Prevalence and Description of the Skin Reactions Associated with Adhesives in Diabetes Technology Devices in an Adult Population: Results of the CUTADIAB Study.

Objective: The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) devices adhering to the skin can lead to skin reactions. The objective was to determine the prevalence and consequences of skin reactions at CGM or CSII sites in a large unbiased population. Research Design and Methods: This is a cross-sectional multicenter study. All adult patients with diabetes seen in consultation over a period of 7 months and using or having used a system with skin adhesives (in the last 10 years) were included and filled out a self-assessment questionnaire. Results: Among 851 patients, skin reaction was reported in 28% with CGM and 29% with CSII. Patients reporting reactions were more frequently women using CGM and CSII, and CGM users had type 1 more often than type 2 diabetes (P < 0.001). Manifestations were similar for reactions to CGM and CSII: redness and pruritus in 70%-75% of patients with reactions, pain in 20%-25%, and vesicles and desquamation in 12%-15%. Manifestations occurred within the first 24 h of first use in 22%-24% of patients with reactions to CGM and CSII, but after more than 6 months in 38% and 47% of patients with reactions to CGM and CSII, respectively. Device use was definitively stopped in 12% of patients with reactions to CGM (3.2% of all users) and 7% with reactions to CSII (2.1% of all users). Conclusions: Skin reactions were common, with similar presentations in CGM and CSII users. Manifestations suggested skin irritation rather than allergies. These reactions rarely led to the definitive discontinuation of the use of the device.

Insulin allergy: a diagnostic and therapeutic strategy based on a retrospective cohort and a case-control study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Insulin allergy is a rare but significant clinical challenge. We aimed to develop a management workflow by (1) validating clinical criteria to guide diagnosis, based on a retrospective cohort, and (2) assessing the diagnostic performance of confirmatory tests, based on a case-control study. METHODS: In the retrospective cohort, patients with suspected insulin allergy were classified into three likelihood categories according to the presence of all (likely insulin allergy; 26/52, 50%), some (possible insulin allergy; 9/52, 17%) or none (unlikely insulin allergy; 17/52, 33%) of four clinical criteria: (1) recurrent local or systemic immediate or delayed hypersensitivity reactions; (2) reactions elicited by each injection; (3) reactions centred on the injection sites; and (4) reactions observed by the investigator (i.e. in response to an insulin challenge test). All underwent intradermal reaction (IDR) tests. A subsequent case-control study assessed the diagnostic performance of IDR, skin prick and serum anti-insulin IgE tests in ten clinically diagnosed insulin allergy patients, 24 insulin-treated non-allergic patients and 21 insulin-naive patients. RESULTS: In the retrospective cohort, an IDR test validated the clinical diagnosis in 24/26 (92%), 3/9 (33%) and 0/14 (0%) likely, possible and unlikely insulin allergy patients, respectively. In the case-control study, an IDR test was 80% sensitive and 100% specific and identified the index insulin(s). The skin prick and IgE tests had a marginal diagnostic value. Patients with IDR-confirmed insulin allergy were treated using a stepwise strategy. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Subject to validation, clinical likelihood criteria can effectively guide diabetologists towards an insulin allergy diagnosis before undertaking allergology tests. An IDR test shows the best diagnostic performance. A progressive management strategy can subsequently be implemented. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion is ultimately required in most patients. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT01407640.

Performance of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: A pooled analysis.

AIMS: To conduct a pooled analysis to assess the performance of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) in association with the rate of change in sensor glucose in a cohort of children, adolescents, and adults with type 1 diabetes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this pooled analysis, isCGM system accuracy was assessed depending on the rate of change in sensor glucose. Clinical studies that have been investigating isCGM accuracy against blood glucose, accompanied with collection time points were included in this analysis. isCGM performance was assessed by means of median absolute relative difference (MedARD), Parkes error grid (PEG) and Bland-Altman plot analyses. RESULTS: Twelve studies comprising 311 participants were included, with a total of 15 837 paired measurements. The overall MedARD (interquartile range) was 12.7% (5.9-23.5) and MedARD differed significantly based on the rate of change in glucose (P < 0.001). An absolute difference of -22 mg/dL (-1.2 mmol/L) (95% limits of agreement [LoA] 60 mg/dL (3.3 mmol/L), -103 mg/dL (-5.7 mmol/L)) was found when glucose was rapidly increasing (isCGM glucose minus reference blood glucose), while a -32 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) (95% LoA 116 mg/dL (6.4 mmol/L), -51 mg/dL (-2.8 mmol/L)) absolute difference was observed in periods of rapidly decreasing glucose. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of isCGM was good when compared to reference blood glucose measurements. The rate of change in glucose for both increasing and decreasing glucose levels diminished isCGM performance, showing lower accuracy during high rates of glucose change.

