Etie S. Moghissi

STATEMENT BY AN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS/ AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY CONSENSUS PANEL ON TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS: AN ALGORITHM FOR GLYCEMIC CONTROL

This report presents an algorithm to assist primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and others in the management of adult, nonpregnant patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In order to minimize the risk of diabetes-related complications, the goal of therapy is to achieve a hemoglobin A1c (A1C) of 6.5% or less, with recognition of the need for individualization to minimize the risks of hypoglycemia. We provide therapeutic pathways stratified on the basis of current levels of A1C, whether the patient is receiving treatment or is drug naïve. We consider monotherapy, dual therapy, and triple therapy, including 8 major classes of medications (biguanides, dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors, incretin mimetics, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, and bile acid sequestrants) and insulin therapy (basal, premixed, and multiple daily injections), with or without orally administered medications. We prioritize choices of medications according to safety, risk of hypoglycemia, efficacy, simplicity, anticipated degree of patient adherence, and cost of medications. We recommend only combinations of medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration that provide complementary mechanisms of action. It is essential to monitor therapy with A1C and self-monitoring of blood glucose and to adjust or advance therapy frequently (every 2 to 3 months) if the appropriate goal for each patient has not been achieved. We provide a flow-chart and table summarizing the major considerations. This algorithm represents a consensus of 14 highly experienced clinicians, clinical researchers, practitioners, and academicians and is based on the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Diabetes Guidelines and the recent medical literature.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association consensus statement on inpatient glycemic control.

This report is being published concurrently in 2009 in Endocrine Practice and Diabetes Care by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American Diabetes Association. From the 1Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, 2Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 3Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Health Center and University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing PhD Program, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 4Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, La Jolla, California, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, California, and Diabetes and Endocrine Associates, La Jolla, California, 5Department of Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and Hellman and Rosen Endocrine Associates, North Kansas City, Missouri, 6Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, 7Department of Medicine, Section of Endocrinology, Yale University School of Medicine and the Yale Diabetes Center, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, 8Department of Medicine, Physiology and Biophysics, Division of Clinical and Molecular Endocrinology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, 9Clinical Affairs, American Diabetes Association, Alexandria, Virginia, and 10Department of Medicine/Endocrinology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Etie S. Moghissi, 4644 Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 409, Marina del Rey, CA 90292.

Individualizing Glycemic Targets in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Implications of Recent Clinical Trials

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 patients 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.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY - CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING A DIABETES MELLITUS COMPREHENSIVE CARE PLAN - 2015

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice are systematically developed statements to assist healthcare professionals in medical decision making for specific clinical conditions. Most of the content herein is based on literature reviews. In areas of uncertainty, professional judgment was applied. These guidelines are a working document that reflects the state of the field at the time of publication. Because rapid changes in this area are expected, periodic revisions are inevitable. We encourage medical professionals to use this information in conjunction with their best clinical judgment. The presented recommendations may not be appropriate in all situations. Any decision by practitioners to apply these guidelines must be made in light of local resources and individual patient circumstances. Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1c AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascu...

Diagnosis and management of prediabetes in the continuum of hyperglycemia: when do the risks of diabetes begin? A consensus statement from the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Alan J. Garber, MD, PhD, FACE, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, FACP, FACE, Daniel Einhorn, MD, FACP, FACE, Donald A. Bergman, MD, FACE, Zachary T. Bloomgarden, MD, FACE, Vivian Fonseca, MD, FACE, W. Timothy Garvey, MD, James R. Gavin III, MD, PhD, George Grunberger, MD, FACP, FACE, Edward S. Horton, MD, FACE, Paul S. Jellinger, MD, MACE, Kenneth L. Jones, MD, Harold Lebovitz, MD, FACE, Philip Levy, MD, MACE, Darren K. McGuire, MD, MHSc, FACC, Etie S. Moghissi, MD, FACP, FACE, and Richard W. Nesto, MD, FACC, FAHA

