Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa: Design and rationale for the QWINT phase 3 clinical development programme.

AIMS: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This review describes the study design and rationale of the efsitora phase 3 Once Weekly (QW) Insulin Therapy (QWINT) clinical development programme, including the five trials, QWINT-1 through QWINT-5. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The five trials included insulin-naïve adults (QWINT-1 and -2) with type 2 diabetes (T2D), adults with T2D previously treated with basal insulin (QWINT-3 and -4), and QWINT-5 in adults with type 1 diabetes. All five trials were designed as multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label, treat-to-target studies to investigate the efficacy and safety of efsitora versus active once-daily basal insulin comparators (insulin glargine U100 or insulin degludec U100). The primary objective of each trial is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or 52 between efsitora and the active comparator. The key secondary objectives include change in fasting glucose, insulin dose and continuous glucose monitoring variables, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The QWINT development programme includes a racially and geographically diverse population to provide important information regarding the efficacy and safety of efsitora and its clinical management of people with diabetes.

Outcomes of the Dulce Digital-COVID Aware (DD-CA) discharge texting platform for US/Mexico border Hispanic individuals with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic individuals have higher type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevalence, poorer outcomes, and are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Culturally-tailored, diabetes educational text messaging has previously improved HbA1c in this population. METHODS: During the pandemic, hospitalized Hispanic adults with T2D (N = 172) were randomized to receive Dulce Digital-COVID Aware ("DD-CA") texting platform upon discharge plus diabetes transition service (DTS) or DTS alone. DD-CA includes diabetes educational messaging with additional COVID-safe messaging (e.g., promoting masking; social distancing; vaccination). FINDINGS: Among adults with poorly-controlled diabetes (Mean HbA1c = 9.6 ± 2.2 %), DD-CA did not reduce 30- or 90-day readmissions compared to standard care (28 % vs 15 %, p = .06; 37 % vs 35 %, p = .9, respectively). However, the improvement in HbA1c was larger among those in the DD-CA compared to DTS at 3 months (n = 56; -2.69 % vs. -1.45 %, p = .0496) with reduced effect at 6 months (n = 64; -2.03 % vs -0.91 %, p = .07). Low follow-up completion rates and the addition of covariates (to control for baseline group differences that existed despite randomization) impacted statistical power. INTERPRETATION: During the pandemic, DD-CA offered an alternative digital approach to diabetes and COVID education and support for a high-risk Hispanic population and achieved trends toward improvement in glycemic control despite relatively low engagement and not reducing hospital readmissions.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Metrics and Hypoglycemia Duration in Insulin-Experienced Individuals With Long-standing Type 2 Diabetes Switched From a Daily Basal Insulin to Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec: Post Hoc Analysis of ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis assessed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based metrics and hypoglycemia duration with once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin analogs in insulin-experienced individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes from two 26-week phase 3a trials (ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Time in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), time above range (TAR) (>10.0 mmol/L), and time below range (TBR) (<3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L) were assessed during three CGM time periods (switch [weeks 0-4], end of treatment [weeks 22-26], and follow-up [weeks 27-31]) for icodec versus comparators (ONWARDS 2, insulin degludec [basal regimen]; ONWARDS 4, insulin glargine U100 [basal-bolus regimen]) using double-blind CGM data. CGM-derived hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was assessed. RESULTS: In both trials, there were no statistically significant differences in TIR, TAR, or TBR (<3.0 mmol/L) for icodec versus comparators across all time periods. In the end-of-treatment period, mean TIR was 63.1% (icodec) vs. 59.5% (degludec) in ONWARDS 2 and 66.9% (icodec) vs. 66.4% (glargine U100) in ONWARDS 4. Mean TBR <3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L remained within recommended targets (<4% and <1%, respectively) across time periods and treatment arms. Hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was comparable across time periods and treatment arms (median duration ≤40 min). CONCLUSIONS: In insulin-experienced participants with long-standing type 2 diabetes, CGM-based TIR, TAR, and CGM-derived hypoglycemia duration (<3.9 mmol/L) were comparable for icodec and once-daily basal insulin analogs during all time periods. TBR remained within recommended targets.

Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec in individuals with basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 2): a phase 3a, randomised, open label, multicentre, treat-to-target trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec (icodec) is a once-weekly basal insulin currently under development. ONWARDS 2 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec (degludec) in basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This 26-week, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, multicentre, treat-to-target phase 3a trial was conducted in 71 sites in nine countries. Eligible participants with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on once-daily or twice-daily basal insulin, with or without non-insulin glucose-lowering agents, were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec. The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c; the margin used to establish non-inferiority of icodec compared with degludec was 0·3 percentage points. Safety outcomes (hypoglycaemic episodes and adverse events) and patient-reported outcomes were also assessed. The primary outcome was evaluated in all randomly assigned participants; safety outcomes were evaluated descriptively based on all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of trial product, with statistical analyses based on all randomly assigned participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04770532, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between March 5 and July 19, 2021, 635 participants were screened, of whom 109 were ineligible or withdrew, and 526 were randomly assigned to icodec (n=263) or degludec (n=263). From a mean baseline of 8·17% (icodec; 65·8 mmol/mol) and 8·10% (degludec; 65·0 mmol/mol), HbA1c was reduced to a greater extent with icodec than degludec (7·20% vs 7·42% [55·2 vs 57·6 mmol/mol], respectively) at week 26. This translates to an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0·22 percentage points (95% CI -0·37 to -0·08) or -2·4 mmol/mol (95% CI -4·1 to -0·8), demonstrating non-inferiority (p<0·0001) and superiority (p=0·0028). The estimated mean change from baseline to week 26 in bodyweight was +1·40 kg for icodec and -0·30 kg for degludec (ETD 1·70 [95% CI 0·76 to 2·63]). Overall rates of combined level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia were less than one event per patient-year of exposure for both groups (0·73 [icodec] vs 0·27 [degludec]; estimated rate ratio 1·93 [95% CI 0·93 to 4·02]). Overall, 161 (61%) of 262 participants receiving icodec and 134 (51%) of 263 participants receiving degludec experienced an adverse event; 22 (8%) and 16 (6%), respectively, experienced a serious adverse event. One serious adverse event (degludec) was assessed as being possibly related to treatment. No new safety issues were identified in relation to icodec compared with degludec in this trial. INTERPRETATION: Among adults with basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, treatment with once-weekly icodec versus once-daily degludec demonstrated non-inferiority and statistical superiority in HbA1c reduction after 26 weeks, associated with modest weight gain. Overall rates of hypoglycaemia were low, with numerically but not statistically significantly higher event rates of level 2 or level 3 hypoglycaemia with icodec versus degludec. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Process evaluation of Dulce Digital-Me: an adaptive mobile health (mHealth) intervention for underserved Hispanics with diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes disproportionately impacts ethnic minorities and individuals from low socioeconomic status. Diabetes self-management education and support has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in these populations, and mobile health (mHealth) interventions can reduce barriers to access. Dulce Digital-Me (DD-Me) was developed to integrate adaptive mHealth technologies to enhance self-management and reduce disparities in the high-risk, underserved Hispanic population. The objective of the present study was to evaluate reach, adoption, and implementation of an mHealth diabetes self-management education and support intervention in this underrepresented population. The present analysis is a multimethod process evaluation using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. The study was effective in reaching a sample that was representative of the intended population; only modest but significant differences were observed in sex and age. The DD-Me health coach (HC) cited several important facilitators of intervention adoption, including outreach frequency and personalization, and the automated HC report. Implementation fidelity was high, with participants receiving >90% of intended interventions. Participants who received DD-Me with support from a HC were most engaged, suggesting utility and acceptability of integrating HCs with mHealth interventions. Perceptions of implementation among study participants were positive and consistent across study arms. This evaluation revealed the target population was successfully reached and engaged in the digital health interventions, which was implemented with high fidelity. Further studies should evaluate the efficacy and maintenance of the study following the RE-AIM model to determine whether this intervention warrants expansion to additional settings and populations.

Type 2 diabetes disproportionately impacts ethnic minorities, including Hispanic individuals; however, these populations are often underrepresented in clinical research, especially in studies using digital technologies. The Dulce Digital-Me study was developed to provide diabetes self-management education and support using mobile health technologies with the goal of improving clinical outcomes by reducing barriers to accessing support. This analysis revealed that the Dulce Digital-Me study was successful at reaching the target population and engaging them with the intervention, while also delivering the study intervention with high fidelity. This process evaluation provides critical context for understanding the study's clinical outcomes and the potential for further dissemination.

Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital: A Real-World Experience.

BACKGROUND: Glycemic control in the hospital setting is imperative for improving outcomes among patients with diabetes. Bedside point-of-care (POC) glucose monitoring has remained the gold standard for decades, while only providing momentary glimpses into a patient's glycemic control. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control in the ambulatory setting. However, a paucity of inpatient experience and data remains a barrier to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and expanded/non-research use in the hospital setting. METHOD: Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA exercised its enforcement discretion to not object to the use of CGM systems for the treatment of patients in hospital settings to support COVID-19 health care-related efforts to reduce viral exposure of health care workers. Following this announcement, Scripps Health, a large not-for-profit health care system in San Diego, California, implemented CGM as the new "standard of care" (CGM as SOC) for glucose monitoring and management in the hospital. RESULTS: The present report serves to (1) detail the implementation procedures for employing this new SOC; (2) describe the patients receiving CGM as SOC, their glycemic control, and hospital outcomes; and (3) share lessons learned over two years and nearly 900 hospital encounters involving CGM. CONCLUSIONS: Here, we conclude that CGM is feasible in the hospital setting by using a dedicated diabetes care team and the CGM technology with remote monitoring.

Higher Derived Time in Range With IDegLira Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in People With Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Derived time in range (dTIR), calculated from self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG-dTIR) profiles, has demonstrated correlation with risk of cardiovascular and microvascular complications. This post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VIII trials aimed to compare dTIR with an insulin degludec/liraglutide fixed-ratio combination (IDegLira) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine-point SMBG profiles were taken more than 24 hours at baseline and end of trial (EOT: 26 weeks [DUAL V] and 104 weeks [DUAL VIII]) and used to derive the percentage of readings within target range (70-180 mg/dL). Estimated treatment differences (ETDs, IDegLira-glargine U100) were analyzed using analysis of covariance, with treatment as fixed effects and baseline response as a covariate. RESULTS: ETDs for change from baseline to EOT in dTIR were significantly greater with IDegLira versus glargine U100 in DUAL V (4.18%, P = .027) and DUAL VIII (5.17%, P = .001). The proportions of people achieving ≥70% dTIR at EOT with IDegLira and glargine U100, respectively, were 62% and 60% in DUAL V (P = .7541), and 50% and 26% in DUAL VIII (P < .0001). The proportion achieving a ≥5% increase in dTIR from baseline to EOT with IDegLira and glargine U100 was 63% in both groups in DUAL V (P = .9043), and 44% and 25%, respectively, in DUAL VIII (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira was associated with significantly greater increases in dTIR versus basal insulin alone in people with T2D. TRIAL ID(S): ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01952145 (DUAL V); ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02501161 (DUAL VIII).

Mi Puente (My Bridge) Care Transitions Program for Hispanic/Latino Adults with Multimorbidity: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity frequently co-occurs with behavioral health concerns and leads to increased healthcare costs and reduced quality and quantity of life. Unplanned readmissions are a primary driver of high healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: We tested the effectiveness of a culturally appropriate care transitions program for Latino adults with multiple cardiometabolic conditions and behavioral health concerns in reducing hospital utilization and improving patient-reported outcomes. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, single-blind parallel-groups. PARTICIPANTS: Hispanic/Latino adults (N=536; 75% of those screened and eligible; M=62.3 years (SD=13.9); 48% women; 73% born in Mexico) with multiple chronic cardiometabolic conditions and at least one behavioral health concern (e.g., depression symptoms, alcohol misuse) hospitalized at a hospital that serves a large, mostly Hispanic/Latino, low-income population. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care (UC) involved best-practice discharge processes (e.g., discharge instructions, assistance with appointments). Mi Puente ("My Bridge"; MP) was a culturally appropriate program of UC plus inpatient and telephone encounters with a behavioral health nurse and community mentor team who addressed participants' social, medical, and behavioral health needs. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was 30- and 180-day readmissions (inpatient, emergency, and observation visits). Patient-reported outcomes (quality of life, patient activation) and healthcare use were also examined. KEY RESULTS: In intention-to-treat models, the MP group evidenced a higher rate of recurrent hospitalization (15.9%) versus UC (9.4%) (OR=1.91 (95% CI 1.09, 3.33)), and a greater number of recurrent hospitalizations (M=0.20 (SD=0.49) MP versus 0.12 (SD=0.45) UC; P=0.02) at 30 days. Similar trends were observed at 180 days. Both groups showed improved patient-reported outcomes, with no advantage in the Mi Puente group. Results were similar in per protocol analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this at-risk population, the MP group experienced increased hospital utilization and did not demonstrate an advantage in improved patient-reported outcomes, relative to UC. Possible reasons for these unexpected findings are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02723019. Registered on 30 March 2016.

Improved Glycemia with Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) (P < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

Rationale and design of the phase 3a development programme (ONWARDS 1-6 trials) investigating once-weekly insulin icodec in diabetes.

AIM: To describe the phase 3a ONWARDS clinical development programme investigating insulin icodec (icodec), a once-weekly basal insulin, including the design and rationale for each of the ONWARDS 1-6 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six randomized controlled trials have been initiated in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (insulin-naive: ONWARDS 1, 3 and 5; previously insulin-treated: ONWARDS 2 and 4) and type 1 diabetes (T1D) (ONWARDS 6). Each trial will investigate icodec use in a unique clinical scenario, with consideration of long-term safety and varied comparator treatments (insulin glargine U100 or U300 or insulin degludec). ONWARDS 5 will incorporate real-world elements and a digital dose titration solution to guide icodec dosing. The primary objective for each of the trials is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or week 52 between icodec and comparator arms. Secondary objectives include investigating other glycaemic control and safety parameters, such as fasting glucose, time in glycaemic range and hypoglycaemia. Patient-reported outcomes will assess treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The ONWARDS 1-6 trials will evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with currently available daily basal insulin analogues in T2D and T1D. These trials will generate comprehensive evidence of icodec use in diverse populations across the spectrum of diabetes progression and treatment experience.

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).

Dulce Digital-Me: protocol for a randomized controlled trial of an adaptive mHealth intervention for underserved Hispanics with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: By 2034, the number of US individuals with diabetes is predicted to increase from 23.7 to 44.1 million, and annual diabetes-related spending is expected to grow from $113 to $336 billion. Up to 55% of US Hispanics born in the year 2000 are expected to develop diabetes during their lifetime. Poor healthcare access and cultural barriers prevent optimal care, adherence, and clinical benefit, placing Hispanics at disproportionate risk for costly diabetes complications. Mobile technology is increasingly prevalent in all populations and can circumvent such barriers. Our group developed Dulce Digital, an educational text messaging program that improved glycemic control relative to usual care. Dulce Digital-Me (DD-Me) has been tailored to a participant's individual needs with a greater focus on health behavior change. METHODS: This is a three-arm, parallel group, randomized trial with equal allocation ratio enrolling Hispanic adults with low income and poorly managed type 2 diabetes (N = 414) from a San Diego County Federally Qualified Health Center. Participants are randomized to receive Dulce Digital, Dulce Digital-Me-Automated, or Dulce Digital-Me-Telephonic. The DD-Me groups include Dulce Digital components plus personalized goal-setting and feedback delivered via algorithm-driven automated text messaging (DD-Me-Automated) or by the care team health coach (DD-Me-Telephonic) over a 12-month follow-up period. The study will examine the comparative effectiveness of the three groups in improving diabetes clinical control [HbA1c, primary outcome; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and systolic blood pressure (SBP)] and patient-provider communication and patient adherence (i.e., medication, self-management tasks) over 12 months and will examine cost-effectiveness of the three interventions. DISCUSSION: Our comparative evaluation of three mHealth approaches will elucidate how technology can be integrated most effectively and efficiently within primary care-based chronic care model approaches to reduce diabetes disparities in Hispanics and will assess two modes of personalized messaging delivery (i.e., automated messaging vs. telephonic by health coach) to inform cost and acceptability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03130699-All items from the WHO Trial Registration data set are available in https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03130699 .

