Highlights of the Most Recent American Diabetes Association Guidelines: From Evidence to Practice

Mee Kyoung Kim

doi:10.3803/EnM.2025.2329

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Endocrinol Metab > Volume 40(1); 2025 > Article

Editorial Diabetes, obesity and metabolism Highlights of the Most Recent American Diabetes Association Guidelines: From Evidence to Practice: Mee Kyoung Kim; Endocrinology and Metabolism 2025;40(1):67-69.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3803/EnM.2025.2329
Published online: February 24, 2025

Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Mee Kyoung Kim. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 1021 Tongil-ro, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul 03312, Korea Tel: +82-2-2030-4435, Fax: +82-2-595-2534, E-mail: makung@catholic.ac.kr

• Received: January 31, 2025 • Accepted: February 5, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

301 Views
27 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Article information
References

The American Diabetes Association publishes its updated Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes every January [1-3]. Recent revisions have emphasized personalized treatment strategies, the reduction of cardiovascular and kidney risks, innovations in diabetes technology, and the management of comorbid conditions such as obesity and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). In this editorial, we review several key updates and explore their implications for clinical practice.
Further expansion of the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: The updated guidelines now prioritize therapies that lower the risk of comorbid conditions—including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure (HF), and chronic kidney disease—regardless of glycemic status or hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (Fig. 1) [1]. Drawing on evidence from prior randomized controlled trials, the recommendations advocate for the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors across the full spectrum of HF, whether characterized by reduced or preserved ejection fraction [1]. In patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity, semaglutide (2.4 mg) has demonstrated significantly greater reductions in symptoms and physical limitations, improved exercise capacity, and enhanced weight loss compared with placebo [4]. Accordingly, for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and symptomatic HFpEF, the use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) is recommended, as it benefits glycemic control and alleviates HF-related symptoms regardless of baseline HbA1c levels [1,4].
Tailoring diabetes management for patients with MASLD/metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis: The current guidelines now offer recommendations on selecting glucose-lowering therapies based on the presence of MASLD or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) (Fig. 1) [1]. For adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have MASH or are at high risk for liver fibrosis, agents such as pioglitazone, GLP-1 RAs, or dual therapies combining glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptor agonism are preferred because of their potential to benefit MASH [1]. Since MASH is associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease—and, when accompanied by clinically significant liver fibrosis, an increased risk of liver-related complications and death [5]—these considerations are critical. The global prevalence of MASH is rising in parallel with increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. In phase 2 trials spanning 72 weeks, the GLP-1 RA semaglutide proved effective for resolving MASH (though it did not reverse fibrosis), with response rates ranging from 40% to 59% [5]; In a separate phase 2 trial involving participants with MASH and moderate to severe fibrosis, 52 weeks of tirzepatide treatment was more effective than placebo in resolving MASH without worsening fibrosis [6]. Moreover, a greater proportion of participants in the tirzepatide arms experienced an improvement of at least one fibrosis stage without any deterioration of MASH [6]. The combined action of GIP receptor agonism with GLP-1 receptor agonism not only enhances weight loss but also exerts direct beneficial effects on white adipose tissue. Specifically, activation of GIP receptors in subcutaneous white adipose tissue increases blood flow, augments postprandial triglyceride uptake, and improves insulin sensitivity—mechanisms that may reduce ectopic fat deposition in the liver [7].; Clinical practice guidelines on MASLD from the European Association for the Study of the Liver, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, and the European Association for the Study of Obesity recommend specific pharmacological strategies for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus in patients with MASLD [8]. These guidelines highlight the use of GLP-1 RAs, tirzepatide, SGLT2 inhibitors, and metformin, although pioglitazone is notably absent from the recommendations [8]. Additional consensus and further research are needed to resolve this discrepancy and refine treatment strategies for this population [9].
Time-in-range as a key metric of glucose goals: The recommendations for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have been expanded to include not only individuals on any insulin regimen but also patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus managed with non-insulin glucose-lowering medications [2]. Both real-time CGM (rtCGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) are now advised for diabetes management in youths and adults on insulin therapy [2]. Furthermore, the use of rtCGM or isCGM may be considered for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin to help achieve and maintain individualized glycemic targets [2]. For many nonpregnant adults utilizing CGM, a target time-in-range (TIR) exceeding 70% within the 70 to 180 mg/dL interval is appropriate [10]. To prevent hypoglycemia, it is also recommended that the time-below-range (TBR) be kept under 4% for glucose readings below 70 mg/dL and under 1% for those below 54 mg/dL [10]. Thus, the primary objective for effective and safe glycemic control is to maximize TIR while minimizing TBR. Retrospective studies have shown a strong correlation between TIR and HbA1c, with a 70% TIR roughly corresponding to an HbA1c of approximately 7% [11]. Specific TIR targets have also been suggested for pregnant individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus, recommending a TIR greater than 70% within a range of 63 to 140 mg/dL during pregnancy [10]. Although similar sensor glucose targets are applied to pregnant individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus and those with gestational diabetes mellitus, the precision of quantifying TIR within these ranges remains undetermined due to insufficient data [10].; Regardless of HbA1c levels, current diabetes management now prioritizes treatment strategies based on the presence of comorbidities to mitigate associated risks. The updated guidelines further incorporate recommendations for selecting glucose-lowering medications in the context of conditions such as MASLD. Moreover, advances in diabetes technology have notably broadened the clinical applications of CGM. These updates, supported by robust evidence from high-quality clinical studies, pave the way for a more personalized and effective approach to diabetes management.

Article information

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Mee Kyoung Kim is a deputy editor of the journal. But she was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Fig. 1.

The algorithm outlines two main pathways for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus. The pathway shown on the left focuses on mitigating cardiovascular and kidney risks, particularly in high-risk patients, while the pathway shown on the right emphasizes achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. Only drugs with very high efficacy for weight loss (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) and glycemic control (e.g., dulaglutide [high dose], semaglutide, tirzepatide, and combination therapies with insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1 RAs]) are highlighted to support reaching these targets. Additional considerations include the use of glucose-lowering agents for specific comorbidities, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) or metabolic dysfunctionassociated steatohepatitis (MASH). Modified from American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee [1], with permission from American Diabetes Association. HF, heart failure; CKD, chronic kidney disease; CVD, cardiovascular disease; SGLT2i, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; CV, cardiovascular; GIP, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide; CGM, continuous glucose monitoring.

References

1. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of care in diabetes-2025. Diabetes Care 2025;48(Supplement 1):S181–206.Article PubMed
2. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Erratum. 7. Diabetes technology: standards of care in diabetes-2025. Diabetes Care 2025;48(Suppl 1):S146–66.PubMed
3. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Summary of revisions: standards of care in diabetes-2025. Diabetes Care 2025;48(1 Suppl 1):S6–13.Article PubMed
4. Kosiborod MN, Abildstrom SZ, Borlaug BA, Butler J, Rasmussen S, Davies M, et al. Semaglutide in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity. N Engl J Med 2023;389:1069–84.PubMed
5. Newsome PN, Buchholtz K, Cusi K, Linder M, Okanoue T, Ratziu V, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of subcutaneous semaglutide in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med 2021;384:1113–24.Article PubMed
6. Loomba R, Hartman ML, Lawitz EJ, Vuppalanchi R, Boursier J, Bugianesi E, et al. Tirzepatide for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis with liver fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2024;391:299–310.Article PubMed
7. Samms RJ, Christe ME, Collins KA, Pirro V, Droz BA, Holland AK, et al. GIPR agonism mediates weight-independent insulin sensitization by tirzepatide in obese mice. J Clin Invest 2021;131:e146353.Article PubMed PMC
8. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL); European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD); European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO). EASL-EASD-EASO clinical practice guidelines on the management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). J Hepatol 2024;81:492–542.Article PubMed PMC PDF
9. Silva Junior WS, Sposito AC, Godoy-Matos A. Should the new EASL-EASD-EASO clinical practice guidelines on MASLD recommend pioglitazone as a MASH-targeted pharmacotherapy? J Hepatol 2025;82:e21–2.Article PubMed
10. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, Amiel SA, Beck R, Biester T, et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care 2019;42:1593–603.PubMed PMC
11. Miller KM, Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Goland RS, Haller MJ, McGill JB, et al. Evidence of a strong association between frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels in T1D exchange clinic registry participants. Diabetes Care 2013;36:2009–14.Article PubMed PMC PDF

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link
Cite

CITE

export Copy Format

Close

XML Download

Figure

Highlights of the Most Recent American Diabetes Association Guidelines: From Evidence to Practice

Fig. 1. The algorithm outlines two main pathways for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus. The pathway shown on the left focuses on mitigating cardiovascular and kidney risks, particularly in high-risk patients, while the pathway shown on the right emphasizes achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. Only drugs with very high efficacy for weight loss (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) and glycemic control (e.g., dulaglutide [high dose], semaglutide, tirzepatide, and combination therapies with insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1 RAs]) are highlighted to support reaching these targets. Additional considerations include the use of glucose-lowering agents for specific comorbidities, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) or metabolic dysfunctionassociated steatohepatitis (MASH). Modified from American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee [1], with permission from American Diabetes Association. HF, heart failure; CKD, chronic kidney disease; CVD, cardiovascular disease; SGLT2i, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; CV, cardiovascular; GIP, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide; CGM, continuous glucose monitoring.

Fig. 1.

Highlights of the Most Recent American Diabetes Association Guidelines: From Evidence to Practice