The association of chronic complications with time in tight range and time in range in people with type 1 diabetes: a retrospective cross-sectional real-world study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of chronic complications with time in tight range (TITR: 3.9-7.8 mmol/l) and time in range (TIR: 3.9-10.0 mmol/l) in people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The prevalence of microvascular complications (diabetic retinopathy, diabetic nephropathy and diabetic peripheral neuropathy [DPN]) and macrovascular complications according to sensor-measured TITR/TIR was analysed cross-sectionally in 808 adults with type 1 diabetes. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between TITR/TIR and the presence of complications without adjustment, with adjustment for HbA1c, and with adjustment for HbA1c and other confounding factors (sex, age, diabetes duration, BMI, BP, lipid profile, smoking, and use of statins and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors). RESULTS: The mean TITR and TIR were 33.9 ± 12.8% and 52.5 ± 15.0%, respectively. Overall, 46.0% had any microvascular complication (34.5% diabetic retinopathy, 23.8% diabetic nephropathy, 16.0% DPN) and 16.3% suffered from any macrovascular complication. The prevalence of any microvascular complication, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic nephropathy and a cerebrovascular accident (CVA) decreased with increasing TITR/TIR quartiles (all ptrend<0.05). Each 10% increase in TITR was associated with a lower incidence of any microvascular complication (OR 0.762; 95% CI 0.679, 0.855; p<0.001), diabetic retinopathy (OR 0.757; 95% CI 0.670, 0.856; p<0.001), background diabetic retinopathy (OR 0.760; 95% CI 0.655, 0.882; p<0.001), severe diabetic retinopathy (OR 0.854; 95% CI 0.731, 0.998; p=0.048), diabetic nephropathy (OR 0.799; 95% CI 0.699, 0.915; p<0.001), DPN (OR 0.837; 95% CI 0.717, 0.977; p=0.026) and CVA (OR 0.651; 95% CI 0.470, 0.902; p=0.010). The independent association of TITR with any microvascular complication (OR 0.867; 95% CI 0.762, 0.988; p=0.032), diabetic retinopathy (OR 0.837; 95% CI 0.731, 0.959; p=0.010), background diabetic retinopathy (OR 0.831; 95% CI 0.705, 0.979; p=0.027) and CVA (OR 0.619; 95% CI 0.426, 0.899; p=0.012) persisted after adjustment for HbA1c. Similar results were obtained when controlling for HbA1c and other confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: TITR and TIR are inversely associated with the presence of microvascular complications and CVA in people with type 1 diabetes. Although this study was not designed to establish a causal relationship, this analysis adds validity to the use of TITR and TIR as key measures in glycaemic management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02601729 and NCT02898714.

Cost-utility analysis of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Input data for the simulated baseline cohort were sourced from the randomised ALERTT1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov. REGISTRATION NO: NCT03772600). The age of the participants was 42.9 ± 14.1 years (mean ± SD), and the baseline HbA1c was 57.8 ± 9.5 mmol/mol (7.4 ± 0.9%). Participants using rtCGM showed a reduction in HbA1c of 3.6 mmol/mol (0.36 percentage points) based on the 6-month mean between-group difference. In the base case, both rtCGM and isCGM were priced at €3.92/day (excluding value-added tax [VAT]) according to the Belgian reimbursement system. The analysis was performed from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, rtCGM dominated isCGM, resulting in lower diabetes-related complication costs and better health outcomes. The associated main drivers favouring rtCGM were lower HbA1c, fewer severe hypoglycaemic events and reduced fear of hypoglycaemia. The results were robust under a wide range of one-way sensitivity analyses. In models where the price of rtCGM is €5.11/day (a price increase of 30.4%) or €12.34/day (a price increase of 214.8%), rtCGM was cost-neutral or reached an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: When priced similarly, Dexcom G6 rtCGM with alert functionality has both economic and clinical benefits compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 isCGM without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium, and appears to be a cost-effective glucose monitoring modality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03772600.

Review Article - Diabetes Technology in the Hospital: An Update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There have been many developments in diabetes technology in recent years, with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pump therapy (CSII) and automated insulin delivery (AID) becoming progressively accepted in outpatient diabetes care. However, the use of such advanced diabetes technology in the inpatient setting is still limited for several reasons, including logistical challenges and staff training needs. On the other hand, hospital settings with altered diet and stress-induced hyperglycemia often pose challenges to tight glycemic control using conventional treatment tools. Integrating smarter glucose monitoring and insulin delivery devices into the increasingly technical hospital environment could reduce diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. This narrative review describes the most recent literature on the use of diabetes technology in the hospital and suggests avenues for further research. RECENT FINDINGS: Advanced diabetes technology has the potential to improve glycemic control in hospitalized people with and without diabetes, and could add particular value in certain conditions, such as nutrition therapy or perioperative management. Taken together, CGM allows for more accurate and patient-friendly follow-up and ad hoc titration of therapy. AID may also provide benefits, including improved glycemic control and reduced nursing workload. Before advanced diabetes technology can be used on a large scale in the hospital, further research is needed on efficacy, accuracy and safety, while implementation factors such as cost and staff training must also be overcome.

Comparing real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1): a 6-month, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with type 1 diabetes can continuously monitor their glucose levels on demand (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring [isCGM]), or in real time (real-time continuous glucose monitoring [rtCGM]). However, it is unclear whether switching from isCGM to rtCGM with alert functionality offers additional benefits. Therefore, we did a trial comparing rtCGM and isCGM in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1). METHODS: We did a prospective, double-arm, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial in six hospitals in Belgium. Adults with type 1 diabetes who previously used isCGM were randomly assigned (1:1) to rtCGM (intervention) or isCGM (control). Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation dependent on study centre, age, gender, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), time in range (sensor glucose 3·9-10·0 mmol/L), insulin administration method, and hypoglycaemia awareness. Participants, investigators, and study teams were not masked to group allocation. Primary endpoint was mean between-group difference in time in range after 6 months assessed in the intention-to-treat sample. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03772600. FINDINGS: Between Jan 29 and Jul 30, 2019, 269 participants were recruited, of whom 254 were randomly assigned to rtCGM (n=127) or isCGM (n=127); 124 and 122 participants completed the study, respectively. After 6 months, time in range was higher with rtCGM than with isCGM (59·6% vs 51·9%; mean difference 6·85 percentage points [95% CI 4·36-9·34]; p<0·0001). After 6 months HbA1c was lower (7·1% vs 7·4%; p<0·0001), as was time <3·0 mmol/L (0·47% vs 0·84%; p=0·0070), and Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey version II worry subscale score (15·4 vs 18·0; p=0·0071). Fewer participants on rtCGM experienced severe hypoglycaemia (n=3 vs n=13; p=0·0082). Skin reaction was more frequently observed with isCGM and bleeding after sensor insertion was more frequently reported by rtCGM users. INTERPRETATION: In an unselected adult type 1 diabetes population, switching from isCGM to rtCGM significantly improved time in range after 6 months of treatment, implying that clinicians should consider rtCGM instead of isCGM to improve the health and quality of life of people with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Dexcom.

Effect of switching from intermittently scanned to real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: 24-month results from the randomised ALERTT1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Comparing Continuous With Flash Glucose Monitoring In Adults With Type 1 Diabetes (ALERTT1) examined whether switching from first-generation intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts to real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality offers additional benefits to adults with type 1 diabetes. The extension of the randomised ALERTT1 trial assessed the effect of switching from isCGM to rtCGM up to 24 months. METHODS: In this 6-month, double-arm, parallel-group, non-masked, randomised, controlled trial, done across six hospitals in Belgium, 254 adults aged 18 years or older with type 1 diabetes previously using isCGM were randomly assigned (1:1) to rtCGM with alerts (intervention; n=127) or isCGM without alerts (control; n=127). Upon completion of the 6-month trial, the control group switched to rtCGM (is-rtCGM group), and the intervention group continued rtCGM (rt-rtCGM group). The extension focused on within-group changes in time in range (TIR; 3·9-10·0 mmol/L; primary outcome), HbA1c, time in clinically significant hypoglycaemia (<3·0 mmol/L), and Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey worry (HFS-worry) score (all prespecified key secondary outcomes). Mean within-group change versus the start of rtCGM is reported, with a positive value referring to a lower value at start of rtCGM. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03772600). FINDINGS: 119 participants were assigned to the is-rtCGM group of whom 112 (94%) completed the 24-month trial, and 123 participants were assigned to the rt-rtCGM group of whom 117 (95%) completed the 24-month trial. TIR increased from 51·8% (95% CI 49·1-54·5) at start of rtCGM (month 6) to 63·5% (60·7-66·3) at month 12 in the is-rtCGM group, and remained stable up to month 24 (change 11·7 percentage points [pp] [9·4-14·0; p<0·0001). In the rt-rtCGM group, TIR increased from 52·5% (95% CI 49·8-55·1) at start of rtCGM (month 0) to 63·0% (60·3-65·8) at month 12, also remaining stable up to month 24 (change 10·5 pp [8·2-12·8]; p<0·0001). HbA1c decreased from 7·4% (57 mmol/mol; month 6) to 6·9% (52 mmol/mol) at month 24 (change -0·54 pp [95% CI -0·64 to -0·44]; -5 mmol/mol [95% CI -6 to -4]; p<0·0001) in the is-rtCGM group, and from 7·4% (57 mmol/mol; month 0) to 7·0% (53 mmol/mol) at month 24 (change -0·43 pp [95% CI -0·53 to -0·33]; -4 mmol/mol [95% CI -5 to -3]; p<0·0001) in the rt-rtCGM group. The change in HFS-worry score was -2·67 (month 24 vs month 6; p=0·0008) in the is-rtCGM group and -5·17 points (month 24 vs month 0; p<0·0001) in the rt-rtCGM group. Time in clinically significant hypoglycaemia was unchanged in both groups after month 12. Severe hypoglycaemia decreased from 31·0 to 3·3 per 100 patient-years after switching to rtCGM. INTERPRETATION: Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia worry improved significantly up to 24 months after switching from isCGM without alerts to rtCGM with alerts, supporting the use of rtCGM in the care of adults with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Dexcom.

