Switching to Weekly Lonapegsomatropin from Daily Somatropin in Children with Growth Hormone Deficiency: The fliGHt Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 3 fliGHt Trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of once-weekly lonapegsomatropin, a long-acting prodrug, in children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD) who switched from daily somatropin therapy to lonapegsomatropin. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, 26-week phase 3 trial took place at 28 sites across 4 countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the USA). The trial enrolled 146 children with GHD, 143 of which were previously treated with daily somatropin. All subjects received once-weekly lonapegsomatropin 0.24 mg human growth hormone/kg/week. The primary outcome measure was safety and tolerability of lonapegsomatropin over 26 weeks. Secondary outcome measures assessed annualized height velocity (AHV), height standard deviation score (SDS), and IGF-1 SDS at 26 weeks. RESULTS: Subjects had a mean prior daily somatropin dose of 0.29 mg/kg/week. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) reported were similar to the published AE profile of daily somatropin therapies. After switching to lonapegsomatropin, the least-squares mean (LSM) AHV was 8.7 cm/year (95% CI: 8.2, 9.2) at Week 26 and LSM height SDS changed from baseline to Week 26 of +0.25 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.29). Among switch subjects, the LSM for average IGF-1 SDS was sustained at Weeks 13 and 26, representing an approximate 0.7 increase from baseline (prior to switching from daily somatropin therapy). Patient-reported outcomes indicated a preference for weekly lonapegsomatropin among both children and their parents. CONCLUSIONS: Lonapegsomatropin treatment outcomes were as expected across a range of ages and treatment experiences. Switching to lonapegsomatropin resulted in a similar AE profile to daily somatropin therapy.

Pump It Up! A randomized clinical trial to optimize insulin pump self-management behaviors in adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) must engage in a variety of complex and burdensome self-management behaviors daily to maintain near normal blood glucose levels and prevent complications. There is a need for interventions to improve use of sophisticated diabetes technologies, such as insulin pumps, during adolescence - a very high-risk developmental period for individuals with T1D. All diabetes devices, including insulin pumps, store large amounts of behavioral data that can be downloaded and analyzed to evaluate adherence to recommended T1D self-management behaviors. The overall objective of the present study, Pump it Up!, was to use objectively downloaded insulin pump data to inform and test two interventions to optimize insulin pump use in adolescents with T1D and their caregivers. Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) was used to achieve the overall goal of this study - to separately test the main effect of the Pump It Up! Personalized T1D Self-Management Behaviors Feedback Report and the main effect of Pump It Up! Problem-Solving Skills intervention to improve T1D self-management behaviors using a 2 × 2 factorial design. The purpose of this paper is to describe the Pump It Up! study design and rationale, and participant baseline characteristics. Longitudinal data analyses will be conducted, and moderating effects of psychosocial factors will be examined in relation to primary (insulin pump self-management behaviors) and secondary (A1C) outcomes.

The rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis with insulin degludec-based treatment compared with insulin detemir in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes: An analysis of data from two randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Historically, data on the rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis have not been collected in clinical trials. However, it is clinically important to assess the rate of these events in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This question was addressed in two pediatric trials using insulin degludec (degludec). OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis in two-phase 3b trials investigating degludec (Study 1) and degludec with insulin aspart (IDegAsp [Study 2]) vs insulin detemir (IDet). SUBJECTS: Patients (aged 1-17 years inclusive) with T1D treated with insulin for ≥3 months. METHODS: Study 1: patients were randomized to degludec once daily (OD) or IDet OD/twice daily (BID) for 26 weeks, followed by a 26-week extension phase. Study 2: patients were randomized to IDegAsp OD or IDet OD/BID for 16 weeks. Bolus mealtime IAsp was included in both studies. In Study 1, hyperglycemia was recorded if plasma glucose (PG) was >11.1 mmol/L, with ketone measurement required with significant hyperglycemia (>14.0 mmol/L). In Study 2, hyperglycemia was recorded with PG >14.0 mmol/L where the subject looked/felt ill, with ketone measurement also required in these hyperglycemic patients. In this post hoc analysis, the hyperglycemia threshold was 14.0 mmol/L for uniformity. RESULTS: Despite similar rates of hyperglycemia with degludec/IDegAsp compared with IDet, the rates of ketosis were lower with degludec/IDegAsp. CONCLUSIONS: These trials, the first to systematically collect data on ketosis in pediatric patients with T1D, demonstrate the potential of degludec/IDegAsp to reduce rates of metabolic decompensation, compared with IDet.

Blood Glucose Monitoring Before and After Type 1 Diabetes Clinic Visits.

Objective: To determine patterns of blood glucose monitoring in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) before and after routine T1D clinic visits. Methods: Blood glucose monitoring data were downloaded at four consecutive routine clinic visits from children and adolescents aged 5-18 years. Linear mixed models were used to analyze patterns of blood glucose monitoring in patients who had at least 28 days of data stored in their blood glucose monitors. Results: In general, the frequency of blood glucose monitoring decreased across visits, and younger children engaged in more frequent blood glucose monitoring. Blood glucose monitoring increased before the T1D clinic visits in younger children, but not in adolescents. It declined after the visit regardless of age. Conclusions: Members of the T1D care team need to consider that a T1D clinic visit may prompt an increase in blood glucose monitoring when making treatment changes and recommendations. Tailored interventions are needed to maintain that higher level of adherence across time.

Efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of insulin degludec/insulin aspart in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a fixed soluble co-formulation of basal and bolus insulin. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of IDegAsp in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). SUBJECTS: Children and adolescents (aged 1 to <18 years) with T1D. METHODS: A 16-week, phase 3b, treat-to-target, parallel-group, open-label, non-inferiority trial was conducted at 63 sites in 14 countries from October 2013 to November 2014. Patients were randomized 1:1 (age stratified: 1-<6 years; 6-<12 years; 12-<18 years) to IDegAsp once daily (OD) plus insulin aspart (IAsp) for remaining meals (IDegAsp + IAsp), or IDet OD or twice daily plus mealtime IAsp (IDet + IAsp). The primary end-point was HbA1c change from baseline at week 16. RESULTS: A total of 362 participants were randomized to IDegAsp + IAsp (n = 182) or IDet + IAsp (n = 180). HbA1c decreased from baseline to week 16 by 0.3% in both groups (estimated treatment difference: -0.04%-points [-0.23; 0.15]95%CI (-0.45 mmol/mol [-2.51; 1.60]95%CI ), confirming non-inferiority. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in fasting or self-measured plasma glucose. Confirmed hypoglycemia rates did not significantly differ between groups. There was a significant reduction in basal and total insulin dose with IDegAsp + IAsp vs IDet + IAsp (post hoc analysis). Mean number of injections/day was 3.6 and 4.9 with IDegAsp + IAsp and IDet + IAsp, respectively (post hoc analysis). A non-significant higher rate of severe hypoglycemia was observed with IDegAsp + IAsp vs IDet + IAsp. The most frequent adverse events in both groups were hypoglycemia, headache, and nasopharyngitis. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp + IAsp was non-inferior to IDet + IAsp regarding HbA1c, had similar hypoglycemia rates and required fewer injections.

A phase 3 multicenter, open-label, prospective study designed to evaluate the effectiveness and ease of use of nasal glucagon in the treatment of moderate and severe hypoglycemia in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in the home or school setting.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, open-label study was designed to evaluate real-world effectiveness and ease of use of nasal glucagon (NG) in treating moderate or severe hypoglycemic events in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: Caregivers were trained to administer NG (3 mg) to the child/adolescent with T1D during spontaneous, symptomatic moderate or severe hypoglycemic events, observe treatment response (defined as awakening or returning to normal status within 30 minutes), and measure blood glucose (BG) levels every 15 minutes. Data regarding adverse events and ease of use were solicited using questionnaires. RESULTS: The analysis population included 14 patients who experienced 33 moderate hypoglycemic events with neuroglycopenic symptoms and BG level ≤70 mg/dL. Patients returned to normal status within 30 minutes of NG administration in all 33 events. Mean BG levels increased from 55.5 mg/dL (range 42-70 mg/dL) at baseline to 113.7 mg/dL (range 79-173 mg/dL) within 15 minutes of NG administration. In most hypoglycemic events (93.9%), caregivers reported that NG administration was easy or very easy; they could administer NG within 30 seconds in 60.6% of events. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: A single 3-mg dose of NG was effective in treating moderate, symptomatic, hypoglycemic events in children and adolescents with T1D in a real-world setting. It was easy-to-use and reasonably well tolerated. NG shows promise as an effective, needle-free, and user-friendly alternative to injectable glucagon.

White Coat Adherence Occurs in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Receiving Intervention to Improve Insulin Pump Adherence Behaviors.

BACKGROUND: To assess the occurrence of white coat adherence, defined as an increase in adherence to treatment regimens prior to a study appointment, in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using insulin pumps and participating in a randomized adherence intervention trial. METHODS: Blood glucose monitoring (BGM) readings, carbohydrate inputs, and insulin boluses delivered were downloaded from the insulin pumps of adolescents, aged 10-18 years, at 3 consecutive T1D study visits. Linear mixed models were used to analyze patterns of BGM, carbohydrate inputs, and insulin boluses delivered in patients who had 40 consecutive days of data stored in their insulin pumps prior to the study visit. RESULTS: Stratified linear mixed models revealed that adolescents randomized to the Tailored Feedback Intervention group increased their blood glucose monitoring ( P < .01), carbohydrate inputs ( P < .0001), and insulin bolusing ( P < .0001) prior to study appointments. In contrast, white coat adherence did not occur in adolescents randomized to the Treatment as Usual group ( Ps > .42). CONCLUSIONS: White coat adherence may occur in adolescents participating in clinical trials. Meter and insulin pump data downloads representing the 1- to 2-week period prior to a study visit are likely to overestimate actual adherence during the time frame between study visits.

White Coat Adherence in Pediatric Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Who Use Insulin Pumps.

BACKGROUND: The purpose was to assess the occurrence of white coat adherence, defined as an increase in adherence to treatment regimens prior to a clinic appointment, in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who use insulin pumps. METHODS: Blood glucose monitoring (BGM) data, carbohydrate inputs, and insulin boluses delivered were downloaded from the insulin pumps of children and adolescents, aged 7-19 years with T1D, at 2 consecutive routine diabetes clinic visits. Linear mixed models were used to analyze patterns of BGM, carbohydrate inputs, and insulin boluses delivered in patients who had ≥28 days of data stored in their insulin pumps. RESULTS: In general, younger children engaged in more frequent BGM, carbohydrate inputs, and insulin boluses delivered than older children and adolescents. White coat adherence occurred with frequency of BGM, carbohydrate inputs, and insulin boluses delivered, but only in younger children. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes care providers need to be aware that white coat adherence may occur, particularly in young children. Providers routinely download meter and insulin pump data for the 1- to 2-week period before the clinic visit. For patients exhibiting white coat adherence, their data will overestimate the patient's actual adherence.

Insulin degludec in combination with bolus insulin aspart is safe and effective in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

Insulin degludec (IDeg) once-daily was compared with insulin detemir (IDet) once- or twice-daily, with prandial insulin aspart in a treat-to-target, randomized controlled trial in children 1-17 yr with type 1 diabetes, for 26 wk (n = 350), followed by a 26-wk extension (n = 280). Participants were randomized to receive either IDeg once daily at the same time each day or IDet given once or twice daily according to local labeling. Aspart was titrated according to a sliding scale or in accordance with an insulin:carbohydrate ratio and a plasma glucose correction factor. Randomization was age-stratified: 85 subjects 1-5 yr. (IDeg: 43), 138 6-11 yr (IDeg: 70) and 127 12-17 yr (IDeg: 61) were included. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups overall and within each stratification. Non-inferiority of IDeg vs. IDet was confirmed for HbA1c at 26 wk; estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.15% [-0.03; 0.32]95% CI . At 52 wk, HbA1c was 7.9% (IDeg) vs. 7.8% (IDet), NS; change in mean FPG was -1.29 mmol/L (IDeg) vs. +1.10 mmol/L (IDet) (ETD -1.62 mmol/L [-2.84; -0.41]95% CI , p = 0.0090) and mean basal insulin dose was 0.38 U/kg (IDeg) vs. 0.55 U/kg (IDet). The majority of IDet treated patients (64%) required twice-daily administration to achieve glycemic targets. Hypoglycemia rates did not differ significantly between IDeg and IDet, but confirmed and severe hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher with IDeg (57.7 vs. 54.1 patient-years of exposure (PYE) [NS] and 0.51 vs. 0.33, PYE [NS], respectively) although nocturnal hypoglycemia rates were numerically lower (6.0 vs. 7.6 PYE, NS). Rates of hyperglycemia with ketosis were significantly lower for IDeg vs. IDet [0.7 vs. 1.1 PYE, treatment ratio 0.41 (0.22; 0.78)95% CI , p = 0.0066]. Both treatments were well tolerated with comparable rates of adverse events. IDeg achieved equivalent long-term glycemic control, as measured by HbA1c with a significant FPG reduction at a 30% lower basal insulin dose when compared with IDet. Rates of hypoglycemia did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups; however, hyperglycemia with ketosis was significantly reduced in those treated with IDeg.

Are children with type 1 diabetes safe at school? Examining parent perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: To describe parent perceptions of children's diabetes care at school including: availability of licensed health professionals; staff training; logistics of provision of care; and occurrence and treatment of hypo- and hyperglycemia; and to examine parents' perceptions of their children's safety and satisfaction in the school environment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A survey was completed by parents of children with type 1 diabetes from permissive (trained, non-medical school personnel permitted to provide diabetes care; N = 237) and non-permissive (only licensed health care professionals permitted to provide diabetes care; N = 198) states. RESULTS: Most parents reported that schools had nurses available for the school day; teachers and coaches should be trained; nurses, children, and parents frequently provided diabetes care; and hypo- and hyperglycemia occurred often. Parents in permissive states perceived children to be as safe and were as satisfied with care as parents in non-permissive states. CONCLUSIONS: Training non-medical staff will probably maximize safety of children with diabetes when a school nurse is not available.

Importance of manually entering blood glucose readings when wireless-compatible meters are not being used with an insulin pump.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to determine if there were differences in blood glucose monitoring (BGM) data downloaded from insulin pumps of patients who use meters that wirelessly transmit data to their insulin pumps (i.e., wireless group) and those who do not (i.e., nonwireless group). METHODS: Blood glucose monitoring data were downloaded from the meters and insulin pumps of 47 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Independent and paired t tests compared BGM data downloaded from meters and BGM data downloaded from insulin pumps. RESULTS: There were significant differences in BGM data downloaded from the insulin pumps of patients using wireless meters compared to those using nonwireless meters. Wireless patients appeared to engage in more BGM, had more low and in-range BG readings and fewer very high BG readingss than nonwireless patients. However, a comparison of BGM data downloaded from meters and insulin pumps of nonwireless patients indicated that their insulin pump data significantly underestimated the number of BGM readings conducted, as well as the number of low and in-range readings, while overestimating the number of very high BGM readings. CONCLUSIONS: Because patients who use nonwireless-compatible meters do not manually enter their low and in-range BGM readings into the insulin pump, BGM data downloaded only from pumps may provide an incomplete representation of BGM frequency or results. It is recommended that patients use meters that directly communicate with pumps or perform bolus calculations. Patients should be educated about the importance of manually entering all BGM readings if they do not use a wireless-compatible meter with their insulin pump.

Insulin bolusing software: the potential to optimize health outcomes in type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Insulin bolusing calculators alleviate the burden of having to calculate insulin bolus doses for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Three important pieces of information are needed: a blood glucose monitoring (BGM) result, carbohydrates to be consumed, and the amount of insulin bolus delivered. The purpose of this study was to describe insulin pump adherence behaviors associated with the use of bolus calculators in youth who use Medtronic insulin pumps. METHODS: Data were downloaded from the MiniMed Paradigm insulin pumps (Medtronic) of 31 youth with T1DM. Areas of adherence that were evaluated included fundamental insulin pump adherence behaviors (e.g., BGM, carbohydrate entry, and insulin bolusing), decisions about Wizard® recommendations, and three Wizard steps: BGM result-carbohydrate input-insulin bolus. RESULTS: On average, patients conducted BGM ≥4 times/day on 69% of days, inputted carbohydrates ≥3 times/day on 63% of days, and insulin bolused ≥3 times/day on 85% of days. Participants generally followed Wizard recommendations. Finally, participants completed all three Wizard steps (BGM, carbohydrate input, insulin bolus) within 30 min for an average of 29% of boluses. Almost 3% of boluses that were preceded by Wizard use were delivered without conducting BGM or inputting carbohydrates. CONCLUSION: There was substantial variability in insulin pump adherence behaviors (e.g., days when no BGM occurred, reliance on basal insulin). Interventions targeting insulin pump adherence behaviors have the potential to optimize diabetes health outcomes and glycemic control. Improving insulin pump software reports is one promising avenue for improving adherence.

Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the ambulatory glucose profile.

Underutilization of glucose data and lack of easy and standardized glucose data collection, analysis, visualization, and guided clinical decision making are key contributors to poor glycemic control among individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus. An expert panel of diabetes specialists, facilitated by the International Diabetes Center and sponsored by the Helmsley Charitable Trust, met in 2012 to discuss recommendations for standardizing the analysis and presentation of glucose monitoring data, with the initial focus on data derived from continuous glucose monitoring systems. The panel members were introduced to a universal software report, the Ambulatory Glucose Profile, and asked to provide feedback on its content and functionality, both as a research tool and in clinical settings. This article provides a summary of the topics and issues discussed during the meeting and presents recommendations from the expert panel regarding the need to standardize glucose profile summary metrics and the value of a uniform glucose report to aid clinicians, researchers, and patients.

Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP).

Abstract Underutilization of glucose data and lack of easy and standardized glucose data collection, analysis, visualization, and guided clinical decision making are key contributors to poor glycemic control among individuals with type 1 diabetes. An expert panel of diabetes specialists, facilitated by the International Diabetes Center and sponsored by the Helmsley Charitable Trust, met in 2012 to discuss recommendations for standardization of analysis and presentation of glucose monitoring data, with the initial focus on data derived from CGM systems. The panel members were introduced to a universal software report, the Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP), and asked to provide feedback on its content and functionality, both as a research tool and in clinical settings. This paper provides a summary of the topics and issues discussed during the meeting and presents recommendations from the expert panel regarding the need to standardize glucose profile summary metrics and the value of a uniform glucose report to aid clinicians, researchers, and patients.

Assessing diabetes-related quality of life of youth with type 1 diabetes in routine clinical care: the MIND Youth Questionnaire (MY-Q).

AIM: It is recommended to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in teenagers with diabetes as part of their ongoing medical care. Here, we describe the development and psychometric evaluation of the Monitoring Individual Needs in Diabetes Youth Questionnaire (MY-Q), a multi-dimensional self-report HRQoL questionnaire designed for use in pediatric diabetes care. DESIGN AND METHODS: In expert meetings, characteristics and domains of interest were defined. Existing questionnaires were reviewed, topics selected, and new items added, resulting in the 36-item MY-Q. To test face validity, we interviewed 22 teenagers. In addition, 84 teenagers with type 1 diabetes (age 10-18 yr) completed the MY-Q and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) generic and diabetes-modules to examine psychometric properties. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values were obtained by chart audit. RESULTS: The MY-Q consists of seven subscales (social impact, parents, diabetes control perceptions, responsibility, worries, treatment satisfaction, and body image and eating behavior) as well as general HRQoL and emotional well-being. Cronbach's alpha for the total scale was 0.80. Strong correlations between MY-Q total and PedsQL generic and diabetes-module scores (r = 0.58 and r = 0.71, p < 0.001) confirmed concurrent validity. Higher HbA1c was associated with lower diabetes control perceptions (r = -0.35, p = 0.001), worries (r = -0.24, p = 0.029), and body image and eating behavior (r = -0.26, p = 0.019) scores. Younger age was associated with higher diabetes control perceptions (r = -0.26, p = 0.020) and body image and eating behavior (r = -0.23, p = .038), and lower responsibility (r = 0.25, p = 0.027) scores. CONCLUSION: The MY-Q is the first HRQoL questionnaire designed for use in clinical care. It has acceptable measurement properties and seems suitable for implementation in routine care of teenagers with diabetes.

Impact of a telemedicine system with automated reminders on outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Health information technology has been proven to be a successful tool for the management of patients with multiple medical conditions. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of an enhanced telemedicine system on glucose control and pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We used an Internet-based telemedicine system to also allow interactive voice response phone communication between patients and providers and to provide automated reminders to transmit data. Women with GDM were randomized to either the telemedicine group (n=40) or the control group (n=40) and asked to monitor their blood glucose levels four times a day. Women in the intervention group transmitted those values via the telemedicine system, whereas women in the control group maintained paper logbooks, which were reviewed at prenatal visits. Primary outcomes were infant birth weight and maternal glucose control. Data collection included blood glucose records, transmission rates for the intervention group, and chart review. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups (telemedicine vs. controls) in regard to maternal blood glucose values or infant birth weight. However, adding telephone access and reminders increased transmission rates of data in the intervention group compared with the intervention group in our previous study (35.6±32.3 sets of data vs.17.4±16.9 sets of data; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our enhanced telemedicine monitoring system increased system utilization and contact between women with GDM and their healthcare providers but did not impact upon pregnancy outcomes.