Glycemia Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes - Microvascular and Cardiovascular Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the comparative effectiveness of commonly used glucose-lowering medications, when added to metformin, with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease outcomes in persons with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We assessed the comparative effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications, added to metformin, in achieving and maintaining a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 7.0% in participants with type 2 diabetes. The randomly assigned therapies were insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin. Prespecified secondary outcomes with respect to microvascular and cardiovascular disease included hypertension and dyslipidemia, confirmed moderately or severely increased albuminuria or an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, diabetic peripheral neuropathy assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], hospitalization for heart failure, or an aggregate outcome of any cardiovascular event), and death. Hazard ratios are presented with 95% confidence limits that are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: During a mean 5.0 years of follow-up in 5047 participants, there were no material differences among the interventions with respect to the development of hypertension or dyslipidemia or with respect to microvascular outcomes; the mean overall rate (i.e., events per 100 participant-years) of moderately increased albuminuria levels was 2.6, of severely increased albuminuria levels 1.1, of renal impairment 2.9, and of diabetic peripheral neuropathy 16.7. The treatment groups did not differ with respect to MACE (overall rate, 1.0), hospitalization for heart failure (0.4), death from cardiovascular causes (0.3), or all deaths (0.6). There were small differences with respect to rates of any cardiovascular disease, with 1.9, 1.9, 1.4, and 2.0 in the glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin groups, respectively. When one treatment was compared with the combined results of the other three treatments, the hazard ratios for any cardiovascular disease were 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.3) in the glargine group, 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4) in the glimepiride group, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) in the liraglutide group, and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) in the sitagliptin group. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with type 2 diabetes, the incidences of microvascular complications and death were not materially different among the four treatment groups. The findings indicated possible differences among the groups in the incidence of any cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. APPROACH: An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in screening, diagnosis, or monitoring of diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association of Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT: Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the people with diabetes measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and also by laboratory analysis of Hb A1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed. SUMMARY: The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Weight management in young adults with type 1 diabetes: The advancing care for type 1 diabetes and obesity network sequential multiple assignment randomized trial pilot results.

AIMS: Co-management of weight and glycaemia is critical yet challenging in type 1 diabetes (T1D). We evaluated the effect of a hypocaloric low carbohydrate, hypocaloric moderate low fat, and Mediterranean diet without calorie restriction on weight and glycaemia in young adults with T1D and overweight or obesity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We implemented a 9-month Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trial pilot among adults aged 19-30 years with T1D for ≥1 year and body mass index 27-39.9 kg/m2 . Re-randomization occurred at 3 and 6 months if the assigned diet was not acceptable or not effective. We report results from the initial 3-month diet period and re-randomization statistics before shutdowns due to COVID-19 for primary [weight, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), percentage of time below range <70 mg/dl] and secondary outcomes [body fat percentage, percentage of time in range (70-180 mg/dl), and percentage of time below range <54 mg/dl]. Models adjusted for design, demographic and clinical covariates tested changes in outcomes and diet differences. RESULTS: Adjusted weight and HbA1c (n = 38) changed by -2.7 kg (95% CI -3.8, -1.5, P < .0001) and -0.91 percentage points (95% CI -1.5, -0.30, P = .005), respectively, while adjusted body fat percentage remained stable, on average (P = .21). Hypoglycaemia indices remained unchanged following adjustment (n = 28, P > .05). Variability in all outcomes, including weight change, was considerable (57.9% were re-randomized primarily due to loss of <2% body weight). No outcomes varied by diet. CONCLUSIONS: Three months of a diet, irrespective of macronutrient distribution or caloric restriction, resulted in weight loss while improving or maintaining HbA1c levels without increasing hypoglycaemia in adults with T1D.

Did the 2015 USPSTF Abnormal Blood Glucose Recommendations Change Clinician Attitudes or Behaviors? A Mixed-Method Assessment.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised clinical recommendations to more broadly recommend abnormal blood glucose screening and more clearly recommend referral to behavioral interventions for adults with prediabetes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of the 2015 USPSTF recommendation changes on abnormal blood glucose screening and referral to behavioral interventions, and to examine physicians' perceptions of the revised recommendation. DESIGN: We utilized a sequential, dependent mixed-methods triangulation design. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 33,444 patients meeting USPSTF abnormal blood glucose screening criteria within 15 health system-affiliated primary care practices and 20 primary care physicians in North Carolina. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed monthly abnormal blood glucose screening rate and monthly referral rate to behavioral interventions. To estimate trend changes in outcomes, we used segmented linear regression analysis of interrupted time-series data. We gathered physicians' perspectives on the 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose recommendation including awareness of, agreement with, adoption of, and adherence to the recommendation. To analyze qualitative data, we used directed content analysis. KEY RESULTS: There was a slight significant change in trend in abnormal blood glucose screening rates post-recommendation. There was a slight, statistically significant decrease in referral rates to behavioral interventions post-recommendation. Physicians were generally unaware of the revisions to the 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose recommendation; however, once the recommendations were described, physicians agreed with the screening recommendation but felt that the behavioral intervention referral recommendation was hard to implement. CONCLUSION: The 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose guideline had little to no effect on abnormal blood glucose screening or referral to behavioral interventions in North Carolina practices. Potential interventions to improve these rates could include clinical decision tools embedded in the electronic health record and better referral systems for community-based diabetes prevention programs.

The management of type 1 diabetes in adults. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a writing group to develop a consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults. The writing group has considered the rapid development of new treatments and technologies and addressed the following topics: diagnosis, aims of management, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and support, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycaemia, behavioural considerations, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations, inpatient management and future perspectives. Although we discuss the schedule for follow-up examinations and testing, we have not included the evaluation and treatment of the chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes as these are well-reviewed and discussed elsewhere. The writing group was aware of both national and international guidance on type 1 diabetes and did not seek to replicate this but rather aimed to highlight the major areas that healthcare professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes. Though evidence-based where possible, the recommendations in the report represent the consensus opinion of the authors. Graphical abstract.

The linearized disposition index augments understanding of treatment effects in diabetes.

The disposition index, calculated by multiplying measures of insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity, is widely applied as a sensitivity-adjusted measure of insulin secretion. We have recently shown that linearizing the underlying relationship uniquely permits identification of terms relating to maximal insulin secretion capacity and the secretion-coupling relationship, with both terms separately contributing to differences in the secretion-sensitivity relationship across gradations of glycemia. Here, we demonstrate the application of this linearized equation to the evaluation of treatment-induced changes in the insulin secretion-sensitivity relationship. We applied a combination of repeated-measures multivariate linear regression (evaluating treatment-induced changes in the joint relationship of insulin sensitivity and secretion) plus mixed-model repeated measures (evaluating treatment effects on maximal secretion capacity and on the secretion-sensitivity coupling slope) and compared against a usual application of the disposition index calculated from the same measurements. This novel approach allows a more informative description of treatment-induced changes compared with the usual disposition index, including isolating the source of change within the mutually adjusted relationship and identifying treatment-induced changes in the secretion-sensitivity coupling slope and in maximal insulin secretion. Application of this linearized approach provides an expanded understanding of treatment-induced changes in the insulin sensitivity-secretion relationship.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The linearized insulin secretion-sensitivity relationship allows separate evaluation of the secretion-sensitivity slope and of maximal insulin secretion. Here, we demonstrate the application of this methodology to the evaluation of clinical trial data, showing that it provides an expanded understanding of treatment-induced changes compared with the disposition index.

Race and gender differences in abnormal blood glucose screening and clinician response to prediabetes: A mixed-methods assessment.

The projected three-fold increase in diabetes burden by 2060 in the United States will affect certain race and gender groups disproportionately. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess differences in prediabetes screening and clinician response to prediabetes by patient race and gender. We utilized data from 18,742 patients seen between 11/1/15 and 4/30/17 who met criteria for blood glucose screening by the 2015 US Preventive Service Task Force recommendation and had at least one visit to a primary care practice within a large, academic health system located in North Carolina. We utilized generalized estimating equations with logistic regression to assess race and gender differences in two outcomes: prediabetes screening and clinician response to prediabetes. We conducted twenty in-depth interviews (October 2018-May 2019) with physicians to assess their approach to screening for and treating prediabetes. Black patients had 11% higher odds (95% CI:1.02-1.20) of being screened for prediabetes than White patients. Men had 19% higher odds (95% CI:1.09-1.30) of being screened for prediabetes than women. There were no significant differences in clinician response to prediabetes by patient race or gender. Qualitatively, physicians reported a non-systematic approach to prediabetes screening and follow-up care related to: 1) System-level barriers to screening and treatment; 2) Implicit bias; 3) Patient factors; and 4) Physician preferences for prediabetes treatment. Targeted risk-based screening for prediabetes along with increased treatment for prediabetes are critical for preventing diabetes and reducing diabetes-related disparities.

Findings From a National Diabetes Survey: Highlighting Progress and Opportunities for Diabetes Prevention and Care.

The National Diabetes Education Program (NDEP) implemented periodic deployment of the NDEP National Diabetes Survey (NNDS) in 2006 to collect data on diabetes-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among U.S. adults with diabetes and on risk-reduction attitudes and behaviors among people at risk for type 2 diabetes. Because of similarities in the nationally representative samples of the past three surveys, trends between 2011 and 2016 can be assessed. We present key findings of the 2016 NNDS, focusing on areas of interest to diabetes educators. The 2016 NNDS identified both progress and gaps. Eighty-nine percent of people with diabetes are aware of the A1C test, and disparities by race and ethnicity are narrowing. Awareness of the link between cardiovascular disease and diabetes has plateaued at 75% of respondents. Most people with diabetes do not feel comfortable managing hyper- or hypoglycemia (65 and 60%, respectively), and 60-69% report some level of diabetes distress. Among people without diabetes, awareness of personal risk of type 2 diabetes has increased from 30% in 2011 to 45% in 2016. A diagnosis of prediabetes significantly increases awareness of personal risk of diabetes (65% of people with prediabetes vs. 45% of those at risk), likelihood of receiving counseling about reducing risk (45 vs. 11%), and likelihood of taking action to reduce risk (71 vs. 52%). However, 33% of people without diabetes report not planning to take action to lower their risk of type 2 diabetes. The 2016 NNDS results suggest that outreach and educational efforts have increased knowledge about diabetes and diabetes risk, but also point to the need for more education and support for people with diabetes and those at risk.

Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of a continuous, day-and-night automated glycaemic control system using insulin and glucagon has not been shown in a free-living, home-use setting. We aimed to assess whether bihormonal bionic pancreas initialised only with body mass can safely reduce mean glycaemia and hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes who were living at home and participating in their normal daily routines without restrictions on diet or physical activity. METHODS: We did a random-order crossover study in volunteers at least 18 years old who had type 1 diabetes and lived within a 30 min drive of four sites in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of two using sequentially numbered sealed envelopes to glycaemic regulation with a bihormonal bionic pancreas or usual care (conventional or sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy) first, followed by the opposite intervention. Both study periods were 11 days in length, during which time participants continued all normal activities, including athletics and driving. The bionic pancreas was initialised with only the participant's body mass. Autonomously adaptive dosing algorithms used data from a continuous glucose monitor to control subcutaneous delivery of insulin and glucagon. The coprimary outcomes were the mean glucose concentration and time with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L, analysed over days 2-11 in participants who completed both periods of the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092220. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 43 participants between May 6, 2014, and July 3, 2015, 39 of whom completed the study: 20 who were assigned to bionic pancreas first and 19 who were assigned to the comparator first. The mean CGM glucose concentration was 7·8 mmol/L (SD 0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 9·0 mmol/L (1·6) in the comparator period (difference 1·1 mmol/L, 95% CI 0·7-1·6; p<0·0001), and the mean time with CGM glucose concentration less than 3·3 mmol/L was 0·6% (0·6) in the bionic pancreas period versus 1·9% (1·7) in the comparator period (difference 1·3%, 95% CI 0·8-1·8; p<0·0001). The mean nausea score on the Visual Analogue Scale (score 0-10) was greater during the bionic pancreas period (0·52 [SD 0·83]) than in the comparator period (0·05 [0·17]; difference 0·47, 95% CI 0·21-0·73; p=0·0024). Body mass and laboratory parameters did not differ between periods. There were no serious or unexpected adverse events in the bionic pancreas period of the study. INTERPRETATION: Relative to conventional and sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy, the bihormonal bionic pancreas, initialised only with participant weight, was able to achieve superior glycaemic regulation without the need for carbohydrate counting. Larger and longer studies are needed to establish the long-term benefits and risks of automated glycaemic management with a bihormonal bionic pancreas. FUNDING: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Point-of-Care HbA1c in Clinical Practice: Caveats and Considerations for Optimal Use.

Hemoglobin A1c (A1C) is widely used for the diagnosis and management of diabetes. Accurate measurement of A1C is necessary for optimal clinical value. Assay standardization has markedly improved the accuracy and consistency of A1C testing. Devices to measure A1C at point of care (POC) are commercially available, allowing rapid results when the patient is seen. In this review, we describe how standardization of A1C testing was achieved, leading to high-quality results in clinical laboratories. We address the use of POC A1C testing in clinical situations and summarize the advantages and disadvantages of POC A1C testing. We emphasize the importance of considering the limitations of these devices and following correct testing procedures to ensure that accurate A1C results are obtained for optimal care of patients.

Predictors of glycemic worsening in the next year in adults with screen-detected type 2 diabetes.

Background and Aims: Identifying simple markers of risk for worsening glucose can allow care providers to target therapeutic interventions according to risk of worsening glycemic control. We aimed to determine which routine clinical measures herald near-term glycemic worsening in early type 2 diabetes(T2D). Methods: The Early Diabetes Intervention Program (EDIP) was a clinical trial in individuals with screendetected T2D [HbA1C 6.3+0.63%(45+5mmol/mol)]. During the trial some participants experienced worsening fasting blood glucose (FBG). We investigated the time course of FBG, HbA1c, weight, and other clinical factors to determine which might herald glycemic worsening over the next year. Results: Progressors (62/219, 28.5%) had higher FBG than non-progressors at baseline [118 vs 130mg/dL (6.6 vs 7.2 mmol/L), p=<0.001]. FBG was stable except in the year of progression, when progressors exhibited a large 1-year rise [mean change 14.2mg/dL(0.79 mmol/L)]. Current FBG and antecedent year change in FBG were associated with progression(p<0.01), although the magnitude of change was too small to be of clinical utility (0.19 mg/dL; 0.01 mmol/L). Current or antecedent year change in HbA1c, weight, TG or HDL were not associated with progression. In the year of glycemic worsening, rising glucose was strongly associated with a concurrent increase in weight (p<0.001). Conclusions: Elevated FBG but not HbA1c identified individuals at risk for imminent glycemic worsening; the subsequent large rise in glucose was associated with a short-term increase in weight. Glucose and weight surveillance provide actionable information for those caring for patients with early diabetes.

Comparative Effects of Randomized Second-line Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes on a Composite Outcome Incorporating Glycemic Control, Body Weight, and Hypoglycemia: An Analysis of the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: In Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) (5,047 participants, mean follow-up 5.0 years), differences in glycemic control were demonstrated over time among four randomized therapies added to metformin. Weight gain and hypoglycemia are also important outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes. We compared the effects of the four randomized GRADE medications on a composite outcome incorporating glycemic deterioration, weight gain, and hypoglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The composite outcome was time to first occurrence of any of the following: HbA1c >7.5%, confirmed; ≥5% weight gain; or severe or recurrent nonsevere hypoglycemia. Secondary analyses included examination of individual components of the composite outcome, subgroup effects and potential mediators, and treatment satisfaction. Cumulative incidence was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess pairwise group differences in risk of an outcome. RESULTS: Risk of reaching the composite outcome (events per 100 participants per treatment year [PTYs]) was lowest with liraglutide (19 per 100 PTYs) followed by sitagliptin (26 per 100 PTYs), glargine (29 per 100 PTYs), and glimepiride (40 per 100 PTYs); all pairwise comparisons were statistically significant. The order was the same for risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia, but risk of glycemic deterioration was lowest with glargine, followed by liraglutide, glimepiride, and sitagliptin. No significant heterogeneity in risk of composite outcome was detected across prespecified covariates. Participants who reached the composite outcome had modestly but significantly lower treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants treated with common second-line drug classes for type 2 diabetes, the liraglutide group had the lowest and glimepiride the highest risk of reaching a composite outcome encompassing glycemic deterioration, weight gain, and hypoglycemia. These findings may inform decision-making regarding type 2 diabetes therapy.

