Comparative Effects of Randomized Second-line Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes on a Composite Outcome Incorporating Glycemic Control, Body Weight, and Hypoglycemia: An Analysis of the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE)

OBJECTIVE

In Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) (5,047 participants, mean follow-up 5.0 years), differences in glycemic control were demonstrated over time among four randomized therapies added to metformin. Weight gain and hypoglycemia are also important outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes. We compared the effects of the four randomized GRADE medications on a composite outcome incorporating glycemic deterioration, weight gain, and hypoglycemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The composite outcome was time to first occurrence of any of the following: HbA1c >7.5%, confirmed; ≥5% weight gain; or severe or recurrent nonsevere hypoglycemia. Secondary analyses included examination of individual components of the composite outcome, subgroup effects and potential mediators, and treatment satisfaction. Cumulative incidence was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess pairwise group differences in risk of an outcome.

RESULTS

Risk of reaching the composite outcome (events per 100 participants per treatment year [PTYs]) was lowest with liraglutide (19 per 100 PTYs) followed by sitagliptin (26 per 100 PTYs), glargine (29 per 100 PTYs), and glimepiride (40 per 100 PTYs); all pairwise comparisons were statistically significant. The order was the same for risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia, but risk of glycemic deterioration was lowest with glargine, followed by liraglutide, glimepiride, and sitagliptin. No significant heterogeneity in risk of composite outcome was detected across prespecified covariates. Participants who reached the composite outcome had modestly but significantly lower treatment satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Among participants treated with common second-line drug classes for type 2 diabetes, the liraglutide group had the lowest and glimepiride the highest risk of reaching a composite outcome encompassing glycemic deterioration, weight gain, and hypoglycemia. These findings may inform decision-making regarding type 2 diabetes therapy.

Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially.

APPROACH

An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in screening, diagnosis, or monitoring of diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association.

CONTENT

Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the people with diabetes measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and also by laboratory analysis of HbA1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed.

SUMMARY

The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Executive Summary: Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments in the full version of the guideline). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association.

CONTENT

Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the patients measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring devices and also by laboratory analysis of HbA1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring; genetic testing; and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed.

SUMMARY

The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Executive Summary: Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments in the full version of the guideline). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association of Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association.

CONTENT

Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the patients measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring devices and also by laboratory analysis of Hb A1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring; genetic testing; and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed.

SUMMARY

The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially.

APPROACH

An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in screening, diagnosis, or monitoring of diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association of Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association.

CONTENT

Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the people with diabetes measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and also by laboratory analysis of Hb A1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed.

SUMMARY

The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

The Rare and Atypical Diabetes Network (RADIANT) Study: Design and Early Results

OBJECTIVE

The Rare and Atypical Diabetes Network (RADIANT) will perform a study of individuals and, if deemed informative, a study of their family members with uncharacterized forms of diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The protocol includes genomic (whole-genome [WGS], RNA, and mitochondrial sequencing), phenotypic (vital signs, biometric measurements, questionnaires, and photography), metabolomics, and metabolic assessments.

RESULTS

Among 122 with WGS results of 878 enrolled individuals, a likely pathogenic variant in a known diabetes monogenic gene was found in 3 (2.5%), and six new monogenic variants have been identified in the SMAD5, PTPMT1, INS, NFKB1, IGF1R, and PAX6 genes. Frequent phenotypic clusters are lean type 2 diabetes, autoantibody-negative and insulin-deficient diabetes, lipodystrophic diabetes, and new forms of possible monogenic or oligogenic diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

The analyses will lead to improved means of atypical diabetes identification. Genetic sequencing can identify new variants, and metabolomics and transcriptomics analysis can identify novel mechanisms and biomarkers for atypical disease.

Weight management in young adults with type 1 diabetes: The advancing care for type 1 diabetes and obesity network sequential multiple assignment randomized trial pilot results

AIMS

Co-management of weight and glycaemia is critical yet challenging in type 1 diabetes (T1D). We evaluated the effect of a hypocaloric low carbohydrate, hypocaloric moderate low fat, and Mediterranean diet without calorie restriction on weight and glycaemia in young adults with T1D and overweight or obesity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We implemented a 9-month Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trial pilot among adults aged 19-30 years with T1D for ≥1 year and body mass index 27-39.9 kg/m2 . Re-randomization occurred at 3 and 6 months if the assigned diet was not acceptable or not effective. We report results from the initial 3-month diet period and re-randomization statistics before shutdowns due to COVID-19 for primary [weight, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), percentage of time below range <70 mg/dl] and secondary outcomes [body fat percentage, percentage of time in range (70-180 mg/dl), and percentage of time below range <54 mg/dl]. Models adjusted for design, demographic and clinical covariates tested changes in outcomes and diet differences.

RESULTS

Adjusted weight and HbA1c (n = 38) changed by -2.7 kg (95% CI -3.8, -1.5, P < .0001) and -0.91 percentage points (95% CI -1.5, -0.30, P = .005), respectively, while adjusted body fat percentage remained stable, on average (P = .21). Hypoglycaemia indices remained unchanged following adjustment (n = 28, P > .05). Variability in all outcomes, including weight change, was considerable (57.9% were re-randomized primarily due to loss of <2% body weight). No outcomes varied by diet.

CONCLUSIONS

Three months of a diet, irrespective of macronutrient distribution or caloric restriction, resulted in weight loss while improving or maintaining HbA1c levels without increasing hypoglycaemia in adults with T1D.

Multicenter, Randomized Trial of a Bionic Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Currently available semiautomated insulin-delivery systems require individualized insulin regimens for the initialization of therapy and meal doses based on carbohydrate counting for routine operation. In contrast, the bionic pancreas is initialized only on the basis of body weight, makes all dose decisions and delivers insulin autonomously, and uses meal announcements without carbohydrate counting.

METHODS

In this 13-week, multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio persons at least 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes either to receive bionic pancreas treatment with insulin aspart or insulin lispro or to receive standard care (defined as any insulin-delivery method with unblinded, real-time continuous glucose monitoring). The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 13 weeks. The key secondary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter; the prespecified noninferiority limit for this outcome was 1 percentage point. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 219 participants 6 to 79 years of age were assigned to the bionic-pancreas group, and 107 to the standard-care group. The glycated hemoglobin level decreased from 7.9% to 7.3% in the bionic-pancreas group and did not change (was at 7.7% at both time points) in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference at 13 weeks, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to -0.3; P<0.001). The percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter did not differ significantly between the two groups (13-week adjusted difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of severe hypoglycemia was 17.7 events per 100 participant-years in the bionic-pancreas group and 10.8 events per 100 participant-years in the standard-care group (P = 0.39). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 13-week, randomized trial involving adults and children with type 1 diabetes, use of a bionic pancreas was associated with a greater reduction than standard care in the glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04200313.).

Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Microvascular and Cardiovascular Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Data are lacking on the comparative effectiveness of commonly used glucose-lowering medications, when added to metformin, with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease outcomes in persons with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We assessed the comparative effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications, added to metformin, in achieving and maintaining a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% in participants with type 2 diabetes. The randomly assigned therapies were insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin. Prespecified secondary outcomes with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease included hypertension and dyslipidemia, confirmed moderately or severely increased albuminuria or an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m² of body-surface area, diabetic peripheral neuropathy assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], hospitalization for heart failure, or an aggregate outcome of any cardiovascular event), and death. Hazard ratios are presented with 95% confidence limits that are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

During a mean 5.0 years of follow-up in 5047 participants, there were no material differences among the interventions with respect to the development of hypertension or dyslipidemia or with respect to microvascular outcomes; the mean overall rate (i.e., events per 100 participant-years) of moderately increased albuminuria levels was 2.6, of severely increased albuminuria levels 1.1, of renal impairment 2.9, and of diabetic peripheral neuropathy 16.7. The treatment groups did not differ with respect to MACE (overall rate, 1.0), hospitalization for heart failure (0.4), death from cardiovascular causes (0.3), or all deaths (0.6). There were small differences with respect to rates of any cardiovascular disease, with 1.9, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.0 in the glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin groups, respectively. When one treatment was compared with the combined results of the other three treatments, the hazard ratios for any cardiovascular disease were 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.3) in the glargine group, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4) in the glimepiride group, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) in the liraglutide group, and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) in the sitagliptin group.

CONCLUSIONS

In participants with type 2 diabetes, the incidences of microvascular complications and death were not materially different among the four treatment groups. The findings indicated possible differences among the groups in the incidence of any cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Did the 2015 USPSTF Abnormal Blood Glucose Recommendations Change Clinician Attitudes or Behaviors? A Mixed-Method Assessment

BACKGROUND

In 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised clinical recommendations to more broadly recommend abnormal blood glucose screening and more clearly recommend referral to behavioral interventions for adults with prediabetes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of the 2015 USPSTF recommendation changes on abnormal blood glucose screening and referral to behavioral interventions, and to examine physicians' perceptions of the revised recommendation.

DESIGN

We utilized a sequential, dependent mixed-methods triangulation design.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 33,444 patients meeting USPSTF abnormal blood glucose screening criteria within 15 health system-affiliated primary care practices and 20 primary care physicians in North Carolina.

