Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on diabetes management and follow-up in a broad population in Spain.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on glycaemic control and diabetes follow-up in a Spanish metropolitan area with a total general population of 340,000. METHODS: A retrospective real-world study comparing HbA1c testing, an indicator of diabetes control, and mean HbA1c during different COVID-19 restriction periods in 2020 (full lockdown, post-lockdown, partial lockdown) with the same periods in 2019. HbA1c testing was analysed per study period and according to gender, age and clinical setting. Associations between HbA1c testing and different covariables were investigated using logistic regression analysis. Changes in HbA1c were evaluated by repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: During full lockdown, 6847 individuals, of which 56.7% were over 65 and 6.5% below 40, were tested for HbA1c compared to 14,180 in 2019 (OR 0.47, 95% CI:0.46-0.49). Reduction in HbA1c testing was greater among older individuals (OR 0.44, 95% CI:0.42-0.45). No differences were observed for post-lockdown (OR 1.01, 95% CI:0.99-1.04). During partial lockdown, 10,816 individuals had at least one HbA1c measured compared to 12,749 in 2019 (OR 0.84, 95% CI:0.82-0.87). Mean HbA1c during full lockdown was 7.26% (±1.06) compared to 7.50% (±1.14) in 2019 (p < .0001). For gender and across all age groups, HbA1c levels were lower during full lockdown. HbA1c changes were not significantly different during post-lockdown and partial lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 restriction measures affected HbA1c testing. During complete lockdown, HbA1c testing decreased by half across all gender and age groups. No deleterious effect on glycaemic control was observed during lockdown and post-lockdown among those tested.

Patient-reported outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes in global real-world clinical practice: The SAGE study.

AIMS: To conduct a secondary analysis of the SAGE study to evaluate the association between glycaemic control and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) across different age groups and regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SAGE was a multinational, cross-sectional, observational study in adults with T1DM. Data were collected at a single visit, analysed according to predefined age groups (26-44, 45-64, and ≥65 years), and reported across different regions. PRO questionnaires were applied to assess hypoglycaemia fear (Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II), diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas In Diabetes questionnaire), insulin treatment satisfaction (Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire), and diabetes-specific quality of life (QoL; Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life). Multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) target achievement (<7% and individualised targets) with PRO scores. RESULTS: The PRO scores showed relatively low levels of diabetes-related emotional distress and fear of hypoglycaemia, moderate to high treatment satisfaction, and low diabetes-related impact on QoL. Results were generally comparable across age groups with some regional variability. Achievement of the HbA1c <7% target was associated with less worry about hypoglycaemia, lower diabetes-related emotional distress, higher insulin treatment satisfaction, and higher QoL. Achievement of individualised HbA1c targets was associated with lower diabetes-related emotional distress and higher insulin treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Better glycaemic control was most closely associated with low emotional distress due to diabetes and high patient-reported insulin treatment satisfaction.

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes switching from twice-daily basal insulin to once-daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL or insulin glargine 100 U/mL (EDITION 1 and EDITION 2 subgroup analysis).

In this post hoc analysis we compared glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia between insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) administered once daily in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the EDITION 1 (basal plus mealtime insulin) and EDITION 2 (basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycaemic drugs) trials who were previously receiving twice-daily insulin. At randomization, 16.9% and 20.0% of people in EDITION 1 and 2, respectively, were receiving twice-daily basal insulin. Glycated haemoglobin change from baseline to Month 6 was similar over 6 months with Gla-300 or Gla-100 (least squares mean difference -0.01%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.27 to 0.24] in EDITION 1 and 0.16%; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.57, in EDITION 2). Participants previously receiving twice-daily insulin in EDITION 1 had a lower risk of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemia with Gla-300 vs Gla-100 at night (00:00-05:59 hours), but not at any time (24 hours); in EDITION 2 the risk was reduced at night and any time (24 hours). In conclusion, Gla-300 provided similar glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia compared with Gla-100 in people with T2DM switching from twice-daily to once-daily basal insulin.

Propensity-score-matched comparative analyses of simultaneously administered fixed-ratio insulin glargine 100 U and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) vs sequential administration of insulin glargine and lixisenatide in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To conduct two exploratory analyses to compare indirectly the efficacy and safety of simultaneous administration of insulin glargine 100 U (iGlar) and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) lixisenatide (Lixi) as a single-pen, titratable, fixed-ratio combination (iGlarLixi [LixiLan trials]) vs sequential administration of iGlar + Lixi (GetGoal Duo trials) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Propensity-score matching based on baseline covariates was used to compare simultaneous iGlarLixi vs sequential combination of iGlar + Lixi with the addition of Lixi in patients who did not reach the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) goal of <53 mmol/mol (<7%) after short-term use of iGlar alone (LixiLan-O vs GetGoal Duo-1 comparison) and vs sequential addition of Lixi in uncontrolled patients after long-term use of iGlar alone (LixiLan-L vs GetGoal Duo-2 comparison). RESULTS: In both analyses, compared with sequential iGlar + Lixi, iGlarLixi led to significantly greater HbA1c reductions with associated weight loss and significantly more patients reaching target HbA1c <53 mmol/mol despite lower insulin doses. Symptomatic hypoglycaemia rates were similar, despite greater HbA1c reductions with iGlarLixi. Lower rates of gastrointestinal adverse events were observed with iGlarLixi, probably as a result of the more gradual titration of Lixi with iGlarLixi. CONCLUSIONS: Indirect propensity-score-matched exploratory comparisons suggest that early treatment with a simultaneous, titratable, fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and a GLP-1RA (iGlarLixi) may be more effective and possess better gastrointestinal tolerability than a sequential approach of adding a GLP-1RA in patients with uncontrolled T2D initiating or intensifying basal insulin therapy.

Impact of baseline glycated haemoglobin, diabetes duration and body mass index on clinical outcomes in the LixiLan-O trial testing a titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) vs insulin glargine and lixisenatide monocomponents.

To determine whether baseline characteristics had an impact on clinical outcomes in the LixiLan-O trial (N = 1170), we compared the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U (iGlar) and lixisenatide (Lixi) with iGlar or Lixi alone in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on oral therapy. Subgroups according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; <8% or ≥8% [<64 or ≥64 mmol/mol]), T2DM disease duration (<7 or ≥7 years) and body mass index (BMI; <30 or ≥30 kg/m2 ) were investigated. In all subpopulations, iGlarLixi was consistently statistically superior to iGlar and Lixi alone in reducing HbA1c from baseline to week 30; higher proportions of patients achieved HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) with iGlarLixi vs iGlar and Lixi alone. Compared with iGlar, iGlarLixi resulted in a substantial decrease in 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose levels, and mitigation of weight gain, with no differences among subpopulations in incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia. iGlarLixi consistently improved glycaemic control compared with iGlar and Lixi alone, without weight gain or increase in hypoglycaemic risk compared with iGlar in the subpopulations tested, regardless of baseline HbA1c, disease duration and BMI.

Comparison of GLP-1 receptor agonists and other Glucose-Lowering agents on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes and Obesity: A Spanish Real-World Population-Based study.

AIMS: Assess the impact of glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) compared to other glucose-lowering agents on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity in a Spanish metropolitan area. METHODS: A retrospective population-based type 2 diabetes cohort was identified from the Valencia Clinic-Malvarrosa Department electronic databases (2014-2019). Study groups included GLP-1RA, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), Insulin, and Miscellany (other glucose-lowering agents). 1:1:1:1 propensity score matching was conducted. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (4-point MACE) comprising myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause mortality, and heart failure. Secondary outcomes included individual 4-point MACE components. Hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression analyses against the Miscellany group. RESULTS: From 26,944 subjects, 1,848 adults were selected per group. GLP-1RA did not show a significant reduction in 4-point MACE risk (HR 1.05 [95%CI 0.82-1.34]). SGLT2i significantly reduced the risk of heart failure (HR 0.16 [95%CI 0.05-0.54]) and atrial fibrillation (HR 0.58, [95%CI 0.35-0.95]). The Insulin group exhibited a higher risk for 4-point MACE and most individual outcomes compared to GLP-1RA and SGLT2i. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not provide evidence of a reduced cardiovascular risk, as assessed by 4-point MACE, with GLP-1RA. In contrast, SGLT2i demonstrated protective effects against heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

Accuracy of Two Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices During Aerobic and High-Intensity Interval Training in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of Dexcom G6 (DG6) and FreeStyle Libre-2 (FSL2) during aerobic training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in individuals with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Twenty-six males (mean age 29.3 ± 6.3 years and mean duration of diabetes 14.9 ± 6.1 years) participated in this study. Interstitial glucose levels were measured using DG6 and FSL2, while plasma glucose levels were measured every 10 min using YSI 2500 as the reference for glucose measurements in this study. The measurements began 20 min before the start of exercise and continued for 20 min after exercise. Seven measurements were taken for each subject and exercise. Results: Both DG6 and FSL2 devices showed significant differences compared to YSI glucose data for both aerobic and HIIT exercises. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices exhibited superior performance during HIIT than aerobic training, with DG6 showing a mean absolute relative difference of 14.03% versus 31.98%, respectively. In the comparison between the two devices, FSL2 demonstrated significantly higher effectiveness in aerobic training, yet its performance was inferior to DG6 during HIIT. According to the 40/40 criteria, both sensors performed similarly, with marks over 93% for all ranges and both exercises, and above 99% for HIIT and in the >180 mg/dL range, which is in accordance with FDA guidelines. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the accuracy of DG6 and FSL2 deteriorates during and immediately after exercise but remains acceptable for both devices during HIIT. However, accuracy is compromised with DG6 during aerobic exercise. This study is the first to compare the accuracy of two CGMs, DG6, and FSL2, during two exercise modalities, using plasma glucose YSI measurements as the gold standard for comparisons. It was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06080542).

Real-World Evaluation of GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy Persistence, Adherence and Therapeutic Inertia Among Obese Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: In type 2 diabetes (T2D), key barriers to optimal glycaemic control include lack of persistence with treatment, reduced medication adherence and therapeutic inertia. This study aimed to assess the impact of these barriers in obese adults with type 2 diabetes treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) and compare them against other glucose-lowering agents in a real-world setting. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using electronic medical records from 2014 to 2019 for adults with T2D at the Valencia Clínico-Malvarrosa Department of Health (Valencia, Spain). Four study groups were established: all GLP-1RA users, SGLT2i users, insulin users and other glucose-lowering agent users (miscellany group). To account for imbalance between groups, propensity score matching (PSM) including age, gender and pre-existing cardiovascular disease was performed. Chi-square tests were used for comparisons between groups. Time to first intensification was calculated using competing risk analysis. RESULTS: Among the 26,944 adults with T2D, 7392 individuals were selected following PSM, with 1848 patients in each group. At 2 years, GLP-1RA users were less persistent than non-users (48.4% versus 72.7%, p < 0.0001) but more adherent (73.8% versus 68.9%, respectively, p < 0.0001). A greater proportion of persistent GLP-1RA users than non-persistent users exhibited reduced HbA1c (40.5% versus 18.6%, respectively, p < 0.0001), but no differences in cardiovascular outcomes and death were found. Overall, therapeutic inertia was observed in 38.0% of the study population. The large majority of GLP-1RA users received treatment intensification, whereas only 50.0% of GLP-1RA non-users were intensified. CONCLUSION: Under real-life conditions, obese adults with T2D persistently treated with GLP-1RA showed improved glycaemic control. Despite benefits, persistence with GLP-1RA was limited after 2 years. Additionally, therapeutic inertia occurred in two out of three study participants. Strategies to facilitate medication adherence, persistence and treatment intensification in people with T2D should be made a priority in order to achieve and maintain glycaemic targets and improve outcomes in this population. TRAIL REGISTRATION: Study registered in clinicaltrials.org with the identifier NCT05535322.

Which people with diabetes are treated with a disposable, half-unit insulin pen? A real-world, retrospective, database study in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin lispro 100 units/mL Jr KwikPen is the first prefilled, disposable, half-unit insulin pen that delivers 0.5-30 units in increments of 0.5 units for the treatment of patients with diabetes. This study describes the profile of patients in Spain who initiated insulin therapy with Jr KwikPen in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study based on IQVIA's electronic medical records database included patients with Type 1 (T1D) or Type 2 (T2D) diabetes who initiated therapy with Jr KwikPen between May 2018 and December 2020. Sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics at treatment initiation were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 416 patients were included. The main characteristics of the T1D/T2D groups (N = 326/90), respectively were as follows: female sex, 61.7%/65.6%; mean age (standard deviation [SD]), 32.5 (20.7)/55.5 (16.6) years; body mass index, 20.9 (4.2)/25.2 (4.6) kg/m2 (N = 239/77); HbA1c, 7.8 (1.7)%/8.0 (1.5)% (N = 141/64); and presence of diabetes-associated comorbidities, 27.9%/64.4%. Only 32.8% of patients with T1D were < 18 years old. Among Jr KwikPen users, 12.3% (T1D/T2D, 7.7%/28.9%) were ≥ 65 years old, 17.1% patients were newly diagnosed, and 3.8% were pregnant women. The mean (SD) total insulin dose pre-index for T1D/T2D was 43.1 (23.6) and 40.7 (21.6) UI/day, respectively. The mean (SD) insulin dose at the start of Jr KwikPen use was 26.63 (16.56) and 22.58 (13.59) UI/day for T1D/T2D, respectively. Jr KwikPen was first prescribed mainly by endocrinologists (58.7%) or paediatricians (22.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The profile of patients who initiated therapy with Jr KwikPen in routine practice was broad with many patients being adults. Most of these patients had T1D, inadequate glycemic control, and multiple associated comorbidities. These results suggest that Jr KwikPen is prescribed in patients who may benefit from finer insulin dose adjustments, namely children, adolescents, adults, older individuals, or pregnant women with T1D or T2D.

Real-world Evidence of Efficacy and Safety of SGLT2 Inhibitors as Adjunctive Therapy in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A European Two-Center Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-world efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use in combination with insulin in people with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort European two-center study. Data on demographics, HbA1c, weight, insulin use, renal function, and adverse events were collected for 199 adults with type 1 diabetes who initiated a SGLT2i adjunct to insulin. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify who benefited most and who was more at risk for adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, significant reductions in mean HbA1c (-0.5%), weight (-2.9 kg), and daily insulin (-8.5%) were achieved after 12 months. The greatest reduction in HbA1c was obtained in individuals with baseline HbA1c >8% (-0.7% [64 mmol/mol]). The most weight loss was observed in subjects with BMI >27 kg/m2 (-3.5 kg). Individuals with baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <90 mL/min/1.73 m2 showed an increase in eGFR (4.5 mL/min/1.73 m2), whereas those with urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) >15 mg/g showed a decrease in UACR (-16.6 mg/g). Fifty-seven individuals (28.6%) reported adverse events: 45 with genital infections (22.6%), 5 ketosis episodes (2.5%), and 7 diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (3.5%). No severe hypoglycemia events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world data on SGLT2i showed promising results in reductions in HbA1c, weight, and insulin requirements in type 1 diabetes. Benefits were more pronounced in individuals with higher baseline HbA1c and BMI. DKA remained a major concern, despite educational measures. Further real-life evidence is still required for evaluation of SGLT2i longer-term effects and their impact on reno-cardiovascular outcomes.

Therapeutic inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with non-insulin agents.

AIMS: To analyze therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes (T2D) subjects with suboptimal glycemic control and treated with ≥2 non-insulin antidiabetic agents in a primary care setting. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using electronic medical records from subjects with HbA1c ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol). Therapeutic inertia was defined as the absence of treatment intensification despite suboptimal glycemic control where intensification should have been implemented (HbA1c ≥7.5% [≥58 mmol/mol]). Time to the first intensification with non-insulin antidiabetic agent or insulin and HbA1c values at the time of intensification were evaluated by competing risk analysis. RESULTS: 2652 adults with T2D and HbA1c ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) were included. During the 4-year follow-up, among 1628 individuals with HbA1c ≥7.5% [≥58 mmol/mol], therapeutic inertia was present in 42.9% of cases. Median time to intensification was 14.5 months (IQR25-75, 4-24 months). In this subgroup, 72.7% of subjects initiated non-insulin agents whereas 27.3% initiated insulin. Mean HbA1c values at initiation of treatment intensification were 8.6% (70 mmol/mol) and 9.2% (77 mmol/mol), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic inertia occurred in over 40% of subjects. Treatment intensification took longer and was performed at higher HbA1c than recommended in clinical guidelines. Reducing therapeutic inertia is a priority to achieve therapeutic goals and prevent chronic complications in T2D.

Conversations and Reactions Around Severe Hypoglycaemia (CRASH): Spanish results of a global survey of people with type 1 diabetes or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: Information on experience/management of severe hypoglycaemic events (SHEs) among people with insulin-treated diabetes (PWD) and caregivers (CGs) providing care to PWD was sought. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted in eight countries. INCLUSION CRITERIA: PWD (aged≥18 years; self-reported type 1 [T1D] or insulin-treated type 2 [T2D] diabetes; experienced ≥1 SHE [hypoglycaemia requiring external assistance] in past 3 years); CGs (layperson aged ≥18 years; caring for PWD meeting all criteria above except age [≥4 years]). This descriptive analysis provides data from Spain. SHE-associated data relate to the most recent SHE. RESULTS: Across all groups (T1D PWD, n=106; T2D PWD, n=88, T1D CG, n=87; T2D CG, n=96), 76-89% reported that the SHE occurred at home; most common cause was eating less than planned (38-53%). Most usual action during the SHE was to intake carbohydrates (67-84%); glucagon use was low (9-36%). Discussion of the SHE with their healthcare provider (HCP) was reported by 70-75% of PWD. During the SHE, 35-69% of PWD/CGs reported feeling scared, unprepared and/or helpless. CONCLUSIONS: Most SHEs occurred outside the healthcare setting; treatment therefore depends greatly on CGs. SHEs have a negative emotional impact on PWD/CGs, underscoring the need for HCPs to discuss SHEs with PWD/CGs, and to provide tools and strategies to prevent and effectively manage SHEs.

International Consensus on Risk Management of Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Treated With Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter (SGLT) Inhibitors.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors are new oral antidiabetes medications shown to effectively reduce glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and glycemic variability, blood pressure, and body weight without intrinsic properties to cause hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes. However, recent studies, particularly in individuals with type 1 diabetes, have demonstrated increases in the absolute risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Some cases presented with near-normal blood glucose levels or mild hyperglycemia, complicating the recognition/diagnosis of DKA and potentially delaying treatment. Several SGLT inhibitors are currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European regulatory agencies as adjuncts to insulin therapy in people with type 1 diabetes. Strategies must be developed and disseminated to the medical community to mitigate the associated DKA risk. This Consensus Report reviews current data regarding SGLT inhibitor use and provides recommendations to enhance the safety of SGLT inhibitors in people with type 1 diabetes.

Risk and impact of herpes zoster on patients with diabetes: A population-based study, 2009-2014.

AIMS: This study was designed to assess the impact of diabetes on the risk and severity of herpes zoster (HZ), and the impact of HZ on diabetes. It focused primarily on immunocompetent patients aged ≥ 50 years who would be eligible for preventive vaccination. METHODS: Using population and healthcare databases of Valencia Region (Spain), a retrospective cohort of all subjects ≥ 50 years was followed up between 2009 and 2014. HZ and diabetes were defined using ICD-9 codes. We compared the incidence of HZ between non-diabetes and diabetes groups and healthcare resource consumption due to HZ in the 6 months following HZ diagnosis using different statistical generalized linear models (GLM). We also compared resources consumption due to diabetes treatment and haemoglobinA1c(HbA1c) levels before and after HZ. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 2,289,485 individuals ≥ 50 years old, 397,940 of whom had diabetes. HZ incidence rate was 9.3 cases/1000 persons with diabetes-year (95% CI: 9.1-9.4). Incidence increased with age in all groups. The risk of HZ increased in the diabetes group compared to the non-diabetes group (RR 1.2, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 1.17-1.22). Patients with diabetes utilized more health care resources due to their HZ episodes than patients without diabetes. In 24% of well controlled patients with diabetes (HbA1C levels ≤ 6.5%), HbA1C increased after HZ. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes increased by 20% the risk of HZ. HZ contributed to the deterioration of glycaemic control and higher healthcare resource consumption in people with diabetes, becoming a priority population for HZ immunization.

Extensive Assessment of Blood Glucose Monitoring During Postprandial Period and Its Impact on Closed-Loop Performance.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop (CL) systems aims to outperform usual treatments in blood glucose control and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) are a key component in such systems. Meals represents one of the main disturbances in blood glucose control, and postprandial period (PP) is a challenging situation for both CL system and CGM accuracy. METHODS: We performed an extensive analysis of sensor's performance by numerical accuracy and precision during PP, as well as its influence in blood glucose control under CL therapy. RESULTS: During PP the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for both sensors presented lower accuracy in the hypoglycemic range (19.4 ± 12.8%) than in other ranges (12.2 ± 8.6% in euglycemic range and 9.3 ± 9.3% in hyperglycemic range). The overall MARD was 12.1 ± 8.2%. We have also observed lower MARD for rates of change between 0 and 2 mg/dl. In CL therapy, the 10 trials with the best sensor spent less time in hypoglycemia (PG < 70 mg/dl) than the 10 trials with the worst sensors (2 ± 7 minutes vs 32 ± 38 minutes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In terms of accuracy, our results resemble to previously reported. Furthermore, our results showed that sensors with the lowest MARD spent less time in hypoglycemic range, indicating that the performance of CL algorithm to control PP was related to sensor accuracy.

