A Smartphone-Based Model of Care to Support Patients With Cardiac Disease Transitioning From Hospital to the Community (TeleClinical Care): Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or heart failure (HF) are frequently readmitted. This is the first randomized controlled trial of a mobile health intervention that combines telemonitoring and education for inpatients with ACS or HF to prevent readmission. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a smartphone app-based model of care (TeleClinical Care [TCC]) in patients discharged after ACS or HF admission. METHODS: In this pilot, 2-center randomized controlled trial, TCC was applied at discharge along with usual care to intervention arm participants. Control arm participants received usual care alone. Inclusion criteria were current admission with ACS or HF, ownership of a compatible smartphone, age ≥18 years, and provision of informed consent. The primary end point was the incidence of unplanned 30-day readmissions. Secondary end points included all-cause readmissions, cardiac readmissions, cardiac rehabilitation completion, medication adherence, cost-effectiveness, and user satisfaction. Intervention arm participants received the app and Bluetooth-enabled devices for measuring weight, blood pressure, and physical activity daily plus usual care. The devices automatically transmitted recordings to the patients' smartphones and a central server. Thresholds for blood pressure, heart rate, and weight were determined by the treating cardiologists. Readings outside these thresholds were flagged to a monitoring team, who discussed salient abnormalities with the patients' usual care providers (cardiologists, general practitioners, or HF outreach nurses), who were responsible for further management. The app also provided educational push notifications. Participants were followed up after 6 months. RESULTS: Overall, 164 inpatients were randomized (TCC: 81/164, 49.4%; control: 83/164, 50.6%; mean age 61.5, SD 12.3 years; 130/164, 79.3% men; 128/164, 78% admitted with ACS). There were 11 unplanned 30-day readmissions in both groups (P=.97). Over a mean follow-up of 193 days, the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in unplanned hospital readmissions (21 in TCC vs 41 in the control arm; P=.02), including cardiac readmissions (11 in TCC vs 25 in the control arm; P=.03), and higher rates of cardiac rehabilitation completion (20/51, 39% vs 9/49, 18%; P=.03) and medication adherence (57/76, 75% vs 37/74, 50%; P=.002). The average usability rating for the app was 4.5/5. The intervention cost Aus $6028 (US $4342.26) per cardiac readmission saved. When modeled in a mainstream clinical setting, enrollment of 237 patients was projected to have the same expenditure compared with usual care, and enrollment of 500 patients was projected to save approximately Aus $100,000 (approximately US $70,000) annually. CONCLUSIONS: TCC was feasible and safe for inpatients with either ACS or HF. The incidence of 30-day readmissions was similar; however, long-term benefits were demonstrated, including fewer readmissions over 6 months, improved medication adherence, and improved cardiac rehabilitation completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001547235; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375945.

A novel non-PPARgamma insulin sensitizer: MLR-1023 clinicalproof-of-concept in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: MLR-1023, called Tolimidone when evaluated unsuccessfully by Pfizer for gastric ulcer disease, has been repurposed as a novel oral insulin sensitizer with its effects mediated by selective activation of Lyn kinase. We aimed to evaluate the optimal dose, efficacy and safety of MLR-1023 in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Type 2 diabetes patients (18-75 years) on diet/exercise therapy were randomized and double-blinded to receive MLR-1023 (100-mg or 200-mg, once-daily [qd] or twice-daily [bid]) or matching placebo for 28 days. The primary endpoint was postprandial glucose (PPG) area under the curve (AUC0-3h) in a mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT) at day 29. Secondary endpoints included changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, HbA1c, lipids and body weight and adverse events. ANCOVA model was used for efficacy analysis. RESULTS: The placebo-corrected least-squares mean differences (ΔLSM) in MMTT PPG AUC0-3 h (mmol/L) were -5.96 and -5.6 (both p = 0.03) in the MLR-1023 100-mg qd and 100-mg bid groups, respectively. The placebo-corrected ΔLSM in FPG (mmol/L) was -2.34 (p = 0.003) in the MLR-1023 100-mg qd group. Triglycerides improved with MLR-1023 (ΔLSM, -0.56 mmol/L, p = 0.07 and -0.59 mmol/L, p = 0.05) in the 200mgqd and 200 mg bid groups, respectively. Reductions in fasting insulin, HbA1c and body weight were not statistically significant. Most common adverse events with MLR-1023 treatment were headache (4.2%) and somnolence (2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: MLR-1023 100-mg once-daily for 4 weeks was the most effective dose with significant reduction in PPG AUC following a MMTT. MLR-1023 was safe and well-tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02317796.

Exploring the insulin secretory properties of the PGD2-GPR44/DP2 axis in vitro and in a randomized phase-1 trial of type 2 diabetes patients.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: GPR44 (DP2, PTGDR2, CRTh2) is the receptor for the pro-inflammatory mediator prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) and it is enriched in human islets. In rodent islets, PGD2 is produced in response to glucose, suggesting that the PGD2-GPR44/DP2 axis may play a role in human islet function during hyperglycemia. Consequently, the aim of this work was to elucidate the insulinotropic role of GPR44 antagonism in vitro in human beta-cells and in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients. METHODS: We determined the drive on PGD2 secretion by glucose and IL-1beta, as well as, the impact on insulin secretion by pharmacological GPR44/DP2 antagonism (AZD1981) in human islets and beta-cells in vitro. To test if metabolic control would be improved by antagonizing a hyperglycemia-driven increased PGD2 tone, we performed a proof-of-mechanism study in 20 T2DM patients (average 54 years, HbA1c 9.4%, BMI 31.6 kg/m2). The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study consisted of two three-day treatment periods (AZD1981 or placebo) separated by a three-day wash-out period. Mixed meal tolerance test (MMTT) and intravenous graded glucose infusion (GGI) was performed at start and end of each treatment period. Assessment of AZD1981 pharmacokinetics, glucose, insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, GLP-1, and PGD2 pathway biomarkers were performed. RESULTS: We found (1) that PGD2 is produced in human islet in response to high glucose or IL-1beta, but likely by stellate cells rather than endocrine cells; (2) that PGD2 suppresses both glucose and GLP-1 induced insulin secretion in vitro; and (3) that the GPR44/DP2 antagonist (AZD1981) in human beta-cells normalizes insulin secretion. However, AZD1981 had no impact on neither glucose nor incretin dependent insulin secretion in humans (GGI AUC C-peptide 1-2h and MMTT AUC Glucose 0-4h LS mean ratios vs placebo of 0.94 (80% CI of 0.90-0.98, p = 0.12) and 0.99 (90% CI of 0.94-1.05, p = 0.45), despite reaching the expected antagonist exposure. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Pharmacological inhibition of the PGD2-GPR44/DP2 axis has no major impact on the modulation of acute insulin secretion in T2DM patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02367066.

Single-dose euglycaemic clamp studies demonstrating pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity between MK-1293 insulin glargine and originator insulin glargine (Lantus) in subjects with type 1 diabetes and healthy subjects.

AIMS: MK-1293 is an insulin glargine that has an amino acid sequence identical to that of Lantus, the originator insulin glargine. Two euglycaemic clamp studies, 1 in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 1 in healthy subjects, were conducted to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) similarity between MK-1293 and Lantus commercially procured in both the European Union (EU-Lantus) and the USA (US-Lantus). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Both studies were single-dose, randomized, double-blind, single-centre, crossover studies with ≥7 days between dosing periods. A 2-treatment, 4-period replicate crossover study in T1D subjects (N = 76) compared the PK and PD of MK-1293 to EU-Lantus for 30 hours after dosing. A 3-period crossover study in healthy subjects (N = 109) compared the PK and PD of MK-1293, EU-Lantus and US-Lantus for 24 hours after dosing. In both studies, all subjects received single 0.4 units/kg subcutaneous doses of MK-1293 or Lantus in all dosing periods. Pharmacokinetic assessment was based on LC-MS/MS-based measurement of the major insulin glargine metabolite (M1) and PD was characterized using the euglycaemic clamp platform. RESULTS: In both studies, pre-specified similarity criteria were met between MK-1293 and Lantus for comparison of PK (AUC0-24 and Cmax of M1) and PD (GIR-AUC0-24 , GIR-AUC0-12 , GIR-AUC12-24 , and GIRmax ) primary endpoints. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Based on comparative assessment in both T1D and healthy subjects, it can be concluded that the PK and PD properties of MK-1293 are highly similar to those of Lantus. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02059174).

Hypoglycemia Risk Related to Double Dose Is Markedly Reduced with Basal Insulin Peglispro Versus Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a Randomized Trial: IMAGINE 8.

BACKGROUND: Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) has a peripheral-to-hepatic distribution of action that resembles endogenous insulin and a prolonged duration of action with a flat pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile at steady state, characteristics that tend to reduce hypoglycemia risk compared to insulin glargine (GL). The primary objective was to demonstrate that clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤54 mg/dL [3.0 mmol/L] or symptoms of severe hypoglycemia) occurred less frequently within 84 h after a double dose (DD) of BIL than a DD of GL. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, two-period crossover study in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) previously treated with insulin (N = 68). For the first 3 weeks of each of the two crossover periods, patients received an individualized dose of BIL or GL once nightly (stable dose for 2 weeks/period). Then, during a 7-day inpatient stay with frequent blood glucose monitoring and standardized meals, one DD of study insulin was given. Glucose was infused if blood glucose was ≤54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) or for symptoms of severe hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Within 84 h after the DD, a significantly smaller proportion of patients experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia with BIL compared to GL (BIL, 6.6%; GL, 35.5%; odds ratio for BIL/GL 0.13 [95% confidence interval 0.04-0.39]; P < 0.001). Adverse event profiles were similar for the two insulins. Serum alanine aminotransferase and triglyceride levels were significantly higher with BIL versus GL. CONCLUSIONS: BIL has a markedly lower risk of hypoglycemia than GL when replicating a double-dose error in patients with T2D.

Novel hepato-preferential basal insulin peglispro (BIL) does not differentially affect insulin sensitivity compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) is a novel PEGylated basal insulin with a flat pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic profile and reduced peripheral effects, which results in a hepato-preferential action. In Phase 3 trials, patients with T1DM treated with BIL had lower prandial insulin requirements, yet improved prandial glucose control, relative to insulin glargine (GL). We hypothesized that this may be because of an enhanced sensitivity to prandial insulin with BIL resulting from lower chronic peripheral insulin action. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two open-label, randomized, 2-period crossover clinical studies were conducted in 28 patients with T1DM and 24 patients with T2DM. In each study period, patients received once-daily, individualized, stable, subcutaneous doses of BIL or GL for 5 weeks before a euglycaemic 2-step hyperinsulinemic clamp procedure (with [6,6- 2 H2 ]-glucose in 12 of the patients with T1DM). M-values were derived from the clamp procedure for all patients, with rate of glucose appearance (Ra) and disappearance (Rd) and insulin sensitivity index (SI) determined from the clamps with [6,6- 2 H2 ]-glucose. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between BIL and GL in key measures of hepatic (% Ra suppression during the low-dose insulin infusion; 78.7% with BIL, 81.8% with GL) or peripheral (M-value and M/I during the high-dose insulin infusion, Rd and SI) insulin sensitivity in patients with T1DM or T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: The need to reduce prandial insulin observed with BIL during phase 3 trials cannot be explained by the differential effects of BIL and GL on sensitivity to prandial insulin in either T1DM or T2DM.

