AACE Corporate Partners

It is interesting the number of corporate-partners the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists has picked up in the last few years.

2015 = 3

2014 = 3

2013 = 2

2012 = 2

2011 = 3

They have this to say about their conflicts of interest. “The following Pharmaceutical and Medical Equipment manufacturers serve as members of the Corporate AACE Partnership. Their generous support and valuable input helps make possible the many educational programs and activities that AACE provides for its members, including this highly effective resource (AACE Online).”

CAP Member Directory

Abbott Diabetes Care
Member Since 2014 www.abbottdiabetescare.com

AbbVie
Member Since 1993 www.abbvie.com

Aegerion Pharmaceuticals
Member Since 2015 www.aegerion.com

Amgen Inc.
Member Since 2004 www.amgen.com

Apricus Biosciences, Inc.
Member Since 2015 www.apricusbio.com

AstraZeneca
Member Since 2002 www.astrazeneca.com

Bayer Healthcare
Member Since 1995 www.bayer.com

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Member Since 2009 www.boehringer-ingelheim.com

Clarus Therapeutics, Inc.
Member Since 2014 www.clarustherapeutics.com

Corcept Therapeutics
Member Since 2013 www.corcept.com

Dexcom, Inc.
Member Since 2010 www.dexcom.com

Eisai Inc.
Member Since 2012 www.eisai.com

Eli Lilly & Company
Member Since 1993 www.lilly.com

Genentech, Inc.
Member Since 1999 www.genentech.com

Genzyme Corporation
Member Since 1998 www.genzyme.com

GlaxoSmithKline
Member Since 1996 www.gsk.com

Health Monitor Network
Member Since 2012 www.healthmonitornetwork.com

Interpace Diagnostics
Member Since 2015 www.interpacediagnostics.com

J&J Diabetes Solutions Companies
Member Since 2014 www.jjdi.com
www.animas.com
www.lifescan.com

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Member Since 2001 www.janssen.com

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Member Since 2013 www.lexpharma.com


Medtronic Diabetes
Member Since 1995 www.medtronic.com

Merck & Co., Inc.
Member Since 1997 www.merck.com

Novo Nordisk, Inc.
Member Since 1993 www.novomedlink.com

Pfizer, Inc.
Member Since 1993 www.pfizer.com

PhRMA
Member Since 2007 www.phrma.org

Roche Diabetes Care
Member Since 1997 www.rocheusa.com

Sanofi
Member Since 1994 www.sanofi.us


Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America Inc.
Member Since 1999 www.takedapharm.com


Valeritas
Member Since 2011 www.valeritas.com


Veracyte
Member Since 2011 www.veracyte.com


VIVUS, Inc.
Member Since 2011 www.vivus.com

AACE Urges Congress to Act

When I first read about this a couple of weeks ago, I was not happy with the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. My first thoughts were that the AACE would undo some of the good that the group Strip Safety had accomplished. But the more I thought about it, I soon realized that Alan J. Garber, M.D. of nefarious fame of the AACE was not calling the shots. I also realized that the more help for diabetes and the tools for diabetes, the better off we all could be.

The letter, signed by AACE president Mack Harrell, MD, and president-elect George Grunberger, MD, called for the passage of two bills: the Medicare CGM Access Act (HR5644/S2689), and the National Diabetes Clinical Care Commission Act (HR1074/S539). The latter would establish a public/private commission to coordinate activities that currently span 35 federal departments, agencies, and offices, according to the statement.

The letter also asks Congress to conduct follow-up hearings to examine FDA's pre- and postmarketing surveillance and enforcement activities for medical devices, along with a call for a review of Medicare's competitive bidding practices. With regard to the FDA, the AACE is asking for more rigorous pre- and postmarket surveillance of glucose testing supplies and the prohibition of devices that don't meet current quality standards.

The above are all needed and if accomplished, could be a big help for all people with diabetes. The Medicare CGM Access Act promotes Medicare coverage of continuous glucose monitors. Currently, Medicare does not reimburse for CGM, which means that well-controlled patients with type 1 diabetes lose an important means of monitoring once they hit the eligibility age of 65. Grunburger said it is unclear why Medicare does not cover the devices, despite the evidence of benefit and cost savings. The device has been associated with a reduction in hospitalizations for hypoglycemia.

Diabetes Experts versus Diabetes Patients

When a couple members from the support group saw this title, one made the comment, “Here we go again!” I asked what he saw in the title and he said that it was another blog about oral medications. I had to agree, as that is my intent. I must declare I am on insulin (long acting and short acting) plus a minimal dosage of metformin.

I do believe it is time for patients to declare their intentions, especially if they are on some of the medications that are being reported with serious side effects. I have nothing against metformin in the extended release version, as the gastrointestinal side effects are often minimal when taking it. Many people have no side effects with the extended release version. And the fact that it is generic and the cost is affordable and makes this an economical treatment for type 2 patients.

Yet, our diabetes experts want to stack one oral medication on top of another oral medication for several medications. I complain that this is not good and this practice by physicians needs to stop, the AACE Diabetes Algorithms not withstanding. The American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists don't want this to happen and advise keeping patients on oral medications. The sad part of this advice is the corporate sponsors of these two organizations are the beneficiaries and the officers of the ADA and AACE receive fees from these same sponsors.

It is convenient for me that one of the studies reported out of the ADA 2103 Scientific Sessions June 22, is about stacking three medications and the author reports starting people newly diagnosed with type 2 on triple drug therapy. You may read about this ongoing study here at Medscape. This has to make the ADA and AACE very happy.  I hope this becomes fully tested as the side effects may be great and dangerous.

This relationship with the pharmaceutical companies has to end for any trust in the ADA and AACE to be restored. How can we place trust in the guidelines issued and the recommendations of their officers when we know that they are influenced heavily by the fees they receive from the pharmaceutical companies? Then in addition, they are well paid as officers from the contributions or sponsorships of these same pharmaceutical companies to their respective organizations.

Yes, I will continue to blog about the guidelines issued by the ADA and AACE, but everyone needs to be aware of the biases built in and the underlying motives for some of their misdirected guidelines. Comprehensive the guidelines are not and with the built in discrimination by researchers when they exclude the elderly and the young from participating in research, the people that are using the majority of the medications have not had the medications tested on them. This adds more reason to take a jaundiced view of the guidelines. Insulin anyone?

And before I forget, I salute the people with type 2 diabetes that are able to manage diabetes without medications. Some have been able to manage without medications from the start while others have been able to wean themselves off medications and continue to manage without further medications.

More Criticism of the AACE Diabetes Algorithms

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists apparently likes to pick and chose its fights. They did not attack Anne L. Peters, MD, CDE, Professor of Clinical Medicine; Director, Clinical Diabetes Programs, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Yet, they pulled out all stops to clash with Jerry Avorn, MD, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Chief of the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Therefore, I would be inclined to believe Dr. Avorn struck a raw nerve in his criticism of AACE's business ethics and they could not let that go without a denial for posturing position. Dr. Avorn stated in his New York Times op-ed piece, “The A.A.C.E.’s latest guidelines elevate many second- or third-line drugs to more prominent positions in the prescribing hierarchy, rivaling once uncontested go-to medications like metformin, an inexpensive generic. They also emphasize the riskiness of established treatments like insulin and glipizide, which now carry yellow warning.”

This is something to consider and I missed this point in my discussion here. Dr. Avorn also states in his New York Times op-ed piece, “But there is also concern that they could have been influenced by another factor: the manufacturers of some of these new drugs financially supported the development of the guidelines, and many of the authors are paid consultants to some of those companies.” I agree, as there was too little information published with the AACE Diabetes Algorithms and nothing stating how they were developed and if others had approved them. When something is just published with little additional information except some press and quotes from a Dr. Garber, criticism should be expected.

When you know that they have many corporate-partners in the pharmaceutical ranks, the denial of what Dr. Avorn says holds no water and clearly is done to appease the corporate ranks. Review the corporate-partners list here. If you carefully read this denial on the AACE website, they only deny corporate funding of the algorithms, but make no denial of the consulting fees paid by corporate-partners. There may have been a healthy bonus in their consulting pay. How else could these “experts” have, “Donated days of time and talent to accomplish what they value as an important component of public health.”

Our Meeting about the AACE Algorithm

The PDF is currently available here.