Addressing hyperglycemia from hospital admission to discharge

Abstract Background: This review examines glycemia management practices in hospitalized patients. Optimal glycemic control remains a challenge among hospitalized patients. Recent studies have questioned the benefit of tight glycemic control and have raised concerns regarding the safety of this approach. As a result, medical societies have updated glycemic targets and have published new consensus guidelines for management of glycemia in hospitalized patients. This review highlights recent inpatient glycemic trials, the new glycemic targets and recommended strategies for management of glycemia in hospitalized patients. Methods: Medline and PubMed searches (diabetes, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, intensive therapy insulin, tight glycemic control, and hospital patients) were performed for English-language articles on treatment of diabetes, insulin therapy, hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients published from 2004 to present. Earlier works cited in these papers were surveyed. Clinical studies, reviews, consensus/guidelines statements, and meta-analyses relevant to the identification and management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients were included and selected. This is not an exhaustive review of the published literature. Results: Insulin remains the most appropriate agent for a majority of hospitalized patients. In critically ill patients insulin is given as a continuous intravenous (IV) infusion and in non-critically ill inpatients hyperglycemia is best managed using scheduled subcutaneous (SC) basal-bolus insulin regimens supplemented with correction doses as needed and adjusted daily with the guidance of frequent blood glucose monitoring. Prevention of hypoglycemia is equally as important to patient outcomes and is an equally necessary part of any effective glucose control program. Modern insulin analogs offer advantages over the older human insulins (e.g., regular and neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH] insulin) because their time-action profiles more closely correspond to physiological basal and prandial insulin requirements, and have a lower propensity for inducing hypoglycemia than human insulin formulations. Long-acting basal insulin analogs (glargine, detemir) are suitable and preferred for the basal component of therapy; rapid-acting insulin analogs (aspart, lispro, glulisine) are recommended for bolus and correction doses. Sliding-scale insulin (SSI) regimens are not effective and should not be used, especially as this excludes a basal insulin component from the therapy. Conclusions: Optimal glycemic management in the hospital setting requires judicious treatment of hyperglycemia while avoiding hypoglycemia. Insulin is the most appropriate agent for management of hyperglycemia for the majority of hospitalized patients. Intravenous insulin infusion is still preferred during and immediately after surgery, but s.c. basal insulin analogs with prandial or correction doses should be used after the immediate post-operative period, and also should be used in non-critically ill patients. Frequent and effective glucose monitoring is critical for avoiding wide deviations from acceptable glucose levels, which under a recently promulgated consensus guideline currently range between 140 mg/dL and 180 mg/dL. Glucose targets near 140 mg/dL are recommended as being the most appropriate for all hospitalized patients.

Comparisons of different insulin infusion protocols: A review of recent literature

Purpose of reviewTo provide an update on the currently available insulin infusion protocols for treatment of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients and to discuss the major differences and similarities among them. Recent findingsWe identified a total of 26 protocols, 20 of which used manual blood-glucose calculations, and six that used computerized algorithms. The major differences and similarities among the insulin infusion protocols were in the following areas: patient characteristics, target glucose level, time to achieve target glucose level, incidence of hypoglycemia, rationale for adjusting the rates of insulin infusion, and methods of blood-glucose measurements. Several computerized protocols hold promise for safer achievement of glycemic targets. SummaryInsulin infusion is the most effective method for controlling hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. Clinicians should utilize a validated insulin infusion protocol that is well tolerated, and is most appropriate and practical for their institution based on the resources that are available.

Insulin strategies for managing inpatient and outpatient hyperglycemia and diabetes

Optimal fasting and postprandial glycemic control are essential to limiting microvascular and macrovascular complications associated with diabetes. Recently, stringent control of hyperglycemia in critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or acute hyperglycemia has been shown to reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality. This article reviews effective strategies for insulin initiation, titration, and intensification in inpatient and outpatient settings and discusses current treatment strategies when patients are being transitioned from the intensive care unit to general wards and discharged. The development of insulin analogs and premixed insulin analogs has created new options for treating inpatients and outpatients. The more physiologic time-action profiles, improved insulin delivery systems, and standardized protocols for subcutaneous insulin administration and intravenous insulin infusion have improved the safety and convenience of insulin therapy.

Individualizing Insulin Therapy in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes

It is recognized that reducing hyperglycemia early on in disease progression has long-term benefits for patients with diabetes. Insulin therapy has greater potential to reduce hyperglycemia than other therapies; however, there is often a significant delay in insulin initiation and intensification. Insulin replacement therapy in type 2 diabetes should no longer be viewed as the treatment of last resort. With the development of modern insulin analogs, the field has evolved. Large clinical trials have improved our understanding of the potential benefits and risks associated with intensive glycemic control in different patient populations and highlighted the need for individualization of glycemic targets and treatment strategies. Current treatment guidelines recognize the important role of insulin therapy both early on and throughout the progression of type 2 diabetes.

A look into the future: improving diabetes care by 2015

Abstract Insulin initiation, which was traditionally the province of specialists, is increasingly undertaken by primary care. However, significant barriers to appropriate and timely initiation still exist. Whilst insulin is recognized as providing the most effective treatment in type 2 diabetes, it is also widely considered to be the most challenging and time consuming. This editorial identifies that the organization of existing healthcare services, the challenges faced by patients, and the treatments themselves contribute to suboptimal insulin management. In order to improve future diabetes care, it will be necessary to address all three problem areas: (1) re-think the best use of existing human and financial resources to promote and support patient self-management and adherence to treatment; (2) empower patients to participate more actively in treatment decision making; and (3) improve acceptance, persistence and adherence to therapy by continuing to refine insulin therapy and treatment regimens in terms of safety, simplicity and convenience. The principles discussed are also applicable to the successful management of any chronic medical illness.