ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018
Moderator(s): Forum Admin, David Maahs
1
| 2
>
>|
Forum Actions

Topics   Replies Author Latest Post
Chapter 4: Diagnosis and management of monogenic diabetes in children Locked Topic 1 D. Maahs Hattersley and colleagues have drafted an excellent review on this topic which adds greatly to the guidelines updates. Would suggest that the "what to do if you suspect not type 1 diabetes" "what to do if you suspect not type 2 diabetes" etc section would be well suited to be a converted into a practical table or flow diagram - the text in that section becomes redundant and somewhat difficult to follow. Minor comments- would take out term non-insulin dependent diabetes would reference the statement saying that genetic testing will yield a MODY diagnosis in 80% of cases of diabetes diagnosed before age 6 months (that's impressive, didn't know it had gotten that good!) the conclusions don't carry the same imperative around testing as the rest of the article.  Would choose a stand (either that all should be tested - resources permitting - or that a more nuanced approach to testing is reasonable - and go with it!)    
by L. DiMeglio
Monday, July 23, 2018
Chapter 21: Management of type 1 diabetes in school Locked Topic 3 D. Maahs We want to thank all members who provided feedback on the Chapter 21: Management of type 1 diabetes in school. Specific responses are provided in the attached PDF.
by D. Maahs
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Chapter 16: Psychological Issues Locked Topic 3 D. Maahs Thank you very much to the comments made by one reviewer regarding the section on psychosocial and behavioral interventions. Based on recommendations, we have added the specific additional recent studies that were not included in the draft that was posted for comment. We believe that this section of the paper is now improved with the additional report and discussion.
by A. Delamater
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Stages of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents Locked Topic 4 D. Maahs We want to thank all members who provided feedback on the Stages of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents chapter. Specific responses are provided in the attached PDF.
by D. Maahs
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Chapter 18: Microvascular and macrovascular complications Locked Topic 3 D. Maahs We want to thank all members who provided feedback on the Chapter 18 on Microvascular and macrovascular complications.  Specific responses are provided in the attached PDF.  
by D. Maahs
Friday, July 6, 2018
Diabetes Technologies Chapter Locked Topic 6 D. Maahs We want to thank all members who provided feedback on the Diabetes Technology chapter.  Specific responses are provided in the attached PDF.
by D. Maahs
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Chapter 6: Diabetes Education Locked Topic 4 D. Maahs We want to thank all members who provided feedback on the Diabetes Education chapter.   These comments were used to update the chapter.   Specific responses are provided in the attached PDF.
by D. Maahs
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Chapter 13: Sick day management in children and adolescents with diabetes Locked Topic 0 D. Maahs Dear Members, You will find here attached the final draft of the Chapter on Sick day management in children & adolescents with diabetes. Kind regards, David Maahs
by D. Maahs
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Ch.15:Management of children & adolescents with diabetes requiring surgery Locked Topic 2 D. Maahs We want to thank all members who provided feedback on the Management of children & adolescents with diabetes requiring surgery These comments were used to update the chapter.  Specific responses are provided in the attached PDF.
by D. Maahs
Monday, June 11, 2018
Chapter 19: Other complications and associated conditions Locked Topic 2 D. Maahs Dear Thomas, Many thanks for your thoughtful comments, we agree and will include mention of MS in the overview of autoimmune conditions with references to provide readers with the opportunity to explore this topic in greater detail if they wish. Farid Mahmud and Maria Craig.
by F. Mahmud
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Chapter 7: Delivery of ambulatory diabetes care to children and adolescents Locked Topic 4 D. Maahs We want to thank all members who provided feedback on the Delivery of ambulatory diabetes care to children and adolescents chapter.  These comments were used to update the chapter.  Specific responses are provided in the attached PDF.
by D. Maahs
Monday, May 28, 2018
Chapter 3: Type 2 Diabetes Locked Topic 3 D. Maahs We want to thank all members who provided feedback on the Type 2 Diabetes chapter.  These comments were used to update the chapter.  Specific responses are provided in the attached PDF.
by D. Maahs
Friday, May 11, 2018
Chapter 10: Nutritional management Locked Topic 11 D. Maahs Dear members,Thank you very much for your helpful comments on the Nutrition chapter. The feedback we received has been addressed and incorporated into the revised version of the chapter. Best Wishes,Carmel on behalf of all authors
by C. Smart
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Chapter 1: Definition, epidemiology, diagnosis and classification Locked Topic 0 D. Maahs   Dear ISPAD member/friend, Thank you for your continued interest in the 2018 ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines and in the previous drafts chapters we shared with you. We are happy to announce that chapter 1 on Definition, epidemiology and classification of diabetes in children and adolescents is now ready for you to read and comment on. We are looking forward to hearing your thoughts and input on this chapter.  Kind regards, David Maahs ISPAD Secretary-General
by D. Maahs
Monday, April 30, 2018