Note:  If you have not downloaded the algorithm from the AACE site, you may not be able to now.  In trying to establish links for this blog, I was receiving the following message - "AACE Members can view the NEW COMPREHENSIVE DIABETES MANAGEMENT ALGORITHM FOR TREATMENT OF DIABETES AND PREDIABETES PATIENTS."  along with site address for members.  This tells me that they have been taken to task and many people are unhappy with their algorithm.

Our group had many emails about the algorithm when it appeared and several wanted to have a meeting about it, as they were not following it. Brenda asked how many would be able to attend and then said we should have it at her place. Ten of us attended and with Tim's digital projector, we all had good seats. Max and Rob had the main questions, as they were not following the progress of the algorithm.

Because Tim had requested them to bring a pad of paper and complete beforehand their body mass index (BMI), their ideal weight, and list their other medical problems we were ready to go. Other medical problems include, blood pressure, cholesterol, any of the complications, and comorbid conditions they know they have. I knew that this part could get personal, therefore I opened by saying that I was asking everyone to be honest with themselves, but if they felt it necessary to keep information from the rest of us, that was their business.

I had expected to have someone qualify under the BMI of 25 to 26.9, but no one did without having one qualifier to drive them into the complications side. On that side, only two of us had BMIs greater than 27. Now we needed to look to the last page. I knew then that we had a problem. Except for Max and I, none of the rest qualified for the algorithm. Everyone else had BMIs under 25. Looking at the algorithm, they did not fit the examples or the usage. In addition, all of us were on insulin and that did not compute for the flow of the algorithm. Even Max and I have A1c's below the target of the algorithm. Max's latest is 6.1% and my latest is 6.3%. Everyone else is below 6.0% with Sue having the current lowest at 5.2%.

Okay, I know. The algorithm is for newly diagnosed patients and creates an entry point. Still, this could drive doctors crazy. Even at that, I knew I would have to use hypothetical examples. I selected a man with blood pressure and cholesterol problems with a BMI of 33. I added that his A1c was 9.8% at diagnosis. Moving forward we determined that he probably would fit the “medium” or “high” stage severity of complications. We chose “medium” for the example. This would mean that this person would follow the arrow down and have the MD/RD counseling, and next have the medication therapy.

Since this person had diabetes, the Prediabetes Algorithm is bypassed. At the Goals for Glycemic Control we would need to follow the A1c greater than 6.5% box and this person's goals would be individualized. This is where people were having problems so we continued to the Glycemic Control Algorithm. With the diagnosis A1c of 9.8% and two complications, this person would continue at the far right side. This would mean a weight loss pill, basal insulin (long acting), and two or three oral medications.

Although not stated on this page, point 9 on the last page does verify that this person has three months to improve or go to “add or intensify insulin. What is not said is if this person is able to bring the A1c down below 6.5%, it does not say which direction the person would go. The other factor is the BMI which does not give a clue about what medication factor the person would b e taking.

Point 9 on page 10 of the algorithm is a long point, but basically says everything affecting diabetes is in play. Effectiveness of therapy must be evaluated frequently (every three months) until stable using multiple criteria. This includes A1c, SMBG records including fasting and post-prandial data, documented and suspected hypoglycemia, and monitoring for other potential adverse events (weight gain, fluid retention, hepatic, renal, or cardiac disease). The following is to be monitored, co-morbidities, relevant laboratory data, concomitant drug administration, diabetic complications, and psycho-social factors affecting patient care.

The group discussed this and felt that the person would start on the left side of the algorithm and proceed down that side. And then to the next page for the CVD (cardiovascular disease) Risk Factor Modifications Algorithm. Going through this example cleared many of the questions. The group felt that somehow we were the lucky ones and had been allowed to set our own goals and work toward them with help from the rest of the group.

Allen said that he now understood why I was so negative about the algorithm in my first blog here. Brenda chimed in that she agreed with my first blog and wondered why the authors were so shortsighted in so many areas. John said now he understood why I commented on so many points missing and why the authors are so sure that prediabetes and even diabetes can't be stopped in its tracks and not become progressive. He continued that this is probably the most depressing set of guides he has seen. It is as if they want people to go from prediabetes to diabetes and stuff them full of medications when people are able to manage prediabetes and diabetes and stop taking medications. The authors do not even make allowances for this and left this out of the notes.

Max said they don't even allow for people to switch to a full regimen of insulin like we were able to do. He added it will be interesting talking to our endocrinologists at our next appointment. 

Tim said he would send out notes and thanked me for working with him to get the information captured and into a Powerpoint presentation. Brenda thanked both of us and the presentation really brought home the good points and the not so great items.

Everyone wanted to hear about the projector Tim had used, so the meeting was adjourned. Tim said he had it on loan and that he was thinking about investing in one for himself and using it for our meetings. Brenda asked why the other four were missing and Allen said they had other commitments, but they were going to be sorry after what Tim had used. Tim said he is short on the amount necessary to purchase one for himself, but in another few months it may be possible. He then said that the one he had on loan would be available several more months.

Rob asked how difficult it was to capture the images we had used. I said I have a program that is a few versions older than the latest, but that it works for our needs. I said if someone has something for a program that can be made into images, that I would do it beforehand like I did for this and have them saved to a Powerpoint presentation and sent as an attachment to the person and to Tim. Tim said it does take some time because of all the capture and proofing, so don't wait until the night before the meeting. I told Tim thank you and said that operator inefficiencies are to blame. I used to be able to do this easily, but since that was on a version older than I have now, I am still learning the update. Max asked who had it and I said I would email the information to those that wanted it.

Not A Game Plan for Type 2 Diabetes

While not really a game plan at all, there are some features that this site may bring to peoples attention. Probably the only reason I found this site is an article in Medscape. After researching on the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the American College of Endocrinology (ACE) websites, I did not find a link to BloodSugarBasics.com  http://bloodsugarbasics.com/. Is this intentional? Maybe. Both websites do little to promote what they hype in articles or interviews, so it is small wonder that little is accomplished in bringing visitors to their sites.

Even my own endocrinologists do not promote this during office visits or include information about it in handouts. Why am I writing about this? Someone needs to promote what the professionals are seemingly incapable of doing. I think the person that made this comment – quote - “Unfortunately, like the AAFP, the AMA and ACC have also let us down. The societies today exist for their own purposes and not for the benefit of members. The AMA owns the CPT code system and makes more money from this behemoth than from member dues. The ACC is enthusiastically offering "products" (read $$$) to "help" doctors meet their performance goals.

It is beyond time for new professional societies to emerge that actually advocate for physicians involved directly in patient care. Perhaps one big "Society for Patient Care Physicians" that could involve everyone who actually sees patients every day, rather than the academic guideline and rule-writing "doctors" who dominate societies today.” - Unquote.

I think the comment is on target and needs to be done so that doctors that care for and about patients could have a format to get information to patients in terms they understand and this could be promoted for patients. With the Internet of today, what could be of value to patients is often lost in the dogma of the medical organizations. Most could have on their home page a link to patient information and then links on the patient page for more pages of valuable information. This information could then be reliable information that can be used for the benefit of patients and used by patients.

Even the website for approved Internet websites on the AACE website no longer has a direct link to it on the home page. Plus, they are not adding anymore approved sites. They have fulfilled their promise so-to-speak, and now want to leave it alone. For the two sites of the AACE and ACE, there is so much information that could be included as part of their websites. However, at most, the information is limited for patients and not really informative for new patients that may be searching these sites for reliable information.

On the same site is a tab named “The ABCs of Diabetes Management.” This did not surprise me as they are A1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Surprise, no mention is made about statins. Blood pressure goals are different than recommended by the American Heart Association, but not significantly higher. From the way the material is presented, the emphasis seems very much on the HbA1c as the measurement for how well the goals are being accomplished not any individual blood glucose tests. At least the A1c goal is 6.5%, but then they say that maybe the goal will need to be higher. No mention is made about individuals that want to strive for lower A1cs or if they will even allow for this.

Then they use four topics to help in achieving the ABCs. They include healthy eating, getting more active, taking your medication, and tracking your ABC goals. I was totally surprised at the healthy eating. They rightly say to limit refined foods and eat vegetable and some fruits. Maybe a little heavy on the fruits, but no mention of whole grains. The limited discussion on getting more active was not bad, but the discussion missed a lot of physical activity. Taking your medication(s) did not discuss any particular medication(s), but the suggestion is there. The concern for hypoglycemia is present and that is a plus. Tracking your ABC goals missed more than it covered. It talks about tracking your blood glucose levels, but does not give any meaning to why track and what to be looking for in meaning. To me, it sounds more like the reason is for the doctor than looking for reasons to the daily numbers.

In the medscape interview, Farhad Zangeneh, MD, FACP, FACE did a good thing in answer to a question about why not use the more effective treatment of bariatric surgery for all obese type 2 patients than have them struggle with lifestyle changes to achieve treatment goals. I will quote his answer - “Not all patients with type 2 diabetes are candidates for bariatric or metabolic surgery, and no matter how much weight is initially lost, there is always weight rebound. There are no easy answers and no shortcuts in the management of diabetes. Even if patients are candidates for bariatric surgery, their psychology — mindset and eating behavior — has to change before their anatomy. There is also growing evidence that patients who undergo gastric bypass surgery are prone to hypoglycemia. For the majority of patients with diabetes, management still boils down to healthy eating, physical activity, and pharmacological medical management.”

As for the goals of “The Game Plan,” most of the information is on a need to be done basis and not education about diabetes and the reasons for doing what is all but demanded that patients do. Some information is there and for some patients that function in this manner, it may be of value.

What I think is that few people are going to find this site without a direct link to it from the AACE main page or even a link from the ACE page. Few patients with type 2 diabetes ever read the articles from the medscape dot com site and I have not seen any other mention of the site elsewhere. Granted I do not read every website, but I think Merck was sold an idea with no solid intention of promoting the website by AACE. Some people will find the website from search engine use, but that will be a small number. Great idea, but no support of the site by AACE.

When Is AACE Going to Update Type 2 Sources?

The AACE has removed the AACE/Takeda Link

On September 27, 2011 I blogged about AACE/Takeda web site being operational. This was a good thing because it would provide us with reliable sources for diabetes information. Now we are about five months later and no additional sites have been added to the original list. This makes me wonder what is happening at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

I had thought that this could be an excellent site to give people much good information about diabetes and give people comparisons for many of the snake oil web sites full of false information. Apparently, the AACE does not agree. Why else would it take so long to post sources that are reliable? Even the addition of a few sites per month or even every other month should not be asking too much. Unless they have to completely approve a site beyond the committee of experts.

If they are not going to approve any more web sites, why will they not say so? First, I would doubt that they have exhausted the reliable sites. There are many sites that I seriously doubt will able to satisfy their stringent guidelines, but this still leaves many that can meet their requirements.

If there are no more sites that meet their requirements, certainly they have a host of web sites that could fit under some category that lists the weakness of the sites. To have waited five months from the announcement of the site to its debut and now another five months without any additions to the original list of approved sites is very disheartening.

If you are looking for good sources, I suggest joining Google+ and adding Dr. Bill Quick (Bill Quick) to your circle. He is listing a “D” site at least five days a week and they should be reliable. He does cover the types of diabetes in the sites he lists, so it is not a listing for one type of diabetes only.

Another good source of information on Google+ is Scott Strumello. He posts links to much good information and especially for type 1 readers. He covers a variety of topics and does include the occasional tidbit for type 2.

Therefore, if you are like me and tired of the pace of the AACE in posting approved web sites, explore and read carefully. There are many good sites available that AACE and their snail's pace may get around to listing sometime in the distant future.

I Do Have to Believe AACE Is Not PR Motivated

Yes, I do believe AACE is not motivated in public relations and now I am getting concerned. Back on April 29, 2011 we were told by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) George Grunberger, MD, national board director through a Medscape article that AACE and Takeda Pharmaceuticals were putting up a new website to assist people with type 2 diabetes.

According to Dr. Grunberger, “The idea of the new Web site is not to provide new patient information about diabetes, but to direct patients to educational resources on the Web that provide credible information about the disease. Inaccurate or incomplete information can lead to unnecessary stress or confusion for people living with type 2 diabetes. We need to make it easier for healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers to access reliable sources of information, which can form a foundation for treatment and care decisions." Read my blog about this here.

In this blog on July 1, I asked if it was all hype. Now it is the first of August and I still have seen no results. This time I am doing my homework as I had been wondering if the article was printed with no backup information. On that I would be wrong as on the Takeda Pharmaceuticals website they do have a news release dated March 22, 2011 to confirm at least this much. You may read this for yourself. I have been contacting people to find out what is planned and when.

So rather than just vent, I will have to say that in an answer from AACE and Takeda, I have been told that it is still coming, just that it was taking longer than anticipated. Both responders are confident in their reply. Apparently the experts can't agree and vetting is taking longer than anticipated (my thoughts).

Am I upset, somewhat, if it had been an appointment with a doctor and I missed it, I would have been sent a letter telling me how valuable their time was and to reschedule. What I get upset about is when a doctor(s) or an association misses something, they don't feel an explanation is in order. Whether I speak only for myself, or if others agree, we should have been told that there was an unforeseen delay and our patience is appreciated. Even if they would have said that it would be longer than anticipated, at least then I would not be quite so upset, and avoided venting my feelings about how doctors do more to destroy doctor/patient relationships than patients will ever do.

I am still concerned about the delay and why one hand does not know what the other hand is doing and why when something is released that it will happen in June, the public relations people did not inform us that there would be a delay. I still wonder which sites will obtain the approval of those doing the vetting of sites. With the delay, I do have to wonder again if some of the sites selected will allow for individualized selection of treatment options or whether it will be a one size fits all approach. The latter will kill it before it even gets going!

I will continue to watch for the site's appearance and what websites make the initial selection criteria. This will be an indicator of what to expect and the stand of the AACE about the approved websites.

Is It All Hype and A No Show?

On May 4, 2011 when I wrote about the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) which will be cosponsoring the new online resource with Takeda Pharmaceuticals, I had hopes that this would come to fruition and be something that would benefit patients, caregivers, as well as some physicians.

It was suppose to be available online in June. I don't think I missed anything, but were they talking June of 2012 or 2013? Today is the first of July 2011, and unless I am blind, I have not found anything resembling a site for patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals as mentioned in the press release about this.

Now granted, the information was to be vetted by AACE diabetes experts, so maybe they found nothing that met the standards. Not that I can't be surprised, but certainly there are some websites that are acceptable – maybe.

Of course if the websites must follow the mantra of low fat, whole grains, and a lot of this nonsense, there may not be many sites. Then we have “The Type 2 Talk” which is sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca, in partnership with the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and its educational arm – the American College of Endocrinology (ACE). Maybe this will be the only vetted site.

I doubt this, as I sure Takeda Pharmaceuticals would have something to say about such a listing. To which I would add that as a patient information site, it may work for some, but to me is a rather lack luster and uninforming site.

So AACE, what is it going to be? A lot of hot air hype, or will you step up to the plate?
Is it going online June 2011 (gone – past history), 2012, or later? I have questions – but you are providing no answers and no vetted sites.

Will We Gain An Advantage Over Diabetes Misinformation?

This is something that many should watch for in the following months. It could be a huge advantage for us or for some of us it may be a bust. It will depend on whether the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologist (AACE) follows their own recent guidelines allowing for individualized goals or if that will not be a part of this and individualized goals will be ignored for safety reasons.

We will need to watch for when this will happen on the AACE web site. The information that will be presented will be the AACE, cosponsoring the new online resource with Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The launch date is to be sometime in June. At present the emphasis seems to be for Type 2 diabetes. If this can fill the gap in education needed by people unaware of hypoglycemia mentioned in my last blog, then it will have succeeded quite well.

According to the spokesman, this will be a valuable resource for patients and health professionals as it will direct them to sources for new research and patient education. Whether the site will allow both sides to be seen by patients will remain to be seen.

The purpose of the new web site is to direct patients to educational resources that provide credible information about diabetes. It will not be there to provide a new patient information about diabetes, but assist them in avoiding unreliable information. It will be available for patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals to aid all in forming a foundation for treatment and care decisions.

The sites they will be directed to will be vetted by AACE diabetes experts and the sites will be evaluated for quality and accuracy in the information it provides to patients and health professionals. The experts say that about 90 percent of people get their information from the internet and that on good days, 20 percent at most is reliable.

They also state that 90 to 95 percent of diabetics never see a specialist. So this is a resource of for thousands of physicians who provide healthcare to people with Type 2 diabetes. They want the online resource to help these healthcare professional to give them the most current guidelines for Type 2 diabetes treatment and methods for establishing individualized care plans for their patients with diabetes.

There is a lot to be done and it is going to be interesting to see the outcome of this effort. We do need this, if nothing more than a way to start eliminating many of the “cure” sites and sites that propagate much misinformation. It will also be interesting to see of the media picks up on this and does any research to improve their reporting.

Read the article here.