暂无摘要。

Maintaining glycemic control of critically ill patients may impact outcomes such as survival, infection, and neuromuscular recovery, but there is equipoise on the target blood levels, monitoring frequency, and methods.
The purpose was to update the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine and American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) guidelines with a new systematic review of the literature and provide actionable guidance for clinicians.
The total multiprofessional task force of 22, consisting of clinicians and patient/family advocates, and a methodologist applied the processes described in the ACCM guidelines standard operating procedure manual to develop evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach (GRADE) methodology. Conflict of interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including panel selection and voting.
We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes question related to glycemic management in critically ill children (≥ 42 wk old adjusted gestational age to 18 yr old) and adults, including triggers for initiation of insulin therapy, route of administration, monitoring frequency, role of an explicit decision support tool for protocol maintenance, and methodology for glucose testing. We identified the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as a good practice statement. In addition, \"In our practice\" statements were included when the available evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, but the panel felt that describing their practice patterns may be appropriate. Additional topics were identified for future research.
This guideline is an update of the guidelines for the use of an insulin infusion for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. It is intended for adult and pediatric practitioners to reassess current practices and direct research into areas with inadequate literature. The panel issued seven statements related to glycemic control in unselected adults (two good practice statements, four conditional recommendations, one research statement) and seven statements for pediatric patients (two good practice statements, one strong recommendation, one conditional recommendation, two \"In our practice\" statements, and one research statement), with additional detail on specific subset populations where available.
The guidelines panel achieved consensus for adults and children regarding a preference for an insulin infusion for the acute management of hyperglycemia with titration guided by an explicit clinical decision support tool and frequent (≤ 1 hr) monitoring intervals during glycemic instability to minimize hypoglycemia and against targeting intensive glucose levels. These recommendations are intended for consideration within the framework of the patient\'s existing clinical status. Further research is required to evaluate the role of individualized glycemic targets, continuous glucose monitoring systems, explicit decision support tools, and standardized glycemic control metrics.

Diabetes Technology Society organized an expert consensus panel to develop metrics for research in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in a hospital setting. The experts met virtually in small groups both before and after an April 13, 2023 virtual meeting of the entire panel. The goal of the panel was to develop consensus definitions in anticipation of greater use of CGMs in hospital settings in the future. Establishment of consensus definitions of inpatient analytical metrics will be easier to compare outcomes between studies. Panelists defined terms related to 10 dimensions of measurements related to the use of CGMs including (1) hospital hypoglycemia, (2) hospital hyperglycemia, (3) hospital time in range, (4) hospital glycemic variability, (5) hospital glycemia risk index, (6) accuracy of CGM devices and reference methods for CGMs in the hospital, (7) meaningful time blocks for hospital glycemic goals, (8) hospital CGM data sufficiency, (9) using CGM data for insulin dosing, and (10) miscellaneous factors. The panelists voted on 51 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 51 recommendations were classified as either strong (43) or mild (8). Additional research is needed on CGM performance in the hospital. This consensus report is intended to support that type of research intended to improve outcomes for hospitalized people with diabetes.

Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments in the full version of the guideline). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association of Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association.
Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the patients measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring devices and also by laboratory analysis of Hb A1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring; genetic testing; and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed.
The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially.
An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in screening, diagnosis, or monitoring of diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association of Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association.
Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the people with diabetes measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and also by laboratory analysis of Hb A1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed.
The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially.
An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in screening, diagnosis, or monitoring of diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association.
Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the people with diabetes measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and also by laboratory analysis of HbA1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed.
The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Numerous laboratory tests are used in the diagnosis and management of patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these assays varies substantially. An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for laboratory analysis in patients with diabetes. The overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were evaluated. The draft consensus recommendations were evaluated by invited reviewers and presented for public comment. Suggestions were incorporated as deemed appropriate by the authors (see Acknowledgments in the full version of the guideline). The guidelines were reviewed by the Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine Committee and the Board of Directors of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and by the Professional Practice Committee of the American Diabetes Association.
Diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased concentrations of glucose in venous plasma or increased hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the blood. Glycemic control is monitored by the patients measuring their own blood glucose with meters and/or with continuous interstitial glucose monitoring devices and also by laboratory analysis of HbA1c. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring; genetic testing; and measurement of ketones, autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide are addressed.
The guidelines provide specific recommendations based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes are found to have minimal clinical value at the present time, and measurement of them is not recommended.

Glucose monitoring has evolved from self-monitoring of blood glucose to glycated hemoglobin, and the latest continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). A key challenge to adoption of CGM for management of diabetes in Asia is the lack of regional CGM recommendations. Hence, thirteen diabetes-specialists from eight Asia-Pacific (APAC) countries/regions convened to formulate evidence-based, APAC-specific CGM recommendations for individuals with diabetes. We defined CGM metrics/targets and developed 13 guiding-statements on use of CGM in: (1) people with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy, and (2) people with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin with/without glucose lowering drugs. Continual use of CGM is recommended in individuals with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy and suboptimal glycemic control, or at high risk of problematic hypoglycemia. Continual/intermittent CGM may also be considered in individuals with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin regimen and with suboptimal glycemic control. In this paper, we provided guidance for optimizing CGM in special populations/situations, including elderly, pregnancy, Ramadan-fasting, newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes, and comorbid renal disease. Statements on remote CGM, and stepwise interpretation of CGM data were also developed. Two Delphi surveys were conducted to rate the agreement on statements. The current APAC-specific CGM recommendations provide useful guidance for optimizing use of CGM in the region.

暂无摘要。

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus has been increasing worldwide. As the therapeutic options for type 2 diabetes mellitus have evolved over the last 2 decades, national and global guidelines related to type 2 diabetes mellitus pharmacotherapy issued by various organizations have tended to vary in their recommendations. This narrative review aimed to analyze the key recommendations by major global and national guidelines on the initiation of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus over the last 20 years. Strategies for insulin therapy for titration and intensification were also assessed. All guidelines recommend initiation of insulin (basal/ premixed/other formulations) when glycemic targets are not achieved despite lifestyle measures and oral antidiabetic drugs. In the recent decade, early initiation of insulin has been recommended when the glycated hemoglobin levels are >10% or blood glucose levels are ≥300 mg/dL (16.7 mmol/L). Initiation is recommended at a dose of 10 units or 0.1-0.2 U/kg. Titration is advised to achieve the optimal dosage, while intensification is recommended when glycemic targets are not achieved despite titrating to an acceptable level. Glucose monitoring at periodic intervals is recommended for adequate glycemic control. The guidelines further suggest that the choice of insulin should be individualized, considering the clinical status of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The physicians as well as patients should be a part of the decisions made regarding the therapeutic choice of regimen, preparation, and delivery device.