MAIN MEASURES

We assessed monthly abnormal blood glucose screening rate and monthly referral rate to behavioral interventions. To estimate trend changes in outcomes, we used segmented linear regression analysis of interrupted time-series data. We gathered physicians' perspectives on the 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose recommendation including awareness of, agreement with, adoption of, and adherence to the recommendation. To analyze qualitative data, we used directed content analysis.

KEY RESULTS

There was a slight significant change in trend in abnormal blood glucose screening rates post-recommendation. There was a slight, statistically significant decrease in referral rates to behavioral interventions post-recommendation. Physicians were generally unaware of the revisions to the 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose recommendation; however, once the recommendations were described, physicians agreed with the screening recommendation but felt that the behavioral intervention referral recommendation was hard to implement.

CONCLUSION

The 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose guideline had little to no effect on abnormal blood glucose screening or referral to behavioral interventions in North Carolina practices. Potential interventions to improve these rates could include clinical decision tools embedded in the electronic health record and better referral systems for community-based diabetes prevention programs.

Correction to: The management of type 1 diabetes in adults. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

[Image: see text]

The management of type 1 diabetes in adults. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a writing group to develop a consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults. The writing group has considered the rapid development of new treatments and technologies and addressed the following topics: diagnosis, aims of management, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and support, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycaemia, behavioural considerations, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations, inpatient management and future perspectives. Although we discuss the schedule for follow-up examinations and testing, we have not included the evaluation and treatment of the chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes as these are well-reviewed and discussed elsewhere. The writing group was aware of both national and international guidance on type 1 diabetes and did not seek to replicate this but rather aimed to highlight the major areas that healthcare professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes. Though evidence-based where possible, the recommendations in the report represent the consensus opinion of the authors. Graphical abstract.

The Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a writing group to develop a consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults. The writing group has considered the rapid development of new treatments and technologies and addressed the following topics: diagnosis, aims of management, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and support, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, behavioral considerations, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations, inpatient management, and future perspectives. Although we discuss the schedule for follow-up examinations and testing, we have not included the evaluation and treatment of the chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes as these are well-reviewed and discussed elsewhere. The writing group was aware of both national and international guidance on type 1 diabetes and did not seek to replicate this but rather aimed to highlight the major areas that health care professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes. Though evidence-based where possible, the recommendations in the report represent the consensus opinion of the authors.

The SimpliciT1 Study: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 1b/2 Adaptive Study of TTP399, a Hepatoselective Glucokinase Activator, for Adjunctive Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Despite advances in exogenous insulin therapy, many patients with type 1 diabetes do not achieve acceptable glycemic control and remain at risk for ketosis and insulin-induced hypoglycemia. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether TTP399, a novel hepatoselective glucokinase activator, improved glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes without increasing hypoglycemia or ketosis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

SimpliciT1 was a phase 1b/2 adaptive study. Phase 2 activities were conducted in two parts. Part 1 randomly assigned 20 participants using continuous glucose monitors and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Part 2 randomly assigned 85 participants receiving multiple daily injections of insulin or CSII. In both parts 1 and 2, participants were randomly assigned to 800 mg TTP399 or matched placebo (fully blinded) and treated for 12 weeks. The primary end point was change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 12.

RESULTS

The difference in change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 12 between TTP399 and placebo was -0.7% (95% CI -1.3, -0.07) in part 1 and -0.21% (95% CI -0.39, -0.04) in part 2. Despite a greater decrease in HbA_1c with TTP399, the frequency of severe or symptomatic hypoglycemia decreased by 40% relative to placebo in part 2. In both parts 1 and 2, plasma β-hydroxybutyrate and urinary ketones were lower during treatment with TTP399 than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

TTP399 lowers HbA_1c and reduces hypoglycemia without increasing the risk of ketosis and should be further evaluated as an adjunctive therapy for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

The linearized disposition index augments understanding of treatment effects in diabetes

The disposition index, calculated by multiplying measures of insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity, is widely applied as a sensitivity-adjusted measure of insulin secretion. We have recently shown that linearizing the underlying relationship uniquely permits identification of terms relating to maximal insulin secretion capacity and the secretion-coupling relationship, with both terms separately contributing to differences in the secretion-sensitivity relationship across gradations of glycemia. Here, we demonstrate the application of this linearized equation to the evaluation of treatment-induced changes in the insulin secretion-sensitivity relationship. We applied a combination of repeated-measures multivariate linear regression (evaluating treatment-induced changes in the joint relationship of insulin sensitivity and secretion) plus mixed-model repeated measures (evaluating treatment effects on maximal secretion capacity and on the secretion-sensitivity coupling slope) and compared against a usual application of the disposition index calculated from the same measurements. This novel approach allows a more informative description of treatment-induced changes compared with the usual disposition index, including isolating the source of change within the mutually adjusted relationship and identifying treatment-induced changes in the secretion-sensitivity coupling slope and in maximal insulin secretion. Application of this linearized approach provides an expanded understanding of treatment-induced changes in the insulin sensitivity-secretion relationship.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The linearized insulin secretion-sensitivity relationship allows separate evaluation of the secretion-sensitivity slope and of maximal insulin secretion. Here, we demonstrate the application of this methodology to the evaluation of clinical trial data, showing that it provides an expanded understanding of treatment-induced changes compared with the disposition index.

Prevalence of microvascular and macrovascular disease in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes - A Comparative Effectiveness (GRADE) Study cohort

AIMS

The Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes - A Comparative Effectiveness (GRADE) trial is a randomized clinical trial comparing glycemic effects of four diabetes medications added to metformin in type 2 diabetes (T2D). Microvascular and macrovascular diseases are secondary outcomes. We evaluated the prevalence and risk factor relationships for microvascular and macrovascular complications in the GRADE cohort at study entry.

METHODS

Complication prevalence and risk factors were analyzed based on data from screening in all consenting participants meeting GRADE eligibility. Logistic regression and Z-statistics were used to assess risk factor relationships with complications.

RESULTS

We enrolled 5047 T2D participants [mean age 57 years; 36% female; mean known T2D duration 4 years (all < 10 years); mean HbA1c 8.0% (∼64 mmol/mol) at screening]. Urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) ≥ 30 mg/gram was present in 15.9% participants; peripheral neuropathy (by Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument) in 21.5%; cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy by electrocardiography-derived indices in 9.7%; self-reported retinopathy in 1.0%. Myocardial infarction ascertained by self-report or electrocardiogram was present in 7.3%, and self-reported history of stroke in 2.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

In the GRADE cohort with < 10 years of T2D and a mean HbA1c of 8.0%, diabetes complications were present in a substantial fraction of participants, more so than might otherwise have been expected.

Findings From a National Diabetes Survey: Highlighting Progress and Opportunities for Diabetes Prevention and Care

The National Diabetes Education Program (NDEP) implemented periodic deployment of the NDEP National Diabetes Survey (NNDS) in 2006 to collect data on diabetes-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among U.S. adults with diabetes and on risk-reduction attitudes and behaviors among people at risk for type 2 diabetes. Because of similarities in the nationally representative samples of the past three surveys, trends between 2011 and 2016 can be assessed. We present key findings of the 2016 NNDS, focusing on areas of interest to diabetes educators. The 2016 NNDS identified both progress and gaps. Eighty-nine percent of people with diabetes are aware of the A1C test, and disparities by race and ethnicity are narrowing. Awareness of the link between cardiovascular disease and diabetes has plateaued at 75% of respondents. Most people with diabetes do not feel comfortable managing hyper- or hypoglycemia (65 and 60%, respectively), and 60-69% report some level of diabetes distress. Among people without diabetes, awareness of personal risk of type 2 diabetes has increased from 30% in 2011 to 45% in 2016. A diagnosis of prediabetes significantly increases awareness of personal risk of diabetes (65% of people with prediabetes vs. 45% of those at risk), likelihood of receiving counseling about reducing risk (45 vs. 11%), and likelihood of taking action to reduce risk (71 vs. 52%). However, 33% of people without diabetes report not planning to take action to lower their risk of type 2 diabetes. The 2016 NNDS results suggest that outreach and educational efforts have increased knowledge about diabetes and diabetes risk, but also point to the need for more education and support for people with diabetes and those at risk.

Identifying insulin treatment responders with a composite measure: beyond Hba1c < 7% in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Many insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) do not reach hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7%, but have clinically relevant HbA1c reductions. Using an integrated database (IDB) of 53 insulin lispro clinical trials and a real-world evidence (RWE) database of T2D patients initiating insulin therapy, an expanded HbA1c measure was used to identify responders to insulin therapy.

METHODS

Analysis included 4,908 patients (IDB) and 1,134 patients (RWE) with T2D treated with any insulin regimen with a baseline and ≥1 post-baseline HbA1c. Responders were defined as patients with endpoint HbA1c < 7% (cut point [CP]) and/or either ≥1% absolute (ABS) decrease, and/or ≥10% relative (REL) decrease in HbA1c from baseline. The percentage of responders with CP vs ABS and concordance between ABS and REL were calculated. As the ABS and REL measures were highly correlated (94%), the ABS measure was used to compare characteristics of responders and non-responders by age, diabetes duration, race/ethnicity, baseline HbA1c, and insulin regimen at 24 weeks.

RESULTS

In both databases, more responders were identified with ABS or REL (>62%) than CP (<41%). More ABS responders had a baseline HbA1c ≥ 9% and a shorter diabetes duration than non-responders. Basal insulin-treated patients in the IDB had 78.2% responders at 24 weeks, compared to 69.7% with basal/bolus or pre-mixed insulin (75.4%). Results were similar in the IDB and RWE.

CONCLUSION

Composite HbA1c measures identified more patients with clinically meaningful responses to therapy than the broadly accepted HbA1c < 7% and may be useful in assessing clinical trials, clinical care, and quality measures.

Implementation and Evaluation of Shared Medical Appointments for Type 2 Diabetes at a Free, Student-Run Clinic in Alamance County, North Carolina

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes is a significant problem among uninsured patients. Shared medical appointments (SMA) have been shown to improve outcomes in type 2 diabetes. We hypothesized that the SMA model could be adapted for a non-profit clinic in North Carolina that serves uninsured patients with diabetes that have incomes at/below 150% of the federal poverty line.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We implemented and sustained a patient-driven, student-led SMA model that incorporated the monthly rotations of students, physician assistant, and undergraduate students as well as pharmacy residents and an endocrinologist who collectively provide diabetes care at the free clinic. SMA groups are 'open' cohorts and include 4-12 patients scheduled for the monthly clinic. Teams of transdisciplinary trainees work together to perform triage, medication reconciliation, brief history, and physical exam, after which patients participate in the SMA. The endocrinologist evaluates SMA patients individually during and after the visit.

RESULTS

Between November 2015 and January 2017, we enrolled 29 patients in SMA. There was high variability in HbA1c at baseline. Among eight type 2 diabetes patients seen in endocrine clinic and with complete data one year before and after SMA implementation, the mean (SD) HbA1c before SMA was 9.7% ± 1.7% (83±7 mmol/ mol); mean HbA1c after SMA was 9.2% ± 1.8% (77 ± 8mmol/mol). The median HbA1c before SMA was 9.5% (80 mmol/mol); median HbA1c after SMA was 8.9% (74 mmol/mol). Overall, 6/8 patients showed decreased HbA1c after SMA although there was variability between individuals in response of glycemic control to SMA. SMA increased clinic efficiency and offered an opportunity to integrate transdisciplinary trainees. Trainees gain experience with novel models of care and the complexities of the patient experience of diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

We hope this observation encourages others to implement such programs to enhance the evidence-base for SMA to address health disparities and increase the quality of free diabetes care.

Retinopathy predicts progression of fasting plasma glucose: An Early Diabetes Intervention Program (EDIP) analysis

BACKGROUND

Retinopathy is increasingly recognized in prediabetic populations, and may herald increased risk of metabolic worsening. The Early Diabetes Intervention Program (EDIP) evaluated worsening of glycemia in screen-detected Type 2 diabetes, following participants for up to 5years. Here we have evaluated whether the presence of retinopathy at the time of detection of diabetes was associated with accelerated progression of glycemia.

METHODS

We prospectively studied 194 participants from EDIP with available baseline retinal photographs. Retinopathy was determined at baseline using 7-field fundus photography and defined as an Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study Scale grading score of ≥20.

RESULTS

At baseline, 12% of participants had classical retinal lesions indicating retinopathy. In univariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, the presence of retinopathy at baseline was associated with a doubled risk of progression of fasting plasma glucose (HR 2.02; 95% CI 1.05-3.89). The retinopathy effect was robust to individual adjustment for age and glucose, the most potent determinants of progression in EDIP.

CONCLUSION

Retinopathy was associated with increased risk of progression of fasting plasma glucose among adults with screen-detected, early diabetes. Early detection of retinopathy may help individualize more aggressive therapy to prevent progressive metabolic worsening in early diabetes.

Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

The safety and effectiveness of a continuous, day-and-night automated glycaemic control system using insulin and glucagon has not been shown in a free-living, home-use setting. We aimed to assess whether bihormonal bionic pancreas initialised only with body mass can safely reduce mean glycaemia and hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes who were living at home and participating in their normal daily routines without restrictions on diet or physical activity.

METHODS

We did a random-order crossover study in volunteers at least 18 years old who had type 1 diabetes and lived within a 30 min drive of four sites in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of two using sequentially numbered sealed envelopes to glycaemic regulation with a bihormonal bionic pancreas or usual care (conventional or sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy) first, followed by the opposite intervention. Both study periods were 11 days in length, during which time participants continued all normal activities, including athletics and driving. The bionic pancreas was initialised with only the participant's body mass. Autonomously adaptive dosing algorithms used data from a continuous glucose monitor to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. The coprimary outcomes were the mean glucose concentration and time with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L, analysed over days 2-11 in participants who completed both periods of the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092220.

