+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2011

      American Diabetes Association

      Diabetes Care

      American Diabetes Association

      Read this article at

          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.


          CONTENTS CLASSIFICATION AND DIAGNOSIS OF DIABETES, p. S12 Classification of diabetes Diagnosis of diabetes Categories of increased risk for diabetes (prediabetes) TESTING FOR DIABETES IN ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS, p. S13 Testing for type 2 diabetes and risk of future diabetes in adults Testing for type 2 diabetes in children Screening for type 1 diabetes DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS OF GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS, p. S15 PREVENTION/DELAY OF TYPE 2 DIABETES, p. S16 DIABETES CARE, p. S16 Initial evaluation Management Glycemic control Assessment of glycemic control Glucose monitoring A1C Glycemic goals in adults Pharmacologic and overall approaches to treatment Therapy for type 1 diabetes Therapy for type 2 diabetes Diabetes self-management education Medical nutrition therapy Physical activity Psychosocial assessment and care When treatment goals are not met Hypoglycemia Intercurrent illness Bariatric surgery Immunization PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF DIABETES COMPLICATIONS, p. S27 Cardiovascular disease Hypertension/blood pressure control Dyslipidemia/lipid management Antiplatelet agents Smoking cessation Coronary heart disease screening and treatment Nephropathy screening and treatment Retinopathy screening and treatment Neuropathy screening and treatment Foot care DIABETES CARE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS, p. S38 Children and adolescents Type 1 diabetes Glycemic control Screening and management of chronic complications in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes Nephropathy Hypertension Dyslipidemia Retinopathy Celiac disease Hypothyroidism Self-management School and day care Transition from pediatric to adult care Type 2 diabetes Monogenic diabetes syndromes Preconception care Older adults Cystic fibrosis–related diabetes DIABETES CARE IN SPECIFIC SETTINGS, p. S43 Diabetes care in the hospital Glycemic targets in hospitalized patients Anti-hyperglycemic agents in hospitalized patients Preventing hypoglycemia Diabetes care providers in the hospital Self-management in the hospital Diabetes self-management education in the hospital Medical nutrition therapy in the hospital Bedside blood glucose monitoring Discharge planning STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE, p. S46 Diabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support 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, general 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 clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, 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. Table 1 ADA evidence grading system for clinical practice recommendations Level of evidence Description A Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable, randomized controlled trials that are adequately powered, including: Evidence from a well-conducted multicenter trial Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis Compelling nonexperimental evidence, i.e., “all or none” rule developed by Center for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford Supportive evidence from well-conducted randomized controlled trials that are adequately powered, including: Evidence from a well-conducted trial at one or more institutions Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis B Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies Evidence from a well-conducted prospective cohort study or registry Evidence from a well-conducted meta-analysis of cohort studies Supportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control study C Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies Evidence from randomized clinical trials with one or more major or three or more minor methodological flaws that could invalidate the results Evidence from observational studies with high potential for bias (such as case series with comparison to historical controls) Evidence from case series or case reports Conflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting the recommendation E Expert consensus or clinical experience These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA's multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. Members of the Professional Practice Committee and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed on page S97. Subsequently, as with all Position Statements, the standards of care are reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of ADA's Board of Directors. I. CLASSIFICATION AND DIAGNOSIS OF DIABETES A. Classification of diabetes 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 HIV/AIDS or after organ transplantation) Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (diabetes diagnosed during pregnancy that is not clearly overt diabetes) Some patients cannot be clearly classified as having 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 diabetes 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 For decades, the diagnosis of diabetes was based on plasma glucose criteria, either the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or the 2-h value in the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) (4). In 2009, an International Expert Committee that included representatives of the ADA, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) recommended the use of the A1C test to diagnose diabetes, with a threshold of ≥6.5% (5), and ADA adopted this criterion in 2010 (4). The diagnostic test should be performed using a method that is certified by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) and standardized or traceable to the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) reference assay. Point-of-care A1C assays are not sufficiently accurate at this time to use for diagnostic purposes. Epidemiologic datasets show a similar relationship between A1C and risk of retinopathy as has been shown for the corresponding FPG and 2-h plasma glucose thresholds. The A1C has several advantages to the FPG and OGTT, including greater convenience, since fasting is not required; evidence to suggest greater preanalytical stability; and less day-to-day perturbations during periods of stress and illness. These advantages must be balanced by greater cost, the limited availability of A1C testing in certain regions of the developing world, and the incomplete correlation between A1C and average glucose in certain individuals. In addition, A1C levels can vary with patients' ethnicity (6) as well as with certain anemias and hemoglobinopathies. For patients with an abnormal hemoglobin but normal red cell turnover, such as sickle cell trait, an A1C assay without interference from abnormal hemoglobins should be used (an updated list is available at For conditions with abnormal red cell turnover, such as pregnancy, recent blood loss or transfusion, or some anemias, the diagnosis of diabetes must employ glucose criteria exclusively. The established glucose criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes (FPG and 2-h PG) remain valid as well (Table 2). Just as there is less than 100% concordance between the FPG and 2-h PG tests, there is not perfect concordance between A1C and either glucose-based test. Analyses of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data indicate that, assuming universal screening of the undiagnosed, the A1C cut point of ≥6.5% identifies one-third fewer cases of undiagnosed diabetes than a fasting glucose cut point of ≥126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l) (7). However, in practice, a large portion of the diabetic population remains unaware of their condition. Thus, the lower sensitivity of A1C at the designated cut point may well be offset by the test's greater practicality, and wider application of a more convenient test (A1C) may actually increase the number of diagnoses made. Table 2 Criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes A1C ≥6.5%. The test should be performed in a laboratory using a method that is NGSP certified and standardized to the DCCT assay.* or FPG ≥126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l). Fasting is defined as no caloric intake for at least 8 h.* or 2-h plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l) during an OGTT. The test should be performed as described by the World Health Organization, using a glucose load containing the equivalent of 75 g anhydrous glucose dissolved in water.* or In a patient with classic symptoms of hyperglycemia or hyperglycemic crisis, a random plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l) *In the absence of unequivocal hyperglycemia, result should be confirmed by repeat testing. As with most diagnostic tests, a test result diagnostic of diabetes should be repeated to rule out laboratory error, unless the diagnosis is clear on clinical grounds, such as a patient with a hyperglycemic crisis or classic symptoms of hyperglycemia and a random plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dl. It is preferable that the same test be repeated for confirmation, since there will be a greater likelihood of concurrence in this case. For example, if the A1C is 7.0% and a repeat result is 6.8%, the diagnosis of diabetes is confirmed. However, if two different tests (such as A1C and FPG) are both above the diagnostic thresholds, the diagnosis of diabetes is also confirmed. On the other hand, if two different tests are available in an individual and the results are discordant, the test whose result is above the diagnostic cut point should be repeated, and the diagnosis is made on the basis of the confirmed test. That is, if a patient meets the diabetes criterion of the A1C (two results ≥6.5%) but not the FPG (<126 mg/dl or 7.0 mmol/l), or vice versa, that person should be considered to have diabetes. Since there is preanalytic and analytic variability of all the tests, it is also possible that when a test whose result was above the diagnostic threshold is repeated, the second value will be below the diagnostic cut point. This is least likely for A1C, somewhat more likely for FPG, and most likely for the 2-h PG. Barring a laboratory error, such patients are likely to have test results near the margins of the threshold for a diagnosis. The healthcare professional might opt to follow the patient closely and repeat the testing in 3–6 months. The current diagnostic criteria for diabetes are summarized in Table 2. C. Categories of increased risk for diabetes (prediabetes) In 1997 and 2003, The Expert Committee on Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus (8,9) recognized an intermediate group of individuals whose glucose levels, although not meeting criteria for diabetes, are nevertheless too high to be considered normal. These persons were defined as having impaired fasting glucose (IFG) (FPG levels 100–125 mg/dl [5.6–6.9 mmol/l]) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (2-h PG values in the OGTT of 140–199 mg/dl [7.8–11.0 mmol/l]). It should be noted that the World Health Organization (WHO) and a number of other diabetes organizations define the cutoff for IFG at 110 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/l). Individuals with IFG and/or IGT have been referred to as having prediabetes, indicating the relatively high risk for the future development of diabetes. IFG and IGT should not be viewed as clinical entities in their own right but rather risk factors for diabetes as well as cardiovascular disease (CVD). IFG and IGT are associated with obesity (especially abdominal or visceral obesity), dyslipidemia with high triglycerides and/or low HDL cholesterol, and hypertension. As is the case with the glucose measures, several prospective studies that used A1C to predict the progression to diabetes demonstrated a strong, continuous association between A1C and subsequent diabetes. In a systematic review of 44,203 individuals from 16 cohort studies with a follow-up interval averaging 5.6 years (range 2.8–12 years), those with an A1C between 5.5 and 6.0% had a substantially increased risk of diabetes with 5-year incidences ranging from 9–25%. An A1C range of 6.0–6.5% had a 5-year risk of developing diabetes between 25–50% and relative risk 20 times higher compared with an A1C of 5.0% (10). In a community-based study of black and white adults without diabetes, baseline A1C was a stronger predictor of subsequent diabetes and cardiovascular events than fasting glucose (11). Other analyses suggest that an A1C of 5.7% is associated with diabetes risk similar to that of the high-risk participants in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). Hence, it is reasonable to consider an A1C range of 5.7–6.4% as identifying individuals with high risk for future diabetes, a state that may be referred to as prediabetes (4). As is the case for individuals found to have IFG and IGT, individuals with an A1C of 5.7–6.4% should be informed of their increased risk for diabetes as well as CVD and counseled about effective strategies to lower their risks (see iv. prevention/delay of type 2 diabetes). As with glucose measurements, the continuum of risk is curvilinear—as A1C rises, the risk of diabetes rises disproportionately (10). Accordingly, interventions should be most intensive and follow-up particularly vigilant for those with A1Cs above 6.0%, who should be considered to be at very high risk. Table 3 summarizes the categories of increased risk for diabetes. Table 3 Categories of increased risk for diabetes (prediabetes)* FPG 100–125 mg/dl (5.6–6.9 mmol/l): IFG or 2-h plasma glucose in the 75-g OGTT 140–199 mg/dl (7.8–11.0 mmol/l): IGT or A1C 5.7–6.4% *For all three tests, risk is continuous, extending below the lower limit of the range and becoming disproportionately greater at higher ends of the range. II. TESTING FOR DIABETES IN ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS Recommendations Testing to detect type 2 diabetes and assess risk for future 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 4). In those without these risk factors, testing should begin at age 45 years. (B) If tests are normal, repeat testing carried out at least at 3-year intervals is reasonable. (E) To test for diabetes or to assess risk of future diabetes, A1C, FPG, or 2-h 75-g OGTT is appropriate. (B) In those identified with increased risk for future 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. 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 at increased future risk for diabetes, herein referred to as having prediabetes. Table 4 Criteria for testing for diabetes in asymptomatic adult individuals Testing should be considered in all adults who are overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2 *) and have additional risk factors: physical inactivity first-degree relative with diabetes high-risk race/ethnicity (e.g., African American, Latino, Native American, Asian American, Pacific Islander) women who delivered a baby weighing >9 lb or were diagnosed with GDM hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg or on therapy for hypertension) HDL cholesterol level <35 mg/dl (0.90 mmol/l) and/or a triglyceride level >250 mg/dl (2.82 mmol/l) women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) A1C ≥5.7%, IGT, or IFG on previous testing other clinical conditions associated with insulin resistance (e.g., severe obesity, acanthosis nigricans) history of CVD In the absence of the above criteria, testing for diabetes should begin at age 45 years. If results are normal, testing should be repeated at least at 3-year intervals, with consideration of more frequent testing depending on initial results and risk status. *At-risk BMI may be lower in some ethnic groups. A. Testing for type 2 diabetes and risk of future diabetes in adults Type 2 diabetes is frequently not diagnosed until complications appear, and approximately one-fourth of all people with diabetes in the U.S. may be undiagnosed. The effectiveness of early identification of prediabetes and diabetes through mass testing of asymptomatic individuals has not been proven definitively, and rigorous trials to provide such proof are unlikely to occur. However, mathematical modeling studies suggest that screening independent of risk factors beginning at age 30 or 45 years is highly cost-effective (<$11,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) (12). Prediabetes and diabetes meet established criteria for conditions in which early detection is appropriate. Both conditions are common and 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. Additionally, the duration of glycemic burden is a strong predictor of adverse outcomes, and effective interventions exist to prevent progression of prediabetes to diabetes (see iv. prevention/delay of type 2 diabetes) and to reduce risk of complications of diabetes (see vi. prevention and management of diabetes complications). Recommendations for testing for diabetes in asymptomatic, undiagnosed adults are listed in Table 4. Testing should be considered in adults of any age with BMI ≥25 kg/m2 and one or more of the known 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 A1C, FPG, or the 2-h OGTT is appropriate for testing. The 2-h OGTT identifies people with either IFG or IGT and thus more 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 individuals. The efficacy of interventions for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes (13 –19) have primarily been demonstrated among individuals with IGT, not for individuals with IFG (who do not also have IGT) or for individuals with specific A1C levels. The appropriate interval between tests is not known (20). 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. In the modeling study, repeat screening every 3 or 5 years was cost-effective (12). 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. 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 (21), although the disease remains rare in the general pediatric population (22). 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. The recommendations of the ADA Consensus Statement on Type 2 Diabetes in Children and Youth (23), with some modifications, are summarized in Table 5. Table 5 Testing for type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic children Criteria Overweight (BMI >85th percentile for age and sex, weight for height >85th percentile, or weight >120% of ideal for height) Plus any two of the following risk factors: Family history of type 2 diabetes in first- or second-degree relative Race/ethnicity (Native American, African American, Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander) Signs of insulin resistance or conditions associated with insulin resistance (acanthosis nigricans, hypertension, dyslipidemia, PCOS, or small-for-gestational-age birth weight) Maternal history of diabetes or GDM during the child's gestation Age of initiation: age 10 years or at onset of puberty, if puberty occurs at a younger age Frequency: every 3 years 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, 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 GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS Recommendations Screen for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes at the first prenatal visit in those with risk factors, using standard diagnostic criteria. (B) In pregnant women not known to have diabetes, screen for GDM at 24–28 weeks of gestation, using a 75-g 2-h OGTT and the diagnostic cut points in Table 6. (B) Screen women with GDM for persistent diabetes 6–12 weeks postpartum. (E) Women with a history of GDM should have lifelong screening for the development of diabetes or prediabetes at least every 3 years. (E) For many years, GDM was defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy (8), whether or not the condition persisted after pregnancy, and not excluding the possibility that unrecognized glucose intolerance may have antedated or begun concomitantly with the pregnancy. This definition facilitated a uniform strategy for detection and classification of GDM, but its limitations were recognized for many years. As the ongoing epidemic of obesity and diabetes has led to more type 2 diabetes in women of childbearing age, the number of pregnant women with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes has increased (24). Because of this, it is reasonable to screen women with risk factors for type 2 diabetes (Table 4) for diabetes at their initial prenatal visit, using standard diagnostic criteria (Table 2). Women with diabetes found at this visit should receive a diagnosis of overt, not gestational, diabetes. Table 6 Screening for and diagnosis of GDM Perform a 75-g OGTT, with plasma glucose measurement fasting and at 1 and 2 h, at 24–28 weeks of gestation in women not previously diagnosed with overt diabetes. The OGTT should be performed in the morning after an overnight fast of at least 8 h. The diagnosis of GDM is made when any of the following plasma glucose values are exceeded: Fasting ≥92 mg/dl (5.1 mmol/l) 1 h ≥180 mg/dl (10.0 mmol/l) 2 h ≥153 mg/dl (8.5 mmol/l) GDM carries risks for the mother and neonate. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study (25), a large-scale (∼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. After deliberations in 2008–2009, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG), an international consensus group with representatives from multiple obstetrical and diabetes organizations, including ADA, developed revised recommendations for diagnosing GDM. The group recommended that all women not known to have diabetes undergo a 75-g OGTT at 24–28 weeks of gestation. Additionally, the group developed diagnostic cut points for the fasting, 1-h, and 2-h plasma glucose measurements that conveyed an odds ratio for adverse outcomes of at least 1.75 compared with the mean glucose levels in the HAPO study. Current screening and diagnostic strategies, based on the IADPSG statement (26), are outlined in Table 6. These new criteria will significantly increase the prevalence of GDM, primarily because only one abnormal value, not two, is sufficient to make the diagnosis. The ADA recognizes the anticipated significant increase in the incidence of GDM to be diagnosed by these criteria and is sensitive to concerns about the “medicalization” of pregnancies previously categorized as normal. These diagnostic criteria changes are being made in the context of worrisome worldwide increases in obesity and diabetes rates, with the intent of optimizing gestational outcomes for women and their babies. Admittedly, there are few data from randomized clinical trials regarding therapeutic interventions in women who will now be diagnosed with GDM based on only one blood glucose value above the specified cut points (in contrast to the older criteria that stipulated at least two abnormal values.) Expected benefits to their pregnancies and offspring is inferred from intervention trials that focused on women with more mild hyperglycemia than identified using older GDM diagnostic criteria and that found modest benefits (27,28). The frequency of their follow-up and blood glucose monitoring is not yet clear, but likely to be less intensive than women diagnosed by the older criteria. Additional well-designed clinical studies are needed to determine the optimal intensity of monitoring and treatment of women with GDM diagnosed by the new criteria (that would not have met the prior definition of GDM). It is important to note that 80–90% of women in both of the mild GDM studies (whose glucose values overlapped with the thresholds recommended herein) could be managed with lifestyle therapy alone. Because some cases of GDM may represent preexisting undiagnosed type 2 diabetes, women with a history of GDM should be screened for diabetes 6–12 weeks postpartum, using nonpregnant OGTT criteria. Women with a history of GDM have a greatly increased subsequent risk for diabetes (29) and should be followed up with subsequent screening for the development of diabetes or prediabetes, as outlined in ii. testing for diabetes in asymptomatic patients. IV. PREVENTION/DELAY OF TYPE 2 DIABETES Recommendations Patients with IGT (A), IFG (E), or an A1C of 5.7–6.4% (E) should be referred to an effective ongoing support program targeting weight loss of 7% of body weight and increasing physical activity to at least 150 min/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 programs should be covered by third-party payors. (E) Metformin therapy for prevention of type 2 diabetes may be considered in those at the highest risk for developing diabetes, such as those with multiple risk factors, especially if they demonstrate progression of hyperglycemia (e.g., A1C ≥6%) despite lifestyle interventions. (B) Monitoring for the development of diabetes in those with prediabetes 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 (13 –19). 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, α-glucosidase inhibitors, 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 7. Table 7 Therapies proven effective in diabetes prevention trials Study (ref.) n Population Mean age (years) Duration (years) Intervention (daily dose) Incidence in control subjects (%/year) Relative risk reduction (%) (95% CI) 3-Year number needed to treatδ Lifestyle     Finnish DPS (14) 522 IGT, BMI ≥25 kg/m2 55 3.2 I-D&E 6 58 (30–70) 8.5     DPP (13) 2,161* IGT, BMI ≥24 kg/m2, FPG >5.3 mmol/l 51 3 I-D&E 10.4 58 (48–66) 6.9     Da Qing (15) 259* IGT (randomized groups) 45 6 G-D&E 14.5 38 (14–56) 7.9     Toranomon Study (35) 458 IGT (men), BMI = 24 kg/m2 ∼55 4 I-D&E 2.4 67 (P < 0.043)† 20.6     Indian DPP (19) 269* IGT 46 2.5 I-D&E 23 29 (21–37) 6.4 Medications     DPP (13) 2,155* IGT, BMI >24 kg/m2, FPG >5.3 mmol/l 51 2.8 Metformin (1,700 mg) 10.4 31 (17–43) 13.9     Indian DPP (19) 269* IGT 46 2.5 Metformin (500 mg) 23 26 (19–35) 6.9     STOP-NIDDM (17) 1,419 IGT, FPG >5.6 mmol/l 54 3.2 Acarbose (300 mg) 12.4 25 (10–37) 9.6     XENDOS (36) 3,277 BMI >30 kg/m2 43 4 Orlistat (360 mg) 2.4 37 (14–54) 45.5     DREAM (18) 5,269 IGT or IFG 55 3.0 Rosiglitazone (8 mg) 9.1 60 (54–65) 6.9     Voglibose Ph-3 (37) 1,780 IGT 56 3.0 (1-year Rx) Vogliobose (0.2 mg) 12.0 40 (18–57) 21 (1-year Rx) Modified and reprinted with permission (38). Percentage points: δNumber needed to treat to prevent 1 case of diabetes, standardized for a 3-year period to improve comparisons across studies. *Number of participants in the indicated comparisons, not necessarily in entire study. †Calculated from information in the article. DPP, Diabetes Prevention Program; DPS, Diabetes Prevention Study; DREAM, Diabetes Reduction Assessment with Ramipril and Rosiglitazone Medication; STOP-NIDDM, Study to Prevent Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes; XENDOS, Xenical in the prevention of Diabetes in Obese Subjects. I, individual; G, group; D&E, diet and exercise. Follow-up of all three large studies of lifestyle intervention has shown sustained reduction in the rate of conversion to type 2 diabetes, with 43% reduction at 20 years in the Da Qing study (30), 43% reduction at 7 years in the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS) (31) and 34% reduction at 10 years in the U.S. Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS) (32). A cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that lifestyle interventions as delivered in the DPP are cost-effective (33). Group delivery of the DPP intervention in community settings has the potential to be significantly less expensive while still achieving similar weight loss (34). Based on the results of clinical trials and the known risks of progression of prediabetes to diabetes, persons with an A1C of 5.7–6.4%, IGT, or IFG should be counseled on lifestyle changes with goals similar to those of the DPP (7% weight loss and moderate physical activity of at least 150 min/week). Regarding the more difficult issue of drug therapy for diabetes prevention, a consensus panel felt that metformin should be the only drug considered (39). 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, which was significantly less effective than lifestyle in the DPP and DPPOS, reasonably may be recommended for very-high-risk individuals (those with risk factors for diabetes and/or those with more severe or progressive hyperglycemia). Of note, in the DPP metformin was most effective compared to lifestyle in those with BMI of at least 35 kg/m2 and was not significantly better than placebo in those over 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 8) will assist the health care team to ensure optimal management of the patient with diabetes. Table 8 Components of the comprehensive diabetes evaluation Medical history Age and characteristics of onset of diabetes (e.g., DKA, asymptomatic laboratory finding) Eating patterns, physical activity habits, nutritional status, and weight history; growth and development in children and adolescents Diabetes education history Review of previous treatment regimens and response to therapy (A1C records) Current treatment of diabetes, including medications, meal plan, physical activity patterns, and results of glucose monitoring and patient's use of data DKA frequency, severity, and cause Hypoglycemic episodes Hypoglycemia awareness Any severe hypoglycemia: frequency and cause History of diabetes-related complications Microvascular: retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy (sensory, including history of foot lesions; autonomic, including sexual dysfunction and gastroparesis) Macrovascular: CHD, cerebrovascular disease, PAD Other: psychosocial problems*, dental disease* Physical examination Height, weight, BMI Blood pressure determination, including orthostatic measurements when indicated Fundoscopic examination* Thyroid palpation Skin examination (for acanthosis nigricans and insulin injection sites) Comprehensive foot examination: Inspection Palpation of dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses Presence/absence of patellar and Achilles reflexes Determination of proprioception, vibration, and monofilament sensation Laboratory evaluation A1C, if results not available within past 2–3 months If not performed/available within past year: Fasting lipid profile, including total, LDL and HDL cholesterol and triglycerides Liver function tests Test for urine albumin excretion with spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio Serum creatinine and calculated GFR Thyroid-stimulating hormone in type 1 diabetes, dyslipidemia, or women over age 50 years Referrals Annual dilated eye exam Family planning for women of reproductive age Registered dietitian for MNT DSME Dental examination Mental health professional, if needed *See appropriate referrals for these categories. 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 a collaborative 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 to 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) and ongoing diabetes support 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 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 interstitial glucose, and 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) 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) 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 patient. 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 these populations, 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 (40). Several recent trials have called into question the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of routine SMBG in non–insulin-treated patients (41 –43). Because the accuracy of SMBG is instrument and user dependent (44), 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 to usual intensive insulin therapy with SMBG (45). Sensor use in children, teens, and adults up 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. In a smaller randomized controlled trial of 129 adults and children with baseline A1C <7.0%, outcomes combining A1C and hypoglycemia favored the group utilizing CGM, suggesting that CGM is also beneficial for individuals with type 1 diabetes who have already achieved excellent control with A1C <7.0 (46). 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 (44), and has strong predictive value for diabetes complications (47,48), 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 (49,50). 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 (44). 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 9 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 CGM in 507 adults (83% Caucasian) with type 1, type 2, and no diabetes (51). The American Diabetes Association 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 7-point profile over 1 day per A1C reading) in the primarily Caucasian type 1 diabetic participants in the DCCT (52). 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. Table 9 Correlation of A1C with average glucose A1C (%) Mean plasma glucose mg/dl mmol/l 6 126 7.0 7 154 8.6 8 183 10.2 9 212 11.8 10 240 13.4 11 269 14.9 12 298 16.5 These estimates are based on ADAG data of ∼2,700 glucose measurements over 3 months per A1C measurement in 507 adults with type 1, type 2, and no diabetes. The correlation between A1C and average glucose was 0.92 (51). A calculator for converting A1C results into estimated average glucose (eAG), in either mg/dl or mmol/l, is available at In the ADAG trial, 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 participants and Caucasian ones that might have been significant had more African/African American participants been studied. A recent study comparing A1C with CGM data in 48 type 1 diabetic 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 (53). 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 Recommendations Lowering A1C to below or around 7% has been shown to reduce microvascular and neuropathic complications of diabetes and, if implemented soon after the diagnosis of diabetes, is associated with long-term reduction in macrovascular disease. Therefore, a reasonable A1C goal for many nonpregnant adults is <7%. (B) Because additional analyses from several randomized trials suggest a small but incremental benefit in microvascular outcomes with A1C values closer to normal, providers might reasonably suggest more stringent A1C goals for selected individual patients, 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 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 (47) (in patients with type 1 diabetes), the Kumamoto study (54), and the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) (55,56) (both in patients with type 2 diabetes) were prospective, randomized, controlled trials of intensive versus standard glycemic control in patients with relatively recently diagnosed diabetes. These trials showed definitively that improved glycemic control is associated with significantly decreased rates of microvascular (retinopathy and nephropathy) and neuropathic complications. Follow up of the DCCT cohorts in the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study (57,58) and of the UKPDS cohort (59) has shown persistence of these microvascular benefits in previously intensively treated subjects, even though their glycemic control has been equivalent to that of previous standard arm subjects during follow-up. Subsequent trials in patients with more long-standing type 2 diabetes, designed primarily to look at the role of intensive glycemic control on cardiovascular outcomes also confirmed a benefit, although more modest, on onset or progression of microvascular complications. The Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) showed significant reductions in albuminuria with intensive (achieved median A1C 6.9%) compared to standard glycemic control, but no difference in retinopathy and neuropathy (60,61). The Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) study of intensive versus standard glycemic control in type 2 diabetes found a statistically significant reduction in albuminuria with an A1C target of <6.5% (achieved median A1C 6.3%) compared to standard therapy achieving a median A1C of 7.0% (62). Recent analyses from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial have shown lower rates of measures of microvascular complications in the intensive glycemic control arm compared with the standard arm (63,64). Epidemiological analyses of the DCCT and UKPDS (47,48) 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, but also in the recent type 2 trials), the concerning mortality findings in the ACCORD trial (65), 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 (66,67) 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. 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 (68). The benefit of intensive glycemic control in this type 1 cohort has recently been shown to persist for several decades (69). 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. However, 10 years of follow-up of the UKPDS cohort demonstrated, for 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) (59). Results of three large trials (ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VADT) suggested no significant reduction in CVD outcomes with intensive glycemic control in these populations, who had more advanced diabetes than UKPDS participants. Details of these three studies are reviewed extensively in a recent ADA position statement (70). The glycemic control arm of ACCORD was halted early due to the finding of an increased rate of mortality in the intensive arm compared with the standard arm (1.41% vs. 1.14% per year; HR 1.22 [95% CI 1.01 to 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, but this reduction was not statistically significant when the study was terminated (65). The potential cause of excess deaths in the intensive group of the ACCORD has been difficult to pinpoint. 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 a clear explanation for the excess mortality in the intensive arm. The ACCORD investigators subsequently published additional analyses showing no increase in mortality in the intensive arm participants who achieved A1C levels <7% or in those who lowered their A1C quickly after trial enrollment. In fact, the converse was observed—those at highest risk for mortality were participants in the intensive arm with the highest A1C levels (71). 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 end point, although this was due to a significant reduction in the microvascular outcome, primarily development of macroalbuminuria, with no significant reduction in the macrovascular outcome. There was no difference in overall or cardiovascular mortality between the intensive compared with the standard glycemic control arms (62). The VADT randomized 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%. The primary outcome of the VADT was a composite of CVD events. The cumulative primary outcome was nonsignificantly lower in the intensive arm (60). Unlike the UKPDS, which was carried out in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes, all three of the recent type 2 cardiovascular trials were conducted 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. Consistent with this concept, data from an ancillary study of the VADT demonstrated that intensive glycemic control was quite effective in reducing CVD events in individuals with less atherosclerosis at baseline (assessed by coronary calcium) but not in persons with more extensive baseline atherosclerosis (72). 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. A recent group-level meta-analysis of the latter three trials suggests that glucose lowering has a modest (9%) but statistically significant reduction in major CVD outcomes, primarily nonfatal MI, with no significant effect on mortality. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that major CVD outcome reduction occurred in patients without known CVD at baseline (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.74–0.94]) (73). Conversely, the mortality findings in ACCORD and subgroup analyses of VADT 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 many nonpregnant adults are shown in Table 10. The recommendations are based on those for A1C values, with listed blood glucose levels that appear to correlate with achievement of an A1C of <7%. Less-stringent treatment goals may be appropriate for adults with limited life expectancies or advanced vascular disease. Glycemic goals for children are provided in VII.A.1.a. Glycemic control. Severe or frequent hypoglycemia is an absolute indication for the modification of treatment regimens, including setting higher glycemic goals. Table 10 Summary of glycemic recommendations for many nonpregnant adults with diabetes A1C <7.0%* Preprandial capillary plasma glucose 70–130 mg/dl* (3.9–7.2 mmol/l) Peak postprandial capillary plasma glucose† Goals should be individualized based on*: duration of diabetes age/life expectancy comorbid conditions known CVD or advanced microvascular complications hypoglycemia unawareness individual patient considerations More or less stringent glycemic goals may be appropriate for individual patients. Postprandial glucose may be targeted if A1C goals are not met despite reaching preprandial glucose goals. <180 mg/dl* (<10.0 mmol/l) Postprandial glucose measurements should be made 1–2 h after the beginning of the meal, generally peak levels in patients with diabetes. The issue of pre- versus postprandial SMBG targets is complex (74). 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 (75). 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 in patients with known CVD found no CVD benefit of insulin regimens targeting postprandial glucose compared with targeting preprandial glucose (76). 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 regards goals for glycemic control for women with GDM, recommendations from the Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes (77) were to target maternal capillary glucose concentrations of: 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 (78) recommended the following as optimal glycemic goals, if they can be achieved without excessive hypoglycemia: premeal, bedtime, and overnight glucose 60–99 mg/dl (3.3–5.4 mmol/l) peak postprandial glucose 100–129 mg/dl (5.4–7.1mmol/l) A1C <6.0% D. Pharmacologic and overall approaches to treatment