Diabetes Self-Management Education and Association With Diabetes Self-Care and Clinical Preventive Care Practices.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to assess self-reported receipt of diabetes education among people with diabetes and its association with following recommended self-care and clinical preventive care practices. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2017 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for 61 424 adults (≥18 years) with self-reported diabetes in 43 states and Washington, DC. Diabetes education was defined as ever taking a diabetes self-management class. The association of diabetes education with self-care practices (daily glucose testing, daily foot checks, smoking abstention, and engaging in leisure-time physical activity) and clinical practices (pneumococcal vaccination, biannual A1C test, and an annual dilated eye exam, influenza vaccination, health care visit for diabetes, and foot exam by a medical professional) was assessed. Multivariable logistic regression with predicted margins was used to predict the probability of following these practices, by diabetes education, controlling for sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Of adults with diabetes, only half reported receiving diabetes education. Results indicate that receipt of diabetes education is associated with following self-care and clinical preventive care practices. Those who did receive diabetes education had a higher predicted probability for following all 4 self-care practices (smoking abstention, daily glucose testing, daily foot check, and engaging in leisure-time physical activity) and all 6 clinical practices (pneumonia vaccination, biannual A1C test, and an annual eye exam, flu vaccination, health care visit, and medical foot exam). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of adults with diabetes receiving diabetes education remains low. Increasing receipt of diabetes education may improve diabetes-related preventive care.

Population-Level Approaches to Preventing Type 2 Diabetes Globally.

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is increasingly considered an epidemic rooted in modern society as much as in individual behavior. Addressing the T2DM burden thus involves a dual approach, simultaneously addressing high-risk individuals and whole populations. Within this context, this article summarizes the evidence base, in terms of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, for population-level approaches to prevent T2DM: (1) modifications to the food environment; (2) modifications to the built environment and physical activity; and (3) programs and policies to address social and economic factors. Existing knowledge gaps are also discussed.

Long-term mortality among kidney transplant recipients with and without diabetes: a nationwide cohort study in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the role diabetes (type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D)) plays in modifying prognosis among kidney transplant recipients. Here, we compare mortality among transplant recipients with T1D, T2D and non-diabetes-related end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included 254 188 first-time single kidney transplant recipients aged ≥18 years from the US Renal Data System (2000-2018). Diabetes status, as primary cause of ESKD, was defined using International Classification of Disease 9th and 10th Clinical Modification codes. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models (right-censored) computed risk of death associated with T1D and T2D relative to non-diabetes. Trends in standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) (2000-2017), relative to the general US population, were assessed using Joinpoint regression. RESULTS: A total of 72 175 (28.4%) deaths occurred over a median survival time of 14.6 years. 5-year survival probabilities were 88%, 85% and 77% for non-diabetes, T1D and T2D, respectively. In adjusted models, mortality was highest for T1D (HR=1.95, (95% CI: 1.88 to 2.03)) and then T2D (1.65 (1.62 to 1.69)), as compared with non-diabetes. SMRs declined for non-diabetes, T1D, and T2D. However, in 2017, SMRs were 2.38 (2.31 to 2.45), 6.55 (6.07 to 7.06), and 3.82 (3.68 to 3.98), for non-diabetes, T1D and T2D, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the USA, diabetes type is an important modifier in mortality risk among kidney transplant recipients with highest rates among people with T1D-related ESKD. Development of effective interventions that reduce excess mortality in transplant recipients with diabetes is needed, especially for T1D.

Facilitators to referrals to CDC's National Diabetes Prevention Program in primary care practices and pharmacies: DocStyles 2016-2017.

