Advertisement

Current Diabetes Reports

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 246–254 | Cite as

A Review and Critical Analysis of Professional Societies’ Guidelines for Pharmacologic Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

  • Robert A. VigerskyEmail author
Pharmacologic Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes and Obesity (D Wexler, Section Editor)

Abstract

The development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which are promulgated by various sponsoring organizations to provide direction to clinicians for management of complex problems, generally adhere to a set of key principles. To reassure the users of their scientific and ethical validity, these include the use of a system to rate the quality of evidence on which the guideline is based and the divulgence of any conflicts of interest (COI) among members of the panel developing the guidelines. I analyzed the CPGs for pharmacologic management of patients with type 2 diabetes written by the two US professional societies that developed such guidelines (American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists [AACE] and the American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes [ADA/EASD]) to assess their adherence to these principles of guideline development and to compare them with regard to simplicity, consideration of costs, and peer review status. To put the existence of COIs in these guidelines into context, I also reviewed the COIs from government-sponsored panels that developed diabetes CPGs. The results of this analysis suggest that both the AACE and ADA/EASD guidelines should be regarded as consensus documents rather than true CPGs, since neither guideline employed evidence grading. COI was extremely common among the members of both CPG panels from professional organizations, as well in the CPG panels with government sponsorship. In addition, the nature and extent of external peer review of these guidelines is unclear. Given these limitations, the AACE and ADA/EASD CPGs for diabetes management should be regarded as advisory at best, rather than prescriptive or authoritative, especially in view of their noncompliance with key principles of guideline development.

Keywords

Clinical practice guidelines Conflicts of interest Type 2 diabetes mellitus 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The opinions expressed in this paper reflect the personal views of the authors and not the official views of the United States Army or the Department of Defense.

Disclosure

Conflicts of interest: R.A. Vigersky: has received grant support from DexCom Corporation; has received payment for development of educational presentations from OmniMedia; and he is the Past President of The Endocrine Society, and former Chairman of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Subcommittee of The Endocrine Society.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/factsheet11.htm. Accessed December 2011.
  2. 2.
    • Huang ES, Basu A, et al. Projecting the future diabetes population size and related costs for the U.S. Diabetes Care. 2009;32: 2225–2229. This paper reports on the magnitude of the diabetes epidemic and serves as an important touchstone for planning large-scale translational studies. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Field MJ, Lohr KN, editors. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program, institute of medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990. p. 38.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    • Rodbard HW, Jellinger PS, Davidson JA, et al. Statement by an American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology consensus panel on type 2 diabetes mellitus: an algorithm for glycemic control. Endocr Pract. 2009;15: 541–559. The algorithm in this paper is one of the two main “guidelines” discussed in my review and is a common used pathway for clinicians. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    • Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, et al. Medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy. Diabetes Care. 2009;32: 193–203. The algorithm in this paper is one of the two main “guidelines” discussed in my review and is a commonly used pathway for clinicians. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schunemann HJ, Best D, Vist G, Oxman AD. for the GRADE Working Group. Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. Can Med Assoc J. 2003;169:677–80.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Brit Med J. 2004;328:1490–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    American Diabetes Association. Clinical practice recommendations 2012. Introduction. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:S1–2 and S11–S63.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Type 2 Diabetes. National clinical guideline for management in primary and secondary care (update). Appendix E. Accessed on line on December 30, 2011 at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53885/.
  10. 10.
    Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Management of diabetes. A national clinical guideline. March 2010. Available at: www.sign.ac.uk. Accessed December 2011.
  11. 11.
    •• Swiglo BA, Murad, MH, Holger J, et al. A case for clarity, consistency, and helpfulness: state-of-the-art clinical practice guidelines in endocrinology using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation system. J Clin Endo Metab. 2008;93: 666–673. This paper describes the methodology that has been accepted by multiple professional societies and explains how to incorporate expert opinion into an evidence-based guideline. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Komesaroff PA, for the 2002–2003 Ethics Advisory Committee of The Endocrine Society. Ethical aspects of conflicts of interest, October 2003. Endocrinology. 2004;145:3032–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mendelson TB, Meltzer M, Campbell EG, Caplan AL, Kirkpatrick JN. Conflicts of interest in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:577–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roseman M, Milette K, Bero LA, et al. Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. J Amer Med Assoc. 2011;305:1008–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    •• Neuman J, Korenstein D, Ross JS, Keyhani S. Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among panel members producing clinical practice guidelines in Canada and United States: cross sectional study. Brit Med J. 2011;343: doi:  10.1136/bmj.d5621. This paper outlines the frequent presence of COIs in diabetes guidelines.
  16. 16.
    Handelsman Y, Mechanick JI, Blonde L, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for developing a diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plan. Endocr Pract. 2011;17(Supple 2):1–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    •• ProPublica. Available at: http://www.propublica.org/series/dollars-for-docs. Accessed June 2010. This interactive and constantly updated website allows for some degree of quantization of COIs.
  18. 18.
    Available at: http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/companies. Accessed January 2012.
  19. 19.
    American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Methodology manual and policies from the ACCF/AHA task force on practice guidelines. June 2010. p. 13–14. Available at: http://assets.cardiosource.com/Methodology_Manual_for_ACC_AHA_Writing_Committees.pdf. Accessed January 2012.
  20. 20.
    VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus. Version 4.0. August 2010. at: http://www.healthquality.va.gov/Diabetes_Mellitus.asp. Accessed December 2011.
  21. 21.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:977–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998;352:837–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. New Eng J Med. 2008;358:2545–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    The ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. New Eng J Med. 2008;358:2560–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, et al. Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. New Eng J Med. 2009;360:129–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 Int Med. 2011;154:554–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aschner P, Kipnes MS, Lunceford JK, et al. Effect of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin as monotherapy on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:2632–737.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Buse JB, Henry RR, Han J, et al. Effects of Exenatide (Exendin-4) on glycemic control over 30 weeks in sulfonylurea-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:2628–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bays HE, Goldberg RB, Truitt KE, Jones MR. Colesevalam hydrochloride therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with metformin: Glucose and lipid effects. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1975–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Deakin T, McShane C, Cade JE, Williams RD. Group based training for self-management strategies in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;no. CD003417.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alexander GC, Sehgal NL, Moloney RM, Stafford RS. National trends in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, 1994–2007. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:2088–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mojtabai R, Olfson M. Medication costs, adherence, and health outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries. Heal Aff. 2003;22:220–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Phung O, Scholle JM, Talwar M, Coleman CI. Effect of noninsulin antidiabetic drugs added to metformin therapy on glycemic control, weight gain, and hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2010;303:1410–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    American Diabetes Association. Clinical Practice Recommendations 2012. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes - 2012. Diabetes Care. 2012;35: e111–112. Accessed at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/Supplement_1/e111.full.pdf+html on January 2012.
  35. 35.
    Bennett WL, Odelola OA, Wilson LM, et al. Evaluation of guideline recommendations on oral medication for type 2 diabetes mellitus. A systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:27–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee. Canadian Diabetes Association 2008 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes. 2008;32 suppl 1:S1–S201.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Endocrinology and Diabetes ServiceWalter Reed National Military Medical CenterBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations