Effectiveness of a blended mobile-based lifestyle intervention in women with glucose intolerance after a recent history of gestational diabetes (MELINDA): a 1-year, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Background: Women with glucose intolerance after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at high risk to develop type 2 diabetes. Traditional lifestyle interventions in early postpartum have limited impact. We investigated the efficacy of a blended mobile-based lifestyle intervention in women with glucose intolerance after a recent history of GDM. Methods: Prospective, double-arm, non-masked, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which women with glucose intolerance, diagnosed 6-16 weeks after a GDM-complicated pregnancy, were assigned 1:1 to a one-year blended-care, telephone- and mobile-based lifestyle program (intervention) or usual care (control). Primary endpoint was the proportion of women able to achieve their weight goal (≥5% weight loss if prepregnancy BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 or return to prepregnancy weight if prepregnancy BMI < 25 kg/m2) in the intention-to-treat sample. Key secondary outcomes were frequency of glucose intolerance, diabetes and metabolic syndrome, and lifestyle-related outcomes assessed with self-administered questionnaires. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03559621). Findings: Between April 10th 2019 and May 13th 2022, 240 participants were assigned to the intervention (n = 121) or control group (n = 119), of which 167 (n = 82 in intervention and n = 85 in control group) completed the study. Primary outcome was achieved by 46.3% (56) of intervention participants compared to 43.3% (52) in the control group [odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-2.03, p = 0.680; risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI (0.78-1.48)]. Women in the intervention group developed significantly less often metabolic syndrome compared to the control group [7.3% (6) vs. 16.5% (14), OR 0.40, CI (0.22-0.72), p = 0.002], reported less sedentary behaviour and higher motivation for continuing healthy behaviours. In the intervention group, 84.1% (69) attended at least eight telephone sessions and 70.7% (58) used the app at least once weekly. Interpretation: A blended, mobile-based lifestyle intervention was not effective in achieving weight goals, but reduced the risk to develop metabolic syndrome. Funding: Research fund of University Hospitals Leuven, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly.

Weight retention and glucose intolerance in early postpartum after gestational diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: To determine risk factors for early postpartum weight retention (PPWR) and glucose intolerance (GI) in women with gestational diabetes (GDM). DESIGN & METHODS: Prospective, multicenter (n=8) cohort study in 1201 women with a recent history of GDM. Pregnancy and postpartum characteristics, and data from self-administered questionnaires were collected at the 6-16 weeks postpartum 75g OGTT. RESULTS: Of all participants, 38.6% (463) had moderate (>0 and ≤5 kg) and 15.6% (187) had high (>5kg) PPWR. Independent predictors for early PPWR were excessive gestational weight gain (GWG), lack of breastfeeding, higher dietary fat intake, insulin use during pregnancy, multiparity, lower prepregnancy BMI, and lower education degree. Compared to PPWR <5 kg, women with high PPWR had a more impaired postpartum metabolic profile, breastfed less often, had higher depression rates [23.1% (43) vs. 16.0% (74), p=0.035] and anxiety levels, and lower quality of life. Of all participants, 28.0% (336) had GI [26.1% (313) prediabetes and 1.9% (23) diabetes]. Women with high PPWR had more often GI compared to women without PPWR [33.7% (63) vs. 24.9% (137), p=0.020]. Only 12.9% (24) of women with high PPWR perceived themselves at high risk for diabetes but they were more often willing to change their lifestyle than women with moderate PPWR. CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable risk factors such as lifestyle, prepregnancy BMI, GWG, and mental health can be used to identify a subgroup of women with GDM at the highest risk of developing early PPWR, allowing for a more personalized follow-up.

