Optimal Screening for Predicting and Preventing the Risk of Heart Failure Among Adults With Diabetes Without Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Pooled Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to identify individuals with diabetes who are at a high risk for developing heart failure (HF) to inform implementation of preventive therapies is unknown, especially in those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). METHODS: Adults with diabetes and no HF at baseline from 7 community-based cohorts were included. Participants without ASCVD who were at high risk for developing HF were identified using 1-step screening strategies: risk score (WATCH-DM [Weight, Age, Hypertension, Creatinine, HDL-C, Diabetes Control, QRS Duration, MI, and CABG] ≥12), NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide ≥125 pg/mL), hs-cTn (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T ≥14 ng/L; hs-cTnI ≥31 ng/L), and echocardiography-based diabetic cardiomyopathy (echo-DbCM; left atrial enlargement, left ventricular hypertrophy, or diastolic dysfunction). High-risk participants were also identified using 2-step screening strategies with a second test to identify residual risk among those deemed low risk by the first test: WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, NT-proBNP/echo-DbCM. Across screening strategies, the proportion of HF events identified, 5-year number needed to treat and number needed to screen to prevent 1 HF event with an SGLT2i (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor) among high-risk participants, and cost of screening were estimated. RESULTS: The initial study cohort included 6293 participants (48.2% women), of whom 77.7% without prevalent ASCVD were evaluated with different HF screening strategies. At 5-year follow-up, 6.2% of participants without ASCVD developed incident HF. The 5-year number needed to treat to prevent 1 HF event with an SGLT2i among participants without ASCVD was 43 (95% CI, 29-72). In the cohort without ASCVD, high-risk participants identified using 1-step screening strategies had a low 5-year number needed to treat (22 for NT-proBNP to 37 for echo-DbCM). However, a substantial proportion of HF events occurred among participants identified as low risk using 1-step screening approaches (29% for echo-DbCM to 47% for hs-cTn). Two-step screening strategies captured most HF events (75-89%) in the high-risk subgroup with a comparable 5-year number needed to treat as the 1-step screening approaches (30-32). The 5-year number needed to screen to prevent 1 HF event was similar across 2-step screening strategies (45-61). However, the number of tests and associated costs were lowest for WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP ($1061) compared with other 2-step screening strategies (NT-proBNP/hs-cTn: $2894; NT-proBNP/echo-DbCM: $16 358). CONCLUSIONS: Selective NT-proBNP testing based on the WATCH-DM score efficiently identified a high-risk primary prevention population with diabetes expected to derive marked absolute benefits from SGLT2i to prevent HF.

A narrative commentary about interoperability in medical devices and data used in diabetes therapy from an academic EU/UK/US perspective.

People living with diabetes have many medical devices available to assist with disease management. A critical aspect that must be considered is how systems for continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps communicate with each other and how the data generated by these devices can be downloaded, integrated, presented and used. Not only is interoperability associated with practical challenges, but also devices must adhere to all aspects of regulatory and legal frameworks. Key issues around interoperability in terms of data ownership, privacy and the limitations of interoperability include where the responsibility/liability for device and data interoperability lies and the need for standard data-sharing protocols to allow the seamless integration of data from different sources. There is a need for standardised protocols for the open and transparent handling of data and secure integration of data into electronic health records. Here, we discuss the current status of interoperability in medical devices and data used in diabetes therapy, as well as regulatory and legal issues surrounding both device and data interoperability, focusing on Europe (including the UK) and the USA. We also discuss a potential future landscape in which a clear and transparent framework for interoperability and data handling also fulfils the needs of people living with diabetes and healthcare professionals.

Hyperglycaemic crises in adults with diabetes: a consensus report.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS), American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) and Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) convened a panel of internists and diabetologists to update the ADA consensus statement on hyperglycaemic crises in adults with diabetes, published in 2001 and last updated in 2009. The objective of this consensus report is to provide up-to-date knowledge about the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperglycaemic hyperosmolar state (HHS) in adults. A systematic examination of publications since 2009 informed new recommendations. The target audience is the full spectrum of diabetes healthcare professionals and individuals with diabetes.

Once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec as part of a basal-bolus regimen in individuals with type 1 diabetes (ONWARDS 6): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target trial.

BACKGROUND: ONWARDS 6 compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous insulin icodec (icodec) and once-daily insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This 52-week (26-week main phase plus a 26-week safety extension), randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial was done at 99 sites across 12 countries. Adults with type 1 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] <10·0% [86 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, both in combination with insulin aspart (two or more daily injections). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26, tested for non-inferiority (0·3 percentage point margin) in all randomly assigned participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04848480, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between April 30 and Oct 15, 2021, of 655 participants screened, 582 participants were randomly assigned to icodec (n=290) or degludec (n=292). At week 26, from baseline values of 7·59% (icodec) and 7·63% (degludec), estimated mean changes in HbA1c were -0·47 percentage points and -0·51 percentage points, respectively (estimated treatment difference 0·05 percentage points [95% CI -0·13 to 0·23]), confirming non-inferiority of icodec to degludec (p=0·0065). Overall rate of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia (baseline to week 26) was statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec (19·9 vs 10·4 events per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·9 [95% CI 1·5 to 2·3]; p<0·0001). The rate was also statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec when evaluated over 57 weeks (52 weeks plus a 5-week follow-up period). 39 serious adverse events were reported in 24 (8%) participants receiving icodec, and 25 serious adverse events were reported in 20 (7%) participants receiving degludec. One participant in the icodec group died; this was judged unlikely to be due to the trial product. INTERPRETATION: In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly icodec showed non-inferiority to once-daily degludec in HbA1c reduction at week 26, with statistically significantly higher rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. For icodec, time below 3·0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL) was at the threshold of the internationally recommended target (<1%) during weeks 22-26 and below target during weeks 48-52. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Risks of peri- and postoperative complications with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

AIM: To assess whether adults with diabetes on oral hypoglycaemic agents undergoing general endotracheal anaesthesia during nine common surgical procedures who are glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) users, compared with non-users, are at increased risk of six peri- and post-procedure complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort analysis of over 130 million deidentified US adults with diabetes (defined as being on oral hypoglycaemic agents) from a nationally representative electronic health dataset between 1 January 2015 and 1 April 2023 was analysed. Cohorts were matched by high-dimensionality propensity scoring. We compared the odds of six peri- and postoperative complications in GLP1-RA users and non-users. A sensitivity analysis compared these odds in GLP1-RA users to non-users with diabetes and obesity. We measured the odds of (a) a composite outcome of postoperative decelerated gastric emptying, including antiemetic use, ileus within 7 days post-procedure, gastroparesis diagnosis, gastric emptying study; (b) postoperative aspiration or pneumonitis; (c) severe respiratory failure; (d) postoperative hypoglycaemia; (e) inpatient mortality; and (f) 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 13 361 adults with diabetes, 16.5% were treated with a GLP1-RA. In the high-dimensionality propensity score-matched cohort, GLP1-RA users had a lower risk of peri- and postoperative complications for decelerated gastric emptying and antiemetic use compared with non-users. The risk of ileus within 7 days, aspiration/pneumonitis, hypoglycaemia and 30-day mortality were not different. A sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in patients with diabetes and obesity. CONCLUSION: No increased risk of peri- and postoperative complications in GLP1-RA users undergoing surgery with general endotracheal anaesthesia was identified.

A Roadmap to an Equitable Digital Diabetes Ecosystem.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes management presents a substantial burden to individuals living with the condition and their families, health care professionals, and health care systems. Although an increasing number of digital tools are available to assist with tasks such as blood glucose monitoring and insulin dose calculation, multiple persistent barriers continue to prevent their optimal use. METHODS: As a guide to creating an equitable connected digital diabetes ecosystem, we propose a roadmap with key milestones that need to be achieved along the way. RESULTS: During the Coronavirus 2019 pandemic, there was an increased use of digital tools to support diabetes care, but at the same time, the pandemic also highlighted problems of inequities in access to and use of these same technologies. Based on these observations, a connected diabetes ecosystem should incorporate and optimize the use of existing treatments and technologies, integrate tasks such as glucose monitoring, data analysis, and insulin dose calculations, and lead to improved and equitable health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Development of this ecosystem will require overcoming multiple obstacles, including interoperability and data security concerns. However, an integrated system would optimize existing devices, technologies, and treatments to improve outcomes.

People With Diabetes Using Insulin Flying Across Multiple Time Zones: Limitations and Opportunities for Diabetes Technologies.

Increasingly, people with diabetes (PWD) are using wearable and other devices to support self-management. During air travel, there are 4 stakeholders involved in maximizing the safety of wireless devices for diabetes care used in flight: (1) manufacturers of the devices, (2) airlines, (3) the Transportation Security Administration, and (4) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. These stakeholders have all developed technologies and policies that assist PWD who prepare for and take appropriate actions during long-haul flights. This article discusses the performance and use of 6 classes of specific wireless diabetes devices during an airplane flight, including the following: (1) blood glucose monitors, (2) continuous glucose monitors, (3) insulin pumps, (4) smart pens for dosing insulin injections, (5) advanced hybrid closed-loop systems, and (6) spinal cord stimulators for painful diabetic neuropathy. Through the policies and safeguards of the 4 stakeholders and the proper self-care measures that insulin-using PWD can take, it is possible to maintain safe glycemic levels on flights across multiple time zones.

