RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is the most common liver disease affecting 30% of the world's population and is often associated with metabolic disorders such as metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and cardiovascular disease. This review is an update of the Brazilian Diabetes Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes [SBD]) evidence-based guideline for the management of MASLD in clinical practice. METHODS: The methodology was published previously and was defined by the internal institutional steering committee. The SBD Metabolic Syndrome and Prediabetes Department drafted the manuscript, selecting key clinical questions for a narrative review using MEDLINE via PubMed with the MeSH terms [diabetes] and [fatty liver]. The best available evidence was reviewed, including randomized clinical trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and high-quality observational studies related to MASLD. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The SBD Metabolic Syndrome and Prediabetes Department formulated 9 recommendations for the management of MASLD in people with prediabetes or T2D. Screening for the risk of advanced fibrosis associated with MASLD is recommended in all adults with prediabetes or T2D. Lifestyle modification (LSM) focusing on a reduction in body weight of at least 5% is recommended as the first choice for these patients. In situations where LSMs are insufficient to achieve weight loss, the use of anti-obesity medications is recommended for those with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m2. Pioglitazone and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) monotherapy are the first-line pharmacological treatments for steatohepatitis in people with T2D, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors may be considered in this context. The combination of these agents may be considered in the treatment of steatohepatitis and/or fibrosis, and bariatric surgery should be considered in patients with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2, in which the combination of LSM and pharmacotherapy has not been shown to be effective in improving MASLD.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The management of antidiabetic therapy in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) has evolved beyond glycemic control. In this context, Brazil and Portugal defined a joint panel of four leading diabetes societies to update the guideline published in 2020. METHODS: The panelists searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) for the best evidence from clinical studies on treating T2D and its cardiorenal complications. The panel searched for evidence on antidiabetic therapy in people with T2D without cardiorenal disease and in patients with T2D and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), or diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: All people with T2D need to have their cardiovascular (CV) risk status stratified and HbA1c, BMI, and eGFR assessed before defining therapy. An HbA1c target of less than 7% is adequate for most adults, and a more flexible target (up to 8%) should be considered in frail older people. Non-pharmacological approaches are recommended during all phases of treatment. In treatment naïve T2D individuals without cardiorenal complications, metformin is the agent of choice when HbA1c is 7.5% or below. When HbA1c is above 7.5% to 9%, starting with dual therapy is recommended, and triple therapy may be considered. When HbA1c is above 9%, starting with dual therapyt is recommended, and triple therapy should be considered. Antidiabetic drugs with proven CV benefit (AD1) are recommended to reduce CV events if the patient is at high or very high CV risk, and antidiabetic agents with proven efficacy in weight reduction should be considered when obesity is present. If HbA1c remains above target, intensification is recommended with triple, quadruple therapy, or even insulin-based therapy. In people with T2D and established ASCVD, AD1 agents (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 RA with proven CV benefit) are initially recommended to reduce CV outcomes, and metformin or a second AD1 may be necessary to improve glycemic control if HbA1c is above the target. In T2D with HF, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce HF hospitalizations and mortality and to improve HbA1c. In patients with DKD, SGLT2 inhibitors in combination with metformin are recommended when eGFR is above 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. SGLT2 inhibitors can be continued until end-stage kidney disease.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: For individuals diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, the practice of properly oriented physical exercises brings significant benefits to the individual's health and is considered an indispensable tool for metabolic management. The individualization of exercise routines is an essential aspect for therapeutic success, despite the need to consider some general recommendations. This review is an authorized literal translation of the Brazilian Society of Diabetes (SBD) Guidelines 2021-2022, which is based on scientific evidence and provides guidance on physical activities and exercises aimed at individuals with type 1 and 2 diabetes. METHODS: SBD designated 9 specialists from its "Department of Diabetes, Exercise & Sports" to author chapters on physical activities and exercises directed to individuals with type 1 and 2 diabetes. The aim of these chapters was to highlight recommendations in accordance with Evidence Levels, based on what is described in the literature. These chapters were analyzed by the SBD Central Committee, which is also responsible for the SBD 2021-2022 guidelines. Main clinical inquiries were selected to perform a narrated review by using MEDLINE via PubMed. Top available evidence, such as high-quality clinical trials, large observational studies and meta-analyses related to physical activity and exercise advisory, were analyzed. The adopted MeSh terms were [diabetes], [type 1 diabetes], [type 2 diabetes], [physical activity] [physical exercise]. RESULTS: 17 recommendations were defined by the members. For this review, it was considered different Evidence Levels, as well as different Classes of Recommendations. As to Evidence Levels, the following levels were contemplated: Level A) More than one randomized clinical trial or a randomized clinical trial meta-analysis with low heterogeneity. Level B) Meta analysis with observational studies, one randomized clinical trial, sizeable observational studies and sub-groups analysis. Level C) Small non-randomized studies, cross-sectional studies, case control studies, guidelines or experts' opinions. In respect to Recommendation Classes, the following criteria were adopted: I. "Recommended": Meaning there was a consent of more than 90% of the panel; IIa. "Must be considered": meaning there is a general preference of the panel which 70-90% agrees; IIb. "Can be considered". 50-70% agrees; III Not recommended: There is a consensus that the intervention should not be performed. CONCLUSION: Physical exercise aids on the glycemic control of type 2 diabetes individuals while also decreasing cardiovascular risk in individuals with type 1 and 2 diabetes. Individuals diagnosed with diabetes should perform combined aerobic and resistance exercises in order to manage the disease. In addition, exercises focusing on flexibility and balance should be specially addressed on elderly individuals. Diabetes individuals using insulin as therapeutic treatment should properly monitor glycemia levels before, during and after exercise sessions to minimize health incidents, such as hypoglycemia.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Insulin therapy regimens for people with type 1 diabetes (PWT1D) should mimic the physiological insulin secretion that occurs in individuals without diabetes. Intensive insulin therapy, whether by multiple daily injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), constitutes the fundamental therapy from the initial stages of type 1 diabetes (T1D), at all ages. This review is an authorized literal translation of part of the Brazilian Diabetes Society (SBD) Guidelines 2021-2022. This evidence-based guideline supplies guidance on insulin therapy in T1D. METHODS: The methods were published elsewhere in earlier SBD guidelines and was approved by the Internal Institutional Steering Committee for publication. Briefly, the Brazilian Diabetes Society indicated fourteen experts to constitute the Central Committee, designed to regulate the method review of the manuscripts, and judge the degrees of recommendations and levels of evidence. SBD Type 1 Diabetes Department drafted the manuscript selecting key clinical questions to do a narrative review using MEDLINE via PubMed, with the best evidence available, including high-quality clinical trials, metanalysis, and large observational studies related to insulin therapy in T1D, by using the Mesh terms [type 1 diabetes] and [insulin]. RESULTS: Based on extensive literature review the Central Committee defined ten recommendations. Three levels of evidence were considered: A. Data from more than one randomised clinical trial (RCT) or one metanalysis of RCTs with low heterogeneity (I2 < 40%). B. Data from metanalysis, including large observational studies, a single RCT, or a pre-specified subgroup analysis. C: Data from small or non-randomised studies, exploratory analysis, or consensus of expert opinion. The degree of recommendation was obtained based on a poll sent to the panellists, using the following criteria: Grade I: when more than 90% of agreement; Grade IIa if 75-89% of agreement; IIb if 50-74% of agreement, and III, when most of the panellist recommends against a defined treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In PWT1D, it is recommended to start insulin treatment immediately after clinical diagnosis, to prevent metabolic decompensation and diabetic ketoacidosis. Insulin therapy regimens should mimic insulin secretion with the aim to achieve glycemic control goals established for the age group. Intensive treatment with basal-bolus insulin therapy through MDI or CSII is recommended, and insulin analogues offers some advantages in PWT1D, when compared to human insulin. Periodic reassessment of insulin doses should be performed to avoid clinical inertia in treatment.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has been increasing rapidly. It is nowadays recognized as the most frequent liver disease, affecting a quarter of global population and regularly coexisting with metabolic disorders such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. In a more simplistic view, NAFLD could be defined as an increase in liver fat content, in the absence of secondary cause of steatosis. In fact, the clinical onset of the disease is a much more complex process, closely related to insulin resistance, limited expandability and dysfunctionality of adipose tissue. A fatty liver is a main driver for a new recognized liver-pancreatic α-cell axis and increased glucagon, contributing to diabetes pathophysiology. MAIN TEXT: This review will focus on the clinical and pathophysiological connections between NAFLD, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. We reviewed non-invasive methods and several scoring systems for estimative of steatosis and fibrosis, proposing a multistep process for NAFLD evaluation. We will also discuss treatment options with a more comprehensive view, focusing on the current available therapies for obesity and/or type 2 diabetes that impact each stage of NAFLD. CONCLUSION: The proper understanding of NAFLD spectrum-as a continuum from obesity to metabolic syndrome and diabetes-may contribute to the early identification and for establishment of targeted treatment.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) has been recently recognized as an adipo-myokine. However, studies that associate its constitutive activity with body composition, anthropometry, and insulin resistance (IR) are very scarce and included only healthy people. METHODS: First, we investigated the relationships of constitutive DPP4 activity, body composition (assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis), and measures of adiposity and IR in fifty-two subjects of both sexes, 18-50 years, and BMI ≥25.0 kg/m2 who comprised three groups according to glucose tolerance. Additionally, we evaluated associations among DPP4 activity and adipokines, gut peptides, and biochemical variables at fasting and 30 and 60 min after a standardized meal intake. RESULTS: DPP4 activity was no different among the three groups. At fasting, pooled analysis showed it was positively correlated with measures of central adiposity, such as WC (P = 0.011) and WHR (P = 0.009), and with all measures of IR, but inversely related to indexes of general adiposity, such as fat mass percentage (P = 0.014) and BAI (P = 0.0003). DPP4 activity was also associated with lean mass (r = 0.57, P < 0.0001). After meal intake, DPP4 activity remained significantly associated with insulin, leptin, and resistin. In multiple regression analysis, BAI, WHR, percent lean mass, HOMA-IR, and leptin influenced DPP4 activity and explained approximately 26% of the variance on it. CONCLUSIONS: Constitutive DPP4 activity is positively associated with lean mass, central adiposity, and IR and negatively to general adiposity. Furthermore, it seems to be influenced by body composition and IR and could also be viewed as an adipo-myokine in subjects with excessive adiposity and different stages of glucose tolerance.
