Search

Recent clinical practice guidelines for diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) emphasise a holistic, person-centred approach to care. However, they do not include recommendations for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which would - dependent on the topic of guideline - be important for improving shared decision-making, patients' concordance with guideline recommendations, clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The Taskforce of the Guideline Workshop discussed PROs in diabetes, obesity, CVD and CKD as well as the relevance of their inclusion in clinical practice guidelines for the management of these conditions., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: Katharine Barnard-Kelly is founder and shareholder at Spotlight-AQ Ltd. KBK has received research support from Dexcom, Embecta, JDRF, Novo Nordisk and Roche Diabetes Care, and honoraria from Sanofi. Tadej Battelino has served on the advisory boards of Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dreamed Diabetes, Eli Lilly and Company, Indigo Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. TB has received speaker’s bureau honoraria from Abbott, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and Sanofi. The University Medical Center has received research grant support from Abbott, GluSense, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sandoz, Sanofi, and Zealand Pharma. Frank C. Brosius is a consultant for MAKSCIENTIFIC. Antonio Ceriello reports consulting and speaking for Bayer, Berlin-Chemie, Eli Lilly and Company, Guidotti, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics and Sanofi. Francesco Cosentino has nothing reported. Julian Elliott has nothing reported. James R. Gavin III has served on the advisory boards of Abbott Diabetes Care and Embecta, and on the speaker’s bureaus of Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company. Francesco Giorgino has served on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi and as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, LifeScan, Medimmune, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche Diabetes Care and Sanofi. FG has also received research support from Eli Lilly and Company and Roche Diabetes Care. Jennifer Green has nothing reported. Linong Ji declares that he has no competing interests. Monika Kellerer has served on advisory boards of Abbott Diabetes Care, Astra Zeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk and Sanofi. Sue Koob has nothing reported. Mikhail Kosiborod reports consulting or advisory board participation for 35Pharma, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly and Company, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, scPharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Structure Therapeutics, Vifor Pharma and Youngene Therapeutics. MK has also received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer. Nebojsa Lalic declares that he has no competing interests. Nikolaus Marx has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and MSD, speaking fees form Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, MSD, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis and has served or serves on the advisory board of Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis. Prashant Nedungadi has nothing reported. Christopher G. Parkin has nothing reported. Helena W. Rodbard declares that she has no competing interests. René D. Rötzer is employee of Sciarc GmbH. Lars Rydén declares that he has no competing interests related to this work. Wayne Sheu has nothing reported. Eberhard Standl declares that he has no competing interests. Britta Tendal Jeppesen declares that she has no competing interests. Pinar Topsever has received honoraria or consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, and LifeScan, and has served on the speaker’s bureau for AstraZeneca. PT received grant/research support from PCDE, made possible by corporate sponsorship from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Roche Diagnostics; the sponsors had no input into the study protocols. Per Olav Vandvik has nothing reported. Christoph Wanner received honoraria for steering committee and adboard participation as well as lecturing from Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. Oliver Schnell is founder and CEO at Sciarc GmbH, Baierbrunn, Germany., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

Diabetes is unique among chronic diseases because clinical outcomes are intimately tied to how the person living with diabetes reacts to and implements treatment recommendations. It is further characterised by widespread social stigma, judgement and paternalism. This physical, social and psychological burden collectively influences self-management behaviours. It is widely recognised that the individual's perspective about the impact of trying to manage the disease and the burden that self-management confers must be addressed to achieve optimal health outcomes. Standardised, rigorous assessment of mental and behavioural health status, in interaction with physical health outcomes is crucial to aid understanding of person-reported outcomes (PROs). Whilst tempting to conceptualise PROs as an issue of perceived quality of life (QoL), in fact health-related QoL is multi-dimensional and covers indicators of physical or functional health status, psychological and social well-being. This complexity is illuminated by the large number of person reported outcome measures (PROMs) that have been developed across multiple psychosocial domains. Often measures are used inappropriately or because they have been used in the scientific literature rather than based on methodological or outcome assessment rigour. Given the broad nature of psychosocial functioning/mental health, it is important to broadly define PROs that are evaluated in the context of therapeutic interventions, real-life and observational studies. This report summarises the central themes and lessons derived in the assessment and use of PROMs amongst adults with diabetes. Effective assessment of PROMs routinely in clinical research is crucial to understanding the true impact of any intervention. Selecting appropriate measures, relevant to the specific factors of PROs important in the research study will provide valuable data alongside physical health data., (© 2024 Diabetes UK.)

There is a mounting clinical, psychosocial, and socioeconomic burden worldwide as the prevalence of diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) continues to rise. Despite the introduction of therapeutic interventions with demonstrated efficacy to prevent the development or progression of these common chronic diseases, many individuals have limited access to these innovations due to their race/ethnicity, and/or socioeconomic status (SES). However, practical guidance to providers and healthcare systems for addressing these disparities is often lacking. In this article, we review the prevalence and impact of healthcare disparities derived from the above-mentioned chronic conditions and present broad-based recommendations for improving access to quality care and health outcomes within the most vulnerable populations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Advances in the development of innovative medical devices and telehealth technologies create the potential to improve the quality and efficiency of diabetes care through collecting, aggregating, and interpreting relevant health data in ways that facilitate more informed decisions among all stakeholder groups. Although many medical societies publish guidelines for utilizing these technologies in clinical practice, we believe that the methodologies used for the selection and grading of the evidence should be revised. In this article, we discuss the strengths and limitations of the various types of research commonly used for evidence selection and grading and present recommendations for modifying the process to more effectively address the rapid pace of device and technology innovation and new product development., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: We investigated the potential associations between race/ethnicity and adherence to prescribed glucose monitoring in a sample of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes and how adherence to the method used impacted diabetes-related inpatient hospitalizations and associated costs among beneficiaries with intensive insulin-treated diabetes. Methods: This 12-month retrospective analysis utilized Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to identify Medicare beneficiaries who used intensive insulin therapy from January through December 2018 and classified them into four groups: (1) persons using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM), (2) persons using any method of blood glucose monitoring (BGM) who followed prescribed use patterns (adherent), (3) persons who were prescribed BGM but were nonadherent in its use, and (4) no record of any form of BGM. Analyses compared these groups and the role that comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]), and race/ethnicity played on group assignment, diabetes-related inpatient hospitalizations, and costs. Results: Among the 1,329,061 persons assessed, 38.14% had no record of glucose monitoring and 35.42% were BGM nonadherent. Similarly, among the 629,514 beneficiaries with a CCI risk score of ≥2, 466,646 (74.13%) were either nonadherent to BGM or had no monitoring record. The percentage of White (3.65%) rtCGM adherent beneficiaries was significantly larger than Black (1.58%) and Hispanic (1.28%) beneficiaries, both P  < 0.0001. Hospitalizations and costs were higher for Black and Hispanic beneficiaries versus Whites within the risk score ≥ 2 group regardless of glucose monitoring method. Conclusions: Race is associated with increased hospitalizations and costs associated with diabetes care and absence of any form of BGM was associated with higher rates of comorbidities. Persons of color were less likely to use rtCGM despite Medicare coverage. New initiatives that promote diabetes self-management education and support services are needed to improve utilization of glucose monitoring within the Medicare diabetes population.

The increasing prevalence of diabetes, combined with a growing global shortage of health care professionals (HCP), necessitates the need to develop new approaches to diabetes care delivery to expand access to care, lessen the burden on people with diabetes, improve efficiencies, and reduce the unsustainable financial liability on health systems and payers. Use of digital diabetes technologies and telehealth protocols within a digital/virtual diabetes clinic has the potential to address these challenges. However, several issues must be resolved to move forward. In February 2020, organizers of the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Annual Conference convened an international panel of HCP, researchers, patient advocates, and industry representatives to review the status of digital diabetes technologies, characterize deficits in current technologies, and identify issues for consideration. Since that meeting, the importance of using telehealth and digital diabetes technologies has been demonstrated amid the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. This article summarizes the panel's discussion of the opportunities, obstacles, and requisites for advancing the use of these technologies as a standard of care for the management of diabetes.

A panel of international experts in the field of diabetes and diabetes technology met in Copenhagen, Denmark, for the 12th Roche Diabetes Care Network Meeting. The goal of these meetings is to share current knowledge, facilitate new collaborations, and encourage further research projects that can improve the lives of people with diabetes. Specific areas of interest included use of telemedicine and mobile health technologies, behavior change, patient-centered care, and multifactorial approaches to addressing all metabolic abnormalities associated with diabetes. The 2019 meeting covered a comprehensive scientific program and four keynote lectures.

Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: Use of glucose monitoring is essential to the safety of individuals with insulin-treated diabetes. In 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Medicare Competitive Bidding Program (CBP) in nine test markets. This resulted in a substantial disruption of beneficiary access to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) supplies and significant increases in the percentage of beneficiaries with either reduced or no acquisition of supplies. These reductions were significantly associated with increased mortality, hospitalizations, and costs. The CBP was implemented nationally in July 2013. We evaluated the impact of this rollout to determine if the adverse outcomes seen in 2011 persisted., Research Design and Methods: This longitudinal study followed 529,627 insulin-treated beneficiaries from 2009 through 2013 to assess changes in beneficiary acquisition of testing supplies in the initial nine test markets (TEST, n = 43,939) and beneficiaries not affected by the 2011 rollout (NONTEST, n = 485,688). All Medicare beneficiary records for analysis were obtained from CMS., Results: The percentages of beneficiaries with partial/no SMBG acquisition were significantly higher in both the TEST (37.4%) and NONTEST (37.6%) groups after the first 6 months of the national CBP rollout, showing increases of 48.1% and 60.0%, respectively (both P < 0.0001). The percentage of beneficiaries with no record for SMBG acquisition increased from 54.1% in January 2013 to 62.5% by December 2013., Conclusions: Disruption of beneficiary access to their prescribed SMBG supplies has persisted and worsened. Diabetes testing supplies should be excluded from the CBP until transparent, science-based methodologies for safety monitoring are adopted and implemented., (© 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: The ability to automatically transfer data to clinicians and receive timely guidance in therapy adjustments through remote and in-office consults can positively impact patients' perceptions about quality of care, which is positively associated with clinical outcomes. We assessed the impact of using the Accu-Chek Connect diabetes management system on treatment satisfaction, diabetes distress, and glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes., Subjects and Methods: This 6-month, prospective, multicenter, single-arm study assessed the impact of using the system on treatment satisfaction and glycemic control among 87 adults with insulin-treated diabetes (multiple daily insulin injections and basal only), with 8.8% ± 1.6% glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at baseline. The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-status (DTSQs) and Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) were administered at baseline, and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-change (DTSQc) and DDS at 6 months. Changes in HbA1c, average blood glucose (BG), and other metrics were also assessed., Results: Improvements in DTSQc scores were observed at 6 months with a total mean (standard deviation) score of 14.3 ± 5.1. Significant reductions in total mean DDS scores from baseline to 6 months were also observed, from 2.0 ± 0.8 to 1.7 ± 0.7, P < 0.0001. A significant reduction in regimen-related distress was notable, from "moderate distress" (2.4 ± 1.0) to "not distressed" (1.9 ± 0.9), P < 0.0001). Significant reductions in mean HbA1c (-0.9 ± 1.6, P < 0.0001) and mean BG (-24.8 ± 50.8, P < 0.0001) were observed., Conclusions: Use of the Accu-Chek Connect diabetes management system is associated with increased treatment satisfaction and improved glycemic control among individuals with insulin-treated diabetes. NCT02600845 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

In this issue of Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Christiansen and colleagues report results from two studies, laboratory and clinical, that assessed the accuracy of a new blood glucose monitoring system, the Contour®Next ONE (Ascensia Diabetes Care, Parsippany, NJ, USA). The new system comprises a blood glucose meter that can link (via Bluetooth®) to the Contour™ Diabetes app, which operates on a smartphone or tablet. Results from both studies showed that the system exceeded the accuracy standards defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013. It is worrisome, however, that many FDA-cleared (and marketed) blood glucose monitoring systems do not meet ISO accuracy criteria. Significant improvements in regulatory oversight and enforcement are needed.

Manual calculation of bolus insulin dosages can be challenging for individuals treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) therapy. Automated bolus calculator capability has recently been made available via enhanced blood glucose meters and smartphone apps. Use of this technology has been shown to improve glycemic control and reduce glycemic variability without changing hypoglycemia; however, the clinical utility of app-based bolus calculators has not been demonstrated. Moreover, recent evidence challenges the safety and efficacy of these smartphone apps. Although the ability to automatically calculate bolus insulin dosages addresses a critical need of MDI-treated individuals, this technology raises concerns about efficacy of treatment and the protection of patient safety. This article discusses key issues and considerations associated with automated bolus calculator use., (© 2016 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) provide unique insights into comparative effectiveness of diabetes treatments. However, use of these analyses may be inappropriate for assessing the value and utility of technologies that involve significant behavioral interventions and encompass rapidly evolving technologies such as real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM). The rapid evolution of RT-CGM, compared with the time required for publication of clinical studies used in SRMAs, may preclude differentiation between past and current generations of devices. In addition, the effect of performance and usability differences between the various commercial devices on possible clinical outcomes associated with the devices are often not clearly discussed, and many of the RT-CGM studies assessed in SRMAs do not provide adequate information regarding whether and/or to what degree study subjects and clinicians were trained to use the RT-CGM and utilize the data to adjust therapy. Although numerous clinical studies have shown that the glycemic benefit of RT-CGM is related to the frequency and duration of use, a disproportionate number of RT-CGM studies included in recent SRMAs are based on the results of the intention-to-treat analyses and do not consider this fundamental behavioral component in their conclusions. Given these limitations, the generalizability of SRMA conclusions may be limited, and findings from these reports may significantly underestimate the potential glycemic benefit of current and future devices, posing challenges for coverage and reimbursement. We reviewed the potential limitations of the recent Cochrane Collaboration report on CGM, focusing on the 12 studies that assessed RT-CGM use in adults, children/adolescents or both., (© 2015 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of information management system (IMS) use with individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes who were treated in outpatient settings., Methods: In this 7-month, prospective, observational study, 965 adults with diabetes, mean (SD) baseline HbA1c 8.61(1.2)% (70.6[13.1] mmol/mol), were recruited from 132 outpatient care centers in Germany and Denmark. HbA1c was measured at baseline, month 4, and month 7. IMS reports were generated from uploaded self-monitored blood glucose data and therapy adjustments were documented at months 1 and 4. Hypoglycemic events were documented., Results: Mean (SD) HbA1c decreased from baseline in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients at month 4 (-0.61[1.03]% (-6.7[11.3] mmol/mol), n = 213; -0.88[1.22]% (-9.6[13.3] mmol/mol), n = 589, respectively) and month 7 (-0.64[1.02]% (-7.0[11.1] mmol/mol), n = 219; -0.93[1.27]% (-10.2[13.9] mmol/mol), n = 594, respectively), all P < .0001, with no increase in hypoglycemic events. Therapy was adjusted in 106(42.7)% type 1 and 349(52.4)% type 2 diabetes patients at months 1 and 105(42.3)% type 1 and 282(42.3)% type 2 diabetes patients at month 4. Physicians used IMS reports to make therapy adjustments in 90% of patients at month 1 and 86% of patients at month 4., Conclusions: Integration of the IMS into outpatient care facilitates significant improvements in glycemic control., (© 2015 Diabetes Technology Society.)

We assessed users' proficiency and efficiency in identifying and interpreting self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG), insulin, and carbohydrate intake data using data management software reports compared with standard logbooks. This prospective, self-controlled, randomized study enrolled insulin-treated patients with diabetes (PWDs) (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] and multiple daily insulin injection [MDI] therapy), patient caregivers [CGVs]) and health care providers (HCPs) who were naïve to diabetes data management computer software. Six paired clinical cases (3 CSII, 3 MDI) and associated multiple-choice questions/answers were reviewed by diabetes specialists and presented to participants via a web portal in both software report (SR) and traditional logbook (TL) formats. Participant response time and accuracy were documented and assessed. Participants completed a preference questionnaire at study completion. All participants (54 PWDs, 24 CGVs, 33 HCPs) completed the cases. Participants achieved greater accuracy (assessed by percentage of accurate answers) using the SR versus TL formats: PWDs, 80.3 (13.2)% versus 63.7 (15.0)%, P < .0001; CGVs, 84.6 (8.9)% versus 63.6 (14.4)%, P < .0001; HCPs, 89.5 (8.0)% versus 66.4 (12.3)%, P < .0001. Participants spent less time (minutes) with each case using the SR versus TL formats: PWDs, 8.6 (4.3) versus 19.9 (12.2), P < .0001; CGVs, 7.0 (3.5) versus 15.5 (11.8), P = .0005; HCPs, 6.7 (2.9) versus 16.0 (12.0), P < .0001. The majority of participants preferred using the software reports versus logbook data. Use of the Accu-Chek Connect Online software reports enabled PWDs, CGVs, and HCPs, naïve to diabetes data management software, to identify and utilize key diabetes information with significantly greater accuracy and efficiency compared with traditional logbook information. Use of SRs was preferred over logbooks., (© 2014 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Background: Many branded analog insulins will lose patent protection during the next few years. In response, a number of companies are developing biosimilar insulins, which have the potential to lower healthcare costs and increase patient access. Although these products are not yet available in the US, it is important that patients, payers and clinicians be aware of the potential benefits as well as concerns associated with biosimilar insulins., Scope: This report provides information about these new products and discusses key questions clinicians should consider regarding biosimilar insulin., Conclusion: The biosimilar insulins being developed have the potential to provide clinical benefits that are similar to current insulin analogs at a more affordable price, thereby allowing more patients greater access to these effective therapies. However, industry and regulatory agencies must proceed with caution in bringing these new insulins to market. Clinicians must be aware of how availability of these new medications may impact patients' adherence to their treatment regimens and begin taking steps now to address these potential issues.

Background: Blood glucose data are frequently used in clinical decision making, thus it is critical that self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) systems consistently provide accurate results. Concerns about SMBG accuracy have prompted the development of newly proposed International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards: ≥ 95% of individual glucose results shall fall within ± 15 mg/dl of the results of the manufacturer's reference procedure at glucose concentrations <100 mg/dl and within ± 15% for values ≥ 100 mg/dl. We evaluated seven marketed systems against the current and proposed ISO criteria (criterion A)., Method: Capillary blood samples were collected from 100 subjects and tested on seven systems: Accu-Chek Aviva Plus, Advocate Redi-Code, Element, Embrace, Prodigy Voice, TRUEbalance, and WaveSense Presto. Results were compared with manufacturer's documented reference system, YSI or perchloric acid hexokinase; three different strip lots from each system were tested on each subject, in duplicate., Results: Compared against current ISO criteria (≥ 95% within ± 15 mg/dl for values <75 mg/dl and ± 20% for values ≥ 75 mg/dl) the Accu-Chek Aviva Plus, Element, and WaveSense Presto systems met accuracy criteria. However, only the Accu-Chek Aviva Plus met the proposed ISO criteria (criterion A) in all three lots. The other six systems failed to meet the criteria in at least two of the three lots, showing lot-to-lot variability, high/low bias, and variations due to hematocrit., Conclusions: Inaccurate SMBG readings can potentially adversely impact clinical decision making and outcomes. Clinicians can reduce controllable variables by prescribing accurate SMBG systems. Adherence to the proposed ISO criteria should enhance patient safety by improving the accuracy of SMBG systems., (© 2013 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is an important adjunct to hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing. This action can distinguish between fasting, preprandial, and postprandial hyperglycemia; detect glycemic excursions; identify and monitor resolution of hypoglycemia; and provide immediate feedback to patients about the effect of food choices, activity, and medication on glycemic control. Pattern analysis is a systematic approach to identifying glycemic patterns within SMBG data and then taking appropriate action based upon those results. The use of pattern analysis involves: (1) establishing pre- and postprandial glucose targets; (2) obtaining data on glucose levels, carbohydrate intake, medication administration (type, dosages, timing), activity levels and physical/emotional stress; (3) analyzing data to identify patterns of glycemic excursions, assessing any influential factors, and implementing appropriate action(s); and (4) performing ongoing SMBG to assess the impact of any therapeutic changes made. Computer-based and paper-based data collection and management tools can be developed to perform pattern analysis for identifying patterns in SMBG data. This approach to interpreting SMBG data facilitates rational therapeutic adjustments in response to this information. Pattern analysis of SMBG data can be of equal or greater value than measurement of HbA1c levels., (2009 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Objective: To review diabetes-related Web sites and online resources for health-care professionals, patients, and health-care organizations., Methods: Diabetes-related Web sites were sought and reviewed., Results: The Internet has a vast amount of diabetes-related content. Many health-care organizations make their practice guidelines available for online viewing, downloading, or both. Other resources focus on helping clinicians answer specific clinical questions at the point of care by providing extensive diabetes-related basic science, diagnostic, and therapeutic content. Some online resources can help to improve patient adherence to recommended treatment regimens and healthier lifestyles. New Web sites and online tools can help health-care professionals and organizations implement improved systems of diabetes care, focusing on evidence-based decision making, effective information systems, and meeting the needs of diverse populations. Online data can also help those wishing to purchase and implement electronic registries or electronic medical record systems (or both) to compare product characteristics., Conclusion: An increasing number of diabetes-related Web sites have become available to help clinicians, patients, and health-care systems obtain the information, tools, and support to address the many challenges involved in effective management of diabetes.

Objective: To determine whether a comprehensive diabetes management program that included risk stratification and social marketing would improve clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction within a managed care organization (MCO)., Research Design and Methods: The 12-month prospective trial was conducted at primary care clinics within a MCO and involved 370 adults with diabetes. Measurements included 1) the frequency of dilated eye and foot examinations, microalbuminuria assessment, blood pressure measurement, lipid profile, and HbA(1c) measurement; 2) changes in blood pressure, lipid levels, and HbA(1c) levels; and 3) changes in patient satisfaction., Results: Complete data are reported for the 193 patients who had been enrolled for 12 months; life table analysis is reported for all patients who remained enrolled at the study's end as well as for a comparative control group of 623 patients. For the 193 patients for whom 12-month data were available, the number of patients in the low-risk category (HbA(1c) <7%) increased by 51.1%. A total of 97.4% of patients with an HbA(1c) >8% at baseline had a change in treatment regimen. Patients at the highest risk for coronary heart disease (LDL >130 mg/dl) decreased from 25.4% at baseline to 20.2%. Patients with a blood pressure <130/85 mmHg increased from 23.8 to 44.6%. Of these patients, 63.0% had changes in medication. Patients and providers expressed significant increases in satisfaction with the program., Conclusions: The program was successful in initiating the recommended changes in the diabetic therapeutic regimen, resulting in improved glycemic control, increased monitoring/management of diabetic complications, and greater patient and provider satisfaction. These results should have great significance in the design of future programs in MCOs aimed at improving the care of people with diabetes and other chronic diseases.