Closed-Loop Control of Postprandial Glycemia Using an Insulin-on-Board Limitation Through Continuous Action on Glucose Target.

BACKGROUND: Postprandial (PP) control remains a challenge for closed-loop (CL) systems. Few studies with inconsistent results have systematically investigated the PP period. OBJECTIVE: To compare a new CL algorithm with current pump therapy (open loop [OL]) in the PP glucose control in type 1 diabetes (T1D) subjects. METHODS: A crossover randomized study was performed in two centers. Twenty T1D subjects (F/M 13/7, age 40.7 ± 10.4 years, disease duration 22.6 ± 9.9 years, and A1c 7.8% ± 0.7%) underwent an 8-h mixed meal test on four occasions. In two (CL1/CL2), after meal announcement, a bolus was given followed by an algorithm-driven basal infusion based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Alternatively, in OL1/OL2 conventional pump therapy was used. Main outcome measures were as follows: glucose variability, estimated with the coefficient of variation (CV) of the area under the curve (AUC) of plasma glucose (PG) and CGM values, and from the analysis of the glucose time series; mean, maximum (Cmax), and time to Cmax glucose concentrations and time in range (<70, 70-180, >180 mg/dL). RESULTS: CVs of the glucose AUCs were low and similar in all studies (around 10%). However, CL achieved greater reproducibility and better PG control in the PP period: CL1 = CL2 0.05) nor the need for oral glucose was significantly different (CL 40.0% vs. OL 22.5% of meals; P = 0.054). CONCLUSIONS: This novel CL algorithm effectively and consistently controls PP glucose excursions without increasing hypoglycemia. Study registered at ClinicalTrials.gov : study number NCT02100488.

Lifetime health consequences and cost-effectiveness of rosiglitazone in combination with metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the lifetime diabetes health consequences and cost-effectiveness in Spain of rosiglitazone in combination with metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in overweight and obese patients failing to maintain glycaemic control with metformin monotherapy compared with conventional care of metformin in combination with either sulfonylureas or bedtime insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Diabetes Decision Analysis of Cost--Type 2 was adapted for clinical practice and healthcare funding in Spain, and was calibrated with Spanish epidemiological, healthcare resource use and cost data, taking the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. The model simulates lifetime treatment histories, complications and consequences of type 2 diabetes, and associated health outcomes and costs for age and sex-matched cohorts of 1000 overweight and obese patients. The primary health outcome measures compared are glycaemic control, time to insulin, incidence and prevalence of coronary heart disease, stroke, clinical nephropathy, ulceration and amputation, and severe visual loss, and incremental life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Rosiglitazone in combination with metformin produces better glycaemic control than conventional care of metformin in combination with either sulfonylureas or bedtime insulin in most patients, and extends the viability of combination therapy by between 6 and 13 years before requiring insulin. Rosiglitazone patients have a longer life expectancy, gaining between 106 and 175 additional life-years per 1000 patients, experience fewer episodes of coronary disease and clinical nephropathy, and live for longer periods free of complications. The improvements in morbidity and mortality are projected to yield between 134 and 238 additional QALY per 1000 patients over their lifetime. Discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios range from euro 9406 to euro 23,514 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: The model predicts that rosiglitazone in combination with metformin is a cost-effective intervention for the treatment of both overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes when compared with conventional care in Spain.

