Search

This mixed-methods study sought to identify pharmacotherapy preferences among 40 noninsulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes receiving care at two U.S. health care systems. Participants ranked by relative importance various health outcomes and medication attributes and then contextualized their rankings. Most participants ranked blindness (63%), death (60%), heart attack (48%), and heart failure (48%) as the most important health outcomes and glucose-lowering efficacy (68%) as the most important medication attribute, followed by oral administration (45%) and lack of gastrointestinal side effects (38%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Obesity is a serious, chronic disease that is associated with a range of adiposity‐based comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In the United States, obesity is a public health crisis, affecting more than 40% of the population. Obesity disproportionately affects Latinx people, who have a higher prevalence of obesity and related comorbidities (such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease) compared with the general population. Many factors, including genetic predisposition, environmental factors, traditional calorie‐dense Latinx diets, family dynamics, and differences in socioeconomic status, contribute to the increased prevalence and complexity of treating obesity in the Latinx population. Additionally, significant heterogeneity within the Latinx population and disparities in health care access and utilization between Latinx people and the general population add to the challenge of obesity management. Culturally tailored interventions have been successful for managing obesity and related comorbidities in Latinx people. Antiobesity medications and bariatric surgery are also important options for obesity treatment in Latinx people. As highlighted in this review, when managing obesity in the Latinx population, it is critical to consider the impact of genetic, dietary, cultural, and socioeconomic factors, in order to implement an individualized treatment strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the attitudes, behaviors, and barriers with diabetes technology use in the general medicine hospital wards. Research Design and Methods: The authors developed a nonincentivized web-based anonymous survey that captured demographic and practice data regarding continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use in the hospital. Setting: Four large hospital systems in the United States. Results: Among 128 survey respondents, 76%, 10%, and 6% were hospitalists, advanced practice providers, and primary care physicians, respectively. The majority of respondents rated the treatment of inpatient hyperglycemia (96%) and the continuation of CSII during the hospital stay (93%) "important." While most respondents (64%) acknowledged knowing the existence of their institution's policies for CSII use, only 84% of those respondents felt somewhat to very familiar with the policy. The most common barrier to CSII use in the inpatient setting was lack of practitioner (70%) and nursing (67%) knowledge of using the device. With regard to CGM use in the hospital, a minority (28%) of respondents were aware of their institution's CGM policies. Less than half of the providers, 43.8%, stated that, when admitting a patient, they reviewed CGM data to guide insulin dosing. Conclusions: In this US multicenter survey, we found that most inpatient practitioners valued glycemic control, but many were not familiar with institutional policies, had lack of knowledge with CSII, and were not reviewing CGM data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes populations. However, the eligibility criteria for CGM coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ignore conclusive evidence that supports CGM use in various diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. This article discusses the limitations and inconsistencies of the CMS eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposes workable solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of all individuals with diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Many patients with hyperglycemic crises present with combined features of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS). The implications of concomitant acidosis and hyperosmolality are not well known. We investigated hospital outcomes in patients with isolated or combined hyperglycemic crises.Research Design and Methods: We analyzed admissions data listing DKA or HHS at two academic hospitals. We determined 1) the frequency distributions of HHS, DKA, and combined DKA-HHS (DKA criteria plus elevated effective osmolality); 2) the relationship of markers of severity of illness and clinical comorbidities with 30-day all-cause mortality; and 3) the relationship of hospital complications associated with insulin therapy (hypoglycemia and hypokalemia) with mortality.Results: There were 1,211 patients who had a first admission with confirmed hyperglycemic crises criteria, 465 (38%) who had isolated DKA, 421 (35%) who had isolated HHS, and 325 (27%) who had combined features of DKA-HHS. After adjustment for age, sex, BMI, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score, subjects with combined DKA-HHS had higher in-hospital mortality compared with subjects with isolated hyperglycemic crises (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.7; 95% CI 1.4, 4.9; P = 0.0019). In all groups, hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL) during treatment was associated with a 4.8-fold increase in mortality (aOR 4.8; 95% CI 1.4, 16.8). Hypokalemia ≤3.5 mEq/L was frequent (55%). Severe hypokalemia (≤2.5 mEq/L) was associated with increased inpatient mortality (aOR 4.9; 95% CI 1.3, 18.8; P = 0.02).Conclusions: Combined DKA-HHS is associated with higher mortality compared with isolated DKA or HHS. Severe hypokalemia and severe hypoglycemia are associated with higher hospital mortality in patients with hyperglycemic crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Tandem Control-IQ (CIQ) system has demonstrated significant glycemic improvements in large randomized controlled and real-world trials. Use of this system is lower in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) government-sponsored insurance and those with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of CIQ in these groups. Methods and Materials: A retrospective analysis of CIQ users was performed. Users age ≥6 years with a t:slim X2 Pump and >30 days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data pre-CIQ and >30 days post-CIQ technology initiation were included. Results: A total of 4243 Medicare and 1332 Medicaid CIQ users were analyzed among whom 5075 had T1D and 500 had T2D. After starting CIQ, the Medicare beneficiaries group saw significant improvement in time in target range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR; 64% vs. 74%; P < 0.0001), glucose management index (GMI; 7.3% vs. 7.0%; P < 0.0001), and the percentage of users meeting American Diabetes Association (ADA) CGM Glucometrics Guidelines (12.8% vs. 26.3%; P < 0.0001). The Medicaid group also saw significant improvement in TIR (46% vs. 60%; P < 0.0001), GMI (7.9% vs. 7.5%; P < 0.0001), and percentage meeting ADA guidelines (5.7% vs. 13.4%; P < 0.0001). Patients with T2D and either insurance saw significant glycemic improvements. Conclusions: The CIQ system was effective in the Medicare and Medicaid groups in improving glycemic control. The T2D subgroup also demonstrated improved glycemic control with CIQ use. Glucometrics achieved in this analysis are comparable with those seen in previous randomized controlled clinical trials with the CIQ system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate whether the choice of glucose-lowering agent for type 2 diabetes (T2D) impacts a patient's risk of developing sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy complications., Design: Retrospective observational database study emulating an idealized target trial., Subjects: Adult (≥21 years) enrollees in United States commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021, with T2D and moderate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk who had no baseline history of advanced diabetic retinal complications, initiating treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), and sulfonylureas., Methods: We used inverse propensity scoring weights in time-to-event Cox proportional hazards models., Main Outcome Measures: Treatment for either diabetic macular edema or proliferative diabetic retinopathy., Results: The final study population included 371 698 patients, of whom 42 265 initiated GLP-1 RA, 53 476 initiated SGLT2i, 78 444 initiated DPP-4i, and 197 513 initiated sulfonylurea agents. The probability of treatment for sight-threatening retinopathy within 2 and 5 years was 0.3% and 0.7% for patients initiating SGLT2i (median follow-up 830 [interquartile range (IQR), 343-1401] days), 0.4% and 1.0% for GLP-1 RA (669 [IQR, 256-1167] days), 0.4% and 0.9% for DPP-4i (1263 [IQR, 688-1938] days), and 0.5% and 1.2% for sulfonylurea (1223 [IQR, 662-1879] days). Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors use was associated with a lower risk of treatment for sight-threatening retinopathy compared with all other medication classes, including GLP-1 RA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.97), DPP-4i (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97), and sulfonylurea (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50-0.74). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists use was associated with a similar risk of sight-threatening retinopathy as DPP-4i (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85-1.35) and sulfonylurea (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.03)., Conclusions: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors use was associated with a lower risk of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy among adults with T2D and moderate CVD risk compared with other glucose-lowering therapies. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists do not confer increased retinal risk, relative to DPP-4i and sulfonylurea medications., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common metabolic disease of pregnancy that threatens the health of several million women and their offspring. The highest prevalence of GDM is seen in women of low socioeconomic status. Women with GDM are at increased risk of adverse maternal outcomes, including increased rates of Cesarean section delivery, preeclampsia, perineal tears, and postpartum hemorrhage. However, of even greater concern is the increased risk to the fetus and long-term health of the child due to elevated glycemia during pregnancy. Although the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to reduce the incidence of maternal and fetal complications in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, most state Medicaid programs do not cover CGM for women with GDM. This article reviews current statistics relevant to the incidence and costs of GDM among Medicaid beneficiaries, summarizes key findings from pregnancy studies using CGM, and presents a rationale for expanding and standardizing CGM coverage for GDM within state Medicaid populations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: R.J.G. has received unrestricted research support to Emory for investigator-initiated studies from Novo Nordisk and Dexcom, Inc. and consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, BI, and Valeritas. R.J.G. is partially supported by research grants from NIH/NIDDK P30DK11102 and 1K23DK123384-01. C.J.L. has received research support from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Insulet, Senseonics, Insulet, Tandem, NIH, JDRF, and Helmsley Foundation paid to her institution; nonfinancial device support from Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes; and service as a consultant for Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom. J.G. worked as a paid intern at Dexcom when this manuscript was developed. N.B.A. has consulted or been on advisory boards for Eli Lilly Diabetes, Dexcom, DiabeLoop, ConvaTec, and Senseonics and served on the speakers’ bureaus for Boehringer-Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly Diabetes, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, Xeris, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) populations. However, the eligibility criteria for CGM coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ignore the conclusive evidence that supports CGM use in various diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. In an earlier article, we discussed the limitations and inconsistencies of the agency's CGM eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposed practice solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. Although Medicaid is administered through CMS, there is no consistent Medicaid policy for CGM coverage in the United States. This article presents a rationale for modifying and standardizing Medicaid CGM coverage eligibility across the United States., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: R.J.G. is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award numbers 2P30DK1110246 and K23DK123384-3. R.J.G. received research support to Emory University for investigator-initiated studies from Novo Nordisk, Dexcom, and Eli-Lilly and consulting fees from Sanofi, Eli-Lilly, Boehringer, Pfizer, and Weight Watchers, outside of this work. G.A. has received research support to Northwestern University from Astra Zeneca, Dexcom, Eli-Lilly, Emmes, Fractyl Health, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, and WellDoc. G.A. has received consulting fees from Eli-Lilly, Dexcom, and Insulet outside of this work. C.G.P. has received consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, CeQur, Dexcom, LifeScan, Mannkind, Roche Diabetes Care, and ProventionBio. D.A.B. has no disclosures associated with this manuscript. A.L.C. has received research support from UnitedHealthcare, Abbott, Dexcom, Eli-Lilly, Insulet, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and is a consultant for Medtronic and Insulet, with all financial support going to his institution. In addition, ALC has a patent, Treatment of Hypoglycemia Unawareness with Intranasal Insulin, pending to HealthPartners Institute. EC is a scientific advisor for Eli-Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Adocia, and Arecor. G.P.F. received research support from Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly, and has served as a consultant, speaker, and advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly. D.F.K. institution has received research support from NIH, Helmsley Foundation, Novo Nordisk, Abbott Diabetes, and Dexcom. D.F.K. has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Abbott Diabetes, Mannkind, CeQur, Sanofi, Medical Module, ProventionBio, and Pendulum. D.F.K. is the speaker for Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Xeris, and CeQur. D.F.K. has stock options not redeemed in Pendulum. C.J.L. has received research support by the NIDDK and Helmsley Foundation and industry support paid to the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Senseonics, and Tandem. C.J.L. has received consulting fees from Eli-Lilly, and Dexcom outside of this work. J.B.M. has received research support from the NIH, Helmsley Foundation, JDRF, Novo Nordisk, and Beta Bionics. J.B.M. has received consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, Mannkind, Novo Nordisk, and Thermo Fisher outside of this work. G.E.U. is partly supported by research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH/NATS UL 3UL1TR002378-05S2) from the Clinical and Translational Science Award program, and from National Institutes of Health and National Center for Research Resources (NIH/NIDDK 2P30DK111024-06). G.E.U. has received research support (to Emory University) from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Abbott, and Dexcom.

Objective: This consensus statement provides (1) visual guidance in concise graphic algorithms to assist with clinical decision-making of health care professionals in the management of persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus to improve patient care and (2) a summary of details to support the visual guidance found in each algorithm., Methods: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) selected a task force of medical experts who updated the 2020 AACE Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm based on the 2022 AACE Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan and consensus of task force authors., Results: This algorithm for management of persons with type 2 diabetes includes 11 distinct sections: (1) Principles for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes; (2) Complications-Centric Model for the Care of Persons with Overweight/Obesity; (3) Prediabetes Algorithm; (4) Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Algorithm: Dyslipidemia; (5) Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Algorithm: Hypertension; (6) Complications-Centric Algorithm for Glycemic Control; (7) Glucose-Centric Algorithm for Glycemic Control; (8) Algorithm for Adding/Intensifying Insulin; (9) Profiles of Antihyperglycemic Medications; (10) Profiles of Weight-Loss Medications (new); and (11) Vaccine Recommendations for Persons with Diabetes Mellitus (new), which summarizes recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention., Conclusions: Aligning with the 2022 AACE diabetes guideline update, this 2023 diabetes algorithm update emphasizes lifestyle modification and treatment of overweight/obesity as key pillars in the management of prediabetes and diabetes mellitus and highlights the importance of appropriate management of atherosclerotic risk factors of dyslipidemia and hypertension. One notable new theme is an emphasis on a complication-centric approach, beyond glucose levels, to frame decisions regarding first-line pharmacologic choices for the treatment of persons with diabetes. The algorithm also includes access/cost of medications as factors related to health equity to consider in clinical decision-making., Competing Interests: Disclosures The Task Force was empaneled in accordance with the AACE Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy and approved by the AACE COI Subcommittee, Clinical Practice Guidelines Oversight Committee, and AACE executive leadership. All members of the expert Task Force completed disclosures related to commercial and direct financial relationships within the preceding 12 months with companies that develop products connected with endocrine disorders. Categories for disclosure included employment, stock or other ownership, direct financial relationships (eg, speaker or consultant), research funding, authorship or panel involvement on a guideline or white paper related to an overlapping topic, or other situations related to a perceived COI. The AACE COI Subcommittee reviewed disclosures of potential authors against an AACE-approved list of affected companies related to the topic of this consensus statement and made recommendations regarding who could serve on the Task Force in the nonconflicted majority, those who could serve in the conflicted minority with management strategy, and those who were disqualified from serving on the Task Force. Members of this Task Force were reminded throughout development to update potential disclosures if any new relationships/potential COI arose during their appointments and to verify currency of disclosures. AACE made every effort to minimize the potential for COI that could influence guidance provided in this consensus statement. S.L.S. is a member of the AACE Board of Directors and Executive Committee and has received research support to Mayo Clinic from Corcept, served on a steering committee, and been a national or overall principal investigator from Chiasma and Novartis, and is ABIM Chair, Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment Approval Committee for Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism. P.V. is a consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical Company and has been a national or overall principal investigator for National Institutes of Health grant K23 DK 11324-01A1. L.B. is a consultant, with payment to Ochsner Health, for Corcept Therapeutics, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi. E.A.C. received research support to company from Abbott and AbbVie; is a consultant for Ascendis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk; is a speaker for Amryt, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Corcept, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk; designed study protocol and is a national principal investigator for the GLITTER1 diabetes mellitus trial funded by Gan & Lee pharmaceuticals; is owner of Endocrinology Associates, Inc; and is part-owner of MediZen. R.J.G. is or has been a consultant for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Weight Watchers; has received research support to Emory University for investigator-initiated studies and been a national or overall principal investigator for Dexcom, Eli Lilly and Company, and Novo Nordisk; and has been partially supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers P30DK111024-04S, 1K23DK123384. I.B.H. is on the advisory boards of Abbott, Bigfoot, GWave, and Roche; received research support from Beta Bionics, Insulet, and Medtronic Diabetes Care; participated in development of a consensus report on the Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Adults for the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes and an Endocrine Society guideline on inpatient diabetes management. S.D.I. is a member of the AACE Board of Directors and Executive Committee and is a consultant (without pay) for Myovant Sciences, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Siemens, and Novo Nordisk. K.E.I. is a member of the AACE Board of Directors and has received research support from Novo Nordisk and is on the board of the Nevada Clinical Endocrinologists Association. C.C.L. receives research support to Jaeb Coordinating Center and the University of Colorado for investigator-initiated studies from Dexcom, Inc, is treasurer of the American College of Diabetology, secretary of the Clinical Diabetes and Endocrine Institute, and chair of the Advisory Committee for the FDA on Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs, whose views are not represented herein. G.E.U. has received research support and been a national or overall principal investigator for AstraZeneca, Dexcom, and Novo Nordisk; serves as president, Medicine & Science, for the American Diabetes Association; and participated in development of the Endocrine Society guideline on hospital diabetes and Society of Critical Care guideline on ICU diabetes. W.M.V. and C.L.T. have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 AACE. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To characterize contemporary trends in glucagon fill rates and expenditures in a nationwide cohort of adults with diabetes overall and by key demographic and clinical characteristics., Research Design and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we examined 1) glucagon fill rates per 1,000 person-years and 2) patient out-of-pocket and health plan costs per filled glucagon dose among adults with diabetes included in OptumLabs Data Warehouse between 1 January 2011 and 31 March 2021., Results: The study population comprised 2,814,464 adults with diabetes with a mean age of 62.8 (SD 13.2) years. The overall glucagon fill rate decreased from 2.91 to 2.28 per 1,000 person-years (-22%) over the study period. In groups at high risk for severe hypoglycemia, glucagon fill rates increased from 22.46 to 36.76 per 1,000 person-years (64%) among patients with type 1 diabetes, 11.64 to 16.63 per 1,000 person-years (43%) among those treated with short-acting insulin, and 16.08 to 20.12 per 1,000 person-years (25%) among those with a history of severe hypoglycemia. White patients, women, individuals with high income, and commercially insured patients had higher glucagon fill rates compared with minority patients, males, individuals with low income, and Medicare Advantage patients, respectively. Total cost per dosing unit increased from $157.97 to $275.32 (74%) among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from $150.37 to $293.57 (95%) among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries., Conclusions: Glucagon fill rates are concerningly low and declined between 2011 and 2021 but increased in appropriate subgroups with type 1 diabetes, using short-acting insulin, or with a history of severe hypoglycemia. Fill rates were disproportionately low among minority patients and individuals with low income., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers., Methods: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development., Results: This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes., Conclusions: This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus., (Copyright © 2022 AACE. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We characterized annual trends of severe hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic crises (diabetic ketoacidosis/hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state) in patients with diabetes and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)., Research Design and Methods: This was a nationwide, retrospective study of adults (≥18 years old) with diabetes/ESKD, from the United States Renal Data System registry, between 2013 and 2017. Primary outcome was annual rates of emergency department visits or hospitalizations for hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic crises, reported as number of events/1,000 person-years. Event rates and risk factors were adjusted for patient age, sex, race/ethnicity, dialysis modality, comorbidities, treatment regimen, and U.S. region., Results: Among 521,789 adults with diabetes/ESKD (median age 65 years [interquartile range 57-73], 56.1% male, and 46% White), overall adjusted rates of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic crises were 53.64 and 18.24 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. For both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia crises, respectively, the risks decreased with age and were lowest in older patients (≥75 vs. 18-44 years old: incidence rate ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.33-0.37, and 0.03, 0.02-0.03), women (1.09, 1.06-1.12, and 1.44, 1.35-1.54), and those with smoking (1.36, 1.28-1.43, and 1.71, 1.53-1.91), substance abuse (1.27, 1.15-1.42, and 1.53, 1.23-1.9), retinopathy (1.10, 1.06-1.15, and 1.36, 1.26-1.47), and insulin therapy (vs. no therapy; 0.60, 0.59-0.63, and 0.44, 0.39-0.48). For hypoglycemia, specifically, additional risk was conferred by Black race (1.11, 1.08-1.15) and amputation history (1.20, 1.13-1.27)., Conclusions: In this nationwide study of patients with diabetes/ESKD, hypoglycemic crises were threefold more common than hyperglycemic crises, greatly exceeding national reports in nondialysis patients with chronic kidney disease. Young, Black, and female patients were disproportionately affected., (© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value and safety of insulin pump therapy in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes populations. However, the eligibility criteria for insulin pump coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) discount conclusive evidence that supports insulin pump use in diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. This article discusses the limitations and inconsistencies of the insulin pump eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposes workable solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of all individuals with diabetes.

Importance: Hyperglycemic crises (ie, diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA] and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state [HHS]) are life-threatening acute complications of diabetes. Efforts to prevent these events at the population level have been hindered by scarce granular data and difficulty in identifying individuals at highest risk., Objective: To assess sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment-related factors associated with hyperglycemic crises in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the US from 2014 to 2020., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study analyzed administrative claims and laboratory results for adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of emergency department or hospital visits with a primary diagnosis of DKA or HHS (adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and region, and for year when calculating annualized rates) were calculated separately for patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. The associations of sociodemographic factors (age, sex, race/ethnicity, region, and income), clinical factors (comorbidities), and treatment factors (glucose-lowering medications, hemoglobin A1c) with DKA or HHS in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were assessed using negative binomial regression., Results: Among 20 156 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean [SD] age, 46.6 [16.5] years; 51.2% male; 72.6% White race/ethnicity) and 796 382 with type 2 diabetes (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [11.8] years; 50.3% female; 54.4% White race/ethnicity), adjusted rates of hyperglycemic crises were 52.69 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 48.26-57.12 per 1000 person-years) for type 1 diabetes and 4.04 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 3.88-4.21 per 1000 person-years) for type 2 diabetes. In both groups, factors associated with the greatest hyperglycemic crisis risk were low income (≥$200 000 vs <$40 000: type 1 diabetes incidence risk ratio [IRR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.46-0.81]; type 2 diabetes IRR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56-0.86]), Black race/ethnicity (vs White race/ethnicity: type 1 diabetes IRR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.01-1.74]; type 2 diabetes IRR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.09-1.27]), high hemoglobin A1c level (≥10% vs 6.5%-6.9%: type 1 diabetes IRR, 7.81 [95% CI, 5.78-10.54]; type 2 diabetes IRR, 7.06 [95% CI, 6.26-7.96]), history of hyperglycemic crises (type 1 diabetes IRR, 7.88 [95% CI, 6.06-9.99]; type 2 diabetes IRR, 17.51 [95% CI, 15.07-20.34]), severe hypoglycemia (type 1 diabetes IRR, 2.77 [95% CI, 2.15-3.56]; type 2 diabetes IRR, 4.18 [95% CI, 3.58-4.87]), depression (type 1 diabetes IRR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.37-1.92]; type 2 diabetes IRR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.34-1.59]), neuropathy (type 1 diabetes IRR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.39-1.93]; type 2 diabetes IRR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.17-1.34]), and nephropathy (type 1 diabetes IRR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01-1.48]; type 2 diabetes IRR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.14-1.33]). Age had a U-shaped association with hyperglycemic crisis risk in patients with type 1 diabetes (compared with patients aged 18-44 years: 45-64 years IRR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.59-0.87]; 65-74 years IRR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.47-0.80]; ≥75 years IRR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.66-1.38]). In type 2 diabetes, risk of hyperglycemic crises decreased progressively with age (45-64 years IRR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.51-0.63]; 65-74 years IRR, 0.44 [95% CI, .39-0.49]; ≥75 years IRR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.36-0.47]). In patients with type 2 diabetes, higher risk was associated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor therapy (IRR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14-1.49) and insulin dependency (compared with regimens with bolus insulin: regimens with basal insulin only, IRR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.63-0.75]; and without any insulin, IRR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.33-0.40])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, younger age, Black race/ethnicity, low income, and poor glycemic control were associated with an increased risk of hyperglycemic crises. The findings suggest that multidisciplinary interventions focusing on groups at high risk for hyperglycemic crises are needed to prevent these dangerous events.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become a widely used tool in the ambulatory setting for monitoring glucose levels, as well as detecting uncontrolled hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability. The accuracy of some CGM systems has recently improved to the point of manufacture with factory calibration and Food and Drug Administration clearance for nonadjunctive use to dose insulin. In this commentary, we analyze the answers to six questions about what is needed to bring CGM into the hospital as a reliable, safe, and effective tool. The evidence to date indicates that CGM offers promise as an effective tool for monitoring hospitalized patients. During the current coronavirus disease 2019 crisis, we hope to provide guidance to healthcare professionals, who are seeking to reduce exposure to SARS-Cov-2, as well as preserve invaluable personal protective equipment. In this commentary, we address who, what, where, when, why, and how CGM can be adopted for inpatient use.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) has created a transculturalized diabetes chronic disease care model that is adapted for patients across a spectrum of ethnicities and cultures. AACE has conducted several transcultural activities on global issues in clinical endocrinology and completed a 3-city series of conferences in December 2017 that focused on diabetes care for ethnic minorities in the U.S. Proceedings from the "Diabetes Care Across America" series of transcultural summits are presented here. Information from community leaders, practicing health care professionals, and other stakeholders in diabetes care is analyzed according to biological and environmental factors. Four specific U.S. ethnicities are detailed: African Americans, Latino/Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. A core set of recommendations to culturally adapt diabetes care is presented that emphasizes culturally appropriate terminology, transculturalization of white papers, culturally adapting clinic infrastructure, flexible office hours, behavioral medicine-especially motivational interviewing and building trust-culturally competent nutritional messaging and health literacy, community partnerships for care delivery, technology innovation, clinical trial recruitment and retention of ethnic minorities, and more funding for scientific studies on epigenetic mechanisms of cultural impact on disease expression. It is hoped that through education, research, and clinical practice enhancements, diabetes care can be optimized in terms of precision and clinical outcomes for the individual and U.S. population as a whole.

Objective: We aimed to determine the causes and predictors for 30-day re-admission following a hospitalization for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in the United States., Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the National Re-admission Database. We included adult patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of DKA, from 2010 to 2014. Our primary objective was to determine the frequency and causes for 30-day re-admission after an index hospitalization for DKA. We also performed multivariate regression analyses using covariates from the index admission to identify predictors for 30-day re-admissions., Results: Among 479,590 admissions for DKA, 58,961 (12.3%) were re-admitted within 30 days. Recurrent DKA represented 40.8% of all-cause re-admissions. In multivariate analysis, end-stage renal disease (odds ratio [OR], 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00 to 2.27; P<.001), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥3 (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.42 to 2.58; P<.001), discharge against medical advice (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.86 to 2.09; P<.001), and drug use (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.71 to 1.86; P<.001) were the most significant predictors for 30-day re-admission. About 50% of patients were re-admitted within 2 weeks after discharge., Conclusion: In the U.S., about one in every eight patients with DKA is re-admitted within 30 days, with 40.8% representing recurrent DKA episodes. Patients with end-stage renal disease, high comorbidity burden, drug use, and/or leaving against medical advice represented the highest risk group for re-admissions. Future studies with interventions focusing on high-risk population are critically needed., Abbreviations: AKI = acute kidney injury; BMI = body mass index; CCI = Charlson Comorbidity Index; CI = confidence interval; DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis; DM1 = type 1 diabetes mellitus; DM2 = type 2 diabetes mellitus; ESRD = end-stage renal disease; ICD-9-CM = International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification; IQR = interquartile range; LOS = length of stay; NRD = National Re-admission Database; OR = odds ratio.

Background: Current evidence on the incidence and outcomes of patients with thyroid storm in the United States is limited to single-center case series. This study determined the national incidence of thyrotoxicosis with and without thyroid storm and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients during a 10-year period in the United States., Methods: Retrospective longitudinal analysis was conducted of clinical characteristics, mortality, hospital length of stay, and costs from 2004 to 2013. Adults (≥18 years of age) with a primary diagnosis of thyrotoxicosis with and without thyroid storm were included. To determine the incidence, outcomes, and cost of thyrotoxicosis with and without thyroid storm, the study used data from the National Inpatient Sample database, the largest public inpatient database, with a representative sample of all non-federal hospitals in the United States., Results: Among 121,384 discharges with thyrotoxicosis during the study period (M age  ± standard error = 48.7 ± 0.11 years; 51.9% Caucasian; 77.3% female), 19,723 (16.2%) were diagnosed with thyroid storm. During the past decade, the incidence of thyroid storm ranged between 0.57 and 0.76 cases/100,000 U.S. persons per year, and 4.8 and 5.6/100,000 hospitalized patients per year. Thyroid storm was associated with significantly higher hospital mortality (1.2-3.6% vs. 0.1-0.4%, p < 0.01) and longer length of stay (4.8-5.6 vs. 2.7-3.4 mean days, p < 0.001) compared to patients with thyrotoxicosis without storm. Inflation-adjusted hospitalization costs progressively increased in patients with thyroid storm from $9942 to $12,660 between 2004 and 2013 (p < 0.01)., Conclusions: One of every six discharges for thyrotoxicosis was diagnosed with thyroid storm. Thyroid storm is associated with a 12-fold higher mortality rate compared to thyrotoxicosis without storm. The incidence and mortality of thyroid storm has not substantially changed in the past decade. However, hospitalization costs have significantly increased.