RESUMO
The t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology (Control-IQ) advanced hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery system was evaluated in this prospective single-arm trial. Thirty adults with type 2 diabetes using the Control-IQ system showed substantial glycemic improvement with no increase in hypoglycemia. Mean time in range (70-180 mg/dL) improved 15%, representing an increase of 3.6 hours/day, and mean glucose decreased by 22 mg/dL.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Approximately 6.3% of the worldwide population has type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and the number of people requiring insulin is increasing. Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems integrate continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and continuous glucose monitoring with a predictive control algorithm to provide more physiologic glycemic control. Personalized glycemic targets are recommended in T2DM owing to the heterogeneity of the disease. Based on the success of hybrid closed-loop systems in improving glycemic control and safety in type 1 diabetes mellitus, there has been further interest in the use of these systems in people with T2DM. METHODS: We performed a review of AID systems with a focus on the T2DM population. RESULTS: In 5 randomized controlled trials, AID systems improve time in range and reduce glycemic variability, without increasing insulin requirements or the risk of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: AID systems in T2DM are safe and effective in hospitalized and closely monitored settings. Home studies of longer duration are required to assess for long-term benefit and identify target populations of benefit.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Automonitorização da Glicemia , Glicemia , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , InsulinaRESUMO
Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is linked to increased morbidity and mortality. This article reports on a novel insulin titration protocol for the management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Sixty-five patients with COVID-19 and glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia admitted after the protocol implementation were matched 1:1 to patients admitted before the treatment protocol rollout for analysis. In a large, diverse health system, the protocol achieved reductions in hypoglycemic events without increasing hyperglycemia or insulin use.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Closed-loop systems that automate insulin delivery may improve glycemic outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this 6-month randomized, multicenter trial, patients with type 1 diabetes were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with a closed-loop system (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented pump (control group). The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the blood glucose level was within the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter), as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients underwent randomization; 112 were assigned to the closed-loop group, and 56 were assigned to the control group. The age range of the patients was 14 to 71 years, and the glycated hemoglobin level ranged from 5.4 to 10.6%. All 168 patients completed the trial. The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was within the target range increased in the closed-loop group from 61±17% at baseline to 71±12% during the 6 months and remained unchanged at 59±14% in the control group (mean adjusted difference, 11 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 14; P<0.001). The results with regard to the main secondary outcomes (percentage of time that the glucose level was >180 mg per deciliter, mean glucose level, glycated hemoglobin level, and percentage of time that the glucose level was <70 mg per deciliter or <54 mg per deciliter [3.0 mmol per liter]) all met the prespecified hierarchical criterion for significance, favoring the closed-loop system. The mean difference (closed loop minus control) in the percentage of time that the blood glucose level was lower than 70 mg per deciliter was -0.88 percentage points (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.57; P<0.001). The mean adjusted difference in glycated hemoglobin level after 6 months was -0.33 percentage points (95% CI, -0.53 to -0.13; P = 0.001). In the closed-loop group, the median percentage of time that the system was in closed-loop mode was 90% over 6 months. No serious hypoglycemic events occurred in either group; one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month trial involving patients with type 1 diabetes, the use of a closed-loop system was associated with a greater percentage of time spent in a target glycemic range than the use of a sensor-augmented insulin pump. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; iDCL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03563313.).
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Insulina/administração & dosagem , Pâncreas Artificial , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Glicemia/análise , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/sangue , Desenho de Equipamento , Feminino , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Insulina/efeitos adversos , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pâncreas Artificial/efeitos adversos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal and fetal complications. This article reviews the types of CGM currently available, the glucose metrics which correlate with pregnancy outcomes, endocrine organization recommendations, clinical considerations for CGM implementation, and anticipated directions for future research. RECENT FINDINGS: CGM use during pregnancy is increasing, and recommendations for use have been incorporated into many organizations' consensus guidelines. Increased time spent within a target range of 63-140 mg/dL and lower mean glucose are associated with lower risk of neonatal complications including large for gestational age infants. Use of CGM during pregnancy can detect postprandial and nocturnal hyperglycemia missed by self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) which can be used for prognosis and to guide pharmacologic interventions. The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during pregnancies complicated by type 1, type 2, and gestational diabetes has been shown to improve outcomes.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Diabetes Gestacional , Glicemia , Automonitorização da Glicemia , Diabetes Gestacional/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Controle Glicêmico , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , GravidezRESUMO
Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time assessment of glucose levels and may be beneficial in reducing hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Objective: To determine whether CGM is effective in reducing hypoglycemia compared with standard blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 22 endocrinology practices in the United States among 203 adults at least 60 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to use CGM (n = 103) or standard BGM (n = 100). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CGM-measured percentage of time that sensor glucose values were less than 70 mg/dL during 6 months of follow-up. There were 31 prespecified secondary outcomes, including additional CGM metrics for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose control; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for false-discovery rate. Results: Of the 203 participants (median age, 68 [interquartile range {IQR}, 65-71] years; median type 1 diabetes duration, 36 [IQR, 25-48] years; 52% female; 53% insulin pump use; mean HbA1c, 7.5% [SD, 0.9%]), 83% used CGM at least 6 days per week during month 6. Median time with glucose levels less than 70 mg/dL was 5.1% (73 minutes per day) at baseline and 2.7% (39 minutes per day) during follow-up in the CGM group vs 4.7% (68 minutes per day) and 4.9% (70 minutes per day), respectively, in the standard BGM group (adjusted treatment difference, -1.9% (-27 minutes per day); 95% CI, -2.8% to -1.1% [-40 to -16 minutes per day]; P <.001). Of the 31 prespecified secondary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metrics, 6 of 7 HbA1c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes. Mean HbA1c decreased in the CGM group compared with the standard BGM group (adjusted group difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.4% to -0.1%; P <.001). The most commonly reported adverse events using CGM and standard BGM, respectively, were severe hypoglycemia (1 and 10), fractures (5 and 1), falls (4 and 3), and emergency department visits (6 and 8). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in hypoglycemia over 6 months. Further research is needed to understand the long-term clinical benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03240432.
Assuntos
Automonitorização da Glicemia/métodos , Glicemia/análise , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/sangue , Hemoglobinas Glicadas/análise , Hipoglicemia/prevenção & controle , Idoso , Automonitorização da Glicemia/instrumentação , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/psicologia , Feminino , Humanos , Hiperglicemia/diagnóstico , Hipoglicemia/induzido quimicamente , Hipoglicemia/diagnóstico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Monitorização Ambulatorial/instrumentação , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo PacienteRESUMO
The care of pregnant individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus has experienced significant advancements in recent years. Preconception counseling has re-emerged as a core dimension of management. Continuous glucose monitoring plays an increasingly useful and beneficial role in gestational glycemic monitoring, a practice informed by improved maternofetal outcomes. While studies have not shown that continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion is superior to multiple daily injections of insulin for glycemic control, recent work has signaled that hybrid closed-loop systems with pregnancy-specific targets could meaningfully improve glycemic control and potentially ameliorate maternofetal outcomes while reducing self-care burden.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Gravidez em Diabéticas , Humanos , Gravidez , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/terapia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Gravidez em Diabéticas/terapia , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina/tendências , Automonitorização da Glicemia/métodos , Insulina/administração & dosagem , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
Early initiation of intensive insulin therapy has been demonstrated to be effective in controlling glycemia and possibly preserving beta-cell function. Innovations in insulin formulations and delivery systems continue. However, we have seen an acceleration in the development of new classes of diabetes medications for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity, such as, for example, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). These formulations have been shown to confer significant benefits in achieving good glycemic control with reduced hypoglycemia risk, weight loss, and cardiorenal protection. Therefore, it is reasonable to question whether there is still a role for insulin therapy in the management of type 2 diabetes. However, there are clear limitations inherent to GLP-1 RA therapy, including high rates of suboptimal adherence and treatment discontinuation due to high cost and side effects, which diminish long-term efficacy, and supply issues. In addition, newer formulations have shown improvements in convenience and tolerability, and have been shown to be even more effective when used in conjunction with basal insulin. In this narrative review, we discuss current evidence that supports GLP-1 RA use in combination with insulin therapy and the potential pitfalls of reliance on GLP-1 RAs as a substitute for insulin therapy.
RESUMO
Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have increasingly been used in ambulatory and inpatient or hospital settings to improve glycemic outcomes for people with diabetes. Given their capacity to aid individuals in avoiding hypo- and hyperglycemia, they may also be useful when transitioning from hospital to home by reducing rates of hospital readmissions and emergency department visits. Several types of barriers presently exist that make the deployment of CGMs at the time of hospital discharge problematic, including (1) regulatory, (2) behavioral, (3) logistical, (4) technical, (5) staffing, and (6) systemic issues. In this commentary, we review the literature, discuss these barriers, and propose possible solutions to facilitate the use of CGMs in people with diabetes at the time of hospital discharge.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus , Hiperglicemia , Humanos , Alta do Paciente , Diabetes Mellitus/terapia , Glicemia , Hospitais , Automonitorização da GlicemiaRESUMO
Background: We evaluated accuracy and safety of a seventh-generation real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system during pregnancy. Materials and Methods: Evaluable data for accuracy analysis were obtained from 96 G7 sensors (Dexcom, Inc.) worn by 96 of 105 enrolled pregnant women with type 1 (n = 59), type 2 (n = 21), or gestational diabetes (n = 25). CGM values were compared with arterialized venous glucose values from the YSI comparator instrument during 6-h clinic sessions at different time points throughout the sensors' 10-day wear period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of CGM values in the 70-180 mg/dL range within 15% of comparator glucose values. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of CGM values within 20% or 20 mg/dL of comparator values ≥ or <100 mg/dL, respectively (the %20/20 agreement rate). Results: Of the 1739 pairs with CGM in the 70-180 mg/dL range, 83.2% were within 15% of comparator values. The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was 79.8%. Of the 2102 pairs with CGM values in the 40-400 mg/dL range, the %20/20 agreement rate was 92.5%. Of the 1659 pairs with comparator values in the 63-140 mg/dL range, the %20/20 agreement rate was 92.3%. The %20/20 agreement rates on days 1, 4 and 7, and 10 were 78.6%, 96.3%, and 97.3%, respectively. Consensus error grid analysis showed 99.8% of pairs in the clinically acceptable A and B zones. There were no serious adverse events. The sensors' 10-day survival rate was 90.3%. Conclusion: The G7 system is accurate and safe during pregnancies complicated by diabetes and does not require confirmatory fingerstick testing. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04905628.
Assuntos
Monitoramento Contínuo da Glicose , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Diabetes Gestacional , Gravidez em Diabéticas , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Adulto Jovem , Glicemia/análise , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/sangue , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangue , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Gestacional/sangue , Gravidez em Diabéticas/sangue , Gravidez em Diabéticas/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
Background: Customized and standard automated insulin delivery (AID) systems for use in pregnancies of women with preexisting type 1 diabetes (T1D) are being developed and tested to achieve pregnancy appropriate continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) targets. Guidance on the use of CGM for treatment decisions during pregnancy in the United States is limited. Methods: Ten pregnant women with preexisting T1D participated in a trial evaluating at-home use of a pregnancy-specific AID system. Seven-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was compared to the closest sensor glucose (Dexcom G6 CGM) value biweekly to assess safety and reliability based on the 20%/20â mg/dL criteria. Results: All participants completed the study with 7 participants satisfying the safety and reliability criteria with a mean absolute relative difference of 10.3%. Three participants did not fulfill the criteria, mainly because the frequency of SMBG did not meet the requirements. Conclusion: Dexcom G6 CGM is safe and accurate in the real-world setting for use in pregnant women with preexisting T1D with reduced SMBG testing as part of a pregnancy-specific AID system.
RESUMO
Background: The Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System was shown to be safe and effective following 3 months of use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, data on the durability of these results are limited. This study evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of Omnipod 5 use in people with T1D during up to 2 years of use. Materials and Methods: After a 3-month single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial in children (6-13.9 years) and adolescents/adults (14-70 years), participants could continue system use in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months for up to 15 months; continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected for up to 2 years. Results: Participants (N = 224) completed median (interquartile range) 22.3 (21.7, 22.7) months of AID. HbA1c was reduced in the pivotal trial from 7.7% ± 0.9% in children and 7.2% ± 0.9% in adolescents/adults to 7.0% ± 0.6% and 6.8% ± 0.7%, respectively, (P < 0.0001), and was maintained at 7.2% ± 0.7% and 6.9% ± 0.6% after 15 months (P < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 52.4% ± 15.6% in children and 63.6% ± 16.5% in adolescents/adults at baseline to 67.9% ± 8.0% and 73.8% ± 10.8%, respectively, during the pivotal trial (P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 65.9% ± 8.9% and 72.9% ± 11.3% during the extension (P < 0.0001 from baseline). One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and seven episodes of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the extension. Children and adolescents/adults spent median 96.1% and 96.3% of time in Automated Mode, respectively. Conclusion: Our study supports that long-term use of the Omnipod 5 AID System can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes for up to 2 years of use in people with T1D. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04196140.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Adulto , Criança , Humanos , Adolescente , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Hemoglobinas Glicadas , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Glicemia , Automonitorização da GlicemiaRESUMO
Diabetes Technology Society hosted its annual Diabetes Technology Meeting from November 1 to November 4, 2023. Meeting topics included digital health; metrics of glycemia; the integration of glucose and insulin data into the electronic health record; technologies for insulin pumps, blood glucose monitors, and continuous glucose monitors; diabetes drugs and analytes; skin physiology; regulation of diabetes devices and drugs; and data science, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. A live demonstration of a personalized carbohydrate dispenser for people with diabetes was presented.
RESUMO
Objective: To evaluate the safety and explore the efficacy of use of ultra-rapid lispro (URLi, Lyumjev) insulin in the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology in children, teenagers, and adults living with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: At 14 U.S. diabetes centers, youth and adults with T1D completed a 16-day lead-in period using lispro in a t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology, followed by a 13-week period in which URLi insulin was used in the pump. Results: The trial included 179 individuals with T1D (age 6-75 years). With URLi, 1.7% (3 participants) had a severe hypoglycemia event over 13 weeks attributed to override boluses or a missed meal. No diabetic ketoacidosis events occurred. Two participants stopped URLi use because of infusion-site discomfort, and one stopped after developing a rash. Mean time 70-180 mg/dL increased from 65% ± 15% with lispro to 67% ± 13% with URLi (P = 0.004). Mean insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire score improved from 75 ± 13 at screening to 80 ± 11 after 13 weeks of URLi use (mean difference = 6; 95% confidence interval 4-8; P < 0.001), with the greatest improvement reported for confidence avoiding symptoms of high blood sugar. Mean treatment-related impact measure-diabetes score improved from 74 ± 12 to 80 ± 12 (P < 0.001), and mean TRIM-Diabetes Device (score improved from 82 ± 11 to 86 ± 12 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: URLi use in the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ 1.5 technology was safe for adult and pediatric participants with T1D, with quality-of-life benefits of URLi use perceived by the study participants. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT05403502.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare postprandial glucose excursions following a bolus with inhaled technosphere insulin (TI) or subcutaneous rapid-acting analog (RAA) insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A meal challenge was completed by 122 adults with type 1 diabetes who were using multiple daily injections (MDI), a nonautomated pump, or automated insulin delivery (AID) and who were randomized to bolus with their usual RAA insulin (n = 61) or TI (n = 61). RESULTS: The primary outcome, the treatment group difference in area under the curve for glucose >180 mg/dL over 2 h, was less with TI versus RAA (adjusted difference -12 mg/dL, 95% CI -22 to -2, P = 0.02). With TI, the glucose excursion was smaller (P = 0.01), peak glucose lower (P = 0.01), and time to peak glucose shorter (P = 0.006). Blood glucose <70 mg/dL occurred in one participant in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Postmeal glucose excursion was smaller with TI than with RAA insulin in a cohort that included both AID and MDI users.
Assuntos
Glicemia , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Hipoglicemiantes , Insulina , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/sangue , Glicemia/efeitos dos fármacos , Glicemia/análise , Adulto , Insulina/administração & dosagem , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Feminino , Administração por Inalação , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Hipoglicemiantes/administração & dosagem , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Período Pós-Prandial , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Insulina de Ação Curta/administração & dosagem , Insulina de Ação Curta/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have established benefits in terms of glycemic control, health outcomes, and quality of life and are strongly recommended for people with type 1 diabetes outside of pregnancy. While evidence for use of investigational AID systems during pregnancy is promising, data and guidance are still needed regarding use of commercially available systems during pregnancy. Unfortunately, none of the hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems that are currently available in the United States have glucose targets that are as aggressive as pregnancy glycemic targets, none have a pregnancy-specific algorithm, and none are approved for use during pregnancy. As such, any use of these systems during pregnancy is considered off-label in the United States and would be "assisted" by provider/user techniques. Despite these limitations, many women conceive while using clinically available HCL systems and may be hesitant to cease use during pregnancy. Achievement of strict pregnancy glycemic targets can be difficult, and it is conceivable that selective off-label use of clinically available HCL systems in some women could lead to improved glycemia. We herein offer expert guidance based on clinical experience and available case reports on how to identify appropriate candidates for HCL therapy in pregnancy, how to counsel pregnant women with diabetes on the potential risks and benefits of HCL therapy during pregnancy, and how to manage commercially available systems off-label throughout gestation in an assisted HCL approach.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Hipoglicemiantes , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Uso Off-Label , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Qualidade de Vida , Glicemia , Sistemas de Infusão de Insulina , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Automonitorização da GlicemiaRESUMO
