Functional insulin therapy in type 1 diabetics: Short-term effects on weight and nutritional intake.

INTRODUCTION-AIM: Flexible insulin therapy is currently considered the gold standard therapy of type 1 diabetes. We aimed to study the evolution of glycemic control, weight and nutritional intake of a group of patients with type 1 diabetes, three months after the initiation of functional insulin therapy (FIT). METHODS: This was a prospective longitudinal study having included 30 type 1 diabetic patients hospitalized for education to FIT. Each patient underwent an assessment of glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and number of hypoglycemia), weight and nutritional intake before FIT and 3 months after the initiation of this educative approach. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 21,8 ± 7,9 years and the sex ratio was 0,5. The mean duration of diabetes was 7,2 ± 6 years. Three months after initiation of FIT, we observed a significant lowering of A1C, which went from 9,2 ± 1,6% to 8,3 ± 1,4% (p<0,001) of the number of minor hypoglycemia (p=0,001) and that of severe hypoglycemia (p= 0,021). the average weight went from 64,6 ± 13,1 kg to 65,5 ± 13,5 kg (p = 0,040) with a significant increase in BMI (p = 0,041). Weight gain was observed in 67% of patients. This weight gain contrasted with a significant decrease in caloric (p = 0,040) and in carbohydrates intakes (p = 0,027). CONCLUSION: Weight gain, associated with better glycemic control, should encourage the healthcare team to strengthen therapeutic education of patients undergoing FIT in order to limit weight gain.

Cardiovascular and mortality benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists as third-step glucose-lowering medicine in patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have found that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1) have cardiovascular benefits for patients with type 2 diabetes (DM2) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or heart failure (HF). The literature does not provide evidence specifically for patients with these conditions who are adding one of these medicines to two glucose-lowering medications (ie, as "third-step" therapy). We explored the effects of different third-step medications on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes and these comorbid conditions. Specifically, we compared third-step SGLT2 or GLP1 to third-step dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4), insulin, or thiazolidinediones (TZD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort of adults at five Kaiser Permanente sites with DM2 and ASCVD, CKD, or HF, initiating third-step treatment between 2016 and 2020. Propensity score weighted Poisson models were used to calculate adjusted rate ratios (ARRs) for all-cause mortality, incident major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and incident HF hospitalization in patients initiating SGLT2 or GLP1 compared with DPP4, insulin, or TZD. RESULTS: We identified 27 542 patients initiating third-step treatment with one or more of these conditions (19 958 with ASCVD, 14 577 with CKD, and 3919 with HF). ARRs for GLP1 and SGLT2 versus DPP4, insulin, and TZD in the patient subgroups ranged between 0.22 and 0.55 for all-cause mortality, 0.38 and 0.81 for MACE, and 0.46 and 1.05 for HF hospitalization. Many ARRs were statistically significant, and all significant ARRs showed a benefit (ARR <1) for GLP1 or SGLT2 when compared with DPP4, insulin, or TZD. CONCLUSIONS: Third-step SGLT2 and GLP1 are generally associated with a benefit for these outcomes in these patient groups when compared with third-step DPP4, insulin, or TZD. Our results add to evidence of a cardiovascular benefit of SGLT2 and GLP1 and could inform clinical guidelines for choosing third-step diabetes treatment.

Implementation research: a protocol for two three-arm pragmatic randomised controlled trials on continuous glucose monitoring devices in people with type 1 diabetes in South Africa and Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of glucose is an essential component of type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. In recent years, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has provided an alternative to daily fingerstick testing for the optimisation of insulin dosing and general glucose management in people with T1D. While studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of CGM on clinical outcomes in the US, Europe and Australia, there are limited data available for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and further empirical evidence is needed to inform policy decision around their use in these countries. METHODS: This trial was designed as a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, three-arm, randomised (1:1:1) controlled trial of continuous or periodic CGM device use versus standard of care in people with T1D in South Africa and Kenya. The primary objective of this trial will be to assess the impact of continuous or periodic CGM device use on glycaemic control as measured by change from baseline glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Additional assessments will include clinical outcomes (glucose variation, time in/below/above range), safety (adverse events, hospitalisations), quality of life (EQ-5D, T1D distress score, Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey for T1D), and health economic measures (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, quality adjusted life years). DISCUSSION: This trial aims to address the substantial evidence gap on the impact of CGM device use on clinical outcomes in LMICs, specifically South Africa and Kenya. The trial results will provide evidence to inform policy and treatment decisions in these countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05944731 (Kenya), July 6, 2023; NCT05944718 (South Africa), July 13, 2023.

Enhancing equity in access to automated insulin delivery systems in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse group of children with type 1 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Manufacturer-supported didactic teaching programmes offer effective automated insulin delivery (AID) systems onboarding in children and young people (CYP) with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, this approach has limited flexibility to accommodate the needs of families requiring additional support. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Evaluate the efficacy of an inperson manufacturer-supported didactic teaching programme (Group A), in comparison to a flexible flipped learning approach delivered virtually or inperson (Group B). Retrospective analysis of CYP with T1D using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), who were initiated on AID systems between 2021 and 2023. Compare CGM metrics from baseline to 90 days for both groups A and B. Additionally, compare the two groups for change in CGM metrics over the 90-day period (∆), patient demographics and onboarding time. RESULTS: Group A consisted of 74 CYP (53% male) with median age of 13.9 years and Group B 91 CYP (54% male) with median age of 12.7 years. From baseline to 90 days, Group A lowered mean (±SD) time above range (TAR, >10.0 mmol/L) from 47.6% (±15.0) to 33.2% (±15.0) (p<0.001), increased time in range (TIR, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) from 50.4% (±14.0) to 64.7% (±10.2) (p<0.001). From baseline to 90 days, Group B lowered TAR from 51.3% (±15.1) to 34.5% (±11.3) (p<0.001) and increased TIR from 46.5% (±14.5) to 63.7% (±11.0) (p<0.001). There was no difference from baseline to 90 days for time below range (TBR, <3.9 mmol/L) for Group A and Group B. ∆ TAR, TIR and TBR for both groups were comparable. Group B consisted of CYP with higher socioeconomic deprivation, greater ethnic diversity and lower carer education achievement (p<0.05). The majority of Group B (n=79, 87%) chose virtual flipped learning, halving diabetes educator time and increasing onboarding cadence by fivefold. CONCLUSIONS: A flexible virtual flipped learning programme increases onboarding cadence and capacity to offer equitable AID system onboarding.

Clinical perspectives on the frequency of hypoglycemia in treat-to-target randomized controlled trials comparing basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review.

The objective of this review was to comprehensively present and summarize trends in reported rates of hypoglycemia with one or two times per day basal insulin analogs in individuals with type 2 diabetes to help address and contextualize the emerging theoretical concern of increased hypoglycemic risk with once-weekly basal insulins.Hypoglycemia data were extracted from treat-to-target randomized clinical trials conducted during 2000-2022. Published articles were identified on PubMed or within the US Food and Drug Administration submission documents. Overall, 57 articles were identified: 44 assessed hypoglycemic outcomes in participants receiving basal-only therapy (33 in insulin-naive participants; 11 in insulin-experienced participants), 4 in a mixed population (insulin-naive and insulin-experienced participants) and 9 in participants receiving basal-bolus therapy. For the analysis, emphasis was placed on level 2 (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL)) and level 3 (or severe) hypoglycemia.Overall, event rates for level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemia across most studies ranged from 0.06 to 7.10 events/person-year of exposure (PYE) for participants receiving a basal-only insulin regimen; the rate for basal-bolus regimens ranged from 2.4 to 13.6 events/PYE. Rates were generally lower with second-generation basal insulins (insulin degludec or insulin glargine U300) than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or first-generation basal insulins (insulin detemir or insulin glargine U100). Subgroup categorization by sulfonylurea usage, end-of-treatment insulin dose or glycated hemoglobin reduction did not show consistent trends on overall hypoglycemia rates. Hypoglycemia rates reported so far for once-weekly basal insulins are consistent with or lower than those reported for daily-administered basal insulin analogs.

Comparing long-term outcomes of children treated with new-onset type 2 diabetes in an outpatient versus inpatient setting: A retrospective chart review.

BACKGROUND: Early identification and management of pediatric type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is crucial for improving long-term outcomes. This study aimed to assess if the severity of T2DM at presentation, inferred by the location of treatment initiation (inpatient or outpatient), influences long-term clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 116 pediatric T2DM patients. Data on treatment initiation location, initial and subsequent glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, prescribed insulin, and body mass index were collected from electronic medical records. RESULTS: Of the 116 patients, 69 were initially treated in an inpatient setting, and 47 received outpatient treatment. At treatment initiation, the inpatient group had significantly higher HbA1c levels compared to the outpatient group (p < .001), but 3 years after treatment initiation, no significant difference in HbA1c was observed between the two groups (p = .057). Prescribed insulin dosages were higher in the inpatient group at treatment initiation (p < .001) and remained higher after 3 years (p < 0.003) compared to the outpatient group. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patients initially treated in an inpatient setting had poorer glycemic control and higher prescribed insulin dosing at baseline. After 3 years, there was no significant difference in HbA1c levels, but patients treated as inpatients continued to have higher prescribed insulin. These findings suggest that the severity of diabetes at initial presentation may affect long-term clinical outcomes in children with T2DM.

Assessing glycemic variability in critically ill patients: A prospective cohort study comparing insulin infusion therapy with insulin sliding scale.

Glycemic variability (GV) has been associated with an increased mortality rate among critically ill patients. The clinical outcomes of having less GV even with slight hyperglycemia are better than those having tight glycemic control but higher GV. Insulin infusion remains the preferred method to control stress hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. However, its impacts on GV and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients still need further investigation. This study intended to evaluate the impact of insulin infusion therapy (IIT) compared to the insulin sliding scale (ISS) on the extent of GV and explore its impact on the clinical outcomes for critically ill patients. A prospective, single-center observational cohort study was conducted at a tertiary academic hospital in Saudi Arabia between March 2021 and November 2021. The study included adult patients admitted to ICUs who received insulin for stress hyperglycemia management. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the regimen of insulin therapy during ICU stay (IIT versus ISS). The primary outcome was the GV between the two groups. Secondary outcomes were ICU mortality, the incidence of hypoglycemia, and ICU length of stay (LOS). A total of 381 patients were screened; out of them, eighty patients met the eligibility criteria. The distribution of patients having diabetes and a history of insulin use was similar between the two groups. The GV was lower in the IIT group compared to the ISS group using CONGA (- 0.65, 95% CI [- 1.16, - 0.14], p-value = 0.01). Compared with ISS, patients who received IIT had a lower incidence of hypoglycemia that required correction (6.8% vs 2.77%; p-value = 0.38). In contrast, there were no significant differences in ICU LOS and ICU mortality between the two groups. Our study demonstrated that the IIT is associated with decreased GV significantly in critically ill patients without increasing the incidence of severe hypoglycemia. There is no survival benefit with the use of the IIT. Further studies with larger sample size are required to confirm our findings and elaborate on IIT's potential effect in reducing ICU complications in critically ill patients.

Efficacy of teplizumab for treatment of type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The management of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) is a significant clinical challenge. This study evaluated the efficacy of teplizumab, an immunomodulatory drug, in patients with T1DM, using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. METHODS: We systematically searched multiple databases including Medline, Scopus, and others up to 10 January 2024, without language or regional restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teplizumab with placebo in T1DM patients. RESULTS: Our analysis incorporated 8 RCTs, predominantly involving participants aged 7-35 years, diagnosed with T1DM and treated with 14-day courses of teplizumab. The primary outcomes included insulin use, C-peptide levels, and HbA1c levels. We observed a significant reduction in insulin use in the teplizumab group standardised mean difference of -0.50 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -0.76 to -0.23, p < 0.001; I2 = 49%). C-peptide levels were consistently higher in the teplizumab group, indicating improved endogenous insulin production. However, no significant change was noted in HbA1c levels between the groups. Quality assessment indicated a low risk of bias in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: Teplizumab has a significant impact on reducing insulin dependence and enhancing endogenous insulin production in T1DM patients. However, its effect on long-term glycaemic control, as indicated by HbA1c levels, remains inconclusive.

Delegation of insulin administration: a survey of community nursing teams in England.

In community nursing, the administration of insulin for people with type 2 diabetes can be delegated by registered nurses to healthcare support workers. Although a voluntary framework in England provides national guidance, little is known about its uptake. The project aim was to determine the roll-out, characteristics and support needs in relation to the delegation of insulin administration in community settings. An online survey was disseminated to community nursing services in England via social media and nursing networks. Of the 115 responding organisations, 81% (n=93) had an insulin delegation programme, with most initiated since 2018. From these services, 41% (n=3704) of insulin injections were delegated daily, with benefits for patients, staff and services reported, along with some challenges. Delegation of insulin administration is an established and valued initiative. Awareness of the national voluntary framework is increasing. National guidance is considered important to support governance arrangements and safety.

Learning demands of diabetes self-management: a qualitative study with people who use insulin.

OBJECTIVE: to understand the experiences with diabetes mellitus management of people who use insulin, in order to identify possible factors that may influence adherence to self-care and thus define their learning demands for diabetes self-management. METHOD: this is a qualitative study carried out using individual semi-structured interviews online. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and evaluated using Atlas.ti® software by means of Thematic Content Analysis, using the Health Beliefs Model as a theoretical framework. RESULTS: 11 people living with diabetes and using insulin took part in the study. Four categories were identified: understanding diabetes, how to deal with diabetes, difficulties related to insulin use and emotional adaptation. CONCLUSION: the perception of the severity of the disease, its complications and the benefits of adhering to treatment positively influences adherence to self-care behaviors. Although the study participants have lived with diabetes for many years, they are not exempt from difficulties related to insulin use and disease management, reinforcing the importance of continuing health education. In this sense, the findings of this study guide important educational themes to be worked on by health professionals to promote autonomy in diabetes self-management. BACKGROUND: (1) Perceived severity of diabetes positively influences self-care. (2) Continued health education for people who use insulin is essential. (3) The importance of recognizing the benefits of insulin in adherence to treatment. (4) Emotional aspects in diabetes management should be considered in health education.

Summary of clinical investigation plan for The DIATEC trial: in-hospital diabetes management by a diabetes team and continuous glucose monitoring or point of care glucose testing - a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, up to 20 % of hospitalised patients have diabetes mellitus. In-hospital dysglycaemia increases patient mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Improved in-hospital diabetes management strategies are needed. The DIATEC trial investigates the effects of an in-hospital diabetes team and operational insulin titration algorithms based on either continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data or standard point-of-care (POC) glucose testing. METHODS: This is a two-armed, two-site, prospective randomised open-label blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial. We recruit non-critically ill hospitalised general medical and orthopaedic patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal, prandial, and correctional insulin (N = 166). In both arms, patients are monitored by POC glucose testing and diabetes management is done by ward nurses guided by in-hospital diabetes teams. In one of the arms, patients are monitored in addition to POC glucose testing by telemetric CGM viewed by the in-hospital diabetes teams only. The in-hospital diabetes teams have operational algorithms to titrate insulin in both arms. Outcomes are in-hospital glycaemic and clinical outcomes. DISCUSSION: The DIATEC trial will show the glycaemic and clinical effects of in-hospital CGM handled by in-hospital diabetes teams with access to operational insulin titration algorithms in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes. The DIATEC trial seeks to identify which hospitalised patients will benefit from CGM and in-hospital diabetes teams compared to POC glucose testing. This is essential information to optimise the use of healthcare resources before broadly implementing in-hospital CGM and diabetes teams. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with identification number NCT05803473 on March 27th 2023.

Insulin sensitivity estimates and their longitudinal association with coronary artery disease in type 1 diabetes. Does it matter?

BACKGROUND: Insulin resistance and chronic kidney disease are both associated with increased coronary artery disease risk. Many formulae estimating glucose disposal rate in type 1 diabetes infer insulin sensitivity from clinical data. We compare associations and performance relative to traditional risk factors and kidney disease severity between three formulae estimating the glucose disposal rate and coronary artery disease in people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The baseline glucose disposal rate was estimated by three (Williams, Duca, and Januszewski) formulae in FinnDiane Study participants and related to subsequent incidence of coronary artery disease, by baseline kidney status. RESULTS: In 3517 adults with type 1 diabetes, during median (IQR) 19.3 (14.6, 21.4) years, 539 (15.3%) experienced a coronary artery disease event, with higher rates with worsening baseline kidney status. Correlations between the three formulae estimating the glucose disposal rate were weak, but the lowest quartile of each formula was associated with higher incidence of coronary artery disease. Importantly, only the glucose disposal rate estimation by Williams showed a linear association with coronary artery disease risk in all analyses. Of the three formulae, Williams was the strongest predictor of coronary artery disease. Only age and diabetes duration were stronger predictors. The strength of associations between estimated glucose disposal rate and CAD incidence varied by formula and kidney status. CONCLUSIONS: In type 1 diabetes, estimated glucose disposal rates are associated with subsequent coronary artery disease, modulated by kidney disease severity. Future research is merited regarding the clinical usefulness of estimating the glucose disposal rate as a coronary artery disease risk factor and potential therapeutic target.

Effects of different treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus on mortality of coronavirus disease from 2019 to 2021 in China: a multi-institutional retrospective study.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has continued for 5 years. Sporadic cases continue to occur in different locations. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with a high risk of a poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19. Successful control of blood glucose levels can effectively decrease the risks of severe infections and mortality. However, the effects of different treatments were reported differently and even adversely. This retrospective study included 4,922 patients who have been diagnosed as COVID-19 and T2DM from 138 Hubei hospitals. The clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared and calculated their risk for death using multivariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier curves. After adjustment of age, sex, comorbidities, and in-hospital medications, metformin and alpha-glucosidase inhibitor (AGI) use performed lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.71; p = 0.001 for metformin; 0.53, 0.35-0.80, p = 0.002 for AGIs), while insulin use was associated with increased all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.61-2.67, p < 0.001). After propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis, adjusted HRs for insulin, metformin, and AGIs associated with all-cause mortality were 1.32 (95% CI, 1.03-1.81; p = 0.012), 0.48 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83, p = 0.014), and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.35-0.98, p = 0.05). Therefore, metformin and AGIs might be more suitable for patients with COVID-19 and T2DM while insulin might be used with caution.

Current barriers to initiating insulin therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Insulin is an essential drug in the treatment of diabetes, often necessary for managing hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). It should be considered in cases of severe hyperglycemia requiring hospitalization, after the failure of other treatments, in advanced chronic kidney disease, liver cirrhosis, post-transplant diabetes, or during pregnancy. Moreover, in specific patient subgroups, early initiation of insulin is crucial for hyperglycemia control and prevention of chronic complications. Clinical guidelines recommend initiating insulin when other treatments fail, although there are barriers that may delay its initiation. The timing of initiation depends on individual patient characteristics. Typically, insulinization starts by adding basal insulin to the patient's existing treatment and, if necessary, progresses by gradually introducing prandial insulin. Several barriers have been identified that hinder the initiation of insulin, including fear of hypoglycemia, lack of adherence, the need for glucose monitoring, the injection method of insulin administration, social rejection associated with the stigma of injections, weight gain, a sense of therapeutic failure at initiation, lack of experience among some healthcare professionals, and the delayed and reactive positioning of insulin in recent clinical guidelines. These barriers contribute, among other factors, to therapeutic inertia in initiating and intensifying insulin treatment and to patients' non-adherence. In this context, the development of once-weekly insulin formulations could improve initial acceptance, adherence, treatment satisfaction, and consequently, the quality of life for patients. Currently, two once-weekly basal insulins, insulin icodec and basal insulin BIF, which are in different stages of clinical development, may help. Their longer half-life translates to lower variability and reduced risk of hypoglycemia. This review addresses the need for insulin in T2DM, its positioning in clinical guidelines under specific circumstances, the current barriers to initiating and intensifying insulin treatment, and the potential role of once-weekly insulin formulations as a potential solution to facilitate timely initiation of insulinization, which would reduce therapeutic inertia and achieve better early control in people with T2DM.

Information needs on type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and its management in children and adolescents: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to explore the information needs related to insulin therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) from the children's perspectives as well as their caregivers. DESIGN: Qualitative study; semistructured interviews. To identify emerging themes relating to information needs, open coding and thematic analysis were employed. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a tertiary care children's hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and a specialist hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty one children with a mean age of 11.5 years (SD=1.9) and their caregivers were interviewed. Seventeen participants were from Malaysia and 14 were from Saudi Arabia. RESULTS: Four themes of information emerged from the interviews, including information related to (1) hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia, (2) insulin therapy, (3) injection technique and (4) other information needs pertaining to continuous glucose monitoring, access to peer groups and future advances in insulin therapy. CONCLUSION: This study provided valuable insights into the information needs related to T1DM and insulin therapy among children and adolescents with T1DM that should be considered by stakeholders in the development of age-appropriate education materials. Such materials will assist children and adolescents to better manage their life-long T1DM condition from adolescence until adulthood.

