Glycaemic outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes over 34 weeks with the Omnipod® 5 automated insulin delivery system.

AIMS: The aim was to evaluate the effect of extended use of the Omnipod® 5 automated insulin delivery (AID) system in adults with type 2 diabetes and suboptimal glycaemic control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following an 8-week single-arm, multicentre, outpatient trial of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes and baseline ≥ 64 mmol/mol, participants were given the opportunity to continue use of the AID system in a 26-week (~6 month) extension phase. The primary safety endpoints were percentage of time with sensor glucose ≥ 250 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL. Additional glycaemic measures, including percentage of time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) and HbA1c, were evaluated. The use of non-insulin anti-hyperglycaemic medications was permitted throughout the entire study. RESULTS: During the initial 8-week study, participants (N = 22) achieved a decrease in percentage of time ≥ 250 mg/dL from 27.4% ± 21.0% to 10.5% ± 8.8% (p < 0.0001), which further decreased to 9.7% ± 9.2% during the extension phase (p = 0.0002 vs. standard therapy). Percentage of time < 54 mg/dL remained low from standard therapy through extension (median [interquartile range] 0.00% [0.00%, 0.06%] vs. 0.02% [0.00%, 0.05%], p > 0.05). HbA1c decreased by 1.6% ± 1.2% (15.5 ± 13.1 mmol/mol, p < 0.0001) and TIR increased by 22.4% ± 19.2% (p < 0.0001) from standard therapy through extension with no significant change in body mass index and without an observed increase in total daily insulin requirements. CONCLUSIONS: These longer-term findings of Omnipod 5 AID system use demonstrate the potential value of AID in helping people with type 2 diabetes reach glycaemic targets.

Psychosocial outcomes with the Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in caregivers of very young children with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improved glycaemic outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), yet limited data exist on these systems in very young children and their impact on caregivers. We evaluated psychosocial outcomes following use of the tubeless Omnipod® 5 AID System in caregivers of very young children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 3-month single-arm, multicentre, pivotal clinical trial enrolled 80 children aged 2.0-5.9 years with T1D to use the Omnipod 5 AID System. Caregivers completed questionnaires assessing psychosocial outcomes-diabetes distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes), hypoglycaemia confidence (Hypoglycemia Confidence Scale), well-being (World Health Organization 5 Well-Being Index), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), insulin delivery satisfaction (Insulin Delivery Satisfaction Survey) and system usability (System Usability Scale) at baseline with standard therapy and after 3 months of AID use. RESULTS: Following 3 months of Omnipod 5 use, caregivers experienced significant improvements across all measures, including diabetes-related psychosocial outcomes (Problem Areas in Diabetes; p < 0.0001, Hypoglycemia Confidence Scale; p < 0.01), well-being (World Health Organization 5 Well-Being Index; p < 0.0001) and perceived system usability (System Usability Scale; p < 0.0001). Significant improvements were seen in the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index total score and the overall sleep quality, sleep duration and efficiency subscales (all p < 0.05). Insulin Delivery Satisfaction Survey scores improved on all subscales (greater satisfaction, reduced burden and reduced inconvenience; all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers face unique challenges when managing T1D in very young children. While glycaemic metrics have unquestioned importance, these results evaluating psychosocial outcomes reveal additional meaningful benefits and suggest that the Omnipod 5 AID System alleviates some of the burdens caregivers face with diabetes management.

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec With Dosing Guide App Versus Once-Daily Basal Insulin Analogues in Insulin-Naive Type 2 Diabetes (ONWARDS 5) : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate dose titration and poor adherence to basal insulin can lead to suboptimal glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue that is in development and is aimed at reducing treatment burden. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of icodec titrated with a dosing guide app (icodec with app) versus once-daily basal insulin analogues (OD analogues) dosed per standard practice. DESIGN: 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04760626). SETTING: 176 sites in 7 countries. PARTICIPANTS: 1085 insulin-naive adults with T2D. INTERVENTION: Icodec with app or OD analogue (insulin degludec, insulin glargine U100, or insulin glargine U300). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level from baseline to week 52. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes [TRIM-D] compliance domain score and change in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire [DTSQ] total treatment satisfaction score). RESULTS: The estimated mean change in HbA1c level from baseline to week 52 was greater with icodec with app than with OD analogues, with noninferiority (P < 0.001) and superiority (P = 0.009) confirmed in prespecified hierarchical testing (estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.38 percentage points [95% CI, -0.66 to -0.09 percentage points]). At week 52, patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec with app than with OD analogues (ETDs, 3.04 [CI, 1.28 to 4.81] for TRIM-D and 0.78 [CI, 0.10 to 1.47] for DTSQ). Rates of clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low and similar with both treatments. LIMITATION: Inability to differentiate the effects of icodec and the dosing guide app. CONCLUSION: Compared with OD analogues, icodec with app showed superior HbA1c reduction and improved treatment satisfaction and compliance with similarly low hypoglycemia rates. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Reduced hypoglycaemia using liver-targeted insulin in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate whether an increased bolus: basal insulin ratio (BBR) with liver-targeted bolus insulin (BoI) would increase BoI use and decrease hypoglycaemic events (HEv). PATIENT POPULATION AND METHODS: We enrolled 52 persons (HbA1c 6.9% ± 0.12%, mean ± SEM) with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections. Hepatic-directed vesicle (HDV) was used to deliver 1% of peripheral injected BoI to the liver. A 90-day run-in period was used to introduce subjects to unblinded continuous glucose monitoring and optimize standard basal insulin (BaI) (degludec) and BoI (lispro) dosing. At 90 days, BoI was changed to HDV-insulin lispro and subjects were randomized to an immediate 10% or 40% decrease in BaI dose. RESULTS: At 90 days postrandomization, total insulin dosing was increased by ~7% in both cohorts. The -10% and -40% BaI cohorts were on 7.7% and 13% greater BoI with 6.9% and 30% (P = .02) increases in BBR, respectively. Compared with baseline at randomization, nocturnal level 2 HEv were reduced by 21% and 43%, with 54% and 59% reductions in patient-reported HEv in the -10% and -40% BaI cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that liver-targeted BoI safely decreases HEv and symptoms without compromising glucose control. We further show that with initiation of liver-targeted BoI, the BBR can be safely increased by significantly lowering BaI dosing, leading to greater BoI usage.

Can Faster Aspart Be Used to Optimize Glycemic Control With Insulin Pump Therapy? From Expectations to Lessons Learned After a Year of Use in the United States.

Fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) is an ultra-rapid-acting formulation of insulin aspart developed to more closely match the prandial endogenous insulin profile, and its accelerated absorption kinetics are expected to provide clinical benefits for patients using insulin pump therapy. A head-to-head trial versus the original insulin aspart formulation in pump therapy did not demonstrate superiority of faster aspart in terms of A1C reduction, but pump settings were not optimized for the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile of faster aspart. Nevertheless, meal test and continuous glucose monitoring data suggest that faster aspart is beneficial for postprandial glucose control, and a case study is presented illustrating excellent results using this insulin in pump therapy. Frequent blood glucose monitoring and appropriate patient education are vital for success.

Improved postprandial glucose control with ultra rapid lispro versus lispro with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in type 1 diabetes: PRONTO-Pump-2.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultra rapid lispro (URLi) versus lispro (Humalog® ) in people with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a phase 3, 16-week, treat-to-target study in patients randomized to double-blind URLi (N = 215) or lispro (N = 217). The primary endpoint was change from baseline HbA1c (non-inferiority margin 4.4 mmol/mol [0.4%]), with multiplicity-adjusted objectives for postprandial glucose (PPG) levels during a meal test, and time spent in the target range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR). RESULTS: URLi was non-inferior to lispro for change in HbA1c, with a least-squares mean (LSM) difference of 0.3 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.6, 1.2) or 0.02% (95% CI -0.06, 0.11). URLi was superior to lispro in controlling 1- and 2-h PPG levels after the meal test: LSM difference -1.34 mmol/L (95% CI -2.00, -0.68) or -24.1 mg/dL (95% CI -36.0, -12.2) at 1 h and -1.54 mmol/L (95% CI -2.37, -0.72) or -27.8 mg/dL (95% CI -42.6, -13.0) at 2 h; both p < .001. TIR and time in hyperglycaemia were similar between groups but URLi resulted in significantly less time in hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L [54 mg/dL]) over the daytime, night-time and 24-h period: LSM difference -0.41%, -0.97% and -0.52%, respectively, all p < .05. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher with URLi (60.5% vs. 44.7%), driven by infusion-site reaction and infusion-site pain, which was mostly mild or moderate. Rates of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: URLi was efficacious, providing superior PPG control and less time in hypoglycaemia but with more frequent infusion-site reactions compared with lispro when administered by CSII.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: The Use of Advanced Technology in the Management of Persons With Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, health care professionals, and other stakeholders. METHODS: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) conducted literature searches for relevant articles published from 2012 to 2021. A task force of medical experts developed evidence-based guideline recommendations based on a review of clinical evidence, expertise, and informal consensus, according to established AACE protocol for guideline development. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes of interest included hemoglobin A1C, rates and severity of hypoglycemia, time in range, time above range, and time below range. RESULTS: This guideline includes 37 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for advanced diabetes technology and contains 357 citations that inform the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were developed regarding the efficacy and safety of devices for the management of persons with diabetes mellitus, metrics used to aide with the assessment of advanced diabetes technology, and standards for the implementation of this technology. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced diabetes technology can assist persons with diabetes to safely and effectively achieve glycemic targets, improve quality of life, add greater convenience, potentially reduce burden of care, and offer a personalized approach to self-management. Furthermore, diabetes technology can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical decision-making. Successful integration of these technologies into care requires knowledge about the functionality of devices in this rapidly changing field. This information will allow health care professionals to provide necessary education and training to persons accessing these treatments and have the required expertise to interpret data and make appropriate treatment adjustments.

Improved Glycemic Control Following Transition to Tubeless Insulin Pump Therapy in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) treatment may improve long-term glycemic outcomes and enhance quality of life compared with a multiple daily injection (MDI) insulin regimen for people with type 1 diabetes. As the number of people treated with CSII via a tubeless insulin pump is increasing, there is growing interest in the long-term glycemic outcomes of this treatment option across diverse populations. This multicenter, retrospective study evaluated glycemic control in 156 adults with type 1 diabetes initiating tubeless insulin pump therapy following transition from either MDI or CSII with a tubed insulin pump. In this study, use of the tubeless insulin pump over 12 months was associated with significant improvement in A1C in adults with type 1 diabetes, most notably in those with an A1C ≥9.0% and those previously treated with MDI.

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.

Efficacy and safety of a morning injection of insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL in adult patients with type 1 diabetes: A multicentre, randomized controlled trial using continuous glucose monitoring.

Video abstract: View a video abstract for this article. AIMS: This multicentre (N = 104), randomized controlled phase 4 study compared the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) with insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to self-perform morning Gla-300 or Gla-100 injections daily for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was percentage of time blood glucose remained in the target range (70-180 mg/dL) during Week 15/16, measured by blinded continuous glucose monitoring. Secondary endpoints included incidence and rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (≤70 mg/dL), glycaemic variability parameters and safety assessments. Exploratory analyses were performed in patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.5% at Week 16. RESULTS: Overall, 638 patients with T1D were included (Gla-300, n = 320; Gla-100, n = 318). In the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, no differences between Gla-300 and Gla-100 were observed in time in range, in glycaemic variability, or in incidence or rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia. In exploratory analyses of patients with HbA1c <7.5% at Week 16, Gla-300 recipients had greater improvement in time in range over 24 hours, during the day and at night compared with Gla-100 recipients (P < 0.05), with small increases in overall hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Time in range and glycaemic variability were similar for Gla-300 and Gla-100 recipients at the end of study in the mITT population of relatively well-controlled patients with T1D. In patients with end-of-study HbA1c <7.5%, exploratory analyses suggested that Gla-300 provided improvements in time in range compared with Gla-100.

BioChaperone Lispro versus faster aspart and insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: A randomized euglycemic clamp study.

We investigated the pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of BioChaperone insulin Lispro (BCLIS), faster insulin aspart (FIA) and insulin aspart (ASP) in patients with type 1 diabetes using an insulin pump. In this randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover glucose clamp study, 43 patients received a bolus dose of each insulin (0.15 U/kg) in addition to a basal rate (0.01 U/kg/h), delivered via an insulin pump. With BCLIS, the AUC-GIR,0-60 minutes (primary endpoint) was improved compared to ASP (least square means ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.88; P < 0.0001) and was similar compared to FIA (least square means ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.18; P = 0.4609). BCLIS showed faster-on PD (tearly0.5GIRmax ) than ASP and faster-off PD (tlate0.5GIRmax ) than both FIA and ASP. BCLIS also demonstrated significantly higher early exposure (AUCins, 0-60 minutes) and lower late exposure (AUCins,120-600 minutes) than both other insulins. In patients with type 1 diabetes using an insulin pump, BCLIS better mimics prandial insulin secretion and action than ASP and shows a faster off-PD than FIA.

Efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart in comparison with insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (onset 1): A 52-week, randomized, treat-to-target, phase III trial.

