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

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

https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/57689460-a74a-45be-b1a0-a3e9cd0c5d62/PubMedCentral/57689460-a74a-45be-b1a0-a3e9cd0c5d62.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2013

I. CLASSIFICATION AND DIAGNOSIS OF DIABETES, p. S12 A. Classification of diabetes B. Diagnosis of diabetes C. Categories of increased risk for diabetes (prediabetes) II. TESTING FOR DIABETES IN ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS, p. S13 A. Testing for type 2 diabetes and risk of future diabetes in adults B. Testing for type 2 diabetes in children C. Screening for type 1 diabetes III. DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS OF GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS, p. S15 IV. PREVENTION/DELAY OF TYPE 2 DIABETES, p. S16 V. DIABETES CARE, p. S16 A. Initial evaluation B. Management C. Glycemic control 1. Assessment of glycemic control a. Glucose monitoring b. A1C 2. Glycemic goals in adults D. Pharmacologic and overall approaches to treatment 1. Therapy for type 1 diabetes 2. Therapy for type 2 diabetes E. Diabetes self-management education F. Medical nutrition therapy G. Physical activity H. Psychosocial assessment and care I. When treatment goals are not met J. Hypoglycemia K. Intercurrent illness L. Bariatric surgery M. Immunization VI. PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF DIABETES COMPLICATIONS, p. S27 A. Cardiovascular disease 1. Hypertension/blood pressure control 2. Dyslipidemia/lipid management 3. Antiplatelet agents 4. Smoking cessation 5. Coronary heart disease screening and treatment B. Nephropathy screening and treatment C. Retinopathy screening and treatment D. Neuropathy screening and treatment E. Foot care VII. DIABETES CARE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS, p. S38 A. Children and adolescents 1. Type 1 diabetes Glycemic control a. Screening and management of chronic complications in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes i. Nephropathy ii. Hypertension iii. Dyslipidemia iv. Retinopathy v. Celiac disease vi. Hypothyroidism b. Self-management c. School and day care d. Transition from pediatric to adult care 2. Type 2 diabetes 3. Monogenic diabetes syndromes B. Preconception care C. Older adults D. Cystic fibrosis–related diabetes VIII. DIABETES CARE IN SPECIFIC SETTINGS, p. S43 A. Diabetes care in the hospital 1. Glycemic targets in hospitalized patients 2. Anti-hyperglycemic agents in hospitalized patients 3. Preventing hypoglycemia 4. Diabetes care providers in the hospital 5. Self-management in the hospital 6. Diabetes self-management education in the hospital 7. Medical nutrition therapy in the hospital 8. Bedside blood glucose monitoring 9. Discharge planning IX. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE, p. S46

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2011

https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/8305f7ff-79d5-49cd-b9e1-28a26f4ca691/PubMedCentral/8305f7ff-79d5-49cd-b9e1-28a26f4ca691.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2009

Background : Dietary protein has long been thought to play a role in the progression of chronic renal disease, but clinical trials to date have not consistently shown that dietary protein restriction is beneficial. Purpose : To use meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of dietary protein restriction in previously published studies of diabetic and nondiabetic renal diseases, including the recently completed Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study. Data Sources : The English-language medical literature published from January 1966 through December 1994 was searched for studies examining the effect of low-protein diets in humans with chronic renal disease. A total of 1413 patients in five studies of nondiabetic renal disease (mean length of follow-up, 18 to 36 months) and 108 patients in five studies of type I diabetes mellitus (mean length of follow-up, 9 to 35 months) were included. Study Selection : Randomized, controlled studies were selected for nondiabetic renal disease ; randomized, controlled studies or time-controlled studies with nonrandomized crossover design were selected for diabetic nephropathy. Data Extraction : Data in tables, figures, or text were independently extracted by two of the authors. Data Synthesis : The relative risk for progression of renal disease in patients receiving a low-protein diet compared with patients receiving a usual-protein diet was calculated by using a random-effects model. In five studies of nondiabetic renal disease, a low-protein diet significantly reduced the risk for renal failure or death (relative risk, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.89]). In five studies of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, a low-protein diet significantly slowed the increase in urinary albumin level or the decline in glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance (relative risk, 0.56 [Cl, 0.40 to 0.77]). Tests for heterogeneity showed no significant differences in relative risk among studies of either diabetic or nondiabetic renal disease. No significant differences were seen between diet groups in pooled mean arterial blood pressure (diabetic and nondiabetic patients) or glycosylated hemoglobin level (diabetic patients only). Conclusion : Dietary protein restriction effectively slows the progression of both diabetic and nondiabetic renal diseases.

The Effect of Dietary Protein Restriction on the Progression of Diabetic and Nondiabetic Renal Diseases: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Dietary protein has long been thought to play a role in the progression of chronic renal disease, but clinical trials to date have not consistently shown that dietary protein restrictio...

Michael T. Pedrini

Papers

The Effect of Dietary Protein Restriction on the Progression of Diabetic and Nondiabetic Renal Diseases: A Meta-Analysis

The Effect of Dietary Protein Restriction on the Progression of Diabetic and Nondiabetic Renal Diseases