Bringing an end to diabetes stigma and discrimination: an international consensus statement on evidence and recommendations.

People with diabetes often encounter stigma (ie, negative social judgments, stereotypes, prejudice), which can adversely affect emotional, mental, and physical health; self-care, access to optimal health care; and social and professional opportunities. To accelerate an end to diabetes stigma and discrimination, an international multidisciplinary expert panel (n=51 members, from 18 countries) conducted rapid reviews and participated in a three-round Delphi survey process. We achieved consensus on 25 statements of evidence and 24 statements of recommendations. The consensus is that diabetes stigma is driven primarily by blame, perceptions of burden or sickness, invisibility, and fear or disgust. On average, four in five adults with diabetes experience diabetes stigma and one in five experience discrimination (ie, unfair and prejudicial treatment) due to diabetes, such as in health care, education, and employment. Diabetes stigma and discrimination are harmful, unacceptable, unethical, and counterproductive. Collective leadership is needed to proactively challenge, and bring an end to, diabetes stigma and discrimination. Consequently, we achieved unanimous consensus on a pledge to end diabetes stigma and discrimination.

HbA1c and Glucose Management Indicator Discordance: A Real-World Analysis.

Background: There can be marked discordance between laboratory and estimated (using the glucose management indicator [GMI]) glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). This may cause errors in diabetes management. This study evaluates discordance between laboratory and CGM-estimated HbA1c (eA1C). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients with diabetes who use CGM. The patients were seen at the University of Washington (UW) Diabetes Care Center from 2012 to 2019. We used UW's Institute of Translational Health Sciences to extract eligible encounters from the electronic medical record. We required that patients use CGM and that HbA1c and sensor data be obtained fewer than 4 weeks apart. There were no exclusion criteria. We calculated HbA1c-GMI discordance for each subject and assessed for any impact of comorbidities. We defined HbA1c-GMI discordance as absolute difference between laboratory and eA1C. Results: This study included 641 separate office encounters. Ninety-one percent of patients had type 1 diabetes. Most patients had diabetes for greater than 20 years. The mean duration of CGM wear was 24.5 ± 8 days. Only 11% of patients had HbA1c-GMI discordance <0.1%, but 50% and 22% had differences ≥0.5% and ≥1%. There was increased discordance with advanced chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60). Discussion: We found substantial discordance between laboratory and eA1C in a real-world setting. Clinicians need be aware that HbA1c may not as accurately reflect mean glucose as previously appreciated.