Despite evidence of the effectiveness of behavioral change interventions for type 2 diabetes prevention, health care provider referrals to organizations offering the National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) lifestyle change program (LCP) remain suboptimal. This study examined facilitators of LCP referrals among primary care providers and pharmacists (providers). We analyzed data on 1956 providers from 2016 to 2017 DocStyles web-based surveys. Pearson chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used for bivariate associations between facilitators, provider characteristics, and their self-reported referral and bi-directional referral (where they received patient status updates back from the LCPs) to an LCP. Multiple logistic regressions were used to estimate the effects of facilitators to referral practices, controlling for providers' characteristics. Geocoding was done at the street level for in-person, public LCP class locations and at the zip code level for survey respondents to create a density measure for LCP availability within 10 miles. Overall, 21% of providers referred their patients with prediabetes to LCPs, and 6.4% engaged in bi-directional referral. Provider practices that established clinical-community linkages (CCLs) with LCPs (AOR = 4.88), used electronic health records (EHRs) to manage patients (AOR = 2.94), or practiced within 10 miles of an in-person, public LCP class location (AOR = 1.49) were more likely to refer. Establishing CCLs with LCPs (AOR = 8.59) and using EHRs (AOR = 1.86) were also facilitators of bi-directional referral. This study highlights the importance of establishing CCLs between provider settings and organizations offering the National DPP LCP, increasing use of EHRs to manage patients, and increasing availability of in-person LCP class locations near provider practices.

Cost-Effectiveness of the New 2018 American College of Physicians Glycemic Control Guidance Statements Among US Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to estimate the national impact and cost-effectiveness of the 2018 American College of Physicians (ACP) guidance statements compared to the status quo. METHODS: Survey data from the 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination were used to generate a national representative sample of individuals with diagnosed type 2 diabetes in the United States. Individuals with A1c <6.5% on antidiabetic medications are recommended to deintensify their A1c level to 7.0% to 8.0% (group 1); individuals with A1c 6.5% to 8.0% and a life expectancy of <10 years are recommended to deintensify their A1c level >8.0% (group 2); and individuals with A1c >8.0% and a life expectancy of >10 years are recommended to intensify their A1c level to 7.0% to 8.0% (group 3). We used a Markov-based simulation model to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of following the ACP recommended A1c level. RESULTS: 14.41 million (58.1%) persons with diagnosed type 2 diabetes would be affected by the new guidance statements. Treatment deintensification would lead to a saving of $363 600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) lost for group 1 and a saving of $118 300 per QALY lost for group 2. Intensifying treatment for group 3 would lead to an additional cost of $44 600 per QALY gain. Nationally, the implementation of the guidance would add 3.2 million life-years and 1.1 million QALYs and reduce healthcare costs by $47.7 billion compared to the status quo. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the new ACP guidance statements would affect a large number of persons with type 2 diabetes nationally. The new guidance is cost-effective.

Incidence and predictors of type 1 diabetes among younger adults aged 20-45 years: The diabetes in young adults (DiYA) study.

AIMS: To estimate incidence of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and to develop a T1D prediction model among young adults. METHODS: Adults 20-45 years newly-diagnosed with diabetes in 2017 were identified within Kaiser Permanente's healthcare systems in California and invited for diabetes autoantibody (DAA) testing. Multiple imputation was conducted to assign missing DAA status. The primary outcome for incidence rates (IR) and the prediction model was T1D defined by ≥1 positive DAA. RESULTS: Among 2,347,989 persons at risk, 7862 developed diabetes, 2063 had DAA measured, and 166 (8.0%) had ≥1 positive DAA. T1D IR (95% CI) per 100,000 person-years was 15.2 (10.2-20.1) for ages 20-29 and 38.2 (28.6-47.8) for ages 30-44 years. The age-standardized IRs were 32.5 (22.2-42.8) for men and 27.2 (21.0-34.5) for women. The age/sex-standardized IRs were 30.1 (23.5-36.8) overall; 41.4 (25.3-57.5) for Hispanics, 37.0 (11.6-62.4) for Blacks, 21.4 (14.3-28.6) for non-Hispanic Whites, and 19.4 (8.5-30.2) for Asians. Predictors of T1D among cases included female sex, younger age, lower BMI, insulin use and having T1D based on diagnostic codes. CONCLUSIONS: T1D may account for up to 8% of incident diabetes cases among young adults. Follow-up is needed to establish the clinical course of patients with one DAA at diagnosis.

National and State-Level Trends in Nontraumatic Lower-Extremity Amputation Among U.S. Medicare Beneficiaries With Diabetes, 2000-2017.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is a leading cause of nontraumatic lower-extremity amputation (NLEA) in the U.S. After a period of decline, some national U.S. data have shown that diabetes-related NLEAs have recently increased, particularly among young and middle-aged adults. However, the trend for older adults is less clear. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: To examine NLEA trends among older adults with diabetes (≥67 years), we used 100% Medicare claims for beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A and B, also known as fee for service (FFS). NLEA was defined as the highest-level amputation per patient per calendar year. Annual NLEA rates were estimated from 2000 to 2017 and stratified by age-group, sex, race/ethnicity, NLEA level (toe, foot, below-the-knee amputation [BKA], or above-the-knee amputation [AKA]), and state. All rates were age and sex standardized to the 2000 Medicare population. Trends over time were assessed using Joinpoint regression and annual percent change (APC) reported. RESULTS: NLEA rates (per 1,000 people with diabetes) decreased by half from 8.5 in 2000 to 4.4 in 2009 (APC -7.9, P < 0.001). However, from 2009 onward, NLEA rates increased to 4.8 (APC 1.2, P < 0.01). Trends were similar across most age, sex, and race/ethnic groups, but absolute rates were highest in the oldest age-groups, Blacks, and men. By NLEA type, overall increases were driven by increases in rates of toe and foot NLEAs, while BKA and AKA continued to decline. The majority of U.S. states showed recent increases in NLEA, similar to national estimates. CONCLUSIONS: This study of the U.S. Medicare FFS population shows that recent increases in diabetes-related NLEAs are also occurring in older populations but at a less severe rate than among younger adults (<65 years) in the general population. Preventive foot care has been shown to reduce rates of NLEA among adults with diabetes, and the findings of the study suggest that those with diabetes-across the age spectrum-could benefit from increased attention to this strategy.

Sustained Lower Incidence of Diabetes-Related End-Stage Kidney Disease Among American Indians and Alaska Natives, Blacks, and Hispanics in the U.S., 2000-2016.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes-related end-stage kidney disease (ESKD-D) disproportionately affects U.S. racial/ethnic minority populations compared with whites. However, from 1996 to 2013, ESKD-D incidence among American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIANs) and blacks declined. We assessed recent ESKD-D incidence data to determine whether trends by race/ethnicity have changed since 2013. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: United States Renal Data System data from 2000 to 2016 were used to determine the number of whites, blacks, AIANs, Asians, and Hispanics aged ≥18 years with newly treated ESKD-D (with diabetes listed as primary cause). Using census population estimates as denominators, annual ESKD-D incidence rates were calculated and age adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population. Joinpoint regression was used to analyze trends and estimate an average annual percent change (AAPC) in incidence rates. RESULTS: For adults overall, from 2000 to 2016, age-adjusted ESKD-D incidence rates decreased by 53% for AIANs (66.7-31.2 per 100,000, AAPC -4.5%, P < 0.001), by 33% for Hispanics (50.0-33.3, -2.1%, P < 0.001), and by 20% for blacks (56.2-44.7, -1.6%, P < 0.001). However, during the study period, age-adjusted ESKD-D incidence rates did not change significantly for Asians and increased by 10% for whites (15.4-17.0, 0.6%, P = 0.01). In 2016, ESKD-D incidence rates in AIANs, Hispanics, and blacks were ∼2.0-2.5 times higher than whites. CONCLUSIONS: ESKD-D incidence declined for AIANs, Hispanics, and blacks and increased for whites. Continued efforts might be considered to reverse the trend in whites and sustain and lower ESKD-D incidence in the other populations.

Implementing Lifestyle Change Interventions to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes in US Medicaid Programs: Cost Effectiveness, and Cost, Health, and Health Equity Impact.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle change interventions (LCI) for prevention of type 2 diabetes are covered by Medicare, but rarely by US Medicaid programs that constitute the largest public payer system in the USA. We estimate the long-term health and economic implications of implementing LCIs in state Medicaid programs. METHODS: We compared LCIs modeled after the intervention of the Diabetes Prevention Program versus routine care advice using a decision analytic simulation model and best available data from representative surveys, cohort studies, Medicaid claims data, and the published literature. Target population were non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19-64 years at high risk for type 2 diabetes (BMI ≥25 kg/m2 and HbA1c ≥ 5.7% or fasting plasma glucose ≥ 110 mg/dl) from eight study states (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma) that represent around 50% of the US Medicaid population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) measured in cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and population cost and health impact were modeled from a healthcare system perspective and a narrow Medicaid perspective. RESULTS: In the eight selected study states, 1.9 million or 18% of non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries would belong to the eligible high-risk target population - 66% of them Hispanics or non-Hispanic black. In the base-case analysis, the aggregated 5- and 10-year ICERs are US$226 k/QALY and US$34 k/QALY; over 25 years, the intervention dominates routine care. The 5-, 10-, and 25-year probabilities that the ICERs are below US$50 k (US$100 k)/QALY are 6% (15%), 59% (82%) and 96% (100%). From a healthcare system perspective, initial program investments of US$800 per person would be offset after 13 years and translate to US$548 of savings after 25 years. With a 20% LCI uptake in eligible beneficiaries, this would translate to upfront costs of US$300 million, prevent 260 thousand years of diabetes and save US$205 million over a 25-year time horizon. Cost savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller. Minorities and low-income groups would over-proportionally benefit from LCIs in Medicaid, but the impact on population health and health equity would be marginal. CONCLUSIONS: In the long-term, investments in LCIs for Medicaid beneficiaries are likely to improve health and to decrease healthcare expenditures. However, population health and health equity impact would be low and healthcare expenditure savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller than from a healthcare system perspective.

