A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialized for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organizations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organization has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonization of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organizations for confirmation...

The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC) established a standardized, category-based reporting system for thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens. The 2017 revision reaffirms that every thyroid FNA report should begin with one of six diagnostic categories, the names of which remain unchanged since they were first introduced: (i) nondiagnostic or unsatisfactory; (ii) benign; (iii) atypia of undetermined significance (AUS) or follicular lesion of undetermined significance (FLUS); (iv) follicular neoplasm or suspicious for a follicular neoplasm; (v) suspicious for malignancy; and (vi) malignant. There is a choice of two different names for some of the categories. A laboratory should choose the one it prefers and use it exclusively for that category. Synonymous terms (e.g., AUS and FLUS) should not be used to denote two distinct interpretations. Each category has an implied cancer risk that ranges from 0% to 3% for the ‘‘benign’’ category to virtually 100% for the ‘‘malignant’’ category, and, in the 2017 revision, the malignancy risks have been updated based on new (post 2010) data. As a function of their risk associations, each category is linked to updated, evidence-based clinical management recommendations. The recent reclassification of some thyroid neoplasms as noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) has im- plications for the risk of malignancy, and this is accounted for with regard to diagnostic criteria and optional notes. Such notes can be useful in helping guide surgical management...

The American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) StandardsofMedicalCareinDiabetes(the Standards) is updated and published annually in a supplement to the January issue of DiabetesCare. The Standards are developed by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Com- mittee, which comprises expert diabetes health care professionals. The Standards include the most current evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adults and children with all forms of diabetes. ADA’s grading system uses A, B, C, or E to show the evidence level that supports each recommendation. A—Clear evidence from well-conducted, generaliz- able randomized controlled trials that are ade- quately powered B—Supportive evidence from well-conducted cohort studies C—Supportive evidence from poorly controlled or uncontrolled studies E—Expert consensus or clinical experience This is an abridged version of the current Standards of Care containing the evidence-based recommendations most pertinent to primary care. The recommendations, tables, and figures included here retain the same num- bering used in the complete Standards. All of the rec- ommendations included here are substantively the same as in the complete Standards. The abridged ver- sion does not include references. The complete 2022 Standards of Care, including all supporting references, is available at professional.diabetes.org/standards...