Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Online Letters: Comments and Responses

Medical Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Algorithm for the Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy: A Consensus Statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes

Response to Nathan et al.

  1. Decio L. Eizirik, MD, PHD
  1. From the Laboratory of Experimental Medicine, Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
  1. Corresponding author: Decio L. Eizirik, deizirik{at}ulb.ac.be
Diabetes Care 2009 Mar; 32(3): e35-e36. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-2275
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Response to Nathan et al.

I read with great interest the consensus statement by Nathan et al. (1) on behalf of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, suggesting a consensus algorithm for initiation and adjustment of therapy for the medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. Describing the process used to develop the algorithm, the authors mentioned two sources: clinical trials that address the effectiveness and safety of different modalities of therapy and clinical judgment, that is, the collective knowledge and clinical experience of the authors, which takes into account benefits, risks, and costs in the treatment of diabetes (1). Because the authors point to the “paucity of high-quality evidence in the form of well-controlled clinical trials that directly compare different diabetes treatment regimens,” they propose that the scarce evidence-based information should be supplemented by “value judgments, where the benefits of treatment are weighed against risks and costs in a subjective fashion” (1). This need for value judgment, in particular in the context of the preparation of a consensus statement that may influence the therapy of millions of patients, presupposes a high level of independence and balanced judgment from the authors. The carefully written and critical description of the different modalities of treatment suggests that this was probably the case for the present guidelines (1).

At the end of the article, there is a lengthy description of dualities of interest, ranging from 2 to 13 reported dualities per author (mean ± SEM 10.1 ± 1.4); most of them are related to pharmaceutical companies involved in the production and commercialization of many of the agents described and recommended in the guidelines. As defined by The Endocrine Society, a duality of interest is present when two or more interests are potentially in conflict, while a conflict of interest exists when a given relationship or practice gives rise to two or more contradictory interests (2). Specifically, Thompson (3) describes conflict of interest as “a set of conditions in which professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patient welfare or the validity of research) tends to be unduly influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain).” The dualities of interest listed for authors of the present guidelines include research grants, serving on scientific advisory boards, and receipt of honoraria for speaking engagements (1). In other words, part of the research funding and private income of several of the authors of the present guidelines may depend on pharmaceutical companies that benefit from the incorporation of their drugs in the guidelines. This gives rise to duality of interest and, potentially, to conflict of interest.

Is this a source of real concern? On the “no” side, we can count on the high professional standing of the authors and on the hypothetical if unlikely possibility that such a large number of dualities of interest (five of the seven authors report more than 10 dualities of interest) may somehow counterbalance each other, leaving the author(s) in a relatively balanced position. On the “yes” side is the accumulating evidence that dualities of interest do indeed change conclusions and interpretation of studies. For instance, a broad review (based on 1,140 studies) evaluating the relationship between industry sponsorship and outcome in original research indicates a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and proindustry conclusions (pooled Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio 3.60) (4). Moreover, there is evidence that acceptance of gifts by physicians increases the possibility that they will prescribe the drugs made by the pharmaceutical company donors, independently of the scientific data supporting these clinical decisions (5). Finally, expert clinicians advising pharmaceutical companies gain access to privileged and non–peer reviewed information and work with highly committed individuals, whose professional lives revolve around a single product, generating another potential source of bias (6).

How can we solve this conundrum? One possibility is to restrict the preparation of consensus statements to colleagues with few or, ideally, no dualities of interest with pharmaceutical companies that may benefit from the guidelines (these colleagues do exist). Another alternative is to invite one or two independent commentators, with no relevant duality of interest, to analyze the guidelines and provide their views to be published as an addendum to the text. Additional alternatives may be considered; the crucial point is to acknowledge that duality of interest is a serious issue that must be carefully considered and addressed by learned medical societies and health care agencies.

Acknowledgments

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Footnotes

  • 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.

  • DIABETES CARE

References

  1. ↵
    Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, Ferrannini E, Holman RR, Sherwin R, Zinman B: Medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 32:193–203, 2009
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Komesaroff PA, Bach MA, Danoff A, Grumbach MM, Kaplan S, Lakoski JM, Leitman D, Mellon S, Underwood LE, Leupen S, Endocrine Society Ethics Advisory Committee: The Endocrine Society Ethics Advisory Committee: ethical aspects of conflicts of interest, October 2003. Endocrinology 145:3032–3041, 2004
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    Thomson DF: Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 329:573–576, 1993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289:454–465, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    Komesaroff PA: Ethical issues in the relationships with industry: an ongoing challenge. New guidelines open for public comment. J Paediatr Child Health 41:558–560, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    Gale EA: Between two cultures: the expert clinician and the pharmaceutical industry. Clin Med 3:538–541, 2003
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 32 (3)

In this Issue

March 2009, 32(3)
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Medical Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Algorithm for the Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy: A Consensus Statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Medical Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Algorithm for the Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy: A Consensus Statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes
Decio L. Eizirik
Diabetes Care Mar 2009, 32 (3) e35-e36; DOI: 10.2337/dc08-2275

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Medical Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Algorithm for the Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy: A Consensus Statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes
Decio L. Eizirik
Diabetes Care Mar 2009, 32 (3) e35-e36; DOI: 10.2337/dc08-2275
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Comment on Khunti et al. Clinical Inertia in People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of More Than 80,000 People. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3411–3417
  • Response to Comment on Khunti et al. Clinical Inertia in People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of More Than 80,000 People. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3411–3417
  • Comment on Lázaro-Martínez et al. Antibiotics Versus Conservative Surgery for Treating Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Randomized Comparative Trial. Diabetes Care 2014;37:789–795
Show more Online Letters: Comments and Responses

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.