Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Patient-Centered Approach

By Silvio E. Inzucchi, R. Bergenstal, John B. Buse, M. Diamant, E. Ferrannini, M. Nauck, A. Peters, A. Tsapas, R. Wender, D. R. Matthews. Diabetes Care, 2012

3,782 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Glycemic management in type 2 diabetes mellitus has become increasingly complex and, to some extent, controversial, with a widening array of pharmacological agents now available (1–5), mounting concerns about their potential adverse effects and new uncertainties regarding the benefits of intensive glycemic control on macrovascular complications (6–9). Many clinicians are therefore perplexed as to the optimal strategies for their patients. As a consequence, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a joint task force to examine the evidence and develop recommendations for antihyperglycemic therapy in nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes. Several guideline documents have been developed by members of these two organizations (10) and by other societies and federations (2,11–15). However, an update was deemed necessary because of contemporary information on the benefits/risks of glycemic control, recent evidence concerning efficacy and safety of several new drug classes (16,17), the withdrawal/restriction of others, and increasing calls for a move toward more patient-centered care (18,19). This statement has been written incorporating the best available evidence and, where solid support does not exist, using the experience and insight of the writing group, incorporating an extensive review by additional experts (acknowledged below). The document refers to glycemic control; yet this clearly needs to be pursued within a multifactorial risk reduction framework. This stems from the fact that patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; the aggressive management of cardiovascular …

Subfields: Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ff11f8a72feac956515e058b226fe5e1f4f58b23

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

  1. G. Meininger
  2. W. Cefalu
  3. Kyoung-Ah Kim
  4. C. Tong
  5. K. Usiskin
  6. M. Alba
  7. W. Canovatchel
  8. K. Stenlöf

Citations in the corpus