M. Sue Kirkman

Diabetes in Older Adults

More than 25% of the U.S. population aged ≥65 years has diabetes (1), and the aging of the overall population is a significant driver of the diabetes epidemic. Although the burden of diabetes is often described in terms of its impact on working-age adults, diabetes in older adults is linked to higher mortality, reduced functional status, and increased risk of institutionalization (2). Older adults with diabetes are at substantial risk for both acute and chronic microvascular and cardiovascular complications of the disease. Despite having the highest prevalence of diabetes of any age-group, older persons and/or those with multiple comorbidities have often been excluded from randomized controlled trials of treatments—and treatment targets—for diabetes and its associated conditions. Heterogeneity of health status of older adults (even within an age range) and the dearth of evidence from clinical trials present challenges to determining standard intervention strategies that fit all older adults. To address these issues, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) convened a Consensus Development Conference on Diabetes and Older Adults (defined as those aged ≥65 years) in February 2012. Following a series of scientific presentations by experts in the field, the writing group independently developed this consensus report to address the following questions: 1. What is the epidemiology and pathogenesis of diabetes in older adults? 2. What is the evidence for preventing and treating diabetes and its common comorbidities in older adults? 3. What current guidelines exist for treating diabetes in older adults? 4. What issues need to be considered in individualizing treatment recommendations for older adults? 5. What are consensus recommendations for treating older adults with or at risk for diabetes? 6. How can gaps in the evidence best be filled? According to the most recent surveillance data, the prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults aged ≥65 years varies from 22 to 33%, depending on the diagnostic criteria …

Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND Multiple laboratory tests are used to diagnose and manage patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these tests varies substantially. APPROACH An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory testing for patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Draft guidelines were posted on the Internet and presented at the 2007 Arnold O. Beckman Conference. The document was modified in response to oral and written comments, and a revised draft was posted in 2010 and again modified in response to written comments. The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the AACC jointly reviewed the guidelines, which were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequently approved by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT In addition to long-standing criteria based on measurement of plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased blood hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) concentrations. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by self-monitoring of plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of Hb A(1c). The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed. SUMMARY The guidelines provide specific recommendations that are based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes have minimal clinical value at present, and their measurement is not recommended.

How Do We Define Cure of Diabetes

The mission of the American Diabetes Association is “to prevent and cure diabetes and to improve the lives of all people affected by diabetes.” Increasingly, scientific and medical articles (1) and commentaries (2) about diabetes interventions use the terms “remission” and “cure” as possible outcomes. Several approved or experimental treatments for type 1 and type 2 diabetes (e.g., pancreas or islet transplants, immunomodulation, bariatric/metabolic surgery) are of curative intent or have been portrayed in the media as a possible cure. However, defining remission or cure of diabetes is not as straightforward as it may seem. Unlike “dichotomous” diseases such as many malignancies, diabetes is defined by hyperglycemia, which exists on a continuum and may be impacted over a short time frame by everyday treatment or events (medications, diet, activity, intercurrent illness). The distinction between successful treatment and cure is blurred in the case of diabetes. Presumably improved or normalized glycemia must be part of the definition of remission or cure. Glycemic measures below diagnostic cut points for diabetes can occur with ongoing medications (e.g., antihyperglycemic drugs, immunosuppressive medications after a transplant), major efforts at lifestyle change, a history of bariatric/metabolic surgery, or ongoing procedures (such as repeated replacements of endoluminal devices). Do we use the terms remission or cure for all patients with normal glycemic measures, regardless of how this is achieved? A consensus group comprised of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, diabetes education, transplantation, metabolism, bariatric/metabolic surgery, and (for another perspective) hematology-oncology met in June 2009 to discuss these issues. The group considered a wide variety of questions, including whether it is ever accurate to say that a chronic illness is cured; what the definitions of management, remission, or cure might be; whether goals of managing comorbid conditions revert to those of patients without diabetes if someone is …

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association consensus statement on inpatient glycemic control.

This report is being published concurrently in 2009 in Endocrine Practice and Diabetes Care by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American Diabetes Association. From the 1Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, 2Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 3Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Health Center and University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing PhD Program, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 4Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, La Jolla, California, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, California, and Diabetes and Endocrine Associates, La Jolla, California, 5Department of Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and Hellman and Rosen Endocrine Associates, North Kansas City, Missouri, 6Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, 7Department of Medicine, Section of Endocrinology, Yale University School of Medicine and the Yale Diabetes Center, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, 8Department of Medicine, Physiology and Biophysics, Division of Clinical and Molecular Endocrinology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, 9Clinical Affairs, American Diabetes Association, Alexandria, Virginia, and 10Department of Medicine/Endocrinology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Etie S. Moghissi, 4644 Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 409, Marina del Rey, CA 90292.

Comprehensive Foot Examination and Risk Assessment A report of the Task Force of the Foot Care Interest Group of the American Diabetes Association, with endorsement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists

It is now 10 years since the last technical review on preventative foot care was published (1), which was followed by an American Diabetes Association (ADA) position statement on preventive foot care in diabetes (2). Many studies have been published proposing a range of tests that might usefully identify patients at risk of foot ulceration, creating confusion among practitioners as to which screening tests should be adopted in clinical practice. A task force was therefore assembled by the ADA to address and concisely summarize recent literature in this area and then recommend what should be included in the comprehensive foot exam for adult patients with diabetes. The committee was cochaired by the immediate past and current chairs of the ADA Foot Care Interest Group (A.J.M.B. and D.G.A.), with other panel members representing primary care, orthopedic and vascular surgery, physical therapy, podiatric medicine and surgery, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. The lifetime risk of a person with diabetes developing a foot ulcer may be as high as 25%, whereas the annual incidence of foot ulcers is ∼2% (3–7). Up to 50% of older patients with type 2 diabetes have one or more risk factors for foot ulceration (3,6). A number of component causes, most importantly peripheral neuropathy, interact to complete the causal pathway to foot ulceration (1,3–5). A list of the principal contributory factors that might result in foot ulcer development is provided in Table 1. View this table: Table 1— Risk factors for foot ulcers The most common triad of causes that interact and ultimately result in ulceration has been identified as neuropathy, deformity, and trauma (5). As identification of those patients at risk of foot problems is the first step in preventing such complications, this report will focus on key components of the …

Type 1 Diabetes Through the Life Span: A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association

Type 1 diabetes is characterized by an immune-mediated depletion of β-cells that results in lifelong dependence on exogenous insulin. While both type 1 and type 2 diabetes result in hyperglycemia, the pathophysiology and etiology of the diseases are distinct and require us to consider each type of diabetes independently. As such, this position statement summarizes available data specific to the comprehensive care of individuals with type 1 diabetes. The goal is to enhance our ability to recognize and manage type 1 diabetes, to prevent its associated complications, and to eventually cure and prevent this disease. The exact number of individuals with type 1 diabetes around the world is not known, but in the U.S., there are estimated to be up to 3 million (1). Although it has long been called “juvenile diabetes” due to the more frequent and relatively straightforward diagnosis in children, the majority of individuals with type 1 diabetes are adults. Most children are referred and treated in tertiary centers, where clinical data are more readily captured. The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study estimated that, in 2009, 18,436 U.S. youth were newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (12,945 non-Hispanic white, 3,098 Hispanic, 2,070 non-Hispanic black, 276 Asian-Pacific Islander, and 47 American Indian) (2). Worldwide, ∼78,000 youth are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes annually. Incidence varies tremendously among countries: East Asians and American Indians have the lowest incidence rates (0.1–8 per 100,000/year) as compared with the Finnish who have the highest rates (>64.2 per 100,000/year) (3). In the U.S., the number of youth with type 1 diabetes was estimated to be 166,984 (4). The precise incidence of new-onset type 1 diabetes in those over 20 years of age is unknown. This may be due to the prolonged phase of onset and the subtleties in distinguishing the different …

A nurse-coordinated intervention for primary care patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: impact on glycemic control and health-related quality of life

AbstractOBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of a nurse-coordinated intervention delivered to patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus between office visits to primary care physicians. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Veterans Affairs general medical clinic. PATIENTS: 275 veterans who had NIDDM and were receiving primary care from general internists. INTERVENTION: Nurse-initiated contacts were made by telephone at least monthly to provide patient education (with special emphasis on regimens and significant signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia), reinforce compliance with regimens, monitor patients’ health status, facilitate resolution of identified problems, and facilitate access to primary care. MEASUREMENTS: Glycemic control was assessed using glycosylated hemoglobin (GHb) and fasting blood sugar (FBS) levels. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was measured with the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36, and diabetes-related symptoms were assessed using patients’ self-reports of signs and symptoms of hyper- and hypoglycemia during the previous month. MAIN RESULTS: At one year, between-group differences favored intervention patients for FBS (174.1 mg/dL vs 193.1 mg/dL, p=0.011) and GHb (10.5% vs 11.1%, p=0.046). Statistically significant differences were not observed for either SF-36 scores (p=0.66) or diabetes-related symptoms (p=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention, designed to be a pragmatic, low-intensity adjunct to care delivered by physicians, modestly improved glycemic control but not HRQOL or diabetes-related symptoms.

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in People With Diabetes A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association, a Scientific Statement of the American Heart Association, and an Expert Consensus Document of the American College of Cardiology Foundation

The burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients with diabetes is substantial. Individuals with diabetes are at 2- to 4-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events compared with age- and sex-matched individuals without diabetes. In diabetic patients over the age of 65 years, 68% of deaths are from coronary heart disease (CHD) and 16% are from stroke.1 A number of mechanisms for the increased cardiovascular risk with diabetes have been proposed, including increased tendency toward intracoronary thrombus formation,2 increased platelet reactivity,3 and worsened endothelial dysfunction.4 The increased risk for cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with diabetes has led to considerable interest in identifying effective means for cardiovascular risk reduction. Aspirin has been shown to be effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke (secondary prevention).5 The Food and Drug Administration has not approved aspirin for use in primary prevention, and its net benefit among patients with no previous cardiovascular events is more controversial, for both patients with and without a history of diabetes.5 The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently updated its recommendation about aspirin use for primary prevention. The Task Force recommended encouraging aspirin use in men age 45–79 years and women age 55–79 years and not encouraging aspirin use in younger adults. They did not differentiate their recommendations based on the presence or absence of diabetes.6,7 In 2007, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the American Heart Association (AHA) jointly recommended that aspirin therapy (75–162 mg/d) be used as a primary prevention strategy in those with diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk, including those who are over 40 years of age or who have additional risk factors (family history of CVD, hypertension, smoking, dyslipidemia, or albuminuria).8 These recommendations were derived from several older …

Managing preexisting diabetes for pregnancy: Summary of evidence and consensus recommendations for care

This document presents consensus panel recommendations for the medical care of pregnant women with preexisting diabetes, including type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The intent is to help clinicians deal with the broad spectrum of problems that arise in management of diabetes before and during pregnancy, and to prepare diabetic women for treatment that may reduce complications in the years after pregnancy. A thorough discussion of the evidence supporting the recommendations is presented in the book, Management of Preexisting Diabetes and Pregnancy , authored by the consensus panel and published by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) in 2008 (1). A consensus statement on obstetrical and postpartum management will appear separately. The recommendations are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by diabetes. The grading system adapted by the ADA was used to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations (2). Unfortunately there is a paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the different aspects of management of diabetes and pregnancy. Therefore our recommendations are often based on trials conducted in nonpregnant diabetic women or nondiabetic pregnant women, as well as on peer-reviewed experience before and during pregnancy in women with preexisting diabetes (3–4). We also reviewed and adapted existing diabetes and pregnancy guidelines (5–10) and guidelines on diabetes complications and comorbidities (2,3,11–14). ### A. Organization of preconception and pregnancy care #### Recommendations

Diabetes in Older Adults: A Consensus Report

More than 25% of the U.S. population aged 65 years has diabetes mellitus (hereafter referred to as diabetes), 1 and the aging of the overall population is a significant driver of the diabetes epidemic. Although the burden of diabetes is often described in terms of its impact on working-age adults, diabetes in older adults is linked to higher mortality, reduced functional status, and increased risk of institutionalization. 2 Older adults with diabetes are at substantial risk for both acute and chronic microvascular and cardiovascular complications of the disease. Despite having the highest prevalence of diabetes of any age-group, older persons and/or those with multiple comorbidities have often been excluded from randomized controlled trials of treatments—and treatment targets— for diabetes and its associated conditions. Heterogeneity of health status of older adults (even within an age range) and the dearth of evidence from clinical trials present challenges to determining standard intervention strategies that fit all older adults. To address these issues, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) convened a Consensus Development Conference on Diabetes and Older Adults (defined as those aged 65 years) in February 2012. Following a series of scientific presentations by experts in the field, the writing group independently developed this consensus report to address the following questions: