Search

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether a pragmatic structured education program with and without pedometer use is effective for promoting physical activity and improving glucose tolerance in those with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Overweight and obese individuals with IGT were recruited from ongoing screening studies at the University Hospitals of Leicester, U.K. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Group 1 received a 3-h group-based structured education program designed to promote walking activity using personalized steps-per-day goals and pedometers. Group 2 received a 3-h group-based structured education program designed to promote walking activity using generic time-based goals. Group 3 received a brief information leaflet (control condition). Outcomes included an oral glucose tolerance test, standard anthropometric measures, ambulatory activity, and psychological variables. Follow-up was conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS A total of 87 individuals (66% male, mean age 65 years) were included in this study. At 12 months, significant decreases in 2-h postchallenge glucose and fasting glucose of -1.31 mmol/l (95% CI -2.20 to -0.43) and -0.32 mmol/l (-0.59 to -0.03), respectively, were seen in the pedometer group compared with the control group. No significant improvements in glucose control were seen in those given the standard education program. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that a pragmatic structured education program that incorporates pedometer use is effective for improving glucose tolerance in those with IGT. This result is likely to have important implications for future primary care-based diabetes prevention initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine ethnic disparities in diabetes management among patients with and without comorbid medical conditions after a period of sustained investment in quality improvement in the U.K.Research Design and Methods: This cross-sectional study examined associations between ethnicity, comorbidity, and intermediate outcomes for mean A1C, total cholesterol, and blood pressure levels in 6,690 diabetes patients in South West London.Results: The presence of ≥ 2 cardiovascular comorbidities was associated with similar blood pressure control among white and South Asian patients when compared with whites without comorbidity but with worse blood pressure control among black patients, with a mean difference in systolic blood pressure of +1.5, +1.4, and +6.2 mmHg, respectively.Conclusions: Despite major reforms to improve quality, disparities in blood pressure management have persisted in the U.K., particularly among patients with cardiovascular comorbidities. Policy makers should consider the potential impacts of quality initiatives on high-risk groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Use of effective treatments and management programs is leading to longer survival of people with diabetes. This, in combination with obesity, is thus contributing to a rise in people living with more than one condition, known as multiple long-term conditions (MLTC or multimorbidity). MLTC is defined as the presence of two or more long-term conditions, with possible combinations of physical, infectious, or mental health conditions, where no one condition is considered as the index. These include a range of conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer, chronic kidney disease, arthritis, depression, dementia, and severe mental health illnesses. MLTC has major implications for the individual such as poor quality of life, worse health outcomes, fragmented care, polypharmacy, poor treatment adherence, mortality, and a significant impact on health care services. MLTC is a challenge, where interventions for prevention and management are lacking a robust evidence base. The key research directions for diabetes and MLTC from a global perspective include system delivery and care coordination, lifestyle interventions and therapeutic interventions., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To examine the associations between age at type 2 diabetes diagnosis and the relative and absolute risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in England., Research Design and Methods: In this cohort study using primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified 108,061 individuals with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (16-50 years of age), matched to 829,946 individuals without type 2 diabetes. We estimated all-cause and cause-specific mortality (cancer, cardiorenal, other [noncancer or cardiorenal]) by age at diagnosis, using competing-risk survival analyses adjusted for key confounders., Results: Comparing individuals with versus without type 2 diabetes, the relative risk of death decreased with an older age at diagnosis: the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 4.32 (95% CI 3.35-5.58) in individuals diagnosed at ages 16-27 years compared with 1.53 (95% CI 1.46-1.60) at ages 48-50 years. Smaller relative risks by increasing age at diagnosis were also observed for cancer, cardiorenal, and noncancer or cardiorenal death. Irrespective of age at diagnosis, the 10-year absolute risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality were higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes; yet, the absolute differences were small., Conclusions: Although the relative risk of death in individuals with versus without type 2 was higher at younger ages, the 10-year absolute risk of all investigated causes of death was small and similar in the two groups. Further multidecade studies could help estimate the long-term risk of complications and death in individuals with early-onset type 2 diabetes., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To examine whether the effect of conventional lifestyle interventions on type 2 diabetes incidence differs by glucose-defined prediabetes phenotype., Research Design and Methods: We searched multiple databases until 1 April 2023 for randomized controlled trials that recruited people with isolated impaired fasting glucose (i-IFG), isolated impaired glucose tolerance (i-IGT), and impaired fasting glucose plus impaired glucose tolerance (IFG+IGT). Individual participant data were pooled from relevant trials and analyzed through random-effects models with use of the within-trial interactions approach., Results: Four trials with 2,794 participants (mean age 53.0 years, 60.7% men) were included: 1,240 (44.4%), 796 (28.5%), and 758 (27.1%) had i-IFG, i-IGT, and IFG+IGT, respectively. After a median of 2.5 years, the pooled hazard ratio for diabetes incidence in i-IFG was 0.97 (95% CI 0.66, 1.44), i-IGT 0.65 (0.44, 0.96), and IFG+IGT 0.51 (0.38, 0.68; Pinteraction = 0.01)., Conclusions: Conventional lifestyle interventions reduced diabetes incidence in people with IGT (with or without IFG) but not in those with i-IFG., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To investigate the association between duration of type 2 diabetes and cancer incidence., Research Design and Methods: In the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, we identified 130,764 individuals with type 2 diabetes aged ≥35 years at diagnosis who were linked to hospital and mortality records. We used sex-stratified Royston-Parmar models with two timescales to estimate incidence rates of all cancers, the four commonest cancers in the U.K. (colorectal, lung, prostate, breast), and the obesity-related cancers (e.g., liver, ovary) between 1 January 1998 and 14 January 2019, by age and diabetes duration., Results: During 1,089,923 person-years, 18,977 incident cancers occurred. At the same age, rates of all cancers in men and women did not vary across durations ranging from diagnosis to 20 years; conversely, for any duration, there was a strong, positive association between age and cancer rates. In men, the rate ratio (95% CI) comparing 20 with 5 years of duration was 1.18 (0.82-1.69) at 60 years of age and 0.90 (0.75-1.08) at 80 years; corresponding ratios in women were 1.07 (0.71-1.63) and 0.84 (0.66-1.05). This pattern was observed also for the four commonest cancers. For obesity-related cancers, although rates were generally higher in individuals with a higher BMI, there was no association with duration at any level of BMI., Conclusions: In this study, we did not find evidence of an association between duration of type 2 diabetes and risk of cancer, with the higher risk observed for longer durations related to ageing., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The past decade of population research for diabetes has seen a dramatic proliferation of the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) generation from non-research settings, including both health and non-health sources, to influence decisions related to optimal diabetes care. A common attribute of these new data is that they were not collected for research purposes yet have the potential to enrich the information around the characteristics of individuals, risk factors, interventions, and health effects. This has expanded the role of subdisciplines like comparative effectiveness research and precision medicine, new quasi-experimental study designs, new research platforms like distributed data networks, and new analytic approaches for clinical prediction of prognosis or treatment response. The result of these developments is a greater potential to progress diabetes treatment and prevention through the increasing range of populations, interventions, outcomes, and settings that can be efficiently examined. However, this proliferation also carries an increased threat of bias and misleading findings. The level of evidence that may be derived from RWD is ultimately a function of the data quality and the rigorous application of study design and analysis. This report reviews the current landscape and applications of RWD in clinical effectiveness and population health research for diabetes and summarizes opportunities and best practices in the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of RWD to optimize its value and limit its drawbacks., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: The incidence of diabetes may be elevated following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but it is unclear whether this is specific to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, associated with shared risk factors for severe COVID-19 and diabetes, and/or a generic risk following illness., Research Design and Methods: People admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 and/or pneumonia between 1 April 2020 and 31 August 2020 in England were linked with the National Diabetes Audit to identify incident diabetes after discharge up to 31 March 2021. Comparator cohorts admitted with pneumonia over the same dates in 2017, 2018, and 2019 were followed until 31 March 2018, 31 March 2019, and 31 March 2020, respectively. Poisson regression models were used to calculate adjusted diabetes incidence rates., Results: Using the cohort of people discharged from the hospital following a diagnosis of COVID-19 without pneumonia in 2020 as the standard population (incidence rate 16.4 [95% CI 12.8-20.7] per 1,000 person-years), adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and deprivation, gave incidence rates of 19.0 (95% CI 13.8-25.6) and 16.6 (95% CI 13.3-20.4) per 1,000 person-years for those admitted for COVID-19 with pneumonia and pneumonia without COVID-19, respectively, in 2020. These rates are not significantly different from those found after hospital admission for pneumonia in 2019, 2018, and 2017, at 13.7 (95% CI 10.8-17.3), 13.8 (95% CI 10.9-17.4), and 14.2 (95% CI 10.9-18.3) per 1,000 person-years, respectively., Conclusions: Our data do not support a clear impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of diabetes compared with risks in several comparator groups, including contemporaneously assessed risks in people hospitalized with pneumonia., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To investigate the association between age at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and depressive symptoms, diabetes-specific distress, and self-compassion among adults with type 2 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: This analysis used data from the Chronotype of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Effect on Glycemic Control (CODEC) cross-sectional study. Information was collected on depressive symptoms, diabetes-specific distress, and self-compassion, measured using validated self-report questionnaires, in addition to sociodemographic and clinical data. Multivariable regression models, adjusted for diabetes duration, sex, ethnicity, deprivation status, prescription of antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), and BMI were used to investigate the association between age at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and each of the three psychological outcomes., Results: A total of 706 participants were included; 64 (9.1%) were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at <40 years, 422 (59.8%) between 40 and 59 years, and 220 (31.2%) at ≥60 years of age. After adjustment for key confounders, including diabetes duration, younger age at diagnosis was significantly associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms (βadj: -0.18 [95% CI -0.25 to -0.10]; P < 0.01) and diabetes-specific distress (βadj: -0.03 [95% CI -0.04 to -0.02]; P < 0.01) and lower levels of self-compassion (βadj: 0.01 [95% CI 0.00 to 0.02]; P < 0.01)., Conclusions: Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes at a younger age is associated with lower psychological well-being, suggesting the need for clinical vigilance and the availability of age-appropriate psychosocial support., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Major ethnic disparities in diabetes care, especially for intermediate outcomes and diabetes complications, were evident prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Diabetes is a risk factor for severe COVID-19, and the combination of these ethnic disparities in diabetes care and outcomes may have contributed to the inequity in COVID-19 outcomes for people with diabetes. Overall, ethnic minority populations have suffered disproportionate rates of COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality. Results from the limited number of studies of COVID-19 in ethnic minority populations with diabetes are mixed, but there is some suggestion that rates of hospitalization and mortality are higher than those of White populations. Reasons for the higher incidence and severity of COVID-19-related outcomes in minority ethnic groups are complex and have been shown to be due to differences in comorbid conditions (e.g., diabetes), exposure risk (e.g., overcrowded living conditions or essential worker jobs), and access to treatment (e.g., health insurance status and access to tertiary care medical centers), which all relate to long-standing structural inequities that vary by ethnicity. While guidelines and approaches for diabetes self-management and outpatient and inpatient care during the pandemic have been published, few have recommended addressing wider structural issues. As we now plan for the recovery and improved surveillance and risk factor management, it is imperative that primary and specialist care services urgently address the disproportionate impact the pandemic has had on ethnic minority groups. This should include a focus on the larger structural barriers in society that put ethnic minorities with diabetes at potentially greater risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

People with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for kidney failure, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and premature mortality. Recent clinical trials support new approaches to treat diabetes and CKD. The 2022 American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease each provide evidence-based recommendations for management. A joint group of ADA and KDIGO representatives reviewed and developed a series of consensus statements to guide clinical care from the ADA and KDIGO guidelines. The published guidelines are aligned in the areas of CKD screening and diagnosis, glycemia monitoring, lifestyle therapies, treatment goals, and pharmacologic management. Recommendations include comprehensive care in which pharmacotherapy that is proven to improve kidney and cardiovascular outcomes is layered on a foundation of healthy lifestyle. Consensus statements provide specific guidance on use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. These areas of consensus provide clear direction for implementation of care to improve clinical outcomes of people with diabetes and CKD., (© 2022 by American Diabetes Association, International Society of Nephrology, and KDIGO. Published by Elsevier Inc. and American Diabetes Association. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) reduce body weight and improve cardiometabolic health, but their effect on physical activity is unknown., Research Design and Methods: We pooled data (n = 148) from three randomized trials to investigate the effect of empagliflozin (SGLT2i) and liraglutide (GLP-1RA), in comparison with sitagliptin (dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor) and dietary therapies, on accelerometer-assessed physical activity., Results: Liraglutide (mean -1,144 steps/day; 95% CI -2,069 to -220), empagliflozin (-1,132 steps/day; -1,739, -524), and sitagliptin (-852 steps/day; -1,625, -78) resulted in reduced total daily physical activity after 6 months (P < 0.01 vs. control). Moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity was also reduced. Dietary interventions led to no change or an increase in physical activity., Conclusions: The initiation of all glucose-lowering therapies was associated with reduced physical activity, warranting further investigation., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To determine the association between prescription of SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) incidence or mortality in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) hospitalized with COVID-19., Research Design and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study based on secondary analysis of data from a large nationwide audit from a network of 40 centers in the U.K. with data collection up to December 2020. The study was originally designed to describe risk factors associated with adverse outcomes among people with diabetes who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The primary outcome for this analysis was DKA on or during hospital admission. The secondary outcome was mortality. Crude, age-sex adjusted, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for people prescribed SGLT2i compared with those not prescribed SGLT2i., Results: The original national audit included 3,067 people with T2D who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19, of whom 230 (7.5%) were prescribed SGLT2is prior to hospital admission. The mean age of the overall cohort was 72 years, 62.3% were men, and 34.9% were prescribed insulin. Overall, 2.8% of the total population had DKA and 35.6% of people in the study died. The adjusted odds of DKA were not significantly different between those prescribed SGLT2is and those not (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.16-1.97). The adjusted odds of mortality associated with SGLT2is were similar in the total study population (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.78-1.63), in the subgroup prescribed insulin (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.59-1.77), and in the subgroup that developed DKA (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.01-8.76)., Conclusions: We demonstrate a low risk of DKA and high mortality rate in people with T2D admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and limited power, but no evidence, of increased risk of DKA or in-hospital mortality associated with prescription of SGLT2is., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To assess the incidence of remission of type 2 diabetes in routine care settings., Research Design and Methods: People with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥48 mmol/mol [6.5%] or <48 mmol/mol [6.5%] with a prescription for glucose-lowering medications) alive on 1 April 2018 were identified from a national collation of health records in England and followed until 31 December 2019. Remission was defined as two HbA1c measurements of <48 mmol/mol (6.5%) at least 182 days apart, with no prescription for glucose-lowering medications 90 days before these measurements., Results: In 2,297,700 people with type 2 diabetes, the overall incidence of remission per 1,000 person-years was 9.7 (95% CI 9.6-9.8) and 44.9 (95% CI 44.0-45.7) in 75,610 (3.3%) people who were diagnosed <1 year. In addition to shorter duration of diagnosis, baseline factors associated with higher odds of remission were no prescription for glucose-lowering medication, lower HbA1c and BMI, BMI reduction, White ethnicity, female sex, and lower socioeconomic deprivation. Among 8,940 (0.4%) with characteristics associated with remission (diagnosed <2 years, HbA1c <53 mmol/mol [7.0%], prescribed metformin alone or no glucose-lowering medications, BMI reduction of ≥10%), incidence of remission per 1,000 person-years was 83.2 (95% CI 78.7-87.9)., Conclusions: Remission of type 2 diabetes was generally infrequent in routine care settings but may be a reasonable goal for a subset of people who lose a significant amount of weight shortly after diagnosis. Policies that encourage intentional remission of type 2 diabetes should seek to reduce the ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities identified., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To investigate the association between admission blood glucose levels and risk of in-hospital cardiovascular and renal complications., Research Design and Methods: In this multicenter prospective study of 36,269 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 between 6 February 2020 and 16 March 2021 (N = 143,266), logistic regression models were used to explore associations between admission glucose level (mmol/L and mg/dL) and odds of in-hospital complications, including heart failure, arrhythmia, cardiac ischemia, cardiac arrest, coagulation complications, stroke, and renal injury. Nonlinearity was investigated using restricted cubic splines. Interaction models explored whether associations between glucose levels and complications were modified by clinically relevant factors., Results: Cardiovascular and renal complications occurred in 10,421 (28.7%) patients; median admission glucose level was 6.7 mmol/L (interquartile range 5.8-8.7) (120.6 mg/dL [104.4-156.6]). While accounting for confounders, for all complications except cardiac ischemia and stroke, there was a nonlinear association between glucose and cardiovascular and renal complications. For example, odds of heart failure, arrhythmia, coagulation complications, and renal injury decreased to a nadir at 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), 4.9 mmol/L (88.2 mg/dL), 4.7 mmol/L (84.6 mg/dL), and 5.8 mmol/L (104.4 mg/dL), respectively, and increased thereafter until 26.0 mmol/L (468 mg/dL), 50.0 mmol/L (900 mg/dL), 8.5 mmol/L (153 mg/dL), and 32.4 mmol/L (583.2 mg/dL). Compared with 5 mmol/L (90 mg/dL), odds ratios at these glucose levels were 1.28 (95% CI 0.96, 1.69) for heart failure, 2.23 (1.03, 4.81) for arrhythmia, 1.59 (1.36, 1.86) for coagulation complications, and 2.42 (2.01, 2.92) for renal injury. For most complications, a modifying effect of age was observed, with higher odds of complications at higher glucose levels for patients age <69 years. Preexisting diabetes status had a similar modifying effect on odds of complications, but evidence was strongest for renal injury, cardiac ischemia, and any cardiovascular/renal complication., Conclusions: Increased odds of cardiovascular or renal complications were observed for admission glucose levels indicative of both hypo- and hyperglycemia. Admission glucose could be used as a marker for risk stratification of high-risk patients. Further research should evaluate interventions to optimize admission glucose on improving COVID-19 outcomes., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: This review was commissioned by the World Health Organization and presents a summary of the latest research evidence on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on people with diabetes (PWD)., Purpose: To review the evidence regarding the extent to which PWD are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and/or of suffering its complications, including associated mortality., Data Sources: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Embase, MEDLINE, and LitCOVID on 3 December 2020., Study Selection: Systematic reviews synthesizing data on PWD exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection, reporting data on confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and/or to intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19, and death with COVID-19 were used., Data Extraction: One reviewer appraised and extracted data; data were checked by a second., Data Synthesis: Data from 112 systematic reviews were narratively synthesized and displayed using effect direction plots. Reviews provided consistent evidence that diabetes is a risk factor for severe disease and death from COVID-19. Fewer data were available on ICU admission, but where available, these data also signaled increased risk. Within PWD, higher blood glucose levels both prior to and during COVID-19 illness were associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Type 1 diabetes was associated with worse outcomes than type 2 diabetes. There were no appropriate data for discerning whether diabetes was a risk factor for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection., Limitations: Due to the nature of the review questions, the majority of data contributing to included reviews come from retrospective observational studies. Reviews varied in the extent to which they assessed risk of bias., Conclusions: There are no data on whether diabetes predisposes to infection with SARS-CoV-2. Data consistently show that diabetes increases risk of severe COVID-19. As both diabetes and worse COVID-19 outcomes are associated with socioeconomic disadvantage, their intersection warrants particular attention., (© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Certain chronic comorbidities, including diabetes, are highly prevalent in people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and are associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 and mortality. Mild glucose elevations are also common in COVID-19 patients and associated with worse outcomes even in people without diabetes. Several studies have recently reported new-onset diabetes associated with COVID-19. The phenomenon of new-onset diabetes following admission to the hospital has been observed previously with other viral infections and acute illnesses. The precise mechanisms for new-onset diabetes in people with COVID-19 are not known, but it is likely that a number of complex interrelated processes are involved, including previously undiagnosed diabetes, stress hyperglycemia, steroid-induced hyperglycemia, and direct or indirect effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on the β-cell. There is an urgent need for research to help guide management pathways for these patients. In view of increased mortality in people with new-onset diabetes, hospital protocols should include efforts to recognize and manage acute hyperglycemia, including diabetic ketoacidosis, in people admitted to the hospital. Whether new-onset diabetes is likely to remain permanent is not known, as the long-term follow-up of these patients is limited. Prospective studies of metabolism in the setting of postacute COVID-19 will be required to understand the etiology, prognosis, and treatment opportunities., (© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To assess adherence to the three main drug classes in real-world patients with type 2 diabetes using biochemical urine testing, and to determine the association of nonadherence with baseline demographics, treatment targets, and complications., Research Design and Methods: Analyses were performed of baseline data on 457 patients in the DIAbetes and LifEstyle Cohort Twente (DIALECT) study. Adherence to oral antidiabetics (OADs), antihypertensives, and statins was determined by analyzing baseline urine samples using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Primary outcomes were microvascular and macrovascular complications and treatment targets of LDL cholesterol, HbA 1c , and blood pressure. These were assessed cross-sectionally at baseline., Results: Overall, 89.3% of patients were identified as adherent. Adherence rates to OADs, antihypertensives, and statins were 95.7%, 92.0%, and 95.5%, respectively. The prevalence of microvascular (81.6% vs. 66.2%; P = 0.029) and macrovascular complications (55.1% vs. 37.0%; P = 0.014) was significantly higher in nonadherent patients. The percentage of patients who reached an LDL cholesterol target of ≤2.5 mmol/L was lower (67.4% vs. 81.1%; P = 0.029) in nonadherent patients. Binary logistic regression indicated that higher BMI, current smoking, elevated serum LDL cholesterol, high HbA 1c , presence of diabetic kidney disease, and presence of macrovascular disease were associated with nonadherence., Conclusions: Although medication adherence of real-world type 2 diabetes patients managed in specialist care was relatively high, the prevalence of microvascular and macrovascular complications was significantly higher in nonadherent patients, and treatment targets were reached less frequently. This emphasizes the importance of objective detection and tailored interventions to improve adherence., (© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To estimate the relative and absolute risk of severe hypoglycemia and mortality associated with glucose control, sulfonylureas, and insulin treatment in elderly people with type 2 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: We identified elderly subjects (≥70 years old) with type 2 diabetes between 2000 and 2017 in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink primary care database with linkage to hospitalization and death data. Subjects with three consecutive HbA 1c values <7% (53 mmol/mol) while on insulin and/or sulfonylureas within 60 days prior to the third HbA 1c value (exposed) were matched with subjects not exposed. Hazard ratios (HRs) and absolute risks were estimated for hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia and cardiovascular and noncardiovascular-related mortality., Results: Among 22,857 included subjects (6,288 [27.5%] exposed, of whom 5,659 [90.0%] were on a sulfonylurea), 10,878 (47.6%) deaths and 1,392 (6.1%) severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred during the follow-up. In comparison with nonexposed subjects, the adjusted HR in exposed subjects was 2.52 (95% CI 2.23, 2.84) for severe hypoglycemia, 0.98 (0.91, 1.06) for cardiovascular mortality, and 1.05 (0.99, 1.11) for noncardiovascular mortality. In a 70-, 75-, 80-, and 85-year-old subject, the 10-year risk of severe hypoglycemia was 7.7%, 8.1%, 8.6%, and 8.4% higher than in nonexposed subjects, while differences for noncardiovascular mortality ranged from 1.2% (95% CI -0.1, 2.5) in a 70-year-old to 1.6% (-0.2, 3.4) in an 85-year-old subject. Sulfonylurea and insulin use were more relevant predictors of severe hypoglycemia and death than were glucose levels., Conclusions: Elderly subjects with type 2 diabetes and low HbA 1c on sulfonylurea or insulin treatment experienced a substantially higher risk of hospitalization for severe hypoglycemia but had no clear evidence of increased risks of mortality., (© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association.)