David C. Ziemer

Bio: David C. Ziemer is an academic researcher from Emory University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Diabetes mellitus & Type 2 diabetes. The author has an hindex of 33, co-authored 65 publications receiving 4008 citations.

Patient adherence improves glycemic control.

Abstract: PurposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the influence of appointment keeping and medication adherence on HbA1c.MethodsA retrospective evaluation was performed in 1560 patients with type 2 diabetes who presented for a new visit to the Grady Diabetes Clinic between 1991 and 2001 and returned for a follow-up visit and HbA1c after 1 year of care. Appointment keeping was assessed by the number of scheduled intervening visits that were kept, and medication adherence was assessed by the percentage of visits in which self-reported diabetes medication use was as recommended at the preceding visit.ResultsThe patients had an average age of 55 years, body mass index (BMI) of 32 kg/m2, diabetes duration of 4.6 years, and baseline HbA1c of 9.1%. Ninety percent were African American, and 63% were female. Those who kept more intervening appointments had lower HbA1c levels after 12 months of care (7.6% with 6-7 intervening visits vs 9.7% with 0 intervening visits). Better medication adherence was also associated wi...

Hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Abstract: Background Although hypoglycemia is the most common complication of intensive diabetes therapy, there is little information about risk factors for hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Objective To determine the prevalence and predisposing factors for hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis set in an outpatient specialty diabetes clinic. We included those patients who had baseline and follow-up visits from April 1 through October 31, 1999. Hypoglycemia was defined as typical symptoms relieved by eating, and/or blood glucose level of less than 60 mg/dL ( Results We studied 1055 patients. Prevalence of hypoglycemic symptoms was 12% (9/76) for patients treated with diet alone, 16% (56/346) for those using oral agents alone, and 30% (193/633) for those using any insulin (P Conclusions Mild hypoglycemia is common in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing aggressive diabetes management, but severe hypoglycemia is rare. Concerns about hypoglycemia should not deter efforts to achieve tight glycemic control in most patients with type 2 diabetes.

Glucose-Independent, Black–White Differences in Hemoglobin A1c Levels

Abstract: Black persons with diabetes tend to have higher hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels than white persons. While some attribute this to differences in diabetes control, evidence suggests that these differen...

Glucose-Independent, Black–White Differences in Hemoglobin A1c Levels: A Cross-sectional Analysis of 2 Studies

Abstract: Background: A previous study of participants with prediabetes found that hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) levels differed between black and white participants with no differences in glucose concentration. Objective: To determine whether black-white differences in HbA 1c level are present in other populations and across the full spectrum of glycemia. Design: Cross-sectional, retrospective. Setting: Outpatient. Participants: 1581 non-Hispanic black and white participants between 18 and 87 years of age without known diabetes in the SIGT (Screening for Impaired Glucose Tolerance) study and 1967 non-Hispanic black and white participants older than 40 years without known diabetes in the NHANES III (Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey). Measurements: HbA 1c levels, anthropometry, and plasma glucose levels during oral glucose tolerance testing. Results: Hemoglobin A 1c levels were higher in black than in white participants with normal glucose tolerance (0.13 percentage point [P < 0.001] in the SIGT sample and 0.21 percentage point [P < 0.001] in the NHANES III sample), prediabetes (0.26 percentage point [P < 0.001] and 0.30 percentage point [P < 0.001], respectively), or diabetes (0.47 percentage point [P < 0.020] and 0.47 percentage point [P< 0.013], respectively) after adjustment for plasma glucose levels and other characteristics known to correlate with HbA 1c levels. Limitation: The mechanism for the differences is unknown. Conclusion: Black persons have higher HbA 1c levels than white persons across the full spectrum of glycemia, and the differences increase as glucose intolerance worsens. These findings could limit the use of HbA 1c to screen for glucose intolerance, indicate the risk for complications, measure quality of care, and evaluate disparities in health. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases.

Clinical inertia contributes to poor diabetes control in a primary care setting.

Abstract: PurposeThe purpose of this study was to determine whether “clinical inertia”—inadequate intensification of therapy by the provider—could contribute to high A1C levels in patients with type 2 diabet...

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: 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.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

Abstract: Background Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not been found to be consistently effective. Objectives To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register up to January 2001. This was supplemented with searches of MEDLINE and reference lists, which did not yield additional relevant studies. Selection criteria Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. Main results We included 85 studies, 48 of which have been added to the previous version of this review. There were 52 comparisons of dichotomous outcomes from 47 trials with over 3500 health professionals that compared audit and feedback to no intervention. The adjusted RDs of non-compliance with desired practice varied from 0.09 (a 9% absolute increase in non-compliance) to 0.71 (a 71% decrease in non-compliance) (median = 0.07, inter-quartile range = 0.02 to 0.11). The one factor that appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback across studies was baseline non-compliance with recommended practice. Reviewer's conclusions Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are more likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

Abstract: 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.

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

Abstract: 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.