Meal Planning For Diabetes

1 UMHS Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, May 2014
Guidelines for Clinical Care

Ambulatory

Diabetes Mellitus
Guideline Team
Team Leaders
Connie J Standiford, MD
General Internal Medicine
Sandeep Vijan, MD
General Internal Medicine
Team Members
Hae Mi Choe, PharmD
College of Pharmacy
R Van Harrison, PhD
Medical Education
Caroline R Richardson, MD
Family Medicine
Jennifer A Wyckoff, MD
Metabolism, Endocrinology
& Diabetes
Consultants
Martha M Funnell, MS, RN,
CDE
Diabetes Research and
Training Center
William H Herman, MD
Metabolism, Endocrine &
Diabetes

Initial Release
May, 1996
Most Recent Major Update
September, 2012
Interim/Minor Revisions
July, 2013
Substantive Revisions
May, 2014

Ambulatory Clinical
Guidelines Oversight
Grant Greenberg, MD, MA,
MHSA
R. Van Harrison, PhD

Literature search service
Taubman Medical Library

For more information
734-936-9771

Regents of the
University of Michigan

These guidelines should not be
construed as including all
proper methods of care or
excluding other acceptable
methods of care reasonably
directed to obtaining the same
results. The ultimate judgment
regarding any specific clinical
procedure or treatment must be
made by the physician in light
of the circumstances presented
by the patient.

Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Patient population. Adults
Objectives. To reduce morbidity and mortality by improving adherence to important
recommendations for preventing, detecting, and managing diabetic complications.
Key points
Prevention. In individuals at risk for type 2 diabetes (see Table 1), type 2 diabetes can be delayed or
prevented through diet, exercise, and pharmacologic interventions [IA].
Screening. Although little evidence is available on screening for diabetes, screening should be considered
every 3 years beginning at age 45 or annually at any age if BMI 25 kg/m
2
[evidence: IID], history of
hypertension [IIB], gestational diabetes [IC], or other risk factors.
Diagnosis. An A1c of 6.5% or greater, confirmed by second test, is diagnostic of diabetes. Alternatively,
diabetes can be diagnosed by two separate fasting glucoses 126 mg/dL; with symptoms, a glucose
200 mg/dL confirmed on a separate day by a fasting glucose 126 mg/dL; or 2-hour postload glucose
200 mg/dl during an oral glucose tolerance test [B]. (See Table 1. See Table 2 for differential diagnosis.)
Treatment. Essential components of the treatment for diabetes include diabetes self-management education
and support, lifestyle interventions, and goal setting (see Table 3); glycemic management (see Tables 4-
10); and pharmacologic management of hypertension (see Table 11) and hyperlipidemia.
Screening for comorbidities and complications. Routine screening and prompt treatment for
cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, tobacco use) and for microvascular disease
(retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy) are recommended in the time frames below.
Treatment of comorbidities and complications. Management of risk factors and complications is
summarized in Table 12. Diet, exercise, and pharmacologic interventions should be initiated for:
Hypertension [IA] Cardiovascular risk reduction [IA]
Hyperlipidemia [IA] Diabetes complications as indicated

Each regular diabetes visit Annually
Blood pressure measured and controlled
[IA].
Check HbA1c every 3 months if on insulin;
every 6 months if on oral agents or diet
only and well-controlled. [II]. Optimize
glycemic control [IA].
Review and reinforce diet and physical
activity [IID].
Check weight, calculate BMI [IID].
Feet should be inspected at each visit if
neuropathy present. Otherwise visual
foot exam and neuropathy evaluation
annually [IA].
Smoking cessation counseling provided for
patients with tobacco dependence [IB].
Review and reinforce key self-
management goals (See Table 3) [IA].
Dilated retinal examination by eye care specialist: if
good blood sugar and blood pressure control and
previous eye exam was normal, every 2 years; if
diabetic changes, annually or more frequently per eye
care provider [IB]. Treat retinopathy [IA].
Screen for microalbuminuria if not already on an
ACE inhibitor or ARB [IB]. Prescribe an ACE
inhibitor (or ARB, if ACE contraindicated) for
microalbuminuria or proteinuria [IA].
Serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration
rate (eGFR) [ID].
Monofilament testing of feet (see Table 13) [IA].
Prescribe moderate dose statin; measure lipids for
adherence.
Smoking status assessed [IB].
All self-management goals reviewed and reinforced.
(See Table 3).
Influenza vaccination (annual) and confirm or give
pneumococcal and hepatitis B vaccinations.
Special considerations: Pregnancy. Preconception counseling and glycemic control targeting a normal
A1c in women with diabetes mellitus reduces the risk of congenital malformations and results in optimal
maternal and fetal outcomes [IB].
* Strength of recommendation:
I = generally should be performed; II = may be reasonable to perform; III = generally should not be performed.
Level of evidence supporting a diagnostic method or an intervention:
A=randomized controlled trials; B=controlled trials, no randomization; C=observational trials; D=opinion of expert panel.

Table 1. Diagnosis of Diabetes: Diagnostic Tests and Glucose Values
Diagnostic Test Normal Pre-diabetes Diabetes
Hemoglobin A1c (A1c)
a
<5.7% 5.7-6.4% 6.5%
Fasting plasma glucose
a
< 100 mg/dL 100-125 mg/dL 126 mg/dL
Random plasma glucose
b
< 130 mg/dL 130-199 mg/dL 200 mg/dL
Oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)
2hrs after a 75 gm oral glucose load
< 140 mg/dL 140-199 mg/dL 200 mg/dL
a
For A1c and fasting glucose, the diagnosis must be confirmed by a second test
b
A random glucose 200 mg/dL must be confirmed with a fasting glucose 126 mg/dL or the OGTT. A random glucose of
130-199 mg/dL is abnormal and further testing is indicated, e.g., fasting glucose, OGTT, or hemoglobin A1c.

Table 2. Abbreviated Differential Diagnosis of Diabetes
Type 1 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes

Diabetes due to diseases of the
exocrine pancreas
pancreatitis, pancreatectomy, or
pancreatic adenocarcinoma
cystic fibrosis
hemochromatosis
others
Diabetes due to other endocrinopathies
acromegaly
Cushings syndrome
pheochromocytoma
glucagonoma
others

Monogenic forms of diabetes
Maturity-onset diabetes of the young
Diabetes due to point mutations in
mitochondrial DNA
Lipoatrophic diabetes
others

Drug induced diabetes
Transplant or steroid related diabetes
HIV/AIDS related diabetes

Diabetes as part of congenital syndrome
Congenital rubella syndrome
Down syndrome
Turner's syndrome
Wolfram's syndrome
Myotonic dystrophy
Prader-Willi syndrome
Bardet-Biedl
others


Table 3. Self-Management Topics *

At each regular visit (e.g. every 3-6 months) ask about:
Active responsibility for own care. What do you do each day to take care of your diabetes? What is hardest for you to do?
(Demonstrate through words and actions that diabetes is a serious illness.)
Progress toward blood pressure, glucose, and cholesterol goals. Do you know your most recent blood pressure level,
HbA1c level, and LDL cholesterol levels and your progress toward your goals for these levels?
Blood glucose monitoring if on insulin. Do you know (1) the rationale for monitoring your blood glucose (sick day
management, insulin dose adjustments)? (2) Your monitoring schedule? (3) How to use the results? How do you use this
information in your daily diabetes care?
Medications. What time of the day do you take your pills or insulin each day? Do you take them even if you are ill and
unable to eat? What are your current doses? About what percent of the time have you missed your medicines in the past
month?
Symptoms and treatment of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. What are the (1) symptoms and treatment for
hypoglycemia? (2) symptoms and treatment for hyperglycemia? (3) when should you contact your health care provider?
Complementary therapies. What herbal supplements, over-the-counter medicines, or other treatments do you use?
Physical activity. What physical activity do you do and at what time relative to meals and snacks? Does your physical
activity contribute to low or high blood glucose levels?
Meal plan. Do you have a meal plan? Are you able to use your meal plan? How many meals do you eat each day?
Weight reduction. (If overweight:) What strategies for weight loss are you following?
Distress, stress and coping. Do you often feel overwhelmed by all you have to do to manage your diabetes? Are you feeling
more stressed than usual? How do you cope with this stress?
Psychological status. How is diabetes affecting you emotionally? Are your emotions interfering with your ability to manage
your diabetes? How do you handle these feelings?
Family planning/birth control. Are you considering pregnancy? If so, are you at your glucose control goal? If not, are you
using birth control?
At least annually ask about:
Identification. Do you wear or carry diabetes identification?
Complications screening. Do you know (1) your results on screening tests? (2) when you should be tested next?
Foot care. (1) What do you do to take care of your feet? (2) Do you check your feet each day?
Injection sites for insulin. Do you rotate your injection sites around your abdomen and inspect sites?
* Based on expert opinion.

Table 4. Meal Planning for Glycemic Management Based on Medication

Medication Recommended Meal Planning
No medication or oral medication * Portion control or healthful choices
Secretagogues * Carbohydrate at each meal.
Fixed daily insulin * Consistent injection time and carbohydrate intake (time and amount)
Premixed insulin * Consistent injection times and meal times
Intensive flexible insulin program (basal/bolus) * Carbohydrate counting and dosage adjustments including carb:insulin
ratios and correction doses
* For weight loss (modest weight loss may provide
benefit, especially early in the disease process)
Portion control and increased physical activity. Intensive lifestyle
interventions (counseling, behavioral change, physical activity)
with on-going support are needed for weight loss.


Table 5. Targeting and Monitoring Glycemic Control in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus

Target A1c should be defined based on personal assessment of risks and benefits of treatment. Listed below are factors that
limit the benefit of tight control*, or heighten the risk of tight control,**. Patients who do not have any of these factors should
generally have a target A1c of 7%. Patients who do have these factors should have a goal of minimizing symptoms of
hyperglycemia and to control glucose as well as possible without incurring side effects or excessive treatment burden; while
an appropriate A1c is difficult to define exactly, treatment should be aimed to keep the A1c under 9%.

HbA1c should be measured every 36 months
If HbA1c is above goal:
1. Assess treatment regimen. 3. Start or increase medication.
2. Diabetes/dietary education or referral. 4. Recheck HbA1c

in 3 months.

* Factors limiting benefit of tight control
Comorbidities (e.g., end-stage cancer,
severe heart failure).
Advanced diabetes complications (e.g.,
proliferative retinopathy, renal failure).
Inability to safely carry out treatment
regimen.
Limited life expectancy

** Factors heightening risk of tight control
History of severe hypoglycemia (inability to treat without assistance).
Hypoglycemia unawareness.
Advanced cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease.
Autonomic neuropathy (especially cardiac).
Comorbidities that impair the detection of hypoglycemia (e.g.,
alteration in mental status, alcoholism, etc.).
Poor social support

Table 6. Steps in Glycemic Control with Oral Agents in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Step 1. Essential treatment for all patients with type 2 diabetes
Comprehensive diabetes education
Healthy eating
Physical activity
Metformin at maximum dose tolerated, not to exceed 2000 mg/daily*, unless not tolerated or otherwise contraindicated
Re-measure A1c in 6-12 weeks after initiation or dose change of medication
Step 2. If A1c:
< 7% or below individualized target (Table 5), no additional agents.
9%, consider insulin
7% but < 9%, add a second agent or insulin customized to patient. (See Table 7 for agent comparisons.) Re-measure A1c in
6-12 weeks after initiation or dose change of medication
Step 3. With addition of second agent, if A1c:
< 7% or below individualized target (Table 5), no additional agents.
9%, consider insulin
7% but < 9%, consider adding a third agent or insulin customized to patient. (See Table 7 for comparison of agents.) If
suboptimal control persists, despite maximal oral therapy, insulin therapy should be initiated.
* Maximum effective dose

Table 7. Comparisons of Agents for Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
Generic

Brand
Name
A1c
Reduction

Weight
Hypo-
glycemia
Renal Dose Adjust Other Side Effects/
Precautions
Biguanide
Metformin Glucophage None
1
Contraindicated for
Scr>1.4 in ; Scr>1.5
in
GI side effects- GERD,
nausea, diarrhea
Metformin
extended
release
Glucophage
XR
None
1
Contraindicated for
Scr>1.4 in ; Scr>1.5
in
GI side effects- GERD,
nausea, less diarrhea
Sulfonylureas (2nd Generation)
Glimepiride Amaryl Dose adjust for renal
patients
Rare
Glipizide Glucotrol
Preferred in class for renal
patients given greater
hepatic metabolism
Rare
Glipizide XL
Glucotrol
XL
Preferred in class for renal
patients given greater
hepatic metabolism
Rare
Glyburide
Diabeta,
Micronase
Dose adjust for renal
patients
Rare
Glyburide,
micronized
Glynase Dose adjust for renal
patients
Rare
Thiazolidinedione
Pioglitazone Actos None
1
None CHF, macular edema, LE
edema, fractures, bladder
cancer
Alpha-glucosidase inhibitor
Acarbose Precose None
1
Contraindicated for CrCl
<25 ml/min
GI side effects- flatulence,
nausea, diarrhea
Miglitol Glyset None
1
<25 ml/min
GI side effects- flatulence,
nausea, diarrhea
Non-sulfonylurea insulin secretogogues
Repaglinide Prandin Dose adjustment for CrCl
<40 ml/min
Rare
Nateglinide Starlix

None Rare
DPP4 Inhibitor
Sitagliptin Januvia Rare
1

Dose adjustment for CrCl
<50 ml/min
Rare
Saxaglipton Onglyza Rare
1

<50 ml/min
Rare
Linagliptin Tradjenta Rare
1
None Rare
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) Inhibitor
Canagliflozin Invokana Rare
1

<60 ml/min
Hypotension, hyperkalemia,
urinary tract infection,
genital mycosis, polyuria
Dapagliflozin Farxiga Rare
1

Not Recommended for
CrCl
<60 ml/min
Hypotension urinary tract
infections, genital mycosis,
possible bladder cancer
(continued on next page)

Table 7. Comparisons of Agents for Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes, continued

Generic

Brand
Name
A1c
Reduction

Weight
Hypo-
glycemia
Renal Dose Adjust Other Side Effects/
Precautions
Incretin mimetic
Exenatide Byetta Rare
1

<30ml/min
Nausea/vomiting, pancreatitis
Liraglutide Victoza Rare
1

Limited data; use with
caution
Nausea/vomiting,
pancreatitis, medullary
thyroid cancer
3

Exenatide
extended-
release
Bydureon Rare
1

<30ml/min
Nausea/vomiting, pancreatitis,
medullary thyroid cancer
3

Amylinomimetic
Pramlintide Symlin Rare
1
None Nausea/vomiting
Rapid-acting insulin
Lispro Humalog None Rare
Aspart NovoLog None Rare
Glulisine Apidra None Rare
Short-acting insulin
Regular None Rare
NPH None Rare
Intermediate-acting insulin
Determir Levemir None Rare
Long-acting insulin
Glargine Lantus None Rare
1
When used as monotherapy
2
A1c reduction is dose dependent
3
in animal models

Table 8. Prescribing Essentials for Oral Agents for Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Generic
(Brand Name)
Strength (mg) Initial Dose
(mg)
Max Daily
Dose (mg)
Usual Daily Dose
(mg)
Cost
a
30 days(range)
Generic Brand
Biguanide
Metformin
(Glucophage)
500, 850, 1000 500 once or
850 daily
2550 1500-2000 mg
divided (BID)
$9 $92-154
Metformin extended release
(Glucophage XR)
500, 750 500 daily with
evening meal
2000 1500-2000 daily or
divided
$11 $93-123
Sulfonylureas (Second Generation)
b

Glimepiride
(Amaryl)
1, 2, 4 1-2 daily 8 4 daily $9-19 $82-163
Glipizide
(Glucotrol)
5, 10 2.5, 5 daily 40 10 - 20 divided
(BID)
$8-16 $51-204
Glipizide ER
(Glucotrol XL)
2.5, 5, 10 5 daily 20 5 - 20 daily or
divided (BID)
$9-24 $27-105
Glyburide
(Diabeta, Micronase)
1.25, 2.5, 5 2.5-5 daily 20 5 - 20 daily or
divided (BID)
$15-27 $54-214
Glyburide, micronized
(Glynase)
1.5, 3, 4.5, 6 0.75-3 daily 12 3 - 12 daily or
divided (BID)
$8-11 $50-200
Thiazolidinedione
c

Pioglitazone
(Actos)
15, 30, 45 15-30 daily 45 15 - 45 daily $10-14 $279-463
Alpha-glucosidase inhibitor
Acarbose
(Precose)
25, 50, 100 25 daily with
meal
300 50 - 100 TID
before meals
$47-56 $103-205

Miglitol
(Glyset)
25, 50, 100 25 daily with
meal
300 25 - 100 TID NA $136-177
Non-sulfonylurea insulin secretagogues
Repaglinide
(Prandin)
0.5, 1.2 0.5 with meals 16 0.5 - 4 AC to QID $22-43 $76-277
Nateglinide
(Starlix)
60, 120 60120 with
meal
360 60 - 120 AC $30-32 $77-239
DPP 4 Inhibitors
Sitagliptin

(Januvia)
25, 50, 100 50-100 daily
d
100 100 daily NA $306
Saxagliptin
(Onglyza)
2.5, 5 2.5-5 daily
d
5 2.5-5 daily NA $301
Linagliptin
(Tradjenta)
5 5 mg daily 5 5 mg daily NA $307
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) Inhibitor
Canagliflozin
(Invokana)
100, 300 100 mg daily
g
300 100 daily before
first meal
NA $312
Dapagliflozin
(Farxiga)
5, 10 5 mg daily
g
10 5 mg in AM NA $312

(continues with combination formulations on next page)


Table 9. Prescribing Essentials for Oral Agents for Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
(Continued)

Generic
(Brand Name)

Strength (mg)

Initial Dose
(mg)

Max Daily
Dose (mg)

Usual Daily Dose
(mg)

Cost
a
30 days(range)
Generic Brand
Combination formulations [Less dosing flexibility]
Glipizide/metformin
(Metaglip)

2.5/250,
2.5/500,
5/500
2.5/250 daily-
2.5/500 BID
e
or
2.5/500-5/500
BID
f

10/2000 or
20/2000
Titrate to effective
dose (not over max)
$28-30 NA
Glyburide/metformin
(Glucovance)

1.25/250,
2.5/500,
5/500
1.25/250 daily-
BID
e
or 2.5/500-
5/500 BID
f

10/2000 or
20/2000
2.5/500 10/1000
daily-BID
$11-14 $79 all
Repaglinide/metformin
(PrandiMet)
1/500,
2/500
1/500 BID
within 15 min
prior to meal
10/2500 Titrate to effective
dose (not over max)
NA $253
Pioglitazone/metformin
c

(Actoplus Met)
15/500,
15/850
15/500-15/850
daily-BID
dose (not over max)
NA $424
Pioglitazone/metformin ER
c

(Actoplus Met XR)
15/1000,
30/1000
15/1000-
30/1000 daily
dose (not over max)
NA $230-455
Sitagliptin/metformin
(Janumet)
50/500,
50/1000
50/500 BID
e
or
50/1000 BID
f

dose (not over max)
NA $306
a
Cost = Average Wholesale Price minus 10%. AWP from Red Book Online 05/2014. For generic drugs, Maximum Allowable
Cost plus $3 from BCBS of Michigan MAC List, 05/2014.
b
Second generation sulfonylureas have a better safety profile compared to first generation sulfonylureas.
c
Pioglitazone is preferred over rosiglitazone because of its cardiovascular risks. However, the FDA recently cautioned that
pioglitazone has been associated with increased risk of bladder cancer after 12 months of use. Physicians should avoid
pioglitazone in patients with active bladder cancer and with caution in patients with a prior history of bladder cancer.
d
When administered with a sulfonylurea, a lower dose of the sulfonylurea may be required.
e
Dose for initial therapy, i.e., starting both agents for the first time.
f
Dose for second line therapy, i.e., previously treated with one or both of the agents.
g
Assess volume status and renal function before initiation and correct volume depletion before initiation.

Table 10. Prescribing Essentials for Injectable Agents for Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Type of Injectable
Examples
Onset of
Action
Peak of
Action
Duration of
Action
Cost
1
30
days
Incretin mimetic Exenatide (Byetta)
2
1 hour 2.1 hours 10 hours $178
Liraglutide (Victoza)
3
< 8 hours 8-12 hours 24 hours $64
Exenatide Extended Release (Bydureon) 2 weeks 6-7 weeks 10 weeks $110
Amylinomimetic Pramlintide (Symlin) <20 minutes 20 minutes 3 hours $119
Rapid-acting
insulin
Lispro (Humalog) 15 min 0.5-2.5 hrs 3-5 hrs $181
Aspart (NovoLog) 15 min 1-3 hrs 3-5 hrs $182
Glulisine (Apidra) 20 min 1-2 hrs 5-6 hrs $170
Short-acting Regular 30-60 min 2-3 hrs 3-6 hrs $98
Intermediate-
acting
NPH 2-4 hrs 4-10 hrs 10-16 hrs $98

Detemir (Levemir) 3-4 hrs 6-8 hrs 6-23 hrs $327
Long-acting Glargine (Lantus) 2-4 hour None 20-24 hrs $207
Intermediate- and
short-acting
mixtures
75/25 NPL/lispro (Humalog Mix)
50/50 NPL/lispro (Humalog Mix)
70/30 NPH/aspart (NovoLog Mix)
70/30 NPH/regular (Humulin, Novolin)
Varies according to types and
Percentages of insulin
$188
$189
$98
Concentrated,
intermediate
acting
U500 regular
30
minutes
1.5 3.5
hours
Up to 24
hours
$980

$132
1
Cost = Average Wholesale Price minus 10%. AWP from Red Book Online 05/2014. For generic drugs, Maximum Allowable
Cost plus $3 from BCBS of Michigan MAC List, 05/2014. Byetta, Victoza, Symlin, and Levemir come as pen syringes.
Other injectable price quotes are for 10 ml vial.
2
The FDA warns that exenatide (Byetta) may be associated with an increased risk for pancreatitis and for acute renal failure.
If pancreatitis is suspected, exenatide should be discontinued. If pancreatitis is confirmed, exenatide should not be restarted
unless an alternative etiology is identified. Exenatide should not be used in those with GFR <30 ml/min. It should be used
cautiously in those with GFR between 30 and 50 ml/min, with careful monitoring of renal function and GI side effects.
3

The FDA warns that liraglutide (Victoza) may be associated with an increased risk of pancreatitis and thyroid C-cell
hyperplasia. If pancreatitis is suspected, liraglutide should be discontinued. Do not restart if pancreatitis is confirmed.
Increased risk of thyroid C-cell tumors in animals and unknown risk in humans.

Table 11. Steps in Pharmacologic Treatment of Hypertension in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus

Step 1. Elevated BP (systolic BP 140
1
and/or diastolic BP 90) uncontrolled by prior lifestyle modifications
Without microalbuminuria- initiate therapy with either:
Thiazide diuretic initiate therapy.
Chlorthalidone 25 mg daily. Titrate by doubling dose in 2-4 weeks if BP goal NOT met. (max dose: 50 mg daily)
Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily. Titrate by doubling dose in 2-4 weeks if BP goal NOT met. (max dose: 25 mg daily)
ACE inhibitor (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme) Inhibitor initiate therapy unless contraindication (hypersensitivity
reaction, angioedema) or documented persistent cough.
Lisinopril 10 mg daily.
2
Titrate by doubling dose every 2-4 weeks until the BP goal is met (max dose: 40 mg)
If ACE inhibitor contraindicated: Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker (ARB)
Losartan 25-50 mg daily.
2
Titrate by doubling dose in 2-4 weeks if BP goal NOT met (max dose: 100 mg)
With microalbuminuria
ACE inhibitor initiate therapy unless contraindication (hypersensitivity reaction, angioedema) or documented persistent
cough.
Lisinopril 10 mg daily.
2
Titrate by doubling dose every 2-4 weeks until the BP goal is met (max dose: 40 mg)
If ACE inhibitor contraindicated: Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker (ARB)
Losartan 25-50 mg daily.
2
Titrate by doubling dose in 2-4 weeks if BP goal NOT met (max dose: 100 mg)
Step 2. If dose is optimized on agent from Step 1 and patient BP remains 140/90
1

Add a Thiazide diuretic or ACE/ARB to the first agent.
Consider combination therapy to reduce cost (e.g., lisinopril/HCTZ, losartan/HCTZ, atenolol/chlorthalidone)
Do not use ACE inhibitor in combination with ARB as combination may increase risk of renal failure.
Step 3. If above agents are contraindicated or dose is optimized and patient BP remains 140/90
1

Add a Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blocker initiate therapy
Amlodipine (Norvasc ) 2.5 - 5 mg daily. Titrate by doubling dose in 2-4 weeks if BP goal is NOT met (max dose: 10 mg)
Step 4. If above agents are contraindicated or dose is optimized and patient BP remains 140/90
1

Add a Beta-Blocker to the first two agents. Initiate therapy with either metoprolol (preferred) or atenolol:
Metoprolol tartrate 25 to 50 mg BID.
3
Titrate by doubling dose every 2-4 weeks until BP goal met (max dose: 200 mg)
Atenolol 25 mg daily.
3
Titrate by doubling dose every 2-4 weeks until BP goal met (max dose: 100 mg)
1
Systolic BP 130 recommended for treatment by JNC 7 and 140 is recommended by ADA, although there is no level A evidence for this
upper limit.
2
Check serum creatinine and potassium levels 1-2 weeks after starting medication or increasing its dose.
3
Check heart rate 1-2 weeks after starting the medication or increasing dose.

Table 12. Prevention, Screening, and Treatment of Complications in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus
Cardiovascular Risk Factors Microvascular Complications
Hypertension
Check blood pressure (BP) (each visit).
If not on therapy and BP 140/90 [IA
g
](see text & Table 3).
1. Check electrolytes and serum creatinine.
2. Check for microalbuminuria.
3. Recommend lifestyle interventions, including weight loss,
exercise and dietary referral.
4. Consider therapy if repeated BP measurements are elevated.
Either a thiazide diuretic or an ACE inhibitor (or an ARB, if
ACE inhibitor not tolerated) is recommended for patients
without microalbuminuria. An ACE inhibitor or ARB (if
ACE inhibitor not tolerated) is recommended for patients with
microalbuminuria. Other agents can be added as needed.
Second line agents are thiazide diuretics and long-acting
dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers. Other agents may
also be necessary but have less supporting data.
If on therapy and BP 140/90 [IA
g
], adjust medication.
Hyperlipidemia
Check lipid profile fasting or non-fasting (annually)
Prescribe at least a moderate potency statin in all non-pregnant
patients with diabetes starting at age 40 and older.[IA
d
].
The AHA recommends annual screening of LDL to assess
adherence with a goal of a 30-50% reduction in LDL from
baseline.
While evidence for specific LDL target levels is lacking, the
American Diabetes Association recommendations are for LDL
< 100 mg/dL and for < 70 mg/dl in patients with known CVD.

Smoking
Check smoking status (at least annually). If non-smoker,
reinforce nonsmoking.
If a smoker
1. Educate about increased CV risk (diabetes + tobacco).
2. Encourage smoking cessation [IB
d
].
Cardiac Risk Reduction
Many patients with diabetes will benefit from low dose aspirin
therapy; however recent data are less clear on the benefit of
aspirin for primary prevention in patients with diabetes [IIA
d
].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
g
= studies in general population
d
= diabetes patient studies
Retinopathy
Perform dilated retinal exam by eye care specialist [IB
d
]
every 2 years if previous eye exam was normal and good
glucose and BP control. Otherwise annually or more
frequently as recommended by the eye care provider.
If retinopathy
1. Treatment per ophthalmology [AI
d
]
2. Consider improving glycemic and BP control [IA
d
].
Nephropathy
Check spot urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (annually) if not
on an ACE/ARB and without diagnosis of diabetic
nephropathy.
If > 30 mg/gm, check UA to rule out asymptomatic UTI.
Repeat spot urine ratio twice within 6 months. If 2 of 3
spot urine albumin/creatinine ratios > 30 mg/gm
1. Check creatinine, electrolytes and estimated glomerular
filtration rate (eGFR) [ID
g
].
2. Begin ACE inhibitor or ARB [IA
d
] (if electrolytes allow
use of ACE inhibitor). Recheck creatinine and
electrolytes within 12 weeks of initiating therapy.
Neuropathy
Perform foot exam: (1) inspect and check pulse (each visit if
patient has a history of neuropathy; otherwise annually), and
(2) monofilament (annually), see Table 13 [IB
d
].
If structural abnormality
1. Prescription for customized shoe and/or orthotics.
2. Consider podiatry referral.
If neuropathy
1. Optimize glycemic control [IA
d
].
2. Treatment of painful neuropathy if indicated.
If not sensitive to monofilament
1. Education regarding proper foot care and increased
risk of ulceration.
2. Consider podiatry referral.
If foot ulcer:
1. Prescription for customized shoe and/or orthotics.
2. Aggressive wound care with close follow up.
3. Refer to a multidisciplinary team specializing in the
care of diabetic foot ulcers [IA
d
].
Strength of recommendation: I=generally should be performed; II=may be reasonable to perform; III=generally should not be performed.
Level of evidence supporting a diagnostic method or an intervention: A=randomized controlled trials; B=controlled trials, no randomization;
C=observational trials; D=opinion of expert panel

BP 140/90 is recommended for treatment by the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, and Treatment of High Blood
Pressure (JNC 8) while 140/80 is recommended by the American Diabetes Association, although there is no level A evidence for the systolic
BP goal.

Table 13. How to Use a Monofilament

Show the monofilament to the patient. Place the end of the
monofilament on his/her hand or arm to show that the testing
procedure will not hurt.
Ask the patient to turn his/her head and close his/her eyes or
look at the ceiling.
Hold the monofilament perpendicular to the skin.
Place the tip of the monofilament on the sole of the foot. Ask
the patient to say yes when s/he feels you touching his/her
foot with the monofilament. DO NOT ASK THE PATIENT
did you feel that?
If the patient does not say yes when you touch a given
testing site, continue on to another site. When you have
completed the sequence, RETEST the area(s) where the
patient did not feel the monofilament.
Push the monofilament until it bends, then hold for 1-3
seconds.
Lift the monofilament from the skin (Do not brush or slide
along the skin).
Repeat the sequence randomly at each of the testing sites on
each foot.
Avoid areas of callus

Clinical Problem: Prevalence and Outcomes

Definitions. Type 2 Diabetes is defined as chronic
hyperglycemia resulting from either decreased insulin
secretion, impaired insulin action or both in the absence
of autoimmune destruction of the pancreatic beta cell.
Classically, type 2 diabetes occurs in the older, obese
patients in the setting of strong family histories of
diabetes and in association with other components of the
metabolic syndrome.

Prevalence. About 8% of the adult U.S population has
diabetes, with 95% of these people having type 2
diabetes. The prevalence of diabetes increases with age,
with over 25% of the elderly having type 2 diabetes.
Non-Caucasians have a prevalence of type 2 diabetes
mellitus that is 2 to 6 times greater than that of
Caucasians.

Increasing obesity in the general population is driving a
world-wide epidemic of type 2 diabetes. Obesity is also
increasing the prevalence of type 2 diabetes at younger
ages. Type 2 diabetes is now present in 3.7% of those
aged 20 to 39 years.

Obesity is also affecting characteristics that previously
distinguished populations likely to have type 2 or type 1
diabetes. Type 2 diabetes typically occurred in patients
over 30 years old and weighing 120% of ideal body
weight, while type 1 diabetes occurred in patients under
30 and weighing < 120% of ideal body weight. In
addition to obesity lowering the age at which type 2
diabetes is commonly seen, population weight increases
are resulting in a greater proportion of patients with type
1 diabetes being overweight.

Inadequate screening and treatment. Type 2 diabetes
often has a long (up to 10 year) pre-symptomatic phase,
and national studies suggest that approximately 1/3 of
subjects with type 2 diabetes are unaware that they have
the disease. Studies suggest that early treatment can
reduce long term complications. Furthermore, screening
for and treatment of co-morbidities and early diabetic
complications is effective in reducing the incidence of
end-stage complications. However, implementation rates
of recommended screening procedures are low, leading to
ineffective and/or delayed treatment of diabetes, and its
comorbidities and complications. This, in turn, increases
the costs of medical care and adversely affects quality of
life.

Outcomes. Diabetes has significant associated morbidity
and mortality. Patients with diabetes have a 2 to 4 fold
increase in the risk of both cardiovascular and
cerebrovascular disease, resulting in an increased mortality
rate among patients with diabetes compared to the general
population. Microvascular complications also occur,
including retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy, and
these can progress to the end-stage outcomes of blindness,
renal failure, and amputation. Diabetes is the leading cause
of new cases of blindness in adults ages 20-74 and the
leading cause of end stage kidney disease in the U.S.
Seventy percent of non-traumatic lower extremity
amputations occur in patients with diabetes. The morbidity
and mortality of diabetes are higher for minorities than for
Caucasians.

Rationale for Recommendations

Diabetes prevention. Multiple large randomized
controlled trials have demonstrated that lifestyle
modification programs delay or prevent type 2 diabetes in
patients who have impaired glucose tolerance. Studies
from China, Finland, India, and the United States have
shown that programs targeting modest improvements in diet
and physical activity (7% reduction in body weight and 150
minutes of brisk walking per week) can reduce the risk of
progression from impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) to
diabetes by 42-58%. The intensive lifestyle intervention
tested in the Diabetes Prevention Program was expensive,
but cost-effective. A large number of translational studies
are ongoing.

A number of medications have also been shown to decrease
progression to diabetes in pre-diabetic patients. In the
Diabetes Prevention Program, metformin 850 mg twice
daily demonstrated a 31% risk reduction in progression
from IGT to diabetes, about half as effective as lifestyle. A
trial of acarbose 100 mg TID demonstrated a 25% risk
reduction in progression from IGT to diabetes. These
studies suggest that a pharmacologic approach to diabetes
prevention may also be feasible, but lifestyle interventions
remain the most effective and safe preventive strategy
studied to date. The few studies combining lifestyle
interventions with medication for diabetes prevention have
not shown any benefit over lifestyle intervention alone but a
number of these studies are ongoing.

Screening for diabetes. Studies of screening do not clearly
suggest that screening will lead to significant improvements
in diabetes outcomes; therefore the effectiveness (or cost
effectiveness) of screening on a population-wide basis is
not clear.

Based on expert opinion, the American Diabetes
Association (ADA) recommends that screening be
considered at least at 3-year intervals beginning at age 45.
Screening individuals with risk factors for diabetes should
be considered at earlier ages.

Individuals with hypertension (>135/80) should be screened
for diabetes (USPSTF level B recommendation). In adults
who have hypertension and diabetes, lowering blood
pressure below conventional target values reduces the
incidence of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular
mortality and justifies screening.

Screening may be reasonable for other at-risk subjects (e.g.,
those with obesity, history of gestational diabetes mellitus,
family history, and high-risk ethnic minorities).

Based on expert opinion the ADA recommends considering
earlier or more frequent screening for those with other risk
factors, including family history, physical inactivity,
minority ethnicity, previously identified impaired fasting
glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of HDL
cholesterol 35 mg/dL, and/or a triglyceride level of 250
mg/dL, polycystic ovarian disease, or a history of vascular
disease.

Women who have had gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)
should be screened for diabetes, as about 50% will have
type 2 diabetes within 10 years. While the long-term
benefits of earlier diagnosis in this population are uncertain,
both expert opinion and the epidemiology of diabetes post-
GDM support screening. The optimal test for screening in
this group is not clear. The ADA currently recommends
screening with a 2 hour, 75 gram oral glucose tolerance test
(OGTT) at 6-12 weeks postpartum. The frequency and
method of screening after this point is debated. Our current
recommendation for these patients is that A1c be used as
the screening test of choice and that screening be conducted
every 3 years.

Another group for whom to consider screening is women
who are planning pregnancy and have risk factors for type 2
diabetes. Identifying and treating undiagnosed diabetes
preconception can prevent congenital malformations.

If a provider elects to screen for diabetes, the tests outlined
in the diagnosis section should be used (see Table 1).

One possible additional benefit of screening for diabetes is
the identification of people with impaired glucose tolerance.
These people carry substantially increased risks of
developing atherosclerotic disease, and have a high risk of
developing diabetes (about 11% per year). Those with a
fasting glucose of 100-125 mg/dL, A1c 5.7-6.4, or a 2-hour
OGTT of 140-199 mg/d are considered at risk for diabetes.
(A random glucose of 130-199 mg/dL is abnormal and
further testing is indicated, e.g., fasting glucose, OGTT, or
hemoglobin A1c.) Intervention is recommended for those
with pre-diabetes, as lifestyle modification (including diet,
exercise, and weight loss), acarbose, and metformin have
all been shown to reduce the progression of pre-diabetes to
diabetes.

Diagnosis. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has
added HbA1c as a screening as well as diagnostic test for
diabetes. While some disagreement exists concerning the
specific level that defines type 2 diabetes, the current ADA
definition is that diabetes is diagnosed if A1c is 6.5% or
higher. This cut point is specific but not sensitive and thus
individuals with A1c between 6.0 and 6.4 will meet criteria
for diabetes using fasting glucose or OGTT tests. The cases
missed are most likely to be very early stage disease. The
choice of A1c was made in large part based on the
convenience of the test; unlike other methods, it does not
require fasting, and international efforts have led to a highly
standardized assay. However, A1c may not be accurate for
patients with hemoglobinopathies, thallasemia, hemolysis,
blood loss, or iron deficiency.

Alternatively, a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or oral
glucose tolerance test (OGTT) may also be used to
diagnose diabetes. The diagnosis can be made if a fasting
glucose level is greater than or equal to 126 mg/dL (7.0

mmol/l), but should be confirmed on a separate day.
Diabetes may also be diagnosed on the basis of symptoms
(polydipsia, polyuria, unintentional weight loss) and
elevated glucose level ( 200 mg/dL), but should also be
confirmed on a separate day by a fasting glucose 126
mg/dL. The oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is a
reasonable diagnostic alternative, and in the view of many
experts remains the diagnostic test of choice; however, it is
somewhat limited by concerns about inconvenience for
patients. A 2-hour glucose level of 200 mg/dL or greater is
diagnostic for diabetes. All tests should be repeated or
confirmed with alternative tests on a separate day.

Treatment

Diabetes Self-Management

As diabetes is a largely self-managed disease, psychosocial
and educational factors affect outcomes. Therefore, these
issues need to be addressed in detail to allow optimization
of treatment and reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes.
Diabetes education should provide consistent, evidence-
based teaching that conforms with treatment guidelines,
standards for self-management education and patient goals.

Diabetes self-management refers to all of the activities in
which patients engage to care for their diabetes, promote
health, augment physical, social and emotional resources
and prevent long and short-term effects from diabetes.
Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is the
essential first step in becoming an effective self-manager.
DSME is designed to help patients make informed
decisions and evaluate the costs and benefits of those
choices. In addition to DSME, patients with diabetes also
need on-going self-management support (DSMS) in order
to sustain improvements gained during DSME. Table 3
summarizes self-management topics that clinicians should
address at each visit and annually.

DSME has evolved from didactic programs based on
information-transfer and compliance or adherence as
outcomes, to more patient-centered, empowerment based
approaches. Recent findings related to DSME include:

Diabetes self-management education is effective for
improving psychosocial and health outcomes (including
HbA1c) and for reducing costs.
Traditional knowledge based DSME is essential but not
sufficient for sustained behavior change. People with
diabetes need on-going clinical, psychosocial and
behavioral diabetes self-management support (DSMS)
No single strategy or programmatic focus shows any
clear advantage, but interventions that incorporate
behavioral and affective components are more effective.
DSME is more effective when tailored to the patients
preferences, social and cultural situation.
DSME is most effective when coupled with appropriate
care and reinforcement by all health care professionals
and on-going DSMS.

While patients need DSME, it is unreasonable to believe
that a one-time educational program will be adequate for a
lifetime. Self-management support is defined as the on-
going assistance and resources patients need in order to
make self-management decisions and sustain behavioral
changes. Office-based practices providing multiple
interventions in which patient education was included or
where the role of the nurse was enhanced reported
favorable outcomes. Organizational interventions that
improve diabetes self-management include computerized
tracking systems, regular recall and review of patients by
nurses, the addition of patient-centered educational and
counseling approaches, and behavioral goal-setting.
Effective strategies to incorporate on-going self-
management support include the use of case or care
managers, use of information technologies, peer support,
and group or cluster visits.

Diabetes self-management behaviors are affected by the
psychological status of the patient. In both the DAWN1
AND DAWN2 studies, a large majority of the patients
reported a high level of distress at the time of diagnosis,
including feelings of shock, guilt, anger, anxiety,
depression and helplessness. Many years after diagnosis,
problems of living with diabetes remained common,
including fear of complications and immediate social and
psychological burdens of caring for diabetes. Forty-one
percent of patients reported poor well-being, however only
10% reported receiving psychological treatment.

DSME/S is increasingly available through group programs
and reimbursement structures are more available. DSME/S
programs that achieve Certification from the Michigan
Department of Community Health are reimbursable by
Medicaid and state regulated health plans, including many
Managed Care Organizations. The University of
Michigans DSME/S program is housed in the MEND
clinic at Dominos Farms (734-647-5871), but holds classes
in the Canton, Brighton and Chelsea locations as well. A
list of non U of M programs is available at
www.Michigan.gov. In addition, DSME programs that are
recognized by the American Diabetes Association are
reimbursable by Medicare. A list of these programs by
state is available at www.diabetes.org.

Obesity is increasing at an alarming rate worldwide and
contributes to the rise in not only type 2 diabetes, but also
hypertension, hyperlipidemia, macrovascular disease,
osteoarthritis, etc. The treatment of obesity is central to the
comprehensive treatment of type 2 diabetes in many cases.
Lifestyle interventions for obesity, medications to promote
weight loss and bariatric surgery should all be considered in
the approach to the obese patient with type 2 diabetes.

Meal planning. Meal planning is recommended for all
stages of diabetes. New guidelines are presented in Table 4

for specific meal planning strategies based on whether or
not the patient is on a medication for glucose control, the
type of medication, and whether weight loss is to be a part
of meal planning.

Glycemic Control

HbA1c is the most commonly accepted measurement of
long-term glycemic control. Current recommendations are
that HbA1c be checked at least every 6 months if the
patient is well controlled (HbA1c 7%) and on a stable
oral anti-hypoglycemic regimen, otherwise every 3 months.

Targets for therapy have been evaluated in clinical trials.
Two trials have achieved A1c levels slightly greater than
7%. Neither showed reduction in end-stage complications
in the time frame of the trials (e.g., visual loss, renal failure
amputation). However, early and intermediate
microvascular complications were reduced, and longer-term
follow-up of one study showed that benefits did begin to
accrue by 15-20 years. This suggests that a target A1c of
7% to 7.5% is reasonable in those with life expectancies in
this range or longer.

Lower A1c targets are generally not recommended; one
trial with a target A1c of 6% (achieved 6.4%) showed
increased mortality relative to an A1c target between 7 and
7.9% (achieved 7.5%), and another showed no benefit,
suggesting that there may be a narrow therapeutic window
for intensive glucose control.

An A1c target of 7% is generally recommended in
patients without factors that limit potential benefit (see
Table 5). However, recent trials assessed the impact of
intensive glycemic control, raising concerns about
potentially increasing adverse events in patents with
ischemic artery disease, congestive heart failure (CHF),
chronic renal failure, dementia, and blindness. Given these
results, patients in these groups should have a target A1c of
~7.5%. Nearly all patients, regardless of life expectancy or
comorbidity status, should target levels of < 9%.

A1c targets should be discussed with patients, and
providers should weigh patient-specific factors when
considering glycemic goals (see Table 5). Given that it
takes years for symptomatic benefits to become apparent, a
number of factors may modify target levels. These include
limited life expectancy (based on significant comorbidity),
advanced diabetes complications, a history of
hypoglycemic unawareness, or limitations in the ability to
carry out a treatment regimen.

Since type 2 diabetes is typically a progressive disease,
glycemic control often deteriorates over time. Providers
should expect that medication requirements will increase
with duration of disease. Combining different classes of
oral agents is often effective in improving blood glucose
control, but there is no clear consensus on optimal sequence
or combinations. Combinations of oral agents and basal
insulin preparations (e.g., NPH, glargine) may also be
effective. These approaches are discussed later.

Glycemic management. In patients with type 2 diabetes,
diet and physical activity are essential first line therapies,
and many groups now recommend initiating metformin at
diagnosis.

Pharmacologic intervention should be considered at
diagnosis for patients with type 2 diabetes. Metformin
should be prescribed as the first line agent unless there are
contradictions to its use. (Note that Metformin should be
stopped at the time an iodinated contrast agent is
administered. Resume metformin after 48 hours if serum
creatinine level is stable.) The choice of subsequent agents
remains controversial. Sulfonylureas should be considered
as a second-line agent. Weight-neutral medications have
clinical appeal, but no outcomes data to support their use
over any other medication. In general, if the patient has not
achieved glycemic goal after four weeks of therapy at a
maximal dose of an oral agent, the therapy should be
considered inadequate. Insulin is the only anti-diabetic
medication (besides metformin) with well documented
clinical outcome data.

Table 6 provides a stepwise summary of treatment
recommendations. Table 7 summarizes the medical
advantages and disadvantages of the available oral and
injectable agents to be considered for the management of
type 2 diabetes. Tables 8, 9, and 10 summarize their dosing
and cost considerations. Meal planning recommendations
based on type of medication were presented in Table 4.

Metformin. The first recommended pharmacologic agent
for type 2 diabetes is generally metformin. Metformin
decreases hepatic glucose production, decreases intestinal
absorption and increases peripheral glucose uptake and
utilization by improving insulin sensitivity. It typically
reduces A1c by 1-1.5%. Metformin has several
characteristics that may provide secondary benefit:
When used as a single agent, it rarely causes
hypoglycemia and it does not cause weight gain.
It appears to have favorable effects on lipid profiles and
is associated with slightly lower cardiovascular mortality
compared to sulfonylureas or insulin.

However, metformin has negative side effects and may not
be tolerated by some patients.
Nausea and diarrhea are seen in up to 30% of patients; GI
side effects are dose related. Metformin XR formulation
may decrease diarrhea compared to the immediate
release.
Metformin should be avoided in patients with reduced
creatinine clearance or who are at risk for the rare
complication of lactic acidosis (e.g., patients with
cirrhosis or severe CHF).
It should be withheld in clinical settings such as IV
contrast administration, surgery, or dehydration.

When initiating metformin, start with 500 mg daily with
food. Then increase the dose by 500 mg per week to 2000
mg per day as 2 or 3 divided doses as tolerated. Metformin
therapy should be considered inadequate if the patient has
not achieved his or her glycemic goal after four weeks of
therapy at a maximum dose. Even after instituting
pharmacologic therapy, careful attention should still be
given to diet and physical activity.

In patients who are either not candidates for metformin
therapy or have failed to achieve glycemic goals on
maximal tolerated metformin dose, a second agent should
be added. Options include sulfonylureas, non-sulfonylurea
secretagogues, DPP4 inhibitors, alpha-glucosidase
inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and injectable medications.
The choice of a second agent should be tailored to the
individual patient, taking into consideration a variety of
factors including BMI, renal function, medical problem list
and patient preferences.

Sulfonylureas. Sulfonylureas lower serum glucose by
increasing insulin secretion. While sulfonylureas were
traditionally used as first line agents in type 2 diabetes, they
should now be considered a second tier choice. Compared
to metformin, sulfonylureas have equivalent but less
favorable effects on weight and increased risk of
hypoglycemia. Additionally, weak evidence indicates that
patients treated with sulfonylureas have higher
cardiovascular mortality compared to patients treated with
metformin.

Glyburide, glipizide and glimeperide all have comparable
efficacy at A1c reduction. For patients with any renal
impairment, glipizide is preferred. Severe hypoglycemia
can occur in patients with significant renal impairment.

Patients are typically treated with a second-generation
sulfonylurea starting at a low dose. Dose increments may
be made every two weeks. If the patient has not achieved
glycemic goal after four weeks of therapy at a maximal
sulfonylurea dose, sulfonylurea therapy should be
considered inadequate.

Non-sulfonylurea insulin secretogogues. These
medications also lower serum glucose by increasing insulin
secretion. They are often used in the place of sulfonylureas
in sulfonylurea -allergic patients or when their shorter half-
life and frequent dosing might reduce the risk of
hypoglycemia in the event of skipped or delayed meals.
Effects on weight and hypoglycemia risk are comparable to
sulfonylureas.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Glucagon-like
peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic
polypeptide (GIP) are incretin hormones that stimulate
insulin secretion and suppress glucagon. These incretin
hormones are rapidly degraded by DPP-4. DPP-4 inhibitors
enhance the effect of these incretin hormones by inhibiting
DPP-4. A DPP-4 inhibitor may be used as monotherapy in
the event of intolerance to metformin and is a useful second
tier agent for use in combination therapy. DPP-4 inhibitors
are not associated with weight gain. When used as
monotherapy, hypoglycemia is rare with these agents. Data
on the effects of these drugs on lipid profiles or
cardiovascular outcomes is limited. Dosage adjustments
are required for renal insufficiency with Sitagliptin and
Saxagliptin but not with Linagliptin.

Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors. Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors
slow the digestion of ingested carbohydrates, delay glucose
absorption into the bloodstream, and decrease postprandial
blood glucose levels. Their effect on lowering A1c is
small. They are not associated with weight gain, nor do they
cause hypoglycemia when used as monotherapy or in
combination with metformin. Gastrointestinal side effects
including abdominal pain, flatulence, and diarrhea are
common. These effects usually diminish over time (4-8
weeks), but frequently lead to discontinuation of the drug.

Thiazolidinediones. Thiazolidinediones (TZD) reduce
insulin resistance and lower blood glucose levels by
improving sensitivity to insulin in muscle and adipose
tissue. They reduce both glucose and insulin levels and do
not cause hypoglycemia when used as single agents (or in
combination with metformin). These medications are very
effective at lowering A1c, however due to their side effect
profile, they should be considered third tier agents. TZDs
are associated with significant weight gain.

The FDA has issued a box warning for both available TZDs
due to an increased risk of congestive heart failure (CHF).
Therefore these drugs should be avoided in patients with
CHF. Both TZDs are associated with fluid retention and
peripheral edema, which occur in at least 15% of patients.
TZDs are strongly associated with increased fracture risk in
post-menopausal women. TZDs may worsen diabetic
macular edema. Renal dosage adjustment is not necessary.
Pioglitazone has been associated with an increased risk of
bladder cancer. SGT2 inhibitors have shown no apparent
cardiovascular benefit or risk in short-term studies.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors.
This class works on the proximal renal tubules lowering the
threshold for glucose excretion and increasing the urinary
glucose clearance. This effect causes a light osmotic
diuresis effect and net excretion of calories through the
glucose urination. Hypoglycemia is rare when used as
monotherapy. There are recommendations to dose reduce
insulin or other concomitant insulin secretagogues.
Although not indicated for hypertension or obesity, this
class can cause hypotension and slight weight loss (~400
kcal/day, but only 2.5% weight loss in one trial at 52 weeks
suggesting a compensatory mechanism). Dosage
adjustments are required for renal insufficiency with both
available agents and contraindicated below eGFR of 30
ml/min. Hepatic dosage adjustment is only required for
canagliflozin in Child-Pugh class C. Studies show an
increased risk for urinary tract infections as well as genital
mycosis infections in users as the most common side
effects. There was an increase of bladder cancer among

users of dapagliflozin in clinical trials suggesting avoiding
use in patients with a history of bladder cancer. Long term
renal safety data is currently unavailable. Trials have shown
a slight increase in serum creatinine, decreases in eGFR and
elevations in LDL-C.

Combination oral therapy. Each class of oral agents works
by a different mechanism and they may be combined to
achieve optimal glucose control. The obvious exceptions
are sulfonylureas and non-sulfonylurea insulin
secretagogues, which should not be combined. Typically,
patients with type 2 diabetes are started on metformin, with
a second agent or third agent added as needed. In general,
the addition of an oral agent will reduce HbA1c by an
additional 1.0%. Tablets combining two classes of oral
agents are now available. See the bottom of Table 9 for
examples. Combinations offer less dosing flexibility but
cost is not necessarily greater compared to single-agent
tablets.

Incretin mimetic agents. Exenatide (Byetta), Exenatide
Liraglutide (Victoza), and Extended-Release Exenatide
(Bydureon) (see Table 10, injectable agents) are approved
for type 2 diabetes. They are typically used with metformin
or other oral agents. They enhance insulin release in
presence of hyperglycemia, slow gastric emptying and
suppress appetite, which can lead to weight loss in
overweight individuals. Hypoglycemia is rare when these
agents are used as a single agent or in combination therapy
with metformin. Data are limited regarding cardiovascular
outcomes in relation to these drugs, though favorable
effects on lipid profiles have been suggested. The most
common side effects are nausea and vomiting. The FDA
warns that exenatide may be associated with an increased
risk for pancreatitis and subsequent acute renal failure. If
pancreatitis is suspected, incretin mimetic agents should be
discontinued. If pancreatitis is confirmed, exenatide should
not be restarted unless an alternative etiology for the
pancreatitis is identified. Exenatide should not be used in
those with GFR<30. It should be used cautiously in those
with GFR between 30 and 50, with careful monitoring of
renal function and GI side effects. Lira glutidemay be used
with care in renal insufficienty.

Combination of oral/injectable therapy. Patients with type
2 diabetes who do not have adequate glucose control on
oral agents will need to start an injectable agent or insulin
therapy. DPP-4 inhibitors should not be combined with
incretin mimetics such as exenatide or liraglutide. If insulin
is initiated, most experts would agree that metformin should
be continued. However, other hypoglycemic agents are
usually discontinued. Arguments can be made for
continuing other hypoglycemic agents in combination with
insulin; however, no consensus exists as to what
combinations should be used.

The addition of bedtime NPH remains a traditional
approach. However, therapy with once daily Lantus has
become increasingly popular due to its lack of an insulin
peak and its 24-hour duration of action. Therapy may be
intensified as needed with twice daily split/mixed insulin,
or a basal/bolus insulin approach as needed to achieve
glycemic goals.

Insulin. Insulins are categorized by their duration of action
(see Table 10). The initiation and adjustment of insulin is
addressed in Appendix B.

Rapid acting insulins (Lispro [Humalog], Aspart
[NovoLog], Glulisine [Apidra]) or short-acting insulin
(Regular) are used in conjunction with meals or to treat
anticipated post-prandial increased in blood glucose. Since
the onset and duration of rapid-acting insulins are more
physiologic than Regular insulin, some practitioners prefer
their use. However, in type 2 patients, Regular insulin is an
appropriate choice and is less expensive.

Intermediate insulins (NPH and Detemir [Levemir]) are
typically given twice daily. A morning dose provides for
daytime basal insulin requirements, and the post-lunchtime
peak of action may reduce the need for short-acting insulin
at lunchtime. An evening dose, often given at bedtime, is
titrated to fasting blood glucoses, to avoid nocturnal
hypoglycemia.

Long acting insulin, Glargine (Lantus) has a duration of
action of approximately 24 hours. It can be used as a
basal insulin in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. It is
frequently prescribed at a starting dose of 20 units at
bedtime and titrated by 2 to 4 units every 2-3 days for
fasting blood sugar > 130 mg/dl.

Mixtures of NPH and short acting insulins are available in
many forms. The two mixtures most frequently used are
75/25 NPH/lispro (Humalog mix) and 70/30 NPH/aspart
(Novolog mix). Twice daily injections (before breakfast
and supper) of these mixtures may provide good control for
patients with type 2 diabetes. However, their use is rarely
successful in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Symlin. Symlin is not a type of insulin but an
amylinomimetic agent approved as adjunct therapy in
patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes who use mealtime
insulin but who are not achieving optimal control. Symlin
is used at mealtimes to augment the effects of insulin on
glycemic control. This can cause hypoglycemia which can
occur within 3 hours after a symlin injection. Symlin and
insulin should never be mixed in the same syringe. Symlin
can also suppress appetite and lead to weight loss. Nausea
is the most common side effect but improves with time in
most patients.

Co-Morbid Conditions

Hypertension. Hypertension (HTN) is the predominant
predictor of adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Treatment of blood pressure reduces risks of major
cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke,
or cardiovascular death, and also reduces the risk of
microvascular outcomes such as visual loss, photo-

coagulation for retinopathy, and the development of end-
stage renal disease. Treatment of HTN in patients with type
2 diabetes should be a high priority for clinicians.

The majority of patients with diabetes and HTN have
essential hypertension. However, it is important to identify
secondary causes of HTN such as renal artery stenosis,
primary hyperaldosteronism, pheochromocytoma,
Cushings disease, and oral contraceptive usage in patients
who remain refractory to therapy or who have clinical
syndromes suggestive of these conditions.

Blood pressure target. The goals for blood pressure
treatment in diabetes have been evaluated in several
randomized trials.

Systolic blood pressure levels < 140 mm Hg have not been
evaluated rigorously. Until recently, expert opinion had
been that systolic blood pressure < 140 mm Hg reduced
cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, recent
trials have demonstrated that strict systolic blood pressure
control provides little benefit over usual blood pressure
control.

For diastolic blood pressure, a post-hoc analysis of the
diabetic population enrolled in the HOT trial demonstrated
that a target of 80 mmHg provided marked benefits.
However, that was not found in the ACCORD trial with a
combined BP goal of 120/80. It is not clear how to
reconcile these data. Data show that mortality is increased
when hypertensive patients with diabetes had treated
diastolic blood pressure below 70.

Based on the above evidence, JNC8 recommends starting
treatment when blood pressure exceeds 140/90 mm HG.
The American Diabetes Association recommends a blood
pressure target of < 140/80. Both agree that diastolic blood
pressure should be 70 mmHg.

The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA),
which establishes the Health Plan Employer Data and
Information Set (HEDIS), reports blood pressure <140/90
mmHg to measure quality of care regarding blood pressure
control in patients with diabetes. (The NCQA no longer
uses blood pressure < 140/80 as a performance measure.)

Blood pressure assessment and treatment. Blood pressure
should be measured at all clinic visits for patients with
diabetes, and treatment is more aggressive than for patients
without diabetes. If diastolic blood pressure is 90 mmHg
or systolic blood pressure is 140 mmHg on two visits,
antihypertensive therapy should be instituted (Tables 11
and 10). Lifestyle modification with dietary alteration,
physical activity, and weight loss (if indicated) should be
advocated. However, expert opinion from The Seventh
Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection,
Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC
VII) recommends that in patients with diabetes, lifestyle
measures should nearly always be augmented by
pharmacologic therapy.

The choice of first-line antihypertensive drugs for patients
with diabetes is controversial and not entirely based on the
available literature. In the ALLHAT trial, the largest and
most representative direct drug-vs.-drug comparison to
date, a strategy beginning with a thiazide diuretic
(chlorthalidone) reduced myocardial infarction as much as
strategies beginning with other agents and reduced stroke
and congestive heart failure more than beginning with other
agents. That result held across all subgroups, including
patients with diabetes.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) reduce progression
of established diabetic renal disease and reduce
cardiovascular mortality (HOPE trial). Thus, ACE
inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy, with
ARBs as a second-line agent given their higher cost. An
important note is that the combination of ACE inhibitors
and ARBs should be avoided. Although together they
reduce blood pressure and proteinuria, they also clearly
increase the rate of end-stage renal disease and mortality.

Calcium-channel blockers and beta-blockers are also
effective agents in controlling blood pressure, but should
probably be added after thiazides and ACE or ARB (see
Table 11). Other classes of agents have not been as
rigorously evaluated in patients with diabetes. Alpha-
blockers are not recommended as they appear to deliver less
improvement in outcome than other agents.

Low-dose thiazide diuretics (e.g., 12.5 to 25 mg of
hydrochlorothiazide or 25-50 mg chlorthalidone) do not
appear to have clinically important adverse effects, and
have been proven to reduce mortality in patients with
diabetes. High-dose thiazide diuretics have been reported
to have a variety of adverse effects including worsening of
hyperlipidemia, hyperuricemia and gout flares,
deterioration of glycemic control, impotence, and increased
mortality, therefore thiazides should be used at low doses.

Patients with coronary disease or congestive heart failure
(CHF) should receive beta-blockers unless a clear
contraindication exists. Beta-blockers may decrease high
density lipoprotein (HDL) and increase triglyceride levels.
In one major trial beta-blockers led to more weight gain and
higher requirements for glucose-lowering agents than ACE
inhibitors. If a beta-blocker is used, it should be
cardioselective to minimize side-effects.

Patients with CHF or coronary disease with diminished left
ventricular function should receive an ACE inhibitor, or an
ARB if ACE inhibitors are not tolerated. ACE inhibitors
can lead to cough in up to 20% of patients. Both ACE
inhibitors and ARBs can precipitate renal insufficiency and
hyperkalemia. Therefore careful monitoring of renal
function and serum electrolytes is therefore warranted with
these agents.

Regardless of initial agent, most patients with type 2
diabetes will require multiple agents in order to achieve
their blood pressure goal. Indeed, many patients will not
achieve their goal even with the use of 3 or 4 agents.
Further evaluation for secondary causes of hypertension
should be considered in these patients.

Lipid screening and treatment. Prescribe at least a
moderate potency statin for patients with Type 2 diabetes
who are > 40 years old. Avoid statins in women who are
contemplating pregnancy or may become pregnant.

Check baseline liver function tests (LFTs) and if normal, no
further monitoring of LFTs is required. If baseline LFTs
are mildly abnormal (over upper limit of normal but < 5
times the upper limit of normal): reassess LFTs after 6-12
weeks of statin treatment for stability. Consider monitoring
annually for stability if baseline LFTs are abnormal.
Abnormal baseline liver biochemistries can frequently
improve with statin therapy. The UMHS Clinical Care
Guideline Screening and Management of Lipids provides
additional information beyond the summary below.

Hyperlipidemia is common in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Characteristically, they have elevated triglyceride levels,
while HDL levels are low, and LDL levels are typically
normal or elevated. Given the high prevalence (up to an
80% lifetime risk) of vascular disease in patients with
diabetes, the National Cholesterol Education Program
(NCEP) suggests that lipid-lowering treatment is an
essential component of diabetes care.

Optimal screening and follow-up intervals for cholesterol
testing have not been evaluated in patients with type 2
diabetes. Expert opinion suggests that annual testing is
reasonable. An annual lipid profile provides a check on
statin adherence and an opportunity to reinforce lifestyle
modifications the cornerstone of ASCVD risk reduction.

Obtain a baseline screening lipid profile (TC, LDL-C,
HDL-C, and TG). Ideally this should be obtained when the
patient is fasting for a more accurate evaluation of potential
dyslipidemias, including hypertriglyceridemia. However, if
patient convenience or compliance is an issue, a non-fasting
lipid profile is adequate to assess cardiovascular risk and to
monitor statin compliance. Only total cholesterol and
HDL-C are needed for cardiovascular risk calculators.
While non-fasting LDL-C is less accurate than fasting
LDL-C, non-fasting values are sufficient for monitoring
general statin compliance. If lipids are obtained non-fasting
and are abnormal (i.e. TC > 200 mg/lL, HDL-C < 40
mg/dL, or triglycerides > 500 mg/dL, consider obtaining a
follow up fasting lipid panel to better evaluate for
dyslipidemias.

Treatment goals for various types of cholesterol
abnormalities have been evaluated with differing levels of
rigor. Most of the literature is focused on LDL cholesterol.
In meta-analyses of randomized trials, HMGCo-A
reductase inhibitors (statins) have consistent effects in
reducing the risk of cardiovascular events.

While the efficacy of statins is not in question, the issue of
LDL targets is controversial. Experts have suggested LDL
targets of less than 100 or even 70 mg/dl for patients with
diabetes. However, few studies have established a specific
LDL target level; instead nearly all trials compared the
efficacy of a fixed dose of a statin with placebo. The best
evidence suggests that patients receive about the same level
of benefit across all baseline LDL levels and with any
degree of LDL reduction. This suggests that the benefits of
statins are not fully captured by LDL and argues for their
empiric use. A reasonable approach is to start most patients
with diabetes on moderate potency statins, (e.g., lovastatin
[generic] 40 mg/d) without specific LDL targets. For
secondary prevention, essentially all patients with diabetes
should be on statins; some evidence supports the use of
higher dose statins in these populations (e.g., rosuvastatin
40 mg/d or atorvastatin 40-80 mg/d), particularly in those
who are admitted for acute coronary syndrome. Avoid
prescribing simvastatin 80 mg because of the increased risk
of myalgias. Careful monitoring of potential drug
interactions with statins is critical; many drugs can increase
the risk of myalgias and rhabdomyolysis when combined
with statins. See the UMHS guideline Screening and
Management of Lipids for information regarding drug
interactions with statins.

For primary prevention, younger patients who are otherwise
at lower risk may receive less benefit. Trials have not
firmly established an age threshold for initiating therapy,
but delaying use until age 40 or later may be reasonable if
patients do not have other cardiovascular risk factors.

Statins may not be appropriate in some patients with
diabetes, especially those with severe, chronic malnutrition
from pancreatic insufficiency or women planning
pregnancy. When deciding to start a statin, consider the
patients 10 year ASCVD risk, nutritional status and life
expectancy.

Low HDL levels are also a known cardiovascular risk
factor. One well-conducted randomized controlled trial has
shown that gemfibrozil is effective in reducing
cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes, an HDL of
40 mg/dL or less, and an untreated LDL of 140 mg/dL or
less. At this point, statins are preferred over fibrates as first-
line agents in patients with diabetes.

In patients with diabetes, observational data suggest that
triglycerides are also an independent risk factor for the
development of atherosclerotic disease. However, only
very limited trial data evaluate the effectiveness of lowering
triglycerides on cardiovascular outcomes. The first-line of
treatment for hypertriglyceridemia is optimization of
glucose and thyroid (if hypothyroid) control. Use of
fibrates is generally discouraged as there is no evidence of
benefit in trials using fibrates alone or in combination with
statins. If triglycerides are markedly elevated (e.g., over

1000 mg/dL), then treatment may be warranted to avoid
pancreatitis. If triglyceride levels are between 500 mg/dL
and 1000 mg/dL, treatment may be considered

The effectiveness of combination therapy with statins and
fibrates has been recently tested in the ACCORD trial.
Combination therapy with statins and fenofibrate did not
reduce the rate of cardiovascular events in this study. Post-
hoc subgroup analysis suggested but did not definitively
show that patients with both higher baseline triglycerides
(~284 mg/dl) and lower HDL (~30 mg/dl) may have
benefitted from therapy. At this point, the evidence is not
strong enough to suggest that combination therapy is
warranted, particularly in light of higher rates of side effects
with two lipid lowering agents.

Macrovascular Disease

Diabetes increases an individuals risk of coronary artery
disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease. Reducing
other cardiovascular risk factors (see Table 12) in patients
with diabetes reduces their overall risk. Cardiovascular
risk factors should be assessed annually in patients with
type 2 diabetes. These risk factors include hyperlipidemia,
hypertension, smoking, a positive family history of
premature coronary disease, and the presence of micro- or
macroalbuminuria.

Smoking. Smoking and diabetes are synergistic risk
factors for the development of atherosclerotic disease.
People with diabetes should be counseled regarding these
risks, and all possible measures should be used to
encourage patients to stop smoking. This includes
enrollment in formal smoking cessation programs and use
of alternative nicotine delivery systems or pharmacologic
therapies.

Aspirin. The ADA and most other organizations
recommend use of aspirin in all patients with diabetes who
have known coronary artery disease. Recent data suggest
that aspirin may not be as effective as previously believed
in people without coronary artery disease, even in those
with diabetes. Current recommendations suggest that
aspirin use for primary prevention be reserved for those
with a greater than 10% 10 year risk of cardiovascular
events. This roughly translates to 50-year old men or 60-
year old women with at least one major additional risk
factor (hypertension, smoking, family history, albuminuria,
or dyslipidemia) besides diabetes.

Screening

Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for
macrovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease, transcient
ischemic attack or stroke, or peripheral vascular disease
should prompt consideration of further testing.

Specifically, candidates for screening exercise stress
(electrocardiogram [ECG]) testing include those with:
typical or atypical cardiac symptoms
an abnormal resting ECG
a history of peripheral or carotid occlusive disease
sedentary lifestyle, age >35 years, and plans to begin a
vigorous exercise program or
those with two or more risk factors noted above.

Autonomic neuropathy and cardiovascular disease.
Although less common in type 2 than type 1 diabetes,
autonomic neuropathy can occur. This is primarily of
concern in the detection of cardiovascular disease, as
angina may be silent in adults with diabetes. Care should
be taken to elicit a history of possible atypical anginal
symptoms or equivalents and consideration should be given
to risk assessment and stress testing.

Depression. Screening should also address depression.
Recent meta-analyses and reviews of randomized controlled
trials indicate that depression is twice as common among
people with diabetes. Depression is associated with
hyperglycemia and decreased self-care behaviors, such as
medication-taking and meal planning. All patients with
diabetes should therefore be evaluated for depression.
Successful treatment of depression is associated with
improved glycemic control. Better glycemic control is
associated with improved quality of life, vitality and fewer
days missed from work.

Screening questions for depression from the PHQ-2 are:
Over the past month, have you been bothered by:
(a) little interest or pleasure in doing usual things?
(b) feeling down, depressed or hopeless?"

If the patient indicates yes to either question, further
assessment is needed with standardized tools such as the
full PHQ-9 (see UMHS clinical guideline on depression for
PHQ-9 questionnaire and references), Zung Depression
Scale or the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression
Scale.

Diabetes-related distress. Due to the prevalence and
impact on clinical outcomes, patients should be routinely
screened for diabetes-related distress. Screening questions
from the PAID and Diabetes Distress Scale are:
Too what extent do you often feel overwhelmed by the
demands of living with diabetes?
To what extent do you often feel that you are failing with
your diabetes regimen?
To what extent do you feel that you will end up with
serious long-term complications from diabetes no matter
what you do?

Microvascular Complications

Screening and treatment should also address microvascular
disease (see Table 12).

Retinopathy. Retinopathy and macular edema affect a
substantial proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Between 10 and 30% of subjects have retinopathy at the

time of diabetes diagnosis, and most will eventually
develop some level of retinopathy. Severe retinopathy
requiring treatment is somewhat less common, but still
makes diabetes the leading causes of visual loss in US
adults and the leading cause of blindness in working age
adults. Prevention of retinopathy is best achieved by
optimizing blood pressure and glucose control.

Dilated retinal examination reduces the incidence of severe
visual loss by allowing timely treatment (e.g., laser
photocoagulation, anti-VEGF intraocular injections) of
proliferative retinopathy and macular edema. Optimal
screening intervals for retinopathy depend on the risk in the
individual patient. Patients who have been diagnosed with
retinopathy should be screened at least annually, and many
will require much more frequent examination depending on
the degree of retinal abnormality. Patients have a low risk
of developing retinopathy that will require treatment over
the short term if they (a) have no retinopathy on a baseline
retinal exam by an expert and (b) have reasonable glucose
and blood pressure control. These patients can be screened
less frequently, at 2 year intervals. For measuring quality
of care for diabetes, the HEDIS interval for retinal
examinations is biannually for patients with previous
normal eye exam and at least annually for patients with
abnormal eye exam.

Unless the primary caregiver has been specifically trained
to perform dilated retinal examinations, the accuracy of
fundoscopic examination is poor. Thus, all screening
should be performed by a trained eye-care professional.

Nephropathy. Diabetic nephropathy affects 20%-40% of
patients with diabetes and is the single leading cause of
end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the US. A CDC analysis
showed the age-adjusted incidence of ESRD caused by
diabetes declined by one third from 1996 to 2007, which
may be related to more screening and aggressive use of
ACE/ARB in treatment of blood pressure. Yearly
screening and treatment for microalbuminuria can reduce
the incidence of renal failure. The spot urinary albumin-
creatinine ratio is a simple method for testing for
microalbuminuria. Because of day-to-day variation in
urinary albumin excretion, if the first test is positive, the
test should be repeated on at least two more occasions over
a 3- to 6 month period. Two of three tests should be
positive (greater than 30 mg albumin per gm of creatinine)
before microalbuminuria is considered present.
Albuminuria is defined as albumin excretion greater than
300mg/day. Patients who are taking an ACE inhibitor or
ARB or who have a diagnosis of diabetic nephropathy may
not require yearly screening for microalbuminuria.

Causes of elevated urinary albumin excretion in the absence
of diabetic nephropathy include urinary tract infection,
recent exercise, acute febrile illness, hematuria related to
urinary tract infection (UTI) or menses, and congestive
heart failure. If screening microalbumin is >30 mg/dL,
check urinalysis to assess for other causes.

Microalbuminuria is a marker for greatly increased
cardiovascular morbidity and mortality for patients with
diabetes. Therefore, aggressive intervention is
recommended to reduce all cardiovascular risk factors (e.g.,
lowering of LDL cholesterol, antihypertensive therapy,
cessation of smoking, institution of regular physical
activity, etc.).

Patients with diabetes with a glomerular filtration rate
(GFR) < 30-45 ml/min with or without nephrotic range
proteinuria should be referred to a nephrologist for
evaluation for other causes of nephropathy and for
discussion of potential treatment options.

For people with diabetes and diabetic kidney disease (either
micro- or macroalbuminuria), reducing the amount of
dietary protein below usual intake is not recommended
because it does not alter glycemic measures, cardiovascular
risk measures or the course of GFR decline. Consider
dietary referral to evaluate dietary protein in patients with
proteinuria.

ACE inhibitors reduce the rate of progression from
microalbuminuria to overt proteinuria and diabetic
nephropathy, independent of their effect on blood pressure.
ARBs show similar benefits to ACE inhibitors in patients
with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria and diabetic
nephropathy. Direct comparisons between ACE inhibitors
and ARBs have not been performed in patients with type 2
diabetes. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are regarded as
functionally equivalent in protecting against progressive
diabetic nephropathy, although more evidence exists in the
literature for therapy with an ARB to continue to show
benefit even up to the development of end stage renal
disease. An ACE inhibitor or an ARB should be used in all
patients with microalbuminuria. Combination ACE/ARB
therapy for patients with persistent albuminuria is NOT
recommended. While the combination reduces proteinuria,
it also increases renal failure and adverse events in patients
with diabetes, without any benefits on cardiovascular or
renal outcomes.

Other antihypertensives (including beta-blockers and non-
dihydropyridine classes of calcium-channel blockers
(NDCCB) can reduce the level of albuminuria, but no
studies to date have demonstrated a reduction in the rate of
fall of GFR. Some members of the dihydropyridine class of
calcium channel blockers (e.g., nifedipine, felodipine) may
increase urinary albumin excretion, and should be avoided
in patients with microalbuminuria.

Control of blood pressure is important. Recommended
blood pressure goals in patients with diabetes and chronic
kidney disease are:
Urine Albumin Excretion Blood Pressure Goal
< 30mg/24 hours < 140/90 (recommended)
> 30mg/24 hours < 130/80 (suggested)

In normotensive patients with microalbuminuria, target
dosages of ACE inhibitors are difficult to define. Some

experts recommend titrating medications upward until a
normal albuminuria is seen or side effects occur.

In certain CKD populations, including the elderly and those
with renovascular disease, aggressive BP control could lead
to negative outcomes such as acute deterioration in kidney
function, increased risk for cardiovascular events and
orthostatic hypotension. In general, systolic blood pressure
should remain > 110 and even higher if orthostatic
symptoms occur. For diastolic blood pressure, caution is
suggested when diastolic BP falls below 70 mmHg or less.
Mortality increased when patients with diabetes had
diastolic BP below 70.

For further information regarding care of patients with
chronic kidney disease, see the UMHS clinical guideline on
Chronic Kidney Disease (forthcoming).

Neuropathy. Diabetic neuropathy is reported in up to half
of patients with diabetes. Most have loss of sensation, only
a minority experience pain. Patients often describe pain as
burning, shock sensation, or stabbing. Evidence indicates
early detection of diabetic neuropathy and aggressive foot
care results in fewer foot ulcers and amputations. Attention
should be paid to the etiology of pain in diabetic feet.
Occasionally, mechanical factors rather than neuropathy are
the mechanism underlying pain.

Diabetic foot care. Foot care includes examination,
preventive care, consideration of orthotic footwear, and
treatment of foot ulcers.

Examination. Patients with diabetes need visual foot
inspection, checking of pulses and sensation annually and
with every routine visit if they have abnormalities.
Inspection should also include identifying areas of callus
formation, claw toe deformity, prominent metatarsal heads
(or other bony prominences), and other structural changes.
Three simple tests detect peripheral neuropathy: pressure
sensation, vibration sensation and temperature/pain
perception.

Sensory testing with a 5.07 (10g) nylon monofilament
should be done yearly to identify insensate feet without
protective sensation. Instructions on "How to Use a
Monofilament" are in Table 13. Individuals with
insensitive feet are at high risk of developing foot ulcers
and other related complications.

Education. Education regarding appropriate foot care
should be provided. All patients need education regarding
optimal foot and nail care, which includes daily inspection
and appropriately fitting shoes. To minimize the risk of
trauma,, patients should be counseled to avoid walking
barefoot and those with neuropathy should avoid high-
impact exercise and the use of hot water.

Footwear. Orthotic footwear should be prescribed to
accommodate major foot deformities and off-load pressure
areas. Most insurance plans, including Medicare, cover
therapeutic footwear for patients with diabetic neuropathy
or deformity. For others with less deformity, athletic shoes
with sufficient room for the toes and forefoot and cushioned
socks are appropriate.

Foot ulcers. Detection and early treatment of foot
ulcers is of paramount importance, as foot ulcers are among
the most common reasons for hospitalization among people
with diabetes. Foot ulcers are the leading cause of lower
extremity amputations and up to 85% of amputations can be
avoided with patient education on foot care, medical
professional monitoring and early intervention. Should a
foot ulcer be found, infection and vascular status should be
carefully evaluated and early treatment should be
undertaken with aggressive wound care, orthotic
prescriptions or casting to offload the ulcer, antibiotics, and
revascularization when necessary. Studies have shown that
patients with diabetic foot ulcers have the best outcomes if
managed by a multidisciplinary team that specializes in
diabetic foot care.

Treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDN).
Optimizing glycemic control is of paramount importance in
slowing the progression of established diabetic neuropathy.

NSAIDS should be used cautiously for chronic neuropathic
pain due to their GI and renal side effects that are of
concern in this population.

First line therapies for the treatment of PDN supported
by the literature include tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs),
gabapentin, pregabalin, and duloxetine.
TCAs may be used to treat painful neuropathy and
their use is supported by research. They should be
used with caution in the elderly, started at low doses
and titrated to maximize pain relief while
minimizing side effects of dry mouth, sedation,
orthostatic hypotension and constipation.
Nortriptyline is the preferred tricyclic as it has
fewer anticholinergic properties. It can be started at
dinner at a dose of 10-25 mg and titrate up as
tolerated to maximum of 150 mg/day.
Gabapentin up to 1600 mg/day as divided doses or
more may be required. Use lowest effective dose.
Sedation is a side effect that limits its use.
Pregabalin (150-300 mg/day as divided doses) is
FDA-approved and is less sedating.
Duloxetine (60 mg to 120 mg/day) and venlafaxine
(75-450 mg/day), serotonin and norepinephrine
reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are useful in treating
patients with co-morbid depression. Selective
Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and
trazodone are not as effective in treating painful
PDN.

Lidocaine 5% patches have been proven to relieve
PDN pain and improve quality of life ratings. No side
effects were found with the regimen of up to 3 patches
worn 12 hours overnight and removed.

Other agents. Among other agents, including
carbamazepine (200 600 mg/day) and valproate (500
mg/day) have been shown to decrease PDN. Their use is
limited by their side effect profiles.

Opioids. As a last option, opioids may be considered,
though general use is discouraged. Tramadol is a weak
opioid and dose of 37.5 mg tramadol with 325 mg
acetaminophen showed an improvement in PDN compared
to placebo. Refer to the UMHS Clinical Care Guideline
Managing Chronic Non-Terminal Pain in Adults Including
Prescribing Controlled Substances.

Acupuncture and TENS. Several studies have shown
the efficacy of using traditional acupuncture for the
treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. Transcutaneous
Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) has also been
evaluated and has been shown to reduce lower extremity
pain associated with PDN.

Special Considerations

Pre-Conception Counseling

All women with diabetes who are of child-bearing age
should be counseled regarding the increased risks of
pregnancy in the setting of diabetes to both mother and
fetus. Family planning and contraception should be
emphasized, as unplanned pregnancy has a high risk of
poor outcome. A significantly higher incidence of
miscarriage and congenital anomalies occur when maternal
HbA1c is elevated above the normal range at the time of
conception. Specific preconception care for women with
diabetes who are currently planning pregnancy is of critical
importance to achieve optimal outcomes for both mother
and baby.

Women not currently planning pregnancy. Women not
currently planning pregnancy require general information
regarding the risks of pregnancy and the need for pre-
pregnancy planning. Effective birth control should be
discussed and provided. Maintaining good glycemic
control as a way of life can avoid periconception
hyperglycemia in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.

Women who are planning to become pregnant. Women
with diabetes who are planning to become pregnant should
be counseled regarding the increased risks of pregnancy.
They should be referred to specialists in caring for
pregnancy in women with diabetes mellitus. One of the
most important components of preconception care is an
effective birth control plan that remains in place until
glycemic goals are met. Comprehensive preconception care
includes counseling regarding the risks of diabetes to the
mother, the risks of diabetes to the infant, the effect of
pregnancy on glycemic control, the genetics of diabetes,
lifestyle, diet and physical activity before and during
pregnancy, the critical importance of optimal glucose
control before and after conception, and appropriate therapy
for comorbid conditions, such as hypertension,
hyperlipidemia and thyroid disease, smoking cessation,
rubella immunization.

Women who are pregnant. Women with diabetes who
are pregnant should be seen immediately by specialists in
caring for pregnant women with diabetes mellitus.

Immunizations. Patients with diabetes should be given
vaccines to prevent influenza (annual), pneumococcal
disease, and hepatitis B.

Annually provide an influenza vaccine to all patients with
diabetes 6 months of age or older.

Provide at least one lifetime pneumococcal vaccine for
adults with diabetes. A one-time revaccination is
recommended for individuals 65 years of age or older who
were previously immunized when they were younger than
65 years of age if the vaccine was administered more than 5
years ago. Other indications for repeat vaccination include
nephrotic syndrome, chronic renal disease, and other
immunocompromised states, such as post-organ
transplantation.

Hepatitis B vaccine (usually 3 doses over 6 months) should
be routinely provided to unvaccinated adults with diabetes
mellitus ages 19-59 years. The risk of hepatitis B increases
twofold for patients with diabetes due primarily to sharing
inadequately cleaned blood glucose monitors (including
healthcare settings, households, worksite health clinics,
schools and camps). Hepatitis B vaccine may be
administered to unvaccinated adults with diabetes aged 60
years who are increased risk, including those who live in
nursing homes and assisted living facilities and receive
blood glucose monitoring. Hepatitis B vaccine is also
appropriate pre-dialysis for those with incipient renal
failure.

Complementary and Alternative Therapies

Individuals with diabetes are using complementary and
alternative (CAM) therapies in ever-increasing numbers.
Often, the health care provider is unaware of such use, and
such interventions may interact with conventional therapy,
for example the addition of a glucose-lowering herbal
supplement to a sulfonylurea leading to hypoglycemia. The
importance of asking individuals which supplements or
complementary therapies they use cannot be
overemphasized. This information can then lead to a
dialogue regarding safety and efficacy issues. A number of
traditionally used supplements have shown promise in the
treatment of diabetes and are in the process of undergoing
large randomized trials. Research studies should continue
investigating novel agents for diabetes management.

Supplementation with multivitamins and aspirin is
generally considered safe; however, megavitamin therapy
should be discouraged. Relaxation therapy, yoga, and

spiritual healing are helpful to individuals and can be
encouraged. Interventions that are potentially harmful or
have no real evidence of efficacy clearly should be
discouraged. Patients should be commended, however, on
their self-determination and encouraged to direct their
efforts in areas that have proven benefits.

When to Consider Endocrine
Consultation or Referral

Consider consultation or referral for patients with:
Uncertain classification of diabetes, e.g., diabetes
associated with endocrinopathies such as acromegaly,
Cushings syndrome, or pheochromocytoma; genetic
defects of beta-cell function (MODY); genetic defects in
insulin action (Type A syndrome of insulin resistance).
Type 1 diabetes and frequent hypoglycemia or
hyperglycemia or HbA1c level greater than glycemic
goal. Patients with type 1 diabetes should be managed
by a multidisciplinary team using a regimen of 3-4
insulin injections a day in conjunction with 3-4
times/day self-monitoring of blood glucose.
Plans for pregnancy
Multiple severe complications of diabetes
Chronic lack of adherence to their treatment regimen
Family problems or significant psychiatric problems
interfering with treatment
Substantial disability despite adequate therapy
Frequent emergency room or hospital admission

Literature Search

The literature search for this update began with the results
of the literature searches performed in 1995 to develop the
guideline and in 2003 for a major update that included
literature through February 2003. The literature search
conducted in April 2010 for this update used keywords that
were similar to those used in previous searches, with the
addition of a few new topics for searches. An exception
was made for topics related to the diagnosis of diabetes
mellitus. For these topics we accepted the
recommendations of the American Diabetes Associations
guidelines for Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes
Mellitus (see Related National Guidelines, below).

The searches for treatment were performed prospectively
on Medline using the major key words of diabetes mellitus;
clinical guidelines, controlled trials, cohort studies; adults;
and English language; and published from 1/1/2003 to
present. Terms for specific topic searches within the major
key words included: pre-diabetes or impaired fasting
glucose tolerance; glycemic goal; lifestyle modifications:
diet, exercise; treatment for type 1 diabetes: insulin;
treatment for type 2 diabetes: sulfonylureas, metformin,
alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones,
nonsulfonyluric secretogones (repaglinide, nateglanide),
new insulins (glargine, aspart, lispro), exenetide, amylin,
liraglutide; sitaglipitin, saxagliptin; screening and treatment
for hypertension, lipids, retinopathy, nephropathy,
neuropathy, macrovascular disease; and preconception
planning in pregnancy. Specific search terms and strategy
available upon request.

The search was conducted in components each keyed to a
specific causal link in a formal problem structure. The
search was supplemented with very recent controlled trials
known to expert members of the panel. Negative trials
were specifically sought. The search was single cycle.
Conclusions were based on prospective randomized
controlled trials if available, to the exclusion of other data.
If randomized controlled trials were not available,
observational studies were admitted to consideration. If no
such data were available for a given link in the problem
formulation, expert opinion was used to estimate effect size.
The strength of recommendation for key aspects of care
was determined by expert opinion.

Team members identified recent major evidence searches
and major clinical trials. The evidence summary and
clinical practice recommendations of the American
Diabetes Association (ADA; 2011) was the basis for
screening and diagnosis recommendations. Glycemic
control was based on the UKPDS for control value [A] and
the ADA recommendations for goal [C]. Life style
modifications (diet, exercise) were based on the UKPDS
[A] and DPP [A] studies. The evidence summary and
recommendations of the National Standards for Diabetes
Self-Management Education and Support (AADE & ADA,
2013) were the basis the basis for self-management
recommendations. Comments about treatment for type 1
diabetes and insulin use are based on the Diabetes Control
and Complications Trial (DCCT) [A]. Treatment for type 2
diabetes with sulfonylureas and metformin is based on the
UKPDS [A]. Screening and treatment of hypertension and
lipid levels in type 2 diabetes is based on an evidence
review and recommendations performed by the American
College of Physicians, which included a member of our
team. Screening and treatment for retinopathy were based
on a literature review performed by the U. S. Veterans
Administration. Recent evidence reviews were not
available for the remaining topics.

Related National Guidelines

This guideline generally conforms to:
American Association of Diabetes Educators and American
Diabetes Association: National standards for diabetes
self-management and support (2013)
American College of Cardiology/American Heart
Association:
Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk
(2013)
Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to
Reduce Athersclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults
(2013)
American Diabetes Association:
Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus (2011)
Nutrition Therapy Recommendations for the
Management of Adults with Diabetes (2014)
Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes (2014)
American College of Physicians, Clinical
Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee: The evidence base
for tight blood pressure control in the management of
type 2 diabetes mellitus (2003)
American College of Physicians, Clinical Efficacy
Assessment Subcommittee: Lipid control in the
management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: (2004)
Panel Members appointed to the Eight Joint National
Committee (JNC 8) (2013)

Measures of Clinical Performance

National programs that have clinical performance measures
of diabetes include the following.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services:
Physician Quality Reporting Measures for Group
Practice Reporting Option (GPRO)
Clinical Quality Measures for financial incentives for
Meaningful Use of certified Electronic Health Record
technology (MU)
Quality measures for Accountable Care Organizations
(ACO)
National Committee for Quality Assurance: Healthcare
Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS)

Regional programs that have clinical performance measures
of cancer screening include the following.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan: Physician Group
Incentive Program clinical performance measures (PGIP)
Blue Care Network [HMO]: clinical performance measures
(BCN)

These programs have clinical performance measures for
diabetes addressed in this guideline. While specific
measurement details vary (e.g., method of data collection,
population inclusions and exclusions), the general measures
are summarized below.

HbA1c testing. The percentage of patients 1875 years of
age who had an HbA1c test within 12 months
(measurement period). (GPRO, ACO, PGIP)

HbA1c control. The percentage of patients 1875 years of
age with diabetes mellitus who had HbA1c < 8.0% within
12 months (measurement period). (MU,ACO, BCN)

HbA1c poor control. The percentage of patients 1875
years of age with diabetes mellitus who had HbA1c >9.0%
within 12 months (measurement period). (GPRO, MU,
ACO)

Blood pressure control. Percentage of patients aged 18
through 75 years with diabetes mellitus who had most
recent blood pressure in control: less than 140/80 mmHg
(GPRO), less than 140/90 mmHb within 12 months
(measurement period). (MU, ACO).

LDL testing. The percentage of patients 18-75 years of age
with LDL tested within 12 months (measurement period).
(GRPO, MU, ACO, PGIP, BCN)

LDL control. The percentage of patients 18-75 years of age
with diabetes who had (a) LDL tested and (b) LDL < 100
mg/dL within 12 months (measurement period). (GPRO,
MU, ACO, BCN)

Statin. The percentage of patients between 40 and 75 years
of age with one or more filled prescriptions for a statin drug
within 12 months (measurement period). (PGIP)

Eye exam. The percentage of patient 18-75 years of age
with diabetes (type 1 or type 2) who had a retinal or dilated
eye exam or a negative retinal exam (no evidence of
retinopathy) by an eye care professional within 12 months
(measurement period). (GPRO, MU, ACO, BCN)

Foot exam. The percentage of patient aged 18-75 years
with diabetes who had a foot exam (visual inspection,
sensory exam with monofilament, or pulse exam within 12
months (measurement period). (GPRO, MU, ACO)

Neuropathy screening. The percentage of patient 18-75
years of age with diabetes who had a nephropathy (urine
protein) screening test or evidence of nephropathy within
12 months (measurement period). (GPRO, MU, ACO,
PGIP, BCN)

ACE/ARB with comorbid CHF, hypertension, or
nephropathy. The percentage of patients between 18 and 75
years of age with a diagnosis of diabetes with comorbid
congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension, or
nephropathy who received ACE/ARB therapy within 12
months (measurement period). (PGIP)

Tobacco use assessment. Percentage of patients aged 18
years or older who were queried about tobacco use one or

more times within 24 months of the measurement end date.
(MU, ACO diabetes composite & diabetes tobacco use)

Advising tobacco users to how quit. The percentage of
patients 18 years of age and older who were current
smokers or tobacco users, who have had tobacco use
cessation counseling one or more times within 24 months of
the measurement end date. (MU, ACO diabetes composite
& diabetes tobacco use)

Disclosures

The University of Michigan Health System endorses the
Guidelines of the Association of American Medical
Colleges and the Standards of the Accreditation Council for
Continuing Medical Education that the individuals who
present educational activities disclose significant
relationships with commercial companies whose products
or services are discussed. Disclosure of a relationship is not
intended to suggest bias in the information presented, but is
made to provide readers with information that might be of
potential importance to their evaluation of the information.

Team Member /
Consultant
Relationship Company
Hae Mi Choe, PharmD None
Martha M. Funnell,
MS, RN, CDE
Advisory
Boards
Bristol-Myers
Squibb/
AstraZeneca,
Halozyme Thera-
peutics, Eli Lilly,
Animas/ Lifescan,
Hygeia Inc,
Johnson & Johnson
R. Van Harrison, PhD None
William H. Herman,
MD, MPH
Consultant
AstraZeneca,
Boehringer
Ingelheim, Cebix,
Genentech, GI
Dynamics,
McKinsey & Co.,
Merck Sharp &
Dhome, Sanofi-
Adventis,
VeraLight
Caroline R.
Richardson, MD
None
Connie J. Standiford,
MD
None
Sandeep Vijan, MD None
Jennifer A. Wycoff,
MD
None

Review and Endorsement

Drafts of this guideline were reviewed in clinical
conferences and by distribution for comment within
departments and divisions of the University of Michigan
Medical School to which the content is most relevant:
Family Medicine; General Medicine; Geriatric Medicine;
and Metabolism, Endocrinology, and Diabetes. The
Executive Committee for Clinical Affairs of the University
of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers endorsed the
final version.

