Autonomous artificial intelligence increases screening and follow-up for diabetic retinopathy in youth: the ACCESS randomized control trial.

Diabetic retinopathy can be prevented with screening and early detection. We hypothesized that autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) diabetic eye exams at the point-of-care would increase diabetic eye exam completion rates in a racially and ethnically diverse youth population. AI for Children's diabetiC Eye ExamS (NCT05131451) is a parallel randomized controlled trial that randomized youth (ages 8-21 years) with type 1 and type 2 diabetes to intervention (autonomous artificial intelligence diabetic eye exam at the point of care), or control (scripted eye care provider referral and education) in an academic pediatric diabetes center. The primary outcome was diabetic eye exam completion rate within 6 months. The secondary outcome was the proportion of participants who completed follow-through with an eye care provider if deemed appropriate. Diabetic eye exam completion rate was significantly higher (100%, 95%CI: 95.5%, 100%) in the intervention group (n = 81) than the control group (n = 83) (22%, 95%CI: 14.2%, 32.4%)(p < 0.001). In the intervention arm, 25/81 participants had an abnormal result, of whom 64% (16/25) completed follow-through with an eye care provider, compared to 22% in the control arm (p < 0.001). Autonomous AI increases diabetic eye exam completion rates in youth with diabetes.

Model for Integration of Monogenic Diabetes Diagnosis Into Routine Care: The Personalized Diabetes Medicine Program.

OBJECTIVE: To implement, disseminate, and evaluate a sustainable method for identifying, diagnosing, and promoting individualized therapy for monogenic diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were recruited into the implementation study through a screening questionnaire completed in the waiting room or through the patient portal, physician recognition, or self-referral. Patients suspected of having monogenic diabetes based on the processing of their questionnaire and other data through an algorithm underwent next-generation sequencing for 40 genes implicated in monogenic diabetes and related conditions. RESULTS: Three hundred thirteen probands with suspected monogenic diabetes (but most diagnosed with type 2 diabetes) were enrolled from October 2014 to January 2019. Sequencing identified 38 individuals with monogenic diabetes, with most variants found in GCK or HNF1A. Positivity rates for ascertainment methods were 3.1% for clinic screening, 5.3% for electronic health record portal screening, 16.5% for physician recognition, and 32.4% for self-referral. The algorithmic criterion of non-type 1 diabetes before age 30 years had an overall positivity rate of 15.0%. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully modeled the efficient incorporation of monogenic diabetes diagnosis into the diabetes care setting, using multiple strategies to screen and identify a subpopulation with a 12.1% prevalence of monogenic diabetes by molecular testing. Self-referral was particularly efficient (32% prevalence), suggesting that educating the lay public in addition to clinicians may be the most effective way to increase the diagnosis rate in monogenic diabetes. Scaling up this model will assure access to diagnosis and customized treatment among those with monogenic diabetes and, more broadly, access to personalized medicine across disease areas.

Ultra Rapid-Acting Inhaled Insulin Improves Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of an inhaled insulin would improve HbA1c. METHODS: This study was performed in 20 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) participants with HbA1c values ≥7.5 (58) to ≤11.5% (102 mmol/mol) on a variety of glucose-lowering regimens. Prandial Technosphere insulin (TI) was rapidly titrated based on a treatment algorithm using postprandial blood glucose to calculate premeal doses. A 2-week baseline period was followed by 12 weeks of active treatment with TI. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included glucose time in range (time in range: 70-180 mg/dL) obtained by a blinded continuous glucose monitoring during the baseline period and at the end of 12 weeks. Goals were to assess how to rapidly and safely initiate TI intensification, determine dosing requirements, and establish an effective dose range in uncontrolled T2DM. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c decreased by -1.6% (-17 mmol/mol) from 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7.4% (57 mmol/mol) at 12 weeks (P < .0001). Mean time in range increased from 42.2% to 65.7% (P < .0002). Mean prandial doses of TI were 18 or 19 units for all meals. Time below range was 1.1% baseline and 2.6% post treatment (P = .01). CONCLUSION: Treatment with inhaled TI dosed using a simple algorithm improved glycemic control measured by both HbA1c and time in range, with low rates of hypoglycemia. These data add significantly to understanding TI in the management of T2DM patients for whom prandial insulin is a consideration.

Clinical outcomes using long-term combination therapy with insulin glargine and exenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the long-term effects of combination insulin glargine/exenatide treatment on glycemic control. METHODS: We conducted a 24-month retrospective US chart review of patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and hemoglobin A1c (A1C) levels >7.0% for whom glargine and exenatide were coprescribed in differing order (glargine added after exenatide [exenatide/glargine]; exenatide added after glargine [glargine/exenatide]). Treatment order groups were combined to form a pooled treatment group. Changes from baseline in A1C, patients with A1C ≤7.0%, body weight, glargine/exenatide daily dose, oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use, and hypoglycemia were evaluated. RESULTS: Treatment groups were similar at baseline; however, patients in the glargine/exenatide group (n = 121) (vs exenatide/glargine group [n = 44]) had longer disease duration (11.8 vs 8.0 years) and took fewer OADs (1.7 vs 2.3). Overall, baseline A1C was 8.8 ± 1.3% and weight was 109.5 ± 25.3 kg. Significant A1C reductions emerged at month 6 and persisted throughout 24 months (vs baseline) in both treatment groups (pooled: -0.7 ± 1.6; P<.001), and 33.0% of patients achieved an A1C level ≤7.0%. After 24 months of exenatide/glargine, body weight remained unchanged (0.7 ± 8.3 kg; P = .640). With glargine/exenatide, body weight decreased (-2.5 ± 6.7 kg; P = .001). At month 24, daily glargine dose was 0.40 ± 0.23 units/kg for the exenatide/glargine group and 0.47 ± 0.30 units/kg for the glargine/exenatide group. Hypoglycemia frequency was similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of treatment order, long-term combined therapy with glargine and exenatide for up to 24 months in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM suggests reduction of A1C without significant weight gain or increased hypoglycemia risk.

Glycemic control with insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine versus premixed insulin analogues in real-world practices: a cost-effectiveness study with a randomized pragmatic trial design.

BACKGROUND: Cost can be an important consideration, along with safety and efficacy, in deciding the most appropriate treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes. Both basal-bolus and premixed insulin analogue regimens are widely used in clinical practice; however, limited information is available regarding cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare glycemic control, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life effects of insulin glargine plus insulin glulisine (glargine/glulisine) versus premixed insulin analogues in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Adults with type 2 diabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)] ≥7.0%) at 3 US endocrinology centers were randomly assigned to receive either glargine/glulisine or premixed insulin analogues and continued treatment following the centers' usual practice. HbA(1c), weight, insulin dose, concomitant oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) usage, and hypoglycemia were evaluated at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months. Medication costs, including costs for all insulin or OAD regimens, were estimated using published wholesale acquisition costs. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients were randomized to receive glargine/glulisine therapy (n = 106) or premixed analogue therapy (n = 91). Overall, the mean age was 56 years, the mean duration of diabetes was 13 years, with a mean HbA(1c) of 9.25% and mean BMI of 35.8 kg/m(2) at baseline. Patients randomized to receive glargine/glulisine had a greater mean HbA(1c) reduction from baseline (-2.3%) than patients receiving a premixed analogue regimen (-1.7%). Adjusted mean follow-up HbA(1c) was 6.9% versus 7.5%, respectively (difference, -0.59%; P < 0.01). The glargine/glulisine group also used a lower mean number of OADs (0.86 vs 1.14; difference, -0.28; P = 0.04) but had a higher weight (240 vs 235 lb; difference, 4.55 lb; P = 0.03) than the premixed analogue group at follow-up. There were no significant differences in daily insulin dose and rates of hypoglycemia. Overall medication costs per 1.0% reduction in HbA(1c) were $841 with glargine/glulisine and $1308 with premixed analogues. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, treatment with glargine/glulisine provided greater improvement in glycemic control and may represent a more cost-effective treatment option than premixed regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes in real-world clinical practice. However, due to the pragmatic trial design, the study concluded before follow-up assessments were available for all randomized patients.