Clinical Assessment of Individualized Glycemic Goals in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Formulation of an Algorithm Based on a Survey Among Leading Worldwide Diabetologists

Avivit Cahn, Itamar Raz, Yosef Kleinman, Ran Balicer, Moshe Hoshen, Nicky Lieberman, Naomi Brenig, Stefano Del Prato, William T Cefalu, Avivit Cahn, Itamar Raz, Yosef Kleinman, Ran Balicer, Moshe Hoshen, Nicky Lieberman, Naomi Brenig, Stefano Del Prato, William T Cefalu

Abstract

Objective: Observations over the past few years have demonstrated the need to adjust glycemic targets based on parameters pertaining to individual patient characteristics and comorbidities. However, the weight and value given to each parameter will clearly vary depending on the experience of the provider, the characteristics of the patient, and the specific clinical situation.

Research design and methods: To determine if there is current consensus on a global level with regard to identifying these parameters and their relative importance, we conducted a survey among 244 key worldwide opinion-leading diabetologists. Initially, the physicians were to rank the factors they take into consideration when setting their patients' glycemic target according to their relative importance. Subsequently, six clinical vignettes were presented, and the experts were requested to suggest an appropriate glycemic target. The survey results were used to formulate an algorithm according to which an estimate of the patient's glycemic target based on individualized parameters can be computed. Three additional clinical cases were submitted to a new set of experts for validation of the algorithm.

Results: A total of 151 (61.9%) experts responded to the survey. The parameters "life expectancy" and "risk of hypoglycemia from treatment" were considered to be the most important. "Resources" and "disease duration" ranked the lowest. An algorithm was constructed based on survey results. It was validated by presenting three new cases to 57 leading diabetologists who suggested glycemic targets that were similar to those calculated by the algorithm.

Conclusions: The resultant suggested algorithm is an additional decision-making tool offered to the clinician to supplement clinical decision making when considering a glycemic target for the individual patient with diabetes.

© 2015 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Survey results. A: Box plot showing the mean, median, and IQR of the ranking of the parameters by the experts. The percentages above the columns indicate the % of experts who counted the parameter among the top 3. B: The glycemic targets recommended by the experts for each individual case. Case 1, ACCORD-type patient with severe micro- and macrovascular disease; case 2, nursing home resident with dementia; case 3, elderly patient with new-onset diabetes and long-standing coronary artery disease; case 4, elderly patient with mild dementia and long-standing diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin regimen; case 5, middle-aged patient with new-onset diabetes; case 6, patient with schizophrenia, noncompliance, and microvascular complications.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4657613/bin/dc150187fx1.jpg
Dr. Yosef Kleinman (1948–2013) was a renowned diabetologist in Israel. During his career as head of the Internal Medicine Section in a Jerusalem Hospital, he established and administrated a diabetic foot clinic for many years and devoted his life to the care of his patients. Personalization of care was one of his mottoes. He was the enthusiastic and passionate promoter of our survey and subsequent development of the algorithm. Unfortunately he did not live to see his work's culmination. This article is dedicated to his memory.

References

    1. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. .; American Diabetes Association (ADA); European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) . Management of hyperglycemia 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). Diabetes Care 2012;35:1364–1379
    1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group . Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 1998;352:854–865
    1. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1577–1589
    1. Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al. .; Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group . Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2545–2559
    1. Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al. .; ADVANCE Collaborative Group . Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2560–2572
    1. Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, et al. .; VADT Investigators . Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2009;360:129–139
    1. American Diabetes Association . Standards of medical care in diabetes—2015. Diabetes Care 2015;38(Suppl. 1):S1–S89
    1. Raz I, Riddle MC, Rosenstock J, et al. . Personalized management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: reflections from a Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum. Diabetes Care 2013;36:1779–1788
    1. Ismail-Beigi F, Moghissi E, Tiktin M, Hirsch IB, Inzucchi SE, Genuth S. Individualizing glycemic targets in type 2 diabetes mellitus: implications of recent clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:554–559
    1. Seaquist ER, Miller ME, Bonds DE, et al. .; ACCORD Investigators . The impact of frequent and unrecognized hypoglycemia on mortality in the ACCORD study. Diabetes Care 2012;35:409–414
    1. McCoy RG, Van Houten HK, Ziegenfuss JY, Shah ND, Wermers RA, Smith SA. Increased mortality of patients with diabetes reporting severe hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care 2012;35:1897–1901
    1. Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, et al. . Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol 2011;173:676–682

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa