The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

To compare the efficacy and safety of basal-plus (BP) insulin regimen with or without sitagliptin in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

This open-label, randomized clinical trial included inpatients with a previous diagnosis of T2D and blood glucose (BG) between 180 and 400 mg/dL. Participants received basal and correctional insulin doses (BP regimen) either with or without sitagliptin. The primary outcome was the difference in the mean daily BG among the groups.

Seventy-six patients (mean age 60 years, 64 % men) were randomized. Compared with BP insulin therapy alone, the sitagliptin-BP combination led to a lower mean daily BG (158.8 vs 175.0 mg/dL, P = 0.014), a higher percentage of readings within a BG range of 70-180 mg/dL (75.9 % vs 64.7 %, P < 0.001), and a lower number of BG readings >180 mg/dL (P < 0.001). Sitagliptin-BP resulted in fewer basal and supplementary insulin doses (P = 0.024 and P = 0.017, respectively) and lower daily insulin injections (P = 0.023) than those with insulin alone. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia was similar in the two groups.

For inpatients with T2D and hyperglycemia, the sitagliptin and BP regimen combination is safe and more effective than insulin therapy alone.

gov identifier: NCT05579119.

The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing obstetrics and gynecology surgeries through meta-analysis.

Relevant original studies published from January 1945 to May 2023 were searched the CBM, PubMed, Embase, WOS, CNKI, Wanfang, vip, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies eligible were evaluated by two investigators following Newcastle-Ottawa Scale(NOS) criteria. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyse the combined effect sizes and test for heterogeneity, and Stata 14.0 software's Begg's Test and Egger's Test were used to test for bias.

13 case-control articles, including 860 cases in the case group and 13574 cases in the control group, met the inclusion criteria. Eventually, Our meta-analysis showed that SSI in patients undergoing obstetrics and gynecology surgeries was correlated with body mass index (BMI)≥24 (OR = 2.66; P < 0.0001), malignant lesions (OR = 4.65; P < 0.0001), operating time≥60min (OR = 2.58; P < 0.0001), intraoperative bleeding≥300ml (OR = 2.54; P < 0.0001), retained urinary catheter (OR = 4.45; P < 0.0001), and vaginal digital examination≥3times (OR = 2.52; P < 0.0001).

In this study, BMI≥24, intraoperative bleeding≥300ml, malignant lesions, operating time≥60min, retained urinary catheter, and vaginal digital examination≥3times were considered as independent risk factors for SSI in obstetrics and gynecology surgery. It is recommended that scholars be rigorous in designing the experimental process when conducting case-control or experimental studies in order to improve the quality of the study. Controlling patients' weight before obstetrical and gynecological surgery, shortening the operation time intraoperatively, and strictly controlling the indications of vaginal digital examination and retained urinary catheter can effectively reduce the incidence of SSI.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Most studies initiated basal-bolus insulin in a ratio of 1:1 and titrated based on glucose. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of a weight-based and ratio of 1:1.5 basal-bolus insulin using an algorithm for both initiation and titration in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Hospitalized patients with T2D were randomly assigned to two groups in equal numbers to receive 1:1.5 and 1:1 ratios of basal-bolus insulin using a weight-based algorithm for both initiation and titration. The primary outcome was the time taken to reach the fasting blood glucose (FBG) target and 2-h postprandial blood glucose (2hBG) targets after three meals. The secondary outcome included insulin dosage to achieve glycemic control and the incidence of hypoglycemia during hospitalization.

250 patients were screened between October 2021 and June 2022, 220 were randomly grouped, and 182 completed the trial (89 in the 1:1.5 and 93 in the 1:1 groups). The time taken to reach FBG targets was comparable between the two groups (3.4 ± 1.7 vs. 3.0 ± 1.3 days, p = 0.137) within about 3 days. The 2hBG after three meals was shorter in the 1:1.5 group than in the 1:1group (2.9 ± 1.5 vs. 3.4 ± 1.4 days, p = 0.015 for breakfast, 3.0 ± 1.6 vs. 3.6 ± 1.4 days, p = 0.005 for lunch, and 3.1 ± 2.1 vs. 4.0 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.002 for dinner). No significant difference in insulin dosages was found between the two groups at the end of the study. The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in both groups.

We demonstrated that fixed dose-ratio basal-bolus insulin at 1:1.5 calculated using a weight-based initiation and titration algorithm was simple, as effective, and safe as ratio at 1:1 in managing T2D in hospitalized patients. Trial Registration ChiCTR 2,100,050,963. Date of registration: September 8, 2021.

The trend of prediabetes progressing to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is prominent, and effective intervention can lead to a return to prediabetes. Exploring the factors influencing the outcome of prediabetes is helpful to guide clinical intervention. The weight change in patients with prediabetes has not attracted much attention.

To explore the interaction between body weight and the factors affecting the progression of prediabetes to T2DM.

We performed a retrospective analysis of 236 patients with prediabetes and 50 with normal glucose tolerance (NGT), and collected clinical data and follow-up results of all patients. Based on natural blood glucose outcomes, we classified 66 patients with progression to T2DM into the disease progression (DP) group, and 170 patients without progression to T2DM into the disease outcome (DO) group. We analyzed the factors that influenced prediabetes outcome and the influence of body weight on prediabetes blood glucose outcome by unconditional logistic regression. A general linear model (univariate) was used to analyze the inter-action between body weight and independent influencing factors.

There were 98 cases of impaired fasting glucose (IFG), 90 cases of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and 48 cases of coexistent IFG and IGT. The body weight, waist circumference, body mass index, fasting blood glucose, and 2 h plasma glucose of patients with IFG, IGT, and coexistent IFG and IGT were higher than those in patients with NGT (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that body weight, glycosylated hemoglobin, uric acid, fasting insulin, and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance were independent factors affecting progression of prediabetes to T2DM (P < 0.05). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the area under the curve predicted by the above indicators combined was 0.905 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.863-0.948], which was greater than that predicted by each indicator alone. Logistic regression analysis with baseline body weight as an independent variable showed that compared with body weight 1, the odds ratio (95%CI) of body weight 3 was 1.399 (1.142-2.126) (P = 0.033). There was a multiplicative interaction between body weight and uric acid (β = 1.953, P = 0.005).

High body weight in patients with prediabetes is an independent risk factor for progression to T2DM, and the risk of progression is increased when coexisting with high uric acid level.

Evaluation of quality of care for patients with diabetes mellitus admitted to hospitals in Spain.

Cross-sectional study in one day that included 1193 (26.7%) patients with type 2 diabetes or hyperglycaemia out of a total of 4468 patients admitted to the internal medicine departments of 53 hospitals in Spain. We collected demographic data, adequacy of capillary glycaemic monitoring, treatment administered during admission, and recommended therapy at discharge.

The median age of the patients was 80 years [74-87], of which 561 (47%) were women, with a Charlson index of 4 points [2-6], and 742 (65%) were fragile. Median blood glucose on admission was 155 mg/dl [119-213]. On the third day, the number of capillary blood glucose levels in target (80-180 mg/dl) at pre-breakfast was 792/1126 (70.3%), pre-lunch 601/1083 (55.4%), pre-dinner 591/1073 (55.0%), and at night 317/529 (59.9%). A total of 35 patients (0.9%) were suffering from hypoglycemia. Treatment during hospitalization was performed with sliding scale insulin in 352 (40.5%) patients, with basal insulin and rapid insulin analogues in 434 (50%), or with diet exclusively in 101 (9.1%). A total of 735 (61.6%) patients had a recent HbA1c value. At discharge, the use of SGLT2i increased significantly (30.1% vs. 21.6%; p < 0.001), as did the use of basal insulin (25.3% vs. 10.1%; p < 0.001).

There is an excessive use of sliding scale insulin as well as insufficient information on HbA1c values and prescription upon discharge of treatments with cardiovascular benefit.

In China, diabetes has become a serious healthcare problem that plagues individuals and the government because of its high mortality rate and social burden, with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) accounting for the vast majority (about 90%) of cases. T2DM patients face a huge medication burden and it is imperative to find appropriate tools to assess the medication burden for patients. This study aimed to translate the original Diabetes Treatment Burden Questionnaire (DTBQ) into Chinese and assessed the reliability and validity of the DTBQ concerning the burden of medication treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes.

A total of 329 T2DM patients were recruited to participate in the survey. The original version scale was first translated into Chinese using the backward and forward translation procedures. The internal consistency reliability of the scale was measured by the Cronbach alpha coefficient, the test-retest reliability, and the item-total correlation. The validity of the scale was assessed by the content validity index, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis.

The content validity index of the scale was 0.920. Cronbach alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.831. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) supported a 15-item and 3-factor structure of the translated questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed in the model fitness index, the chi-square degree of freedom was 3.575, the incremental fit index (IFI) was 0.917, the comparative fit index(CFI) was 0.916, the Tucker Lewis Index(TLI) was 0.900, all within acceptable limits. The retest reliability was 0.892, and the corrected item-total correlations for the items ranged from 0.293 to 0.729.

Verification results showed that the Chinese version of the 15-item DTBQ had reliable reliability and validity. Therefore, it can be considered as an appropriate tool to assess the burden of drug treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes in China.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

We assessed metrics related to inpatient glycemic control using InsulinAPP, an application available for free in Brazil, on the hospitalist-managed ward of our hospital.

We performed a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) admitted from November 2018 to October 2019. InsulinAPP recommends NPH and regular insulins three times a day, in bolus-correction or basal-bolus schemes. Parameters that included BG within range of 70-180 mg/dL, insulin treatment regimen and frequency of hypoglycemia were evaluated.

A total of 147 T2D individuals (23% medicine and 77% surgery) were included (mean age 62.3 ± 12.7 years, HbA1c: 8.3 ± 3.0%). The initial insulin regimen was 50% bolus-correction, 47% basal-bolus and 3% with sliding scale insulin. During hospitalization, 71% patients required a bolus-basal regimen. In the first 10 days of the protocol, 71% BG measurements were between 70-180 mg/dL and 26% patients experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia < 70 mg/dL, and 5% with BG < 54 mg/dL.

The results of this retrospective study indicate the InsulinAPP application using human insulin formulations was effective and safe for the management of hyperglycemia on a hospitalist-managed ward, with more than 70% BG measurements within the therapeutic range and a low rate of hypoglycemia.

The field of inpatient diabetes has advanced significantly over the last 20 years, leading to the development of personalized treatment approaches. However, outdated guidelines still recommend the use of basal-bolus insulin therapy as the preferred treatment approach, and against the use of non-insulin anti-hyperglycemic agents.

Several observational and prospective randomized controlled studies have demonstrated that oral anti-hyperglycemic agents are widely used in the hospital, including studies of DPP-4 agents and GLP-1 agonists. With advances in the field of inpatient diabetes management, a paradigm shift has occurred, from an approach of recommending "basal-bolus regimens" for all patients to a more precision medicine option for hospitalized non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes.