Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Standards of Care

4. Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021

  1. American Diabetes Association
Diabetes Care 2021 Jan; 44(Supplement 1): S40-S52. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S004
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Medical 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 (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), 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, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Patient-Centered Collaborative Care

Recommendations

  • 4.1 A patient-centered communication style that uses person-centered and strength-based language and active listening; elicits patient preferences and beliefs; and assesses literacy, numeracy, and potential barriers to care should be used to optimize patient health outcomes and health-related quality of life. B

  • 4.2 People with diabetes can benefit from a coordinated multidisciplinary team that may draw from diabetes care and education specialists, primary care providers, subspecialty providers, nurses, dietitians, exercise specialists, pharmacists, dentists, podiatrists, and mental health professionals. E

A successful medical evaluation depends on beneficial interactions between the patient and the care team. The Chronic Care Model (1–3) (see Section 1 “Improving Care and Promoting Health in Populations,” https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S001) is a patient-centered approach to care that requires a close working relationship between the patient and clinicians involved in treatment planning. People with diabetes should receive health care from a coordinated interdisciplinary team that may include diabetes care and education specialists, physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, dietitians, exercise specialists, pharmacists, dentists, podiatrists, and mental health professionals. Individuals with diabetes must assume an active role in their care. The patient, family or support people, physicians, and health care team should together formulate the management plan, which includes lifestyle management (see Section 5 “Facilitating Behavior Change and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes,” https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S005).

The goals of treatment for diabetes are to prevent or delay complications and optimize quality of life (Fig. 4.1). Treatment goals and plans should be created with patients based on their individual preferences, values, and goals. This individualized management plan should take into account the patient's age, cognitive abilities, school/work schedule and conditions, health beliefs, support systems, eating patterns, physical activity, social situation, financial concerns, cultural factors, literacy and numeracy (mathematical literacy), diabetes history (duration, complications, current use of medications), comorbidities, health priorities, other medical conditions, preferences for care, and life expectancy. Various strategies and techniques should be used to support patients' self-management efforts, including providing education on problem-solving skills for all aspects of diabetes management.

Figure 4.1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.1

Decision cycle for patient-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes. Reprinted from Davies et al. (101).

Provider communication with patients and families should acknowledge that multiple factors impact glycemic management but also emphasize that collaboratively developed treatment plans and a healthy lifestyle can significantly improve disease outcomes and well-being (4–7). Thus, the goal of provider-patient communication is to establish a collaborative relationship and to assess and address self-management barriers without blaming patients for “noncompliance” or “nonadherence” when the outcomes of self-management are not optimal (8). The familiar terms “noncompliance” and “nonadherence” denote a passive, obedient role for a person with diabetes in “following doctor's orders” that is at odds with the active role people with diabetes take in directing the day-to-day decision-making, planning, monitoring, evaluation, and problem-solving involved in diabetes self-management. Using a nonjudgmental approach that normalizes periodic lapses in self-management may help minimize patients' resistance to reporting problems with self-management. Empathizing and using active listening techniques, such as open-ended questions, reflective statements, and summarizing what the patient said, can help facilitate communication. Patients' perceptions about their own ability, or self-efficacy, to self-manage diabetes are one important psychosocial factor related to improved diabetes self-management and treatment outcomes in diabetes (9–13) and should be a target of ongoing assessment, patient education, and treatment planning.

Language has a strong impact on perceptions and behavior. The use of empowering language in diabetes care and education can help to inform and motivate people, yet language that shames and judges may undermine this effort. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists (formerly called American Association of Diabetes Educators) joint consensus report, “The Use of Language in Diabetes Care and Education,” provides the authors' expert opinion regarding the use of language by health care professionals when speaking or writing about diabetes for people with diabetes or for professional audiences (14). Although further research is needed to address the impact of language on diabetes outcomes, the report includes five key consensus recommendations for language use:

  • Use language that is neutral, nonjudgmental, and based on facts, actions, or physiology/biology.

  • Use language free from stigma.

  • Use language that is strength based, respectful, and inclusive and that imparts hope.

  • Use language that fosters collaboration between patients and providers.

  • Use language that is person centered (e.g., “person with diabetes” is preferred over “diabetic”).

Comprehensive Medical Evaluation

Recommendations

  • 4.3 A complete medical evaluation should be performed at the initial visit to:

    • • Confirm the diagnosis and classify diabetes. A

    • • Evaluate for diabetes complications and potential comorbid conditions. A

    • • Review previous treatment and risk factor control in patients with established diabetes. A

    • • Begin patient engagement in the formulation of a care management plan. A

    • •Develop a plan for continuing care. A

  • 4.4 A follow-up visit should include most components of the initial comprehensive medical evaluation (see Table 4.1). A

  • 4.5 Ongoing management should be guided by the assessment of overall health status, diabetes complications, cardiovascular risk (see the risk calculator, Section 10 “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S010), hypoglycemia risk, and shared decision-making to set therapeutic goals. B

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.1

Components of the comprehensive diabetes medical evaluation at initial, follow-up, and annual visits

The comprehensive medical evaluation includes the initial and follow-up evaluations, assessment of complications, psychosocial assessment, management of comorbid conditions, and engagement of the patient throughout the process. While a comprehensive list is provided in Table 4.1, in clinical practice the provider may need to prioritize the components of the medical evaluation given the available resources and time. The goal is to provide the health care team information so it can optimally support a patient. In addition to the medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests, providers should assess diabetes self-management behaviors, nutrition, social determinants of health, and psychosocial health (see Section 5 “Facilitating Behavior Change and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes,” https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S005) and give guidance on routine immunizations. The assessment of sleep pattern and duration should be considered; a meta-analysis found that poor sleep quality, short sleep, and long sleep were associated with higher A1C in people with type 2 diabetes (15). Interval follow-up visits should occur at least every 3–6 months individualized to the patient, and then at least annually.

Lifestyle management and psychosocial care are the cornerstones of diabetes management. Patients should be referred for diabetes self-management education and support, medical nutrition therapy, and assessment of psychosocial/emotional health concerns if indicated. Patients should receive recommended preventive care services (e.g., immunizations, cancer screening, etc.); smoking cessation counseling; and ophthalmological, dental, and podiatric referrals.

The assessment of risk of acute and chronic diabetes complications and treatment planning are key components of initial and follow-up visits (Table 4.2). The risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and heart failure (see Section 10 “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S010), chronic kidney disease staging (see Section 11 “Microvascular Complications and Foot Care,” https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S011), presence of retinopathy, and risk of treatment-associated hypoglycemia (Table 4.3) should be used to individualize targets for glycemia (see Section 6 “Glycemic Targets,” https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S006), blood pressure, and lipids and to select specific glucose-lowering medication (see Section 9 “Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment,” https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S009), antihypertension medication, and statin treatment intensity.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.2

Assessment and treatment plan*

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.3

Assessment of hypoglycemia risk

Additional referrals should be arranged as necessary (Table 4.4). Clinicians should ensure that individuals with diabetes are appropriately screened for complications and comorbidities. Discussing and implementing an approach to glycemic control with the patient is a part, not the sole goal, of the patient encounter.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.4

Referrals for initial care management

Immunizations

Recommendation

  • 4.6 Provide routinely recommended vaccinations for children and adults with diabetes as indicated by age (see Table 4.5 for highly recommended vaccinations for adults with diabetes). A

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.5

Highly recommended immunizations for adult patients with diabetes (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

The importance of routine vaccinations for people living with diabetes has been elevated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Preventing avoidable infections not only directly prevents morbidity but also reduces hospitalizations, which may additionally reduce risk of acquiring infections such as COVID-19. Children and adults with diabetes should receive vaccinations according to age-appropriate recommendations (16,17). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides vaccination schedules specifically for children, adolescents, and adults with diabetes (see https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/). The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) makes recommendations based on its own review and rating of the evidence, provided in Table 4.5 for selected vaccinations. The ACIP evidence review has evolved over time with the adoption of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) in 2010 and then the Evidence to Decision or Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) frameworks in 2018 (18). Here we discuss the particular importance of specific vaccines.

Influenza

Influenza is a common, preventable infectious disease associated with high mortality and morbidity in vulnerable populations, including youth, older adults, and people with chronic diseases. Influenza vaccination in people with diabetes has been found to significantly reduce influenza and diabetes-related hospital admissions (19). Given the benefits of the annual influenza vaccination, it is recommended for all individuals ≥6 months of age who do not have a contraindication. Influenza vaccination is critically important in the next year as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses will both be active in the U.S. during the 2020–2021 season (20). The live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), which is delivered by nasal spray, is an option for patients beginning at age 2 years through age 49 years, for those who are not pregnant, but patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes are cautioned against taking the LAIV and are instead recommended to receive the inactive or recombinant influenza vaccination. For individuals ≥65 years of age, there may be additional benefit from the high-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (20).

Pneumococcal Pneumonia

Like influenza, pneumococcal pneumonia is a common, preventable disease. People with diabetes are at increased risk for the bacteremic form of pneumococcal infection and have been reported to have a high risk of nosocomial bacteremia, with a mortality rate as high as 50% (21). There are two vaccination types, the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13), with distinct schedules for children and adults.

All children are recommended to receive a four-dose series of PCV13 by 15 months of age. For children with diabetes who have incomplete series by ages 2–5 years, the CDC recommends a catch-up schedule to ensure that these children have four doses. Children with diabetes between 6–18 years of age are also advised to receive one dose of PPSV23, preferably after receipt of PCV13.

For adults with diabetes, one dose of PPSV23 is recommended between the ages of 19–64 years and another dose at ≥65 years of age. The PCV13 is no longer routinely recommended for patients over 65 years of age because of the declining rates of pneumonia due to these strains (22). Older patients should have a shared decision-making discussion with their provider to determine individualized risks and benefits. PCV13 is recommended for patients with immunocompromising conditions such as asplenia, advanced kidney disease, cochlear implants, or cerebrospinal fluid leaks (23). Some older patients residing in assisted living facilities may also consider PCV13. If the PCV13 is to be administered, it should be given prior to the next dose of PPSV23.

Hepatitis B

Compared with the general population, people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes have higher rates of hepatitis B. This may be due to contact with infected blood or through improper equipment use (glucose monitoring devices or infected needles). Because of the higher likelihood of transmission, hepatitis B vaccine is recommended for adults with diabetes aged <60 years. For adults aged ≥60 years, hepatitis B vaccine may be administered at the discretion of the treating clinician based on the patient's likelihood of acquiring hepatitis B infection.

COVID-19

During the coming year, it is expected that vaccines for COVID-19 will become available and that people with diabetes should be a priority population. The COVID-19 vaccine will likely become a routine part of the annual preventive schedule for people with diabetes.

Assessment of Comorbidities

Besides assessing diabetes-related complications, clinicians and their patients need to be aware of common comorbidities that affect people with diabetes and may complicate management (24–28). Diabetes comorbidities are conditions that affect people with diabetes more often than age-matched people without diabetes. This section discusses many of the common comorbidities observed in patients with diabetes but is not necessarily inclusive of all the conditions that have been reported.

Autoimmune Diseases

Recommendations

  • 4.7 Patients with type 1 diabetes should be screened for autoimmune thyroid disease soon after diagnosis and periodically thereafter. B

  • 4.8 Adult patients with type 1 diabetes should be screened for celiac disease in the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms, signs, or laboratory manifestations suggestive of celiac disease. B

People with type 1 diabetes are at increased risk for other autoimmune diseases, with thyroid disease, celiac disease, and pernicious anemia (vitamin B12 deficiency) being among the most common (29). Other associated conditions include autoimmune hepatitis, primary adrenal insufficiency (Addison disease), dermatomyositis, and myasthenia gravis (30–33). Type 1 diabetes may also occur with other autoimmune diseases in the context of specific genetic disorders or polyglandular autoimmune syndromes (34). Given the high prevalence, nonspecific symptoms, and insidious onset of primary hypothyroidism, routine screening for thyroid dysfunction is recommended for all patients with type 1 diabetes. Screening for celiac disease should be considered in adult patients with suggestive symptoms (e.g., diarrhea, malabsorption, abdominal pain) or signs (e.g., osteoporosis, vitamin deficiencies, iron deficiency anemia) (35,36). Measurement of vitamin B12 levels should be considered for patients with type 1 diabetes and peripheral neuropathy or unexplained anemia.

Cancer

Diabetes is associated with increased risk of cancers of the liver, pancreas, endometrium, colon/rectum, breast, and bladder (37). The association may result from shared risk factors between type 2 diabetes and cancer (older age, obesity, and physical inactivity) but may also be due to diabetes-related factors (38), such as underlying disease physiology or diabetes treatments, although evidence for these links is scarce. Patients with diabetes should be encouraged to undergo recommended age- and sex-appropriate cancer screenings and to reduce their modifiable cancer risk factors (obesity, physical inactivity, and smoking). New onset of atypical diabetes (lean body habitus, negative family history) in a middle-aged or older patient may precede the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (39). However, in the absence of other symptoms (e.g., weight loss, abdominal pain), routine screening of all such patients is not currently recommended.

Cognitive Impairment/Dementia

Recommendation

  • 4.9 In the presence of cognitive impairment, diabetes treatment regimens should be simplified as much as possible and tailored to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia. B

Diabetes is associated with a significantly increased risk and rate of cognitive decline and an increased risk of dementia (40,41). A recent meta-analysis of prospective observational studies in people with diabetes showed 73% increased risk of all types of dementia, 56% increased risk of Alzheimer dementia, and 127% increased risk of vascular dementia compared with individuals without diabetes (42). The reverse is also true: people with Alzheimer dementia are more likely to develop diabetes than people without Alzheimer dementia. In a 15-year prospective study of community-dwelling people >60 years of age, the presence of diabetes at baseline significantly increased the age- and sex-adjusted incidence of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer dementia, and vascular dementia compared with rates in those with normal glucose tolerance (43). See Section 12 “Older Adults” (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S012) for a more detailed discussion regarding screening for cognitive impairment.

Hyperglycemia

In those with type 2 diabetes, the degree and duration of hyperglycemia are related to dementia. More rapid cognitive decline is associated with both increased A1C and longer duration of diabetes (42). The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study found that each 1% higher A1C level was associated with lower cognitive function in individuals with type 2 diabetes (44). However, the ACCORD study found no difference in cognitive outcomes in participants randomly assigned to intensive and standard glycemic control, supporting the recommendation that intensive glucose control should not be advised for the improvement of cognitive function in individuals with type 2 diabetes (45).

Hypoglycemia

In type 2 diabetes, severe hypoglycemia is associated with reduced cognitive function, and those with poor cognitive function have more severe hypoglycemia. In a long-term study of older patients with type 2 diabetes, individuals with one or more recorded episodes of severe hypoglycemia had a stepwise increase in risk of dementia (46). Likewise, the ACCORD trial found that as cognitive function decreased, the risk of severe hypoglycemia increased (47). Tailoring glycemic therapy may help to prevent hypoglycemia in individuals with cognitive dysfunction. See Section 12 “Older Adults” (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S012) for more detailed discussion of hypoglycemia in older patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Nutrition

In one study, adherence to the Mediterranean diet correlated with improved cognitive function (48). However, a recent Cochrane review found insufficient evidence to recommend any specific dietary change for the prevention or treatment of cognitive dysfunction (49).

Statins

A systematic review has reported that data do not support an adverse effect of statins on cognition (50). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration postmarketing surveillance databases have also revealed a low reporting rate for cognitive-related adverse events, including cognitive dysfunction or dementia, with statin therapy, similar to rates seen with other commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications (50). Therefore, fear of cognitive decline should not be a barrier to statin use in individuals with diabetes and a high risk for cardiovascular disease.

Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Recommendation

  • 4.10 Patients with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes and elevated liver enzymes (ALT) or fatty liver on ultrasound should be evaluated for presence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis. C

Diabetes is associated with the development of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, including its more severe manifestations of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (51). Elevations of hepatic transaminase concentrations are associated with higher BMI, waist circumference, and triglyceride levels and lower HDL cholesterol levels. Noninvasive tests, such as elastography or fibrosis biomarkers, may be used to assess risk of fibrosis, but referral to a liver specialist and liver biopsy may be required for definitive diagnosis (52). Interventions that improve metabolic abnormalities in patients with diabetes (weight loss, glycemic control, and treatment with specific drugs for hyperglycemia or dyslipidemia) are also beneficial for fatty liver disease (53,54). Pioglitazone, vitamin E treatment, and liraglutide treatment of biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis have each been shown to improve liver histology, but effects on longer-term clinical outcomes are not known (55–57). Treatment with other glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and with sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors has shown promise in preliminary studies, although benefits may be mediated, at least in part, by weight loss (57–59).

Hepatitis C Infection

Infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is associated with a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes, which is present in up to one-third of individuals with chronic HCV infection. HCV may impair glucose metabolism by several mechanisms, including directly via viral proteins and indirectly by altering proinflammatory cytokine levels (60). The use of newer direct-acting antiviral drugs produces a sustained virological response (cure) in nearly all cases and has been reported to improve glucose metabolism in individuals with diabetes (61). A meta-analysis of mostly observational studies found a mean reduction in A1C levels of 0.45% (95% CI −0.60 to −0.30) and reduced requirement for glucose-lowering medication use following successful eradication of HCV infection (62).

Pancreatitis

Diabetes is linked to diseases of the exocrine pancreas such as pancreatitis, which may disrupt the global architecture or physiology of the pancreas, often resulting in both exocrine and endocrine dysfunction. Up to half of patients with diabetes may have some degree of impaired exocrine pancreas function (63). People with diabetes are at an approximately twofold higher risk of developing acute pancreatitis (64).

Conversely, prediabetes and/or diabetes has been found to develop in approximately one-third of patients after an episode of acute pancreatitis (65); thus, the relationship is likely bidirectional. Postpancreatitis diabetes may include either new-onset disease or previously unrecognized diabetes (66). Studies of patients treated with incretin-based therapies for diabetes have also reported that pancreatitis may occur more frequently with these medications, but results have been mixed and causality has not been established (67–69).

Islet autotransplantation should be considered for patients requiring total pancreatectomy for medically refractory chronic pancreatitis to prevent postsurgical diabetes. Approximately one-third of patients undergoing total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation are insulin free 1 year postoperatively, and observational studies from different centers have demonstrated islet graft function up to a decade after the surgery in some patients (70–74). Both patient and disease factors should be carefully considered when deciding the indications and timing of this surgery. Surgeries should be performed in skilled facilities that have demonstrated expertise in islet autotransplantation.

Fractures

Age-specific hip fracture risk is significantly increased in both people with type 1 diabetes (relative risk 6.3) and those with type 2 diabetes (relative risk 1.7) in both sexes (75). Type 1 diabetes is associated with osteoporosis, but in type 2 diabetes, an increased risk of hip fracture is seen despite higher bone mineral density (BMD) (76). In three large observational studies of older adults, femoral neck BMD T-score and the World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) score were associated with hip and nonspine fractures. Fracture risk was higher in participants with diabetes compared with those without diabetes for a given T-score and age or for a given FRAX score (77). Providers should assess fracture history and risk factors in older patients with diabetes and recommend measurement of BMD if appropriate for the patient's age and sex. Fracture prevention strategies for people with diabetes are the same as for the general population and may include vitamin D supplementation. For patients with type 2 diabetes with fracture risk factors, thiazolidinediones (78) and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (79) should be used with caution.

Sensory Impairment

Hearing impairment, both in high-frequency and low- to midfrequency ranges, is more common in people with diabetes than in those without, with stronger associations found in studies of younger people (80). Proposed pathophysiologic mechanisms include the combined contributions of hyperglycemia and oxidative stress to cochlear microangiopathy and auditory neuropathy (81). In a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) analysis, hearing impairment was about twice as prevalent in people with diabetes compared with those without, after adjusting for age and other risk factors for hearing impairment (82). Low HDL cholesterol, coronary heart disease, peripheral neuropathy, and general poor health have been reported as risk factors for hearing impairment for people with diabetes, but an association of hearing loss with blood glucose levels has not been consistently observed (83). In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/ Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) cohort, time-weighted mean A1C was associated with increased risk of hearing impairment when tested after long-term (>20 years) follow-up (84). Impairment in smell, but not taste, has also been reported in individuals with diabetes (85).

Low Testosterone in Men

Recommendation

  • 4.11 In men with diabetes who have symptoms or signs of hypogonadism, such as decreased sexual desire (libido) or activity, or erectile dysfunction, consider screening with a morning serum testosterone level. B

Mean levels of testosterone are lower in men with diabetes compared with age-matched men without diabetes, but obesity is a major confounder (86,87). Testosterone replacement in men with symptomatic hypogonadism may have benefits including improved sexual function, well-being, muscle mass and strength, and bone density (88). In men with diabetes who have symptoms or signs of low testosterone (hypogonadism), a morning total testosterone level should be measured using an accurate and reliable assay (89). In men who have total testosterone levels close to the lower limit, it is reasonable to determine free testosterone concentrations either directly from equilibrium dialysis assays or by calculations that use total testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, and albumin concentrations (89). Please see the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for detailed recommendations (89). Further tests (such as luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone levels) may be needed to determine if the patient has hypogonadism. Testosterone replacement in older men with hypogonadism has been associated with increased coronary artery plaque volume, with no conclusive evidence that testosterone supplementation is associated with increased cardiovascular risk in hypogonadal men (89).

Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Age-adjusted rates of obstructive sleep apnea, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, are significantly higher (4- to 10-fold) with obesity, especially with central obesity (90). The prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea in the population with type 2 diabetes may be as high as 23%, and the prevalence of any sleep-disordered breathing may be as high as 58% (91,92). In obese participants enrolled in the Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) trial, it exceeded 80% (93). Patients with symptoms suggestive of obstructive sleep apnea (e.g., excessive daytime sleepiness, snoring, witnessed apnea) should be considered for screening (94). Sleep apnea treatment (lifestyle modification, continuous positive airway pressure, oral appliances, and surgery) significantly improves quality of life and blood pressure control. The evidence for a treatment effect on glycemic control is mixed (95).

Periodontal Disease

Periodontal disease is more severe, and may be more prevalent, in patients with diabetes than in those without and has been associated with higher A1C levels (96–98). Longitudinal studies suggest that people with periodontal disease have higher rates of incident diabetes. Current evidence suggests that periodontal disease adversely affects diabetes outcomes, although evidence for treatment benefits remains controversial (28,99). In a randomized clinical trial, intensive periodontal treatment was associated with better glycemic control (A1C 8.3% vs. 7.8% in control subjects and the intensive-treatment group, respectively) and reduction in inflammatory markers after 12 months of follow-up (100).

