1. Home
  2. diabetes mellitus, type 2

diabetes mellitus, type 2

GLP1Agonists and SGLT2 Inhibitors Table

Author/s: 
Mold, J. W.

Based upon the following two meta-analyses:
1. Alexander JT, et al. The longer-term benefits and harms of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A Systematic review and meta-analysis. JGIM, 2021; 7(2): 415-43.
2. Alexander JT, et al. Longer-term benefits and risks of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JGIM, 2021; 37(2): 439-44, plus Supplementary materials at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07227-0.

Selection criteria for the RCTs was that the study period was at least 52 weeks in duration. I assume the average duration of the studies was at least 2 years. So, an absolute risk reduction of mortality of 0.5% would be per 2+ years.

Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes

Author/s: 
US Preventative Services task Force

IMPORTANCE An estimated 13% of all US adults (18 years or older) have diabetes, and 34.5%
meet criteria for prediabetes. The prevalences of prediabetes and diabetes are higher in older
adults. Estimates of the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes vary widely, perhaps
because of differences in the definition of prediabetes or the heterogeneity of prediabetes.
Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure and new cases of blindness among adults in the
US. It is also associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver
disease, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and was estimated to be the seventh leading cause
of death in the US in 2017. Screening asymptomatic adults for prediabetes and type 2
diabetes may allow earlier detection, diagnosis, and treatment, with the ultimate goal of
improving health outcomes.
OBJECTIVE To update its 2015 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic
review to evaluate screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic,
nonpregnant adults and preventive interventions for those with prediabetes.
POPULATION Nonpregnant adults aged 35 to 70 years seen in primary care settings who have
overweight or obesity (defined as a body mass index 25 and 30, respectively) and no
symptoms of diabetes.
EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for
prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and offering or referring patients with prediabetes to
effective preventive interventions has a moderate net benefit.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION The USPSTF recommends screening for prediabetes
and type 2 diabetes in adults aged 35 to 70 years who have overweight or obesity. Clinicians
should offer or refer patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions.
(B recommendation)

Screening for Gestational Diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Author/s: 
US Preventive Services Task Force, Davidson, K. W., Barry, M. J., Mangione, C. M., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Davis, E. M., Donahue, K. E., Doubeni, C. A., Kubik, M., Li, L., Ogedegbe, G., Pbert, L., Silberstein, M., Stevermer, J., Tseng, C., Wong, J. B.

Importance: Gestational diabetes is diabetes that develops during pregnancy. Prevalence of gestational diabetes in the US has been estimated at 5.8% to 9.2%, based on traditional diagnostic criteria, although it may be higher if more inclusive criteria are used. Pregnant persons with gestational diabetes are at increased risk for maternal and fetal complications, including preeclampsia, fetal macrosomia (which can cause shoulder dystocia and birth injury), and neonatal hypoglycemia. Gestational diabetes has also been associated with an increased risk of several long-term health outcomes in pregnant persons and intermediate outcomes in their offspring.

Objective: The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the accuracy, benefits, and harms of screening for gestational diabetes and the benefits and harms of treatment for the pregnant person and infant.

Population: Pregnant persons who have not been previously diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Evidence assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit to screening for gestational diabetes at 24 weeks of gestation or after to improve maternal and fetal outcomes. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on screening for gestational diabetes before 24 weeks of gestation is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms of screening cannot be determined.

Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for gestational diabetes in asymptomatic pregnant persons at 24 weeks of gestation or after. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for gestational diabetes in asymptomatic pregnant persons before 24 weeks of gestation. (I statement).

Keywords 
Gestational Diabetes US Preventative Task Force Infancy Pregnancy Diagnostic Criteria

CONSENSUS STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE TYPE 2 DIABETES MANAGEMENT ALGORITHM - 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Author/s: 
Garber, A.J., Handelsman, Y., Grunberger, G., Einhorn, D., Abrahamson, M.J., Barzilay, J.I., Blonde, L., Bush, M.A.

No abstract available.

Sex Difference in Effects of Low-Dose Aspirin on Prevention of Dementia in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Long-term Follow-up Study of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Author/s: 
Matsumoto, C., Ogawa, H., Saito, Y., Okada S., Soejima, H., Sakuma, M., Masuda, I., Nakayama, M., Doi, N., Jinnouchi, H., Waki, M., Morimoto, T., JPAD Trial Investigators

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of long-term use of low-dose aspirin for the prevention of dementia in men and women.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:

This study is a follow-up cohort study of the Japanese Primary Prevention of Atherosclerosis with Aspirin for Diabetes (JPAD) trial, which was a randomized, open-label, standard care-controlled trial examining the effects of low-dose aspirin on cardiovascular events. We followed up 2,536 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) enrolled in the JPAD trial from 2002 to 2017. The primary outcome of this post hoc analysis was the incidence of dementia, which was defined by the prescription of antidementia drugs or admission due to dementia.