Accuracy and acceptability of the 6-day Enlite continuous subcutaneous glucose sensor.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the performance and acceptability of the Enlite(®) glucose sensor (Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Northridge, CA). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ninety adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes wore two Enlite sensors on the abdomen and/or buttock for 6 days and calibrated them at different frequencies. On Days 1, 3, and 6, accuracy was evaluated by comparison of sensor glucose values with frequently sampled plasma glucose values collected over a 12-h period. Accuracy was assessed at different reference glucose concentrations and during times when absolute glucose concentration rates of change were <1, 1-2, and >2 mg/dL/min. The sensor's ability to detect hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia was evaluated with simulated alerts. Subject satisfaction was evaluated with a 7-point Likert-type questionnaire, with a score of 7 indicating strong agreement. RESULTS: With abdomen sensors under actual-use calibration (mean, 2.8 ± 0.9 times/day), the overall mean (median) absolute relative difference (ARD) values between sensor and reference values were 13.6% (10.1%); the corresponding buttock sensor ARD values were 15.5% (10.5%). With abdomen sensors under minimal calibration (mean, 1.2 ± 0.9 times/day), the mean (median) ARD values were 14.7% (10.8%). Mean ARD values of abdomen sensors at rates of change of <1, 1-2, and >2 mg/dL/min were 13.6%, 12.9%, and 16.3%, respectively. With abdomen sensors, 79.5% and 94.1% of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, respectively, were correctly detected; 81.9% and 94.9% of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic alerts, respectively, were confirmed. The failure rates for abdomen and buttock sensors were 19.7% and 13.9%, respectively. Mean responses to survey questions for all subjects related to comfort and ease of use were favorable. CONCLUSIONS: The Enlite sensor provided accurate data at different glucose concentrations and rates of change. Subjects found the sensor comfortable and easy to use.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses of insulin degludec in African American, white, and Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of exogenous insulin may be affected by intrinsic factors, such as age, ethnicity/race, and hepatic and renal function. Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a basal insulin with an ultralong duration of action and a flat and stable glucose-lowering effect profile. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses to IDeg at steady state vary according to patient race/ethnicity. METHODS: This randomized, single-center, double-blind, 2-period crossover trial investigated responses to IDeg in 59 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from 3 groups: African American, Hispanic/Latino, and white. Patients were allocated randomly to a sequence of 2 treatment periods, separated by a 7- to 21-day washout period, with once-daily IDeg or insulin detemir dosing for 6 days at a predefined fixed dose level (0.6 U/kg). Differences in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variables among groups were analyzed using an ANOVA with treatment period, an interaction between race/ethnicity, and treatment as fixed factors, subject as a random effect, and residual variance, depending on treatment. RESULTS: Total exposure to IDeg during one dosing interval at steady state (AUCIDeg,τ,SS) was similar among the racial/ethnic groups (ratio [95% CI]: African American vs white, 1.10 [0.91-1.31]; African American vs Hispanic/Latino, 1.13 [0.95-1.34]; and Hispanic/Latino vs white, 0.97 [0.82-1.16]). The total glucose-lowering effect of IDeg (AUCGIR,τ,SS) was also similar among the groups, with no statistically significant difference in pairwise comparisons (1940, 1735, and 2286 mg/kg in African American, white, and Hispanic/Latino patients, respectively). Steady state was reached in all groups after 2 to 3 days of dosing. In all groups, both exposure and glucose-lowering effect for IDeg were evenly distributed between the first and second 12 hours of the 24-hour dosing interval at steady state (mean AUCIDeg,0-12h,SS/AUCIDeg,τ,SS = 53%-54%; AUCGIR,0--12h,SS/AUCGIR,τ,SS = 47%-52%). CONCLUSION: The similar pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses to IDeg in 3 racial/ethnic groups of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus suggest that the flat, stable, and ultralong pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of IDeg are preserved irrespective of race/ethnicity. Although insulin doses must be adjusted on an individual basis, similar pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses to IDeg are observed in patients with differing race/ethnicity.

A new-generation continuous glucose monitoring system: improved accuracy and reliability compared with a previous-generation system.

BACKGROUND: Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems can improve glycemic control, but widespread adoption of CGM utilization has been limited, in part because of real and perceived problems with accuracy and reliability. This study compared accuracy and performance metrics for a new-generation CGM system with those of a previous-generation device. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects were enrolled in a 7-day, open-label, multicenter pivotal study. Sensor readings were compared with venous YSI measurements (blood glucose analyzer from YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH) every 15 min (±5 min) during in-clinic visits. The aggregate and individual sensor accuracy and reliability of a new CGM system, the Dexcom(®) (San Diego, CA) G4™ PLATINUM (DG4P), were compared with those of the previous CGM system, the Dexcom SEVEN(®) PLUS (DSP). RESULTS: Both study design and subject characteristics were similar. The aggregate mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for DG4P was 13% compared with 16% for DSP (P<0.0001), and 82% of DG4P readings were within ± 20 mg/dL (for YSI ≤ 80 mg/dL) or 20% of YSI values (for YSI >80 mg/dL) compared with 76% for DSP (P<0.001). Ninety percent of the DG4P sensors had an individual MARD ≤ 20% compared with only 76% of DSP sensors (P=0.015). Half of DG4P sensors had a MARD less than 12.5% compared with 14% for the DSP sensors (P=0.028). The mean absolute difference for biochemical hypoglycemia (YSI <70 mg/dL) for DG4P was 11 mg/dL compared with 16 mg/dL for DSP (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of DG4P was significantly improved compared with that of DSP, which may increase routine clinical use of CGM and improve patient outcomes.