AIMS: To compare the safety and efficacy of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) with conventional insulin aspart (IAsp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: onset 1 was a randomized, multicentre, treat-to-target, phase III, 52-week (initial 26 weeks + additional 26 weeks) trial conducted at 165 sites across 9 countries. Adults with T1D were randomly allocated to double-blind mealtime faster aspart or IAsp, each with once- or twice-daily insulin detemir. The primary endpoint, change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline after the initial 26 weeks, has been reported previously. In the present paper, we report data from the full 52-week study period. RESULTS: Between August 2013 and June 2015, 381 participants were assigned to double-blind faster aspart and 380 participants to IAsp. After 52 weeks, estimated mean changes from baseline in HbA1c levels were -0.08% (faster aspart) and +0.01% (IAsp); estimated treatment difference significantly favoured faster aspart (-0.10% [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.19;-0.00]; P = .0424). Changes from baseline in 1-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) increment (meal test; faster aspart -1.05 mmol/L; IAsp -0.14 mmol/L) also significantly favoured faster aspart (estimated treatment difference -0.91 mmol/L [95% CI -1.40;-0.43]; -16.48 mg/dL [95% CI -25.17;-7.80]; P = .0002). There was no difference in overall severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes or treatment-emergent adverse events between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: At 52 weeks, overall glycaemic control had significantly improved with faster aspart vs IAsp, consistent with the 26-week study findings. Achieving an insulin profile closer to physiological insulin secretion with faster aspart translates into lower PPG and HbA1c levels compared with those achieved with IAsp in people with T1D.

Threshold-based insulin-pump interruption for reduction of hypoglycemia.

BACKGROUND: The threshold-suspend feature of sensor-augmented insulin pumps is designed to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia by interrupting insulin delivery at a preset sensor glucose value. We evaluated sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy with and without the threshold-suspend feature in patients with nocturnal hypoglycemia. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 1 diabetes and documented nocturnal hypoglycemia to receive sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy with or without the threshold-suspend feature for 3 months. The primary safety outcome was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level. The primary efficacy outcome was the area under the curve (AUC) for nocturnal hypoglycemic events. Two-hour threshold-suspend events were analyzed with respect to subsequent sensor glucose values. RESULTS: A total of 247 patients were randomly assigned to receive sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy with the threshold-suspend feature (threshold-suspend group, 121 patients) or standard sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy (control group, 126 patients). The changes in glycated hemoglobin values were similar in the two groups. The mean AUC for nocturnal hypoglycemic events was 37.5% lower in the threshold-suspend group than in the control group (980 ± 1200 mg per deciliter [54.4 ± 66.6 mmol per liter] × minutes vs. 1568 ± 1995 mg per deciliter [87.0 ± 110.7 mmol per liter] × minutes, P<0.001). Nocturnal hypoglycemic events occurred 31.8% less frequently in the threshold-suspend group than in the control group (1.5 ± 1.0 vs. 2.2 ± 1.3 per patient-week, P<0.001). The percentages of nocturnal sensor glucose values of less than 50 mg per deciliter (2.8 mmol per liter), 50 to less than 60 mg per deciliter (3.3 mmol per liter), and 60 to less than 70 mg per deciliter (3.9 mmol per liter) were significantly reduced in the threshold-suspend group (P<0.001 for each range). After 1438 instances at night in which the pump was stopped for 2 hours, the mean sensor glucose value was 92.6 ± 40.7 mg per deciliter (5.1 ± 2.3 mmol per liter). Four patients (all in the control group) had a severe hypoglycemic event; no patients had diabetic ketoacidosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that over a 3-month period the use of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy with the threshold-suspend feature reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia, without increasing glycated hemoglobin values. (Funded by Medtronic MiniMed; ASPIRE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01497938.).

THE EMERGING ROLE OF ADJUNCTIVE NONINSULIN ANTIHYPERGLYCEMIC THERAPY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF TYPE 1 DIABETES.