Chapter 8: Glycemic control targets and glucose monitoring Locked Topic 4 D. Maahs Thank you for this new and thoroughly revised document, which reads very well. I agree with differentiated targets for HbA1c, but would suggest the following, referring to the World Bank as we do in other situations, for example membership fees: ≤ 6.5% (48 mmol/mol): All high-income countries with access to pumps and sensors ≤ 7.0% (52 mmol/mol): Middle-high income countries where MDI with analogs is available ≤ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol): Low or middle-low countries with access only to limited BG monitoring and human insulin Patients with hypoglycemia unawareness need higher glucose levels just for a short time (14 days) to restore a higher awareness threshold level, not higher HbA1c targets (Fanelli CG, Diabetes 1993;42:1683-89.). We must respect that all children have the right to the same effectiveness of treatment to ensure lowest possible risk of both long-term complications and early cognitive development. The barrier in treatment and target setting should be the economy in the place where the child lives, not the performance and willingness of caregivers in optimizing the therapy below a certain HbA1c threshold, provided this can be done without an increase in moderate or severe hypoglycemia. Many studies have shown that this is possible. The huge difference in mean HbA1c over all age groups in 8 high-income countries [varying between 7.6% (59 mmol/mol) in Sweden and 8.8% (72 mmol/mol) in Wales in 2013 (Charalampopoulos D. Diabetes Care 2018;online)] shows clearly that well funded health care systems can perform and provide quite differently. The percentage below the current ISPAD target 7.5% was 49% in Sweden and 17% in Wales. This is concerning, but the study should also be viewed from the optimistic side, ie showing what is achievable. Important processes for improvement in pediatric diabetes care are ongoing in many countries, and where not, health politics unfortunately has not steered this way. I am missing a recommendation to keep track of mean glucose levels over 7, 14 and 30 days as this will give the family a good picture of the level of glycemic control at home, and prompt for adjustments when increasing levels are found. Although there is a wide variation in the individual relationship between glucose levels and HbA1c, the individual family can easily keep track of changes. Downloading data from meters and CGM devices should be recommended at home and office visits. Mean glucose level and SD over 14 days should be recorded at visits as well as % below 4.0 mmol/l (70 mg/dl) and time in target. Defining the target for families is important. Many studies use 3.9-10 mmol/l (70-200 mg/dl), while we in Sweden use 4-8 mmol/l (70-145 mg/dl). The discussion on low and high glycators is interesting, but only mentioned in the recommendations. I am missing the scientific background. So far there seems not to be sufficient evidence to conclude that high glycators can be given higher HbA1c targets. You refer only to a very brief summary of the 2015 NICE guidelines where a target HbA1c of 48 mmol/l (6.5%) is recommended. The most important sentence in the NICE 2015 guidelines is in my opinion (page 20): “Explain to children and young people with type 1 diabetes and their family members or carers (as appropriate) that an HbA1c target level of 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) or lower is ideal to minimize the risk of long-term complications.” This is a fact, not a target. After changing the target from 7.0% to 6.5% in Sweden, I have communicated this to every family in my practice. Not one family has objected; on the contrary they have appreciated an honest and straight forward message. From there on we have discussed individual targets and personal limitations. If you add risk of chronic complications to the emerging evidence of the detrimental effect of chronic hyperglycemia on the developing brain (Mauras N. Diabetes 2015;64:1770-9.), there can be no question on the crucial effect of the level of metabolic control in young children. Chronic hyperglycemia and glucose fluctuations during the years of brain development have been shown to affect growth of hippocampus negatively, questioning the current practice of tolerating some hyperglycemia to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia in young children with T1D (Foland-Ross LC. Pediatr Diabetes 2018;online). Chronic hyperglycemia early in life will affect the brain’s structure and development negatively (white matter dysfunction due to demyelination). (Aye T, Diabetes Care 2012;35:2167-73). This can result in the brain being more vulnerable to any subsequent insult (hypoglycaemia, head injury, alcoholism, other central nervous system conditions) that occurs later in the child’s life (Ryan, C. Pediatr Diabetes 2006;7:289-97). We had a well-attended pro- and con discussion at the ISPAD meeting in Innsbruck, and arguments for a lower HbA1c target than the current 7.5% are now included in the chapter. The lower targets of 6.5% in UK and Sweden are mentioned. However, I am surprised at finding the sentence “these guidelines admit that there is “no evidence” for this decrease”. The mentioned reference is to NICE, but just a mini-summary where evidence levels are not within the scope of the contents. The full NICE 2015 Guidelines provide both interesting reading and reference to evidence: Page 173 in the pediatric guidelines (Children full-guideline-435396349.pdf): “An HbA1c threshold of 6.5% (DCCT units) was developed jointly with the developers of the guidance for type 1 diabetes in adults because although older studies indicated an association between lower HbA1c values and an increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia, this relationship is less clear with modern management strategies.” Page 193 in the adult guidelines (Adults-full-guideline-435400241.pdf) Overall, low quality evidence from 43 studies (mostly observational and mostly case-series but including 3 randomised controlled trials), showed that with lower HbA1c values the risk and incidence of clinical outcomes was significantly reduced. The main outcomes assessed by the evidence included mortality, CVD, CHD, stroke, retinopathy, low-level (micro) albuminuria, severe hypoglycaemia. Of these outcomes, all but hypoglycaemia rates were improved with lower HbA1c and/or intensive insulin therapy. Page 199: In selecting an HbA1c target for the management