A decision support tool for appropriate glucose-lowering therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Optimal glucose-lowering therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus requires a patient-specific approach. Although a good framework, current guidelines are insufficiently detailed to address the different phenotypes and individual needs of patients seen in daily practice. We developed a patient-specific decision support tool based on a systematic analysis of expert opinion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2012 position statement, a panel of 12 European experts rated the appropriateness (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method) of treatment strategies for 930 clinical scenarios, which were permutations of clinical variables considered relevant to treatment choice. These included current treatment, hemoglobin A1c difference from individualized target, risk of hypoglycemia, body mass index, life expectancy, and comorbidities. Treatment options included addition of a second or third agent, drug switches, and replacement by monotherapies if the patient was metformin-intolerant. Treatment costs were not considered. Appropriateness (appropriate, inappropriate, uncertain) was based on the median score and expert agreement. The panel recommendations were embedded in an online decision support tool (DiaScope(®); Novo Nordisk Health Care AG, Zürich, Switzerland). RESULTS: Treatment appropriateness was associated with (combinations of) the patient variables mentioned above. As second-line agents, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were considered appropriate in all scenarios, followed by glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (50%), insulins (33%), and sulfonylureas (25%), but not pioglitazone (0%). Ratings of third-line combinations followed a similar pattern. Disagreement was highest for regimens including pioglitazone, sulfonylureas, or insulins and was partly due to differences in panelists' opinions and in drug availability and reimbursement across European countries (although costs were disregarded in the rating process). CONCLUSIONS: A novel decision support tool based on the ADA/EASD 2012 position statement and a systematic analysis of expert opinion has been developed to help healthcare professionals to individualize glucose-lowering therapy in daily clinical situations.

[Dapagliflozin, the first SGLT-2 inhibitor in the treatment of type 2 diabetes]. / Dapagliflozina, el primer inhibidor SGLT 2 en el tratamiento de la diabetes tipo 2.

Dapagliflozin is the first novel sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. By inhibiting SGLT2, dapagliflozin blocks reabsorption of filtered glucose in the kidney, increasing urinary glucose excretion and reducing blood glucose levels. Its mechanism of action is independent of pancreatic ß cell function and modulation of insulin sensitivity. The results of phase III clinical trials showed that dapagliflozin, at a dose of 5 or 10mg/day for 24 weeks as monotherapy in previously untreated patients, or as add-on combination therapy with metformin, glimepiride, pioglitazone or insulin-based therapy, significantly reduced both HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels compared with placebo. In addition, dapagliflozin was noninferior to glipizide, in terms of glycemic control after 52 weeks, when used as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. In most clinical trials, dapagliflozin reduced body weight. The combination of both effects (improved glycemic control and weight loss) is achieved to a greater extent in treatments that include dapaglifozin. Longer-term extension studies indicated that the efficacy of dapagliflozin on the glycemic control and weight reducción is maintained for up to 2 and 4 years. Dapagliflozin was well tolerated. Genital infections and urinary tract infections were more frequent in patients who received dapagliflozin than in placebo recipients. Hypoglycemic episodes were scarce with dapagliflozin. In conclusion, dapagliflozin is a novel option for the management of type 2 diabetes, particularly when used as add-on therapy.

Evaluation of a novel continuous glucose monitoring-based method for mealtime insulin dosing--the iBolus--in subjects with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Prandial insulin dosing is an empirical practice associated frequently with poor reproducibility in postprandial glucose response. Based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), a method for prandial insulin administration (iBolus) is presented and evaluated for people with type 1 diabetes using CSII therapy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: An individual patient's model for a 5-h postprandial period was obtained from 6-day ambulatory CGM and used for iBolus calculation in 12 patients with type 1 diabetes. In a double-blind, crossover study each patient underwent four meal tests with 40 g or 100 g of carbohydrates (CHOs), both on two occasions. For each meal, the iBolus or the traditional bolus (tBolus) was given before mealtime (t(0)) in a randomized order. We measured the postprandial glycemic response as the area under the curve of plasma glucose (AUC-PG(0-5h)) and variability as the individual coefficient of variation (CV) of AUC-PG(0-5h). The contribution of the insulin-to-CHO ratio, CHO, plasma glucose at t(0) (PG(t0)), and insulin dose to AUC-PG(0-5h) and its CV was also investigated. RESULTS: AUC-PG(0-5h) was similar with either bolus for 40-g (iBolus vs. tBolus, 585.5±127.5 vs. 689.2±180.7 mg/dL·h) or 100-g (752.1±237.7 vs. 760.0±263.2 mg/dL·h) CHO meals. A multiple regression analysis revealed a significant model only for the tBolus, with PG(t0) being the best predictor of AUC-PG(0-5h) explaining approximately 50% of the glycemic response. Observed variability was greater with the iBolus (CV, 16.7±15.3% vs. 10.1±12.5%) but independent of the factors studied. CONCLUSIONS: A CGM-based algorithm for calculation of prandial insulin is feasible, although it does not reduce unpredictability of individual glycemic responses. Causes of variability need to be identified and analyzed for further optimization of postprandial glycemic control.