Should We Screen for Type 2 Diabetes?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

The prevalence of diabetes in the United States is rising. Twelve percent of U.S. adults have diabetes and another 37% have impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes is a major risk factor for such outcomes as cardiovascular disease, blindness, chronic kidney disease, and limb amputation. An important consideration is whether screening for abnormal glucose levels or diabetes reduces cardiovascular or all-cause morbidity and mortality. In October 2015, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force published recommendations on screening for abnormal blood glucose and concluded that intensive lifestyle interventions have a moderate benefit in reducing progression to diabetes in patients who have abnormal blood glucose levels detected by screening. It found inadequate evidence that such screening reduces cardiovascular or all-cause mortality and no evidence of psychological or other harms from screening. The Task Force recommends glucose screening every 3 years for adults aged 40 to 70 years who are overweight or obese and do not have symptoms of diabetes. In this article, we present the case of a man who meets these criteria and explore his preferences and concerns regarding screening. Two experts then debate screening merits and benefits, the significance of abnormal blood glucose levels and diabetes as cardiovascular risk factors, and application of the guidelines to this particular patient.

IMPROVEMENTS IN METABOLIC CONTROL IN ADULTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES FOLLOWING REFERRAL TO A DIABETES CENTER, 2005-2010.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare metabolic control in adults with diabetes in the general population to those newly referred to a diabetes center and after 1 year of specialty care. METHODS: We performed a retrospective comparison of adults with diabetes aged ≥20 years data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, n = 1,674) and a diabetes center (n = 3,128) from 2005-2010. NHANES participants represented the civilian, non-institutionalized U.S. POPULATION: Diabetes center referrals lived primarily around eastern Massachusetts. The proportion attaining targets for glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1c), blood pressure (BP), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, or all 3 (ABC control) and the proportion prescribed medications to lower A1c, BP, or cholesterol were evaluated. RESULTS: Compared to the general sample, a smaller proportion of new diabetes center referrals had A1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol, 24% vs. 53%, P<.001), BP <130/80 mm Hg (38% vs. 50%, P<.001), and ABC control (5.6% vs. 17%, P<.001) but not LDL<100 mg/dL (<2.6 mmol/L, 54% vs. 53%, P = .65). After 1 year, more diabetes center referrals attained targets for A1c (40%), BP (38%), LDL (67%), and ABC control (15%) (P<.001 for all versus baseline). ABC control was not different between the general sample and diabetes center referrals at 1 year (P = .16). After 1 year, a greater percentage of diabetes center referrals compared to the general sample were prescribed medications to lower glucose (95% vs. 72%), BP (79% vs. 64%), and cholesterol (77% vs. 54%)(all P<.001). CONCLUSION: Compared to the general population, glycemic control was significantly worse for adults newly referred to the diabetes center. Within 1 year of specialty care, ABC control increased 270% in the setting of significant therapy escalation. ABBREVIATIONS: A1c = glycated hemoglobin A1c ABC = composite of A1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol ACEi = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ARB = angiotensin receptor blocker BMI = body mass index BP = blood pressure EHR = electronic health record LDL = low-density lipoprotein NCHS = National Center for Health Statistics NHANES = National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey PCP = primary care provider.

Disparities Between Teleretinal Imaging Findings and Patient-Reported Diabetic Retinopathy Status and Follow-up Eye Care Interval: A 10-Year Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess self-reported awareness of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and concordance of eye examination follow-up compared with findings from concurrent retinal images. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational 10-year study of 26,876 consecutive patients with diabetes who underwent retinal imaging during an endocrinology visit. Awareness and concordance were evaluated using questionnaires and retinal imaging. RESULTS: Awareness information and gradable images were available in 25,360 patients (94.3%). Severity of DR by imaging was as follows: no DR (n = 14,317; 56.5%), mild DR (n = 6,805; 26.8%), or vision-threatening DR (vtDR; n = 4,238; 16.7%). In the no, mild, and vtDR groups, 96.7%, 88.5%, and 54.9% of patients, respectively, reported being unaware of any prior DR. When DR was present, reporting no prior DR was associated with shorter diabetes duration, milder DR, last eye examination >1 year before, no dilation, no scheduled appointment, and less specialized provider (all P < 0.001). Among patients with vtDR, 41.2%, 58.1%, and 64.2% did not report being aware of any DR and follow-up was concordant with current DR severity in 66.7%, 41.3%, and 25.4% (P < 0.001) of patients when prior examination was performed by a retinal specialist, nonretinal ophthalmologist, or optometrist (P < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial discrepancies exist between DR presence, patient awareness, and concordance of follow-up across all DR severity levels. These discrepancies are present across all eye care provider types, with the magnitude influenced by provider type. Therefore, patient self-report should not be relied upon to reflect DR status. Modification of medical care and education models may be necessary to enhance retention of ophthalmic knowledge in patients with diabetes and ensure accurate communication between all health care providers.

A qualitative study of perceived responsibility and self-blame in type 2 diabetes: reflections of physicians and patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite new treatment therapies and the emphasis on patient activation, nearly 50 % of diabetes patients have hemoglobin A(1c) levels above target. Understanding the impact of unmet treatment goals on the physician-patient relationship is important for maintaining quality care in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To explore physicians' and type 2 diabetes patients' views of patients' difficulty achieving diabetes treatment goals. DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews with a semi-structured interview guide. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen endocrinologists and primary care physicians and 34 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at least two years prior. MAIN MEASURES: In-depth interviews with physicians and patients. A multidisciplinary research team performed content and thematic analyses. KEY RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed two main findings, organized by physician and patient perspectives. Physician Perspective: Physicians' Perceived Responsibility for Patients' Difficulty Achieving Treatment Goals: Physicians assumed responsibility for their patients not achieving goals and expressed concern that they may not be doing enough to help their patients achieve treatment goals. Physicians' Perceptions of Patients' Reactions: Most speculated that their patients may feel guilt, frustration, or disappointment when not reaching goals. Physicians also felt that many patients did not fully understand the consequences of diabetes. Patient Perspective: Patients' Self-Blame for Difficulty Achieving Treatment Goals: Patients attributed unmet treatment goals to their inability to carry out self-care recommendations. Most patients blamed themselves for their lack of progress and directed their frustration and disappointment inwardly through self-depreciating comments. Patients' Perceptions of Physicians' Reactions: Several patients did not know how their physician felt, while others speculated that their physicians might feel disappointed or frustrated. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' perceived responsibility and patients' self-blame for difficulty achieving treatment goals may serve as barriers to an effective relationship. Physicians and patients may benefit from a greater understanding of each other's frustrations and challenges in diabetes management.

Clinical Considerations When Initiating and Titrating Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide (IDegLira) in People with Type 2 Diabetes.

Therapeutic inertia is a substantial obstacle to the initiation of insulin therapy in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D). This effect has in part been perpetuated by concerns over the impact of a burdensome regimen and the increased risk of hypoglycemia and body weight gain often associated with insulin use. An effective, yet simple, less burdensome regimen with a lower risk of body weight gain and hypoglycemia compared with an insulin-only regimen, may help to address these concerns more effectively. We review the available clinical and real-world data on IDegLira, a once-daily, injectable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec (degludec) and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide, in people with T2D. Evidence from the comprehensive DUAL clinical trial program suggests an advantage of IDegLira over traditional insulin therapies in a number of clinical outcomes, including maintenance of glycemic control, achievement of glycemic targets, reducing the risk of hypoglycemia, and body weight loss. These findings were demonstrated in participants with T2D irrespective of prior GLP-1RA and insulin use. Furthermore, the individual components of IDegLira have confirmed safety (degludec) or significant benefit in terms of improvement of cardiovascular risk (liraglutide). As an injectable therapy that is simple to titrate, IDegLira has the potential to optimize the ability to achieve relevant glycemic targets, and offers a suitable treatment option for people with T2D requiring insulin therapy who are at risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain.

Effect of diabetes-specific nutrition formulas on satiety and hunger hormones in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes-specific nutritional formulas (DSNFs) are frequently used by patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) as part of nutrition therapy to improve glycemic control and reduce body weight. However, their effects on hunger and satiety hormones when compared to an isocaloric standardized breakfast are not fully understood. This study aims to evaluate the postprandial effects of two DSNFs-Glucerna (GL) and Ultra Glucose Control (UGC)-versus oatmeal on selected satiety and hunger hormones. METHOD: After an overnight fast, 22 patients with T2D (mean age 62.3 ± 6.8 years, A1C 6.8 ± 0.7%, body weight 97.4 ± 21.3 kg, and BMI 33.2 ± 5.9 kg/m²) were given 200 kcal of each meal on three separate days. Blood samples for amylin, cholecystokinin (CCK), ghrelin, glucagon, leptin, and peptide-YY (PYY) were collected at baseline and 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 240 min after the start of each meal. Incremental area under the curve (iAUC0-240) for each hormone was calculated. RESULTS: iAUC0-240 for glucagon and PYY were significantly higher after GL and UGC than after oatmeal (p < 0.001 for both). No difference was observed between the three meals on postprandial amylin, CCK, ghrelin, and leptin hormones. CONCLUSIONS: Intake of DSNFs significantly increases secretion of PYY and glucagon, two important satiety hormones. While subjective satiety was not directly evaluated, the increased effect on satiety hormones may partially explain the mechanism of body weight loss associated with DSNF use.

A 74-year-old woman with diabetes.

Ms M, a 74-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes of 6 years' duration, has a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) value of 7.4% despite taking 3 oral antidiabetic medications, as well as coexistent hypertension and abdominal obesity. She has no known microvascular or macrovascular complications of diabetes and is otherwise healthy. She is reluctant to commence insulin treatment as she dislikes the idea of injections and wonders if there are any alternate options if she is to get her HbA(1C) value below 7%. The natural history of type 2 diabetes, reasons why many patients begin requiring insulin over time, rationale for tight glycemic control, and therapeutic options for Ms M are discussed.

Improving patients' home cooking - A case series of participation in a remote culinary coaching program.

This case series describes and examines the outcomes of a remote culinary coaching program aimed at improving nutrition through home cooking. Participants (n = 4) improved attitudes about the perceived ease of home cooking (p < 0.01) and self-efficacy to perform various culinary skills (p = 0.02); and also improved in confidence to continue online learning of culinary skills and consume healthier food. We believe this program might be a viable response to the need for effective and scalable health-related culinary interventions.

Changes in HbA1c and Weight Following Transition to Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Historically, intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes (T1D) has improved glycemic control at the risk of adverse weight gain. The impact of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy (CSII) on weight in the current era remains unknown. We assessed changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and weight in adults with T1D transitioning to CSII at 2 diabetes centers in Denmark and the United States. METHODS: Patients with T1D, aged ≥18 years, managed with multiple daily injections (MDI) who transitioned to CSII between 2002 and 2013 were identified using electronic health record data from the Steno Diabetes Center (n = 600) and Joslin Diabetes Center (n = 658). Changes in HbA1c and weight after 1 year was assessed overall and by baseline HbA1c cut points. Multivariate regression assessed correlates of HbA1c reduction. RESULTS: In adults with T1D transitioning to CSII, clinically significant HbA1c reductions were found in patients with baseline HbA1c 8.0-8.9% (Steno, -0.7%; Joslin, -0.4%) and baseline HbA1c ≥9.0% (Steno, -1.1%; Joslin, -0.9%) ( P < .005 for all). Overall, there was no significant change in weight after 1 year at either center. Modest (<2%) weight gain was noted in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9% at Steno (1.1 ± 0.3 kg, P < .0001) and Joslin (1.7 ± 1.1, P < .005). In multivariate models, HbA1c reduction was associated with higher HbA1c, older age, female sex at Steno ( R2 = .28, P < .005), but only higher baseline HbA1c at Joslin ( R2 = .19, P < .005). CONCLUSION: Adults with T1D with suboptimal glycemic control significantly improved HbA1c without a negative impact on weight 1 year after transitioning from MDI to CSII.

Optimal glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus: fasting and postprandial glucose in context.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the consequence of both insulin resistance and impaired insulin secretion. In the progression from normal glucose tolerance to diabetes, postprandial glucose (PPG) levels often rise before fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels increase above 126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L). Numerous epidemiologic studies have shown that impaired glucose tolerance is associated with increased risk for macrovascular disease and that isolated postchallenge hyperglycemia is an independent factor for increased mortality. Reducing the risk for microvascular complications by improving glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels is well documented. Emerging data now support the relationship between glycemic control and macrovascular disease. Epidemiologic studies documenting postprandial hyperglycemia and the risk for increased mortality suggest that lowering PPG levels might be beneficial. Optimizing both FPG and PPG is important in achieving normal/near-normal glucose levels. Many patients with type 2 diabetes have difficulty attaining the recommended HbA(1c) goal despite normal/near-normal FPG levels; thus, pharmacologic treatment targeting PPG levels may prove beneficial.