Advanced Glycation Endproducts: A Marker of Long-term Exposure to Glycemia.

This article examines the importance of advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) and summarizes the structure of AGEs, pathological changes associated with AGEs, the contribution of AGEs to metabolic memory, and the value of AGEs as a predictor of diabetic complications and cardiovascular disease in people with and without diabetes. As a practical focus, skin autofluorescence (SAF) is examined as an attractive approach for estimating AGE burden. The measurement of AGEs may be of significant value to specific individuals and groups, including Black and Hispanic/Latino Americans, as they appear to have higher concentrations of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) than would be predicted by other metrics of mean glycemia. We hypothesize that if the amount of glycation of HbA1c is greater than expected from measured glucose levels, and if AGEs are accumulating, then this accumulation of AGEs might account for the increased rate of complications of diabetes in populations with high rates of vascular disease and other complications. Thus, identifying and modifying the burden of AGEs based on measurement of AGEs by SAF may turn out to be a worthwhile metric to determine individuals who are at high risk for the complications of diabetes as well as others without diabetes at risk of vascular disease. We conclude that available evidence supports SAF as both a clinical measurement and as a means of evaluating interventions aimed at reducing the risks of vascular disease and diabetic complications.

Emerging Biomarkers in the Laboratory and in Practice: A Novel Approach to Diagnosing Heart Failure in Diabetes.

The Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Heart Failure in Diabetes webinar was hosted by Diabetes Technology Society on September 20, 2023, with the objective to review current evidence and management practices of biomarker screening for heart failure in people with diabetes. The webinar discussed (1) the four stages of heart failure, (2) diabetes and heart failure, (3) natriuretic peptide and troponin for diagnosing heart failure in diabetes, (4) emerging composite and investigational biomarkers for diagnosing heart failure, and (5) prevention of heart failure progression. Experts in heart failure from the fields of clinical chemistry, cardiology, and diabetology presented data about the importance of screening for heart failure as an often-unnoticed complication of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Heart Failure in People with Diabetes: A Consensus Report from Diabetes Technology Society.

Diabetes Technology Society assembled a panel of clinician experts in diabetology, cardiology, clinical chemistry, nephrology, and primary care to review the current evidence on biomarker screening of people with diabetes (PWD) for heart failure (HF), who are, by definition, at risk for HF (Stage A HF). This consensus report reviews features of HF in PWD from the perspectives of 1) epidemiology, 2) classification of stages, 3) pathophysiology, 4) biomarkers for diagnosing, 5) biomarker assays, 6) diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers, 7) benefits of biomarker screening, 8) consensus recommendations for biomarker screening, 9) stratification of Stage B HF, 10) echocardiographic screening, 11) management of Stage A and Stage B HF, and 12) future directions. The Diabetes Technology Society panel recommends 1) biomarker screening with one of two circulating natriuretic peptides (B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide), 2) beginning screening five years following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and at the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D), 3) beginning routine screening no earlier than at age 30 years for T1D (irrespective of age of diagnosis) and at any age for T2D, 4) screening annually, and 5) testing any time of day. The panel also recommends that an abnormal biomarker test defines asymptomatic preclinical HF (Stage B HF). This diagnosis requires follow-up using transthoracic echocardiography for classification into one of four subcategories of Stage B HF, corresponding to risk of progression to symptomatic clinical HF (Stage C HF). These recommendations will allow identification and management of Stage A and Stage B HF in PWD to prevent progression to Stage C HF or advanced HF (Stage D HF).

A Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Validated by Clinician Ratings.

BACKGROUND: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. METHODS: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low-glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high-glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. RESULTS: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. CONCLUSION: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

Automated insulin delivery: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialised for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organisations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organisation has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonisation of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organisations for confirmation.

Automated Insulin Delivery: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report of the Joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

A technological solution for the management of diabetes in people who require intensive insulin therapy has been sought for decades. The last 10 years have seen substantial growth in devices that can be integrated into clinical care. Driven by the availability of reliable systems for continuous glucose monitoring, we have entered an era in which insulin delivery through insulin pumps can be modulated based on sensor glucose data. Over the past few years, regulatory approval of the first automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has been granted, and these systems have been adopted into clinical care. Additionally, a community of people living with type 1 diabetes has created its own systems using a do-it-yourself approach by using products commercialized for independent use. With several AID systems in development, some of which are anticipated to be granted regulatory approval in the near future, the joint Diabetes Technology Working Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association has created this consensus report. We provide a review of the current landscape of AID systems, with a particular focus on their safety. We conclude with a series of recommended targeted actions. This is the fourth in a series of reports issued by this working group. The working group was jointly commissioned by the executives of both organizations to write the first statement on insulin pumps, which was published in 2015. The original authoring group was comprised by three nominated members of the American Diabetes Association and three nominated members of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Additional authors have been added to the group to increase diversity and range of expertise. Each organization has provided a similar internal review process for each manuscript prior to submission for editorial review by the two journals. Harmonization of editorial and substantial modifications has occurred at both levels. The members of the group have selected the subject of each statement and submitted the selection to both organizations for confirmation.

Diabetes Digital App Technology: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Technology Working Group.

Digital health technology, especially digital and health applications ("apps"), have been developing rapidly to help people manage their diabetes. Numerous health-related apps provided on smartphones and other wireless devices are available to support people with diabetes who need to adopt either lifestyle interventions or medication adjustments in response to glucose-monitoring data. However, regulations and guidelines have not caught up with the burgeoning field to standardize how mobile health apps are reviewed and monitored for patient safety and clinical validity. The available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of mobile health apps, especially for diabetes, remains limited. The European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) have therefore conducted a joint review of the current landscape of available diabetes digital health technology (only stand-alone diabetes apps, as opposed to those that are integral to a regulated medical device, such as insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring systems, and automated insulin delivery systems) and practices of regulatory authorities and organizations. We found that, across the U.S. and Europe, mobile apps intended to manage health and wellness are largely unregulated unless they meet the definition of medical devices for therapeutic and/or diagnostic purposes. International organizations, including the International Medical Device Regulators Forum and the World Health Organization, have made strides in classifying different types of digital health technology and integrating digital health technology into the field of medical devices. As the diabetes digital health field continues to develop and become more fully integrated into everyday life, we wish to ensure that it is based on the best evidence for safety and efficacy. As a result, we bring to light several issues that the diabetes community, including regulatory authorities, policy makers, professional organizations, researchers, people with diabetes, and health care professionals, needs to address to ensure that diabetes health technology can meet its full potential. These issues range from inadequate evidence on app accuracy and clinical validity to lack of training provision, poor interoperability and standardization, and insufficient data security. We conclude with a series of recommended actions to resolve some of these shortcomings.

Diabetes digital app technology: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. A consensus report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Technology Working Group.

Digital health technology, especially digital and health applications ('apps'), have been developing rapidly to help people manage their diabetes. Numerous health-related apps provided on smartphones and other wireless devices are available to support people with diabetes who need to adopt either lifestyle interventions or medication adjustments in response to glucose-monitoring data. However, regulations and guidelines have not caught up with the burgeoning field to standardise how mobile health apps are reviewed and monitored for patient safety and clinical validity. The available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of mobile health apps, especially for diabetes, remains limited. The European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) have therefore conducted a joint review of the current landscape of available diabetes digital health technology (only stand-alone diabetes apps, as opposed to those that are integral to a regulated medical device, such as insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring systems, and automated insulin delivery systems) and practices of regulatory authorities and organisations. We found that, across the USA and Europe, mobile apps intended to manage health and wellness are largely unregulated unless they meet the definition of medical devices for therapeutic and/or diagnostic purposes. International organisations, including the International Medical Device Regulators Forum and WHO, have made strides in classifying different types of digital health technology and integrating digital health technology into the field of medical devices. As the diabetes digital health field continues to develop and become more fully integrated into everyday life, we wish to ensure that it is based on the best evidence for safety and efficacy. As a result, we bring to light several issues that the diabetes community, including regulatory authorities, policymakers, professional organisations, researchers, people with diabetes and healthcare professionals, needs to address to ensure that diabetes health technology can meet its full potential. These issues range from inadequate evidence on app accuracy and clinical validity to lack of training provision, poor interoperability and standardisation, and insufficient data security. We conclude with a series of recommended actions to resolve some of these shortcomings.

Improving the Clinical Value and Utility of CGM Systems: Issues and Recommendations: A Joint Statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group.

The first systems for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) became available over 15 years ago. Many then believed CGM would revolutionize the use of intensive insulin therapy in diabetes; however, progress toward that vision has been gradual. Although increasing, the proportion of individuals using CGM rather than conventional systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose on a daily basis is still low in most parts of the world. Barriers to uptake include cost, measurement reliability (particularly with earlier-generation systems), human factors issues, lack of a standardized format for displaying results, and uncertainty on how best to use CGM data to make therapeutic decisions. This Scientific Statement makes recommendations for systemic improvements in clinical use and regulatory (pre- and postmarketing) handling of CGM devices. The aim is to improve safety and efficacy in order to support the advancement of the technology in achieving its potential to improve quality of life and health outcomes for more people with diabetes.

Improving the clinical value and utility of CGM systems: issues and recommendations : A joint statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group.

The first systems for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) became available over 15 years ago. Many then believed CGM would revolutionise the use of intensive insulin therapy in diabetes; however, progress towards that vision has been gradual. Although increasing, the proportion of individuals using CGM rather than conventional systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose on a daily basis is still low in most parts of the world. Barriers to uptake include cost, measurement reliability (particularly with earlier-generation systems), human factors issues, lack of a standardised format for displaying results and uncertainty on how best to use CGM data to make therapeutic decisions. This scientific statement makes recommendations for systemic improvements in clinical use and regulatory (pre- and postmarketing) handling of CGM devices. The aim is to improve safety and efficacy in order to support the advancement of the technology in achieving its potential to improve quality of life and health outcomes for more people with diabetes.

Addressing Unmet Medical Needs in Type 1 Diabetes: A Review of Drugs Under Development.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is increasing worldwide and there is a very large need for effective therapies. Essentially no therapies other than insulin are currently approved for the treatment of T1D. Drugs already in use for type 2 diabetes and many new drugs are under clinical development for T1D, including compounds with both established and new mechanisms of action. Content of the Review: Most of the new compounds in clinical development are currently in Phase 1 and 2. Drug classes discussed in this review include new insulins, SGLT inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, immunomodulatory drugs including autoantigens and anti-cytokines, agents that regenerate ß-cells and others. Regulatory Considerations: In addition, considerations are provided with regard to the regulatory environment for the clinical development of drugs for T1D, with a focus on the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. Future opportunities, such as combination treatments of immunomodulatory and beta-cell regenerating therapies, are also discussed.

Update and Next Steps for Real-World Translation of Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes Prevention: Reflections From a Diabetes Care Editors' Expert Forum.

The International Diabetes Federation estimates that 415 million adults worldwide now have diabetes and 318 million have impaired glucose tolerance. These numbers are expected to increase to 642 million and 482 million, respectively, by 2040. This burgeoning pandemic places an enormous burden on countries worldwide, particularly resource-poor regions. Numerous landmark trials evaluating both intensive lifestyle modification and pharmacological interventions have persuasively demonstrated that type 2 diabetes can be prevented or its onset can be delayed in high-risk individuals with impaired glucose tolerance. However, key challenges remain, including how to scale up such approaches for widespread translation and implementation, how to select appropriately from various interventions and tailor them for different populations and settings, and how to ensure that preventive interventions yield clinically meaningful, cost-effective outcomes. In June 2015, a Diabetes Care Editors' Expert Forum convened to discuss these issues. This article, an outgrowth of the forum, begins with a summary of seminal prevention trials, followed by a discussion of considerations for selecting appropriate populations for intervention and the clinical implications of the various diagnostic criteria for prediabetes. The authors outline knowledge gaps in need of elucidation and explore a possible new avenue for securing regulatory approval of a prevention-related indication for metformin, as well as specific considerations for future pharmacological interventions to delay the onset of type 2 diabetes. They conclude with descriptions of some innovative, pragmatic translational initiatives already under way around the world.

Metformin-associated lactic acidosis: Current perspectives on causes and risk.

Although metformin has become a drug of choice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, some patients may not receive it owing to the risk of lactic acidosis. Metformin, along with other drugs in the biguanide class, increases plasma lactate levels in a plasma concentration-dependent manner by inhibiting mitochondrial respiration predominantly in the liver. Elevated plasma metformin concentrations (as occur in individuals with renal impairment) and a secondary event or condition that further disrupts lactate production or clearance (e.g., cirrhosis, sepsis, or hypoperfusion), are typically necessary to cause metformin-associated lactic acidosis (MALA). As these secondary events may be unpredictable and the mortality rate for MALA approaches 50%, metformin has been contraindicated in moderate and severe renal impairment since its FDA approval in patients with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency to minimize the potential for toxic metformin levels and MALA. However, the reported incidence of lactic acidosis in clinical practice has proved to be very low (<10 cases per 100,000 patient-years). Several groups have suggested that current renal function cutoffs for metformin are too conservative, thus depriving a substantial number of type 2 diabetes patients from the potential benefit of metformin therapy. On the other hand, the success of metformin as the first-line diabetes therapy may be a direct consequence of conservative labeling, the absence of which could have led to excess patient risk and eventual withdrawal from the market, as happened with earlier biguanide therapies. An investigational delayed-release metformin currently under development could potentially provide a treatment option for patients with renal impairment pending the results of future studies. This literature-based review provides an update on the impact of renal function and other conditions on metformin plasma levels and the risk of MALA in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Alternate approaches for pediatric type 1 diabetes drug development and potential regulatory approval: a perspective.