Intensive management from diagnosis improves HbA1c at 12 months post-diagnosis: results from a prospective cohort study in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To examine the impact of intensive management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) from diagnosis on HbA1c 12 months from diagnosis. METHODS: HbA1c measured 12 months after diagnosis for 70 consecutively newly diagnosed children with T1D following implementation of an intensive management protocol was compared with 70 children consecutively diagnosed immediately pre-implementation. Intensive management involved carbohydrate counting and flexible insulin dosing from first meal with subcutaneous insulin, targeted blood glucose levels from 4-8mmol/L irrespective of time of day, avoidance of twice daily insulin regimen and promotion of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). HbA1c, diabetes technology use and insulin regimen at 12 months post-diagnosis were compared. RESULTS: The post-intensive management implementation cohort had an improved mean HbA1c of 58.2±15.3mmol/mol vs 63.7±10.7mmol/mol at 12 months (p=0.014). The proportion of young people with diabetes meeting a target HbA1c of <53mmol/mol at 12 months improved from 11% to 40% (p=<0.001). There was a reduction of twice daily insulin regimen from 66% to 11% (p=<0.001), and increased CGM use from 57% to 76% (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Intensive management when implemented with consistent messaging from the multi-disciplinary team resulted in clinic-wide improvements in HbA1c and the proportion meeting HbA1c targets.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of insulin among diabetic patients and pharmacists in Egypt: "cross-sectional observational study".

BACKGROUND: Diabetes recently has been identified as a growing epidemic. Although insulin's vital role in both types of diabetes, it is considered one of the harmful medications if used incorrectly. In Egypt, effective usage of insulin remains a challenge due to insufficient knowledge of insulin and diabetes management, leading to errors in insulin therapy. As pharmacists are experts in pharmacological knowledge, they are uniquely situated to assess adherence to treatment regimens, the effect of drug therapy, or potential alterations in drug therapy to meet patient goals. To provide effective patient education and counseling, community pharmacists in Egypt should be efficiently knowledgeable about diabetes and insulin. OBJECTIVE: To identify the knowledge, attitude, and practice of pharmacists and patients about insulin. To identify pharmacists' educational preparedness and confidence in counseling diabetic patients. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted with two knowledge, attitude, and practice surveys. This study was carried out from September 2016 to February 2023. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with patients, and a paper-based questionnaire was administered to pharmacists. The two questionnaires were adapted from previous studies. RESULTS: A total of 492 patients and 465 pharmacists participated in this study. The mean knowledge score of correct answers among patients and pharmacists was 10.67 ± 1.9 and 15 ± 3.6. Most of the patients and pharmacists had a positive attitude regarding insulin's role in improving health and to better control blood glucose. On the negative side, around half of the patients reported that they believe that regular use of insulin leads to addiction, while only 14.5% of the pharmacists believed that insulin could cause addiction. Self-confidence scores for pharmacists differed statistically with sex, years of experience, and pharmacist's direct exposure to diabetic patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study uncovers considerable deficiencies in patients' and pharmacists' knowledge about insulin therapy. This study also strongly recommends higher education and a more structured pharmacist training schedule.

Comparing Equil patch versus traditional catheter insulin pump in type 2 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring metrics and profiles.

AIMS: It is not clear whether there are differences in glycemic control between the Equil patch and the MMT-712 insulin pump. Our objective was to compare two types of insulin pumps in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and profiles. METHODS: This was a randomized case-crossover clinical trial. Participants were hospitalized and randomly allocated to two groups and underwent two types of insulin pump treatments (group A: Equil patch-Medtronic MMT-712 insulin pump; group B: Medtronic MMT-712-Equil patch insulin pump) separated by a 1-day washout period. Glycemic control was achieved after 7-8 days of insulin pump therapy. Each patient received CGM for 5 consecutive days (from day 1 to day 5). On day 3 of CGM performance, the Equil patch insulin pump treatment was switched to Medtronic MMT-712 insulin pump treatment at the same basal and bolus insulin doses or vice versa. CGM metrics and profiles including glycemic variability (GV), time in range (TIR, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L), time below range (TBR, <3.9 mmol/L), time above range (TAR, >10.0 mmol/L), and postprandial glucose excursions, as well as incidence of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Forty-six T2DM patients completed the study. There was no significant difference in parameters of daily GV and postprandial glucose excursions between the Equil patch insulin pump treatment and the Medtronic insulin pump treatment. Similarly, there was no between-treatment difference in TIR, TBR, and TAR, as well as the incidence of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: The Equil patch insulin pump was similar to the traditional MMT-712 insulin pump in terms of glycemic control. Equil patch insulin pump is a reliable tool for glycemic management of diabetes mellitus.