FINDINGS

We randomly assigned 43 participants between May 6, 2014, and July 3, 2015, 39 of whom completed the study: 20 who were assigned to bionic pancreas first and 19 who were assigned to the comparator first. The mean CGM glucose concentration was 7·8 mmol/L (SD 0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 9·0 mmol/L (1·6) in the comparator period (difference 1·1 mmol/L, 95% CI 0·7-1·6; p<0·0001), and the mean time with CGM glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L was 0·6% (0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 1·9% (1·7) in the comparator period (difference 1·3%, 95% CI 0·8-1·8; p<0·0001). The mean nausea score on the Visual Analogue Scale (score 0-10) was greater during the bionic pancreas period (0·52 [SD 0·83]) than in the comparator period (0·05 [0·17]; difference 0·47, 95% CI 0·21-0·73; p=0·0024). Body mass and laboratory parameters did not differ between periods. There were no serious or unexpected adverse events in the bionic pancreas period of the study.

INTERPRETATION

Relative to conventional and sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy, the bihormonal bionic pancreas, initialised only with participant weight, was able to achieve superior glycaemic regulation without the need for carbohydrate counting. Larger and longer studies are needed to establish the long-term benefits and risks of automated glycaemic management with a bihormonal bionic pancreas.

FUNDING

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Changes in Weight and Glucose Can Protect Against Progression in Early Diabetes Independent of Improvements in β-Cell Function

CONTEXT

Evidence-based strategies to prevent progression of dysglycemia in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a secondary analysis of the Early Diabetes Intervention Program (EDIP) in order to understand the features that were protective against worsening glycemia.

DESIGN

EDIP was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Two university diabetes centers.

PATIENTS

A total of 219 overweight individuals with fasting glucose < 7.8 mmol/L and 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) glucose > 11.1 mmol/L.

INTERVENTIONS

Acarbose versus placebo, on a background of dietary recommendations, with quarterly visits to assess glycemia and intervention adherence for up to 5 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Progression of fasting glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/L on two consecutive quarterly visits. Cox proportional hazards modeling and ANOVA were performed to evaluate determinants of progression.

RESULTS

Progression-free status was associated with reductions in weight, fasting glucose, 2-hour OGTT glucose, and increases in the high-density lipoprotein/triglyceride ratio. The reduction in fasting glucose was the only effect that remained significantly associated with progression-free status in multivariable Cox modeling. The reduction in fasting glucose was in turn primarily associated with reductions in weight and in 2-hour OGTT glucose. Acarbose treatment did not explain these changes.

CONCLUSIONS

In early diabetes, reductions in glucose, driven by reductions in weight, can delay progressive metabolic worsening. These observations underscore the importance of lifestyle management including weight loss as a tool to mitigate worsening of glycemia in newly diagnosed diabetes.

A call for comparative effectiveness research to learn whether routine clinical care decisions can protect from dementia and cognitive decline

Common diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation are probable risk factors for dementia, suggesting that their treatments may influence the risk and rate of cognitive and functional decline. Moreover, specific therapies and medications may affect long-term brain health through mechanisms that are independent of their primary indication. While surgery, benzodiazepines, and anti-cholinergic drugs may accelerate decline or even raise the risk of dementia, other medications act directly on the brain to potentially slow the pathology that underlies Alzheimer’s and other dementia. In other words, the functional and cognitive decline in vulnerable patients may be influenced by the choice of treatments for other medical conditions. Despite the importance of these questions, very little research is available. The Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation convened an advisory panel to discuss the existing evidence and to recommend strategies to accelerate the development of comparative effectiveness research on how choices in the clinical care of common chronic diseases may protect from cognitive decline and dementia.

Profound defects in β-cell function in screen-detected type 2 diabetes are not improved with glucose-lowering treatment in the Early Diabetes Intervention Program (EDIP)

BACKGROUND

Few studies have measured the ability of interventions to affect declining β-cell function in screen-detected type 2 diabetes. The Early Diabetes Intervention Programme (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01470937) was a randomized study based on the hypothesis that improving postprandial glucose excursions with acarbose would slow the progression of fasting hyperglycaemia in screen-detected type 2 diabetes. In the Early Diabetes Intervention Programme, the effect of acarbose plus lifestyle advice on progression of fasting hyperglycaemia over a 5-year period was not greater than that of placebo. However, there was an early glucose-lowering effect of the trial. The objective of the current secondary analysis was to describe β-cell function changes in response to glucose lowering.

METHODS

Participants were overweight adult subjects with screen-detected type 2 diabetes. β-cell function was measured using hyperglycaemic clamps and oral glucose tolerance testing. The primary outcome was the change in β-cell function from baseline to year 1, the time point where the maximal glucose-lowering effect was seen.

