Hypoglycemia and Diabetes: A Report of a Workgroup of the American Diabetes Association and The Endocrine Society

OBJECTIVE To review the evidence about the impact of hypoglycemia on patients with diabetes that has become available since the past reviews of this subject by the American Diabetes Association and The Endocrine Society and to provide guidance about how this new information should be incorporated into clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS Five members of the American Diabetes Association and five members of The Endocrine Society with expertise in different aspects of hypoglycemia were invited by the Chair, who is a member of both, to participate in a planning conference call and a 2-day meeting that was also attended by staff from both organizations. Subsequent communications took place via e-mail and phone calls. The writing group consisted of those invitees who participated in the writing of the manuscript. The workgroup meeting was supported by educational grants to the American Diabetes Association from Lilly USA, LLC and Novo Nordisk and sponsorship to the American Diabetes Association from Sanofi. The sponsors had no input into the development of or content of the report. EVIDENCE The writing group considered data from recent clinical trials and other studies to update the prior workgroup report. Unpublished data were not used. Expert opinion was used to develop some conclusions. CONSENSUS PROCESS Consensus was achieved by group discussion during conference calls and face-to-face meetings, as well as by iterative revisions of the written document. The document was reviewed and approved by the American Diabetes Association’s Professional Practice Committee in October 2012 and approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors in November 2012 and was reviewed and approved by The Endocrine Society’s Clinical Affairs Core Committee in October 2012 and by Council in November 2012. CONCLUSIONS The workgroup reconfirmed the previous definitions of hypoglycemia in diabetes, reviewed the implications of hypoglycemia on both short- and long-term outcomes, considered the implications of hypoglycemia on treatment outcomes, presented strategies to prevent hypoglycemia, and identified knowledge gaps that should be addressed by future research. In addition, tools for patients to report hypoglycemia at each visit and for clinicians to document counseling are provided

Exploring residual risk for diabetes and microvascular disease in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS)

Aim Approximately half of the participants in the Diabetes Prevention Outcomes Study (DPPOS) had diabetes after 15 years of follow-up, whereas nearly all the others remained with pre-diabetes. We examined whether formerly unexplored factors in the DPPOS coexisted with known risk factors that posed additional risk for, or protection from, diabetes as well as microvascular disease. Methods Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine predictors of diabetes. Sequential modelling procedures considered known and formerly unexplored factors. We also constructed models to determine whether the same unexplored factors that associated with progression to diabetes also predicted the prevalence of microvascular disease. Hazard ratios (HR) are per standard deviation change in the variable. Results In models adjusted for demographics and known diabetes risk factors, two formerly unknown factors were associated with risk for both diabetes and microvascular disease: number of medications taken (HR = 1.07, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 1.03 to 1.12 for diabetes; odds ratio (OR) = 1.10, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.16 for microvascular disease) and variability in HbA1c (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03 for diabetes; OR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.09 for microvascular disease per sd). Total comorbidities increased risk for diabetes (HR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.16), whereas higher systolic (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.31) and diastolic (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22) blood pressure, as well as the use of anti-hypertensives (OR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.62), increased risk of microvascular disease. Conclusions Several formerly unexplored factors in the DPPOS predicted additional risk for diabetes and/or microvascular disease – particularly hypertension and the use of anti-hypertensive medications – helping to explain some of the residual disease risk in participants of the DPPOS

Understanding diabetes in patients with HIV/AIDS

This paper reviews the incidence, pathogenetic mechanisms and management strategies of diabetes mellitus in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). It classifies patients based on the aetiopathogenetic mechanisms, and proposes rational methods of management of the condition, based on aetiopathogenesis and concomitant pharmacotherapy

Sex Differences in Diabetes Risk and the Effect of Intensive Lifestyle Modification in the Diabetes Prevention Program

OBJECTIVE—In participants of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) randomized to intensive lifestyle modification (ILS), meeting ILS goals strongly correlated with prevention of diabetes in the group as a whole. Men met significantly more ILS goals than women but had a similar incidence of diabetes. Therefore, we explored sex differences in risk factors for diabetes and the effect of ILS on risk factors

Insulin versus oral agents in the management of Cystic Fibrosis Related Diabetes: a case based study

BACKGROUND: Insulin is the recommend therapeutic agent of choice for the management of Cystic Fibrosis Related Diabetes (CFRD), despite only sub-optimal reductions in glycemic control and increased morbidity and mortality reported by centers using this agent. The newer insulin sensitizing agents demonstrated to have anti-inflammatory mechanisms may provide an alternative management option for CFRD. METHODS: A prospective case based therapeutic comparison between insulin, sulfonylurea, metformin and thiazolidinedione was observed over one decade with 20 CFRD patients diagnosed using American Diabetes Association guideline standards. Patients entering the study elected treatment based on risk and benefit information provided for treatment options. Patients receiving organ transplant or requiring combination diabetic medications were excluded from the study. RESULTS: No statistical advantage was achieved regarding overall glycemic control for oral agents over insulin. Additional outcome measures including changes in weight, liver function testing and FEV(1 )were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Insulin alone may not be the only therapeutic option in managing CFRD. Oral hypoglycemic agents were equally effective in treating CFRD and may provide an alternative class of agents for patients reluctant in using insulin