Tight versus less tight 1-hour postprandial glycemic target in women with gestational diabetes mellitus - a single-center cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the impact of the change of 1-hour postprandial glycemic target from < 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to < 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) on gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) treatment and pregnancy outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of 1021 GDM patients from the Department of Metabolic Diseases, University Hospital in Cracow, Poland, we compared insulin therapy regimens and pregnancy outcomes between women admitted in 2014-2016 (before the change) and in 2018-2019 (after it). RESULTS: A total of 377 patients were admitted between 2014 and 2016 (TIGHT group) and 644 between 2018 and 2019 (LESS TIGHT group). Women from the LESS TIGHT group were older (32 vs 30 years, p < 0.001) and gained less weight during pregnancy (7.0 vs 9.0 kg, p < 0.001). There was no change in the frequency of any insulin therapy (51.6% vs 56.1%, p = 0.168). In the LESS TIGHT group, the basal insulin-only model was used more frequently (32.5% vs 10.2%, p < 0.001), while the prandial insulin and basal-bolus model less frequently (23.6% vs 42.6% and 21.4% vs 36.7%, p < 0.001, respectively) than in the TIGHT group. There were no differences in the frequency of cesarean sections, preterm births, Hbd of delivery, mean birth weight or prevalence of perinatal complications. CONCLUSIONS: Less tight glycemic targets in women with GDM, compared to tighter targets, were associated with less frequent use of prandial insulin, with insulin therapy often limited to basal administration. The change in glycemic targets did not affect the prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes, providing evidence supporting new recommendations.

Gaps Remain for Achieving HbA1c Targets for People with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes Using Insulin: Results from NHANES 2009-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is an important measure to assess glycemic control and predict diabetes complications. However, there is limited information on trends in HbA1c among people with diabetes (PwDs) who use insulin. The aim of this study was to describe trends in HbA1c among PwDs who use insulin by diabetes type and insulin regimen. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2009-2020). PwDs were classified into three cohorts: type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), type 2 diabetes mellitus using mealtime insulin (T2DM-MTI), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using basal-only insulin (T2DM basal-only). Trends in HbA1c over time were assessed using regression analysis after adjusting for age, gender, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c values aggregated over 2009-2020 were 8.0% (T1DM), 8.6% (T2DM-MTI), and 8.6% (T2DM basal-only). The American Diabetes Association-recommended target of HbA1c of < 7% was achieved by 25.2% of people in the T1DM and T2DM-MTI groups each and by 12.3% of people in the T2DM basal-only group. Over time, an upward trend was observed in the percentage of people achieving HbA1c < 7% in the T2DM basal-only group. The percentage of PwDs achieving individualized HbA1c targets was 27.0%, 12.4%, and 16.1% for the T1DM, T2DM-MTI, and T2DM basal-only groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study using NHANES data suggests that approximately 25% of PwDs achieve glycemic targets. This study highlights the need for improved therapies to better manage glycemic targets in PwDs.

Geriatric Syndromes in Older Adults with Diabetes.

Over one-quarter of adults ≥65 years old have diabetes in the United States. Guidelines recommend individualization of glycemic targets in older adults with diabetes as well as implementing treatment strategies that minimize risk for hypoglycemia. Patient-centered management decisions should be informed by comorbidities, the individual's capacity for self-care, and the presence of key geriatric syndromes that may impact self-management and patient safety. Key geriatric syndromes include cognitive impairment, depression, functional impairments (eg, vision, hearing, and mobility challenges), falls and fractures, polypharmacy, and urinary incontinence. Screening for geriatric syndromes in older adults is recommended to inform treatment strategies and optimize outcomes.

Executive summary of the KDIGO 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease: an update based on rapidly emerging new evidence

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) represents a focused update of the KDIGO 2020 guideline on the topic. The guideline targets a broad audience of clinicians treating people with diabetes and CKD. Topic areas for which recommendations are updated based on new evidence include Chapter 1: Comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD and Chapter 4: Glucose-lowering therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and CKD. The content of previous chapters on Glycemic monitoring and targets in patients with diabetes and CKD (Chapter 2), Lifestyle interventions in patients with diabetes and CKD (Chapter 3), and Approaches to management of patients with diabetes and CKD (Chapter 5) has been deemed current and was not changed. This guideline update was developed according to an explicit process of evidence review and appraisal. Treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence, and the strength of recommendations followed the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, and areas for which additional research is needed are presented.

Executive summary of the KDIGO 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease: an update based on rapidly emerging new evidence.

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) represents a focused update of the KDIGO 2020 guideline on the topic. The guideline targets a broad audience of clinicians treating people with diabetes and CKD. Topic areas for which recommendations are updated based on new evidence include Chapter 1: Comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD and Chapter 4: Glucose-lowering therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and CKD. The content of previous chapters on Glycemic monitoring and targets in patients with diabetes and CKD (Chapter 2), Lifestyle interventions in patients with diabetes and CKD (Chapter 3), and Approaches to management of patients with diabetes and CKD (Chapter 5) has been deemed current and was not changed. This guideline update was developed according to an explicit process of evidence review and appraisal. Treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence, and the strength of recommendations followed the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, and areas for which additional research is needed are presented.

An Intelligent Model-Based Effective Approach for Glycemic Control in Type-1 Diabetes.

Type-1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a challenging disorder which essentially involves regulation of the glucose levels to avoid hyperglycemia as well as hypoglycemia. For this purpose, this research paper proposes and develops control algorithms using an intelligent predictive control model, which is based on a UVA/Padova metabolic simulator. The primary objective of the designed control laws is to provide an automatic blood glucose control in insulin-dependent patients so as to improve their life quality and to reduce the need of an extremely demanding self-management plan. Various linear and nonlinear control algorithms have been explored and implemented on the estimated model. Linear techniques include the Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) and Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR), and nonlinear control strategy includes the Sliding Mode Control (SMC), which are implemented in this research work for continuous monitoring of glucose levels. Performance comparison based on simulation results demonstrated that SMC proved to be most efficient in terms of regulating glucose profile to a reference level of 70 mg/dL compared to the classical linear techniques. A brief comparison is presented between the linear techniques (PID and LQR), and nonlinear technique (SMC) for analysis purposes proving the efficacy of the design.

Glycemic Targets and Glucose Monitoring.

Assessing glycemia over time remains a standard recommendation in the care of all people with diabetes. Glycemic assessment methods range from laboratory- and office-based methods to patient-based methods. Assessing A1c has long been the most common method of assessing overall glycemia. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can also be used, especially via glucose management indicator or time-in-range, which can be useful especially when A1c might be impractical, unreliable, or inaccurate, or for glycemia assessment over a shorter interval. Other measures of glycemia, including hypoglycemia and glycemic variability, are becoming increasingly important in many cases and are also available via CGM.

KDOQI US Commentary on the KDIGO 2020 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in CKD.

In October 2020, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) published its first clinical practice guideline directed specifically to the care of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). This commentary presents the views of the KDOQI (Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) work group for diabetes in CKD, convened by the National Kidney Foundation to provide an independent expert perspective on the new guideline. The KDOQI work group believes that the KDIGO guideline takes a major step forward in clarifying glycemic targets and use of specific antihyperglycemic agents in diabetes and CKD. The purpose of this commentary is to carry forward the conversation regarding optimization of care for patients with diabetes and CKD. Recent developments for prevention of CKD progression and cardiovascular events in people with diabetes and CKD, particularly related to sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, have filled a longstanding gap in nephrology's approach to the care of persons with diabetes and CKD. The multifaceted benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors have facilitated interactions between nephrology, cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care, underscoring the need for innovative approaches to multidisciplinary care in these patients. We now have more interventions to slow kidney disease progression and prevent or delay kidney failure in patients with diabetes and kidney disease, but methods to streamline their implementation and overcome barriers in access to care, particularly cost, are essential to ensuring all patients may benefit.

Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusions vs. Multiple Daily Injections of Insulin in Hospitalized Patients: Glycemic Trends in the First 24 Hours of Admission.

BACKGROUND: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is a common diabetes treatment modality. Glycemic outcomes of patients using CSII in the first 24 hours of hospitalization have not been well studied. This timeframe is of particular importance because insulin pump settings are programmed to achieve tight outpatient glycemic targets which could result in hypoglycemia when patients are hospitalized. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated 216 hospitalized adult patients using CSII and 216 age-matched controls treated with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin. Patients using CSII did not make changes to pump settings in the first 24 hours of admission. Blood glucose (BG) values within the first 24 hours of admission were collected. The primary outcome was frequency of hypoglycemia (BG < 70 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes were frequency of severe hypoglycemia (BG < 40 mg/dL) and hyperglycemia (BG ≥ 180 mg/dL). RESULTS: There were significantly fewer events of hypoglycemia [incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.88, p = 0.007] and hyperglycemia (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.96, p = 0.02) in the CSII group compared to the MDI group. There was a trend toward fewer events of severe hypoglycemia in the CSII group (IRR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-0.93, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Patients using CSII experienced fewer events of both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia in the first 24 hours of hospital admission than those treated with MDI. Our study demonstrates that CSII use is safe and effective for the treatment of diabetes within the first 24 hours of hospital admission.

The rational treatment of diabetes mellitus in older adults: The adequacy of treatment decisions based on individualized glycemic targets in primary and tertiary care.

OBJECTIVES: To access the adequacy of treatment decisions in accordance with current recommendations for individualizing glycemic targets in primary and tertiary care. METHODS: This multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted with a cohort of older type 2 diabetes patients from southern Brazil. Inclusion criteria were age over 65 years, having a previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (according to ADA criteria) and having at least two consultations registered in the medical records within one year. The primary outcome was the adequacy of treatment decisions according to pre-established HbA1c targets, which was compared with the complexity of care. The ideal HbA1c targets were: (1) 7-7.5% for an estimated life expectancy >10 years; (2) 7.5-8% for a life expectancy of 5-10 years; (3) 8-8.5% for a life expectancy <5 years. For analysis, the chi-square test was used for categorical variables and the t-test was used for continuous variables. RESULTS: Overall, 49.1% and 50.3% of the patients in the primary and tertiary care groups, respectively, received inadequate management. In patients whose HbA1c level was over target, the treatment was intensified in 46.3% and 51.2% of the primary and tertiary care groups, respectively (p = 0.57). In patients whose HbA1c level was under target, treatment was de-intensified in 5.9% and 26.2% in the primary and tertiary care groups, respectively (p <0.01). CONCLUSION: Treatment changes based on individualized glycemic targets do occur in a minority of patients, which reflects the need for new strategies to facilitate individualized treatment targets and optimize the treatment adequacy in older adults.

Factors affecting achievement of glycemic targets among type 2 diabetes patients in South Asia: Analysis of the CARRS trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the predictors of achieving and maintaining guideline-recommended glycemic control in people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia (CARRS) Trial (n = 1146), to identify groups that achieved guideline-recommended glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%) and those that remained persistently poorly controlled (HbA1c > 9%) over a median of 28 months of follow-up. We used generalized estimation equations (GEE) analysis for each outcome i.e. achieving guideline-recommended control and persistently poorly controlled and constructed four regression models (demographics, disease-related, self-care, and other risk factors) separately to identify predictors of HbA1c < 7% and HbA1c > 9% at the end of the trial, adjusting for trial group assignment and site. RESULTS: In the final multivariate model, adherence to prescribed medications (RR: 1.46, 95%CI: 1.09, 1.95), adherence to diet plans (RR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.43, 2.23) and middle-aged: 50-64 years (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.02-1.71) were associated with achieving guideline-recommended control (HbA1c < 7%). Presence of microvascular complications (RR: 0.70; 95%CI: 0.53-0.92) reduced the probability of achieving guideline-recommended glycemic control (HbA1c 7%). Further, longer duration of diabetes (>15 years), RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.72, hyperlipidemia, RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.34 and younger age group (35-49 years vs. >64 years: RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.47-0.79) were associated with persistently poor glycemic control (HbA1c > 9%). CONCLUSION: To achieve and maintain guideline-recommended glycemic control, care delivery models must put additional emphasis and effort on patients with longer disease duration, younger people and those having microvascular complications and hyperlipidemia.

Type 2 diabetes management in people aged over seventy-five years: targets and treatment strategies.

