Datasets:

---

Recag

/

Rp_CommonC_310

like 0

ERROR: type should be string, got "https://profreg.medscape.com/px/getpracticeprofile.do?method=getProfessionalProfile&urlCache=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbWVkaWNpbmUubWVkc2NhcGUuY29tL2FydGljbGUvMTE3ODUzLXRyZWF0bWVudA==\nDrugs & Diseases > Endocrinology\nType 2 Diabetes Mellitus Treatment & Management\nAuthor: Romesh Khardori, MD, PhD, FACP; Chief Editor: George T Griffing, MD more...\nSections Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus\nApproach Considerations\nGlucose Studies\nGlycated Hemoglobin Studies\nUrinary Albumin Studies\nDiabetes Testing in Asymptomatic Patients\nTests to Differentiate Type 2 and Type 1 Diabetes\nPharmacologic Therapy\nManagement of Glycemia\nDietary Modifications\nActivity Modifications\nLaboratory Monitoring\nMonitoring for Diabetic Complications\nManagement of Hypertension\nManagement of Dyslipidemia\nManagement of Coronary Heart Disease\nManagement of Ophthalmologic Complications\nManagement of Diabetic Neuropathy\nManagement of Infections\nManagement of Intercurrent Medical Illness\nManagement of Critical Illness\nPharmacologic Considerations in Surgery\nPrevention of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus\nStroke Prevention in Diabetes\nAntidiabetics, Biguanides\nAntidiabetics, Sulfonylureas\nAntidiabetics, Meglitinide Derivatives\nAntidiabetics, Alpha-Glucosidase Inhibitors\nAntidiabetics, Thiazolidinediones\nAntidiabetics, Glucagonlike Peptide-1 Agonists\nAntidiabetics, Dipeptidyl Peptidase IV Inhibitors\nAntidiabetics, Amylinomimetics\nSelective Sodium-Glucose Transporter-2 Inhibitors\nBile Acid Sequestrants\nAntidiabetics, Rapid-Acting Insulins\nAntidiabetics, Short-Acting Insulins\nAntidiabetics, Intermediate-Acting Insulins\nAntidiabetics, Long-Acting Insulins\nThe goals in caring for patients with diabetes mellitus are to eliminate symptoms and to prevent, or at least slow, the development of complications. Microvascular (ie, eye and kidney disease) risk reduction is accomplished through control of glycemia and blood pressure; macrovascular (ie, coronary, cerebrovascular, peripheral vascular) risk reduction, through control of lipids and hypertension, smoking cessation, and aspirin therapy; and metabolic and neurologic risk reduction, through control of glycemia.\nNew abridged recommendations for primary care providers\nThe American Diabetes Association has released condensed recommendations for Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes: Abridged for Primary Care Providers, highlighting recommendations most relevant to primary care. The abridged version focusses particularly on the following aspects:\nSelf-management education\nPsychosocial care\nGlycemic treatment\nTherapeutic targets\nDiagnosis and treatment of vascular complications\nIntensification of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes\nThe recommendations can be accessed at American Diabetes Association DiabetesPro Professional Resources Online, Clinical Practice Recommendations – 2015. [125]\nType 2 diabetes care is best provided by a multidisciplinary team of health professionals with expertise in diabetes, working in collaboration with the patient and family. [2] Management includes the following:\nAppropriate goal setting\nDietary and exercise modifications\nAppropriate self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)\nRegular monitoring for complications\nLaboratory assessment\nIdeally, blood glucose should be maintained at near-normal levels (preprandial levels of 90-130 mg/dL and hemoglobin A1C [HbA1c] levels < 7%). However, focus on glucose alone does not provide adequate treatment for patients with diabetes mellitus. Treatment involves multiple goals (ie, glycemia, lipids, blood pressure).\nAggressive glucose lowering may not be the best strategy in all patients. Individual risk stratification is highly recommended. In patients with advanced type 2 diabetes who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, lowering HbA1c to 6% or lower may increase the risk of cardiovascular events. [126]\nA study from the ACCORD Study Group found that setting the treatment target for HbA1c below 6% in high-risk patients resulted in reduced 5-year nonfatal myocardial infarctions. However, patients who did not achieve the treatment target experienced increased 5-year mortality. [127]\nReview of blood glucose logs must be part of any diabetes management plan. Both iron and erythropoietin treatments commonly prescribed in patients with chronic kidney disease cause a significant decrease in HbA1c without affecting blood glucose levels. [128]\nWith each health-care system encounter, patients with diabetes should be educated about and encouraged to follow an appropriate treatment plan. Adherence to diet and exercise should continue to be stressed throughout treatment, because these lifestyle measures can have a large effect on the degree of diabetic control that patients can achieve.\nA study by Morrison et al found that more frequent visits with a primary care provider (every 2 wk) led to markedly rapid reductions in serum glucose, HbA1c, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. However, how such a strategy can work globally remains a challenge due to available resources and economic restrictions. [129]\nThe United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study\nThe care of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus has been profoundly shaped by the results of the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). This landmark study confirmed the importance of glycemic control in reducing the risk for microvascular complications and refuted previous data suggesting that treatment with sulfonylureas or insulin increased the risk of macrovascular disease. Major findings of the UKPDS are displayed in the images below.\nMajor findings from the primary glucose study in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS).\nResults from metformin substudy in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS).\nFindings from the blood pressure substudy in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS).\nSignificant implications of the UKPDS findings include the following:\nMicrovascular complications (predominantly indicated by the need for laser photocoagulation of retinal lesions) are reduced by 25% when mean HbA1c is 7%, compared with 7.9%\nA continuous relationship exists between glycemia and microvascular complications, with a 35% reduction in risk for each 1% decrement in HbA1c; a glycemic threshold (above the upper limit of normal for HbA1c) below which risk for microvascular disease is eliminated does not appear to exist\nGlycemic control has minimal effect on macrovascular disease risk; excess macrovascular risk appears to be related to conventional risk factors such as dyslipidemia and hypertension\nSulfonylureas and insulin therapy do not increase macrovascular disease risk [69]\nMetformin reduces macrovascular risk in patients who are obese [130]\nVigorous blood pressure control reduces microvascular and macrovascular events; beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors appear to be equally effective in this regard\nAmerican College of Physicians guidance statement\nAccording to a 2018 guidance statement by the American College of Physicians (ACP), “Clinicians should aim to achieve an HbA1c level between 7% and 8% in most patients with type 2 diabetes.” The ACP said that this higher target is aimed at helping patients benefit from glycemic control while avoiding the adverse effects—associated with low blood sugar, medication burden, and costs—of stricter targets. The ACP stated that evidence does not indicate that medication therapy to reduce the HbA1c level to 7% or less results in reduced mortality or in decreased macrovascular complications, such as heart attack or stroke, compared with a reduction to about 8%. [131, 132]\nHowever, experts from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) have expressed skepticism about the higher target, noting that the guidance statement does not take into account the cardiovascular disease benefits of newer drugs, which themselves frequently reduce HbA1c levels. In response, a coauthor of the ACP statement observed that other guidelines have also not specifically accounted for these newer medications in their recommended HbA1c levels and that research on such drugs has primarily been in patients either with cardiovascular disease or at high risk of developing it. [131]\nEarly initiation of pharmacologic therapy is associated with improved glycemic control and reduced long-term complications in type 2 diabetes. Drug classes used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes include the following:\nBiguanides\nMeglitinide derivatives\nThiazolidinediones (TZDs)\nGlucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists\nDipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-4) inhibitors\nSelective sodium-glucose transporter–2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors\nInsulins\nAmylinomimetics\nA literature review by Alfayez et al indicated that GLP-1 agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, and SGLT-2 inhibitors put patients with type 2 diabetes at no additional cardiovascular risk. Moreover, patients taking GLP-1 agonists actually showed significant reduction in such risk, while those on SGLT-2 inhibitors demonstrated a significant decrease in hospitalization for heart failure events. [133]\nMetformin is the only biguanide in clinical use. Another biguanide, phenformin, was taken off the market in the United States in the 1970s because of its risk of causing lactic acidosis and associated mortality (rate of approximately 50%). Metformin has proved effective and safe. [134] A nested case-control analysis found that, as with other oral antidiabetic drugs, lactic acidosis during metformin use is very rare and is associated with concurrent comorbidity. [135]\nMetformin lowers basal and postprandial plasma glucose levels. Its mechanisms of action differ from those of other classes of oral antidiabetic agents; metformin works by decreasing hepatic gluconeogenesis. It also decreases intestinal absorption of glucose and improves insulin sensitivity by increasing peripheral glucose uptake and utilization.\nA study by Sun et al suggested that metformin also exercises glucose control by reducing levels of Bacteroides fragilis in the gut. The research indicated that reduction of the microbe, which has bile salt hydrolase activity, leads to an increase in the bile acid glycoursodeoxycholic acid (GUDCA), which in turn inhibits signaling of the intestinal farnesoid X receptor (FXR), a nuclear receptor that plays a role in regulating hepatic bile acid. [136, 137] Unlike oral sulfonylureas, metformin rarely causes hypoglycemia.\nPatients on metformin have shown significant improvements in hemoglobin A1c and their lipid profile, especially when baseline values are abnormally elevated. In addition, metformin is the only oral diabetes drug that reliably facilitates modest weight loss. In the UKPDS, it was found to be successful at reducing macrovascular disease endpoints in obese patients. [138] The results with concomitant sulfonylureas in a heterogeneous population were conflicting, [139] but overall, this drug probably improves macrovascular risk.\nIn January 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) released a guideline update recommending the use of metformin as a first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes. The update also recommended consideration of the addition of a drug from one of the following classes—sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-4) inhibitors, or selective sodium-glucose transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors—to metformin when a second oral therapy is thought to be needed to aid glycemic control. However, the second recommendation was graded as \"weak,\" with the evidence of moderate quality, by the ACP. [140, 141]\nA study by Vashisht et al that examined data from more than 246.5 million patients found that when used along with metformin therapy for type 2 diabetes, treatment with sulfonylureas, DPP-4 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones was equally effective in reducing the HbA1c level to 7% or below that of total hemoglobin. However, compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, there was a slightly increased risk of myocardial infarction and eye disorders associated with sulfonylureas. [142, 143]\nKooy et al found improvements in body weight, glycemic control, and insulin requirements when metformin was added to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. No improvement of an aggregate of microvascular and macrovascular morbidity and mortality was observed; however, reduced risk of macrovascular disease was evident after a follow-up period of 4.3 years. These results support continuing metformin treatment after the introduction of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. [144]\nPradhan et al did not find an association between improvement of glycemic control with metformin or insulin and reduction of inflammatory biomarker levels in patients with recent-onset type 2 diabetes. [145] Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: placebo, placebo plus insulin glargine, metformin only, and metformin and insulin glargine. No difference in levels of the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein was shown between study participants who received insulin or metformin and those who did not.\nA retrospective, nationwide cohort study found that metformin is associated with a low risk of mortality in patients who have diabetes and experience heart failure compared with treatment that includes a sulfonylurea or insulin. [146] Roussel et al studied the expanded use of metformin in groups of patients with diabetes previously considered high risk for possible drug-related adverse outcome and found a decrease in mortality in these patients. [147]\nA study by Gross et al found no difference in benefit between drug classes in patients already on metformin and sulfonylurea. The patient's clinical circumstances must guide selection. [148]\nIn a meta-analysis of 20 publications comprising 13,008 cancer patients with concurrent type 2 diabetes, Yin et al found that patients treated with metformin had better overall and cancer-specific survival than those treated with other types of glucose-lowering agents. [94, 95] These improvements were observed across cancer subtypes and geographic locations.\nRisk reduction was significant among patients with prostate, pancreatic, breast, colorectal and other cancers, but not for lung cancer. [95] However, it remains unclear whether metformin can modulate clinical outcomes in cancer patients with diabetes.\nSulfonylureas (eg, glyburide, glipizide, glimepiride) are insulin secretagogues that stimulate insulin release from pancreatic beta cells and probably have the greatest efficacy for glycemic lowering of any of the oral agents. However, that effect is only short-term and quickly dissipates. Sulfonylureas may also enhance peripheral sensitivity to insulin secondary to an increase in insulin receptors or to changes in the events following insulin-receptor binding.\nSulfonylureas are indicated for use as adjuncts to diet and exercise in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. They are generally well-tolerated, with hypoglycemia the most common side effect. The first-generation sulfonylureas are acetohexamide, chlorpropamide, tolazamide, and tolbutamide; the second-generation agents are glipizide, glyburide, and glimepiride. The structural characteristics of the second-generation sulfonylureas allow them to be given at lower doses and as once-daily regimens.\nOne study exonerated the sulfonylurea group of oral agents as the chief cause of cardiovascular death in diabetic patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction. However, even though sulfonylureas were safer in general, within the group, the use of glyburide was associated with highest mortality (7.5%) compared with other sulfonylureas, such as gliclazide and glimepiride (2.7%). [149] This raises an important concern about whether the use of glyburide should be avoided.\nMeglitinides (eg, repaglinide, nateglinide) are much shorter-acting insulin secretagogues than the sulfonylureas are, with preprandial dosing potentially achieving more physiologic insulin release and less risk for hypoglycemia. [150] Although meglitinides are considerably more expensive than sulfonylureas, they are similar in their glycemic clinical efficacy.\nMeglitinides can be used as monotherapy; however, if adequate glycemic control is not achieved, then metformin or a thiazolidinedione may be added. Meglitinides may be used in patients who have allergy to sulfonylurea medications. They have a similar risk for inducing weight gain as sulfonylureas do but possibly carry less risk for hypoglycemia.\nThese agents delay sugar absorption and help to prevent postprandial glucose surges. Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors prolong the absorption of carbohydrates, but their induction of flatulence greatly limits their use. They should be titrated slowly to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance.\nTZDs (eg, pioglitazone [Actos], rosiglitazone [Avandia]) act as insulin sensitizers; thus, they require the presence of insulin to work. They must be taken for 12-16 weeks to achieve maximal effect.\nThese agents are used as monotherapy or in combination with sulfonylurea, metformin, meglitinide, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, or insulin. They are the only antidiabetic agents that have been shown to slow the progression of diabetes (particularly in early disease).\nIn the Canadian Normoglycemia Outcome and Evaluation (CANOE) trial, glycemic parameters and insulin sensitivity improved in patients taking rosiglitazone and metformin in year 1 but deteriorated in the years thereafter, as in the placebo arm. Beta-cell function remained relatively stable in both groups for the first 2 years but then deteriorated progressively in subsequent years. The investigators attributed the lower rate of incident diabetes in the rosiglitazone/metformin group to the early effect of treatment. [151]\nIn a study by DeFronzo et al, pioglitazone was found to reduce the progression to frank diabetes by 72% in patients with IGT. [152] However, the drug was associated with significant edema and weight gain.\nIn the Diabetes Reduction Assessment with Ramipril and Rosiglitazone Medication (DREAM) trial, rosiglitazone reduced the incidence of diabetes by 62%. It also improved the achievement of normoglycemia by 70% in patients with IFG and by 64% in patients with both IFG and IGT. [153]\nA study by Phung et al investigated oral agents used for prevention of type 2 diabetes and found that TZDs resulted in a greater risk reduction than biguanides. Sulfonylureas and glinides had no benefit. [154]\nTZDs generally decrease triglyceride levels and increase HDL cholesterol levels. They increase LDL cholesterol, but this increase may involve large, buoyant LDL, which may be less atherogenic.\nPioglitazone in patients unresponsive to combination therapy\nCharpentier et al concluded that the early addition of pioglitazone in patients who are not responding to dual therapy is beneficial, decreasing HbA1c, as well as improving FPG levels and other surrogate markers. [155] In this study, patients (n=299) with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled by combination therapy with metformin and a sulfonylurea or a glinide were randomly assigned to receive add-on therapy with either pioglitazone 30 mg daily or a placebo.\nAmong patients with a baseline HbA1c level of less than 8.5%, 44.4% of patients in the pioglitazone group achieved an HbA1c level of less than 7% after 7 months, compared with only 4.9% of patients in the placebo group. In patients with a baseline HbA1c level of 8.5% or greater, 13% of those in the pioglitazone group achieved an HbA1c level of less than 7%, while no patients in the placebo group saw the same reduction. [155]\nWhile TZDs have many desirable effects on inflammation and the vasculature, edema (including macular edema) and weight gain may be problematic adverse effects, especially when TZDs are administered with insulin or insulin secretagogues. [156] These effects may induce or worsen heart failure in patients with left ventricular compromise and occasionally in patients with normal left ventricular function. TZDs have not been tested in patients with New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure.\nFluid retention from TZDs has been considered resistant to treatment with loop diuretics, because of upregulation of renal epithelial sodium channels. However, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study by Rennings et al found that response to the loop diuretics furosemide and amiloride were preserved in rosiglitazone-treated subjects with insulin resistance. [157]\nThe use of pioglitazone for more than 2 years is weakly associated with an increased bladder cancer risk, with the highest risk among patients who took pioglitazone the longest and at the highest cumulative doses. [158, 159, 160] Constant surveillance and vigilance is needed. Ninety-five percent of these cases were detected in early stage. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently recommends not prescribing pioglitazone for patients with active bladder cancer and using it with caution in patients with a history of bladder cancer.\nA meta-analysis indicated that in women with type 2 diabetes, long-term (ie, 1 y or longer) use of TZDs doubles the risk of fracture. [161] Although in this study, TZDs were not found to have significantly increased fracture risk among men with type 2 diabetes, risk of fracture in males has since been reported.\nRosiglitazone restrictions\nIn response to data suggesting an elevated risk of myocardial infarction in patients treated with rosiglitazone, the FDA has restricted access to this drug. [162] The use of rosiglitazone is limited to patients already being successfully treated with this agent and to patients whose blood sugar cannot be controlled with other antidiabetic medicines and who do not wish to use pioglitazone, the only other TZD currently available.\nHealth-care providers and patients must be enrolled in the Avandia-Rosiglitazone Medicines Access Program in order to prescribe and receive rosiglitazone. Patients who are enrolled in the access program receive their medicine by mail order through certified pharmacies that participate in the program.\nGlucagonlike peptide–1 agonists\nGLP-1 agonists (ie, exenatide, liraglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide) mimic the endogenous incretin GLP-1; they stimulate glucose-dependent insulin release, reduce glucagon, and slow gastric emptying. The use of a GLP-1 in addition to metformin and/or a sulfonylurea may result in modest weight loss. Animal data suggest that these drugs prevent beta-cell apoptosis and may in time restore beta-cell mass. The latter property, if proven in humans, would have tremendous therapeutic potential.\nExenatide\nA comparison by Bunck et al of 1 year's therapy with either exenatide or insulin glargine in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes found that exenatide provided significantly greater improvement in beta-cell function. Reduction in HbA1c was similar with the 2 drugs. Beta-cell function and glycemic control returned to pretreatment values following discontinuation of exenatide or insulin glargine, suggesting that long-term treatment is required to maintain the beneficial effects of these drugs. [163]\nThe addition of exenatide in patients receiving insulin glargine as basal insulin helps to improve glycemic control without the risk of increased hypoglycemia or weight gain. This benefit, however, is accompanied by a significant increase in adverse events such as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and headache. [164]\nExenatide has greater ease of titration (only 2 possible doses, with most patients progressing to the higher dose) than does insulin. Although the original product requires twice-daily injections, a long-acting exenatide formulation that is given once weekly (Bydureon) has been developed and has been found to provide significantly greater improvement in glycemic control than does the twice-daily formulation. [165] Once-weekly exenatide injections result in improvements in glycemic control and body weight regardless of age, gender, race, duration of diabetes or BMI. [166] Bydureon was approved by the FDA in January 2012.\nIn the DURATION-5 (Diabetes Therapy Utilization: Researching Changes in A1C, Weight and Other Factors Through Intervention With Exenatide Once Weekly) study, the exenatide once-weekly formulation provided significantly greater improvement in HbA1c and FPG levels than did the twice-daily preparation. Additionally, less nausea was observed with the once-weekly exenatide formulation. [167]\nFor patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin, the injectable agent exenatide was found, in one clinical trial, to be more effective than insulin detemir. [168, 169] A clinical trial involving 216 patients with A1c baseline levels >7.1% despite treatment with metformin found that once-daily injections of exenatide resulted in a significantly greater number of patients achieving target A1c than treatment with detemir. At 26 weeks, 44.1% of the exenatide group had achieved an A1c of 7% or less compared to 11.4% of the detemir group.\nIndicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise, liraglutide therapy is aimed at improving glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. In addition, results from the LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results) clinical trial led to liraglutide’s approval for risk reduction of major cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease. With a median follow-up of 3.8 years, risk for the trial’s composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke was 13.0% for patients treated with liraglutide, compared with 14.9% for those given placebo therapy. [170]\nIn June 2019, liraglutide was approved by the FDA for use in children aged 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes. Approval was based on the ELLIPSE clinical trial, in which patients aged 10 years to less than 17 years received up to 1.8 mg/day of subcutaneous liraglutide or placebo. After 26 weeks, the mean HbA1c level was 0.64% lower in the liraglutide patients and 0.42% higher in the placebo patients. [171]\nAlbiglutide\nThe glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist albiglutide (Tanzeum) was approved by the FDA in April 2014 as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. [172, 173] GLP-1 agonists augment glucose-dependent insulin secretion. Approval of albiglutide was based on a series of individual phase III trials (Harmony 1-8) that included approximately 5,000 individuals.\nIn an open-label 32-week study in 805 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral drugs, Pratley and colleagues found that reductions in HbA1c with once-weekly albiglutide injections were clinically meaningful but less than those seen with daily liraglutide injections (0.78% vs 0.99%, respectively). Patients who received albiglutide had fewer gastrointestinal events than those who received liraglutide (35.9% vs 49.9%) but had more injection-site reactions (12.9% vs 5.4%) and less weight loss (0.64 vs 2.19 kg). [174, 175]\nThe dosage of albiglutide in the study was 30 mg once weekly titrated to 50 mg at week 6. The dosage of liraglutide was 0.6 mg once daily titrated to 1.2 mg at week 1 and 1.8 mg at week 2. [174, 175]\nDulaglutide\nDulaglutide (Trulicity) was approved by the FDA in September 2014 as adjunctive therapy to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. [176] It is administered as a once-weekly subcutaneous injection. [176, 177] Approval was based on six clinical trials (AWARD studies) involving a total of 3342 patients who received dulaglutide as monotherapy or as part of combination therapy. [176] Dulaglutide was noninferior to daily liraglutide in one study and superior to the oral dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin in another. Adverse effects included nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. [176]\nAWARD-1 compared dulaglutide weekly doses of 0.75 mg or 1.5 mg compared with exenatide injectable solution BID. The mean A1C reductions were dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 1.5%; 0.75 mg, 1.3%; exenatide solution, 1.0%; placebo, 0.5%. [177]\nAWARD-3 compared dulaglutide with insulin glargine titrated to target. Mean A1C reductions were dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 1.1-1.6%; 0.75 mg, 0.8-1.6%; and insulin glargine 0.6-1.4%. Dulaglutide was shown to be noninferior as monotherapy compared with metformin in the AWARD-3 trial. Mean A1C reductions were dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 0.8%; dulaglutide 0.75 mg, 0.7%; compared with metformin 0.6%. [178]\nAWARD-5 compared dulaglutide with sitagliptin in patients taking metformin. At the 52-week primary endpoint, mean A1C reductions were dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 1.1%; 0.75 mg, 0.9%; compared with sitagliptin 0.4%. [179]\nDulaglutide is not recommended for use as first-line pharmacologic treatment for type 2 diabetes, and it is contraindicated in patients with personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or in those with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. [176] The label will include a boxed warning that thyroid C-cell tumors have been observed in animal studies. Required postmarketing studies will include studies in children, a medullary thyroid carcinoma case registry, and a cardiovascular outcomes study in high-risk patients. [176]\nA study to assess efficacy and safety of lixisenatide monotherapy in type 2 diabetes found a once-daily dose of the drug improved glycemic control. Once-daily monotherapy significantly lowered postprandial glucose and was well tolerated by patients with type 2 diabetes. [180]\nLixisenatide\nLixisenatide (Adlyxin) was approved by the FDA in July 2016 as adjunctive therapy to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. It is administered by subcutaneous injection once daily within 1 hour before the first meal of the day. The starting dose is 10 mcg/day SC for 14 days and is then increased on day 15 to 20 mcg once daily.\nThe FDA approved lixisenatide based on results from the GetGoal worldwide clinical program and from the Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trials. [181, 182, 183]\nThe drug's safety and efficacy was assessed by the GetGoal program, which included 13 clinical trials of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (n >5000). The primary efficacy endpoint, HbA1c reduction, was achieved by all of the GetGoal studies. [181, 182]\nThe ELIXA study demonstrated that in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome, cardiovascular adverse events did not increase in those taking lixisenatide compared with patients taking placebo. The study included 6068 adults with type 2 diabetes, 39% of whom had a recent non–ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, 43% of whom had ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and 17% of whom had unstable angina. At a median of 25 months, the investigators found that cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina had occurred in 13.4% of the lixisenatide patients and 13.2% of the control patients. [183]\nSemaglutide\nIn December 2017, the FDA approved semaglutide (Ozempic), a GLP-1 receptor agonist, as a glycemic control–improvement agent in adults with type 2 diabetes. It is administered as a subcutaneous injection once weekly. Meant as an adjunct to diet and exercise, semaglutide was approved following eight phase 3a studies (the SUSTAIN trials). Moreover, in the SUSTAIN-6 study, the cardiovascular outcomes trial, the drug was found to contribute to cardiovascular risk reduction. [184, 185]\nIn September 2019, the FDA approved the first oral GLP-1 receptor agonist, semaglutide (Rybelsus). It is administered as a once daily oral tablet. Approval of the oral tablet was based on results from the phase 3 PIONEER trials (n=9543). The trials included head-to-head studies of oral semaglutide compared with sitagliptin (DP4 inhibitor), empagliflozin (SGLT2 inhibitor), and liraglutide 1.8 mg (GLP-1 agonist). A1c reduction was found with oral semaglutide, as well as, via a secondary endpoint, body weight reduction. [186, 187, 188]\nDipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors\nDPP-4 inhibitors (eg, sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin) are a class of drugs that prolong the action of incretin hormones. DPP-4 degrades numerous biologically active peptides, including the endogenous incretins GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). DPP-4 inhibitors can be used as a monotherapy or in combination with metformin or a TZD. They are given once daily and are weight neutral.\nA study comparing the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with sitagliptin or metformin in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes found no statistical differences between the 2 drugs in terms of decreases in HbA1c and fasting glucose levels. The 1050 participants in the study had baseline HbA1c levels of 6.5-9% and received sitagliptin (100 mg qd) or metformin (1000 mg bid) for 24 weeks. [189]\nIn this study, the incidence of adverse GI effects was lower with sitagliptin than with metformin (11.6% vs 20.7%). Specifically, diarrhea (3.6% vs 10.9%) and nausea (1.1% vs 3.1%) were significantly less common with sitagliptin. [189]\nA study by Vilsboll et al in patients receiving stable-dose insulin therapy (with or without concomitant metformin) found that the addition of sitagliptin produced a greater reduction in FPG (by 15 mg/dL [0.8 mmol/L]) and 2-hour postprandial glucose (by 36.1 mg/dL [2 mmol/L]) than did placebo. Sitagliptin reduced HbA1c by 0.6%, while no reduction was seen with placebo. In addition, 13% of patients attained an HbA1c level of less than 7% with sitagliptin, compared with 5% with placebo. [190]\nA study by Pérez-Monteverde et al found that a combination of sitagliptin and metformin was associated with improved glycemic control and less weight gain when compared with pioglitazone in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. [191]\nAdding linagliptin to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that has been inadequately controlled with a metformin and sulfonylurea combination improves glycemic control. Because it has predominantly nonrenal excretion and is a clinically nonrelevant substrate for cytochrome-450 isoenzymes, this drug possesses the benefits of having a low risk of drug-drug interaction and of being safe to use in patients with renal insufficiency. [192]\nUpper respiratory tract infections have been increasingly reported among users of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with users of other antidiabetic drugs. [193] However, further research is needed to evaluate the scope and underlying mechanisms of this phenomenon. On the other hand, a meta-analysis suggested that treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors could reduce the risk of bone fractures. [194]\nCanagliflozin is the first SGLT-2 inhibitor approved in the United States. [195, 196] SGLT-2 inhibition lowers the renal glucose threshold (ie, the plasma glucose concentration that exceeds the maximum glucose reabsorption capacity of the kidney). Lowering the renal glucose threshold results in increased urinary glucose excretion. A second SGLT-2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), was approved by the FDA in January 2014, [197, 198] and another, empagliflozin, approved in August, 2014. [199, 200]\nDosage adjustments are required for canagliflozin in patients who have renal impairment (ie, estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2). Dapagliflozin should not be used if eGFR is < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Also consider lowering the dose of insulin or insulin secretagogues to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia when coadministered with SGLT-2 inhibitors.\nFDA approval of canagliflozin was based on global phase 3 clinical trials that included over 10,000 patients. [195, 196] In a trial evaluating canagliflozin monotherapy efficacy and safety in 584 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with diet and exercise, treatment for 26 weeks with canagliflozin 100 or 300 mg daily resulted in a statistically significant improvement in HbA1C with both doses compared with placebo. [201]\nCanagliflozin add-on combination therapy to metformin and/or sulfonylureas showed a reduction in fasting glucose and a greater proportion of patients achieving an HbA1C level less than 7%. [202] Add-on therapy to insulin and comparative data to thiazolidinediones and to dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors have also shown improved postprandial glucose levels and HbA1C levels. [202]\nIn October 2019, canagliflozin received FDA approval for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and, in patients with type 2 diabetes and DKD, reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. Approval stemmed from the outcome of the phase 3 CREDENCE study, which found that at median 2.62-year follow-up, the risk of renal failure and cardiovascular events was lower in patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease who were treated with canagliflozin than in patients on placebo. [203]\nDapagliflozin is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. [197, 198] It can be employed as monotherapy, as initial therapy with metformin, or as an add-on to other oral glucose-lowering agents, including metformin, pioglitazone, glimepiride, sitagliptin, and insulin. [204, 205, 206, 207]\nIn October 2019, dapagliflozin gained an indication to reduce hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk. FDA approval was based on the Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58 (DECLARE-TIMI 58) study, in which 17,160 patients were evaluated (median 4.2-year follow-up). The investigators found that in patients on dapagliflozin, the rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure was 4.9%, compared with 5.8% for patients on placebo. [208]\nLike dapagliflozin, empagliflozin is also approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control. The drug’s safety and effectiveness were evaluated in 7 clinical trials with 4480 patients with type 2 diabetes. The pivotal trials showed that empagliflozin improved hemoglobin A1c levels compared with placebo. [199, 200] In late 2016, the FDA also approved empagliflozin for a new indiction, specifically, the prevention of cardiovascular disease–related death in adults with type 2 diabetes who also have cardiovascular disease. [209, 210] The new approval was based on results from the (Empagliflozin) Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME), which included more than 7000 patients. [211]\nIndicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise, ertugliflozin therapy is aimed at improving glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. Ertugliflozin's approval stemmed from a series of nine phase-3 clinical trials in which statistically significant improvements were seen in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and systolic and diastolic blood pressures, in adult patients with type 2 diabetes. [212, 213, 214]\nUltimately, many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus become markedly insulinopenic. The only therapy that corrects this defect is insulin. Because most patients are insulin resistant, small changes in insulin dosage may make no difference in glycemia in some patients. Furthermore, because insulin resistance is variable from patient to patient, therapy must be individualized in each patient.\nA study by de la Pena et al found that although the overall insulin exposure and effects of 500 U/mL of insulin were similar to those of 100 U/mL of insulin, peak concentration was significantly lower at 500 U/mL, and the effect after the peak was prolonged; areas under the curve were similar for both doses. This observation should help guide therapy. [215]\nA range of insulin preparations, individual and premixed, is currently available. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has reviewed the use of premixed insulin analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Conclusions for which the strength of evidence was high are as follows [216] :\nFor lowering postprandial glucose, premixed insulin analogues are more effective than either long-acting insulin analogues alone or premixed neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)/regular human insulin 70/30\nFor lowering HbA1c, premixed insulin analogues are as effective as premixed NPH/regular human insulin 70/30 and more effective than long-acting insulin analogues\nThe frequency of hypoglycemia reported with premixed insulin analogues is similar to that with premixed human insulin and higher than that with oral antidiabetic agents\nLong-acting insulins used in the United States include insulin glargine (Lantus, Toujeo) and insulin detemir (Levemir). Insulin glargine has no peak and produces a relatively stable level lasting more than 24 hours. In some cases, it can produce a stable basal serum insulin concentration with a single daily injection, though patients requiring lower doses typically are given twice-daily injections. Insulin detemir has a duration of action that may be substantially shorter than that of insulin glargine but longer than those of intermediate-acting insulins.\nToujeo 300 U/mL is a newer dosage strength and form of insulin glargine than Lantus 100 U/mL, having been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2016. Compared with those of Lantus 100 U/mL, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of Toujeo are more stable and prolonged; the duration of action exceeds 24 hours. Clinical trials showed comparable glycemic control between Lantus and Toujeo, although the trials noted the need for higher daily basal insulin doses (ie, 12-17.5%) with Toujeo. The risk for nocturnal hypoglycemia was lower with Toujeo in insulin-experienced patients with type 2 diabetes, but this was not the case for insulin-naïve patients with type 1 DM or for patients with type 2 DM. [217]\nWith its March 2018 approval by the FDA, Toujeo Max SoloStar became the highest capacity long-acting insulin pen on the market. Toujeo Max necessitates fewer refills and, for some diabetes patients, fewer injections to deliver the required Toujeo dosage. [218]\nA new ultralong-acting basal insulin, insulin degludec (Tresiba), which has a duration of action of up to beyond 42 hours, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This new basal insulin forms a soluble multihexamer after subcutaneous injection to provide a depot effect that is long lasting. It is indicated for diabetes mellitus types 1 and 2. A combination product of insulin degludec and the rapid-acting insulin aspart was also approved (Ryzodeg 70/30). Approval was based on results from the BEGIN trial [219, 220] that showed noninferiority to comparator productions. The cardiovascular outcomes trial (DEVOTE) comparing cardiovascular safety of insulin degludec to that of insulin glargine in patients with type 2 DM is ongoing. A combination product (Ryzodeg) was also approved that contains insulin degludec plus a rapid-acting insulin (insulin aspart).\nA study by Zinman et al found that insulin degludec provides comparable glycemic control to insulin glargine without additional adverse effects. [221] A reduced dosing frequency may be possible because of its ultralong-action profile. Careful study is needed when making a decision regarding reduced dosing frequency.\nA rapid-acting inhaled insulin powder (Afrezza) for types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus was approved by the FDA in June 2014. Approval was based on a study involving over 3,000 patients over a 24-week period. In persons with type 1 diabetes, the inhaled insulin was found to be noninferior to standard injectable insulin when used in conjunction with basal insulin at reducing hemoglobin A1c. In persons with type 2 diabetes, the inhaled insulin was compared to placebo inhalation in combination with oral diabetic agents and showed a statistically significant lower hemoglobin A1c. [222]\nThe first inhaled insulin (Exubera) was approved by the FDA in January 2006 as a rapid-acting prandial insulin. It did not produce better glycemic control than did conventionally injected insulins, and it required a mildly cumbersome device and skill to deliver an accurate dose (up to a few minutes to deliver 1 dose) and pulmonary function monitoring due to concerns about lung toxicity over time. Exubera was withdrawn from the market in October 2007, not because of safety concerns but because too few patients were using the product for its continued sale to be economically feasible.\nIn September 2017, the FDA approved the rapid-acting insulin aspart Fiasp for the treatment of adults with diabetes. This human insulin analog is formulated with niacinamide, which aids in speeding the initial absorption of insulin. Dosing can occur at the beginning of a meal or within 20 minutes after the meal commences. In a study of adult patients with type 1 DM, Fiasp could be detected in the circulation about 2.5 minutes after it was administered. Maximum insulin levels occurred approximately 63 minutes after the drug’s administration. [223, 224]\nInsulin and cancer\nOn July 1, 2009, the FDA issued an early communication regarding a possible increased risk of cancer in patients using insulin glargine (Lantus). [225] The FDA communication was based on 4 observational studies that evaluated large patient databases and found some association between insulin glargine (and other insulin products) and various types of cancer.\nFurther evaluation is warranted, however, before the link between insulin use and cancer is confirmed. The duration of these observational studies was shorter than that considered to be necessary to evaluate for drug-related cancers. Additionally, findings were inconsistent within and across the studies, and patient characteristics differed across treatment groups.\nIn a study by Suissa et al, insulin glargine use was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer during the first 5 years of use. The risk tended to increase after 5 years, however, and significantly so for the women who had taken other forms of insulin before starting insulin glargine. [226]\nA study by Johnson et al found the same incidence rate for all cancers in patients receiving insulin glargine as in patients not receiving the drug. Overall, no increase in breast cancer rates was associated with insulin glargine use, although patients who used only insulin glargine had a higher rate of cancer than did those who used another type of insulin. This finding was attributed to allocation bias and differences in baseline characteristics. [227]\nA study by Steansdottir showed that different drug regimens used to accomplish intensified glycemic control did not alter the risk of cancer in patients with diabetes. [228] This study differs from previous studies, in which metformin use was associated with lower cancer risk.\nThe FDA states that patients should not stop taking insulin without consulting their physician. An ongoing review by the FDA will continue to update the medical community and consumers with additional information as it emerges. Statements from the ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes called the findings conflicting and inconclusive and cautioned against overreaction.\nPramlintide acetate is an amylin analog that mimics the effects of endogenous amylin, which is secreted by pancreatic beta cells. This agent delays gastric emptying, decreases postprandial glucagon release, and modulates appetite. [229]\nBile acid sequestrants were developed as lipid-lowering agents for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia but were subsequently found to have a glucose-lowering effect. The bile acid sequestrant colesevelam is FDA-approved as an adjunctive therapy to improve glycemic control. It has a favorable, but insignificant, impact on FPG and HbA1c levels. [230]\nA study in patients with early type 2 diabetes who were receiving metformin found that the addition of colesevelam reduced HbA1c levels to a degree that was statistically significant but that may have been clinically irrelevant, as no data show that a 0.3% reduction of HbA1c produces a better outcome than a 0.2% reduction of HbA1c. Achievement of LDL cholesterol goals was also improved with the use of colesevelam, but it is not known whether that result correlates with significantly different outcomes in these patients. [231]\nColesevelam is a relatively safe addition to the menu of choices available to reduce LDL cholesterol in patients with prediabetes. It should be avoided in patients with hypertriglyceridemia (a rule that applies to bile acid sequestrants in general).\nIn 2009, the FDA approved a quick-release formulation of bromocriptine mesylate (Cycloset) as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Bromocriptine is a centrally acting dopamine D2 receptor agonist. When given in a single timed morning dose, it is thought to act on circadian neuronal activities within the hypothalamus to reset the abnormally elevated drive for increased plasma glucose, triglyceride, and free fatty acid levels in fasting and postprandial states in insulin-resistant patients. [232]\nQuick-release bromocriptine may be considered for obese patients who do not tolerate other diabetes medications or who need only a minimal reduction in HbA1c to reach their glycemic goal. This agent has the benefits of not causing hypoglycemia and weight gain. In addition, a randomized trial of bromocriptine in 3095 patients found that cardiovascular events were less frequent in the treatment arm than in the placebo arm. [233]\nAdverse events most commonly reported in clinical trials of bromocriptine included nausea, fatigue, vomiting, headache, and dizziness. These events were more likely to occur during initial titration of the drug and lasted a median of 14 days. Nausea and vomiting were not described as serious.\nBromocriptine can cause orthostatic hypotension and syncope, particularly on initiation of therapy and dose escalation. Caution is advised when treating patients who are receiving antihypertensive therapy; orthostatic vital signs should be evaluated at baseline and periodically thereafter.\nComparison of oral antidiabetic agents\nIn 2007, the AHRQ compared the effectiveness and safety of oral diabetes medications for adults with type 2 diabetes, with a 2011 update. [234, 235] The AHRQ found little evidence to support predictions as to whether a particular medication is more likely to be effective in a given patient subgroup or to cause adverse effects in a particular patient.\nThe AHRQ concluded that although the long-term benefits and harms of diabetes medications remain unclear, the evidence supports the use of metformin as a first-line agent. On average, monotherapy with many of the oral diabetes drugs reduces HbA1c levels by 1 percentage point (although metformin has been found to be more efficacious than the DPP-4 inhibitors), and 2-drug combination therapies reduce HbA1c about 1 percentage point more than do monotherapies.\nOther AHRQ findings included the following:\nMetformin decreased LDL cholesterol levels relative to pioglitazone, sulfonylureas, and DPP-4 inhibitors\nUnfavorable effects on weight were greater with TZDs and sulfonylureas than with metformin (mean difference of +2.6 kg)\nRisk of mild or moderate hypoglycemia was 4-fold higher with sulfonylureas than with metformin alone; this risk was more than 5-fold higher with sulfonylureas plus metformin than with a TZD plus metformin\nRisk of heart failure was higher with TZDs than with sulfonylureas\nRisk of bone fractures was higher with TZDs than with metformin\nDiarrhea was more common with metformin than with glitazones.\nIn 2013, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) issued a comprehensive new type 2 diabetes treatment algorithm--the first to incorporate obesity, prediabetes, and cardiovascular risk factor management. [236, 237]\nObesity management was incorporated into the algorithm because it is now clear that weight loss also reduces blood glucose. The authors suggest that obesity management can be considered first-line treatment for people with prediabetes. The prediabetes section of the algorithm considers cardiovascular risk factors and the options of antihyperglycemic or antiobesity therapy, though without making a recommendation regarding which form of treatment is better.\nAs in the AACE's earlier glycemic-control algorithm, the level of treatment depends on the initial hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). (Lifestyle modification, including weight loss, is a component of all treatments.) Whereas the earlier algorithm recommended an HbA1c of 6.5% or lower as the goal for most patients, the current algorithm refines this advice, recommending an HbA1c of 6.5% or lower for healthy patients without concurrent illness and at low risk for hypoglycemia but individualized target HbA1c values greater than 6.5% for patients with concurrent illness and those who are at risk for hypoglycemia.\nMetformin is the preferred initial agent for monotherapy and is a standard part of combination treatments. Advantages of metformin include the following:\nAbsence of weight gain or hypoglycemia\nGenerally low level of side effects\nHigh level of patient acceptance\nRelatively low cost\nThe dose of metformin is titrated over 1-2 months to at least 2000 mg daily, administered in divided doses (during or after meals to reduce gastrointestinal [GI] side effects). Exercise increases metformin levels and interferes with its glucose-lowering effect. [238]\nMetformin may also decrease the risk of dementia associated with type 2 diabetes. In a 2013 observational study of 14,891 patients aged 55 years and older with type 2 diabetes, treatment with metformin signlificantly lowered the risk of developing dementia. [239] Only patients who initiated therapy with a single drug (metformin, sulfonylureas [SU], thiazolidinediones [TZDs], or insulin) during the study period were included.\nDuring 5 years of followup, dementia was diagnosed in 1487 (9.9%) patients. [239] Compared with patients starting SU, those starting metformin had about a 20% reduced risk for dementia. Compared with patients starting TZD, those starting metformin had a 23% lower risk. [239]\nConversely, starting SU treatment (compared with metformin) was associated with a 24% increased risk for dementia; starting TZD treatment was associated with an 18% increased risk; and starting insulin treatment was associated with a 28% increased risk. [239]\nDual-drug therapy\nIf the patient fails to safely achieve or sustain glycemic goals within 2-3 months, another medication should be added. The choice should be guided by patient characteristics (eg, a DPP-4 inhibitor if both postprandial and fasting glucose levels are elevated; a GLP-1 agonist if postprandial glucose levels are strongly elevated; a TZD if the patient has metabolic syndrome and/or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease). [240]\nFailure of initial therapy usually should result in addition of another class of drug rather than substitution. Reserve the use of substitution for cases in which patients experience intolerance to a drug because of adverse effects.\nConsiderable debate exists regarding which second agent to add to (or use initially in conjunction with) metformin. An outline of the therapeutic approach generally used by the author is presented in the first 2 images below. An idealized scheme for glucose and insulin patterns is presented in the third image below. The author finds that keeping such an idealized scheme in mind is helpful when treating and educating patients, even if the patient is trying to replicate it with less intensive insulin therapy.\nTreatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.\nSimplified scheme for using insulin in treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.\nSimplified scheme of idealized blood glucose values and multiple dose insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus.\nBecause TZDs not infrequently cause weight gain and edema, the author usually reserves these agents for patients who cannot use metformin, as a result of intolerance or contraindications. Exceptions to this practice may include patients of relatively normal weight who have marked insulin resistance, such as patients of Asian heritage.\nBefore adding a second agent for a patient who is taking an insulin secretagogue, the clinician should warn the patient about the possibility that the second agent will induce hypoglycemia. If hypoglycemia occurs, the dose of the insulin secretagogue, not the newly added agent, should be reduced.\nTriple-drug therapy\nIf 2 drugs prove unsuccessful after 2-3 months, the next step is triple therapy. The third drug may be an oral agent from a third class of antidiabetic drugs, basal insulin (typically at bedtime), or the injectable drug exenatide. The expense and adverse effect profile of TZDs make their use in an oral triple therapy approach less desirable.\nThe addition of exenatide to 1 or 2 oral agents (eg, metformin and/or a sulfonylurea) is attractive because of its simplicity (ie, only 2 possible doses of exenatide, with easy titration compared with insulin); although expensive, it avoids hypoglycemia. If basal insulin is used, the insulin dose is titrated to the fasting glucose concentration, which the patient can measure at home.\nGlucose values\nSome patients need reduction of their oral antidiabetic agent to prevent daytime hypoglycemia as the bedtime insulin is initiated or increased and the fasting glucose concentration decreases. If a GLP-1 agonist is used, the author monitors fasting and postprandial sugars, expecting a marked flattening of the postprandial rise in glucose concentrations.\nMeasurement of glucose patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly those who have central obesity and hepatic steatosis, often reveals that the highest preprandial glucose level of the day is before breakfast (because of disordered hepatic glucose production overnight), with a \"stair-step\" decrease during the day (after the usual postmeal rise). These higher-than-desired morning glucose values do not necessarily dictate abandonment of the current therapeutic regimen, provided that the HbA1c level is at target.\nFor patients trying to achieve near euglycemia, premeal glucose values of 80-120 mg/dL are the goal, with the patient going to sleep at night with a value at least 100 mg/dL. In patients with less stringent glycemic goals (eg, because of advanced age, advanced complications, or severe concomitant disease), preprandial glucose values of 100-140 mg/dL are desired. Because of the limitations of therapies, essentially no patient is able to achieve these goals all the time if, in fact, insulin is needed to treat their disease.\nFor patients who primarily have fasting hyperglycemia, basal insulin is the easiest way to correct this abnormality. Basal insulin is typically scheduled at bedtime but can be given at suppertime if that is more convenient for the patient.\nThe goal of a combined daytime oral agent plus once-a-day insulin is to lower the fasting glucose level to 100 mg/dL by titrating the insulin. When this target is achieved, the oral agents can be effective in maintaining preprandial and postprandial blood glucose levels throughout the day. If a regimen combining oral agents and insulin fails to lower glucose levels into the normal range, patients should be switched to a daily multiple-injection schedule with a premeal rapid-acting insulin and a longer-acting basal insulin.\nInsulin regimens\nA necessary condition for twice-daily insulin to succeed is a regimented lifestyle, with mealtimes regularly spaced and insulin injections taken at essentially the same time every day, including weekends and holidays. Lack of regularity in the schedule is self-defeating for this approach to therapy.\nThe author limits the use of premixed insulin to patients who may have trouble mixing their insulins. The author prefers premixes containing regular insulin if the premix is administered to maintain better midday coverage. Premixes with rapid-acting medications can be used if the midday meal is small. A systematic review found that glycemic control with premixed insulin analogues (ie, mixtures of rapid-acting and intermediate-acting insulin analogues) is similar to that with premixed human insulin. [241]\nMultiple daily dosing\nConventional multiple daily dosing of insulin gives the patient the greatest flexibility. In this approach, long-acting insulin (eg, glargine, detemir) is generally given once daily as the basal insulin, and rapid-acting insulin (eg, aspart, glulisine, lispro) is administered just before each meal.\nThe basal component can be administered at any time of day as long as it is given at the same time each day. However, interpreting glucose patterns is probably easiest if the basal insulin is administered at or near bedtime. The basal insulin can then be titrated to the morning sugar, and the bolus premeal insulin can be titrated to the next premeal sugar and, in some cases, a postprandial (2 h) value.\nAll insulin injections should preferably be administered in the abdomen, although they can also be given in the thigh, hip, or buttock regions. Adiposity blunts the pharmacodynamics of the basal insulins NPH, glargine, and, especially, detemir. [242]\nInsulin dosing can be safely reduced in patients with renal insufficiency without compromising glycemic control. [243] Dosing based solely on weight is not advisable in these patients, who have reduced lean body mass and water retention.\nContinuous subcutaneous insulin infusion\nThe American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology released a consensus statement on insulin pump management: [244]\nBased on currently available data, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is justified for basal-bolus insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.\nOnly providers whose practice can assume full responsibility for a comprehensive pump management program should offer this technology.\nThe ideal CSII candidate is a patient with type 1 diabetes mellitus or intensively management insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus who is currently performing 4 or more insulin injections and 4 or more self-monitored blood glucose measurements daily; is motivated to achieve optima blood glucose control; is willing and able to carry out the tasks that are required to use this complex and time-consuming therapy safely and effectively; and is willing to maintain frequent contact with their health care team.\nAdult patients\nAt CSII initiation, the patient should have daily contact with the pump trainer. a return visit with the endocrinologist/diabetologist/advanced practice nurse is advised within 3-7 days after CSII initiation.\nEducational consults should be scheduled weekly or biweekly at first, then periodically as needed.\nSpecialist follow-up visits should be scheduled at least monthly until the pump regimen is stabilized, then at least once every 3 mo.\nPediatric patients\nCSII is indicated for pediatric patients with elevated hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) levels on injection therapy; frequent, severe hypoglycemia; widely fluctuating glucose levels; a treatment regimen that compromises lifestyle; and microvascular complications and/or risk factors for macrovascular complications.\nIdeal pediatric candidates are those with motivated families who are committed to monitoring blood glucose 4 or more times per day and have a working understanding of basic diabetes management.\nPatient age and duration of diabetes should not be factors in determining the transition from injections to CSII.\nIntensified basal-bolus regimen\nAn intensified basal-bolus regimen of insulin glargine and insulin glulisine provides better glycemic control than does a standard, premixed insulin regimen, in patients with long-standing, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus, according to a study by Fritsche et al. In this open-label, randomized, multinational trial, an intensified insulin regimen combining insulin glargine (once daily) with premeal insulin glulisine (basal-bolus group; n=153) was compared with twice-daily conventional therapy with premixed insulin (n=157).\nThe mean decrease from baseline HbA1c was -1.31% for the basal-bolus group, versus -0.80% for the premix patients, with more patients in the basal-bolus group attaining HbA1c of 7% or less. Moreover, significantly lower blood glucose levels were observed in the basal-bolus group than in the premix group. [245]\nPostprandial glycemic control\nGlycemic control is a function not only of fasting and preprandial glucose values but also of postprandial glycemic excursions. Emphasis on postprandial glucose measurements has been fueled to some degree by the availability of short-acting insulin secretagogues, very-short-acting insulin, and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, all of which target postprandial glycemia.\nWhile postprandial glucose levels are a better predictor of macrovascular disease risk early in the course of loss of glucose tolerance, it remains to be seen whether targeting after-meal glucose excursions has a greater effect on the risk of complications than do more conventional strategies. A study by Siegelaar et al seriously questions the notion that targeting postprandial glucose variability favorably affects cardiovascular outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction. [246] Clearly, more studies are needed.\nIntuitively, one would assume that therapies that normalize preprandial and postprandial glycemia (or that come close to normalizing them) would be optimal. Whether such a strategy can be achieved without untoward adverse effects and with further reductions in microvascular and macrovascular disease risk (compared with regimens used in the UKPDS) using newly available therapies is open to question. Practically speaking, most patients are fully occupied trying to handle conventional glucose monitoring and insulin dose adjustment.\nEating a high-protein prebreakfast snack, such as one with soy yogurt, is a simple way to achieve better postbreakfast glycemic control, according to a study by Chen et al; this study confirms a phenomenon observed in healthy humans nearly a century ago (Staub, 1921). [247]\nGlycemic monitoring\nDecisions about glycemic management are generally made on the basis of HbA1c measurements and the results of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). HbA1c is measured at least twice yearly in patients with stable glycemic control who are meeting treatment goals and quarterly in patients whose therapy has changed or who are not meeting treatment goals. [2]\nIf a total glycated hemoglobin (GHb) measurement is used, the number is 1-2% higher. However, the laboratory should provide a correlation of GHb values with HbA1c values. [3, 69, 119]\nGlycemic targets\nA guideline from the American College of Physicians (ACP) recommends that an HbA1c target of less than 7% is appropriate for many patients. [248] Some organizations (eg, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, [108] the International Diabetes Federation) recommend a glycemic target of less than 6.5% for HbA1c, although this is a general target that always has to be individualized according to patient characteristics and health conditions\nThe ACP advises, however, that an HbA1c of 7% may not be an appropriate target for all patients. [248] Goals should be tailored to the individual patient and should take the following considerations into account:\nThe patient's preferences\nRisk for complications from diabetes\nIn a meta-analysis of 13 studies, intensive glucose lowering had no significant effect on all-cause mortality or cardiovascular deaths. A reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction and microalbuminuria was noted. However, patients experienced a 2-fold increased risk of hypoglycemia. [249]\nRisks of and considerations in intensive treatment\nRisk for hypoglycemia is almost always the limiting factor in achieving the lowest possible HbA1c that does not cause undue harm. Unfortunately, some practitioners and their patients pursue a particular HbA1c value despite uncertain benefit or unacceptable risk, with significant risk for side effects.\nFactors that can produce an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio for intensive blood glucose lowering include advanced age, other major systemic disease, and advanced microvascular and neuropathic complications. For example, in an elderly patient, risk considerations may include the possibility of falling and breaking a hip during a hypoglycemic episode.\nIn elderly patients who have a life expectancy of less than 5 years or in any patient with a terminal disease, tight control may be unnecessary. Patients with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease may also need higher preprandial blood glucose targets (eg, 100-150 mg/dL) to prevent severe hypoglycemia.\nFor patients older than 65 years, a recent consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the American Geriatrics Society recommends adjusting treatment goals for glycemia, blood pressure, and dyslipidemia according to life expectancy and the presence of comorbidities. The statement suggests 3 broad groupings [250, 251] :\nHealthy: Patients with few coexisting chronic conditions and intact cognitive and functional status\nComplex/intermediate: Patients with multiple coexisting chronic illnesses or 2 or more impairments in activities of daily living (ADL) or mild to moderate cognitive impairment\nVery complex/poor health: Patients in long-term care or with end-stage chronic illnesses or moderate to severe cognitive impairment or with 2 or more ADL dependencies\nCorresponding HbA1c targets might be less than 7.5%, less than 8%, and less than 8.5%, respectively, for the 3 groups above.\nAdditionally, patients with alcoholism or other serious substance abuse problems and patients with severe, uncontrolled mental illness may be unable to effectively participate in the care of their diabetes. Consequently, they are at high risk for severe hypoglycemic reactions if near-normal glucose levels are targeted.\nFinally, patients with hypoglycemia unawareness (ie, lack adrenergic warning signs of hypoglycemia) or those with recurrent episodes of severe hypoglycemia (ie, hypoglycemia requiring treatment by another person) should also have high target levels, at least temporarily. Fortunately, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (unlike those with long-standing type 1 disease) usually maintain adequate hypoglycemia awareness. This greatly facilitates hypoglycemic therapy (ie, insulin secretagogues, insulin) in patients with type 2 diabetes.\nSelf-monitoring of blood glucose\nDaily SMBG is important for patients treated with insulin or insulin secretagogues to monitor for and prevent hypoglycemia, as well as to optimize the treatment regimen. The optimal frequency of SMBG for patients with type 2 diabetes is unresolved, but it should be sufficient to facilitate reaching glucose goals.\nThe author often utilizes no or minimal SMBG in patients using lifestyle changes alone or agents that do not cause hypoglycemia (eg, metformin, TZDs, glucosidase inhibitors). Patients using multiple insulin injections should use SMBG at least 3 times a day. [2]\nA task force from the Endocrine Society evaluated the following potential uses for continuous glucose monitoring:\nReal-time, continuous glucose monitoring in adults in hospital settings\nReal-time outpatient monitoring in children and adolescents\nReal-time outpatient monitoring in adults\nThe Task Force developed recommendations regarding benefits in maintaining target levels of glycemia and limiting the risk of hypoglycemia. [252]\nFor most patients, the best diet is one consisting of the foods that they are currently eating. Attempts to calibrate a precise macronutrient composition of the diet to control diabetes, while time-honored, are generally not supported by the research. Caloric restriction is of first importance. After that, individual preference is reasonable.\nModest restriction of saturated fats and simple sugars is also reasonable. However, some patients have remarkable short-term success with high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets of various sorts. Therefore, the author always stresses weight management in general and is flexible regarding the precise diet that the patient consumes. Also, the practitioner should advocate a diet composed of foods that are within the financial reach and cultural milieu of the patient. For example, patients who participate in Ramadan may be at higher risk of acute diabetic complications. Although these patients do not eat during the annual observance, they should be encouraged to actively monitor their glucose, alter the dosage and timing of their medication, and seek dietary counseling and patient education to counteract any complications. [253]\nModest weight losses of 5-10% have been associated with significant improvements in cardiovascular disease risk factors (ie, decreased HbA1c levels, reduced blood pressure, increase in HDL cholesterol, decreased plasma triglycerides) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Risk factor reduction was even greater with losses of 10-15% of body weight. [254, 255]\nA study by Lazo et al attested to the benefits of lifestyle intervention, which aimed at a minimum weight loss of 7%, on hepatic steatosis in patients with type 2 diabetes. [256] Since there is no known treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, a weight loss strategy may help to prevent progression to serious liver damage.\nOne-year results from the open-label, randomized Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT) demonstrated a type 2 diabetes remission rate of 46% in participants who underwent intervention with a very low–calorie liquid diet. The regimen included gradual reintroduction of food after 3-5 months and ongoing weight-loss maintenance support. The remission rate reached 73% in just those patients in the intervention group who at 12 months had maintained a weight loss of at least 10 kg. [257, 258]\nMediterranean-style diet\nEsposito et al reported greater benefit from a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean-style diet than from a low-fat diet in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. [259] In a single-center, randomized trial, 215 overweight patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus who had never been treated with antihyperglycemic drugs and whose HbA1c levels were less than 11% were assigned to either a Mediterranean-style diet (< 50% of daily calories from carbohydrates) or a low-fat diet (< 30% of daily calories from fat).\nAfter 4 years, participants assigned to the Mediterranean-style diet had lost more weight and had demonstrated more improvement in some measures of glycemic control and coronary risk than had participants consuming the low-fat diet; 44% of patients in the Mediterranean-style diet group required antihyperglycemic drug therapy, compared with 70% of those in the low-fat diet group.\nHigh-protein versus high-carbohydrate diet\nA study by Larsen et al concluded that the long-term therapeutic effect of a high-protein diet is not superior to that of a high-carbohydrate diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. In this 12-month trial, 99 overweight or obese diabetic patients followed a low-fat diet (30% total energy) that was either high in protein (30% total energy) or high in carbohydrate (55% total energy); both groups benefited equally. [260]\nIt should also be noted that already-attenuated glucose disposal is not worsened by postprandial circulating amino acid concentration. Therefore, recommendations to restrict dietary proteins in patients with type 2 diabetes seem unwarranted. [261]\nTrans-palmitoleate\nIn the Cardiovascular Health Study, phospholipid trans -palmitoleate levels were found to be associated with lower metabolic risk. [262] Trans -palmitoleate is principally derived from naturally occurring dairy and other ruminant trans -fats. Circulating trans -palmitoleate is associated with lower insulin resistance, incidence of diabetes, and atherogenic dyslipidemia. Potential health benefits, therefore, need to be explored.\nAdvanced glycation end products\nFood-derived, pro-oxidant, advanced glycation end products may contribute to insulin resistance in clinical type 2 diabetes mellitus and may suppress protective mechanisms. Advanced glycation end-product restriction may preserve native defenses and insulin sensitivity by maintaining a lower basal oxidative state. [263]\nOral ginseng (or ginsenoside) does not improve pancreatic beta-cell function. Routine use is not recommended. [264]\nPasta enriched with biologically active isoflavone aglycons improves endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and favorably affects cardiovascular disease risk markers. [265]\nIn patents with type 2 diabetes mellitus, impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance at high risk for cardiovascular disease, addition of n-3 fatty acids does not reduce risk of cardiovascular events, including death from cardiovascular causes. [266]\nMost patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus can benefit from increased activity. Aerobic exercise improves insulin sensitivity and may improve glycemia markedly in some patients.\nStructured exercise training of more than 150 minutes per week is associated with greater HbA1c reduction; however, physical activity helps lower HbA1c only when combined with dietary modifications. [267]\nThe patient should choose an activity that she or he is likely to continue. Walking is accessible to most patients in terms of time and financial expenditure.\nA previously sedentary patient should start activities slowly. Older patients, patients with long-standing disease, patients with multiple risk factors, and patients with previous evidence of atherosclerotic disease should have a cardiovascular evaluation, probably including an imaging study, prior to beginning a significant exercise regimen.\nBalducci et al showed that a supervised, facility-based exercise training program, when added to standard treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus, yields better results than does simply counseling patients to exercise. [268]\nA randomized, controlled trial by Church et al emphasized the need to incorporate both aerobic and resistance training to achieve better lowering of HbA1c levels. [269] Aerobic exercise alone or in combination with resistance training improves glycemic control, circulating triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, and waist circumference. [270] The impact of resistance exercise alone, however, remains unclear.\nLoimaala et al found that long-term endurance and strength training resulted in improved metabolic control of diabetes mellitus and significant cardiovascular risk reduction, compared with standard treatment. However, exercise training did not improve conduit arterial elasticity. [271]\nIn a 3-month trial, Hegde et al found that yoga can be effective in reducing oxidative metabolic stress in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, yoga did not impact waist-to-hip ratio, blood pressure, vitamin E, or superoxide dismutase. [272]\nIn morbidly obese patients, bariatric surgery has been shown to improve diabetes control and, in some situations, normalize glucose tolerance. It is certainly a reasonable alternative in carefully selected patients if an experienced team (providing appropriate preoperative evaluation, as well as technical surgical expertise) is available.\nIn 2011, the International Diabetes Federation Taskforce on Epidemiology and Prevention of Diabetes released a position statement on bariatric surgery. The task force recommended bariatric surgery as an appropriate treatment for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity who have been unable to achieve recommended treatment targets using medical therapies, particularly if other major comorbidities exist. [273, 274]\nAccording to guidelines released in 2016 by the 2nd Diabetes Surgery Summit (DSS-II), an international consensus conference, bariatric surgery should be considered even for type 2 diabetes patients with mild, class 1 obesity (BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m2) if their hyperglycemia is inadequately controlled with optimal treatment. In addition, the guidelines state that bariatric surgery should be a “recommended option” for type 2 diabetes patients with class 3 obesity (BMI 40 kg/m2 or above) no matter what level of glycemic control has been achieved. The guidelines also say that of the different forms of bariatric surgery, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass seems to have the best risk/benefit profile for the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes. [275, 276]\nKashyap and colleagues demonstrated that bariatric surgery improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. [277] The study compared the metabolic effects of 2 types of bariatric surgery (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy) combined with intensive medical therapy with intensive medical therapy alone in 60 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes and moderate obesity. At 24-month follow-up, glycemic control improved in all 3 groups. Body fat reduction was similar in the 2 surgery groups, with patients in the gastric bypass group showing a greater absolute reduction in truncal fat. [277] Insulin sensitivity increased significantly only in the gastric bypass group, and pancreatic β-cell function increased significantly more in these patients compared with those in the other 2 groups. [277]\nA retrospective study of 252 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who underwent bariatric surgery found that 44% of the patients were able to do without insulin treatment by median 7-year follow-up. The patients had a mean preoperative BMI of 46 kg/m2, with those who underwent the Roux-en-Y procedure showing a 1.4 percentage-point reduction in HbA1c at 7 years, and those who underwent sleeve gastrectomy showing a 1.6 percentage-point reduction. [278]\nBecause diabetes mellitus is a multisystem disease, focusing solely on blood glucose is inadequate. The image below lists appropriate laboratory parameters in the global assessment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Obviously, patients with abnormalities need more frequent monitoring to guide therapeutic interventions. Drug-specific monitoring is also necessary (eg, serum creatinine and vitamin B12 in patients taking metformin, serum transaminases for patients taking a TZD).\nLaboratory monitoring guidelines for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.\nThe ADA recommends initiation of complications monitoring at the time of diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. [2] This regimen should include yearly dilated eye examinations, annual microalbumin checks, and foot examinations at each visit.\nA study by Cigolle et al found that middle-aged and older adults with diabetes have an increased risk for the development of geriatric conditions (eg, cognitive, vision, and hearing impairments; falls). [279] These conditions substantially contribute to morbidity and functional impairment. The authors concluded that adults with diabetes should be monitored for the development of geriatric conditions at a younger age than was previously considered.\nThe risk for early development of Parkinson disease is 36% higher in patients with diabetes mellitus. [280] However, a systematic review from Cereda et al found no conclusive evidence of this association. [281]\nA high overall risk for pancreatic neoplasm is noted in individuals with diabetes mellitus, particularly in those aged 45-65 years. [282]\nThe incidence of complications widely vary among the Asian subgroups, suggesting the need for an ethnic stratified nuanced approach in evaluation and surveillance. [283] One size does not fit all.\nBlood pressure goals\nThe role of hypertension in increasing microvascular and macrovascular risk in patients with diabetes mellitus has been confirmed in the UKPDS and Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trials. [284, 285]\nIn a 2017 update to its recommendations for hypertension management in diabetes, the ADA states that the goal in most patients with diabetes and hypertension should be a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of below 140 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of under 90 mm Hg. For patients with a high risk of cardiovascular disease, however, the recommendations say that it may be appropriate to target a lower SBP/DBP, such as below 130/80 mm Hg, if the goal can be met “without undue treatment burden.” [286, 287]\nIn patients with greater than 1 g/day proteinuria and renal insufficiency, a more aggressive therapeutic goal (ie, 125/75 mm Hg) has been advocated. According to the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial, however, a diastolic blood pressure of less than 70 mm Hg increases the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes, even when systolic blood pressure is within the current guidelines (recommended range, < 140 mm Hg). [288]\nThe ADA recommendations endorse blood pressure measurement “at every routine clinical care visit” and state that patients whose blood pressure is found to be elevated (at or above 140/90 mm Hg) should undergo multiple readings to confirm hypertension, including blood pressure assessment on a separate day. [286, 287]\nCardiovascular risk and hypertension medications\nIn a safety review, the FDA found no clear evidence of increased cardiovascular risk with the hypertension drug olmesartan in diabetic patients. [289] This review addressed data from the Randomized Olmesartan and Diabetes Microalbuminuria Prevention (ROADMAP) study, which found an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality in patients taking olmesartan, as well as data from an epidemiologic study of Medicare patients, which suggested a similarly increased risk.\nBecause of discrepant survival results in diabetics and nondiabetics in the Medicare study, the FDA concluded that the evidence for the increased cardiovascular risk was not conclusive and did not support recommending that olmesartan not be used in patients with diabetes. [289, 290]\nWhile angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), diuretics, beta blockers, and calcium channel blockers are all considered acceptable initial therapy, the author prefers inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (ie, ACE inhibitors, ARBs) because of their proven renal protection effects in patients with diabetes. Many patients require multiple agents. Diuretics or calcium channel blockers frequently are useful as second and third agents.\nThe ALTITUIDE Trial investigating the impact of direct renin inhibitor with aliskiren on cardio-renal outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus when used as an adjunct to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy failed to show any benefit. On the contrary, it might be harmful due to an increased risk for hyperkalemia and hypotension despite marked reduction in proteinuria. [291]\nA study by Hermado et al showed that treatment with antihypertensive medications taken at bedtime provides better ambulatory blood pressure control, as well as significant reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality when compared with taking medications upon waking. [292] The study was conducted in patients taking 1 or more antihypertensive drugs and had a median follow-up of 5.4 years.\nDyslipidemia is common in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and often takes the form of high triglyceride and low HDL cholesterol levels. Trials have shown that the use of statins is effective for primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) events in patients with diabetes. ADA guidelines relating with LDL cholesterol management and CHD in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are detailed in the image below.\nAmerican Diabetes Association guidelines for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in diabetes mellitus type 2.\nSee Management of Coronary Heart Disease for guidelines on statin use in persons with diabetes.\nFibrates may reduce CHD events in patients with isolated low HDL cholesterol. Whether therapy aimed more at triglyceride reduction and HDL cholesterol elevation (ie, fibrates, niacin) is effective in CHD-event reduction in primary prevention remains to be determined. [293]\nSmall studies have led to a suggestion that a lower LDL cholesterol goal, of less than 70 mg/dL, be considered in patients at very high risk, including patients with diabetes. However, the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) lists this as a therapeutic option rather than a formal recommendation as of this writing.\nVasoconstricting beta blockers are known to reduce HDL cholesterol levels and increase triglyceride, LDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol levels. The vasodilating beta blocker carvedilol (mixed alpha1, beta1, and beta2 blocker) has not been associated with the aforementioned effects.\nIn a randomized, double-blind trial in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving renin-angiotensin blockers, the addition of carvedilol for blood pressure control resulted in a significant decrease in triglyceride, total cholesterol, and non ̶ HDL cholesterol levels. Patients given metoprolol (a vasoconstricting beta blocker) were significantly more likely to be started on statin therapy or, if already on statin therapy, to require an increase in the dose, than were patients taking carvedilol. [294]\nThere is contradictory epidemiologic evidence as to whether diabetes is in fact a CHD risk equivalent. For the present, however, that is the position adopted by most groups, such as the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) and the ADA. [293]\nAlthough the risk for CHD is 2-4 times greater in patients with diabetes than it is in individuals without diabetes, control of conventional risk factors is probably more important in event reduction than is glycemic control. Control of hypertension, aspirin therapy, and lowering of LDL cholesterol levels are vitally important in reducing CHD risk.\nThe ADA recommends that patients with diabetes who are at high risk for cardiovascular events receive primary preventive therapy with low-dose, enteric-coated aspirin. For patients with aspirin hypersensitivity or intolerance, clopidogrel is recommended. [295]\nHowever, a randomized, controlled trial from Japan found that using low-dose aspirin as primary prevention did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. [296] These investigators subsequently reported that low-dose aspirin therapy reduces cardiovascular risk only in patients with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 60-89 mL/min; low-dose aspirin had no beneficial impact if the GFR was above 90 mL/min or below 60 mL/min. [297]\nA study by Okada et al reported that low-dose aspirin therapy (81-100 mg) in patients with diabetes who are taking insulin or oral hypoglycemic agents does not reduce atherosclerotic events. [298] This is yet another argument against using low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with moderate or severe diabetes.\nThe Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) showed a 42% reduction in CHD events in diabetic patients with simvastatin therapy (mean dose 27 mg daily, with LDL reduction approximately 35%). Participants in 4S had known CHD and very high LDL cholesterol levels. [299]\nA smaller reduction was seen in the Heart Protection Study (HPS) in patients with CHD or other vascular disease and diabetes. [300] Patients in the HPS treatment arm received simvastatin 40 mg daily. Lesser degrees of risk reduction have been shown in other secondary prevention studies in patients treated with pravastatin with mild to moderate LDL cholesterol elevation at baseline.\nAtorvastatin, 10 mg daily, did not reduce CHD risk among diabetic patients with hypertension and no previous CHD who were enrolled in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT). [301] In contrast, the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) showed a significant reduction in CHD risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and 1 other risk factor when treated with atorvastatin 10 mg daily. [302]\nSome studies have suggested that statin therapy may be associated with an increased risk of developing diabetes. In a pooled analysis of data from five statin trials, intensive-dose statin therapy was associated with increased risk of new-onset diabetes compared with moderate dose statins. [303]\nA study by Ahmadizar et al of subjects over age 45 years who had no diabetes at baseline reported that compared with individuals who have never used statins, the risk of incident type 2 diabetes development in persons who have ever taken statins is 38% greater, with the likelihood being particularly high in persons with impaired glucose homeostasis and in individuals who are overweight/obese. However, analyses stratified at baseline for gender and body mass index (BMI) indicated that statin use was not significantly associated with type 2 diabetes in women or in persons with a normal body mass index (BMI). [304, 305]\nThe American Diabetes Association (ADA) provided recommendations on the use of statins in patients with diabetes to align with those of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. [306]\nThe ADA recommends statin use for nearly everyone with diabetes.\nThe ADA guidelines divide diabetes patients by 3 age groups:\nYounger than 40 years: No statins for those with no cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors other than diabetes; moderate intensity or high-intensity statin doses for those with additional CVD risk factors (baseline LDL cholesterol 100 or greater, high blood pressure, smoking, and overweight/obesity); and high-intensity statin doses for those with overt CVD (including previous cardiovascular events or acute coronary syndrome).\nAge 40-75 years: Moderate-intensity statins for those with no additional risk factors, and high-intensity statins for those with either CVD risk factors or overt CVD.\nOlder than 75 years: Moderate-intensity statins for those with CVD risk factors; and high-intensity statins for those with overt CVD.\nLipid monitoring for adherence is recommended as needed, and annual monitoring is advised for patients younger than 40 years who have not yet started on statins.\nThere is a new BMI cut point of 23 kg/m2 (instead of 25 kg/m2) for screening Asian Americans for prediabetes and diabetes, based on evidence that Asian populations are at increased risk at lower BMIs relative to the general population.\nThe premeal glucose target of 70-130 mg/dL was changed to 80-130 mg/dL to better reflect new data that compared average glucose levels with HbA1c targets.\nThe goal for diastolic blood pressure was raised to 90 mm Hg from 80 mm Hg to better reflect data from randomized clinical trials. (This follows ADA's 2013 shift from a systolic target of 130 mm Hg to 140 mm Hg.)\nWith regard to physical activity, the document now advises limiting the time spent sitting to no longer than 90 min.\nThe ADA does not support e-cigarettes as alternatives to smoking or to facilitate smoking cessation.\nImmunization against pneumococcal disease is recommended.\nA new HbA1c target of less than 7.5% for children is now recommended.\nHDL cholesterol therapy\nThe benefits of raising HDL cholesterol levels in patients with type 2 diabetes remains uncertain. Some of the statin trials suggest that statin therapy eliminates some of the excess risk from low HDL cholesterol levels in patients with LDL cholesterol elevation at baseline.\nThe Veterans Administration HDL Intervention Trial (VA-HIT) showed an approximately 22% reduction in CHD events in patients with diabetes and known CHD when HDL cholesterol levels were increased by approximately 6% by gemfibrozil. [307] This was a population with low LDL cholesterol levels, however, so whether these same benefits would accrue in patients with elevated LDL cholesterol who are treated with a statin before their low HDL cholesterol is addressed is unclear.\nTriglyceride therapy\nAn elevated triglyceride level is a common abnormality in type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, whether therapy to reduce triglycerides helps to reduce CHD events has not been determined from clinical end-point trials.\nThe Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) study, which was conducted in 2368 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart disease, showed no significant difference in the rates of death and major cardiovascular events between patients undergoing prompt revascularization and those undergoing medical therapy with insulin or insulin-sensitizing drugs. [308] These data emphasize the need to customize therapy to the patient’s circumstances and therapeutic goals.\nPatients with established retinopathy should see an ophthalmologist at least once every 6-12 months, as necessary. Three-year retinal screening may be feasible for patients with mild diabetes and no retinopathy. [309]\nEarly background retinopathy may reverse with improved glycemic control. More advanced retinopathy does not regress with improved glycemia and may worsen, although rarely, with short-term marked improvements in glycemia. Hypertension control is of paramount importance in these latter patients. Results of the randomized, placebo-controlled DIRECT-Protect 2 trial suggested that treatment with the ARB candesartan may improve mild to moderate retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. [310]\nMacular edema has been reported in a proportion of patients who experience fluid retention as a side effect of TZDs. [311] Resolution typically follows cessation of the TZD, although diuretics have been prescribed in such cases.\nLaser photocoagulation has markedly improved the ability of ophthalmologists to preserve sight in patients with diabetes and proliferative retinopathy or macular edema. Laser therapy is effective in decreasing macular edema and preserving vision but is less effective in restoring lost vision.\nDiabetes can affect the lens, vitreous, and retina, causing visual symptoms that may prompt the patient to seek emergency care. Visual blurring may develop acutely as the lens changes shape with marked changes in blood glucose concentrations. This effect, which is caused by osmotic fluxes of water into and out of the lens, usually occurs as hyperglycemia increases, but it also may be seen when high glucose levels are lowered rapidly. In either case, recovery to baseline visual acuity can take up to a month, and some patients are almost completely unable to read small print or do close work during this period.\nPatients with diabetes also tend to develop senile cataracts sooner than persons without diabetes. Development of senile cataracts is not related to the degree of glycemic control, however.\nPeripheral neuropathy is the most common complication observed in patients with type 2 diabetes in outpatient clinics. Patients may have paresthesias, numbness, or pain. The feet are involved more often than the hands.\nImproved glycemic control early may alleviate some of the symptoms, although sometimes symptoms actually worsen with lowering of blood glucose levels. Later symptomatic therapy largely is empirical and may include the following:\nLow-dose tricyclic antidepressants\nAnticonvulsants (eg, phenytoin, gabapentin, carbamazepine)\nTopical capsaicin\nVarious pain medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)\nProtection of the feet by applying lubricating agents (but not between the toes) and wearing appropriate footwear (shoes and socks or stockings) is important. Daily inspection of the feet after bathing is mandatory. In patients with advanced neuropathy, water temperature must be checked by a companion or with a thermometer. Soaking the feet generally is not recommended and may be harmful.\nGastroparesis is usually less of a problem in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus than in those with type 1. Improved glycemic control, discontinuation of medications that slow gastric motility, and the use of metoclopramide may be helpful. Metoclopramide use preferably should be limited to a few days at a time, as long-term use has been linked to tardive dyskinesia. [312]\nAutonomic neuropathy may manifest as orthostatic hypotension. Such patients may require volume expanders or adrenergic agents. Patients with cystopathy may benefit from cholinergic agents.\nAcute-onset mononeuropathies in diabetes include acute cranial mononeuropathies, mononeuropathy multiplex, focal lesions of the brachial or lumbosacral plexus, and radiculopathies. It is important to consider nondiabetic causes for cranial nerve palsies, including intracranial tumors, aneurysms, and brainstem stroke. [313]\nFor more information see Diabetic Neuropathy and Diabetic Lumbosacral Plexopathy.\nDiabetes predisposes patients to a number of infectious diseases, including the following:\nRhinocerebral mucormycosis\nBacteriuria\nPyuria\nUpper urinary tract infection\nIntrarenal bacterial infection\nFor more information, see Infections in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.\nPatients with intercurrent illness become more insulin resistant because of the effects of increased counterregulatory (ie, anti-insulin) hormones. Therefore, despite decreased nutritional intake, glycemia may worsen.\nPatients on oral agents may need transient therapy with insulin to achieve adequate glycemic control. In patients who require insulin, scheduled doses of insulin, as opposed to sliding scale insulin, are far more effective in achieving glycemic control. [314, 315]\nMetformin is a special case. If patients taking metformin have any illness that leads to dehydration or hypoperfusion, the drug should be temporarily discontinued because of a possible increased risk of lactic acidosis.\nStandard practice in intensively ill patients has been to provide tight glycemic control through intensive insulin therapy. Research evidence, however, has called this practice into question.\nA meta-analysis found that in critically ill adult patients, tight glucose control is associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia but not with significantly reduced hospital mortality. [316] A large, international, randomized trial among adults treated in an intensive care unit (ICU) found that intensive glucose control (target, 81-108 mg/dL) resulted in higher mortality than did a blood glucose target of 180 mg/dL or less. [317]\nHowever, large, single-center studies using more accurate glucose measurements have shown a benefit to intensive glycemic control in critical illness. [318] This remains an area of important ongoing research.\nResults of the Diabetes and Insulin-Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (DIGAMI) trial suggested improved outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes with acute myocardial infarction or stroke who receive constant IV insulin during the acute phase of the event to maintain blood glucose values of approximately 100-150 mg/dL. [319] However, these results were not confirmed in the follow-up trial, DIGAMI-2. [320]\nA post-hoc analysis of the DIGAMI-2 study revealed that glucose-lowering drugs impact prognosis differently. Insulin may be associated with increased risk of nonfatal cardiac events, whereas metformin seems to be protective against risk of death. [321]\nSurgical patients may experience worsening of glycemia for reasons similar to those listed above for intercurrent medical illness. Patients on oral agents may need transient therapy with insulin to maintain blood glucose at approximately 100-180 mg/dL.\nIn patients who require insulin, scheduled doses of insulin (eg, glargine once daily plus glulisine before meals, as opposed to sliding-scale insulin, are far more effective in controlling glucose. Intensive glucose control in surgical ICU patients appears to reduce the risk of septicemia, but as with other critically ill patients, this may come at the cost of increased risk of hypoglycemia. [316]\nA standardized protocol can be effective in transitioning patients who have diabetes and acute coronary syndrome to subcutaneous insulin once oral feeding has resumed. This is based on insulin requirement during the previous 12 hours. Half of the amount is given as basal insulin, and the remainder is given as prandial insulin. [322]\nFor patients who can eat soon after surgery, the time-honored approach of administering half of the usual morning dose of neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin with 5% dextrose in the IV infusion is acceptable, with resumption of scheduled insulin (perhaps at reduced doses) within the first 1-2 days. With the availability of newer basal insulins (ie, glargine, detemir), options have expanded. A full dose of basal insulin can be given, and rapid-acting insulin can be administered when meals are consumed.\nPatients receiving basal insulin can often receive their usual dose if they are given IV glucose during surgery, with appropriate intraoperative and postoperative monitoring of glucose. Oral antidiabetic agents can be restarted when the patient is stable and eating.\nInsulin secretagogues should be used with caution in the hospital, since food intake may be interrupted by diagnostic tests and procedures. Metformin may have to be started at a lower dose and gradually titrated to full dose due to GI side effects. Since TZDs have such a long biologic effect, their omission in the hospital is usually inconsequential. The role of incretins in the hospital has not yet been defined.\nFor patients who require more prolonged periods without oral nutrition and for major surgery, such as coronary artery bypass grafting and major abdominal surgery, constant infusion IV insulin is preferred. Discontinue metformin temporarily after any major surgery until the patient is clearly hemodynamically stable and normal renal function is documented. Discontinuing metformin for at least 48 hours in this situation until proof of normal renal function is established is the current standard.\nGuidelines from the American College of Clinical Endocrinologists for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in patients at risk recommend the following measures:\nRegular physical activity\nCardiovascular risk factor reduction\nAggressive treatment of hypertension and dyslipidemia\nThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial has shown that modest lifestyle changes (eg, 4-5% sustained weight reduction for approximately 3 y) reduce the risk for diabetes in patients at high risk by 58%. [323] Eight health-care facilities participated in an instructive study of group-based lifestyle intervention that should help other agencies/states emulate strategies used to affect positive lifestyle changes for the prevention of diabetes. [324]\nIn an 11-year, population-based cohort study of over 200,000 men and women without evidence of diabetes, heart disease, or cancer at baseline, good lifestyle decisions in combination significantly reduced the risk of developing diabetes. For each additional positive lifestyle factor (eg, with regard to diet, physical activity, or smoking) in the low-risk group, the odds for diabetes were 31% lower [325]\nYeh et al found that although cigarette smokers are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, smoking cessation leads to higher short-term risk. [326] In this prospective cohort study in 10,892 middle-aged, nondiabetic adults, 1254 persons developed type 2 diabetes during 9 years of follow up.\nThe adjusted hazard ratio of incident diabetes among persons in the highest tertile of pack-years was 1.42, compared with persons who had never smoked. However, in the first 3 years after quitting smoking, the hazard ratio was 1.73; the risk then gradually decreased, disappearing completely at 12 years. Yeh et al recommended that smoking cessation in smokers at risk for diabetes be coupled with strategies for prevention and early detection of diabetes.\nA significant inverse correlation has been found between the risk of diabetes and the intake of magnesium, which plays an important role in insulin action and glucose homeostasis. In a meta-analysis, the summary relative risk of type 2 diabetes for every 100 mg/day increment in magnesium intake was 0.86. [327]\nInterest in the impact of phylloquinone intake on glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity has a long history. A 2012 report suggests a beneficial role for phylloquinone in diabetes prevention in elderly subjects with high cardiovascular risk. However, caution is advised in patients who are concurrently being treated with anticoagulant drugs such as warfarin. [328]\nPharmacologic prevention\nDrugs from several classes have been studied in the prevention of diabetes. However, the FDA has not approved any drug for the treatment of prediabetes or the prevention of type 2 diabetes. [329]\nThe ADA recommends that, in addition to lifestyle counseling, metformin be considered in selected patients with prediabetes. [2] ADA criteria for preventive metformin therapy are as follows:\nAge younger than 60 years\nBoth impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT)\nOther risk factors (eg, HbA1C >6%, hypertension, low HDL cholesterol, elevated triglycerides, or a family history of diabetes in a first-degree relative)\nIn the DPP, metformin 1700 mg daily was about half as effective as lifestyle intervention in reducing risk among subjects with elevated fasting and postload plasma glucose concentrations. [323] Over an average follow-up period of 2.8 years, the incidence of diabetes was 11.0, 7.8, and 4.8 cases per 100 person-years in the placebo, metformin, and lifestyle groups, respectively.\nAnalysis of available data from the DPP suggests that troglitazone was effective in preventing diabetes. This effect was also seen in the Troglitazone in Prevention of Diabetes (TRIPOD) study of Hispanic women with a history of gestational diabetes. After troglitazone was withdrawn from the market because of hepatotoxicity, the continuation of TRIPOD in the Pioglitazone in the Prevention of Diabetes Study demonstrated slowed progression of subclinical atherosclerosis with glitazone treatment. [330]\nIn the Diabetes Reduction Assessment With Ramipril and Rosiglitazone Medication (DREAM) trial, investigators concluded that rosiglitazone at 8 mg daily reduces the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in patients with IFG and/or IGT. At the end of this prospective, multicenter study, composite outcome of diabetes or death from any cause was 11.6% in the rosiglitazone group versus 26% in the placebo group. [153] Ramipril did not produce significant reduction in the same composite outcome. [331]\nAcarbose (100 mg three times a day) was shown in the Study to Prevent Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (STOP-NIDDM) to reduce diabetes rates by approximately 25% in patients at high risk for the development of type 2 diabetes. [332] This 6-year, international, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized investigation included 1,368 subjects with IGT.\nThe 2010 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke include the following recommendations for patients with diabetes:\nRegular blood pressure screening\nPhysical activity; 30 minutes or more of moderate-intensity activity on a daily basis\nA low-sodium, high-potassium diet to reduce blood pressure; a diet emphasizing consumption of fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products (eg, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension [DASH] diet) may lower stroke risk\nA blood pressure goal of less than 130/80 mm Hg\nDrug therapy with ACE inhibitors or ARBs\nStatin therapy, especially in patients with other risk factors; monotherapy with fibrates may also be considered to lower stroke risk\nThe AHA/ASA guidelines note that the benefit of taking aspirin for the reduction of stroke risk has not been fully demonstrated in diabetic patients.\nPrimary care providers can care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus adequately. The multiple facets of disease treatment (eg, nutrition, exercise, smoking cessation, medications, complications monitoring) and data management (eg, glucose levels, blood pressure, lipids, complications monitoring) must be continually addressed.\nInability to achieve adequate glycemic (or blood pressure or lipid) control usually should be a clear indication to consult a diabetes specialist. When a patient has developed advanced complications, a diabetes specialist cannot be expected to be able to lessen the burden of these complications.\n[Guideline] Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2010 Jan. 33 Suppl 1:S62-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes--2012. Diabetes Care. 2012 Jan. 35 Suppl 1:S11-63. [Medline].\nU.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Adults. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsdiab.htm.\nKeller DM. New EASD/ADA Position Paper Shifts Diabetes Treatment Goals. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/771989. Accessed: October 15, 2012.\nInzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, et al. Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach. Position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia. 2012 Jun. 55(6):1577-96. [Medline].\nInzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012 Jun. 35(6):1364-79. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nTucker ME. New diabetes guidelines ease systolic blood pressure target. December 20, 2012. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/776543. Accessed: January 8, 2013.\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. American Diabetes Association clinical practice recommendations: 2013. Diabetes Care. January 2013. 36 (suppl 1):S1-S110. [Full Text].\nReport of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2003 Jan. 26 Suppl 1:S5-20. [Medline].\nCenters for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. 2017. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf.\nHarrison P. Almost Half the US Population Has Diabetes or Its Precursor. Medscape Medical News. 2017 Jul 19. [Full Text].\nUnger RH, Orci L. Paracrinology of islets and the paracrinopathy of diabetes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Sep 14. 107(37):16009-12. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nPhilippe MF, Benabadji S, Barbot-Trystram L, Vadrot D, Boitard C, Larger E. Pancreatic volume and endocrine and exocrine functions in patients with diabetes. Pancreas. 2011 Apr. 40(3):359-63. [Medline].\nBacha F, Lee S, Gungor N, Arslanian SA. From pre-diabetes to type 2 diabetes in obese youth: pathophysiological characteristics along the spectrum of glucose dysregulation. Diabetes Care. 2010 Oct. 33(10):2225-31. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nHansen KB, Vilsboll T, Bagger JI, Holst JJ, Knop FK. Increased postprandial GIP and glucagon responses, but unaltered GLP-1 response after intervention with steroid hormone, relative physical inactivity, and high-calorie diet in healthy subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Feb. 96(2):447-53. [Medline].\nWheeler E, Barroso I. Genome-wide association studies and type 2 diabetes. Brief Funct Genomics. 2011 Mar. 10(2):52-60. [Medline].\nBillings LK, Florez JC. The genetics of type 2 diabetes: what have we learned from GWAS? Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Nov;1212:59-77. [Full Text].\nNielsen EM, Hansen L, Carstensen B, Echwald SM, Drivsholm T, Glumer C, et al. The E23K variant of Kir6.2 associates with impaired post-OGTT serum insulin response and increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 2003 Feb. 52(2):573-7. [Medline].\nUkkola O, Sun G, Bouchard C. Insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF2 ) and IGF-binding protein 1 (IGFBP1) gene variants are associated with overfeeding-induced metabolic changes. Diabetologia. 2001 Dec. 44(12):2231-6. [Medline].\nLindgren CM, McCarthy MI. Mechanisms of disease: genetic insights into the etiology of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Mar. 4(3):156-63. [Medline].\nSladek R, Rocheleau G, Rung J, Dina C, Shen L, Serre D, et al. A genome-wide association study identifies novel risk loci for type 2 diabetes. Nature. 2007 Feb 22. 445(7130):881-5. [Medline].\nSandhu MS, Weedon MN, Fawcett KA, Wasson J, Debenham SL, Daly A, et al. Common variants in WFS1 confer risk of type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet. 2007 Aug. 39(8):951-3. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nSaxena R, Hivert MF, Langenberg C, Tanaka T, Pankow JS, Vollenweider P, et al. Genetic variation in GIPR influences the glucose and insulin responses to an oral glucose challenge. Nat Genet. 2010 Feb. 42(2):142-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nChiefari E, Tanyolac S, Paonessa F, Pullinger CR, Capula C, Iiritano S, et al. Functional variants of the HMGA1 gene and type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA. 2011 Mar 2. 305(9):903-12. [Medline].\nWang TJ, Larson MG, Vasan RS, Cheng S, Rhee EP, McCabe E, et al. Metabolite profiles and the risk of developing diabetes. Nat Med. 2011 Apr. 17(4):448-53. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nTesta R, Olivieri F, Sirolla C, Spazzafumo L, Rippo MR, Marra M, et al. Leukocyte telomere length is associated with complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2011 Nov. 28(11):1388-94. [Medline].\nKrssak M, Winhofer Y, Gobl C, Bischof M, Reiter G, Kautzky-Willer A, et al. Insulin resistance is not associated with myocardial steatosis in women. Diabetologia. 2011 Jul. 54(7):1871-8. [Medline].\nLeiter LA, Lundman P, da Silva PM, Drexel H, Junger C, Gitt AK. Persistent lipid abnormalities in statin-treated patients with diabetes mellitus in Europe and Canada: results of the Dyslipidaemia International Study. Diabet Med. 2011 Nov. 28(11):1343-51. [Medline].\nStern MP. Do non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease share common antecedents?. Ann Intern Med. 1996 Jan 1. 124(1 Pt 2):110-6. [Medline].\nHaffner SM, D'Agostino R Jr, Mykkanen L, Tracy R, Howard B, Rewers M, et al. Insulin sensitivity in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Relationship to cardiovascular risk factors: the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study. Diabetes Care. 1999 Apr. 22(4):562-8. [Medline].\nBusko M. Gray-matter atrophy may drive cognitive decline in diabetes. Medscape Medical News. August 22, 2013. [Full Text].\nMoran C, Phan TG, Chen J, et al. Brain atrophy in type 2 diabetes: regional distribution and influence on cognition. Diabetes Care. 2013 Aug 12. [Medline].\nBrooks M. Depression accelerates cognitive decline in type 2 diabetes. Medscape Medical News. October 17, 2013. [Full Text].\nSullivan MD, Katon WJ, Lovato LC, Miller ME, Murray AM, Horowitz KR, et al. Association of Depression With Accelerated Cognitive Decline Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in the ACCORD-MIND Trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013 Oct 1. 70(10):1041-7. [Medline].\nAhlqvist E, Storm P, Karajamaki A, et al. Novel subgroups of adult-onset diabetes and their association with outcomes: a data-driven cluster analysis of six variables. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018 Mar 1. [Medline].\nDavenport L. Diabetes Consists of Five Types, Not Two, Say Researchers. Medscape Medical News. 2018 Mar 1. [Full Text].\nAppropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. Lancet. 2004 Jan 10. 363(9403):157-63. [Medline].\nWei GS, Coady SA, Goff DC Jr, Brancati FL, Levy D, Selvin E, et al. Blood pressure and the risk of developing diabetes in african americans and whites: ARIC, CARDIA, and the framingham heart study. Diabetes Care. 2011 Apr. 34(4):873-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nDabelea D, Pettitt DJ, Hanson RL, Imperatore G, Bennett PH, Knowler WC. Birth weight, type 2 diabetes, and insulin resistance in Pima Indian children and young adults. Diabetes Care. 1999 Jun. 22(6):944-50. [Medline].\nYarbrough DE, Barrett-Connor E, Kritz-Silverstein D, Wingard DL. Birth weight, adult weight, and girth as predictors of the metabolic syndrome in postmenopausal women: the Rancho Bernardo Study. Diabetes Care. 1998 Oct. 21(10):1652-8. [Medline].\nLi Y, Qi Q, Workalemahu T, Hu FB, Qi L. Birth Weight, Genetic Susceptibility, and Adulthood Risk of Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012 Aug 24. [Medline].\nSlining MM, Kuzawa CW, Mayer-Davis EJ, Adair LS. Evaluating the indirect effect of infant weight velocity on insulin resistance in young adulthood: a birth cohort study from the Philippines. Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Mar 15. 173(6):640-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nWang J, Luben R, Khaw KT, Bingham S, Wareham NJ, Forouhi NG. Dietary energy density predicts the risk of incident type 2 diabetes: the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk Study. Diabetes Care. 2008 Nov. 31(11):2120-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nHectors TL, Vanparys C, van der Ven K, Martens GA, Jorens PG, Van Gaal LF, et al. Environmental pollutants and type 2 diabetes: a review of mechanisms that can disrupt beta cell function. Diabetologia. 2011 Jun. 54(6):1273-90. [Medline].\nde Miguel-Yanes JM, Shrader P, Pencina MJ, Fox CS, Manning AK, Grant RW, et al. Genetic risk reclassification for type 2 diabetes by age below or above 50 years using 40 type 2 diabetes risk single nucleotide polymorphisms. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jan. 34(1):121-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nWinckler W, Weedon MN, Graham RR, McCarroll SA, Purcell S, Almgren P, et al. Evaluation of common variants in the six known maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) genes for association with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 2007 Mar. 56(3):685-93. [Medline].\nMolven A, Ringdal M, Nordbo AM, Raeder H, Stoy J, Lipkind GM, et al. Mutations in the insulin gene can cause MODY and autoantibody-negative type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2008 Apr. 57(4):1131-5. [Medline].\nNeve B, Fernandez-Zapico ME, Ashkenazi-Katalan V, Dina C, Hamid YH, Joly E, et al. Role of transcription factor KLF11 and its diabetes-associated gene variants in pancreatic beta cell function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Mar 29. 102(13):4807-12. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nRaeder H, Johansson S, Holm PI, Haldorsen IS, Mas E, Sbarra V, et al. Mutations in the CEL VNTR cause a syndrome of diabetes and pancreatic exocrine dysfunction. Nat Genet. 2006 Jan. 38(1):54-62. [Medline].\nPlengvidhya N, Kooptiwut S, Songtawee N, Doi A, Furuta H, Nishi M, et al. PAX4 mutations in Thais with maturity onset diabetes of the young. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Jul. 92(7):2821-6. [Medline].\nBorowiec M, Liew CW, Thompson R, Boonyasrisawat W, Hu J, Mlynarski WM, et al. Mutations at the BLK locus linked to maturity onset diabetes of the young and beta-cell dysfunction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Aug 25. 106(34):14460-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nEdghill EL, Bingham C, Ellard S, Hattersley AT. Mutations in hepatocyte nuclear factor-1beta and their related phenotypes. J Med Genet. 2006 Jan. 43(1):84-90. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nvan den Ouweland JM, Lemkes HH, Ruitenbeek W, Sandkuijl LA, de Vijlder MF, Struyvenberg PA, et al. Mutation in mitochondrial tRNA(Leu)(UUR) gene in a large pedigree with maternally transmitted type II diabetes mellitus and deafness. Nat Genet. 1992 Aug. 1(5):368-71. [Medline].\nCastellino AM. Genetically Lowered Birth Weight May Cause Type 2 Diabetes. Medscape Medical News. July 4, 2016. [Full Text].\nWang T, Huang T, Li Y, Zheng Y, Manson JE, Hu FB, et al. Low birthweight and risk of type 2 diabetes: a Mendelian randomisation study. Diabetologia. 2016 Jun 23. [Medline].\nPan A, Lucas M, Sun Q, van Dam RM, Franco OH, Manson JE, et al. Bidirectional association between depression and type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. Arch Intern Med. 2010 Nov 22. 170(21):1884-91. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nNouwen A, Winkley K, Twisk J, Lloyd CE, Peyrot M, Ismail K, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus as a risk factor for the onset of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2010 Dec. 53(12):2480-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nSiuta MA, Robertson SD, Kocalis H, Saunders C, Gresch PJ, Khatri V, et al. Dysregulation of the norepinephrine transporter sustains cortical hypodopaminergia and schizophrenia-like behaviors in neuronal rictor null mice. PLoS Biol. 2010 Jun 8. 8(6):e1000393. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nFeig DS, Shah BR, Lipscombe LL, Wu CF, Ray JG, Lowe J, et al. Preeclampsia as a risk factor for diabetes: a population-based cohort study. PLoS Med. 2013 Apr. 10(4):e1001425. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nAndes LJ, Cheng YJ, Rolka DB, Gregg EW, Imperatore G. Prevalence of Prediabetes Among Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States, 2005-2016. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. e194498. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nDunleavy BP. Prevalence of prediabetes high among U.S. teens, young adults. 2019 Dec 2. Available at https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/12/02/Prevalence-of-prediabetes-high-among-US-teens-young-adults/8591575297926/.\nHackethal V. 2 in 5 American Adults Will Develop Diabetes. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/829833. Accessed: August 13, 2014.\nGregg EW, Zhuo X, Albright AL, et al. Trends in lifetime risk and years of life lost due to diabetes in the USA, 1985—2011: a modelling study. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. Available at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70161-5/fulltext. Accessed: August 13, 2014.\nLudwig J, Sanbonmatsu L, Gennetian L, Adam E, Duncan GJ, Katz LF, et al. Neighborhoods, obesity, and diabetes--a randomized social experiment. N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 20. 365(16):1509-19. [Medline].\nOne adult in ten will have diabetes by 2030. International Diabetes Federation. November 14, 2011. Available at http://www.idf.org/media-events/press-releases/2011/diabetes-atlas-5th-edition.\nSelvin E, Steffes MW, Ballantyne CM, Hoogeveen RC, Coresh J, Brancati FL. Racial differences in glycemic markers: a cross-sectional analysis of community-based data. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Mar 1. 154(5):303-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nAlbers JW, Herman WH, Pop-Busui R, Feldman EL, Martin CL, Cleary PA, et al. Effect of prior intensive insulin treatment during the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) on peripheral neuropathy in type 1 diabetes during the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Study. Diabetes Care. 2010 May. 33(5):1090-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nWhite NH, Sun W, Cleary PA, Tamborlane WV, Danis RP, Hainsworth DP, et al. Effect of prior intensive therapy in type 1 diabetes on 10-year progression of retinopathy in the DCCT/EDIC: comparison of adults and adolescents. Diabetes. 2010 May. 59(5):1244-53. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nIntensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998 Sep 12. 352(9131):837-53. [Medline].\nPerreault L, Pan Q, Mather KJ, Watson KE, Hamman RF, Kahn SE. Effect of regression from prediabetes to normal glucose regulation on long-term reduction in diabetes risk: results from the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet. 2012 Jun 16. 379(9833):2243-51. [Medline].\nHolman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 9. 359(15):1577-89. [Medline].\nDluhy RG, McMahon GT. Intensive glycemic control in the ACCORD and ADVANCE trials. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jun 12. 358(24):2630-3. [Medline].\nSkyler JS, Bergenstal R, Bonow RO, Buse J, Deedwania P, Gale EA, et al. Intensive glycemic control and the prevention of cardiovascular events: implications of the ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VA Diabetes Trials: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and a Scientific Statement of the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Jan 20. 53(3):298-304. [Medline].\nDuckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, Reda D, Emanuele N, Reaven PD, et al. Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 8. 360(2):129-39. [Medline].\nGriffin SJ, Borch-Johnsen K, Davies MJ, Khunti K, Rutten GE, Sandbek A, et al. Effect of early intensive multifactorial therapy on 5-year cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes detected by screening (ADDITION-Europe): a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2011 Jul 9. 378(9786):156-67. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nGaede P, Lund-Andersen H, Parving HH, Pedersen O. Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 7. 358(6):580-91. [Medline].\nKerr D, Partridge H, Knott J, Thomas PW. HbA1c 3 months after diagnosis predicts premature mortality in patients with new onset type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2011 Dec. 28(12):1520-4. [Medline].\nGruss C, Gutierrez C, Burhans WC, DePamphilis ML, Koller T, Sogo JM. Nucleosome assembly in mammalian cell extracts before and after DNA replication. EMBO J. 1990 Sep. 9(9):2911-22. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nZheng F, Yan L, Yang Z, Zhong B, Xie W. HbA1c, diabetes and cognitive decline: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Diabetologia. 2018 Jan 25. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nMelville NA. HbA1c Levels in Diabetes Linked to Cognitive Decline. Medscape Medical News. 2018 Jan 30. [Full Text].\nCano JF, Baena-Diez JM, Franch J, Vila J, Tello S, Sala J, et al. Long-term cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetic compared with nondiabetic first acute myocardial infarction patients: a population-based cohort study in southern Europe. Diabetes Care. 2010 Sep. 33(9):2004-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nYamasaki Y, Nakajima K, Kusuoka H, Izumi T, Kashiwagi A, Kawamori R, et al. Prognostic value of gated myocardial perfusion imaging for asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes: the J-ACCESS 2 investigation. Diabetes Care. 2010 Nov. 33(11):2320-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nYoung LH, Wackers FJ, Chyun DA, Davey JA, Barrett EJ, Taillefer R, et al. Cardiac outcomes after screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: the DIAD study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009 Apr 15. 301(15):1547-55. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nMurthy VL, Naya M, Foster CR, Gaber M, Hainer J, Klein J, et al. Association Between Coronary Vascular Dysfunction and Cardiac Mortality in Patients with and without Diabetes Mellitus. Circulation. 2012 Aug 23. [Medline].\nU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. National diabetes fact sheet: national estimates and general information on diabetes and prediabetes in the United States, 2011. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf. Accessed: January 5, 2012.\nNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. National Diabetes Statistics, 2011. National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse. Available at http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/statistics/. Accessed: January 5, 2012.\nWannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Whincup PH, Lennon L, Sattar N. Impact of diabetes on cardiovascular disease risk and all-cause mortality in older men: influence of age at onset, diabetes duration, and established and novel risk factors. Arch Intern Med. 2011 Mar 14. 171(5):404-10. [Medline].\nSeshasai SR, Kaptoge S, Thompson A, Di Angelantonio E, Gao P, Sarwar N, et al. Diabetes mellitus, fasting glucose, and risk of cause-specific death. N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 3. 364(9):829-41. [Medline].\nLind M, Olsson M, Rosengren A, Svensson AM, Bounias I, Gudbjornsdottir S. The relationship between glycaemic control and heart failure in 83,021 patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2012 Aug 16. [Medline].\nShah AS, Khoury PR, Dolan LM, Ippisch HM, Urbina EM, Daniels SR, et al. The effects of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus on cardiac structure and function in adolescents and young adults. Diabetologia. 2011 Apr. 54(4):722-30. [Medline].\nGiovannucci E, Harlan DM, Archer MC, Bergenstal RM, Gapstur SM, Habel LA, et al. Diabetes and cancer: a consensus report. Diabetes Care. 2010 Jul. 33(7):1674-85. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nTseng CH. Diabetes and risk of bladder cancer: a study using the National Health Insurance database in Taiwan. Diabetologia. 2011 Aug. 54(8):2009-15. [Medline].\nColmers IN, Bowker SL, Majumdar SR, Johnson JA. Use of thiazolidinediones and the risk of bladder cancer among people with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2012 Jul 3. [Medline].\nYin M, Zhou J, Gorak EJ, Quddus F. Metformin is associated with survival benefit in cancer patients with concurrent type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncologist. 2013 Nov 20. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nNelson R. Metformin boosts survival in diabetic cancer patients. Medscape Medical News. November 25, 2013. [Full Text].\nLopez-de-Andres A, Perez-Farinos N, de Miguel-Diez J, et al. Type 2 diabetes and postoperative pneumonia: An observational, population-based study using the Spanish Hospital Discharge Database, 2001-2015. PLoS One. 2019. 14 (2):e0211230. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nMurphy HR, Steel SA, Roland JM, Morris D, Ball V, Campbell PJ, et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes: influences of glycaemic control, obesity and social disadvantage. Diabet Med. 2011 Sep. 28(9):1060-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nSperl-Hillen J, Beaton S, Fernandes O, Von Worley A, Vazquez-Benitez G, Parker E, et al. Comparative effectiveness of patient education methods for type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011 Dec 12. 171(22):2001-10. [Medline].\nKhunti K, Gray LJ, Skinner T, Carey ME, Realf K, Dallosso H, et al. Effectiveness of a diabetes education and self management programme (DESMOND) for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: three year follow-up of a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMJ. 2012 Apr 26. 344:e2333. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nDuke SA, Colagiuri S, Colagiuri R. Individual patient education for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21. CD005268. [Medline].\nHarris MI, Klein R, Welborn TA, Knuiman MW. Onset of NIDDM occurs at least 4-7 yr before clinical diagnosis. Diabetes Care. 1992 Jul. 15(7):815-9. [Medline].\nNainggolan L. Dawn Phenomenon Affects Half of Type 2 Diabetes Patients. Medscape Medical News. Nov 7 2013. [Full Text].\nMonnier L, Colette C, Dejager S, et al. Magnitude of the dawn phenomenon and its impact on the overall glucose exposure in type 2 diabetes: is this of concern?. Diabetes Care. 2013 Oct 29. [Medline].\nMohamed Q, Gillies MC, Wong TY. Management of diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review. JAMA. 2007 Aug 22. 298(8):902-16. [Medline].\nFrank RN. Diabetic retinopathy. N Engl J Med. 2004 Jan 1. 350(1):48-58. [Medline].\nDing J, Strachan MW, Fowkes FG, Wong TY, Macgillivray TJ, Patton N, et al. Association of retinal arteriolar dilatation with lower verbal memory: the Edinburgh Type 2 Diabetes Study. Diabetologia. 2011 Jul. 54(7):1653-62. [Medline].\nHujoel PP, Stott-Miller M. Retinal and gingival hemorrhaging and chronic hyperglycemia. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jan. 34(1):181-3. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Statement on the Use of A1C for the Diagnosis of Diabetes. Available at https://www.aace.com/files/AACEpositionA1cfeb2010.pdf. Accessed: May 14 2012.\nWorld Health Organization. Definition and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and intermediate hyperglycemia: report of a WHO/IDF consultation. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2006. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594934_eng.pdf.\nBrambilla P, La Valle E, Falbo R, Limonta G, Signorini S, Cappellini F, et al. Normal fasting plasma glucose and risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jun. 34(6):1372-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Sacks DB, Arnold M, Bakris GL, Bruns DE, Horvath AR, Kirkman MS, et al. Executive summary: guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Clin Chem. 2011 Jun. 57(6):793-8. [Medline].\nInternational Expert Committee report on the role of the A1C assay in the diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009 Jul. 32(7):1327-34. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nHuang ES, Liu JY, Moffet HH, John PM, Karter AJ. Glycemic control, complications, and death in older diabetic patients: the diabetes and aging study. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jun. 34(6):1329-36. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nWang W, Lee ET, Howard BV, Fabsitz RR, Devereux RB, Welty TK. Fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c in identifying and predicting diabetes: the strong heart study. Diabetes Care. 2011 Feb. 34(2):363-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nBrooks M. Hemoglobin A1c misses many cases of diabetes. Medscape. 2019 Mar 28. [Full Text].\nNowicka P, Santoro N, Liu H, Lartaud D, Shaw MM, Goldberg R, et al. Utility of hemoglobin A(1c) for diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes in obese children and adolescents. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jun. 34(6):1306-11. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nVijayakumar P, Nelson RG, Hanson RL, Knowler WC, Sinha M. HbA1c and the Prediction of Type 2 Diabetes in Children and Adults. Diabetes Care. 2017 Jan. 40 (1):16-21. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nDavenport L. HbA1c Predicts Diabetes Risk in Children and Adolescents. Medscape Medical News. 2017 Jan 4. [Full Text].\nLu ZX, Walker KZ, O'Dea K, Sikaris KA, Shaw JE. A1C for screening and diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice. Diabetes Care. 2010 Apr. 33(4):817-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nLerner N, Shani M, Vinker S. Predicting type 2 diabetes mellitus using haemoglobin A1c: A community-based historic cohort study. Eur J Gen Pract. 2013 Nov 29. [Medline].\nMcCall B. Simple saliva swab and early HbA1c test predict diabetes. Medscape Medical News. February 11, 2014. [Full Text].\nGerstein HC, Islam S, Anand S, Almahmeed W, Damasceno A, Dans A, et al. Dysglycaemia and the risk of acute myocardial infarction in multiple ethnic groups: an analysis of 15,780 patients from the INTERHEART study. Diabetologia. 2010 Dec. 53(12):2509-17. [Medline].\nSuzuki S, Koga M, Amamiya S, Nakao A, Wada K, Okuhara K, et al. Glycated albumin but not HbA1c reflects glycaemic control in patients with neonatal diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia. 2011 Sep. 54(9):2247-53. [Medline].\nWilson DM, Xing D, Cheng J, Beck RW, Hirsch I, Kollman C, et al. Persistence of individual variations in glycated hemoglobin: analysis of data from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Randomized Trial. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jun. 34(6):1315-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nAmerican Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2015: Abridged for Primary Care Providers. Clinical Diabetes. 2015. 33(2):[Full Text].\nColayco DC, Niu F, McCombs JS, Cheetham TC. A1C and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a nested case-control study. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jan. 34(1):77-83. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nGerstein HC, Miller ME, Genuth S, Ismail-Beigi F, Buse JB, Goff DC Jr, et al. Long-term effects of intensive glucose lowering on cardiovascular outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 3. 364(9):818-28. [Medline].\nNg JM, Cooke M, Bhandari S, Atkin SL, Kilpatrick ES. The effect of iron and erythropoietin treatment on the A1C of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Diabetes Care. 2010 Nov. 33(11):2310-3. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nMorrison F, Shubina M, Turchin A. Encounter frequency and serum glucose level, blood pressure, and cholesterol level control in patients with diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 2011 Sep 26. 171(17):1542-50. [Medline].\nEffect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998 Sep 12. 352(9131):854-65. [Medline].\n[Guideline] Busko M. HbA1c Below 8% in Diabetes for 'Most' Says ACP, But Others Disagree. Medscape Medical News. 2018 Mar 5. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, Kansagara D, et al. Hemoglobin A1c Targets for Glycemic Control With Pharmacologic Therapy for Nonpregnant Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Guidance Statement Update From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Mar 6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nAlfayez OM, Al Yami MS, Alshibani M, et al. Network meta-analysis of nine large cardiovascular outcome trials of new antidiabetic drugs. Prim Care Diabetes. 2019 Jan 31. [Medline].\nScarpello JH, Howlett HC. Metformin therapy and clinical uses. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2008 Sep. 5(3):157-67. [Medline].\nBodmer M, Meier C, Krahenbuhl S, Jick SS, Meier CR. Metformin, sulfonylureas, or other antidiabetes drugs and the risk of lactic acidosis or hypoglycemia: a nested case-control analysis. Diabetes Care. 2008 Nov. 31(11):2086-91. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nSun L, Xie C, Wang G, et al. Gut microbiota and intestinal FXR mediate the clinical benefits of metformin. Nat Med. 2018 Dec. 24 (12):1919-29. [Medline].\nMelville NA. Metformin's Effect in Diabetes Linked to Gut Microbiota Changes. Medscape Medical News. 2018 Nov 29. [Full Text].\nTurner RC, Cull CA, Frighi V, Holman RR. Glycemic control with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: progressive requirement for multiple therapies (UKPDS 49). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. JAMA. 1999 Jun 2. 281(21):2005-12. [Medline].\nUKPDS 28: a randomized trial of efficacy of early addition of metformin in sulfonylurea-treated type 2 diabetes. U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Diabetes Care. 1998 Jan. 21(1):87-92. [Medline].\nQaseem A, Barry MJ, Humphrey LL, Forciea MA, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Oral Pharmacologic Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Clinical Practice Guideline Update From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jan 3. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nTucker ME. ACP Updates Guidelines for Type 2 Diabetes Care. Medscape Medical News. 2017 Jan 3. [Full Text].\nVashisht R, Jung K, Schuler A, et al. Association of Hemoglobin A1c Levels With Use of Sulfonylureas, Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors, and Thiazolidinediones in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Metformin: Analysis From the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics Initiative. JAMA Net Open. 2018 Aug 24. 1(4):[Full Text].\nTucker ME. Big Data Confirm Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Approach. Medscape Medical News. 2018 Aug 31. [Full Text].\nKooy A, de Jager J, Lehert P, Bets D, Wulffele MG, Donker AJ, et al. Long-term effects of metformin on metabolism and microvascular and macrovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Mar 23. 169(6):616-25. [Medline].\nPradhan AD, Everett BM, Cook NR, Rifai N, Ridker PM. Effects of initiating insulin and metformin on glycemic control and inflammatory biomarkers among patients with type 2 diabetes: the LANCET randomized trial. JAMA. 2009 Sep 16. 302(11):1186-94. [Medline].\nAndersson C, Olesen JB, Hansen PR, Weeke P, Norgaard ML, Jorgensen CH, et al. Metformin treatment is associated with a low risk of mortality in diabetic patients with heart failure: a retrospective nationwide cohort study. Diabetologia. 2010 Dec. 53(12):2546-53. [Medline].\nRoussel R, Travert F, Pasquet B, Wilson PW, Smith SC Jr, Goto S, et al. Metformin use and mortality among patients with diabetes and atherothrombosis. Arch Intern Med. 2010 Nov 22. 170(21):1892-9. [Medline].\nGross JL, Kramer CK, Leitão CB, Hawkins N, Viana LV, Schaan BD, et al. Effect of antihyperglycemic agents added to metformin and a sulfonylurea on glycemic control and weight gain in type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2011 May 17. 154(10):672-9. [Medline].\nZeller M, Danchin N, Simon D, Vahanian A, Lorgis L, Cottin Y, et al. Impact of type of preadmission sulfonylureas on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov. 95(11):4993-5002. [Medline].\nBellomo Damato A, Stefanelli G, Laviola L, Giorgino R, Giorgino F. Nateglinide provides tighter glycaemic control than glyburide in patients with Type 2 diabetes with prevalent postprandial hyperglycaemia. Diabet Med. 2011 May. 28(5):560-6. [Medline].\nRetnakaran R, Qi Y, Harris SB, Hanley AJ, Zinman B. Changes over time in glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and beta-cell function in response to low-dose metformin and thiazolidinedione combination therapy in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jul. 34(7):1601-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nDeFronzo RA, Tripathy D, Schwenke DC, Banerji M, Bray GA, Buchanan TA, et al. Pioglitazone for diabetes prevention in impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 24. 364(12):1104-15. [Medline].\nGerstein HC, Yusuf S, Bosch J, Pogue J, Sheridan P, Dinccag N, et al. Effect of rosiglitazone on the frequency of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006 Sep 23. 368(9541):1096-105. [Medline].\nPhung OJ, Sood NA, Sill BE, Coleman CI. Oral anti-diabetic drugs for the prevention of Type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2011 Aug. 28(8):948-64. [Medline].\nCharpentier G, Halimi S. Earlier triple therapy with pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009 Sep. 11(9):844-54. [Medline].\nDormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJ, Erdmann E, Massi-Benedetti M, Moules IK, et al. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005 Oct 8. 366(9493):1279-89. [Medline].\nRennings AJ, Russel FG, Li Y, Deen PM, Masereeuw R, Tack CJ, et al. Preserved response to diuretics in rosiglitazone-treated subjects with insulin resistance: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Apr. 89(4):587-94. [Medline].\nLewis JD, Ferrara A, Peng T, Hedderson M, Bilker WB, Quesenberry CP Jr, et al. Risk of bladder cancer among diabetic patients treated with pioglitazone: interim report of a longitudinal cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2011 Apr. 34(4):916-22. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nFerrara A, Lewis JD, Quesenberry CP Jr, Peng T, Strom BL, Van Den Eeden SK, et al. Cohort study of pioglitazone and cancer incidence in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011 Apr. 34(4):923-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nPiccinni C, Motola D, Marchesini G, Poluzzi E. Assessing the association of pioglitazone use and bladder cancer through drug adverse event reporting. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jun. 34(6):1369-71. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nLoke YK, Singh S, Furberg CD. Long-term use of thiazolidinediones and fractures in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2009 Jan 6. 180(1):32-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nUS Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Updated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to Restrict Access to Rosiglitazone-containing Medicines including Avandia, Avandamet, and Avandaryl. Available at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm255005.htm. Accessed: January 20, 2012.\nBunck MC, Diamant M, Corner A, Eliasson B, Malloy JL, Shaginian RM, et al. One-year treatment with exenatide improves beta-cell function, compared with insulin glargine, in metformin-treated type 2 diabetic patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2009 May. 32(5):762-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nBuse JB, Bergenstal RM, Glass LC, Heilmann CR, Lewis MS, Kwan AY, et al. Use of twice-daily exenatide in Basal insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jan 18. 154(2):103-12. [Medline].\nDrucker DJ, Buse JB, Taylor K, Kendall DM, Trautmann M, Zhuang D, et al. Exenatide once weekly versus twice daily for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study. Lancet. 2008 Oct 4. 372(9645):1240-50. [Medline].\nPencek R, Blickensderfer A, Li Y, Brunell SC, Chen S. Exenatide once weekly for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: effectiveness and tolerability in patient subpopulations. Int J Clin Pract. 2012 Aug 24. [Medline].\nBlevins T, Pullman J, Malloy J, Yan P, Taylor K, Schulteis C, et al. DURATION-5: exenatide once weekly resulted in greater improvements in glycemic control compared with exenatide twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 May. 96(5):1301-10. [Medline].\nDouglas D. Exenatide More Effective Than Insulin Detemir: Study. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777411. Accessed: January 15, 2013.\nDavies M, Heller S, Sreenan S, Sapin H, Adetunji O, Tahbaz A, et al. Once-Weekly Exenatide Versus Once- or Twice-Daily Insulin Detemir: Randomized, open-label, clinical trial of efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin alone or in combination with sulfonylureas. Diabetes Care. 2012 Dec 28. [Medline].\nMarso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, et al. Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 28. 375 (4):311-22. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nTamborlane WV, Barrientos-Perez M, Fainberg U, et al. Liraglutide in Children and Adolescents with Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 28. [Medline].\nUS Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves Tanzeum to treat type 2 diabetes [press release]. April 15, 2014. Available at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm393289.htm. Accessed: April 21, 2014.\nBusko M. FDA approves weekly injectable diabetes drug: albiglutide. Medscape Medical News. April 15, 2014. [Full Text].\nDouglas D. Albiglutide Long-Acting Option for Diabetes Control. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/821700. Accessed: March 17, 2014.\nPratley RE, Nauck MA, Barnett AH, et al. Once-weekly albiglutide versus once-daily liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral drugs (HARMONY 7): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority phase 3 study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014. Feb 6. [Epub ahead of print].\nTucker M. FDA Approves Once-Weekly Dulaglutide for Type 2 Diabetes. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/831969. Accessed: September 26, 2014.\nWysham C, Blevins T, Arakaki R, Colon G, Garcia P, Atisso C, et al. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide added onto pioglitazone and metformin versus exenatide in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-1). Diabetes Care. 2014 Aug. 37(8):2159-67. [Medline].\nUmpierrez G, Tofe Povedano S, Perez Manghi F, Shurzinske L, Pechtner V. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy versus metformin in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-3). Diabetes Care. 2014 Aug. 37(8):2168-76. [Medline].\nNauck M, Weinstock RS, Umpierrez GE, Guerci B, Skrivanek Z, Milicevic Z. Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide versus sitagliptin after 52 weeks in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-5). Diabetes Care. 2014 Aug. 37(8):2149-58. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nFonseca VA, Alvarado-Ruiz R, Raccah D, Boka G, Miossec P, Gerich JE. Efficacy and safety of the once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide in monotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes (GetGoal-Mono). Diabetes Care. 2012 Jun. 35(6):1225-31. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nAhren B, Galstyan G, Gautier JF, et al. Postprandial Glucagon Reductions Correlate to Reductions in Postprandial Glucose and Glycated Hemoglobin with Lixisenatide Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Post Hoc Analysis. Diabetes Ther. 2016 Jun 18. [Medline].\nYabe D, Ambos A, Cariou B, et al. Efficacy of lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of patients with diverse β-cell function in the GetGoal-M and GetGoal-S trials. J Diabetes Complications. 2016 May 24. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nPfeffer MA, Claggett B, Diaz R, et al. Lixisenatide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Acute Coronary Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec 3. 373 (23):2247-57. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nOzempic semaglutide injection 0.5mg/1mg [package insert]. Plainsboro, NJ: Novo Nordisk Inc. Dec 2017. Available at [Full Text].\nHe J. Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting. FDA Briefing Document. Oct 18, 2017. Available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/EndocrinologicandMetabolicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM580460.pdf.\nRosenstock J, Allison D, Birkenfeld AL, et al. Effect of Additional Oral Semaglutide vs Sitagliptin on Glycated Hemoglobin in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled With Metformin Alone or With Sulfonylurea: The PIONEER 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019 Apr 16. 321 (15):1466-80. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nRodbard HW, Rosenstock J, Canani LH, et al. Oral Semaglutide versus Empagliflozin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin: The PIONEER 2 Trial. Diabetes Care. 2019 Sep 17. [Medline].\nPratley R, Amod A, Hoff ST, et al. Oral semaglutide versus subcutaneous liraglutide and placebo in type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 4): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3a trial. Lancet. 2019 Jul 6. 394 (10192):39-50. [Medline].\nAschner P, Katzeff HL, Guo H, Sunga S, Williams-Herman D, Kaufman KD, et al. Efficacy and safety of monotherapy of sitagliptin compared with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2010 Mar. 12(3):252-61. [Medline].\nVilsboll T, Rosenstock J, Yki-Jarvinen H, Cefalu WT, Chen Y, Luo E, et al. Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin when added to insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2010 Feb. 12(2):167-77. [Medline].\nPerez-Monteverde A, Seck T, Xu L, Lee MA, Sisk CM, Williams-Herman DE, et al. Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin vs. pioglitazone in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Int J Clin Pract. 2011 Sep. 65(9):930-8. [Medline].\nOwens DR, Swallow R, Dugi KA, Woerle HJ. Efficacy and safety of linagliptin in persons with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by a combination of metformin and sulphonylurea: a 24-week randomized study. Diabet Med. 2011 Nov. 28(11):1352-61. [Medline].\nWillemen MJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Straus SM, Meyboom RH, Egberts TC, Leufkens HG. Use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the reporting of infections: a disproportionality analysis in the World Health Organization VigiBase. Diabetes Care. 2011 Feb. 34(2):369-74. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nMonami M, Dicembrini I, Antenore A, Mannucci E. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and bone fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Diabetes Care. 2011 Nov. 34(11):2474-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nNainggolan L. FDA approves canagliflozin, a first-in-class diabetes drug. March 29, 2013. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/781709. Accessed: April 2, 2013.\nUS Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves Invokana to treat type 2 diabetes [press release]. March 29, 2013. Available at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm345848.htm. Accessed: April 2, 2013.\nTucker M. FDA Approves Dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for Type 2 Diabetes Treatment. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/818858. Accessed: January 13, 2014.\nFDA News Release. FDA approves Farxiga to treat type 2 diabetes. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Available at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm380829.htm. Accessed: January 13, 2014.\nRoden M, Weng J, Eilbracht J, et al. Empagliflozin monotherapy with sitagliptin as an active comparator in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2013 Nov. 1(3):208-19. [Medline].\nRidderstrale M, Andersen KR, Zeller C, Kim G, Woerle HJ, Broedl UC. Comparison of empagliflozin and glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 104-week randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014 Jun 16. [Medline].\nStenlof K, Cefalu WT, Kim KA, Alba M, Usiskin K, Tong C, et al. Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin monotherapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with diet and exercise. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013 Apr. 15(4):372-82. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nClar C, Gill JA, Court R, Waugh N. Systematic review of SGLT2 receptor inhibitors in dual or triple therapy in type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open. 2012. 2(5):[Medline]. [Full Text].\nPerkovic V, Jardine MJ, Neal B, et al. Canagliflozin and Renal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes and Nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13. 380 (24):2295-306. [Medline].\nWilding JP, Woo V, Soler NG, Pahor A, Sugg J, Rohwedder K, et al. Long-term efficacy of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving high doses of insulin: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Mar 20. 156(6):405-15. [Medline].\nNauck MA, Del Prato S, Meier JJ, Duran-Garcia S, Rohwedder K, Elze M, et al. Dapagliflozin versus glipizide as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycemic control with metformin: a randomized, 52-week, double-blind, active-controlled noninferiority trial. Diabetes Care. 2011 Sep. 34(9):2015-22. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nStrojek K, Yoon KH, Hruba V, Elze M, Langkilde AM, Parikh S. Effect of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control with glimepiride: a randomized, 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2011 Oct. 13(10):928-38. [Medline].\nRosenstock J, Vico M, Wei L, Salsali A, List JF. Effects of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, on HbA(1c), body weight, and hypoglycemia risk in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on pioglitazone monotherapy. Diabetes Care. 2012 Jul. 35(7):1473-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nWiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, et al. Dapagliflozin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24. 380 (4):347-57. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nTucker ME. FDA Approves Empagliflozin for Reducing CVD Death. Medscape Medical News. 2016 Dec 2. [Full Text].\nPeters AL. 'Incredibly Exciting': Diabetes Drug With CV Benefits. Medscape. 2016 Dec 21. [Full Text].\nZinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al. Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26. 373 (22):2117-28. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nTerra SG, Focht K, Davies M, et al. Phase III, efficacy and safety study of ertugliflozin monotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with diet and exercise alone. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017 May. 19 (5):721-8. [Medline].\nRosenstock J, Frias J, Pall D, et al. Effect of ertugliflozin on glucose control, body weight, blood pressure and bone density in type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy (VERTIS MET). Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017 Aug 31. [Medline].\nDagogo-Jack S, Liu J, Eldor R, et al. Efficacy and safety of the addition of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin and sitagliptin: The VERTIS SITA2 placebo-controlled randomized study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017 Sep 17. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nde la Pena A, Riddle M, Morrow LA, Jiang HH, Linnebjerg H, Scott A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of high-dose human regular U-500 insulin versus human regular U-100 insulin in healthy obese subjects. Diabetes Care. 2011 Dec. 34(12):2496-501. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Indications of Insulin Analogues in Premixed Formulations for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes. AHRQ: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?productid=108&pageaction=displayproduct.. Accessed: March 7, 2012.\nBlair HA, Keating GM. Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL: A Review in Diabetes Mellitus. Drugs. 2016 Mar. 76 (3):363-74. [Medline].\nToujeo. US Food and Drug Administration. Available at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/206538s006lbl.pdf. Accessed: 2018 Apr 25.\nDavies MJ, Gross JL, Ono Y, Sasaki T, Bantwal G, Gall MA, et al. Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec given as part of basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes: a 26-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2014 Oct. 16 (10):922-30. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nZinman B, DeVries JH, Bode B, Russell-Jones D, Leiter LA, Moses A, et al. Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec three times a week versus insulin glargine once a day in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: results of two phase 3, 26 week, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2013 Oct. 1 (2):123-31. [Medline].\nZinman B, Fulcher G, Rao PV, Thomas N, Endahl LA, Johansen T, et al. Insulin degludec, an ultra-long-acting basal insulin, once a day or three times a week versus insulin glargine once a day in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 16-week, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2011 Mar 12. 377(9769):924-31. [Medline].\nAfrezza (insulin inhaled) prescribing information [package insert]. Valencia CA, United States: MannKind Corporation. June 2014. Available at [Full Text].\nFiasp (insulin aspart) [package insert]. 800 Scudders Mill Road, Plainsboro, NJ 08536: Novo Nordisk Inc. September 2017. Available at [Full Text].\nNainggolan L. FDA Approves New Fast-Acting Insulin, Fiasp, for Diabetes in Adults. Medscape Medical News. 2017 Sep 29. [Full Text].\nUS Food and Drug Administration. Early Communication About Safety of Lantus (Insulin Glargine). [Full Text].\nSuissa S, Azoulay L, Dell'Aniello S, Evans M, Vora J, Pollak M. Long-term effects of insulin glargine on the risk of breast cancer. Diabetologia. 2011 Sep. 54(9):2254-62. [Medline].\nJohnson JA, Bowker SL, Richardson K, Marra CA. Time-varying incidence of cancer after the onset of type 2 diabetes: evidence of potential detection bias. Diabetologia. 2011 Sep. 54(9):2263-71. [Medline].\nStefansdottir G, Zoungas S, Chalmers J, Kengne AP, Knol MJ, Leufkens HG, et al. Intensive glucose control and risk of cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2011 Jul. 54(7):1608-14. [Medline].\nShyangdan DS, Royle P, Clar C, Sharma P, Waugh N, Snaith A. Glucagon-like peptide analogues for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 5. CD006423. [Medline].\nHandelsman Y, Goldberg RB, Garvey WT, Fonseca VA, Rosenstock J, Jones MR, et al. Colesevelam hydrochloride to treat hypercholesterolemia and improve glycemia in prediabetes: a randomized, prospective study. Endocr Pract. 2010 Jul-Aug. 16(4):617-28. [Medline].\nRosenstock J, Fonseca VA, Garvey WT, Goldberg RB, Handelsman Y, Abby SL, et al. Initial combination therapy with metformin and colesevelam for achievement of glycemic and lipid goals in early type 2 diabetes. Endocr Pract. 2010 Jul-Aug. 16(4):629-40. [Medline].\nSando KR, Taylor J. Bromocriptine: its place in type 2 diabetes Tx. J Fam Pract. 2011 Nov. 60(11):E1-5. [Medline].\nGaziano JM, Cincotta AH, O'Connor CM, Ezrokhi M, Rutty D, Ma ZJ, et al. Randomized clinical trial of quick-release bromocriptine among patients with type 2 diabetes on overall safety and cardiovascular outcomes. Diabetes Care. 2010 Jul. 33(7):1503-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nBolen S, Wilson L, Vassy J, Feldman L, Yeh J, Marinopoulos S, et al. Undefined. 2007 Jul. [Medline].\nBennett WL, Wilson LM, Bolen S, Maruthur N, Singh S, Chatterjee R, et al. Undefined. 2011 Mar. [Medline].\nTucker ME. New AACE algorithm addresses all aspects of type 2 diabetes. Medscape Medical News. April 23, 2013. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, Blonde L, Bloomgarden ZT, Bush MA, et al. AACE Comprehensive Diabetes Management Algorithm 2013. Endocr Pract. 2013 Mar-Apr. 19(2):327-36. [Medline].\nBoule NG, Robert C, Bell GJ, Johnson ST, Bell RC, Lewanczuk RZ, et al. Metformin and exercise in type 2 diabetes: examining treatment modality interactions. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jul. 34(7):1469-74. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nBrooks M. Metformin Cuts Dementia Risk in Type 2 Diabetes. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/807886. Accessed: July 23, 2013.\nRodbard HW, Jellinger PS, Davidson JA, Einhorn D, Garber AJ, Grunberger G, et al. Statement by an American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology consensus panel on type 2 diabetes mellitus: an algorithm for glycemic control. Endocr Pract. 2009 Sep-Oct. 15(6):540-59. [Medline].\nQayyum R, Bolen S, Maruthur N, Feldman L, Wilson LM, Marinopoulos SS, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and safety of premixed insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Oct 21. 149(8):549-59. [Medline].\nPorcellati F, Lucidi P, Rossetti P, Candeloro P, Andreoli AM, Marzotti S, et al. Differential effects of adiposity on pharmacodynamics of basal insulins NPH, glargine, and detemir in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2011 Dec. 34(12):2521-3. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nBaldwin D, Zander J, Munoz C, Raghu P, Delange-Hudec S, Lee H, et al. A Randomized Trial of Two Weight-Based Doses of Insulin Glargine and Glulisine in Hospitalized Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes and Renal Insufficiency. Diabetes Care. 2012 Jun 14. [Medline].\nGrunberger G, Abelseth JM, Bailey TS, Bode BW, Handelsman Y, Hellman R. Consensus statement by the american association of clinical endocrinologists/american college of endocrinology insulin pump management task force. Endocr Pract. 2014 May 1. 20(5):463-89. [Medline].\nFritsche A, Larbig M, Owens D, Haring HU. Comparison between a basal-bolus and a premixed insulin regimen in individuals with type 2 diabetes-results of the GINGER study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2010 Feb. 12(2):115-23. [Medline].\nSiegelaar SE, Kerr L, Jacober SJ, Devries JH. A decrease in glucose variability does not reduce cardiovascular event rates in type 2 diabetic patients after acute myocardial infarction: a reanalysis of the HEART2D study. Diabetes Care. 2011 Apr. 34(4):855-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nChen MJ, Jovanovic A, Taylor R. Utilizing the second-meal effect in type 2 diabetes: practical use of a soya-yogurt snack. Diabetes Care. 2010 Dec. 33(12):2552-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nQaseem A, Vijan S, Snow V, Cross JT, Weiss KB, Owens DK. Glycemic control and type 2 diabetes mellitus: the optimal hemoglobin A1c targets. A guidance statement from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Sep 18. 147(6):417-22. [Medline].\nBoussageon R, Bejan-Angoulvant T, Saadatian-Elahi M, Lafont S, Bergeonneau C, Kassaï B, et al. Effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and microvascular events in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011 Jul 26. 343:d4169. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nTucker ME. Diabetes in the Elderly Addressed in Consensus Report. Medscape Medical News. October 25, 2012. Accessed November 13, 2012.\nSue Kirkman M, Briscoe VJ, Clark N, et al. Diabetes in Older Adults: A Consensus Report. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012 Oct 25. [Medline].\nKlonoff DC, Buckingham B, Christiansen JS, Montori VM, Tamborlane WV, Vigersky RA, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Oct. 96(10):2968-79. [Medline].\nAhmedani MY, Ul Haque MS, Basit A, Fawwad A, Alvi SF. Ramadan Prospective Diabetes Study: the role of drug dosage and timing alteration, active glucose monitoring and patient education. Diabet Med. 2012 Jan 11. [Medline].\nWing RR, Lang W, Wadden TA, Safford M, Knowler WC, Bertoni AG, et al. Benefits of modest weight loss in improving cardiovascular risk factors in overweight and obese individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jul. 34(7):1481-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nWing RR, Bolin P, Brancati FL, Bray GA, Clark JM, Coday M, et al. Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 11. 369(2):145-54. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nLazo M, Solga SF, Horska A, Bonekamp S, Diehl AM, Brancati FL, et al. Effect of a 12-month intensive lifestyle intervention on hepatic steatosis in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010 Oct. 33(10):2156-63. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nLean MEJ, Leslie WS, Barnes AC, et al. Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2017 Dec 5. [Full Text].\nNainggolan L. Liquid Diet, Gradual Reintroduction of Food, Prompts Diabetes Remission. Medscape. 2017 Dec 5. [Full Text].\nEsposito K, Maiorino MI, Ciotola M, Di Palo C, Scognamiglio P, Gicchino M, et al. Effects of a Mediterranean-style diet on the need for antihyperglycemic drug therapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Sep 1. 151(5):306-14. [Medline].\nLarsen RN, Mann NJ, Maclean E, Shaw JE. The effect of high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a 12 month randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2011 Apr. 54(4):731-40. [Medline].\nBassil M, Burgos S, Marliss EB, Morais JA, Chevalier S, Gougeon R. Hyperaminoacidaemia at postprandial levels does not modulate glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia. 2011 Jul. 54(7):1810-8. [Medline].\nMozaffarian D, Cao H, King IB, Lemaitre RN, Song X, Siscovick DS, et al. Trans-palmitoleic acid, metabolic risk factors, and new-onset diabetes in U.S. adults: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Dec 21. 153(12):790-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nUribarri J, Cai W, Ramdas M, Goodman S, Pyzik R, Chen X, et al. Restriction of advanced glycation end products improves insulin resistance in human type 2 diabetes: potential role of AGER1 and SIRT1. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jul. 34(7):1610-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nReeds DN, Patterson BW, Okunade A, Holloszy JO, Polonsky KS, Klein S. Ginseng and ginsenoside Re do not improve ß-cell function or insulin sensitivity in overweight and obese subjects with impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011 May. 34(5):1071-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nClerici C, Nardi E, Battezzati PM, Asciutti S, Castellani D, Corazzi N, et al. Novel soy germ pasta improves endothelial function, blood pressure, and oxidative stress in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011 Sep. 34(9):1946-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nn-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Dysglycemia. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jun 11. [Medline].\nUmpierre D, Ribeiro PA, Kramer CK, Leitao CB, Zucatti AT, Azevedo MJ, et al. Physical activity advice only or structured exercise training and association with HbA1c levels in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011 May 4. 305(17):1790-9. [Medline].\nBalducci S, Zanuso S, Nicolucci A, De Feo P, Cavallo S, Cardelli P, et al. Effect of an intensive exercise intervention strategy on modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial: the Italian Diabetes and Exercise Study (IDES). Arch Intern Med. 2010 Nov 8. 170(20):1794-803. [Medline].\nChurch TS, Blair SN, Cocreham S, Johannsen N, Johnson W, Kramer K, et al. Effects of aerobic and resistance training on hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010 Nov 24. 304(20):2253-62. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nChudyk A, Petrella RJ. Effects of exercise on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2011 May. 34(5):1228-37. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nLoimaala A, Groundstroem K, Rinne M, Nenonen A, Huhtala H, Parkkari J, et al. Effect of long-term endurance and strength training on metabolic control and arterial elasticity in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2009 Apr 1. 103(7):972-7. [Medline].\nHegde SV, Adhikari P, Kotian S, Pinto VJ, D'Souza S, D'Souza V. Effect of 3-month yoga on oxidative stress in type 2 diabetes with or without complications: a controlled clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2011 Oct. 34(10):2208-10. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nDixon JB, Zimmet P, Alberti KG, Rubino F. Bariatric surgery: an IDF statement for obese Type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2011 Jun. 28(6):628-42. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nKnowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002 Feb 7. 346(6):393-403. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nDavenport L. 'Historic' Guidelines on Role of Bariatric Surgery in Diabetes. Medscape Medical News. May 25, 2016. [Full Text].\nRubino F, Nathan DM, Eckel RH, et al. Metabolic Surgery in the Treatment Algorithm for Type 2 Diabetes: A Joint Statement by International Diabetes Organizations. Diabetes Care. 2016 Jun. 39 (6):861-77. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nKashyap SR, Bhatt DL, Wolski K, Watanabe RM, Abdul-Ghani M, Abood B, et al. Metabolic Effects of Bariatric Surgery in Patients With Moderate Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes: Analysis of a randomized control trial comparing surgery with intensive medical treatment. Diabetes Care. 2013 Feb 25. [Medline].\nTucker ME. Bariatric Surgery: Many Can Come Off Insulin Long Term. Medscape. 2017 Nov 6. [Full Text].\nCigolle CT, Lee PG, Langa KM, Lee YY, Tian Z, Blaum CS. Geriatric conditions develop in middle-aged adults with diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Mar. 26(3):272-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nSchernhammer E, Hansen J, Rugbjerg K, Wermuth L, Ritz B. Diabetes and the risk of developing Parkinson's disease in Denmark. Diabetes Care. 2011 May. 34(5):1102-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nCereda E, Barichella M, Pedrolli C, Klersy C, Cassani E, Caccialanza R, et al. Diabetes and risk of Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2011 Dec. 34(12):2614-23. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nChen HF, Chen P, Li CY. Risk of malignant neoplasm of the pancreas in relation to diabetes: a population-based study in Taiwan. Diabetes Care. 2011 May. 34(5):1177-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nKanaya AM, Adler N, Moffet HH, Liu J, Schillinger D, Adams A, et al. Heterogeneity of diabetes outcomes among asians and pacific islanders in the US: the diabetes study of northern california (DISTANCE). Diabetes Care. 2011 Apr. 34(4):930-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nTight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ. 1998 Sep 12. 317(7160):703-13. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nHansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, Dahlof B, Elmfeldt D, Julius S, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT Study Group. Lancet. 1998 Jun 13. 351(9118):1755-62. [Medline].\n[Guideline] de Boer IH, Bangalore S, Benetos A, et al. Diabetes and Hypertension: A Position Statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2017 Sep. 40 (9):1273-84. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Jenkins K. ADA Updates Recommendations for Managing Hypertension in Diabetes. Medscape. 4 Sep 2017. [Full Text].\nAnderson RJ, Bahn GD, Moritz TE, Kaufman D, Abraira C, Duckworth W. Blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jan. 34(1):34-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nFDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA review of cardiovascular risks for diabetics taking hypertension drug olmesartan not conclusive; label updates required. US Food and Drug Administration. Available at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm402323.htm. Accessed: June 29, 2014.\nO'Riordan M. No CV risk with olmesartan in diabetics, says FDA review. Medscape Medical News. June 24, 2014. [Full Text].\nParving HH, Brenner BM, McMurray JJ, de Zeeuw D, Haffner SM, Solomon SD, et al. Cardiorenal End Points in a Trial of Aliskiren for Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012 Nov 3. [Medline].\nHermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojon A, Fernandez JR. Influence of time of day of blood pressure-lowering treatment on cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jun. 34(6):1270-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nManagement of dyslipidemia in adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2000 Jan. 23 Suppl 1:S57-60. [Medline].\nBell DS, Bakris GL, McGill JB. Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on serum lipid concentration in diabetic hypertensive patients. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009 Mar. 11(3):234-8. [Medline].\nAspirin therapy in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2000 Jan. 23 Suppl 1:S61-2. [Medline].\nOgawa H, Nakayama M, Morimoto T, Uemura S, Kanauchi M, Doi N, et al. Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic events in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008 Nov 12. 300(18):2134-41. [Medline].\nSaito Y, Morimoto T, Ogawa H, Nakayama M, Uemura S, Doi N, et al. Low-dose aspirin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced glomerular filtration rate: subanalysis from the JPAD trial. Diabetes Care. 2011 Feb. 34(2):280-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nOkada S, Morimoto T, Ogawa H, Kanauchi M, Nakayama M, Uemura S, et al. Differential effect of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic events in diabetes management: a subanalysis of the JPAD trial. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jun. 34(6):1277-83. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nRandomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet. 1994 Nov 19. 344(8934):1383-9. [Medline].\nMRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002 Jul 6. 360(9326):7-22. [Medline].\nSever PS, Dahlof B, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers G, Caulfield M, et al. Prevention of coronary and stroke events with atorvastatin in hypertensive patients who have average or lower-than-average cholesterol concentrations, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial--Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2003 Apr 5. 361(9364):1149-58. [Medline].\nColhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, Hitman GA, Neil HA, Livingstone SJ, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS): multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2004 Aug 21-27. 364(9435):685-96. [Medline].\nPreiss D, Seshasai SR, Welsh P, Murphy SA, Ho JE, Waters DD, et al. Risk of incident diabetes with intensive-dose compared with moderate-dose statin therapy: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011 Jun 22. 305(24):2556-64. [Medline].\nTucker ME. Statins Up Type 2 Diabetes Risk, Overweight at Greatest Risk. Medscape Medical News. 2019 Mar 13. [Full Text].\nAhmadizar F, OchoaRosales C, Glisic M, Franco OH, Muka T, Stricker BH. Associations of statin use with glycaemic traits and incident type 2 diabetes. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2019 Mar 5. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nTucker ME. ADA endorses ACC/AHA statin guidelines, with caveats. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/837138. Accessed: December 24, 2014.\nRubins HB, Robins SJ, Collins D, Fye CL, Anderson JW, Elam MB, et al. Gemfibrozil for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in men with low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1999 Aug 5. 341(6):410-8. [Medline].\nFrye RL, August P, Brooks MM, Hardison RM, Kelsey SF, MacGregor JM, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009 Jun 11. 360(24):2503-15. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nAgardh E, Tababat-Khani P. Adopting 3-year screening intervals for sight-threatening retinal vascular lesions in type 2 diabetic subjects without retinopathy. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jun. 34(6):1318-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nSjolie AK, Klein R, Porta M, Orchard T, Fuller J, Parving HH, et al. Effect of candesartan on progression and regression of retinopathy in type 2 diabetes (DIRECT-Protect 2): a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2008 Oct 18. 372(9647):1385-93. [Medline].\nOshitari T, Asaumi N, Watanabe M, Kumagai K, Mitamura Y. Severe macular edema induced by pioglitazone in a patient with diabetic retinopathy: a case study. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2008. 4(5):1137-40. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nFood and Drug Administration. FDA Requires Boxed Warning and Risk Mitigation Strategy for Metoclopramide-Containing Drugs. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Available at http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm149533.htm. Accessed: August 4, 2010.\nChou KL, Galetta SL, Liu GT, Volpe NJ, Bennett JL, Asbury AK, et al. Acute ocular motor mononeuropathies: prospective study of the roles of neuroimaging and clinical assessment. J Neurol Sci. 2004 Apr 15. 219(1-2):35-9. [Medline].\nQueale WS, Seidler AJ, Brancati FL. Glycemic control and sliding scale insulin use in medical inpatients with diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 1997 Mar 10. 157(5):545-52. [Medline].\nSawin CT. Action without benefit. The sliding scale of insulin use. Arch Intern Med. 1997 Mar 10. 157(5):489. [Medline].\nWiener RS, Wiener DC, Larson RJ. Benefits and risks of tight glucose control in critically ill adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008 Aug 27. 300(8):933-44. [Medline].\nFinfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, Blair D, Foster D, Dhingra V, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26. 360(13):1283-97. [Medline].\nVan den Berghe G, Wilmer A, Milants I, Wouters PJ, Bouckaert B, Bruyninckx F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in mixed medical/surgical intensive care units: benefit versus harm. Diabetes. 2006 Nov. 55(11):3151-9. [Medline].\nMalmberg K. Prospective randomised study of intensive insulin treatment on long term survival after acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus. DIGAMI (Diabetes Mellitus, Insulin Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction) Study Group. BMJ. 1997 May 24. 314(7093):1512-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nMalmberg K, Ryden L, Wedel H, Birkeland K, Bootsma A, Dickstein K, et al. Intense metabolic control by means of insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI 2): effects on mortality and morbidity. Eur Heart J. 2005 Apr. 26(7):650-61. [Medline].\nMellbin LG, Malmberg K, Norhammar A, Wedel H, Ryden L. Prognostic implications of glucose-lowering treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction and diabetes: experiences from an extended follow-up of the Diabetes Mellitus Insulin-Glucose Infusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (DIGAMI) 2 Study. Diabetologia. 2011 Jun. 54(6):1308-17. [Medline].\nAvanzini F, Marelli G, Donzelli W, Busi G, Carbone S, Bellato L, et al. Transition from intravenous to subcutaneous insulin: effectiveness and safety of a standardized protocol and predictors of outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Diabetes Care. 2011 Jul. 34(7):1445-50. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nVanderwood KK, Hall TO, Harwell TS, Butcher MK, Helgerson SD. Implementing a state-based cardiovascular disease and diabetes prevention program. Diabetes Care. 2010 Dec. 33(12):2543-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nReis JP, Loria CM, Sorlie PD, Park Y, Hollenbeck A, Schatzkin A. Lifestyle factors and risk for new-onset diabetes: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Sep 6. 155(5):292-9. [Medline].\nYeh HC, Duncan BB, Schmidt MI, Wang NY, Brancati FL. Smoking, smoking cessation, and risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jan 5. 152(1):10-7. [Medline].\nDong JY, Xun P, He K, Qin LQ. Magnesium intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Diabetes Care. 2011 Sep. 34(9):2116-22. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nIbarrola-Jurado N, Salas-Salvado J, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Bullo M. Dietary phylloquinone intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in elderly subjects at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Nov. 96(5):1113-8. [Medline].\nNational Diabetes Information Clearinghouse. Insulin Resistance and Pre-diabetes. Available at http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/#medicines.\nXiang AH, Hodis HN, Kawakubo M, Peters RK, Kjos SL, Marroquin A, et al. Effect of pioglitazone on progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in non-diabetic premenopausal Hispanic women with prior gestational diabetes. Atherosclerosis. 2008 Jul. 199(1):207-14. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nBosch J, Yusuf S, Gerstein HC, Pogue J, Sheridan P, Dagenais G, et al. Effect of ramipril on the incidence of diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 12. 355(15):1551-62. [Medline].\nChiasson JL. Acarbose for the prevention of diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance: the Study to Prevent Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (STOP-NIDDM) Trial. Endocr Pract. 2006 Jan-Feb. 12 Suppl 1:25-30. [Medline].\n[Guideline] Jenkins K. ADA Updates Recommendations for Managing Hypertension in Diabetes. Medscape. 2017 Sep 4. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] de Boer IH, Bangalore S, Benetos A, et al. Diabetes and Hypertension: A Position Statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2017 Sep. 40 (9):1273-1284. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 1. Improving Care and Promoting Health in Populations: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S7-S12. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S13-S27. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 3. Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S28-S37. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 4. Lifestyle Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S38-S50. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 5. Prevention or Delay of Type 2 Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S51-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S55-S64. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 7. Obesity Management for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S65-S72. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 8. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S73-S85. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 9. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S86-S104. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 10. Microvascular Complications and Foot Care: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S105-18. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 11. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S119-25. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 12. Children and Adolescents: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S126-36. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 13. Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S137-43. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 14. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S144-51. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] American Diabetes Association. 15. Diabetes Advocacy: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S152-3. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Summary of Revisions: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan. 41 (Suppl 1):S4-S6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Tucker ME. ADA 2018 Standards Address Diabetes Drugs With CV Benefit. Medscape. 2017 Dec 8. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Davenport L. ADA Releases Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Guidelines for Youth. Medscape Medical News. 2018 Nov 19. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Davies MJ, D'Alessio DA, Fradkin J, et al. Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2018 Oct 4. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Ivers NM, Jiang M, Alloo J, et al. Diabetes Canada 2018 clinical practice guidelines: Key messages for family physicians caring for patients living with type 2 diabetes. Can Fam Physician. 2019 Jan. 65 (1):14-24. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] LeRoith D, Biessels GJ, Braithwaite SS, et al. Treatment of Diabetes in Older Adults: An Endocrine Society* Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 May 1. 104 (5):1520-74. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Tucker ME. New Endocrine Society Guidelines Address Diabetes in Older Adults. Medscape Medical News. 2019 Mar 23. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Busko M. ESC Diabetes and CVD Guideline: 'Unprecedented' New Evidence. Medscape Medical News. 2019 Sep 2. [Full Text].\nTucker M. FDA Approves Inhaled Insulin Afrezza for Diabetes. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/827539. Accessed: July 5, 2014.\nTucker M. FDA OKs Xigduo XR, a New Dapagliflozin-Metformin Combo. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834133. Accessed: November 10, 2014.\n[Guideline] Tucker ME. USPSTF: screen everyone 45 and older for abnormal glucose. Medscape Medical News. Oct 6 2014. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] USPSTF. Public comment on draft recommendation statement and draft evidence review: screening for abnormal glucose and type 2 diabetes mellitus. US Preventive Services Task Force. Available at http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Announcements/News/Item/public-comment-on-draft-recommendation-statement-and-draft-evidence-review-screening-for-abnormal-glucose-and-type-2-diabetes-mellitus. Accessed: Oct 14 2014.\nSimplified scheme for the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus.\nPrevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in various racial and ethnic groups in the United States (2007-2009 data).\nPrevalence of diabetes mellitus type 2 by age in the United States (2007 estimates).\nPossible physical examination findings in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.\nDiagnostic criteria (American Diabetes Association) for diabetes mellitus type 2.\nTypes of insulin. Premixed insulins can be assumed to have a combination of the onset, peak, and duration of the individual components.\nRomesh Khardori, MD, PhD, FACP Professor of Endocrinology, Director of Training Program, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Strelitz Diabetes and Endocrine Disorders Institute, Department of Internal Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School\nRomesh Khardori, MD, PhD, FACP is a member of the following medical societies: American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American College of Physicians, American Diabetes Association, Endocrine Society\nGeorge T Griffing, MD Professor Emeritus of Medicine, St Louis University School of Medicine\nGeorge T Griffing, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association for the Advancement of Science, International Society for Clinical Densitometry, Southern Society for Clinical Investigation, American College of Medical Practice Executives, American Association for Physician Leadership, American College of Physicians, American Diabetes Association, American Federation for Medical Research, American Heart Association, Central Society for Clinical and Translational Research, Endocrine Society\nHoward A Bessen, MD Professor of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine; Program Director, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center\nHoward A Bessen, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Emergency Physicians\nBarry E Brenner, MD, PhD, FACEP Professor of Emergency Medicine, Professor of Internal Medicine, Program Director, Emergency Medicine, Case Medical Center, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine\nBarry E Brenner, MD, PhD, FACEP is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Emergency Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Heart Association, American Thoracic Society, Arkansas Medical Society, New York Academy of Medicine, New York Academy ofSciences,and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine\nWilliam L Isley, MD Senior Associate Consultant, Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic of Rochester\nWilliam L Isley, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Physicians, American Diabetes Association, American Federation for Medical Research, Endocrine Society, and Phi Beta Kappa\nKenneth Patrick L Ligaray, MD Fellow, Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, St Louis University School of Medicine\nKenneth Patrick Ligaray, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and Endocrine Society\nAnne L Peters, MD, CDE Director of Clinical Diabetes Programs, Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center\nAnne L Peters, MD, CDE is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Physicians and American Diabetes Association\nDisclosure: Amylin Honoraria Speaking and teaching; AstraZeneca Consulting fee Consulting; Lilly Consulting fee Consulting; Takeda Consulting fee Consulting; Bristol Myers Squibb Honoraria Speaking and teaching; NovoNordisk Consulting fee Consulting; Medtronic Minimed Consulting fee Consulting; Dexcom Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Roche Honoraria Speaking and teaching\nDavid S Schade, MD Chief, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine and Health Sciences Center\nDavid S Schade, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Physicians, American Diabetes Association, American Federation for Medical Research, Endocrine Society, New Mexico Medical Society, New York Academy of Sciences, and Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine\nDon S Schalch, MD Professor Emeritus, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics\nDon S Schalch, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Diabetes Association, American Federation for Medical Research, Central Society for Clinical Research, and Endocrine Society\nErik D Schraga, MD Staff Physician, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mills-Peninsula Emergency Medical Associates\nScott R Votey, MD Director of Emergency Medicine Residency, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center; Professor of Medicine/Emergency Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine\nScott R Votey, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Society for Academic Emergency Medicine\nencoded search term (Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus\nType 2 Diabetes Mellitus and TCF7L2\nFast Five Quiz: How Well Do You Know the Risk Factors and Treatment Indications for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus?\nTop News From EASD 2018: Slideshow\nNews Carb Restriction a Viable Choice for Reversal of Type 2 Diabetes?"