RESULTS

At baseline, participants exhibited markedly impaired first-phase insulin response. Despite significant reductions in weight, fasting plasma glucose (PG) and 2-h PG, there was no clinically significant improvement in the first-phase insulin response. Late-phase insulin responses declined despite beneficial glycaemic effects of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin secretion is already severely impaired in early, screen-detected type 2 diabetes. Effective glucose-lowering intervention with acarbose was not sufficient to improve insulin secretion or halt the decline of β-cell function.

Determinants of adherence to diabetes medications: findings from a large pharmacy claims database

OBJECTIVE

Adults with diabetes typically take multiple medications for hyperglycemia, diabetes-associated conditions, and other comorbidities. Medication adherence is associated with improved outcomes, including reduced health care costs, hospitalization, and mortality. We conducted a retrospective analysis of a large pharmacy claims database to examine patient, medication, and prescriber factors associated with adherence to antidiabetic medications.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We extracted data on a cohort of >200,000 patients who were treated for diabetes with noninsulin medications in the second half of 2010 and had continuous prescription benefits eligibility through 2011. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio ≥ 0.8. We used a modified adherence measure that accounted for switching therapies. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors independently associated with adherence.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine percent of patients were adherent. Adherence was independently associated with older age, male sex, higher education, higher income, use of mail order versus retail pharmacies, primary care versus nonendocrinology specialist prescribers, higher daily total pill burden, and lower out-of-pocket costs. Patients who were new to diabetes therapy were significantly less likely to be adherent.

CONCLUSIONS

Several demographic, clinical, and potentially modifiable system-level factors were associated with adherence to antidiabetic medications. Patients typically perceived to be healthy (those who are younger, new to diabetes, and on few other medications) may be at risk for nonadherence. For all patients, efforts to reduce out-of-pocket costs and encourage use of mail order pharmacies may result in higher adherence.

Diabetes and cardiovascular disease in older adults: current status and future directions

The prevalence of diabetes increases with age, driven in part by an absolute increase in incidence among adults aged 65 years and older. Individuals with diabetes are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease, and age strongly predicts cardiovascular complications. Inflammation and oxidative stress appear to play some role in the mechanisms underlying aging, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other complications of diabetes. However, the mechanisms underlying the age-associated increase in risk for diabetes and diabetes-related cardiovascular disease remain poorly understood. Moreover, because of the heterogeneity of the older population, a lack of understanding of the biology of aging, and inadequate study of the effects of treatments on traditional complications and geriatric conditions associated with diabetes, no consensus exists on the optimal interventions for older diabetic adults. The Association of Specialty Professors, along with the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Diabetes Association, held a workshop, summarized in this Perspective, to discuss current knowledge regarding diabetes and cardiovascular disease in older adults, identify gaps, and propose questions to guide future research.

The surveillance error grid

Currently used error grids for assessing clinical accuracy of blood glucose monitors are based on out-of-date medical practices. Error grids have not been widely embraced by regulatory agencies for clearance of monitors, but this type of tool could be useful for surveillance of the performance of cleared products. Diabetes Technology Society together with representatives from the Food and Drug Administration, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, and representatives of academia, industry, and government, have developed a new error grid, called the surveillance error grid (SEG) as a tool to assess the degree of clinical risk from inaccurate blood glucose (BG) monitors. A total of 206 diabetes clinicians were surveyed about the clinical risk of errors of measured BG levels by a monitor. The impact of such errors on 4 patient scenarios was surveyed. Each monitor/reference data pair was scored and color-coded on a graph per its average risk rating. Using modeled data representative of the accuracy of contemporary meters, the relationships between clinical risk and monitor error were calculated for the Clarke error grid (CEG), Parkes error grid (PEG), and SEG. SEG action boundaries were consistent across scenarios, regardless of whether the patient was type 1 or type 2 or using insulin or not. No significant differences were noted between responses of adult/pediatric or 4 types of clinicians. Although small specific differences in risk boundaries between US and non-US clinicians were noted, the panel felt they did not justify separate grids for these 2 types of clinicians. The data points of the SEG were classified in 15 zones according to their assigned level of risk, which allowed for comparisons with the classic CEG and PEG. Modeled glucose monitor data with realistic self-monitoring of blood glucose errors derived from meter testing experiments plotted on the SEG when compared to the data plotted on the CEG and PEG produced risk estimates that were more granular and reflective of a continuously increasing risk scale. The SEG is a modern metric for clinical risk assessments of BG monitor errors that assigns a unique risk score to each monitor data point when compared to a reference value. The SEG allows the clinical accuracy of a BG monitor to be portrayed in many ways, including as the percentages of data points falling into custom-defined risk zones. For modeled data the SEG, compared with the CEG and PEG, allows greater precision for quantifying risk, especially when the risks are low. This tool will be useful to allow regulators and manufacturers to monitor and evaluate glucose monitor performance in their surveillance programs.

