xxxxx

1.0.0.0 In­tro­duc­tion

The Amer­i­can Di­a­betes As­so­ci­a­tion (ADA) “Stan­dards of Med­i­cal Care in Di­a­betes” in­cludes 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, please refer to the Stan­dards of Care In­tro­duc­tion. Read­ers who wish to com­ment on the Stan­dards of Care are in­vit­ed to do so at pro­fes­sion­al.di­a­betes.org/‍SOC.

For guide­lines re­lat­ed to screen­ing for in­creased risk for type 2 di­a­betes (predi­a­betes), please refer to Sec­tion 2 “Clas­sification and Di­ag­no­sis of Di­a­betes.”

Rec­om­men­da­tion

3.1 At least an­nu­al mon­i­tor­ing for the de­vel­op­ment of type 2 di­a­betes in those with predi­a­betes is sug­gest­ed. E

Screen­ing for predi­a­betes and type 2 di­a­betes risk through an in­for­mal as­sess­ment of risk fac­tors (Table 2.3) or with an as­sess­ment tool, such as the Amer­i­can Di­a­betes As­so­ci­a­tion risk test (Fig. 2.1), is rec­om­mend­ed to guide pro­viders on whether per­form­ing a di­ag­nos­tic test for predi­a­betes (Table 2.5) and pre­vi­ous­ly un­di­ag­nosed type 2 di­a­betes (Table 2.2) is ap­pro­pri­ate (see Sec­tion 2 “Clas­sification and Di­ag­no­sis of Di­a­betes”). Those de­ter­mined to be at high risk for type 2 di­a­betes, in­clud­ing peo­ple with A1C 5.7–6.4% (39–47 mmol/‍mol), im­paired glu­cose tol­er­ance, or im­paired fast­ing glu­cose, are ideal can­di­dates for di­a­betes pre­ven­tion ef­forts. Using A1C to screen for predi­a­betes may be prob­lem­at­ic in the pres­ence of cer­tain hemoglobinopathies or con­di­tions that af­fect red blood cell turnover. See Sec­tion 2 “Clas­sification and Di­ag­no­sis of Di­a­betes” and Sec­tion 6 "Glycemic Tar­gets” for ad­di­tion­al de­tails on the ap­pro­pri­ate use of the A1C test.

At least an­nu­al mon­i­tor­ing for the de­vel­op­ment of di­a­betes in those with predi­a­betes is sug­gest­ed.

Sug­gest­ed ci­ta­tion: Amer­i­can Di­a­betes As­so­ci­a­tion. 3. Pre­ven­tion or delay of type 2 di­a­betes: Stan­dards of Med­i­cal Care in Di­a­betesd2019. Di­a­betes Care 2019;42(Suppl. 1):S29–S33 © 2018 by the Amer­i­can Di­a­betes As­so­ci­a­tion. 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 http://www.di­a­betesjournals .org/‍con­tent/‍license.

xxxxx

2.0.0.0 LIFESTYLE IN­TER­VEN­TIONS

2.1.0.0 Rec­om­men­da­tions

Rec­om­men­da­tions

3.2 Refer pa­tients with predi­a­betes to an in­ten­sive be­hav­ioral lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion pro­gram mo­de­led on the Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram (DPP) to achieve and main­tain 7% loss of ini­tial body weight and in­crease mod­er­ate-‍in­ten­si­ty phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty (such as brisk walk­ing) to at least 150 min/‍week. A

3.3 Based on pa­tient pref­er­ence, tech­nol­o­gy-‍as­sist­ed di­a­betes pre­ven­tion in­ter­ven­tions may be ef­fec­tive in pre­vent­ing type 2 di­a­betes and should be con­sid­ered. B

3.4 Given the cost-‍ef­fec­tiveness of di­a­betes pre­ven­tion, such in­ter­ven­tion pro­grams should be cov­ered by third-‍party pay­ers. B

