Comment on: Raz et al. Personalized Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: Reflections From a Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum. Diabetes Care 2013;36:1779–1788
There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Not all existing therapies for type 2 diabetes provide similar glycemic control for
every affected patient; with a few notable exceptions, how different responses to
therapy relate to specific variations within identifiable subgroups of patients remained,
and remains, largely unexplored.
Also on the basis of current uncertainty, the Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum
delivered their reflections to help physicians personalize diabetes care (1). Apart
from the many given reasons for the need to decode the joint position statement by
the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes
(EASD) (2), the list could also include recognition of the difficulty of implementing
effective personalized therapy in a clinical setting, the need to enlarge consensus,
and the panoply of diabetes drugs, which may also imply the “personalization of a
niche” for each different antihyperglycemic agent within the 12 drug classes on the
U.S. market. However, multiple treatment guidelines, algorithms, and goals periodically
released to improve guidance may also enhance uncertainty (3).
Personalized medicine should be based on evidence rather than clinical impression;
unfortunately, it still lacks scientific evidence. For example, personalization of
HbA1c target for diabetic individuals is paramount as the aggressiveness of any therapy
is ultimately based on how low the target is set. A good example of this challenge
is the recent INTERVAL trial, which aims to assess the feasibility of setting and
achieving individualized targets in elderly (aged 70 years or older) type 2 diabetic
patients (4). Although investigators from seven European countries were free to set
individualized treatment targets on the basis of age, baseline HbA1c, comorbidities,
and frailty status, the mean investigator-defined individualized HbA1c targets were
around 7.0%, substantially lower than expected for that elderly population. To our
knowledge, this is the only controlled study trying to apply the philosophy of personalized
medicine in type 2 diabetes.
Human beings tend to revert to the familiar: given the paucity of pragmatic aid (for
example, Web-driven algorithms that estimate the target with simple parameters or
tailor pharmacological therapy on the basis of clinical features [5]), personal decisions
tend to be conservative and uniform to what is familiar and known. A lesson learned
is that physicians need practical help to feel safer with consistent recommendations.
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. See
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.