Footnotes

  • Suggested citation: American Diabetes Association. 4. Comprehensive medical evaluation and assessment of comorbidities: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl. 1):S40–S52

  • © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association
https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Stellefson M,
    2. Dipnarine K,
    3. Stopka C
    . The chronic care model and diabetes management in US primary care settings: a systematic review. Prev Chronic Dis 2013;10:E26
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Coleman K,
    2. Austin BT,
    3. Brach C,
    4. Wagner EH
    . Evidence on the Chronic Care Model in the new millennium. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:75–85
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Gabbay RA,
    2. Bailit MH,
    3. Mauger DT,
    4. Wagner EH,
    5. Siminerio L
    . Multipayer patient-centered medical home implementation guided by the chronic care model. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2011;37:265–273
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group
    . Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837–853
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Nathan DM,
    2. Genuth S,
    3. Lachin J, et al.; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group
    . The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977–986
    1. Lachin JM,
    2. Genuth S,
    3. Nathan DM,
    4. Zinman B,
    5. Rutledge BN; DCCT/EDIC Research Group
    . Effect of glycemic exposure on the risk of microvascular complications in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial—revisited. Diabetes 2008;57:995–1001
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. White NH,
    2. Cleary PA,
    3. Dahms W,
    4. Goldstein D,
    5. Malone J,
    6. Tamborlane WV; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Research Group
    . Beneficial effects of intensive therapy of diabetes during adolescence: outcomes after the conclusion of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). J Pediatr 2001;139:804–812
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Anderson RM,
    2. Funnell MM
    . Compliance and adherence are dysfunctional concepts in diabetes care. Diabetes Educ 2000;26:597–604
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Sarkar U,
    2. Fisher L,
    3. Schillinger D
    . Is self-efficacy associated with diabetes self-management across race/ethnicity and health literacy? Diabetes Care 2006;29:823–829
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. King DK,
    2. Glasgow RE,
    3. Toobert DJ, et al
    . Self-efficacy, problem solving, and social-environmental support are associated with diabetes self-management behaviors. Diabetes Care 2010;33:751–753
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Nouwen A,
    2. Urquhart Law G,
    3. Hussain S,
    4. McGovern S,
    5. Napier H
    . Comparison of the role of self-efficacy and illness representations in relation to dietary self-care and diabetes distress in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Psychol Health 2009;24:1071–1084
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Beckerle CM,
    2. Lavin MA
    . Association of self-efficacy and self-care with glycemic control in diabetes. Diabetes Spectr 2013;26:172–178
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Iannotti RJ,
    2. Schneider S,
    3. Nansel TR, et al
    . Self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and diabetes self-management in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2006;27:98–105
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Dickinson JK,
    2. Guzman SJ,
    3. Maryniuk MD, et al
    . The use of language in diabetes care and education. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1790–1799
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Lee SWH,
    2. Ng KY,
    3. Chin WK
    . The impact of sleep amount and sleep quality on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev 2017;31:91–101
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Robinson CL,
    2. Bernstein H,
    3. Poehling K,
    4. Romero JR,
    5. Szilagyi P
    . Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended immunization schedule for children and adolescents aged 18 years or younger - United States, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:130–132
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Freedman MS,
    2. Hunter P,
    3. Ault K,
    4. Kroger A
    . Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended immunization schedule for adults aged 19 years or older - United States, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:133–135
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Lee G,
    2. Carr W; ACIP Evidence-Based Recommendations Work Group; ACIP Evidence Based Recommendations Work Group
    . Updated framework for development of evidence-based recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67:1271–1272
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Goeijenbier M,
    2. van Sloten TT,
    3. Slobbe L, et al
    . Benefits of flu vaccination for persons with diabetes mellitus: a review. Vaccine 2017;35:5095–5101
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Grohskopf LA,
    2. Alyanak E,
    3. Broder KR,
    4. Blanton LH,
    5. Fry AM,
    6. Jernigan DB, et al
    . Prevention and control of seasonal influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2020-21 influenza season. MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69:1–24
  15. ↵
    1. Smith SA,
    2. Poland GA
    . Use of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in people with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000;23:95–108
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Matanock A,
    2. Lee G,
    3. Gierke R,
    4. Kobayashi M,
    5. Leidner A,
    6. Pilishvili T
    . Use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine among adults aged ≥65 years: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2019;68:1069–1075
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Ahmed SS,
    2. Pondo T,
    3. Xing W, et al
    . Early impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine use on invasive pneumococcal disease among adults with and without underlying medical conditions—United States. Clin Infect Dis 2020;70:2484–2492
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Selvin E,
    2. Coresh J,
    3. Brancati FL
    . The burden and treatment of diabetes in elderly individuals in the U.S. Diabetes Care 2006;29:2415–2419
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Grant RW,
    2. Ashburner JM,
    3. Hong CS,
    4. Chang Y,
    5. Barry MJ,
    6. Atlas SJ
    . Defining patient complexity from the primary care physician’s perspective: a cohort study [published correction appears in Ann Intern Med 2012;157:152]. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:797–804
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Tinetti ME,
    2. Fried TR,
    3. Boyd CM
    . Designing health care for the most common chronic condition—multimorbidity. JAMA 2012;307:2493–2494
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Sudore RL,
    2. Karter AJ,
    3. Huang ES, et al
    . Symptom burden of adults with type 2 diabetes across the disease course: Diabetes & Aging Study. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27:1674–1681
