6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020

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

Abstract

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical 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 (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), 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, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Related collections

Most cited references 54

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study

Yasuo Ohkubo, Hideki Kishikawa, Eiichi Araki … (1995)

0 comments Cited 285 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Flash Glucose-Sensing Technology as a Replacement for Blood Glucose Monitoring for the Management of Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: a Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

Thomas Haak, Hélène Hanaire, Ramzi A Ajjan … (2016)

Introduction Glycemic control in participants with insulin-treated diabetes remains challenging. We assessed safety and efficacy of new flash glucose-sensing technology to replace self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Methods This open-label randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02082184) enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy from 26 European diabetes centers. Following 2 weeks of blinded sensor wear, 2:1 (intervention/control) randomization (centrally, using biased-coin minimization dependant on study center and insulin administration) was to control (SMBG) or intervention (glucose-sensing technology). Participants and investigators were not masked to group allocation. Primary outcome was difference in HbA1c at 6 months in the full analysis set. Prespecified secondary outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, effect of age, and patient satisfaction. Results Participants (n = 224) were randomized (149 intervention, 75 controls). At 6 months, there was no difference in the change in HbA1c between intervention and controls: −3.1 ± 0.75 mmol/mol, [−0.29 ± 0.07% (mean ± SE)] and −3.4 ± 1.04 mmol/mol (−0.31 ± 0.09%) respectively; p = 0.8222. A difference was detected in participants aged <65 years [−5.7 ± 0.96 mmol/mol (−0.53 ± 0.09%) and −2.2 ± 1.31 mmol/mol (−0.20 ± 0.12%), respectively; p = 0.0301]. Time in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) reduced by 0.47 ± 0.13 h/day [mean ± SE (p = 0.0006)], and <3.1 mmol/L (55 mg/dL) reduced by 0.22 ± 0.07 h/day (p = 0.0014) for intervention participants compared with controls; reductions of 43% and 53%, respectively. SMBG frequency, similar at baseline, decreased in intervention participants from 3.8 ± 1.4 tests/day (mean ± SD) to 0.3 ± 0.7, remaining unchanged in controls. Treatment satisfaction was higher in intervention compared with controls (DTSQ 13.1 ± 0.50 (mean ± SE) and 9.0 ± 0.72, respectively; p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemic events were reported related to sensor data use. Forty-two serious events [16 (10.7%) intervention participants, 12 (16.0%) controls] were not device-related. Six intervention participants reported nine adverse events for sensor-wear reactions (two severe, six moderate, one mild). Conclusion Flash glucose-sensing technology use in type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy results in no difference in HbA1c change and reduced hypoglycemia, thus offering a safe, effective replacement for SMBG. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02082184. Funding Abbott Diabetes Care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

0 comments Cited 221 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Phase 3 Trial of Transplantation of Human Islets in Type 1 Diabetes Complicated by Severe Hypoglycemia

Bernhard J. Hering, William Clarke, Nancy D Bridges … (2016)

OBJECTIVE Impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) and severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) cause substantial morbidity and mortality in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Current therapies are effective in preventing SHEs in 50–80% of patients with IAH and SHEs, leaving a substantial number of patients at risk. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of a standardized human pancreatic islet product in subjects in whom IAH and SHEs persisted despite medical treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This multicenter, single-arm, phase 3 study of the investigational product purified human pancreatic islets (PHPI) was conducted at eight centers in North America. Forty-eight adults with T1D for >5 years, absent stimulated C-peptide, and documented IAH and SHEs despite expert care were enrolled. Each received immunosuppression and one or more transplants of PHPI, manufactured on-site under good manufacturing practice conditions using a common batch record and standardized lot release criteria and test methods. The primary end point was the achievement of HbA1c 0.0001). No study-related deaths or disabilities occurred. Five of the enrollees (10.4%) experienced bleeds requiring transfusions (corresponding to 5 of 75 procedures), and two enrollees (4.1%) had infections attributed to immunosuppression. Glomerular filtration rate decreased significantly on immunosuppression, and donor-specific antibodies developed in two patients. CONCLUSIONS Transplanted PHPI provided glycemic control, restoration of hypoglycemia awareness, and protection from SHEs in subjects with intractable IAH and SHEs. Safety events occurred related to the infusion procedure and immunosuppression, including bleeding and decreased renal function. Islet transplantation should be considered for patients with T1D and IAH in whom other, less invasive current treatments have been ineffective in preventing SHEs.