Safety and Glycemic Outcomes During the MiniMed™ Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Pivotal Trial in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Introduction: This trial assessed safety and effectiveness of an advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system with automated basal (Auto Basal) and automated bolus correction (Auto Correction) in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Materials and Methods: This multicenter single-arm study involved an intent-to-treat population of 157 individuals (39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged ≥22-75 years) with T1D. Study participants used the MiniMed™ AHCL system during a baseline run-in period in which sensor-augmented pump +/- predictive low glucose management or Auto Basal was enabled for ∼14 days. Thereafter, Auto Basal and Auto Correction were enabled for a study phase (∼90 days), with glucose target set to 100 or 120 mg/dL for ∼45 days, followed by the other target for ∼45 days. Study endpoints included safety events and change in mean A1C, time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL). Run-in and study phase values were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired t-test. Results: Overall group time spent in closed loop averaged 94.9% ± 5.4% and involved only 1.2 ± 0.8 exits per week. Compared with run-in, AHCL reduced A1C from 7.5% ± 0.8% to 7.0% ± 0.5% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, n = 155), TIR increased from 68.8% ± 10.5% to 74.5% ± 6.9% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), and TBR reduced from 3.3% ± 2.9% to 2.3% ± 1.7% (<0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Similar benefits to glycemia were observed for each age group and were more pronounced for the nighttime (12 AM-6 AM). The 100 mg/dL target increased TIR to 75.4% (n = 155), which was further optimized at a lower active insulin time (AIT) setting (i.e., 2 h), without increasing TBR. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events during the study phase. Conclusions: These findings show that the MiniMed AHCL system is safe and allows for achievement of recommended glycemic targets in adolescents and adults with T1D. Adjustments in target and AIT settings may further optimize glycemia and improve user experience. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03959423.

Process evaluation of a medical assistant health coaching intervention for type 2 diabetes in diverse primary care settings.

Team-based models that use medical assistants (MAs) to provide self-management support for adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have not been pragmatically tested in diverse samples. This cluster-randomized controlled trial compares MA health coaching with usual care in adults with T2D and poor clinical control ("MAC Trial"). The purpose was to conduct a multi-method process evaluation of the MAC Trial using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. Reach was assessed by calculating the proportion of enrolled participants out of the eligible pool and examining representativeness of those enrolled. Key informant interviews documented adoption by MA Health Coaches. We examined implementation from the research and patient perspectives by evaluating protocol adherence and the Patient Perceptions of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-SF) measure, respectively. Findings indicate that the MAC Trial was efficient and effective in reaching patients who were representative of the target population. The acceptance rate among those approached for health coaching was high (87%). Both MA Health Coaches reported high satisfaction with the program and high levels of confidence in their role. The intervention was well-implemented, as evidenced by the protocol adherence rate of 79%; however, statistically significant changes in PACIC-SF scores were not observed. Overall, if found to be effective in improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes, the MAC model holds potential for wider-scale implementation given its successful adoption and implementation and demonstrated ability to reach patients with poorly controlled T2D who are at-risk for diabetes complications in diverse primary care settings.

The Effect of Discontinuing Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal Insulin.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of discontinuing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) after 8 months of CGM use in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal without bolus insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicenter trial had an initial randomization to either real-time CGM or blood glucose monitoring (BGM) for 8 months followed by 6 months in which the BGM group continued to use BGM (n = 57) and the CGM group was randomly reassigned either to continue CGM (n = 53) or discontinue CGM with resumption of BGM for glucose monitoring (n = 53). RESULTS: In the group that discontinued CGM, mean time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL, which improved from 38% before initiating CGM to 62% after 8 months of CGM, decreased after discontinuing CGM to 50% at 14 months (mean change from 8 to 14 months -12% [95% CI -21% to -3%], P = 0.01). In the group that continued CGM use, little change was found in TIR from 8 to 14 months (baseline 44%, 8 months 56%, 14 months 57%, mean change from 8 to 14 months 1% [95% CI -11% to 12%], P = 0.89). Comparing the two groups at 14 months, the adjusted treatment group difference in mean TIR was -6% (95% CI -16% to 4%, P = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin who had been using real-time CGM for 8 months, discontinuing CGM resulted in a loss of about one-half of the initial gain in TIR that had been achieved during CGM use.

