The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, ...diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.
The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.
This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.
This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.
Abstract
Context
Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasing for insulin-requiring patients with diabetes. Although data on glycemic profiles of healthy, nondiabetic individuals exist ...for older sensors, assessment of glycemic metrics with new-generation CGM devices is lacking.
Objective
To establish reference sensor glucose ranges in healthy, nondiabetic individuals across different age groups using a current generation CGM sensor.
Design
Multicenter, prospective study.
Setting
Twelve centers within the T1D Exchange Clinic Network.
Patients or Participants
Nonpregnant, healthy, nondiabetic children and adults (age ≥6 years) with nonobese body mass index.
Intervention
Each participant wore a blinded Dexcom G6 CGM, with once-daily calibration, for up to 10 days.
Main Outcome Measures
CGM metrics of mean glucose, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability.
Results
A total of 153 participants (age 7 to 80 years) were included in the analyses. Mean average glucose was 98 to 99 mg/dL (5.4 to 5.5 mmol/L) for all age groups except those over 60 years, in whom mean average glucose was 104 mg/dL (5.8 mmol/L). The median time between 70 to 140 mg/dL (3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L) was 96% (interquartile range, 93 to 98). Mean within-individual coefficient of variation was 17 ± 3%. Median time spent with glucose levels >140 mg/dL was 2.1% (30 min/d), and median time spent with glucose levels <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) was 1.1% (15 min/d).
Conclusion
By assessing across age groups in a healthy, nondiabetic population, normative sensor glucose data have been derived and will be useful as a benchmark for future research studies.
This study provides normative sensor glucose data in a healthy, nondiabetic population of children and adults.
To examine the overall state of metabolic control and current use of advanced diabetes technologies in the U.S., we report recent data collected on individuals with type 1 diabetes participating in ...the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Data from 16,061 participants updated between 1 September 2013 and 1 December 2014 were compared with registry enrollment data collected from 1 September 2010 to 1 August 2012. Mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was assessed by year of age from <4 to >75 years. The overall average HbA1c was 8.2% (66 mmol/mol) at enrollment and 8.4% (68 mmol/mol) at the most recent update. During childhood, mean HbA1c decreased from 8.3% (67 mmol/mol) in 2-4-year-olds to 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) at 7 years of age, followed by an increase to 9.2% (77 mmol/mol) in 19-year-olds. Subsequently, mean HbA1c values decline gradually until ∼30 years of age, plateauing at 7.5-7.8% (58-62 mmol/mol) beyond age 30 until a modest drop in HbA1c below 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) in those 65 years of age. Severe hypoglycemia (SH) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) remain all too common complications of treatment, especially in older (SH) and younger patients (DKA). Insulin pump use increased slightly from enrollment (58-62%), and use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) did not change (7%). Although the T1D Exchange registry findings are not population based and could be biased, it is clear that there remains considerable room for improving outcomes of treatment of type 1 diabetes across all age-groups. Barriers to more effective use of current treatments need to be addressed and new therapies are needed to achieve optimal metabolic control in people with type 1 diabetes.
Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA
) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control. However, it does not reflect intra- and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute ...events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), either from real-time use (rtCGM) or intermittently viewed (iCGM), addresses many of the limitations inherent in HbA
testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA
measurement as the sole marker of glycemic control, standardized metrics for analyzing CGM data are lacking. Moreover, clear criteria for matching people with diabetes to the most appropriate glucose monitoring methodologies, as well as standardized advice about how best to use the new information they provide, have yet to be established. In February 2017, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address these issues. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations and represents the current understanding of how CGM results can affect outcomes.
Self-monitoring of blood glucose was described as one of the most important advancements in diabetes management since the invention of insulin in 1920. Recent advances in glucose sensor technology ...for measuring interstitial glucose concentrations have challenged the dominance of glucose meters in diabetes management, while raising questions about the relationships between interstitial and blood glucose levels. This article will review the differences between interstitial and blood glucose and some of the challenges in measuring interstitial glucose levels accurately.
Metformin is the regulatory-approved treatment of choice for most youth with type 2 diabetes early in the disease. However, early loss of glycemic control has been observed with metformin ...monotherapy. Whether liraglutide added to metformin (with or without basal insulin treatment) is safe and effective in youth with type 2 diabetes is unknown.
Patients who were 10 to less than 17 years of age were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive subcutaneous liraglutide (up to 1.8 mg per day) or placebo for a 26-week double-blind period, followed by a 26-week open-label extension period. Inclusion criteria were a body-mass index greater than the 85th percentile and a glycated hemoglobin level between 7.0 and 11.0% if the patients were being treated with diet and exercise alone or between 6.5 and 11.0% if they were being treated with metformin (with or without insulin). All the patients received metformin during the trial. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level after 26 weeks. Secondary end points included the change in fasting plasma glucose level. Safety was assessed throughout the course of the trial.
Of 135 patients who underwent randomization, 134 received at least one dose of liraglutide (66 patients) or placebo (68 patients). Demographic characteristics were similar in the two groups (mean age, 14.6 years). At the 26-week analysis of the primary efficacy end point, the mean glycated hemoglobin level had decreased by 0.64 percentage points with liraglutide and increased by 0.42 percentage points with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -1.06 percentage points (P<0.001); the difference increased to -1.30 percentage points by 52 weeks. The fasting plasma glucose level had decreased at both time points in the liraglutide group but had increased in the placebo group. The number of patients who reported adverse events was similar in the two groups (56 84.8% with liraglutide and 55 80.9% with placebo), but the overall rates of adverse events and gastrointestinal adverse events were higher with liraglutide.
In children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes, liraglutide, at a dose of up to 1.8 mg per day (added to metformin, with or without basal insulin), was efficacious in improving glycemic control over 52 weeks. This efficacy came at the cost of an increased frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; Ellipse ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01541215.).
To provide a snapshot of the profile of adults and youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States and assessment of longitudinal changes in T1D management and clinical outcomes in the T1D ...Exchange registry.
Data on diabetes management and outcomes from 22,697 registry participants (age 1-93 years) were collected between 2016 and 2018 and compared with data collected in 2010-2012 for 25,529 registry participants.
Mean HbA1c in 2016-2018 increased from 65 mmol/mol at the age of 5 years to 78 mmol/mol between ages 15 and 18, with a decrease to 64 mmol/mol by age 28 and 58-63 mmol/mol beyond age 30. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) HbA1c goal of <58 mmol/mol for youth was achieved by only 17% and the goal of <53 mmol/mol for adults by only 21%. Mean HbA1c levels changed little between 2010-2012 and 2016-2018, except in adolescents who had a higher mean HbA1c in 2016-2018. Insulin pump use increased from 57% in 2010-2012 to 63% in 2016-2018. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) increased from 7% in 2010-2012 to 30% in 2016-2018, rising >10-fold in children <12 years old. HbA1c levels were lower in CGM users than nonusers. Severe hypoglycemia was most frequent in participants ≥50 years old and diabetic ketoacidosis was most common in adolescents and young adults. Racial differences were evident in use of pumps and CGM and HbA1c levels.
Data from the T1D Exchange registry demonstrate that only a minority of adults and youth with T1D in the United States achieve ADA goals for HbA1c.
PDF
