Ramírez-Roca LA, Palencia-Prado J, Castro-Martínez MG

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 733-748
PDF size: 915.44 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is getting better treatment options because there are new medicines and, sometimes, new therapeutic classes; however for treating physicians it is a challenge to choose the most suitable schemes for different types and patient profiles. Hence the need to establish, according to many epidemiological variables (age, gender, time of disease, uncontrolled level, etc.), which are the best drugs (combinations) that allow better treatment and outcomes for people with the disease and what empirical-scientific basis should be used. This systematic review of treatment guidelines in diabetes contributes to discern according to our population characteristics, what is the proper fit for our needs in Latin America and more precisely in Central America. It is considered here that generate more treatment guidelines in our region, for example by country, is not as useful as review the various existing guidelines and give them a fair value for us, for its usefulness in clinical practice. The guidelines of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association Consensus (EASD), the Latin American Diabetes Association (ALAD) and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) in their latest published versions, allow us to evaluate efficiency in the interaction of combinations, to establish a therapeutic sequencing and importantly consider the safety profiles of prescription treatments for Latin America.

REFERENCES

1. American Diabetes Association: Standars of Medical Care in Diabetes-2014. American Diabetes Association: Clinical Practice Recommendations. Diabetes Care 2014;37:14-80.

2. Diabetes Control and Complications: Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive diabetes treatment on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. N Engl J Med 1993;329:978-986.

3. Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Araki E, Takao M, et al. Intensve insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetes microvascular complications in Japonese patients with NIDDM: a randomized prospective 6-years study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1995;28:103-117.

4. Skyler JS, Bergenstal R, Bonow RO, et al. Intensive glycaemic control and the prevention of cardiovascular events: implications of the ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VA Diabetes Trials: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and a Scientific Statement of the American College of Cardiology Foundation and The American Heart Association. Diabetes Care 2009;32:187-192.

5. Greenfield S, Billimek J, Pellegrini F, et al. Comorbidity affects the relationship between glycaemic control and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetes: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:854-860.

6. Mathews DR, Tsapas A. Four decades of uncertainly: Landmark trials in glycaemic control and cardiovascular outcome in type 2 diabetes. Diab Vasc Dis Res 2008;5:216-218.

7. Stewart GL, Tambasia M, Rosas J, et al. A multi-center, epidemiologic survey of the current medical practice of general practitioners treating Subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Latin America. DEAL STUDY. Diabetes 2007;56:256.

8. Inzucchi SE, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. Position statement of American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2015:38:140-149.

9. Guía ALAD sobre el diagnóstico, control y tratamiento de la Diabetes Mellitus tipo 2 con medicina basada en Evidencia. Rev ALAD 2013.

10. Guía clínica de Diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Serie de guías Clínicas Minsal. Ministerio de Salud, Secretaría de Salud Pública, Chile 2010.

11. AACE. Comprehensive diabetes management algorithm 2015. Endocr Pract 2015;21:3-87.

12. Méndez-Torre E, Lafita-Tejedor J, Artola-Menéndez S, Millán-Nuñez-Cortés J, et al. Recomendaciones para el tratamiento farmacológico de la hiperglucemia en la diabetes tipo 2. Sociedad Española de Diabetes. Av Diabetol 2010;26:331-338.

13. Guía de Práctica Clínica GPC. Diagnóstico y tratamiento de la Diabetes Mellitus tipo 2. Evidencias y recomendaciones. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Catálogo IMSS XXXXX. Actualización 2012.

14. Canadian Diabetes Association. Guidelines, Clinical Practice of Diabetes. Can J Diabetes 2008;32:53-62.

15. Rodbard H, Jellinger P, Davidson J, Einhorn D, et al. AACE/ACE consensus statement statement by an American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology consensus panel on type 2 diabetes mellitus: an algorithm for glycaemic control. Endocr Pract 2009;15:540-559.

16. Schwartz S, Sievers R, Strange P, Lyness WH, Hollander P. Insulin 70/30 mix plus metformin versus triple oral therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes after failure of two oral drugs: efficacy, safety, and cost analysis. DiabetesCare 2003;26:2238-2243.

17. Lingvay I, Legendre JL, Kaloyanova PF, Zhang S, et al. Insulin based versus triple oral therapy for newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: which is better? Diabetes Care 2009;32:1789-1795.

18. Ortega Millán C, Fornos Pérez JA, García Mayor R, Menéndez Torre E. Diabetología. Tema de actualidad. Triple terapia en diabetes tipo 2: revisión sistemática de la evidencia disponible. Avances en Diabetología 2010;26:276-280.

19. Bailey CJ, Kodack M. Patient adherence to medication requirements for therapy of type 2 diabetes. Int J Clin Pract 2011;65:314-322.

20. Rosenstock J, Ahmann AJ, Colon G, Scism-Bacon J, et al. Advancing insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes previously treated with glargine plus oral agents: prandial premixed (insulin lispro protamine suspension/lispro) versus basal/bolus (glargine/lispro) therapy. Diabetes Care 2008;31:20-5.

21. Riddle MC, Rosenstock J, Gerich J. The treat-to-target trial: randomized addition of glargine or human NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2003;26:3080-3086.