Expert Roundtable on Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to define an expert opinion on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus, including its advantages, barriers, and best clinical practices for initiation, patient-clinician communication, and data management. METHODS: A series of virtual discussions was held to recommend improvements to clinical practice and design clinical tools for primary care clinicians. Participants included endocrinologists, primary care physicians, physician assistants, advanced practice nurses, and diabetes care and education specialists. RESULTS: The expert panels recommended CGM as a supplement to blood glucose monitoring and hemoglobin A1c for managing diabetes in persons with diabetes (PWDs). CGM can help predict potential pitfalls in glycemic management, including hypo and hyperglycemic excursions, which directly influence lifestyle changes, medication initiation, and dosing decisions. A toolkit was designed with practical guidance on the integration of CGM into clinical practice, interpretation of results, clinical guidelines, a patient action plan, and other useful management tools. CONCLUSION: This review summarizes the findings from a roundtable discussion with endocrinology and primary care clinicians, a discussion of the advantages and challenges of CGM, and clinical approaches to improving the care of PWDs. CGM offers more detailed tracking of glucose levels than blood glucose monitoring or hemoglobin A1c, and it can detect asymptomatic hypoglycemia. Specialized education of providers, the cost to patients and providers, and data management are barriers to the widespread adoption of CGM for PWDs.

A Pilot Study to Assess Clinical Utility and User Experience of Professional Continuous Glucose Monitoring Among People With Type 2 Diabetes.

IN BRIEF Glucose variability is a potential independent risk factor of poor clinical outcome among people with diabetes, with adequate measurement technically difficult and cumbersome. For this study, a novel 14-day continuous sensor was used to assess glucose variability among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The aim was to characterize glucose profiles for up to 2 weeks in T2D and to survey device utilization in a standard clinical setting and its potential to collect clinically meaningful data.

Achieving glycaemic control without weight gain, hypoglycaemia, or gastrointestinal adverse events in type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN clinical trial programme.

AIM: To evaluate the potential for semaglutide to help people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) achieve glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) targets while avoiding unwanted outcomes, such as weight gain, hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the phase IIIa SUSTAIN 1 to 5 clinical trials were analysed. Participants had inadequately controlled T2D and were drug-naïve (SUSTAIN 1) or on a range of background treatments (SUSTAIN 2 to 5). The main protocol-specified composite endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (7.0%) at end of treatment (30 or 56 weeks) without weight gain and with no severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia. A post hoc composite endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving the primary composite endpoint without moderate or severe GI adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Across the SUSTAIN trials 1 to 5, 3918 participants with T2D were randomized to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, or comparators (placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg, exenatide extended release 2.0 mg or insulin glargine). The proportion of participants achieving HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (7.0%) with no weight gain and no severe/BG-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia was 47% to 66% (semaglutide 0.5 mg) and 57% to 74% (semaglutide 1.0 mg) vs 7% to 19% (placebo) and 16% to 29% (active comparators; all P < .0001). More participants achieved the primary composite endpoint with no moderate or severe GI AEs with semaglutide vs comparators (all P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Semaglutide helped more people with T2D achieve HbA1c targets than did comparators in the SUSTAIN 1 to 5 trials, while avoiding unwanted outcomes such as weight gain, hypoglycaemia and GI side effects.

Staring down the opioid epidemic.

Nearly 80 people die every day in America from an opioid overdose. At the same time, sales of prescription painkillers have increased 4-fold since 1999.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide monotherapy versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre phase 3a trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite a broad range of pharmacological options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, optimum glycaemic control remains challenging for many patients and new therapies are necessary. Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue in phase 3 development for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of semaglutide monotherapy, compared with placebo, in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes who had insufficient glycaemic control with diet and exercise alone. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, international, placebo-controlled phase 3a trial (SUSTAIN 1) at 72 sites in Canada, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, UK, and USA (including hospitals, clinical research units, and private offices). Eligible participants were treatment-naive individuals aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with only diet and exercise alone for at least 30 days before screening, with a baseline HbA1c of 7·0%-10·0% (53-86 mmol/mol). We randomly assigned participants (2:2:1:1) to either once-weekly subcutaneously injected semaglutide (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), or volume-matched placebo (0·5 mg or 1·0 mg), for 30 weeks via prefilled PDS290 pen-injectors. Participants did their own injections and were encouraged to administer them on the same day of each week in the same area of their body; the time of day and proximity of meal times was not specified. We did the randomisation with an interactive voice or web response system. Investigators, participants, and the funder of the study remained masked throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was the change in mean HbA1c from baseline to week 30, and the confirmatory secondary endpoint was the change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 30. We assessed efficacy and safety in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants who were exposed to at least one dose of study drug); both placebo groups were pooled for assessment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02054897. FINDINGS: Between February 3, 2014, and August 21, 2014, we randomly assigned 388 participants to treatment; 387 received at least one dose of study medication (128 0·5 mg semaglutide, 130 1·0 mg semaglutide, 129 placebo). 17 (13%) of those assigned to 0·5 mg semaglutide, 16 (12%) assigned to 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 14 (11%) assigned to placebo discontinued treatment; the main reason for discontinuation was gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea. Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·05% (SD 0·85); at week 30, HbA1c significantly decreased by 1·45% (95% CI -1·65 to -1·26) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -1·43%, 95% CI -1·71 to -1·15; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 1·55% (-1·74 to -1·36) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -1·53%, -1·81 to -1·25; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·02% (-0·23 to 0·18) with placebo. Mean baseline bodyweight was 91·93 kg (SD 23·83); at week 30, bodyweight significantly decreased by 3·73 kg (95% CI -4·54 to -2·91) with 0·5 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -2·75 kg, 95% CI -3·92 to -1·58; p<0·0001), significantly decreased by 4·53 kg (-5·34 to -3·72) with 1·0 mg semaglutide (estimated treatment difference vs placebo -3·56 kg, -4·74 to -2·38; p<0·0001), and non-significantly decreased by 0·98 kg (-1·82 to -0·13) with placebo. No deaths were reported in any of the study groups and most reported adverse events were of mild or moderate severity. The most frequently reported adverse events in both semaglutide groups were gastrointestinal in nature: nausea was reported in 26 (20%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 31 (24%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and 10 (8%) who received placebo, and diarrhoea was reported in 16 (13%) who received 0·5 mg semaglutide, 14 (11%) who received 1·0 mg semaglutide, and three (2%) who received placebo. INTERPRETATION: Semaglutide significantly improved HbA1c and bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo, and showed a similar safety profile to currently available GLP-1 receptor agonists, representing a potential treatment option for such patients. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark.

Efficacy and Safety of LixiLan, a Titratable Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine Plus Lixisenatide in Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Basal Insulin and Metformin: The LixiLan-L Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of LixiLan (iGlarLixi), a novel, titratable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine (iGlar) (100 units) and lixisenatide, compared with iGlar in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin with or without up to two oral glucose-lowering agents. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After a 6-week run-in when iGlar was introduced and/or further titrated, and oral antidiabetic drugs other than metformin were stopped, 736 basal insulin-treated patients (mean diabetes duration 12 years, BMI 31 kg/m2) were randomized 1:1 to open-label, once-daily iGlarLixi or iGlar, both titrated to fasting plasma glucose <100 mg/dL (<5.6 mmol/L) up to a maximum dose of 60 units/day. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c levels at 30 weeks. RESULTS: HbA1c decreased from 8.5% (69 mmol/mol) to 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) during the run-in period. After randomization, iGlarLixi showed greater reductions in HbA1c from baseline compared with iGlar (-1.1% vs. -0.6%, P < 0.0001), reaching a mean final HbA1c of 6.9% (52 mmol/mol) compared with 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) for iGlar. HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) was achieved in 55% of iGlarLixi patients compared with 30% on iGlar. Mean body weight decreased by 0.7 kg with iGlarLixi and increased by 0.7 kg with iGlar (1.4 kg difference, P < 0.0001). Documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (≤70 mg/dL) was comparable between groups. Mild gastrointestinal adverse effects were very low but more frequent with iGlarLixi. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with iGlar, a substantially higher proportion of iGlarLixi-treated patients achieved glycemic targets with a beneficial effect on body weight, no additional risk of hypoglycemia, and low levels of gastrointestinal adverse effects in inadequately controlled, basal insulin-treated, long-standing type 2 diabetes.

Med students: Look up from your EMRs.

It frightens me to think what might have happened during my hospital stay if I hadn't provided information that wasn't required by the EMR.

