Richard Wender

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach. Position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

Erratum to: DiabetologiaDOI 10.1007/s00125-012-2534-0In the text box ‘Properties of currently available glucose-lowering agents that may guide treatment choice in individualpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus ’ vildagliptin was incor-rectly assigned footnote ‘a’ (Limited use in the USA/Europe)instead of footnote ‘b’ (Not licensed in the USA).

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2015: A Patient-Centered Approach: Update to a Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes

In 2012, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) published a position statement on the management of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (1,2). This was needed because of an increasing array of antihyperglycemic drugs and growing uncertainty regarding their proper selection and sequence. Because of a paucity of comparative effectiveness research on long-term treatment outcomes with many of these medications, the 2012 publication was less prescriptive than prior consensus reports. We previously described the need to individualize both treatment targets and treatment strategies, with an emphasis on patient-centered care and shared decision making, and this continues to be our position, although there are now more head-to-head trials that show slight variance between agents with regard to glucose-lowering effects. Nevertheless, these differences are often small and would be unlikely to reflect any definite differential effect in an individual patient. The ADA and EASD have requested an update to the position statement incorporating new data from recent clinical trials. Between June and September of 2014, the Writing Group reconvened, including one face-to-face meeting, to discuss the changes. An entirely new statement was felt to be unnecessary. Instead, the group focused on those areas where revisions were suggested by a changing evidence base. This briefer article should therefore be read as an addendum to the previous full account (1,2). Glucose control remains a major focus in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes. However, this should always be in the context of a comprehensive cardiovascular risk factor reduction program, to include smoking cessation and the adoption of other healthy lifestyle habits, blood pressure control, lipid management with priority to statin medications, and, in some circumstances, antiplatelet therapy. Studies have conclusively determined that reducing hyperglycemia decreases the onset and progression of …

Cancer Screening in the United States, 2009: A Review of Current American Cancer Society Guidelines and Issues in Cancer Screening

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE

American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. Also: update 2001--testing for early lung cancer detection.

Updates to the American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines regarding screening for the early detection of prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers, based on the recommendations of recent ACS workshops, are presented. Additionally, the authors review the “cancer‐related check‐up,” clinical encounters that provide case‐finding and health counseling opportunities. Finally, the ACS is issuing an updated narrative related to testing for early lung cancer detection for clinicians and individuals at high risk of lung cancer in light of emerging data on new imaging technologies.

American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Update 2010

In 2009, the American Cancer Society (ACS) Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee began the process of a complete update of recommendations for early prostate cancer detection. A series of systematic evidence reviews was conducted focusing on evidence related to the early detection of prostate cancer, test performance, harms of therapy for localized prostate cancer, and shared and informed decision making in prostate cancer screening. The results of the systematic reviews were evaluated by the ACS Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee, and deliberations about the evidence occurred at committee meetings and during conference calls. On the basis of the evidence and a consensus process, the Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee developed the guideline, and a writing committee drafted a guideline document that was circulated to the entire committee for review and revision. The document was then circulated to peer reviewers for feedback, and finally to the ACS Mission Outcomes Committee and the ACS Board of Directors for approval. The ACS recommends that asymptomatic men who have at least a 10‐year life expectancy have an opportunity to make an informed decision with their health care provider about screening for prostate cancer after they receive information about the uncertainties, risks, and potential benefits associated with prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer screening should not occur without an informed decision‐making process. Men at average risk should receive this information beginning at age 50 years. Men in higher risk groups should receive this information before age 50 years. Men should either receive this information directly from their health care providers or be referred to reliable and culturally appropriate sources. Patient decision aids are helpful in preparing men to make a decision whether to be tested. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:70–98.

American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centred approach. Update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

In 2012, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) published a position statement on the management of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (1,2). This was needed because of an increasing array of antihyperglycemic drugs and growing uncertainty regarding their proper selection and sequence. Because of a paucity of comparative effectiveness research on longterm treatment outcomeswithmanyof thesemedications, the 2012publicationwas less prescriptive than prior consensus reports. We previously described the need to individualize both treatment targets and treatment strategies, with an emphasis on patientcentered care and shared decision making, and this continues to be our position, although therearenowmorehead-to-head trials that showslight variancebetweenagents with regard to glucose-lowering effects. Nevertheless, these differences are often small and would be unlikely to reflect any definite differential effect in an individual patient. The ADA and EASD have requested an update to the position statement incorporating new data from recent clinical trials. Between June and September of 2014, the Writing Group reconvened, including one face-to-facemeeting, to discuss the changes. An entirely new statement was felt to be unnecessary. Instead, the group focused on those areas where revisions were suggested by a changing evidence base. This briefer article should therefore be read as an addendum to the previous full account (1,2).

A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer screening is underutilized. The objective of the current study was to determine whether targeted and tailored interventions can increase screening use.

The expanding role of primary care in cancer control

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise—from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists—has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care—its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families—are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

Promoting Early Detection Tests for Colorectal Carcinoma and Adenomatous Polyps A Framework for Action: The Strategic Plan of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable

The purpose of the current study was to provide health professionals, professional organizations, policy makers, and the general public with a practical blueprint for increasing the practice of screening for colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and adenomatous polyps over the next decade. The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT) was founded in 1997 by the American Cancer Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide strategic leadership, advocacy, long‐range planning, and coordination of interventions targeted at reducing the disease burden of CRC through education, early detection, and prevention. The NCCRT and its three workgroups include CRC survivors; recognized experts in primary care, gastroenterology, radiology, colorectal surgery, nursing, public policy, epidemiology, and behavioral science; patient advocates; and representatives of health plans and insurers, government, and other organizations.