Correction to: Public Health Approaches to Type 2 Diabetes Prevention: the US National Diabetes Prevention Program and Beyond.

The sentence should read: "Average weight loss and physical activity minutes per week were calculated among participants who attended ≥ 3 sessions in the first 6 months and whose time from first session attended to last session attended was ≥ 9 months.

Trends in Emergency Department Visits and Inpatient Admissions for Hyperglycemic Crises in Adults With Diabetes in the U.S., 2006-2015.

OBJECTIVE: To report U.S. national population-based rates and trends in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS) among adults, in both the emergency department (ED) and inpatient settings. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed data from 1 January 2006 through 30 September 2015 from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample and National Inpatient Sample to characterize ED visits and inpatient admissions with DKA and HHS. We used corresponding year cross-sectional survey data from the National Health Interview Survey to estimate the number of adults ≥18 years with diagnosed diabetes to calculate population-based rates for DKA and HHS in both ED and inpatient settings. Linear trends from 2009 to 2015 were assessed using Joinpoint software. RESULTS: In 2014, there were a total of 184,255 and 27,532 events for DKA and HHS, respectively. The majority of DKA events occurred in young adults aged 18-44 years (61.7%) and in adults with type 1 diabetes (70.6%), while HHS events were more prominent in middle-aged adults 45-64 years (47.5%) and in adults with type 2 diabetes (88.1%). Approximately 40% of the hyperglycemic events were in lower-income populations. Overall, event rates for DKA significantly increased from 2009 to 2015 in both ED (annual percentage change [APC] 13.5%) and inpatient settings (APC 8.3%). A similar trend was seen for HHS (APC 16.5% in ED and 6.3% in inpatient). The increase was in all age-groups and in both men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Causes of increased rates of hyperglycemic events are unknown. More detailed data are needed to investigate the etiology and determine prevention strategies.

Translating Knowledge into Action to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes: Medicare Expansion of the National Diabetes Prevention Program Lifestyle Intervention.

Policy Points Although preventable chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes carry a significant cost and health burden, few lifestyle interventions have been scaled at a national policy level. The translation of the National Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle intervention from research to a Medicare-covered service can serve as a model for national adoption of other interventions that have the potential to improve population health. The successful translation of the National Diabetes Prevention Program has depended on the collaboration of government agencies, academic researchers, community-based healthcare providers, payers, and other parties. CONTEXT: Many evidence-based health interventions never achieve national implementation. This article analyzes factors that supported the translation and national implementation of a lifestyle change intervention to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in individuals with prediabetes. METHODS: We used the Knowledge to Action framework, which was developed to map how science is translated into effective health programs, to examine how the evidence-based intervention from the 2002 Diabetes Prevention Program trial was translated into the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's large-scale National Diabetes Prevention Program, eventually resulting in payment for the lifestyle intervention as a Medicare-covered service. FINDINGS: Key findings of our analysis include the importance of a collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and payers to encourage early adopters; development of evidence-based, national standards to support widespread adoption of the intervention; and use of public input from community organizations to scale the intervention to a national level. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis offers timely lessons for other high-value, scalable interventions attempting to move beyond the evidence-gathering phase and into translation and institutionalization.

