The Use of Rescue Insulin in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: To describe rescue insulin use and associated factors in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GRADE participants (type 2 diabetes duration <10 years, baseline A1C 6.8%-8.5% on metformin monotherapy, N = 5,047) were randomly assigned to insulin glargine U-100, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin and followed quarterly for a mean of 5 years. Rescue insulin (glargine or aspart) was to be started within 6 weeks of A1C >7.5%, confirmed. Reasons for delaying rescue insulin were reported by staff-completed survey. RESULTS: Nearly one-half of GRADE participants (N = 2,387 [47.3%]) met the threshold for rescue insulin. Among participants assigned to glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin, rescue glargine was added by 69% (39% within 6 weeks). Rescue aspart was added by 44% of glargine-assigned participants (19% within 6 weeks) and by 30% of non-glargine-assigned participants (14% within 6 weeks). Higher A1C values were associated with adding rescue insulin. Intention to change health behaviors (diet/lifestyle, adherence to current treatment) and not wanting to take insulin were among the most common reasons reported for not adding rescue insulin within 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Proportionately, rescue glargine, when required, was more often used than rescue aspart, and higher A1C values were associated with greater rescue insulin use. Wanting to use noninsulin strategies to improve glycemia was commonly reported, although multiple factors likely contributed to not using rescue insulin. These findings highlight the persistent challenge of intensifying type 2 diabetes treatment with insulin, even in a clinical trial.

Higher burden of cardiometabolic and socioeconomic risk factors in women with type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the Glycemic Reduction Approaches in Diabetes (GRADE) baseline cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a powerful risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), conferring a greater relative risk in women than men. We sought to examine sex differences in cardiometabolic risk factors and management in the contemporary cohort represented by the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GRADE enrolled 5047 participants (1837 women, 3210 men) with T2DM on metformin monotherapy at baseline. The current report is a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data collected July 2013 to August 2017. RESULTS: Compared with men, women had a higher mean body mass index (BMI), greater prevalence of severe obesity (BMI≥40 kg/m2), higher mean LDL cholesterol, greater prevalence of low HDL cholesterol, and were less likely to receive statin treatment and achieve target LDL, with a generally greater prevalence of these risk factors in younger women. Women with hypertension were equally likely to achieve blood pressure targets as men; however, women were less likely to receive ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. Women were more likely to be divorced, separated or widowed, and had fewer years of education and lower incomes. CONCLUSIONS: This contemporary cohort demonstrates that women with T2DM continue to have a greater burden of cardiometabolic and socioeconomic risk factors than men, particularly younger women. Attention to these persisting disparities is needed to reduce the burden of CVD in women. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01794143).

Benefit of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Reducing Hypoglycemia Is Sustained Through 12 Months of Use Among Older Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: To evaluate glycemic outcomes in the Wireless Innovation for Seniors with Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) randomized clinical trial (RCT) participants during an observational extension phase. Research Design and Methods: WISDM RCT was a 26-week RCT comparing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in 203 adults aged ≥60 years with type 1 diabetes. Of the 198 participants who completed the RCT, 100 (98%) CGM group participants continued CGM (CGM-CGM cohort) and 94 (98%) BGM group participants initiated CGM (BGM-CGM cohort) for an additional 26 weeks. Results: CGM was used a median of >90% of the time at 52 weeks in both cohorts. In the CGM-CGM cohort, median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 5.0% at baseline to 2.6% at 26 weeks and remained stable with a median of 2.8% at 52 weeks (P < 0.001 baseline to 52 weeks). Participants spent more time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) (mean 56% vs. 64%; P < 0.001) and had lower hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (mean 7.6% [59 mmol/mol] vs. 7.4% [57 mmol/mol]; P = 0.01) from baseline to 52 weeks. In BGM-CGM, from 26 to 52 weeks median time <70 mg/dL decreased from 3.9% to 1.9% (P < 0.001), TIR increased from 56% to 60% (P = 0.006) and HbA1c decreased from 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) to 7.3% (57 mmol/mol) (P = 0.025). In BGM-CGM, a severe hypoglycemic event was reported for nine participants while using BGM during the RCT and for two participants during the extension phase with CGM (P = 0.02). Conclusions: CGM use reduced hypoglycemia without increasing hyperglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. These data provide further evidence for fully integrating CGM into clinical practice. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03240432).

Hypoglycemia and Glycemic Control in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Baseline Results From the WISDM Study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge regarding the burden and predictors of hypoglycemia among older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is limited. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data from the Wireless Innovations for Seniors with Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) study, which enrolled participants at 22 sites in the United States. Eligibility included clinical diagnosis of T1D, age ≥60 years, no real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in prior three months, and HbA1c <10.0%. Blinded CGM data from 203 participants with at least 240 hours were included in the analyses. RESULTS: Median age of the cohort was 68 years (52% female, 93% non-Hispanic white, and 53% used insulin pumps). Mean HbA1c was 7.5%. Median time spent in the glucose range <70 mg/dL was 5.0% (72 min/day) and <54 mg/dL was 1.6% (24 min/day). Among all factors analyzed, only reduced hypoglycemia awareness was associated with greater time spent <54 mg/dL (median time of 2.7% vs 1.3% [39 vs 19 minutes per day] for reduced awareness vs aware/uncertain, respectively, P = .03). Participants spent a mean 56% of total time in target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL and 37% of time above 180 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of older T1D participants spent at least an hour a day with glucose levels <70 mg/dL. Those with reduced hypoglycemia awareness spent over twice as much time than those without in a serious hypoglycemia range (glucose levels <54 mg/dL). Interventions to reduce exposure to clinically significant hypoglycemia and increase time in range are urgently needed in this age group.

Approach to Using Trend Arrows in the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring Systems in Adults.

The use of personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has expanded dramatically among individuals with diabetes. CGM systems provide retrospective data, as well as the current glucose value and trend arrow data, which indicate the direction and velocity of changing glucose. In 2017, Aleppo and colleagues developed a simplified approach for adults with diabetes to safely adjust rapid-acting insulin doses using trend arrow information in the Dexcom G5 CGM system. Since then, the FreeStyle Libre and FreeStyle Libre 14-day CGM systems have become available in the United States; however, guidance on using trend arrow data that take the unique features of these systems into consideration is lacking. Specifically, the FreeStyle Libre systems do not have automatic alarms, which impact how the system and trend arrow data are used. The Endocrine Society convened an expert panel to address this gap and develop an approach to adjusting rapid-acting insulin doses for adults using trend arrows in the FreeStyle Libre systems. We based our approach on previous work and expanded upon engagement and scanning recommendations, and we incorporated pre-exercise planning specific to these systems. Our approach provides insulin dose adjustments as discrete insulin units based on an individual's insulin sensitivity and directionality of the trend arrow. We focus on the needs of patients treated with multiple daily injections because these individuals currently make up a greater proportion of individuals on intensive insulin therapy. Our recommendations are intended to provide a safe, practical approach to using trend arrows in the FreeStyle Libre systems.

Advances in Glucose Monitoring and Automated Insulin Delivery: Supplement to Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Endocrine Society guideline recommendations on diabetes technology in adults originate from the 2016 guideline titled "Diabetes Technology-Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline." Society recommendations on diabetes technology in children are contained in the 2011 guideline titled "Continuous Glucose Monitoring: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline." The field of diabetes technology is a rapidly advancing one, with new devices released annually and data from clinical trials published frequently. This report describes the most recent findings since the 2011 and 2016 guidelines were written, combining summaries of new literature with the authors' clinical experience of new devices. Although we describe what we believe to be important scientific and technological updates since these guidelines were published, we are not advancing formal additions or amendments to previously offered recommendations.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide ER in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): A 56-Week, Open-Label, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg s.c. with exenatide extended release (ER) 2.0 mg s.c. in subjects with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this phase 3a, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, 813 subjects with type 2 diabetes taking oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized (1:1) to semaglutide 1.0 mg or exenatide ER 2.0 mg for 56 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 56. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c (8.3% [67.7 mmol/mol] at baseline) was reduced by 1.5% (16.8 mmol/mol) with semaglutide and 0.9% (10.0 mmol/mol) with exenatide ER (estimated treatment difference vs. exenatide ER [ETD] -0.62% [95% CI -0.80, -0.44] [-6.78 mmol/mol (95% CI -8.70, -4.86)]; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority and superiority). Mean body weight (95.8 kg at baseline) was reduced by 5.6 kg with semaglutide and 1.9 kg with exenatide ER (ETD -3.78 kg [95% CI -4.58, -2.98]; P < 0.0001). Significantly more subjects treated with semaglutide (67%) achieved HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) versus those taking exenatide ER (40%). Both treatments had similar safety profiles, but gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in semaglutide-treated subjects (41.8%) than in exenatide ER-treated subjects (33.3%); injection-site reactions were more frequent with exenatide ER (22.0%) than with semaglutide (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide 1.0 mg was superior to exenatide ER 2.0 mg in improving glycemic control and reducing body weight after 56 weeks of treatment; the drugs had comparable safety profiles. These results indicate that semaglutide treatment is highly effective for subjects with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs.

Effect of initiating use of an insulin pump in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections and continuous glucose monitoring (DIAMOND): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of initiation of insulin pump therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; CSII) in patients with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has not been studied. We aimed to assess glycaemic outcomes when switching from multiple daily injections (MDI) to CSII in adults with type 1 diabetes using CGM. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised controlled trial, 75 adults with type 1 diabetes in the CGM group of the DIAMOND trial were randomly assigned via the study website using a computer-generated sequence to continue MDI or switch to CSII, with continuation of CGM, for 28 weeks. The primary outcome was CGM-measured time in the glucose concentration range of 70-180 mg/dL (3·9-10·0 mmol/L). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02282397. FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2015, and May 5, 2016, 37 participants were randomly assigned to the CGM plus CSII group and 38 participants were randomly assigned to the CGM plus MDI group. The study was completed by 36 (97%) of 37 participants in the CGM plus CSII group and 35 (92%) of 38 participants in the CGM plus MDI group. Mean CGM use was 6·7 days per week (SD 0·8) in the CGM plus CSII group and 6·9 days per week (0·3) in the CGM plus MDI group (p=0·86). No participants in the CGM plus CSII group who completed the trial discontinued CSII. Over the follow-up period, mean time in the glucose concentration range of 70-180 mg/dL (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) was 791 min per day (SD 157) in the CGM plus CSII group and 741 min per day (225) in the CGM plus MDI group (adjusted mean treatment group difference: 83 min, 95% CI 17-149; p=0·01). Participants in the CGM plus CSII group had a greater reduction in CGM-measured mean glucose (p=0·005) and hyperglycaemia (on four metrics: p=0·007 for >180 mg/dL [>10·0 mmol/L], p=0·02 for >250 mg/dL [>13·9 mmol/L], p=0·04 for >300 mg/dL [>16·6 mmol/L], and p=0·02 for the area under the curve for 180 mg/dL [10·0 mmol/L]), but also an increase in CGM-measured hypoglycaemia (p=0·0001 for <70 mg/dL [<3·9 mmol/L], p=0·0002 for <60 mg/dL [<3·3 mmol/L], p=0·0009 for <50 mg/dL [<2·8 mmol/L], p=0·0002 for the area over the curve for 70 mg/dL [3·9 mmol/L]). Mean HbA1c change from baseline to 28 weeks was 0·3% (SD 0·9; 3·3 mmol/mol [SD 9·8]) in the CGM plus CSII group and 0·1% (0·4; 1·1 mmol/mol [4·4]) in the CGM plus MDI group (p=0·32). Severe hypoglycaemia occurred in one participant in the CGM plus MDI group, and diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hyperglycaemia occurred in one participant each in the CGM plus CSII group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that glycaemic control measured by time in the glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) is improved by initiation of CSII in adults with type 1 diabetes. However, biochemical hypoglycaemia also was increased in the study, which will be important to consider when incorporating these results into clinical practice. FUNDING: Dexcom.

REPLACE-BG: A Randomized Trial Comparing Continuous Glucose Monitoring With and Without Routine Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Well-Controlled Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) without confirmatory blood glucose monitoring (BGM) measurements is as safe and effective as using CGM adjunctive to BGM in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 14 sites in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Participants were ≥18 years of age (mean 44 ± 14 years), had T1D for ≥1 year (mean duration 24 ± 12 years), used an insulin pump, and had an HbA1c ≤9.0% (≤75 mmol/mL) (mean 7.0 ± 0.7% [53 ± 7.7 mmol/mol]); prestudy, 47% were CGM users. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to the CGM-only (n = 149) or CGM+BGM (n = 77) group. The primary outcome was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) over the 26-week trial, with a prespecified noninferiority limit of 7.5%. RESULTS: CGM use averaged 6.7 ± 0.5 and 6.8 ± 0.4 days/week in the CGM-only and CGM+BGM groups, respectively, over the 26-week trial. BGM tests per day (including the two required daily for CGM calibration) averaged 2.8 ± 0.9 and 5.4 ± 1.4 in the two groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Mean time in 70-180 mg/dL was 63 ± 13% at both baseline and 26 weeks in the CGM-only group and 65 ± 13% and 65 ± 11% in the CGM+BGM group (adjusted difference 0%; one-sided 95% CI -2%). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM-only group, and one occurred in the CGM+BGM group. CONCLUSIONS: Use of CGM without regular use of confirmatory BGM is as safe and effective as using CGM with BGM in adults with well-controlled T1D at low risk for severe hypoglycemia.

Comparison of Insulin Glargine 300 Units/mL and 100 Units/mL in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Continuous Glucose Monitoring Profiles and Variability Using Morning or Evening Injections.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare glucose control in participants with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) or glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in the morning or evening, in combination with mealtime insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 16-week, exploratory, open-label, parallel-group, two-period crossover study (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01658579), 59 adults with type 1 diabetes were randomized (1:1:1:1) to once-daily Gla-300 or Gla-100 given in the morning or evening (with crossover in the injection schedule). The primary efficacy end point was the mean percentage of time in the target glucose range (80-140 mg/dL), as measured using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), during the last 2 weeks of each 8-week period. Additional end points included other CGM glycemic control parameters, hypoglycemia (per self-monitored plasma glucose [SMPG]), and adverse events. RESULTS: The percentage of time within the target glucose range was comparable between the Gla-300 and Gla-100 groups. There was significantly less increase in CGM-based glucose during the last 4 h of the 24-h injection interval for Gla-300 compared with Gla-100 (least squares mean difference -14.7 mg/dL [95% CI -26.9 to -2.5]; P = 0.0192). Mean 24-h glucose curves for the Gla-300 group were smoother (lower glycemic excursions), irrespective of morning or evening injection. Four metrics of intrasubject interstitial glucose variability showed no difference between Gla-300 and Gla-100. Nocturnal confirmed (<54 mg/dL by SMPG) or severe hypoglycemia rate was lower for Gla-300 participants than for Gla-100 participants (4.0 vs. 9.0 events per participant-year; rate ratio 0.45 [95% CI 0.24-0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: Less increase in CGM-based glucose levels in the last 4 h of the 24-h injection interval, smoother average 24-h glucose profiles irrespective of injection time, and reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia were observed with Gla-300 versus Gla-100.

Reliability of Trained Dogs to Alert to Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: We examined the reliability of trained dogs to alert to hypoglycemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Patients with type 1 diabetes who currently used diabetes alert dogs participated in this exploratory study. Subjects reported satisfaction, perceived dog glucose sensing ability and reasons for obtaining a trained dog. Reliability of dog alerts was assessed using capillary blood glucose (CBG) and blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) as comparators in 8 subjects (age 4-48). Hypoglycemia was defined as CBG or CGM <70 mg/dL. RESULTS: Dog users were very satisfied (8.9/10 on a Likert-type scale) and largely confident (7.9/10) in their dog's ability to detect hypoglycemia. Detection of hypoglycemia was the primary reason for obtaining a trained dog. During hypoglycemia, spontaneous dog alerts occurred at a rate 3.2 (2.0-5.2, 95% CI) times higher than during euglycemia (70-179 mg/dL). Dogs provided timely alerts in 36% (sensitivity) of all hypoglycemia events (n = 45). Due to inappropriate alerts, the PPV of a dog alert for hypoglycemia was 12%. When there was concurrence of a hypoglycemic event between the dog alert and CGM (n = 30), CGM would have alerted prior to the dog in 73% of events (median 22-minute difference). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study evaluating reliability of trained dogs to alert to hypoglycemia under real-life conditions. Trained dogs often alert a human companion to otherwise unknown hypoglycemia; however due to high false-positive rate, a dog alert alone is unlikely to be helpful in differentiating hypo-/hyper-/euglycemia. CGM often detects hypoglycemia before a trained dog by a clinically significant margin.

A Practical Approach to Using Trend Arrows on the Dexcom G5 CGM System for the Management of Adults With Diabetes.

After reviewing previously published methods, we developed a practical approach to adjusting insulin doses based on insulin sensitivity for adult patients with diabetes using rtCGM trend arrow data.

Diabetes Technology-Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To formulate clinical practice guidelines for the use of continuous glucose monitoring and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in adults with diabetes. PARTICIPANTS: The participants include an Endocrine Society-appointed Task Force of seven experts, a methodologist, and a medical writer. The American Association for Clinical Chemistry, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, and the European Society of Endocrinology co-sponsored this guideline. EVIDENCE: The Task Force developed this evidence-based guideline using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to describe the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. The Task Force commissioned one systematic review and used the best available evidence from other published systematic reviews and individual studies. CONSENSUS PROCESS: One group meeting, several conference calls, and e-mail communications enabled consensus. Committees and members of the Endocrine Society, the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, and the European Society of Endocrinology reviewed and commented on preliminary drafts of these guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and continuous glucose monitoring have an important role in the treatment of diabetes. Data from randomized controlled trials are limited on the use of medical devices, but existing studies support the use of diabetes technology for a wide variety of indications. This guideline presents a review of the literature and practice recommendations for appropriate device use.

Risk Factors Associated With Severe Hypoglycemia in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Severe hypoglycemia is common in older adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes, but little is known about factors associated with its occurrence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A case-control study was conducted at 18 diabetes centers in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Participants were ≥60 years old with type 1 diabetes for ≥20 years. Case subjects (n = 101) had at least one severe hypoglycemic event in the prior 12 months. Control subjects (n = 100), frequency-matched to case subjects by age, had no severe hypoglycemia in the prior 3 years. Data were analyzed for cognitive and functional abilities, social support, depression, hypoglycemia unawareness, various aspects of diabetes management, C-peptide level, glycated hemoglobin level, and blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics. RESULTS: Glycated hemoglobin (mean 7.8% vs. 7.7%) and CGM-measured mean glucose (175 vs. 175 mg/dL) were similar between case and control subjects. More case than control subjects had hypoglycemia unawareness: only 11% of case subjects compared with 43% of control subjects reported always having symptoms associated with low blood glucose levels (P < 0.001). Case subjects had greater glucose variability than control subjects (P = 0.008) and experienced CGM glucose levels <60 mg/dL for ≥20 min on 46% of days compared with 33% of days in control subjects (P = 0.10). On certain cognitive tests, case subjects scored worse than control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes, greater hypoglycemia unawareness and glucose variability are associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. A study to assess interventions to prevent severe hypoglycemia in high-risk individuals is needed.

Intranasal Glucagon for Treatment of Insulin-Induced Hypoglycemia in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Noninferiority Study.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of severe hypoglycemia with loss of consciousness or seizure outside of the hospital setting is presently limited to intramuscular glucagon requiring reconstitution immediately prior to injection, a process prone to error or omission. A needle-free intranasal glucagon preparation was compared with intramuscular glucagon for treatment of insulin-induced hypoglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: At eight clinical centers, a randomized crossover noninferiority trial was conducted involving 75 adults with type 1 diabetes (mean age, 33 ± 12 years; median diabetes duration, 18 years) to compare intranasal (3 mg) versus intramuscular (1 mg) glucagon for treatment of hypoglycemia induced by intravenous insulin. Success was defined as an increase in plasma glucose to ≥70 mg/dL or ≥20 mg/dL from the glucose nadir within 30 min after receiving glucagon. RESULTS: Mean plasma glucose at time of glucagon administration was 48 ± 8 and 49 ± 8 mg/dL at the intranasal and intramuscular visits, respectively. Success criteria were met at all but one intranasal visit and at all intramuscular visits (98.7% vs. 100%; difference 1.3%, upper end of 1-sided 97.5% CI 4.0%). Mean time to success was 16 min for intranasal and 13 min for intramuscular (P < 0.001). Head/facial discomfort was reported during 25% of intranasal and 9% of intramuscular dosing visits; nausea (with or without vomiting) occurred with 35% and 38% of visits, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal glucagon was highly effective in treating insulin-induced hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes. Although the trial was conducted in a controlled setting, the results are applicable to real-world management of severe hypoglycemia, which occurs owing to excessive therapeutic insulin relative to the impaired or absent endogenous glucagon response.

Hypoglycemia Reduction and Changes in Hemoglobin A1c in the ASPIRE In-Home Study.

BACKGROUND: ASPIRE In-Home randomized 247 subjects with type 1 diabetes to sensor-augmented pump therapy with or without the Threshold Suspend (TS) feature, which interrupts insulin delivery at a preset sensor glucose value. We studied the effects of TS on nocturnal hypoglycemia (NH) in relation to baseline hemoglobin A1c (A1C) and change in A1C during the study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NH event rates and mean area under curve (AUC) of NH events were evaluated at different levels of baseline A1C (<7%, 7-8%, and >8%) and at different levels of changes in A1C (less than -0.3% [decreased], -0.3% to 0.3% [stable], and >0.3% [increased]), in the TS Group compared with the Control Group (sensor-augmented pump only). RESULTS: In the TS Group, 27.9% of the NH events were accompanied by a confirmatory blood glucose value, compared with 39.3% in the Control Group. Among subjects with baseline A1C levels of <7% or 7-8%, those in the TS Group had significantly lower NH event rates than those in the Control Group (P=0.001 and P=0.004, respectively). Among subjects with decreased or stable A1C levels, those in the TS Group had significantly lower NH event rates, and the events had lower AUCs (P≤0.001 for each). Among subjects with increased A1C levels, those in the TS Group had NH events with significantly lower AUCs (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the TS feature was associated with decreases in the rate and severity (as measured by AUC) of NH events in many subjects, including those with low baseline A1C levels and those whose A1C values decreased during the study period. Use of the TS feature can help protect against hypoglycemia in those wishing to intensify diabetes management to achieve target glucose levels.

Prevalence of detectable C-Peptide according to age at diagnosis and duration of type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: It is generally accepted that complete ß-cell destruction eventually occurs in individuals with type 1 diabetes, which has implications for treatment approaches and insurance coverage. The frequency of residual insulin secretion in a large cohort of individuals at varying ages of diagnosis and type 1 diabetes duration is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The frequency of residual insulin secretion was determined by measurement of nonfasting serum C-peptide concentration in 919 individuals with type 1 diabetes according to prespecified groups based on age at diagnosis and duration of disease (from 3 to 81 years' duration). Stimulated C-peptide was measured in those with detectable nonfasting values and a group of those with undetectable values as control. RESULTS: The overall frequency of detectable nonfasting C-peptide was 29%, decreasing with time from diagnosis regardless of age at diagnosis. In all duration groups, the frequency of C-peptide was higher with diagnosis age >18 years compared with ≤18 years. Nineteen percent of those with undetectable nonfasting C-peptide were C-peptide positive upon stimulation testing. CONCLUSIONS: The American Diabetes Association's definition of type 1 diabetes as "usually leading to absolute insulin deficiency" results in clinicians often considering the presence of residual insulin secretion as unexpected in this population. However, our data suggest that residual secretion is present in almost one out of three individuals 3 or more years from type 1 diabetes diagnosis. The frequency of residual C-peptide decreases with time from diagnosis regardless of age at diagnosis, yet at all durations of disease, diagnosis during adulthood is associated with greater frequency and higher values of C-peptide.

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring among participants in the T1D Exchange clinic registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use, factors associated with its use, and the relationship of CGM with diabetes outcomes (HbA1c, severe hypoglycemia [SH], and diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA]). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Survey questions related to CGM device use 1 year after enrollment in the T1D Exchange clinic registry were completed by 17,317 participants. Participants were defined as CGM users if they indicated using real-time CGM during the prior 30 days. RESULTS: Nine percent of participants used CGM (6% of children <13 years old, 4% of adolescents 13 to <18 years, 6% of young adults 18 to <26 years, and 21% of adults ≥26 years). CGM use was more likely with higher education, higher household income, private health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, and use of insulin pump (P < 0.01 all factors). CGM use was associated with lower HbA1c in children (8.3% vs. 8.6%, P < 0.001) and adults (7.7% vs. 7.9%, P < 0.001). In adults, more frequent use of CGM (≥6 days/week) was associated with lower mean HbA1c. Only 27% of users downloaded data from their device at least once per month, and ≤15% of users reported downloading their device at least weekly. Among participants who used CGM at baseline, 41% had discontinued within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: CGM use is uncommon but associated with lower HbA1c in some age-groups, especially when used more frequently. Factors associated with discontinuation and infrequent use of retrospective analysis of CGM data should be considered in developing next-generation devices and education on CGM use.