Internal Diseases and Diabetology Department, Medical University of Lodz, Poland.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009 Dec;86 Suppl 1:S22-5. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8227(09)70005-1.
Recently, American Diabetes Association (ADA) and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) as well as International Diabetes Federation (IDF) have all issued their recommendations on the management of type 2 diabetes. Despite the same objectives, these guidelines are substantially different in terms of target values of glucose control, strategies for drug choice etc. ADA/EASD guidelines offer practical algorithm to help initiate and modify pharmacological therapy for diabetes, with detailed descriptions of treatment options. IDF document, however, concentrates on the role of postprandial hyperglycemia and calls for lower HbA1c target value of 6.5% as opposed to ADA/EASD guidelines advocating value of 7%. Careful analysis of the guidelines contents suggests that ADA/EASD consensus might be more useful in everyday clinical practice than IDF recommendations, which do not offer a particular treatment algorithm.
最近，美国糖尿病协会（ADA）、欧洲糖尿病研究协会（EASD）和国际糖尿病联合会（IDF）都发布了关于 2 型糖尿病管理的建议。尽管目标相同，但这些指南在血糖控制的目标值、药物选择策略等方面存在很大差异。ADA/EASD 指南提供了实用的算法，以帮助启动和修改糖尿病的药物治疗，并详细描述了治疗选择。然而，IDF 文件侧重于餐后高血糖的作用，并呼吁将 HbA1c 目标值降低到 6.5%，而不是 ADA/EASD 指南主张的 7%。对指南内容的仔细分析表明，ADA/EASD 共识在日常临床实践中可能比 IDF 建议更有用，后者没有提供特定的治疗算法。
