Blog
About

141
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    10
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2009

      Diabetes Care

      American Diabetes Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Diabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. I. CLASSIFICATION AND DIAGNOSIS A. Classification In 1997, ADA issued new diagnostic and classification criteria (4); in 2003, modifications were made regarding the diagnosis of impaired fasting glucose (5). The classification of diabetes includes four clinical classes: type 1 diabetes (results from β-cell destruction, usually leading to absolute insulin deficiency) type 2 diabetes (results from a progressive insulin secretory defect on the background of insulin resistance) other specific types of diabetes due to other causes, e.g., genetic defects in β-cell function, genetic defects in insulin action, diseases of the exocrine pancreas (such as cystic fibrosis), and drug- or chemical-induced (such as in the treatment of AIDS or after organ transplantation) gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (diabetes diagnosed during pregnancy) Some patients cannot be clearly classified as type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Clinical presentation and disease progression vary considerably in both types of diabetes. Occasionally, patients who otherwise have type 2 diabetes may present with ketoacidosis. Similarly, patients with type 1 may have a late onset and slow (but relentless) progression of disease despite having features of autoimmune disease. Such difficulties in diagnosis may occur in children, adolescents, and adults. The true diagnosis may become more obvious over time. B. Diagnosis of diabetes Current criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes in nonpregnant adults are shown in Table 2. Three ways to diagnose diabetes are recommended at the time of this statement, and each must be confirmed on a subsequent day unless unequivocal symptoms of hyperglycemia are present. Although the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is more sensitive and modestly more specific than the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) to diagnose diabetes, it is poorly reproducible and difficult to perform in practice. Because of ease of use, acceptability to patients, and lower cost, the FPG has been the preferred diagnostic test. Though FPG is less sensitive than the OGTT, the vast majority of people who do not meet diagnostic criteria for diabetes by FPG but would by OGTT will have an A1C value well under 7.0% (6). Though the OGTT is not recommended for routine clinical use, it may be useful for further evaluation of patients in whom diabetes is still strongly suspected but who have normal FPG or IFG (see Section I.C). The use of the A1C for the diagnosis of diabetes has previously not been recommended due to lack of global standardization and uncertainty about diagnostic thresholds. However, with a world-wide move toward a standardized assay and with increasing observational evidence about the prognostic significance of A1C, an Expert Committee on the Diagnosis of Diabetes was convened in 2008. This joint committee of ADA, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, and the International Diabetes Federation will likely recommend that the A1C become the preferred diagnostic test for diabetes. Diagnostic cut-points are being discussed at the time of publication of this statement. Updated recommendations will be published in Diabetes Care and will be available at diabetes.org. C. Diagnosis of pre-diabetes Hyperglycemia not sufficient to meet the diagnostic criteria for diabetes is categorized as either impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), depending on whether it is identified through the FPG or the OGTT: IFG = FPG 100 mg/dl (5.6 mmol/l) to 125 mg/dl (6.9 mmol/l) IGT = 2-h plasma glucose 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l) to 199 mg/dl (11.0 mmol/l) IFG and IGT have been officially termed “pre-diabetes.” Both categories of pre-diabetes are risk factors for future diabetes and for cardiovascular disease (CVD) (7). II. TESTING FOR PRE-DIABETES AND DIABETES IN ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS Recommendations Testing to detect pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic people should be considered in adults of any age who are overweight or obese (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) and who have one or more additional risk factors for diabetes (Table 3). In those without these risk factors, testing should begin at age 45 years. (B) If tests are normal, repeat testing should be carried out at least at 3-year intervals. (E) To test for pre-diabetes or diabetes, an FPG test or 2-h OGTT (75-g glucose load) or both are appropriate. (B) An OGTT may be considered in patients with IFG to better define the risk of diabetes. (E) In those identified with pre-diabetes, identify and, if appropriate, treat other CVD risk factors. (B) For many illnesses, there is a major distinction between screening and diagnostic testing. However, for diabetes, the same tests would be used for “screening” as for diagnosis. Type 2 diabetes has a long asymptomatic phase and significant clinical risk markers. Diabetes may be identified anywhere along a spectrum of clinical scenarios ranging from a seemingly low-risk individual who happens to have glucose testing, to a higher-risk individual whom the provider tests because of high suspicion of diabetes, to the symptomatic patient. The discussion herein is primarily framed as testing for diabetes in those without symptoms. Testing for diabetes will also detect individuals with pre-diabetes. A. Testing for pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes in adults Type 2 diabetes is frequently not diagnosed until complications appear, and approximately one-third of all people with diabetes may be undiagnosed. Although the effectiveness of early identification of pre-diabetes and diabetes through mass testing of asymptomatic individuals has not been definitively proven (and rigorous trials to provide such proof are unlikely to occur), pre-diabetes and diabetes meet established criteria for conditions in which early detection is appropriate. Both conditions are common, increasing in prevalence, and impose significant public health burdens. There is a long presymptomatic phase before the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is usually made. Relatively simple tests are available to detect preclinical disease (8). Additionally, the duration of glycemic burden is a strong predictor of adverse outcomes, and effective interventions exist to prevent progression of pre-diabetes to diabetes (see Section IV) and to reduce risk of complications of diabetes (see Section VI). Recommendations for testing for pre-diabetes and diabetes in asymptomatic, undiagnosed adults are listed in Table 3. Testing should be considered in adults of any age with BMI ≥25 kg/m2 and one or more risk factors for diabetes. Because age is a major risk factor for diabetes, testing of those without other risk factors should begin no later than age 45 years. Either FPG testing or the 2-h OGTT is appropriate for testing. The 2-h OGTT identifies people with either IFG or IGT, and thus, more pre-diabetic people at increased risk for the development of diabetes and CVD. It should be noted that the two tests do not necessarily detect the same pre-diabetic individuals (9). The efficacy of interventions for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes (10–16) has primarily been demonstrated among individuals with IGT, not individuals with IFG (who do not also have IGT). As noted in the diagnosis section (Section I.B), the FPG test is more convenient, more reproducible, less costly, and easier to administer than the 2-h OGTT (4,5). An OGTT may be useful in patients with IFG to better define the risk of diabetes. The appropriate interval between tests is not known (17). The rationale for the 3-year interval is that false-negatives will be repeated before substantial time elapses, and there is little likelihood that an individual will develop significant complications of diabetes within 3 years of a negative test result. Because of the need for follow-up and discussion of abnormal results, testing should be carried out within the health care setting. Community screening outside a health care setting is not recommended because people with positive tests may not seek, or have access to, appropriate follow-up testing and care. Conversely, there may be failure to ensure appropriate repeat testing for individuals who test negative. Community screening may also be poorly targeted, i.e., it may fail to reach the groups most at risk and inappropriately test those at low risk (the worried well) or even those already diagnosed (18,19). B. Testing for type 2 diabetes in children The incidence of type 2 diabetes in adolescents has increased dramatically in the last decade, especially in minority populations (20), although the disease remains rare in the general adolescent population (21). Consistent with recommendations for adults, children and youth at increased risk for the presence or the development of type 2 diabetes should be tested within the health care setting (22). The recommendations of the ADA consensus statement on type 2 diabetes in children and youth, with some modifications, are summarized in Table 4. C. Screening for type 1 diabetes Generally, people with type 1 diabetes present with acute symptoms of diabetes and markedly elevated blood glucose levels, and most cases are diagnosed soon after the onset of hyperglycemia. However, evidence from type 1 prevention studies suggests that measurement of islet autoantibodies identifies individuals who are at risk for developing type 1 diabetes. Such testing may be appropriate in high-risk individuals, such as those with prior transient hyperglycemia or those who have relatives with type 1 diabetes, in the context of clinical research studies (see, for example, http://www2.diabetestrialnet.org). Widespread clinical testing of asymptomatic low-risk individuals cannot currently be recommended, as it would identify very few individuals in the general population who are at risk. Individuals who screen positive should be counseled about their risk of developing diabetes. Clinical studies are being conducted to test various methods of preventing type 1 diabetes, or reversing early type 1 diabetes, in those with evidence of autoimmunity. III. DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS OF GDM Recommendations Screen for GDM using risk factor analysis and, if appropriate, use of an OGTT. (C) Women with GDM should be screened for diabetes 6–12 weeks postpartum and should be followed up with subsequent screening for the development of diabetes or pre-diabetes. (E) GDM is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy (4). Although most cases resolve with delivery, the definition applies whether or not the condition persists after pregnancy and does not exclude the possibility that unrecognized glucose intolerance may have antedated or begun concomitantly with the pregnancy. Approximately 7% of all pregnancies (ranging from 1 to 14% depending on the population studied and the diagnostic tests employed) are complicated by GDM, resulting in more than 200,000 cases annually. Because of the risks of GDM to the mother and neonate, screening and diagnosis are warranted. The screening and diagnostic strategies, based on the 2004 ADA position statement on gestational diabetes mellitus (23), are outlined in Table 5. Results of the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes study (24), a large-scale (including ∼25,000 pregnant women) multinational epidemiologic study, demonstrated that risk of adverse maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes continuously increased as a function of maternal glycemia at 24–28 weeks, even within ranges previously considered normal for pregnancy. For most complications, there was no threshold for risk. These results have led to careful reconsideration of the diagnostic criteria for GDM. An international group representing multiple obstetrical and diabetes organizations, including ADA, is currently working on consensus toward 1) a world-wide standard for which diagnostic test to use for GDM and 2) rational diagnostic cut points. Because women with a history of GDM have a greatly increased subsequent risk for diabetes (25), they should be screened for diabetes 6–12 weeks postpartum, using nonpregnant OGTT criteria, and should be followed up with subsequent screening for the development of diabetes or pre-diabetes, as outlined in Section II. For information on the National Diabetes Education Program (NDEP) campaign to prevent type 2 diabetes in women with GDM, go to www.ndep.nih.gov/diabetes/pubs/NeverTooEarly_Tipsheet.pdf. IV. PREVENTION/DELAY OF TYPE 2 DIABETES Recommendations Patients with IGT (A) or IFG (E) should be referred to an effective ongoing support program for weight loss of 5–10% of body weight and for increasing physical activity to at least 150 min per week of moderate activity such as walking. Follow-up counseling appears to be important for success. (B) Based on potential cost savings of diabetes prevention, such counseling should be covered by third-party payors. (E) In addition to lifestyle counseling, metformin may be considered in those who are at very high risk for developing diabetes (combined IFG and IGT plus other risk factors such as A1C >6%, hypertension, low HDL cholesterol, elevated triglycerides, or family history of diabetes in a first-degree relative) and who are obese and under 60 years of age. (E) Monitoring for the development of diabetes in those with pre-diabetes should be performed every year. (E) Randomized controlled trials have shown that individuals at high risk for developing diabetes (those with IFG, IGT, or both) can be given interventions that significantly decrease the rate of onset of diabetes (10–16). These interventions include intensive lifestyle modification programs that have been shown to be very effective (≥58% reduction after 3 years) and use of the pharmacologic agents metformin, acarbose, orlistat, and thiazolidinediones (TZDs), each of which has been shown to decrease incident diabetes to various degrees. A summary of major diabetes prevention trials is shown in Table 6. Two studies of lifestyle intervention have shown persistent reduction in the rate of conversion to type 2 diabetes with 3 (26) to 14 years (27) of postintervention follow-up. Based on the results of clinical trials and the known risks of progression of pre-diabetes to diabetes, an ADA Consensus Development Panel (7) concluded that persons with pre-diabetes (IGT and/or IFG) should be counseled on lifestyle changes with goals similar to those of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) (5–10% weight loss and moderate physical activity of ∼30 min per day). Regarding the more difficult issue of drug therapy for diabetes prevention, the consensus panel felt that metformin should be the only drug considered for use in diabetes prevention. For other drugs, the issues of cost, side effects, and lack of persistence of effect in some studies led the panel to not recommend their use for diabetes prevention. Metformin use was recommended only for very-high-risk individuals (those with combined IGT and IFG who are obese and under 60 years of age with at least one other risk factor for diabetes). In addition, the panel highlighted the evidence that in the DPP, metformin was most effective compared to lifestyle in those with BMI of at least 35 kg/m2 and those under age 60 years. V. DIABETES CARE A. Initial evaluation A complete medical evaluation should be performed to classify the diabetes, detect the presence of diabetes complications, review previous treatment and glycemic control in patients with established diabetes, assist in formulating a management plan, and provide a basis for continuing care. Laboratory tests appropriate to the evaluation of each patient's medical condition should be performed. A focus on the components of comprehensive care (Table 7) will assist the health care team to ensure optimal management of the patient with diabetes. B. Management People with diabetes should receive medical care from a physician-coordinated team. Such teams may include, but are not limited to, physicians, nurse practitioners, physician's assistants, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and mental health professionals with expertise and a special interest in diabetes. It is essential in this collaborative and integrated team approach that individuals with diabetes assume an active role in their care. The management plan should be formulated as an individualized therapeutic alliance among the patient and family, the physician, and other members of the health care team. A variety of strategies and techniques should be used to provide adequate education and development of problem-solving skills in the various aspects of diabetes management. Implementation of the management plan requires that each aspect is understood and agreed on by the patient and the care providers and that the goals and treatment plan are reasonable. Any plan should recognize diabetes self-management education (DSME) as an integral component of care. In developing the plan, consideration should be given to the patient's age, school or work schedule and conditions, physical activity, eating patterns, social situation and personality, cultural factors, and presence of complications of diabetes or other medical conditions. C. Glycemic control 1. Assessment of glycemic control Two primary techniques are available for health providers and patients to assess the effectiveness of the management plan on glycemic control: patient self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or of interstitial glucose and measurement of A1C. a. Glucose monitoring Recommendations SMBG should be carried out three or more times daily for patients using multiple insulin injections or insulin pump therapy. (A) For patients using less frequent insulin injections, noninsulin therapies, or medical nutrition therapy (MNT) and physical activity alone, SMBG may be useful as a guide to the success of therapy. (E) To achieve postprandial glucose targets, postprandial SMBG may be appropriate. (E) When prescribing SMBG, ensure that patients receive initial instruction in, and routine follow-up evaluation of, SMBG technique and their ability to use data to adjust therapy. (E) Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in conjunction with intensive insulin regimens can be a useful tool to lower A1C in selected adults (age ≥25 years) with type 1 diabetes (A). Although the evidence for A1C lowering is less strong in children, teens, and younger adults, CGM may be helpful in these groups. Success correlates with adherence to ongoing use of the device. (C) CGM may be a supplemental tool to SMBG in those with hypoglycemia unawareness and/or frequent hypoglycemic episodes. (E) The ADA's consensus and position statements on SMBG provide a comprehensive review of the subject (31,32). Major clinical trials of insulin-treated patients that demonstrated the benefits of intensive glycemic control on diabetes complications have included SMBG as part of multifactorial interventions, suggesting that SMBG is a component of effective therapy. SMBG allows patients to evaluate their individual response to therapy and assess whether glycemic targets are being achieved. Results of SMBG can be useful in preventing hypoglycemia and adjusting medications (particularly prandial insulin doses), MNT, and physical activity. The frequency and timing of SMBG should be dictated by the particular needs and goals of the patients. SMBG is especially important for patients treated with insulin to monitor for and prevent asymptomatic hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. For most patients with type 1 diabetes and pregnant women taking insulin, SMBG is recommended three or more times daily. For this population, significantly more frequent testing may be required to reach A1C targets safely without hypoglycemia. The optimal frequency and timing of SMBG for patients with type 2 diabetes on noninsulin therapy is unclear. A meta-analysis of SMBG in non–insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes concluded that some regimen of SMBG was associated with a reduction in A1C of ≥0.4%. However, many of the studies in this analysis also included patient education with diet and exercise counseling and, in some cases, pharmacologic intervention, making it difficult to assess the contribution of SMBG alone to improved control (33). Several recent trials have called into question the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of routine SMBG in non–insulin-treated patients (34–36). Because the accuracy of SMBG is instrument and user dependent (37), it is important to evaluate each patient's monitoring technique, both initially and at regular intervals thereafter. In addition, optimal use of SMBG requires proper interpretation of the data. Patients should be taught how to use the data to adjust food intake, exercise, or pharmacological therapy to achieve specific glycemic goals, and these skills should be reevaluated periodically. CGM through the measurement of interstitial glucose (which correlates well with plasma glucose) is available. These sensors require calibration with SMBG, and the latter are still recommended for making acute treatment decisions. CGM devices also have alarms for hypo- and hyperglycemic excursions. Small studies in selected patients with type 1 diabetes have suggested that CGM use reduces the time spent in hypo- and hyperglycemic ranges and may modestly improve glycemic control. A larger 26-week randomized trial of 322 type 1 patients showed that adults age 25 years and older using intensive insulin therapy and CGM experienced a 0.5% reduction in A1C (from ∼7.6 to 7.1%) compared with usual intensive insulin therapy with SMBG (38). Sensor use in children, teens, and adults to age 24 years did not result in significant A1C lowering, and there was no significant difference in hypoglycemia in any group. Importantly, the greatest predictor of A1C lowering in this study for all age-groups was frequency of sensor use, which was lower in younger age-groups. Although CGM is an evolving technology, emerging data suggest that, in appropriately selected patients who are motivated to wear it most of the time, it may offer benefit. CGM may be particularly useful in those with hypoglycemia unawareness and/or frequent episodes of hypoglycemia, and studies in this area are ongoing. b. A1C Recommendations Perform the A1C test at least two times a year in patients who are meeting treatment goals (and who have stable glycemic control). (E) Perform the A1C test quarterly in patients whose therapy has changed or who are not meeting glycemic goals. (E) Use of point-of-care testing for A1C allows for timely decisions on therapy changes, when needed. (E) Because A1C is thought to reflect average glycemia over several months (37), and has strong predictive value for diabetes complications (10,39), A1C testing should be performed routinely in all patients with diabetes at initial assessment and then as part of continuing care. Measurement approximately every 3 months determines whether a patient's glycemic targets have been reached and maintained. For any individual patient, the frequency of A1C testing should be dependent on the clinical situation, the treatment regimen used, and the judgment of the clinician. Some patients with stable glycemia well within target may do well with testing only twice per year, while unstable or highly intensively managed patients (e.g., pregnant type 1 women) may be tested more frequently than every 3 months. The availability of the A1C result at the time that the patient is seen (point-of-care testing) has been reported to result in increased intensification of therapy and improvement in glycemic control (40,41). The A1C test is subject to certain limitations. Conditions that affect erythrocyte turnover (hemolysis, blood loss) and hemoglobin variants must be considered, particularly when the A1C result does not correlate with the patient's clinical situation (37). In addition, A1C does not provide a measure of glycemic variability or hypoglycemia. For patients prone to glycemic variability (especially type 1 patients, or type 2 patients with severe insulin deficiency), glycemic control is best judged by the combination of results of SMBG testing and the A1C. The A1C may also serve as a check on the accuracy of the patient's meter (or the patient's reported SMBG results) and the adequacy of the SMBG testing schedule. Table 8 contains the correlation between A1C levels and mean plasma glucose levels based on data from the international A1C-Derived Average Glucose (ADAG) trial utilizing frequent SMBG and continuous glucose monitoring in 507 adults (83% Caucasian) with type 1, type 2, and no diabetes (49) The ADA and American Association of Clinical Chemists have determined that the correlation (r = 0.92) is strong enough to justify reporting both an A1C result and an estimated average glucose (eAG) result when a clinician orders the A1C test. The table in previous versions of the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes describing the correlation between A1C and mean glucose was derived from relatively sparse data (one seven-point profile over 1 day per A1C reading) in the primarily Caucasian type 1 participants in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) trial (43). Clinicians should note that the numbers in the table are now different, as they are based on ∼2,800 readings per A1C in the ADAG trial. In the ADAG study, there were no significant differences among racial and ethnic groups in the regression lines between A1C and mean glucose, although there was a trend toward a difference between African/African-American and Caucasian participants’ regression lines that might have been significant had more African/African-American participants been studied. A recent study comparing A1C to CGM data in 48 type 1 children found a highly statistically significant correlation between A1C and mean blood glucose, although the correlation (r = 0.7) was significantly lower than in the ADAG trial (44). Whether there are significant differences in how A1C relates to average glucose in children or in African-American patients is an area for further study. For the time being, the question has not led to different recommendations about testing A1C or to different interpretations of the clinical meaning of given levels of A1C in those populations. For patients in whom A1C/eAG and measured blood glucose appear discrepant, clinicians should consider the possibilities of hemoglobinopathy or altered red cell turnover and the options of more frequent and/or different timing of SMBG or use of CGM. Other measures of chronic glycemia such as fructosamine are available, but their linkage to average glucose and their prognostic significance are not as clear as is the case for A1C. 2. Glycemic goals in adults Lowering A1C to below or around 7% has been shown to reduce microvascular and neuropathic complications of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Therefore, for microvascular disease prevention, the A1C goal for nonpregnant adults in general is <7%. (A) In type 1 and type 2 diabetes, randomized controlled trials of intensive versus standard glycemic control have not shown a significant reduction in CVD outcomes during the randomized portion of the trials. Long-term follow-up of the DCCT and UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) cohorts suggests that treatment to A1C targets below or around 7% in the years soon after the diagnosis of diabetes is associated with long-term reduction in risk of macrovascular disease. Until more evidence becomes available, the general goal of <7% appears reasonable for many adults for macrovascular risk reduction. (B) Subgroup analyses of clinical trials such as the DCCT and UKPDS and the microvascular evidence from the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial suggest a small but incremental benefit in microvascular outcomes with A1C values closer to normal. Therefore, for selected individual patients, providers might reasonably suggest even lower A1C goals than the general goal of <7%, if this can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse effects of treatment. Such patients might include those with short duration of diabetes, long life expectancy, and no significant CVD. (B) Conversely, less stringent A1C goals than the general goal of <7% may be appropriate for patients with a history of severe hypoglycemia, limited life expectancy, advanced microvascular or macrovascular complications, extensive comorbid conditions, and those with longstanding diabetes in whom the general goal is difficult to attain despite DSME, appropriate glucose monitoring, and effective doses of multiple glucose-lowering agents including insulin. (C) Glycemic control is fundamental to the management of diabetes. The DCCT, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of intensive versus standard glycemic control in patients with relatively recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes, showed definitively that improved glycemic control is associated with significantly decreased rates of microvascular (retinopathy and nephropathy) as well as neuropathic complications (45). Follow-up of the DCCT cohorts in the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study has shown persistence of this effect in previously intensively treated subjects, even though their glycemic control has been equivalent to that of previous standard arm subjects during follow-up (46,47). In type 2 diabetes, the Kumamoto study (48) and the UKPDS (49,50) demonstrated significant reductions in microvascular and neuropathic complications with intensive therapy. Similar to the DCCT-EDIC findings, long-term follow-up of the UKPDS cohort has recently demonstrated a “legacy effect” of early intensive glycemic control on long-term rates of microvascular complications, even with loss of glycemic separation between the intensive and standard cohorts after the end of the randomized controlled (51). In each of these large randomized prospective clinical trials, treatment regimens that reduced average A1C to ≥7% (≥1% above the upper limits of normal) were associated with fewer long-term microvascular complications; however, intensive control was found to increase the risk of severe hypoglycemia, most notably in the DCCT, and led to weight gain (39,52). Epidemiological analyses of the DCCT and UKPDS (39,45) demonstrate a curvilinear relationship between A1C and microvascular complications. Such analyses suggest that, on a population level, the greatest number of complications will be averted by taking patients from very poor control to fair or good control. These analyses also suggest that further lowering of A1C from 7 to 6% is associated with further reduction in the risk of microvascular complications, albeit the absolute risk reductions become much smaller. Given the substantially increased risk of hypoglycemia (particularly in those with type 1 diabetes) and the relatively much greater effort required to achieve near-normoglycemia, the risks of lower targets may outweigh the potential benefits on microvascular complications on a population level. However, selected individual patients, especially those with little comorbidity and long life expectancy (who may reap the benefits of further lowering of glycemia below 7%) may, at patient and provider judgment, adopt glycemic targets as close to normal as possible as long as significant hypoglycemia does not become a barrier. Whereas many epidemiologic studies and meta-analyses (53,54) have clearly shown a direct relationship between A1C and CVD, the potential of intensive glycemic control to reduce CVD has been less clearly defined. In the DCCT, there was a trend toward lower risk of CVD events with intensive control (risk reduction 41%, 95% CI 10–68%), but the number of events was small. However, 9-year post-DCCT follow-up of the cohort has shown that participants previously randomized to the intensive arm had a 42% reduction (P = 0.02) in CVD outcomes and a 57% reduction (P = 0.02) in the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or CVD death compared with those previously in the standard arm (55). The UKPDS trial of type 2 diabetes observed a 16% reduction in cardiovascular complications (combined fatal or nonfatal MI and sudden death) in the intensive glycemic control arm, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.052), and there was no suggestion of benefit on other CVD outcomes such as stroke. In an epidemiologic analysis of the study cohort, a continuous association was observed, such that for every percentage point lower median on-study A1C (e.g., 8 to 7%) there was a statistically significant 18% reduction in CVD events, again with no glycemic threshold. A recent report of 10 years of follow-up of the UKPDS cohort describes, for the participants originally randomized to intensive glycemic control compared with those randomized to conventional glycemic control, long-term reductions in MI (15% with sulfonylurea or insulin as initial pharmacotherapy, 33% with metformin as initial pharmacotherapy, both statistically significant) and in all-cause mortality (13 and 27%, respectively, both statistically significant) (51). Because of ongoing uncertainty regarding whether intensive glycemic control can reduce the increased risk of CVD events in people with type 2 diabetes, several large long-term trials were launched in the past decade to compare the effects of intensive versus standard glycemic control on CVD outcomes in relatively high-risk participants with established type 2 diabetes. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study randomized 10,251 participants with either history of a CVD event (ages 40–79 years) or significant CVD risk (ages 55–79) to a strategy of intensive glycemic control (target A1C <6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1C target 7.0–7.9%). Investigators used multiple glycemic medications in both arms. ACCORD participants were on average 62 years old and had a mean duration of diabetes of 10 years, with 35% already treated with insulin at baseline. From a baseline median A1C of 8.1%, the intensive arm reached a median A1C of 6.4% within 12 months of randomization, while the standard group reached a median A1C of 7.5%. Other risk factors were treated aggressively and equally in both groups. The intensive glycemic control group had more use of insulin in combination with multiple oral agents, significantly more weight gain, and more episodes of severe hypoglycemia than the standard group. In February 2008, the glycemic control study of ACCORD was halted on the recommendation of the study's data safety monitoring board due to the finding of an increased rate of mortality in the intensive arm compared with the standard arm (1.41%/year vs. 1.14%/year; HR 1.22 [95% CI 1.01–1.46]), with a similar increase in cardiovascular deaths. The primary outcome of ACCORD (MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death) was lower in the intensive glycemic control group due to a reduction in nonfatal MI, although this finding was not statistically significant when the study was terminated (HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.78–1.04]; P = 0.16) (56). Exploratory analyses of the mortality findings of ACCORD (evaluating variables including weight gain, use of any specific drug or drug combination, and hypoglycemia) were reportedly unable to identify an explanation for the excess mortality in the intensive arm. Prespecified subset analyses showed that participants with no previous CVD event and those who had a baseline A1C <8% had a statistically significant reduction in the primary CVD outcome. The ADVANCE study randomized 11,140 participants to a strategy of intensive glycemic control (with primary therapy being the sulfonylurea gliclizide and additional medications as needed to achieve a target A1C of ≤6.5%) or to standard therapy (in which any medication but gliclizide could be used and the glycemic target was according to “local guidelines”). ADVANCE participants (who had to be at least 55 years of age with either known vascular disease or at least one other vascular risk factor) were slightly older and of similar high CVD risk as those in ACCORD. However, they had an average duration of diabetes 2 years shorter, lower baseline A1C (median 7.2%), and almost no use of insulin at enrollment. The median A1C levels achieved in the intensive and standard arms were 6.3 and 7.0%, respectively, and maximal separation between the arms took several years to achieve. Use of other drugs that favorably impact CVD risk (aspirin, statins, ACE inhibitors) was lower in ADVANCE than in the ACCORD or Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT). The primary outcome of ADVANCE was a combination of microvascular events (nephropathy and retinopathy) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death). Intensive glycemic control significantly reduced the primary endpoint (HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.82–0.98]; P = 0.01), although this was due to a significant reduction in the microvascular outcome (0.86 [0.77–0.97], P = 0.01), primarily development of macroalbuminuria, with no significant reduction in the macrovascular outcome (0.94 [0.84–1.06]; P = 0.32). There was no difference in overall or cardiovascular mortality between the intensive and the standard glycemic control arms (57). The VADT randomized 1,791 participants with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on insulin or maximal dose oral agents (median entry A1C 9.4%) to a strategy of intensive glycemic control (goal A1C <6.0%) or standard glycemic control, with a planned A1C separation of at least 1.5%. Medication treatment algorithms were used to achieve the specified glycemic goals, with a goal of using similar medications in both groups. Median A1C levels of 6.9 and 8.4% were achieved in the intensive and standard arms, respectively, within the first year of the study. Other CVD risk factors were treated aggressively and equally in both groups. The primary outcome of the VADT was a composite of CVD events (MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure, and amputation for ischemia). During a mean 6-year follow-up period, the cumulative primary outcome was nonsignificantly lower in the intensive arm (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.73–1.04]; P = 0.12). There were more CVD deaths in the intensive arm than in the standard arm (40 vs. 33; sudden deaths 11 vs. 4), but the difference was not statistically significant. Post hoc subgroup analyses suggested that duration of diabetes interacted with randomization such that participants with duration of diabetes less than about 12 years appeared to have a CVD benefit of intensive glycemic control while those with longer duration of disease before study entry had a neutral or even adverse effect of intensive glycemic control. Other exploratory analyses suggested that severe hypoglycemia within the past 90 days was a strong predictor of the primary outcome and of CVD mortality (58). The cause of the excess deaths in the intensive glycemic control arm of ACCORD compared with the standard arm has been difficult to pinpoint. By design of the trial, randomization to the intensive arm was associated with or led to many downstream effects, such as higher rates of severe hypoglycemia; more frequent use of insulin, TZDs, other drugs, and drug combinations; and greater weight gain. Such factors may be associated statistically with the higher mortality rate in the intensive arm but may not be causative. It is biologically plausible that severe hypoglycemia could increase the risk of cardiovascular death in participants with high underlying CVD risk. Other plausible mechanisms for the increase in mortality in ACCORD include weight gain, unmeasured drug effects or interactions, or the overall “intensity” of the ACCORD intervention (use of multiple oral glucose-lowering drugs along with multiple doses of insulin, frequent therapy adjustments to push A1C and self-monitored blood glucose to very low targets, and an intense effort to aggressively reduce A1C by ∼2% in participants entering the trial with advanced diabetes and multiple comorbidities). Since the ADVANCE trial did not show any increase in mortality in the intensive glycemic control arm, examining the differences between ADVANCE and ACCORD supports additional hypotheses. ADVANCE participants on average appeared to have earlier or less advanced diabetes, with shorter duration by 2–3 years and lower A1C at entry despite very little use of insulin at baseline. A1C was also lowered less and more gradually in the ADVANCE trial, and there was no significant weight gain with intensive glycemic therapy. Although severe hypoglycemia was defined somewhat differently in the three trials, it appears that this occurred in fewer than 3% of intensively treated ADVANCE participants for the entire study duration (median 5 years) compared with ∼16% of intensively treated subjects in ACCORD and 21% in VADT. It is likely that the increase in mortality in ACCORD was related to the overall treatment strategies for intensifying glycemic control in the study population, not the achieved A1C per se. The ADVANCE study achieved a median A1C in its intensive arm similar to that in the ACCORD study, with no increased mortality hazard. Thus, the ACCORD mortality findings do not imply that patients with type 2 diabetes who can easily achieve or maintain low A1C levels with lifestyle modifications with or without pharmacotherapy are at risk and need to “raise” their A1C. The three trials compared treatments to A1C levels in the “flatter” part of the observational glycemia-CVD risk curves (median A1C of 6.4–6.9% in the intensive arms compared with 7.0–8.4% in the standard arms). Importantly, their results should not be extrapolated to imply that there would be no cardiovascular benefit of glucose lowering from very poor control (e.g., A1C >9%) to good control (e.g., A1C <7%). All three trials were carried out in participants with established diabetes (mean duration 8–11 years) and either known CVD or multiple risk factors suggesting the presence of established atherosclerosis. Subset analyses of the three trials suggested a significant benefit of intensive glycemic control on CVD in participants with shorter duration of diabetes, lower A1C at entry, and/or or absence of known CVD. The DCCT-EDIC study and the long-term follow-up of the UKPDS cohort both suggest that intensive glycemic control initiated soon after diagnosis of diabetes in patients with a lower level of CVD risk may impart long-term protection from CVD events. As is the case with microvascular complications, it may be that glycemic control plays a greater role before macrovascular disease is well developed and minimal or no role when it is advanced. The benefits of intensive glycemic control on microvascular and neuropathic complications are well established for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The ADVANCE trial has added to that evidence base by demonstrating a significant reduction in the risk of new or worsening albuminuria when A1C was lowered to 6.3% compared with standard glycemic control achieving an A1C of 7.0%. The lack of significant reduction in CVD events with intensive glycemic control in ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VADT should not lead clinicians to abandon the general target of an A1C <7.0% and thereby discount the benefit of good control on what are serious and debilitating microvascular complications. The evidence for a cardiovascular benefit of intensive glycemic control primarily rests on long-term follow-up of study cohorts treated early in the course of type 1 and type 2 diabetes and subset analyses of ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VADT. Conversely, the mortality findings in ACCORD suggest that the potential risks of very intensive glycemic control may outweigh its benefits in some patients, such as those with very long duration of diabetes, known history of severe hypoglycemia, advanced atherosclerosis, and advanced age/frailty. Certainly, providers should be vigilant in preventing severe hypoglycemia in patients with advanced disease and should not aggressively attempt to achieve near-normal A1C levels in patients in whom such a target cannot be reasonably easily and safely achieved. Recommended glycemic goals for nonpregnant adults are shown in Table 9. The recommendations are based on those for A1C, with listed blood glucose levels that appear to correlate with achievement of an A1C of <7%. The issue of pre- versus postprandial SMBG targets is complex (59). Elevated postchallenge (2-h OGTT) glucose values have been associated with increased cardiovascular risk independent of FPG in some epidemiological studies. In diabetic subjects, some surrogate measures of vascular pathology, such as endothelial dysfunction, are negatively affected by postprandial hyperglycemia (60). It is clear that postprandial hyperglycemia, like preprandial hyperglycemia, contributes to elevated A1C levels, with its relative contribution being higher at A1C levels that are closer to 7%. However, outcome studies have clearly shown A1C to be the primary predictor of complications, and landmark glycemic control trials such as the DCCT and UKPDS relied overwhelmingly on preprandial SMBG. Additionally, a randomized controlled trial presented at the 68th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association in June 2008 found no CVD benefit of insulin regimens targeting postprandial glucose compared with those targeting preprandial glucose. A reasonable recommendation for postprandial testing and targets is that for individuals who have premeal glucose values within target but have A1C values above target, monitoring postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) 1–2 h after the start of the meal and treatment aimed at reducing PPG values to <180 mg/dl may help lower A1C. As noted above, less stringent treatment goals may be appropriate for adults with limited life expectancies or advanced vascular disease. Glycemic goals for children are provided in Section VII.A.1.a. Severe or frequent hypoglycemia is an absolute indication for the modification of treatment regimens, including setting higher glycemic goals. Regarding goals for glycemic control for women with GDM, recommendations from the Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (61) were to target the following maternal capillary glucose concentrations: preprandial: ≤95 mg/dl (5.3 mmol/l) and either 1-h postmeal: ≤140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l) or 2-h postmeal: ≤120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/l) For women with preexisting type 1 or type 2 diabetes who become pregnant, a recent consensus statement (62) recommended the following as optimal glycemic goals, if they can be achieved without excessive hypoglycemia: premeal, bedtime, and overnight glucose 60–99 mg/dl peak postprandial glucose 100–129 mg/dl A1C <6.0% 3. Approach to treatment a. Therapy for type 1 diabetes. The DCCT clearly showed that intensive insulin therapy (three or more injections per day of insulin or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII, or insulin pump therapy) was a key part of improved glycemia and better outcomes (45). At the time of the study, therapy was carried out with short- and intermediate-acting human insulins. Despite better microvascular outcomes, intensive insulin therapy was associated with a marked increase in severe hypoglycemia (62 episodes per 100 patient-years of therapy). Since the time of the DCCT, a number of rapid-acting and long-acting insulin analogs have been developed. These analogs were designed to be more “physiological” in their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and are associated with less hypoglycemia with equal A1C lowering in type 1 diabetes (63,64). Therefore, recommended therapy for type 1 diabetes consists of the following components: 1) use of multiple dose insulin injections (3–4 injections per day of basal and prandial insulin) or CSII therapy; 2) matching of prandial insulin to carbohydrate intake, premeal blood glucose, and anticipated activity; and 3) for many patients (especially if hypoglycemia is a problem), use of insulin analogs. There are excellent reviews available that guide the initiation and management of insulin therapy to achieve desired glycemic goals (3,63,65). b. Therapy for type 2 diabetes. The ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes published a consensus statement on the approach to management of hyperglycemia in individuals with type 2 diabetes (66) and recently published an update (67). Highlights of this approach are: intervention at the time of diagnosis with metformin in combination with lifestyle changes (MNT and exercise) and continuing timely augmentation of therapy with additional agents (including early initiation of insulin therapy) as a means of achieving and maintaining recommended levels of glycemic control (i.e., A1C <7% for most patients). The overall objective is to achieve and maintain glycemic control and to change interventions when therapeutic goals are not being met. The algorithm took into account the evidence for A1C-lowering of the individual interventions, their additive effects, and their expense. The precise drugs used and their exact sequence may not be as important as achieving and maintaining glycemic targets safely. Medications not included in the consensus algorithm, owing to less glucose-lowering effectiveness, limited clinical data, and/or relative expense, still may be appropriate choices in individual patients to achieve glycemic goals. Initiation of insulin at time of diagnosis is recommended for individuals presenting with weight loss or other severe hyperglycemic symptoms or signs. For a list of currently approved diabetes medications, see http://ndep.nih.gov/diabetes/pubs/Drug_tables_supplement.pdf. D. MNT General recommendations Individuals who have pre-diabetes or diabetes should receive individualized MNT as needed to achieve treatment goals, preferably provided by a registered dietitian familiar with the components of diabetes MNT. (B) MNT should be covered by insurance and other payors. (E) Energy balance, overweight, and obesity In overweight and obese insulin-resistant individuals, modest weight loss has been shown to reduce insulin resistance. Thus, weight loss is recommended for all overweight or obese individuals who have or are at risk for diabetes. (A) For weight loss, either low-carbohydrate or low-fat calorie restricted diets may be effective in the short-term (up to 1 year). (A) For patients on low-carbohydrate diets, monitor lipid profiles, renal function, and protein intake (in those with nephropathy) and adjust hypoglycemic therapy as needed. (E) Physical activity and behavior modification are important components of weight loss programs and are most helpful in maintenance of weight loss. (B) Primary prevention of diabetes Among individuals at high risk for developing type 2 diabetes, structured programs that emphasize lifestyle changes that include moderate weight loss (7% body weight) and regular physical activity (150 min/week), with dietary strategies including reduced calories and reduced intake of dietary fat, can reduce the risk for developing diabetes and are therefore recommended. (A) Individuals at high risk for type 2 diabetes should be encouraged to achieve the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommendation for dietary fiber (14 g fiber/1,000 kcal) and foods containing whole grains (one-half of grain intake). (B) Dietary fat intake in diabetes management Saturated fat intake should be <7% of total calories. (A) Intake of trans fat should be minimized. (B) Carbohydrate intake in diabetes management Monitoring carbohydrate, whether by carbohydrate counting, exchanges, or experience-based estimation, remains a key strategy in achieving glycemic control. (A) For individuals with diabetes, the use of the glycemic index and glycemic load may provide a modest additional benefit for glycemic control over that observed when total carbohydrate is considered alone. (B) Other nutrition recommendations Sugar alcohols and nonnutritive sweeteners are safe when consumed within the acceptable daily intake levels established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (A) If adults with diabetes choose to use alcohol, daily intake should be limited to a moderate amount (one drink per day or less for adult women and two drinks per day or less for adult men). (E) Routine supplementation with antioxidants, such as vitamins E and C and carotene, is not advised because of lack of evidence of efficacy and concern related to long-term safety. (A) Benefit from chromium supplementation in people with diabetes or obesity has not been conclusively demonstrated and, therefore, cannot be recommended. (E) MNT is an integral component of diabetes prevention, management, and self-management education. In addition to its role in preventing and controlling diabetes, ADA recognizes the importance of nutrition as an essential component of an overall healthy lifestyle. A full review of the evidence regarding nutrition in preventing and controlling diabetes and its complications and additional nutrition-related recommendations can be found in the ADA position statement “Nutrition Recommendations and Interventions for Diabetes,” published in 2007 and updated for 2008 (68). Achieving nutrition-related goals requires a coordinated team effort that includes the active involvement of the person with pre-diabetes or diabetes. Because of the complexity of nutrition issues, it is recommended that a registered dietitian who is knowledgeable and skilled in implementing nutrition therapy into diabetes management and education be the team member who provides MNT. Clinical trials/outcome studies of MNT have reported decreases in A1C at 3–6 months ranging from 0.25 to 2.9% with higher reductions seen in type 2 diabetes of shorter duration. Multiple studies have demonstrated sustained improvements in A1C at 12 months and longer when a registered dietician provided follow-up visits ranging from monthly to three sessions per year (69–76). Meta-analyses of studies in nondiabetic, free-living subjects report that MNT reduces LDL cholesterol by 15–25 mg/dl (77) or can lower LDL cholesterol by up to 16% (78), while clinical trials support a role for lifestyle modification in treating hypertension (78,79). Because of the effects of obesity on insulin resistance, weight loss is an important therapeutic objective for overweight or obese individuals with pre-diabetes or diabetes (80). Short-term studies have demonstrated that moderate weight loss (5% of body weight) in subjects with type 2 diabetes is associated with decreased insulin resistance, improved measures of glycemia and lipemia, and reduced blood pressure (81); longer-term studies (52 weeks) showed mixed effects on A1C in adults with type 2 diabetes (82–85), and results were confounded by pharmacologic weight loss therapy. A systematic review of 80 weight loss studies of ≥1 year duration demonstrated that moderate weight loss achieved through diet alone, diet and exercise, and meal replacements can be achieved and maintained over the long term (4.8–8% weight loss at 12 months) (86). The multifactorial intensive lifestyle intervention employed in the DPP, which included reduced intake of fat and calories, led to weight loss averaging 7% at 6 months and maintenance of 5% weight loss at 3 years, associated with a 58% reduction in incidence of type 2 diabetes (10). Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) is a large clinical trial designed to determine whether long-term weight loss will improve glycemia and prevent cardiovascular events in subjects with type 2 diabetes. One-year results of the intensive lifestyle intervention in this trial show an average of 8.6% weight loss, significant reduction of A1C, and reduction in several CVD risk factors (87). When completed, the Look AHEAD trial should provide insight into the effects of long-term weight loss on important clinical outcomes. The optimal macronutrient distribution of weight loss diets has not been established. Although low-fat diets have traditionally been promoted for weight loss, several randomized controlled trials found that subjects on low-carbohydrate diets (<130 g/day of carbohydrate) lost more weight at 6 months than subjects on low-fat diets (88,89); however, at 1 year, the difference in weight loss between the low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets was not significant, and weight loss was modest with both diets. Another study of overweight women randomized to one of four diets showed significantly more weight loss at 12 months with the Atkins low-carbohydrate diet than with higher-carbohydrate diets (90). Changes in serum triglyceride and HDL cholesterol were more favorable with the low-carbohydrate diets. In one study, those subjects with type 2 diabetes demonstrated a greater decrease in A1C with a low-carbohydrate diet than with a low-fat diet (89). A recent meta-analysis showed that at 6 months, low-carbohydrate diets were associated with greater improvements in triglyceride and HDL cholesterol concentrations than low-fat diets; however, LDL cholesterol was significantly higher on the low-carbohydrate diets (91). In a 2-year dietary intervention study, Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets were found to be effective and safe alternatives to a low-fat diet for weight reduction in moderately obese participants (85). The recommended dietary allowance for digestible carbohydrate is 130 g/day and is based on providing adequate glucose as the required fuel for the central nervous system without reliance on glucose production from ingested protein or fat. Although brain fuel needs can be met on lower carbohydrate diets, long-term metabolic effects of very-low-carbohydrate diets are unclear, and such diets eliminate many foods that are important sources of energy, fiber, vitamins, and minerals that are important in dietary palatability (92). Although numerous studies have attempted to identify the optimal mix of macronutrients for meal plans of people with diabetes, it is unlikely that one such combination of macronutrients exists. The best mix of carbohydrate, protein, and fat appears to vary depending on individual circumstances. For those individuals seeking guidance as to macronutrient distribution in healthy adults, the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) system may be helpful (92). It must be clearly recognized that regardless of the macronutrient mix, total caloric intake must be appropriate for the weight management goal. Further, individualization of the macronutrient composition will depend on the metabolic status of the patient (e.g., lipid profile, renal function) and/or food preferences. Individuals who choose to consume plant-based diets that are well planned and nutritionally adequate (i.e., vegetarian) may continue, as this can be done without being deleterious to metabolic control (93,94). The primary goal with respect to dietary fat in individuals with diabetes is to limit saturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids, and cholesterol intake so as to reduce risk for CVD. Saturated and trans fatty acids are the principal dietary determinants of plasma LDL cholesterol. There is a lack of evidence on the effects of specific fatty acids on people with diabetes, so the recommended goals are consistent with those for individuals with CVD (78,95). The FDA has approved five nonnutritive sweeteners for use in the U.S.: acesulfame potassium, aspartame, neotame, saccharin, and sucralose. Before being allowed on the market, all underwent rigorous scrutiny and were shown to be safe when consumed by the public, including people with diabetes and women during pregnancy. Reduced calorie sweeteners approved by the FDA include sugar alcohols (polyols) such as erythritol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, tagatose, and hydrogenated starch hydrolysates. The use of sugar alcohols appears to be safe; however, they may cause diarrhea, especially in children. Reimbursement for MNT MNT, when delivered by a registered dietitian according to nutrition practice guidelines, is reimbursed as part of the Medicare program as overseen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (www.cms.hhs.gov/medicalnutritiontherapy) E. Bariatric surgery Recommendations Bariatric surgery should be considered for adults with BMI ≥35 kg/m2 and type 2 diabetes, especially if the diabetes is difficult to control with lifestyle and pharmacologic therapy. (B) Patients with type 2 diabetes who have undergone bariatric surgery need life-long lifestyle support and medical monitoring. (E) Although small trials have shown glycemic benefit of bariatric surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes and BMI of 30–35 kg/m2, there is currently insufficient evidence to generally recommend surgery in patients with BMI <35 kg/m2 outside of a research protocol. (E) The long-term benefits, cost-effectiveness, and risks of bariatric surgery in individuals with type 2 diabetes should be studied in well-designed randomized controlled trials with optimal medical and lifestyle therapy as the comparator. (E) Gastric reduction surgery, either gastric banding or procedures that involve bypassing or transposing sections of the small intestine, when part of a comprehensive team approach, can be an effective weight loss treatment for severe obesity, and national guidelines support its consideration for people with type 2 diabetes who have BMI at or exceeding 35 kg/m2. Bariatric surgery has been shown to lead to near or complete normalization of glycemia in ∼55–95% of patients with type 2 diabetes, depending on the surgical procedure. A meta-analysis of studies of bariatric surgery reported that 78% of individuals with type 2 diabetes had complete “resolution” of diabetes (normalization of blood glucose levels in the absence of medications), and that the resolution rates were sustained in studies that had follow-up exceeding 2 years (96). Resolution rates are lowest with procedures that only constrict the stomach and higher with those that bypass portions of the small intestine. Additionally, there is increasing evidence that intestinal bypass procedures may have glycemic effects that are independent of, and additive to, their effects on weight. A recent randomized controlled trial compared adjustable gastric banding to “best available” medical and lifestyle therapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes diagnosed less than 2 years before randomization and BMI 30–40 kg/m2 (97). In this trial, 73% of surgically treated patients achieved “remission” of their diabetes, compared with 13% of those treated medically. The latter group lost only 1.7% of body weight, suggesting that their therapy was not optimal. Overall, the trial had 60 subjects, and only 13 had a BMI under 35 kg/m2, making it difficult to generalize these results widely to diabetic patients who are less severely obese or with longer duration of diabetes. Bariatric surgery is costly in the short term and has some risks. Rates of morbidity and mortality directly related to the surgery have been reduced considerably in recent years, with 30-day mortality rates now 0.28%, similar to those of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (98). Longer-term concerns include vitamin and mineral deficiencies, osteoporosis, and rare but often severe hypoglycemia from insulin hypersecretion. Cohort studies attempting to match subjects suggest that the procedure may reduce longer-term mortality rates (99), and it is reasonable to postulate that there may be recouping of costs over the long run. However, studies of the mechanisms of glycemic improvement, long-term benefits and risks, and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery in individuals with type 2 diabetes will require well-designed randomized clinical trials, with optimal medical and lifestyle therapy of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors as the comparitor. F. DSME Recommendations People with diabetes should receive DSME according to national standards when their diabetes is diagnosed and as needed thereafter. (B) Self-management behavior change is the key outcome of DSME and should be measured and monitored as part of care. (E) DSME should address psychosocial issues, since emotional well-being is strongly associated with positive diabetes outcomes. (C) DSME should be reimbursed by third-party payors. (E) DSME is an essential element of diabetes care (100–106), and National Standards for DSME (107) are based on evidence for its benefits. Education helps people with diabetes initiate effective self-care when they are first diagnosed. Ongoing DSME also helps people with diabetes maintain effective self-management as their diabetes presents new challenges and treatment advances become available. DSME helps patients optimize metabolic control, prevent and manage complications, and maximize quality of life in a cost-effective manner (108). Since the 1990s, there has been a shift from a didactic approach, with DSME focusing on providing information, to a skill-based approach that focuses on helping those with diabetes make informed self-management choices. Care of diabetes has shifted to an approach that is more patient centered and that places the person with diabetes, and joint decision-making with heath care professionals, at the center of the care model. Patient-centered care is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensures that patient values guide all decision making (109). Evidence for the benefits of DSME Several studies have found that DSME is associated with improved diabetes knowledge and improved self-care behavior (101), improved clinical outcomes such as lower A1C (102,103,105,106,110), lower self-reported weight (101), and improved quality of life (104). Better outcomes were reported for DSME interventions that were longer and included follow-up support (101), that were tailored to individual needs and preferences (100), and that addressed psychosocial issues (100,101,105). Both individual and group approaches have been found effective ((111,112). There is increasing evidence for the role of a community health worker in delivering diabetes education in addition to the core team (113). National standards for DSME ADA-recognized DSME programs have staff that must be certified diabetes educators or have recent experience in diabetes education and management. The curriculum of ADA-recognized DSME programs must cover all nine areas of diabetes management, with the assessed needs of the individual determining which areas are addressed. The ADA Education Recognition Program (ERP) is a mechanism to ensure diabetes education programs meet the national standards and provide quality diabetes care. Reimbursement for DSME DSME, when provided by a program that meets ADA ERP standards, is reimbursed as part of the Medicare program as overseen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (www.cms.hhs.gov/DiabetesSelfManagement). G. Physical activity Recommendations People with diabetes should be advised to perform at least 150 min/week of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity (50–70% of maximum heart rate). (A) In the absence of contraindications, people with type 2 diabetes should be encouraged to perform resistance training three times per week. (A) ADA technical reviews on exercise in patients with diabetes have summarized the value of exercise in the diabetes management plan (114,115). Regular exercise has been shown to improve blood glucose control, reduce cardiovascular risk factors, contribute to weight loss, and improve well being. Furthermore, regular exercise may prevent type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals (10–12). Structured exercise interventions of at least 8 weeks’ duration have been shown to lower A1C by an average of 0.66% in people with type 2 diabetes, even with no significant change in BMI (116). Higher levels of exercise intensity are associated with greater improvements in A1C and in fitness (117). Frequency and type of exercise The U.S. Surgeon General's report (118) recommended that most adults accumulate at least 30 min of moderate-intensity activity on most, ideally all, days of the week. The studies included in the meta-analysis of effects of exercise interventions on glycemic control (116) had a mean number of sessions per week of 3.4, with a mean of 49 min per session. The DPP lifestyle intervention, which included 150 min per week of moderate intensity exercise, had a beneficial effect on glycemia in those with pre-diabetes. Therefore, it seems reasonable to recommend ∼150 min of exercise per week for people with diabetes. Resistance exercise improves insulin sensitivity to about the same extent as aerobic exercise (119). Clinical trials have provided strong evidence for the A1C-lowering value of resistance training in older adults with type 2 diabetes (120,121) and for an additive benefit of combined aerobic and resistance exercise in adults with type 2 diabetes (122). Evaluation of the diabetic patient before recommending an exercise program Prior guidelines suggested that before recommending a program of physical activity, the provider should assess patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD). As discussed more fully in Section VI.A.5, the area of screening asymptomatic diabetic patients for CAD remains unclear, and a recent ADA consensus statement on this issue concluded that routine screening is not recommended (123). Providers should use clinical judgment in this area. Certainly, high-risk patients should be encouraged to start with short periods of low-intensity exercise and increase the intensity and duration slowly. Providers should assess patients for conditions that might contraindicate certain types of exercise or predispose to injury, such as uncontrolled hypertension, severe autonomic neuropathy, severe peripheral neuropathy or history of foot lesions, and advanced retinopathy. The patient's age and previous physical activity level should be considered. Exercise in the presence of nonoptimal glycemic control Hyperglycemia. When people with type 1 diabetes are deprived of insulin for 12–48 h and are ketotic, exercise can worsen hyperglycemia and ketosis (124); therefore, vigorous activity should be avoided in the presence of ketosis. However, it is not necessary to postpone exercise based simply on hyperglycemia, provided the patient feels well and urine and/or blood ketones are negative. Hypoglycemia. In individuals taking insulin and/or insulin secretagogues, physical activity can cause hypoglycemia if medication dose or carbohydrate consumption is not altered. For individuals on these therapies, added carbohydrate should be ingested if pre-exercise glucose levels are <100 mg/dl (5.6 mmol/l) (125,126). Hypoglycemia is rare in diabetic individuals who are not treated with insulin or insulin secretagogues, and no preventive measures for hypoglycemia are usually advised in these cases. Exercise in the presence of specific long-term complications of diabetes Retinopathy. In the presence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), vigorous aerobic or resistance exercise may be contraindicated because of the risk of triggering vitreous hemorrhage or retinal detachment (127). Peripheral neuropathy. Decreased pain sensation in the extremities results in increased risk of skin breakdown and infection and of Charcot joint destruction. Therefore, in the presence of severe peripheral neuropathy, it may be best to encourage non–weight-bearing activities such as swimming, bicycling, or arm exercises (128,129). Autonomic neuropathy. Autonomic neuropathy can increase the risk of exercise-induced injury or adverse events through decreased cardiac responsiveness to exercise, postural hypotension, impaired thermoregulation, impaired night vision due to impaired papillary reaction, and unpredictable carbohydrate delivery from gastroparesis predisposing to hypoglycemia (128). Autonomic neuropathy is also strongly associated with CVD in people with diabetes (130,131). People with diabetic autonomic neuropathy should undergo cardiac investigation before beginning physical activity more intense than that to which they are accustomed. Albuminuria and nephropathy. Physical activity can acutely increase urinary protein excretion. However, there is no evidence that vigorous exercise increases the rate of progression of diabetic kidney disease and likely no need for any specific exercise restrictions for people with diabetic kidney disease (132). H. Psychosocial assessment and care Recommendations Assessment of psychological and social situation should be included as an ongoing part of the medical management of diabetes. (E) Psychosocial screening and follow-up should include, but is not limited to, attitudes about the illness, expectations for medical management and outcomes, affect/mood, general and diabetes-related quality of life, resources (financial, social, and emotional), and psychiatric history. (E) Screen for psychosocial problems such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and cognitive impairment when adherence to the medical regimen is poor. (E) Psychological and social problems can impair the individual's (133–138) or family's (139) ability to carry out diabetes care tasks and therefore compromise health status. There are opportunities for the clinician to assess psychosocial status in a timely and efficient manner so that referral for appropriate services can be accomplished. Key opportunities for screening of psychosocial status occur at diagnosis, during regularly scheduled management visits, during hospitalizations, at discovery of complications, or when problems with glucose control, quality of life, or adherence are identified (140). Patients are likely to exhibit psychological vulnerability at diagnosis and when their medical status changes, i.e., the end of the honeymoon period, when the need for intensified treatment is evident, and when complications are discovered (135,137). Issues known to impact self-management and health outcomes include but are not limited to attitudes about the illness, expectations for medical management and outcomes, affect/mood, general and diabetes-related quality of life, resources (financial, social, and emotional) (136), and psychiatric history (137,140,141). Screening tools are available for a number of these areas (142). Indications for referral to a mental health specialist familiar with diabetes management may include gross noncompliance with medical regimen (by self or others) (141), depression with the possibility of self-harm (134,143), debilitating anxiety (alone or with depression), indications of an eating disorder (144), or cognitive functioning that significantly impairs judgment (143). It is preferable to incorporate psychological assessment and treatment into routine care rather than waiting for identification of a specific problem or deterioration in psychological status (142). Although the clinician may not feel qualified to treat psychological problems, utilizing the patient-provider relationship as a foundation for further treatment can increase the likelihood that the patient will accept referral for other services. It is important to establish that emotional well-being is part of diabetes management (140). I. When treatment goals are not met For a variety of reasons, some people with diabetes and their health care providers do not achieve the desired goals of treatment (Table 9). Re-thinking the treatment regimen may require assessment of barriers to adherence including income, educational attainment, and competing demands, including those related to family responsibilities and family dynamics. Other strategies may include culturally appropriate and enhanced DSME, co-management with a diabetes team, referral to a medical social worker for assistance with insurance coverage or change in pharmacological therapy. Initiation of or increase in SMBG, utilization of continuous glucose monitoring, frequent contact with the patient, or referral to an endocrinologist may be useful. J. Intercurrent illness The stress of illness, trauma, and/or surgery frequently aggravates glycemic control and may precipitate diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or nonketotic hyperosmolar state, life-threatening conditions that require immediate medical care to prevent complications and death (145). Any condition leading to deterioration in glycemic control necessitates more frequent monitoring of blood glucose and (in ketosis-prone patients) urine or blood ketones. Marked hyperglycemia requires temporary adjustment of the treatment program and, if accompanied by ketosis, vomiting, or alteration in level of consciousness, immediate interaction with the diabetes care team. The patient treated with noninsulin therapies or MNT alone may temporarily require insulin. Adequate fluid and caloric intake must be assured. Infection or dehydration are more likely to necessitate hospitalization of the person with diabetes than the person without diabetes. The hospitalized patient should be treated by a physician with expertise in the management of diabetes. For further information on management of patients with hyperglycemia in the hospital, see Section VIII.A. For further information on management of DKA or nonketotic hyperosmolar state, refer to the ADA position statement on hyperglycemic crises (145). K. Hypoglycemia Recommendations Glucose (15–20 g) is the preferred treatment for the conscious individual with hypoglycemia, although any form of carbohydrate that contains glucose may be used. If SMBG 15 min after treatment shows continued hypoglycemia, the treatment should be repeated. Once SMBG glucose returns to normal, the individual should consume a meal or snack to prevent recurrence of hypoglycemia. (E) Glucagon should be prescribed for all individuals at significant risk of severe hypoglycemia, and caregivers or family members of these individuals should be instructed in its administration. Glucagon administration is not limited to health care professionals. (E) Individuals with hypoglycemia unawareness or one or more episodes of severe hypoglycemia should be advised to raise their glycemic targets to strictly avoid further hypoglycemia for at least several weeks to partially reverse hypoglycemia unawareness and reduce risk of future episodes. (B) Hypoglycemia is the leading limiting factor in the glycemic management of type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (146). Treatment of hypoglycemia (plasma glucose <70 mg/dl) requires ingestion of glucose- or carbohydrate-containing foods. The acute glycemic response correlates better with the glucose content than with the carbohydrate content of the food. Although pure glucose is the preferred treatment, any form of carbohydrate that contains glucose will raise blood glucose. Added fat may retard and then prolong the acute glycemic response (147). Ongoing activity of insulin or insulin secretagogues may lead to recurrence of hypoglycemia unless further food is ingested after recovery. Severe hypoglycemia (where the individual requires the assistance of another person and cannot be treated with oral carbohydrate due to confusion or unconsciousness) should be treated using emergency glucagon kits, which require a prescription. Those in close contact with, or having custodial care of, people with hypoglycemia-prone diabetes (family members, roommates, school personnel, child care providers, correctional institution staff, or coworkers) should be instructed in use of such kits. An individual does not need to be a health care professional to safely administer glucagon. Care should be taken to ensure that unexpired glucagon kits are available. Prevention of hypoglycemia is a critical component of diabetes management. Teaching people with diabetes to balance insulin use, carbohydrate intake, and exercise is a necessary but not always sufficient strategy. In type 1 diabetes and severely insulin-deficient type 2 diabetes, the syndrome of hypoglycemia unawareness, or hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure, can severely compromise stringent diabetes control and quality of life. The deficient counter-regulatory hormone release and autonomic responses in this syndrome are both risk factors for, and caused by, hypoglycemia. A corollary to this “vicious cycle” is that several weeks of avoidance of hypoglycemia has been demonstrated to improve counter-regulation and awareness to some extent in many patients (146,148,149). Hence, patients with one or more episodes of severe hypoglycemia may benefit from at least short-term relaxation of glycemic targets. L. Immunization Recommendations Annually provide an influenza vaccine to all diabetic patients ≥6 months of age. (C) Administer pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine to all diabetic patients ≥2 years of age. A one-time revaccination is recommended for individuals >64 years of age previously immunized when they were <65 years of age if the vaccine was administered >5 years ago. Other indications for repeat vaccination include nephrotic syndrome, chronic renal disease, and other immunocompromised states, such as after transplantation. (C) Influenza and pneumonia are common, preventable infectious diseases associated with high mortality and morbidity in the elderly and in people with chronic diseases. Though there are limited studies reporting the morbidity and mortality of influenza and pneumococcal pneumonia specifically in people with diabetes, observational studies of patients with a variety of chronic illnesses, including diabetes, show that these conditions are associated with an increase in hospitalizations for influenza and its complications. People with diabetes may be at increased risk of the bacteremic form of pneumococcal infection and have been reported to have a high risk of nosocomial bacteremia, which has a mortality rate as high as 50% (150). Safe and effective vaccines are available that can greatly reduce the risk of serious complications from these diseases (151,152). In a case-control series, influenza vaccine was shown to reduce diabetes-related hospital admission by as much as 79% during flu epidemics (151). There is sufficient evidence to support that people with diabetes have appropriate serologic and clinical responses to these vaccinations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends influenza and pneumococcal vaccines for all individuals with diabetes (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/). For a complete discussion on the prevention of influenza and pneumococcal disease in people with diabetes, consult the technical review and position statement on this subject (150,153). VI. PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF DIABETES COMPLICATIONS A. CVD CVD is the major cause of morbidity and mortality for individuals with diabetes and the largest contributor to the direct and indirect costs of diabetes. The common conditions coexisting with type 2 diabetes (e.g., hypertension and dyslipidemia) are clear risk factors for CVD, and diabetes itself confers independent risk. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy of controlling individual cardiovascular risk factors in preventing or slowing CVD in people with diabetes. Large benefits are seen when multiple risk factors are addressed globally (154). Evidence is summarized in the following sections and reviewed in detail in the ADA technical reviews on hypertension (155), dyslipidemia (156), aspirin therapy (157), and smoking cessation (158) and in the American Heart Association (AHA)/ADA scientific statement on prevention of CVD in people with diabetes (159). 1. Hypertension/blood pressure control Recommendations Screening and diagnosis Blood pressure should be measured at every routine diabetes visit. Patients found to have a systolic blood pressure of ≥130 mmHg or a diastolic blood pressure of ≥80 mmHg should have blood pressure confirmed on a separate day. Repeat systolic blood pressure of ≥130 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure of ≥80 mmHg confirms a diagnosis of hypertension. (C) Goals Patients with diabetes should be treated to a systolic blood pressure <130 mmHg. (C) Patients with diabetes should be treated to a diastolic blood pressure <80 mmHg. (B) Treatment Patients with a systolic blood pressure of 130–139 mmHg or a diastolic blood pressure of 80–89 mmHg may be given lifestyle therapy alone for a maximum of 3 months and then, if targets are not achieved, be treated with the addition of pharmacological agents. (E) Patients with more severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg) at diagnosis or follow-up should receive pharmacologic therapy in addition to lifestyle therapy. (A) Pharmacologic therapy for patients with diabetes and hypertension should be with a regimen that includes either an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). If one class is not tolerated, the other should be substituted. If needed to achieve blood pressure targets, a thiazide diuretic should be added to those with an estimated GFR (see below) ≥30 ml/min per 1.73 m2 and a loop diuretic for those with an estimated GFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2. (C) Multiple drug therapy (two or more agents at maximal doses) is generally required to achieve blood pressure targets. (B) If ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or diuretics are used, kidney function and serum potassium levels should be closely monitored. (E) In pregnant patients with diabetes and chronic hypertension, blood pressure target goals of 110–129/65–79 mmHg are suggested in the interest of long-term maternal health and minimizing impaired fetal growth. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are contraindicated during pregnancy. (E) Hypertension is a common comorbidity of diabetes, affecting the majority of patients, with prevalence depending on type of diabetes, age, obesity, and ethnicity. Hypertension is a major risk factor for both CVD and microvascular complications. In type 1 diabetes, hypertension is often the result of underlying nephropathy, while in type 2 it usually coexists with other cardiometabolic risk factors. Screening and diagnosis Measurement of blood pressure in the office should be done by a trained individual and follow the guidelines established for nondiabetic individuals: measurement in the seated position, with feet on the floor and arm supported at heart level, after 5 min of rest. Cuff size should be appropriate for the upper arm circumference. Elevated values should be confirmed on a separate day. Because of the clear synergistic risks of hypertension and diabetes, the diagnostic cutoff for a diagnosis of hypertension is lower in people with diabetes (blood pressure ≥130/80) than in those without diabetes (blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg) (160). Home blood pressure self-monitoring and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring may provide additional evidence of “white coat” and masked hypertension and other discrepancies between office and “true” blood pressure, and studies in nondiabetic populations show that home measurements may better correlate with CVD risk than office measurements (161,162). However, the preponderance of the clear evidence of benefits of treatment of hypertension in people with diabetes is based on office measurements. Treatment goals Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the benefit (reduction of CHD events, stroke, and nephropathy) of lowering blood pressure to <140 mmHg systolic and <80 mmHg diastolic in individuals with diabetes (160,163–165). Epidemiologic analyses show that blood pressure >115/75 mmHg is associated with increased cardiovascular event rates and mortality in individuals with diabetes (160,166,167). Therefore, a target blood pressure goal of <130/80 mmHg is reasonable if it can be safely achieved. The ongoing ACCORD trial is designed to determine whether blood pressure lowering to systolic blood pressure <120 mmHg provides greater cardiovascular protection than a systolic blood pressure level of <140 mmHg in patients with type 2 diabetes (www.accord.org). Treatment strategies Although there are no well-controlled studies of diet and exercise in the treatment of hypertension in individuals with diabetes, studies in nondiabetic individuals have shown anti-hypertensive effects similar to pharmacologic monotherapy of reducing sodium intake and excess body weight; increasing consumption of fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products; avoiding excessive alcohol consumption; and increasing activity levels (160,168). These nonpharmacological strategies may also positively affect glycemia and lipid control. Their effects on cardiovascular events have not been established. An initial trial of nonpharmacologic therapy may be reasonable in diabetic individuals with mild hypertension (systolic blood pressure 130–139 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure 80–89 mmHg). If the blood pressure is ≥140 mmHg systolic and/or ≥90 mmHg diastolic at the time of diagnosis, pharmacologic therapy should be initiated along with nonpharmacologic therapy (160). Lowering of blood pressure with regimens based on a variety of antihypertensive drugs, including ACE inhibitors, ARBs, β-blockers, diuretics, and calcium channel blockers, has been shown to be effective in reducing cardiovascular events. Several studies have suggested that ACE inhibitors may be superior to dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in reducing cardiovascular events (169–171). However, a variety of other studies have shown no specific advantage to ACE inhibitors as initial treatment of hypertension in the general hypertensive population, but rather an advantage on cardiovascular outcomes of initial therapy with low-dose thiazide diuretics (160,172,173). In people with diabetes, inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may have unique advantages for initial or early therapy of hypertension. In a nonhypertension trial of high-risk individuals, including a large subset with diabetes, an ACE inhibitor reduced CVD outcomes (174). In patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), including diabetic subgroups, ARBs have been shown to reduce major CVD outcomes (175–178), and in type 2 patients with significant nephropathy, ARBs were superior to calcium channel blockers for reducing heart failure (179–181). Though evidence for distinct advantages of RAS inhibitors on CVD outcomes in diabetes remains conflicting (163,182), the high CVD risks associated with diabetes, and the high prevalence of undiagnosed CVD, may still favor recommendations for their use as first-line hypertension therapy in people with diabetes (160). Recently, the blood pressure arm of the ADVANCE trial demonstrated that routine administration of a fixed combination of the ACE inhibitor perindopril and the diuretic indapamide significantly reduced combined microvascular and macrovascular outcomes, as well as CVD and total mortality. The improved outcomes could also have been due to lower achieved blood pressure in the perindopril-indapamide arm (183). The compelling benefits of RAS inhibitors in diabetic patients with albuminuria or renal insufficiency provide additional rationale for use of these agents (see section VI.B below). An important caveat is that most patients with hypertension require multi-drug therapy to reach treatment goals, especially diabetic patients whose targets are lower. Many patients will require three or more drugs to reach target goals (160). If blood pressure is refractory to multiple agents, clinicians should consider an evaluation for secondary forms of hypertension. During pregnancy in diabetic women with chronic hypertension, target blood pressure goals of systolic blood pressure 110–129 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure 65–79 mmHg are reasonable, as they contribute to long-term maternal health. Lower blood pressure levels may be associated with impaired fetal growth. During pregnancy, treatment with ACE inhibitors and ARBs is contraindicated, since they are likely to cause fetal damage. Antihypertensive drugs known to be effective and safe in pregnancy include methyldopa, labetalol, diltiazem, clonidine, and prazosin. Chronic diuretic use during pregnancy has been associated with restricted maternal plasma volume, which might reduce uteroplacental perfusion (184). 2. Dyslipidemia/lipid management Recommendations Screening In most adult patients, measure fasting lipid profile at least annually. In adults with low-risk lipid values (LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl, HDL cholesterol >50 mg/dl, and triglycerides <150 mg/dl), lipid assessments may be repeated every 2 years. (E) Treatment recommendations and goals Lifestyle modification focusing on the reduction of saturated fat, trans fat, and cholesterol intake; weight loss (if indicated); and increased physical activity should be recommended to improve the lipid profile in patients with diabetes. (A) Statin therapy should be added to lifestyle therapy, regardless of baseline lipid levels, for diabetic patients: with overt CVD (A) without CVD who are over the age of 40 and have one or more other CVD risk factors. (A) For lower-risk patients than the above (e.g., without overt CVD and under the age of 40), statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle therapy if LDL cholesterol remains above 100 mg/dl or in those with multiple CVD risk factors. (E) In individuals without overt CVD, the primary goal is an LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l). (A) In individuals with overt CVD, a lower LDL cholesterol goal of <70 mg/dl (1.8 mmol/l), using a high dose of a statin, is an option. (B) If drug-treated patients do not reach the above targets on maximal tolerated statin therapy, a reduction in LDL cholesterol of ∼30–40% from baseline is an alternative therapeutic goal. (A) Triglycerides levels <150 mg/dl (1.7 mmol/l) and HDL cholesterol >40 mg/dl (1.0 mmol/l) in men and >50 mg/dl (1.3 mmol/l) in women are desirable. However, LDL cholesterol–targeted statin therapy remains the preferred strategy. (C) If targets are not reached on maximally tolerated doses of statins, combination therapy using statins and other lipid-lowering agents may be considered to achieve lipid targets but has not been evaluated in outcome studies for either CVD outcomes or safety. (E) Statin therapy is contraindicated in pregnancy. (E) Evidence for benefits of lipid-lowering therapy Patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities, contributing to their high risk of CVD. For the past decade or more, multiple clinical trials demonstrated significant effects of pharmacologic (primarily statin) therapy on CVD outcomes in subjects with CHD and for primary CVD prevention (185). Subanalyses of diabetic subgroups of larger trials (186–190) and trials specifically in subjects with diabetes (191,192) showed significant primary and secondary prevention of CVD events ± CHD deaths in diabetic populations. As shown in Table 10, and similar to findings in nondiabetic subjects, reduction in “hard” CVD outcomes (CHD death and nonfatal MI) can be more clearly seen in diabetic subjects with high baseline CVD risk (known CVD and/or very high LDL cholesterol levels), but overall the benefits of statin therapy in people with diabetes at moderate or high risk for CVD are convincing. Low levels of HDL cholesterol, often associated with elevated triglyceride levels, are the most prevalent pattern of dyslipidemia in persons with type 2 diabetes. However, the evidence base for drugs that target these lipid fractions is significantly less robust than that for statin therapy (193). Nicotinic acid has been shown to reduce CVD outcomes (194), although the study was done in a nondiabetic cohort. Gemfibrozil has been shown to decrease rates of CVD events in subjects without diabetes (195,196) and in the diabetic subgroup in one of the larger trials (195). However, in a large trial specific to diabetic patients, fenofibrate failed to reduce overall cardiovascular outcomes (197). Dyslipidemia treatment and target lipid levels For most patients with diabetes, the first priority of dyslipidemia therapy (unless severe hypertriglyceridemia is the immediate issue) is to lower LDL cholesterol to a target goal of <100 mg/dl (2.60 mmol/l) (198). Lifestyle intervention, including MNT, increased physical activity, weight loss, and smoking cessation, may allow some patients to reach lipid goals. Nutrition intervention should be tailored according to each patient's age, type of diabetes, pharmacological treatment, lipid levels, and other medical conditions and should focus on the reduction of saturated fat, cholesterol, and trans unsaturated fat intake. Glycemic control can also beneficially modify plasma lipid levels, particularly in patients with very high triglycerides and poor glycemic control. In those with clinical CVD or over age 40 with other CVD risk factors, pharmacological treatment should be added to lifestyle therapy regardless of baseline lipid levels. Statins are the drugs of choice for LDL cholesterol lowering. In patients other than those described above, statin treatment should be considered if there is an inadequate LDL cholesterol response to lifestyle modifications and improved glucose control, or if the patient has increased cardiovascular risk (e.g., multiple cardiovascular risk factors or long duration of diabetes). Very little clinical trial evidence exists for type 2 patients under the age of 40, or for type 1 patients of any age. In the Heart Protection Study, the subgroup of 600 patients with type 1 diabetes (lower age limit 40 years) had a proportionately similar reduction in risk as patients with type 2 diabetes, although not statistically significant (187). Although the data are not definitive, consideration should be given to similar lipid-lowering goals in type 1 diabetic patients as those in type 2 diabetic patients, particularly if they have other cardiovascular risk factors. Alternative LDL cholesterol goals Virtually all trials of statins and CVD outcomes have tested specific doses of statins against placebo, other doses of statin, or other statins, rather than aiming for specific LDL cholesterol goals (199). As can be seen in Table 10, placebo-controlled trials generally achieved LDL cholesterol reductions of 30–40% from baseline. Hence, LDL cholesterol lowering of this magnitude is an acceptable outcome for patients who cannot reach LDL cholesterol goals due to severe baseline elevations in LDL cholesterol and/or intolerance of maximal, or any, statin doses. Additionally, for those with baseline LDL cholesterol minimally above 100 mg/dl, prescribing statin therapy to lower LDL cholesterol about 30–40% from baseline is probably more effective than prescribing just enough to get LDL cholesterol slightly below 100 mg/dl. Recent clinical trials in high-risk patients, such as those with acute coronary syndromes or previous cardiovascular events (200–202), have demonstrated that more aggressive therapy with high doses of statins to achieve an LDL cholesterol of <70 mg/dl led to a significant reduction in further events. Therefore, a reduction in LDL cholesterol to a goal of <70 mg/dl is an option in very-high-risk diabetic patients with overt CVD (203). In individual patients, LDL cholesterol lowering with statins is highly variable, and this variable response is poorly understood (204). Reduction of CVD events with statins correlates very closely with LDL cholesterol lowering (185). When maximally tolerated doses of statins fail to significantly lower LDL cholesterol (<30% reduction from patients baseline), the primary aim of combination therapy should be to achieve additional LDL cholesterol lowering. Niacin, fenofibrate, ezetimibe, and bile acid sequestrants all offer additional LDL cholesterol lowering. The evidence that combination therapy provides a significant increment in CVD risk reduction over statin therapy alone is still elusive. Treatment of other lipoprotein fractions or targets Severe hypertriglyceridemia may warrant immediate therapy of this abnormality with lifestyle and usually pharmacologic therapy (fibric acid derivative or niacin) to reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis. In the absence of severe hypertriglyceridemia, therapy targeting HDL cholesterol or triglycerides has intuitive appeal but lacks the evidence base of statin therapy (162). If the HDL cholesterol is <40 mg/dl and the LDL cholesterol is between 100 and 129 mg/dl, gemfibrozil or niacin might be used, especially if a patient is intolerant to statins. Niacin is the most effective drug for raising HDL cholesterol. It can significantly increase blood glucose at high doses, but recent studies demonstrate that at modest doses (750–2,000 mg/day), significant improvements in LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels are accompanied by only modest changes in glucose that are generally amenable to adjustment of diabetes therapy (205,206). Combination therapy, with a statin and a fibrate or a statin and niacin, may be efficacious for treatment for all three lipid fractions, but this combination is associated with an increased risk for abnormal transaminase levels, myositis, or rhabdomyolysis. The risk of rhabdomyolysis is higher with higher doses of statins and with renal insufficiency and seems to be lower when statins are combined with fenofibrate than gemfibrozil (207). Several ongoing trials may provide much-needed evidence for the effects of combination therapy on cardiovascular outcomes. In 2008, a consensus panel convened by ADA and the American College of Cardiology recommended a greater focus on non-HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (apo B) in patients who are likely to have small LDL particles, such as people with diabetes (208). The consensus panel suggested that for statin-treated patients in whom the LDL cholesterol goal would be <70 mg/dl (non-HDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl), apo B should be measured and treated to <80 mg/dl. For patients on statins with an LDL cholesterol goal of <100 mg/dl (non-HDL cholesterol <130 mg/dl), apo B should be measured and treated to below 90 mg/dl. Table 11 summarizes the general recommendations for glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control for adults with diabetes. 3. Antiplatelet agents Recommendations Use aspirin therapy (75–162 mg/day) as a primary prevention strategy in those with type 1 or type 2 diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk, including those who are >40 years of age or who have additional risk factors (family history of CVD, hypertension, smoking, dyslipidemia, or albuminuria). (C) Use aspirin therapy (75–162 mg/day) as a secondary prevention strategy in those with diabetes with a history of CVD. (A) For patients with CVD and documented aspirin allergy, clopidogrel (75 mg/day) should be used. (B) Combination therapy with ASA (75–162 mg/day) and clopidogrel (75 mg/day) is reasonable for up to a year after an acute coronary syndrome. (B) Aspirin therapy is not recommended in people under 30 years of age due to lack of evidence of benefit and is contraindicated in patients under the age of 21 years because of the associated risk of Reye's syndrome. (E) The use of aspirin in diabetes is reviewed in detail in the ADA technical review (157) and position statement (210) on this topic. Aspirin has been recommended for primary (211,212) and secondary (213,214) prevention of cardiovascular events in high-risk diabetic and nondiabetic individuals. One large meta-analysis and several clinical trials demonstrate the efficacy of using aspirin as a preventive measure for cardiovascular events, including stroke and myocardial infarction. Many trials have shown an ∼30% decrease in myocardial infarction and a 20% decrease in stroke in a wide range of patients, including young and middle-aged patients, patients with and without a history of CVD, men and women, and patients with hypertension. Dosages used in most clinical trials ranged from 75 to 325 mg/day. There is little evidence to support any specific dose, but using the lowest possible dosage may help reduce side effects (215). Conversely, a randomized trial of 100 mg of aspirin daily showed less of a primary prevention effect, without statistical significance, in the large diabetic subgroup in contrast to significant benefit in those without diabetes (216), raising the issue of aspirin resistance in those with diabetes. The systematic review of evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) estimated that aspirin reduced the risk for nonfatal and fatal MI (odds ratio 0.72 [95% CI 0.60–0.87]). The review acknowledged the low numbers of diabetic subjects in most trials but concluded that subset analyses and a single trial in diabetic patients suggested that the estimates extended to those with diabetes (211). The USPSTF stated that the risk-to-benefit ratio favors aspirin use when 5-year CHD risk equals or exceeds 3% and suggested aspirin therapy be considered for men >40 years of age, postmenopausal women, and younger persons with CHD risk factors (including diabetes) (212). There is no evidence for a specific age at which to start aspirin, but aspirin has not been studied at ages <30 years. Clopidogrel has been demonstrated to reduce CVD events in diabetic individuals (217). Adjunctive therapy in the first year after acute coronary syndrome in very-high-risk patients, or as alternative therapy in aspirin-intolerant patients, should be considered. 4. Smoking cessation Recommendations Advise all patients not to smoke. (A) Include smoking cessation counseling and other forms of treatment as a routine component of diabetes care. (B) Issues of smoking in diabetes are reviewed in detail in the ADA technical review (158) and position statement (218) on this topic. A large body of evidence from epidemiological, case-control, and cohort studies provides convincing documentation of the causal link between cigarette smoking and health risks. Cigarette smoking contributes to one of every five deaths in the U.S. and is the most important modifiable cause of premature death. Much of the prior work documenting the impact of smoking on health did not separately discuss results on subsets of individuals with diabetes, suggesting that the identified risks are at least equivalent to those found in the general population. Other studies of individuals with diabetes consistently found a heightened risk of CVD and premature death among smokers. Smoking is also related to the premature development of microvascular complications of diabetes and may have a role in the development of type 2 diabetes. A number of large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation counseling in changing smoking behavior and reducing tobacco use. The routine and thorough assessment of tobacco use is important as a means of preventing smoking or encouraging cessation. Special considerations should include assessment of level of nicotine dependence, which is associated with difficulty in quitting and relapse (219,220). Free telephone quit lines are available in each state (see www.naquitline.org). 5. CHD screening and treatment Recommendations Screening In asymptomatic patients, evaluate risk factors to stratify patients by 10-year risk, and treat risk factors accordingly. (B) Treatment In patients with known CVD, ACE inhibitor (C), aspirin (A), and statin therapy (A) (if not contraindicated) should be used to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. In patients with a prior myocardial infarction, add β-blockers (if not contraindicated) to reduce mortality. (A) In patients >40 years of age with another cardiovascular risk factor (hypertension, family history, dyslipidemia, microalbuminuria, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, or smoking), aspirin and statin therapy (if not contraindicated) should be used to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. (B) In patients with CHF, TZD use is contraindicated. (C) Metformin may be used in patients with stable CHF if renal function is normal. It should be avoided in unstable or hospitalized patients with CHF. (C) Screening for CAD is reviewed in a recently updated consensus statement (123). To identify the presence of CAD in diabetic patients without clear or suggestive symptoms, a risk factor–based approach to the initial diagnostic evaluation and subsequent follow-up has intuitive appeal. However, recent studies concluded that using this approach fails to identify which patients will have silent ischemia on screening tests (130,221). Candidates for cardiac testing include those with 1) typical or atypical cardiac symptoms and 2) an abnormal resting electrocardiogram (ECG). The screening of asymptomatic patients remains controversial, especially as intensive medical therapy indicated in diabetic patients at high risk for CVD has an increasing evidence base for providing equal outcomes to invasive revascularization, including in diabetic patients (222). There is also recent preliminary evidence that silent myocardial ischemia may reverse over time, adding to the controversy concerning aggressive screening strategies (223). Finally, a recent randomized observational trial presented at the ADA's Scientific Sessions in June 2008 demonstrated no clinical benefit to routine screening of asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes and normal ECGs. Despite abnormal myocardial perfusion imaging in more than one in five patients, cardiac outcomes were essentially equal (and very low) in screened versus unscreened patients. In all patients with diabetes, cardiovascular risk factors should be assessed at least annually. These risk factors include dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking, a positive family history of premature coronary disease, and the presence of micro- or macroalbuminuria. Abnormal risk factors should be treated as described elsewhere in these guidelines. Patients at increased CHD risk should receive aspirin and a statin and ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy if hypertensive, unless there are contraindications to a particular drug class. While clear benefit exists for ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy in patients with nephropathy or hypertension, the benefits in patients with CVD in the absence of these conditions is less clear, especially when LDL cholesterol is concomitantly controlled (224,225) B. Nephropathy screening and treatment Recommendations General recommendations To reduce the risk or slow the progression of nephropathy, optimize glucose control. (A) To reduce the risk or slow the progression of nephropathy, optimize blood pressure control. (A) Screening Perform an annual test to assess urine albumin excretion in type 1 diabetic patients with diabetes duration of ≥5 years and in all type 2 diabetic patients, starting at diagnosis. (E) Measure serum creatinine at least annually in all adults with diabetes regardless of the degree of urine albumin excretion. The serum creatinine should be used to estimate GFR and stage the level of chronic kidney disease (CKD), if present. (E) Treatment In the treatment of the nonpregnant patient with micro- or macroalbuminuria, either ACE inhibitors or ARBs should be used. (A) While there are no adequate head-to-head comparisons of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, there is clinical trial support for each of the following statements: In patients with type 1 diabetes, hypertension, and any degree of albuminuria, ACE inhibitors have been shown to delay the progression of nephropathy. (A) In patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and microalbuminuria, both ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been shown to delay the progression to macroalbuminuria. (A) In patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, macroalbuminuria, and renal insufficiency (serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dl), ARBs have been shown to delay the progression of nephropathy. (A) If one class is not tolerated, the other should be substituted. (E) Reduction of protein intake to 0.8–1.0 g · kg body wt−1 · day−1 in individuals with diabetes and the earlier stages of CKD and to 0.8 g · kg body wt−1 · day−1 in the later stages of CKD may improve measures of renal function (urine albumin excretion rate, GFR) and is recommended. (B) When ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or diuretics are used, monitor serum creatinine and potassium levels for the development of acute kidney disease and hyperkalemia. (E) Continued monitoring of urine albumin excretion to assess both response to therapy and progression of disease is recommended. (E) Consider referral to a physician experienced in the care of kidney disease when there is uncertainty about the etiology of kidney disease (active urine sediment, absence of retinopathy, rapid decline in GFR), difficult management issues, or advanced kidney disease. (B) Diabetic nephropathy occurs in 20–40% of patients with diabetes and is the single leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Persistent albuminuria in the range of 30–299 mg/24 h (microalbuminuria) has been shown to be the earliest stage of diabetic nephropathy in type 1 diabetes and a marker for development of nephropathy in type 2 diabetes. Microalbuminuria is also a well-established marker of increased CVD risk (226,227). Patients with microalbuminuria who progress to macroalbuminuria (300 mg/24 h) are likely to progress to ESRD (228,229). However, a number of interventions have been demonstrated to reduce the risk and slow the progression of renal disease. Intensive diabetes management with the goal of achieving near normoglycemia has been shown in large prospective randomized studies to delay the onset of microalbuminuria and the progression of micro- to macroalbuminuria in patients with type 1 (230,231) and type 2 (49,50) diabetes. The UKPDS provided strong evidence that control of blood pressure can reduce the development of nephropathy (163). In addition, large prospective randomized studies in patients with type 1 diabetes have demonstrated that achievement of lower levels of systolic blood pressure (<140 mmHg) resulting from treatment using ACE inhibitors provides a selective benefit over other antihypertensive drug classes in delaying the progression from micro- to macroalbuminuria and can slow the decline in GFR in patients with macroalbuminuria (180,181,232). In type 2 diabetes with hypertension and normoalbuminuria, ACE inhibition has been demonstrated to delay progression to microalbuminuria (233). In addition, ACE inhibitors have been shown to reduce major CVD outcomes (i.e., myocardial infarction, stroke, death) in patients with diabetes (174), thus further supporting the use of these agents in patients with microalbuminuria, a CVD risk factor. ARBs have also been shown to reduce the rate of progression from micro- to macroalbuminuria as well as ESRD in patients with type 2 diabetes (234–236). Some evidence suggests that ARBs have a smaller magnitude of rise in potassium compared with ACE inhibitors in people with nephropathy (237,238). It is important to note that the benefits of both ACE inhibitors and ARBs in those with diabetic nephropathy are strongly associated with the reduction in albuminuria. Combinations of drugs that block the rennin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (e.g., an ACE inhibitor plus an ARB, a mineralocorticoid antagonist, or a direct renin inhibitor) have been shown to provide additional lowering of albuminuria (239–242). However, the long-term effects of such combinations on renal or cardiovascular outcomes have not yet been evaluated in clinical trials. Other drugs, such as diuretics, calcium channel blockers, and β-blockers, should be used as additional therapy to further lower blood pressure in patients already treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs (179) or as alternate therapy in the rare individual unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors or ARBs. Studies in patients with varying stages of nephropathy have shown that protein restriction helps slow the progression of albuminuria, GFR decline, and occurrence of ESRD (243–246). Protein restriction should be considered particularly in patients whose nephropathy seems to be progressing despite optimal glucose and blood pressure control and use of ACE inhibitor and/or ARBs (246). Assessment of albuminuria status and renal function Screening for microalbuminuria can be performed by measurement of the albumin-to-creatinine ratio in a random spot collection (preferred method); 24-h or timed collections are more burdensome and add little to prediction or accuracy (247,248). Measurement of a spot urine for albumin only, whether by immunoassay or by using a dipstick test specific for microalbumin, without simultaneously measuring urine creatinine, is somewhat less expensive but susceptible to false-negative and -positive determinations as a result of variation in urine concentration due to hydration and other factors. Abnormalities of albumin excretion are defined in Table 12. Because of variability in urinary albumin excretion, two of three specimens collected within a 3- to 6-month period should be abnormal before considering a patient to have crossed one of these diagnostic thresholds. Exercise within 24 h, infection, fever, CHF, marked hyperglycemia, and marked hypertension may elevate urinary albumin excretion over baseline values. Information on presence of abnormal urine albumin excretion in addition to level of GFR may be used to stage CKD. The National Kidney Foundation classification (Table 13) is primarily based on GFR levels and therefore differs from other systems, in which staging is based primarily on urinary albumin excretion (249). Studies have found decreased GFR in the absence of increased urine albumin excretion in a substantial percentage of adults with diabetes (250,251). Epidemiologic evidence suggests that a substantial fraction of those with CKD in the setting of diabetes have little or no detectable albuminuria (250). Serum creatinine should therefore be measured at least annually in all adults with diabetes, regardless of the degree of urine albumin excretion. Serum creatinine should be used to estimate GFR and to stage the level of CKD, if present. GFR can be estimated using formulae such as the Cockroft-Gault equation or a prediction formula using data from the Modification of Diet and Renal Disease study (252). GFR calculators are available at http://www.nkdep.nih.gov. Many clinical laboratories now report estimated GFR in addition to serum creatinine. The role of continued annual quantitative assessment of albumin excretion after diagnosis of microalbuminuria and institution of ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy and blood pressure control is unclear. Continued surveillance can assess both response to therapy and progression of disease. Some suggest that reducing abnormal albuminuria (>30 mg/g) to the normal or near-normal range may improve renal and cardiovascular prognosis, but this approach has not been formally evaluated in prospective trials. Complications of kidney disease correlate with level of kidney function. When the estimated GFR is <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2, screening for anemia, malnutrition, and metabolic bone disease is indicated. Early vaccination against hepatitis B is indicated in patients likely to progress to end-stage kidney disease. Consider referral to a physician experienced in the care of kidney disease when there is uncertainty about the etiology of kidney disease (active urine sediment, absence of retinopathy, rapid decline in GFR), difficult management issues, or advanced kidney disease. The threshold for referral may vary depending on the frequency with which a provider encounters diabetic patients with significant kidney disease. Consultation with a nephrologist when stage 4 CKD develops has been found to reduce cost, improve quality of care, and keep people off dialysis longer (253,254). However, nonrenal specialists should not delay educating their patients about the progressive nature of diabetic kidney disease, the renal preservation benefits of aggressive treatment of blood pressure, blood glucose, and hyperlipidemia, and the potential need for renal replacement therapy. C. Retinopathy screening and treatment Recommendations General recommendations To reduce the risk or slow the progression of retinopathy, optimize glycemic control. (A) To reduce the risk or slow the progression of retinopathy, optimize blood pressure control. (A) Screening Adults and children aged 10 years or older with type 1 diabetes should have an initial dilated and comprehensive eye examination by an ophthalmologist or optometrist within 5 years after the onset of diabetes. (B) Patients with type 2 diabetes should have an initial dilated and comprehensive eye examination by an ophthalmologist or optometrist shortly after the diagnosis of diabetes. (B) Subsequent examinations for type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients should be repeated annually by an ophthalmologist or optometrist. Less frequent exams (every 2–3 years) may be considered following one or more normal eye exams. Examinations will be required more frequently if retinopathy is progressing. (B) Women with preexisting diabetes who are planning pregnancy or who have become pregnant should have a comprehensive eye examination and be counseled on the risk of development and/or progression of diabetic retinopathy. Eye examination should occur in the first trimester with close follow-up throughout pregnancy and 1 year postpartum. (B) Treatment Promptly refer patients with any level of macular edema, severe NPDR, or any PDR to an ophthalmologist who is knowledgeable and experienced in the management and treatment of diabetic retinopathy. (A) Laser photocoagulation therapy is indicated to reduce the risk of vision loss in patients with high-risk PDR and clinically significant macular edema and in some cases of severe NPDR. (A) The presence of retinopathy is not a contraindication to aspirin therapy for cardioprotection, as this therapy does not increase the risk of retinal hemorrhage. (A) Diabetic retinopathy is a highly specific vascular complication of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, with prevalence strongly related to the duration of diabetes. Diabetic retinopathy is the most frequent cause of new cases of blindness among adults aged 20–74 years. Glaucoma, cataracts, and other disorders of the eye occur earlier and more frequently in people with diabetes. In addition to duration of diabetes, other factors that increase the risk of, or are associated with, retinopathy include chronic hyperglycemia (255), the presence of nephropathy (256), and hypertension (257). Intensive diabetes management with the goal of achieving near normoglycemia has been shown in large prospective randomized studies to prevent and/or delay the onset and progression of diabetic retinopathy (45,49,50). Lowering blood pressure has been shown to decrease the progression of retinopathy (163). Several case series and a controlled prospective study suggest that pregnancy in type 1 diabetic patients may aggravate retinopathy (258,259); laser photocoagulation surgery can minimize this risk (259). One of the main motivations for screening for diabetic retinopathy is the established efficacy of laser photocoagulation surgery in preventing vision loss. Two large trials, the Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) and the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS), provide the strongest support for the therapeutic benefits of photocoagulation surgery. The DRS (260) showed that panretinal photocoagulation surgery reduced the risk of severe vision loss from PDR from 15.9% in untreated eyes to 6.4% in treated eyes. The benefit was greatest among patients whose baseline evaluation revealed high-risk characteristics (chiefly disc neovascularization or vitreous hemorrhage). Given the risks of modest loss of visual acuity and contraction of the visual field from panretinal laser surgery, such therapy is primarily recommended for eyes with PDR approaching or having high-risk characteristics. The ETDRS (261) established the benefit of focal laser photocoagulation surgery in eyes with macular edema, particularly those with clinically significant macular edema, with reduction of doubling of the visual angle (e.g., 20/50 to 20/100) from 20% in untreated eyes to 8% in treated eyes. The ETDRS also verified the benefits of panretinal photocoagulation for high-risk PDR, but not for mild or moderate NPDR. In older-onset patients with severe NPDR or less-than-high-risk PDR, the risk of severe vision loss or vitrectomy was reduced ∼50% by early laser photocoagulation surgery at these stages. Laser photocoagulation surgery in both trials was beneficial in reducing the risk of further vision loss, but generally not beneficial in reversing already diminished acuity. This preventive effect and the fact that patients with PDR or macular edema may be asymptomatic provide strong support for a screening program to detect diabetic retinopathy. As retinopathy is estimated to take at least 5 years to develop after the onset of hyperglycemia (262), patients with type 1 diabetes should have an initial dilated and comprehensive eye examination within 5 years after the onset of diabetes. Patients with type 2 diabetes, who generally have had years of undiagnosed diabetes (263) and who have a significant risk of prevalent diabetic retinopathy at time of diabetes diagnosis, should have an initial dilated and comprehensive eye examination soon after diagnosis. Examinations should be performed by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who is knowledgeable and experienced in diagnosing the presence of diabetic retinopathy and is aware of its management. Subsequent examinations for type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients are generally repeated annually. Less frequent exams (every 2–3 years) may be cost effective after one or more normal eye exams (264–266), while examinations will be required more frequently if retinopathy is progressing. Examinations can also be done with retinal photographs (with or without dilation of the pupil) read by experienced experts. In-person exams are still necessary when the photos are unacceptable and for follow-up of abnormalities detected. This technology has great pote