Cost-effectiveness of Diabetes Prevention Interventions Targeting High-risk Individuals and Whole Populations: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D) among high-risk individuals and whole populations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Interventions targeting high-risk individuals are those that identify people at high risk of developing T2D and then treat them with either lifestyle or metformin interventions. Population-based prevention strategies are those that focus on the whole population regardless of the level of risk, creating public health impact through policy implementation, campaigns, and other environmental strategies. We systematically searched seven electronic databases for studies published in English between 2008 and 2017. We grouped lifestyle interventions targeting high-risk individuals by delivery method and personnel type. We used the median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) or cost saved to measure the CE of interventions. We used the $50,000/QALY threshold to determine whether an intervention was cost-effective or not. ICERs are reported in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Our review included 39 studies: 28 on interventions targeting high-risk individuals and 11 targeting whole populations. Both lifestyle and metformin interventions in high-risk individuals were cost-effective from a health care system or a societal perspective, with median ICERs of $12,510/QALY and $17,089/QALY, respectively, compared with no intervention. Among lifestyle interventions, those that followed a Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) curriculum had a median ICER of $6,212/QALY, while those that did not follow a DPP curriculum had a median ICER of $13,228/QALY. Compared with lifestyle interventions delivered one-on-one or by a health professional, those offered in a group setting or provided by a combination of health professionals and lay health workers had lower ICERs. Among population-based interventions, taxing sugar-sweetened beverages was cost-saving from both the health care system and governmental perspectives. Evaluations of other population-based interventions-including fruit and vegetable subsidies, community-based education programs, and modifications to the built environment-showed inconsistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the T2D prevention interventions included in our review were found to be either cost-effective or cost-saving. Our findings may help decision makers set priorities and allocate resources for T2D prevention in real-world settings.

Cost-effectiveness of Interventions to Manage Diabetes: Has the Evidence Changed Since 2008?

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize updated evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to manage diabetes, its complications, and comorbidities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of studies from high-income countries evaluating the CE of diabetes management interventions recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and published in English between June 2008 and July 2017. We also incorporated studies from a previous CE review from the period 1985-2008. We classified the interventions based on their strength of evidence (strong, supportive, or uncertain) and levels of CE: cost-saving (more health benefit at a lower cost), very cost-effective (≤$25,000 per life year gained [LYG] or quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), cost-effective ($25,001-$50,000 per LYG or QALY), marginally cost-effective ($50,001-$100,000 per LYG or QALY), or not cost-effective (>$100,000 per LYG or QALY). Costs were measured in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Seventy-three new studies met our inclusion criteria. These were combined with 49 studies from the previous review to yield 122 studies over the period 1985-2017. A large majority of the ADA-recommended interventions remain cost-effective. Specifically, we found strong evidence that the following ADA-recommended interventions are cost-saving or very cost-effective: In the cost-saving category are 1) ACE inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for intensive hypertension management compared with standard hypertension management, 2) ACEI/ARB therapy to prevent chronic kidney disease and/or end-stage renal disease in people with albuminuria compared with no ACEI/ARB therapy, 3) comprehensive foot care and patient education to prevent and treat foot ulcers among those at moderate/high risk of developing foot ulcers, 4) telemedicine for diabetic retinopathy screening compared with office screening, and 5) bariatric surgery compared with no surgery for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2). In the very cost-effective category are 1) intensive glycemic management (targeting A1C <7%) compared with conventional glycemic management (targeting an A1C level of 8-10%) for individuals with newly diagnosed T2D, 2) multicomponent interventions (involving behavior change/education and pharmacological therapy targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, microalbuminuria, nephropathy/retinopathy, secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with aspirin) compared with usual care, 3) statin therapy compared with no statin therapy for individuals with T2D and history of cardiovascular disease, 4) diabetes self-management education and support compared with usual care, 5) T2D screening every 3 years starting at age 45 years compared with no screening, 6) integrated, patient-centered care compared with usual care, 7) smoking cessation compared with no smoking cessation, 8) daily aspirin use as primary prevention for cardiovascular complications compared with usual care, 9) self-monitoring of blood glucose three times per day compared with once per day among those using insulin, 10) intensive glycemic management compared with conventional insulin therapy for T2D among adults aged ≥50 years, and 11) collaborative care for depression compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Complementing professional treatment recommendations, our systematic review provides an updated understanding of the potential value of interventions to manage diabetes and its complications and can assist clinicians and payers in prioritizing interventions and health care resources.

