53
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Standards of care for type 2 diabetes in China

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Epidemiology of T2DM in China Epidemiology of T2DM The past 30 years have witnessed significant increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in China. A 1980 epidemiological survey that included 30 000 people from 14 provinces and cities nationwide indicated that the prevalence of diabetes was 0.67% 1. A 1994–1995 epidemiological survey that included 210 000 people from 19 provinces and cities found that the prevalence of diabetes was 2.5% among individuals who were 25–64 years old (with a population standardized rate of 2.2%) and that the prevalence of impaired glucose tolerance was 3.2% (with a population standardized rate of 2.1%) 2. A national nutrition survey conducted in 2002, showed that the prevalences of diabetes were 4.5% and 1.8% among people over 18 years in the urban and rural areas, respectively 3. In 2007–2008, the Chinese Diabetes Society (CDS) performed an epidemiological survey in 14 provinces and cities nationwide. After adopting a weighted analysis that took into account factors such as gender, age, rural and urban distributions and regional differences, the estimated prevalence of diabetes was 9.7% in adults over 20 years of age in China 4, accounting for 92.4 million adults with diabetes (43.1 million rural residents and 49.3 urban residents) (Table 1). Table 1 Summary of five nationwide epidemiological surveys of diabetes in China Year of survey (diagnostic criteria) Number of surveyed people (10 000) Age (years) Prevalence of diabetes (%) Prevalence of impaired glucose tolerance (%) Screening method 1980a 1 (Lanzhou standard) 30 Entire population 0.67 — Urine glucose + 2h PG (steamed bread tolerance test) for screening the high risk subjects 1986 49 (WHO 1985) 10 25–64 1.04 0.68 2h PG (steamed bread tolerance test) for screening the high risk subjects 1994 2 (WHO 1985) 21 25–64 2.5 3.2 2h PG (steamed bread tolerance test) for screening the high risk subjects 2002 3 (WHO 1999) 10 ≥18 4.5 (urban) IFG 2.7 FPG screening of the high‐risk group 1.8 (rural) IFG 1.6 2007–2008 4 (WHO 1999) 4.6 ≥20 9.7 15.5b One‐step OGTT method 1 mmol/L = 18 mg/dL. FPG: fasting plasma glucose; WHO: World Health Organization; IFG: impaired fasting glucose; OGTT: oral glucose tolerance test; 2 hPG, 2‐h postprandial blood glucose; —, no data. a Diagnostic criteria are FPG ≥130 mg/dL and/or 2 hPG ≥200 mg/dL and/or more than three items on the OGTT curve that are above the diagnostic criteria [0′ 125, 30′ 190, 60′ 180, 120′ 140, and 180′ 125 mg/dL, in which 0′, 30′, 60′, 120′ and 180′ are time points (min), and 30′ or 60′ is one time point; the glucose measurement uses the o‐toluidine method with 100 g of glucose]. b Prediabetes, including IFG, IGT or both (IFG/IGT). In summary, the current epidemic of diabetes in China shows the following characteristics: T2DM accounts for more than 90% of the overall population with diabetes in China; type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) accounts for approximately 5.0%, and other types of diabetes account for only 0.7% 5. Notably, due to lack of reliable data on T1DM incidences and prevalences over the past years in China, further investigation has to be conducted to report the proportion. The prevalences of diabetes appear to be correlated with degree of economic development: in the 1994 survey, the prevalence of diabetes among the high‐income group was 2–3 times higher than that of the low‐income group 2. A latest study showed that the prevalence of diabetes in developed regions was still significantly higher than that in under‐developed regions, and the prevalence rate in cities was higher than those in rural areas 4. A large proportion of diabetes is undiagnosed: in the 2007–2008 national survey among adult population over 20 years, patient with newly diagnosed diabetes accounted for 60% of total diabetes population. Male gender and low‐education levels are risk factors of diabetes: in the 2007–2008 survey, after adjusting for other risk factors, the risk for men were found increased by 26% compared with that for women, and risk of diabetes among people without college education was 57% higher than those with college or higher education 4. Phenotypic characteristics: the average body mass index (BMI) of China's T2DM population is approximately 25 kg/m2, whereas the average BMI of Caucasian diabetes population is generally higher than 30 kg/m2. In China, there is a larger proportion characterized by postprandial hyperglycaemia. Further, postprandial hyperglycaemia alone accounts for nearly 50% of the overall newly diagnosed population 6. Cardiovascular diseases are common among diabetic patients. Because diabetes population in China shows a shorter disease duration late chronic complications such as diabetic retinopathy and diabetic nephropathy may pose great challenges in the future. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus Diagnosis of diabetes This guideline recommends the World Health Organization's (WHO) (1999) the criteria for diagnosis and classification of diabetes, and classification of metabolic status (Table 2): either the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or the 2‐h plasma glucose (2‐h PG) value after a 75‐g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) can be used alone for epidemiological investigations or mass screenings 7. However, the data in China include only the FPG levels, resulting in a larger proportion of diabetes being missed. The ideal investigation should simultaneously check FPG and 2‐h PG after the glucose load; blood glucose levels at other time points after the OGTT are not used as diagnostic criteria. Table 2 Diagnostic criteria for diabetes and prediabetes Diagnostic methods Venous plasma glucose level (mmol/L) (1) Typical symptoms of diabetes (polydipsia, polyuria, polyphagia and weight loss) plus random blood glucose testing ≥11.1 or (2) Fasting plasma glucose ≥7.0 or (3) 2 h after the glucose load test ≥11.1 Individuals who do not present diabetes symptoms should be re‐tested on a separate day. The fasting state refers to not eating for at least 8 h. Random blood glucose refers to the blood glucose level at any time of day regardless of the time of the last meal, which cannot be used to diagnose impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance. Individuals with impaired fasting glucose should undergo the OGTT to reduce the number of missed diabetes diagnoses. The issue of using HbA1c for diabetes diagnosis The 2010 American Diabetes Association guidelines added glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥6.5% as a diagnostic criterion for diabetes 8. In 2011, the WHO also recommended that wherever conditions permit, countries and regions may consider adopting this cut‐off point for diabetes diagnosis 9. However, given that the HbA1c test is not yet commonly applied in China, the insufficient degree of standardization, and the fact that the instruments and quality control for measuring HbA1c are currently unable to meet the current diagnostic standard for diabetes, this guideline does not recommend the use of HbA1c for diagnosis of diabetes in China. Nevertheless, for hospitals that use a standardized HbA1c assay with a normal reference value of 4.0–6.0% and strict quality control, HbA1c ≥6.5% can be used as a reference when diagnosing diabetes. Classification of diabetes mellitus This guideline adopts the diabetes aetiology classification system proposed by the WHO (1999), which divides diabetes into four major categories based on aetiological evidence, that is, T1DM, T2DM, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and special types of diabetes. Primary, secondary and tertiary diabetes prevention Primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of T2DM The goal of primary prevention is to prevent the occurrence of T2DM. Secondary prevention aims to prevent diabetic complications in patients with T2DM. Tertiary prevention aims to delay the progression of diabetic complications, to reduce morbidity and mortality and to improve the patients' quality of life. Strategies for the primary prevention of T2DM Risk factors and intervention strategies for T2DM The risk of T2DM depends primarily on the patient's number and degree of risk factors. Some of these factors cannot be changed, whereas others can (Table 3). Table 3 Risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus Unchangeable risk factors Changeable risk factors Age Prediabetes (impaired glucose tolerance or combined impaired fasting glucose), the most important risk factor Family history or genetic predisposition Metabolic syndrome Ethnicity Overweight, obesity and depression History of gestational diabetes mellitus or women with history of delivery of a baby weighing ≥ 4 kg Excess dietary caloric intake, sedentary or physically inactive Polycystic ovary syndrome Use of drugs that can increase the risk of diabetes Intrauterine growth retardation or premature birth Social environments that can cause obesity or diabetes Diabetes screening of high‐risk populations Primary prevention efforts for T2DM should adopt hierarchical management approaches based on the differences between the high‐risk population and general population. It is not feasible either to screen prediabetes in the entire Chinese population or to systematically identify high risk groups by blood glucose tests, considering the huge population in China. Therefore, the identification of high‐risk groups relies primarily on opportunistic screening (e.g. screening that occurs during routine physical examinations or during treatment for other diseases). Screening of diabetes benefits the early diagnosis of diabetes and improves the prevention and treatment of diabetes and its complications. Therefore, when conditions permit, high‐risk groups should be targeted for diabetes screening. Definition of the high‐risk diabetes group among adults are as follows: adults (>18 years) with one or more of the following diabetes risk factors: (1) age ≥40 years, (2) history of impaired glucose regulation, (3) overweight (BMI ≥24 kg/m2) or obesity (BMI ≥28 kg/m2) and/or central obesity (male waist circumference ≥90 cm and female waist circumference ≥85 cm), (4) sedentary lifestyle, (5) first‐degree relatives with T2DM, (6) women who delivered a baby weighing ≥4 kg) or were diagnosed with GDM (7) hypertension [systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa)] or on therapy for hypertension, (8) dyslipidemia [high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C) ≤0.91 mmol/L (≤35 mg/dL) and triglycerides ≥2.22 mmol/L (≥200 mg/dL)] or on therapy for hyperlipidemia, (9) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, (10) a transient history of steroid diabetes, (11) polycystic ovary syndrome and (12) long‐term use of antipsychotics and/or antidepressant treatment. Of the aforementioned factors, impaired glucose regulation is the most important high‐risk factor: approximately 5%–10.0% of patients with impaired glucose tolerance progress to T2DM annually 10. Diabetes screening age and frequency For adults in the high‐risk group, diabetes screening should be performed as early as possible, regardless of age; for populations with no diabetes risk factors other than age, screening should begin at ≥40 years of age. For children and adolescents at a high risk for diabetes, screening should begin at age 10 years; however, for individuals with an earlier onset of puberty, this guideline recommends that screening starts at puberty. Those whose initial screening results are normal are recommended to undergo screening again at least once every 3 years. Diabetes screening strategy At medical institutions with a qualified laboratory, diabetes screening is recommended for high‐risk patients during their visits or physical examinations. Diabetes screening method The fasting blood glucose test is a simple diabetes screening method that should be used for routine screening, albeit there's risk of missing diagnosis. When conditions permit, the OGTT (both FPG and 2‐h PG after glucose load) should be performed as often as possible. HbA1c testing is not currently recommended as a routine screening method. Diabetes screening of the general population To improve the effectiveness of diabetes screening for the general population, targeted diabetes screening should occur according to the individual's degree of diabetes risk. T2DM prevention through intensive lifestyle intervention Multiple randomized and controlled studies have shown that people with impaired glucose tolerance can be delayed or prevented from developing to T2DM, through appropriate lifestyle interventions, 11, 12, 13. In a study conducted in Daqing, China, patients in the lifestyle intervention group were asked to increase vegetable intake and reduce intake of alcohol and monosaccharides, and those who were defined as overweight or obese (BMI >25 kg/m2) were encouraged to lose weight, increase intensity of physical activity by performing at least 30 min of moderately intense activity per day. After a 6‐year lifestyle intervention, the cumulative incidence of T2DM risk for the subsequent 14 years decreased by 43% 14. The lifestyle intervention groups in the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study 15 and the American Diabetes Prevention Program 16 also demonstrated that the intervention could significantly reduce the risk of developing T2DM among patients with impaired glucose tolerance. This guideline recommends that patients with prediabetes lower the risk of diabetes through diet control and exercise; that patients should receive regular follow‐up that provides psychosocial support to ensure patients' long‐term adherence to a healthy lifestyle; that blood glucose levels should be regularly tested; that the cardiovascular disease risk factors (such as smoking, hypertension and dyslipidemia) should be closely monitored; and that appropriate intervention measures should be provided. The specific objectives are (1) the BMI of overweight or obese patients should be lowered to approximately 24 kg/m2 or weight loss of at least 5–10% should be achieved, (2) the patients' total daily caloric intake should be reduced by at least 400–500 kcal (1 kcal = 4.184 kJ), (3) the patients' saturated fatty acid intake should be less than 30% of their total fatty acid intake and (4) the patients should be encouraged to engage in moderate‐intensity physical activity for at least 150 min/week. T2DM prevention through medical intervention Drug intervention trials in a pre‐diabetic population showed that the oral administration of hypoglycaemic agents, such as metformin, α‐glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), metformin combined with TZDs, the diet pill orlistat and traditional Chinese herbal medicine (Tianqi capsules), reduced the risk of diabetes 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. However, because there is no sufficient evidence showing that drug interventions have long‐term efficacy and/or health economics benefits, the clinical guidelines developed by various countries have not widely recommended medical interventions as the primary prevention for diabetes. Given that economic development in China is still in the preliminary stage and significant regional imbalances exist and that diabetes prevention‐related health care is currently unsophisticated and imperfect, this guideline currently does not recommend the use of drug interventions to prevent diabetes. Strategies for the secondary prevention of T2DM Blood glucose control The clinical trials on intensive glucose control, such as the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) 22, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) 23 and the Kumamoto Study in Japan 24, found that among patients in the early stage of diabetes, intensive glucose control can significantly reduce the risk of diabetic microvascular diseases. The UKPDS study also showed that in obese or overweight populations, the use of metformin was correlated with a significant decrease in the risk of myocardial infarction and death 25. The long‐term follow‐up studies of the DCCT and UKPDS patient populations indicated that early intensive glycaemic control was correlated with a reduction in diabetic microvascular diseases and a significant decrease in the risks of myocardial infarction and death 26, 27. These results provide evidence that intensive blood glucose control during the early stages of T2DM can reduce the risks of diabetic macrovascular and microvascular diseases. This guideline recommends that for newly diagnosed diabetes patients and early T2DM patients, strict glycaemic control strategies should be adopted to reduce the risk of diabetic complications. Blood pressure control, lipid control and aspirin use The UKPDS study showed that in patients newly diagnosed with diabetes, intensive blood pressure control not only significantly reduced the risk of diabetic vascular diseases but also the risk of microvascular diseases 28. An analysis of a subgroup in a trial of hypertensive optimization therapy and other clinical trials of anti‐hypertensive therapy also showed that intensive blood pressure control reduced the risk of cardiovascular diseases in diabetic patients without significant vascular complications 28, 29. The British Heart Protection Study–subgroup analysis of diabetic patients 30, the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study 31 and other large‐scale clinical studies 32 indicated that the use of statins to lower low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) could reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases in diabetic patients without causing significant vascular complications. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study showed that the combination of statins and lipid‐lowering drug did not achieve additional cardiovascular benefits, as compared with statins alone 32. The results of clinical trials using aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in diabetic patients varied 33, 34; therefore, whether aspirin has a protective effect in the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in diabetes patients remains unclear. Nevertheless, a systematic review of multiple clinical trials demonstrated that among patients with T2DM and cardiovascular disease risk factors, aspirin showed a certain cardiovascular protective effect 35. This guideline recommends that for T2DM patients without significant diabetic vascular complications but with risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, controlling blood glucose, lowering blood pressure and adjusting lipids (mainly to reduce LDL‐C) and aspirin therapy are all useful methods to prevent cardiovascular diseases and diabetic microvascular diseases. Strategies for the tertiary prevention of T2DM Blood glucose control The clinical findings in intensive glucose control trials such as DCCT, UKPDS, Kumamoto, The Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE), and the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) suggest that intensive glucose control reduced the progression of diabetic microvascular diseases (e.g. background diabetic retinopathy and microalbuminuria) 22, 24, 28, 36, 37. Among patients who have already developed severe diabetic microvascular diseases, relevant clinical evidence is still necessary to verify whether intensive glucose control measures can reduce the risks of blindness, kidney failure and amputation. The results of clinical trials such as ADVANCE, ACCORD and VADT all suggest that for patients with a longer duration of diabetes, who are older in age and who have multiple cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular diseases, the use of intensive glucose control measures does not reduce the risks of cardiovascular diseases and death. Conversely, the ACCORD study showed that in the aforementioned described population, intensive glucose control was correlated with an increased risk of all‐cause mortality 38. This guideline recommends that for patients who are older and who have a longer diabetes duration and cardiovascular diseases, the pros and cons of adopting intensive glucose control must be cautiously evaluated. In addition, an individualized strategy should be used and, a patient‐centred diabetes management system should be developed to determine glycaemic control targets. Blood pressure control, lipid control and aspirin use There is sufficient clinical evidence that in patients with T2DM who have had cardiovascular diseases, lowering blood pressure, lowering lipids, or the proper use of aspirin therapy alone or in combination can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease recurrence and death 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. In patients with diabetic nephropathy, the use of blood pressure‐lowering agents, particularly the use of angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor antagonist drugs, significantly reduced the risk of diabetic nephropathy progression 43. This guideline recommends that for older patients who have had a long diabetes duration and cardiovascular disease, in terms of individualized glycaemic control, measures such as lowering blood pressure, adjusting lipids (mainly to reduce LDL‐C) and taking aspirin should be used to reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular diseases and death and to reduce the risk of diabetic microangiopathy. Diabetes education and management The risks of microvascular and macrovascular diseases in diabetic patients are significantly higher than in non‐diabetic patients, and reducing these risks in diabetic patients depends not only on controlling high blood glucose but also on addressing other cardiovascular disease risk factors and improving lifestyle. In addition to drug therapy, diabetes control must also monitor blood glucose and other cardiovascular risk factors so as to determine whether the control reaches the target or whether the treatment must be adjusted. Moreover, as diabetes is a lifelong disease, the patient behaviour and self‐management ability are keys to successful diabetes control; further, diabetes control is not a treatment in the traditional sense but a management approach in nature. Objectives of integrated T2DM control and treatment options for high blood glucose Objectives for comprehensive T2DM control The ideal comprehensive control of T2DM varies according to the age, comorbidities and complications of patients (Table 4). A treatment that does not achieve the control targets should not be viewed as a failure because any improvement in the control indicators confers benefits to the patient and reduces the risks associated with complications; for example, reductions in HbA1c are closely correlated with reductions in microvascular complications and neuropathy. Table 4 Targets for the integrated control of type 2 diabetes mellitus in China Indicator Target value Blood glucose (mmol/L)a Fasting 4.4–7.0 Non‐fasting <10.0 Glycated haemoglobin (%) <7.0 Blood pressure (mmHg) <140/80 Total cholesterol (mmol/L) <4.5 High‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (mmol/L) Male >1.0 Female >1.3 Triglycerides (mmol/L) <1.7 Low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (mmol/L) Not complicated with coronary heart disease <2.6 Complicated with coronary heart disease <1.8 Body mass index (kg/m2) <24.0 Urinary albumin/creatinine ratio [mg/mmol (mg/g)] Male <2.5 (22.0) Female <3.5 (31.0) Urinary albumin excretion rate [µg/min (mg/dL)] <20.0 (30.0) Active aerobic activity (min/week) ≥150.0 a Capillary blood glucose. The primary principle for determining the targets for integrated T2DM control is individualization management, which should comprehensively consider age, disease duration, life expectancy, severity of complications or comorbidities and other relevant factors of patients. Hypertension is a common complication of diabetes. Younger patients and those with a shorter disease duration may not require much treatment to reduce blood pressure to 130/80 mmHg or less. The target blood pressure value for elderly patients may be adjusted to 150/90 mmHg. T2DM blood glucose control strategy and treatment options T2DM is a progressive disease. The blood glucose tends to increase gradually as the disease duration increases; therefore, the intensity of hyperglycaemia control treatment should be increased accordingly. Lifestyle intervention is the basis for T2DM treatment and should be applied throughout the diabetes treatment process. When lifestyle change alone is unable to reach blood glucose target, drug treatment should be initiated. The preferred first‐line drug for T2DM is metformin. If no contraindications are present, metformin should remain part of the diabetes treatment regimen. Patients who could not take metformin may use α‐glucosidase inhibitors or insulin secretagogues. When metformin alone is unable to achieve blood glucose target, insulin secretagogues, α‐glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP‐4) inhibitors or TZDs (a second‐line treatment) can be added. Patients who could not take metformin may undergo combination therapy with other oral medicines. When a combination therapy of two types of oral medicines still unable to achieve blood glucose target, insulin may be added (once‐daily basal insulin or once‐daily or twice‐daily premixed insulin), or a combination of three types of oral medicines may be initiated. Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists can be used as a third‐line treatment. When basal insulin or premixed insulin combined with other oral medications is still unable to achieve blood glucose target, the regimen should be adjusted to include multiple daily injections of insulin (basal insulin plus prandial insulin or thrice‐daily premixed insulin analogues). When treating with premixed insulin and multiple insulin injections, insulin secretagogue use should be discontinued. Based on the principles mentioned above, and the recommendations of International Diabetes Federation (IDF) 44, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 45 and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) 46, the treatment pathways for hyperglycaemia in T2DM are proposed and shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 The treatment algorithm for high blood glucose in T2DM. The blue paths are the recommended primary drug treatment paths based on comprehensive considerations, including clinical evidence of the drug's health economics, efficacy and safety and China's national conditions. These paths are similar to the drug treatment pathways recommended by most international diabetes guidelines. The orange paths are alternative paths for the corresponding blue paths. HbA1c, glycated haemoglobin; DPP‐4, dipeptidyl peptidase IV; TZD, thiazolidinedione; GLP‐1, glucagon‐like peptide‐1 Medical nutrition therapy for T2DM Principles of nutrition therapy Patients with diabetes or prediabetes require individualized medical nutrition therapy. Such treatment should be provided under the guidance of a dietician or an integrated management team (including a diabetes educator) who is familiar with diabetes treatment. To achieve the metabolic control objective for patients and satisfy his or her dietary preference, reasonable quality objects should be established. In order to control the total energy intake and distribute various nutrients in a reasonable and balanced manner, the nutrition status should be evaluated before setting reasonable quality objectives. For overweight or obese patients, this guideline recommends moderate weight loss measures combined with physical exercise and behavioural changes to maintain weight loss outcomes. Objectives of medical nutrition therapy Maintaining a proper body weight: the weight loss goal for overweight/obese patients is 5–10% of body weight in 3–6 months. People who are underweight should recover and maintain an ideal body weight over the long term via a sound nutrition plan. Providing balanced nutritious meals. Achieving and maintaining an ideal blood glucose level and reducing the HbA1c level. Reducing the risk factors for cardiovascular disease, dyslipidemia and hypertension. Reducing insulin resistance and pancreatic β‐cell load. Exercise therapy for T2DM Exercise plays an important role in the comprehensive management of T2DM. Regular exercise increases insulin sensitivity, helps control blood glucose, reduces cardiovascular risk factors, reduces weight and improves overall well‐being 47, 48. Moreover, exercise has a remarkable primary preventive effect on populations at high risk of diabetes 49. Epidemiological studies have shown that the regular exercise of more than 8 weeks reduced the HbA1c level by 0.66% and that the mortality of diabetes patients who adhered to regular exercise for 12–14 years significantly decreases 47. Smoking cessation Every diabetic smoker should be advised to stop smoking or using tobacco products. Patients' smoking status and the extent of nicotine dependence should be assessed. Brief consultations and hotlines for quitting should be provided, and if necessary, medications should be prescribed to help patients quit smoking. Drug treatments for hyperglycaemia Oral antihyperglycaemic medications Medical nutrition therapy and exercise treatment are basic for controlling high blood glucose in T2DM. When diet and exercise cannot effectively control the blood glucose level, medication therapy, including oral medications, should be provided in a timely manner. T2DM is a progressive disease. During the natural course of T2DM, pancreatic β‐cell function gradually decreases, meanwhile insulin resistance undergoes less change. Thus, as T2DM progresses, the reliance on exogenous glycaemic control measures gradually increases. Clinical treatment often requires the use of oral medication and a combination of oral medication and injectable anti‐diabetic medications (e.g. insulin and GLP‐1 receptor agonists). Metformin Metformin hydrochloride is the primary biguanide medication currently used in medical practice. The major pharmacological effect of biguanides is lowering blood glucose by reducing the hepatic glucose output and improving peripheral insulin resistance. The diabetes treatment guidelines of many countries and international organizations recommend metformin as the basic medication among the first‐line medications and combinations for control of hyperglycaemia in T2DM 44, 45, 50. Systematic reviews of clinical trials have shown that metformin can reduce HbA1c by 1.0–1.5% and can also reduce body weight 51. The efficacy of metformin has been shown to be separate from the body weight reduction. The UKPDS study results showed that metformin also decreased the likelihood of cardiovascular events and death in obese patients with T2DM 25. In China, randomized controlled clinical trials have been conducted to investigate the effect of metformin and sulfonylureas on recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with T2DM combined with coronary heart disease, and the results showed that metformin treatment was correlated with a significant reduction of major cardiovascular events. Metformin alone did not cause hypoglycaemia, but the combination of metformin and insulin or insulin secretagogues increased the risk of hypoglycaemia. The main side effect of metformin was gastrointestinal reactions. Starting with a small dose and gradually increasing the dosage was an effective way to reduce adverse reactions. The efficacy of metformin was unaffected by body weight 52. The relationship between biguanides and lactic acidosis risk is uncertain 53. Biguanides are contraindicated in patients with renal insufficiency [serum creatinine >132.6 µmol/L (1.5 mg/dL) for men, >123.8 µmol/L (1.4 mg/dL) for women or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <45 mL/min], liver dysfunction, serious infections, hypoxia or those undergoing major surgery. Metformin should be temporarily discontinued for patients undergoing angiography with iodinated contrast agents. Sulfonylureas Sulfonylureas are insulin secretagogues, and their main pharmacological effect is increasing the insulin level by stimulating insulin secretion from pancreatic β‐cells, therefore lowers the blood glucose level 54. Clinical trials have shown that sulfonylureas can reduce HbA1c by 1.0–1.5% 55. At present, sulfonylureas are the primary medications recommended in the diabetes treatment guidelines of many countries and international organizations. Prospective and randomized clinical studies have shown that the use of sulfonylureas was correlated with reduced risks of diabetic microvascular and macrovascular diseases 28. Currently, the main commercially available sulfonylureas in China are glyburide, glimepiride, gliclazide, glipizide and gliquidone. Sulfonylureas, if used improperly, can lead to hypoglycaemia, particularly in elderly patients and in those with liver and kidney dysfunctions; sulfonylureas may also cause weight gain. Patients with mild renal insufficiency should use gliquidone. Patients who exhibit poor compliance can take sulfonylurea drugs once a day. Xiao Ke Wan is a fixed dose combination drug containing glibenclamide and various traditional Chinese medicines (TCM) that have a antihyperglycaemic effect similar to that of glyburide. Compared with glyburide, Xiao Ke Wan carries a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and yields a more pronounced improvement of diabetes‐related TCM symptoms 56. TZDs Thiazolidinediones decrease blood glucose primarily by increasing the target cells' sensitivity to the action of insulin. Currently, the main commercially available TZDs in China are rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. Clinical trials have shown that TZDs can decrease HbA1c by 1.0–1.5% 55. Thiazolidinediones do not cause hypoglycaemia when used alone, but they may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia when used in combination with insulin or insulin secretagogues. Weight gain and oedema are common side effects of TZDs, and these side effects are more remarkable when TZDs are used in combination with insulin. TZD use has been correlated with increase risk of fractures and heart failure 57. Patients with heart failure (New York Heart Association heart function classification class II and above), active liver disease, transaminase elevations exceeding 2.5 times the upper limit of normal, and severe osteoporosis and fractures should not take TZDs. Glinides Glinides are non‐sulfonylurea insulin secretagogues. The currently available glinides in China are repaglinide, nateglinide and mitiglinide. This class of medications reduces postprandial blood glucose by stimulating insulin secretion in the early phase, and they can lower HbA1c by 0.5–1.5% 55. These medications must be taken immediately before a meal and can be used separately or in combination with other anti‐diabetic medications (except sulfonylurea). The systematic reviews of clinical studies conducted on T2DM patients in China showed that in terms of reducing HbA1c, repaglinide was superior to placebo and sulfonylureas and was equivalent to α‐glucosidase inhibitors, nateglinide, metformin and TZDs. A systematic review of clinical studies of Asian populations with T2DM, including Chinese people, showed that in terms of reducing HbA1c, nateglinide worked better than α‐glucosidase inhibitors and was similar to sulfonylureas, repaglinide and mitiglinide 58. For newly diagnosed T2DM patients, combination therapy using repaglinide with metformin reduced HbA1c more significantly than repaglinide alone but with a significantly increased risk of hypoglycaemia 59. Common side effects of glinides are hypoglycaemia and weight gain, but the risk and degree of hypoglycaemia are lower with glinides than with sulfonylureas. Glinides can be used in patients with renal insufficiency. α‐Glucosidase inhibitors α‐Glucosidase inhibitors reduce postprandial blood glucose by inhibiting carbohydrate absorption in the upper small intestine. They are suitable for patients who consume carbohydrates as their main food ingredient and experience postprandial hyperglycaemia. In China, commercially listed α‐glucosidase inhibitors include acarbose, voglibose and miglitol. Systematic reviews of clinical studies conducted on the T2DM population, including Chinese patients, showed that α‐glucosidase inhibitors could reduce HbA1c by 0.50% and cause weight loss 60. Clinical studies of Chinese people with T2DM showed that the hypoglycaemic effect of a daily dose of 300 mg of acarbose was equivalent to that of a daily dose of 1500 mg of metformin 61. α‐Glucosidase inhibitors can be combined with biguanides, sulfonylureas, TZDs or insulin. Common adverse reactions to α‐glucosidase inhibitors are gastrointestinal reactions, such as abdominal distension and flatulence. Starting with a small dose and gradually increasing the dosage are effective way to reduce adverse effects. The use of this class alone usually does not lead to hypoglycaemia and may reduce the risk of preprandial reactive hypoglycaemia; no adjustments in medication dosage and frequency are necessary for elderly patients, no increase in the incidence of hypoglycaemia occurs and this medication is well tolerated. When patients using combination therapy with α‐glucosidase inhibitors manifest hypoglycaemia, glucose or honey can be used as treatments; dietary sucrose and starchy foods have a poor ability to correct hypoglycaemia. DPP‐4 inhibitors Dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP‐4) inhibitors enhance endogenous levels of GLP‐1 by reducing the deactivation of GLP‐1 in vivo through inhibition of DPP‐4. GLP‐1 enhances insulin secretion in a glucose concentration‐dependent manner and inhibits glucagon secretion. Currently, the commercially available DPP‐4 inhibitors in China include sitagliptin, saxagliptin, vildagliptin, linagliptin and alogliptin. Clinical trials in T2DM patients in China showed that sitagliptin, saxagliptin and vildagliptin can reduce HbA1c by 0.70–0.90%, 0.40–0.50% and 0.50%, respectively 62, 63, 64; a comparison study showed that the HbA1c‐lowering effect of vildagliptin was similar to that of acarbose 64 and that linagliptin and alogliptin can reduce HbA1c by 0.68% and 0.57–0.68%, respectively. Notably, the HbA1c‐lowering extent of DPP‐4 inhibitors is related to the patient's baseline HbA1c level, that is, the higher the baseline HbA1c level, the much it will be reduced by DPP‐4 inhibitors. The use of DPP‐4 inhibitors alone does not increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. DPP‐4 inhibitors have a neutral effect on body weight or may increase it. Saxagliptin, alogliptin and sitagliptin do not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. When sitagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin or vildagliptin is prescribed for patients with renal dysfunction, the dosage must be reduced according to the instructions of medication. When using linagliptin in patients with liver or renal insufficiency, dosage adjustments are unnecessary. GLP‐1 receptor agonists Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists reduce blood glucose by activating GLP‐1 receptors. They enhance insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion in a glucose concentration‐dependent manner and can delay gastric emptying, thus reducing food intake via central appetite suppression. Currently, in the Chinese domestic market, the available GLP‐1 receptor agonists are exenatide and liraglutide, both require subcutaneous injection. GLP‐1 receptor agonists effectively lower blood glucose; and also significantly reduce body weight and improve triglycerides and blood pressure. GLP‐1 receptor agonists alone do not significantly increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. Clinical trials of patients with T2DM, including Chinese patients, showed that the HbA1c‐lowering effect of liraglutide was similar to that of glimepiride, leading to a body weight loss of 1.8–2.4 kg and a decrease in systolic blood pressure of approximately 3 mmHg 65; additionally, exenatide reduced HbA1c by 0.8% and body weight by 1.6–3.6 kg 66. GLP‐1 receptor agonists may be used alone or in combination with other oral antihyperglycaemic agents. A number of clinical studies have shown that when used after the failure of an oral antihyperglycaemic agent (metformin or sulfonylurea), GLP‐1 receptor agonists showed better efficacy than the active control drug 67. Common side effects of GLP‐1 receptor agonists are gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g. nausea and vomiting), which occur mainly in the initial stage of treatment and gradually diminish with treatment time increased. Insulin Initial treatment with insulin Basal insulin or premixed insulin can be used to initiate insulin therapy. Short‐term intensive insulin therapy programme for newly diagnosed T2DM patients. For newly diagnosed T2DM patients with HbA1c >9.0% or FPG >11.1 mmol/L and with hyperglycaemic symptoms, short‐term intensive insulin therapy may be implemented 68, 69, 70, 71. The appropriate treatment duration is 2 weeks–3 months, with a therapeutic target of 3.9–7.2 mmol/L for fasting blood glucose and ≤10.0 mmol/L for non‐fasting blood glucose, without considering the HbA1c target as treatment objective. Intensive insulin therapy should be combined with medical nutrition, exercise therapy and diabetes education. Intensive insulin treatment regimen include a basal‐prandial insulin regimen [multiple subcutaneous insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)] or premixed insulin injections two or three times a day. For patients who fail to achieve treatment goals after short‐term intensive insulin therapy, the decision to continue insulin therapy or to switch to another medication should be based on the patient‐specific conditions as determined by a diabetes specialist. For patients have reached the therapy target, regular (e.g. every 3 months) follow‐up monitoring should be planned; if blood glucose increases again (i.e. FPG >7.0 mmol/L or 2‐h PG >10.0 mmol/L), the medication should be re‐initiated. Intensive insulin therapy programme Multiple subcutaneous insulin injections CSII CSII is a form of intensive insulin therapy delivered via an insulin pump. The main appropriate populations are T1DM patients, women with diabetes who are pregnant or expect to become pregnant, pregnant women who require insulin therapy and patients with T2DM who require intensive insulin therapy. The insulin treatment paths are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 Insulin treatment paths for T2DM. HbA1c, glycated haemoglobin; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; CSII, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion Hypoglycaemia During treatment, patients may experience hypoglycaemia, which may cause discomfort and can be life‐threatening. Hypoglycaemia poses a major obstacle to reaching the blood glucose target and warrants special attention. Bariatric surgery to treat T2DM Indications for bariatric surgery Patients with T2DM who are 18 to 60 years old are generally in good condition, have a low surgical risk and are difficult to control the disease or concomitant diseases (HbA1c >7.0%) after lifestyle interventions and various drug treatments and who meet the following conditions may consider bariatric surgery. Indications: gastrointestinal bariatric surgery is feasible if the patient has a BMI ≥32 kg/m2 with or without diabetic complications. Precautions: bariatric surgery could be considered with caution for T2DM patients with a BMI of 28–32 kg/m2, particularly in the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors. Not recommended: patients with a BMI 25–28 kg/m2, with diabetic complications and central obesity (waist circumference >90 cm in men and >85 cm in women) and at least two additional metabolic syndrome components: high triglycerides, low HDL‐C and high blood pressure. Surgery should be conducted in strict accordance with study protocol with the patient's informed consent. The operation should be regarded as pure for clinical research and must be approved by the Medical Ethics Committee in advance; currently, evidence is insufficient, and surgery is not recommended as a clinical routine treatment. Contraindications for bariatric surgery Patients abuse drugs, addict to alcohol or have a mental illness that is difficult to control, and who are lack the ability to understand the risks, benefits and expected consequences of bariatric surgery. Patients with confirmed, diagnosed T1DM. T2DM patients who have a clear failure of pancreatic β‐cell function. Contraindications for surgery. BMI <25 kg/m2. GDM and other specific types of diabetes. Chronic complications of diabetes Diabetic nephropathy Approximately 20–40% of diabetic patients suffer from diabetic nephropathy, which is the main cause of renal failure in diabetes patients 72, 73. Diagnosis Diagnosis of diabetic nephropathy: T1DM‐induced renal damage is divided into five stages, which are also used for T2DM‐induced renal damage: stage I, elevated glomerular filtration rate and increased renal size; stage II, intermittent microalbuminuria; stage III, early diabetic nephropathy with persistent microalbuminuria; stage IV, clinical diabetic nephropathy with overt albuminuria; and stage V, renal failure. Diabetic nephropathy is an important type of chronic kidney disease; for diabetic nephropathy patients, the eGFR should be calculated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation or the Cockcroft–Gault formula (Table 5) 74, 75, 76, 77. Table 5 Stages of renal function in CKD CKD stage Feature description eGFR [mL/(min · 1.73 m2)] 1 Increased GFR or normal GFR with kidney damagea ≥90 2 Slightly decreased GFR with kidney damagea 60–89 3 3a Mild to moderate GFR decrease 45–59 3b Moderate to severe GFR decrease 30–44 4 Severe GFR decrease 15–29 5 Kidney failure <15 or dialysis CKD, chronic kidney disease; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; GFR, glomerular filtration rate. a Kidney injury is defined as an abnormality in pathological, urine, blood or imaging examinations. Treatment Lifestyle changes: reasonable weight control, diabetic diet, smoking cessation, proper exercise and so on Low‐protein diet. Control blood glucose. Control blood pressure. Correct dyslipidemia. Control proteinuria: starting from the early stages of diabetic nephropathy (microalbuminuria) with or without hypertension, renin‐angiotensin system inhibitors (angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor antagonist drugs) are the preferred drugs for reducing urinary albumin 78, 79, 80. Because these drugs may also lead to a short‐term decline in the GFR in the first 1–2 weeks, serum creatinine and potassium concentrations must be monitored. Renin‐angiotensin system inhibitors are not recommended for patients with serum creatinine levels >265.2 µmol/L (3 mg/dL). Dialysis therapy and transplantation: when the eGFR is less than 60 mL/(min · 1.73 m2), the potential complications of chronic kidney disease should be assessed and treated. Diabetic patients with kidney failure who require dialysis or transplant treatments should undergo these procedures as soon as possible. Generally, when the GFR drops to 15–20 mL/min or the serum creatinine level is higher than 442 µmol/L (5 mg/dL), dialysis, either peritoneal dialysis or haemodialysis, should be prepared. When conditions permit, a kidney or pancreas‐kidney transplant could be performed. Diabetic retinopathy Diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of new onset blindness among adults aged 20–74 years. Screening Patients with non‐proliferative diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema may have no obvious clinical symptoms; therefore, in terms of preventive treatment, regular fundus examinations are particularly important. Follow‐up frequency: diabetic patients without retinopathy are recommended to undergo follow‐up check‐up once every 1–2 years; patients with mild retinopathy should be checked once a year, and patients with severe retinopathy should be checked once every 3–6 months. The frequency of check‐up should be increased for pregnant women. Diagnosis Diabetic retinopathy is graded according to the observable indicators after dilation under ophthalmoscope. The international clinical grading standard for diabetic retinopathy is shown in Table 6. Table 6 International clinical grading standard for diabetic retinopathy (2002) Disease severity Observation after dilation under ophthalmoscope No obvious diabetic retinopathy No abnormality NPDR Mild Diabetic microaneurysm only Moderate Diabetic microaneurysm with mild or moderate NPDR Severe Any of the following, but without PDR 1. More than 20 intraretinal haemorrhages in any one quadrant 2. Retinal venous beading in two or more quadrants 3. Intraretinal microvascular abnormalities in one or more quadrants Proliferative diabetic retinopathy One or more of the following: new vessels at the optic disc, vitreous haemorrhage or preretinal haemorrhage NPDR, non‐proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Treatment Good control of blood glucose, blood pressure and lipids may prevent or delay the progression of diabetic retinopathy 81, 82. Patients with sudden blindness or retinal detachment require an immediate referral to an ophthalmologist; diabetic patients with any degree of macular oedema, severe non‐proliferative diabetic retinopathy or any proliferative diabetic retinopathy should be referred to an ophthalmologist with extensive experience in diagnosing and treating diabetic retinopathy. Laser photocoagulation therapy may reduce high‐risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy, clinically significant macular oedema and the risk of blindness in some patients with severe non‐proliferative diabetic retinopathy 83. Anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy may be used to treat patients with diabetic macular oedema 84. Retinopathy is not a contraindication for aspirin therapy; aspirin therapy does not increase the risk of retinal haemorrhage. Fenofibrate may slow the progression of diabetic retinopathy and decrease the need for laser treatment. Diabetic neuropathy Diabetic neuropathy is one of the most common chronic complications of diabetes. Neuropathy may affect the central nervous system or, more commonly, the peripheral nerves 85. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy refers to peripheral nerve dysfunction‐related symptoms or signs in diabetic patients that cannot be attributed to other causes. Distal symmetric polyneuropathy is a typical diabetic neuropathy. The diagnosis of other asymptomatic diabetic neuropathies relies on the screening of clinical signs or electrophysiological examination 86. Prevention (1) General treatment: good blood glucose control, correction of dyslipidemia and hypertension control. (2) Regular disease screening and evaluation: all patients should undergo screening for diabetic peripheral neuropathy at least once a year after the diagnosis of diabetes. For patients with a long course of diabetes or microvascular complications, such as retinopathy and nephropathy, check‐up should occur every 3–6 months. (3) Increased foot care: patients suffering from peripheral neuropathy should receive education about foot care to reduce the incidence of foot ulcers 87. Etiological therapy (1) Glycaemic control. (2) Nerve repair: commonly used medications, such as methylcobalamin and growth factors, may be useful. (3) Anti‐oxidative stress: commonly used medications, such as lipoic acid, may be useful. (4) Improved microcirculation: commonly used medications include prostaglandin E1, beraprost natriuretic peptide, cilostazol, pentoxifylline, pancreatic kallikrein, calcium antagonists and blood circulation‐promoting TCM 88. Symptomatic treatment Medications for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy include anticonvulsants (pregabalin, gabapentin, valproate and carbamazepine), antidepressants (duloxetine, amitriptyline, imipramine and citalopram), opioids (tramadol and oxycodone) and capsaicin 87, 88. Lower extremity vascular disease Lower extremity vascular disease mainly refers to peripheral artery disease; although it is not a complication specific to diabetes, the risk of peripheral artery disease in patients with diabetes significantly increases compared with patients without diabetes. In addition, patients with diabetes also have an earlier age of onset and increased severity of lower extremity vascular disease, as well as more extensive pathology and worse prognoses 82. Lower extremity arterial disease Lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD) is a component of peripheral artery disease that manifests as lower extremity arterial stenosis or occlusion. Screening for diabetic LEAD For diabetes patients over age of 50 years, LEAD screening should be conducted routinely 89, 90. For diabetes patients with LEAD‐associated risk factors (e.g. cardiovascular disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking or a diabetes duration of more than 5 years) should be screened at least once a year. For diabetes patients with foot ulcers and gangrene, regardless of their age, a comprehensive examination and evaluation of arterial disease should be conducted. Diagnosis of diabetic LEAD (1) If the patient has a resting ABI ≤0.90, regardless of the presence of lower limb discomfort, a LEAD diagnosis should be considered. (2) For a patient who experiences discomfort upon moving and has a resting ABI ≥0.90: if ABI decreases by 15–20% after a treadmill test, a LEAD diagnosis should be considered; (3) if the patient has a resting ABI <0.40, or ankle arterial pressure <50 mmHg or toe arterial pressure <30 mmHg, a critical limb ischaemia diagnosis should be considered. Treatment of diabetic LEAD The therapeutic approach to LEAD includes the prevention of systemic atherosclerotic disease progression, the prevention of cardiovascular events, the prevention of ischaemic‐induced ulcers and gangrene, the prevention of amputation or the reduction of the amputation level and the improvement of the functional status of patients with intermittent claudication. Therefore, the standard treatment for diabetic LEAD consists of three parts: primary prevention (to prevent or delay the occurrence of LEAD), secondary prevention (to relieve symptoms and delay LEAD progression) and tertiary prevention (to promote revascularization and reduce amputation and cardiovascular events). Prevention and treatment of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases in patients with T2DM Diabetes is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Patients with diabetes have 2–4 times higher risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases 91, 92, 93 compared with patients without diabetes. FPG and postprandial hyperglycaemia are correlated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, even when they do not reach the diagnostic criteria for diabetes. Diabetic patients often present important risk factors for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, such as dyslipidemia and hypertension 94, 95. Clinical evidence suggests that strict glycaemic control in patients with T2DM has a limited effect on reducing the risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and death from those causes, particularly among patients with a longer disease duration, who are older, and who have a history of cardiovascular diseases or multiple cardiovascular risk factors 38. However, the comprehensive management of multiple risk factors can significantly decrease the risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and death from those causes in patients with diabetes. Therefore, the prevention of diabetic vascular diseases requires the comprehensive assessment and control of cardiovascular disease risk factors (e.g. high blood glucose, hypertension and dyslipidemia) and appropriate antiplatelet therapy. At present, the incidence of cardiovascular risk factors is high among T2DM patients in China, and they are insufficiently controlled. Among outpatients with T2DM, only 5.6% achieved all triple therapeutic goals for HbA1c, blood pressure, and total cholesterol 96. The use of aspirin has also been low. Clinically, more active screening and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors and an increased rate of aspirin therapy are recommended. The clinical decision‐making paths for screening and the lipid‐lowering, antihypertensive and antiplatelet treatments for patients with T2DM are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 The clinical decision‐making paths for screening and the standard lipid‐lowering, antihypertensive and antiplatelet treatments for patients with T2DM. ACEI, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin II receptor antagonist; LDL‐C, low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol Metabolic syndrome Diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome According to an epidemiological analysis of metabolic syndrome in the current Chinese population, this guideline has revised the quantitative indicators of the metabolic syndrome components based on the CDS's 2004 recommendations 97. The diagnostic criteria are as follows: (1) abdominal obesity: waist circumference: men ≥90 cm and women ≥85 cm, (2) high blood glucose: fasting blood glucose ≥6.l mmol/L or glucose at 2 h after glucose load ≥7.8 mmol/L and/or diabetes diagnosis and treatment, (3) high blood pressure: blood pressure ≥130/85 mmHg and/or diagnosed and on antihypertension therapy, (4) fasting TG ≥1.70 mmol/L and (5) fasting HDL‐C < l.04 mmol/L. Patients with three or more of the aforementioned characteristics are diagnosed with metabolic syndrome.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

          Diabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. Table 1 ADA evidence grading system for clinical practice recommendations Level of evidence Description A Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable, RCTs that are adequately powered, including: Evidence from a well-conducted multicenter trial Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis Compelling nonexperimental evidence, i.e., “all or none” rule developed by Center for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford Supportive evidence from well-conducted randomized controlled trials that are adequately powered, including: Evidence from a well-conducted trial at one or more institutions Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis B Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies Evidence from a well-conducted prospective cohort study or registry Evidence from a well-conducted meta-analysis of cohort studies Supportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control study C Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies Evidence from RCTs with one or more major or three or more minor methodological flaws that could invalidate the results Evidence from observational studies with high potential for bias (such as case series with comparison with historical controls) Evidence from case series or case reports Conflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting the recommendation E Expert consensus or clinical experience These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA's multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http://professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search.aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of ADA's Board of Directors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revision meeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional Practice Committee Members” table (see pg. S109). The American Diabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes. I. CLASSIFICATION AND DIAGNOSIS A. Classification The classification of diabetes includes four clinical classes: Type 1 diabetes (results from β-cell destruction, usually leading to absolute insulin deficiency) Type 2 diabetes (results from a progressive insulin secretory defect on the background of insulin resistance) Other specific types of diabetes due to other causes, e.g., genetic defects in β-cell function, genetic defects in insulin action, diseases of the exocrine pancreas (such as cystic fibrosis), and drug- or chemical-induced (such as in the treatment of HIV/AIDS or after organ transplantation) Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (diabetes diagnosed during pregnancy that is not clearly overt diabetes) Some patients cannot be clearly classified as having type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Clinical presentation and disease progression vary considerably in both types of diabetes. Occasionally, patients who otherwise have type 2 diabetes may present with ketoacidosis. Similarly, patients with type 1 may have a late onset and slow (but relentless) progression of disease despite having features of autoimmune disease. Such difficulties in diagnosis may occur in children, adolescents, and adults. The true diagnosis may become more obvious over time. B. Diagnosis of diabetes Recommendations. For decades, the diagnosis of diabetes was based on plasma glucose criteria, either the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or the 2-h value in the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) (5). In 2009, an International Expert Committee that included representatives of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) recommended the use of the A1C test to diagnose diabetes, with a threshold of ≥6.5% (6), and ADA adopted this criterion in 2010 (5). The diagnostic test should be performed using a method that is certified by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) and standardized or traceable to the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) reference assay. Point-of-care A1C assays, for which proficiency testing is not mandated, are not sufficiently accurate at this time to use for diagnostic purposes. Epidemiologic datasets show a similar relationship between A1C and risk of retinopathy as has been shown for the corresponding FPG and 2-h PG thresholds. The A1C has several advantages to the FPG and OGTT, including greater convenience (since fasting is not required), evidence to suggest greater preanalytical stability, and less day-to-day perturbations during periods of stress and illness. These advantages must be balanced by greater cost, the limited availability of A1C testing in certain regions of the developing world, and the incomplete correlation between A1C and average glucose in certain individuals. In addition, HbA1c levels may vary with patients’ race/ethnicity (7,8). Some have posited that glycation rates differ by race (with, for example, African Americans having higher rates of glycation), but this is controversial. A recent epidemiologic study found that, when matched for FPG, African Americans (with and without diabetes) indeed had higher A1C than whites, but also had higher levels of fructosamine and glycated albumin and lower levels of 1,5-anhydroglucitol, suggesting that their glycemic burden (particularly postprandially) may be higher (9). Epidemiologic studies forming the framework for recommending use of the A1C to diagnose diabetes have all been in adult populations. Whether the cut point would be the same to diagnose children with type 2 diabetes is an area of uncertainty (10). A1C inaccurately reflects glycemia with certain anemias and hemoglobinopathies. For patients with an abnormal hemoglobin but normal red cell turnover, such as sickle cell trait, an A1C assay without interference from abnormal hemoglobins should be used (an updated list is available at www.ngsp.org/npsp.org/interf.asp). For conditions with abnormal red cell turnover, such as pregnancy, recent blood loss or transfusion, or some anemias, the diagnosis of diabetes must employ glucose criteria exclusively. The established glucose criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes (FPG and 2-h PG) remain valid as well (Table 2). Just as there is less than 100% concordance between the FPG and 2-h PG tests, there is not perfect concordance between A1C and either glucose-based test. Analyses of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data indicate that, assuming universal screening of the undiagnosed, the A1C cut point of ≥6.5% identifies one-third fewer cases of undiagnosed diabetes than a fasting glucose cut point of ≥126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L) (11). However, in practice, a large portion of the diabetic population remains unaware of their condition. Thus, the lower sensitivity of A1C at the designated cut point may well be offset by the test's greater practicality, and wider application of a more convenient test (A1C) may actually increase the number of diagnoses made. Table 2 Criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes As with most diagnostic tests, a test result diagnostic of diabetes should be repeated to rule out laboratory error, unless the diagnosis is clear on clinical grounds, such as a patient with a hyperglycemic crisis or classic symptoms of hyperglycemia and a random plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dL. It is preferable that the same test be repeated for confirmation, since there will be a greater likelihood of concurrence in this case. For example, if the A1C is 7.0% and a repeat result is 6.8%, the diagnosis of diabetes is confirmed. However, if two different tests (such as A1C and FPG) are both above the diagnostic thresholds, the diagnosis of diabetes is also confirmed. On the other hand, if two different tests are available in an individual and the results are discordant, the test whose result is above the diagnostic cut point should be repeated, and the diagnosis is made on the basis of the confirmed test. That is, if a patient meets the diabetes criterion of the A1C (two results ≥6.5%) but not the FPG ( 6.0%, who should be considered to be at very high risk. Table 3 summarizes the categories of increased risk for diabetes. Table 3 Categories of increased risk for diabetes (prediabetes)* II. TESTING FOR DIABETES IN ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS Recommendations. Testing to detect type 2 diabetes and assess risk for future diabetes in asymptomatic people should be considered in adults of any age who are overweight or obese (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) and who have one or more additional risk factors for diabetes (Table 4). In those without these risk factors, testing should begin at age 45 years. (B) If tests are normal, repeat testing at least at 3-year intervals is reasonable. (E) To test for diabetes or to assess risk of future diabetes, the A1C, FPG, or 2-h 75-g OGTT are appropriate. (B) In those identified with increased risk for future diabetes, identify and, if appropriate, treat other CVD risk factors. (B) Table 4 Criteria for testing for diabetes in asymptomatic adult individuals 1. Testing should be considered in all adults who are overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2 *) and who have one or more additional risk factors: physical inactivity first-degree relative with diabetes high-risk race/ethnicity (e.g., African American, Latino, Native American, Asian American, Pacific Islander) women who delivered a baby weighing >9 lb or who were diagnosed with GDM hypertension (blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg or on therapy for hypertension) HDL cholesterol level 250 mg/dL (2.82 mmol/L) women with PCOS A1C ≥5.7%, IGT, or IFG on previous testing other clinical conditions associated with insulin resistance (e.g., severe obesity, acanthosis nigricans) history of CVD 2. In the absence of the above criteria, testing for diabetes should begin at age 45 years 3. If results are normal, testing should be repeated at least at 3-year intervals, with consideration of more-frequent testing depending on initial results (e.g., those with prediabetes should be tested yearly) and risk status. * At-risk BMI may be lower in some ethnic groups. PCOS, polycystic ovary syndrome. For many illnesses, there is a major distinction between screening and diagnostic testing. However, for diabetes, the same tests would be used for “screening” as for diagnosis. Diabetes may be identified anywhere along a spectrum of clinical scenarios ranging from a seemingly low-risk individual who happens to have glucose testing, to a higher-risk individual whom the provider tests because of high suspicion of diabetes, to the symptomatic patient. The discussion herein is primarily framed as testing for diabetes in those without symptoms. The same assays used for testing for diabetes will also detect individuals with prediabetes. A. Testing for type 2 diabetes and risk of future diabetes in adults Prediabetes and diabetes meet established criteria for conditions in which early detection is appropriate. Both conditions are common, increasing in prevalence, and impose significant public health burdens. There is a long presymptomatic phase before the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is usually made. Relatively simple tests are available to detect preclinical disease. Additionally, the duration of glycemic burden is a strong predictor of adverse outcomes, and effective interventions exist to prevent progression of prediabetes to diabetes (see section IV. PREVENTION/DELAY OF TYPE 2 DIABETES) and to reduce risk of complications of diabetes (see section V.I. PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF DIABETES COMPLICATIONS). Type 2 diabetes is frequently not diagnosed until complications appear, and approximately one-fourth of all people with diabetes in the U.S. may be undiagnosed. The effectiveness of early identification of prediabetes and diabetes through mass testing of asymptomatic individuals has not been proven definitively, and rigorous trials to provide such proof are unlikely to occur. In a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Europe, general practice patients between the ages of 40 and 69 years were screened for diabetes and then randomized by practice to routine care of diabetes or intensive treatment of multiple risk factors. After 5.3 years of follow-up, CVD risk factors were modestly but significantly more improved with intensive treatment. Incidence of first CVD event and mortality rates were not significantly different between groups (16). This study would seem to add support for early treatment of screen-detected diabetes, as risk factor control was excellent even in the routine treatment arm and both groups had lower event rates than predicted. The absence of a control unscreened arm limits the ability to definitely prove that screening impacts outcomes. Mathematical modeling studies suggest that screening independent of risk factors beginning at age 30 or age 45 years is highly cost-effective ( 85th percentile for age and sex, weight for height >85th percentile, or weight >120% of ideal for height  Plus any two of the following risk factors: Family history of type 2 diabetes in first- or second-degree relative Race/ethnicity (Native American, African American, Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander) Signs of insulin resistance or conditions associated with insulin resistance (acanthosis nigricans, hypertension, dyslipidemia, PCOS, or birth weight small for gestational age birthweight) Maternal history of diabetes or GDM during the child's gestation  Age of initiation: 10 years or at onset of puberty, if puberty occurs at a younger age  Frequency: every 3 years PCOS, polycystic ovary syndrome C. Screening for type 1 diabetes Generally, people with type 1 diabetes present with acute symptoms of diabetes and markedly elevated blood glucose levels, and most cases are diagnosed soon after the onset of hyperglycemia. However, evidence from type 1 prevention studies suggests that measurement of islet autoantibodies identifies individuals who are at risk for developing type 1 diabetes. Such testing may be appropriate in high-risk individuals, such as those with prior transient hyperglycemia or those who have relatives with type 1 diabetes, in the context of clinical research studies (see, e.g., http://www2.diabetestrialnet.org). Widespread clinical testing of asymptomatic low-risk individuals cannot currently be recommended, as it would identify very few individuals in the general population who are at risk. Individuals who screen positive should be counseled about their risk of developing diabetes. Clinical studies are being conducted to test various methods of preventing type 1 diabetes, or reversing early type 1 diabetes, in those with evidence of autoimmunity. III. DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS OF GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS (GDM) Recommendations. Screen for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes at the first prenatal visit in those with risk factors, using standard diagnostic criteria. (B) In pregnant women not previously known to have diabetes, screen for GDM at 24–28 weeks’ gestation, using a 75-g 2-h OGTT and the diagnostic cut points in Table 6. (B) Screen women with GDM for persistent diabetes at 6–12 weeks’ postpartum, using a test other than A1C. (E) Women with a history of GDM should have lifelong screening for the development of diabetes or prediabetes at least every 3 years. (B) Women with a history of GDM found to have prediabetes should receive lifestyle interventions or metformin to prevent diabetes. (A) Table 6 Screening for and diagnosis of GDM Perform a 75-g OGTT, with plasma glucose measurement fasting and at 1 and 2 h, at 24–28 weeks’ gestation in women not previously diagnosed with overt diabetes. The OGTT should be performed in the morning after an overnight fast of at least 8 h. The diagnosis of GDM is made when any of the following plasma glucose values are exceeded: Fasting ≥92 mg/dL (5.1 mmol/L) 1 h ≥180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) 2 h ≥153 mg/dL (8.5 mmol/L) For many years, GDM was defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy (12), whether or not the condition persisted after pregnancy, and not excluding the possibility that unrecognized glucose intolerance may have antedated or begun concomitantly with the pregnancy. This definition facilitated a uniform strategy for detection and classification of GDM, but its limitations were recognized for many years. As the ongoing epidemic of obesity and diabetes has led to more type 2 diabetes in women of childbearing age, the number of pregnant women with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes has increased (31). Because of this, it is reasonable to screen women with risk factors for type 2 diabetes (Table 4) for diabetes at their initial prenatal visit, using standard diagnostic criteria (Table 2). Women found to have diabetes at this visit should receive a diagnosis of overt, not gestational, diabetes. GDM carries risks for the mother and neonate. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study (32), a large-scale (∼25,000 pregnant women) multinational epidemiologic study, demonstrated that risk of adverse maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes continuously increased as a function of maternal glycemia at 24–28 weeks, even within ranges previously considered normal for pregnancy. For most complications, there was no threshold for risk. These results have led to careful reconsideration of the diagnostic criteria for GDM. After deliberations in 2008–2009, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG), an international consensus group with representatives from multiple obstetrical and diabetes organizations, including ADA, developed revised recommendations for diagnosing GDM. The group recommended that all women not known to have prior diabetes undergo a 75-g OGTT at 24–28 weeks of gestation. Additionally, the group developed diagnostic cut points for the fasting, 1-h, and 2-h plasma glucose measurements that conveyed an odds ratio for adverse outcomes of at least 1.75 compared with women with the mean glucose levels in the HAPO study. Current screening and diagnostic strategies, based on the IADPSG statement (33), are outlined in Table 6. These new criteria will significantly increase the prevalence of GDM, primarily because only one abnormal value, not two, is sufficient to make the diagnosis. ADA recognizes the anticipated significant increase in the incidence of GDM diagnosed by these criteria and is sensitive to concerns about the “medicalization” of pregnancies previously categorized as normal. These diagnostic criteria changes are being made in the context of worrisome worldwide increases in obesity and diabetes rates, with the intent of optimizing gestational outcomes for women and their babies. Admittedly, there are few data from randomized clinical trials regarding therapeutic interventions in women who will now be diagnosed with GDM based on only one blood glucose value above the specified cut points (in contrast to the older criteria that stipulated at least two abnormal values). However, there is emerging observational and retrospective evidence that women diagnosed with the new criteria (even if they would not have been diagnosed with older criteria) have increased rates of poor pregnancy outcomes similar to those of women with GDM by prior criteria (34,35). Expected benefits to these pregnancies and offspring is inferred from intervention trials that focused on women with more mild hyperglycemia than identified using older GDM diagnostic criteria and that found modest benefits (36,37). The frequency of follow-up and blood glucose monitoring for these women is not yet clear but likely to be less intensive than for women diagnosed by the older criteria. It is important to note that 80–90% of women in both of the mild GDM studies (whose glucose values overlapped with the thresholds recommended herein) could be managed with lifestyle therapy alone. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology announced in 2011 that they continue to recommend use of prior diagnostic criteria for GDM (38). Several other countries have adopted the new criteria, and a report from the WHO on this topic is pending at the time of the publication of these standards. Because some cases of GDM may represent preexisting undiagnosed type 2 diabetes, women with a history of GDM should be screened for diabetes 6–12 weeks’ postpartum, using nonpregnant OGTT criteria. Because of their prepartum treatment for hyperglycemia, use of the A1C for diagnosis of persistent diabetes at the postpartum visit is not recommended (39). Women with a history of GDM have a greatly increased subsequent risk for diabetes (40) and should be followed up with subsequent screening for the development of diabetes or prediabetes, as outlined in section II. TESTING FOR DIABETES IN ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS. Lifestyle interventions or metformin should be offered to women with a history of GDM who develop prediabetes, as discussed in section IV. PREVENTION/DELAY OF TYPE 2 DIABETES. IV. PREVENTION/DELAY OF TYPE 2 DIABETES Recommendations. Patients with IGT (A), IFG (E), or an A1C of 5.7–6.4% (E) should be referred to an effective ongoing support program targeting weight loss of 7% of body weight and increasing physical activity to at least 150 min per week of moderate activity such as walking. Follow-up counseling appears to be important for success. (B) Based on the cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention, such programs should be covered by third-party payers. (B) Metformin therapy for prevention of type 2 diabetes may be considered in those with IGT (A), IFG (E), or an A1C of 5.7–6.4% (E), especially for those with BMI >35 kg/m2, age 35 kg/m2 and type 2 diabetes, especially if the diabetes or associated comorbidities are difficult to control with lifestyle and pharmacologic therapy. (B) Patients with type 2 diabetes who have undergone bariatric surgery need life-long lifestyle support and medical monitoring. (B) Although small trials have shown glycemic benefit of bariatric surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes and BMI of 30–35 kg/m2, there is currently insufficient evidence to generally recommend surgery in patients with BMI 35 kg/m2. Bariatric surgery has been shown to lead to near- or complete normalization of glycemia in ∼55–95% of patients with type 2 diabetes, depending on the surgical procedure. A meta-analysis of studies of bariatric surgery involving 3,188 patients with diabetes reported that 78% had remission of diabetes (normalization of blood glucose levels in the absence of medications), and that the remission rates were sustained in studies that had follow-up exceeding 2 years (203). Remission rates tend to be lower with procedures that only constrict the stomach and higher with those that bypass portions of the small intestine. Additionally, there is a suggestion that intestinal bypass procedures may have glycemic effects that are independent of their effects on weight, perhaps involving the incretin axis. One RCT compared adjustable gastric banding to “best available” medical and lifestyle therapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes diagnosed less than 2 years before randomization and with BMI 30–40 kg/m2 (204). In this trial, 73% of surgically treated patients achieved “remission” of their diabetes, compared with 13% of those treated medically. The latter group lost only 1.7% of body weight, suggesting that their therapy was not optimal. Overall the trial had 60 subjects, and only 13 had a BMI 64 years of age previously immunized when they were 5 years ago. Other indications for repeat vaccination include nephrotic syndrome, chronic renal disease, and other immunocompromised states, such as after transplantation. (C) Administer hepatitis B vaccination to adults with diabetes as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. (C) Influenza and pneumonia are common, preventable infectious diseases associated with high mortality and morbidity in the elderly and in people with chronic diseases. Though there are limited studies reporting the morbidity and mortality of influenza and pneumococcal pneumonia specifically in people with diabetes, observational studies of patients with a variety of chronic illnesses, including diabetes, show that these conditions are associated with an increase in hospitalizations for influenza and its complications. People with diabetes may be at increased risk of the bacteremic form of pneumococcal infection and have been reported to have a high risk of nosocomial bacteremia, which has a mortality rate as high as 50% (213). Safe and effective vaccines are available that can greatly reduce the risk of serious complications from these diseases (214,215). In a case-control series, influenza vaccine was shown to reduce diabetes-related hospital admission by as much as 79% during flu epidemics (214). There is sufficient evidence to support that people with diabetes have appropriate serologic and clinical responses to these vaccinations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends influenza and pneumococcal vaccines for all individuals with diabetes (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/). At the time these standards went to press, the CDC was considering recommendations to immunize all or some adults with diabetes for hepatitis B. ADA awaits the final recommendations and will support them when they are released in 2012. VI. PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF DIABETES COMPLICATIONS A. CVD CVD is the major cause of morbidity and mortality for individuals with diabetes and the largest contributor to the direct and indirect costs of diabetes. The common conditions coexisting with type 2 diabetes (e.g., hypertension and dyslipidemia) are clear risk factors for CVD, and diabetes itself confers independent risk. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy of controlling individual cardiovascular risk factors in preventing or slowing CVD in people with diabetes. Large benefits are seen when multiple risk factors are addressed globally (216,217). There is evidence that measures of 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk among U.S. adults with diabetes have improved significantly over the past decade (218). 1. Hypertension/blood pressure control. Recommendations. Screening and diagnosis Blood pressure should be measured at every routine diabetes visit. Patients found to have systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 130mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥80 mmHg should have blood pressure confirmed on a separate day. Repeat SBP ≥130 mmHg or DBP ≥80 mmHg confirms a diagnosis of hypertension. (C) Goals A goal SBP 115/75 mmHg is associated with increased cardiovascular event rates and mortality in individuals with diabetes (219,222,223). Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the benefit (reduction of CHD events, stroke, and nephropathy) of lowering blood pressure to 140 mmHg. Treatment strategies. Although there are no well-controlled studies of diet and exercise in the treatment of hypertension in individuals with diabetes, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) study in nondiabetic individuals has shown antihypertensive effects similar to pharmacologic monotherapy. Lifestyle therapy consists of reducing sodium intake (to 50 mg/dL, and triglycerides 100 mg/dL or in those with multiple CVD risk factors. (E) In individuals without overt CVD, the primary goal is an LDL cholesterol 40 mg/dL (1.0 mmol/L) in men and >50 mg/dL (1.3 mmol/L) in women, are desirable. However, LDL cholesterol–targeted statin therapy remains the preferred strategy. (C) If targets are not reached on maximally tolerated doses of statins, combination therapy using statins and other lipid-lowering agents may be considered to achieve lipid targets but has not been evaluated in outcome studies for either CVD outcomes or safety. (E) Statin therapy is contraindicated in pregnancy. (B) Evidence for benefits of lipid-lowering therapy. Patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities, contributing to their high risk of CVD. For the past decade or more, multiple clinical trials demonstrated significant effects of pharmacologic (primarily statin) therapy on CVD outcomes in subjects with CHD and for primary CVD prevention (245). Subanalyses of diabetic subgroups of larger trials (246–250) and trials specifically in subjects with diabetes (251,252) showed significant primary and secondary prevention of CVD events +/− CHD deaths in diabetic populations. Similar to findings in nondiabetic subjects, reduction in “hard” CVD outcomes (CHD death and nonfatal MI) can be more clearly seen in diabetic subjects with high baseline CVD risk (known CVD and/or very high LDL cholesterol levels), but overall the benefits of statin therapy in people with diabetes at moderate or high risk for CVD are convincing. Low levels of HDL cholesterol, often associated with elevated triglyceride levels, are the most prevalent pattern of dyslipidemia in persons with type 2 diabetes. However, the evidence base for drugs that target these lipid fractions is significantly less robust than that for statin therapy (253). Nicotinic acid has been shown to reduce CVD outcomes (254), although the study was done in a nondiabetic cohort. Gemfibrozil has been shown to decrease rates of CVD events in subjects without diabetes (255,256) and in the diabetic subgroup of one of the larger trials (255). However, in a large trial specific to diabetic patients, fenofibrate failed to reduce overall cardiovascular outcomes (257). Dyslipidemia treatment and target lipid levels. For most patients with diabetes, the first priority of dyslipidemia therapy (unless severe hypertriglyceridemia is the immediate issue) is to lower LDL cholesterol to a target goal of 100 mg/dL, prescribing statin therapy to lower LDL cholesterol ∼30–40% from baseline is probably more effective than prescribing just enough to get LDL cholesterol slightly 10%). This includes most men >50 years of age or women >60 years of age who have at least one additional major risk factor (family history of CVD, hypertension, smoking, dyslipidemia, or albuminuria). (C) Aspirin should not be recommended for CVD prevention for adults with diabetes at low CVD risk (10-year CVD risk 1% per year, the number of CVD events prevented will be similar to or greater than the number of episodes of bleeding induced, although these complications do not have equal effects on long-term health (274). In 2010, a position statement of the ADA, AHA, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) updated prior joint recommendations for primary prevention (275). Low-dose (75–162 mg/day) aspirin use for primary prevention is reasonable for adults with diabetes and no previous history of vascular disease who are at increased CVD risk (10-year risk of CVD events >10%) and who are not at increased risk for bleeding. This generally includes most men over age 50 years and women over age 60 years who also have one or more of the following major risk factors: smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia,) family history of premature CVD, or albuminuria. However, aspirin is no longer recommended for those at low CVD risk (women under age 60 years and men under age 50 years with no major CVD risk factors; 10-year CVD risk 30 mg/g) to the normal or near-normal range may improve renal and cardiovascular prognosis, but this approach has not been formally evaluated in prospective trials. Complications of kidney disease correlate with level of kidney function. When the eGFR is 87% sensitivity in detecting DPN. Loss of 10-g monofilament perception and reduced vibration perception predict foot ulcers (335). Importantly, in patients with neuropathy, particularly when severe, causes other than diabetes should always be considered, such as neurotoxic mediations, heavy metal poisoning, alcohol abuse, vitamin B12 deficiency (especially in those taking metformin for prolonged periods (336), renal disease, chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy, inherited neuropathies, and vasculitis (337). Diabetic autonomic neuropathy (338) The symptoms and signs of autonomic dysfunction should be elicited carefully during the history and physical examination. Major clinical manifestations of diabetic autonomic neuropathy include resting tachycardia, exercise intolerance, orthostatic hypotension, constipation, gastroparesis, erectile dysfunction, sudomotor dysfunction, impaired neurovascular function, and potentially autonomic failure in response to hypoglycemia. Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN), a CVD risk factor (93), is the most studied and clinically important form of diabetic autonomic neuropathy. CAN may be indicated by resting tachycardia (>100 bpm) or orthostasis (a fall in SBP >20 mmHg upon standing without an appropriate heart rate response); it is also associated with increased cardiac event rates. Although some societies have developed guidelines for screening for CAN, the benefits of sophisticated testing beyond risk stratification are not clear (339). Gastrointestinal neuropathies (e.g., esophageal enteropathy, gastroparesis, constipation, diarrhea, fecal incontinence) are common, and any section of the gastrointestinal tract may be affected. Gastroparesis should be suspected in individuals with erratic glucose control or with upper gastrointestinal symptoms without other identified cause. Evaluation of solid-phase gastric emptying using double-isotope scintigraphy may be done if symptoms are suggestive, but test results often correlate poorly with symptoms. Constipation is the most common lower-gastrointestinal symptom but can alternate with episodes of diarrhea. Diabetic autonomic neuropathy is also associated with genitourinary tract disturbances. In men, diabetic autonomic neuropathy may cause erectile dysfunction and/or retrograde ejaculation. Evaluation of bladder dysfunction should be performed for individuals with diabetes who have recurrent urinary tract infections, pyelonephritis, incontinence, or a palpable bladder. Symptomatic treatments. DPN The first step in management of patients with DPN should be to aim for stable and optimal glycemic control. Although controlled trial evidence is lacking, several observational studies suggest that neuropathic symptoms improve not only with optimization of control, but also with the avoidance of extreme blood glucose fluctuations. Patients with painful DPN may benefit from pharmacological treatment of their symptoms; many agents have confirmed or probable efficacy confirmed in systematic reviews of RCTs (334), with several U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for the management of painful DPN. Autonomic neuropathy Gastroparesis symptoms may improve with dietary changes and prokinetic agents such as metoclopramide or erythromycin. Treatments for erectile dysfunction may include phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, intracorporeal or intraurethral prostaglandins, vacuum devices, or penile prostheses. Interventions for other manifestations of autonomic neuropathy are described in an ADA statement on neuropathy (335). As with DPN treatments, these interventions do not change the underlying pathology and natural history of the disease process, but may have a positive impact on the quality of life of the patient. E. Foot care Recommendations For all patients with diabetes, perform an annual comprehensive foot examination to identify risk factors predictive of ulcers and amputations. The foot examination should include inspection, assessment of foot pulses, and testing for loss of protective sensation (10-g monofilament plus testing any one of the following: vibration using 128-Hz tuning fork, pinprick sensation, ankle reflexes, or vibration perception threshold). (B) Provide general foot self-care education to all patients with diabetes. (B) A multidisciplinary approach is recommended for individuals with foot ulcers and high-risk feet, especially those with a history of prior ulcer or amputation. (B) Refer patients who smoke, have loss of protective sensation and structural abnormalities, or have history of prior lower-extremity complications to foot care specialists for ongoing preventive care and life-long surveillance. (C) Initial screening for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) should include a history for claudication and an assessment of the pedal pulses. Consider obtaining an ankle-brachial index (ABI), as many patients with PAD are asymptomatic. (C) Refer patients with significant claudication or a positive ABI for further vascular assessment and consider exercise, medications, and surgical options. (C) Amputation and foot ulceration, consequences of diabetic neuropathy and/or PAD, are common and major causes of morbidity and disability in people with diabetes. Early recognition and management of risk factors can prevent or delay adverse outcomes. The risk of ulcers or amputations is increased in people who have the following risk factors: Previous amputation Past foot ulcer history Peripheral neuropathy Foot deformity Peripheral vascular disease Visual impairment Diabetic nephropathy (especially patients on dialysis) Poor glycemic control Cigarette smoking Many studies have been published proposing a range of tests that might usefully identify patients at risk for foot ulceration, creating confusion among practitioners as to which screening tests should be adopted in clinical practice. An ADA task force was therefore assembled in 2008 to concisely summarize recent literature in this area and then recommend what should be included in the comprehensive foot exam for adult patients with diabetes. Their recommendations are summarized below, but clinicians should refer to the task force report (340) for further details and practical descriptions of how to perform components of the comprehensive foot examination. At least annually, all adults with diabetes should undergo a comprehensive foot examination to identify high risk conditions. Clinicians should ask about history of previous foot ulceration or amputation, neuropathic or peripheral vascular symptoms, impaired vision, tobacco use, and foot care practices. A general inspection of skin integrity and musculoskeletal deformities should be done in a well-lit room. Vascular assessment would include inspection and assessment of pedal pulses. The neurologic exam recommended is designed to identify loss of protective sensation (LOPS) rather than early neuropathy. The clinical examination to identify LOPS is simple and requires no expensive equipment. Five simple clinical tests (use of a 10-g monofilament, vibration testing using a 128-Hz tuning fork, tests of pinprick sensation, ankle reflex assessment, and testing vibration perception threshold with a biothesiometer), each with evidence from well-conducted prospective clinical cohort studies, are considered useful in the diagnosis of LOPS in the diabetic foot. The task force agrees that any of the five tests listed could be used by clinicians to identify LOPS, although ideally two of these should be regularly performed during the screening exam—normally the 10-g monofilament and one other test. One or more abnormal tests would suggest LOPS, while at least two normal tests (and no abnormal test) would rule out LOPS. The last test listed, vibration assessment using a biothesiometer or similar instrument, is widely used in the U.S.; however, identification of the patient with LOPS can easily be carried out without this or other expensive equipment. Initial screening for PAD should include a history for claudication and an assessment of the pedal pulses. A diagnostic ABI should be performed in any patient with symptoms of PAD. Due to the high estimated prevalence of PAD in patients with diabetes and the fact that many patients with PAD are asymptomatic, an ADA consensus statement on PAD (341) suggested that a screening ABI be performed in patients over 50 years of age and be considered in patients under 50 years of age who have other PAD risk factors (e.g., smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or duration of diabetes >10 years). Refer patients with significant symptoms or a positive ABI for further vascular assessment and consider exercise, medications, and surgical options (341). Patients with diabetes and high-risk foot conditions should be educated regarding their risk factors and appropriate management. Patients at risk should understand the implications of the loss of protective sensation, the importance of foot monitoring on a daily basis, the proper care of the foot, including nail and skin care, and the selection of appropriate footwear. Patients with loss of protective sensation should be educated on ways to substitute other sensory modalities (hand palpation, visual inspection) for surveillance of early foot problems. The patients’ understanding of these issues and their physical ability to conduct proper foot surveillance and care should be assessed. Patients with visual difficulties, physical constraints preventing movement, or cognitive problems that impair their ability to assess the condition of the foot and to institute appropriate responses will need other people, such as family members, to assist in their care. People with neuropathy or evidence of increased plantar pressure (e.g., erythema, warmth, callus, or measured pressure) may be adequately managed with well-fitted walking shoes or athletic shoes that cushion the feet and redistribute pressure. Callus can be debrided with a scalpel by a foot care specialist or other health professional with experience and training in foot care. People with bony deformities (e.g., hammertoes, prominent metatarsal heads, bunions) may need extra-wide or -depth shoes. People with extreme bony deformities (e.g., Charcot foot) who cannot be accommodated with commercial therapeutic footwear may need custom-molded shoes. Foot ulcers and wound care may require care by a podiatrist, orthopedic or vascular surgeon, or rehabilitation specialist experienced in the management of individuals with diabetes. VII. ASSESSMENT OF COMMON COMORBID CONDITIONS Recommendations For patients with risk factors, signs or symptoms, consider assessment and treatment for common diabetes-associated conditions (see Table 15). (B) Table 15 Common comorbidities for which increased risk is associated with diabetes Hearing impairment Obstructive sleep apnea Fatty liver disease Low testosterone in men Periodontal disease Certain cancers Fractures Cognitive impairment In addition to the commonly appreciated comorbidities of obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, diabetes is also associated with other diseases or conditions at rates higher than those of age-matched people without diabetes. A few of the more common comorbidities are described herein, and listed in Table 15. Hearing impairment Hearing impairment, both high frequency and low/mid frequency, is more common in people with diabetes, perhaps due to neuropathy and/or vascular disease. In an NHANES analysis, hearing impairment was about twice as great in people with diabetes than in those without diabetes, after adjusting for age and other risk factors for hearing impairment (342). Controlling for age, race, and other demographic factors, high-frequency loss in those with diabetes was significantly associated with history of CHD and with peripheral neuropathy, while low/mid frequency loss was associated with low HDL cholesterol and with poor reported health status (343). Obstructive sleep apnea Age-adjusted rates of obstructive sleep apnea, a risk factor for CVD, are significantly higher (4- to 10-fold) with obesity, especially with central obesity, in men and women (344). The prevalence in general populations with type 2 diabetes may be up to 23% (345) and in obese participants enrolled in the Look AHEAD trial exceeded 80% (346). Treatment of sleep apnea significantly improves quality of life and blood pressure control. The evidence for a treatment effect on glycemic control is mixed (347). Fatty liver disease Unexplained elevation of hepatic transaminase concentrations are significantly associated with higher BMI, waist circumference, triglycerides, and fasting insulin and with lower HDL cholesterol. Type 2 diabetes and hypertension are independently associated with transaminase elevations in women (348). In a prospective analysis, diabetes was significantly associated with incident nonalcoholic chronic liver disease and with hepatocellular carcinoma (349). Interventions that improve metabolic abnormalities in patients with diabetes (weight loss, glycemic control, treatment with specific drugs for hyperglycemia or dyslipidemia) are also beneficial for fatty liver disease (350). Low testosterone in men Mean levels of testosterone are lower in men with diabetes compared with age-matched men without diabetes, but obesity is a major confounder (351). The issue of treatment in asymptomatic men is controversial. The evidence for effects of testosterone replacement on outcomes is mixed, and recent guidelines suggest that screening and treatment of men without symptoms is not recommended (352). Periodontal disease Periodontal disease is more severe, but not necessarily more prevalent, in patients with diabetes than those without (353). Numerous studies have suggested associations with poor glycemic control, nephropathy, and CVD, but most studies are highly confounded. A comprehensive assessment, and treatment of identified disease, is indicated in patients with diabetes, but the evidence that periodontal disease treatment improves glycemic control is mixed. A meta-analysis reported a significant 0.47% improvement in A1C, but noted multiple problems with the quality of the published studies included in the analysis (354). Several high-quality RCTs have not shown a significant effect (355). Cancer Diabetes (possibly only type 2 diabetes) is associated with increased risk of cancers of the liver, pancreas, endometrium, colon/ rectum, breast, and bladder (356). The association may result from shared risk factors between type 2 diabetes and cancer (obesity, age, physical inactivity) but may also be due to hyperinsulinemia or hyperglycemia (356a). Patients with diabetes should be encouraged to undergo recommended age- and sex-appropriate cancer screenings and to reduce their modifiable cancer risk factors (obesity, smoking, physical inactivity). Fractures Age-matched hip fracture risk is significantly increased in both type 1 (summary RR 6.3) and type 2 diabetes (summary RR 1.7) in both sexes (357). Type 1 diabetes is associated with osteoporosis, but in type 2 diabetes an increased risk of hip fracture is seen despite higher bone mineral density (BMD) (358). One study showed that prevalent vertebral fractures were significantly more common in men and women with type 2 diabetes, but were not associated with BMD (359). In three large observational studies of older adults, femoral neck BMD T-score and the World Health Organization Fracture Risk Algorithm (FRAX) score were associated with hip and nonspine fracture, although fracture risk was higher in diabetic participants compared with participants without diabetes for a given T-score and age or for a given FRAX score risk (360). It is appropriate to assess fracture history and risk factors in older patients with diabetes and to recommend BMD testing if appropriate for the patient's age and sex. For at-risk patients, it is reasonable to consider standard primary or secondary prevention strategies (reduce risk factors for falls, ensure adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, and avoid use of medications that lower BMD, such as glucocorticoids) and to consider pharmacotherapy for high-risk patients. For patients with type 2 diabetes with fracture risk factors, avoidance of TZDs is warranted. Cognitive impairment Diabetes is associated with significantly increased risk of cognitive decline, a greater rate of cognitive decline, and increased risk of dementia (361,362). In a 15-year prospective study of a community-dwelling people over the age of 60 years, the presence of diabetes at baseline significantly increased the age- and sex-adjusted incidence of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer disease, and vascular dementia compared with rates in those with normal glucose tolerance (363). In a substudy of the ACCORD study, there were no differences in cognitive outcomes between intensive and standard glycemic control, although there was significantly less of a decrement in total brain volume by MRI in participants in the intensive arm (364). The effects of hyperglycemia and insulin on the brain are areas of intense research interest. VIII. DIABETES CARE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS A. Children and adolescents 1. Type 1 diabetes. Three-quarters of all cases of type 1 diabetes are diagnosed in individuals 130/80 mmHg, if 95% exceeds that value) should be considered as soon as the diagnosis is confirmed. (E) ACE inhibitors should be considered for the initial treatment of hypertension, following appropriate reproductive counseling due to its potential teratogenic effects. (E) The goal of treatment is a blood pressure consistently 2 years of age soon after diagnosis (after glucose control has been established). If family history is not of concern, then consider the first lipid screening at puberty (≥10 years of age). For children diagnosed with diabetes at or after puberty, consider obtaining a fasting lipid profile soon after diagnosis (after glucose control has been established). (E) For both age-groups, if lipids are abnormal, annual monitoring is reasonable. If LDL cholesterol values are within the accepted risk levels ( 160 mg/dL (4.1 mmol/L), or LDL cholesterol >130 mg/dL (3.4 mmol/L) and one or more CVD risk factors, is reasonable. (E) The goal of therapy is an LDL cholesterol value 1% above the normal range for a nondiabetic pregnant woman. Preconception care of diabetes appears to reduce the risk of congenital malformations. Five nonrandomized studies compared rates of major malformations in infants between women who participated in preconception diabetes care programs and women who initiated intensive diabetes management after they were already pregnant. The preconception care programs were multidisciplinary and designed to train patients in diabetes self-management with diet, intensified insulin therapy, and SMBG. Goals were set to achieve normal blood glucose concentrations, and >80% of subjects achieved normal A1C concentrations before they became pregnant. In all five studies, the incidence of major congenital malformations in women who participated in preconception care (range 1.0–1.7% of infants) was much lower than the incidence in women who did not participate (range 1.4–10.9% of infants) (94). One limitation of these studies is that participation in preconception care was self-selected rather than randomized. Thus, it is impossible to be certain that the lower malformation rates resulted fully from improved diabetes care. Nonetheless, the evidence supports the concept that malformations can be reduced or prevented by careful management of diabetes before pregnancy. Planned pregnancies greatly facilitate preconception diabetes care. Unfortunately, nearly two-thirds of pregnancies in women with diabetes are unplanned, leading to a persistent excess of malformations in infants of diabetic mothers. To minimize the occurrence of these devastating malformations, standard care for all women with diabetes who have child-bearing potential, beginning at the onset of puberty or at diagnosis, should include 1) education about the risk of malformations associated with unplanned pregnancies and poor metabolic control; and 2) use of effective contraception at all times, unless the patient has good metabolic control and is actively trying to conceive. Women contemplating pregnancy need to be seen frequently by a multidisciplinary team experienced in the management of diabetes before and during pregnancy. The goals of preconception care are to 1) involve and empower the patient in the management of her diabetes, 2) achieve the lowest A1C test results possible without excessive hypoglycemia, 3) assure effective contraception until stable and acceptable glycemia is achieved, and 4) identify, evaluate, and treat long-term diabetes complications such as retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, hypertension, and CHD (94). Among the drugs commonly used in the treatment of patients with diabetes, a number may be relatively or absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy. Statins are category X (contraindicated for use in pregnancy) and should be discontinued before conception, as should ACE inhibitors (402). ARBs are category C (risk cannot be ruled out) in the first trimester, but category D (positive evidence of risk) in later pregnancy, and should generally be discontinued before pregnancy. Since many pregnancies are unplanned, health care professionals caring for any woman of childbearing potential should consider the potential risks and benefits of medications that are contraindicated in pregnancy. Women using medications such as statins or ACE inhibitors need ongoing family planning counseling. Among the oral antidiabetic agents, metformin and acarbose are classified as category B (no evidence of risk in humans) and all others as category C. Potential risks and benefits of oral antidiabetic agents in the preconception period must be carefully weighed, recognizing that data are insufficient to establish the safety of these agents in pregnancy. For further discussion of preconception care, see the ADA consensus statement on preexisting diabetes and pregnancy (94) and also the position statement (403) on this subject. C. Older adults Recommendations Older adults who are functional, cognitively intact, and have significant life expectancy should receive diabetes care using goals developed for younger adults. (E) Glycemic goals for older adults not meeting the above criteria may be relaxed using individual criteria, but hyperglycemia leading to symptoms or risk of acute hyperglycemic complications should be avoided in all patients. (E) Other cardiovascular risk factors should be treated in older adults with consideration of the time frame of benefit and the individual patient. Treatment of hypertension is indicated in virtually all older adults, and lipid and aspirin therapy may benefit those with life expectancy at least equal to the time frame of primary or secondary prevention trials. (E) Screening for diabetes complications should be individualized in older adults, but particular attention should be paid to complications that would lead to functional impairment. (E) Diabetes is an important health condition for the aging population; at least 20% of patients over the age of 65 years have diabetes, and this number can be expected to grow rapidly in the coming decades. Older individuals with diabetes have higher rates of premature death, functional disability, and coexisting illnesses such as hypertension, CHD, and stroke than those without diabetes. Older adults with diabetes are also at greater risk than other older adults for several common geriatric syndromes, such as polypharmacy, depression, cognitive impairment, urinary incontinence, injurious falls, and persistent pain. The American Geriatric Society's guidelines for improving the care of the older person with diabetes (404) have influenced the following discussion and recommendations. The care of older adults with diabetes is complicated by their clinical and functional heterogeneity. Some older individuals developed diabetes years earlier and may have significant complications; others who are newly diagnosed may have had years of undiagnosed diabetes with resultant complications or may have few complications from the disease. Some older adults with diabetes are frail and have other underlying chronic conditions, substantial diabetes-related comorbidity, or limited physical or cognitive functioning. Other older individuals with diabetes have little comorbidity and are active. Life expectancies are highly variable for this population, but often longer than clinicians realize. Providers caring for older adults with diabetes must take this heterogeneity into consideration when setting and prioritizing treatment goals. There are few long-term studies in older adults demonstrating the benefits of intensive glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control. Patients who can be expected to live long enough to reap the benefits of long-term intensive diabetes management and who are active, have good cognitive function, and are willing should be provided with the needed education and skills to do so and be treated using the goals for younger adults with diabetes. For patients with advanced diabetes complications, life-limiting comorbid illness, or substantial cognitive or functional impairment, it is reasonable to set less intensive glycemic target goals. These patients are less likely to benefit from reducing the risk of microvascular complications and more likely to suffer serious adverse effects from hypoglycemia. However, patients with poorly controlled diabetes may be subject to acute complications of diabetes, including dehydration, poor wound healing, and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar coma. Glycemic goals at a minimum should avoid these consequences. Although control of hyperglycemia may be important in older individuals with diabetes, greater reductions in morbidity and mortality may result from control of other cardiovascular risk factors rather than from tight glycemic control alone. There is strong evidence from clinical trials of the value of treating hypertension in the elderly (405,406). There is less evidence for lipid-lowering and aspirin therapy, although the benefits of these interventions for primary and secondary prevention are likely to apply to older adults whose life expectancies equal or exceed the time frames seen in clinical trials. Special care is required in prescribing and monitoring pharmacologic therapy in older adults. Metformin is often contraindicated because of renal insufficiency or significant heart failure. TZDs can cause fluid retention, which may exacerbate or lead to heart failure. They are contraindicated in patients with CHF (New York Heart Association Class III and IV), and if used at all should be used very cautiously in those with, or at risk for, milder degrees of CHF. Sulfonylureas, other insulin secretagogues, and insulin can cause hypoglycemia. Insulin use requires that patients or caregivers have good visual and motor skills and cognitive ability. Drugs should be started at the lowest dose and titrated up gradually until targets are reached or side effects develop. Screening for diabetes complications in older adults also should be individualized. Particular attention should be paid to complications that can develop over short periods of time and/or that would significantly impair functional status, such as visual and lower extremity complications. D. Cystic fibrosis–related diabetes (CFRD) Recommendations Annual screening for CFRD with OGTT should begin by age 10 years in all patients with cystic fibrosis who do not have CFRD (B). Use of A1C as a screening test for CFRD is not recommended. (B) During a period of stable health the diagnosis of CFRD can be made in cystic fibrosis patients according to usual diagnostic criteria. (E) Patients with CFRD should be treated with insulin to attain individualized glycemic goals. (A) Annual monitoring for complications of diabetes is recommended, beginning 5 years after the diagnosis of CFRD. (E) CFRD is the most common comorbidity in persons with cystic fibrosis, occurring in about 20% of adolescents and 40–50% of adults. The additional diagnosis of diabetes in this population is associated with worse nutritional status, more severe inflammatory lung disease, and greater mortality from respiratory failure. Insulin insufficiency related to partial fibrotic destruction of the islet mass is the primary defect in CFRD. Genetically determined function of the remaining β-cells and insulin resistance associated with infection and inflammation may also play a role. Encouraging new data suggest that early detection and aggressive insulin therapy have narrowed the gap in mortality between cystic fibrosis patients with and without diabetes, and have eliminated the difference in mortality between the sexes (407). Recommendations for the clinical management of CFRD can be found in a recent ADA position statement on this topic (408). IX. DIABETES CARE IN SPECIFIC SETTINGS A. Diabetes care in the hospital Recommendations All patients with diabetes admitted to the hospital should have their diabetes clearly identified in the medical record. (E) All patients with diabetes should have an order for blood glucose monitoring, with results available to all members of the health care team. (E) Goals for blood glucose levels: ○ Critically ill patients: Insulin therapy should be initiated for treatment of persistent hyperglycemia starting at a threshold of no greater than 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L). Once insulin therapy is started, a glucose range of 140–180 mg/dL (7.8 to 10 mmol/L) is recommended for the majority of critically ill patients. (A) ○ More stringent goals, such as 110–140 mg/dL (6.1–7.8 mmol/L) may be appropriate for selected patients, as long as this can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia. (C) ○ Critically ill patients require an intravenous insulin protocol that has demonstrated efficacy and safety in achieving the desired glucose range without increasing risk for severe hypoglycemia. (E) ○ Non–critically ill patients: There is no clear evidence for specific blood glucose goals. If treated with insulin, premeal blood glucose targets generally 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L). Levels that are significantly and persistently above this may require treatment in hospitalized patients. A1C values >6.5% suggest, in undiagnosed patients, that diabetes preceded hospitalization (419). Hypoglycemia has been defined as any blood glucose <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L). This is the standard definition in outpatients and correlates with the initial threshold for the release of counterregulatory hormones. Severe hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients has been defined by many as <40 mg/dL (2.2 mmol/L), although this is lower than the ∼50 mg/dL (2.8 mmol/L) level at which cognitive impairment begins in normal individuals (420). As with hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia among inpatients is also associated with adverse short- and long-term outcomes. Early recognition and treatment of mild-to-moderate hypoglycemia (40–69 mg/dL (2.2–3.8 mmol/L) can prevent deterioration to a more severe episode with potential adverse sequelae (410). Critically ill patients. Based on the weight of the available evidence, for the majority of critically ill patients in the ICU setting, insulin infusion should be used to control hyperglycemia, with a starting threshold of no higher than 180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L). Once intravenous insulin is started, the glucose level should be maintained between 140 and 180 mg/dL (7.8–10.0 mmol/L). Greater benefit maybe realized at the lower end of this range. Although strong evidence is lacking, somewhat lower glucose targets may be appropriate in selected patients. However, targets <110 mg/dL (6.1 mmol/L) are not recommended. Use of insulin infusion protocols with demonstrated safety and efficacy, resulting in low rates of hypoglycemia, are highly recommended (410). Noncritically ill patients. With no prospective RCT data to inform specific glycemic targets in noncritically ill patients, recommendations are based on clinical experience and judgment. For the majority of noncritically ill patients treated with insulin, premeal glucose targets should generally be <140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L) with random blood glucose <180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L), as long as these targets can be safely achieved. To avoid hypoglycemia, consideration should be given to reassessing the insulin regimen if blood glucose levels fall <100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L). Modification of the regimen is required when blood glucose values are <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L), unless the event is easily explained by other factors (such as a missed meal). There is some evidence that systematic attention to hyperglycemia in the emergency room leads to better glycemic control in the hospital for those subsequently admitted (421). Occasional patients with a prior history of successful tight glycemic control in the outpatient setting who are clinically stable may be maintained with a glucose range below the above cut points. Conversely, higher glucose ranges may be acceptable in terminally ill patients or in patients with severe comorbidities, as well as in those in patient-care settings where frequent glucose monitoring or close nursing supervision is not feasible. Clinical judgment, combined with ongoing assessment of the patient's clinical status, including changes in the trajectory of glucose measures, the severity of illness, nutritional status, or concurrent use of medications that might affect glucose levels (e.g., steroids, octreotide), must be incorporated into the day-to-day decisions regarding insulin dosing (410). 2. Antihyperglycemic agents in hospitalized patients. In the hospital setting, insulin therapy is the preferred method of glycemic control in majority of clinical situations (410). In the ICU, intravenous infusion is the preferred route of insulin administration. When the patient is transitioned off intravenous insulin to subcutaneous therapy, precautions should be taken to prevent hyperglycemia escape (422,423). Outside of critical care units, scheduled subcutaneous insulin that delivers basal, nutritional, and correction (supplemental) components is preferred. Prolonged therapy with sliding scale insulin (SSI) as the sole regimen is ineffective in the majority of patients, increases risk of both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and has recently been shown in a randomized trial to be associated with adverse outcomes in general surgery patients with type 2 diabetes (424). SSI is potentially dangerous in type 1 diabetes (410). The reader is referred to several recent publications and reviews that describe currently available insulin preparations and protocols and provide guidance in use of insulin therapy in specific clinical settings including parenteral nutrition (425) and enteral tube feedings and with high-dose glucocorticoid therapy (410). There are no data on the safety and efficacy of oral agents and injectable noninsulin therapies such as GLP1 analogs and pramlintide in the hospital. They are generally considered to have a limited role in the management of hyperglycemia in conjunction with acute illness. Continuation of these agents may be appropriate in selected stable patients who are expected to consume meals at regular intervals, and they may be initiated or resumed in anticipation of discharge once the patient is clinically stable. Specific caution is required with metformin due to the possibility that a contraindication may develop during the hospitalization, such as renal insufficiency, unstable hemodynamic status, or need for an imaging study that requires a radio-contrast dye. 3. Preventing hypoglycemia. In the hospital, multiple risk factors for hypoglycemia are present. Patients with or without diabetes may experience hypoglycemia in the hospital in association with altered nutritional state, heart failure, renal or liver disease, malignancy, infection, or sepsis. Additional triggering events leading to iatrogenic hypoglycemia include sudden reduction of corticosteroid dose, altered ability of the patient to report symptoms, reduction of oral intake, emesis, new n.p.o. status, inappropriate timing of short- or rapid-acting insulin in relation to meals, reduction of rate of administration of intravenous dextrose, and unexpected interruption of enteral feedings or parenteral nutrition. Despite the preventable nature of many inpatient episodes of hypoglycemia, institutions are more likely to have nursing protocols for the treatment of hypoglycemia than for its prevention. Tracking such episodes and analyzing their causes are important quality improvement activities (410). 4. Diabetes care providers in the hospital. Inpatient diabetes management may be effectively championed and/or provided by primary care physicians, endocrinologists, intensivists or hospitalists. Involvement of appropriately trained specialists or specialty teams may reduce length of stay, improve glycemic control, and improve outcomes (410). In the care of diabetes, implementation of standardized order sets for scheduled and correction-dose insulin may reduce reliance on sliding-scale management. As hospitals move to comply with “meaningful use” regulations for electronic health records, as mandated by the Health Information Technology Act, efforts should be made to assure that all components of structured insulin order sets are incorporated into electronic insulin order sets (426,427). A team approach is needed to establish hospital pathways. To achieve glycemic targets associated with improved hospital outcomes, hospitals will need multidisciplinary support to develop insulin management protocols that effectively and safely enable achievement of glycemic targets (428). 5. Self-management in the hospital. Self-management of diabetes in the hospital may be appropriate for competent adult patients who have a stable level of consciousness, have reasonably stable daily insulin requirements, successfully conduct self-management of diabetes at home, have physical skills needed to successfully self-administer insulin and perform SMBG, have adequate oral intake, are proficient in carbohydrate counting, use multiple daily insulin injections or insulin pump therapy, and employ sick-day management. The patient and physician, in consultation with nursing staff, must agree that patient self-management is appropriate under the conditions of hospitalization. Patients who use CSII pump therapy in the outpatient setting can be candidates for diabetes self-management in the hospital, provided that they have the mental and physical capacity to do so (410). A hospital policy and procedures delineating inpatient guidelines for CSII therapy are advisable, and availability of hospital personnel with expertise in CSII therapy is essential. It is important that nursing personnel document basal rates and bolus doses taken on a regular basis (at least daily). 6. MNT in the hospital. The goals of MNT are to optimize glycemic control, provide adequate calories to meet metabolic demands, and create a discharge plan for follow-up care (409,429). ADA does not endorse any single meal plan or specified percentages of macronutrients, and the term “ADA diet” should no longer be used. Current nutrition recommendations advise individualization based on treatment goals, physiologic parameters, and medication usage. Consistent carbohydrate meal plans are preferred by many hospitals because they facilitate matching the prandial insulin dose to the amount of carbohydrate consumed (430). Because of the complexity of nutrition issues in the hospital, a registered dietitian, knowledgeable and skilled in MNT, should serve as an inpatient team member. The dietitian is responsible for integrating information about the patient's clinical condition, eating, and lifestyle habits and for establishing treatment goals in order to determine a realistic plan for nutrition therapy (431,432). 7. Bedside blood glucose monitoring. Point-of-care (POC) blood glucose monitoring performed at the bedside is used to guide insulin dosing. In the patient who is receiving nutrition, the timing of glucose monitoring should match carbohydrate exposure. In the patient who is not receiving nutrition, glucose monitoring is performed every 4 to 6 h (433,434). More-frequent blood glucose testing ranging from every 30 min to every 2 h is required for patients on intravenous insulin infusions. Safety standards should be established for blood glucose monitoring prohibiting sharing of fingerstick lancing devices, lancets, needles, and meters to reduce the risk of transmission of blood borne diseases. Shared lancing devices carry essentially the same risk as is conferred from sharing of syringes and needles (435). Accuracy of blood glucose measurements using POC meters has limitations that must be considered. Although the FDA allows a +/− 20% error for blood glucose meters, questions about the appropriateness of these criteria have been raised (388). Glucose measures differ significantly between plasma and whole blood, terms that are often used interchangeably and can lead to misinterpretation. Most commercially available capillary blood glucose meters introduce a correction factor of ∼1.12 to report a “plasma adjusted” value (436). Significant discrepancies between capillary, venous, and arterial plasma samples have been observed in patients with low or high hemoglobin concentrations, hypoperfusion, and the presence of interfering substances, particularly maltose, as contained in immunoglobulins (437). Analytical variability has been described with several POC meters (438). Increasingly newer generation POC blood glucose meters correct for variation in hematocrit and for interfering substances. Any glucose result that does not correlate with the patient's status should be confirmed through conventional laboratory sampling of plasma glucose. The FDA has become increasingly concerned about the use of POC blood glucose meters in the hospital and is presently reviewing matters related to their use. 8. Discharge planning and DSME. Transition from the acute care setting is a high risk time for all patients, not just those with diabetes or new hyperglycemia. Although there is an extensive literature concerning safe transition within and from the hospital, little of it is specific to diabetes (439). It is important to remember that diabetes discharge planning is not a separate entity, but is part of an overall discharge plan. As such, discharge planning begins at admission to the hospital and is updated as projected patient needs change. Inpatients may be discharged to varied settings, including home (with or without visiting nurse services), assisted living, rehabilitation, or skilled nursing facilities. The latter two sites are generally staffed by health professionals, so diabetes discharge planning will be limited to communication of medication and diet orders. For the patient who is discharged to assisted living or to home, the optimal program will need to consider the type and severity of diabetes, the effects of the patient's illness on blood glucose levels, and the capacities and desires of the patient. Smooth transition to outpatient care should be ensured. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality recommends that at a minimum, discharge plans include: Medication reconciliation: The patient's medications must be cross-checked to ensure that no chronic medications were stopped and to ensure the safety of new prescriptions. Whenever possible, prescriptions for new or changed medication should be filled and reviewed with the patient and family at or before discharge. Structured discharge communication: Information on medication changes, pending tests and studies, and follow-up needs must be accurately and promptly communicated to outpatient physicians. Discharge summaries should be transmitted to the primary physician as soon as possible after discharge. Appointment-keeping behavior is enhanced when the inpatient team schedules outpatient medical follow up prior to discharge. Ideally the inpatient care providers or case managers/discharge planners will schedule follow-up visit(s) with the appropriate professionals, including the primary care provider, endocrinologist, and diabetes educator (99). Teaching diabetes self-management to patients in hospitals is a challenging task. Patients are ill, under increased stress related to their hospitalization and diagnosis, and in an environment not conducive to learning. Ideally, people with diabetes should be taught at a time and place conducive to learning—as an outpatient in a recognized program of diabetes education. For the hospitalized patient, diabetes “survival skills” education is generally a feasible approach to provide sufficient information and training to enable safe care at home. Patients hospitalized because of a crisis related to diabetes management or poor care at home need education to prevent subsequent episodes of hospitalization. An assessment of the need for a home health referral or referral to an outpatient diabetes education program should be part of discharge planning for all patients. DSME cannot wait until discharge, especially in those new to insulin therapy or in whom the diabetes regimen has been substantially altered during the hospitalization. It is recommended that the following areas of knowledge be reviewed and addressed prior to hospital discharge: Identification of health care provider who will provide diabetes care after discharge Level of understanding related to the diagnosis of diabetes, SMBG, and explanation of home blood glucose goals Definition, recognition, treatment, and prevention of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia Information on consistent eating patterns When and how to take blood glucose–lowering medications including insulin administration (if going home on insulin) Sick-day management Proper use and disposal of needles and syringes It is important that patients be provided with appropriate durable medical equipment, medication, supplies, and prescriptions at the time of discharge in order to avoid a potentially dangerous hiatus in care. These supplies/prescriptions should include: Insulin (vials or pens) if needed Syringes or pen needles (if needed) Oral medications (if needed) Blood glucose meter and strips Lancets and lancing device Urine ketone strips (type 1) Glucagon emergency kit (insulin-treated) Medical alert application/charm More expanded diabetes education can be arranged in the community. An outpatient follow-up visit with the primary care provider, endocrinologist, or diabetes educator within 1 month of discharge is advised for all patients having hyperglycemia in the hospital. Clear communication with outpatient providers either directly or via hospital discharge summaries facilitates safe transitions to outpatient care. Providing information regarding the cause or the plan for determining the cause of hyperglycemia, related complications and comorbidities, and recommended treatments can assist outpatient providers as they assume ongoing care. B. Diabetes and employment Any person with diabetes, whether insulin-treated or noninsulin treated, should be eligible for any employment for which he/she is otherwise qualified. Employment decisions should never be based on generalizations or stereotypes regarding the effects of diabetes. When questions arise about the medical fitness of a person with diabetes for a particular job, a health care professional with expertise in treating diabetes should perform an individualized assessment. See the ADA position statement on diabetes and employment (440). C. Diabetes and driving A large percentage of people with diabetes in the U.S. and elsewhere seek a license to drive, either for personal or employment purposes. There has been considerable debate whether, and the extent to which, diabetes may be a relevant factor in determining the driver ability and eligibility for a license. People with diabetes are subject to a great variety of licensing requirements applied by both state and federal jurisdictions, which may lead to loss of employment or significant restrictions on a person's license. Presence of a medical condition that can lead to significantly impaired consciousness or cognition may lead to drivers being evaluated for fitness to drive. For diabetes, this typically arises when the person has had a hypoglycemic episode behind the wheel, even if this did not lead to a motor vehicle accident. Epidemiologic and simulator data suggest that people with insulin-treated diabetes have a small increase in risk of motor vehicle accidents, primarily due to hypoglycemia and decreased awareness of hypoglycemia. This increase (RR 1.12–1.19) is much smaller than the risks associated with teenage male drivers (RR 42), driving at night (RR 142), driving on rural roads compared with urban roads (RR 9.2), and obstructive sleep apnea (RR 2.4), all of which are accepted for unrestricted licensure. The ADA position statement on diabetes and driving (441) recommends against blanket restrictions based on the diagnosis of diabetes and urges individual assessment by a health care professional knowledgeable in diabetes if restrictions on licensure are being considered. Patients should be evaluated for decreased awareness of hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia episodes while driving, or severe hypoglycemia. Patients with retinopathy or peripheral neuropathy require assessment to determine if those complications interfere with operation of a motor vehicle. Health care professionals should be cognizant of the potential risk of driving with diabetes and counsel their patients about detecting and avoiding hypoglycemia while driving. D. Diabetes management in correctional institutions People with diabetes in correctional facilities should receive care that meets national standards. Because it is estimated that nearly 80,000 inmates have diabetes, correctional institutions should have written policies and procedures for the management of diabetes and for training of medical and correctional staff in diabetes care practices. See the ADA position statement on diabetes management in correctional institutions (442) for further discussion. X. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE Recommendations Care should be aligned with components of the Chronic Care Model to ensure productive interactions between a prepared proactive practice team and an informed activated patient. (A) When feasible, care systems should support team-based care, community involvement, patient registries, and embedded decision support tools to meet patient needs (B). Treatment decisions should be timely and based on evidence-based guidelines that are tailored to individual patient preferences, prognoses, and comorbidities. (B) A patient-centered communication style should be employed that incorporates patient preferences, assesses literacy and numeracy, and addresses cultural barriers to care. (B) There has been steady improvement in the proportion of diabetes patients achieving recommended levels of A1C, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol in the last 10 years, both in primary care settings and in endocrinology practices. Mean A1C nationally has declined from 7.82% in 1999–2000 to 7.18% in 2004 based on NHANES data (443). This has been accompanied by improvements in lipids and blood pressure control and has led to substantial reductions in end-stage microvascular complications in those with diabetes. Nevertheless in some studies only 57.1% of adults with diagnosed diabetes achieved an A1C <7%, only 45.5% had a blood pressure <130/80 mmHg, and only 46.5% had a total cholesterol <200 mg/dL, with only 12.2% of people with diabetes achieving all three treatment goals (444). Evidence also suggests that progress in risk factor control may be slowing (445). Certain patient groups, such as those with complex comorbidities, financial or other social hardships, and/or limited English proficiency (LEP), may present particular challenges to goal-based care (446,447). Persistent variation in quality of diabetes care across providers and across practice settings even after adjusting for patient factors indicates that there remains potential for substantial further improvements in diabetes care. While numerous interventions to improve adherence to the recommended standards have been implemented, a major barrier to optimal care is a delivery system that too often is fragmented, lacks clinical information capabilities, often duplicates services, and is poorly designed for the coordinated delivery of chronic care. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) has been shown in numerous studies to be an effective framework for improving the quality of diabetes care (448). The CCM includes six core elements for the provision of optimal care of patients with chronic disease: 1) delivery system design (moving from a reactive to a proactive care delivery system where planned visits are coordinated through a team based approach), 2) self-management support, 3) decision support (basing care on evidence-based, effective care guidelines), 4) clinical information systems (using registries that can provide patient-specific and population-based support to the care team), 5) community resources and policies (identifying or developing resources to support healthy lifestyles), and 6) health systems (to create a quality-oriented culture). Redefinition of the roles of the clinic staff and promoting self-management on the part of the patient are fundamental to the successful implementation of the CCM (449). Collaborative, multidisciplinary teams are best suited to provide such care for people with chronic conditions like diabetes and to facilitate patients’ performance of appropriate self-management (148,150,450,451). NDEP maintains an online resource (www.betterdiabetescare.nih.gov) to help health care professionals design and implement more effective health care delivery systems for those with diabetes. Three specific objectives, with references to literature that outline practical strategies to achieve each, are below. Objective 1: Optimize provider and team behavior The care team should prioritize timely and appropriate intensification of lifestyle and/or pharmaceutical therapy of patients who have not achieved beneficial levels of blood pressure, lipid, or glucose control (452). Strategies such as explicit goal setting with patients (453); identifying and addressing language, numeracy, or cultural barriers to care (454–456); integrating evidence-based guidelines and clinical information tools into the process of care (457–459); and incorporating care management teams including nurses, pharmacists, and other providers (460–463) have each been shown to optimize provider and team behavior and thereby catalyze reduction in A1C, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol. Objective 2: Support patient behavior change Successful diabetes care requires a systematic approach to supporting patients’ behavior change efforts, including (a) healthy lifestyle changes (physical activity, healthy eating, nonuse of tobacco, weight management, effective coping), (b) disease self-management (medication taking and management, self-monitoring of glucose and blood pressure when clinically appropriate); and (c) prevention of diabetes complications (self-monitoring of foot health, active participation in screening for eye, foot, and renal complications, and immunizations). High-quality DSME has been shown to improve patient self-management, satisfaction, and glucose control (166,464), as has delivery of on-going diabetes self-management support (DSMS) so that gains achieved during DSME are sustained (120,121,137). National DSME standards call for an integrated approach that includes clinical content and skills and behavioral strategies (goal-setting, problem solving) and addresses emotional concerns in each needed curriculum content area. Objective 3: Change the system of care The most successful practices have an institutional priority for providing high quality of care (465). Changes that have been shown to increase quality of diabetes care include basing care on evidence-based guidelines (466), expanding the role of teams and staff (449,467), redesigning the processes of care (468,469), implementing electronic health record tools (470,471), activating and educating patients (472,473), and identifying and/or developing and engaging community resources and public policy that support healthy lifestyles (474). Recent initiatives such as the Patient Centered Medical Home show promise to improve outcomes through coordinated primary care and offer new opportunities for team-based chronic disease care (475). Alterations in reimbursement that reward the provision of appropriate and high quality care rather than visit-based billing (476), and that can accommodate the need to personalize care goals, may provide additional incentives to improve diabetes care (477). It is clear that optimal diabetes management requires an organized, systematic approach and involvement of a coordinated team of dedicated health care professionals working in an environment where patient-centered high quality care is a priority.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pathologic classification of diabetic nephropathy.

            Although pathologic classifications exist for several renal diseases, including IgA nephropathy, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, and lupus nephritis, a uniform classification for diabetic nephropathy is lacking. Our aim, commissioned by the Research Committee of the Renal Pathology Society, was to develop a consensus classification combining type1 and type 2 diabetic nephropathies. Such a classification should discriminate lesions by various degrees of severity that would be easy to use internationally in clinical practice. We divide diabetic nephropathy into four hierarchical glomerular lesions with a separate evaluation for degrees of interstitial and vascular involvement. Biopsies diagnosed as diabetic nephropathy are classified as follows: Class I, glomerular basement membrane thickening: isolated glomerular basement membrane thickening and only mild, nonspecific changes by light microscopy that do not meet the criteria of classes II through IV. Class II, mesangial expansion, mild (IIa) or severe (IIb): glomeruli classified as mild or severe mesangial expansion but without nodular sclerosis (Kimmelstiel-Wilson lesions) or global glomerulosclerosis in more than 50% of glomeruli. Class III, nodular sclerosis (Kimmelstiel-Wilson lesions): at least one glomerulus with nodular increase in mesangial matrix (Kimmelstiel-Wilson) without changes described in class IV. Class IV, advanced diabetic glomerulosclerosis: more than 50% global glomerulosclerosis with other clinical or pathologic evidence that sclerosis is attributable to diabetic nephropathy. A good interobserver reproducibility for the four classes of DN was shown (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84) in a test of this classification.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

              Microalbuminuria and hypertension are risk factors for diabetic nephropathy. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system slows the progression to diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes, but similar data are lacking for hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. We evaluated the renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-II-receptor antagonist irbesartan in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. A total of 590 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria were enrolled in this multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of irbesartan, at a dose of either 150 mg daily or 300 mg daily, and were followed for two years. The primary outcome was the time to the onset of diabetic nephropathy, defined by persistent albuminuria in overnight specimens, with a urinary albumin excretion rate that was greater than 200 microg per minute and at least 30 percent higher than the base-line level. The base-line characteristics in the three groups were similar. Ten of the 194 patients in the 300-mg group (5.2 percent) and 19 of the 195 patients in the 150-mg group (9.7 percent) reached the primary end point, as compared with 30 of the 201 patients in the placebo group (14.9 percent) (hazard ratios, 0.30 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.61; P< 0.001] and 0.61 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.34 to 1.08; P=0.081 for the two irbesartan groups, respectively). The average blood pressure during the course of the study was 144/83 mm Hg in the placebo group, 143/83 mm Hg in the 150-mg group, and 141/83 mm Hg in the 300-mg group (P=0.004 for the comparison of systolic blood pressure between the placebo group and the combined irbesartan groups). Serious adverse events were less frequent among the patients treated with irbesartan (P=0.02). Irbesartan is renoprotective independently of its blood-pressure-lowering effect in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Metab Res Rev
                Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev
                10.1002/(ISSN)1520-7560
                DMRR
                Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1520-7552
                1520-7560
                26 July 2016
                July 2016
                : 32
                : 5 , Chinese Diabetes Society Special Issue ( doiID: 10.1002/dmrr.v32.5 )
                : 442-458
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Diabetology The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat‐Sen University GuangzhouChina
                [ 2 ] Department of EndocrinologyPeking University People's Hospital BeijingChina
                [ 3 ] Shanghai Diabetes Institute, Shanghai Clinical Center for Diabetes, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Diabetes Mellitus Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital ShanghaiChina
                [ 4 ] Department of EndocrinologyChinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital BeijingChina
                [ 5 ] Institute of Metabolism and Endocrinology, Key Laboratory of Diabetes Immunology, Ministry of Education, National Clinical Research Center for Metabolic Diseases, The Second Xiangya Hospital and the Diabetes Center Central South University ChangshaChina
                [ 6 ] Department of Endocrinology, Changhai HospitalSecond Military Medical University ShanghaiChina
                [ 7 ] Department of Endocrinology, Nanjing Drum Tower HospitalThe Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School NanjingChina
                [ 8 ] Tianjin Metabolic Diseases Hospital & Tianjin Institute of EndocrinologyTianjin Medical University TianjinChina
                [ 9 ] Department of EndocrinologyQilu Hospital of Shandong University Ji'nanChina
                [ 10 ] Department of EndocrinologyBeijing Hospital BeijingChina
                [ 11 ] Department of EndocrinologyPeking University First Hospital BeijingChina
                [ 12 ] Department of Endocrinology, Xijing HospitalFourth Military Medical University Xi'anChina
                [ 13 ] Department of EndocrinologyThe First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University ChongqingChina
                [ 14 ] Department of Endocrinology, Rui Jin HospitalShanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine ShanghaiChina
                [ 15 ] Department of EndocrinologyGansu Provincial Hospital LanzhouChina
                [ 16 ] Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China HospitalSichuan University ChengduChina
                [ 17 ] Department of EndocrinologyThe First Hospital of China Medical University ShenyangChina
                [ 18 ] Department of EndocrinologyAffiliated Hospital of Guiyang Medical University GuiyangChina
                [ 19 ] Department of EndocrinologyHebei General Hospital ShijiazhuangChina
                [ 20 ] Department of EndocrinologyThe First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University FuzhouChina
                [ 21 ] Department of EndocrinologyHeilongjiang Provincial Hospital HarbinChina
                [ 22 ] Department of EndocrinologyChina Japan Friendship Hospital BeijingChina
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Jianping Weng, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Diabetology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat‐Sen University, Guangzhou, China.

                E‐mail: wjianp@ 123456mail.sysu.edu.cn

                *Correspondence to: Linong Ji, Department of Endocrinology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.

                E‐mail: jiln@ 123456bjmu.edu.cn

                *Correspondence to: Weiping Jia, Shanghai Diabetes Institute, Shanghai Clinical Center for Diabetes, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Diabetes Mellitus, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.

                E‐mail: wpjia@ 123456yahoo.com

                Article
                DMRR2827
                10.1002/dmrr.2827
                5108436
                27464265
                ca06e17a-b3bf-4ba5-8f17-2239c1bad2d9
                © 2016 The Authors Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 15 December 2015
                : 11 May 2016
                : 09 June 2016
                Page count
                Pages: 18
                Categories
                Guidelines
                Guidelines
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                dmrr2827
                July 2016
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:4.9.7 mode:remove_FC converted:14.11.2016

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                Endocrinology & Diabetes

                Comments

                Comment on this article