Executive Summary: Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments in the full version of the guideline). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT: Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the patients measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring devices and also by laboratory analysis of HbA1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring; genetic testing; and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed. SUMMARY: The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. APPROACH: An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in screening, diagnosis, or monitoring of diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT: Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the people with diabetes measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and also by laboratory analysis of HbA1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed. SUMMARY: The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Age at initiation and frequency of screening to detect type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: No clinical trials have assessed the effects or cost-effectiveness of sequential screening strategies to detect new cases of type 2 diabetes. We used a mathematical model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of several screening strategies. METHODS: We used person-specific data from a representative sample of the US population to create a simulated population of 325,000 people aged 30 years without diabetes. We used the Archimedes model to compare eight simulated screening strategies for type 2 diabetes with a no-screening control strategy. Strategies differed in terms of age at initiation and frequency of screening. Once diagnosed, diabetes treatment was simulated in a standard manner. We calculated the effects of each strategy on the incidence of type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, stroke, and microvascular complications in addition to quality of life, costs, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). FINDINGS: Compared with no screening, all simulated screening strategies reduced the incidence of myocardial infarction (3-9 events prevented per 1000 people screened) and diabetes-related microvascular complications (3-9 events prevented per 1000 people), and increased the number of QALYs (93-194 undiscounted QALYs) added over 50 years. Most strategies prevented a significant number of simulated deaths (2-5 events per 1000 people). There was little or no effect of screening on incidence of stroke (0-1 event prevented per 1000 people). Five screening strategies had costs per QALY of about US$10,500 or less, whereas costs were much higher for screening started at 45 years of age and repeated every year ($15,509), screening started at 60 years of age and repeated every 3 years ($25,738), or a maximum screening strategy (screening started at 30 years of age and repeated every 6 months; $40,778). Several strategies differed substantially in the number of QALYs gained. Costs per QALY were sensitive to the disutility assigned to the state of having diabetes diagnosed with or without symptoms. INTERPRETATION: In the US population, screening for type 2 diabetes is cost effective when started between the ages of 30 years and 45 years, with screening repeated every 3-5 years. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk, Bayer HealthCare, [corrected] and Pfizer.

Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Multiple laboratory tests are used to diagnose and manage patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these tests varies substantially. APPROACH: An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory testing for patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Draft guidelines were posted on the Internet and presented at the 2007 Arnold O. Beckman Conference. The document was modified in response to oral and written comments, and a revised draft was posted in 2010 and again modified in response to written comments. The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the AACC jointly reviewed the guidelines, which were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequently approved by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT: In addition to long-standing criteria based on measurement of plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased blood hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) concentrations. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by self-monitoring of plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of Hb A(1c). The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed. SUMMARY: The guidelines provide specific recommendations that are based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes have minimal clinical value at present, and their measurement is not recommended.

Executive summary: guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Multiple laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. APPROACH: An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. A draft of the guidelines was posted on the Internet, and the document was modified in response to comments. The guidelines were reviewed by the joint Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the AACC and the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequent approval by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT: In addition to the long-standing criteria based on measurement of venous plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) concentrations in the blood. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by the patients measuring their own plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of Hb A(1c). The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed. SUMMARY: The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

The SimpliciT1 Study: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 1b/2 Adaptive Study of TTP399, a Hepatoselective Glucokinase Activator, for Adjunctive Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Despite advances in exogenous insulin therapy, many patients with type 1 diabetes do not achieve acceptable glycemic control and remain at risk for ketosis and insulin-induced hypoglycemia. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether TTP399, a novel hepatoselective glucokinase activator, improved glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes without increasing hypoglycemia or ketosis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: SimpliciT1 was a phase 1b/2 adaptive study. Phase 2 activities were conducted in two parts. Part 1 randomly assigned 20 participants using continuous glucose monitors and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Part 2 randomly assigned 85 participants receiving multiple daily injections of insulin or CSII. In both parts 1 and 2, participants were randomly assigned to 800 mg TTP399 or matched placebo (fully blinded) and treated for 12 weeks. The primary end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 12. RESULTS: The difference in change in HbA1c from baseline to week 12 between TTP399 and placebo was -0.7% (95% CI -1.3, -0.07) in part 1 and -0.21% (95% CI -0.39, -0.04) in part 2. Despite a greater decrease in HbA1c with TTP399, the frequency of severe or symptomatic hypoglycemia decreased by 40% relative to placebo in part 2. In both parts 1 and 2, plasma ß-hydroxybutyrate and urinary ketones were lower during treatment with TTP399 than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: TTP399 lowers HbA1c and reduces hypoglycemia without increasing the risk of ketosis and should be further evaluated as an adjunctive therapy for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.