Transition between paediatric and adult diabetes healthcare services: An online global survey of healthcare professionals' experiences and perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: Youth with diabetes should transition from paediatric to adult diabetes services in a deliberate, organized and cooperative way. We sought to identify healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences and perceptions around transition readiness planning, policies and procedures, and the actual transfer to adult services. METHODS: Data were collected via an online global survey (seven language options), broadly advertised by the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), team members and partners, via newsletters, websites, e-mails and social media. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 372) were mainly physicians (74.5 %), practicing in government funded (59.4 %), paediatric (54.0 %), metropolitan settings (85.8 %) in Europe (44.9 %); 37.1 % in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Few centers used a transition readiness checklist (32.8 %), provided written transition information (29.6 %), or had a dedicated staff member (23.7 %). Similarly, few involved a psychologist (25.8 %), had combined (35.2 %) or transition/young person-only clinics (34.9 %), or a structured transition education program (22.6 %); 49.8 % advised youth to use technology to assist the transfer. Most (91.9 %) respondents reported barriers in offering a good transition experience. Proportionally, more respondents from LMICs prioritised more funding (p = 0.01), a structured protocol (p < 0.001) and education (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: HCPs' experiences and perceptions related to transition vary widely. There is a pressing need for an international consensus transition guideline.

START Diabetes Prevention: A Multi-Level Strategy for Primary Care Clinics.

Background: Prediabetes, a high-risk state for developing diabetes, affects more than 1 in 3 adults nationally. However, <5% of people with prediabetes are receiving any treatment for prediabetes. Prior intervention studies for increasing prediabetes treatment uptake have largely focused on individual barriers with few multi-level interventions that address clinician- and system-level barriers. Objective: To measure the effectiveness of a multi-level intervention on uptake of prediabetes treatment in a primary care clinic. Design: Pragmatic study of the START (Screen, Test, Act, Refer and Treat) Diabetes Prevention intervention. Participants: The START Diabetes Prevention intervention was implemented in a suburban primary care clinic outside of Baltimore compared to a control clinic in the same area over a 12-month period. Intervention: START Diabetes Prevention intervention included a structured workflow, shared decision-making resources and electronic health record clinical decision support tools. Main Measures: Uptake of prediabetes treatment, defined as Diabetes Prevention Program referral, metformin prescription and/or medical nutrition referral within 30 days of any PCC visit. Key Results: We demonstrated greater uptake of preventive treatment among patients with prediabetes in the intervention clinic vs. control clinic receiving usual care (11.6% vs. 6.7%, p<0.001). More patients in the intervention vs. control clinic reported their PCC discussed prediabetes with them (60% vs. 48%, p=0.002) and more felt overall that they understood what their doctor was telling them about prediabetes and that their opinion was valued. The START Diabetes Prevention Strategy had greater acceptability and usefulness to PCCs at the study end compared to baseline. Conclusions: A low-touch multi-level intervention is effective in increasing prediabetes treatment uptake. The intervention was also acceptable and feasible for clinicians, and enhanced patient understanding and discussions of prediabetes with their clinicians.

The Final Frontier in Diabetes Care: Implementing Research in Real-World Practice.

Despite extensive evidence related to the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and its complications, most people at risk for and people who have diabetes do not receive recommended guideline-based care. Clinical implementation of proven care strategies is of the utmost importance because without this, even the most impressive research findings will remain of purely academic interest. In this review, we discuss the promise and challenges of implementing effective approaches to diabetes prevention and care in the real-world setting. We describe successful implementation projects in three critical areas of diabetes care-diabetes prevention, glycemic control, and prevention of diabetes-related complications-which provide a basis for further clinical translation and an impetus to improve the prevention and control of T2D in the community. Advancing the clinical translation of evidence-based care must include recognition of and assessment of existing gaps in care, identification of barriers to the delivery of optimal care, and a locally appropriate plan to address and overcome these barriers. Care models that promote team-based approaches, rather than reliance on patient-provider interactions, will enhance the delivery of contemporary comprehensive diabetes care.

Using the Translating Research into Practice framework to develop a diabetes prevention intervention in primary care: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Pre-diabetes affects one-third of US adults and increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. Effective evidence-based interventions, such as the Diabetes Prevention Program, are available, but a gap remains in effectively translating and increasing uptake of these interventions into routine care. METHODS: We applied the Translating Research into Practice (TRiP) framework to guide three phases of intervention design and development for diabetes prevention: (1) summarise the evidence, (2) identify local barriers to implementation and (3) measure performance. In phase 1, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of linked electronic health record claims data to evaluate current practices in the management of pre-diabetes. In phase 2, we conducted in-depth interviews of 16 primary care physicians, 7 payor leaders and 31 patients to elicit common barriers and facilitators for diabetes prevention. In phase 3, using findings from phases 1 and 2, we developed the core elements of the intervention and performance measures to evaluate intervention uptake. RESULTS: In phase 1 (retrospective cohort analysis), we found few patients with pre-diabetes received diabetes prevention interventions. In phase 2 (stakeholder engagement), we identified common barriers to include a lack of knowledge about pre-diabetes among patients and about the Diabetes Prevention Program among clinicians. In phase 3 (intervention development), we developed the START Diabetes Prevention Clinical Pathway as a systematic change package to address barriers and facilitators identified in phases 1 and 2, performance measures and a toolkit of resources to support the intervention components. CONCLUSIONS: The TRiP framework supported the identification of evidence-based care practices for pre-diabetes and the development of a well-fitted, actionable intervention and implementation plan designed to increase treatment uptake for pre-diabetes in primary care settings. Our change package can be adapted and used by other health systems or clinics to target prevention of diabetes or other related chronic conditions.

Effect of various antioxidants on ovarian tissue vitrification success in sheep.

BACKGROUND: Vitrification is a technique of cryopreservation that has been proposed as a promising alternative method for the preservation of oocytes, embryos and gonadal tissue. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of different antioxidants on post-thaw viability, morphology of retrieved oocytes and histology of vitrified ovarian tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different antioxidants [i.e., resveratrol (20 uM), ZnSO4 (500 uM), curcumin (25 uM) and quercetin (1 uM)] were evaluated after their addition to the vitrification and warming media for their effects on the viability and morphology of retrieved oocytes and the histology of vitrified ovarian tissue. RESULTS: The number of oocytes retrieved from ovarian tissue from the above mentioned antioxidants and vitrified control were 34, 41, 26, 31 and 46 respectively. Among these the number of viable oocytes were found to be 24 (70.6%), 30 (73.1 %), 20 (76.9%), 26 (83.9%) and 33 (71.7%) and the number of oocytes found morphologically normal were 24 (70.6%), 26 (63.4%), 18 (69.2%), 21 (67.7%) and 34 (73.9%) for the above mentioned different antioxidants and vitrified control, respectively. Non-significant (P. > 0.05) differences were found between different treatment groups. Histomorphological evaluation of the ovarian cortical tissue showed that the percentage of intact follicles was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in the fresh control (84.19±3.9) than in other groups. Non-significant differences were found between resveratrol (50.2±5.5), curcumin (48.7±5.7), quercetin (51.6±4.8) and the vitrified control (42.7±6.1) groups; however, the ZnSO4 supplemented group (23.1±8.54) differed significantly (P < 0.05) from other antioxidant groups but was non-significant (P > 0.05) with the vitrified control group (42.7±6.1). CONCLUSION: The addition of antioxidants resveratrol, curcumin and quercetin at these concentrations tended to non-significantly improve the follicular integrity after vitrification. Doi.org/10.54680/fr24410110212.

Effect of Isocaloric, Time-Restricted Eating on Body Weight in Adults With Obesity : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Time-restricted eating (TRE) lowers body weight in many studies. Whether TRE induces weight loss independent of reductions in calorie intake, as seen in rodent studies, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of TRE versus a usual eating pattern (UEP) on body weight in the setting of stable caloric intake. DESIGN: Randomized, isocaloric feeding study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03527368). SETTING: Clinical research unit. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with obesity and prediabetes or diet-controlled diabetes. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to TRE (10-hour eating window, 80% of calories before 1 p.m.) or UEP (≤16-hour window, ≥50% of calories after 5 p.m.) for 12 weeks. Both groups had the same nutrient content and were isocaloric with total calories determined at baseline. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was change in body weight at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were fasting glucose, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), glucose area under the curve by oral glucose tolerance test, and glycated albumin. We used linear mixed models to evaluate the effect of interventions on outcomes. RESULTS: All 41 randomly assigned participants (mean age, 59 years; 93% women; 93% Black race; mean BMI, 36 kg/m2) completed the intervention. Baseline weight was 95.6 kg (95% CI, 89.6 to 101.6 kg) in the TRE group and 103.7 kg (CI, 95.3 to 112.0 kg) in the UEP group. At 12 weeks, weight decreased by 2.3 kg (CI, 1.0 to 3.5 kg) in the TRE group and by 2.6 kg (CI, 1.5 to 3.7 kg) in the UEP group (average difference TRE vs. UEP, 0.3 kg [CI, -1.2 to 1.9 kg]). Change in glycemic measures did not differ between groups. LIMITATION: Small, single-site study; baseline differences in weight by group. CONCLUSION: In the setting of isocaloric eating, TRE did not decrease weight or improve glucose homeostasis relative to a UEP, suggesting that any effects of TRE on weight in prior studies may be due to reductions in caloric intake. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American Heart Association.

Accessibility to ERCP-performing hospitals among patients with pancreatic cancer living in SEER regions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The two most common interventions used to treat painless jaundice from pancreatic cancer are endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Our study aimed to characterize the geographic distribution of ERCP-performing hospitals among patients with pancreatic cancer in the United States and the association between geographic accessibility to ERCP-performing hospitals and biliary interventions patients receive. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database for pancreatic cancer from 2005 to 2013. Multilevel models were used to examine the association between accessibility to ERCP hospitals within a 30- and 45-min drive from the patient's residential ZIP Code and the receipt of ERCP treatment. A two-step floating catchment area model was used to calculate the measure of accessibility based on the distribution across SEER regions. RESULTS: 7464 and 782 patients underwent ERCP and PTBD, respectively, over the study period. There were 808 hospitals in which 8246 patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in SEER regions from 2005 to 2013 received a procedure. Patients with high accessibility within both 30- and 45-min drive to an ERCP-performing hospital were more likely to receive an ERCP (30-min adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-2.01; 45-min aOR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.01-1.70). Furthermore, in the adjusted model, Black patients (vs. White) and patients with stage IV disease were less likely to receive ERCP than PTBD. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pancreatic cancer and high accessibility to an ERCP-performing hospital were more likely to receive ERCP. Disparities in the receipt of ERCP persisted for Black patients regardless of their access to ERCP-performing hospitals.

Assessment and prevention of hypoglycaemia in primary care among U.S. Veterans: a mixed methods study.

Background: Hypoglycaemia from diabetes treatment causes morbidity and lower quality of life, and prevention should be routinely addressed in clinical visits. Methods: This mixed methods study evaluated how primary care providers (PCPs) assess for and prevent hypoglycaemia by analyzing audio-recorded visits from five Veterans Affairs medical centres in the US. Two investigators independently coded visit dialogue to classify discussions of hypoglycaemia history, anticipatory guidance, and adjustments to hypoglycaemia-causing medications according to diabetes guidelines. Findings: There were 242 patients (one PCP visit per patient) and 49 PCPs. Two thirds of patients were treated with insulin and 40% with sulfonylureas. Hypoglycaemia history was discussed in 78/242 visits (32%). PCPs provided hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance in 50 visits (21%) that focused on holding diabetes medications while fasting and carrying glucose tabs; avoiding driving and glucagon were not discussed. Hypoglycaemia-causing medications were de-intensified or adjusted more often (p < 0.001) when the patient reported a history of hypoglycaemia (15/51 visits, 29%) than when the patient reported no hypoglycaemia or it was not discussed (6/191 visits, 3%). Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was not associated with diabetes medication adjustment, and only 5/12 patients (42%) who reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0% had medications de-intensified or adjusted. Interpretation: PCPs discussed hypoglycaemia in one-third of visits for at-risk patients and provided limited hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance. De-intensifying or adjusting hypoglycaemia-causing medications did not occur routinely after reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0%. Routine hypoglycaemia assessment and provision of diabetes self-management education are needed to achieve guideline-concordant hypoglycaemia prevention. Funding: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK).

A National Survey of Physicians' Views on the Importance and Implementation of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend deintensifying hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c is below their individualized target, but this rarely occurs in practice. OBJECTIVE: To understand physicians' decision-making around deintensifying diabetes treatment. DESIGN: National physician survey. PARTICIPANTS: US physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology providing outpatient diabetes care. MAIN MEASURES: Physicians rated the importance of deintensifying diabetes medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes, and of switching medication classes, on 5-point Likert scales. They reported the frequency of these actions for their patients, and listed important barriers and facilitators. We evaluated the independent association between physicians' professional and practice characteristics and the importance of deintensifying and switching diabetes medications using multivariable ordered logistic regression models. KEY RESULTS: There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). The majority of physicians viewed deintensifying (80%) and switching (92%) diabetes medications as important or very important to the care of older adults. Despite this, one-third of physicians reported deintensifying diabetes medications rarely or never. While most physicians recognized multiple reasons to deintensify, two-thirds of physicians reported barriers of short-term hyperglycemia and patient reluctance to change medications or allow higher glucose levels. In multivariable models, geriatricians rated deintensification as more important compared to other specialties (p=0.027), and endocrinologists rated switching as more important compared to other specialties (p<0.006). Physicians with fewer years in practice rated higher importance of deintensification (p<0.001) and switching (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: While most US physicians viewed deintensifying and switching diabetes medications as important for the care of older adults, they deintensified infrequently. Physicians had ambivalence about the relative benefits and harms of deintensification and viewed it as a potential source of conflict with their patients. These factors likely contribute to clinical inertia, and studies focused on improving shared decision-making around deintensifying diabetes medications are needed.

Improving Diabetes Screening in the Primary Care Clinic.

BACKGROUND: In our suburban primary care clinic, the average rate of screening for diabetes among eligible patients was only 51%, similar to national screening data. We conducted a quality improvement project to increase this rate. METHODS: During the 6-month preintervention phase, we collected baseline data on the percentage of eligible patients screened per week (percentage of patients with hemoglobin A1c checked in the prior 3 years out of patients eligible for screening who completed a visit during the week). We then implemented a two-phase intervention. In phase 1 (approximately 8 months), we generated an electronic health record (EHR) report to identify eligible patients and pended laboratory orders for physicians to sign. In phase 2 (approximately 3 months), we replaced the phase 1 intervention with an EHR clinical decision support tool that automatically identifies eligible patients. We compared screening rates in the preintervention vs. intervention period. For phase 1, we also assessed laboratory completion rates and the laboratory results. We surveyed physicians regarding intervention acceptability and satisfaction at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months during the intervention period. RESULTS: The weekly percentage of patients screened increased from an average of 51% in the preintervention phase to 65% in the intervention phase (p < 0.001). During phase 1, most patients underwent laboratory blood testing as recommended (83% within 3 months), and results were consistent with prediabetes in 23% and with diabetes in 4%. Overall, most physicians believed that the intervention appropriately identified patients due for screening and was helpful (100% of respondents agreed at 9 months vs. 71% at 3 months). CONCLUSION: We successfully implemented a systematic screening intervention involving a manual workflow and EHR tool and improved diabetes screening rates in our clinic.

Lower-Intensity Interventions for Prediabetes: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews of interventions for diabetes prevention have focused on lifestyle interventions, including the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and translations of the DPP. However, nationally, few people with prediabetes have joined or completed a DPP, with one cited barrier being committing to a yearlong program. This study was a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of lower-intensity lifestyle interventions for prediabetes on weight change, glycemia, and health behaviors. METHODS: English-language studies from PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2000 to February 23, 2022 were searched for RCTs of nonpregnant adults with prediabetes and elevated BMI and lower-intensity interventions (defined as ≤12 months and <14 sessions over 6 months). Two reviewers independently identified 11 trials, assessed study quality (using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool), and extracted data serially. A qualitative synthesis was conducted by outcome. RESULTS: Only 1 of 11 trials of lower-intensity interventions was of high quality (>80% follow-up rate and low risk of bias). This 6-month study compared an app with standardized dietary advice, showing a 3-kg greater body weight reduction and 0.2% greater reduction of HbA1c. DISCUSSION: The evidence on lower-intensity lifestyle interventions for diabetes prevention is limited by the small number and methodologic weaknesses of previous trials, and future research is needed in this area. Given the low uptake of and retention in evidence-based high-intensity programs, future work is needed to investigate the effectiveness of novel lower-intensity interventions offered with established DPP content of varying duration and intensity.

Design and Implementation of a Time-Restricted Eating Intervention in a Randomized, Controlled Eating Study.

The efficacy of time-restricted eating for weight loss has not been established, as prior studies were limited by a lack of controlled isocaloric designs. This study describes the design and implementation of interventions in a controlled eating study evaluating time-restricted eating. We designed a randomized, controlled, parallel-arm eating study comparing time-restricted eating (TRE) to a usual eating pattern (UEP) for the primary outcome of weight change. Participants were aged 21-69 years with prediabetes and obesity. TRE consumed 80% of calories by 1300 h (military time), and UEP consumed ≥ 50% of calories after 1700 h (military time). Both arms consumed identical macro- and micro-nutrients based on a healthy, palatable diet. We calculated individual calorie requirements, which were maintained throughout the intervention. The desired distribution of calories across eating windows in both arms was achieved, as were the weekly averages for macronutrients and micronutrients. We actively monitored participants and adapted diets to facilitate adherence. We provide the first report, to our knowledge, on the design and implementation of eating study interventions that isolated the effect of meal timing on weight while maintaining constant caloric intake and identical diets during the study period.

A National Physician Survey of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications for Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine physicians' approach to deintensifying (reducing/stopping) or switching hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this national survey, U.S. physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology reported changes they would make to hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults in three scenarios: good health, HbA1c of 6.3%; complex health, HbA1c of 7.3%; and poor health, HbA1c of 7.7%. RESULTS: There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). In patient scenarios, 48%, 4%, and 20% of physicians deintensified hypoglycemia-causing medications for patients with good, complex, and poor health, respectively. Overall, 17% of physicians switched medications without significant differences by patient health. One-half of physicians selected HbA1c targets below guideline recommendations for older adults with complex or poor health. CONCLUSIONS: Most U.S. physicians would not deintensify or switch hypoglycemia-causing medications within guideline-recommended HbA1c targets. Physician preference for lower HbA1c targets than guidelines needs to be addressed to optimize deintensification decisions.

Obesity and Overweight: Probing Causes, Consequences, and Novel Therapeutic Approaches Through the American Heart Association's Strategically Focused Research Network.

As the worldwide prevalence of overweight and obesity continues to rise, so too does the urgency to fully understand mediating mechanisms, to discover new targets for safe and effective therapeutic intervention, and to identify biomarkers to track obesity and the success of weight loss interventions. In 2016, the American Heart Association sought applications for a Strategically Focused Research Network (SFRN) on Obesity. In 2017, 4 centers were named, including Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Vanderbilt University Medical Center. These 4 centers were convened to study mechanisms and therapeutic targets in obesity, to train a talented cadre of American Heart Association SFRN-designated fellows, and to initiate and sustain effective and enduring collaborations within the individual centers and throughout the SFRN networks. This review summarizes the central themes, major findings, successful training of highly motivated and productive fellows, and the innovative collaborations and studies forged through this SFRN on Obesity. Leveraging expertise in in vitro and cellular model assays, animal models, and humans, the work of these 4 centers has made a significant impact in the field of obesity, opening doors to important discoveries, and the identification of a future generation of obesity-focused investigators and next-step clinical trials. The creation of the SFRN on Obesity for these 4 centers is but the beginning of innovative science and, importantly, the birth of new collaborations and research partnerships to propel the field forward.

A Qualitative Study of Perspectives of Older Adults on Deintensifying Diabetes Medications.

BACKGROUND: While many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications. DESIGN: This qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty. APPROACH: Interviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous. KEY RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification.

Engaging Payors and Primary Care Physicians Together in Improving Diabetes Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes can be prevented through lifestyle programs like the Diabetes Prevention Programs (DPP), but few people with prediabetes participate in them, in part because their insurance does not reliably cover DPPs. Prior studies have not focused on payor-level barriers. OBJECTIVE: To understand barriers to DPP uptake that exist and intersect at different levels (patients, PCPs, and payors) to inform strategies to improve diabetes prevention in primary care settings through interviews with PCPs and payors. DESIGN: From May 2020 to October 2021, we conducted remote, semi-structured interviews with PCPs and payors. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs were from primary care practices affiliated with one mid-Atlantic academic system. Payor leaders were from regional commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid plans. APPROACH: Using a standardized interview guide focused on barriers, facilitators, and potential intervention components, interviews were audio-recorded using Zoom and professionally transcribed. Two reviewers double-coded transcripts using the framework analytic approach. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 16 PCPs from 13 primary care clinics and 7 payor leaders representing 6 insurance plans. Two themes emerged from PCP reports of patient-level barriers: (1) lack of programs and insurance coverage of resources to address nutrition and exercise and (2) inadequate resources to address social determinants of health that impact diabetes prevention. Among barriers PCPs faced, we identified two themes: (1) low PCP knowledge about DPPs and misperceptions of insurance coverage of DPPs and (2) inadequate clinical staff to address diabetes prevention. Barriers common to PCPs and payors included (1) absence of prediabetes quality measures and (2) inadequate engagement of PCPs and patients with payors. CONCLUSIONS: Discussions with PCPs and payors revealed systemic barriers that suggest important priorities to improve prediabetes clinical care, including universal coverage of DPPs, clarity about coverage benefits, data reporting and outreach by payors to PCPs, and adoption of appropriate prediabetes quality measures.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the previous consensus statements on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes in adults, published since 2006 and last updated in 2019. The target audience is the full spectrum of the professional health care team providing diabetes care in the U.S. and Europe. A systematic examination of publications since 2018 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on social determinants of health, the health care system, and physical activity behaviors, including sleep. There is a greater emphasis on weight management as part of the holistic approach to diabetes management. The results of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes trials involving sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, including assessment of subgroups, inform broader recommendations for cardiorenal protection in people with diabetes at high risk of cardiorenal disease. After a summary listing of consensus recommendations, practical tips for implementation are provided.

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2022. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the previous consensus statements on the management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes in adults, published since 2006 and last updated in 2019. The target audience is the full spectrum of the professional healthcare team providing diabetes care in the USA and Europe. A systematic examination of publications since 2018 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on social determinants of health, the healthcare system and physical activity behaviours including sleep. There is a greater emphasis on weight management as part of the holistic approach to diabetes management. The results of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes trials involving sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, including assessment of subgroups, inform broader recommendations for cardiorenal protection in people with diabetes at high risk of cardiorenal disease. After a summary listing of consensus recommendations, practical tips for implementation are provided.