Resumen ejecutivo sobre el tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en personas de edad avanzada o frágiles. Actualización 2022 del documento de consenso 2018 "Tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en el paciente anciano" / Executive summary on the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly or frail individuals. 2022 update of the 2018 consensus document "Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly"

La heterogeneidad de la población de edad avanzada con DM tipo 2 (DM2) supone un reto importante para los profesionales de la salud. La elección del régimen terapéutico debe ser individualizada, considerando el estado funcional, la fragilidad y las comorbilidades, así como las preferencias del paciente y sus cuidadores. La nueva evidencia sobre la protección cardiovascular y renal de determinados grupos terapéuticos, así como la utilidad de nuevas tecnologías en el manejo de la DM2, entre otros aspectos, hace necesaria una actualización del documento de consenso sobre la DM2 en el paciente anciano que se publicó en 2018 (AU)

The population with type 2 DM (DM2) is highly heterogeneous, representing an important challenge for healthcare professionals. The therapeutic choice should be individualized, considering the functional status, frailty, the occurrence of comorbidities, and the preferences of patients and their caregivers. New evidence on the cardiovascular and renal protection of specific therapeutic groups and on the usefulness of new technologies for DM2 management, among other aspects, warrant an update of the consensus document on the DM2 in the elderly that was published in 2018 (AU)

Executive summary on the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly or frail individuals. 2022 update of the 2018 consensus document "Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly".

The population with type 2 DM (DM2) is highly heterogeneous, representing an important challenge for healthcare professionals. The therapeutic choice should be individualized, considering the functional status, frailty, the occurrence of comorbidities, and the preferences of patients and their caregivers. New evidence on the cardiovascular and renal protection of specific therapeutic groups and on the usefulness of new technologies for DM2 management, among other aspects, warrant an update of the consensus document on the DM2 in the elderly that was published in 2018.

Hacia un manejo integral del paciente con diabetes y obesidad. Posicionamiento de la SEMI, SED, redGDPS, SEC, SEEDO, SEEN, SEMERGEN y SEMFYC / Position statement of the SEMI, SED, redGDPS, SEC, SEEDO, SEEN, SEMERGEN y SEMFYC

La obesidad y el sobrepeso constituyen la principal causa modificable de diabetes tipo 2 (DM2). En el momento del diagnóstico de la diabetes tipo 2 se debe establecer el grado de obesidad según el índice de masa corporal y, en los pacientes con sobrepeso, determinar el perímetro de la cintura. El adecuado tratamiento de la DM2 requiere un abordaje simultáneo del sobrepeso/obesidad y el resto de factores de riesgo cardiovascular, como la hipertensión, la dislipemia o el tabaquismo. Las intervenciones no farmacológicas (dieta, ejercicio) con beneficio demostrado en la prevención y tratamiento del paciente con DM2 y sobrepeso/obesidad deben seguir un enfoque individualizado y multidisciplinario, con programas estructurados dotados de recursos específicos. La ganancia de peso asociada al tratamiento antidiabético puede dificultar el control glucémico, comprometer la adherencia al tratamiento, empeorar el perfil de riesgo vascular de los pacientes y limitar los beneficios cardiovasculares del tratamiento. Por ello, es importante evitarla; una medida que resulta coste-efectiva. Los fármacos antidiabéticos con beneficios sobre el peso corporal también han demostrado su beneficio en pacientes con un índice de masa corporal<30kg/m2. Globalmente, el tratamiento del paciente con DM2 y obesidad dependerá tanto del grado de obesidad como de la comorbilidad asociada. Los ensayos clínicos de intervención en DM2 deben contemplar objetivos combinados que incluyan no solo el control glucémico, sino otras variables como el riesgo de hipoglucemia y el efecto del tratamiento sobre el peso corporal (AU)

Obesity and excess weight are the main preventable causes of type 2 diabetes (DM2). When diagnosing type 2 diabetes, clinicians should establish the degree of obesity according to the body mass index (BMI) and, for patients with excess weight, measure the waist circumference. The proper treatment of DM2 requires a simultaneous approach to excess weight/obesity and the other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, dyslipidaemia and smoking. Nondrug interventions (e.g., diet and exercise) have proven benefits in preventing and treating patients with DM2 and excess weight/obesity and should follow an individual and multidisciplinary approach, with structured programs equipped with specific resources. Weight gain associated with antidiabetic treatment can hinder glycaemic control, compromise treatment adherence, worsen the vascular risk profile and limit the cardiovascular benefits of treatment. Therefore, it is significant to avoid weight gain, a measure that can be cost-effective. Antidiabetic drugs with benefits in body weight have also demonstrated their benefit in patients with BMIs <30. In general, the treatment of patients with DM2 and obesity will depend both on the degree of obesity and the associated comorbidity. Clinical trials on DM2 intervention should consider combined objectives that include not only glycaemic control but also other variables such as the risk of hypoglycaemia and the effect of treatment on body weight (AU)

Position statement of the SEMI, SED, redGDPS, SEC, SEEDO, SEEN, SEMERGEN y SEMFYC.

Obesity and excess weight are the main preventable causes of type 2 diabetes (DM2). When diagnosing type 2 diabetes, clinicians should establish the degree of obesity according to the body mass index (BMI) and, for patients with excess weight, measure the waist circumference. The proper treatment of DM2 requires a simultaneous approach to excess weight/obesity and the other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, dyslipidaemia and smoking. Nondrug interventions (e.g., diet and exercise) have proven benefits in preventing and treating patients with DM2 and excess weight/obesity and should follow an individual and multidisciplinary approach, with structured programs equipped with specific resources. Weight gain associated with antidiabetic treatment can hinder glycaemic control, compromise treatment adherence, worsen the vascular risk profile and limit the cardiovascular benefits of treatment. Therefore, it is significant to avoid weight gain, a measure that can be cost-effective. Antidiabetic drugs with benefits in body weight have also demonstrated their benefit in patients with BMIs <30. In general, the treatment of patients with DM2 and obesity will depend both on the degree of obesity and the associated comorbidity. Clinical trials on DM2 intervention should consider combined objectives that include not only glycaemic control but also other variables such as the risk of hypoglycaemia and the effect of treatment on body weight.

Quality of life and fear for hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. / Calidad de vida y grado de preocupación por las hipoglucemias en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2.

OBJECTIVES: Hypoglycaemia can negatively impact many aspects of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management. The aim was to determine the impact of hypoglycaemia and the fear for hypoglycemic episodes on HRQoL in T2DM patients in Spain, as well as healthcare professionals' attitudes and knowledge of these issues. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional study, with consecutive recruitment of T2DM patients in 661 healthcare centers, between September 2010 and May 2011. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were recorded. HRQoL (ADDQoL questionnaire) and fear for hypoglycaemia (HFS-II) were evaluated. Two groups were compared: with and without reported hypoglycaemia in the previous 6 months. Physicians responded 4 questions (visual analogue scales). RESULTS: 4.054 patients participated, of which 3,812 were selected [mean age (SD)=64 (11) years; male=54%; 10 (7) years for diagnostic of T2DM]. Patients with hypoglycaemia (45%) expressed higher fear for hypoglycemia [31.32 (15.71) vs. 18.85 (16.03); p<0.0001] and the overall impact of T2DM on their HRQoL was more negative [-2.48 (1.61) vs. -1.64 (1.36); p<0.001]. Respondent physicians occasionally used HRQoL questionnaires, knew about hypoglycaemia risk, explored fear for hypoglycaemia and modified treatments accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: T2DM patients with hypoglycaemia show an increase of fear for them, negatively affecting T2DM patients HRQoL. However physicians know the risk of hypoglycaemia, they explore the fear for hypoglycemic episodes occasionally.

Glycaemic control and implementation of the ADA/EASD-2006 consensus algorithm in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in primary care in Spain.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes established a consensus algorithm (ADA/EASD-2006) for the adjustment of drug therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). AIMS: To study glycaemic control in T2DM patients and the implementation of the ADA/EASD-2006 recommendations in primary care centres in Spain. METHODS: Prospective observational study in 1194 patients with T2DM conducted in 250 primary care centres in Spain. Patients were assessed at study inclusion (V0) and at 3 (V1) and 6 months (V2) post baseline. Information was collected at the level of DM control, HbA(1c) < 7% (HbC) and implementation of the ADA/EASD-2006 guidelines. RESULTS: Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients (53% women; mean age 64.9 years) had a mean (SD) HbA(1c) 7.8 (1.4)% and HbC 25.2% at baseline, 95% of them were receiving oral antihyperglycaemic agents (AAs) only. At V1, HbA(1c) was 7.3 (1.1)% and HbC was 38.1%; 65.0% of patients were receiving oral AAs, 5.6% insulin and 27.9% oral AAs plus insulin. At V2, HbA(1c) was 7.1 (0.9)% and HbC was 48.0%; 57.1% of patients were receiving oral AAs, 5.0% insulin and 36.9% oral AAs plus insulin. The ADA/EASD-2006 algorithm was adhered to in 33% patients up to study month 3, vs. 17.2% throughout the entire 6-month period. CONCLUSION: In patients with T2DM seen in primary care, the HbA1c target was met in 48.0% after adjusting their AAs. However, this is not reflected in greater implementation of the ADA/EASD-2006 guidelines, which are adhered to in only 17%.

Barriers associated with poor control in Spanish diabetic patients. A consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Delphi technique allows developing a multidisciplinary consensus to establish solutions. AIM: To identify barriers and solutions to improve control in patients with Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM2). METHODS: An observational study using the 2-round Delphi technique (June-August 2011). A panel of 108 experts in DM2 from medical and nursing fields (primary care providers and specialists) from different regions completed via email a questionnaire with 41 Likert statements and 9 scores for each one. Level of agreement was assessed using measures of central tendency and dispersion. We analysed commonalities/differences between the two groups (Kappa index and McNemar chi-square). RESULTS: Response rate: 65%. Degree of agreement: 63.4% (95% CI 48.7-78.1%) in medicine, and 78.1% (95% CI 65.4-90.8) in nursing (p > 0.05). Overall level of agreement: Kappa = 0.43, (χ(2) = 2.5 p > 0.05). Regarding non-compliance with therapy, it improves with: the information to the partner/family/caregiver, patient education degree in diabetes, patient motivation and ability to share and agree on decisions with the patient. Clinical inertia improves with: motivation degree of healthcare professionals and the calculation of cardiovascular risk; and gets worse with: the shortage of time in consultation, absence of data in medical record, border high limits measurements accepted as normal readings, lack of a treatment goals, lack of teamwork (Physician/Nurse), scarcity of resources and lack of alarm systems in the electronic medical record on goals to achieve. CONCLUSION: The participants achieved an agreement in interventions in non-therapeutic compliance and clinical inertia to improve DM2 control.

Trombosis de senos venosos cerebrales en una niña con leucemia linfoblástica, portadora de la variante de la protrombina G20210A / Cerebral sinovenous thrombosis in a girl with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia carrying the prothrombin G20210A variant

Aunque la trombosis de senos venosos cerebrales es rara, se asocia con mayor frecuencia en niños con leucemia linfoblástica aguda. Se aporta el caso de una niña de 7 años que desarrolla una trombosis masiva de senos venosos cerebrales en el día 22 del tratamiento de inducción de leucemia linfoblástica aguda de alto riesgo. Clínicamente se manifestaron de forma progresiva cefalea, disminución del nivel de conciencia y hemiplejía izquierda. El estudio de trombofilia posterior reveló heterocigosis para la variante de la protrombina G20210A en la niña y en la madre. Se analizan los factores protrombóticos encontrados en el caso antes y después de la trombosis. Se confirma la importancia de investigar precozmente tanto los factores de riesgo de trombosis adquiridos como los estados de trombofilia primaria en niños con leucemia linfoblástica. Esta estrategia podría ayudar a identificar a pacientes de especial riesgo e instaurar en ellos tromboprofilaxis(AU)

Although cerebral venous thrombosis is rare, it is more commonly associated with children suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. We report the case of a 7-year-old girl who developed massive cerebral sinovenous thrombosis on day 22 of induction therapy for high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Clinical symptoms were gradual onset of headache, decreasing consciousness, and ensuing left hemiplegia. A subsequent prothrombotic study revealed a heterozygous prothrombin G20210A variant in the child and mother. We analysed the prothrombotic factors found in the case before and after thrombosis. We confirm the importance of early exploration of patients for clinical predisposing risk factors of thrombosis and primary prothrombotic states in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. This might help identify patients at particular risk from thrombosis and so administer thromboprophylaxis(AU)

[Cerebral sinovenous thrombosis in a girl with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia carrying the prothrombin G20210A variant]. / Trombosis de senos venosos cerebrales en una niña con leucemia linfoblástica, portadora de la variante de la protrombina G20210A.

Although cerebral venous thrombosis is rare, it is more commonly associated with children suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. We report the case of a 7-year-old girl who developed massive cerebral sinovenous thrombosis on day 22 of induction therapy for high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Clinical symptoms were gradual onset of headache, decreasing consciousness, and ensuing left hemiplegia. A subsequent prothrombotic study revealed a heterozygous prothrombin G20210A variant in the child and mother. We analysed the prothrombotic factors found in the case before and after thrombosis. We confirm the importance of early exploration of patients for clinical predisposing risk factors of thrombosis and primary prothrombotic states in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. This might help identify patients at particular risk from thrombosis and so administer thromboprophylaxis.

Recomendaciones para el tratamiento farmacológico de la hiperglucemia en la diabetes tipo 2 / No disponible

No disponible

Recomendaciones para el tratamiento farmacológicode la hiperglucemia en la diabetes tipo 2. Documento de consenso / No disponible

No disponible

Análisis de costes del tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 con insulina glargina o detemir / Costs analysis of type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment with insulin glargine or detemir

Introducción: Diversos estudios publicados han revelado que algunos pacientesque inician el tratamiento con insulina detemir, cuya administraciónrecomendada es de una vez al día, requieren finalmente una administracióndos veces al día para optimizar el control de la glucosa sanguínea. Los resultadosclínicos se han evaluado en esta población seleccionada mediante unensayo clínico aleatorizado. Objetivo: Comparar los costes de dos tratamientoscon insulina (glargina y detemir) en la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en pacientesno controlados con antidiabéticos orales. Métodos: Análisis de compensaciónde costes sanitarios, modelizado desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional deSalud español (considerando únicamente los costes directos sanitarios). Sesimuló la utilización de los recursos asociados al tratamiento de la diabetestipo 2 con glargina y detemir, respecto a las dosis de insulina administradas, lautilización de tiras reactivas para el autoanálisis de la glucemia y el consumode agujas desechables. Las dosis de glargina y detemir se obtuvieron de unensayo clínico que comparó ambas insulinas durante 24 semanas. La utilizaciónde tiras reactivas y de agujas desechables se estimó de acuerdo con lapráctica clínica en España. Los costes unitarios se tomaron de fuentes y basesde datos españolas. Resultados: En los pacientes tratados con glargina seadministró una menor dosis diaria de insulina que con detemir y, por tanto, seprodujo un menor coste diario del tratamiento insulínico, así como un menorconsumo de tiras reactivas y agujas. En consecuencia, la utilización de glarginaen lugar de detemir se asociaría a un ahorro anual de 765,03 € por pacientecon diabetes tipo 2, lo que supone un ahorro de un 43,3% con glarginafrente a detemir. En el análisis de sensibilidad, el ahorro anual por pacientetratado con glargina osciló entre 646,05 y 810,55 €(AU)

Conclusiones: Deacuerdo con el presente modelo, en la población estudiada la insulina glarginaes un tratamiento de la diabetes tipo 2 más coste-efectiva que la insulina detemiry se asocia a unos menores costes anuales de tratamiento(AU)

Introduction: Large published data suggested that some patients initiatingwith the recommended once daily insulin detemir administration require twicedaily dosing to optimise blood glucose control. Therefore the clinical outcomein this selected population was tested in a randomized controlled trial. Objective:To compare the costs of two treatments of type 2 diabetes mellitus, insulinglargine and insulin detemir, in patients with type 2 diabetes not controlledwith oral antidiabetic agents. Methods: Costs-offset analysis was modelledfrom the Spanish National Health System perspective, taking into account thehealth direct costs. A simulation of resources use related with glargine and detemirin type 2 diabetes treatment was performed, taking into account insulinadministered doses, utilization of test strips for glycemia control and disposableneedles used. The glargine and detemir doses were obtained from one clinicaltrial comparing both insulins for 24 weeks. The test strips and disposableneed les use were estimated from the Spanish clinical practice. Unit costs weretaken from Spanish sources and databases. Results: Lower daily doses were administeredwith glargine than with detemir. Therefore, the use of glargine insteaddetemir would result in a lower daily cost of insulin treatment, and alower use of test strips and disposable needles. As a consequence, the glargineuse would result in an annual saving of 765.03 € for a patient with type 2diabetes, 43.3% savings with glargine versus detemir. According to the sensitivityanalysis, the annual saving for a patient treated with glargine was between646.05 and 810.55 €. Conclusions: According to this model, in the abovementioned population, glargine insulin is a more cost-effective treatment thandetemir insulin, with lower annual treatment costs(AU)

Implementación de la estrategia basal plus en la práctica clínica / Basal plus strategy implementation in clinical practice

El tratamiento con insulina puede ser necesario en la diabetes tipo 2, dado que muchos pacientes, con el tiempo, no consiguen alcanzar o mantener los objetivos glucémicos para prevenir las complicaciones crónicas asociadas a la hiperglucemia sostenida. Inicialmente, la adición de insulina basal al tratamiento previo con agentes orales suele ser la pauta más habitual. Esta estrategia se basa en el control óptimo de la glucemia en ayunas. Sin embargo, un porcentaje significativo de pacientes no consiguen alcanzar o mantener el objetivo de HbA1c <=7%, debido a que presentan elevaciones excesivas de la glucemia posprandial. En consecuencia, el paso siguiente en la intensificación deltratamiento podría ser la adición de una dosis única de insulina prandial antes de la comida que provoca la mayor excursión posprandial (estrategia basal plus), manteniendo el tratamiento previo con insulina basal y agentes orales. Este régimen ha demostrado ser sencillo, eficaz y adecuado para un gran número de pacientes. Además, en caso necesario, facilita la introducción progresiva de inyecciones adicionales de insulina prandial hasta una estrategia bolo basal. En este artículo se resumen las recomendaciones de un grupo de trabajo multidisciplinar para una adecuada implementación de la estrategia basal plus en la práctica clínica habitual (AU)

Insulin treatment may be necessary in type 2 diabetes, because many patients are not able overthe time to achieve or maintain glycemic targets to prevent chronic complications associated to sustained hyperglycemia. Initially, addition of basal insulin to previous treatment with oral agentsis the most commonly used regimen. This strategy is based on optimal control of fasting plasma glucose. However, a significant proportion of patients does not achieve or maintain HbA1c target <=7%, because they show excessive postprandial glucose values. Therefore, the next step for intensification of treatment might be the addition of a single dose of prandial insulin before the main meal, which is associated with the greatest postprandial glucose excursion (basal plus strategy), maintaining previous treatment with basal insulin and oral agents. This regimen has demonstrated to be easy to use, effective and appropriate for many patients. Furthermore, if necessary, it makes easier progressive introduction of additional injections of prandial insulin until the basal bolus strategy. In this manuscript, recommendations from a multidisciplinary working group are summarized for an adequate implementation of the basal plus strategy in the routine clinical practice (AU)

Adding questions about cardiovascular risk factors improve the ability of the ADA questionnaire to identify unknown diabetic patients in Spain

Introduction: Currently, there are not specific questionnaires for Spanish population to identify people at risk of undiagnosed diabetes. When American Diabetes Association (ADA) test is validated in the Spanish population, the sensitivity and specificity values obtained are lower than those found in the USA. Objectives: To develop a screening tool based on the ADA questionnaire, to prospectively identify undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in Spanish ambulatory patients. Methods: Epidemiological, transversal, multicentre study, including 2,662 ambulatory patients of Primary Care centres, mean age (SD) 61.7 (10.2) years (53% women), needing a blood test and attending follow-up protocols for chronic pathologies or periodic screening programs. Classification tree construction was achieved through classical and Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods. The sensitivity, specificity, and the positive and negative predictive values were described and compared with the ADA questionnaire. Results: The final selected classification tree included the following variables: previous impaired fasting glucose or glucose intolerance; recent weight gain; parents, siblings or children with diabetes; smoking habit and pharmacologic treatment for lipid disorders (sensitivity: 80.7%; specificity: 70.9%; positive predictive value: 45.3%; negative predictive value: 92.5%). This tree showed a better Receiver Operating Characteristic curve than that of the ADA test (sensitivity: 84.3%; specificity: 20.9%). Conclusions: The inclusion of questions regarding lipid disorders, smoking habit and weight gain increase the specificity of the ADA test to identify undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in Spanish patients older than 45 years (AU)