xxxxx

2.2.0.0 The Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram

Sev­er­al major ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als, in­clud­ing the Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram (DPP) (1), the Finnish Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Study (DPS) (2), and the Da Qing Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Study (Da Qing study) (3), demon­strate that lifestyle/‍ be­hav­ioral ther­a­py fea­tur­ing an in­di­vid­u­al­ized re­duced calo­rie meal plan is high­ly ef­fec­tive in pre­vent­ing type 2 di­a­betes and im­prov­ing other car­diometabol­ic mark­ers (such as blood pres­sure, lipids, and inflam­ma­tion). The strongest ev­i­dence for di­a­betes pre­ven­tion comes from the DPP trial (1). The DPP demon­strated that an in­ten­sive lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion could re­duce the in­ci­dence of type 2 di­a­betes by 58% over 3 years. Fol­low-‍up of three large stud­ies of lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion for di­a­betes pre­ven­tion has shown sus­tained re­duc­tion in the rate of con­ver­sion to type 2 di­a­betes: 45% re­duc­tion at 23 years in the Da Qing study (3), 43% re­duc­tion at 7 years in the DPS (2), and 34% re­duc­tion at 10 years (4) and 27% re­duc­tion at 15 years (5) in the U.S. Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Out­comes Study (DPPOS). No­tably, in the 23-year fol­low-‍up for the Da Qing study, re­duc­tions in all-‍cause mor­tal­i­ty and car­dio­vas­cu­lar dis­ease–re­lat­ed mor­tal­i­ty were ob­served for the lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion groups com­pared with the con­trol group (3).

The two major goals of the DPP in­ten­sive, be­hav­ioral, lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion were to achieve and main­tain a min­i­mum of 7% weight loss and 150 min of phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty sim­i­lar in in­ten­si­ty to brisk walk­ing per week. The DPP lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion was a goal-‍based in­ter­ven­tion: all par­tic­i­pants were given the same weight loss and phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty goals, but in­di­vid­u­al­iza­tion was per­mit­ted in the specific meth­ods used to achieve the goals (6).

The 7% weight loss goal was se­lect­ed be­cause it was fea­si­ble to achieve and main­tain and like­ly to lessen the risk of de­vel­op­ing di­a­betes. Par­tic­i­pants were en­cour­aged to achieve the 7% weight loss dur­ing the first 6 months of the in­ter­ven­tion. How­ev­er, longer-‍term (4-year) data re­veal max­i­mal pre­ven­tion of di­a­betes ob­served at about 7–10% weight loss (7). The rec­om­mend­ed pace of weight loss was 122 lb/‍week. Calo­rie goals were cal­cu­lat­ed by es­ti­mat­ing the daily calo­ries need­ed to main­tain the par­tic­i­pant’s ini­tial weight and sub­tract­ing 50021,000 calo­ries/day (de­pend­ing on ini­tial body weight). The ini­tial focus was on re­duc­ing total di­etary fat. After sev­er­al weeks, the con­cept of calo­rie bal­ance and the need to re­strict calo­ries as well as fat was in­tro­duced (6).

The goal for phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty was se­lect­ed to ap­prox­i­mate at least 700 kcal/ week ex­pen­di­ture from phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty. For ease of trans­la­tion, this goal was de­scribed as at least 150 min of moderatein­ten­si­ty phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty per week sim­i­lar in in­ten­si­ty to brisk walk­ing. Par­tic­i­pants were en­cour­aged to dis­tribute their ac­tiv­i­ty through­out the week with a min­i­mum fre­quen­cy of three times per week with at least 10 min per ses­sion. A max­i­mum of 75 min of strength train­ing could be ap­plied to­ward the total 150 min/‍week phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty goal (6). To im­ple­ment the weight loss and phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty goals, the DPP used an in­di­vid­u­al model of treat­ment rather than a group-‍based ap­proach. This choice was based on a de­sire to in­ter­vene be­fore par­tic­i­pants had the pos­si­bil­i­ty of de­vel­op­ing di­a­betes or los­ing in­ter­est in the pro­gram. The in­di­vid­u­al ap­proach also al­lowed for tai­lor­ing of in­ter­ven­tions to reflect the di­ver­si­ty of the pop­u­la­tion (6). The DPP in­ter­ven­tion was ad­min­is­tered as a struc­tured core cur­ricu­lum fol­lowed by a more flex­i­ble main­te­nance pro­gram of in­di­vid­u­al ses­sions, group class­es, mo­ti­va­tion­al cam­paigns, and restart op­por­tu­ni­ties. The 16-‍ses­sion core cur­ricu­lum was com­plet­ed with­in the first 24 weeks of the pro­gram and in­clud­ed sec­tions on low­er­ing calo­ries, in­creas­ing phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty, self-‍mon­i­tor­ing, main­taining healthy lifestyle be­hav­iors, and psy­cho­log­i­cal, so­cial, and mo­ti­va­tion­al chal­lenges. For fur­ther de­tails on the core cur­ricu­lum ses­sions, refer to ref. 6.

xxxxx

2.3.0.0 Nu­tri­tion

Struc­tured be­hav­ioral weight loss ther­a­py, in­clud­ing a re­duced calo­rie meal plan and phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty, is of paramount im­por­tance for those at high risk for de­vel­op­ing type 2 di­a­betes who have over­weight or obe­si­ty (1,7). Be­cause weight loss through lifestyle changes alone can be difficult to main­tain long term (4), peo­ple being treat­ed with weight loss ther­a­py should have ac­cess to on­go­ing sup­port and ad­di­tion­al ther­a­peu­tic op­tions (such as pharmacother­a­py) if need­ed. Based on in­ter­ven­tion tri­als, the eat­ing pat­terns that may be help­ful for those with predi­a­betes in­clude a Mediter­ranean eat­ing plan (8-11) and a low-‍calo­rie, low-‍fat eat­ing plan (5). Ad­di­tion­al re­search is need­ed re­gard­ing whether a low-‍car­bo­hy­drate eat­ing plan is beneficial for per­sons with predi­a­betes (12). In ad­di­tion, ev­i­dence sug­gests that the over­all qual­i­ty of food con­sumed (as mea­sured by the Al­ter­na­tive Healthy Eat­ing Index), with an em­pha­sis on whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits and veg­eta­bles, and min­i­mal refined and pro­cessed foods, is also im­por­tant (13-15).

Whe­re­as over­all healthy low-‍calo­rie eat­ing pat­terns should be en­cour­aged, there is also some ev­i­dence that par­tic­u­lar di­etary com­po­nents im­pact di­a­betes risk in ob­ser­va­tion­al stud­ies. High­er in­takes of nuts (16), berries (17), yo­gurt (18,19), cof­fee, and tea (20) are as­so­ci­at­ed with re­duced di­a­betes risk. Con­verse­ly, red meats and sugar-‍sweet­ened bev­er­ages are as­so­ci­at­ed with an in­creased risk of type 2 di­a­betes (13).

As is the case for those with di­a­betes, in­di­vid­u­al­ized med­i­cal nu­tri­tion ther­a­py (see Sec­tion 5 “Lifestyle Man­age­ment” for more de­tailed in­for­ma­tion) is ef­fec­tive in low­er­ing A1C in in­di­vid­u­als di­ag­nosed with predi­a­betes (21).

xxxxx

2.4.0.0 Phys­i­cal Ac­tiv­i­ty

Just as 150 min/‍week of mod­er­ate-‍in­ten­si­ty phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty, such as brisk walk­ing, showed beneficial ef­fects in those with predi­a­betes (1), mod­er­ate-‍in­ten­si­ty phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty has been shown to im­prove in­sulin sen­si­tiv­i­ty and re­duce ab­dom­i­nal fat in chil­dren and young adults (22,23). On the basis of these find­ings, pro­viders are en­cour­aged to pro­mote a DPP-‍style pro­gram, in­clud­ing its focus on phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty, to all in­di­vid­u­als who have been iden­tified to be at an in­creased risk of type 2 di­a­betes. In ad­di­tion to aer­o­bic ac­tiv­i­ty, an ex­er­cise reg­i­men de­signed to pre­vent di­a­betes may in­clude re­sis­tance train­ing (6,24). Break­ing up pro­longed seden­tary time may also be en­cour­aged, as it is as­so­ci­at­ed with mod­er­ate­ly lower post­pran­di­al glu­cose lev­els (25,26). The pre­ventive ef­fects of ex­er­cise ap­pear to ex­tend to the pre­ven­tion of ges­ta­tion­al di­a­betes mel­li­tus (GDM) (27).

xxxxx

2.5.0.0 Tech­nol­o­gy-‍As­sist­ed In­ter­ven­tions to De­liv­er Lifestyle In­ter­ven­tions

Tech­nol­o­gy-‍as­sist­ed in­ter­ven­tions may ef­fec­tively de­liv­er the DPP lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion, re­duc­ing weight and, there­fore, di­a­betes risk (28-31). Such tech­nol­o­gy-‍as­sist­ed in­ter­ven­tions may de­liv­er con­tent through smart­phone and web-‍based ap­pli­ca­tions and tele­health (28). The Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion (CDC) Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Recog­ni­tion Pro­gram (DPRP) (www.cdc.gov/di­a­betes/pre­ven­tion/lifestyle-pro­gram) does cer­ti­fy tech­nol­o­gy-‍as­sist­ed modal­i­ties as ef­fec­tive ve­hi­cles for DPP-‍based in­ter­ven­tions; such pro­grams must use an ap­proved cur­ricu­lum, in­clude in­ter­ac­tion with a coach (which may be vir­tu­al), and at­tain the DPRP out­comes of par­tic­i­pa­tion, phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty re­port­ing, and weight loss. The se­lec­tion of an in-‍per­son or vir­tu­al pro­gram should be based on pa­tient pref­er­ence.

xxxxx

2.6.0.0 Cost-ef­fec­tiveness

A cost-‍ef­fec­tiveness model sug­gest­ed that the lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion used in the DPP was cost-‍ef­fec­tive (32,33). Ac­tu­al cost data from the DPP and DPPOS confirmed this (34). Group de­liv­ery of DPP con­tent in com­mu­ni­ty or pri­ma­ry care set­tings has the po­ten­tial to re­duce over­all pro­gram costs while still pro­duc­ing weight loss and di­a­betes risk re­duc­tion(35-37). Theuse­of com­mu­ni­ty health work­ers to sup­port DPP ef­forts has been shown to be ef­fec­tive with cost sav­ings (38) (see Sec­tion 1 “Im­prov­ing Care and Pro­mot­ing Health in Pop­u­la­tions” for more in­for­ma­tion). The CDC co­or­di­nates the Na­tion­al Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram (Na­tion­al DPP), a re­source de­signed to bring ev­i­dence-‍based lifestyle change pro­grams for pre­vent­ing type 2 di­a­betes to com­mu­ni­ties (www.cdc.gov/di­a­betes/pre­ven­tion/index.htm). Early re­sults from the CDC’s Na­tion­al DPP dur­ing the first 4 years of im­ple­mentation are promis­ing (39). In an ef­fort to ex­pand pre­ventive ser­vices using a cost-‍ef­fec­tive model that began in April 2018, the Cen­ters for Medi­care & Med­i­caid Ser­vices has ex­panded Medi­care re­im­burse­ment cov­er­age for the Na­tion­al DPP lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion to or­ga­ni­za­tions rec­og­nized by the CDC that be­come Medi­care sup­pli­ers for this ser­vice (https:/‍/‍innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/medicare-di­a­betes-pre­ven­tion-pro­gram/).

xxxxx

2.7.0.0 To­bac­co Use

Smok­ing may in­crease the risk of type 2 di­a­betes (40); there­fore, eval­u­a­tion for to­bac­co use and re­fer­ral for to­bac­co ces­sa­tion, if in­di­cat­ed, should be part of rou­tine care for those at risk for di­a­betes. Of note, the years im­me­di­ate­ly fol­low­ing smok­ing ces­sa­tion may rep­re­sent a time of in­creased risk for di­a­betes (40-42) and pa­tients should be mon­i­tored for di­a­betes de­vel­op­ment and re­ceive ev­i­dence-‍based in­ter­ven­tions for di­a­betes pre­ven­tion as de­scribed in this sec­tion. See Sec­tion 5 “Lifestyle Man­age­ment” for more de­tailed in­for­ma­tion.

xxxxx

3.0.0.0 PHAR­MA­CO­LOG­IC IN­TER­VEN­TIONS

Rec­om­men­da­tions

3.5 Met­formin ther­a­py for pre­ven­tion of type 2 di­a­betes should be con­sid­ered in those with predi­a­betes, es­pe­cial­ly for those with BMI ≥35 kg/m2, those aged <60 years, and women with prior ges­ta­tion­al di­a­betes mel­li­tus. A

3.6 Long-‍term use of met­formin may be as­so­ci­at­ed with bio­chem­i­cal vi­ta­min B12 deficien­cy, and pe­ri­od­ic mea­sure­ment of vi­ta­min B12 lev­els should be con­sid­ered in met­formin-‍treat­ed pa­tients, es­pe­cial­ly in those with ane­mia or pe­riph­er­al neu­ropa­thy. B

Phar­ma­co­log­ic agents in­clud­ing met­formin, α-‍glu­cosi­dase in­hibitors, glucagon-‍like pep­tide 1 re­cep­tor ag­o­nists, thi­a­zo­lidine­diones, and sev­er­al agents ap­proved for weight loss have been shown in re­search stud­ies to de­crease the in­ci­dence of di­a­betes to var­i­ous de­grees in those with predi­a­betes (1,43–49), though none are ap­proved by the U.S. Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion specifically for di­a­betes pre­ven­tion. One has to bal­ance the risk/ benefit of each med­i­ca­tion. Met­formin has the strongest ev­i­dence base (50) and demon­strated long-‍term safe­ty as phar­ma­co­log­ic ther­a­py for di­a­betes pre­ven­tion (48). For other drugs, cost, side ef­fects, and durable efficacy re­quire con­sid­er­a­tion.

Met­formin was over­all less ef­fec­tive than lifestyle modification in the DPP and DPPOS, though group dif­fer­ences de­clined over time (5) and met­formin may be cost-‍sav­ing over a 10-year pe­ri­od (34). It was as ef­fec­tive as lifestyle modification in par­tic­i­pants with BMI ≥35 kg/m2 but not significant­ly bet­ter than place­bo in those over 60 years of age (1). In the DPP, for women with his­to­ry of GDM, met­formin and in­ten­sive lifestyle modification led to an equiv­a­lent 50% re­duc­tion in di­a­betes risk (51), and both in­ter­ven­tions re­mained high­ly ef­fec­tive dur­ing a 10-year fol­low-‍up pe­ri­od (52). In the In­di­an Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gramme (IDPP-1), met­formin and the lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion re­duced di­a­betes risk sim­i­larly at 30 months; of note, the lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion in IDPP-1 was less in­ten­sive than that in the DPP (53). Based on find­ings from the DPP, met­formin should be rec­om­mend­ed as an op­tion for high-‍risk in­di­vid­u­als (e.g., those with a his­to­ry of GDM or those with BMI ≥35 kg/m2). Con­sid­er mon­i­tor­ing vi­ta­min B12 lev­els in those tak­ing met­formin chron­i­cal­ly to check for pos­si­ble deficien­cy (54) (see Sec­tion 9 “Phar­ma­co­log­ic Ap­proach­es to Glycemic Treat­ment” for more de­tails).

xxxxx

4.0.0.0 PRE­VEN­TION OF CAR­DIO­VAS­CU­LAR DIS­EASE

Rec­om­men­da­tions

3.7 Predi­a­betes is as­so­ci­at­ed with height­ened car­dio­vas­cu­lar risk; there­fore, screen­ing for and treat­ment of modifiable risk fac­tors for car­dio­vas­cu­lar dis­ease is sug­gest­ed. B

Peo­ple­with predi­a­betes of­ten­haveother car­dio­vas­cu­lar risk fac­tors, in­clud­ing hy­per­ten­sion and dys­lipi­demia (55), and are at in­creased risk for car­dio­vas­cu­lar dis­ease (56). Al­though treat­ment goals for peo­ple with predi­a­betes are the same as for the gen­er­al pop­u­la­tion (57), in­creased vig­i­lance is war­rant­ed to iden­tify and treat these and other car­dio­vas­cu­lar risk fac­tors (e.g., smok­ing).

xxxxx

5.0.0.0 DI­A­BETES SELF-‍MAN­AGE­MENT ED­U­CA­TION AND SUP­PORT

Rec­om­men­da­tions

3.8 Di­a­betes self-‍man­age­ment ed­u­ca­tion and sup­port pro­grams may be ap­pro­pri­ate venues for peo­ple with predi­a­betes to re­ceive ed­u­ca­tion and sup­port to de­vel­op and main­tain be­hav­iors that can pre­vent or delay the de­vel­op­ment of type 2 di­a­betes. B

As for those with es­tab­lished di­a­betes, the stan­dards for di­a­betes self-‍man­age­ment ed­u­ca­tion and sup­port (see Sec­tion 5 “Lifestyle Man­age­ment”) can also apply to peo­ple with predi­a­betes. Cur­rent­ly, there are significant bar­ri­ers to the pro­vi­sion of ed­u­ca­tion and sup­port to those with predi­a­betes. How­ev­er, the strate­gies for sup­porting suc­cess­ful be­hav­ior change and the healthy be­hav­iors rec­om­mend­ed for peo­ple with predi­a­betes are com­pa­ra­ble to those for di­a­betes. Al­though re­im­burse­ment re­mains a bar­ri­er, stud­ies show that pro­viders of di­a­betes self-‍man­age­ment ed­u­ca­tion and sup­port are par­tic­u­larly well equipped to as­sist peo­ple with predi­a­betes in de­vel­op­ing and main­taining be­hav­iors that can pre­vent or delay the de­vel­op­ment of di­a­betes (21,58).

