Early Real-World Performance of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System and Recommended Settings Use in the United States.

Background: The MiniMed™ 780G system (MM780G) with Guardian™ 4 sensor includes a 100 mg/dL glucose target (GT) and automated insulin corrections up to every 5 min and was recently approved for use in the United States. In the present study, early real-world MM780G performance and the use of recommended system settings (100 mg/dL GT with an active insulin time of 2 h), by individuals with type 1 diabetes, were evaluated. Methods: CareLink™ personal data uploaded between the launch of the MM780G to August 22, 2023 were aggregated and underwent retrospective analysis (based on user consent) and if users had ≥10 days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. The 24-h day CGM metrics, including mean glucose, percentage of time spent in (%TIR), above (%TAR), and below (%TBR) target range (70-180 mg/dL), in addition to delivered insulin and closed-loop (CL) exits, were compared between an overall group (n = 7499) and individuals who used recommended settings (each, for >95% of the time). An analysis of the same metrics for MiniMed™ 770G system (MM770G) users (n = 3851) who upgraded to the MM780G was also conducted (paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < 0.05 considered statistically significant). Results: For MM780G users, CGM use, and time in CL were >90% and all MM780G CGM metrics exceeded consensus-recommended goals. With recommended settings (22% of all users), mean %TIR and %TITR (70-140 mg/dL) were 81.4% and 56.4%, respectively. For individuals who upgraded from the MM770G, %TIR and %TITR increased from 73.2% to 78.3% and 45.8% to 52.6%, respectively, while %TAR reduced from 25.1% to 20.2% (P < 0.001, for all three). CL exits/week averaged <1, for all MM780G users. Conclusions: Early real-world MM780G use in the United States demonstrated a high percentage of time in range with low time above and below range. These outcomes are similar to those observed for real-world MM780G use in other countries.

A Peek Under the Hood: Explaining the MiniMed™ 780G Algorithm with Meal Detection Technology.

The MiniMed™ 780G system (780G) received Conformité Européenne mark in June 2020 and was, recently, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (April 2023). Clinical trials and real-world analyses have demonstrated MiniMed™ 780G system safety and effectiveness and that glycemic outcomes (i.e., time in range) improve with recommended settings use. In this publication, we will explain the iterative development of the 780G algorithm and how this technology has simplified diabetes management.

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMedTM Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: During MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) use by adolescents and adults in the pivotal trial, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was significantly reduced, time spent in range (TIR) was significantly increased, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The present study investigated the same primary safety and effectiveness endpoints during AHCL use by a younger cohort with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: An intention-to-treat population (N = 160, aged 7-17 years) with T1D was enrolled in a single-arm study at 13 investigational centers. There was a run-in period (∼25 days) using HCL or sensor-augmented pump with/without predictive low-glucose management, followed by a 3-month study period with AHCL activated at two glucose targets (GTs; 100 and 120 mg/dL) for ∼45 days each. The mean ± standard deviation values of A1C, TIR, mean sensor glucose (SG), coefficient of variation (CV) of SG, time at SG ranges, and insulin delivered between run-in and study were analyzed (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or t-test). Results: Compared with baseline, AHCL use was associated with reduced A1C from 7.9 ± 0.9% (N = 160) to 7.4 ± 0.7% (N = 136) (P < 0.001) and overall TIR increased from the run-in 59.4 ± 11.8% to 70.3 ± 6.5% by end of study (P < 0.001), without change in CV, time spent below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL, or TBR <54 mg/dL. Relative to longer active insulin time (AIT) settings (N = 52), an AIT of 2 h (N = 19) with the 100 mg/dL GT increased mean TIR to 73.4%, reduced TBR <70 mg/dL from 3.5% to 2.2%, and reduced time spent above range (TAR) >180 mg/dL from 28.7% to 24.4%. During AHCL use, there was no severe hypoglycemia or DKA. Conclusions: In children and adolescents with T1D, MiniMed AHCL system use was safe, A1C was lower, and TIR was increased. The lowest GT and shortest AIT were associated with the highest TIR and lowest TBR and TAR, all of which met consensus-recommended glycemic targets. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03959423.

Safety Event Outcomes and Glycemic Control with a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Used by Chinese Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.

Background: While evidence supports glycemic control benefits for individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) using hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, HCL automated insulin delivery therapy in China has not been assessed. This study evaluated safety events and effectiveness during HCL system use by Chinese adolescents and adults with T1DM. Methods: Sixty-two participants (n = 12 adolescents with a mean ± standard deviation [SD] of 15.5 ± 1.1 years and n = 50 adults [mean ± SD of 37.6 ± 11.1 years]) with T1DM and baseline A1C of 7.1% ± 1.0% underwent a run-in period (∼2 weeks) using open-loop Manual Mode (sensor-augmented pump) insulin delivery with the MiniMed™ 770G system with the Guardian™ Sensor (3) glucose sensor, followed by a study period (4 weeks) with HCL Auto Mode enabled. Analyses compared continuous glucose monitoring data and insulin delivered during the run-in versus study period (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or t-test). Safety events included rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Compared to baseline run-in, overall Auto Mode use increased time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) from 75.3% to 80.9% (P < 0.001) and reduced time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL) from 4.7% to 2.2% (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that participants (n = 29) with baseline A1C <7.0% had TBR that reduced from 5.6% to 2.0%, while participants (n = 21) with baseline A1C ≥7.5% had time above range (TAR, >180 mg/dL) that reduced from 31.6% to 20.8%. Auto Mode use also increased the percentage achieving combined recommendations for time at sensor glucose ranges (i.e., TIR of >70%, TBR of <4% and TAR of <25%) from 24.2% at baseline to 77.4% at study end. Total daily insulin dose reduced from 42.8 ± 19.8 to 40.7 ± 18.9 U (P = 0.013). There were no severe hypoglycemic, DKA, or serious adverse events. Conclusions: Chinese adolescents and adults, some of whom met target A1C at baseline, safely achieved significantly improved glycemia with 1 month of MiniMed 770G system use when compared to open-loop insulin delivery. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04663295.

Glycemic Outcomes During Early Use of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System with Guardian™ 4 Sensor.

Background: Safety and significant improvement in overall glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and percentage of time spent in (TIR), below (TBR), and above (TAR) glucose range were demonstrated in the pivotal trial of adolescents and adults using the MiniMed™ advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system with the adjunctive, calibration-required Guardian™ Sensor 3. The present study evaluated early outcomes of continued access study (CAS) participants who transitioned from the pivotal trial investigational system to the approved MiniMed™ 780G system with the non-adjunctive, calibration-free Guardian™ 4 Sensor (MM780G+G4S). Study data were presented alongside those of real-world MM780G+G4S users from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Methods: The CAS participants (N = 109, aged 7-17 years and N = 67, aged >17 years) used the MM780G+G4S for 3 months and data of real-world MM780G+G4S system users (N = 10,204 aged ≤15 years and N = 26,099 aged >15 years) were uploaded from September 22, 2021 to December 02, 2022. At least 10 days of real-world continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data were required for analyses. Glycemic metrics, delivered insulin and system use/interactions underwent descriptive analyses. Results: Time in AHCL and CGM use were >90% for all groups. AHCL exits averaged 0.1/day and there were few blood glucose measurements (BGMs) (0.8/day-1.0/day). Adults in both cohorts met most consensus recommendations for glycemic targets. Pediatric groups met recommendations for %TIR and %TBR, although not those for mean glucose variability and %TAR, possibly due to low use of recommended glucose target (100 mg/dL) and active insulin time (2 h) settings (28.4% in the CAS cohort and 9.4% in the real-world cohort). The CAS pediatric and adult A1C were 7.2% ± 0.7% and 6.8% ± 0.7%, respectively, and there were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: Early clinical use of the MM780G+G4S was safe and involved minimal BGMs and AHCL exits. Consistent with real-world pediatric and adult use, outcomes were associated with achievement of recommended glycemic targets. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03959423.