Use of an automated decision support tool optimizes clinicians' ability to interpret and appropriately respond to structured self-monitoring of blood glucose data.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the impact of an automated decision support tool (DST) on clinicians' ability to identify glycemic abnormalities in structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) data and then make appropriate therapeutic changes based on the glycemic patterns observed. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study, 288 clinicians (39.6% family practice physicians, 37.9% general internal medicine physicians, and 22.6% nurse practitioners) were randomized to structured SMBG alone (STG; n = 72); structured SMBG with DST (DST; n = 72); structured SMBG with an educational DVD (DVD; n = 72); and structured SMBG with DST and the educational DVD (DST+DVD; n = 72). Clinicians analyzed 30 patient cases (type 2 diabetes), identified the primary abnormality, and selected the most appropriate therapy. RESULTS: A total of 222 clinicians completed all 30 patient cases with no major protocol deviations. Significantly more DST, DVD, and DST+DVD clinicians correctly identified the glycemic abnormality and selected the most appropriate therapeutic option compared with STG clinicians: 49, 51, and 55%, respectively, vs. 33% (all P < 0.0001) with no significant differences among DST, DVD, and DST+DVD clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Use of structured SMBG, combined with the DST, the educational DVD, or both, enhances clinicians' ability to correctly identify significant glycemic patterns and make appropriate therapeutic decisions to address those patterns. Structured testing interventions using either the educational DVD or the DST are equally effective in improving data interpretation and utilization. The DST provides a viable alternative when comprehensive education is not feasible, and it may be integrated into medical practices with minimal training.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists: Differentiating the new medications.

INTRODUCTION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) has been the focus of considerable research activity in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) because the incretin effect is significantly reduced or absent in individuals with T2DM. Thus, pharmacologic efforts to develop medications that mimic the actions of GLP-1 have become a target for improving or reversing chronic hyperglycemia. Two GLP-1 receptor agonists are commercially available: exenatide twice daily (b.i.d.) and liraglutide once daily (q.d.). Targeted and individualized intensification of diabetes management can best be accomplished with a thorough understanding of these new medications. METHODS: Information was gathered through a search of MEDLINE and PubMed for GLP-1 and glycemic management in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Activation of the GLP-1 receptors on the ß-cells results in enhanced levels of insulin biosynthesis, ß-cell proliferation, resistance to ß-cell apoptosis, and enhanced ß-cell survival in both humans and rodents; yet, the risk of hypoglycemia is minimized because insulin production and exocytosis occurs in a glucose-dependent manner. The efficacy and safety of the two commercially available GLP-1 receptor agonists, liraglutide and exenatide, in managing postprandial glycemia have been well documented in numerous clinical trials, in which reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of -0.79% to -1.12% have been demonstrated. Weight reduction/maintenance and improvements in blood pressure and lipidemia have also been reported. CONCLUSION: Because GLP-1 receptor agonists work in a glucose-dependent manner, they are likely to reduce hyperglycemia safely, without a marked fluctuation toward hypoglycemia. In the process of acutely restoring ß-cell function, GLP-1 agonists may allow patients to achieve HbA(1c) <7% without experiencing weight gain or hypoglycemia. The ability of GLP-1 receptor agonists to improve blood pressure and postprandial lipidemia in the context of weight neutrality or weight loss may have the potential to ameliorate some of the cardiovascular risks observed in patients with T2DM.

Effect of pain intensity and time to administration on responsiveness to almotriptan: results from AXERT 12.5 mg Time Versus Intensity Migraine Study (AIMS).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether time-based early treatment, independent of pain intensity, is superior to a pain intensity-based treatment, where patients are asked to treat at least moderate intensity headaches, resulting in a reduction of overall migraine headache duration. BACKGROUND: Retrospective and prospective trials have reported improved outcomes when triptans were used early or to treat mild migraine headache pain. However, tolerability as well as efficacy may be 2 of several key issues that have prevented this new treatment paradigm from becoming universally accepted. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, cluster-randomized study, patients with IHS-defined migraine were instructed to treat 2 sequential migraine headaches with almotriptan 12.5 mg using either Early Treatment (ET, ie, treat at earliest onset of headache pain, within 1 hour) or Standard Treatment (ST, ie, treat when headache pain intensity is moderate or severe). The novel trial design uses total migraine headache pain duration as the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Results are presented for the first headache and include an ITT population of 757 ET and 693 ST patients. Median headache duration (time from onset of headache pain until no pain) was significantly shorter in ET patients compared to ST patients (3.18 vs 5.53 hours, P < .001). An analysis of the ET subgroup treating headache pain within 1 hour of onset revealed pain intensity, ie, treating mild or moderate versus severe pain, was significantly correlated with treatment outcomes defined by total headache duration, 2-hour pain free, sustained pain free, and use of rescue medication. Multivariate analyses comparing ST subgroups that treated within 1 hour versus greater than 1 hour after headache onset, demonstrate that both pain intensity, ie, treating moderate versus severe headache pain, and treating early versus late, were significantly correlated with total headache duration, 2-hour pain free, sustained pain free, and use of rescue medication. The overall incidence of adverse events was low; nausea and dizziness were the only adverse events with an incidence > or =1% in either treatment group (nausea: 2.5% and 1.7% and dizziness 1.1% and 0.7%, in the ET and ST groups, respectively). CONCLUSION: Total headache duration was significantly shorter in the early treatment group compared to the standard treatment group. Considering time to treatment within a relatively early range of 1 hour or less, efficacy results when treating mild versus moderate pain were similar and both were associated with better outcomes than treatment of severe pain. When considering the prognostic variables of time to treatment and headache pain intensity (limited to moderate vs severe), both were independent predictors, with time to treatment a better predictor of headache duration and rescue medication use, and pain intensity a better predictor of 2-hour pain free and sustained pain free.

An open-label study to assess changes in efficacy and satisfaction with migraine care when patients have access to multiple sumatriptan succinate formulations.

BACKGROUND: Because a patient's migraines often differ in duration, intensity, and accompanying symptoms, as well as the conditions and circumstances at the time of the headache, the mode for treatment also may change. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine whether migraine management is improved by providing 3 formulations of sumatriptan succinate to patients, together with education to assist them in selecting the most appropriate formulation for specific attacks. METHODS: This was an open-label study conducted in 3 family practice settings. Patients were recruited who had at least a 1-year history of migraine meeting International Headache Society criteria and experienced 2 to 6 attacks per month within the previous 3 months. Patients received instructions on oral, intranasal, and subcutaneous (SC) sumatriptan and were provided with all 3 formulations to treat 6 headaches. Migraine features, formulation used, reason for selecting specific formulation, migraine symptom relief, and use of follow-up doses were recorded in diaries. At follow-up, patients completed a questionnaire assessing satisfaction with access to multiple formulations. RESULTS: Of the 33 enrolled patients (26 women, 7 men; mean age, 38.5 years [range, 23-54 years]), 25 (75.8%) completed all visits. Of 149 headaches treated, 39 (26.2%) were mild at onset, 70 (47.0%) were moderate, and 40 (26.8%) were severe. Eighty (53.7%) headaches were treated with tablets, 35 (23.5%) with nasal spray, and 34 (22.8%) with SC injection. Primary reasons for selecting specific formulations included "fewer side effects" for tablets, "convenience" for nasal spray, and "quick onset of action" for SC injection. Twenty-one (84.0%) patients reported being either very satisfied or satisfied with their ability to manage their headaches. Physicians reported that 18 of 24 (75.0%) patients had an improved attitude toward managing their headaches. All formulations were well tolerated. Eight (32.0%) patients reported adverse events, the 2 most common being chest pressure and fatigue. CONCLUSION: The patients in this study reported greater satisfaction with migraine management when given access to multiple sumatriptan formulations and education regarding their appropriate use.

Outcomes of endoscopy in patients with iron deficiency anemia after Billroth II partial gastrectomy.

GOALS: To determine the frequency of gastrointestinal lesions detected by upper endoscopy and colonoscopy in patients who developed iron deficiency anemia after Billroth II surgery. STUDY: The authors reviewed the medical records of 116 consecutive patients with a Billroth II partial gastrectomy and 232 age- and gender-matched controls without gastric surgery who were referred for endoscopy to evaluate iron deficiency anemia over a 5-year period. RESULTS: Clinically important lesions were detected in 22.4% of the patients with gastric surgery and in 59.5% of those with intact stomachs (p < 0.001). In the gastric surgery group, clinically important lesions were found more often in the upper gastrointestinal tract than in the colon (19.0% vs. 3.4%, p < 0.001). In the nonsurgical group, the diagnostic yields of upper endoscopy and colonoscopy were not significantly different (38.4% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.24). Synchronous lesions in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract were significantly less common in the group of patients with gastric surgery compared with those without gastric surgery (0.0% vs. 11.6%, p < 0.001). Small bowel biopsies and small bowel follow-through did not identify any additional lesions. In the gastric surgery group, multivariate analysis identified abdominal symptoms (OR = 11.2, 95% CI 3.2-39.2, p < 0.001), a positive result on fecal occult blood testing (OR = 6.4, 95% CI 2.0-20.3, p = 0.002), and Billroth II surgery at least 10 years before evaluation (OR = 5.4, 95% CI 1.7-16.7, p = 0.004) as independent predictors of identifying a clinically important lesion by endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Upper endoscopy had a significantly higher diagnostic yield than colonoscopy in patients who developed iron deficiency anemia after Billroth II surgery. Prospective studies are necessary to determine the role and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in the evaluation of iron deficiency anemia in this patient population.