Advertisement

Info Diabetologie

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 30–37 | Cite as

Aktuelles Konsensus-Papier von ADA und EASD

Die neue individuelle antihyperglykämische Therapie bei Typ-2-Diabetes

  • Kornelia KonzEmail author
zertifizierte fortbildung
  • 233 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Durch den permanenten Wissenszuwachs und neue antiglykämische Wirkprinzipien ist die Therapie bei Typ-2-Diabetes komplex geworden. Sie erlaubt damit aber auch die Berücksichtigung individueller Patientencharakteristika und Komorbiditäten. Dieser Beitrag geht vornehmlich auf die Neuheiten der Therapie ein, die das Konsensus-Papier der amerikanischen (ADA) und europäischen (EASD) Diabetesgesellschaften von 2018 beinhaltet.

Literaturverzeichnis zum Beitrag „Die neue individuelle antihyperglykämische Therapie bei Typ-2-Diabetes“ von PD. Dr. med. Kornelia Konz — DKD HELIOS Klinik Wiesbaden

  1. 1.
    Davies MJ, Dálessio DA, Fradkin J et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 2018; 41: 2669–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hemmingsen B, Lund SS, Gluud C et al. Intensive glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes: systemic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysisof rabdomized clinical trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d 6898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Diabetes Complications (EDIC) Study Research Group. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular outcomes in type 1 diabetes: The DCCT/EDIC Study 30-year follow-up. Diabetes Care 2016; 39: 686–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holman RR, Sanjoy KP, Bethel MA et al. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1577–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lean MEJ, Leslie WS, Barnes AC et al. Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomized trial. Lancet 2018; 391: 541–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Riddle MC, Gerstein HC, Holman RR et al. A1c targets should be personalized to maximize benefits while limiting risks. Diabetes Care 2018; 41: 1121–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gaede P, Oellegaard J, Carstensen B et al. Years of life gained by multifactorial intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria: 21 years follow-up on the STENO-2 randomized trial. Diabetologia 2016; 5peptide receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation 2019;9: 2298–307Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Griffin SJ, Leaver JK, Irving GJ. Impact of metformin on cardiovascular disease: a metaanalysis of randomized trials among people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2017; 60: 1620–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K et al. Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 311–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM et al. Empagliflozin, cardiovscular outcomes, and morzality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2117–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zelnicker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I et al. Comparison of the effects of glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors fpr prevention of major adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation 2019; 139: 2022–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deacon CF. A reviwe of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Hot topics from randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Obes Metab 2018; 20 (Suppl. 1): 34–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sjöström L. Review of the key results from the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS)trial — a prospective controlled intervention study of bariatric surgery. J Intern Med 2013; 273: 219–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes 2018. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (Suppl. 1): 573–85Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levin PA, Nguyen H, Wittbrodt ET, Kim SC. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness research. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2017; 10: 123–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenstock J, Fonseca V, Schinzel S et al. Reduced risk of hypoglycemia with once-daily glargine versus twice-daily NPH and number neede to harm with NPH to demonstrate the risk of one additional hypoglycemic event in type 2 diabetes: evidence from a long-term controlled trial. J Diabetes Complications 2014; 28: 742–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Min SY, Yoon J-H, Hahn S et al. Comparison between SGLT2 inhibitors and SPP4 inhibitors added to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review with direct comparison metaanalysis: SGLT2 or DPP4 inhibitor with insulin. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2017; 33: e2818CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Endokrinologie/DiabetologieDKD HELIOS Klinik, WiesbadenWiesbadenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations