Martin J. Abrahamson

CONSENSUS STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE TYPE 2 DIABETES MANAGEMENT ALGORITHM--2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1C AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes ACCORD BP = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure ACEI = angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor AGI = alpha-glucosidase inhibitor apo B = apolipoprotein B ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease BAS = bile acid sequestrant BMI = body mass index BP = blood pressure CHD = coronary heart disease CKD = chronic kidney disease CVD = cardiovascular disease DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase 4 EPA = eicosapentaenoic acid FDA = Food and Drug Administration GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1 HDL-C = high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol LDL-C = low-densitylipoprotein cholesterol LDL-P = low-density-lipoprotein particle Look AHEAD = Look Action for Health in Diabetes NPH = neutral protamine Hagedorn OSA = obstructive sleep apnea SFU = sulfonylurea SGLT-2 = sodium glucose cotrans...

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists' Comprehensive Diabetes Management Algorithm 2013 Consensus Statement - Executive Summary

Alan J. Garber, MD, PhD, FACE; Martin J. Abrahamson, MD; Joshua I. Barzilay, MD, FACE; Lawrence Blonde, MD, FACP, FACE; Zachary T. Bloomgarden, MD, MACE; Michael A. Bush, MD; Samuel Dagogo-Jack, MD, FACE; Michael B. Davidson, DO, FACE; Daniel Einhorn, MD, FACP, FACE; W. Timothy Garvey, MD; George Grunberger, MD, FACP, FACE; Yehuda Handelsman, MD, FACP, FACE, FNLA; Irl B. Hirsch, MD; Paul S. Jellinger, MD, MACE; Janet B. McGill, MD, FACE; Jeffrey I. Mechanick, MD, FACE, ECNU, FACN, FACP; Paul D. Rosenblit, MD, PhD, FACE, FNLA; Guillermo E. Umpierrez, MD, FACE; Michael H. Davidson, MD, FACC, FACP, FNLA

American association of clinical endocrinologists' comprehensive diabetes management algorithm 2013 consensus statement

Alan J. Garber, MD, PhD, FACE; Martin J. Abrahamson, MD; Joshua I. Barzilay, MD, FACE; Lawrence Blonde, MD, FACP, FACE; Zachary T. Bloomgarden, MD, MACE; Michael A. Bush, MD; Samuel Dagogo-Jack, MD, FACE; Michael B. Davidson, DO, FACE; Daniel Einhorn, MD, FACP, FACE; W. Timothy Garvey, MD; George Grunberger, MD, FACP, FACE; Yehuda Handelsman, MD, FACP, FACE, FNLA; Irl B. Hirsch, MD; Paul S. Jellinger, MD, MACE; Janet B. McGill, MD, FACE; Jeffrey I. Mechanick, MD, FACE, ECNU, FACN, FACP; Paul D. Rosenblit, MD, PhD, FACE, FNLA; Guillermo E. Umpierrez, MD, FACE; Michael H. Davidson, MD, FACC, FACP, FNLA

AACE/ACE COMPREHENSIVE DIABETES MANAGEMENT ALGORITHM 2015

George Grunberger, MD, FACP, FACE Yehuda Handelsman, MD, FACP, FNLA, FACE Irl B. Hirsch, MD Paul S. Jellinger, MD, MACE Janet B. McGill, MD, FACE Je rey I. Mechanick, MD, FACP, FACE, FACN, ECNU Paul D. Rosenblit, MD, PhD, FNLA, FACE Guillermo Umpierrez, MD, FACP, FACE Michael H. Davidson, MD, Advisor Martin J. Abrahamson, MD Joshua I. Barzilay, MD, FACE Lawrence Blonde, MD, FACP, FACE Zachary T. Bloomgarden, MD, MACE Michael A. Bush, MD Samuel Dagogo-Jack, MD, DM, FRCP, FACE Michael B. Davidson, DO, FACE Daniel Einhorn, MD, FACP, FACE Je rey R. Garber, MD, FACP, FACE W. Timothy Garvey, MD, FACE TASK FORCE Alan J. Garber, MD, PhD, FACE, Chair AACE/ACE COMPREHENSIVE DIABETES MANAGEMENT ALGORITHM 2015

Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery or Lifestyle With Intensive Medical Management in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Feasibility and 1-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Emerging data support bariatric surgery as a therapeutic strategy for management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE To test the feasibility of methods to conduct a larger multisite trial to determine the long-term effect of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery compared with an intensive diabetes medical and weight management (Weight Achievement and Intensive Treatment [Why WAIT]) program for type 2 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A 1-year pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted in an academic medical institution. Participants included persons aged 21 to 65 years with type 2 diabetes diagnosed more than 1 year before the study; their body mass index was 30 to 42 (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was greater than or equal to 6.5%. All participants were receiving antihyperglycemic medications. INTERVENTIONS RYGB (n = 19) or Why WAIT (n = 19) including 12 weekly multidisciplinary group lifestyle, medical, and educational sessions with monthly follow-up thereafter. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Proportion of patients with fasting plasma glucose levels less than 126 mg/dL and HbA1c less than 6.5%, measures of cardiometabolic health, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS At 1 year, the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c below 6.5% and fasting glucose below 126 mg/dL was higher following RYGB than Why WAIT (58% vs 16%, respectively; P = .03). Other outcomes, including HbA1c, weight, waist circumference, fat mass, lean mass, blood pressure, and triglyceride levels, decreased and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased more after RYGB compared with Why WAIT. Improvement in cardiovascular risk scores was greater in the surgical group. At baseline the participants exhibited moderately low self-reported quality-of-life scores reflected by Short Form-36 total, physical health, and mental health, as well as high Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite and Problem Areas in Diabetes health status scores. At 1 year, improvements in Short Form-36 physical and mental health scores and Problem Areas in Diabetes scores did not differ significantly between groups. The Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite score improved more with RYGB and correlated with greater weight loss compared with Why WAIT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In obese patients with type 2 diabetes, RYGB produces greater weight loss and sustained improvements in HbA1c and cardiometabolic risk factors compared with medical management, with emergent differences over 1 year. Both treatments improve general quality-of-life measures, but RYGB provides greater improvement in the effect of weight on quality of life. These differences may help inform therapeutic decisions for diabetes and weight loss strategies in obese patients with type 2 diabetes until larger randomized trials are performed. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01073020.

Pharmacological Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Rationale for Rational Use of Insulin

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a chronic metabolic disorder associated with high morbidity and mortality from long-term microvascular and macrovascular complications. Evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that aggressive treatment directed at improving glycemic control reduces the incidence of diabetes-related microvascular complications. Traditionally, oral monotherapy for type 2 diabetes is initiated when diet and exercise do not control hyperglycemia, followed by the sequential, stepwise addition of oral agents as glycemic control deteriorates. Insulin is the last therapeutic option used, generally reserved for advanced stages of the disease when multiple oral combination treatment fails. Despite a better understanding of the pathophysiologic disease mechanisms in the past decade, the expanded armamentarium of targeted oral antidiabetic drugs, and the conclusive evidence of the benefits of stringent glycemic control, actual treatment outcomes in clinical practice remain suboptimal relative to established treatment goals (glycosylated hemoglobin A1c level <7%). Earlier detection and aggressive treatment are critical to address the natural progression of diabetes because multiple defects (insulin resistance, insulin insufficiency, glucotoxicity, and lipotoxicity) and vascular complications may be present at the time of diagnosis. Acknowledging the inadequacy of traditional strategies and underscoring the importance of insulin as an integral part of the therapeutic armamentarium, clinical trends are moving toward earlier use of insulin combined with 1 or more oral agents. Such strategies can address the multiple abnormalities present early in the disease course and may restore optimal control. A new treatment paradigm for patients with type 2 diabetes to achieve and maintain near-normal glycemic control is warranted.

