Type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk of developing macro and microvascular complications. Nevertheless, there is substantial heterogeneity between people with type 2 diabetes in their risk of developing such complications. Personalised medicine for people with type 2 diabetes may aid in efficient and tailored diabetes care for those at increased risk of developing such complications. Recently, progress has been made in the development of personalised diabetes care in several areas. Particularly for the risk prediction of cardiovascular disease, retinopathy and nephropathy, innovative methods have been developed for prediction and tailored monitoring or treatment to prevent such complications. For other complications or subpopulations of people with type 2 diabetes, such as the frail elderly, efforts are currently ongoing to develop such methods. In this review, we discuss the recent developments in innovations of personalised diabetes care for different complications and subpopulations of people with type 2 diabetes, their performance and modes of application in clinical practice.
ShahADLangenbergCRapsomanikiE, et al.Type 2 diabetes and incidence of cardiovascular diseases: a cohort study in 1.9 million people. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol2015; 3: 105–113.
2.
Stratified, personalised or P4 medicine: a new direction for placing the patient at the centre of healthcare and health education (technical report). Academy of Medical Sciences, May 2015, https://acmedsci.ac.uk/viewFile/564091e072d41.pdf (accessed 25 September 2019).
3.
MarshallSM. Precision diabetes: a realistic outlook on a promising approach. Diabetologia2017; 60: 766–768.
4.
SinclairAJAbdelhafizAHForbesA, et al.Evidence-based diabetes care for older people with type 2 diabetes: a critical review. Diabet Med2019; 36: 399–413.
5.
WalravenIMastMRHoekstraT, et al.Distinct HbA1c trajectories in a type 2 diabetes cohort. Acta Diabetol2015; 52: 267–275.
6.
SidorenkovGvan BovenJFMHoekstraT, et al.HbA1c response after insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in real life practice: identifying distinct subgroups. Diabetes Obes Metab2018; 20: 1957–1964.
7.
StrattonIMCullCAAdlerAI, et al.Additive effects of glycaemia and blood pressure exposure on risk of complications in type 2 diabetes: a prospective observational study (UKPDS 75). Diabetologia2006; 49: 1761–1769.
8.
van DierenSBeulensJWKengneAP, et al.Prediction models for the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Heart2012; 98: 360–369.
9.
van der LeeuwJvan DierenSBeulensJW, et al.The validation of cardiovascular risk scores for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Heart2015; 101: 222–229.
10.
ChowdhuryMZIYeasminFRabiDM, et al.Prognostic tools for cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of C-statistics. J Diabetes Complications2019; 33: 98–111.
11.
ClodiMReslMNeuholdS, et al.A comparison of NT-proBNP and albuminuria for predicting cardiac events in patients with diabetes mellitus. Eur J Prev Cardiol2012; 19: 944–951.
12.
den RuijterHMPetersSAGroenewegenKA, et al.Common carotid intima-media thickness does not add to Framingham risk score in individuals with diabetes mellitus: the USE-IMT initiative. Diabetologia2013; 56: 1494–1502.
13.
KramerCKZinmanBGrossJL, et al.Coronary artery calcium score prediction of all cause mortality and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ2013; 346: f1654–f1654.
14.
van der Leeuw J, Beulens JW, van Dieren S, et al. Novel biomarkers to improve the prediction of cardiovascular event risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 5: e003048.
15.
Berkelmans GFN, Gudbjornsdottir S, Visseren FLJ, et al. Prediction of individual life-years gained without cardiovascular events from lipid, blood pressure, glucose, and aspirin treatment based on data of more than 500 000 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Eur Heart J 2019; 40: 2899–2906.
16.
Clark CM JrSnyderJWMeekRL, et al.A systematic approach to risk stratification and intervention within a managed care environment improves diabetes outcomes and patient satisfaction. Diabetes Care2001; 24: 1079–1086.
17.
HallLMJungRTLeeseGP. Controlled trial of effect of documented cardiovascular risk scores on prescribing. BMJ2003; 326: 251–252.
18.
Cosentino F, Grant PJ, Aboyans V, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2019 ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD. Eur Heart J. Epub ahead of print 31 August 2019. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz486.
19.
MathurRBhaskaranKEdwardsE, et al.Population trends in the 10-year incidence and prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in the UK: a cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink 2004–2014. BMJ Open2017; 7: e014444–e014444.
20.
ScanlonPH. Screening intervals for diabetic retinopathy and implications for care. Curr Diab Rep2017; 17: 96–96.
21.
AspelundTThornorisdottirOOlafsdottirE, et al.Individual risk assessment and information technology to optimise screening frequency for diabetic retinopathy. Diabetologia2011; 54: 2525–2532.
22.
BasuSSussmanJBBerkowitzSA, et al.Validation of Risk Equations for Complications of Type 2 Diabetes (RECODe) using individual participant data from diverse longitudinal cohorts in the US. Diabetes Care2018; 41: 586–595.
23.
Hippisley-CoxJCouplandC. Development and validation of risk prediction equations to estimate future risk of blindness and lower limb amputation in patients with diabetes: cohort study. BMJ2015; 351: h5441–h5441.
24.
ScanlonPHAldingtonSJLealJ, et al.Development of a cost-effectiveness model for optimisation of the screening interval in diabetic retinopathy screening. Health Technol Assess2015; 19: 1–116.
25.
LundSHAspelundTKirbyP, et al.Individualised risk assessment for diabetic retinopathy and optimisation of screening intervals: a scientific approach to reducing healthcare costs. Br J Ophthalmol2016; 100: 683–687.
26.
van der HeijdenAAWalravenIvan’t RietE, et al.Validation of a model to estimate personalised screening frequency to monitor diabetic retinopathy. Diabetologia2014; 57: 1332–1338.
27.
