AIMS: Understanding health behaviors of people with diabetes can inform strategies to reduce diabetes-related burdens. METHODS: We used serial cross-sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys over 2007-2018 to characterize self-reported health behaviors among non-pregnant adults, with and without self-reported diabetes. We estimated weighted proportions meeting recommended health behaviors overall and by sociodemographic and glycemic levels. RESULTS: During 2007-2010, proportions of adults with diabetes meeting recommendations were: 61.9% for added sugar consumption (<10% of total calories), 17.2% for physical activity, 68.2% for weight management, 14.4% avoided alcohol, 57.5% avoided tobacco, 34.1% got adequate sleep, and 97.5% saw a healthcare provider (compared with 19.2%, 33.6%, 68.8%, 8.5%, 44.2%, 33.0% , and 82.6% respectively, among those without diabetes). During 2015-2018, adjusted analyses showed more adults with diabetes met sleep (+16.7 percentage-points[pp]; 95% CI: 10.6,22.8) and physical activity goals (+8.3pp; 95% CI: 3.8,12.8), and fewer met added sugar recommendations (-8.8pp; 95% CI -14.7, -2.9). Meeting added sugar, physical activity, and weight management varied by age, education, and glycemic level, but not race and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: During 2007-2018, there was some improvement in health behaviors. Improving self-management may require targeted interventions for different segments, like age groups or glycemic levels, among those with diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for prediabetes and diabetes (dysglycemia) starting at age 35, or younger than 35 years among adults with overweight or obesity and other risk factors. Diabetes risk differs by sex, race, and ethnicity, but performance of the recommendation in these sociodemographic subgroups is unknown. METHODS: Nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (2015-March 2020) were analyzed from 5,287 nonpregnant US adults without diagnosed diabetes. Screening eligibility was based on age, measured body mass index, and the presence of diabetes risk factors. Dysglycemia was defined by fasting plasma glucose ≥100mg/dL (≥5.6 mmol/L) or haemoglobin A1c ≥5.7% (≥39mmol/mol). The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the ADA screening criteria were examined by sex, race, and ethnicity. RESULTS: An estimated 83.1% (95% CI=81.2-84.7) of US adults were eligible for screening according to the 2023 ADA recommendation. Overall, ADA's screening criteria exhibited high sensitivity [95.0% (95% CI=92.7-96.6)] and low specificity [27.1% (95% CI=24.5-29.9)], which did not differ by race or ethnicity. Sensitivity was higher among women [97.8% (95% CI=96.6-98.6)] than men [92.4% (95% CI=88.3-95.1)]. Racial and ethnic differences in sensitivity and specificity among men were statistically significant (P=0.04 and P=0.02, respectively). Among women, guideline performance did not differ by race and ethnicity. DISCUSSION: The ADA screening criteria exhibited high sensitivity for all groups and was marginally higher in women than men. Racial and ethnic differences in guideline performance among men were small and unlikely to have a significant impact on health equity. Future research could examine adoption of this recommendation in practice and examine its effects on treatment and clinical outcomes by sex, race, and ethnicity.

Aims We aimed to determine the association between prediabetes and diabetes with latent TB using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data.Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 2011-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. Participants ≥20 years were eligible. Diabetes was defined by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as no diabetes (≤5.6% [38 mmol/mol]), prediabetes (5.7-6.4% [3946mmol/mol]), and diabetes (≥6.5% [48 mmol/mol]) combined with self-reported diabetes. Latent TB infection was defined by the QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In Tube (QFT-GIT) test. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of latent TB infection by diabetes status were calculated using logistic regression and accounted for the stratified probability sample.Results Diabetes and QFT-GIT measurements were available for 4,958 (89.2%) included participants. Prevalence of diabetes was 11.4% (95%CI 9.8-13.0%) and 22.1% (95%CI 20.523.8%) had prediabetes. Prevalence of latent TB infection was 5.9% (95%CI 4.9-7.0%). After adjusting for age, sex, smoking status, history of active TB, and foreign born status, the odds of latent TB infection were greater among adults with diabetes (aOR 1.90, 95%CI 1.15-3.14) compared to those without diabetes. The odds of latent TB in adults with prediabetes (aOR 1.15, 95%CI 0.90-1.47) was similar to those without diabetes.Conclusions Diabetes is associated with latent TB infection among adults in the United States, even after adjusting for confounding factors. Given diabetes increases the risk of active TB, patients with co-prevalent diabetes and latent TB may be targeted for latent TB treatment.

INTRODUCTION: In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended prediabetes and diabetes screening for asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity, lowering the age from 40 years in its 2015 recommendation. The USPSTF suggested considering earlier screening in racial and ethnic groups with high diabetes risk at younger ages or lower BMI. This study examined the clinical performance of these USPSTF screening recommendations as well as alternative age and BMI cutoffs in the U.S. adult population overall, and separately by race and ethnicity. METHODS: Nationally representative data were collected from 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes in January 2017-March 2020 and analyzed from 2021 to 2022. Screening eligibility was based on age and measured BMI. Collectively, prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes were defined by fasting plasma glucose ≥100 mg/dL or hemoglobin A(1c) ≥5.7%. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of alternate screening criteria were examined overall, and by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: The 2021 criteria exhibited marginally higher sensitivity (58.6%, 95% CI=55.5, 61.6 vs 52.9%, 95% CI=49.7, 56.0) and lower specificity (69.3%, 95% CI=65.7, 72.2 vs 76.4%, 95% CI=73.3, 79.2) than the 2015 criteria overall, and within each racial and ethnic group. Screening at lower age and BMI thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults. Screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable performance across all racial and ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The 2021 USPSTF screening criteria will identify more adults with prediabetes and diabetes in all racial and ethnic groups than the 2015 criteria. Screening all adults aged 35-70 years exhibited even higher sensitivity and performed most similarly by race and ethnicity, which may further improve early detection of prediabetes and diabetes in diverse populations.

Background: The 2022 consensus report from the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommended using glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) among persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who have established or are at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and using sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) among those with T2D who have established ASCVD, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure or are at high risk for ASCVD (level A evidence) (1). | | Objective: To estimate, using nationally representative data, the number and percentage of persons with T2D who would meet the recommended criteria and were using these medications in the United States.

AIMS: Recent USPSTF and ADA guidelines expanded criteria of whom to test to identify prediabetes and diabetes. We described which Americans are eligible and report receiving glucose testing by USPSTF 2015 and 2021 as well as ADA 2003 and 2022 recommendations, and performance of each guideline. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional data from 6,007 non-pregnant U.S. adults without diagnosed diabetes in the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. We reported proportions of adults who met each guideline's criteria for glucose testing and reported receiving glucose testing in the past three years, overall and by key population subgroups,. Defining prediabetes (FPG 100-125mg/dL and/or HbA1c 5.7-6.4%) or previously undiagnosed diabetes (FPG≥126mg/dL and/or HbA1c≥6.5%), we assessed sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: During 2013-2018, 76.7 million, 90.4 million, 157.7 million, and 169.5 million US adults met eligibility for glucose testing by USPSTF 2015, 2021, and ADA 2003 and 2022 guidelines, respectively. On average, 52% of adults reported receiving glucose testing within the past 3 years. Likelihood of receiving glucose testing was lower among younger adults, men, Hispanic adults, those with less than high school completion, those living in poverty, and those without health insurance or a usual place of care than their respective counterparts. ADA recommendations were most sensitive (range: 91.0% to 100.0%) and least specific (range: 18.3% to 35.3%); USPSTF recommendations exhibited lower sensitivity (51.9% to 66.6%), but higher specificity (56.6% to 74.5%). CONCLUSIONS: An additional 12-14 million US adults are eligible for diabetes screening. USPSTF 2021 criteria provide balanced sensitivity and specificity while ADA 2022 criteria maximize sensitivity. Glucose testing does not align with guidelines and disparities remain.

The impact of global diabetes prevention efforts has been modest despite the promise of landmark diabetes prevention trials nearly twenty years ago. While national and regional initiatives show potential, challenges remain to adapt large-scale strategies in the real-world that fits individuals and their communities. Additionally, the sedentary lifestyle changes during the COVID-19 pandemic and guidelines that now call for earlier screening (e.g., US Preventative Task Force) will increase the pool of eligible adults worldwide. Thus, a more adaptable, person-centered approach that expands the current toolkit is urgently needed to innovate and revitalize our approach to diabetes prevention. This review identifies key priorities to optimize the population-level delivery of diabetes prevention based on a consensus-based evaluation of the current evidence among experts in global translational programs; key priorities identified include (1) participant eligibility, (2) intervention intensity, (3) delivery components, (4) behavioral economics, (5) technology, and (6) the role of pharmacotherapy. We offer a conceptual framework for a broader, person-centered approach to better address an individual's risk, readiness, barriers, and digital competency.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes is an ongoing public health issue in the USA, and, despite progress, recent reports suggest acute and chronic diabetes complications are increasing. RECENT FINDINGS: The Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 3.0 (NEXT-D3) Network is a 5-year research collaboration involving six academic centers (Harvard University, Northwestern University, Oregon Health & Science University, Tulane University, University of California Los Angeles, and University of California San Francisco) and two funding agencies (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health) to address the gaps leading to persisting diabetes burdens. The network builds on previously funded networks, expanding to include type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention and an emphasis on health equity. NEXT-D3 researchers use rigorous natural experiment study designs to evaluate impacts of naturally occurring programs and policies, with a focus on diabetes-related outcomes. NEXT-D3 projects address whether and to what extent federal or state legislative policies and health plan innovations affect T2D risk and diabetes treatment and outcomes in the USA; real-world effects of increased access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act; and the effectiveness of interventions that reduce barriers to medication access (e.g., decreased or eliminated cost sharing for cardiometabolic medications and new medications such as SGLT-2 inhibitors for Medicaid patients). Overarching goals include (1) expanding generalizable knowledge about policies and programs to manage or prevent T2D and educate decision-makers and organizations and (2) generating evidence to guide the development of health equity goals to reduce disparities in T2D-related risk factors, treatment, and complications.

AIMS: We examined changes in the prevalence of elevated depressive symptoms among US adults with diabetes, prediabetes, and normal glycemic status during 2005-2016. METHODS: We analyzed data from 32,676 adults in the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. We defined diabetes as self-reporting a physician diagnosis of diabetes or A1C ≥ 6.5% [48 mmol/mol], and prediabetes as A1C 5.7-6.4% [39-46 mmol/mol]. We used the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score ≥ 10 or antidepressant use to define 'clinically significant depressive symptoms' (CSDS) and PHQ-9 score ≥ 12 as 'Major Depressive Disorder' (MDD). We calculated prevalence age-standardized to the 2000 US census and used logistic-regression to compute adjusted odds of CSDS and MDD for 2005-2008, 2009-2012, and 2015-2016. We analyzed the prevalence of A1C ≥ 9.0% [75 mmol/mol], systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, non-HDL cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dL, and current smoking among adults with diagnosed diabetes by depressive status. RESULTS: The prevalence of CSDS increased among individuals with normal glycemic status from 15.0% (13.5-16.2) to 17.3% (16.0-18.7) (p = 0.03) over 2005-2016. The prevalence of CSDS and MDD remained stable among adults with prediabetes (~ 16% and 1%, respectively) and diabetes (~ 26% and ~3%). After controlling for glycemic, sociodemographic, economic, and self-rated health variables, we found 2-fold greater odds of CSDS among unemployed individuals and 3-fold greater odds among those with fair/poor self-rated health across all survey periods. Cardiometabolic care targets for adults with diagnosed diabetes were stable from 2005 to 2016 and similar across depressive status. CONCLUSIONS: One-fourth of adults with diabetes have comorbid CSDS; this prevalence remained stable over 2005-2016 with no change in diabetes care. At the population level, depression does not appear to impact diabetes care, but further research could explore subgroups that may be more vulnerable and could benefit from integrated care that addresses both conditions.

Social determinants of health (SDOH) are not new. For example, observational data over 40 years have shown consistent—and often heart-wrenching—differences in diabetes outcomes across populations, where populations at socioeconomic disadvantage, in terms of lower education and income levels, experience less access to care and preventive services,1 lower rates of diagnosis, poorer health behaviors and control,2 worse cardiometabolic outcomes,3 and shorter life expectancy as compared with more advantaged populations of higher socioeconomic status.4 These findings suggest that diabetes is not a purely biological issue; its onset and progression are heavily influenced by the broader social context. In particular, type 2 diabetes is in large part the result of choices that people are unable to make based on the health-promoting resources and opportunities available and accessible to them.5 In in the USA, social and economic stressors and related disparities are patterned by geography and race/ethnicity.6 Type 2 diabetes, therefore, is as much an issue of where you live, as it is an issue of how you live.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) is a major contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. In this study, we estimated trends in the incidence of HF inpatient admissions and emergency department (ED) visits by diabetes status. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Population-based age-standardized HF rates in adults with and without diabetes were estimated from the 2006-2017 National Inpatient Sample, Nationwide ED Sample and year-matched National Health Interview Survey, and stratified by age and sex. Trends were assessed using Joinpoint. RESULTS: HF inpatient admissions did not change in adults with diabetes between 2006 and 2013 (from 53.9 to 50.4 per 1000 persons; annual percent change (APC): -0.3 (95% CI -2.5 to 1.9) but increased from 50.4 to 62.3 between 2013 and 2017 (APC: 4.8 (95% CI 0.3 to 9.6)). In adults without diabetes, inpatient admissions initially declined (from 14.8 in 2006 to 12.9 in 2014; APC -2.3 (95% CI -3.2 to -1.2)) and then plateaued. Patterns were similar in men and women, but relative increases were greatest in young adults with diabetes. HF-related ED visits increased overall, in men and women, and in all age groups, but increases were greater in adults with (vs without) diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Causes of increased HF rates in hospital settings are unknown, and more detailed data are needed to investigate the aetiology and determine prevention strategies, particularly among adults with diabetes and especially young adults with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in and the relationships between diabetes management and rural and urban residence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2018) data from 6,372 adults aged ≥18 years with self-reported diagnosed diabetes, we examined poor ABCS: A1C >9% (>75 mmol/mol), Blood pressure (BP) ≥140/90 mmHg, Cholesterol (non-HDL) ≥160 mg/dL (≥4.1 mmol/L), and current Smoking. We compared odds of urban versus rural residents (census tract population size ≥2,500 considered urban, otherwise rural) having poor ABCS across time (1999-2006, 2007-2012, and 2013-2018), overall and by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: During 1999-2018, the proportion of U.S. adults with diabetes residing in rural areas ranged between 15% and 19.5%. In 1999-2006, there were no statistically significant rural-urban differences in poor ABCS. However, from 1999-2006 to 2013-2018, there were greater improvements for urban adults with diabetes than for rural for BP ≥140/90 mmHg (relative odds ratio [OR] 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and non-HDL ≥160 mg/dL (≥4.1 mmol/L) (relative OR 0.45, 0.4-0.5). These differences remained statistically significant after adjustment for race/ethnicity, education, poverty levels, and clinical characteristics. Yet, over the 1999-2018 time period, minority race/ethnicity, lower education attainment, poverty, and lack of health insurance coverage were factors associated with poorer A, B, C, or S in urban adults compared with their rural counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Over two decades, rural U.S. adults with diabetes have had less improvement in BP and cholesterol control. In addition, rural-urban differences exist across sociodemographic groups, suggesting that efforts to narrow this divide may need to address both socioeconomic and clinical aspects of care.

In this study, we examined the associations between the consumption of foods derived from crops subsidized under the 2008 United States (US) Farm Bill and cardiometabolic risk factors and whether the magnitude of these associations has changed since the 2002 US Farm Bill. Four federal databases were used to estimate daily consumption of the top seven subsidized commodities (corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, sorghum, dairy, and livestock) and to calculate a subsidy score (0-1 scale) for Americans' daily dietary intake during 2009-2014, with a higher score indicative of a higher proportion of the diet derived from subsidized commodities. The cardiometabolic risk factors included obesity, abdominal adiposity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and dysglycemia. Linear and logistic regression models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, the poverty-income ratio, the smoking status, educational attainment, physical activity, and daily calorie intake. During 2009-2014, adults with the highest subsidy score had higher probabilities of obesity, abdominal adiposity, and dysglycemia compared to the lowest subsidy score. After the 2002 Farm Bill (measured using data from 2001-2006), the subsidy score decreased from 56% to 50% and associations between consuming a highly-subsidized diet and dysglycemia did not change (p = 0.54), whereas associations with obesity (p = 0.004) and abdominal adiposity (p = 0.002) significantly attenuated by more than half. The proportion of calories derived from subsidized food commodities continues to be associated with adverse cardiometabolic risk factors, though the relationship with obesity and abdominal adiposity has weakened in recent years.

OBJECTIVE To synthesize updated evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to manage diabetes, its complications, and comorbidities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Weconducted a systematic literature review of studies from high-income countries evaluating the CE of diabetes management interventions recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and published in English between June 2008 and July 2017. We also incorporated studies from a previous CE review from the period 1985-2008. We classified the interventions based on their strength of evidence (strong, supportive, or uncertain) and levels of CE: Cost-saving (more health benefit at a lower cost), very cost-effective (£$25,000 per life year gained [LYG] or quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), cost-effective ($25,001-$50,000 per LYG or QALY), marginally cost-effective ($50,001-$100,000 per LYG or QALY), or not costeffective (>$100,000 per LYG or QALY). Costs were measured in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS Seventy-three new studies met our inclusion criteria. These were combined with 49 studies from the previous review to yield 122 studies over the period 1985-2017. A large majority of the ADA-recommended interventions remain cost-effective. Specifically, we found strong evidence that the following ADA-recommended interventions are cost-saving or very cost-effective: In the cost-saving category are 1) ACE inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for intensive hypertension management compared with standard hypertension management, 2) ACEI/ARB therapy to prevent chronic kidney disease and/or end-stage renal disease in people with albuminuria compared with no ACEI/ARB therapy, 3) comprehensive foot care and patient education to prevent and treat foot ulcers among those at moderate/high risk of developing foot ulcers, 4) telemedicine for diabetic retinopathy screening compared with office screening, and 5) bariatric surgery compared with no surgery for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity (BMI ‡30 kg/m2). In the very cost-effective category are 1) intensive glycemic management (targeting A1C <7%) compared with conventional glycemic management (targeting an A1C level of 8-10%) for individuals with newly diagnosed T2D, 2) multicomponent interventions (involving behavior change/education and pharmacological therapy targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, microalbuminuria, nephropathy/retinopathy, secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with aspirin) compared with usual care, 3) statin therapy compared withnostatin therapy for individualswithT2Dandhistoryof cardiovascular disease,4) diabetes self-management education and support compared with usual care, 5) T2D screening every 3 years starting at age 45 years compared with no screening, 6) integrated, patient-centered care compared with usual care, 7) smoking cessation compared with no smoking cessation, 8) daily aspirin use as primary prevention for cardiovascular complications compared with usual care, 9) self-monitoring of blood glucose three times per day compared with once per day among those using insulin, 10) intensive glycemic management compared with conventional insulin therapy for T2D among adults aged ‡50 years, and 11) collaborative care for depression compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS Complementing professional treatment recommendations, our systematic review provides an updated understanding of the potential value of interventions to manage diabetes and its complications and can assist clinicians and payers in prioritizing interventions and health care resources.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle change interventions (LCI) for prevention of type 2 diabetes are covered by Medicare, but rarely by US Medicaid programs that constitute the largest public payer system in the USA. We estimate the long-term health and economic implications of implementing LCIs in state Medicaid programs. METHODS: We compared LCIs modeled after the intervention of the Diabetes Prevention Program versus routine care advice using a decision analytic simulation model and best available data from representative surveys, cohort studies, Medicaid claims data, and the published literature. Target population were non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19-64 years at high risk for type 2 diabetes (BMI >/=25 kg/m(2) and HbA1c >/= 5.7% or fasting plasma glucose >/= 110 mg/dl) from eight study states (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma) that represent around 50% of the US Medicaid population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) measured in cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and population cost and health impact were modeled from a healthcare system perspective and a narrow Medicaid perspective. RESULTS: In the eight selected study states, 1.9 million or 18% of non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries would belong to the eligible high-risk target population - 66% of them Hispanics or non-Hispanic black. In the base-case analysis, the aggregated 5- and 10-year ICERs are US$226 k/QALY and US$34 k/QALY; over 25 years, the intervention dominates routine care. The 5-, 10-, and 25-year probabilities that the ICERs are below US$50 k (US$100 k)/QALY are 6% (15%), 59% (82%) and 96% (100%). From a healthcare system perspective, initial program investments of US$800 per person would be offset after 13 years and translate to US$548 of savings after 25 years. With a 20% LCI uptake in eligible beneficiaries, this would translate to upfront costs of US$300 million, prevent 260 thousand years of diabetes and save US$205 million over a 25-year time horizon. Cost savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller. Minorities and low-income groups would over-proportionally benefit from LCIs in Medicaid, but the impact on population health and health equity would be marginal. CONCLUSIONS: In the long-term, investments in LCIs for Medicaid beneficiaries are likely to improve health and to decrease healthcare expenditures. However, population health and health equity impact would be low and healthcare expenditure savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller than from a healthcare system perspective.

Two decades ago, a wave of effectiveness trials demonstrating the enormous potential to reduce both diabetes and its complications gave a new stimulus to implementation research intended to find the best ways to translate, implement, and evaluate prevention through mediums of public health action.1–3 This burgeoning research portfolio largely used approaches that were limited by the available data infrastructures and study designs of the day. For example, translating primary prevention of diabetes employed pragmatic, randomized implementation studies, using the proof of concept of prevention but modifying the target population, context, dosage, or delivery mode.4 Similarly, translation studies to improve care for diabetes focused on trials or observations of the health care delivery unit and how changes in team composition and workflows, information sharing, communication, or decision support could improve real-world delivery of care.5,6 These efforts contributed to long-term reductions in diabetes complications in the United States and laid the groundwork for broader efforts to scale up primary prevention.7,8 Despite these successes, though, the impact of the diabetes epidemic is persistent and unpredictable.9 National surveillance data of diabetes complications and the cascades of care have shown that the diffusion of effective interventions is often patchwork and selective, and there has been no narrowing of the socioeconomic disparities that have characterized the diabetes epidemic.10–12 Further, there is new evidence of an increasing divide along age and socioeconomic lines.13

CONTEXT: Team-based care has been increasingly used to deliver care for patients with chronic conditions, but its effectiveness for managing diabetes has not been systematically assessed. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: RCTs were identified from two sources: a high-quality, broader review comparing 11 quality improvement strategies for diabetes management (database inception to July 2010), and an updated search using the same search strategy (July 2010-October 2015). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty-five studies were included in the current review; a majority focused on patients with Type 2 diabetes. Teams included patients, their primary care providers, and one or two additional healthcare professionals (most often nurses or pharmacists). Random effect meta-analysis showed that, compared with controls, team-based care was associated with greater reductions in blood glucose levels (-0.5% in HbA1c, 95% CI= -0.7, -0.3) and greater improvements in blood pressure and lipid levels. Interventions also increased the proportion of patients who reached target blood glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels, based on American Diabetes Association guidelines available at the time. Data analysis was completed in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with Type 2 diabetes, team-based care improves blood glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels.

Importance: Coordinated efforts by national organizations in the United States to implement evidence-based lifestyle modification programs are under way to reduce type 2 diabetes (hereinafter referred to as diabetes) and cardiovascular risks. Objective: To provide a status report on the reach and use of diabetes prevention services nationally. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationally representative, population-based cross-sectional analysis of 2016 and 2017 National Health Interview Survey data was conducted from August 3, 2017, through November 15, 2018. Nonpregnant, noninstitutionalized, civilian respondents 18 years or older at high risk for diabetes, defined as those with no self-reported diabetes diagnosis but with diagnosed prediabetes or an elevated American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk score (>5), were included in the analysis. Analyses were conducted for adults with (and in sensitivity analyses, for those without) elevated body mass index. Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute numbers and proportions of adults at high risk with elevated body mass index receiving advice about diet, physical activity guidance, referral to weight loss programs, referral to diabetes prevention programs, or any of these, and those affirming engagement in each (or any) activity in the past year were estimated. To identify where gaps exist, a prevention continuum diagram plotted existing vs desired goal achievement. Variation in risk-reducing activities by age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, insurance status, history of gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or body mass index was also examined. Results: This analysis included 50912 respondents (representing 223.0 million adults nationally) 18 years or older (mean [SE] age, 46.1 [0.2] years; 48.1% [0.3%] male) with complete data and no self-reported diabetes diagnosis by their health care professional. Of the represented population, 36.0% (80.0 million) had either a physician diagnosis of prediabetes (17.9 million), an elevated ADA risk score (73.3 million), or both (11.3 million). Among those with diagnosed prediabetes, 73.5% (95% CI, 71.6%-75.3%) reported receiving advice and/or referrals for diabetes risk reduction from their health care professional, and, of those, 35.0% (95% CI, 30.5%-39.8%) to 75.8% (95% CI, 73.2%-78.3%) reported engaging in the respective activity or program in the past year. Half of adults with elevated ADA risk scores but no diagnosed prediabetes (50.6%; 95% CI, 49.5%-51.8%) reported receiving risk-reduction advice and/or referral, of whom 33.5% (95% CI, 30.1%-37.0%) to 75.2% (95% CI, 73.4%-76.9%) reported engaging in activities and/or programs. Participation in diabetes prevention programs was exceedingly low. Advice from a health care professional, age range from 45 to 64 years, higher educational attainment, health insurance status, gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obesity were associated with higher engagement in risk-reducing activities and/or programs. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults at high risk for diabetes, major gaps in receiving advice and/or referrals and engaging in diabetes risk-reduction activities and/or programs were noted. These results suggest that risk perception, health care professional referral and communication, and insurance coverage may be key levers to increase risk-reducing behaviors in US adults. These findings provide a benchmark from which to monitor future program availability and coverage, identification of prediabetes, and referral to and retention in programs.

Background: The prevalence of moderate or complex (moderate-complex) congenital heart defects (CHDs) among adults is increasing due to improved survival, but many patients experience lapses in specialty care or their CHDs are undocumented in the medical system. There is, to date, no efficient approach to identify this population. Objective: To develop and assess the performance of a risk score to identify adults aged 20-60 years with undocumented specific moderate-complex CHDs from electronic health records (EHR). Methods: We used a case-control study (596 adults with specific moderate-complex CHDs and 2384 controls). We extracted age, race/ethnicity, electrocardiogram (EKG), and blood tests from routine outpatient visits (1/2009 through 12/2012). We used multivariable logistic regression models and a split-sample (4: 1 ratio) approach to develop and internally validate the risk score, respectively. We generated receiver operating characteristic (ROC) c-statistics and Brier scores to assess the ability of models to predict the presence of specific moderate-complex CHDs. Results: Out of six models, the non-blood biomarker model that included age, sex, and EKG parameters offered a high ROC c-statistic of 0.96 [95% confidence interval: 0.95, 0.97] and low Brier score (0.05) relative to the other models. The adult moderate-complex congenital heart defect risk score demonstrated good accuracy with 96.4% sensitivity and 80.0% specificity at a threshold score of 10. Conclusions: A simple risk score based on age, sex, and EKG parameters offers early proof of concept and may help accurately identify adults with specific moderate-complex CHDs from routine EHR systems who may benefit from specialty care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To advance our understanding of the impacts of policies and programs aimed at improving detection, engagement, prevention, and clinical diabetes management in the USA, we synthesized findings from a network of studies that used natural experiments to evaluate diabetes health policies and programs. FINDINGS: Studies from the Natural EXperiments for Translation in Diabetes (NEXT-D) network used rigorous longitudinal quasi-experimental study designs (e.g., interrupted time series) and analytical methods (e.g., difference-in-differences) to augment causal inference. Investigators partnered with health system stakeholders to evaluate whether glucose testing rates changed from before-to-after clinic interventions (e.g., integrating electronic screening decision prompts in New York City) or employer programs (e.g., targeted messaging and waiving copayments for at-risk employees). Other studies examined participation and behavior change in low- (e.g., wellness coaching) or high-intensity lifestyle modification programs (e.g., diabetes prevention program-like interventions) offered by payers or employers. Lastly, studies assessed how employer health insurance benefits impacted healthcare utilization, adherence, and outcomes among people with diabetes. NEXT-D demonstrated that low-intensity interventions to facilitate glucose testing and enhance engagement in lifestyle modification were associated with small improvements in weight but large improvements in screening and testing when supported by electronic health record-based decision-support. Regarding high-intensity diabetes prevention program-like lifestyle programs offered by payers or employers, enrollment was modest and led to weight loss and marginally lower short-term health expenditures. Health plans that incentivize patient behaviors were associated with increases in medication adherence. Meanwhile, shifting patients to high-deductible health plans was associated with no change in medication use and preventive screenings, but patients with diabetes delayed accessing healthcare for acute complications (e.g., cellulitis). Findings were more pronounced among lower-income patients, who experienced increased rates and acuity of emergency department visits for diabetes complications and other high-severity conditions. Findings from NEXT-D studies provide informative data that can guide programs and policies to facilitate detection, prevention, and treatment of diabetes in practice.

PURPOSE: The measurement and estimation of diabetes in populations guides resource allocation, health priorities, and can influence practice and future research. To provide a critical reflection on current diabetes surveillance, we provide in-depth discussion about how upstream determinants, prevalence, incidence, and downstream impacts of diabetes are measured in the USA, and the challenges in obtaining valid, accurate, and precise estimates. FINDINGS: Current estimates of the burden of diabetes risk are obtained through national surveys, health systems data, registries, and administrative data. Several methodological nuances influence accurate estimates of the population-level burden of diabetes, including biases in selection and response rates, representation of population subgroups, accuracy of reporting of diabetes status, variation in biochemical testing, and definitions of diabetes used by investigators. Technological innovations and analytical approaches (e.g., data linkage to outcomes data like the National Death Index) may help address some, but not all, of these concerns, and additional methodological advances and validation are still needed. Current surveillance efforts are imperfect, but measures consistently collected and analyzed over several decades enable useful comparisons over time. In addition, we proposed that focused subsampling, use of technology, data linkages, and innovative sensitivity analyses can substantially advance population-level estimation.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has declined substantially in the U.S. The aims of this study were to examine trends and demographic disparities in mortality due to CVD and CVD subtypes among adults with and without self-reported diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the National Health Interview Survey (1985-2014) with mortality follow-up data through the end of 2015 to estimate nationally representative trends and disparities in major CVD, ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, heart failure, and arrhythmia mortality among adults >/=20 years of age by diabetes status. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up period of 11.8 years from 1988 to 2015 of 677,051 adults, there were significant decreases in major CVD death (all P values <0.05) in adults with and without diabetes except adults 20-54 years of age. Among adults with diabetes, 10-year relative changes in mortality were significant for major CVD (-32.7% [95% CI -37.2, -27.9]), IHD (-40.3% [-44.7, -35.6]), and stroke (-29.2% [-40.0, -16.5]), but not heart failure (-0.5% [-20.7, 24.7]), and arrhythmia (-12.0% [-29.4, 77.5]); the absolute decrease of major CVD among adults with diabetes was higher than among adults without diabetes (P < 0.001). Men with diabetes had larger decreases in CVD death than women with diabetes (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Major CVD mortality in adults with diabetes has declined, especially in men. Large reductions were observed for IHD and stroke mortality, although heart failure and arrhythmia deaths did not change. All race and education groups benefitted to a similar degree, but significant gaps remained across groups.

AIMS: We aim to determine the association between prediabetes and diabetes with latent TB using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 2011-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. Participants >/=20 years were eligible. Diabetes was defined by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as no diabetes (</=5.6% [38 mmol/mol]), prediabetes (5.7-6.4% [39-46mmol/mol]), and diabetes (>/=6.5% [48 mmol/mol]) combined with self-reported diabetes. Latent TB infection was defined by the QuantiFERON(R)-TB Gold In Tube (QFT-GIT) test. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of latent TB infection by diabetes status were calculated using logistic regression and accounted for the stratified probability sample. RESULTS: Diabetes and QFT-GIT measurements were available for 4,958 (89.2%) included participants. Prevalence of diabetes was 11.4% (95%CI 9.8-13.0%) and 22.1% (95%CI 20.5-23.8%) had prediabetes. Prevalence of latent TB infection was 5.9% (95%CI 4.9-7.0%). After adjusting for age, sex, smoking status, history of active TB, and foreign born status, the odds of latent TB infection were greater among adults with diabetes (aOR 1.90, 95%CI 1.15-3.14) compared to those without diabetes. The odds of latent TB in adults with prediabetes (aOR 1.15, 95%CI 0.90-1.47) was similar to those without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes is associated with latent TB infection among adults in the United States, even after adjusting for confounding factors. Given diabetes increases the risk of active TB, patients with co-prevalent diabetes and latent TB may be targeted for latent TB treatment.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the proportion of American adults without type 2 diabetes that engages in lifestyle behaviors known to reduce type 2 diabetes risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 3,679 nonpregnant, nonlactating individuals aged >/=20 years without diabetes (self-reported diagnosis or glycated hemoglobin >/=6.5% [8 mmol/mol] or fasting plasma glucose >/=126 mg/dL) and who provided 2 days of reliable dietary data in the 2007-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). We used the average of 2 days of dietary recall and self-reported leisure-time physical activity to assess whether participants met type 2 diabetes risk reduction goals (meeting four or more MyPlate recommendations [adequate consumption of fruits, vegetables, dairy, grains, meat, beans, and eggs]; not exceeding three maximum allowances for alcoholic beverages, added sugars, fat, and cholesterol; and meeting physical activity recommendations [>/=150 min/week]). RESULTS: Approximately 21%, 29%, and 13% of individuals met fruit, vegetable, and dairy goals, respectively. Half (51.6%) met the goal for total grains, compared with 18% for whole grains, and 54.2% met the meat/beans goal and 40.6% met the oils goal. About one-third (37.8%) met the physical activity goal, and 58.6% met the weight loss/maintenance goal. Overall, 3.1% (95% CI 2.4-4.0) of individuals met the majority of type 2 diabetes risk reduction goals. Younger age and lower educational attainment were associated with lower probability of meeting goals. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of U.S. adults engages in risk reduction behaviors. Research and interventions targeted at young and less-educated segments of the population may help close gaps in risk reduction behaviors.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy over the usefulness of prediabetes as a diagnostic label. Using data from US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) between 1988 and 2014, we examined the cardiovascular and renal burdens in adults with prediabetes over time and compared patterns with other glycaemic status groups. METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional survey data from non-pregnant adults aged 20 years and older from the NHANES survey periods 1988-94, 1999-2004, 2005-10, and 2011-14. We defined diagnosed diabetes as patients' self-report that they had been previously diagnosed by a physician or health professional; among those with no self-reported diabetes, prediabetes was defined as a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentration of 100-125 mg/dL (5.6-6.9 mmol/L) or an HbA1c of 5.7-6.4% (39-47 mmol/mol); undiagnosed diabetes as an FPG of 126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L) or higher or an HbA1c of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or higher; and normal glycaemic status as an FPG of less than 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) and an HbA1c of less than 5.7% (39 mmol/mol). We repeated the analyses using varying definitions of prediabetes (FPG 110-125 mg/dL [6.1-6.9 mmol/L] or HbA1c 5.7-6.4% [39-47 mmol/mol], FPG 110-125 mg/dL [6.1-6.9 mmol/L] or HbA1c 6.0-6.4% [42-47 mmol/mol], and FPG 100-125 mg/dL [5.6-6.9 mmol/L] and HbA1c 5.7-6.4% [39-47 mmol/mol]). For each group over time, we estimated the prevalences of hypertension and dyslipidaemia; and among individuals with those conditions, we estimated the proportions who had been treated and who were achieving care goals. By glycaemic group, we estimated those who were current, former, and never smokers; mean 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease (using estimators from the Framingham Heart Study, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), and the ACC/AHA ASCVD guidelines); albuminuria (median and albumin-to-creatinine ratio >/=30 mg/g), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; mean and <60 mL/min per 1.73m(2)); and prevalence of myocardial infarction and stroke. For all estimates, we calculated predicted changes between 1988-94 and 2011-14 using logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, and race or ethnic group. FINDINGS: We obtained data for 27 971 eligible individuals. In 2011-14, in the population of adults with prediabetes, 36.6% (95% CI 32.8-40.5) had hypertension, 51.2% (47.0-55.3) had dyslipidaemia, 24.3% (21.7-27.3) smoked; 7.7% (6.8-8.8) had albuminuria; 4.6% (3.7-5.9) had reduced eGFR; and 10-year cardiovascular event risk ranged from 5% to 7%. From 1988-94 to 2011-14, adults with prediabetes showed significant increases in hypertension (+9.7 percentage points [95% CI 5.4-14.0]); no change in dyslipidaemia; decreases in smoking (-6.4 percentage points [-10.7 to -2.1]); increased use of treatment to lower blood pressure (54.2% [49.0-59.3] to 81.4% [76.7-85.3], +27.2 percentage points [20.5-33.8] p<0.0001) and to reduce lipids (6.6% to 40.2%, +33.6 percentage points [30.2-37.0], p<0.0001); and increased goal achievements for blood pressure (25.8% to 62.0%, +36.2 percentage points [30.7-41.8], p<0.0001) and lipids (1.0% to 32.8%, +31.8 percentage points [29.1-34.4, p<0.0001]). People with prediabetes also showed decreases in cardiovascular risk (ASCVD -1.9 percentage points [-2.5 to -1.3] to UKPDS -2.7 [-3.5 to -1.9], p<0.0001); but no change in prevalence of albuminuria, reduced eGFR, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Prevalence and patterns were consistent across all prediabetes definitions examined. Compared with adults with prediabetes, adults with diagnosed diabetes showed much larger improvements in cardiovascular and renal risk treatments, apart from smoking, which did not decline. INTERPRETATION: Over 25 years, cardiovascular and renal risks and disease have become highly prevalent in adults with prediabetes, irrespective of the definitions used. Identification of people with prediabetes might increase the opportunity for cardiovascular and renal risk reduction. FUNDING: None.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is a leading global cause of death and accounts for most deaths among individuals with diabetes. This article reviews the latest observational and trial data on changes in the relationship between diabetes and ASCVD risk, remaining gaps in how the role of each risk factor is understood, and current knowledge about specific interventions. Differences between high-income countries and low-income and middle-income countries are examined, barriers and facilitators are discussed, and a discussion around the concept of ideal cardiovascular health factors (Life's Simple 7) is focused on.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes incidence is rising among vulnerable population subgroups including minorities and individuals with limited education. Many diabetes-related programs and public policies are unevaluated while others are analyzed with research designs highly susceptible to bias which can result in flawed conclusions. The Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2) Network includes eight research centers and three funding agencies using rigorous methods to evaluate natural experiments in health policy and program delivery. RECENT FINDINGS: NEXT-D2 research studies use quasi-experimental methods to assess three major areas as they relate to diabetes: health insurance expansion; healthcare financing and payment models; and innovations in care coordination. The studies will report on preventive processes, achievement of diabetes care goals, and incidence of complications. Some studies assess healthcare utilization while others focus on patient-reported outcomes. NEXT-D2 examines the effect of public and private policies on diabetes care and prevention at a critical time, given ongoing and rapid shifts in the US health policy landscape.

AIMS: Determine the mortality experience among adults with diabetes in meeting and not meeting less intense control for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP), and cholesterol. METHODS: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2010 participants with self-report of diagnosed diabetes (N=3335), measured HbA1c, BP and non-HDL cholesterol were linked to the National Death Index through December 31, 2011. Proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) of meeting HbA1c<9% and BP<160/110, and non-HDL cholesterol<190mg/dL. Models used age as the time scale and adjusted for demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, education), diabetes duration, history of cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease, and treatments for elevated glucose, BP, and cholesterol. RESULTS: Over a mean 5.4 person-years of follow-up, participants meeting all less intense control had a 37% lower mortality (HR=0.63, 95% CI 0.54, 0.74) relative to those who did not meet the goals. Of approximately 306,000 deaths per year that occur among Americans with diabetes, we estimate 39,400 might have been averted by improving the care of those who have not met these less intense control goals. CONCLUSIONS: Meeting the less intense control goals is associated with 37% reduction in mortality and could lead to 39,400 fewer deaths per year.

OBJECTIVE: To assess participant-level results from the first 4 years of implementation of the National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP), a national effort to prevent type 2 diabetes in those at risk through structured lifestyle change programs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Descriptive analysis was performed on data from 14,747 adults enrolled in year-long type 2 diabetes prevention programs during the period February 2012 through January 2016. Data on attendance, weight, and physical activity minutes were summarized and predictors of weight loss were examined using a mixed linear model. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.3. RESULTS: Participants attended a median of 14 sessions over an average of 172 days in the program (median 134 days). Overall, 35.5% achieved the 5% weight loss goal (average weight loss 4.2%, median 3.1%). Participants reported a weekly average of 152 min of physical activity (median 128 min), with 41.8% meeting the physical activity goal of 150 min per week. For every additional session attended and every 30 min of activity reported, participants lost 0.3% of body weight (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: During the first 4 years, the National DPP has achieved widespread implementation of the lifestyle change program to prevent type 2 diabetes, with promising early results. Greater duration and intensity of session attendance resulted in a higher percent of body weight loss overall and for subgroups. Focusing on retention may reduce disparities and improve overall program results. Further program expansion and investigation is needed to continue lowering the burden of type 2 diabetes nationally.

Structured lifestyle interventions can reduce diabetes incidence and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among persons with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), but it is unclear whether they should be implemented among persons without IGT. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions on CVD risk among adults without IGT or diabetes. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and PsychInfo databases, from inception to May 4, 2016. We selected randomized controlled trials of lifestyle interventions, involving physical activity (PA), dietary (D), or combined strategies (PA+D) with follow-up duration ≥12 months. We excluded all studies that included individuals with IGT, confirmed by 2-hours oral glucose tolerance test (75g), but included all other studies recruiting populations with different glycemic levels. We stratified studies by baseline glycemic levels: (1) low-range group with mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <5.5mmol/L or glycated hemoglobin (A1C) <5.5%, and (2) high-range group with FPG ≥5.5mmol/L or A1C ≥5.5%, and synthesized data using random-effects models. Primary outcomes in this review included systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), total cholesterol (TC), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides (TG). Totally 79 studies met inclusion criteria. Compared to usual care (UC), lifestyle interventions achieved significant improvements in SBP (-2.16mmHg[95%CI, -2.93, -1.39]), DBP (-1.83mmHg[-2.34, -1.31]), TC (-0.10mmol/L[-0.15, -0.05]), LDL-C (-0.09mmol/L[-0.13, -0.04]), HDL-C (0.03mmol/L[0.01, 0.04]), and TG (-0.08mmol/L[-0.14, -0.03]). Similar effects were observed among both low-and high-range study groups except for TC and TG. Similar effects also appeared in SBP and DBP categories regardless of follow-up duration. PA+D interventions had larger improvement effects on CVD risk factors than PA alone interventions. In adults without IGT or diabetes, lifestyle interventions resulted in significant improvements in SBP, DBP, TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, and TG, and might further reduce CVD risk.