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Borgnakke WS,
    2. Ylöstalo PV,
    3. Taylor GW,
    4. Genco RJ
    . Effect of periodontal disease on diabetes: systematic review of epidemiologic observational evidence. J Periodontol 2013;84(Suppl.):S135–S152
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Nederstigt C,
    2. Uitbeijerse BS,
    3. Janssen LGM,
    4. Corssmit EPM,
    5. de Koning EJP,
    6. Dekkers OM
    . Associated auto-immune disease in type 1 diabetes patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Endocrinol 2019;180:135–144
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. De Block CE,
    2. De Leeuw IH,
    3. Van Gaal LF
    . High prevalence of manifestations of gastric autoimmunity in parietal cell antibody-positive type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetic patients. The Belgian Diabetes Registry. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:4062–4067
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Triolo TM,
    2. Armstrong TK,
    3. McFann K, et al
    . Additional autoimmune disease found in 33% of patients at type 1 diabetes onset. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1211–1213
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hughes JW,
    2. Riddlesworth TD,
    3. DiMeglio LA,
    4. Miller KM,
    5. Rickels MR,
    6. McGill JB; T1D Exchange Clinic Network
    . Autoimmune diseases in children and adults with type 1 diabetes from the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016;101:4931–4937
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Kahaly GJ,
    2. Hansen MP
    . Type 1 diabetes associated autoimmunity. Autoimmun Rev 2016;15:644–648
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Eisenbarth GS,
    2. Gottlieb PA
    . Autoimmune polyendocrine syndromes. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2068–2079
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Rubio-Tapia A,
    2. Hill ID,
    3. Kelly CP,
    4. Calderwood AH,
    5. Murray JA; American College of Gastroenterology
    . ACG clinical guidelines: diagnosis and management of celiac disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:656–676; quiz 677
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Husby S,
    2. Murray JA,
    3. Katzka DA
    . AGA clinical practice update on diagnosis and monitoring of celiac disease-changing utility of serology and histologic measures: expert review. Gastroenterology 2019;156:885–889
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Suh S,
    2. Kim K-W
    . Diabetes and cancer: is diabetes causally related to cancer? Diabetes Metab J 2011;35:193–198
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Giovannucci E,
    2. Harlan DM,
    3. Archer MC, et al
    . Diabetes and cancer: a consensus report. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:207–221
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Aggarwal G,
    2. Kamada P,
    3. Chari ST
    . Prevalence of diabetes mellitus in pancreatic cancer compared to common cancers. Pancreas 2013;42:198–201
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Cukierman T,
    2. Gerstein HC,
    3. Williamson JD
    . Cognitive decline and dementia in diabetes--systematic overview of prospective observational studies. Diabetologia 2005;48:2460–2469
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. Biessels GJ,
    2. Staekenborg S,
    3. Brunner E,
    4. Brayne C,
    5. Scheltens P
    . Risk of dementia in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2006;5:64–74
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Gudala K,
    2. Bansal D,
    3. Schifano F,
    4. Bhansali A
    . Diabetes mellitus and risk of dementia: a meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. J Diabetes Investig 2013;4:640–650
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Ohara T,
    2. Doi Y,
    3. Ninomiya T, et al
    . Glucose tolerance status and risk of dementia in the community: the Hisayama study. Neurology 2011;77:1126–1134
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Cukierman-Yaffe T,
    2. Gerstein HC,
    3. Williamson JD, et al.; Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Memory in Diabetes (ACCORD-MIND) Investigators
    . Relationship between baseline glycemic control and cognitive function in individuals with type 2 diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors: the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Memory in Diabetes (ACCORD-MIND) trial. Diabetes Care 2009;32:221–226
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Launer LJ,
    2. Miller ME,
    3. Williamson JD, et al.; ACCORD MIND investigators
    . Effects of intensive glucose lowering on brain structure and function in people with type 2 diabetes (ACCORD MIND): a randomised open-label substudy. Lancet Neurol 2011;10:969–977
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. Whitmer RA,
    2. Karter AJ,
    3. Yaffe K,
    4. Quesenberry CP Jr,
    5. Selby JV
    . Hypoglycemic episodes and risk of dementia in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA 2009;301:1565–1572
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    1. Punthakee Z,
    2. Miller ME,
    3. Launer LJ, et al.; ACCORD Group of Investigators; ACCORD-MIND Investigators
    . Poor cognitive function and risk of severe hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes: post hoc epidemiologic analysis of the ACCORD trial. Diabetes Care 2012;35:787–793
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Scarmeas N,
    2. Stern Y,
    3. Mayeux R,
    4. Manly JJ,
    5. Schupf N,
    6. Luchsinger JA
    . Mediterranean diet and mild cognitive impairment. Arch Neurol 2009;66:216–225
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Ooi CP,
    2. Loke SC,
    3. Yassin Z,
    4. Hamid T-A
    . Carbohydrates for improving the cognitive performance of independent-living older adults with normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;4:CD007220
  39. ↵
    1. Richardson K,
    2. Schoen M,
    3. French B, et al
    . Statins and cognitive function: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:688–697
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. El-Serag HB,
    2. Tran T,
    3. Everhart JE
    . Diabetes increases the risk of chronic liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004;126:460–468
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Chalasani N,
    2. Younossi Z,
    3. Lavine JE, et al
    . The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2018;67:328–357
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. American Gastroenterological Association
    . American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2002;123:1702–1704
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Cusi K,
    2. Orsak B,
    3. Bril F, et al
    . Long-term pioglitazone treatment for patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and prediabetes or type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2016;165:305–315
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Belfort R,
    2. Harrison SA,
    3. Brown K, et al
    . A placebo-controlled trial of pioglitazone in subjects with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2297–2307
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Sanyal AJ,
    2. Chalasani N,
    3. Kowdley KV, et al.; NASH CRN
    . Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1675–1685
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. ↵
    1. Armstrong MJ,
    2. Gaunt P,
    3. Aithal GP, et al.; LEAN trial team
    . Liraglutide safety and efficacy in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (LEAN): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Lancet 2016;387:679–690
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Shimizu M,
    2. Suzuki K,
    3. Kato K, et al
    . Evaluation of the effects of dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, on hepatic steatosis and fibrosis using transient elastography in patients with type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Diabetes Obes Metab 2019;21:285–292
  46. ↵
    1. Kuchay MS,
    2. Krishan S,
    3. Mishra SK, et al
    . Effect of dulaglutide on liver fat in patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD: randomised controlled trial (D-LIFT trial). Diabetologia 2020;63:2434–2445
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Lecube A,
    2. Hernández C,
    3. Genescà J,
    4. Simó R
    . Proinflammatory cytokines, insulin resistance, and insulin secretion in chronic hepatitis C patients: a case-control study. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1096–1101
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Hum J,
    2. Jou JH,
    3. Green PK, et al
    . Improvement in glycemic control of type 2 diabetes after successful treatment of hepatitis C virus. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1173–1180
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Carnovale C,
    2. Pozzi M,
    3. Dassano A, et al
    . The impact of a successful treatment of hepatitis C virus on glyco-metabolic control in diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Diabetol 2019;56:341–354
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Piciucchi M,
    2. Capurso G,
    3. Archibugi L,
    4. Delle Fave MM,
    5. Capasso M,
    6. Delle Fave G
    . Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency in diabetic patients: prevalence, mechanisms, and treatment. Int J Endocrinol 2015;2015:595649
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. Lee Y-K,
    2. Huang M-Y,
    3. Hsu C-Y,
    4. Su Y-C
    . Bidirectional relationship between diabetes and acute pancreatitis: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e2448
    OpenUrlPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Das SLM,
    2. Singh PP,
    3. Phillips ARJ,
    4. Murphy R,
    5. Windsor JA,
    6. Petrov MS
    . Newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus after acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 2014;63:818–831
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Petrov MS
    . Diabetes of the exocrine pancreas: American Diabetes Association-compliant lexicon. Pancreatology 2017;17:523–526
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Thomsen RW,
    2. Pedersen L,
    3. Møller N,
    4. Kahlert J,
    5. Beck-Nielsen H,
    6. Sørensen HT
    . Incretin-based therapy and risk of acute pancreatitis: a nationwide population-based case-control study. Diabetes Care 2015;38:1089–1098
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Tkáč I,
    2. Raz I
    . Combined analysis of three large interventional trials with gliptins indicates increased incidence of acute pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2017;40:284–286
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Egan AG,
    2. Blind E,
    3. Dunder K, et al
    . Pancreatic safety of incretin-based drugs--FDA and EMA assessment. N Engl J Med 2014;370:794–797
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Bellin MD,
    2. Gelrud A,
    3. Arreaza-Rubin G, et al
    . Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation: summary of an NIDDK workshop. Ann Surg 2015;261:21–29
    OpenUrl
    1. Sutherland DER,
    2. Radosevich DM,
    3. Bellin MD, et al
    . Total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplantation for chronic pancreatitis. J Am Coll Surg 2012;214:409–424; discussion 424–426
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Quartuccio M,
    2. Hall E,
    3. Singh V, et al
    . Glycemic predictors of insulin independence after total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017;102:801–809
    OpenUrl
    1. Webb MA,
    2. Illouz SC,
    3. Pollard CA, et al
    . Islet auto transplantation following total pancreatectomy: a long-term assessment of graft function. Pancreas 2008;37:282–287
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Wu Q,
    2. Zhang M,
    3. Qin Y, et al
    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of islet autotransplantation after total pancreatectomy in chronic pancreatitis patients. Endocr J 2015;62:227–234
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    1. Janghorbani M,
    2. Van Dam RM,
    3. Willett WC,
    4. Hu FB
    . Systematic review of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus and risk of fracture. Am J Epidemiol 2007;166:495–505
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  59. ↵
    1. Vestergaard P
    . Discrepancies in bone mineral density and fracture risk in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes--a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2007;18:427–444
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. ↵
    1. Schwartz AV,
    2. Vittinghoff E,
    3. Bauer DC, et al.; Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) Research Group; Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Research Group; Health, Aging, and Body Composition (Health ABC) Research Group
    . Association of BMD and FRAX score with risk of fracture in older adults with type 2 diabetes. JAMA 2011;305:2184–2192
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. ↵
    1. Kahn SE,
    2. Zinman B,
    3. Lachin JM, et al.; Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT) Study Group
    . Rosiglitazone-associated fractures in type 2 diabetes: an analysis from A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT). Diabetes Care 2008;31:845–851
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Taylor SI,
    2. Blau JE,
    3. Rother KI
    . Possible adverse effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on bone. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015;3:8–10
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Baiduc RR,
    2. Helzner EP
    . Epidemiology of diabetes and hearing loss. Semin Hear 2019;40:281–291
    OpenUrl
  64. ↵
    1. Helzner EP,
    2. Contrera KJ
    . Type 2 diabetes and hearing impairment. Curr Diab Rep 2016;16:3
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    1. Bainbridge KE,
    2. Hoffman HJ,
    3. Cowie CC
    . Diabetes and hearing impairment in the United States: audiometric evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 to 2004. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:1–10
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  66. ↵
    1. Bainbridge KE,
    2. Hoffman HJ,
    3. Cowie CC
    . Risk factors for hearing impairment among U.S. adults with diabetes: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1540–1545
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Schade DS,
    2. Lorenzi GM,
    3. Braffett BH, et al.; DCCT/EDIC Research Group
    . Hearing impairment and type 1 diabetes in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Cohort. Diabetes Care 2018;41:2495–2501
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    1. Rasmussen VF,
    2. Vestergaard ET,
    3. Hejlesen O,
    4. Andersson CUN,
    5. Cichosz SL
    . Prevalence of taste and smell impairment in adults with diabetes: across-sectional analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Prim Care Diabetes 2018;12:453–459
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. Dhindsa S,
    2. Miller MG,
    3. McWhirter CL, et al
    . Testosterone concentrations in diabetic and nondiabetic obese men. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1186–1192
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    1. Grossmann M
    . Low testosterone in men with type 2 diabetes: significance and treatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:2341–2353
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  71. ↵
    1. Bhasin S,
    2. Cunningham GR,
    3. Hayes FJ, et al.; Task Force, Endocrine Society
    . Testosterone therapy in men with androgen deficiency syndromes: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010;95:2536–2559
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  72. ↵
    1. Bhasin S,
    2. Brito JP,
    3. Cunningham GR, et al
    . Testosterone therapy in men with hypogonadism: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2018;103:1715–1744
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Li C,
    2. Ford ES,
    3. Zhao G,
    4. Croft JB,
    5. Balluz LS,
    6. Mokdad AH
    . Prevalence of self-reported clinically diagnosed sleep apnea according to obesity status in men and women: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2005-2006. Prev Med 2010;51:18–23
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. West SD,
    2. Nicoll DJ,
    3. Stradling JR
    . Prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea in men with type 2 diabetes. Thorax 2006;61:945–950
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    1. Resnick HE,
    2. Redline S,
    3. Shahar E, et al.; Sleep Heart Health Study
    . Diabetes and sleep disturbances: findings from the Sleep Heart Health Study. Diabetes Care 2003;26:702–709
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    1. Foster GD,
    2. Sanders MH,
    3. Millman R, et al.; Sleep AHEAD Research Group
    . Obstructive sleep apnea among obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1017–1019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. ↵
    1. Bibbins-Domingo K,
    2. Grossman DC,
    3. Curry SJ, et al.; US Preventive Services Task Force
    . Screening for obstructive sleep apnea in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2017;317:407–414
    OpenUrlPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Shaw JE,
    2. Punjabi NM,
    3. Wilding JP,
    4. Alberti KGMM,
    5. Zimmet PZ; International Diabetes Federation Taskforce on Epidemiology and Prevention
    . Sleep-disordered breathing and type 2 diabetes: a report from the International Diabetes Federation Taskforce on Epidemiology and Prevention. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2008;81:2–12
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  79. ↵
    1. Khader YS,
    2. Dauod AS,
    3. El-Qaderi SS,
    4. Alkafajei A,
    5. Batayha WQ
    . Periodontal status of diabetics compared with nondiabetics: a meta-analysis. J Diabetes Complications 2006;20:59–68
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Casanova L,
    2. Hughes FJ,
    3. Preshaw PM
    . Diabetes and periodontal disease: a two-way relationship. Br Dent J 2014;217:433–437
    OpenUrl
  80. ↵
    1. Eke PI,
    2. Thornton-Evans GO,
    3. Wei L,
    4. Borgnakke WS,
    5. Dye BA,
    6. Genco RJ
    . Periodontitis in US Adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009-2014. J Am Dent Assoc 2018;149:576–588.e6
    OpenUrl
  81. ↵
    1. Simpson TC,
    2. Weldon JC,
    3. Worthington HV, et al
    . Treatment of periodontal disease for glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;11:CD004714
  82. ↵
    1. D’Aiuto F,
    2. Gkranias N,
    3. Bhowruth D, et al.; TASTE Group
    . Systemic effects of periodontitis treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 12 month, single-centre, investigator-masked, randomised trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018;6:954–965
    OpenUrl
  83. ↵
    1. Davies MJ,
    2. D’Alessio DA,
    3. 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;41:2669–2701
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Karter AJ,
    2. Warton EM,
    3. Lipska KJ, et al
    . Development and validation of a tool to identify patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of hypoglycemia-related emergency department or hospital use. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:1461–1470
    OpenUrl
    1. Lipska KJ,
    2. Ross JS,
    3. Wang Y, et al
    . National trends in US hospital admissions for hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia among Medicare beneficiaries, 1999 to 2011. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:1116–1124
    OpenUrl
    1. Shorr RI,
    2. Ray WA,
    3. Daugherty JR,
    4. Griffin MR
    . Incidence and risk factors for serious hypoglycemia in older persons using insulin or sulfonylureas. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:1681–1686
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Abdelhafiz AH,
    2. Rodríguez-Mañas L,
    3. Morley JE,
    4. Sinclair AJ
    . Hypoglycemia in older people - a less well recognized risk factor for frailty. Aging Dis 2015;6:156–167
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Yun J-S,
    2. Ko S-H,
    3. Ko S-H, et al
    . Presence of macroalbuminuria predicts severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 10-year follow-up study. Diabetes Care 2013;36:1283–1289
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Chelliah A,
    2. Burge MR
    . Hypoglycaemia in elderly patients with diabetes mellitus: causes and strategies for prevention. Drugs Aging 2004;21:511–530
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 44 (Supplement 1)

In this Issue

January 2021, 44(Supplement 1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Standards of Care (PDF)
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
4. Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
4. Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021
American Diabetes Association
Diabetes Care Jan 2021, 44 (Supplement 1) S40-S52; DOI: 10.2337/dc21-S004

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

4. Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021
American Diabetes Association
Diabetes Care Jan 2021, 44 (Supplement 1) S40-S52; DOI: 10.2337/dc21-S004
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patient-Centered Collaborative Care
    • Comprehensive Medical Evaluation
    • Immunizations
    • Assessment of Comorbidities
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • 13. Children and Adolescents: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021
  • 11. Microvascular Complications and Foot Care: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021
Show more Standards of Care

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Diabetes Education

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.