Effect of acarbose to delay progression of carotid intima-media thickness in early diabetes

BACKGROUND

The anti-diabetic agent acarbose reduces postprandial glucose excursions. We have evaluated the effect of randomized treatment with acarbose on the progression of carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in early diabetes.

METHODS

The Early Diabetes Intervention Program was a randomized trial of acarbose versus placebo in 219 participants with early diabetes characterized by glucose values over 11.1 mmol/L 2 h after a 75 g oral glucose load and a mean HbA1c of 6.3%. IMT was measured at baseline and yearly. Follow-up was discontinued if participants progressed to the study glucose endpoints; IMT readings were available for a median of 2 years, with 72 subjects followed for 5 years.

RESULTS

Progressive increases in IMT were seen in both treatment groups, but progression was reduced in participants randomized to acarbose (p = 0.047). In age, sex and smoking-adjusted analyses, IMT progression was associated with greater fasting and oral glucose tolerance test-excursion glucose, fasting insulin, cholesterol and glycated low-density lipoprotein concentrations. IMT progression was reduced with study-related changes in weight, insulin and non-esterified fatty acids; these features were more strongly associated with reduced IMT progression than acarbose treatment. Despite strong associations of baseline glycemia with IMT progression, study-related changes in glucose were not important determinants of IMT progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Acarbose can delay progression of carotid intima-media thickness in early diabetes defined by an oral glucose tolerance test. Glucose, weight, insulin and lipids contributed to risk of progression but reductions in glycemia were not major determinants of reduced rate of IMT progression. Vascular benefits of acarbose may be independent of its glycemic effects.

Executive Summary: Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Multiple laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially.

APPROACH

An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. A draft of the guidelines was posted on the Internet, and the document was modified in response to comments. The guidelines were reviewed by the joint Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the AACC and the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequent approval by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association.

CONTENT

In addition to the long-standing criteria based on measurement of venous plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) concentrations in the blood. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by the patients measuring their own plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of Hb A1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed.

SUMMARY

The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Position statement executive summary: guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Multiple laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially.

APPROACH

An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. A draft of the guidelines was posted on the Internet, and the document was modified in response to comments. The guidelines were reviewed by the joint Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the AACC and the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequent approval by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association.

CONTENT

In addition to the long-standing criteria based on measurement of venous plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) concentrations in the blood. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by the patients measuring their own plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of HbA(1c). The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed.

SUMMARY

The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Multiple laboratory tests are used to diagnose and manage patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these tests varies substantially.

APPROACH

An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory testing for patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Draft guidelines were posted on the Internet and presented at the 2007 Arnold O. Beckman Conference. The document was modified in response to oral and written comments, and a revised draft was posted in 2010 and again modified in response to written comments. The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and the Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry jointly reviewed the guidelines, which were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequently approved by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association.

CONTENT

In addition to long-standing criteria based on measurement of plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased blood hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) concentrations. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by self-monitoring of plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of HbA(1c). The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed.

SUMMARY

The guidelines provide specific recommendations that are based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes have minimal clinical value at present, and their measurement is not recommended.

Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Multiple laboratory tests are used to diagnose and manage patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these tests varies substantially.

APPROACH

An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory testing for patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Draft guidelines were posted on the Internet and presented at the 2007 Arnold O. Beckman Conference. The document was modified in response to oral and written comments, and a revised draft was posted in 2010 and again modified in response to written comments. The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the AACC jointly reviewed the guidelines, which were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequently approved by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association.

CONTENT

In addition to long-standing criteria based on measurement of plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased blood hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) concentrations. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by self-monitoring of plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of Hb A(1c). The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed.

SUMMARY

The guidelines provide specific recommendations that are based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes have minimal clinical value at present, and their measurement is not recommended.

Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Multiple laboratory tests are used to diagnose and manage patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these tests varies substantially.

APPROACH

An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory testing for patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Draft guidelines were posted on the Internet and presented at the 2007 Arnold O. Beckman Conference. The document was modified in response to oral and written comments, and a revised draft was posted in 2010 and again modified in response to written comments. The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the AACC jointly reviewed the guidelines, which were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequently approved by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association.

CONTENT

In addition to long-standing criteria based on measurement of plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased blood hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) concentrations. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by self-monitoring of plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of Hb A(1c). The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed.

SUMMARY

The guidelines provide specific recommendations that are based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes have minimal clinical value at present, and their measurement is not recommended.