Good adherence by physicians to treatment guidelines for type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) could improve therapy outcome for patients. In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, we assessed physicians\' adherence to evidence-based guidelines for T2DM management in adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with either confirmed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or those at high risk of developing ASCVD at the Thumbay Academic Health Center, United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Relevant data was obtained from patients\' medical records, assessed, and compared based on the 2018 diabetes guidelines of the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
A total of 218 patients (186 males and 32 females) were included in the analysis. Of these, 122 were prescribed either sodium-glucose co-transporter-2(SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and 34 were prescribed both. The overall adherence to the guidelines was 56%, which was significantly influenced by body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, and estimated average glucose (eAG).
Adherence to guidelines was significantly high when treating patients with elevated levels of HbA1c and eAG, suggesting that physicians are more likely to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors or/and GLP-1 receptor agonists to such patients. Physicians\' adherence to guidelines was significantly correlated with patients\' BMI and the levels of HbA1c and eAG. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study conducted on diabetes and its risk factors in UAE.

暂无摘要。

In 2020, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes Guidelines newly recommended adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in patients with both type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, regardless of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. In this study, the primary objective was to assess the pharmacist\'s role in the therapeutic optimization of patients with both type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease relative to the new recommendations. The secondary objectives were to assess other factors affecting therapeutic optimization and clinician familiarity with the recommendations. This study, conducted at the East Hawai.i Health Clinic, included 60 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Anonymous surveys were sent to clinicians at the clinic to assess recommendation familiarity. Patients seen by a pharmacist were significantly more likely to be therapeutically optimized per the 2020 ADA guidelines than those not seen by a pharmacist. HbA1c and age also influenced SGLT-2/GLP-1 therapy use. All clinicians were more likely to prescribe SGLT-2/GLP-1 therapy for patients with uncontrolled HbA1c but were less likely to prescribe additional therapy for patients with controlled HbA1c, even in patients with previous atherosclerotic events.

Periodontitis has been defined as the Sixth complication of Diabetes Mellitus. Since both diabetes mellitus and periodontitis have a high prevalence in the general population, the Italian Society of Diabetology, the Italian Society of Periodontology and Implantology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists revised the present scientific literature in the present consensus report. A bi-directional interaction was demonstrated: Patients affected by type 1 and type 2 diabetes have a higher prevalence of periodontitis than the general population, due to several metabolic factors (e.g. chronic hyperglycemia, autoimmunity, dietary and life-style factors); similarly, periodontitis predisposes to type 2 diabetes mellitus mainly via the increase of systemic cytokines release. Conversely, improvement of metabolic control of diabetic patients delay the progression of periodontitis as well as periodontitis treatment reduces glycosylated hemoglobin levels in blood. Due to the bi-directional causal interaction between periodontitis and diabetes mellitus, a strict collaboration among dentists and diabetologists is required and strongly recommended. The inter-societies consensus proposes specific flow-diagrams to improve the treatment of patients and management of the general population regarding the issue of periodontitis and diabetes.

Recent European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) guidelines provide recommendations for detecting and treating chronic kidney disease (CKD) in diabetic patients. We compared clinical practice with guidelines to determine areas for improvement.
German database analysis of 675,628 patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, with 134,395 included in this analysis. Data were compared with ESC/EASD recommendations.
This analysis included 17,649 and 116,747 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The analysis showed that 44.1 and 49.1 % patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively, were annually screened for CKD. Despite anti-diabetic treatment, only 27.2 % patients with type 1 and 43.5 % patients with type 2 achieved a target HbA1c of < 7.0 %. Use of sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (1.5 % type 1/8.7 % type 2 diabetes) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (0.6 % type 1/5.2 % type 2 diabetes) was limited. Hypertension was controlled according to guidelines in 41.1 and 67.7 % patients aged 18-65 years with type 1 and 2 diabetes, respectively, (62.4 vs. 68.4 % in patients > 65 years). Renin angiotensin aldosterone inhibitors were used in 24.0 and 40.9 % patients with type 1 diabetes (micro- vs. macroalbuminuria) and 39.9 and 47.7 %, respectively, in type 2 diabetes.
Data indicate there is room for improvement in caring for diabetic patients with respect to renal disease diagnosis and treatment. While specific and potentially clinically justified reasons for non-compliance exist, the data may serve well for a critical appraisal of clinical practice decisions.

Clinical practice guidelines emphasise the role of regular monitoring of glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) for patients with type 2 diabetes, with most recommending 6-monthly testing. Nonetheless, there are few in-depth studies evaluating the clinical impact of the recommended testing frequency for patients to underpin the significance of guideline adherence.
This study aimed to examine associations between patient outcomes and adherence to HbA1c testing frequencies recommended by Australian guidelines (6-monthly for patients with adequate glycaemic control and 3-monthly for patients with inadequate glycaemic control). The primary and secondary outcomes of interest were longitudinal changes in HbA1c values and development of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
This 5-year retrospective cohort study (July 2013-June 2018) evaluated HbA1c testing frequency in a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes identified within data collected from approximately 250 Australian general practices. The study included patients who were aged ≥18 in 2013 and had a record of HbA1c testing in study practices during the study period. Each patient\'s adherence rate was defined by the proportion of HbA1c tests performed within the testing intervals recommended by Australian guidelines. Based on the adherence rate, adherence level was categorised into low (≤33%), moderate (34%-66%) and high (>66%). Generalised additive mixed models were used to examine associations between adherence to the recommended HbA1c testing frequency and patient outcomes.
In the 6424 patients with diabetes, the overall median HbA1c testing frequency was 1.6 tests per year with an adherence rate of 50%. The estimated HbA1c levels among patients with low adherence gradually increased or remained inadequately controlled, while HbA1c values in patients with high adherence remained controlled or improved over time. The risk of developing CKD for patients with high adherence was significantly lower than for patients with low adherence (OR: 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.99). No association between IHD and adherence to the recommended HbA1c frequency was observed.
Better adherence to guideline-recommended HbA1c testing frequency was associated with better glycaemic control and lower risk of CKD. These findings may provide valuable evidence to support the use of clinical guidelines for better patient outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The aim of this study was to assess adherence to the 2014 Ministry of Health (MoH) screening guidelines for diabetes in pregnancy (DiP) by Māori and non-Māori in the Waikato region.
Clinical records were reviewed for women without known diabetes before pregnancy who delivered in hospitals or community birth centres in the Waikato region during June-August 2017. Screening rates for DiP were assessed using HbA1c, glucose challenge and/or glucose tolerance tests.
Of a total of 807 women, 94% received some form of screening for DiP; 527 (65.3%) underwent HbA1c screening at <20 weeks and 267 (33.1%) underwent testing for gestational diabetes at 24-28 weeks\' gestation. However, only 213 (26.4%) received all screening as per the MoH guideline. HbA1c testing was the most common screening performed (83.9% of all pregnancies), and three quarters of women had a glucose load screen at some point during pregnancy. In all measures, screening rates were lower in Māori, with only 17.5% (46 of 263 women) receiving both HbA1c and further glucose load screening in the recommended gestation windows (versus 31.6% (171 of 541) for non-Māori; P<0.0005).
Adherence to screening guidelines for DiP was poor with a marked ethnic inequity. Further work is needed to investigate the barriers to care that drive these differences.

Regular exercise is considered a cornerstone in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). It improves glucose control and cardiovascular risk factors, contributes to weight loss, and also improves general well-being, likely playing a role in the prevention of chronic complications of diabetes. However, compliance to exercise recommendations is generally inadequate in subjects with T2DM. Walking is the most ancestral form of physical activity in humans, easily applicable in daily life. It may represent, in many patients, a first simple step towards lifestyle changes. Nevertheless, while most diabetic patients do not engage in any weekly walking, exercise guidelines do not generally detail how to improve its use. The aims of this document are to conduct a systematic review of available literature on walking as a therapeutic tool for people with T2DM, and to provide practical, evidence-based clinical recommendations regarding its utilization in these subjects.
Analysis of available RCTs proved that regular walking training, especially when supervised, improves glucose control in subjects with T2DM, with favorable effects also on cardiorespiratory fitness, body weight and blood pressure. Moreover, some recent studies have shown that even short bouts of walking, used for breaking prolonged sitting, can ameliorate glucose profiles in diabetic patients with sedentary behavior.
There is sufficient evidence to recognize that walking is a useful therapeutic tool for people with T2DM. This document discusses theoretical and practical issues for improving its use. This article is co-published in the journals Sport Sciences for Health and Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) updates the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes annually to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested parties with evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of diabetes.
To develop the 2020 Standards, the ADA Professional Practice Committee, comprising physicians, adult and pediatric endocrinologists, diabetes educators, registered dietitians, epidemiologists, pharmacists, and public health experts, continuously searched MEDLINE (English language only) from 15 October 2018 through August-September 2019 for pertinent studies, including high-quality trials that addressed pharmacologic management of type 2 diabetes. The committee selected and reviewed the studies, developed the recommendations, and solicited feedback from the larger clinical community.
This synopsis focuses on guidance relating to the pharmacologic treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes. Recommendations address oral and noninsulin injectable therapies, insulin treatment, and combination injectable therapies. Results of recent large trials with cardiovascular and renal outcomes are emphasized.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed-ratio co-formulation of insulin degludec, which provides long-lasting basal insulin coverage, and insulin aspart, which targets postprandial glycaemia. This review provides expert opinion on the practical clinical use of IDegAsp, including: dose timings relative to meals, when and how to intensify treatment from once-daily (OD) to twice-daily (BID) dose adjustments, and use in special populations (including hospitalized patients). IDegAsp could be considered as one among the choices for initiating insulin treatment, preferential to starting on basal insulin alone, particularly for people with severe hyperglycaemia and/or when postprandial hyperglycaemia is a major concern. The recommended starting dose of IDegAsp is 10 units with the most carbohydrate-rich meal(s), followed by individualized dose adjustments. Insulin doses should be titrated once weekly in two-unit steps, guided by individualized fasting plasma glucose targets and based on patient goals, preferences and hypoglycaemia risk. Options for intensification from IDegAsp OD are discussed, which should be guided by HbA1c, prandial glucose levels, meal patterns and patient preferences. Recommendations for switching to IDegAsp from basal insulin, premixed insulins OD/BID, and basal-plus/basal-bolus regimens are discussed. IDegAsp can be co-administered with other antihyperglycaemic drugs; however, sulphonylureas frequently need to be discontinued or the dose reduced, and the IDegAsp dose may need to be decreased when sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are added. Considerations around the initiation or continuation of IDegAsp in hospitalized individuals are discussed, as well as in those undergoing medical procedures.