Risk and factors determining diabetes after mild, nonnecrotizing acute pancreatitis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is relatively common following acute pancreatitis (AP), even after mild acute pancreatitis (MAP), the most frequent AP presentation, in which there is no overt beta cell injury. Post-AP related diabetes is widely misdiagnosed, resulting in potentially inappropriate treatment and worse outcomes than type 2 diabetes (T2D). Thus, it is important to understand risk across the spectrum of AP severity. RECENT FINDINGS: Biological mechanisms are unclear and may include local and systemic inflammation leading to beta cell dysfunction and insulin resistance, altered gut barrier and/or gut peptides and possibly islet autoimmunity, though no studies have specifically focused on MAP. While studies examining clinical risk factors on MAP exclusively are lacking, there are studies which include MAP. These studies vary in scientific rigor, approaches to rule out preexisting diabetes, variable AP severity, diagnostic testing methods, and duration of follow-up. Overall, disease related factors, including AP severity, as well as established T2D risk factors are reported to contribute to the risk for DM following AP. SUMMARY: Though numerous studies have explored risk factors for DM after AP, few studies specifically focused on MAP, highlighting a key knowledge gap that is relevant to the majority of patients with AP.

Implementation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Critical Care: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to identify the implementation approaches, strategies, and outcomes for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Medline and Web of Science databases were searched to report relevant literature published between September 12, 2016 and September 12, 2021. Implementation outcomes and strategies, defined by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project, were extracted. RECENT FINDINGS: Of the 324 titles reviewed, 16 articles were included in the review. While no studies were identified as implementation research, 14 of 16 identified implementation strategies that aligned with ERIC definitions. Included studies described a multi-disciplinary approach. Clinical outcomes included Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD), ranging from 7.5 to 15.3%, and 33-71% reduction in frequency of point-of-care (POC) blood glucose monitoring (BGM) using hybrid protocols. This scoping review provides valuable insight into the process of CGM implementation in the ICU. Continued research should include implementation outcomes to inform widespread utilization.

Incident diabetes following acute pancreatitis in a multicenter prospective observational cohort.

Diabetes mellitus following an episode of acute pancreatitis (AP) is an increasingly discussed complication, but there are sparse prospective data on the incidence and risk factors. We evaluated data from a prospective, multicenter observational cohort study that enrolled adults hospitalized with AP between 2017 and 2021 and followed them for one year. Ninety-eight participants who completed 12-month follow-up were included in this analysis. Diabetes status was assessed using a combination of measured glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at predetermined time intervals or physician diagnosis. In 68 participants without diabetes at enrollment, the cumulative incidence of new-onset diabetes was 4.4 % (n = 3) at 3 months and 10.3 % (n = 7) at 12 months. No differences were observed in demographic or pancreatitis-related characteristics between those who did versus did not develop diabetes, in part due to small sample size. In summary, new-onset diabetes was identified in approximately 10 % within one year after an episode of AP. Larger prospective studies are needed to further define the incidence, risk factors, and mechanisms of diabetes and pre-diabetes following AP. NCT03063398.

A Medicaid-Funded Statewide Diabetes Quality Improvement Collaborative: Ohio 2020‒2022.

We used a collective impact model to form a statewide diabetes quality improvement collaborative to improve diabetes outcomes and advance diabetes health equity. Between 2020 and 2022, in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Medicaid, Medicaid Managed Care Plans, and Ohio's seven medical schools, we recruited 20 primary care practices across the state. The percentage of patients with hemoglobin A1c greater than 9% improved from 25% to 20% over two years. Applying our model more broadly could accelerate improvement in diabetes outcomes. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(12):1254-1257. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307410).

Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Establishing cardiovascular safety of new therapies for type 2 diabetes is important. Safety data are available for the subcutaneous form of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide but are needed for oral semaglutide. METHODS: We assessed cardiovascular outcomes of once-daily oral semaglutide in an event-driven, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients at high cardiovascular risk (age of ≥50 years with established cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease, or age of ≥60 years with cardiovascular risk factors only). The primary outcome in a time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). The trial was designed to rule out 80% excess cardiovascular risk as compared with placebo (noninferiority margin of 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for the primary outcome). RESULTS: A total of 3183 patients were randomly assigned to receive oral semaglutide or placebo. The mean age of the patients was 66 years; 2695 patients (84.7%) were 50 years of age or older and had cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease. The median time in the trial was 15.9 months. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 61 of 1591 patients (3.8%) in the oral semaglutide group and 76 of 1592 (4.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Results for components of the primary outcome were as follows: death from cardiovascular causes, 15 of 1591 patients (0.9%) in the oral semaglutide group and 30 of 1592 (1.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.92); nonfatal myocardial infarction, 37 of 1591 patients (2.3%) and 31 of 1592 (1.9%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.90); and nonfatal stroke, 12 of 1591 patients (0.8%) and 16 of 1592 (1.0%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.57). Death from any cause occurred in 23 of 1591 patients (1.4%) in the oral semaglutide group and 45 of 1592 (2.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.84). Gastrointestinal adverse events leading to discontinuation of oral semaglutide or placebo were more common with oral semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with type 2 diabetes, the cardiovascular risk profile of oral semaglutide was not inferior to that of placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; PIONEER 6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02692716.).

Predictors of change in hypoglycemia unawareness among patients with type 1 diabetes.

AIMS: To analyse predictors of hypoglycemia unawareness (HU) and improvement in Clarke score in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) at an academic T1D clinic who completed HU surveys 6-12 months apart. HU (Clarke score ≥4) and improvement in Clarke score (decrease by ≥1 point or more clinically relevant ≥2 point) were assessed in univariable relationships and using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 300 participants, median diabetes duration was 19 years, 47 had HU at baseline, and 91 had an improvement by 1 point while 21 had an improvement by 2 points. Patients with baseline Clarke score ≥4 who had ≥1 or ≥2 point improvement had lower filtration rate (eGFR) than those who did not. After adjustment for other variables, gender (male OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15, 0.74), log diabetes duration (OR 6.40, 95% CI 2.84, 14.5), and eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (5.56, 95% CI 1.98, 15.6) were independent predictors of baseline HU. Continuous glucose monitoring use (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.20, 3.48) and log diabetes duration (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.22, 2.60) were independent predictors of 1 point improvement and eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (OR 10.5, 95% CI 3.64, 30.0) and an education visit (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.01, 6.89) were independent predictors of 2 point improvement in Clarke score. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes duration, gender, and eGFR were independent predictors of HU. Improvement in Clarke score is possible in patients with long-standing T1D, underscoring the need for additional study.

CGM in the Hospital: Is It Ready for Prime Time?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the hospital setting is growing with more patients using these devices at home and when admitted to the hospital, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: Historically, most evidence for CGM use in the inpatient setting was limited to small studies utilizing outdated CGM technology and analyzing accuracy of sensor measurements. Previous studies have shown reduced sensor accuracy during extreme hypo- or hyperglycemia, rapid fluctuations of glucose, compression of the sensor itself, and in those who are critically ill. Studies that are more recent have shown CGM to have adequate accuracy and may be effective in reducing hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients; some studies have also showed improvement in time in target glycemic range. Furthermore, CGM may reduce nursing workload, cost of inpatient care, and use of personal protective equipment and face-to-face patient care especially for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review will describe the evidence for use of CGM in hospitalized critically ill or non-critically ill patients, address accuracy and safety considerations, and outline paths for future implementation.

A model-based simulation of glycaemic control and body weight when switching from semaglutide to 3.0- and 4.5-mg doses of once-weekly dulaglutide.

AIM: To evaluate HbA1c and body weight changes when semaglutide 0.5- or 1.0-mg once-weekly (QW) is switched to dulaglutide 3.0- or 4.5-mg QW via exposure-response modelling. METHODS: HbA1c and body weight time-course models were developed and validated with data from the SUSTAIN 1 to 10 trials for semaglutide and the AWARD-11 trial for dulaglutide. Simulations were conducted for HbA1c and body weight over 52 weeks. In the initial 26 weeks, semaglutide was initiated at 0.25-mg and titrated to 0.5- or 1.0-mg QW via 4-weekly stepwise titration, followed by 26 weeks of dulaglutide initiated at 0.75- or 1.5-mg QW and escalated to 3.0- or 4.5-mg QW via 4-weekly stepwise titration. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, model-predicted mean changes from baseline in HbA1c and weight for semaglutide 0.5 mg were up to -1.55% and -3.44 kg, respectively. After switching to dulaglutide 3.0 mg, further reductions were 0.19% and 1.40 kg, respectively, at 52 weeks. Predicted mean HbA1c and weight changes for semaglutide 1.0 mg at 26 weeks were -1.84% and -4.96 kg, respectively; after switching to dulaglutide 4.5 mg, HbA1c was maintained with additional weight reduction of up to 0.57 kg at 52 weeks. Glycaemic control was preserved when switching from semaglutide 1.0 mg to dulaglutide 3.0 mg. CONCLUSION: Switching from semaglutide 0.5 mg to dulaglutide 3.0 or 4.5 mg with dose escalation potentially yields additional HbA1c and weight reductions; switching from semaglutide 1.0 mg to dulaglutide 4.5 mg may enhance weight loss.

Supporting the Use of a Person's Own Diabetes Technology in the Inpatient Setting.

The use of diabetes technology, including insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring devices, and automated insulin delivery systems, has increased significantly in recent years. As more people with diabetes adopt technology in the outpatient setting, we are seeing these devices more frequently in the inpatient setting. This review offers best-practice guidelines for the continuation of personal diabetes technology use in the inpatient setting. It describes policy and guideline stipulations, roles and responsibilities, and device- and brand-specific considerations. Although these devices are not approved for inpatient use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, there is general expert consensus that the continuation of personal diabetes devices during hospitalization is appropriate for patients who have sufficient knowledge, are not critically ill, and retain sufficient mental capacity during an acute illness. Health care systems and inpatient providers need to understand the benefits and limitations of personal diabetes technology use during hospitalization.

Facilitators and Barriers to Nursing Implementation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: We describe our implementation of a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) guideline to support intravenous insulin administration and reduce point of care (POC) glucose monitoring frequency in the coronavirus disease 2019 medical intensive care unit (MICU) and evaluate nurses' experience with implementation of CGM and hybrid POC + CGM protocol using the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services framework. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team created a guideline providing criteria for establishing initial sensor-meter agreement within each individual patient followed by hybrid use of CGM and POC. POC measures were obtained hourly during initial validation, then every 6 hours. We conducted a focus group among MICU nurses to evaluate initial implementation efforts with content areas focused on initial assessment of evidence, context, and facilitation to identify barriers and facilitators. The focus group was analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach. RESULTS: The protocol was integrated through a rapid cycle review process and ultimately disseminated nationally. The Diabetes Consult Service performed device set-up and nurses received just-in-time training. The majority of barriers centered on contextual factors, including limitations of the physical environment, complex device set-up, hospital firewalls, need for training, and CGM documentation. Nurses' perceived device accuracy and utility were exceptionally high. Solutions were devised to maximize facilitation and sustainability for nurses while maintaining patient safety. CONCLUSION: Outpatient CGM systems can be implemented in the MICU using a hybrid protocol implementation science approach. These efforts hold tremendous potential to reduce healthcare worker exposure while maintaining glucose control during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Individualizing Glycemic Control in the Critically Ill.

Hyperglycemia is a common phenomenon in critically ill patients, even in those without diabetes. Two landmark studies established the benefits of tight glucose control (blood glucose target 80-110 mg/dL) in surgical and medical patients. Since then, literature has consistently demonstrated that both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia are independently associated with increased morbidity and mortality in a variety of critically ill patients. However, tight glycemic control has subsequently come into question due to risks of hypoglycemia and increased mortality. More recently, strategies targeting euglycemia (blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL) have been associated with improved outcomes, although the risk of hypoglycemia remains. More complex targets (ie, glycemic variability and time within target glucose range) and the impact of individual patient characteristics (ie, diabetic status and prehospital glucose control) have more recently been shown to influence the relationship between glycemic control and outcomes in critically ill patients. Although our understanding has increased, the optimal glycemic target is still unclear and glucose management strategies may require adjustment for individual patient characteristics. As glucose management increases in complexity, we realize that traditional means of using meters and strips and paper insulin titration algorithms are potential limitations to our success. To achieve these complex goals for glycemic control, the use of continuous or near-continuous glucose monitoring combined with computerized insulin titration algorithms may be required. The purpose of this review is to discuss the evidence surrounding the various domains of glycemic control and the emerging data supporting the need for individualized glucose targets in critically ill patients.

Effect of beta blocker use and type on hypoglycemia risk among hospitalized insulin requiring patients.

BACKGROUND: Although beta blockers could increase the risk of hypoglycemia, the difference between subtypes on hypoglycemia and mortality have not been studied. This study sought to determine the relationship between type of beta blocker and incidence of hypoglycemia and mortality in hospitalized patients. METHODS: We retrospectively identified non-critically ill hospitalized insulin requiring patients who were undergoing bedside glucose monitoring and received either carvedilol or a selective beta blocker (metoprolol or atenolol). Patients receiving other beta blockers were excluded. Hypoglycemia was defined as any glucose < 3.9 mmol/L within 24 h of admission (Hypo1day) or throughout hospitalization (HypoT) and any glucose < 2.2 mmol/L throughout hospitalization (Hyposevere). RESULTS: There were 1020 patients on carvedilol, 886 on selective beta blockers, and 10,216 on no beta blocker at admission. After controlling for other variables, the odds of Hypo1day, HypoT and Hyposevere were higher for carvedilol and selective beta blocker recipients than non-recipients, but only in basal insulin nonusers. The odds of Hypo1day (odds ratio [OR] 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28, 3.09, p = 0.0002) and HypoT (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02, 1.86, p = 0.03) but not Hyposevere (OR 1.90, 95% CI 0.90, 4.02, p = 0.09) were greater for selective beta blocker vs. carvedilol recipients in basal insulin nonusers. Hypo1day, HypoT, and Hyposevere were all associated with increased mortality in adjusted models among non-beta blocker and selective beta blocker recipients, but not among carvedilol recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Beta blocker use is associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia among hospitalized patients not requiring basal insulin, and odds are greater for selective beta blockers than for carvedilol. The odds of hypoglycemia-associated mortality are increased with selective beta blocker use or nonusers but not in carvedilol users, warranting further study.

Timing of Insulin with Meals in the Hospital: a Systems Improvement Approach.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coordination of glucose monitoring, mealtimes, and insulin delivery in the hospital is complex, involving interactions between multiple key agents and overlapping workflows. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the scope of the problem as well as to assess evidence for interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: In recent years, there has been an emphasis on systems-based approaches which address multiple contributing components of the problem at once in an effort to more seamlessly integrate workflows. Technological advances, such as decision support systems and advances in automated insulin delivery, and strategies that minimize the need for complex insulin regimens hold promise for future study. Evaluation of the coordination of insulin delivery is limited by a lack of standardized metrics and systematically collected mealtimes. Nevertheless, successful efforts include system-wide multicomponent interventions, though advances in therapeutic approaches may be of value.

Cardiovascular safety of oral semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: Rationale, design and patient baseline characteristics for the PIONEER 6 trial.

AIMS: To assess the cardiovascular (CV) safety of oral semaglutide, the first tablet formulation of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PIONEER 6 is a multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of CV events (defined as being aged ≥50 years and having established CV disease [CVD] or moderate [stage 3] chronic kidney disease [CKD], or being aged ≥60 years with ≥1 other CV risk factor). Patients were randomized to once-daily oral semaglutide (up to 14 mg) or placebo added to standard of care. The primary composite endpoint is time to first occurrence of CV death or non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. The primary hypothesis was to exclude an excess in CV risk with oral semaglutide by assessing non-inferiority versus placebo for the primary endpoint (non-inferiority margin of 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio). PIONEER 6 is event-driven, with follow-up continuing until accrual of at least 122 primary outcome events. There is no pre-defined minimal duration. RESULTS: Overall, 3183 patients have been enrolled (mean age 66.1 years, 31.6% females) in 214 sites across 21 countries. At baseline, the mean duration of diabetes was 14.9 years, mean glycated haemoglobin concentration was 66 mmol/mol (8.2%), and 84.6% of patients had established CVD/moderate CKD. CONCLUSIONS: PIONEER 6 will provide evidence regarding the CV safety of oral semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and high CV risk.

REAL-WORLD IMPLICATIONS OF HYBRID CLOSE LOOP (HCL) INSULIN DELIVERY SYSTEM.

Objective: Clinical trial data demonstrates improved glycemic control with hybrid close loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems, yet limited real-world data exists. Data from the inaugural cohort of patients initiating a HCL system (Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G, Medtronic Canada, Brampton, ON) at a university medical center was used to examine real-world utilization and glycemic control following a standardized implementation process. Methods: Data from 34 adult patients with type 1 diabetes were obtained from pump downloads at 4 time points: (1) previous insulin pump, (2) HCL in manual-mode, (3) 2 weeks after HCL auto-mode transition, and (4) 6 to 12 weeks after initiation of HCL. In-person training by certified diabetes educators was performed across 3 sessions with phone and electronic messaging following auto-mode start. Results: Mean self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) per day increased from 5.15 baseline to 6.49 at 6 to 12 weeks (P<.05) with 3.26 sensor calibrations per day. Time-in-auto-mode was 79.3% at 2 weeks and 72.3% at final follow-up, with 82% of patients spending >50% of time in auto-mode. There were 8.2 auto-mode exits over the final 14-day download. Time-in-target was 67.3% in manual-mode, 73.4% at 2 weeks (P = .09), and 71.7% by 6 to 12 weeks (P = .06). Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) decreased by 0.51% (P = .02), while total daily dose and % basal did not change. Patients with HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) at baseline spent more time-in-target than those with HbA1c ≥7.0% (53 mmol/mol; 78.0% versus 67.5%) despite spending less time-in-auto-mode (66.5% versus 74.8%). Conclusion: These data illustrate real-world implementation of HCL technology using a structured education program within a major medical center. Overall benefit may vary based on baseline characteristics such as HbA1c. Abbreviations: CDE = certified diabetes educator; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; HCL = hybrid closed loop; SMBG = self-monitored blood glucose.

Hypoglycaemia in hospitalized patients with or without heart failure.

Hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing bedside glucose monitoring with subcutaneous insulin orders were retrospectively identified over 2 years. Hypoglycaemia was defined as any glucose value <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) within 24 hours of admission (Hypo1day ) or throughout the hospitalization (HypoT ) or any glucose value <2.2 mmol/L (40 mg/dL) throughout the hospitalization (HypoSevere ). A total of 13 424 patients were included, of whom 2484 had HF. Patients with HF were more likely to have Hypo1day (9.1% vs 7.0%, P = .0003), HypoT (28% vs 18.5%, P < .0001), or Hypo Severe (3.4% vs 2.1%, P = .0001). After controlling for other variables, the odds of Hypo1day were similar between the HF and non-HF groups (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 0.94-1.39, P = .18, fully adjusted model), slightly lower for HypoT (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.99, P = .03, fully adjusted model), and similar for HypoSevere (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.91-1.70, P = .17). Hypo1day , HypoT and HypoSevere were all associated with increased mortality; there was no evidence of an interaction by HF status. Hypoglycaemia occurred at a similar or lower frequency in hospitalized patients with HF compared to those without HF. Hypoglycaemia was associated with increased hospital mortality, regardless of HF status.

Influence of metabolic syndrome and race on the relationship between intensive blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes in the SPRINT cohort.

AIMS: To determine whether baseline metabolic syndrome (MetS) modifies the effect of intensive blood pressure control on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, and whether the effects varied by race/ethnicity. METHODS: We performed post hoc analyses among non-Hispanic black, non-hispanic white and Hispanic participants, with and without MetS, in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), who were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <120 mm Hg (intensive group, N = 4544) or an SBP target of <140 mm Hg (standard group, N = 4553). The median follow-up was 3.26 years. The primary outcome was the composite of the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, non-myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome or CV death. RESULTS: Overall, 3521/9097 participants (38.7%) met the criteria for MetS at baseline. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two SBP target groups within each MetS subgroup, except body mass index was slightly higher in the standard arm of the MetS subgroup (33.3 ± 5.6 vs 33.0 ± 5.3 kg/m2 ; P < .01), but were similar across treatment arms in the non-MetS subgroup. The hazard ratio for the primary outcome was similarly reduced in participants with or without baseline MetS: 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57, 0.96) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.57, 0.87), respectively (adjusted P value for treatment by subgroup interaction = .98). Similarly, there was no evidence of treatment × MetS subgroup interaction for all-cause mortality (adjusted interaction P value = .98). The findings were also similar across race/ethnic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis the CV benefit of intensive SBP control did not differ among participants by baseline MetS status, regardless of race/ethnicity.

THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF CO-ADMINISTRATION OF SITAGLIPTIN WITH METFORMIN IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES AT HOSPITAL DISCHARGE.

OBJECTIVE: Few randomized controlled trials have focused on the optimal management of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) during the transition from the inpatient to outpatient setting. This multicenter open-label study explored a discharge strategy based on admission hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) to guide therapy in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D. METHODS: Patients with HbA1c ≤7% (53 mmol/mol) were discharged on sitagliptin and metformin; patients with HbA1c between 7 and 9% (53-75 mmol/mol) and those >9% (75 mmol/mol) were discharged on sitagliptinmetformin with glargine U-100 at 50% or 80% of the hospital daily dose. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c at 3 and 6 months after discharge. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c on admission for the entire cohort (N = 253) was 8.70 ± 2.3% and decreased to 7.30 ± 1.5% and 7.30 ± 1.7% at 3 and 6 months ( P<.001). Patients with HbA1c <7% went from 6.3 ± 0.5% to 6.3 ± 0.80% and 6.2 ± 1.0% at 3 and 6 months. Patients with HbA1c between 7 and 9% had a reduction from 8.0 ± 0.6% to 7.3 ± 1.1% and 7.3 ± 1.3%, and those with HbA1c >9% from 11.3 ± 1.7% to 8.0 ± 1.8% and 8.0 ± 2.0% at 3 and 6 months after discharge (both P<.001). Clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) was observed in 4%, 4%, and 7% among patients with a HbA1c <7%, 7 to 9%, and >9%, while a glucose <40 mg/dL was reported in <1% in all groups. CONCLUSION: The proposed HbA1c-based hospital discharge algorithm using a combination of sitagliptin-metformin was safe and significantly improved glycemic control after hospital discharge in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D. ABBREVIATIONS: BG = blood glucose; DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase-4; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Once-weekly dulaglutide versus once-daily liraglutide in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-6): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Dulaglutide and liraglutide, both glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, improve glycaemic control and reduce weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. In a head-to-head trial, we compared the safety and efficacy of once-weekly dulaglutide with that of once-daily liraglutide in metformin-treated patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did a phase 3, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study at 62 sites in nine countries between June 20, 2012, and Nov 25, 2013. Patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes receiving metformin (≥1500 mg/day), aged 18 years or older, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7·0% or greater (≥53 mmol/mol) and 10·0% or lower (≤86 mmol/mol), and body-mass index 45 kg/m(2) or lower were randomly assigned to receive once-weekly dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or once-daily liraglutide (1·8 mg). Randomisation was done according to a computer-generated random sequence with an interactive voice response system. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was non-inferiority (margin 0·4%) of dulaglutide compared with liraglutide for change in HbA1c (least-squares mean change from baseline) at 26 weeks. Safety data were collected for a further 4 weeks' follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01624259. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 599 patients to receive once-weekly dulaglutide (299 patients) or once-daily liraglutide (300 patients). 269 participants in each group completed treatment at week 26. Least-squares mean reduction in HbA1c was -1·42% (SE 0·05) in the dulaglutide group and -1·36% (0·05) in the liraglutide group. Mean treatment difference in HbA1c was -0·06% (95% CI -0·19 to 0·07, pnon-inferiority<0·0001) between the two groups. The most common gastrointestinal adverse events were nausea (61 [20%] in dulaglutide group vs 54 [18%] in liraglutide group), diarrhoea (36 [12%] vs 36 [12%]), dyspepsia (24 [8%] vs 18 [6%]), and vomiting (21 [7%] vs 25 [8%]), with similar rates of study or study drug discontinuation because of adverse events between the two groups (18 [6%] in each group). The hypoglycaemia rate was 0·34 (SE 1·44) and 0·52 (3·01) events per patient per year, respectively, and no severe hypoglycaemia was reported. INTERPRETATION: Once-weekly dulaglutide is non-inferior to once-daily liraglutide for least-squares mean reduction in HbA1c, with a similar safety and tolerability profile. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

A comparison of continuous intravenous insulin and subcutaneous insulin among patients with type 2 diabetes and congestive heart failure exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: The study aims to determine whether the route of insulin administration influences glycaemic variability and inflammatory or neurohormonal markers in patients with type 2 diabetes and congestive heart failure (CHF) exacerbation. METHODS: Patients (n = 65) were randomized to intravenous (IV) insulin (duration 48 h) or subcutaneous (SQ) insulin. Inflammatory cytokines and markers of lipid oxidation, high-frequency heart rate variability (n = 27) and cardiac impedance (pre-ejection period, n = 28) were used to estimate parasympathetic and sympathetic tone in patients with valid cardiac data. Glycaemic variability was measured using a continuous glucose monitor. RESULTS: Mean glucose was lower (7.7 ± 1.2 vs 9.4 ± 2.7 mmol/L, p = 0.004), coefficient of variation was higher (p = 0.03) and glycaemic lability index was similar on day 1 in the IV group compared with the SQ group, but groups were similar by day 2. The IV group had more confirmed hypoglycaemia (p = 0.005). There were no differences in hospital readmission or hospital length of stay between groups. There were no differences in CHF biomarkers, heart rate variability or pre-ejection period between groups. Increasing log glycaemic lability index was associated with lower on-treatment pre-ejection period (p = 0.03) while increasing coefficient of variation was associated with increasing brain natriuretic peptide (p = 0.004) and paroxonase-1 (p = 0.02). Other univariable analyses were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: There were modest, transient differences in glucose control between IV and SQ insulin in hospitalized CHF patients. However, the analyses do not support a link between insulin route and inflammatory markers or autonomic tone. Further study is needed to assess outcomes in hospitalized CHF patients.