xxxxx

6.0.0.0 Ref­er­ences

  1. Knowl­er WC, Bar­rett-‍Con­nor E, Fowler SE, et al.; Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Re­search Group. Re­duc­tion in the in­ci­dence of type 2 di­a­betes with lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion or met­formin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393–403
  2. Lind­stro¨m J, Ilanne-‍Parikka P, Pel­to­nen M, et al.; Finnish Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Study Group. Sus­tained re­duc­tion in the in­ci­dence of type 2 di­a­betes by lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion: fol­low-‍up of the Finnish Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Study. Lancet 2006;368:1673–1679
  3. Li G, Zhang P, Wang J, et al. Car­dio­vas­cu­lar mor­tal­i­ty, all-‍cause mor­tal­i­ty, and di­a­betes in­ci­dence after lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion for peo­ple with im­paired glu­cose tol­er­ance in the Da Qing Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Study: a 23-year fol­low-‍up study. Lancet Di­a­betes En­docrinol 2014;2:474–480
  4. Knowl­er WC, Fowler SE, Ham­man RF, et al.; Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Re­search Group. 10-year fol­low-‍up of di­a­betes in­ci­dence and weight loss in the Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Out­comes Study. Lancet 2009;374:1677–1686
  5. Nathan DM, Bar­rett-‍Con­nor E, Cran­dall JP, et al. Long-‍term ef­fects of lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion or met­formin on di­a­betes de­vel­op­ment and mi­crovas­cu­lar com­pli­ca­tions over 15-year fol­low-‍up: the Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Out­comes Study. Lancet Di­a­betes En­docrinol 2015;3:866–875
  6. Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram (DPP) Re­search Group. The Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram (DPP): de­scrip­tion of lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion. Di­a­betes Care 2002;25:2165–2171
  7. Ham­man RF, Wing RR, Edel­stein SL, et al. Ef­fect of weight loss with lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion on risk of di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2006;29:2102– 2107
  8. Mozaf­far­i­an D. Di­etary and pol­i­cy pri­or­i­ties for car­dio­vas­cu­lar dis­ease, di­a­betes, and obe­si­ty: a com­pre­hen­sive re­view. Cir­cu­la­tion 2016;133: 187–225
  9. Park­er AR, Byham-‍Gray L, Den­mark R, Win­kle PJ. The ef­fect of med­i­cal nu­tri­tion ther­a­py by a reg­is­tered di­eti­tian nu­tri­tionist in pa­tients with predi­a­betes par­tic­i­pat­ing in a ran­dom­ized con­trolled clin­i­cal re­search trial. J Acad Nutr Diet 2014;114:1739–1748
  10. 22. Fede­wa MV, Gist NH, Evans EM, Dish­man RK. Ex­er­cise and in­sulin re­sis­tance in youth: a meta-‍anal­y­sis. Pe­di­atrics 2014;133:e163–e174
  11. Davis CL, Pol­lock NK, Waller JL, et al. Ex­er­cise dose and di­a­betes risk in over­weight and obese chil­dren: a ran­dom­ized con­trolled trial. JAMA 2012;308:1103–1112
  12. Sigal RJ, Al­ber­ga AS, Goldfield GS, et al. Ef­fects of aer­o­bic train­ing, re­sis­tance train­ing, or both on per­cent­age body fat and cardiome-‍tabolic risk mark­ers in obese ado­les­cents: the healthy eat­ing aer­o­bic and re­sis­tance train­ing in youth ran­dom­ized clin­i­cal trial. JAMA Pe­di­atr 2014;168:1006–1014
  13. Thorp AA, King­well BA, Sethi P, Ham­mond L, Owen N, Dun­stan DW. Al­ter­nat­ing bouts of sit­ting and stand­ing at­ten­u­ate post­pran­di­al glu­cose re­spons­es. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2014;46: 2053–2061
  14. Healy GN, Dun­stan DW, Salmon J, et al. Breaks in seden­tary time: beneficial as­so­ci­a­tions with metabol­ic risk. Di­a­betes Care 2008;31:661–666
  15. Russo LM, No­bles C, Ertel KA, Chasan-‍Taber L, Whit­comb BW. Phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty in­ter­ven­tions in preg­nan­cy and risk of ges­ta­tion­al di­a­betes mel­li­tus: a sys­tematic re­view and meta-‍anal­y­sis. Ob­stet Gy­necol 2015;125:576–582
