Results from a cross-specialty consensus on optimal management of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD): from screening to complications.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects around 10% of the global population and has been estimated to affect around 50% of individuals with type 2 diabetes and 50% of those with heart failure. The guideline-recommended approach is to manage with disease-modifying therapies, but real-world data suggest that prescribing rates do not reflect this in practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop a cross-specialty consensus on optimal management of the patient with CKD using a modified Delphi method. DESIGN: An international steering group of experts specialising in internal medicine, endocrinology/diabetology, nephrology and primary care medicine developed 42 statements on aspects of CKD management including identification and screening, risk factors, holistic management, guidelines, cross-specialty alignment and education. Consensus was determined by agreement using an online survey. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was distributed to cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists and primary care physicians across 11 countries. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The threshold for consensus agreement was established a priori by the steering group at 75%. Stopping criteria were defined as a target of 25 responses from each country (N=275), and a 4-week survey period. RESULTS: 274 responses were received in December 2022, 25 responses from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and 24 responses from Egypt. 53 responses were received from cardiologists, 52 from nephrologists, 55 from endocrinologists and 114 from primary care physicians. 37 statements attained very high agreement (≥90%) and 5 attained high agreement (≥75% and <90%). Strong alignment between roles was seen across the statements, and different levels of experience (2-5 years or 5+ years), some variation was observed between countries. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high degree of consensus regarding aspects of CKD management among healthcare professionals from 11 countries. Based on these strong levels of agreement, the steering group derived 12 key recommendations focused on diagnosis and management of CKD.

2024 UPDATE: the Brazilian Diabetes Society position on the management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) in people with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes.

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.

2023 UPDATE: Luso-Brazilian evidence-based guideline for the management of antidiabetic therapy in type 2 diabetes.

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.

Coconut oil: an overview of cardiometabolic effects and the public health burden of misinformation.

Recent data from meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggest that dietary intake of coconut oil, rich in saturated fatty acids, does not result in cardiometabolic benefits, nor in improvements in anthropometric, lipid, glycemic, and subclinical inflammation parameters. Nevertheless, its consumption has surged in recent years all over the world, a phenomenon which can possibly be explained by an increasing belief among health professionals that this oil is as healthy as, or perhaps even healthier than, other oils, in addition to social network misinformation spread. The objective of this review is to present nutritional and epidemiological aspects related to coconut oil, its relationship with metabolic and cardiovascular health, as well as possible hypotheses to explain its high rate of consumption, in spite of the most recent data regarding its actual effects.

2022: Position of Brazilian Diabetes Society on exercise recommendations for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

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.

Coconut oil: an overview of cardiometabolic effects and the public health burden of misinformation

ABSTRACT Recent data from meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggest that dietary intake of coconut oil, rich in saturated fatty acids, does not result in cardiometabolic benefits, nor in improvements in anthropometric, lipid, glycemic, and subclinical inflammation parameters. Nevertheless, its consumption has surged in recent years all over the world, a phenomenon which can possibly be explained by an increasing belief among health professionals that this oil is as healthy as, or perhaps even healthier than, other oils, in addition to social network misinformation spread. The objective of this review is to present nutritional and epidemiological aspects related to coconut oil, its relationship with metabolic and cardiovascular health, as well as possible hypotheses to explain its high rate of consumption, in spite of the most recent data regarding its actual effects.

The 2021-2022 position of Brazilian Diabetes Society on insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes: an evidence-based guideline to clinical practice.

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.

Increased serum IL-6 is predictive of long-term cardiovascular events in high-risk patients submitted to coronary angiography: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is an inflammation-related cytokine associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular events. In a previous study, we demonstrated that increased IL-6 was predictive of sub-clinical atherosclerotic coronary disease in intermediate-risk patients undergoing coronary angiography. In the present study, we investigated whether increased serum IL-6 is predictive of cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. METHODS: In this observational study, consecutive patients referred for elective coronary angiography due to stable chest pain/myocardial ischemia had IL-6 measured immediately before the procedure. Long-term follow-up was performed by phone call or e-mail, and their clinical registries were revised. The primary outcome was a composite of new myocardial infarction, new ischemic stroke, hospitalization due to heart failure, new coronary revascularization, cardiovascular death, and death due to all causes. RESULTS: From 141 patients submitted to coronary angiography and IL-6 analysis, 100 had complete follow-up data for a mean of 5.7 years. The median age was 61.1 years, 44% were men, and 61% had type-2 diabetes. The median overall time-to-event for the primary outcome was 297 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI] 266.95-327.16). A receiver operator characteristic curve defined the best cut-off value of baseline serum IL-6 (0.44 pg/mL) with sensitivity (84.37%) and specificity (38.24%) to define two groups. High (> 0.44 pg/mL) IL-6 levels were predictive of cardiovascular events. (p for interaction = 0.015) (hazard ratio = 2.81; 95% CI 1.38-5.72, p = 0.01). Subgroup analysis did not find interactions between patients with or without diabetes, obesity, or hypertension. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, an interleukin-6 level higher than 0.44 pg/mL, obtained just before elective coronary angiography, was associated with a poorer prognosis after a mean of 5,7-year. A pre-procedure IL-6 below 0.44 pg/mL, on the other hand, has a very good negative predictive value, suggesting a good prognosis, and may be useful to better indicate coronary angiography in high-risk patients. .

The 2021-2022 position of Brazilian Diabetes Society on diabetic kidney disease (DKD) management: an evidence-based guideline to clinical practice. Screening and treatment of hyperglycemia, arterial hypertension, and dyslipidemia in the patient with DKD.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic kidney disease is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This review is an authorized literal translation of part of the Brazilian Diabetes Society (SBD) Guidelines 2021-2022. This evidence-based guideline provides guidance on the correct management of Diabetic Kidney Disease (DKD) in clinical practice. METHODS: The methodology was published elsewhere in previous SBD guidelines and was approved by the internal institutional Steering Committee for publication. Briefly, the Brazilian Diabetes Society indicated 14 experts to constitute the Central Committee, designed to regulate methodology, review the manuscripts, and make judgments on degrees of recommendations and levels of evidence. SBD Renal Disease Department drafted the manuscript selecting key clinical questions to make a narrative review using MEDLINE via PubMed, with the best evidence available including high-quality clinical trials, metanalysis, and large observational studies related to DKD diagnosis and treatment, by using the MeSH terms [diabetes], [type 2 diabetes], [type 1 diabetes] and [chronic kidney disease]. RESULTS: The extensive review of the literature made by the 14 members of the Central Committee defined 24 recommendations. Three levels of evidence were considered: A. Data from more than 1 randomized clinical trial or 1 metanalysis of randomized clinical trials with low heterogeneity (I2 < 40%). B. Data from metanalysis, including large observational studies, a single randomized clinical trial, or a pre-specified subgroup analysis. C: Data from small or non-randomized studies, exploratory analyses, or consensus of expert opinion. The degree of recommendation was obtained based on a poll sent to the panelists, using the following criteria: Grade I: when more than 90% of agreement; Grade IIa 75-89% of agreement; IIb 50-74% of agreement, and III, when most of the panelist recommends against a defined treatment. CONCLUSIONS: To prevent or at least postpone the advanced stages of DKD with the associated cardiovascular complications, intensive glycemic and blood pressure control are required, as well as the use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blocker agents such as ARB, ACEI, and MRA. Recently, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists have been added to the therapeutic arsenal, with well-proven benefits regarding kidney protection and patients' survival.

NT-proBNP as a predictor of death and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Existing risk prediction scores based on clinical and laboratory variables have been considered inaccurate in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Circulating concentrations of natriuretic peptides have been used to aid in the diagnosis and to predict outcomes in heart failure. However, there is a growing body of evidence for the use of natriuretic peptides measurements, mainly N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), as a tool in risk stratification for individuals with T2DM. Studies have demonstrated the ability of NT-proBNP to improve outcomes prediction when incorporated into multivariate models. More recently, evidence has emerged of the discriminatory power of NT-proBNP, demonstrating, as a single variable, a similar and even superior ability to multivariate risk models for the prediction of death and cardiovascular events in individuals with T2DM. Natriuretic peptides are synthesized and released from the myocardium as a counter-regulatory response to increased cardiac wall stress, sympathetic tone, and vasoconstriction, acting on various systems and affecting different biological processes. In this article, we present a review of the accumulated knowledge about these biomarkers, underscoring the strength of the evidence of their predictive ability for fatal and non-fatal outcomes. It is likely that, by influencing the functioning of many organs, these biomarkers integrate information from different systems. Although not yet recommended by guidelines, measurement of natriuretic peptides, and particularly NT-proBNP, should be strongly considered in the risk stratification of individuals with T2DM.

Choosing statins: a review to guide clinical practice.

Statins are among the most widely prescribed medicines in the world and have proved their value in reducing cardiovascular events and mortality. Many patients report adverse effects that lead to interruption of treatment. This review aims to individualize statin treatment, considering efficacy for reducing cardiovascular risk and safety, in the setting of specific diseases, to minimize the side effects and improve compliance. We gathered evidence that may help clinicians to choose specific statins in different clinical situations, such as the risk of new diabetes, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, human immunodeficiency virus infection, organ transplant, heart failure and elderly people. Efficacy of statins is well established in a large number of clinical conditions. Therefore, main objective is to revise statin in specific clinical settings, based on pharmacokinetics, safety, drug metabolism and interactions to provide the best choice in different clinical scenarios.

Choosing statins: a review to guide clinical practice

ABSTRACT Statins are among the most widely prescribed medicines in the world and have proved their value in reducing cardiovascular events and mortality. Many patients report adverse effects that lead to interruption of treatment. This review aims to individualize statin treatment, considering efficacy for reducing cardiovascular risk and safety, in the setting of specific diseases, to minimize the side effects and improve compliance. We gathered evidence that may help clinicians to choose specific statins in different clinical situations, such as the risk of new diabetes, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, human immunodeficiency virus infection, organ transplant, heart failure and elderly people. Efficacy of statins is well established in a large number of clinical conditions. Therefore, main objective is to revise statin in specific clinical settings, based on pharmacokinetics, safety, drug metabolism and interactions to provide the best choice in different clinical scenarios.

Severity and mortality of COVID 19 in patients with diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) with severity (invasive mechanical ventilation or intensive care unit admission or O2 saturation < 90%) and mortality of COVID-19 cases. METHODS: Systematic review of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and SciELO databases was performed to identify relevant articles published from December 2019 to 6th May 2020. Forty articles were included involving 18.012 COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: The random-effect meta-analysis showed that diabetes mellitus and hypertension were moderately associated respectively with severity and mortality for COVID-19: Diabetes [OR 2.35 95% CI 1.80-3.06 and OR 2.50 95% CI 1.74-3.59] Hypertension: [OR 2.98 95% CI 2.37-3.75 and OR 2.88 (2.22-3.74)]. Cardiovascular disease was strongly associated with both severity and mortality, respectively [OR 4.02 (2.76-5.86) and OR 6.34 (3.71-10.84)]. On the contrary, the use of ACEI/ARB, was not associate with severity of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, diabetes, hypertension and especially cardiovascular disease, are important risk factors for severity and mortality in COVID-19 infected people and are targets that must be intensively addressed in the management of this infection.

Portuguese-Brazilian evidence-based guideline on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: In current management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), cardiovascular and renal prevention have become important targets to be achieved. In this context, a joint panel of four endocrinology societies from Brazil and Portugal was established to develop an evidence-based guideline for treatment of hyperglycemia in T2DM. METHODS: MEDLINE (via PubMed) was searched for randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies related to diabetes treatment. When there was insufficient high-quality evidence, expert opinion was sought. Updated positions on treatment of T2DM patients with heart failure (HF), atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and patients with no vascular complications were developed. The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In non-pregnant adults, the recommended HbA1c target is below 7%. Higher levels are recommended in frail older adults and patients at higher risk of hypoglycemia. Lifestyle modification is recommended at all phases of treatment. Metformin is the first choice when HbA1c is 6.5-7.5%. When HbA1c is 7.5-9.0%, dual therapy with metformin plus an SGLT2i and/or GLP-1RA (first-line antidiabetic agents, AD1) is recommended due to cardiovascular and renal benefits. If an AD1 is unaffordable, other antidiabetic drugs (AD) may be used. Triple or quadruple therapy should be considered when HbA1c remains above target. In patients with clinical or subclinical atherosclerosis, the combination of one AD1 plus metformin is the recommended first-line therapy to reduce cardiovascular events and improve blood glucose control. In stable heart failure with low ejection fraction (< 40%) and glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, metformin plus an SGLT-2i is recommended to reduce cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalizations and improve blood glucose control. In patients with diabetes-associated chronic kidney disease (CKD) (eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or eGFR 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m2 with albuminuria > 30 mg/g), the combination of metformin and an SGLT2i is recommended to attenuate loss of renal function, reduce albuminuria and improve blood glucose control. In patients with severe renal failure, insulin-based therapy is recommended to improve blood glucose control. Alternatively, GLP-1RA, DPP4i, gliclazide MR and pioglitazone may be considered to reduce albuminuria. In conclusion, the current evidence supports individualizing anti-hyperglycemic treatment for T2DM.

Metabarcoding reveals that a non-nutritive sweetener and sucrose yield similar gut microbiota patterns in Wistar rats.

The effects of non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) on the gut microbiota are an area of increasing research interest due to their potential influence on weight gain, insulin resistance, and inflammation. Studies have shown that mice and rats fed saccharin develop weight gain and metabolic alterations, possibly related to changes in gut microbiota. Here, we hypothesized that chronic exposure to a commercial NNS would change the gut microbiota composition in Wistar rats when compared to sucrose exposure. To test this hypothesis, Wistar rats were fed either NNS- or sucrose-supplemented yogurt for 17 weeks alongside standard chow (ad libitum). The gut microbiome was assessed by 16S rDNA deep sequencing. Assembly and quantification were conducted using the Brazilian Microbiome Project pipeline for Ion Torrent data with modifications. Statistical analyses were performed in the R software environment. We found that chronic feeding of a commercial NNS-sweetened yogurt to Wistar rats, within the recommended dose range, did not significantly modify gut microbiota composition in comparison to sucrose-sweetened yogurt. Our findings do not support the hypothesis that moderate exposure to NNS is associated with changes in gut microbiota pattern compared to sucrose, at least in this experimental model.

Diretriz brasileira baseada em evidências sobre prevenção de doenças cardiovasculares em pacientes com diabetes: posicionamento da Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes (SBD), da Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia (SBC) e da Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabologia (SBEM) / Brazilian evidence-based guideline on cardiovascular disease prevention in patients with diabetes: positioning of the Brazilian Society of Diabetes (SBD), the Brazilian Society of Cardiology (SBC) and the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabology (SBEM)

Resumo Fundamentação: desde o primeiro posicionamento da Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes (SBD) sobre diabetes e prevenção cardiovascular, em 2014,1 importantes estudos têm sido publicados na área de prevenção cardiovascular e tratamento do diabetes,2 os quais contribuíram para a evolução na prevenção primária e secundária nos pacientes com diabetes. Ferramentas de estratificação de risco mais precisas, novos fármacos hipolipemiantes e novos antidiabéticos com efeitos cardiovasculares e redução da mortalidade, são parte desta nova abordagem para os pacientes com diabetes. O reconhecimento de que o diabetes é uma doença heterogênea foi fundamental, sendo claramente demonstrado que nem todos os pacientes diabéticos pertencem a categorias de risco alto ou muito alto. Um porcentual elevado é composto por pacientes jovens, sem os fatores de risco clássicos, os quais podem ser classificados adequadamente em categorias de risco intermediário ou mesmo em baixo risco cardiovascular. O presente posicionamento revisa as melhores evidências atualmente disponíveis e propõe uma abordagem prática, baseada em risco, para o tratamento de pacientes com diabetes. Estruturação: perante este desafio e reconhecendo a natureza multifacetada da doença, a SBD uniu-se à Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia (SBC) e à Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabolismo (SBEM), e formou um painel de especialistas, constituído por 28 cardiologistas e endocrinologistas, para revisar as melhores evidências disponíveis e elaborar uma diretriz contendo recomendações práticas para a estratificação de risco e prevenção da Doença Cardiovascular (DVC) no Diabetes Melito (DM). As principais inovações incluem: (1) considerações do impacto de novos hipolipemiantes e das novas medicações antidiabéticas no risco cardiovascular; (2) uma abordagem prática, baseada em fator de risco, para orientar o uso das estatinas, incluindo novas definições das metas da Lipoproteína de Baixa Densidade-colesterol (LDL-colesterol) e colesterol não Lipoproteína de Alta Densidade HDL; (3) uma abordagem baseada em evidências, para avaliar a isquemia miocárdica silenciosa (IMS) e a aterosclerose subclínica em pacientes com diabetes; (4) as abordagens mais atuais para o tratamento da hipertensão; e (5) recomendação de atualizações para o uso de terapia antiplaquetária. Esperamos que esta diretriz auxilie os médicos no cuidado dedicado aos pacientes com diabetes. Métodos: inicialmente, os membros do painel foram divididos em sete subcomitês para definirem os tópicos principais que necessitavam de uma posição atualizada das sociedades. Os membros do painel pesquisaram e buscaram no PubMed estudos clínicos randomizados e metanálises de estudos clínicos e estudos observacionais de boa qualidade, publicados entre 1997 e 2017, usando termos MeSH: [diabetes], [diabetes tipo 2], [doença cardiovascular], [estratificação de risco cardiovascular] [doença arterial coronária], [rastreamento], [isquemia silenciosa], [estatinas], [hipertensão], [ácido acetilsalicílico]. Estudos observacionais de baixa qualidade, metanálises com alta heterogeneidade e estudos transversais não foram incluídos, embora talvez tenham impactado no Nível de Evidência indicado. A opinião de especialistas foi usada quando os resultados das buscas não eram satisfatórios para um item específico. É importante salientar que este posicionamento não teve a intenção de incluir uma revisão sistemática rigorosa. Um manuscrito preliminar, destacando recomendações de graus e níveis de evidência (Quadro 1), foi esboçado. Este passo levou a várias discussões entre os membros dos subcomitês, que revisaram os achados e fizeram novas sugestões. O manuscrito foi, então, revisto pelo autor líder, encarregado da padronização do texto e da inclusão de pequenas alterações, sendo submetido à apreciação mais detalhada pelos membros dos comitês, buscando uma posição de consenso. Depois desta fase, o manuscrito foi enviado para a banca editorial e edição final, sendo encaminhado para publicação. Quadro 1 Graus de recomendações e níveis de evidências adotados nesta revisão Grau de recomendação Classe I A evidência é conclusiva ou, se não, existe consenso de que o procedimento ou tratamento é seguro e eficaz Classe II Há evidências contraditórias ou opiniões divergentes sobre segurança, eficácia, ou utilidade do tratamento ou procedimento Classe IIa As opiniões são favoráveis ao tratamento ou procedimento. A maioria dos especialistas aprova Classe IIb A eficácia é bem menos estabelecida, e as opiniões são divergentes Classe III Há evidências ou consenso de que o tratamento ou procedimento não é útil, eficaz, ou pode ser prejudicial Níveis de Evidência A Múltiplos estudos clínicos randomizados concordantes e bem elaborados ou metanálises robustas de estudos clínicos randomizados B Dados de metanálises menos robustas, um único estudo clínico randomizado ou estudos observacionais C Opinião dos especialistas

Erratum to: Cardiovascular risk assessment in patients with diabetes.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13098-017-0225-1.].

Brazilian guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes: a position statement from the Brazilian Diabetes Society (SBD), the Brazilian Cardiology Society (SBC) and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society (SBEM).

BACKGROUND: Since the first position statement on diabetes and cardiovascular prevention published in 2014 by the Brazilian Diabetes Society, the current view on primary and secondary prevention in diabetes has evolved as a result of new approaches on cardiovascular risk stratification, new cholesterol lowering drugs, and new anti-hyperglycemic drugs. Importantly, a pattern of risk heterogeneity has emerged, showing that not all diabetic patients are at high or very high risk. In fact, most younger patients who have no overt cardiovascular risk factors may be more adequately classified as being at intermediate or even low cardiovascular risk. Thus, there is a need for cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with diabetes. The present panel reviews the best current evidence and proposes a practical risk-based approach on treatment for patients with diabetes. MAIN BODY: The Brazilian Diabetes Society, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology, and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society gathered to form an expert panel including 28 cardiologists and endocrinologists to review the best available evidence and to draft up-to-date an evidence-based guideline with practical recommendations for risk stratification and prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. The guideline includes 59 recommendations covering: (1) the impact of new anti-hyperglycemic drugs and new lipid lowering drugs on cardiovascular risk; (2) a guide to statin use, including new definitions of LDL-cholesterol and in non-HDL-cholesterol targets; (3) evaluation of silent myocardial ischemia and subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes; (4) hypertension treatment; and (5) the use of antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes is a heterogeneous disease. Although cardiovascular risk is increased in most patients, those without risk factors or evidence of sub-clinical atherosclerosis are at a lower risk. Optimal management must rely on an approach that will cover both cardiovascular disease prevention in individuals in the highest risk as well as protection from overtreatment in those at lower risk. Thus, cardiovascular prevention strategies should be individualized according to cardiovascular risk while intensification of treatment should focus on those at higher risk.

Cardiovascular risk assessment in patients with diabetes.

Although patients with diabetes have 2 to 4 times increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than individuals without diabetes, recent studies indicate that a significant part of patients are in a lower cardiovascular risk category. Men younger than 35 years, women younger than 45 years, patients with diabetes duration of less than 10 years without other risk factors have a much lower risk than patients who have traditional cardiovascular risk factors, and subclinical or established coronary artery disease (CAD). These patients are not risk equivalent as stated in previous studies. On the contrary, when in the presence of traditional risk factors or evidence of subclinical coronary disease (e.g. high coronary calcium score), the coronary risk is much increased and patients may be classified at a higher-risk category. Recent guidelines do not anymore consider diabetes as a CAD risk equivalent and recommend cardiovascular risk stratification for primary prevention. Stratification of diabetic patients improves accuracy in prediction of subclinical CAD, silent ischemia and future cardiovascular events. Stratification also discriminates higher from lower risk patients who may need intensive statin or aspirin prevention, while avoiding overtreatment in lower risk cases. It may also allow the clinician to decide whether to intensify risk reduction actions through specific newer drugs for glucose control such as SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists, which recently have shown additional cardiovascular protector effect. This review addresses the assessment of cardiovascular disease risk using traditional and non-traditional cardiovascular risk factors. It also reviews the use of risk calculators and new reclassification tools, focusing on the detection of subclinical atherosclerosis as well as silent ischemia in the asymptomatic patients with diabetes.