of individuals with type 1 diabetes, the GDG (Guideline Development Group) recognised that individuals should achieve a target that minimised the risk of developing complications from glycaemia. Retinopathy is often the first microvascular complication to develop from inadequate glycaemic control, and particular attention was paid to the risk of retinopathy at varying levels of glycaemia reported by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. The GDG selected an HbA1c target of 6.5 % on the grounds that a minimal risk of retinopathy was achieved at this level, with further improvements in HbA1c not achieving any further significant reduction in retinopathy risk. …the (DCCT) target for the intensive therapy group was an HbA1c of 6.05%. This was achieved at least once during the study by 44% of participants using intensive therapy; but sustained there by only 5%. The mean HbA1c achieved over the trial by the intensive therapy group was just under 7%. The GDG therefore selected a target HbA1c value that is lower than the achieved HbA1c of the DCCT, as the evidence supports as associated with meaningful reduction in risk of complications, recognising that achieving the value of 7%, as done in the DCCT, was more likely if the target was set lower than this. Pediatric guidelines again: page 174: “The study demonstrated that those healthcare professionals who aim for tighter glycaemic control achieve tighter glycaemic control in the children and young people they care for “(Swift, P. Pediatr Diabetes 2010;11:271-8.) (also consistent with Hanberger L.Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012 Jun;96:331-8.). Page 175 “Although the guideline development group agreed that the HbA1c target for children and young people with type 1 diabetes should be set at 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) they recognised that this might not be achieved in every case. In accordance with recommendations in the guideline on type 1 diabetes in adults, the group made an additional recommendation that diabetes services should document the proportion of children and young people with type 1 diabetes who achieve an HbA1c level of 53 mmol/mol (7%) or lower.” “The recommended target HbA1c level of 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) represents a tightening of glycaemic control compared with the 2004 guideline (which recommended that children and young people with type 1 diabetes and their families should be informed that the target for long-term glycaemic control was an HbA1c level of less than 7.5% without frequent disabling hypoglycaemia and that their care package should be designed to attempt to achieve this). The guideline development group emphasised that the result of the change would be to reduce the risk of long-term complications of type 1 diabetes in a population that will have a long duration of diabetes because the condition starts before adulthood.” I look forward to a continued discussion on this important topic, perhaps the most important message in the Guidelines, and would therefore ask that the time for comments is extended.
by R. Hanas
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Chapter 14: Exercise Locked Topic 0 D. Maahs Dear ISPAD member/friend, Thank you for your continued interest in the 2018 ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines and in the previous drafts chapters we shared with you. We are happy to announce that chapter 14 on Exercise in children and adolescents with diabetes is now ready for you to read and comment on. We are looking forward to hearing your thoughts and input on this chapter.  Kind regards, David Maahs ISPAD Secretary-General
by D. Maahs
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Chapter 5: Management of cystic fibrosis-related diabetes Locked Topic 4 D. Maahs Dr. Goldsmith makes a good point. “Usual” diabetes criteria based on risk of micro vascular disease may not be appropriate in C F. However, the selection of different numbers upon which to base a diagnosis would at this point be totally arbitrary. Until we have more outcomes data for specific glucose cut-off levels we are stuck with current OGGT criteria.
by A. Moran
Monday, March 12, 2018
Chapter 17: Adolescence Locked Topic 3 D. Maahs Thank you for your comments. We have amended the article according to the suggestions. Dr. Ethel Codner
by E. Codner
Monday, March 5, 2018
Chapter 12: Hypoglycemia Locked Topic 11 D. Maahs We want to thank all members who provided feedback on the Hypoglycemia chapter.  These comments were used to update the chapter.  Specific responses are provided in the attached PDF.
by D. Maahs
Monday, January 29, 2018
Chapter 9: Insulin Locked Topic 6 D. Maahs Dear all, Than you for the nice Guideline. In comment to fergus I would like to add, that the aim of the JAMA paper comparing CSII and MDI was to Show that we see fewer adverse Events like DKA and sever hypoglycemia in the real world Setting outside a RCT. I agree that the difference in HbA1c is not very high however taking into account that most patients/families on CSII additionally have a better quality of live (Müller-Godeffroy E, Treichel S, Wagner VM; German Working Group for Paediatric Pump Therapy.Diabet Med. 2009 May;26(5):493-501. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02707.x.) I would suggest there is still some evidence favoring CSII.Howevere the treatement decission is allways an indiviual decission taking into accoutn all familiar and Patient related arguments. I know I am to late but I wanted to comment on the discussionBW Thomas Kapellen
by T. Kapellen
Friday, January 26, 2018

Contact Us

ISPAD Executive Office
c/o K.I.T. Group GmbH
Association & Conference Management
Kurfürstendamm 71
10709 Berlin, Germany










Join ISPAD

Click the link below to join the Society!


Join Today!










Phone: +49 (0)30 24603-210
Fax: +49 (0)30 24603-200
Email: secretariat@ispad.or
g










Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Legal Notice    

Disclaimer



































 © 2018 International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD)






Association Management Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal