EMBARK: A Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing Three Approaches to Reducing Diabetes Distress and Improving HbA1c in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of three interventions to reduce diabetes distress (DD) and improve HbA1c among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individuals with T1D (n = 276) with elevated DD (a score >2 on the total Type 1 Diabetes Distress Scale) and HbA1c (>7.5%) were recruited from multiple settings and randomly assigned to one of three virtual group-based programs: 1) Streamline, an educator-led education and diabetes self-management program; 2) TunedIn, a psychologist-led program focused exclusively on emotional-focused DD reduction; or 3) FixIt, an integration of Streamline and TunedIn. Assessments of the primary outcomes of DD and HbA1c occurred at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: All three programs demonstrated substantive and sustained reductions in DD (Cohen's d = 0.58-1.14) and HbA1c (range, -0.4 to -0.72) at 12-month follow-up. TunedIn and FixIt participants reported significantly greater DD reductions compared with Streamline participants (P = 0.007). Streamline and TunedIn participants achieved significantly greater HbA1c reductions than did FixIt participants (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: DD can be successfully reduced among individuals with T1D with elevated HbA1c using both the educational/behavioral and emotion-focused approaches included in the study. Although both approaches are associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in DD and HbA1c, TunedIn, the emotion-focused program, had the most consistent benefits across both DD and HbA1c. The study findings suggest the overall value of group-based, fully virtual, and time-limited emotion-focused strategies, like those used in TunedIn, for adults with T1D.

Association of Baseline Factors With Glycemic Outcomes in GRADE: A Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the individual and joint associations of baseline factors with glycemia, and also with differential effectiveness of medications added to metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) participants (with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for <10 years, on metformin, and with HbA1c 6.8-8.5%; N = 5,047) were randomly assigned to a basal insulin (glargine), sulfonylurea (glimepiride), glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist (liraglutide), or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (sitagliptin). The glycemic outcome was HbA1c ≥7.0%, subsequently confirmed. Univariate and multivariate regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were used to assess the association of baseline factors with the glycemic outcome at years 1 and 4. RESULTS: In univariate analyses at baseline, younger age (<58 years), Hispanic ethnicity, higher HbA1c, fasting glucose, and triglyceride levels, lower insulin secretion, and relatively greater insulin resistance were associated with the glycemic outcome at years 1 and/or 4. No factors were associated with differential effectiveness of the medications by year 4. In multivariate analyses, treatment group, younger age, and higher baseline HbA1c and fasting glucose were jointly associated with the glycemic outcome by year 4. The superiority of glargine and liraglutide at year 4 persisted after multiple baseline factors were controlled for. CART analyses indicated that failure to maintain HbA1c <7% by year 4 was more likely for younger participants and those with baseline HbA1c ≥7.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Several baseline factors were associated with the glycemic outcome but not with differential effectiveness of the four medications. Failure to maintain HbA1c <7% was largely driven by younger age and higher HbA1c at baseline. Factors that predict earlier glycemic deterioration could help in targeting patients for more aggressive management.

The Use of Rescue Insulin in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: To describe rescue insulin use and associated factors in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GRADE participants (type 2 diabetes duration <10 years, baseline A1C 6.8%-8.5% on metformin monotherapy, N = 5,047) were randomly assigned to insulin glargine U-100, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin and followed quarterly for a mean of 5 years. Rescue insulin (glargine or aspart) was to be started within 6 weeks of A1C >7.5%, confirmed. Reasons for delaying rescue insulin were reported by staff-completed survey. RESULTS: Nearly one-half of GRADE participants (N = 2,387 [47.3%]) met the threshold for rescue insulin. Among participants assigned to glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin, rescue glargine was added by 69% (39% within 6 weeks). Rescue aspart was added by 44% of glargine-assigned participants (19% within 6 weeks) and by 30% of non-glargine-assigned participants (14% within 6 weeks). Higher A1C values were associated with adding rescue insulin. Intention to change health behaviors (diet/lifestyle, adherence to current treatment) and not wanting to take insulin were among the most common reasons reported for not adding rescue insulin within 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Proportionately, rescue glargine, when required, was more often used than rescue aspart, and higher A1C values were associated with greater rescue insulin use. Wanting to use noninsulin strategies to improve glycemia was commonly reported, although multiple factors likely contributed to not using rescue insulin. These findings highlight the persistent challenge of intensifying type 2 diabetes treatment with insulin, even in a clinical trial.

Higher burden of cardiometabolic and socioeconomic risk factors in women with type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the Glycemic Reduction Approaches in Diabetes (GRADE) baseline cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a powerful risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), conferring a greater relative risk in women than men. We sought to examine sex differences in cardiometabolic risk factors and management in the contemporary cohort represented by the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GRADE enrolled 5047 participants (1837 women, 3210 men) with T2DM on metformin monotherapy at baseline. The current report is a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data collected July 2013 to August 2017. RESULTS: Compared with men, women had a higher mean body mass index (BMI), greater prevalence of severe obesity (BMI≥40 kg/m2), higher mean LDL cholesterol, greater prevalence of low HDL cholesterol, and were less likely to receive statin treatment and achieve target LDL, with a generally greater prevalence of these risk factors in younger women. Women with hypertension were equally likely to achieve blood pressure targets as men; however, women were less likely to receive ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. Women were more likely to be divorced, separated or widowed, and had fewer years of education and lower incomes. CONCLUSIONS: This contemporary cohort demonstrates that women with T2DM continue to have a greater burden of cardiometabolic and socioeconomic risk factors than men, particularly younger women. Attention to these persisting disparities is needed to reduce the burden of CVD in women. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01794143).

Implementation of a pharmacist-led diabetes management service in an endocrinology clinic.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a complicated health condition that can lead to significant health complications. Pharmacists are in an ideal position to make therapeutic interventions, provide clinical education, and can provide necessary follow-up to evaluate response to therapy for patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the mean change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in patients receiving short-term diabetes management services from a clinical pharmacist through collaborative drug therapy management. METHODS: This study is a single-center retrospective chart review of patients with diabetes who have been referred by their endocrinologist to the clinical pharmacist for short-term intensification of pharmacologic management of hyperglycemia. Patients included in the study completed at least 2 visits with the pharmacist during the study period. The primary outcome was to evaluate the mean absolute change in HbA1c at 3-6 months from baseline. RESULTS: Data were collected from 117 patients. The average age was 55 years (19-91 years, SD ± 14.5), 65 patients (55.6%) were female, average duration of diabetes was 14.9 years (0.5-49 years, SD ± 9.9), 21 patients (17.9%) had type 1 diabetes, 96 patients (82.1%) had type 2 diabetes, and 88 patients (75.2%) had a baseline HbA1c of at least 8.5%. On average, patients reduced their HbA1c by 2.0% (P < 0.001) at 3-6 months. For patients with a baseline HbA1c of at least 8.5%, they experienced a 2.5% (P < 0.001) reduction in HbA1c at 3-6 months. CONCLUSION: The addition of a clinical pharmacist within the endocrinology practice was associated with significant improvements in glycemic control for those referred. This short-term, intensive service model demonstrates that patients can achieve significant reductions in HbA1c with temporary support from a clinical pharmacist.

Benefit of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Reducing Hypoglycemia Is Sustained Through 12 Months of Use Among Older Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: To evaluate glycemic outcomes in the Wireless Innovation for Seniors with Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) randomized clinical trial (RCT) participants during an observational extension phase. Research Design and Methods: WISDM RCT was a 26-week RCT comparing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in 203 adults aged ≥60 years with type 1 diabetes. Of the 198 participants who completed the RCT, 100 (98%) CGM group participants continued CGM (CGM-CGM cohort) and 94 (98%) BGM group participants initiated CGM (BGM-CGM cohort) for an additional 26 weeks. Results: CGM was used a median of >90% of the time at 52 weeks in both cohorts. In the CGM-CGM cohort, median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 5.0% at baseline to 2.6% at 26 weeks and remained stable with a median of 2.8% at 52 weeks (P < 0.001 baseline to 52 weeks). Participants spent more time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) (mean 56% vs. 64%; P < 0.001) and had lower hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (mean 7.6% [59 mmol/mol] vs. 7.4% [57 mmol/mol]; P = 0.01) from baseline to 52 weeks. In BGM-CGM, from 26 to 52 weeks median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 3.9% to 1.9% (P < 0.001), TIR increased from 56% to 60% (P = 0.006) and HbA1c decreased from 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) to 7.3% (57 mmol/mol) (P = 0.025). In BGM-CGM, a severe hypoglycemic event was reported for nine participants while using BGM during the RCT and for two participants during the extension phase with CGM (P = 0.02). Conclusions: CGM use reduced hypoglycemia without increasing hyperglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. These data provide further evidence for fully integrating CGM into clinical practice. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03240432).

The cross-sectional association of cognition with diabetic peripheral and autonomic neuropathy-The GRADE study.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining whether measures of cognition are related to the presence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and/or cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) are lacking, as are data regarding factors potentially explaining such associations. METHODS: Participants were from the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes Study (GRADE) that examined 5047 middle-aged people with type 2 diabetes of <10 years of known duration. Verbal learning and immediate and delayed recall (memory) were assessed with the Spanish English Verbal Learning Test; frontal executive function and processing speed with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test; and ability to concentrate and organize data with word and animal fluency tests. DPN was assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument and CAN by indices of heart rate variability (standard deviation of normal beat to beat variation [SDNN] and root mean square of successive differences [RMSSD]). RESULTS: DPN was significantly inversely related to measures of immediate recall and processing speed. The percent of cognitive variation explained by DPN was small. Tests of CAN had an inconsistent or absent association with measures of cognition. Higher waist circumference and urine albumin creatinine (UACR) levels were the strongest correlates in the relationship between DPN and cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: DPN, but not CAN, was cross-sectionally associated with lower performance in measures of cognition in people with type 2 diabetes of <10 years of known duration. Greater waist circumference and UACR were important variables in this association. The mechanisms underlying the cross-sectional association of DPN with cognitive impairment are unknown. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01794143.

Type 2 Diabetes and the Use of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

The role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) is well established in improving glycemic control and reducing hypoglycemia. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is more prevalent than T1D and management of T2D is more heterogeneous, requiring treatment ranging from lifestyle modification to oral medications to intensive insulin therapy. Recent randomized controlled trials in intensively insulin-treated T2D demonstrated the efficacy and safety of real-time CGM (rtCGM) in reducing glycated hemoglobin without increasing hypoglycemia. Although evidence is limited, early studies have indicated a role for rtCGM in selected patients with non-insulin requiring T2D to improve glycemic control and/or reduce hypoglycemia. Based on literature review, we summarized current data on the use of rtCGM in T2D management and provided future research direction to generate more evidence on the utility of CGM in this population.

Hypoglycemia and Glycemic Control in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Baseline Results From the WISDM Study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge regarding the burden and predictors of hypoglycemia among older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is limited. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data from the Wireless Innovations for Seniors with Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) study, which enrolled participants at 22 sites in the United States. Eligibility included clinical diagnosis of T1D, age ≥60 years, no real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in prior three months, and HbA1c <10.0%. Blinded CGM data from 203 participants with at least 240 hours were included in the analyses. RESULTS: Median age of the cohort was 68 years (52% female, 93% non-Hispanic white, and 53% used insulin pumps). Mean HbA1c was 7.5%. Median time spent in the glucose range <70 mg/dL was 5.0% (72 min/day) and <54 mg/dL was 1.6% (24 min/day). Among all factors analyzed, only reduced hypoglycemia awareness was associated with greater time spent <54 mg/dL (median time of 2.7% vs 1.3% [39 vs 19 minutes per day] for reduced awareness vs aware/uncertain, respectively, P = .03). Participants spent a mean 56% of total time in target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL and 37% of time above 180 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of older T1D participants spent at least an hour a day with glucose levels <70 mg/dL. Those with reduced hypoglycemia awareness spent over twice as much time than those without in a serious hypoglycemia range (glucose levels <54 mg/dL). Interventions to reduce exposure to clinically significant hypoglycemia and increase time in range are urgently needed in this age group.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Hypoglycemia in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

Approach to Using Trend Arrows in the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring Systems in Adults.

The use of personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has expanded dramatically among individuals with diabetes. CGM systems provide retrospective data, as well as the current glucose value and trend arrow data, which indicate the direction and velocity of changing glucose. In 2017, Aleppo and colleagues developed a simplified approach for adults with diabetes to safely adjust rapid-acting insulin doses using trend arrow information in the Dexcom G5 CGM system. Since then, the FreeStyle Libre and FreeStyle Libre 14-day CGM systems have become available in the United States; however, guidance on using trend arrow data that take the unique features of these systems into consideration is lacking. Specifically, the FreeStyle Libre systems do not have automatic alarms, which impact how the system and trend arrow data are used. The Endocrine Society convened an expert panel to address this gap and develop an approach to adjusting rapid-acting insulin doses for adults using trend arrows in the FreeStyle Libre systems. We based our approach on previous work and expanded upon engagement and scanning recommendations, and we incorporated pre-exercise planning specific to these systems. Our approach provides insulin dose adjustments as discrete insulin units based on an individual's insulin sensitivity and directionality of the trend arrow. We focus on the needs of patients treated with multiple daily injections because these individuals currently make up a greater proportion of individuals on intensive insulin therapy. Our recommendations are intended to provide a safe, practical approach to using trend arrows in the FreeStyle Libre systems.

Advances in Glucose Monitoring and Automated Insulin Delivery: Supplement to Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Endocrine Society guideline recommendations on diabetes technology in adults originate from the 2016 guideline titled "Diabetes Technology-Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline." Society recommendations on diabetes technology in children are contained in the 2011 guideline titled "Continuous Glucose Monitoring: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline." The field of diabetes technology is a rapidly advancing one, with new devices released annually and data from clinical trials published frequently. This report describes the most recent findings since the 2011 and 2016 guidelines were written, combining summaries of new literature with the authors' clinical experience of new devices. Although we describe what we believe to be important scientific and technological updates since these guidelines were published, we are not advancing formal additions or amendments to previously offered recommendations.

T1-REDEEM: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Reduce Diabetes Distress Among Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of two interventions to reduce diabetes distress (DD) and improve glycemic control among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individuals with T1D (n = 301) with elevated DD and HbA1c were recruited from multiple settings and randomly assigned to OnTrack, an emotion-focused intervention, or to KnowIt, an educational/behavioral intervention. Each group attended a full-day workshop plus four online meetings over 3 months. Assessments occurred at baseline and 3 and 9 months. Primary and secondary outcomes were change in DD and change in HbA1c, respectively. RESULTS: With 12% attrition, both groups demonstrated dramatic reductions in DD (effect size d = 1.06; 78.4% demonstrated a reduction of at least one minimal clinically important difference). There were, however, no significant differences in DD reduction between OnTrack and KnowIt. Moderator analyses indicated that OnTrack provided greater DD reduction to those with initially poorer cognitive or emotion regulation skills, higher baseline DD, or greater initial diabetes knowledge than those in KnowIt. Significant but modest reductions in HbA1c occurred with no between-group differences. Change in DD was modestly associated with change in HbA1c (r = 0.14, P = 0.01), with no significant between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: DD can be successfully reduced among distressed individuals with T1D with elevated HbA1c using both education/behavioral and emotion-focused approaches. Reductions in DD are only modestly associated with reductions in HbA1c. These findings point to the importance of tailoring interventions to address affective, knowledge, and cognitive skills when intervening to reduce DD and improve glycemic control.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide ER in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): A 56-Week, Open-Label, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg s.c. with exenatide extended release (ER) 2.0 mg s.c. in subjects with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this phase 3a, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, 813 subjects with type 2 diabetes taking oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized (1:1) to semaglutide 1.0 mg or exenatide ER 2.0 mg for 56 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 56. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c (8.3% [67.7 mmol/mol] at baseline) was reduced by 1.5% (16.8 mmol/mol) with semaglutide and 0.9% (10.0 mmol/mol) with exenatide ER (estimated treatment difference vs. exenatide ER [ETD] -0.62% [95% CI -0.80, -0.44] [-6.78 mmol/mol (95% CI -8.70, -4.86)]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority and superiority). Mean body weight (95.8 kg at baseline) was reduced by 5.6 kg with semaglutide and 1.9 kg with exenatide ER (ETD -3.78 kg [95% CI -4.58, -2.98]; P < 0.0001). Significantly more subjects treated with semaglutide (67%) achieved HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) versus those taking exenatide ER (40%). Both treatments had similar safety profiles, but gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in semaglutide-treated subjects (41.8%) than in exenatide ER-treated subjects (33.3%); injection-site reactions were more frequent with exenatide ER (22.0%) than with semaglutide (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide 1.0 mg was superior to exenatide ER 2.0 mg in improving glycemic control and reducing body weight after 56 weeks of treatment; the drugs had comparable safety profiles. These results indicate that semaglutide treatment is highly effective for subjects with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Usual Care in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: A Randomized Trial.

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which studies have shown is beneficial for adults with type 1 diabetes, has not been well-evaluated in those with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily injections of insulin. Design: Randomized clinical trial. (The protocol also included a type 1 diabetes cohort in a parallel trial and subsequent second trial.) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02282397). Setting: 25 endocrinology practices in North America. Patients: 158 adults who had had type 2 diabetes for a median of 17 years (interquartile range, 11 to 23 years). Participants were aged 35 to 79 years (mean, 60 years [SD, 10]), were receiving multiple daily injections of insulin, and had hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels of 7.5% to 9.9% (mean, 8.5%). Intervention: Random assignment to CGM (n = 79) or usual care (control group, n = 79). Measurements: The primary outcome was HbA1c reduction at 24 weeks. Results: Mean HbA1c levels decreased to 7.7% in the CGM group and 8.0% in the control group at 24 weeks (adjusted difference in mean change, -0.3% [95% CI, -0.5% to 0.0%]; P = 0.022). The groups did not differ meaningfully in CGM-measured hypoglycemia or quality-of-life outcomes. The CGM group averaged 6.7 days (SD, 0.9) of CGM use per week. Limitation: 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: A high percentage of adults who received multiple daily insulin injections for type 2 diabetes used CGM on a daily or near-daily basis for 24 weeks and had improved glycemic control. Because few insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes currently use CGM, these results support an additional management method that may benefit these patients. Primary Funding Source: Dexcom.

Effect of initiating use of an insulin pump in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections and continuous glucose monitoring (DIAMOND): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of initiation of insulin pump therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; CSII) in patients with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has not been studied. We aimed to assess glycaemic outcomes when switching from multiple daily injections (MDI) to CSII in adults with type 1 diabetes using CGM. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised controlled trial, 75 adults with type 1 diabetes in the CGM group of the DIAMOND trial were randomly assigned via the study website using a computer-generated sequence to continue MDI or switch to CSII, with continuation of CGM, for 28 weeks. The primary outcome was CGM-measured time in the glucose concentration range of 70-180 mg/dL (3·9-10·0 mmol/L). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02282397. FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2015, and May 5, 2016, 37 participants were randomly assigned to the CGM plus CSII group and 38 participants were randomly assigned to the CGM plus MDI group. The study was completed by 36 (97%) of 37 participants in the CGM plus CSII group and 35 (92%) of 38 participants in the CGM plus MDI group. Mean CGM use was 6·7 days per week (SD 0·8) in the CGM plus CSII group and 6·9 days per week (0·3) in the CGM plus MDI group (p=0·86). No participants in the CGM plus CSII group who completed the trial discontinued CSII. Over the follow-up period, mean time in the glucose concentration range of 70-180 mg/dL (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) was 791 min per day (SD 157) in the CGM plus CSII group and 741 min per day (225) in the CGM plus MDI group (adjusted mean treatment group difference: 83 min, 95% CI 17-149; p=0·01). Participants in the CGM plus CSII group had a greater reduction in CGM-measured mean glucose (p=0·005) and hyperglycaemia (on four metrics: p=0·007 for >180 mg/dL [>10·0 mmol/L], p=0·02 for >250 mg/dL [>13·9 mmol/L], p=0·04 for >300 mg/dL [>16·6 mmol/L], and p=0·02 for the area under the curve for 180 mg/dL [10·0 mmol/L]), but also an increase in CGM-measured hypoglycaemia (p=0·0001 for <70 mg/dL [<3·9 mmol/L], p=0·0002 for <60 mg/dL [<3·3 mmol/L], p=0·0009 for <50 mg/dL [<2·8 mmol/L], p=0·0002 for the area over the curve for 70 mg/dL [3·9 mmol/L]). Mean HbA1c change from baseline to 28 weeks was 0·3% (SD 0·9; 3·3 mmol/mol [SD 9·8]) in the CGM plus CSII group and 0·1% (0·4; 1·1 mmol/mol [4·4]) in the CGM plus MDI group (p=0·32). Severe hypoglycaemia occurred in one participant in the CGM plus MDI group, and diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hyperglycaemia occurred in one participant each in the CGM plus CSII group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that glycaemic control measured by time in the glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) is improved by initiation of CSII in adults with type 1 diabetes. However, biochemical hypoglycaemia also was increased in the study, which will be important to consider when incorporating these results into clinical practice. FUNDING: Dexcom.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring with Multiple Daily Insulin Treatment: Outcome Studies.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is developing into an increasingly useful tool for glucose monitoring and therapeutic guidance in the treatment of diabetes. Multiple daily doses of insulin (MDI) is the most common method for intensive insulin treatment of type 1 diabetes and is also becoming more common in the treatment of type 2 diabetes as an increasing population with type 2 diabetes experiences progressive beta cell loss. The clinical evidence demonstrating the benefit of CGM in the outcomes of patients treated with MDI is becoming clearer, particularly with the recent completion of several randomized clinical trials addressing both type 1 and 2 diabetes. This evidence is reviewed.

REPLACE-BG: A Randomized Trial Comparing Continuous Glucose Monitoring With and Without Routine Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Well-Controlled Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) without confirmatory blood glucose monitoring (BGM) measurements is as safe and effective as using CGM adjunctive to BGM in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 14 sites in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Participants were ≥18 years of age (mean 44 ± 14 years), had T1D for ≥1 year (mean duration 24 ± 12 years), used an insulin pump, and had an HbA1c ≤9.0% (≤75 mmol/mL) (mean 7.0 ± 0.7% [53 ± 7.7 mmol/mol]); prestudy, 47% were CGM users. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to the CGM-only (n = 149) or CGM+BGM (n = 77) group. The primary outcome was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) over the 26-week trial, with a prespecified noninferiority limit of 7.5%. RESULTS: CGM use averaged 6.7 ± 0.5 and 6.8 ± 0.4 days/week in the CGM-only and CGM+BGM groups, respectively, over the 26-week trial. BGM tests per day (including the two required daily for CGM calibration) averaged 2.8 ± 0.9 and 5.4 ± 1.4 in the two groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Mean time in 70-180 mg/dL was 63 ± 13% at both baseline and 26 weeks in the CGM-only group and 65 ± 13% and 65 ± 11% in the CGM+BGM group (adjusted difference 0%; one-sided 95% CI -2%). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM-only group, and one occurred in the CGM+BGM group. CONCLUSIONS: Use of CGM without regular use of confirmatory BGM is as safe and effective as using CGM with BGM in adults with well-controlled T1D at low risk for severe hypoglycemia.

Comparison of Insulin Glargine 300 Units/mL and 100 Units/mL in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Continuous Glucose Monitoring Profiles and Variability Using Morning or Evening Injections.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare glucose control in participants with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) or glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in the morning or evening, in combination with mealtime insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 16-week, exploratory, open-label, parallel-group, two-period crossover study (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01658579), 59 adults with type 1 diabetes were randomized (1:1:1:1) to once-daily Gla-300 or Gla-100 given in the morning or evening (with crossover in the injection schedule). The primary efficacy end point was the mean percentage of time in the target glucose range (80-140 mg/dL), as measured using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), during the last 2 weeks of each 8-week period. Additional end points included other CGM glycemic control parameters, hypoglycemia (per self-monitored plasma glucose [SMPG]), and adverse events. RESULTS: The percentage of time within the target glucose range was comparable between the Gla-300 and Gla-100 groups. There was significantly less increase in CGM-based glucose during the last 4 h of the 24-h injection interval for Gla-300 compared with Gla-100 (least squares mean difference -14.7 mg/dL [95% CI -26.9 to -2.5]; P = 0.0192). Mean 24-h glucose curves for the Gla-300 group were smoother (lower glycemic excursions), irrespective of morning or evening injection. Four metrics of intrasubject interstitial glucose variability showed no difference between Gla-300 and Gla-100. Nocturnal confirmed (<54 mg/dL by SMPG) or severe hypoglycemia rate was lower for Gla-300 participants than for Gla-100 participants (4.0 vs. 9.0 events per participant-year; rate ratio 0.45 [95% CI 0.24-0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: Less increase in CGM-based glucose levels in the last 4 h of the 24-h injection interval, smoother average 24-h glucose profiles irrespective of injection time, and reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia were observed with Gla-300 versus Gla-100.