[Diagnostic circumstances and clinical forms of type 1 diabetes]. / Circonstances diagnostiques et formes cliniques du diabète de type 1.

Diagnostic circumstances and clinical forms of type 1 diabetes. In its classic form, type 1 diabetes is the prototype of insulindependent diabetes. But ketoacidosis can occur outside of type 1 diabetes, so ketoacdosis does not necessarily mean definitive insulin therapy. Conversely, type 1 diabetes may initially be mistaken for type 2 diabetes. This is often associated with insulin delay after months of wandering and poor blood glucose control. New forms of diabetes have appeared, such as fulminant diabetes, specific to individuals from South Asia and the Far East, but also iatrogenic forms associated with new immunomodulatory treatments that revolutionize the management of certain cancers. This review presents the clinic and differential diagnosis of type 1 diabetes including these new forms of diabetes.

Circonstances diagnostiques et formes cliniques du diabète de type 1. Dans sa forme classique, le diabète de type 1 est le prototype du diabète insulinodépendant. Mais l'acidocétose peut s'observer en dehors du diabète de type 1, elle ne signifie donc pas forcément insulinothérapie définitive. À l'inverse, le diabète de type 1 peut être pris initialement pour un diabète de type 2 ; cela est souvent associé à un retard à la mise à l'insuline après des mois d'errance et de mauvais contrôle des glycémies. De nouvelles formes de diabète sont apparues, comme le diabète fulminant, spécifique des individus originaires de l'Asie du Sud et de l'Extrême-Orient, mais aussi des formes iatrogènes associés aux nouveaux traitements immunomodulateurs qui révolutionnent la prise en charge de certains cancers. Ce texte présente le tableau clinique et le diagnostic différentiel du diabète de type 1 en incluant ces nouvelles formes de diabète.

Delay discounting of gains and losses, glycemic control and therapeutic adherence in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Delay discounting is the tendency to prefer smaller, sooner rewards to larger, later ones. Poor adherence in type 2 diabetes could be partially explained by a discounted value of health, as a function of delay. Delay discounting can be described with a hyperbolic model characterized by a coefficient, k. The higher k, the less future consequences are taken into account when making decisions. This study aimed to determine whether k would be correlated with glycated hemoglobin and adherence in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Ninety-three patients were recruited in two diabetology departments. Delay discounting coefficients were measured with a computerized task. HbA1c was recorded and adherence was assessed by questionnaires. Potential socio-demographic and clinical confounding factors were collected. RESULTS: There was a positive correlation between delay discounting of gains and HbA1c (r=0.242, P=0.023). This association remained significant after adjusting for potential confounding factors (F=4.807, P=0.031, η2=0.058). This association was partially mediated by adherence to medication (ß=0.048, 95% CI [0.004-0.131]). CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control is associated with delay discounting in patients suffering from type 2 diabetes. Should these findings be replicated with a prospective design, they could lead to new strategies to improve glycemic control among these patients.

Assessment of a new insulin preparation for implanted pumps used in the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Implanted insulin pumps using the peritoneal route provide long-term improvement of glucose control compared with subcutaneous insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients. The stability of insulin preparation is critical for a safe use in implanted pumps. Insuman implantable(®) (400 IU/mL) (Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), a recombinant human insulin, has been developed as a replacement for Insuplant(®) (Aventis Pharma, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), a semisynthetic insulin, the only one used so far. The aim of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority of Insuman versus Insuplant, in terms of safety and effectiveness when used in implanted pumps. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The patients enrolled, currently treated for T1D by the Medtronic MiniMed (Northridge, CA) implantable pump model 2007 with Insuplant, were randomized into two study arms and received either Insuman or Insuplant for four pump refill cycles. Each pump refill cycle was 40±5 days. The co-primary end points included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline and pump infusion accuracy. RESULTS: In total, 169 patients were randomized. Noninferiority of Insuman versus Insuplant was demonstrated both for the HbA1c change from baseline (as a percentage) with intergroup difference of 95% confidence interval (-0.36;+0.11) and for the infusion accuracy assessed by the measured percentage of error at pump refill, as shown by intergroup difference of 95% confidence interval (-5.81; -0.50), in per-protocol populations, although the insulin daily dose was similar. Severe hypoglycemia occurred at least once in 12 versus 11 patients, respectively, and metabolic or technical adverse events were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that Insuman can safely and effectively replace Insuplant in implanted pumps.

Assessment of patient-led or physician-driven continuous glucose monitoring in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes using basal-bolus insulin regimens: a 1-year multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: The benefits of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have been demonstrated in patients with type 1 diabetes. Our aim was to compare the effect of two modes of use of CGM, patient led or physician driven, for 1 year in subjects with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with type 1 diabetes aged 8-60 years with HbA(1c) ≥ 8% were randomly assigned to three groups (1:1:1). Outcomes for glucose control were assessed at 1 year for two modes of CGM (group 1: patient led; group 2: physician driven) versus conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (group 3: control). RESULTS: A total of 257 subjects with type 1 diabetes underwent screening. Of these, 197 were randomized, with 178 patients completing the study (age: 36 ± 14 years; HbA(1c): 8.9 ± 0.9%). HbA(1c) improved similarly in both CGM groups and was reduced compared with the control group (group 1 vs. group 3: -0.52%, P = 0.0006; group 2 vs. group 3: -0.47%, P = 0.0008; groups 1 + 2 vs. group 3: -0.50%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in the three groups. Patient SF-36 questionnaire physical health score improved in both experimental CGM groups (P = 0.004). Sensor consumption was 34% lower in group 2 than in group 1 (median [Q1-Q3] consumption: group 1: 3.42/month [2.20-3.91] vs. group 2: 2.25/month [1.27-2.99], P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both patient-led and physician-driven CGM provide similar long-term improvement in glucose control in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes, but the physician-driven CGM mode used fewer sensors.

Comparison of a multiple daily insulin injection regimen (basal once-daily glargine plus mealtime lispro) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (lispro) in type 1 diabetes: a randomized open parallel multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin pump therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) and multiple daily injections (MDIs) with insulin glargine as basal insulin and mealtime insulin lispro have not been prospectively compared in people naïve to either regimen in a multicenter study. We aimed to help close that deficiency. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: People with type 1 diabetes on NPH-based insulin therapy were randomized to CSII or glargine-based MDI (both otherwise using lispro) and followed for 24 weeks in an equivalence design. Fifty people were correctly randomized, and 43 completed the study. RESULTS: Total insulin requirement (mean +/- SD) at end point was 36.2 +/- 11.5 units/day on CSII and 42.6 +/- 15.5 units/day on MDI. Mean A1C fell similarly in the two groups (CSII -0.7 +/- 0.7%; MDI -0.6 +/- 0.8%) with a baseline-adjusted difference of -0.1% (95% CI -0.5 to 0.3). Similarly, fasting blood glucose and other preprandial, postprandial, and nighttime self-monitored plasma glucose levels did not differ between the regimens, nor did measures of plasma glucose variability. On CSII, 1,152 hypoglycemia events were recorded by 23 of 28 participants (82%) and 1,022 in the MDI group by 27 of 29 patients (93%) (all hypoglycemia differences were nonsignificant). Treatment satisfaction score increased more with CSII; however, the change in score was similar for the groups. Costs were approximately 3.9 times higher for CSII. CONCLUSIONS: In unselected people with type 1 diabetes naïve to CSII or insulin glargine, glycemic control is no better with the more expensive CSII therapy compared with glargine-based MDI therapy.