XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

https://www.science-open.com/document_file/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279/PubMedCentral/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

The consensus algorithm for the medical management of type 2 diabetes was published in August 2006 with the expectation that it would be updated, based on the availability of new interventions and new evidence to establish their clinical role. The authors continue to endorse the principles used to develop the algorithm and its major features. We are sensitive to the risks of changing the algorithm cavalierly or too frequently, without compelling new information. An update to the consensus algorithm published in January 2008 specifically addressed safety issues surrounding the thiazolidinediones. In this revision, we focus on the new classes of medications that now have more clinical data and experience.

/pdf/medical-management-of-hyperglycemia-in-type-2-diabetes-a-1qukm855yi.pdf

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

In 1997, an International Expert Committee was convened to reexamine the classification and diagnostic criteria of diabetes, which were based on the 1979 publication of the National Diabetes Data Group (1) and subsequent WHO study group (2). As a result of its deliberations, the Committee recommended several changes to the diagnostic criteria for diabetes and for lesser degrees of impaired glucose regulation (IFG/IGT) (3). The following were the major changes or issues addressed. 1) The use of a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) test for the diagnosis of diabetes was recommended, and the cut point separating diabetes from nondiabetes was lowered from FPG 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l) to 126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l). (All glycemic values represent venous plasma.) This change was based on data that showed an increase in prevalence and incidence of diabetic retinopathy beginning at approximately a FPG of 126 mg/dl, as well as on the desire to reduce the discrepancy that existed in the number of cases detected by the FPG cut point of 140 mg/dl and the 2-h value in the OGTT (2-h plasma glucose [2-h PG]) of 200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l). 2) Normal FPG was defined as 110 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/l). 3) The use of HbA1c (A1C) as a diagnostic test for diabetes was not recommended. The primary reason for this decision was a lack of standardized methodology resulting in varying nondiabetic reference ranges among laboratories. 4) Although the OGTT (which consists of an FPG and 2-h PG value) was recognized as a valid way to diagnose diabetes, the use of the test for diagnostic purposes in clinical practice was discouraged for several reasons (e.g., inconvenience, less reproducibility, greater cost). The diagnostic category of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) was retained to describe people whose FPG was 126 mg/dl but whose 2-h PG after a 75-g oral glucose challenge was 140–199 mg/dl. 5) The range of FPG levels between “normal” and that diagnostic for diabetes was named “impaired fasting glucose” (IFG). IFG identified people whose FPG ranged from 110 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/l) to 125 mg/dl (6.9 mmol/l). This construct was established so that there would be a fasting category analogous to IGT. The WHO consultation (4) also adopted most of the above conclusions. The two significant differences were that, whenever feasible, individuals with IFG should receive an OGTT to exclude the presence of diabetes, and the adoption of different criteria for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes. Since the 1997 Expert Committee report, many new data related to the diagnosis of diabetes have been published. First, many analyses of both old and new epidemiological data have examined the equivalence of the FPG and the 2-h PG to predict diabetes, and questions have been raised about the preference of the FPG test over the 2-h PG to diagnose diabetes (5– 7). Second, the IGT category has now been associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors (8–10) and CVD events (10,11), whereas IFG is much less strongly associated with CVD events and CVD mortality (10,11). Third, the National Glycosylated Hemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) has now ensured that most laboratories in the U.S. perform the assays using standardized controls and report glycated hemoglobin results in a manner traceable to the assay used in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) (12). These development s have improved as say performance and now allow caregivers and patients to compare reported results obtained among laboratories. Additional studies have suggested that the A1C may assist in diagnosing diabetes (13–17). Finally, data from major clinical trials that tested whether the progression from IGT to diabetes could be delayed or prevented by a treatment intervention have produced concordant results: intensive lifestyle modification (nutritional and exercise interventions) (18,19), metformin (19,20), and acarbose (20,21) were effective to variable degrees. In addition, a thiazolidinedione drug (troglitazone) reduced the incidence of diabetes in high-risk women with prior gestational diabetes (22). An inherent difficulty in the diagnosis of diabetes is the present lack of an identified unique qualitative biological marker that separates all people with diabetes from all nondiabetic individuals. The closest such characteristic for practical purposes is diabetic retinopathy, but this suffers from the obvious defect that in most diabetic patients, retinopathy usually becomes evident years after the recognized onset of diabetes. The lack of a suitable, unique marker of diabetes has led to reliance on the metabolic abnormality historically associated with the disease, i.e., hyperglycemia (as measured by the FPG or 2-h PG) as the most useful diagnostic test. The selection of diagnostic cut points for these tests rests on two ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

/pdf/follow-up-report-on-the-diagnosis-of-diabetes-mellitus-3gkidygqi2.pdf

Follow-up report on the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus.

D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was used to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, and new evidence is incorporated. Members of the Professional Practice Committee and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the Introduction. Subsequently, as with all position statements, the standards of care are reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of ADA’s Board of Directors.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2010

OBJECTIVE — To define the relationship between HbA1c and plasma glucose (PG) levels in patients with type 1 diabetes using data from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS — The DCCT was a multicenter, randomized clinical trial designed to compare intensive and conventional therapies and their relative effects on the development and progression of diabetic complications in patients with type 1 diabetes. Quarterly HbA 1c and corresponding seven-point capillary blood glucose profiles (premeal, postmeal, and bedtime) obtained in the DCCT were analyzed to define the relationship between HbA 1c and PG. Only data from complete profiles with corresponding HbA1c were used (n 26,056). Of the 1,441 subjects who participated in the study, 2 were excluded due to missing data. Mean plasma glucose (MPG) was estimated by multiplying capillary blood glucose by 1.11. Linear regression analysis weighted by the number of observations per subject was used to correlate MPG and HbA 1c.

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/25/2/275.full.pdf

Defining the relationship between plasma glucose and HbA(1c): analysis of glucose profiles and HbA(1c) in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of GHb as a screening test for undiagnosed diabetes (fasting plasma glucose > or =7.0 mmol/l) in a representative sample of the U.S. population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey included national samples of non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Mexican Americans aged > or =20 years. Of these subjects, 7,832 participated in a morning examination session, of which 1,273 were excluded because of a previous diagnosis of diabetes, missing data, or fasting time of <8 h before examination. Venous blood was obtained to measure fasting plasma glucose and GHb in the remaining 6,559 subjects. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to examine the sensitivity and specificity of GHb for detecting diabetes at increasing GHb cutoff levels. RESULTS: GHb demonstrated high sensitivity (83.4%) and specificity (84.4%) for detecting undiagnosed diabetes at a GHb cutoff of 1 SD above the normal mean. Moderate sensitivity (63.2%) and very high specificity (97.4%) were evident at a GHb cutoff of 2 SD above the normal mean. Sensitivity at this level ranged from 58.6% in the non-Hispanic white population to 83.6% in the Mexican-American population; specificity ranged from 93.0% in the nonHispanic black population to 98.3% in the non-Hispanic white population. CONCLUSIONS: GHb is a highly specific and convenient alternative to fasting plasma glucose for diabetes screening. A GHb value of 2 SD above the normal mean could identify a high proportion of individuals with undiagnosed diabetes who are at risk for developing diabetes complications.

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/23/2/187.full.pdf

Use of GHb (HbA1c) in screening for undiagnosed diabetes in the U.S. population.

Background: The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) demonstrated conclusively that risks for complications in patients with diabetes are directly related to glycemic control, as measured by glycohemoglobin (GHB). In 1994, one year after the DCCT results were reported, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) set specific diabetes treatment goals. However, 1993 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Survey results indicated a lack of comparability of GHB test results among methods and laboratories that represented a major obstacle to meaningful implementation of the ADA guidelines. Thus, an AACC subcommittee was formed in 1993 to develop a standardization program that would enable laboratories to report DCCT-traceable GHB results. This program was implemented in 1996 by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) Steering Committee.

Approach: We review the NGSP process and summarize progress in standardization through analysis of CAP data.

Content: Since 1996, the number of methods and laboratories certified by the NGSP as traceable to the DCCT has steadily increased. CAP GH2-B survey results reported in December 2000 show marked improvement over 1993 data in the comparability of GHB results. In 2000, 90% of surveyed laboratories reported GHB results as hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or equivalent, compared with 50% in 1993. Of laboratories reporting HbA1c in 2000, 78% used a NGSP-certified method. For most certified methods in 2000, between-laboratory CVs were <5%. For all certified methods in 2000, the mean percent HbA1c was within 0.8% HbA1c of the NGSP target at all HbA1c concentrations.

Summary: The majority of laboratories in the US are now reporting results that are traceable to DCCT/UKPDS outcomes.

The National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program: A five-year progress report

Background The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) established the importance of hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) as a predictor of outcome in patients with diabetes mellitus. In 1994, the American Diabetes Association began recommending specific Hb A(1c) targets, but lack of comparability among assays limited the ability of clinicians to use these targets. The National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) was implemented in 1996 to standardize Hb A(1c) results to those of the DCCT/UKPDS. Content The NGSP certifies manufacturers of Hb A(1c) methods as traceable to the DCCT. The certification criteria have been tightened over time and the NGSP has worked with the College of American Pathologists in tightening proficiency-testing requirements. As a result, variability of Hb A(1c) results among clinical laboratories has been considerably reduced. The IFCC has developed a reference system for Hb A(1c) that facilitates metrological traceability to a higher order. The NGSP maintains traceability to the IFCC network via ongoing sample comparisons. There has been controversy over whether to report Hb A(1c) results in IFCC or NGSP units, or as estimated average glucose. Individual countries are making this decision. Summary Variability among Hb A(1c) results has been greatly reduced. Not all countries will report Hb A(1c) in the same units, but there are established equations that enable conversion between different units. Hb A(1c) is now recommended for diagnosing diabetes, further accentuating the need for optimal assay performance. The NGSP will continue efforts to improve Hb A(1c) testing to ensure that clinical needs are met.

Status of Hemoglobin A1c Measurement and Goals for Improvement: From Chaos to Order for Improving Diabetes Care

Glycohemoglobin (GHb) is a measure of long-term mean glycemia that predicts risks for the development and/or progression of diabetic complications in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (1)(2). Several reports have suggested, however, that although the within-subject variation in GHb unrelated to glycemia is minimal, there is substantial between-subject variation in GHb, e.g., “low glycators” and “high glycators” (3)(4)(5). These reports have suggested that because of this large between-subject variation, GHb may not be useful for diabetes screening or diagnosis and that when GHb is used for routine management of patients with diabetes, different patients may require very different GHb target values to achieve the same overall glycemic status. We therefore examined the biological variation of GHb and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in nondiabetic individuals.

Individuals without diabetes (n = 48) participated in a study of an artificial sweetener that has no effect on GHb or plasma glucose concentrations [Submission to Food and Drug Administration. McNeil Specialty Products Company food additive petition 7A3987 (Sucralose), 1987–1997]. Because the study was designed to detect minimal changes in plasma glucose concentrations, all participants were men to avoid the effects of cyclic hormonal changes on insulin (and therefore, plasma glucose) concentrations. At the prestudy screening, all individuals were healthy on the basis of a medical history, physical examination, and electrocardiography results; results of hematology and blood chemistry studies, urine examination, and measures of blood …

/pdf/biological-variation-of-glycohemoglobin-5cvc16ue8h.pdf

Curt L. Rohlfing

Papers

Defining the relationship between plasma glucose and HbA(1c): analysis of glucose profiles and HbA(1c) in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial.

Use of GHb (HbA1c) in screening for undiagnosed diabetes in the U.S. population.

The National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program: A five-year progress report

Status of Hemoglobin A1c Measurement and Goals for Improvement: From Chaos to Order for Improving Diabetes Care

Biological Variation of Glycohemoglobin