Lipohypertrophy and Insulin: An Old Dog That Needs New Tricks.

OBJECTIVE: To review the current status of practical knowledge related to insulin-associated lipohypertrophy (LH) - an accumulation of fatty subcutaneous nodules commonly caused by repeated injections and/or infusions of insulin into the same site. METHODS: Review of published literature with additional contributions from leading multidisciplinary experts with the emphasis on clinical aspects including pathophysiology, clinical and economic consequences, diagnosis, prevention and treatment. RESULTS: LH is the most common dermatologic complication of insulin therapy. Risk factors for the development of lipohypertrophy include repeated delivery of large amounts of insulin into the same location over time, repeated injection trauma to the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and multiple injections using the same needle. Subcutaneous insulin injection in skin areas with lipohypertrophy is associated with reduced pain; however, this problem can interfere with insulin absorption, thereby increasing the likelihood of glucose variability, hypo- and hyperglycemia when a site is changed. Modern visualization technology of the subcutaneous space with ultrasound can demonstrate lipohypertrophy early in the course of its development. CONCLUSIONS: The physiological and psychological consequences of developing insulin lipohypertrophy can be prevented and treated with education focusing on insulin injection techniques.

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.

Semaglutide single-dose pen-injector: Post hoc analysis of summative usability testing for weight management.

Subcutaneous semaglutide, at a 2.4 mg once-weekly maintenance dose, is approved in the United States for weight management in individuals with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher, or with a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or higher and at least one obesity-related co-morbidity. To investigate the usability of the semaglutide pen-injector in individuals who met these criteria, we report post hoc analysis of the summative (human factors validation) usability testing and safety analysis involving patients with type 2 diabetes (an obesity-related co-morbidity) with the same pen-injector, limited to the 26 out of 30 patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or higher (11 pen-injector-naïve, 15 pen-injector-experienced) and 15 non-pharmacist healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants performed two simulated injections into an injection pad. No potentially serious use errors occurred. Mean subjective ease-of-use rating on a seven-point scale, where 1 = difficult and 7 = easy, was 6.9 for the second injection in all three groups. These results suggest that the semaglutide pen-injector is easy to use and not associated with serious use errors when used by pen-injector-naïve or pen-injector-experienced patients meeting the requirement for weight management with semaglutide treatment, and by non-pharmacist HCPs.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on time in range: SWITCH PRO, a crossover study of basal insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes and risk factors for hypoglycaemia.

AIMS: To compare time in range (TIR) with use of insulin degludec U100 (degludec) versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, crossover, multicentre trial comparing degludec and glargine U100 in basal insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes and ≥1 hypoglycaemia risk factor. There were two treatment periods, each with 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phases (with evaluation of glucose using blinded professional continuous glucose monitoring). The once-weekly titration (target: 3.9-5.0 mmol/L) was based on pre-breakfast self-measured blood glucose. The primary endpoint was percentage of TIR (3.9─10.0 mmol/L). Secondary endpoints included overall and nocturnal percentage of time in tight glycaemic range (3.9-7.8 mmol/L), and mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and glucose levels. RESULTS: At baseline, participants (n = 498) had a mean (SD) age of 62.8 (9.8) years, a diabetes duration of 15.1 (7.7) years and an HbA1c level of 59.6 (11.0) mmol/mol (7.6 [1.0]%). Noninferiority and superiority were confirmed for degludec versus glargine U100 for the primary endpoint, with a mean TIR of 72.1% for degludec versus 70.7% for glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference [ETD] 1.43% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12, 2.74; P = 0.03] or 20.6 min/d). Overall time in tight glycaemic range favoured degludec versus glargine U100 (ETD 1.5% [95% CI: 0.15, 2.89] or 21.9 min/d). Degludec also reduced nocturnal time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/L) compared with glargine U100 (ETD -0.88% [95% CI: -1.34, -0.42] or 12.7 min/night; post hoc) and significantly fewer nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes of <3.0 mmol/L were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Degludec, compared with glargine U100, provided more TIR and time in tight glycaemic range, and reduced nocturnal TBR in insulin-treated people with type 2 diabetes.