Effect of switching from intermittently scanned to real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: 24-month results from the randomised ALERTT1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Comparing Continuous With Flash Glucose Monitoring In Adults With Type 1 Diabetes (ALERTT1) examined whether switching from first-generation intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts to real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality offers additional benefits to adults with type 1 diabetes. The extension of the randomised ALERTT1 trial assessed the effect of switching from isCGM to rtCGM up to 24 months. METHODS: In this 6-month, double-arm, parallel-group, non-masked, randomised, controlled trial, done across six hospitals in Belgium, 254 adults aged 18 years or older with type 1 diabetes previously using isCGM were randomly assigned (1:1) to rtCGM with alerts (intervention; n=127) or isCGM without alerts (control; n=127). Upon completion of the 6-month trial, the control group switched to rtCGM (is-rtCGM group), and the intervention group continued rtCGM (rt-rtCGM group). The extension focused on within-group changes in time in range (TIR; 3·9-10·0 mmol/L; primary outcome), HbA1c, time in clinically significant hypoglycaemia (<3·0 mmol/L), and Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey worry (HFS-worry) score (all prespecified key secondary outcomes). Mean within-group change versus the start of rtCGM is reported, with a positive value referring to a lower value at start of rtCGM. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03772600). FINDINGS: 119 participants were assigned to the is-rtCGM group of whom 112 (94%) completed the 24-month trial, and 123 participants were assigned to the rt-rtCGM group of whom 117 (95%) completed the 24-month trial. TIR increased from 51·8% (95% CI 49·1-54·5) at start of rtCGM (month 6) to 63·5% (60·7-66·3) at month 12 in the is-rtCGM group, and remained stable up to month 24 (change 11·7 percentage points [pp] [9·4-14·0; p<0·0001). In the rt-rtCGM group, TIR increased from 52·5% (95% CI 49·8-55·1) at start of rtCGM (month 0) to 63·0% (60·3-65·8) at month 12, also remaining stable up to month 24 (change 10·5 pp [8·2-12·8]; p<0·0001). HbA1c decreased from 7·4% (57 mmol/mol; month 6) to 6·9% (52 mmol/mol) at month 24 (change -0·54 pp [95% CI -0·64 to -0·44]; -5 mmol/mol [95% CI -6 to -4]; p<0·0001) in the is-rtCGM group, and from 7·4% (57 mmol/mol; month 0) to 7·0% (53 mmol/mol) at month 24 (change -0·43 pp [95% CI -0·53 to -0·33]; -4 mmol/mol [95% CI -5 to -3]; p<0·0001) in the rt-rtCGM group. The change in HFS-worry score was -2·67 (month 24 vs month 6; p=0·0008) in the is-rtCGM group and -5·17 points (month 24 vs month 0; p<0·0001) in the rt-rtCGM group. Time in clinically significant hypoglycaemia was unchanged in both groups after month 12. Severe hypoglycaemia decreased from 31·0 to 3·3 per 100 patient-years after switching to rtCGM. INTERPRETATION: Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia worry improved significantly up to 24 months after switching from isCGM without alerts to rtCGM with alerts, supporting the use of rtCGM in the care of adults with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Dexcom.

The Impact of Baseline User Characteristics on the Benefits of Real-Time Versus Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Moderator Analyses of the ALERTT1 Trial.

BACKGROUND: ALERTT1 showed that switching from intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts to real-time CGM (rtCGM) with alert functionality improved time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), time <54 mg/dL, and Hypoglycemia Fear Survey version II worry subscale (HFS-worry) score after six months in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Moderator analyses aimed to identify certain subgroups that would benefit more from switching to rtCGM than others. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of ALERTT1 evaluated the impact of 14 baseline characteristics on the difference (delta) in mean TIR, HbA1c, time <54 mg/dL, and HFS-worry score at six months between rtCGM and isCGM. Therefore, the delta was allowed to depend on each of these variables by including interactions in the moderator analysis model. Analyses were performed separately for each variable; variables with P < .10 in the univariable analysis were combined into a single model. RESULTS: Univariable analyses showed no dependency of delta TIR, HbA1c, or time <54 mg/dL on variables other than CGM type. Only delta HFS-worry score depended on baseline HbA1c (P = .0059), indicating less worries with rtCGM in people with baseline HbA1c <6.5% or ≥8%. Given P < .10 for dependency of delta TIR on insulin therapy type (favoring multiple daily injections), baseline HbA1c, and baseline TIR, these variables were combined into a multivariable analysis; interactions were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Except for HFS-worry score, no interactions between 14 baseline characteristics and the six-month intervention effect of rtCGM on TIR, HbA1c, or time <54 mg/dL were observed, supporting the conclusion of ALERTT1 that switching from isCGM without alerts to rtCGM with alert functionality is beneficial for a wide range of people with T1D.

