e-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.OBJECTIVE Although blood pressure variability is increasingly appreciated as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, its relationship with heart failure (HF) is less clear. We examined the relationship between blood pressure variability and risk of HF in two cohorts of type 2 diabetes participating in trials of glucose and/or other risk factor management. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Data were drawn from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial and the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT). Coefficient of variation (CV) and average real variability (ARV) were calculated for systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) along with maximum and cumulative mean SBP and DBP during both trials. RESULTS In ACCORD, CV and ARV of SBP and DBP were associated with increased risk of HF, even after adjusting for other risk factors and mean blood pressure (e.g., CV-SBP hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, P = 0.01; CV-DBP HR 1.18, P = 0.003). In the VADT, DBP variability was associated with increased risk of HF (ARV-DBP HR 1.16, P = 0.001; CV-DBP HR 1.09, P = 0.04). Further, in ACCORD, those with progressively lower baseline blood pressure demonstrated a stepwise increase in risk of HF with higher CV-SBP, ARV-SBP, and CV-DBP. Effects of blood pressure variability were related to dips, not elevations, in blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS Blood pressure variability is associated with HF risk in individuals with type 2 diabetes, possibly a consequence of periods of ischemia during diastole. These results may have implications for optimizing blood pressure treatment strategies in those with type 2 diabetes. © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.OBJECTIVE To compare the risk of lactic acidosis hospitalization between patients treated with metformin versus sulfonylureas following development of reduced kidney function. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This retrospective cohort combined data from the National Veterans Health Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, and the National Death Index. New users of metformin or sulfonylureas were followed from development of reduced kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] less then 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or serum creatinine ≥1.4 mg/dL [female] or 1.5 mg/dL [male]) through hospitalization for lactic acidosis, death, loss to follow-up, or study end. Lactic acidosis hospitalization was defined as a composite of primary discharge diagnosis or laboratory-confirmed lactic acidosis (lactic acid ≥2.5 mmol/L and either arterial blood pH less then 7.35 or serum bicarbonate ≤19 mmol/L within 24 h of admission). We report the cause-specific hazard of lactic acidosis hospitalization between metformin and sulfonylureas from a propensity score-matched weighted cohort and conduct an additional competing risks analysis to account for treatment change and death. RESULTS The weighted cohort included 24,542 metformin and 24,662 sulfonylurea users who developed reduced kidney function (median age 70 years, median eGFR 55.8 mL/min/1.73 m2). There were 4.18 (95% CI 3.63, 4.81) vs. 3.69 (3.19, 4.27) lactic acidosis hospitalizations per 1,000 person-years among metformin and sulfonylurea users, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.21 [95% CI 0.99, 1.50]). Results were consistent for both primary discharge diagnosis (aHR 1.11 [0.87, 1.44]) and laboratory-confirmed lactic acidosis (1.25 [0.92, 1.70]). CONCLUSIONS Among veterans with diabetes who developed reduced kidney function, occurrence of lactic acidosis hospitalization was uncommon and not statistically different between patients who continued metformin and those patients who continued sulfonylureas. © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.OBJECTIVE To assess the costs and project the potential lifetime cost-effectiveness of the ongoing Autoimmunity Screening for Kids (ASK) program, a large-scale, presymptomatic type 1 diabetes screening program for children and adolescents in the metropolitan Denver region. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We report the resource utilization, costs, and effectiveness measures from the ongoing ASK program compared with usual care (i.e., no screening). Additionally, we report a practical screening scenario by including utilization and costs relevant to routine screening in clinical practice. Finally, we project the potential cost-effectiveness of ASK and routine screening by identifying clinical benchmarks (i.e., diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA] events avoided, HbA1c improvements vs. no screening) needed to meet value thresholds of $50,000-$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS Cost per case detected was $4,700 for ASK screening and $14,000 for routine screening.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/azd5153-6-hydroxy-2-naphthoic-acid.html  To achieve value thresholds of $50,000-$150,000 per QALY gained, screening costs would need to be offset by cost savings through 20% reductions in DKA events at diagnosis in addition to 0.1% (1.1 mmol/mol) improvements in HbA1c over a lifetime compared with no screening for patients who develop type 1 diabetes. Value thresholds were not met from avoiding DKA events alone in either scenario. CONCLUSIONS Presymptomatic type 1 diabetes screening may be cost-effective in areas with a high prevalence of DKA and an infrastructure facilitating screening and monitoring if the benefits of avoiding DKA events and improved HbA1c persist over long-run time horizons. As more data are collected from ASK, the model will be updated with direct evidence on screening effects. © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.OBJECTIVE Screening for diabetes is typically done using hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The 2019 Endocrine Society guidelines recommend further testing using an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in older adults with prediabetic HbA1c or FPG. We evaluated the impact of this recommendation on diabetes prevalence, eligibility for glucose-lowering treatment, and estimated cost of implementation in a nationally representative sample. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We included 2,236 adults aged ≥65 years without known diabetes from the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Diabetes was defined using 1) the Endocrine Society approach (HbA1c ≥6.5%, FPG ≥126 mg/dL, or 2-h plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dL among those with HbA1c 5.7-6.4% or FPG 100-125 mg/dL); and 2) a standard approach (HbA1c ≥6.5% or FPG ≥126 mg/dL). Treatment eligibility was defined using HbA1c cut points (≥7 to ≥9%). OGTT screening costs were estimated using Medicare fee schedules. RESULTS Diabetes prevalence was 15.