Renal or hepatic impairment, often encountered in patients with type 2 diabetes, influences the pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of antihyperglycemic agents. An emerging concern is whether pharmacotherapy with incretin-based agents, the most recent drug classes to be introduced for type 2 diabetes, can be safely used in patients with renal insufficiency or hepatic damage. This literature review examines the results of studies on these novel drug classes, with a view to provide the practitioner with a balanced, evidence-based position when considering incretin-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes and impaired kidney or liver function. All currently available dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors appear to be appropriate pharmacotherapeutic choices in patients with declining renal function, with linagliptin affording the added advantage of not requiring dose adjustment or periodic monitoring of drug-related kidney function. In contrast, caution is warranted with the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with moderate or severe renal impairment. The slightly wider evidence base for liraglutide than for exenatide or lixisenatide is not sufficient to support its use in severe renal impairment. What little evidence there is for incretin-based therapies in hepatic impairment has come from a few past hoc analysis of clinical trials, with most precautions and warnings reflecting the paucity of knowledge about incretin efficacy or safety in this condition.

No abstract

Despite the heightened awareness of diabetes as a major health problem, evidence on the impact of assistance and organizational factors, as well as of adherence to recommended care guidelines, on morbidity and mortality in diabetes is scanty. We identified diabetic residents in Torino, Italy, as of 1st January 2002, using multiple independent data sources. We collected data on several laboratory tests and specialist medical examinations to compare primary versus specialty care management of diabetes and the fulfillment of a quality-of-care indicator based on existing screening guidelines (GCI). Then, we performed regression analyses to identify associations of these factors with mortality and cardiovascular morbidity over a 4 year- follow-up. Patients with the lowest degree of quality of care (i.e. only cared for by primary care and with no fulfillment of GCI) had worse RRs for all-cause (1.72 [95% CI 1.57–1.89]), cardiovascular (1.74 [95% CI 1.50–2.01]) and cancer (1.35 [95% CI 1.14–1.61]) mortality, compared with those with the highest quality of care. They also showed increased RRs for incidence of major cardiovascular events up to 2.03 (95% CI 1.26–3.28) for lower extremity amputations. Receiving specialist care itself increased survival, but was far more effective when combined with the fulfillment of GCI. Throughout the whole set of analysis, implementation of guidelines emerged as a strong modifier of prognosis. We conclude that management of diabetic patients with a pathway based on both primary and specialist care is associated with a favorable impact on all-cause mortality and CV incidence, provided that guidelines are implemented.

In the past decade, the incidence of dialysis has stabilized in both the general population and in diabetics in whom it remains far higher by comparison. Also mortality rates are higher, with a worse prognosis for T1DM. Diabetes poses a barrier to allotransplantation, and efforts should be made to overcome this limitation.

No abstract