American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers. METHODS: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development. RESULTS: This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

DCRM Multispecialty Practice Recommendations for the management of diabetes, cardiorenal, and metabolic diseases.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D), chronic kidney disease (CKD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and heart failure (HF)-along with their associated risk factors-have overlapping etiologies, and two or more of these conditions frequently occur in the same patient. Many recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have demonstrated the benefits of agents originally developed to control T2D, ASCVD, or CKD risk factors, and these agents have transcended their primary indications to confer benefits across a range of conditions. This evolution in CVOT evidence calls for practice recommendations that are not constrained by a single discipline to help clinicians manage patients with complex conditions involving diabetes, cardiorenal, and/or metabolic (DCRM) diseases. The ultimate goal for these recommendations is to be comprehensive yet succinct and easy to follow by the nonexpert-whether a specialist or a primary care clinician. To meet this need, we formed a volunteer task force comprising leading cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians to develop the DCRM Practice Recommendations, a multispecialty consensus on the comprehensive management of the patient with complicated metabolic disease. The task force recommendations are based on strong evidence and incorporate practical guidance that is clinically relevant and simple to implement, with the aim of improving outcomes in patients with DCRM. The recommendations are presented as 18 separate graphics covering lifestyle therapy, patient self-management education, technology for DCRM management, prediabetes, cognitive dysfunction, vaccinations, clinical tests, lipids, hypertension, anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, antihyperglycemic therapy, hypoglycemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), ASCVD, HF, CKD, and comorbid HF and CKD, as well as a graphical summary of medications used for DCRM.

CONCENTRATED INSULINS: CLINICAL UPDATE OF THERAPEUTIC OPTIONS.

Improved glycemic control is associated with a reduced risk of diabetic complications. Optimal management of patients with type 2 diabetes includes nutritional therapy, physical activity, and pharmacotherapy for glycemic control. Most patients with type 2 diabetes are initially managed with oral antidiabetic agents, but as ß-cell function declines and the disease progresses, insulin therapy is frequently needed to maintain glycemic control. Insulin therapy given with multidose insulin injection regimen or by continuous insulin infusion is needed for patients with type 1 diabetes to achieve control. Obesity and its associated insulin resistance contribute to greater insulin requirements in patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes to achieve glycemic control, creating a need for concentrated insulin. Concentrated insulin formulations can be prescribed as an alternative to 100 unit/mL insulin and provide the advantage of low injection volume, leading to less pain and possibly fewer insulin injections. This review includes a stepwise analysis of all currently available concentrated insulin products, analyzes the most up-to-date evidence, and presents this in combination with expert guidance and commentary in an effort to provide clinicians with a thorough overview of the characteristics and benefits of concentrated insulins in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes-instilling confidence when recommending, prescribing, and adjusting these medications. Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin; ß-cell = pancreatic betacell; BG = blood glucose; CI = confidence interval; CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; MDI = multiple daily injections; NHANES = National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; PD = pharmacodynamic; PK = pharmacokinetic; TDD = total daily dose; U100 = 100 units/mL; U200 = 200 units/mL; U300 = 300 units/mL; U500 = 500 units/mL; USD = United States dollars.

Consensus Statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology on the Management of Dyslipidemia and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Algorithm - 2020 Executive Summary.

The treatment of lipid disorders begins with lifestyle therapy to improve nutrition, physical activity, weight, and other factors that affect lipids. Secondary causes of lipid disorders should be addressed, and pharmacologic therapy initiated based on a patient's risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Patients at extreme ASCVD risk should be treated with high-intensity statin therapy to achieve a goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of <55 mg/dL, and those at very high ASCVD risk should be treated to achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL. Treatment for moderate and high ASCVD risk patients may begin with a moderate-intensity statin to achieve an LDL-C <100 mg/dL, while the LDL-C goal is <130 mg/dL for those at low risk. In all cases, treatment should be intensified, including the addition of other LDL-C-lowering agents (i.e., proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, colesevelam, or bempedoic acid) as needed to achieve treatment goals. When targeting triglyceride levels, the desirable goal is <150 mg/dL. Statin therapy should be combined with a fibrate, prescription-grade omega-3 fatty acid, and/or niacin to reduce triglycerides in all patients with triglycerides ≥500 mg/dL, and icosapent ethyl should be added to a statin in any patient with established ASCVD or diabetes with ≥2 ASCVD risk factors and triglycerides between 135 and 499 mg/dL to prevent ASCVD events. Management of additional risk factors such as elevated lipoprotein(a) and statin intolerance is also described.

FATTY KIDNEY DISEASE: A NEW RENAL AND ENDOCRINE CLINICAL ENTITY? DESCRIBING THE ROLE OF THE KIDNEY IN OBESITY, METABOLIC SYNDROME, AND TYPE 2 DIABETES.

Objective: To determine whether fatty kidney disease deserves be designated as a distinct clinical entity similar to fatty liver disease. Methods: Analysis and interpretation of the literature in a novel conceptual framework. Results: The kidney contributes to hyperglycemia, hypertension, inflammatory cytokines, and thus to diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Fat accumulation in and around the kidney drives this process and contributes to progression of chronic kidney disease itself. Weight loss improves these complications of fatty kidney. Diagnosis currently must be inferred from comorbidities but ultimately should be made by imaging once the importance of fatty kidney disease is established, much like fatty liver disease. Conclusion: Fatty kidney disease merits designation as a specific clinical entity similar to fatty liver disease. Greater attention to this may help encourage research into ameliorating the negative consequences of fatty kidney disease and developing new therapies. Abbreviations: BP = blood pressure; CKD = chronic kidney disease; CT = computed tomography; ESRD = end-stage renal disease; FFA = free fatty acid; FKD = fatty kidney disease; GFR = glomerular filtration rate; MetS = metabolic syndrome; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; NAFLD = nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; RAAS = renin-angiotensin system; SGLT2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter 2; SNS = sympathetic nervous system; T2D = type 2 diabetes; TG = triglyceride.

AACE/ACE POSITION STATEMENT ON THE USE OF FOLLOW-ON BIOLOGICS AND BIOSIMILARS FOR ENDOCRINE DISEASES.

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Where there were no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position and consensus statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician. ABBREVIATIONS: BPCIA = Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; FFDC = Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act; PHS = Public Health Services Act; TE = therapeutic equivalence.

Real-world use and modeled impact of glucose-lowering therapies evaluated in recent cardiovascular outcomes trials: An NCDR® Research to Practice project.

Aims Recent trials (EMPA-REG OUTCOME and Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results [LEADER]) have shown improved cardiovascular (CV) mortality with specific currently available glucose-lowering medications (empagliflozin and liraglutide, respectively), but were limited to selected patient populations. We sought to evaluate the current use and potential real-world impact of empagliflozin (and other sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors [SGLT2is]) and liraglutide (and other glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist [GLP-1 RAs]) among patients in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry (DCR). Methods and results We evaluated 182,525 patients from the DCR - a large, US-based outpatient registry of individuals with type 2 diabetes from 313 sites that included cardiology, endocrinology and primary care practices. Among these patients, 26.2% met major eligibility criteria for EMPA-REG OUTCOME and 48.0% met major eligibility criteria for LEADER. Of these potentially eligible patients, only a small minority were actually prescribed these agents: 5.2% on an SGLT2i and 6.0% on a GLP-1 RA, respectively. Patients receiving these studied medications or medication classes, in general, had lower CV disease burden compared with those not on these agents. Assuming similar risk reductions as in the clinical trials, if all potentially trial-eligible patients in the DCR were treated for 1 year with empagliflozin (or other SGLT2is, assuming a class effect) or liraglutide (or other GLP-1 RAs, assuming a class effect), this may have prevented 354 CV deaths, 231 heart failure hospitalizations, 329 CV deaths and 247 myocardial infarctions, respectively. Conclusion In a large, US-based outpatient registry, we found a significant number of patients would have been potentially eligible for glucose-lowering agents that demonstrated CV benefit in recent clinical trials. In view of these findings, a broader and better-targeted use of these medications in evidence-based patient populations should be considered.

Quality of Care of the Initial Patient Cohort of the Diabetes Collaborative Registry®.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines and performance measures exist for patients with diabetes mellitus, achievement of these metrics is not well known. The Diabetes Collaborative Registry® (DCR) was formed to understand the quality of diabetes mellitus care across the primary and specialty care continuum in the United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the frequency of achievement of 7 diabetes mellitus-related quality metrics and variability across the Diabetes Collaborative Registry® sites. Among 574 972 patients with diabetes mellitus from 259 US practices, median (interquartile range) achievement of the quality metrics across the practices was the following: (1) glycemic control: 19% (5-47); (2) blood pressure control: 80% (67-88); (3) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with coronary artery disease: 62% (51-69); (4) nephropathy screening: 62% (53-71); (5) eye examination: 0.7% (0.0-79); (6) foot examination: 0.0% (0.0-2.3); and (7) tobacco screening/cessation counseling: 86% (80-94). In hierarchical, modified Poisson regression models, there was substantial variability in meeting these metrics across sites, particularly with documentation of glycemic control and eye and foot examinations. There was also notable variation across specialties, with endocrinology practices performing better on glycemic control and diabetes mellitus foot examinations and cardiology practices succeeding more in blood pressure control and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers. CONCLUSIONS: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry® was established to document and improve the quality of outpatient diabetes mellitus care. While target achievement of some metrics of cardiovascular risk modification was high, achievement of others was suboptimal and highly variable. This may be attributable to fragmentation of care, lack of ownership among various specialists concerning certain domains of care, incomplete documentation, true gaps in care, or a combination of these factors.