Search

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the relationship between average glucose (AG) levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) differs across racial/ethnic groups. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a prospective substudy of GRADE, a comparative effectiveness randomized trial conducted in 36 centers in the U.S. A total of 1,454 of the 5,047 participants in the GRADE cohort, including 534 non-Hispanic White (NHW), 389 non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and 327 Hispanic White patients and 204 patients of other racial/ethnic backgrounds, were included in the substudy. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) performed for 10 days was used to calculate AG10. Immediately after CGM, HbA1c and glycated albumin were measured. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and glucose area under the curve (AUC) were derived from a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. RESULTS: The relationship between AG10 and HbA1c was significantly different for NHB compared with NHW patients and those of other racial/ethnic groups. HbA1c levels were 0.2–0.6 percentage points higher in NHB than in NHW patients for AG10 levels from 100 to 250 mg/dL. For an HbA1c of 7%, AG10 was 11 mg/dL higher for NHW than for NHB patients. Similar findings were observed across races for relationships of FPG and AUC with HbA1c and for glucose measurements with glycated albumin levels. Differences in the relationship between AG10 and HbA1c across racial groups remained after adjustments for any demographic or other differences between racial/ethnic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between several measures of glucose with HbA1c and glycated albumin consistently differed across races. These findings should be considered in setting treatment goals and diagnostic levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: Question: Does therapy with edetate disodium (EDTA)–based chelation reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo infusions among patients with diabetes and prior myocardial infarction (MI)? Findings: EDTA-based chelation did not reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo infusion, with a hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76-1.16; P =.53). Chelation infusions did reduce the median blood lead levels from 9.0 μg/L at baseline to 3.5 μg/L at infusion 40 (P <.001). Meaning: Among patients with diabetes and prior MI, EDTA-based chelation decreased median blood lead levels by 61% from baseline but did not reduce major adverse cardiovascular events. Importance: In 2013, the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) reported that edetate disodium (EDTA)–based chelation significantly reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events by 18% in 1708 patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI). Objective: To replicate the finding of TACT in individuals with diabetes and previous MI. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2 × 2 factorial, double-masked, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial at 88 sites in the US and Canada, involving participants who were 50 years or older, had diabetes, and had experienced an MI at least 6 weeks before recruitment compared the effect of EDTA-based chelation vs placebo infusions on CVD events and compared the effect of high doses of oral multivitamins and minerals with oral placebo. This article reports on the chelation vs placebo infusion comparisons. Interventions: Eligible participants were randomly assigned to 40 weekly infusions of an EDTA-based chelation solution or matching placebo and to twice daily oral, high-dose multivitamin and mineral supplements or matching placebo for 60 months. This article addresses the chelation study. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Median follow-up was 48 months. Primary comparisons were made from patients who received at least 1 assigned infusion. Results: Of the 959 participants (median age, 67 years [IQR, 60-72 years]; 27% females; 78% White, 10% Black, and 20% Hispanic), 483 received at least 1 chelation infusion and 476 at least 1 placebo infusion. A primary end point event occurred in 172 participants (35.6%) in the chelation group and in 170 (35.7%) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.16; P =.53). The 5-year primary event cumulative incidence rates were 45.8% for the chelation group and 46.5% for the placebo group. CV death, MI, or stroke events occurred in 89 participants (18.4%) in the chelation group and in 94 (19.7%) in the placebo group (adjusted HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19). Death from any cause occurred in 84 participants (17.4%) in the chelation group and in 84 (17.6%) in the placebo group (adjusted HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.30). Chelation reduced median blood lead levels from 9.03 μg/L at baseline to 3.46 μg/L at infusion 40 (P <.001). Corresponding levels in the placebo group were 9.3 μg/L and 8.7 μg/L, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite effectively reducing blood lead levels, EDTA chelation was not effective in reducing cardiovascular events in stable patients with coronary artery disease who have diabetes and a history of MI. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02733185 This randomized clinical trial assesses whether edetate disodium–based chelation infusions decrease cardiovascular disease events compared with placebo among patients with diabetes and prior myocardial infarction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and its follow-up study, the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC). It explains how the DCCT demonstrated that intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes reduced the risk of microvascular complications, such as retinopathy, neuropathy, and albuminuria. However, it also found that intensive treatment had adverse effects, including an increase in severe hypoglycemia. The EDIC study showed that the benefits of intensive treatment persisted over time, leading to reductions in severe complications and mortality. The findings of these studies have greatly influenced diabetes treatment guidelines and improved outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: Mid‐life cardiovascular risk factors are associated with later cognitive decline. Whether repetitive head injury among professional athletes impacts cardiovascular risk is unknown. We investigated associations between concussion burden and postcareer hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes among former professional American‐style football (ASF) players. Methods: In a cross‐sectional study of 4080 professional ASF players conducted between January 2015 and March 2022, we used an mulitsymptom concussion symptom score (CSS) and the number of loss‐of‐consciousness (LOC) episodes as a single severe symptom to quantify football‐related concussion exposure. Primary outcomes were hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, defined by current or recommended prescription medication use. Results: The prevalence of hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes among former players (52 ± 14 years of age) was 37%, 34%, and 9%. Concussion burden was significantly associated with hypertension (lowest vs. highest CSS quartile, odds ratio (OR) = 1.99; 95%CI: 1.33–2.98; p < 0.01) and high cholesterol (lowest vs. moderate CSS, OR = 1.46, 95%CI, 1.11–1.91; p < 0.01), but not diabetes. In fully adjusted models, the prevalence of multiple CVD was associated with CSS. These results were driven by younger former players (≤ 40 year of age) in which the odds of hypertension were over three times higher in those in the highest CSS quartile (OR = 3.29, 95%CI: 1.39–7.61; p = 0.01). Results were similar for LOC analyses. Interpretation: Prior concussion burden is associated with postcareer atherogenic cardiovascular risk profiles among former professional American football players. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy of different periods of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and their combination for estimating mean glycemia over 90 days (AG90). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied 985 CGM periods of 90 days with <10% missing data from 315 adults (86% of whom had type 1 diabetes) with paired HbA1c measurements. The impact of mean red blood cell age as a proxy for nonglycemic effects on HbA1c was estimated using published theoretical models and in comparison with empirical data. Given the lack of a gold standard measurement for AG90, we applied correction methods to generate a reference (eAG90) that we used to assess accuracy for HbA1c and CGM. RESULTS: Using 14 days of CGM at the end of the 90-day period resulted in a mean absolute error (95th percentile) of 14 (34) mg/dL when compared with eAG90. Nonglycemic effects on HbA1c led to a mean absolute error for average glucose calculated from HbA1c of 12 (29) mg/dL. Combining 14 days of CGM with HbA1c reduced the error to 10 (26) mg/dL. Mismatches between CGM and HbA1c >40 mg/dL occurred more than 5% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of estimates of eAG90 from limited periods of CGM can be improved by averaging with an HbA1c-based estimate or extending the monitoring period beyond ∼26 days. Large mismatches between eAG90 estimated from CGM and HbA1c are not unusual and may persist due to stable nonglycemic factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments in the full version of the guideline). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT: Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the patients measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring devices and also by laboratory analysis of HbA1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring; genetic testing; and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed. SUMMARY: The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. APPROACH: An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in screening, diagnosis, or monitoring of diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association. CONTENT: Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the people with diabetes measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and also by laboratory analysis of HbA1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed. SUMMARY: The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The Clinical Research Center (CRC) program, supported by NIH extramural funding, is now dead (1). The CRCs included the only federally supported beds (~600 nationwide) and outpatient human research [...], The extramural General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) program has been funded for more than 50 years, first by the National Center for Research Resources, NIH, and more recently as part of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) program through the newly formed National Center for Advancing Translation Sciences (NCATS). The GCRCs represent the federally funded laboratories that employ a highly trained cadre of research nurses, dietitians, and other support staff and in which generations of clinical investigators trained and performed groundbreaking human studies that advanced medical science and improved clinical care. Without the opportunity for adequate discussion, NCATS has now stopped funding these Research Centers. In this "eulogy," we review the origins and history of the GCRCs, their contributions to the advancement of medicine, and the recent events that have essentially defunded them. We mourn their loss.

Objective: Kidney disease screening recommendations include annual urine testing for albuminuria after 5 years' duration of type 1 diabetes. We aimed to determine a simple, risk factor-based screening schedule that optimizes early detection and testing frequency.Research Design and Methods: Urinary albumin excretion measurements from 1,343 participants in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and its long-term follow-up were used to create piecewise-exponential incidence models assuming 6-month constant hazards. Likelihood of the onset of moderately or severely elevated albuminuria (confirmed albumin excretion rate AER ≥30 or ≥300 mg/24 h, respectively) and its risk factors were used to identify individualized screening schedules. Time with undetected albuminuria and number of tests were compared with annual screening.Results: The 3-year cumulative incidence of elevated albuminuria following normoalbuminuria at any time during the study was 3.2%, which was strongly associated with higher glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and AER. Personalized screening in 2 years for those with current AER ≤10 mg/24 h and HbA1c ≤8% (low risk [0.6% three-year cumulative incidence]), in 6 months for those with AER 21-30 mg/24 h or HbA1c ≥9% (high risk [8.9% three-year cumulative incidence]), and in 1 year for all others (average risk [2.4% three-year cumulative incidence]) was associated with 34.9% reduction in time with undetected albuminuria and 20.4% reduction in testing frequency as compared with annual screening. Stratification by categories of HbA1c or AER alone was associated with reductions of lesser magnitude.Conclusions: A personalized alternative to annual screening in type 1 diabetes can substantially reduce both the time with undetected kidney disease and the frequency of urine testing.Article Highlights: Kidney disease screening recommendations include annual urine testing for albuminuria after 5 years' duration of type 1 diabetes. We investigated simple screening schedules that optimize early detection and testing frequency. Personalized screening in 2 years for those with current AER ≤10 mg/24 h and HbA1c ≤8%, in 6 months for those with AER 21-30 mg/24 h or HbA1c ≥9%, and in 1 year for all others yielded 34.9% reduction in time with undetected albuminuria and 20.4% fewer evaluations compared with annual screening. A personalized alternative to annual screening in type 1 diabetes can substantially reduce both the time with undetected kidney disease and the frequency of urine testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Results of studies to evaluate the efficacy of use of drugs like nateglinide and valsa rtan in reducing the incidence of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular outcomes have revealed that nateglinide was not effective; whereas on the other hand, val sa rtan was found to be beneficial for diabetes, but not for cardiovascular outcomes. The prevention of diabetes remains a critical public health priority and the best option is lifestyle changes for reducing the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.