Increased risk of arterial thromboembolism after a prior episode of venous thromboembolism: results from the Prevention of REnal and Vascular ENd stage Disease (PREVEND) Study.

Large population-based studies are needed to establish the magnitude and duration of the recently suggested association between arterial and venous thromboembolism. In 1997-98, all inhabitants of Groningen, the Netherlands, aged 28-75 years (n = 85 421), were invited to participate in a study that followed and monitored responding subjects (n = 40 856) for venous and arterial thromboembolism until 2009. Thromboembolism was verified with national registries of hospital discharge diagnoses and death certificates, anticoagulation clinic and medical records. During a median follow-up of 10·7 years, 549 participants developed venous thromboembolism and 3283 developed arterial thromboembolism. Annual incidence of arterial thromboembolism after venous thromboembolism was 2·03% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1·48-2·71], compared to 0·87% (95% CI, 0·84-0·90) in subjects without venous thromboembolism. The hazard ratio (HR) of arterial thromboembolism after venous thromboembolism was 1·40 (95% CI, 1·04-1·88) after adjustment for age, sex and cardiovascular risk factors. This risk was highest during the first year after venous thromboembolism [annual incidence, 3·00% (95% CI, 1·64-5·04); adjusted HR, 2·01 (95% CI, 1·19-3·40)] and after an unprovoked event [annual incidence, 2·53% (95% CI, 1·68-3·66); adjusted HR, 1·62 (95% CI, 1·11-2·34)]. This study showed that subjects with venous thromboembolism are at increased risk for arterial thromboembolism, particularly in the first year after venous thromboembolism and after an unprovoked event.

Diabetic Ketoacidosis After Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Inhibitor Initiation Under Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor (SGLTi) use is not uncommon in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Not much is known about possible risks or benefits when combining SGLTi with advanced hybrid closed-loop (aHCL). This report describes in detail the daily insulin dosing by the MiniMed™ 780G algorithm in a patient with T1D after SGLTi initiation leading to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Within a few days after start of SGLTi, the aHCL algorithm reduced autobasal and autocorrection doses, whereas meal bolus insulin doses were reduced mainly due to frequent activation of the "safe meal bolus." Taken together, there was a significant 49% reduction in total daily insulin dose after start of SGLTi, leading to insulin doses below the minimum needed to prevent ketone formation. Until more is known about the influence of SGLTi on aHCL algorithm functioning, we recommend caution with SGLTi use in people with T1D on aHCL systems to avoid increased DKA risk.

[The 46,XX male; a chromosomal form of a disorder of sex development]. / De 46,XX-man.

BACKGROUND: A disorder of sex development (abbreviated DSD) is defined as a congenital condition in which development of chromosomal, gonadal or anatomical sex is atypical. DSD is caused by a disruption of foetal sexual development, which is largely influenced by various genetic and hormonal factors. The SRY gene, located on the Y chromosome, plays a key role in sexual development. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 32-year-old male was found to be infertile because of azoospermia. His habitus was that of a male. Hormonal analysis revealed hypergonadotropic hypogonadism. Karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) revealed a 46,XXSRY+ pattern due to an unbalanced X;Y translocation in the presence of SRY on an X chromosome, this is classified as a chromosomal form of DSD. CONCLUSION: Male infertility can be caused by DSD, even if a male habitus makes this seem unlikely at first.