Article

Individualizing glycemic targets in type 2 diabetes mellitus: implications of recent clinical trials.

Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 04/2011; 154(8):554-9. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-154-8-201104190-00007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT One of the first steps in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is setting glycemic goals. Professional organizations advise setting specific hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) targets for patients, and individualization of these goals has more recently been emphasized. However, the operational meaning of glycemic goals, and specific methods for individualizing them, have not been well-described. Choosing a specific HbA(1c) target range for a given patient requires taking several factors into consideration, including an assessment of the patient's risk for hyperglycemia-related complications versus the risks of therapy, all in the context of the overall clinical setting. Comorbid conditions, psychological status, capacity for self-care, economic considerations, and family and social support systems also play a key role in the intensity of therapy. The individualization of HbA(1c) targets has gained more traction after recent clinical trials in older patients with established type 2 diabetes mellitus failed to show a benefit from intensive glucose-lowering therapy on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. The limited available evidence suggests that near-normal glycemic targets should be the standard for younger patients with relatively recent onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus and little or no micro- or macrovascular complications, with the aim of preventing complications over the many years of life. However, somewhat higher targets should be considered for older patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes mellitus and evidence of CVD (or multiple CVD risk factors). This review explores these issues further and proposes a framework for considering an appropriate and safe HbA(1c) target range for each patient.

2 Followers
 · 
209 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the last few years, the publication of new studies in diabetes, together with the development of new classes of blood glucose-lowering medications, have led to updates of the most prestigious clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of diabetes. Thus, a consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes was published in April 2012. An update of one of the evidence-based guidelines issued by the Canadian Diabetes Association appeared in 2013 and this year, 2014, saw the publication of the consensus document of the redGDPS, whose guidelines are those most closely followed by primary care physicians in Spain. The three guidelines highlight the need for an individualized approach to type 2 diabetes mellitus, outlining both target glycemic goals and distinct treatment regimens based on patient characteristics, disease stage and the presence of comorbidities or complications. In the treatment of the disease, the three guidelines also stress the importance of considering patients' opinions and of recommending lifestyle modifications to achieve good disease control. Metformin is identified as the first-line drug, with the addition of other glucose-lowering agents if necessary. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier España, S.L.U. y Sociedad Española de Medicina Rural y Generalista (SEMERGEN). All rights reserved.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the degree of glycemic control and its relationship with disease characteristics and antidiabetic treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), as well as the frequency of A1c use. For this purpose, an observational, cross-sectorial, and multicenter study was performed. A total of 443 patients were monitored in 17 Spanish primary healthcare centers. Demographic and clinical variables were recorded from the clinical history of patients. Mean age was 68.9±12.0 years. Time of evolution of DM was 9.2±6.4 years. Mean A1c was 7.38±1.34% and 45% of patients achieved A1c <7%. There was a no significant relationship between the degree of control and time of evolution of DM. In 16% of patients no A1c determination was performed in the previous twelve months. In those patients in whom A1c was determined, 95% received pharmacologic treatment, and 31% insulin therapy. 66% of patients on monotherapy attained A1C <7%, compared with 39% and 23% of those receiving double- and triple-oral therapy, respectively (p<0.001). Only 21% of patients on insulin therapy achieved A1c <7%. The worst-controlled patients were those receiving oral antidiabetic agents and insulin (24% had A1c levels ≥9%). A large proportion of patients are poorly controlled. Poor control increases according to complexity of treatment. A1c is underdetermined in many patients, likely related to clinical inertia. Copyright © 2015 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To develop and test latent variables of the social determinants of health that influence diabetes self-care. 615 adults with type 2 diabetes were recruited from two adult primary care clinics in the southeastern United States. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) identified the latent factors underlying socioeconomic determinants, psychosocial determinants, and self-care (diet, exercise, foot care, glucose testing, and medication adherence). Structured equation modeling (SEM) investigated the relationship between determinants and self-care. Latent variables were created for diabetes self-care, psychological distress, self-efficacy, social support and social status. The initial model (chi2(254)=388.04, p<0.001, RMSEA=0.03, CFI=0.98) showed that lower psychological distress (r=-0.13, p=0.019), higher social support (r=0.15, p=0.008), and higher self-efficacy (r=0.47, p<0.001) were significantly related to diabetes self-care. Social status was not significantly related to self-care (r=0.003, p=0.952). In the trimmed model (chi2(189)=211.40, p=0.126, RMSEA=0.01, CFI=0.99) lower psychological distress (r=-0.13, p=0.016), higher social support (r=0.15, p=0.007), and higher self-efficacy (r=0.47, p<0.001) remained significantly related to diabetes self-care. Based on theoretical relationships, three latent factors that measure social determinants of health (psychological distress, social support and self-efficacy) are strongly associated with diabetes self-care. This suggests that social determinants should be taken into account when developing patient self-care goals. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
    Patient Education and Counseling 10/2014; 98(1):34-40. DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2014.10.002 · 2.60 Impact Factor