TingDSTanKAPhuaV, et al.Biomarkers of diabetic retinopathy. Curr Diab Rep2016; 16: 125–125.
28.
SivaprasadSPearceE. The unmet need for better risk stratification of non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Diabet Med2019; 36: 424–433.
29.
BaileyRAWangYZhuV, et al.Chronic kidney disease in US adults with type 2 diabetes: an updated national estimate of prevalence based on Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) staging. BMC Res Notes2014; 7: 415–415.
30.
CollinsGSOmarOShanyindeM, et al.A systematic review finds prediction models for chronic kidney disease were poorly reported and often developed using inappropriate methods. J Clin Epidemiol2013; 66: 268–277.
31.
KeaneWFZhangZLylePA, et al.Risk scores for predicting outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy: the RENAAL study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol2006; 1: 761–767.
32.
ElleyCRRobinsonTMoyesSA, et al.Derivation and validation of a renal risk score for people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care2013; 36: 3113–3120.
33.
JardineMJHataJWoodwardM, et al.Prediction of kidney-related outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Am J Kidney Dis2012; 60: 770–778.
34.
HellemonsMEKerschbaumJBakkerSJ, et al.Validity of biomarkers predicting onset or progression of nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabet Med2012; 29: 567–577.
35.
SiwyJZurbigPArgilesA, et al.Noninvasive diagnosis of chronic kidney diseases using urinary proteome analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant2017; 32: 2079–2089.
36.
ZurbigPJerumsGHovindP, et al.Urinary proteomics for early diagnosis in diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes2012; 61: 3304–3313.
37.
TofteNLindhardtMAdamovaK, et al.Characteristics of high- and low-risk individuals in the PRIORITY study: urinary proteomics and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism for prevention of diabetic nephropathy in type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med2018; 35: 1375–1382.
38.
MoxeyPWGogalniceanuPHinchliffeRJ, et al.Lower extremity amputations – a review of global variability in incidence. Diabet Med2011; 28: 1144–1153.
39.
Monteiro-SoaresMMartins-MendesDVaz-CarneiroA, et al.Classification systems for lower extremity amputation prediction in subjects with active diabetic foot ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Metab Res Rev2014; 30: 610–622.
40.
Crawford F, Cezard G, Chappell FM, et al. A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors for foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the International Research Collaboration for the Prediction of Diabetic Foot Ulcerations (PODUS). Health Technol Assess 2015; 19: 1–210.
41.
Monteiro-SoaresMRibasRPereira da SilvaC, et al.Diabetic foot ulcer development risk classifications’ validation: a multicentre prospective cohort study. Diabet Res Clin Pract2017; 127: 105–114.
42.
Monteiro-SoaresMMartins-MendesDVaz-CarneiroA, et al.Lower-limb amputation following foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: classification systems, external validation and comparative analysis. Diabet Metab Res Rev2015; 31: 515–529.
43.
HuangES. Management of diabetes mellitus in older people with comorbidities. BMJ2016; 353: i2200–i2200.
44.
MillerMEWilliamsonJDGersteinHC, et al.Effects of randomization to intensive glucose control on adverse events, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in older versus younger adults in the ACCORD Trial. Diabetes Care2014; 37: 634–643.
45.
ArakiAIimuroSSakuraiT, et al.Long-term multiple risk factor interventions in Japanese elderly diabetic patients: the Japanese Elderly Diabetes Intervention Trial – study design, baseline characteristics and effects of intervention. Geriatr Gerontol Int2012; 12(Suppl. 1): 7–17.
46.
CurrieCJPetersJRTynanA, et al.Survival as a function of HbA(1c) in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet2010; 375: 481–489.
47.
GreenfieldSBillimekJPellegriniF, et al.Comorbidity affects the relationship between glycemic control and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetes: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med2009; 151: 854–860.
48.
XueQLWalstonJDFriedLP, et al.Prediction of risk of falling, physical disability, and frailty by rate of decline in grip strength: the women’s health and aging study. Arch Intern Med2011; 171: 1119–1121.
49.
LicciniAMalmstromTK. Frailty and sarcopenia as predictors of adverse health outcomes in persons with diabetes mellitus. J Am Med Dir Assoc2016; 17: 846–851.
50.
MorleyJEMalmstromTKRodriguez-ManasL, et al.Frailty, sarcopenia and diabetes. J Am Med Dir Assoc2014; 15: 853–859.
51.
AbdelhafizAHMcNicholasESinclairAJ. Hypoglycemia, frailty and dementia in older people with diabetes: reciprocal relations and clinical implications. J Diabetes Complications2016; 30: 1548–1554.
52.
Castro-RodriguezMCarniceroJAGarcia-GarciaFJ, et al.Frailty as a major factor in the increased risk of death and disability in older people with diabetes. J Am Med Dir Assoc2016; 17: 949–955.
53.
SeiduSKunutsorSKTopseverP, et al.Deintensification in older patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of approaches, rates and outcomes. Diabetes Obes Metab2019; 21: 1668–1679.
54.
McAlisterFAYoungsonEEurichDT. Treated glycosylated hemoglobin levels in individuals with diabetes mellitus vary little by health status: a retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore)2016; 95: e3894–e3894.
55.
StrainWDLukashevichVKothnyW, et al.Individualised treatment targets for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes using vildagliptin add-on or lone therapy (INTERVAL): a 24 week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Lancet2013; 382: 409–416.
56.
StrainWDAgarwalASPaldaniusPM. Individualizing treatment targets for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: factors influencing clinical decision making in the 24-week, randomized INTERVAL study. Aging (Albany NY)2017; 9: 769–777.
57.
Rodriguez-Manas L, Laosa O, Vellas B, et al. Effectiveness of a multimodal intervention in functionally impaired older people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2019; 10: 721–733.
