2022 update to the position statement by Primary Care Diabetes Europe: a disease state approach to the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes in primary care.

Type 2 diabetes and its associated comorbidities are growing more prevalent, and the complexity of optimising glycaemic control is increasing, especially on the frontlines of patient care. In many countries, most patients with type 2 diabetes are managed in a primary care setting. However, primary healthcare professionals face the challenge of the growing plethora of available treatment options for managing hyperglycaemia, leading to difficultly in making treatment decisions and contributing to treatment and therapeutic inertia. This position statement offers a simple and patient-centred clinical decision-making model with practical treatment recommendations that can be widely implemented by primary care clinicians worldwide through shared-decision conversations with their patients. It highlights the importance of managing cardiovascular disease and elevated cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes and aims to provide innovative risk stratification and treatment strategies that connect patients with the most effective care.

Digital intervention increases influenza vaccination rates for people with diabetes in a decentralized randomized trial.

People with diabetes (PWD) have an increased risk of developing influenza-related complications, including pneumonia, abnormal glycemic events, and hospitalization. Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for PWD, but vaccination rates are suboptimal. The study aimed to increase influenza vaccination rate in people with self-reported diabetes. This study was a prospective, 1:1 randomized controlled trial of a 6-month Digital Diabetes Intervention in U.S. adults with diabetes. The intervention group received monthly messages through an online health platform. The control group received no intervention. Difference in self-reported vaccination rates was tested using multivariable logistic regression controlling for demographics and comorbidities. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03870997. A total of 10,429 participants reported influenza vaccination status (5158 intervention, mean age (±SD) = 46.8 (11.1), 78.5% female; 5271 control, Mean age (±SD) = 46.7 (11.2), 79.4% female). After a 6-month intervention, 64.2% of the intervention arm reported influenza vaccination, vers us 61.1% in the control arm (diff = 3.1, RR = 1.05, 95% CI [1.02, 1.08], p = 0.0013, number needed to treat = 33 to obtain 1 additional vaccination). Completion of one or more intervention messages was associated with up to an 8% increase in vaccination rate (OR 1.27, 95% CI [1.17, 1.38], p < 0.0001). The intervention improved influenza vaccination rates in PWD, suggesting that leveraging new technology to deliver knowledge and information can improve influenza vaccination rates in high-risk populations to reduce public health burden of influenza. Rapid cycle innovation could maximize the effects of these digital interventions in the future with other populations and vaccines.

A disease state approach to the pharmacological management of Type 2 diabetes in primary care: A position statement by Primary Care Diabetes Europe.

Type 2 diabetes and its associated comorbidities are growing more prevalent, and the complexity of optimising glycaemic control is increasing, especially on the frontlines of patient care. In many countries, most patients with type 2 diabetes are managed in a primary care setting. However, primary healthcare professionals face the challenge of the growing plethora of available treatment options for managing hyperglycaemia, leading to difficultly in making treatment decisions and contributing to therapeutic inertia. This position statement offers a simple and patient-centred clinical decision-making model with practical treatment recommendations that can be widely implemented by primary care clinicians worldwide through shared-decision conversations with their patients. It highlights the importance of managing cardiovascular disease and elevated cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes and aims to provide innovative risk stratification and treatment strategies that connect patients with the most effective care.

¿Cuándo empieza la diabetes? Detección e intervención tempranas en diabetes mellitus tipo 2 / When does diabetes start? Early detection and intervention in type2 diabetes mellitus

La diabetes mellitus tipo2 (DM2) es una enfermedad progresiva cuyos cambios fisiopatológicos se producen varios años antes de su detección. Un abordaje basado en el desarrollo fisiopatológico de la DM2 y sus complicaciones enfatiza la importancia de una intervención temprana e intensiva, no solo para prevenir la disfunción de las células beta, sino también para actuar sobre los posibles factores de riesgo cardiovascular asociados antes de alcanzar los umbrales glucémicos fijados actualmente para el diagnóstico de la DM2. En el terreno de la DM2 de reciente diagnóstico, el estudio VERIFY ha mostrado que el tratamiento precoz combinado con metformina-vildagliptina proporciona mejoras relevantes en el control glucémico a largo plazo y puede influir positivamente en la evolución de la enfermedad

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) is a progressive disease whose pathophysiological changes occur several years before its detection. An approach based on the pathophysiological development of DM2 and its complications emphasises the importance of early and intensive intervention, not only to prevent beta-cell dysfunction but also to act on the potential associated cardiovascular risk factors before reaching the blood glucose thresholds currently set for diagnosing DM2. In the field of recently diagnosed DM2, the VERIFY study has shown that early treatment combined with metformin-vildagliptin provides relevant improvements in long-term glycaemic control and can positively affect the disease's progression

Escaso conocimiento entre los profesionales sanitarios sobre las diferencias de género en la asociación entre la diabetes tipo 2 y la enfermedad cardiovascular / Poor awareness among health care professionals about gender differences in the relationship between type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease

INTRODUCCIÓN: Varios estudios han identificado un peor control de los factores de riesgo cardiovascular en el sexo femenino en pacientes con diabetes tipo 2. Una de sus causas podría ser el desconocimiento sobre el perfil de riesgo cardiovascular de la mujer con diabetes tipo 2 por parte de los profesionales. OBJETIVO: Conocer la percepción y el conocimiento de los profesionales de la salud involucrados en el manejo de los pacientes con diabetes tipo 2, del impacto que las diferencias de género tienen en el control de los factores de riesgo cardiovascular en estos pacientes. MÉTODO: Se envió una encuesta de 24 preguntas relacionadas con el conocimiento y percepción (agrupadas por temas) a profesionales interesados e involucrados en el cuidado de pacientes con diabetes tipo 2. Se analizaron 998 encuestas. Construimos un modelo de ANOVA para comparar los resultados por especialidad y años de experiencia ajustados por el resto de las variables de confusión y regresión logística para estudiar los factores que podían influir en tener más de 12 respuestas adecuadas (resultado favorable). RESULTADOS: La media de respuestas correctas fue 10,3, discretamente mayor para especialistas (rango 10,7-11,8) y aumentaba con la experiencia (p = 0,001). Se encontró el género femenino y los años de experiencia como predictores de tener 12 o más respuestas correctas. CONCLUSIONES: El nivel de conocimientos sobre el tema es bajo, pero similar a los resultados de otros estudios sobre la relación del género con determinadas patologías

INTRODUCTION: Several studies have found poorer control of the cardiovascular risk factors among women with type 2 diabetes. This could be explained by the lack of awareness of their cardiovascular risk among professionals. AIMS: To determine the perception and knowledge of health care professionals involved in diabetes management on the impact of gender difference on the control of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: A 24-question survey related to knowledge and perceptions (grouped by topics) was sent to professionals who were interested and involved in diabetes care. A total of 998 surveys were analysed. An ANOVA model was constructed to compare the results by specialty and years of experience, as well as adjusting for the rest of the confounding factors. On having more than 12 correct answers (favourable result), a logistic regression was also performed in order to study the factors that could have an influence. RESULTS: The mean number of correct answers was 10.3, and was slightly better for specialists (range 10.7-11.8), and associated with years of experience (P=.001). Female gender and years of experience were identified as predictors of having more than 12 correct answers. CONCLUSIONS: The level of knowledge was low, but similar to the results of the other studies

When does diabetes start? Early detection and intervention in type2 diabetes mellitus. / ¿Cuándo empieza la diabetes? Detección e intervención tempranas en diabetes mellitus tipo 2.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) is a progressive disease whose pathophysiological changes occur several years before its detection. An approach based on the pathophysiological development of DM2 and its complications emphasises the importance of early and intensive intervention, not only to prevent beta-cell dysfunction but also to act on the potential associated cardiovascular risk factors before reaching the blood glucose thresholds currently set for diagnosing DM2. In the field of recently diagnosed DM2, the VERIFY study has shown that early treatment combined with metformin-vildagliptin provides relevant improvements in long-term glycaemic control and can positively affect the disease's progression.

Impact on guidelines: The general practitioner point of view.

Primary care physicians are uniquely placed to offer holistic, patient-centred care to patients with T2DM. While the recent FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trials offer a wealth of data to inform treatment discussions, they have also contributed to increasing complexity in treatment decisions, and in the guidelines that seek to assist in making these decisions. To assist physicians in avoiding treatment inertia, Primary Care Diabetes Europe has formulated a position statement that summarises our current understanding of the available T2DM treatment options in various patient populations. New data from recent outcomes trials is contextualised and summarised for the primary care physician. This consensus paper also proposes a unique and simple tool to stratify patients into 'very high' and 'high' cardiovascular risk categories and outlines treatment recommendations for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Special consideration is given to elderly/frail patients and those with obesity. A visual patient assessment tool is provided, and a comprehensive set of prescribing tips is presented for all available classes of glucose-lowering therapies. This position statement will complement the already available, often specialist-focused, T2DM treatment guidelines and provide greater direction in how the wealth of outcome trial data can be applied to everyday practice.

miR-10b and miR-223-3p in serum microvesicles signal progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes.

PURPOSE: Type 2 diabetes frequently remains undiagnosed for years, whereas early detection of affected individuals would facilitate the implementation of timely and cost-effective therapies, hence decreasing morbidity. With the intention of identifying novel diagnostic biomarkers, we characterized the miRNA profile of microvesicles isolated from retroactive serum samples of normoglycemic individuals and two groups of subjects with prediabetes that in the following 4 years either progressed to overt diabetes or remained stable. METHODS: We profiled miRNAs in serum microvesicles of a selected group of control and prediabetic individuals participating in the PREDAPS cohort study. Half of the subjects with prediabetes were diagnosed with diabetes during the 4 years of follow-up, while the glycemic status of the other half remained unchanged. RESULTS: We identified two miRNAs, miR-10b and miR-223-3p, which target components of the insulin signaling pathway and whose ratio discriminates between these two subgroups of prediabetic individuals at a stage at which other features, including glycemia, are less proficient at separating them. In global, the profile of miRNAs in microvesicles of prediabetic subjects primed to progress to overt diabetes was more similar to that of diabetic patients than the profile of prediabetic subjects who did not progress. CONCLUSION: We have identified a miRNA signature in serum microvesicles that can be used as a new screening biomarker to identify subjects with prediabetes at high risk of developing diabetes, hence allowing the implementation of earlier, and probably more effective, therapeutic interventions.

[Poor awareness among health care professionals about gender differences in the relationship between type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease]. / Escaso conocimiento entre los profesionales sanitarios sobre las diferencias de género en la asociación entre la diabetes tipo 2 y la enfermedad cardiovascular.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies have found poorer control of the cardiovascular risk factors among women with type 2 diabetes. This could be explained by the lack of awareness of their cardiovascular risk among professionals. AIMS: To determine the perception and knowledge of health care professionals involved in diabetes management on the impact of gender difference on the control of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: A 24-question survey related to knowledge and perceptions (grouped by topics) was sent to professionals who were interested and involved in diabetes care. A total of 998 surveys were analysed. An ANOVA model was constructed to compare the results by specialty and years of experience, as well as adjusting for the rest of the confounding factors. On having more than 12 correct answers (favourable result), a logistic regression was also performed in order to study the factors that could have an influence. RESULTS: The mean number of correct answers was 10.3, and was slightly better for specialists (range 10.7-11.8), and associated with years of experience (P=.001). Female gender and years of experience were identified as predictors of having more than 12 correct answers. CONCLUSIONS: The level of knowledge was low, but similar to the results of the other studies.

Factors influencing safe glucose-lowering in older adults with type 2 diabetes: A PeRsOn-centred ApproaCh To IndiVidualisEd (PROACTIVE) Glycemic Goals for older people: A position statement of Primary Care Diabetes Europe.

Diabetes in later life is associated with a range of factors increasing the complexity of glycaemic management. This position statement, developed from an extensive literature review of the subject area, represents a consensus opinion of primary care clinicians and diabetes specialists. It highlights many challenges facing older people living with type 2 diabetes and aims to support primary care clinicians in advocating a comprehensive, holistic approach. It emphasises the importance of the wishes of the individual and their carers when determining glycaemic goals, as well as the need to balance intended benefits of treatment against the risk of adverse treatment effects. Its ultimate aim is to promote consistent high-quality care for older people with diabetes.

Time to do more: addressing clinical inertia in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: Clinical inertia, the tendency to maintain current treatment strategies despite results demanding escalation, is thought to substantially contribute to the disconnect between clinical aspirations for patients with diabetes and targets achieved. We wished to explore potential causes of clinical inertia among physicians and people with diabetes. METHODS: A 20-min online survey of 652 adults with diabetes and 337 treating physicians in six countries explored opinions relating to clinical inertia from both perspectives, in order to correlate perceptions and expectations relating to diagnosis, treatment, diabetes complications and therapeutic escalation. RESULTS: Physicians had low expectations for their patients, despite the belief that the importance of good glycaemic control through lifestyle and pharmacological interventions had been adequately conveyed. Conversely, people with diabetes had, at best, a rudimentary understanding of the risks of complications and the importance of good control; indeed, only a small proportion believed lifestyle changes were important and the majority did not intend to comply. CONCLUSIONS: The principal findings of this survey suggest that impairments in communication are at the heart of clinical inertia. This manuscript lays out four key principles that we believe are achievable in all environments and can improve the lives of people with diabetes.

Delaying progression to type 2 diabetes among high-risk Spanish individuals is feasible in real-life primary healthcare settings using intensive lifestyle intervention.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: To assess the feasibility and effectiveness of an active real-life primary care lifestyle intervention in preventing type 2 diabetes within a high-risk Mediterranean population. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in the setting of Spanish primary care. White-European individuals without diabetes aged 45-75 years (n = 2,054) were screened using the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and a subsequent 2 h OGTT. Where feasible, high-risk individuals who were identified were allocated sequentially to standard care, a group-based or an individual level intervention (intensive reinforced DE-PLAN [Diabetes in Europe-Prevention using Lifestyle, Physical Activity and Nutritional] intervention). The primary outcome was the development of diabetes according to WHO criteria. Analyses after 4-year follow-up were performed based on the intention-to-treat principle with comparison of standard care and the combined intervention groups. RESULTS: The standard care (n = 219) and intensive intervention (n = 333) groups were comparable in age (62.0/62.2 years), sex (64.4/68.2% women), BMI (31.3/31.2 kg/m(2)), FINDRISC score (16.2/15.8 points), fasting (5.3/5.2 mmol/l), 2 h plasma glucose (7.1/6.9 mmol/l) and self-reported interest to make lifestyle changes at baseline. Diabetes was diagnosed in 124 individuals: 63 (28.8%) in the standard care group and 61 (18.3%) in the intensive intervention group. During a 4.2-year median follow-up, the incidences of diabetes were 7.2 and 4.6 cases per 100 person-years, respectively (36.5% relative risk reduction, p < 0.005). The number of participants needed to be treated by intensive intervention for 4 years to reduce one case of diabetes was 9.5. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Intensive lifestyle intervention is feasible in a primary care setting and substantially reduces diabetes incidence among high-risk individuals. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT01519505. FUNDING: Commission of the European Communities, Institute of Health Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Health and Department of Health, Generalitat de Catalunya.

Take action to prevent diabetes--the IMAGE toolkit for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in Europe.

When we ask people what they value most, health is usually top of the list. While effective care is available for many chronic diseases, the fact remains that for the patient, the tax payer and the whole of society: prevention is better than cure. Diabetes and its complications are a serious threat to the survival and well-being of an increasing number of people. It is predicted that one in ten Europeans aged 20-79 will have developed diabetes by 2030. Once a disease of old age, diabetes is now common among adults of all ages and is beginning to affect adolescents and even children. Diabetes accounts for up to 18 % of total healthcare expenditure in Europe. The good news is that diabetes is preventable. Compelling evidence shows that the onset of diabetes can be prevented or delayed greatly in individuals at high risk (people with impaired glucose regulation). Clinical research has shown a reduction in risk of developing diabetes of over 50 % following relatively modest changes in lifestyle that include adopting a healthy diet, increasing physical activity, and maintaining a healthy body weight. These results have since been reproduced in real-world prevention programmes. Even a delay of a few years in the progression to diabetes is expected to reduce diabetes-related complications, such as heart, kidney and eye disease and, consequently, to reduce the cost to society. A comprehensive approach to diabetes prevention should combine population based primary prevention with programmes targeted at those who are at high risk. This approach should take account of the local circumstances and diversity within modern society (e.g. social inequalities). The challenge goes beyond the healthcare system. We need to encourage collaboration across many different sectors: education providers, non-governmental organisations, the food industry, the media, urban planners and politicians all have a very important role to play. Small changes in lifestyle will bring big changes in health. Through joint efforts, more people will be reached. The time to act is now.

A European evidence-based guideline for the prevention of type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and socioeconomic burden of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and associated co-morbidities are rising worldwide. AIMS: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for preventing T2DM. METHODS: A European multidisciplinary consortium systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening and interventions for T2DM prevention using SIGN criteria. RESULTS: Obesity and sedentary lifestyle are the main modifiable risk factors. Age and ethnicity are non-modifiable risk factors. Case-finding should follow a step-wise procedure using risk questionnaires and oral glucose tolerance testing. Persons with impaired glucose tolerance and/or fasting glucose are at high-risk and should be prioritized for intensive intervention. Interventions supporting lifestyle changes delay the onset of T2DM in high-risk adults (number-needed-to-treat: 6.4 over 1.8-4.6 years). These should be supported by inter-sectoral strategies that create health promoting environments. Sustained body weight reduction by >or= 5 % lowers risk. Currently metformin, acarbose and orlistat can be considered as second-line prevention options. The population approach should use organized measures to raise awareness and change lifestyle with specific approaches for adolescents, minorities and disadvantaged people. Interventions promoting lifestyle changes are more effective if they target both diet and physical activity, mobilize social support, involve the planned use of established behaviour change techniques, and provide frequent contacts. Cost-effectiveness analysis should take a societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention using lifestyle modifications in high-risk individuals is cost-effective and should be embedded in evaluated models of care. Effective prevention plans are predicated upon sustained government initiatives comprising advocacy, community support, fiscal and legislative changes, private sector engagement and continuous media communication.

Quality indicators for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in Europe--IMAGE.

BACKGROUND: The marked increase of type 2 diabetes necessitates active development and implementation of efficient prevention programs. A European level action has been taken by launching the IMAGE project to unify and improve the various prevention management concepts, which currently exist within the EU. This report describes the background and the methods used in the development of the IMAGE project quality indicators for diabetes primary prevention programs. It is targeted to the persons responsible for diabetes prevention at different levels of the health care systems. METHODS: Development of the quality indicators was conducted by a group of specialists representing different professional groups from several European countries. Indicators and measurement recommendations were produced by the expert group in consensus meetings and further developed by combining evidence and expert opinion. RESULTS: The quality indicators were developed for different prevention strategies: population level prevention strategy, screening for high risk, and high risk prevention strategy. Totally, 22 quality indicators were generated. They constitute the minimum level of quality assurance recommended for diabetes prevention programs. In addition, 20 scientific evaluation indicators with measurement standards were produced. These micro level indicators describe measurements, which should be used if evaluation, reporting, and scientific analysis are planned. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that these quality tools together with the IMAGE guidelines will provide a useful tool for improving the quality of diabetes prevention in Europe and make different prevention approaches comparable.