RESULTS:

Among the originally enrolled patients, 2,121 (84%) retained their original allocation. During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 128 patients developed dementia. The overall effect of low-dose aspirin on the prevention of dementia adjusted for age, sex, and other established risk factors was not significant (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.58-1.16). However, a significant reduction was seen in the risk of dementia in women (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95), but not in men (HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.75-2.13) (P interaction = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS:

Long-term use of low-dose aspirin may reduce the risk for dementia in women with T2D.

Keywords 
aspirin low-dose aspirin

Association of Metabolic Surgery With Major Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Obesity

Author/s: 
Aminian, A, Zajicheck, A, Arterburn, DE, Wolski, KE, Brethauer, SA, Schauer, PR, Kattan, MW, Nissen, SE

IMPORTANCE:

Although metabolic surgery (defined as procedures that influence metabolism by inducing weight loss and altering gastrointestinal physiology) significantly improves cardiometabolic risk factors, the effect on cardiovascular outcomes has been less well characterized.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the relationship between metabolic surgery and incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

Of 287 438 adult patients with diabetes in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in the United States between 1998 and 2017, 2287 patients underwent metabolic surgery. In this retrospective cohort study, these patients were matched 1:5 to nonsurgical patients with diabetes and obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥30), resulting in 11 435 control patients, with follow-up through December 2018.

EXPOSURES:

Metabolic gastrointestinal surgical procedures vs usual care for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The primary outcome was the incidence of extended MACE (composite of 6 outcomes), defined as first occurrence of all-cause mortality, coronary artery events, cerebrovascular events, heart failure, nephropathy, and atrial fibrillation. Secondary end points included 3-component MACE (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and mortality) and the 6 individual components of the primary end point.

RESULTS:

Among the 13 722 study participants, the distribution of baseline covariates was balanced between the surgical group and the nonsurgical group, including female sex (65.5% vs 64.2%), median age (52.5 vs 54.8 years), BMI (45.1 vs 42.6), and glycated hemoglobin level (7.1% vs 7.1%). The overall median follow-up duration was 3.9 years (interquartile range, 1.9-6.1 years). At the end of the study period, 385 patients in the surgical group and 3243 patients in the nonsurgical group experienced a primary end point (cumulative incidence at 8-years, 30.8% [95% CI, 27.6%-34.0%] in the surgical group and 47.7% [95% CI, 46.1%-49.2%] in the nonsurgical group [P < .001]; absolute 8-year risk difference [ARD], 16.9% [95% CI, 13.1%-20.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.55-0.69]). All 7 prespecified secondary outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of metabolic surgery, including mortality. All-cause mortality occurred in 112 patients in the metabolic surgery group and 1111 patients in the nonsurgical group (cumulative incidence at 8 years, 10.0% [95% CI, 7.8%-12.2%] and 17.8% [95% CI, 16.6%-19.0%]; ARD, 7.8% [95% CI, 5.1%-10.2%]; adjusted HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.48-0.72]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Among patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity, metabolic surgery, compared with nonsurgical management, was associated with a significantly lower risk of incident MACE. The findings from this observational study must be confirmed in randomized clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03955952.

Keywords 
diabetes, type 2 weight loss obesity bariatric surgery metabolic surgery

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2019 Abridged for Primary Care Providers

Author/s: 
American Diabetes Association

The American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes is updated and published annually in a supplement to the January issue of Diabetes Care. The ADA’s Professional Practice Committee, which includes physicians, diabetes educators, registered dietitians (RDs), and public health experts, develops the Standards. The Standards include the most current evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adults and children with all forms of diabetes. ADA’s grading system uses A, B, C, or E to show the evidence level that supports each recommendation.

  • A—Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable randomized controlled trials that are adequately powered

  • B—Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies

  • C—Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies

  • E—Expert consensus or clinical experience

This is an abridged version of the 2019 Standards containing the evidence-based recommendations most pertinent to primary care. The tables and figures have been renumbered from the original document to match this version. The complete 2019 Standards of Care document, including all supporting references, is available at professional.diabetes.org/standards.

Keywords 
standard of care guidelines diabetes diabetes, type 2 A1C
Subscribe to diabetes mellitus, type 2