Comparison of Control-IQ and open-source AndroidAPS automated insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes: The CODIAC study.

AIM: To compare open-source AndroidAPS (AAPS) and commercially available Control-IQ (CIQ) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using AAPS by their own decision entered the first 3-month AAPS phase then were switched to CIQ for 3 months. The results of this treatment were compared with those after the 3-month AAPS phase. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (% TIR; 70-80 mg/dL). RESULTS: Twenty-five people with diabetes (mean age 34.32 ± 11.07 years; HbA1c 6.4% ± 3%) participated in this study. CIQ was comparable with AAPS in achieving TIR (85.72% ± 7.64% vs. 84.24% ± 8.46%; P = .12). Similarly, there were no differences in percentage time above range (> 180 and > 250 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose (130.3 ± 13.9 vs. 128.3 ± 16.9 mg/dL; P = .21) or HbA1c (6.3% ± 2.1% vs. 6.4% ± 3.1%; P = .59). Percentage time below range (< 70 and < 54 mg/dL) was significantly lower using CIQ than AAPS. Even although participants were mostly satisfied with CIQ (63.6% mostly agreed, 9.1% strongly agreed), they did not plan to switch to CIQ. CONCLUSIONS: The CODIAC study is the first prospective study investigating the switch between open-source and commercially available AID systems. CIQ and AAPS were comparable in achieving TIR. However, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with CIQ.

Coverage for Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Nonintensive Therapies: An Evidence-Based Approach to Policymaking.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are treated with intensive insulin regimens. Based on this evidence, CGM is now a standard of care for individuals within these diabetes populations and widely covered by commercial and public insurers. Moreover, recent clinical guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinology now endorse CGM use in individuals treated with nonintensive insulin regimens. However, despite increasing evidence supporting CGM use for individuals treated with less-intensive insulin therapy or noninsulin medications, insurance coverage is limited or nonexistent. This narrative review reports key findings from recent randomized, observational, and retrospective studies investigating use of CGM in T2D individuals treated with basal insulin only and/or noninsulin therapies and presents an evidence-based rationale for expanding access to CGM within this population.

Low Initial Adherence with Flash Glucose Monitoring is Not a Predictor of Long-Term Glycemic Outcomes: Longitudinal Analysis of the Association Between Experience, Adherence, and Glucose Control for FreeStyle Libre Users.

INTRODUCTION: Frequent scanning of FreeStyle Libre (FSL) flash glucose monitoring sensors is known to be important whilst wearing an active sensor, but adherence to sensor reapplication is also critical to effective glucose monitoring. We report novel measures of adherence for users of the FSL system and their association with improvements in metrics of glucose control. METHODS: Anonymous data were extracted for 1600 FSL users in the Czech Republic with ≥ 36 completed sensors from October 22, 2018 to December 31, 2021. "Experience" was defined by the number of sensors used (1-36 sensors). "Adherence" was defined by time between the end of one sensor and the start of the next (gap time). User adherence was analyzed for four experience levels after initiating FLASH; Start (sensors 1-3); Early (sensors 4-6); Middle (sensors 19-21); End (sensors 34-36). Users were split into two adherence levels based on mean gap time during Start period, "low" (> 24 h, n = 723) and "high" (≤ 8 h, n = 877). RESULTS: Low-adherence users reduced their sensor gap times significantly: 38.5% applied a new sensor within 24 h during sensors 4-6, rising to 65.0% by sensors 34-36 (p < 0.001). Improved adherence was associated with increased %TIR (time in range; mean + 2.4%; p < 0.001), reduced %TAR (time above range; mean - 3.1%; p < 0.001), and reduced glucose coefficient of variation (CV; mean - 1.7%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: With experience, FSL users became more adherent in sensor reapplication, with associated increases in %TIR, and reductions in %TAR and glucose variability.

Early intervention and intensive management of patients with diabetes, cardiorenal, and metabolic diseases.

Increasing rates of obesity and diabetes have driven corresponding increases in related cardiorenal and metabolic diseases. In many patients, these conditions occur together, further increasing morbidity and mortality risks to the individual. Yet all too often, the risk factors for these disorders are not addressed promptly in clinical practice, leading to irreversible pathologic progression. To address this gap, we convened a Task Force of experts in cardiology, nephrology, endocrinology, and primary care to develop recommendations for early identification and intervention in obesity, diabetes, and other cardiorenal and metabolic diseases. The recommendations include screening and diagnosis, early interventions with lifestyle, and when and how to implement medical therapies. These recommendations are organized into primary and secondary prevention along the continuum from obesity through the metabolic syndrome, prediabetes, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and heart failure (HF). The goal of early and intensive intervention is primary prevention of comorbidities or secondary prevention to decrease further worsening of disease and reduce morbidity and mortality. These efforts will reduce clinical inertia and may improve patients' well-being and adherence.

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.

Stimulating Results Signal a New Treatment Option for People Living With Painful Diabetic Neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a progressive condition that deprives many patients of quality of life. With limited treatment options available, successful pain management can be difficult to achieve. METHODS: We reviewed results of recent data evaluating high frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS). RESULTS: from the SENZA-PDN randomized clinical trial (NCT03228420), the largest such trial to date, demonstrated 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation substantially reduced PDN refractory to conventional medical management along with improvements in health-related quality-of-life measures that were sustained over 12 months. These data supported the recent U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval for 10-kHz SCS in PDN patients and contributed to the body of evidence on SCS available to health care professionals managing the effects of PDN. CONCLUSION: High frequency spinal cord simulation appears to hold promise in treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. We look forward to future works in the literature that will further elucidate these promising findings.

Lower Glycated Hemoglobin with Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than with Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring After 1 Year: The CORRIDA LIFE Study.

Background: The aim was to compare the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) focusing on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the primary endpoint. Methods: The CORRIDA LIFE was a 12-month, real-world, nonrandomized study that is part of the CORRIDA clinical trials program. The study compared rtCGM (Dexcom G5 or G6) and isCGM (FreeStyle Libre 14-Day; Abbott) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Only patients on multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with no automatic functions were included in this study. Primary outcome was the difference in HbA1c between study groups at 12 months. Results: One hundred ninety-one adults with T1D (mean age 40 ± 13 years, HbA1c 8.1% ± 3.4% [65 ± 14 mmol/mol]) participated in this study; 81 patients initiated rtCGM and 110 initiated isCGM. After 12-months, HbA1c was significantly lower with rtCGM versus isCGM (7.1% ± 3.1% [54.1 ± 10.1 mmol/mol] vs. 7.7% ± 3.3% [61.2 ± 12.2 mmol/mol]), P = 0.0001. The percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]) was lower among rtCGM vs. isCGM participants [4.3% ± 2.8% vs. 6.4% ± 5.3%], P = 0.003). Patients with rtCGM spent less time in clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL [<3.0 mmol/L]) (0.9% ± 1.0% vs. 2.3% ± 2.5%, P < 0.0001) and more time in target range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]) than isCGM users (67.5% ± 14.8% vs. 57.8% ± 17.0%), P = 0.0002. Conclusions: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in HbA1c, hypoglycemia, and other glycemic outcomes. Our findings provide guidance to clinicians when discussing monitoring options with their patients. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04759495).

Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial.

Background: Standard insulin infusion sets (IISs) are to be replaced every 2 to 3 days to avoid complications and diabetic ketosis due to set failure. This pivotal trial evaluated the safety and performance of a new extended-wear infusion set (EIS) when used for 7 days by adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: This single-arm, nonrandomized trial enrolled adults (18-80 years of age) with T1D, who used their own MiniMed™ 670G system with insulin lispro or insulin aspart and the EIS for up to 7 days, across 12 consecutive wears. Safety endpoints included incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse device effects (SADEs), unanticipated adverse device effects (UADEs), severe hypoglycemia (SevHypo), severe hyperglycemia (SevHyper), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and skin infection. The EIS failure rate due to unexplained hyperglycemia (i.e., suspected occlusion), the overall EIS survival rate, glycemic control outcomes (i.e., A1C, mean sensor glucose and time spent in established glucose ranges), total daily insulin delivered, and satisfaction with the EIS were determined. Results: The intention to treat population (n = 259, 48% men, 45.0 ± 14.1 years) wore a total of 3041 EIS devices. No SADE, UADE, or DKA events was reported. Overall rates of SAEs, SevHypo, SevHyper, and skin infection were 3.8, 2.5, 104.1, and 20.1 events per 100 participant-years. The rate of EIS failure due to unexplained hyperglycemia at the end of day 7 was 0.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.51) and 0.4% (95% CI: 0.16-1.00) for insulin lispro and aspart use, respectively. Overall EIS survival rate at the end of day 7 was 77.8% (95% CI: 76.2-79.3), glycemic control did not change, and participants reported greater satisfaction with the EIS compared with standard IISs worn before the study (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This investigation demonstrates that the EIS, when worn for up to 7 days, was safe and rated with high satisfaction, without adversely affecting glycemic control in adults with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04113694 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04113694).

DCRM Multispecialty Practice Recommendations for the management of diabetes, cardiorenal, and metabolic diseases.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D), chronic kidney disease (CKD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and heart failure (HF)-along with their associated risk factors-have overlapping etiologies, and two or more of these conditions frequently occur in the same patient. Many recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have demonstrated the benefits of agents originally developed to control T2D, ASCVD, or CKD risk factors, and these agents have transcended their primary indications to confer benefits across a range of conditions. This evolution in CVOT evidence calls for practice recommendations that are not constrained by a single discipline to help clinicians manage patients with complex conditions involving diabetes, cardiorenal, and/or metabolic (DCRM) diseases. The ultimate goal for these recommendations is to be comprehensive yet succinct and easy to follow by the nonexpert-whether a specialist or a primary care clinician. To meet this need, we formed a volunteer task force comprising leading cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians to develop the DCRM Practice Recommendations, a multispecialty consensus on the comprehensive management of the patient with complicated metabolic disease. The task force recommendations are based on strong evidence and incorporate practical guidance that is clinically relevant and simple to implement, with the aim of improving outcomes in patients with DCRM. The recommendations are presented as 18 separate graphics covering lifestyle therapy, patient self-management education, technology for DCRM management, prediabetes, cognitive dysfunction, vaccinations, clinical tests, lipids, hypertension, anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, antihyperglycemic therapy, hypoglycemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), ASCVD, HF, CKD, and comorbid HF and CKD, as well as a graphical summary of medications used for DCRM.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: The Use of Advanced Technology in the Management of Persons With Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, health care professionals, and other stakeholders. METHODS: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) conducted literature searches for relevant articles published from 2012 to 2021. A task force of medical experts developed evidence-based guideline recommendations based on a review of clinical evidence, expertise, and informal consensus, according to established AACE protocol for guideline development. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes of interest included hemoglobin A1C, rates and severity of hypoglycemia, time in range, time above range, and time below range. RESULTS: This guideline includes 37 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for advanced diabetes technology and contains 357 citations that inform the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were developed regarding the efficacy and safety of devices for the management of persons with diabetes mellitus, metrics used to aide with the assessment of advanced diabetes technology, and standards for the implementation of this technology. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced diabetes technology can assist persons with diabetes to safely and effectively achieve glycemic targets, improve quality of life, add greater convenience, potentially reduce burden of care, and offer a personalized approach to self-management. Furthermore, diabetes technology can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical decision-making. Successful integration of these technologies into care requires knowledge about the functionality of devices in this rapidly changing field. This information will allow health care professionals to provide necessary education and training to persons accessing these treatments and have the required expertise to interpret data and make appropriate treatment adjustments.

Real-time CGM Is Superior to Flash Glucose Monitoring for Glucose Control in Type 1 Diabetes: The CORRIDA Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy of real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM and isCGM, respectively) in maintaining optimal glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized study, adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and normal hypoglycemia awareness (Gold score <4) used rtCGM (Guardian Connect Mobile) or isCGM (FreeStyle Libre) during 4 days of physical activity (exercise phase) and in the subsequent 4 weeks at home (home phase). Primary end points were time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) and time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]). The isCGM group wore an additional masked Enlite sensor (iPro2) for 6 days to check for bias between the different sensors used by the rtCGM and isCGM systems. RESULTS: Sixty adults with T1D (mean age 38 ± 13 years; A1C 62 ± 12 mmol/mol [7.8 ± 1.1%]) were randomized to rtCGM (n = 30) or isCGM (n = 30). All participants completed the study. Percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) was lower among rtCGM versus isCGM participants in the exercise phase (6.8 ± 5.5% vs. 11.4 ± 8.6%, respectively; P = 0.018) and during the home phase (5.3 ± 2.5% vs. 7.3 ± 4.4%, respectively; P = 0.035). Hypoglycemia differences were significant and most notable during the night. rtCGM participants spent more time in range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]) than isCGM participants throughout both the exercise (78.5 ± 10.2% vs. 69.7 ± 16%, respectively; P = 0.0149) and home (75.6 ± 9.7% vs. 67.4 ± 17.8%, respectively; P = 0.0339) phases. The results were robust to the insignificant bias between rtCGM and isCGM sensors that masked CGM found in the isCGM arm. CONCLUSIONS: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in reducing hypoglycemia and improving time in range in adults with T1D with normal hypoglycemia awareness, demonstrating the value of rtCGM alarms during exercise and in daily diabetes self-management.

Treatment Intensification With Insulin Pumps and Other Technologies in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Physician Survey in the United States.

An online survey was conducted to assess the perspectives and use of diabetes technologies by a sample of U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) and endocrinologists to optimize intensive insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Overall, endocrinologists reported using diabetes technologies more frequently than PCPs for patients with type 2 diabetes requiring basal-bolus insulin therapy. PCPs and endocrinologists who were highly focused on diabetes management with insulin therapy reported using insulin delivery devices (insulin pumps and wearable tube-free patches) when patients are not achieving their A1C target while taking basal plus three or more prandial injections of insulin daily.

Consensus Statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology on the Management of Dyslipidemia and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Algorithm - 2020 Executive Summary.

The treatment of lipid disorders begins with lifestyle therapy to improve nutrition, physical activity, weight, and other factors that affect lipids. Secondary causes of lipid disorders should be addressed, and pharmacologic therapy initiated based on a patient's risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Patients at extreme ASCVD risk should be treated with high-intensity statin therapy to achieve a goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of <55 mg/dL, and those at very high ASCVD risk should be treated to achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL. Treatment for moderate and high ASCVD risk patients may begin with a moderate-intensity statin to achieve an LDL-C <100 mg/dL, while the LDL-C goal is <130 mg/dL for those at low risk. In all cases, treatment should be intensified, including the addition of other LDL-C-lowering agents (i.e., proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, colesevelam, or bempedoic acid) as needed to achieve treatment goals. When targeting triglyceride levels, the desirable goal is <150 mg/dL. Statin therapy should be combined with a fibrate, prescription-grade omega-3 fatty acid, and/or niacin to reduce triglycerides in all patients with triglycerides ≥500 mg/dL, and icosapent ethyl should be added to a statin in any patient with established ASCVD or diabetes with ≥2 ASCVD risk factors and triglycerides between 135 and 499 mg/dL to prevent ASCVD events. Management of additional risk factors such as elevated lipoprotein(a) and statin intolerance is also described.

Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With T1D Are Impacted More by Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than by Insulin Delivery Method: 3 Years of Follow-Up From the COMISAIR Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the clinical impact of four treatment strategies in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D): real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with multiple daily insulin injections (rtCGM+MDI), rtCGM with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (rtCGM+CSII), self-monitoring of blood glucose with MDI (SMBG+MDI), and SMBG with CSII (SMBG+CSII). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 3-year, nonrandomized, prospective, real-world, clinical trial followed 94 participants with T1D (rtCGM+MDI, n = 22; rtCGM+CSII, n = 26; SMBG+MDI, n = 21; SMBG+CSII, n = 25). The main end points were changes in A1C, time in range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]), time below range (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]), glycemic variability, and incidence of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: At 3 years, the rtCGM groups (rtCGM+MDI and rtCGM+CSII) had significantly lower A1C (7.0% [53 mmol/mol], P = 0.0002, and 6.9% [52 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001, respectively), compared with the SMBG+CSII and SMBG+MDI groups (7.7% [61 mmol/mol], P = 0.3574, and 8.0% [64 mmol/mol], P = 1.000, respectively), with no significant difference between the rtCGM groups. Significant improvements in percentage of time in range were observed in the rtCGM subgroups (rtCGM+MDI, 48.7-69.0%, P < 0.0001; and rtCGM+CSII, 50.9-72.3%, P < 0.0001) and in the SMBG+CSII group (50.6-57.8%, P = 0.0114). Significant reductions in time below range were found only in the rtCGM subgroups (rtCGM+MDI, 9.4-5.5%, P = 0.0387; and rtCGM+CSII, 9.0-5.3%, P = 0.0235). Seven severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred: SMBG groups, n = 5; sensor-augmented insulin regimen groups, n = 2. CONCLUSIONS: rtCGM was superior to SMBG in reducing A1C, hypoglycemia, and other end points in individuals with T1D regardless of their insulin delivery method. rtCGM+MDI can be considered an equivalent but lower-cost alternative to sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and superior to treatment with SMBG+MDI or SMBG+CSII therapy.

Effectiveness of V-Go® for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: V-Go is a wearable, patch-like, 24-h insulin delivery device that delivers both a continuous preset basal rate and on-demand bolus dosing. The aim of this study was to observe glycemic control, insulin dosing, and hypoglycemia risk in patients switched to V-Go in a real-world setting. The primary objective was to compare change in mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to the end of V-Go use. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, multicenter study recruited patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) across 28 centers. Efficacy analyses were conducted for all patients with a post-baseline HbA1c and results stratified based on prior antihyperglycemic medication therapies. Insulin dosing was at the discretion of the health care provider and the protocol did not mandate glycemic targets. Treatment satisfaction surveys were utilized to gain patient feedback on the use of V-Go. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled in the study, among whom 140 patients had a valid post-baseline HbA1c and were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Use of V-Go resulted in a change of - 0.64%; (P = 0.003) in HbA1c from baseline, and in those prescribed insulin, the total daily dose of insulin was decreased by 12 units/day (P < 0.0001). Twenty-two patients (12%) reported hypoglycemic events (≤ 70 mg/dL), with an event rate of 1.51 events/patient/year. CONCLUSION: In a T2D population with suboptimal HbA1c, initiating V-Go therapy in a real-world setting significantly improved glycemic control and led to significant insulin dose reductions. ClinicalTrial.gov registry identifier: NCT01326598.

Human regular U-500 insulin via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in adults with type 2 diabetes: The VIVID study.

AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of U500-R delivered by a novel, specifically designed U500-R insulin pump with U-500R delivered by multiple daily injections (MDI). METHODS: The phase 3 VIVID study randomized people with type 2 diabetes to U-500R by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or MDI. Participants (aged 18-85 years) had HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤12.0% and a total daily dose of insulin >200 and ≤600 U/day. After a 2-week transition to three times daily injections of U-500R, participants were treated for 24 weeks with U-500R by CSII or MDI. Treatment arms were compared using mixed model repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: The study randomized 420 participants (CSII: 209, MDI: 211) with 365 completers. Mean changes from baseline were: HbA1c, -1.27% (-13.9 mmol/mol) with CSII and -0.85% (-9.3 mmol/mol) with MDI (difference - 0.42% [-4.6 mmol/mol], P <0.001); fasting plasma glucose, -33.9 mg/dL (-1.9 mmol/L) with CSII and 1.7 mg/dL (0.09 mmol/L) with MDI (difference - 35.6 mg/dL [-2.0 mmol/L], P <0.001); total daily dose, 2.8 U with CSII and 51.3 U with MDI (P < 0.001). Weight changes and rates of documented symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were similar between groups; the CSII group had a higher rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: In type 2 diabetes requiring high doses of insulin, both methods of U-500R delivery lowered HbA1c. However, the CSII group attained greater HbA1c reduction with significantly less insulin. Individualized dose titration will be important to balance glycaemic control with hypoglycaemia risk.