  16. Grock S, Ku J-H, Kim J, Moin T. A re­view of tech­nol­o­gy-‍as­sist­ed in­ter­ven­tions for di­a­betes pre­ven­tion. Curr Diab Rep 2017;17:107
  17. Sepah SC, Jiang L, Pe­ters AL. Trans­lat­ing the Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram into an on­line so­cial net­work: val­i­da­tion against CDC stan­dards. Di­a­betes Educ 2014;40:435–443
  18. Bian RR, Piatt GA, Sen A, et al. The ef­fect of tech­nol­o­gy-‍me­di­at­ed di­a­betes pre­ven­tion in­ter­ven­tions on weight: a meta-‍anal­y­sis. J Med In­ter­net Res 2017;19:e76
  19. Sepah SC, Jiang L, Pe­ters AL. Long-‍term out­comes of a Web-‍based di­a­betes pre­ven­tion pro­gram: 2-year re­sults of a sin­gle-‍arm lon­gi­tu­di­nal study. J Med In­ter­net Res 2015;17:e92
  20. Her­man WH, Ho­erg­er TJ, Bran­dle M, et al.; Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Re­search Group. The cost-‍ef­fec­tiveness of lifestyle modification or met­formin in pre­vent­ing type 2 di­a­betes in adults with im­paired glu­cose tol­er­ance. Ann In­tern Med 2005;142:323–332
  21. Chen F, Su W, Beck­er SH, et al. Clin­i­cal and eco­nom­ic im­pact of a dig­i­tal, remotely-de­liv­ered in­ten­sive be­hav­ioral coun­sel­ing pro­gram on Medi­care beneficia­ries at risk for di­a­betes and car­dio­vas­cu­lar dis­ease. PLoS One 2016;11: e0163627
  22. Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Re­search Group. The 10-year cost-‍ef­fec­tiveness of lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion or met­formin for di­a­betes pre­ven­tion: an in­tent-‍to-‍treat anal­y­sis of the DPP/ DPPOS. Di­a­betes Care 2012;35:723–730
  23. Ack­er­mann RT, Finch EA, Brizen­dine E, Zhou H, Mar­rero DG. Trans­lat­ing the Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram into the com­mu­ni­ty. The DE­PLOY Pilot Study. Am J Prev Med 2008;35:357–363
  24. Balk EM, Ear­ley A, Raman G, Aven­dano EA, Pit­tas AG, Rem­ing­ton PL. Com­bined diet and phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty pro­mo­tion pro­grams to pre­vent type 2 di­a­betes among per­sons at in­creased risk: a sys­tematic re­view for the Com­mu­ni­ty Pre­ven­tive Ser­vices Task Force. Ann In­tern Med 2015; 163:437–451
  25. Li R, Qu S, Zhang P, et al. Eco­nom­ic eval­u­a­tion of com­bined diet and phys­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty pro­mo­tion pro­grams to pre­vent type 2 di­a­betes among per­sons at in­creased risk: a sys­tematic re­view for the Com­mu­ni­ty Pre­ven­tive Ser­vices Task Force. Ann In­tern Med 2015;163:452–460
  26. The Com­mu­ni­ty Guide. Di­a­betes pre­ven­tion: in­ter­ven­tions en­gag­ing com­mu­ni­ty health work­ers [In­ter­net], 2016. Avail­able from https://www.thecom­mu­ni­tyguide.org/find­ings/di­a­betes-pre­ven­tion-in­ter­ven­tions-en­gag­ing-com­mu­ni­ty-health-work­ers. Ac­cessed 25 Septem­ber 2018
  27. Ely EK, Gruss SM, Luman ET, et al. A na­tion­al ef­fort to pre­vent type 2 di­a­betes: par­tic­i­pant-‍level eval­u­a­tion of CDC’s Na­tion­al Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram. Di­a­betes Care 2017;40:1331–1341
  28. Yeh H-C, Dun­can BB, Schmidt MI, Wang N-Y, Bran­cati FL. Smok­ing, smok­ing ces­sa­tion, and risk for type 2 di­a­betes mel­li­tus: a co­hort study. Ann In­tern Med 2010;152:10–17
  29. Oba S, Noda M, Waki K, et al. Smok­ing ces­sa­tion in­creases short-‍term risk of type 2 di­a­betes ir­re­spec­tive of weight gain: the Japan Pub­lic Health Cen­ter-‍Based Prospec­tive Study [pub­lished cor­rec­tion ap­pears in PLoS One 2013; 8:10.1371/‍annotation/‍23aa7c42-9a4d-42a7-8f50-9d0ac4b85396]. PLoS One 2012;7:e17061
  30. Hu Y, Zong G, Liu G, et al. Smok­ing ces­sa­tion, weight change, type 2 di­a­betes, and mor­tal­i­ty. N Engl J Med 2018;379:623–632
  31. Chi­as­son J-L, Josse RG, Gomis R, Hane­feld M, Karasik A, Laak­so M; STOP-‍NIDDM Trail Re­search Group. Acar­bose for pre­ven­tion of type 2 di­a­betes mel­li­tus: the STOP-‍NIDDM ran­domised trial. Lancet 2002;359:2072–2077
  32. Torg­er­son JS, Haupt­man J, Boldrin MN, Sjo¨stro¨m L. XENi­cal in the pre­ven­tion of Di­a­betes in Obese Sub­jects (XEN­DOS) study: a ran­dom­ized study of orli­s­tat as an ad­junct to lifestyle changes for the pre­ven­tion of type 2 di­a­betes in obese pa­tients. Di­a­betes Care 2004;27:155–161
  33. le Roux CW, As­trup A, Fu­jio­ka K, et al.; SCALE Obe­si­ty Predi­a­betes NN8022-1839 Study Group. 3 years of li­raglu­tide ver­sus place­bo for type 2 di­a­betes risk re­duc­tion and weight man­age­ment in in­di­vid­u­als with predi­a­betes: a ran­domised, dou­ble-‍blind trial. Lancet 2017;389:1399–1409
  34. Ger­stein HC, Yusuf S, Bosch J, et al.; DREAM (Di­a­betes RE­duc­tion As­sess­ment with ramipril and rosigli­ta­zone Med­i­ca­tion) Trial In­ves­ti­ga­tors. Ef­fect of rosigli­ta­zone on the fre­quen­cy of di­a­betes in pa­tients with im­paired glu­cose tol­er­ance or im­paired fast­ing glu­cose: a ran­domised con­trolled trial. Lancet 2006;368:1096–1105
  35. De­Fron­zo RA, Tri­pa­thy D, Schwenke DC, et al.; ACT NOW Study. Pi­ogli­ta­zone for di­a­betes pre­ven­tion in im­paired glu­cose tol­er­ance. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1104–1115
  36. Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Re­search Group. Long-‍term safe­ty, tol­er­a­bil­i­ty, and weight loss as­so­ci­at­ed with met­formin in the Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Out­comes Study. Di­a­betes Care 2012;35:731–737
  37. Gar­vey WT, Ryan DH, Henry R, et al. Pre­ven­tion of type 2 di­a­betes in sub­jects with predi­a­betes and metabol­ic syn­drome treat­ed with phen­ter­mine and top­i­ra­mate ex­tended re­lease. Di­a­betes Care 2014;37:912–921
  38. Moin T, Schmittdiel JA, Flory JH, et al. Re­view of met­formin use for type 2 di­a­betes pre­ven­tion. Am J Prev Med 2018;55:565–574
  39. Rat­ner RE, Christophi CA, Met­zger BE, et al.; Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Re­search Group. Pre­ven­tion of di­a­betes in women with a his­to­ry of ges­ta­tion­al di­a­betes: ef­fects of met­formin and lifestyle in­ter­ven­tions. J Clin En­docrinol Metab 2008;93:4774–4779
  40. Aroda VR, Christophi CA, Edel­stein SL, et al.; Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Re­search Group. The ef­fect of lifestyle in­ter­ven­tion and met­formin on pre­vent­ing or de­lay­ing di­a­betes among women with and with­out ges­ta­tion­al di­a­betes: the Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Out­comes Study 10-year fol­low-‍up. J Clin En­docrinol Metab 2015;100:1646–1653
  41. Ra­machan­dran A, Sne­ha­latha C, Mary S, Mukesh B, Bhaskar AD, Vijay V; In­di­an Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gramme (IDPP). The In­di­an Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gramme shows that lifestyle modification and met­formin pre­vent type 2 di­a­betes in Asian In­di­an sub­jects with im­paired glu­cose tol­er­ance (IDPP-1). Di­a­betolo­gia 2006; 49:289–297
  42. Aroda VR, Edel­stein SL, Gold­berg RB, et al.; Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Re­search Group. Long-‍term met­formin use and vi­ta­min B12 deficien­cy in the Di­a­betes Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram Out­comes Study. J Clin En­docrinol Metab 2016;101:1754–1761
  43. Ali MK, Bullard KM, Say­dah S, Im­per­a­tore G, Gregg EW. Car­dio­vas­cu­lar and renal bur­dens of predi­a­betes in the USA: anal­y­sis of data from se­ri­al cross-sec­tional sur­veys, 1988–2014. Lancet Di­a­betes En­docrinol 2018;6:392–403
  44. Huang Y, Cai X, Mai W, Li M, Hu Y. As­so­ci­a­tion be­tween predi­a­betes and risk of car­dio­vas­cu­lar dis­ease and all cause mor­tal­i­ty: sys­tematic re­view and meta-‍anal­y­sis. BMJ 2016;355:i5953
  45. Bress AP, King JB, Krei­der KE, et al.; SPRINT Re­search Group. Ef­fect of in­ten­sive ver­sus stan­dard blood pres­sure treat­ment ac­cord­ing to base­line predi­a­betes sta­tus: a post hoc anal­y­sis of a ran­dom­ized trial. Di­a­betes Care 2017;40: 1401–1408
  46. Butch­er MK, Van­der­wood KK, Hall TO, Go­hdes D, Hel­ger­son SD, Har­well TS. Ca­pac­i­ty of di­a­betes ed­u­ca­tion pro­grams to pro­vide both di­a­betes self-‍man­age­ment ed­u­ca­tion and to im­ple­ment di­a­betes pre­ven­tion ser­vices. J Pub­lic Health Manag Pract 2011;17:242–247