Risk of hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U300 in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: the randomised, head-to-head CONCLUDE trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: A head-to-head randomised trial was conducted to evaluate hypoglycaemia safety with insulin degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. METHODS: This randomised (1:1), open-label, treat-to-target, multinational trial included individuals with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥18 years with HbA1c ≤80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and BMI ≤45 kg/m2. Participants were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs (excluding insulin secretagogues) and had to fulfil at least one predefined criterion for hypoglycaemia risk. Both degludec U200 and glargine U300 were similarly titrated to a fasting blood glucose target of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Endpoints were assessed during a 36 week maintenance period and a total treatment period up to 88 weeks. There were three hypoglycaemia endpoints: (1) overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia (either severe, an event requiring third-party assistance, or confirmed by blood glucose [<3.1 mmol/l] with symptoms); (2) nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (severe or confirmed by blood glucose with symptoms, between 00:01 and 05:59 h); and (3) severe hypoglycaemia. The primary endpoint was the number of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemic events in the maintenance period. Secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints included the number of nocturnal symptomatic events and number of severe hypoglycaemic events during the maintenance period. RESULTS: Of the 1609 randomised participants, 733 of 805 (91.1%) in the degludec U200 arm and 734 of 804 (91.3%) in the glargine U300 arm completed the trial (87.3% and 87.8% completed on treatment, respectively). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two treatment arms. For the primary endpoint, the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia was not significantly lower with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 (rate ratio [RR] 0.88 [95% CI 0.73, 1.06]). As there was no significant difference between treatments for the primary endpoint, the confirmatory testing procedure for superiority was stopped. The pre-specified confirmatory secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints were analysed using pre-specified statistical models but were now considered exploratory. These endpoints showed a lower rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.48, 0.84]) and severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07, 0.57]) with degludec U200 vs glargine U300. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: There was no significant difference in the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 in the maintenance period. The rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were nominally significantly lower with degludec U200 during the maintenance period compared with glargine U300. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03078478 FUNDING: This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk (Bagsvaerd, Denmark).

COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact of Quarantine on Medical Students' Mental Wellbeing and Learning Behaviors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The novel coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic causes great public health and socioeconomic harms. Worldwide many countries implemented quarantine policies to minimize the spread of this highly contagious disease. The present study aim was to investigate the impact of quarantine on the medical students' mental wellbeing and learning behaviors. METHODS: In this descriptive study, we used a questionnaire with a Five-Point Likert Scale to collect the information. The questionnaire was distributed among 625 medical students through their emails with a response rate of 530 (84.8%), majority 294 (55.47%) being female. The survey questionnaire consisted of total 20 items; 12 items were related to psychological wellbeing and stress-allied queries and 08 items were about learning behaviors. RESULTS: The findings encompass two important characteristics related to quarantine, psychological wellbeing, and learning behaviors. A combined cohort of 234 medical students, either female or male, (which was 44.1% of the total responders) showed a sense of being emotionally detached from family, friends and fellow students, 125/ 530 (23.5%) medical students felt disheartened. Both female and male medical students showed a marked decrease in their overall work performance. Moreover, 56.2% of the total students (61.5% of the females and 49.5% of the males) felt a decrease in the time they spent studying. CONCLUSIONS: Both female and male medical students have identified that quarantine has caused them to feel emotionally detached from family, fellows, and friends and decrease their overall work performance and study period. The findings also show that one fourth of the medical students who participated in this study felt disheartened during the quarantine period. The long-term quarantine due to COVID-19 pandemics may causes further worsening in the psychological and learning behaviors of these medical students.

A randomized, multicentre trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in adults with type 1 diabetes (onset 5).

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) vs insulin aspart (IAsp) used in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, treat-to-target, randomized, 16-week trial investigating CSII treatment with faster aspart (n = 236) or IAsp (n = 236). All available information, regardless of treatment discontinuation, was used for the evaluation of effect. RESULTS: Faster aspart was non-inferior to IAsp regarding the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; primary endpoint). The mean HbA1c changed from 58.4 mmol/mol (7.5%) at baseline to 57.8 mmol/mol (7.4%) with faster aspart and to 56.8 mmol/mol (7.4%) with IAsp after 16 weeks' treatment, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of 1.0 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14; 1.87) or 0.09% (95% CI 0.01; 0.17; P < 0.001) for non-inferiority (0.4% margin; P < 0.02 for statistical significance in favour of IAsp). Faster aspart was superior to IAsp in change from baseline in 1-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increment after a meal test (ETD -0.91 mmol/L [95% CI -1.43; -0.39] or -16.4 mg/dL [95% CI -25.7; -7.0]; P = 0.001), with statistically significant reductions also at 30 minutes and 2 hours. The improvement in PPG was reflected in the change from baseline in 1-hour interstitial glucose increment after all meals (ETD -0.21 mmol/L [95% CI -0.31; -0.11] or -3.77 mg/dL [95% CI -5.53; -2.01]). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia (estimated rate ratio 1.00 [95% CI 0.85; 1.16]). A numerical imbalance in severe hypoglycaemic episodes between faster aspart and IAsp was seen in the treatment (21 vs 7) and 4-week run-in periods (4 vs 0). CONCLUSIONS: Faster aspart provides an effective and safe option for CSII treatment in T1D.

Digital Health Interventions for Diabetes: Everything to Gain and Nothing to Lose.

IN BRIEF The traditional approach to integrating new therapies involves long, expensive roadmaps with evidence generation required for multiple stakeholders, most notably regulators and clinicians. More recently, new technologies such as insulin delivery systems and continuous glucose monitoring devices have become mainstream without complete clinical evidence being available when they were first introduced. There is tremendous enthusiasm from investors, industry, and people with diabetes regarding the potential of digital health to add value to diabetes care, and this enthusiasm exists despite a paucity of high-quality clinical evidence from traditional randomized clinical trials. Moreover, the potential of diabetes digital health technologies has been recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators, who are changing their approaches to allow easier, earlier access to diabetes software and devices. This wager that digital health will add value makes sense.

Hypoglycemia evaluation and reporting in diabetes: Importance for the development of new therapies.

Hypoglycemia complicating diabetes therapy is well recognized to be an ever-present threat to patients, their families, providers, payers, and regulators. Despite this being widely acknowledged, the regulatory stance on hypoglycemia as an endpoint in clinical trials to support new product registration has not evolved in any meaningful way since the publication of a position paper by an American Diabetes Association (ADA) Workgroup in 2005. As the impact of hypoglycemia on persons affected by diabetes is of major importance when assessing new treatments, the historical position of regulatory agencies on hypoglycemia is reviewed with respect to product approvals. The purpose of this article is to present proposals for facilitating development of therapies that reduce hypoglycemia risk through (1) development of composite measures of benefit for regulatory endpoints and (2) facilitation of the fulfillment of an unmet clinical need for reducing hypoglycemia. In view of greater comprehension of the effects of hypoglycemia, coupled with improved methodology to assess its frequency, the authors recommend: (1) a numerical cut point of <54 mg/dl (<3.0 mmol/L) as a clinically relevant level with which to define meaningful hypoglycemia for trials of diabetes therapies; (2) utilization in clinical trials of mature glucose monitoring technologies for purposes of regulatory evaluation and clinical decision-making; and (3) development of primary efficacy endpoint composites that include hypoglycemia rates and glycemic control.

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.).

Point-of-Care Blood Glucose Meter Accuracy in the Hospital Setting.

Point-of-care (POC) tests provide analytical information that can be used to make decisions at patients' bedside, as opposed to laboratory tests that must be run at a central laboratory. POC testing is a widely used tool to enable immediate determination of glucose levels in hospitalized patients and facilitate rapid treatment decisions in response to fluctuations in glycemia. Accurate POC glucose testing requires attention to various factors before, during, and after performance of tests. These include 1) proper preparation of test sites to avoid preanalytical errors, 2) proper identification of tested patients whose physiological status permits sampled capillary specimens to correlate with central venous blood glucose levels to avoid analytical errors, and 3) proper documentation of the fidelity of meter results with the medical record to avoid postanalytical errors.

Importance of FDA-Integrated Continuous Glucose Monitors to Ensure Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control and self-monitoring, as well as to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia. Integrated CGM (iCGM) FDA-cleared systems with published performance data are established nonadjunctive and accurate CGM tools that can directly inform decision-making in the treatment of diabetes (i.e., insulin dosing). Studies have assessed accuracy and safety data of CGMs that were eventually cleared for iCGM by the FDA and that informed the recommendation for their nonadjunctive use. Subsequent robust clinical trials and real-world studies demonstrated clinical effectiveness with improvements in a range of patient outcomes. In recent years, a number of non-iCGM-approved CGM devices have entered the market outside the United States worldwide. Some of these non-iCGM-approved CGM devices require additional user verification of blood glucose levels to be performed for making treatment decisions, termed adjunctive. Moreover, in many non-iCGM-approved CGM devices, accuracy studies published in peer-reviewed journals are scarce or have many limitations. Consequently, non-iCGM-approved CGM devices cannot be automatically perceived as having the same performance or quality standards than those approved for iCGM by the FDA. As a result, although these devices tend to cost less than iCGMs that carry FDA clearance and could therefore be attractive from the point of view of a health care payer, it must be emphasized that evaluation of costs should not be limited to the device (such as the usability preference that patients have for nonadjunctive sensors compared to adjunctive sensors) but to the wider value of the total benefit that the product provides to the patient.