National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge, Practices, and Perceptions of Prediabetes.

BACKGROUND: Despite strong evidence and national policy supporting type 2 diabetes prevention, little is known about type 2 diabetes prevention in the primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess primary care physicians' knowledge and practice regarding perceived barriers and potential interventions to improving management of prediabetes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative random sample of US primary care physicians (PCPs) identified from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed PCP knowledge, practice behaviors, and perceptions related to prediabetes. We performed chi-square and Fisher's exact tests to evaluate the association between PCP characteristics and the main survey outcomes. KEY RESULTS: In total, 298 (33%) eligible participants returned the survey. PCPs had limited knowledge of risk factors for prediabetes screening, laboratory diagnostic criteria for prediabetes, and management recommendations for patients with prediabetes. Only 36% of PCPs refer patients to a diabetes prevention lifestyle change program as their initial management approach, while 43% discuss starting metformin for prediabetes. PCPs believed that barriers to type 2 diabetes prevention are both at the individual level (e.g., patients' lack of motivation) and at the system level (e.g., lack of weight loss resources). PCPs reported that increased access to and insurance coverage of type 2 diabetes prevention programs and coordination of referral of patients to these resources would facilitate type 2 diabetes preventive efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing gaps in PCP knowledge may improve the identification and management of people with prediabetes, but system-level changes are necessary to support type 2 diabetes prevention in the primary care setting.

Public Health Approaches to Type 2 Diabetes Prevention: the US National Diabetes Prevention Program and Beyond.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article highlights foundational evidence, translation studies, and current research behind type 2 diabetes prevention efforts worldwide, with focus on high-risk populations, and whole-population approaches as catalysts to global prevention. RECENT FINDINGS: Continued focus on the goals of foundational lifestyle change program trials and their global translations, and the targeting of those at highest risk through both in-person and virtual modes of program delivery, is critical. Whole-population approaches (e.g., socioeconomic policies, healthy food promotion, environmental/systems changes) and awareness raising are essential complements to efforts aimed at high-risk populations. Successful type 2 diabetes prevention strategies are being realized in the USA through the National Diabetes Prevention Program and elsewhere in the world. A multi-tiered approach involving appropriate risk targeting and whole-population efforts is essential to curb the global diabetes epidemic.

Using a RE-AIM framework to identify promising practices in National Diabetes Prevention Program implementation.

BACKGROUND: The National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) is rapidly expanding in an effort to help those at high risk of type 2 diabetes prevent or delay the disease. In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded six national organizations to scale and sustain multistate delivery of the National DPP lifestyle change intervention (LCI). This study aims to describe reach, adoption, and maintenance during the 4-year funding period and to assess associations between site-level factors and program effectiveness regarding participant attendance and participation duration. METHODS: The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to guide the evaluation from October 2012 to September 2016. Multilevel linear regressions were used to examine associations between participant-level demographics and site-level strategies and number of sessions attended, attendance in months 7-12, and duration of participation. RESULTS: The six funded national organizations increased the number of participating sites from 68 in 2012 to 164 by 2016 across 38 states and enrolled 14,876 eligible participants. By September 2016, coverage for the National DPP LCI was secured for 42 private insurers and 7 public payers. Nearly 200 employers were recruited to offer the LCI on site to their employees. Site-level strategies significantly associated with higher overall attendance, attendance in months 7-12, and longer participation duration included using self-referral or word of mouth as a recruitment strategy, providing non-monetary incentives for participation, and using cultural adaptations to address participants' needs. Sites receiving referrals from healthcare providers or health systems also had higher attendance in months 7-12 and longer participation duration. At the participant level, better outcomes were achieved among those aged 65+ (vs. 18-44 or 45-64), those who were overweight (vs. obesity), those who were non-Hispanic white (vs. non-Hispanic black or multiracial/other races), and those eligible based on a blood test or history of gestational diabetes mellitus (vs. screening positive on a risk test). CONCLUSIONS: In a time of rapid dissemination of the National DPP LCI the findings of this evaluation can be used to enhance program implementation and translate lessons learned to similar organizations and settings.

New directions in incidence and prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in the USA.

Objective: To determine whether diabetes prevalence and incidence has remained flat or changed direction during the past 5 years. Research design and methods: We calculated annual prevalence and incidence of diagnosed diabetes (type 1 and type 2 combined) for civilian, non-institutionalized adults aged 18-79 years using annual, nationally representative cross-sectional survey data from the National Health Interview Survey from 1980 to 2017. Trends in rates by age group, sex, race/ethnicity, and education were calculated using annual percentage change (APC). Results: Overall, the prevalence of age-adjusted, diagnosed diabetes did not change significantly from 1980 to 1990, but increased significantly (APC 4.4%) from 1990 to 2009 to a peak of 8.2 per 100 adults (95% CI 7.8 to 8.6), and then plateaued through 2017. The incidence of age-adjusted, diagnosed diabetes did not change significantly from 1980 to 1990, but increased significantly (APC 4.8%) from 1990 to 2007 to 7.8 per 1000 adults (95% CI 6.7 to 9.0), and then decreased significantly (APC -3.1%) to 6.0 (95% CI 4.9 to 7.3) in 2017. The decrease in incidence appears to be driven by non-Hispanic whites with an APC of -5.1% (p=0.002) after 2008. Conclusions: After an almost 20-year increase in the national prevalence and incidence of diagnosed diabetes, an 8-year period of stable prevalence and a decrease in incidence has occurred. Causes of the plateauing and decrease are unclear but the overall burden of diabetes remains high and deserves continued monitoring and intervention.

Reach and Use of Diabetes Prevention Services in the United States, 2016-2017.

Importance: Coordinated efforts by national organizations in the United States to implement evidence-based lifestyle modification programs are under way to reduce type 2 diabetes (hereinafter referred to as diabetes) and cardiovascular risks. Objective: To provide a status report on the reach and use of diabetes prevention services nationally. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationally representative, population-based cross-sectional analysis of 2016 and 2017 National Health Interview Survey data was conducted from August 3, 2017, through November 15, 2018. Nonpregnant, noninstitutionalized, civilian respondents 18 years or older at high risk for diabetes, defined as those with no self-reported diabetes diagnosis but with diagnosed prediabetes or an elevated American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk score (>5), were included in the analysis. Analyses were conducted for adults with (and in sensitivity analyses, for those without) elevated body mass index. Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute numbers and proportions of adults at high risk with elevated body mass index receiving advice about diet, physical activity guidance, referral to weight loss programs, referral to diabetes prevention programs, or any of these, and those affirming engagement in each (or any) activity in the past year were estimated. To identify where gaps exist, a prevention continuum diagram plotted existing vs desired goal achievement. Variation in risk-reducing activities by age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, insurance status, history of gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or body mass index was also examined. Results: This analysis included 50 912 respondents (representing 223.0 million adults nationally) 18 years or older (mean [SE] age, 46.1 [0.2] years; 48.1% [0.3%] male) with complete data and no self-reported diabetes diagnosis by their health care professional. Of the represented population, 36.0% (80.0 million) had either a physician diagnosis of prediabetes (17.9 million), an elevated ADA risk score (73.3 million), or both (11.3 million). Among those with diagnosed prediabetes, 73.5% (95% CI, 71.6%-75.3%) reported receiving advice and/or referrals for diabetes risk reduction from their health care professional, and, of those, 35.0% (95% CI, 30.5%-39.8%) to 75.8% (95% CI, 73.2%-78.3%) reported engaging in the respective activity or program in the past year. Half of adults with elevated ADA risk scores but no diagnosed prediabetes (50.6%; 95% CI, 49.5%-51.8%) reported receiving risk-reduction advice and/or referral, of whom 33.5% (95% CI, 30.1%-37.0%) to 75.2% (95% CI, 73.4%-76.9%) reported engaging in activities and/or programs. Participation in diabetes prevention programs was exceedingly low. Advice from a health care professional, age range from 45 to 64 years, higher educational attainment, health insurance status, gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obesity were associated with higher engagement in risk-reducing activities and/or programs. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults at high risk for diabetes, major gaps in receiving advice and/or referrals and engaging in diabetes risk-reduction activities and/or programs were noted. These results suggest that risk perception, health care professional referral and communication, and insurance coverage may be key levers to increase risk-reducing behaviors in US adults. These findings provide a benchmark from which to monitor future program availability and coverage, identification of prediabetes, and referral to and retention in programs.