|Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français|
The Brazilian Diabetes Society is starting an innovative project of quantitative assessment of medical arguments of and implementing a new way of elaborating SBD Position Statements. The final aim of this particular project is to propose a new Brazilian algorithm for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, based on the opinions of endocrinologists surveyed from a poll conducted on the Brazilian Diabetes Society website regarding the latest algorithm proposed by American Diabetes Association /European Association for the Study of Diabetes, published in January 2009.
An additional source used, as a basis for the new algorithm, was to assess the acceptability of controversial arguments published in international literature, through a panel of renowned Brazilian specialists. Thirty controversial arguments in diabetes have been selected with their respective references, where each argument was assessed and scored according to its acceptability level and personal conviction of each member of the evaluation panel.
This methodology was adapted using a similar approach to the one adopted in the recent position statement by the American College of Cardiology on coronary revascularization, of which not only cardiologists took part, but also specialists of other related areas.
Considering the great controversy raised by the recommendations at the recent ADA/EASD algorithm, the Brazilian Diabetes Society (BDS) decided to evaluate the opinions of its members, through a survey conducted on the BDS' website during ten days, in November 2008 [1,2]. Two hundred and seventeen associates (endocrinologists) completed this survey.
Table Table11 shows the percentages of answers to the proposed questions to BDS' associates.
The results showed that the majority of the brazilian endocrinologists do not agree with the guidelines proposed by the ADA/EASD algorithm regarding the use of glitazone, GLP-1 analogs and DPP-IV inhibitors in the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes.
Considering the need for an algorithm reflecting the opinion of Brazilian endocrinologists, the Brazilian Diabetes Society decided to develop this position statement, whose recommendations shall be dictated by the technical panel assessments, named by the entity and also by the results obtained from the survey.
In addition to the feedback from associates obtained through the survey and in order to provide a more robust basis to the algorithm proposed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the Brazilian Diabetes Society obtained the opinions of a panel formed by renowned Brazilian specialists regarding recommendations, guidelines and controversial arguments on the treatment of type 2 diabetes in international literature.
Thirty controversial arguments were individually assessed and scored on a 10-point scale by the evaluation panel members, who assigned individual scores (0-10) to the 30 arguments presented, which were made into 5 acceptability levels (1-5).
The correlation between scores and their corresponding acceptability levels, as well as the analytical interpretation of results, are summarized in table table22.
Table S1, Additional file 1 shows the relation between controversial matters assessed and their respective bibliographical references and the average level of acceptability for each controversial matter, following the calculation methodology as defined in the previous item.
The desirable goal for A1C, as defined by the previous position statement in 2007, recommended A1C levels < 6.5%. In this new Position Statement, the recommended A1C goal was redefined to <7.0% as shown in table table3.3. However, according to the ADA's 2010 statement, in patients with a history of severe hypoglycemia, patients with limited life expectancies, children, individuals with comorbidities, those with longstanding diabetes, advanced age and those with advanced microvascular or macrovascular complications" intensive glycemic control may outweigh its benefits. But for patients with short duration of diabetes, long life expectancy, and no significant CVD a level of A1c even lower than the general goal of <7%, has been suggested if this can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse effects [3-5].
The new algorithm proposal for the treatment of type 2 diabetes was developed based on the premises and assessments conducted through the survey with SBD members and the assessment of conclusions from the panel of specialists (Table (Table44).
The presentation format of the new algorithm proposal was developed taking as fundamental reference the recommendations by the Joslin Diabetes Center & Joslin Clinic and also by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists [6-9]..
The present algorithm was completed before the publication of the recent AACE/ACE algorithm . As pointed out in the recent AACE algorithm safety, efficacy and effectiveness must be the priorities and in developing countries like Brazil cost of medications is an important barrier and could Influence the treatment.
The various therapeutic interventions present different levels of comparative efficacy and of potential of A1C reduction. Such facts must be taken into account when determining the best therapeutic strategy for each patient (table (table5)5) [11,12].
Due to its convenience and comparatively lower prices, fixed-combination therapies for treating diabetes are being made available more frequently. There are many presentations of combined treatments, including two oral agents in the same package, however with separate pills (table (table7)7) or a single pill containing both active agents in the same formulation (table (table88).
Basically, there are three commercial presentation forms of insulin in the Brazilian marketplace: 1) human insulin in monotherapy; 2) human insulin analog in monotherapy; 3) biphasic human insulin analogs.
The addition of insulin to patients with type 2 diabetes must be done as soon as the patient did not reach the target of HbA1c . No definitve conclusions regarding the association between insulin therapy with glargine  and malignancies were established.
Table Table99 summarizes the main features of the action profile of insulin preparations available.
Biphasic insulin analogs have a long-acting insulin component, in a formulation combined with a short-acting insulin component, as shown in table table1010
The concept of Evidence-Based Medicine recognizes three main components to help physicians define therapeutic conduct: the evidence of research per se, the clinical expertise of physicians and patient preferences. Treatment cost must be one of the fundamental factors for patients to fulfill their right of choice in due proportion, in the concept of evidence-based medicine .
We added two website suggestions for physicians to obtain information about drug costs for consumers of the therapeutic options they intend to prescribe. In both references, prices are displayed in different rows expressing the costs of each drug, considering the incidence of distinct tax rates, which vary according to Brazilian states. For the physician, the desired piece of information is the maximum retail price (MRP), which may be found in the last row to the right in price tables.
Requires previous and free subscription. Search for item "drugs/prices" on the left row in the homepage
ACL - The author declare that he has no competing interest
ARC - Research grants from Eli Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Novo Nordisk
Advisory board: AZ, BMS, Sanofi-Aventis, Novo Nordisk
APN - External Medical Consultant for Roche Diagnostics; Speaker GSK, Eli Lily
DM - Committee Member: NONE
Research Grant: NONE
Speakers' Bureau: SANOFI-AVENTIS
Expert Witness: NONE
Stock Ownership: NONE
Board of Directors: NONE
Scientific Advisory Board: SANOFI-AVENTIS
Steering Committee: NONE
JLG - Research Grants: Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis
Speaker: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis
Member Advisory Board: Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis
JEPO - Member Advisory Board Sanofi-Aventis
MBG - The author declare that she has no competing interest
RDS - Member Advisory Board GSK, MerckSharp&Dhome
Speaker: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, MerckSharp&Dhome, Bristol Meyers Squibb, GSK, Novartis
RMCF - The author declare that she has no competing interest
RB - The author declare that he has no competing interest
RR - Member Advisoy board Lantus
Speaker: SanofiAventis, Abbott, MerckSharp&Dhome, Eli Lily, Novonordisk, GSK
APN wrote the manuscript.
MBG partipated in the design of the study and wrote the manuscript.
ACL, ARC, DM, JLG, JEPO, RDS, RMCF, RB, RR: all have partipated in the technical panel.
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Table S1. average acceptability level of controversial matters assessed and their respective bibliographic references.