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common metabolic disease of pregnancy that threatens the health of several million women and their offspring. The highest prevalence of GDM is seen in women of low socioeconomic status. Women with GDM are at increased risk of adverse maternal outcomes, including increased rates of Cesarean section delivery, preeclampsia, perineal tears, and postpartum hemorrhage. However, of even greater concern is the increased risk to the fetus and long-term health of the child due to elevated glycemia during pregnancy. Although the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to reduce the incidence of maternal and fetal complications in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, most state Medicaid programs do not cover CGM for women with GDM. This article reviews current statistics relevant to the incidence and costs of GDM among Medicaid beneficiaries, summarizes key findings from pregnancy studies using CGM, and presents a rationale for expanding and standardizing CGM coverage for GDM within state Medicaid populations.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery (AID) system (Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System) demonstrated improved glycated hemoglobin A1c levels and increased time in range (70 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL) for both adults and children with type 1 diabetes in a 13-week multicenter, single-arm study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the tubeless AID system compared with standard of care (SoC) in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from a US payer's perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (version 9.5), with a time horizon of 60 years and an annual discount of 3.0% on both costs and effects. Simulated patients received either tubeless AID or SoC, the latter being defined as either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (86% of patients) or multiple daily injections. Two cohorts (children: <18 years; adults: ≥18 years) of patients with T1D and 2 thresholds for nonsevere hypoglycemia (nonsevere hypoglycemia event [NSHE] <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL) were considered. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects of different risk factors for tubeless AID were sourced from the clinical trial. Utilities and cost of diabetes-related complications were obtained from published sources. Treatment costs were derived from US national database sources. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Treating children with T1D with tubeless AID, considering an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL, brings incremental life-years (1.375) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.521) at an incremental cost of $15,099 compared with SoC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,927 per QALY gained. Similar results were obtained for adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $10,310 per QALY gained). Furthermore, tubeless AID is a dominant treatment option for children and adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 70 mg/dL compared with SoC. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses results showed that compared with SoC, in both children and adults with T1D, tubeless AID was cost-effective in more than 90% of simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. The key drivers of the model were the cost of ketoacidosis, duration of treatment effect, threshold of NSHE, and definition of severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: The current analyses suggest that the tubeless AID system can be considered a cost-effective treatment compared with SoC in people with T1D from a US payer's perspective. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Insulet. Mr Hopley, Ms Boyd, and Mr Swift are full-time Insulet employees and own stock in Insulet Corporation. IQVIA, the employer of Ms Ramos and Dr Lamotte, received consulting fees for this work. Dr Biskupiak is receiving research support and consulting fees from Insulet. Dr Brixner has received consulting fees from Insulet. The University of Utah has received research funding from Insulet. Dr Levy is a consultant with Dexcom and Eli Lilly and has received grant/research support from Insulet, Tandem, Dexcom, and Abbott Diabetes. Dr Forlenza conducted research sponsored by Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly. He has been speaker/consultant/advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Hipoglicemia , Masculino , Adulto , Criança , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamento farmacológico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Padrão de Cuidado , Insulina , Hipoglicemia/induzido quimicamente , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are treated with intensive insulin regimens. Based on this evidence, CGM is now a standard of care for individuals within these diabetes populations and widely covered by commercial and public insurers. Moreover, recent clinical guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinology now endorse CGM use in individuals treated with nonintensive insulin regimens. However, despite increasing evidence supporting CGM use for individuals treated with less-intensive insulin therapy or noninsulin medications, insurance coverage is limited or nonexistent. This narrative review reports key findings from recent randomized, observational, and retrospective studies investigating use of CGM in T2D individuals treated with basal insulin only and/or noninsulin therapies and presents an evidence-based rationale for expanding access to CGM within this population.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Glicemia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Automonitorização da Glicemia , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Insulina Regular Humana/uso terapêutico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
Treatment for type 1 diabetes (T1D) requires stimulation of functional ß cell regeneration and survival under stress. Previously, we showed that inhibition of the RANKL/RANK [receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa Β (NF-κB) ligand] pathway, by osteoprotegerin and the anti-osteoporotic drug denosumab, induces rodent and human ß cell proliferation. We demonstrate that the RANK pathway mediates cytokine-induced rodent and human ß cell death through RANK-TRAF6 interaction and induction of NF-κB activation. Osteoprotegerin and denosumab protected ß cells against this cytotoxicity. In human immune cells, osteoprotegerin and denosumab reduce proinflammatory cytokines in activated T-cells by inhibiting RANKL-induced activation of monocytes. In vivo, osteoprotegerin reversed recent-onset T1D in nonobese diabetic/Ltj mice, reduced insulitis, improved glucose homeostasis, and increased plasma insulin, ß cell proliferation, and mass in these mice. Serum from T1D subjects induced human ß cell death and dysfunction, but not α cell death. Osteoprotegerin and denosumab reduced T1D serum-induced ß cell cytotoxicity and dysfunction. Inhibiting RANKL/RANK could have therapeutic potential.