Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus

the growth of knowledge regarding the etiology and pathogenesis of diabetes has led many individuals and groups in the diabetes community to express the need for a revision of the nomenclature, diagnostic criteria, and classification of diabetes. As a consequence, it was deemed essential to develop an appropriate, uniform terminology and a functional, working classification of diabetes that reflects the current knowledge about the disease. (1)

Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus

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

Background It is controversial whether maternal hyperglycemia less severe than that in diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes Methods A total of 25,505 pregnant women at 15 centers in nine countries underwent 75-g oral glucose-tolerance testing at 24 to 32 weeks of gestation Data remained blinded if the fasting plasma glucose level was 105 mg per deciliter (58 mmol per liter) or less and the 2-hour plasma glucose level was 200 mg per deciliter (111 mmol per liter) or less Primary outcomes were birth weight above the 90th percentile for gestational age, primary cesarean delivery, clinically diagnosed neonatal hypoglycemia, and cord-blood serum C-peptide level above the 90th percentile Secondary outcomes were delivery before 37 weeks of gestation, shoulder dystocia or birth injury, need for intensive neonatal care, hyperbilirubinemia, and preeclampsia Results For the 23,316 participants with blinded data, we calculated adjusted odds ratios for adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with an increase in the fasting plasma glucose level of 1 SD (69 mg per deciliter [04 mmol per liter]), an increase in the 1-hour plasma glucose level of 1 SD (309 mg per deciliter [17 mmol per liter]), and an increase in the 2-hour plasma glucose level of 1 SD (235 mg per deciliter [13 mmol per liter]) For birth weight above the 90th percentile, the odds ratios were 138 (95% confidence interval [CI], 132 to 144), 146 (139 to 153), and 138 (132 to 144), respectively; for cord-blood serum C-peptide level above the 90th percentile, 155 (95% CI, 147 to 164), 146 (138 to 154), and 137 (130 to 144); for primary cesarean delivery, 111 (95% CI, 106 to 115), 110 (106 to 115), and 108 (103 to 112); and for neonatal hypoglycemia, 108 (95% CI, 098 to 119), 113 (103 to 126), and 110 (100 to 112) There were no obvious thresholds at which risks increased Significant associations were also observed for secondary outcomes, although these tended to be weaker Conclusions Our results indicate strong, continuous associations of maternal glucose levels below those diagnostic of diabetes with increased birth weight and increased cord-blood serum C-peptide levels

/pdf/hyperglycemia-and-adverse-pregnancy-outcomes-5gtk31tbx7.pdf

Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes

Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes

The Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) was held in Chicago, IL, 11–13 November 2005 under the sponsorship of the American Diabetes Association. The meeting provided a forum for review of new information concerning GDM in the areas of pathophysiology, epidemiology, perinatal outcome, long-range implications for mother and her offspring, and management strategies. New information and recommendations related to each of these major topics are summarized in the report that follows.

The issues regarding strategies and criteria for the detection and diagnosis of GDM were not reviewed or discussed in detail, since it is anticipated that the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study will provide data in mid-2007 that will foster the development of criteria for the diagnosis of GDM that are based on perinatal outcomes. Thus, for the interim, the participants of the Fifth International Workshop-Conference on GDM endorsed a motion to continue use of the definition, classification criteria, and strategies for detection and diagnosis of GDM that were recommended at the Fourth Workshop-Conference. Those guidelines are reproduced (with minor modifications) in this article in appendix Tables 1 and 2.

The invited lectures, topical discussions, and posters presented at the conference and the invited manuscripts that appear in this issue of Diabetes Care served as the basis for the following summary and recommendations.

### Pathophysiology

#### General considerations.

Current diagnostic criteria assign the diagnosis of GDM to women with glucose levels in the upper ∼5–10% of the population distribution. The hyperglycemia varies in severity from glucose concentrations that would be diagnostic of diabetes outside of pregnancy to concentrations that are asymptomatic and only slightly above normal, but associated with some increased risk of fetal morbidity.

Like all forms of hyperglycemia, GDM is characterized by insulin levels that are insufficient to meet insulin demands. The causes of pancreatic β-cell dysfunction that …

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/30/Supplement_2/S251.full.pdf

Summary and recommendations of the Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus, defined as diabetes diagnosed during pregnancy that is not clearly overt diabetes, is becoming more common as the epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes continues. Newly proposed diagnostic criteria will, if adopted universally, further increase the prevalence of this condition. Much controversy surrounds the diagnosis and management of gestational diabetes.

Content: This review provides information regarding various approaches to the diagnosis of gestational diabetes and the recommendations of a number of professional organizations. The implications of gestational diabetes for both the mother and the offspring are described. Approaches to self-monitoring of blood glucose concentrations and treatment with diet, oral medications, and insulin injections are covered. Management of glucose metabolism during labor and the postpartum period are discussed, and an approach to determining the timing of delivery and the mode of delivery is outlined.

Summary: This review provides an overview of current controversies as well as current recommendations for gestational diabetes care.

http://www.iacld.ir/DL/elm/93/gestationaldiabetesmellitusreview.pdf

Donald R. Coustan

Papers

Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes

Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes

Summary and recommendations of the Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

Summary and recommendations of the Fourth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. The Organizing Committee.