examined the following anti-diabetic classes: sulphonylureas, metformin, metiglinides and thiazolidenediones. There were no published studies on newer agents (e.g. incretin based treatments). Forty-nine studies (92.5%) examined the therapeutic response to oral antiglycaemic agents. Outcomes assessed included changes in metabolic markers (fasting or postprandial blood glucose, fasting or postprandial insulin, HbA1c), Homeostasis Assessment Model (HOMA)-Insulin Resistance (IR) or HOMA-B-cell function (HOMA-B), and time to monotherapy failure. Regarding side effects, hypoglycaemia and TZD-related oedema were the most commonly assessed. In the vast majority of the studies included (n=38, 71.7%), more than one outcomes (n=27, 50.9%) and/or more than one SNPs (n=21, 39.6%) were evaluated in the same publication, but most studies examined one drug (n=50, 94.3%). A considerable number of the proposed genes seem to be related to beta-cell development and function, but there are several genes whose underlying pathway linked to diabetes pharmacotherapy remains poorly understood. Pharmacogenomics are still not in pace with the wealth of information provided by GWAS in the genetics of T2D and related traits and the proposed associations need further validation in well-characterized large studies of varying ancestral origins.

Reducing co-administration of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Recent concerns about clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) co-administration in patients following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) led us to investigate our practice. Guidance recommends that omeprazole and esomeprazole should not be co-administered with clopidogrel as they can decrease its efficacy. Pantoprazole and lansoprazole are safer for use in these cases. METHODS: Patients discharged between August 2008 and July 2009 with a diagnosis of ACS, on both clopidogrel and any PPI, were identified using the pharmacy database. Their notes were retrospectively reviewed, the indication for a PPI was checked and whether an appropriate one had been prescribed was assessed. As a result of our findings a simple algorithm was introduced to set out guidance on appropriate use and junior doctors were informed of the new procedure. We then performed another audit of patients discharged between August 2009 and February 2010 to ensure that the guidelines were being followed. RESULTS: During the first phase of the audit 43 out of 91 patients (47.5%) received a PPI with clopidogrel. Following our intervention, re-auditing confirmed that clopidogrel and PPI co-administration had decreased significantly to 27 out of 101 patients (26.7%) (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Through a simple intervention with an algorithm and education of junior doctors we have shown that significant improvement and adherence to guidance can be achieved.