The incidence and prevalence of pediatric type 1 diabetes are increasing globally, including in the U.S. While the increasing number of cases of pediatric diabetes makes expeditious availability of new medical products and therapies for diabetes care essential, there have been many barriers encountered in bringing some drugs and devices to pediatric patients who may benefit. Newer insulins have been studied and approved for use in children. However, hurdles exist in the inclusion of children in studies of therapies aimed at preventing ß-cell loss in those with new-onset diabetes and those at risk for type 1 diabetes. This Perspective focuses on potential solutions to the challenges experienced in bringing new drugs for pediatric type 1 diabetes to marketing approval. Given their central importance as the users of medical products, patient perspectives are included along with scientific and regulatory considerations.

Insulin pump risks and benefits: a clinical appraisal of pump safety standards, adverse event reporting and research needs. A joint statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group.

Insulin pump therapy, also known as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), is an important and evolving form of insulin delivery, which is mainly used for people with type 1 diabetes. However, even with modern insulin pumps, errors of insulin infusion can occur due to pump failure, insulin infusion set (IIS) blockage, infusion site problems, insulin stability issues, user error or a combination of these. Users are therefore exposed to significant and potentially fatal hazards: interruption of insulin infusion can result in hyperglycaemia and ketoacidosis; conversely, delivery of excessive insulin can cause severe hypoglycaemia. Nevertheless, the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of CSII remains limited. The European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) have therefore joined forces to review the systems in place for evaluating the safety of pumps from a clinical perspective. We found that useful information held by the manufacturing companies is not currently shared in a sufficiently transparent manner. Public availability of adverse event (AE) reports on the US Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database is potentially a rich source of safety information but is insufficiently utilised due to the current configuration of the system; the comparable database in Europe (European Databank on Medical Devices, EUDAMED) is not publicly accessible. Many AEs appear to be attributable to human factors and/or user error, but the extent to which manufacturing companies are required by regulators to consider the interactions of users with the technical features of their products is limited. The clinical studies required by regulators prior to marketing are small and over-reliant on bench testing in relation to 'predicate' products. Once a pump is available on the market, insufficient data are made publicly available on its long-term use in a real-world setting; such data could provide vital information to help healthcare teams to educate and support users, and thereby prevent AEs. As well as requiring more from the manufacturing companies, we call for public funding of more research addressing clinically important questions in relation to pump therapy: both observational studies and clinical trials. At present there are significant differences in the regulatory systems between the USA and European Union at both pre- and post-marketing stages; improvements in the European system are more urgently required. This statement concludes with a series of recommended specific actions for 'meknovigilance' (i.e. a standardised safety approach to technology) which could be implemented to address the shortcomings we highlight.

Insulin pump risks and benefits: a clinical appraisal of pump safety standards, adverse event reporting, and research needs: a joint statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group.

Insulin pump therapy, also known as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), is an important and evolving form of insulin delivery, which is mainly used for people with type 1 diabetes. However, even with modern insulin pumps, errors of insulin infusion can occur due to pump failure, insulin infusion set (IIS) blockage, infusion site problems, insulin stability issues, user error, or a combination of these. Users are therefore exposed to significant and potentially fatal hazards: interruption of insulin infusion can result in hyperglycemia and ketoacidosis; conversely, delivery of excessive insulin can cause severe hypoglycemia. Nevertheless, the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of CSII remains limited. The European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) have therefore joined forces to review the systems in place for evaluating the safety of pumps from a clinical perspective. We found that useful information held by the manufacturing companies is not currently shared in a sufficiently transparent manner. Public availability of adverse event (AE) reports on the US Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database is potentially a rich source of safety information but is insufficiently utilized due to the current configuration of the system; the comparable database in Europe (European Databank on Medical Devices [EUDAMED]) is not publicly accessible. Many AEs appear to be attributable to human factors and/or user error, but the extent to which manufacturing companies are required by regulators to consider the interactions of users with the technical features of their products is limited. The clinical studies required by regulators prior to marketing are small and over-reliant on bench testing in relation to "predicate" products. Once a pump is available on the market, insufficient data are made publicly available on its long-term use in a real-world setting; such data could provide vital information to help health care teams to educate and support users and thereby prevent AEs. As well as requiring more from the manufacturing companies, we call for public funding of more research addressing clinically important questions in relation to pump therapy: both observational studies and clinical trials. At present, there are significant differences in the regulatory systems between the US and European Union at both pre- and postmarketing stages; improvements in the European system are more urgently required. This statement concludes with a series of recommended specific actions for "meknovigilance" (i.e., a standardized safety approach to technology) that could be implemented to address the shortcomings we highlight.