Acknowledgments

The following individuals are acknowledged for their
contributions to previous versions of this guideline.

1996: Deryth Stevens, MD, Family Medicine, Sandeep
Vijan, MD, General Internal Medicine, Martha Funnell,
MS, RN, Diabetes Research and Training Center,
Douglas Greene, MD, Endocrinology and Metabolism,
R. Van Harrison, PhD, Postgraduate Medicine, William
Herman, MD, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Roland
Hiss, MD, Postgraduate Medicine, Catherine Martin,
MS, RN, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Evelyn Piehl,
MS, RN, Obstetrics and Gynecology, B.J. Ratliff, RN,
Primary Care Nursing, Connie Standiford, MD, General
Internal Medicine.

2004: Deryth L Stevens, MD, Family Medicine, Sandeep
Vijan, MD, General Internal Medicine, Martha M
Funnell, MS, RN, Diabetes Research and Training
Center, R Van Harrison, PhD, Medical Education,
William H Herman, MD, Endocrinology and
Metabolism, Robert W Lash, MD, Endocrinology and
Metabolism

Annotated References
Guidelines
American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care
for diabetes 2014. Diabetes Care, 2014; 37 Supplement 1:
S14-S80.
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has
developed position statements on screening for diabetes,
diagnosis and classification of diabetes, medical care for
patients with diabetes, nutritional recommendations and
principles for individuals with diabetes, diabetes and
exercise, screening for diabetic retinopathy, diabetic
neuropathy, foot care in patients with diabetes mellitus,
detection and management of lipid disorders in diabetes,
and hospital admission guidelines for diabetes mellitus,
among others.
American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and
classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes care, 2011;
34:S62-S69

This article reviews the scientific basis for the ADAs
recommendations for the diagnosis and classification of
diabetes mellitus.
Haas L, Maryniuk M, Beck J, Cox CE, Duker P, Edwards L,
Fisher E, Hanson L, Kent D, Kolb L, McLaughlin S, Orzeck
E, Piette JD, Rhinehart AS, Rothman R, Sklaroff S, Tomky
D, Youssef G. National Standards for Diabetes Self-
management Education and Support. Diabetes Care 2012;
35:2393-2401.
This report, first published in 2008, defines national
standards for quality education and on-going support in
diabetes self-management. Aspects of structure, process,
and outcome are addressed.

Evert AB, Boucher JL, Cypress M, Dunbar SA, et al:
Position statement: Nutrition therapy recommendations for
the management of adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care
2013; 36:3821-3842.
Current nutrition guidelines based on a review of the
evidence and therapy.

Goff DC, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al. 2013
ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular
risk: a report of the American College of
Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on
Practice Guidelines. Circulation, 2013;
doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000437741.48606.98
Recommendations for assessing cardiovascular risk.

James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based
guideline for the management of high blood pressure in
adults: Report from the panel members appointed to the
eight Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA, doi:
10.1001/jama.2013.284427. Published online Dec. 18,
2013.
Recommendations for blood pressure goals and treatment
for patients with high blood pressure.
Snow V, Weiss KB, Mottur-Pilson C. The evidence base
for tight blood pressure control in the management of type 2
diabetes mellitus. Annals of Internal Medicine 2003;
138(7): 587-592.
The Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the
American College of Physicians oversaw this summary of
evidence and recommendations regarding the benefits of
tight blood pressure control, target levels for blood
pressure, and effectiveness of agents.

Snow V, Aronson MB, Hornbake ER, Mottur-Pilson C,
Weiss KB. The evidence base for pharmacologic lipid
lowering therapy in the management of type 2 diabetes
mellitus. Annals of Internal Medicine 2004; 140(8): 644-
649.
The Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the
American College of Physicians oversaw this summary of
evidence and recommendations regarding the benefits of
pharmacologic lipid-lowering therapy in type 2 diabetes.

Stone NJ, Robinson J, Lichtenstein AH, et al. 2013
ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol
to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.002. Available at
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1770217
Also printed in Circulation. 2013 Nov 12. Available at
https://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2013/11/11/01.cir.
0000437738.63853.7a.full.pdf+html
Recommends intensity of statin treatment for specific
groups rather than treating to LDL-C goals.
Some Major Clinical Trials
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive
blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin
compared with conventional treatment and risk of
complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33).
Lancet 1998; 352: 837-53.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of
intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on
complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes
(UKPDS 34). Lancet 1998; 352: 854-65.
These two reports from the UKPDS study are the only
long-term trials showing the benefits of glucose control in
type 2 diabetes. The findings show that intensive glucose
control reduces the risk of early microvascular disease
(retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy) but does not affect
cardiovascular outcomes. The results also suggest that
metformin monotherapy is superior to either sulfonylureas
or insulin for overweight individuals with type 2 diabetes.
The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes
Study Group. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2
diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2545-2559.
This study examined the efficacy of targeting an A1c of
<6.0% on cardiovascular and microvascular diabetes
outcomes. The achieved A1c in the intensive arm was
6.4%, vs. 7.5 % in the control arm. This study was
stopped early due to significantly higher mortality in the
intensive control arm, mostly due to cardiovascular
mortality. It suggests that for typical patients with type 2
diabetes, aggressive glucose lowering may be harmful.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure
control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular
complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998;
317 (7160) 703-12.
Hansson L., Zanchetti A., Carruthers SG, et al. Effects of
intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in
patients with hypertension: principle results of the
Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomized trial.
HOT Study Group, Lancet 1998; 351: 1755-62.
These two studies demonstrated the importance of blood
pressure control. UKPDS 38 (and 33, listed earlier)
showed that control of hypertension was more important

in prevention of macrovascular complications of type 2
diabetes than tight glycemic control.

The ACCORD study group. Effects of intensive blood
pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med
2010; 362: 7575-85.
This study targeted a systolic BP goal of <120 mmHg, vs.
< 140 mmHg (achieved 119 vs 133 mmHG). It found no
benefit on cardiovascular events or mortality. It suggests
that a BP target of 135-140 systolic is a reasonable goal
for patients with type 2 diabetes.

The ACCORD study group. Effects of combination lipid
therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2010;
362: 1563-74.
This study examine the efficacy of combination
statin/fibrate vs. statin alone in patients with type 2
diabetes. It found no overall difference in risk of
cardiovascular events between the two regimens,
suggesting that statin therapy alone is adequate for many
patients with diabetes. There was possible evidence of
benefit of combination therapy in patients with both low
HDL and high triglycerides; however, this is a subgroup
analysis and needs verification.
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research
Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the
development and progression of long-term complications in
insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med.
1993;329:977986.
This is the first key report from the Diabetes Control and
Complications Trial, a prospective randomized controlled
trial of intensive therapy for insulin-dependent diabetes
mellitus. It conclusively demonstrated that intensive
therapy, compared to conventional insulin therapy,
reduced the development and progression of all of the
microvascular and neuropathic complications of IDDM.
The chief adverse event associated with intensive therapy
was a two to three-fold increase in severe hypoglycemia.
This study proved the glucose hypothesis: that
hyperglycemia causes diabetic microvascular and
neuropathic complications, and treatment of
hyperglycemia delays or prevents those complications.
Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research
Group. Early photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy.
ETDRS report number 9. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:766
785.
This report summarizes the results of the Early Treatment
Diabetic Retinopathy Study, a controlled trial of early
photocoagulation in the treatment of mild to severe non-
proliferative or early proliferative diabetic retinopathy.
The ETDRS results demonstrated that for eyes with
macular edema, focal photocoagulation is effective in
reducing the incidence of moderate visual loss. Focal
treatment also increased the chance of visual
improvement, decreased the frequency of persistent
macular edema, and caused only minor visual field losses.
The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group.
Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle
modification or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:393-
403.
This report summarizes the proactive prevention of
diabetes by treating individuals with borderline high
levels of glucose, i.e. those most at risk for continuing on
to develop diabetes.

Skovlund SE, Peyrot M on behalf of the DAWN
International Advisory Panel: The Diabetes Attitudes,
Wishes and Needs (DAWN) program: A new approach to
improving outcomes of diabetes care. Diabetes Spectrum
2005; 18:136-142.
Peyrot M, Rubin RR, Lauritzen T, Snoek FJ, Matthews DR,
Skovlund SE: Psychosocial problems and barriers to
improved diabetes management: Results of the cross-
national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs study.
Diabetic Medicine 2005; 22:1379-1385.
These two papers summarize the results of the Diabetes
Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) survey, a cross-
sectional international study initiated in 2001 by Novo
Nordisk in collaboration with the International
Diabetes Federation. The purpose of the survey was to
identify a broad set of attitudes, wishes and needs
among persons with diabetes and care providers in
order to lay a foundation for efforts to improve diabetes
care nationally and internationally. Structured
interviews were conducted in person or by telephone in
11 regions (representing 13 countries), including the
United States. Survey participants consisted of 250
randomly selected generalist and specialist physicians
per region (n=2,705), 100 randomly selected generalist
and specialist nurses per region (n=1,122) and 250
randomly selected patients with self-reported type 1
diabetes per country and 250 patients with self-reported
type 2 diabetes (n=5,104). In general, patients and
providers identify a great deal of distress associated
with diabetes and its management, but also identify that
our current health care systems and care guidelines do
little to address these issues.

Other References

Vijan S, Hofer TP, Hayward RA. Cost-utility analysis of
screening intervals for diabetic retinopathy in patients with
type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA. 2000;283:8889-896.
This article evaluates the relative costs and benefits of
more versus less frequent screening for retinopathy in
patients with type 2 diabetes. For lower-risk patients who
do not have retinopathy at baseline, there is little benefit
from screening every year versus every 2-3 years.

Appendix A. Insulin Initiation and Adjustment Protocol

1) Start with NPH, detemir, glargine
2) The choice may vary depending on concerns regarding endogenous insulin secretion, need for meal-
time insulin coverage, cost and convenience.
3) All patients started on insulin should demonstrate use of a glucose meter and be educated on recognition
and treatment of hypoglycemia.
NPH, Levemir, or Lantus insulin (bedtime)
a. Continue metformin +/- sulfonylurea depending on preprandial glucose.
b. Add 10-20 units of NPH, detemir, or Lantus insulin at bedtime.
c. Then increase insulin by 10% or 2-4 units every 3 days until attaining the goal of a fasting blood glucose
< 130 mg/dL without hypoglycemia.
d. Once fasting glucose is at goal, check post-prandial glucoses; if > 180 mg/dL consider adding either
rapid or regular insulin before meals.
NPH or Levemir insulin (BID)
a. Continue metformin, discontinue sulfonylurea.
b. Add 5-10 units of NPH or detemir insulin at breakfast and dinner (or bedtime).
c. Then increase insulin by 10% or at least 2 units every 3 days until the goal of a fasting blood glucose and pre-
dinner glucose < 130 mg/dL without hypoglycemia.
d. Once fasting glucose is at goal, check post-prandial glucoses; if > 180 mg/dL consider adding either
rapid or regular insulin before meals.
Premixed insulin (intermediate & short-acting or rapid-acting mixtures)
a. Continue metformin, discontinue sulfonylurea.
b. Add 10 units of pre-mixed insulin at breakfast and dinner.
c. Then increase pre-breakfast and/or pre-dinner insulin by 10% or at least 2 units every 3 days until the goal of
a fasting and pre-meal glucose level < 130 mg/dL without hypoglycemia.

Insulin adjustment for RNs/PharmDs
If overnight or before breakfast glucoses are above/below target, adjust the supper* or bedtime dose of NPH or Lantus
If before lunch glucoses are above/below target , adjust the breakfast dose of Regular or Rapid Acting Insulin
If before supper glucoses are above/below target, adjust the breakfast dose of NPH or adjust the lunch dose
of Regular or Rapid Acting Insulin
If before bedtime glucoses are above/below target, adjust the supper dose of Regular or Rapid Acting Insulin
If fasting glucose levels are significantly higher than bedtime
levels (i.e., twice as high), consider nocturnal hypoglycemia.
Have the patient check glucose level around 3:00am for 2 days
during the week. If the glucose levels are:

- normal in the middle of the night,
- low in the middle of the night,
increase the NPH supper dose
decrease the NPH supper dose.

Basic principles:

Adjust one insulin at a time.
Adjust no more than 10% of the total insulin units per day. Wait at least 3 days before adjusting further doses.
Decrease insulin based on unexplained hypoglycemia.

Insulin adjustment for patients:
For NPH bedtime or Lantus dosing:
3 consecutive morning readings > 130 increase bedtime NPH or Lantus by 2 units
3 consecutive morning readings > 150 increase bedtime NPH or Lantus by 4 units
For NPH twice a day:
3 consecutive morning readings > 130 increase evening NPH by 2 units
3 consecutive morning readings > 150 increase evening NPH by 4 units
3 consecutive evening readings > 130 increase morning NPH by 2 units
3 consecutive evening readings > 150 increase morning NPH by 4 units

Meal Planning For Diabetes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meal Planning For Diabetes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meal Planning For Diabetes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 UMHS Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, May 2014

Guidelines for Clinical Care

You might also like