Frequency and awareness of hypoglycemia in patients with Type 2 Diabetes treated with two or more insulin injections in primary care outpatient clinics.

AIMS: To assess the frequency of hypoglycemia events, patient characteristics and the prevalence of impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) in patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) using two or more insulin injections in primary care. METHODS: Cross-sectional study performed at 9 Primary Care Centers including review of electronic medical records and an on-site visit to patients using >2 insulin injections with suboptimal control. Episodes of severe hypoglycemia (SH) in the last 12months were recorded. Non-severe hypoglycemia (NSH) was considered as self-monitoring blood glucose <70mg/dl. IAH was evaluated and HbA1c was obtained. RESULTS: 157 subjects were included (age 68.4+10.7years, 82 women, T2D duration 18.3+8.7years). 57% used multiple daily injections. Total insulin was 66.9+43.4 units/day. The mean HbA1c was 9.2±1.4% (77±12mmol/mol) and only 13.4% had HbA1c <8% (64mmol/mol). The frequency of NSH was 0.74±1.37 episodes/week. Only one patient had a SH the last 12months. Around 10-12% of patients had IAH. In comparison with normal awareness, those with IAH had a longer duration of T2D (25.3±11.6 vs. 16.1±8.2 years, respectively, p<0.01). In the multiple linear regression analysis, only the IAH score and the total insulin dose independently determined the NSH number. CONCLUSIONS: NSH/SH in patients with T2D treated with two or more insulin injections in primary care settings seems to be relatively common. Although hypoglycemia awareness is predominantly preserved, the presence of IAH should not be ignored as it increases the risk of hypoglycemia and constitutes an additional barrier to recognize and address this burden in T2D.

Evaluación de la utilización de las prestaciones específicas de los sistemas de infusión subcutánea de insulina y su relación con el control metabólico en pacientes con diabetes tipo 1 / Assessment of use of specific features of subcutaneous insulin infusion systems and their relationship to metabolic control in patients with type 1 diabetes

ANTECEDENTES Y OBJETIVO: Los pacientes con diabetes tipo 1 (DT1) en tratamiento con infusión subcutánea de insulina (ISCI) tienen a su alcance diversas prestaciones específicas para estos dispositivos. El objetivo del estudio fue valorar la relación entre la utilización real de las mismas y el grado de control glucémico en pacientes habituados a este tipo de terapia. PACIENTES Y MÉTODOS: Incluimos 44 pacientes con DT1 en tratamiento con ISCI con o sin monitorización continua de glucosa (MCG). Recogimos retrospectivamente los datos de 14 días consecutivos mediante la plataforma Care Link Personal/Pro® y la determinación de HbA1c realizada en ese periodo. Posteriormente, analizamos las diferencias en el uso de las prestaciones del dispositivo en función del grado de control glucémico y las diferencias entre los grupos con o sin MCG. RESULTADOS: La HbA1c media del grupo fue de 7,5 ± 0,8%. El número de bolus/día administrados fue de 5,1 ± 1,8, siendo el 75,4% de ellos en forma de bolus ayuda (BA). Los pacientes con mejor control (HbA1c < 7,5%) se administraban más bolus/día (5,3 ± 1,6 vs. 4,3 ± 1,6; p = 0,056) que aquellos con peor control. Existía una tendencia a una mayor utilización de BA en los pacientes con mejor control (82,8 ± 21,4% vs. 69,9 ± 29,1%; p = 0,106). Sin alcanzar la significación estadística, los pacientes portadores de MCG (n = 8) tenían una HbA1c inferior a aquellos sin esta prestación (7,6 ± 0,8 vs. 7,1 ± 0,7; p = 0,067). CONCLUSIONES: El mayor uso del BA en los pacientes con DT1 en tratamiento con terapia ISCI tiende a asociarse con un mejor grado de control metabólico. En la práctica clínica habitual la utilización de MCG combinada con ISCI podría asociarse a un mejor control glucémico

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) have available several specific features of these devices. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between real use of them and the degree of glycemic control in patients using this therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four T1DM patients on CSII therapy with or without real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were included. Data from 14 consecutive days were retrospectively collected using the therapy management software CareLink Personal/Pro® and HbA1c measurement performed at that period. The relationship between the frequency of usie of specific features of insulin pumps (non-sensor augmented or sensor-augmented) and glycemic control was analyzed. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c in the group was 7.5 ± .8%. Mean daily number of boluses administered was 5.1 ± 1.8, with 75.4% of them being bolus wizards (BW). Daily number of boluses was significantly greater in patients with HbA1c < 7.5% than in those with HbA1c > 7.5% (5.3 ± 1.6 vs. 4.3 ± 1.6, P = .056). There was a trend to greater use of BW in patients with better control (82.8 ± 21.4% vs. 69.9 ± 29.1%,P = .106). HbA1c was lower in patients using CGM (n = 8) as compared to those not using sensor-augmented pumps (7.6 ± .8 vs 7.1 ± .7, P = .067), but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: More frequent use of BW appears to be associated to better metabolic control in patients with T1DM using pump therapy. In standard clinical practice, augmentation of insulin pump with CGM may be associated to improved glycemic control

Assessment of use of specific features of subcutaneous insulin infusion systems and their relationship to metabolic control in patients with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) have available several specific features of these devices. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between real use of them and the degree of glycemic control in patients using this therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four T1DM patients on CSII therapy with or without real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were included. Data from 14 consecutive days were retrospectively collected using the therapy management software CareLink Personal/Pro(®) and HbA1c measurement performed at that period. The relationship between the frequency of usie of specific features of insulin pumps (non-sensor augmented or sensor-augmented) and glycemic control was analyzed. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c in the group was 7.5 ± .8%. Mean daily number of boluses administered was 5.1 ± 1.8, with 75.4% of them being bolus wizards (BW). Daily number of boluses was significantly greater in patients with HbA1c <7.5% than in those with HbA1c>7.5% (5.3 ± 1.6 vs. 4.3 ± 1.6, P=.056). There was a trend to greater use of BW in patients with better control (82.8 ± 21.4% vs. 69.9 ± 29.1%, P=.106). HbA1c was lower in patients using CGM (n=8) as compared to those not using sensor-augmented pumps (7.6 ± .8 vs 7.1 ± .7, P=.067), but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: More frequent use of BW appears to be associated to better metabolic control in patients with T1DM using pump therapy. In standard clinical practice, augmentation of insulin pump with CGM may be associated to improved glycemic control.