Cargando…

Public Health Implications of Recommendations to Individualize Glycemic Targets in Adults With Diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To estimate how many U.S. adults with diabetes would be eligible for individualized A1C targets based on 1) the 2012 American Diabetes Association (ADA) guideline and 2) a published approach for individualized target ranges. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied adults with diabetes ≥20...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Laiteerapong, Neda, John, Priya M., Nathan, Aviva G., Huang, Elbert S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Diabetes Association 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3526201/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22961575
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc11-2344
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To estimate how many U.S. adults with diabetes would be eligible for individualized A1C targets based on 1) the 2012 American Diabetes Association (ADA) guideline and 2) a published approach for individualized target ranges. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied adults with diabetes ≥20 years of age from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007–2008 (n = 757). We assigned A1C targets based on duration, age, diabetes-related complications, and comorbid conditions according to 1) the ADA guideline and 2) a strategy by Ismail-Beigi focused on setting target ranges. We estimated the number and proportion of adults with each A1C target and compared individualized targets to measured levels. RESULTS: Using ADA guideline recommendations, 31% (95% CI 27–34%) of the U.S. adult diabetes population would have recommended A1C targets of <7.0%, and 69% (95% CI 66–73%) would have A1C targets less stringent than <7.0%. Using the Ismail-Beigi strategy, 56% (51–61%) would have an A1C target of ≤7.0%, and 44% (39–49%) would have A1C targets less stringent than <7.0%. If a universal A1C <7.0% target were applied, 47% (41–54%) of adults with diabetes would have inadequate glycemic control; this proportion declined to 30% (26–36%) with the ADA guideline and 31% (27–36%) with the Ismail-Beigi strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Using individualized glycemic targets, about half of U.S. adults with diabetes would have recommended A1C targets of ≥7.0% but one-third would still be considered inadequately controlled. Diabetes research and performance measurement goals will need to be revised in order to encourage the individualization of glycemic targets.