Cargando…

Comparative Analysis of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Pharmacological Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Latin America

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the leading causes of death and disability in the world. The majority of diabetes deaths (> 80%) occur in low- and middle-income countries, which are predominant in Latin America. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to compare the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taborda Restrepo, Paula Andrea, Acosta-Reyes, Jorge, Estupiñan-Bohorquez, Andrés, Barrios-Mercado, María Alejandra, Correa Gonzalez, Nestor Fabián, Taborda Restrepo, Alejandra, Barengo, Noël C., Gabriel, Rafael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10160131/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37126189
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11892-023-01504-4
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the leading causes of death and disability in the world. The majority of diabetes deaths (> 80%) occur in low- and middle-income countries, which are predominant in Latin America. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to compare the clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the pharmacological management of T2DM in Latin America (LA) with international reference guidelines. RECENT FINDINGS: Several LA countries have recently developed CPGs. However, the quality of these guidelines is unknown according to the AGREE II tool and taking as reference three CPGs of international impact: American Diabetes Association (ADA), European Diabetes Association (EASD), and Latin American Diabetes Association (ALAD). SUMMARY: Ten CPGs were selected for analysis. The ADA scored > 80% on the AGREE II domains and was selected as the main comparator. Eighty percent of LA CPGs were developed before 2018. Only one was not recommended (all domains < 60%). The CPGs in LA have good quality but are outdated. They have significant gaps compared to the reference. There is a need for improvement, as proposing updates every three years to maintain the best available clinical evidence in all guidelines.