OBJECTIVE: To estimate the benefits of screening and early treatment of type 2 diabetes compared with no screening and late treatment using a simulation model with data from the ADDITION-Europe study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the Michigan Model, a validated computer simulation model, and data from the ADDITION-Europe study to estimate the absolute risk of cardiovascular outcomes and the relative risk reduction associated with screening and intensive treatment, screening and routine treatment, and no screening with a 3- or 6-year delay in the diagnosis and routine treatment of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: When the computer simulation model was programmed with the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the ADDITION-Europe population, it accurately predicted the empiric results of the trial. The simulated absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction were substantially greater at 5 years with screening, early diagnosis, and routine treatment compared with scenarios in which there was a 3-year (3.3% absolute risk reduction [ARR], 29% relative risk reduction [RRR]) or a 6-year (4.9% ARR, 38% RRR) delay in diagnosis and routine treatment of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Major benefits are likely to accrue from the early diagnosis and treatment of glycemia and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes. The intensity of glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol treatment after diagnosis is less important than the time of its initiation. Screening for type 2 diabetes to reduce the lead time between diabetes onset and clinical diagnosis and to allow for prompt multifactorial treatment is warranted.

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is widely used as an index of mean glycemia in diabetes, as a measure of risk for the development of diabetic complications, and as a measure of the quality of diabetes care. In 2010, the American Diabetes Association recommended that HbA1c tests, performed in a laboratory using a method certified by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program, be used for the diagnosis of diabetes. Although HbA1c has a number of advantages compared to traditional glucose criteria, it has a number of disadvantages. Hemoglobinopathies, thalassemia syndromes, factors that impact red blood cell survival and red blood cell age, uremia, hyperbilirubinemia, and iron deficiency may alter HbA1c test results as a measure of average glycemia. Recently, racial and ethnic differences in the relationship between HbA1c and blood glucose have also been described. Although the reasons for racial and ethnic differences remain unknown, factors such as differences in red cell survival, extracellular-intracellular glucose balance, and nonglycemic genetic determinants of hemoglobin glycation are being explored as contributors. Until the reasons for these differences are more clearly defined, reliance on HbA1c as the sole, or even preferred, criterion for the diagnosis of diabetes creates the potential for systematic error and misclassification. HbA1c must be used thoughtfully and in combination with traditional glucose criteria when screening for and diagnosing diabetes.

OBJECTIVE—To compare the efficacy and safety of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily injection (MDI) in older adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and to assess treatment satisfaction and quality of life. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Adults (n = 107) ≥60 years of age (mean age 66 years) with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (mean duration 16 years, BMI 32 kg/m², and HbA_1C [A1C] 8.2%) were randomized to CSII (using insulin lispro) or MDI (using insulin lispro and insulin glargine) in a two-center, 12-month, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Efficacy was assessed with A1C, safety by frequency of hypoglycemia, and treatment satisfaction and quality of life with the Diabetes Quality of Life Clinical Trial Questionnaire and the 36-item short-form health survey, version 2. RESULTS—Forty-eight CSII subjects (91%) and 50 MDI subjects (93%) completed the study. Mean A1C fell by 1.7 ± 1.0% in the CSII group to 6.6% and by 1.6 ± 1.2% in the MDI group to 6.4%. The difference in A1C between treatment groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.20). Eighty-one percent of CSII subjects and 90% of MDI subjects experienced at least one episode of minor (self-treated) hypoglycemia (P = 0.17), and three CSII and six MDI subjects experienced severe hypoglycemia (P = 0.49). Rates of severe hypoglycemia were similarly low in the two groups (CSII 0.08 and MDI 0.23 events per person-year, P = 0.61). Weight gain did not differ between groups (P = 0.70). Treatment satisfaction improved significantly with both CSII and MDI (P < 0.0001), and the difference between groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS—In older subjects with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, both CSII and MDI achieved excellent glycemic control with good safety and patient satisfaction.

Content: Recent studies have reported hemoglobin A_1c (A1c) differences across racial/ethnic groups. Our diverse population allows for further investigation of potential differences in measurements of glycemia. Objectives: Our objectives were to describe and explore baseline racial/ethnic differences in self-monitored plasma glucose profiles, A1c, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) in patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the Assessing DURAbility of Basal vs. Lispro Mix 75/25 Insulin Efficacy trial. Design, Setting, Patients: The trial enrolled 2094 patients with type 2 diabetes, ages 30–80 yr, from 11 countries. Main Outcome Measures: Estimated mean plasma glucose (MPG), A1c, and 1,5-AG were compared among racial/ethnic groups before and after adjusting for factors affecting glycemia: age, sex, duration of diabetes, body mass index, and MPG. Results: Baseline estimated MPG ± sd was 220.0 ± 82.0 mg/dl, mean A1c was 9.0 ± 1.3%, and 1,5-AG was 5.0 ± 4.1μg/ml. Estimated MPG did not differ between Caucasian and non-Caucasian groups. A1c was higher in Hispanics (9.4 ± 1.4%; P < 0.001), Asians (9.2 ± 1.4%; P < 0.01), and patients of other racial/ethnic groups (9.7 ± 1.5%; P < 0.001) compared with Caucasians (8.9 ± 1.2%). Paradoxically, 1,5-AG was higher for Asian (5.7 ± 4.6 μg/ml) and African patients (6.2 ± 5.4 μg/ml) vs. Caucasians (4.9 ± 3.9 μg/ml) (P < 0.01). After adjusting for factors affecting glycemia, A1c was higher (all P ≤ 0.002) in Hispanics, Asians, Africans, and patients of other racial/ethnic groups, and 1,5-AG was higher in Asian and African patients (P < 0.001) vs. Caucasians. Conclusions: There were differences in A1c and 1,5-AG, but not MPG, among racial/ethnic groups. Comparisons of glycemia across racial/ethnic groups using these parameters may be problematic due to inherent biological variability and methodological issues.