Manejo de perfiles de pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo2 en la práctica clínica de la atención primaria en España: Programa CONTROVERTI2 / Management of patient profiles with type2 diabetes mellitus in Primary Care in Spain: CONTROVERTI2 Program

Objetivo: Identificar controversias existentes en el manejo habitual de los pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo2 (DM2) y contrastarlas con la última evidencia científica y guías clínicas, con el fin de optimizar y homogeneizar el tratamiento de los pacientes con DM2 en la atención primaria (AP) en España. Material y métodos: 240 médicos de familia respondieron a un cuestionario online sobre el manejo de 6 perfiles de pacientes con DM2 de complejidad creciente. Resultados: Los factores clínicos más influyentes en la elección del tratamiento antihiperglucémico son una HbA1c >10% y la presencia de enfermedad cardiovascular (ECV), aunque en el paciente evolucionado cobran más relevancia la tasa de filtrado glomerular estimada y el riesgo de hipoglucemia. En el paciente recién diagnosticado con HbA1c>9% se sigue iniciando el tratamiento con monoterapia (24%). En el paciente no controlado con metformina suelen añadirse inhibidores de la dipeptidil peptidasa4 (iDPP4, 54%) seguido de inhibidores del cotransportador sodio-glucosa tipo2 (iSGLT2, 39%). Los agonistas del receptor del péptido similar al glucagón tipo1 (arGLP1) se asocian principalmente al paciente con DM2 obeso. En el paciente no controlado con metformina+sulfonilurea (SU) se prefiere sustituir la SU a añadir un tercer agente antihiperglucémico al tratamiento (77% vs. 23%). Conclusiones: Todavía persiste en AP un enfoque del tratamiento de la DM2 centrado en la reducción de la HbA1c y en la seguridad de los tratamientos. Por ello, los iDPP4 son fármacos ampliamente utilizados. Los iSGLT2 se reservan habitualmente para pacientes con DM2 y ECV y los arGLP1 para pacientes con DM2 obesos, siendo su uso muy limitado (AU)

Aim: To identify existing controversies in the routine management of patients with T2D and to contrast them with the latest scientific evidence and clinical guidelines, in order to help optimize and homogenize the treatment of patients with T2D in Primary Care (PC) in Spain. Material and methods: 240 family doctors responded to an online questionnaire about the management of 6 patient profiles with T2D of increasing complexity. Results: The main drivers for the antihyperglycemic treatment choice are an HbA1c>10% and the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), although in evolved patients, the estimated glomerular filtration rate and the risk of hypoglycemia become more relevant. In newly diagnosed patients with an HbA1c>9%, treatment is still initiated with monotherapy (24%). In patients not controlled with metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4-I, 54%) or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I, 39%) are usually added. On the other hand, type1 glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) are mainly associated with obese patients with T2D. In patients not controlled with metformin+sulfonylurea (SU), SU replacement is preferred to adding a third antihyperglycemic agent to background therapy (77% vs. 23%). Conclusions: T2D treatment in PC is still focused on HbA1c reduction and treatment safety. Thus, DPP4-I are widely used. SGLT2-I are usually preferred for patients with T2D and CVD and GLP1-RA for patients with T2D and obesity, although their use in PC is low (AU)

[Management of patient profiles with type2 diabetes mellitus in Primary Care in Spain: CONTROVERTI2 Program]. / Manejo de perfiles de pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo2 en la práctica clínica de la atención primaria en España: Programa CONTROVERTI2.

AIM: To identify existing controversies in the routine management of patients with T2D and to contrast them with the latest scientific evidence and clinical guidelines, in order to help optimize and homogenize the treatment of patients with T2D in Primary Care (PC) in Spain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 240 family doctors responded to an online questionnaire about the management of 6 patient profiles with T2D of increasing complexity. RESULTS: The main drivers for the antihyperglycemic treatment choice are an HbA1c>10% and the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), although in evolved patients, the estimated glomerular filtration rate and the risk of hypoglycemia become more relevant. In newly diagnosed patients with an HbA1c>9%, treatment is still initiated with monotherapy (24%). In patients not controlled with metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4-I, 54%) or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I, 39%) are usually added. On the other hand, type1 glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) are mainly associated with obese patients with T2D. In patients not controlled with metformin+sulfonylurea (SU), SU replacement is preferred to adding a third antihyperglycemic agent to background therapy (77% vs. 23%). CONCLUSIONS: T2D treatment in PC is still focused on HbA1c reduction and treatment safety. Thus, DPP4-I are widely used. SGLT2-I are usually preferred for patients with T2D and CVD and GLP1-RA for patients with T2D and obesity, although their use in PC is low.

Satisfacción de las personas con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 tras iniciar tratamiento con insulina / Satisfaction of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus after starting treatment with insulin

Objetivos. El 'miedo al pinchazo' de muchos pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 (DM2) puede retrasar el inicio del tratamiento con insulina. Nuestro objetivo es valorar si superar dicha barrera e iniciar el tratamiento con insulina mejora el control clínico y produce mayor satisfacción del paciente con su tratamiento. Material y métodos. Estudio observacional, multicéntrico, de pacientes con DM2 —realizado en atención primaria— con un mal control glucémico (A1c≥8%), en tratamiento con antidiabéticos orales y a los que se aplicó una intervención motivacional para vencer el miedo al pinchazo y se inició el tratamiento con insulina. Se valoró el grado de satisfacción con el tratamiento mediante el Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Resultados. Quinientos setenta y tres pacientes, 64±10 años. Puntuación global media del cuestionario DTSQs de 18,3±6,3. El cambio de tratamiento produjo una mejoría de la satisfacción del paciente con respecto al tratamiento anterior (puntuación media DTSQc 8,8±5,9). La A1c descendió desde 8,7% (desviación típica 0,8) hasta 7,5% (desviación típica 0,7) (p<0,001). La frecuencia de hiperglucemia percibida fue significativamente menor después de superar el miedo al pinchazo (35,6% frente a 11,5%; p<0,001), sin encontrar diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la frecuencia de hipoglucemias (32% frente a 35%; p=0,059). Conclusión. En pacientes con DM2 mal controlados con antidiabéticos orales, vencer el miedo al pinchazo e iniciar el tratamiento con insulina se asoció a una mejoría global de la satisfacción con el tratamiento, y disminuyó la percepción de episodios de hiperglucemia. El control glucémico y el perfil metabólico de los pacientes también mejoraron de forma estadísticamente significativa (AU)

Objectives. The objective of this study is to evaluate if overcoming the barrier of starting treatment with insulin can lead to better clinical control and a higher level of patient satisfaction with their treatment. Material and methods. This is an observational, multicentre study of patients diagnosed with DM2 who attended primary care centres with poor glycaemic control (A1c≥8%) under treatment with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), and who were given motivational treatment to overcome their fear of injections, and started treatment with insulin. The level of satisfaction with the treatment was evaluated using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). The questionnaire was used before initiating the treatment with insulin and in the follow-up visit (3-4 months from the beginning of treatment with basal insulin). Results. A total of 573 patients with a mean age of 64±10 years were recruited. The overall mean score from the DTSQs satisfaction questionnaire was 18.3±6.3, and the change of treatment led to an improvement in patient satisfaction compared to the previous treatment (DTSQc mean score 8.8±5.9). A1c dropped from an initial value of 8.7% (SD 0.8) to 7.5% (SD 0.7) (P<.001). The frequency of hyperglycaemic episodes perceived by the patients was significantly lower after they overcame their fear of injections (35.6% compared to 11.5%; P<.001), but no statistically significant differences were found in the frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes (32% compared to 35%; P=.059). Conclusion. In patients with DM2 poorly controlled with OADs, overcoming a fear of injections and starting treatment with insulin was associated with an overall improvement in satisfaction with the new treatment, and decreased the perception of hyperglycaemic episodes. Glycaemic control and the metabolic profile of the patients also improved to a statistically significant degree with the change of treatment (AU)

[Satisfaction of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus after starting treatment with insulin]. / Satisfacción de las personas con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 tras iniciar tratamiento con insulina.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate if overcoming the barrier of starting treatment with insulin can lead to better clinical control and a higher level of patient satisfaction with their treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is an observational, multicentre study of patients diagnosed with DM2 who attended primary care centres with poor glycaemic control (A1c≥8%) under treatment with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), and who were given motivational treatment to overcome their fear of injections, and started treatment with insulin. The level of satisfaction with the treatment was evaluated using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). The questionnaire was used before initiating the treatment with insulin and in the follow-up visit (3-4 months from the beginning of treatment with basal insulin). RESULTS: A total of 573 patients with a mean age of 64±10 years were recruited. The overall mean score from the DTSQs satisfaction questionnaire was 18.3±6.3, and the change of treatment led to an improvement in patient satisfaction compared to the previous treatment (DTSQc mean score 8.8±5.9). A1c dropped from an initial value of 8.7% (SD 0.8) to 7.5% (SD 0.7) (P<.001). The frequency of hyperglycaemic episodes perceived by the patients was significantly lower after they overcame their fear of injections (35.6% compared to 11.5%; P<.001), but no statistically significant differences were found in the frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes (32% compared to 35%; P=.059). CONCLUSION: In patients with DM2 poorly controlled with OADs, overcoming a fear of injections and starting treatment with insulin was associated with an overall improvement in satisfaction with the new treatment, and decreased the perception of hyperglycaemic episodes. Glycaemic control and the metabolic profile of the patients also improved to a statistically significant degree with the change of treatment.

[Role of classical oral glucose-lowering medications in current treatment]. / Papel de los hipoglucemiantes orales clásicos en el tratamiento actual.

Classical oral glucose were discovered in the mid twentieth century. Despite the time elapsed since then and the lack of large studies to support the use of some of these drugs, they continue to be employed, are indicated in all clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents and, overall, remain among the most widely prescribed drugs in the national health system. The main arguments for their continued use are their widespread and prolonged prescription, their effectiveness, and cost. Their main disadvantages have always been and continue to be their adverse gastrointestinal effects, weight gain, the risk of hypoglycemia and other adverse effects, which have encouraged the development of new glucose-lowering drugs with an improved pharmacological profile that would cover the various mechanisms of hyperglycemia. Currently, deep knowledge of glucose-lowering drugs is required in the patient-centered management of diabetes. Furthermore, this knowledge should be adapted to each individual patient to acquire the experience necessary to achieve effective metabolic control, delay the development of chronic complications, and improve the quality of life and life expectancy of patients with diabetes.

Papel de los hipoglucemiantes orales clásicos en el tratamiento actual / Role of classical oral glucose-lowering medications in current treatment

A pesar del tiempo trascurrido desde su descubrimiento, a mediados del siglo pasado, de estar inmersos de pleno en la segunda década del siglo XXI, de que algunos no tengan grandes estudios propios que avalen suficientemente su evidencia, los hipoglucemiantes orales clásicos siguen manteniendo su vigencia, aparecen indicados en todas las guías y consensos y, globalmente, continúan en los primeros puestos de prescripción en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Los principales argumentos para mantener el uso actual son el amplio y prolongado uso, la eficacia y el coste, mientras que sus principales inconvenientes siempre han sido y son los efectos gastrointestinales, la ganancia ponderal, el riesgo de hipoglucemia u otros efectos secundarios, motivos que han promovido el desarrollo de nuevos hipoglucemiantes que mejorasen el perfil farmacológico y cubriesen los diferentes mecanismos de la hiperglucemia. Actualmente, en el manejo centrado del paciente con diabetes resulta necesario tener un conocimiento profundo de los hipoglucemiantes y aplicarlo a las peculiaridades de cada individuo para adquirir la experiencia necesaria que logre un control metabólico efectivo, retrasar las complicaciones crónicas y el objetivo final de mejora en la calidad y expectativa de vida del paciente con diabetes (AU)

Classical oral glucose were discovered in the mid twentieth century. Despite the time elapsed since then and the lack of large studies to support the use of some of these drugs, they continue to be employed, are indicated in all clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents and, overall, remain among the most widely prescribed drugs in the national health system. The main arguments for their continued use are their widespread and prolonged prescription, their effectiveness, and cost. Their main disadvantages have always beenand continue to betheir adverse gastrointestinal effects, weight gain, the risk of hypoglycemia and other adverse effects, which have encouraged the development of new glucose-lowering drugs with an improved pharmacological profile that would cover the various mechanisms of hyperglycemia. Currently, deep knowledge of glucose-lowering drugs is required in the patient-centered management of diabetes. Furthermore, this knowledge should be adapted to each individual patient to acquire the experience necessary to achieve effective metabolic control, delay the development of chronic complications, and improve the quality of life and life expectancy of patients with diabetes (AU)

Glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes switching from premixed insulin to long-acting basal insulin analogue plus oral antidiabetic drugs: an observational study.

AIM: To evaluate whether administration of long-acting basal insulin analogue plus oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) improves glycaemic control in type 2 diabetic patients with glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) > 7% (53 mmol/mol) under premixed insulin therapy. METHODS: This is a multicentre, observational, retrospective study performed in type 2 diabetic patients switching from premixed insulin to long-acting basal insulin analogue plus OADs. Data on patients' medical history and assessments were retrieved from patients' medical charts prior to switching the treatment and 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: A total of 131 evaluable patients were enrolled (mean age, 68.2 ± 9.4 years; female, 65.6%; mean diabetes duration, 12.7 ± 6.9 years; mean time on insulin therapy, 53.2 ± 41.9 months). Patients were receiving premixed insulin (once-daily, 4.7%; twice-daily, 85.0%; thrice-daily, 10.2%), 82.4% of whom in combination with OADs (metformin, 79.4%). After the treatment was switched, only 14.5% required intensification of treatment with additional preprandial insulin. HbA1c decreased -1.4% [mean ± SD, 8.4 ± 1.0% (68.7 ± 11.4 mmol/mol) vs. 7.0 ± 1.0% (53.6 ± 10.9 mmol/mol), p < 0.001] and the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7% (53 mmol/mol) increased to 52.7% (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with hypoglycaemia decreased (19.2% vs. 10.8%, p < 0.05; symptomatic, 17.6% vs. 4.6%, p < 0.01) and body weight diminished by -1.9 kg (mean ± SD, 78.5 ± 14.7 kg vs. 76.6 ± 13.9 kg, p < 0.05). Basal insulin plus OADs was considered more convenient and flexibly adapted to patients' life in 98.4% and 99.2% of patients, respectively. Additionally, 96.9% of patients reported being more satisfied and 96.9% would recommend it. CONCLUSIONS: Switching the treatment from premixed insulin to long-acting basal insulin analogue plus OADs is a feasible and convenient approach to improve glycaemic control of type 2 diabetic patients poorly controlled with premixed insulin under routine clinical practice conditions.

Prevención de la diabetes mellitus 2 / Prevention of diabetes mellitus 2

La diabetes mellitus tipo 2 –DM2- es una enfermedad metabólica caracterizada por hiperglucemia. Este defecto es capaz de producir alteraciones vasculares y nerviosas que son el sustrato de sus complicaciones. La DM2 por su doble componente etiológico y su amplio período preclínico permite establecer estrategias que prevengan o demoren su aparición (prevención primaria), o que permitan su detección precoz (prevención secundaria), o que una vez diagnosticada, retrasen o eviten la aparición de las complicaciones (prevención terciaria). Del mismo modo que la aplicación o no de pruebas de cribado de la enfermedad es aún hoy un asunto controvertido, la utilización de tratamientos higiénico dietéticos o farmacológicos en prediabéticos podría recomendarse en algunas situaciones para disminuir la incidencia de esta enfermedad (AU)

Diabetes mellitus type 2, DM2-is a metabolic disorder characterized by hyperglycaemia. This feature causes vascular and nerve disorders that are the basis of long-term complications. The twin-DM2 due to both its aetiology and its broad preclinical period allows strategies to be made that prevent or delay its onset (primary prevention) or to allow early detection (secondary prevention), or once diagnosed, delay or prevent the onset of complications (tertiary prevention). The application or screening tests for the disease is still a controversial issue and hygienic use of dietary or pharmacological treatments in pre-diabetics is recommended to decrease the incidence of this disease (AU)

Elección del agente oral más apropiado, en monoterapia o en combinación, en el paciente anciano con diabetes / Selection of the most appropiate oral agent in monotherapy or in combination in the elderly patient with diabetes

El paciente anciano con diabetes presenta una serie de características que deberemos tener en cuenta al plantear el tratamiento farmacológico, como son la calidad de vida, la presencia de complicaciones crónicas, los grandes síndromes geriátricos y las preferencias del paciente. La escasa evidencia disponible, debida a los pocos estudios realizados en ancianos, explica las limitadas recomendaciones existentes en la mayoría de las guías de práctica clínica actuales. Metformina es el fármaco de elección en monoterapia y su posología debe adaptarse al grado de insufi ciencia renal, situación muy frecuente en los ancianos. Otros grupos farmacológicos también pueden utilizarse teniendo en cuenta sus limitaciones y contraindicaciones. No existe consenso sobre cuál es el tratamiento combinado más indicado en los ancianos cuando fracasa la monoterapia. Cualquier combinación puede utilizarse siempre que se respeten las indicaciones y las contraindicaciones. Ante la necesidad de insulinización se deben valorar los benefi cios y riesgos del uso de insulina, utilizando la pauta más simple y adaptada a las características del anciano y su entorno (AU)

The elderly patient with diabetes presents a series of features that we need to have in mind when considering drug therapy, such as quality of life, presence of chronic complications, major geriatric syndromes, and patient preferences. The limited evidence available due to the few studies performed in the elderly explains the limited existing recommendations in the most current clinical practice guidelines. Metformin is the drug of choice as monotherapy and its dosage should be adjusted to the degree of renal failure, a situation very common in the elderly. Other pharmacologic groups can also be used taking into account their limitations and contraindications. There is no consensus on what is the most appropriate combination therapy in the elderly when monotherapy fails. Any combination can be used provided that the indications and contraindications are considered. When insulin is necessary, benefits and risks of using insulin should be evaluated, using the simplest regimen adapted to the characteristics of the elderly and its environment (AU)

Recomendaciones de la Sociedad Americana de Diabetes para el manejo de la diabetes mellitus / Recommendations of the American Diabetes Association for the management of diabetes mellitus

El manejo de la diabetes evoluciona con rapidez en los últimos años, ya sea por la incorporación de nuevas propuestas para realizar el diagnóstico, por la modificación de los objetivos intermedios que debemos buscar para reducir el riesgo vascular o por los medios recomendados para alcanzar estos objetivos. Para orientarnos en este terreno movedizo se publican con periodicidad variable varias guías, entre las que destaca por su puntualidad, difusión y predicamento la de la Sociedad Americana de Diabetes. En este artículo resumimos las modificaciones más importantes que se han producido en las recomendaciones este año y recordamos los aspectos más destacables que se mantienen igual que en las versiones previas (AU)

The management of diabetes is rapidly evolving in the last years either by incorporation of new proposals to make the diagnosis, or for modified intermediate objectives that we should seek to reduce vascular risk, or the recommended means to achieve these objetives. For guide us in this area moving at varying intervals published several guides among which stands out for its diffusion and predicament of the American Society of Diabetes. In this article we summarise the most important changes made in the recommendations this year and we remind you of the most significant aspects that remain the same as in previous versions (AU)