Older people (those aged 65 years or more) with diabetes comprise a heterogenous group of patients with special needs and features; this is particularly true for those aged 75 years or more. It is important that individualized glycemic targets be adopted in this population, after considering life expectancy, presence of diabetic complications and other comorbidities. In general, less rigorous targets and avoidance of overtreatment seems to be a reasonable strategy in daily clinical settings. There is a paucity of data regarding the efficacy and safety of various hypoglycemic agents, especially for those aged over 75. The evidence suggests that sulfonylureas and insulin regimens should be used with caution due to a high risk of hypoglycemia. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are a good choice for the management of diabetes in older age groups, although a warning against the use of specific agents in people with heart failure is valid. There are insufficient data to decide whether the cardiorenal protective properties of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors outweigh the risks associated with these drugs. The use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists by older patients is supported not only by their good safety and efficacy profiles, but also by their potential to improve glucose-independent outcomes, through their pleiotropic actions. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the evidence on glycemic targets and optimal therapeutic approaches for older patients with type 2 diabetes and discuss the risk-benefit balance of various therapeutic approaches in this group.

Executive summary of the 2020 KDIGO Diabetes Management in CKD Guideline: evidence-based advances in monitoring and treatment.

THE KIDNEY DISEASE: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease represents the first KDIGO guideline on this subject. The guideline comes at a time when advances in diabetes technology and therapeutics offer new options to manage the large population of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) at high risk of poor health outcomes. An enlarging base of high-quality evidence from randomized clinical trials is available to evaluate important new treatments offering organ protection, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. The goal of the new guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to optimize the clinical care of people with diabetes and CKD by integrating new options with existing management strategies. In addition, the guideline contains practice points to facilitate implementation when insufficient data are available to make well-justified recommendations or when additional guidance may be useful for clinical application. The guideline covers comprehensive care of patients with diabetes and CKD, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, antihyperglycemic therapies, and self-management and health systems approaches to management of patients with diabetes and CKD.

Achieving safer Ramadan fasting by keeping flexible glycemic targets during the day and tighter targets during the night in insulin treated people with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To observe the effect of keeping flexible glycemic targets during fasting and tighter targets during non-fasting hours in insulin-treated people with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at Baqai Institute of Diabetology and Endocrinology in 2014. People with T2DM on split mixed insulin therapy were recruited. The pre-Ramadan education given and insulin doses were adjusted before Ramadan. 24-hour telephonic helpline service was provided to achieve pre-determined glycemic targets and minimize complications. RESULTS: A total of 54 people with T2DM with a mean age of 54.65 ± 9.32 years were recruited. Mean glucose levels achieved were 183.50 ± 30.91 mg/dl and 179.20 ± 36.27 mg/dl during the day and night respectively. Mean HbA1c (p-value < 0.0001) and serum creatinine (p-value 0.0010) significantly improved at the end of Ramadan. 0.6% episodes of hypoglycemia including one major hypoglycemia while 30% of episodes of hyperglycemia were recorded. No hospitalization needed. CONCLUSION: By keeping flexible glycemic targets during the day and tighter targets during the night, safe fasting was feasible with significant improvement in overall glycemic control without significant major complications.

Evolution of Insulin Delivery Devices: From Syringes, Pens, and Pumps to DIY Artificial Pancreas.

The year 2021 will mark 100 years since the discovery of insulin. Insulin, the first medication to be discovered for diabetes, is still the safest and most potent glucose-lowering therapy. The major challenge of insulin despite its efficacy has been the occurrence of hypoglycemia, which has resulted in sub-optimal dosages being prescribed in the vast majority of patients. Popular devices used for insulin administration are syringes, pens, and pumps. An artificial pancreas (AP) with a closed-loop delivery system with > 95% time in range is believed to soon become a reality. The development of closed-loop delivery systems has gained momentum with recent advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and computer algorithms. This review discusses the evolution of syringes, disposable, durable pens and connected pens, needles, tethered and patch insulin pumps, bionic pancreas, alternate controller-enabled infusion (ACE) pumps, and do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIY-APS).

Achieving postprandial glucose control with lixisenatide improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin: a post-hoc analysis of pooled data.

BACKGROUND: To examine the impact on glycemic control of achieving postprandial glucose (PPG) target with lixisenatide, a once-daily glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved in the US, in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin, an agent that primarily targets fasting plasma glucose. METHODS: A post hoc pooled analysis was conducted using clinical trial data extracted from the intent-to-treat subpopulation of patients with T2D who participated in the 24-week, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-arm parallel-group, multicenter GetGoal-L (NCT00715624), GetGoal-Duo 1 (NCT00975286) and GetGoal-L Asia trials (NCT00866658). RESULTS: Data from 587 lixisenatide-treated patients and 484 placebo-treated patients were included. Patients on lixisenatide were more likely to achieve a PPG target of < 10 mmol/L (< 180 mg/dL) than placebo-treated patients (P < 0.001), regardless of baseline fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels. More importantly, those who reached the PPG target experienced a significantly greater reduction in mean HbA1c, were more likely to achieve HbA1c target of < 53 mmol/mol (< 7.0%), and experienced weight loss. Those outcomes were achieved with no significant differences in the risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, addition of lixisenatide to basal insulin improved HbA1c and reduced PPG, without increasing hypoglycemia risk. These findings highlight the importance of PPG control in the management of T2D, and provide evidence that adding an agent to basal insulin therapy that also impacts PPG has therapeutic value for patients who are not meeting glycemic targets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00715624. Registered 15 July 2008, NCT00975286. Registered 11 September 2009, NCT00866658. Registered 20 March 2009.

Diabetes and Aging: From Treatment Goals to Pharmacologic Therapy.

Diabetes is becoming one of the most widespread health burning problems in the elderly. Worldwide prevalence of diabetes among subjects over 65 years was 123 million in 2017, a number that is expected to double in 2045. Old patients with diabetes have a higher risk of common geriatric syndromes, including frailty, cognitive impairment and dementia, urinary incontinence, traumatic falls and fractures, disability, side effects of polypharmacy, which have an important impact on quality of life and may interfere with anti-diabetic treatment. Because of all these factors, clinical management of type 2 diabetes in elderly patients currently represents a real challenge for the physician. Actually, the optimal glycemic target to achieve for elderly diabetic patients is still a matter of debate. The American Diabetes Association suggests a HbA1c goal <7.5% for older adults with intact cognitive and functional status, whereas, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) recommends HbA1c levels of 6.5% or lower as long as it can be achieved safely, with a less stringent target (>6.5%) for patients with concurrent serious illness and at high risk of hypoglycemia. By contrast, the American College of Physicians (ACP) suggests more conservative goals (HbA1c levels between 7 and 8%) for most older patients, and a less intense pharmacotherapy, when HbA1C levels are ≤6.5%. Management of glycemic goals and antihyperglycemic treatment has to be individualized in accordance to medical history and comorbidities, giving preference to drugs that are associated with low risk of hypoglycemia. Antihyperglycemic agents considered safe and effective for type 2 diabetic older patients include: metformin (the first-line agent), pioglitazone, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists. Insulin secretagogue agents have to be used with caution because of their significant hypoglycemic risk; if used, short-acting sulfonylureas, as gliclazide, or glinides as repaglinide, should be preferred. When using complex insulin regimen in old people with diabetes, attention should be paid for the risk of hypoglycemia. In this paper we aim to review and discuss the best glycemic targets as well as the best treatment choices for older people with type 2 diabetes based on current international guidelines.

Exploring how patients understand and assess their diabetes control.

BACKGROUND: Poor understanding of diabetes management targets is associated with worse disease outcomes. Patients may use different information than providers to assess their diabetes control. In this study, we identify the information patients use to gauge their current level of diabetes control and explore patient-perceived barriers to understanding the hemoglobin A1c value (HbA1c). METHODS: Adults who self-reported a diagnosis of diabetes were recruited from outpatient, academically-affiliated, Internal Medicine clinics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants and collected data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of the 25 participants was 56.8 years. HbA1c was one of several types of information participants used to assess diabetes control. Other information included perceived self-efficacy and adherence to self-care, the type and amount of medications taken, the presence or absence of symptoms attributed to diabetes, and feedback from self-monitoring of blood glucose. Most participants reported familiarity with the HbA1c (22 of 25), though understanding of the value's meaning varied significantly. Inadequate diabetes education and challenges with patient-provider communication were cited as common barriers to understanding the HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the HbA1c, several categories of information influenced participants' assessments of their diabetes control. Increased provider awareness of the factors that influence patients' perceptions of diabetes control can inform effective, patient-centered approaches for communicating vital diabetes-related information, facilitating behavior change towards improved patient outcomes.