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

1. Type 1 diabetes (due to b-cell destruction, usually leading to absolute insulin deficiency) 2. Type 2 diabetes (due to a progressive insulin secretory defect on the background of insulin resistance) 3. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (diabetes diagnosed in the second or third trimester of pregnancy that is not clearly overt diabetes) 4. Specific types of diabetes due to other causes, e.g., monogenic diabetes syndromes (such as neonatal diabetes and maturity-onset diabetes of the young [MODY]), diseases of the exocrine pancreas (such as cystic fibrosis), and drugor chemical-induced diabetes (such as in the treatment of HIV/AIDS or after organ transplantation)

Classification and diagnosis of diabetes

COVID-19 Dashboard

Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes

Metformin is a widely-used drug that results in clear benefits in relation to glucose metabolism and diabetes-related complications. The mechanisms underlying these benefits are complex and still not fully understood. Physiologically, metformin has been shown to reduce hepatic glucose production, yet not all of its effects can be explained by this mechanism and there is increasing evidence of a key role for the gut. At the molecular level the findings vary depending on the doses of metformin used and duration of treatment, with clear differences between acute and chronic administration. Metformin has been shown to act via both AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK)-dependent and AMPK-independent mechanisms; by inhibition of mitochondrial respiration but also perhaps by inhibition of mitochondrial glycerophosphate dehydrogenase, and a mechanism involving the lysosome. In the last 10 years, we have moved from a simple picture, that metformin improves glycaemia by acting on the liver via AMPK activation, to a much more complex picture reflecting its multiple modes of action. More work is required to truly understand how this drug works in its target population: individuals with type 2 diabetes.

/pdf/the-mechanisms-of-action-of-metformin-3fa1vov0hg.pdf

The mechanisms of action of metformin

Clinical profile and treatment outcomes of patients with ectopic ACTH syndrome compared to Cushing disease: a single-center experience

Post-Partum Screening of Gestational Diabetes: Opportunities for Integration with Existing Public Health.

Converting disability to opportunity: GDM women as new role models of diabetes care

While this attention is both justified and welcome, it may lead to over enthusiastic screening, unnecessary diagnosis, and unwarranted treatment. Such diagnostic and therapeutic “errors of commission,” or misadventures, are especially of risk in an antenatal setting, where both mother and fetus are exposed to any intervention. These risks can be biomedical or psychosocial in nature. Unwanted hypoglycemia, for example, is a biomedical risk of over‐aggressive therapy.[4] Anxiety, diabetes distress, social stigma, and financial ill‐health are psychosocial adverse effects which may occur unnecessarily.[5]

Quaternary prevention and gestational diabetes mellitus.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the differences in the continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS)-based glycemic parameters between women with normoglycemia and early gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) identified on the basis of mild fasting plasma glucose elevation (FPG, 5.1–5.5 mmol/L) and/or post-load plasma glucose elevation (PLG, 1-h ≥ 10.0 mmol/L or 2-h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L). This cross-sectional study included women with singleton pregnancy (8+0 to 19+6 weeks of gestation) and normoglycemia or GDM per World Health Organization (WHO) 2013 criteria. We evaluated the glycemic parameters of clinical interest using blinded CGMS evaluation and reported them per standard methodology proposed by Hernandez et al. A total of 87 women (GDM, n = 38) were enrolled at 28.6 ± 4.5 years. Among women with GDM, 10 (26.3%) had isolated mild FPG elevation (5.1–5.5 mmol/L), 10 (26.3%) had isolated PLG elevation (1-h ≥ 10.0 mmol/L or 2-h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L), and 7 (18.4%) had a combination of both. The remaining 11 (28.9%) had elevated FPG (≥ 5.6 mmol/L) with or without PLG elevation. Thus, when an isolated FPG cutoff ≥ 5.6 mmol/L is used to diagnose GDM, 27 (71.0%) women would be perceived as normoglycemic. Such women had significantly higher CGMS parameters of clinical interest, such as 24-h mean glucose, fasting glucose, 1-h and 2-h postprandial glucose (PPG), 1-h PPG excursion, and peak PPG. An isolated FPG threshold, especially the higher cutoff ≥ 5.6 mmol/L, can potentially miss a large proportion of women (nearly three-fourths) diagnosed with GDM per WHO 2013 criteria. Eventually, such women fare significantly differently from normoglycemic women in various CGMS parameters of clinical interest. 

/pdf/continuous-glucose-monitoring-system-profile-of-women-with-tlxfmqv3.pdf

Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Profile of Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Missed Using Isolated Fasting Plasma Glucose-Based Strategies Alternative to WHO 2013 Criteria: A Cross-Sectional Study

Yashdeep Gupta

Papers

Clinical profile and treatment outcomes of patients with ectopic ACTH syndrome compared to Cushing disease: a single-center experience

Post-Partum Screening of Gestational Diabetes: Opportunities for Integration with Existing Public Health.

Converting disability to opportunity: GDM women as new role models of diabetes care

Quaternary prevention and gestational diabetes mellitus.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Profile of Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Missed Using Isolated Fasting Plasma Glucose-Based Strategies Alternative to WHO 2013 Criteria: A Cross-Sectional Study