Understanding Physicians’ Challenges When Treating Type 2 Diabetic Patients’ Social and Emotional Difficulties: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE To explore physicians’ awareness of and responses to type 2 diabetic patients’ social and emotional difficulties. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 physicians. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Three themes emerged: 1) physicians’ awareness of patients’ social and emotional difficulties: physicians recognized the frequency and seriousness of patients’ social and emotional difficulties; 2) physicians’ responses to patients’ social and emotional difficulties: many reported that intervening with these difficulties was challenging with few treatment options beyond making referrals, individualizing care, and recommending more frequent follow-up visits; and 3) the impact of patients’ social and emotional difficulties on physicians: few available patient treatment options, time constraints, and a perceived lack of psychological expertise contributed to physicians’ feeling frustrated, inadequate, and overwhelmed. CONCLUSIONS Recognition and understanding of physicians’ challenges when treating diabetes patients’ social and emotional difficulties are important for developing programmatic interventions.

Medicare coverage for patients with diabetes : A national plan with individual consequences

The prevalence of diabetes in the U.S. Medicare population is growing at an alarming rate. From 1980 to 2004, the number of people aged 65 or older with diagnosed diabetes increased from 2.3 million to 5.8 million. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), 32% of Medicare spending is attributed to the diabetes population. Since its inception, Medicare has expanded medical coverage of monitoring devices, screening tests and visits, educational efforts, and preventive medical services for its diabetic enrollees. However, oral antidiabetic agents and insulin were excluded from reimbursement. In 2003, Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act that includes a drug benefit to be administered either through Medicare Advantage drug plans or privately sponsored prescription drug plans for implementation in January 2006. In this article we highlight key patient and drug plan characteristics and resources that providers may focus upon to assist their patients choose a coverage plan. Using a case example, we illustrate the variable financial impact the adoption of Medicare part D may have on beneficiaries with diabetes due to their economic status. We further discuss the potential consequences the legislation will have on diabetic patients enrolled in Medicare, their providers, prescribing strategies, and the diabetes market.

Barriers and facilitators to self-care communication during medical appointments in the United States for adults with type 2 diabetes

Objective Diabetes self-care is challenging and requires effective patient–provider communication to achieve optimal treatment outcomes. This study explored perceptions of barriers and facilitators to diabetes self-care communication during medical appointments. Design Qualitative study using in-depth interviews with a semistructured interview guide. Participants Thirty-four patients with type 2 diabetes and 19 physicians who treat type 2 diabetes. Results Physicians described some patients as reluctant to discuss their self-care behaviors primarily because of fear of being judged, guilt, and shame. Similarly, patients described reluctant communication resulting from fear of being judged and shame, particularly shame surrounding food intake and weight. Physicians and patients recommended trust, nonjudgmental acceptance, open/honest communication, and providing patients hope for living with diabetes as important factors for improving self-care communication. Further, patients stressed the clinical benefits of physicians directly addressing poor self-care behaviors while physicians described having few strategies to address these difficulties. Conclusions Physician–patient self-care communication barriers included patients’ reluctance to discuss self-care behaviors and physicians’ perceptions of few options to address this reluctance. Treatment recommendations stressed the importance of establishing trusting, nonjudgmental and open patient–provider communication for optimal diabetes treatment. Medical education is needed to improve physicians’ strategies for addressing self-care communication during medical appointments.

Intensification of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: An algorithm for basal-bolus therapy

Abstract The incidence of diabetes mellitus is projected to continue to increase worldwide over the next 20 years leading to increased costs in the management of the disease and its associated co-morbidities. Insulin replacement is one of many treatment options that can help to bring about near normoglycemia in the patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Glycemic control as close to normoglycemia as possible can help to reduce the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications, yet less than one-half of patients with T2DM achieve glycemic targets as recommended by practice guidelines. The purpose of this review is to provide guidance to primary care physicians for the initiation and intensification of basal-bolus insulin therapy in patients with T2DM. Two treatment algorithms that can be both patient- and physician-driven are proposed: a stepwise approach and a multiple daily injections approach. Evidence shaping the two approaches will be discussed alongside management issues that surround the patient treated with insulin: hypoglycemia, weight gain, patient education, and quality of life.