Guideline Title
Standards of medical care in diabetes. VII. Assessment of common comorbid conditions.
Bibliographic Source(s)
Standards of medical care in diabetes. VII. Assessment of common comorbid conditions. Diabetes Care 2012 Jan;35(Suppl 1):S38-9. |
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
UMLS Concepts ( what's this?)
Click to view all guideline(s) indexed with these concepts
ICD9CM:
Diabetes mellitus, type I [insulin dependent type] [IDDM] [juvenile type], not stated as uncontrolled (250.31); Diabetes mellitus, type II [non-insulin dependent type] [NIDDM type] [adult-onset type] or unspecified type, not stated as uncontrolled (250.30); Fracture, cause unspecified (E887); Hearing examination, not otherwise specified (95.42); Hearing examination, not otherwise specified (95.47); Mild cognitive impairment, so stated (331.83); Neoplasm of unspecified nature, site unspecified (239.9); Obstructive sleep apnea (adult) (pediatric) (327.23); Other chronic nonalcoholic liver disease (571.8); Unspecified hearing loss (389.9)
MSH:
Cognition Disorders; Diabetes Complications; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Fatty Liver; Fractures, Bone; Hearing Loss; Hearing Tests; Neoplasms; Periodontal Diseases; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive
MTH:
Alanine aminotransferase measurement; Aspartate aminotransferase assay; Assessment: Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Complications of Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetes Mellitus, Insulin-Dependent; Diabetes Mellitus, Non-Insulin-Dependent; Fatty Liver; Fracture; hearing impairment; Hearing Tests; Impaired cognition; Measurement of liver enzyme; Neoplasm of unspecified nature, site unspecified; Neoplasms; Oral Examination; Periodontal Diseases; Screening for cancer; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Testosterone measurement
PDQ:
cognitive assessment
SNOMEDCT:
Alanine aminotransferase measurement (34608000); Aspartate aminotransferase measurement (45896001); Auditory testing (252575000); Auditory testing (32921008); Auditory testing (398171003); Auditory testing (398280008); Cognitive disorder (443265004); Decreased hearing (103276001); Decreased hearing (15188001); Deficiency of testosterone biosynthesis (38825009); Diabetes mellitus (73211009); Diabetes mellitus type 1 (46635009); Diabetes mellitus type 2 (44054006); Diabetic complication (74627003); Fracture (125605004); Fracture (72704001); Impaired cognition (386806002); Measurement of liver enzyme (269856004); Neoplasm (108369006); Non-alcoholic fatty liver (197315008); Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (78275009); Oral examination (122856003); Periodontal disease (2556008); Screening for cancer (15886004); Sleep apnea assessment (103750000); Testosterone measurement (104957004)
Hide...
|
Disease/Condition(s)
Common comorbid conditions in diabetes mellitus, including:
- Hearing impairment
- Obstructive sleep apnea
- Fatty liver disease
- Low testosterone in men
- Periodontal disease
- Certain cancers
- Fractures
- Cognitive impairment
Guideline Category
Evaluation
Prevention
Risk Assessment
Screening
Treatment
Clinical Specialty
Dentistry
Endocrinology
Family Practice
Gastroenterology
Internal Medicine
Nursing
Oncology
Otolaryngology
Preventive Medicine
Sleep Medicine
Intended Users
Advanced Practice Nurses
Allied Health Personnel
Dentists
Health Care Providers
Health Plans
Hospitals
Managed Care Organizations
Nurses
Physician Assistants
Physicians
Public Health Departments
Guideline Objective(s)
- To provide recommendations for the assessment of common comorbid conditions in patients with diabetes
- To provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care
Target Population
Patients with diabetes who have risk factors or have signs or symptoms of common comorbidities associated with diabetes
Interventions and Practices Considered
- Hearing impairment assessment
- Obstructive sleep apnea assessment and treatment
- Assessment of elevated hepatic transaminases
- Screening and treatment of low testosterone in men (not recommended)
- Periodontal disease assessment
- Age and sex appropriate screening for certain cancers (liver, pancreas, endometrium, colon/rectum, breast, and bladder)
- Fracture assessment and prevention
- Cognitive impairment assessment
Major Outcomes Considered
- Incidence and prevalence of common comorbid conditions in patients with diabetes
- Response rates to interventions
- Quality of life
|
Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010.
Number of Source Documents
Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence
American Diabetes Association's Evidence Grading System for Clinical Practice Recommendations
A
Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are adequately powered, including:
- Evidence from a well-conducted multicenter trial
- Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis
Compelling nonexperimental evidence (i.e., "all or none" rule developed by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford)
Supportive evidence from well-conducted RCTs that are adequately powered, including:
- Evidence from a well-conducted trial at one or more institutions
- Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis
B
Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies, including:
- Evidence from a well-conducted prospective cohort study or registry
- Evidence from a well-conducted meta-analysis of cohort studies
Supportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control study
C
Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies, including:
- Evidence from RCTs with one or more major or three or more minor methodological flaws that could invalidate the results
- Evidence from observational studies with high potential for bias (such as case series with comparison to historical controls)
- Evidence from case series or case reports
Conflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting the recommendation
E
Expert consensus or clinical experience
Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Review of Published Meta-Analyses
Systematic Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
A grading system (see the "Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence" field), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations.
Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the "Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes 2012" [see the "Availability of Companion Documents" field]) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http://professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search.aspx .
Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards.
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Recommendations have been assigned ratings of A, B, or C, depending on the quality of evidence (see the "Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence" field). Expert opinion (E) is a separate category for recommendations in which there is as yet no evidence from clinical trials, in which clinical trials may be impractical, or in which there is conflicting evidence. Recommendations with an "A" rating are based on large, well-designed clinical trials or well-done meta-analyses. Generally, these recommendations have the best chance of improving outcomes when applied to the population to which they are appropriate. Recommendations with lower levels of evidence may be equally important but are not as well supported.
Cost Analysis
A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.
Method of Guideline Validation
Internal Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation
The standards of care were reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association's (ADA's) Board of Directors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people.
|
Major Recommendations
The evidence grading system for clinical practice recommendations (A–C, E) is defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.
For patients with risk factors, signs or symptoms, consider assessment and treatment for common diabetes-associated conditions. (B)
In addition to the commonly appreciated comorbidities of obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, diabetes is also associated with other diseases or conditions at rates higher than those of age-matched people without diabetes.
Common Comorbidities for Which Increased Risk Is Associated with Diabetes
- Hearing impairment
- Obstructive sleep apnea
- Fatty liver disease
- Low testosterone in men
- Periodontal disease
- Certain cancers
- Fractures
- Cognitive impairment
Definitions:
American Diabetes Association's Evidence Grading System for Clinical Practice Recommendations
A
Clear evidence from well-conducted, generalizable randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are adequately powered, including:
- Evidence from a well-conducted multicenter trial
- Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis
Compelling nonexperimental evidence (i.e., "all or none" rule developed by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford)
Supportive evidence from well-conducted RCTs that are adequately powered, including:
- Evidence from a well-conducted trial at one or more institutions
- Evidence from a meta-analysis that incorporated quality ratings in the analysis
B
Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies, including:
- Evidence from a well-conducted prospective cohort study or registry
- Evidence from a well-conducted meta-analysis of cohort studies
Supportive evidence from a well-conducted case-control study
C
Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies, including:
- Evidence from RCTs with one or more major or three or more minor methodological flaws that could invalidate the results
- Evidence from observational studies with high potential for bias (such as case series with comparison to historical controls)
- Evidence from case series or case reports
Conflicting evidence with the weight of evidence supporting the recommendation
E
Expert consensus or clinical experience
|
Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see the "Major Recommendations" field).
|
Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations
Potential Benefits
Appropriate assessment and management of common diabetes comorbidities
|
Contraindications
For patients with type 2 diabetes with fracture risk factors, avoidance of thiazolidinediones (TZDs) is warranted.
|
Qualifying Statements
- Evidence is only one component of clinical decision-making. Clinicians care for patients, not populations; guidelines must always be interpreted with the needs of the individual patient in mind. Individual circumstances, such as comorbid and coexisting diseases, age, education, disability, and, above all, patients' values and preferences, must also be considered and may lead to different treatment targets and strategies. Also, conventional evidence hierarchies, such as the one adapted by the American Diabetes Association, may miss some nuances that are important in diabetes care. For example, while there is excellent evidence from clinical trials supporting the importance of achieving glycemic control, the optimal way to achieve this result is less clear. It is difficult to assess each component of such a complex intervention.
- While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed.
|
Implementation of the Guideline
Description of Implementation Strategy
While numerous interventions to improve adherence to the recommended standards have been implemented, a major barrier to optimal care is a delivery system that too often is fragmented, lacks clinical information capabilities, often duplicates services, and is poorly designed for the coordinated delivery of chronic care. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) includes six core elements for the provision of optimal care of patients with chronic disease: 1) delivery system design (moving from a reactive to a proactive care delivery system, where planned visits are coordinated through a team-based approach; 2) self-management support; 3) decision support (basing care on evidence-based, effective care guidelines); 4) clinical information systems (using registries that can provide patient-specific and population-based support to the care team); 5) community resources and policies (identifying or developing resources to support healthy lifestyles); and 6) health systems (to create a quality-oriented culture). Redefinition of the roles of the clinic staff and promoting self-management on the part of the patient are fundamental to the successful implementation of the CCM. Collaborative, multidisciplinary teams are best suited to provide such care for people with chronic conditions like diabetes and to facilitate patients' performance of appropriate self-management.
National Diabetes Education Program (NDEP) maintains an online resource (www.betterdiabetescare.nih.gov ) to help health care professionals design and implement more effective health care delivery systems for those with diabetes.
Three specific objectives are outlined below.
Objective 1: Optimize Provider and Team Behavior
The care team should prioritize timely and appropriate intensification of lifestyle and/or pharmaceutical therapy of patients who have not achieved beneficial levels of blood pressure, lipid, or glucose control. Strategies such as explicit goal setting with patients; identifying and addressing language, numeracy, or cultural barriers to care; integrating evidence-based guidelines and clinical information tools into the process of care; and incorporating care management teams including nurses, pharmacists, and other providers have each been shown to optimize provider and team behavior and thereby catalyze reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C), blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.
Objective 2: Support Patient Behavior Change
Successful diabetes care requires a systematic approach to supporting patients' behavior change efforts, including (a) healthy lifestyle changes (physical activity, healthy eating, nonuse of tobacco, weight management, effective coping), (b) disease self-management (medication taking and management, self-monitoring of glucose and blood pressure when clinically appropriate); and (c) prevention of diabetes complications (self-monitoring of foot health, active participation in screening for eye, foot, and renal complications, and immunizations). High-quality diabetes self-management education (DSME) has been shown to improve patient self-management, satisfaction, and glucose control, as has delivery of ongoing diabetes self-management support (DSMS) so that gains achieved during DSME are sustained. National DSME standards call for an integrated approach that includes clinical content and skills and behavioral strategies (goal-setting, problem solving) and addresses emotional concerns in each needed curriculum content area.
Objective 3: Change the System of Care
The most successful practices have an institutional priority for providing high quality of care. Changes that have been shown to increase quality of diabetes care include basing care on evidence-based guidelines, expanding the role of teams and staff, redesigning the processes of care, implementing electronic health record tools, activating and educating patients, and identifying and/or developing and engaging community resources and public policy that support healthy lifestyles. Recent initiatives such as the Patient Centered Medical Home show promise to improve outcomes through coordinated primary care and offer new opportunities for team-based chronic disease care. Alterations in reimbursement that reward the provision of appropriate and high quality care rather than visit-based billing, and that can accommodate the need to personalize care goals, may provide additional incentives to improve diabetes care.
It is clear that optimal diabetes management requires an organized, systematic approach and involvement of a coordinated team of dedicated health care professionals working in an environment where patient-centered high-quality care is a priority.
Implementation Tools
Quick Reference Guides/Physician Guides
Slide PresentationFor information about availability, see the Availability of Companion Documents and Patient Resources fields below.
|
Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories
IOM Care Need
Living with Illness
Staying Healthy
IOM Domain
Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness
|
Identifying Information and Availability
Bibliographic Source(s)
Standards of medical care in diabetes. VII. Assessment of common comorbid conditions. Diabetes Care 2012 Jan;35(Suppl 1):S38-9. |
Adaptation
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Guideline Developer(s)
American Diabetes Association - Professional Association
Source(s) of Funding
American Diabetes Association
Guideline Committee
Professional Practice Committee
Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline
Committee Members: Roger Anderson, MS, RPH, CDE; Susan Braithwaite, MD; Martha Funnell, MSN, RN, CDE; Robert Gabbay, MD; Richard Grant, MD, MPH; Jane Kadohiro, DrPH, APRN, CDE; James Lenard, MD; Daniel Lorber, MD; Michelle Magee, MD; Sunder Mudaliar, MD; Patrick O'Connor, MD, MPH; R. Harsha Rao, MD; Andrew Rhinehart, MD, CDE; Stuart Weinzimer, MD; Carol Wysham, MD (Chair); Gretchen Youssef, MS, RD, CDE; Judy Fradkin, MD (Ex officio); Stephanie Dunbar, RD, MPH (Staff); Sue Kirkman, MD (Staff)
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry.
Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the "Professional Practice Committee Members" table and are available from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Web site (see the "Availability of Companion Documents" field).
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
Guideline Availability
Electronic copies: Available from the Diabetes Care Journal Web site .
Print copies: Available from the American Diabetes Association, 1701 North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311.
Availability of Companion Documents
The following are available:
- Introduction. Diabetes Care 2012 Jan;35(Suppl 1):S1-S2.
- Summary of revisions for the 2012 clinical practice recommendations. Diabetes Care 2012 Jan;35(Suppl 1):S3.
- Executive summary: standards of medical care in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2012 Jan;35(Suppl 1):S4-S10.
- Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2012 Jan;35(Suppl 1):S64-S71.
- Third-party reimbursement for diabetes care, self-management education, and supplies. Diabetes Care 2012 Jan;35(Suppl 1):S99-100.
- Professional Practice Committee 2012 (includes conflict of interest disclosure). Diabetes Care 2012 Jan;35(Suppl 1):S109-S110.
Electronic copies: Available from the Diabetes Care Journal Web site .
Print copies: Available from the American Diabetes Association, 1701 North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311.
The following is also available:
- 2012 Standards of medical care in diabetes. Clinical practice recommendations. Slide set. American Diabetes Association; 2012 Jan. 150 p. Electronic copies: Available from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Web site .
NGC Status
This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on May 10, 2012.
Copyright Statement
This NGC summary is based on the original guideline, which is copyrighted by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).
For information on guideline reproduction, please contact Alison Favors, Manager, Rights and Permissions by e-mail at permissions@diabetes.org.
For information about the use of the guidelines, please contact the Clinical Affairs Department at (703) 549-1500 ext. 1692.
|
NGC Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouseâ„¢ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site. Read full disclaimer...The National Guideline Clearinghouseâ„¢ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion-criteria.aspx.
NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer. Hide...
|