Improved Glycemia with Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) (P < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial.

Background: Standard insulin infusion sets (IISs) are to be replaced every 2 to 3 days to avoid complications and diabetic ketosis due to set failure. This pivotal trial evaluated the safety and performance of a new extended-wear infusion set (EIS) when used for 7 days by adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: This single-arm, nonrandomized trial enrolled adults (18-80 years of age) with T1D, who used their own MiniMed™ 670G system with insulin lispro or insulin aspart and the EIS for up to 7 days, across 12 consecutive wears. Safety endpoints included incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse device effects (SADEs), unanticipated adverse device effects (UADEs), severe hypoglycemia (SevHypo), severe hyperglycemia (SevHyper), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and skin infection. The EIS failure rate due to unexplained hyperglycemia (i.e., suspected occlusion), the overall EIS survival rate, glycemic control outcomes (i.e., A1C, mean sensor glucose and time spent in established glucose ranges), total daily insulin delivered, and satisfaction with the EIS were determined. Results: The intention to treat population (n = 259, 48% men, 45.0 ± 14.1 years) wore a total of 3041 EIS devices. No SADE, UADE, or DKA events was reported. Overall rates of SAEs, SevHypo, SevHyper, and skin infection were 3.8, 2.5, 104.1, and 20.1 events per 100 participant-years. The rate of EIS failure due to unexplained hyperglycemia at the end of day 7 was 0.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.51) and 0.4% (95% CI: 0.16-1.00) for insulin lispro and aspart use, respectively. Overall EIS survival rate at the end of day 7 was 77.8% (95% CI: 76.2-79.3), glycemic control did not change, and participants reported greater satisfaction with the EIS compared with standard IISs worn before the study (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This investigation demonstrates that the EIS, when worn for up to 7 days, was safe and rated with high satisfaction, without adversely affecting glycemic control in adults with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04113694 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04113694).

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMed™ Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Introduction: This trial assessed safety and effectiveness of an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system with automated basal (Auto Basal) and automated bolus correction (Auto Correction) in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Materials and Methods: This multicenter single-arm study involved an intent-to-treat population of 157 individuals (39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged ≥22-75 years) with T1D. Study participants used the MiniMed™ AHCL system during a baseline run-in period in which sensor-augmented pump +/- predictive low glucose management or Auto Basal was enabled for ∼14 days. Thereafter, Auto Basal and Auto Correction were enabled for a study phase (∼90 days), with glucose target set to 100 or 120 mg/dL for ∼45 days, followed by the other target for ∼45 days. Study endpoints included safety events and change in mean A1C, time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL). Run-in and study phase values were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired t-test. Results: Overall group time spent in closed loop averaged 94.9% ± 5.4% and involved only 1.2 ± 0.8 exits per week. Compared with run-in, AHCL reduced A1C from 7.5% ± 0.8% to 7.0% ± 0.5% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, n = 155), TIR increased from 68.8% ± 10.5% to 74.5% ± 6.9% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), and TBR reduced from 3.3% ± 2.9% to 2.3% ± 1.7% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Similar benefits to glycemia were observed for each age group and were more pronounced for the nighttime (12 AM-6 AM). The 100 mg/dL target increased TIR to 75.4% (n = 155), which was further optimized at a lower active insulin time (AIT) setting (i.e., 2 h), without increasing TBR. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events during the study phase. Conclusions: These findings show that the MiniMed AHCL system is safe and allows for achievement of recommended glycemic targets in adolescents and adults with T1D. Adjustments in target and AIT settings may further optimize glycemia and improve user experience. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03959423.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. METHODS: The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. RESULTS: Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. METHODS: The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. RESULTS: Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. METHODS: The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. RESULTS: Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Review of the American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes 2018.

Description: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) annually updates its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested parties with evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes. Methods: For the 2018 standards, the ADA Professional Practice Committee searched MEDLINE through November 2017 to add, clarify, or revise recommendations on the basis of new evidence. The committee rated the recommendations as A, B, or C depending on the quality of evidence or E for expert consensus or clinical experience. The standards were reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the ADA Board of Directors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and laypersons. Feedback from the larger clinical community informed revisions. Recommendations: This synopsis focuses on guidance relating to cardiovascular disease and risk management in nonpregnant adults with diabetes. Recommendations address diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension and dyslipidemia), aspirin use, screening for and treatment of coronary heart disease, and lifestyle interventions.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. Methods The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. Results Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. Conclusion Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

This article was copublished in Diabetes Care 2017;40:1409-1419 and The Diabetes Educator 2017;43:449-464 and is reprinted with permission. The previous version of this article, also copublished in Diabetes Care and The Diabetes Educator, can be found at Diabetes Care 2012;35:2393-2401 (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-1707).

Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes: Synopsis of the 2017 American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes.

DESCRIPTION: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) annually updates Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested parties with evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes. METHODS: For the 2017 Standards of Care, the ADA Professional Practice Committee did MEDLINE searches from 1 January 2016 to November 2016 to add, clarify, or revise recommendations on the basis of new evidence. The committee rated the recommendations as A, B, or C, depending on the quality of evidence, or E for expert consensus or clinical experience. The Standards of Care were reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the ADA Board of Directors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and laypersons. Feedback from the larger clinical community informed revisions. RECOMMENDATION: This synopsis focuses on recommendations from the 2017 Standards of Care about monitoring and pharmacologic approaches to glycemic management for type 1 diabetes.

2017 National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to review the literature for Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) to ensure the National Standards for DSMES (Standards) align with current evidence-based practices and utilization trends. Methods The 10 Standards were divided among 20 interdisciplinary workgroup members. Members searched the current research for diabetes education and support, behavioral health, clinical, health care environment, technical, reimbursement, and business practice for the strongest evidence that guided the Standards revision. Results Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support facilitates the knowledge, skills, and ability necessary for diabetes self-care as well as activities that assist a person in implementing and sustaining the behaviors needed to manage their condition on an ongoing basis. The evidence indicates that health care providers and people affected by diabetes are embracing technology, and this is having a positive impact of DSMES access, utilization, and outcomes. Conclusion Quality DSMES continues to be a critical element of care for all people with diabetes. The DSMES services must be individualized and guided by the concerns, preferences, and needs of the person affected by diabetes. Even with the abundance of evidence supporting the benefits of DSMES, it continues to be underutilized, but as with other health care services, technology is changing the way DSMES is delivered and utilized with positive outcomes.

Pharmacologic Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes: Synopsis of the 2017 American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes.

DESCRIPTION: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) annually updates the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested parties with evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes. METHODS: For the 2017 Standards, the ADA Professional Practice Committee updated previous MEDLINE searches performed from 1 January 2016 to November 2016 to add, clarify, or revise recommendations based on new evidence. The committee rates the recommendations as A, B, or C, depending on the quality of evidence, or E for expert consensus or clinical experience. The Standards were reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the ADA Board of Directors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and laypersons. Feedback from the larger clinical community informed revisions. RECOMMENDATIONS: This synopsis focuses on recommendations from the 2017 Standards about pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes: Synopsis of the 2016 American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes.

DESCRIPTION: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) published the 2016 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes (Standards) to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested parties with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. METHODS: The ADA Professional Practice Committee performed a systematic search on MEDLINE to revise or clarify recommendations based on new evidence. The committee assigns the recommendations a rating of A, B, or C, depending on the quality of evidence. The E rating for expert opinion is assigned to recommendations based on expert consensus or clinical experience. The Standards were reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the ADA Board of Directors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and laypersons. Feedback from the larger clinical community was incorporated into the 2016 revision. RECOMMENDATIONS: The synopsis focuses on 8 key areas that are important to primary care providers. The recommendations highlight individualized care to manage the disease, prevent or delay complications, and improve outcomes.