100 years on: the impact of the discovery of insulin on clinical outcomes.

Throughout history, up to the early part of the 20th century, diabetes has been a devastating disorder, particularly when diagnosed in childhood when it was usually fatal. Consequently, the successful pancreatic extraction of insulin in 1921 was a miraculous, life-changing advance. In this review, the truly transformative effect that insulin has had on the lives of people with type 1 diabetes and on those with type 2 diabetes who are also dependent on insulin is described, from the time of its first successful use to the present day. We have highlighted in turn how each of the many facets of improvements over the last century, from advancements in the properties of insulin and its formulations to the evolution of different methods of delivery, have led to continued improvement in clinical outcomes, through the use of illustrative stories from history and from our own clinical experiences. This review concludes with a brief look at the current challenges and where the next century of technological innovation in insulin therapy may take us.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal Insulin: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be beneficial for adults with type 2 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy, but its use in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin has not been well studied. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin in primary care practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 15 centers in the US (enrollment from July 30, 2018, to October 30, 2019; follow-up completed July 7, 2020) and included adults with type 2 diabetes receiving their diabetes care from a primary care clinician and treated with 1 or 2 daily injections of long- or intermediate-acting basal insulin without prandial insulin, with or without noninsulin glucose-lowering medications. Interventions: Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring (n = 59). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at 8 months. Key secondary outcomes were CGM-measured time in target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with glucose level at greater than 250 mg/dL, and mean glucose level at 8 months. Results: Among 175 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [9] years; 88 women [50%]; 92 racial/ethnic minority individuals [53%]; mean [SD] baseline HbA1c level, 9.1% [0.9%]), 165 (94%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 9.1% at baseline to 8.0% at 8 months in the CGM group and from 9.0% to 8.4% in the BGM group (adjusted difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -0.8% to -0.1%]; P = .02). In the CGM group, compared with the BGM group, the mean percentage of CGM-measured time in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL was 59% vs 43% (adjusted difference, 15% [95% CI, 8% to 23%]; P < .001), the mean percentage of time at greater than 250 mg/dL was 11% vs 27% (adjusted difference, -16% [95% CI, -21% to -11%]; P < .001), and the means of the mean glucose values were 179 mg/dL vs 206 mg/dL (adjusted difference, -26 mg/dL [95% CI, -41 to -12]; P < .001). Severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 1 participant (1%) in the CGM group and in 1 (2%) in the BGM group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin, continuous glucose monitoring, as compared with blood glucose meter monitoring, resulted in significantly lower HbA1c levels at 8 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03566693.

Medical assistant health coaching ("MAC") for type 2 diabetes in diverse primary care settings: A pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial protocol.

In the US, nearly 11% of adults were living with diagnosed diabetes in 2017, and significant type 2 diabetes (T2D) disparities are experienced by socioeconomically disadvantaged, racial/ethnic minority populations, including Hispanics. The standard 15-min primary care visit does not allow for the ongoing self-management support that is needed to meet the complex needs of individuals with diabetes. "Team-based" chronic care delivery is an alternative approach that supplements physician care with contact from allied health personnel in the primary care setting (e.g., medical assistants; MAs) who are specially trained to provide ongoing self-management support or "health coaching." While rigorous trials have shown MA health coaching to improve diabetes outcomes, less is known about if and how such a model can be integrated within real world, primary care clinic workflows. Medical Assistant Health Coaching for Type 2 Diabetes in Diverse Primary Care Settings - A Pragmatic, Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial will address this gap. Specifically, this study compares MA health coaching versus usual care in improving diabetes clinical control among N = 600 at-risk adults with T2D, and is being conducted at four primary care clinics that are part of two health systems that serve large, ethnically/racially, and socioeconomically diverse populations in Southern California. Electronic medical records are used to identify eligible patients at both health systems, and to examine change in clinical control over one year in the overall sample. Changes in behavioral and psychosocial outcomes are being evaluated by telephone assessment in a subset (n = 300) of participants, and rigorous process and cost evaluations will assess potential for sustainability and scalability.