Comparing real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1): a 6-month, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with type 1 diabetes can continuously monitor their glucose levels on demand (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring [isCGM]), or in real time (real-time continuous glucose monitoring [rtCGM]). However, it is unclear whether switching from isCGM to rtCGM with alert functionality offers additional benefits. Therefore, we did a trial comparing rtCGM and isCGM in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1). METHODS: We did a prospective, double-arm, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial in six hospitals in Belgium. Adults with type 1 diabetes who previously used isCGM were randomly assigned (1:1) to rtCGM (intervention) or isCGM (control). Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation dependent on study centre, age, gender, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), time in range (sensor glucose 3·9-10·0 mmol/L), insulin administration method, and hypoglycaemia awareness. Participants, investigators, and study teams were not masked to group allocation. Primary endpoint was mean between-group difference in time in range after 6 months assessed in the intention-to-treat sample. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03772600. FINDINGS: Between Jan 29 and Jul 30, 2019, 269 participants were recruited, of whom 254 were randomly assigned to rtCGM (n=127) or isCGM (n=127); 124 and 122 participants completed the study, respectively. After 6 months, time in range was higher with rtCGM than with isCGM (59·6% vs 51·9%; mean difference 6·85 percentage points [95% CI 4·36-9·34]; p<0·0001). After 6 months HbA1c was lower (7·1% vs 7·4%; p<0·0001), as was time <3·0 mmol/L (0·47% vs 0·84%; p=0·0070), and Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey version II worry subscale score (15·4 vs 18·0; p=0·0071). Fewer participants on rtCGM experienced severe hypoglycaemia (n=3 vs n=13; p=0·0082). Skin reaction was more frequently observed with isCGM and bleeding after sensor insertion was more frequently reported by rtCGM users. INTERPRETATION: In an unselected adult type 1 diabetes population, switching from isCGM to rtCGM significantly improved time in range after 6 months of treatment, implying that clinicians should consider rtCGM instead of isCGM to improve the health and quality of life of people with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING: Dexcom.

Mobile-Based Lifestyle Intervention in Women with Glucose Intolerance after Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (MELINDA), A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial: Methodology and Design.

The aims of the 'Mobile-based lifestyle intervention in women with glucose intolerance after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)' study (MELINDA) are: (1) to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of glucose intolerance after a recent history of GDM; and (2) to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of a telephone- and mobile-based lifestyle intervention in women with glucose intolerance after GDM. This is a Belgian multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) in seven hospitals with the aim of recruiting 236 women. Women in the intervention group will receive a blended program, based on one face-to-face education session and further follow-up through a mobile application and monthly telephone advice. Women in the control group will receive follow-up as in normal routine with referral to primary care. Participants will receive an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) one year after baseline. Primary endpoint is the frequency of weight goal achievement (≥5% weight loss if pre-pregnancy BMI ≥ 25 Kg/m2 or return to pre-gravid weight if BMI < 25 Kg/m2). At each visit blood samples are collected, anthropometric measurements are obtained, and self-administered questionnaires are completed. Recruitment began in May 2019.

Fetal macrosomia and neonatal hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia associated with transplacental transfer of sulfonylurea in a mother with KCNJ11-related neonatal diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Sulfonylureas (SUs) are effective at controlling glycemia in permanent neonatal diabetes mellitus (PNDM) caused by KCNJ11 (Kir6.2) mutations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We report the case of a woman with PNDM who continued high doses of glibenclamide (85 mg/day) during her pregnancy. The baby was born preterm, and presented with macrosomia and severe hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia requiring high-rate intravenous glucose infusion. RESULTS: Postnatal genetic testing excluded a KCNJ11 mutation in the baby. Glibenclamide was detected in both the baby's blood and the maternal milk. CONCLUSIONS: We hypothesize that high doses of glibenclamide in the mother led to transplacental passage of the drug and overstimulation of fetal ß-cells, which resulted in severe hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia in the neonate (who did not carry the mutation) and contributed to fetal macrosomia. We suggest that glibenclamide (and other SUs) should be avoided in mothers with PNDM if the baby does not carry the mutation or if prenatal screening has not been performed, while glibenclamide may be beneficial when the fetus is a PNDM carrier.