OBJECTIVE: Review available data on adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes (T1D), with a special focus on newer antihyperglycemic agents. METHODS: Published data on hypoglycemia, obesity, mortality, and goal attainment in T1D were reviewed to determine unmet therapeutic needs. PubMed databases and abstracts from recent diabetes meetings were searched using the term "type 1 diabetes" and the available and investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, and metformin. RESULTS: The majority of patients with T1D do not meet glycated hemoglobin (A1C) goals established by major diabetes organizations. Hypoglycemia risks and a rising incidence of obesity and metabolic syndrome featured in the T1D population limit optimal use of intensive insulin therapy. Noninsulin antihyperglycemic agents may enable T1D patients to achieve target A1C levels using lower insulin doses, which may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia. In pilot studies, the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin and the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide reduced blood glucose, weight, and insulin dose in patients with T1D. Phase 2 studies with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin and the dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor sotagliflozin, which acts in the gut and the kidney, have demonstrated reductions in A1C, weight, and glucose variability without an increased incidence of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: Newer antihyperglycemic agents, particularly GLP-1 agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, and dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitors, show promise as adjunctive treatment for T1D that may help patients achieve better glucose control without weight gain or increased hypoglycemia.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY 2016 OUTPATIENT GLUCOSE MONITORING CONSENSUS STATEMENT.

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Where there were no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician.

PATIENTS ACHIEVING GOOD GLYCEMIC CONTROL (HBA1c <7%) EXPERIENCE A LOWER RATE OF HYPOGLYCEMIA WITH INSULIN DEGLUDEC THAN WITH INSULIN GLARGINE: A META-ANALYSIS OF PHASE 3A TRIALS.

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis to compare hypoglycemia rates of basal insulin degludec (IDeg) with insulin glargine (IGlar) in patients with diabetes achieving good glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] <7% at end of trial). METHODS: In a preplanned meta-analysis, patient data from 7 randomized, treat-to-target, 26- or 52-week trials in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who administered IDeg (n = 2,899) or IGlar (n = 1,431) once daily were analyzed. Using a negative binomial regression model, this meta-analysis compared hypoglycemia rates in patients achieving HbA1c <7% at end of trial with IDeg (n = 1,347) and IGlar (n = 697). RESULTS: In all trials, IDeg was noninferior to IGlar in HbA1c reduction from baseline. At end of trial, 2,044 patients (T2DM, n = 1,661; T1DM, n = 383) achieved HbA1c <7%. The overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as plasma glucose <56 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia if requiring assistance, was significantly lower with IDeg versus IGlar (estimated rate ratio [ERR] IDeg:IGlar, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.98). The nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as occurring between midnight and 6:00 am, was significantly lower with IDeg (ERR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77). In the maintenance period (16 weeks onward when average insulin dose and glycemic levels stabilized), the overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92) and the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.72) with IDeg versus IGlar. CONCLUSION: Patients with T1DM and T2DM achieved HbA1c <7% with significantly lower rates of overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia with IDeg versus IGlar. The lower hypoglycemia rate with IDeg was more pronounced in the maintenance period.

Elevated Serum Levels of Soluble TNF Receptors and Adhesion Molecules Are Associated with Diabetic Retinopathy in Patients with Type-1 Diabetes.

AIMS: To examine the association of the serum levels of TNF receptors, adhesion molecules, and inflammatory mediators with diabetic retinopathy (DR) in T1D patients. METHODS: Using the multiplex immunoassay, we measured serum levels of eight proteins in 678 T1D subjects aged 20-75 years. Comparisons were made between 482 T1D patients with no complications and 196 T1D patients with DR. RESULTS: The levels of sTNFR-I, sTNFR-II, CRP, SAA, sgp130, sIL6R, sVCAM1, and sICAM1 were significantly higher in the T1D patients with DR as compared to T1D patients with no complications. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed significant association for five proteins after adjustment for age, sex, and disease duration (sTNFR-I: OR = 1.57, sgp130: OR = 1.43, sVCAM1: OR = 1.27, sICAM1: OR = 1.42, and CRP: OR = 1.15). Conditional logistic regression on matched paired data revealed that subjects in the top quartile for sTNFR-I (OR = 2.13), sTNFR-II (OR = 1.66), sgp130 (OR = 1.82), sIL6R (OR = 1.75), sVCAM1 (OR = 1.98), sICAM1 (OR = 2.23), CRP (OR = 2.40) and SAA (OR = 2.03), had the highest odds of having DR. CONCLUSIONS: The circulating markers of inflammation, endothelial injury, and TNF signaling are significantly associated with DR in patients with T1D. TNFR-I and TNFR-II receptors are highly correlated, but DR associated more strongly with TNFR-I in these patients.

Efficacy of Liraglutide for Weight Loss Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The SCALE Diabetes Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Weight loss of 5% to 10% can improve type 2 diabetes and related comorbidities. Few safe, effective weight-management drugs are currently available. OBJECTIVE: To investigate efficacy and safety of liraglutide vs placebo for weight management in adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-six-week randomized (2:1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial with 12-week observational off-drug follow-up period. The study was conducted at 126 sites in 9 countries between June 2011 and January 2013. Of 1361 participants assessed for eligibility, 846 were randomized. Inclusion criteria were body mass index of 27.0 or greater, age 18 years or older, taking 0 to 3 oral hypoglycemic agents (metformin, thiazolidinedione, sulfonylurea) with stable body weight, and glycated hemoglobin level 7.0% to 10.0%. INTERVENTIONS: Once-daily, subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) (n = 423), liraglutide (1.8 mg) (n = 211), or placebo (n = 212), all as adjunct to 500 kcal/d dietary deficit and increased physical activity (≥150 min/wk). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Three coprimary end points: relative change in weight, proportion of participants losing 5% or more, or more than 10%, of baseline weight at week 56. RESULTS: Baseline weight was 105.7 kg with liraglutide (3.0-mg dose), 105.8 kg with liraglutide (1.8-mg dose), and 106.5 kg with placebo. Weight loss was 6.0% (6.4 kg) with liraglutide (3.0-mg dose), 4.7% (5.0 kg) with liraglutide (1.8-mg dose), and 2.0% (2.2 kg) with placebo (estimated difference for liraglutide [3.0 mg] vs placebo, -4.00% [95% CI, -5.10% to -2.90%]; liraglutide [1.8 mg] vs placebo, -2.71% [95% CI, -4.00% to -1.42%]; P < .001 for both). Weight loss of 5% or greater occurred in 54.3% with liraglutide (3.0 mg) and 40.4% with liraglutide (1.8 mg) vs 21.4% with placebo (estimated difference for liraglutide [3.0 mg] vs placebo, 32.9% [95% CI, 24.6% to 41.2%]; for liraglutide [1.8 mg] vs placebo, 19.0% [95% CI, 9.1% to 28.8%]; P < .001 for both). Weight loss greater than 10% occurred in 25.2% with liraglutide (3.0 mg) and 15.9% with liraglutide (1.8 mg) vs 6.7% with placebo (estimated difference for liraglutide [3.0 mg] vs placebo, 18.5% [95% CI, 12.7% to 24.4%], P < .001; for liraglutide [1.8 mg] vs placebo, 9.3% [95% CI, 2.7% to 15.8%], P = .006). More gastrointestinal disorders were reported with liraglutide (3.0 mg) vs liraglutide (1.8 mg) and placebo. No pancreatitis was reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among overweight and obese participants with type 2 diabetes, use of subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) daily, compared with placebo, resulted in weight loss over 56 weeks. Further studies are needed to evaluate longer-term efficacy and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT01272232.

Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin compared with placebo in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pooled analysis of clinical studies.

BACKGROUND: Canagliflozin is a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor developed for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The efficacy and safety of canagliflozin were evaluated in patients with T2DM <65 and ≥65 years of age. METHODS: Pooled data from 4 randomised, placebo-controlled, 26-week, Phase 3 studies (N = 2,313) evaluating canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg were analysed by age: <65 years (n = 1,868; mean age, 52.8 years) or ≥65 years (n = 445; mean age, 69.3 years). Efficacy evaluations included change from baseline in glycaemic parameters and systolic blood pressure (BP), and percent change from baseline in body weight. Assessment of safety/tolerability included adverse event (AE) reports, incidence of documented hypoglycaemia, and percent change from baseline in fasting plasma lipids. RESULTS: Canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg reduced HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose relative to placebo in patients <65 and ≥65 years of age. Both canagliflozin doses reduced body weight and systolic BP relative to placebo in patients <65 and ≥65 years of age. Incidence of overall AEs was similar across all treatment groups in patients <65 and ≥65 years of age. Incidences of serious AEs and AE-related discontinuations were similar across all treatment groups in patients <65 years of age and higher with canagliflozin 100 mg than other groups in patients ≥65 years of age. As in patients <65 years of age, incidences of genital mycotic infections and osmotic diuresis-related AEs were higher with canagliflozin relative to placebo in those ≥65 years of age. Incidences of urinary tract infections (UTIs), renal-related AEs, AEs related to volume depletion, and documented hypoglycaemia episodes were similar across all treatment groups in patients ≥65 years of age; no notable trends were observed with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg relative to placebo in these AEs among patients <65 years of age. Changes in lipid parameters with canagliflozin were similar in both age subsets. CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin improved glycaemic control, body weight, and systolic BP, and was generally well tolerated in older patients with T2DM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01081834; NCT01106677; NCT01106625; NCT01106690.