Skip to main content

ADA Revises Standards of Diabetes Care

Clinical Context

In the United States, diabetes has been diagnosed in nearly 19 million people. It 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 for long-term complications. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has provided annual diabetes recommendations that include screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that may affect health outcomes in people with diabetes.
The aim of the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012 recommendations was to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. The summary of revisions for the 2012 report is provided.

Study Synopsis and Perspective

A new standards of care statement from the ADA addresses screening, diagnostic, and treatment interventions known or thought to improve health outcomes of patients with diabetes. The new recommendations are published in a supplement to the January issue of Diabetes Care.
"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," the statement notes. "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."
The new ADA recommendations aim to describe the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. They address clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals. They are not intended to replace clinical judgment or to prevent more extensive assessments and interventions by additional specialists, should these be required in the opinion of the treating clinician.
The guidelines offer targets that are suitable for most patients with diabetes, while acknowledging that goals may need to be modified to accommodate individual preferences, comorbid conditions, and other patient-specific factors.
Separate sections cover specific needs and recommendations for children with diabetes, pregnant women, and persons with prediabetes. The new guidelines include screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that have been shown or thought by consensus opinion to improve outcomes of diabetic patients. Many of these guidelines have been shown to be cost effective.
The evidence base for these recommendations was updated from a Medline search of pertinent human studies published since January 1, 2010, and each recommendation was graded on the corresponding level of evidence using an ADA grading system. These standards of care were reviewed and approved by healthcare professionals, scientists, and lay people comprising the Executive Committee of the ADA's Board of Directors. A separate statement has addressed driving and diabetes.
Specific Recommendations
A few highlights of the ADA standards of diabetes care include the following:
  • Criteria to diagnose diabetes include a hemoglobin A1c (A1c) level of 6.5% or higher, a fasting plasma glucose level of 126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L) or higher, a 2-hour plasma glucose level of 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) or higher during an oral glucose tolerance test, or a random plasma glucose level of 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) or higher in a patient with classic symptoms of hyperglycemia or hyperglycemic crisis.
  • Screening for type 2 diabetes and for future diabetes risk in asymptomatic people, using the A1c, fasting plasma glucose, or 2-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test should be considered in adults of any age who are overweight or obese and who have at least 1 additional risk factor for diabetes. Testing should begin at age 45 years in those without these risk factors. Subsequent testing at least during 3-year intervals is reasonable in those with initial normal test results.
  • Patients using multiple insulin injections or insulin pump therapy should perform self-monitoring of blood glucose levels at least 3 times daily. Self-monitoring of blood glucose levels may be useful in other patients with diabetes. Continuous glucose monitoring used with intensive insulin regimens may help lower A1c levels in selected adults at least 25 years old with type 1 diabetes.
  • Glycemic goals in adults are to lower A1c levels to less than or approximately 7%, which has been associated with fewer microvascular complications and (if started early) with long-term reduction in macrovascular disease. More stringent A1c goals may be suitable for selected individual patients, if these can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse effects of treatment. Less-stringent A1c goals may be suitable for some patients, such as those with a history of severe hypoglycemia or limited life expectancy.
  • Type 2 diabetes treatment should begin with metformin therapy and lifestyle interventions. Insulin therapy may be needed for patients who are markedly symptomatic and/or have elevated blood glucose or A1c levels. If noninsulin monotherapy fails to reach the A1c target during 3 to 6 months, a second oral agent, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, or insulin may be needed.
The authors of the ADA position statement have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Diabetes Care. 2012;35(Suppl 1):S11-S63.
Related Link
The National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse provides educational materials for both patients and healthcare professionals, including links to diabetes-related topics, patient organizations, and the National Diabetes Education Program.

Study Highlights


  • For detection and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), an additional recommendation was that women with a history of GDM found to have prediabetes should receive lifestyle interventions or metformin to prevent diabetes (A).
  • Metformin therapy for the prevention of type 2 diabetes may be considered in patients with impaired glucose tolerance (A), impaired fasting glucose (E), or an A1c level of 5.7% to 6.4% (E). Also, metformin may be especially useful for those with a body mass index of more than 35 kg/m2, age younger than 60 years, and women with prior GDM.
  • For glycemic goals in adults, a new recommendation was that providers might reasonably suggest more stringent A1c goals (such as < 6.5%) for selected individual patients, if this can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse effects of treatment. Appropriate patients might include those with short duration of diabetes, long life expectancy, and no significant cardiovascular disease.
  • Regarding immunizations, an added recommendation was to administer hepatitis B vaccination to adults with diabetes per recommendations by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C).
  • For hypertension or blood pressure control, the statement recommends administration of 1 or more antihypertensive medications at bedtime (A).
  • For diabetes care in specific populations, in children and adolescents, additional recommendations were added regarding the transition from pediatric to adult care:
    • As teens make the transition into emerging adulthood, healthcare providers and families must recognize many vulnerabilities in these teens (B) and prepare the developing teen, beginning in early to mid adolescence and at least 1 year before the transition. (E)
    • Both pediatricians and adult healthcare providers should assist in providing support and links to resources for the teen and emerging adult. (B)
  • Additional recommendations were also added regarding patients with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD):
    • Annual screening for CFRD with an oral glucose tolerance test should begin by age 10 years in all patients with cystic fibrosis who do not have CFRD. (B) Use of A1c levels as a screening test for CFRD is not recommended. (B)
    • During a period of stable health, the diagnosis of CFRD can be made in patients with cystic fibrosis 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)
  • Additional recommendations for diabetes care in specific settings (ie, diabetes and employment, diabetes and driving, and diabetes management in correctional institutions) were added:
    • Any person with diabetes, whether insulin treated or noninsulin treated, should be eligible for any employment for which he or she is otherwise qualified. A healthcare professional with expertise in treating diabetes should perform an individual assessment if questions arise about the medical fitness of a person with diabetes for a particular job.
    • The ADA position statement on diabetes and driving recommends against blanket restrictions based on the diagnosis of diabetes and urges individual assessment by healthcare providers if restrictions on licensure are being considered.
    • People with diabetes in correctional facilities should receive care that meets national standards.
  • The following recommendations were added regarding strategies to improve diabetes care:
    • 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 used that incorporates patient preferences, assesses literacy and numeracy, and addresses cultural barriers to care. (B)

Clinical Implications


  • According to the ADA position statement on standards of care in diabetes, metformin may be considered in women with a history of GDM found to have prediabetes and for prevention of type 2 diabetes, especially in those with impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting glucose, or an A1c level of 5.7% to 6.4%.
  • New recommendations were added to the ADA position statement on standards of care in diabetes regarding diabetes and employment, diabetes and driving, and diabetes management in correctional institutions.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...
Post a Comment
Read more

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...
Post a Comment
Read more

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...
Post a Comment
Read more