Use of once-daily oral semaglutide and associated clinical outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice in Canada: A multicentre, prospective real-world study (PIONEER REAL Canada).

AIM: PIONEER REAL Canada examined real-world clinical outcomes associated with the use of once-daily oral semaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 34- to 44-week, multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-interventional study in adults who were treatment-naive to injectable glucose-lowering medication and initiated oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to the end of the study (EoS). Secondary endpoints assessed at EoS were change from baseline in body weight (BW); the proportion of participants reaching HbA1c levels <7% and the composite endpoints, HbA1c reduction ≥1% point with BW reduction ≥3% and ≥5%; and treatment satisfaction measured using Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaires (DTSQ) status and change. Primary analyses were based on the in-study observation period. RESULTS: In total, 182 participants initiated oral semaglutide (mean age, 58.6 years; HbA1c, 8.0%; BW, 93.7 kg). The estimated changes (95% confidence interval) from baseline to EoS in HbA1c and BW were -1.09% points (-1.24, -0.94; p < .0001) and -7.17% (-8.24, -6.11; p < .0001), respectively. At EoS, 53.7% of participants had HbA1c levels <7%; 39.3% and 31.6% reached HbA1c reduction ≥1% point plus BW reduction ≥3% and ≥5%, respectively. Treatment satisfaction significantly increased (DTSQ status, +4.47 points; DTSQ change, 11.83 points; both p < .0001). At EoS, 75.3% of participants remained on oral semaglutide (55.5% received oral semaglutide 14 mg). No new safety signals were identified for oral semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: In PIONEER REAL Canada, participants treated with oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice experienced clinically relevant reductions in HbA1c and BW and increased treatment satisfaction.

Effect of diabetes technologies on the fear of hypoglycaemia among people living with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Fear of hypoglycaemia (FOH) significantly disrupts the daily management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and increases the risk of complications. Recent technological advances can improve glucose metrics and reduce hypoglycaemia frequency, yet their impact on FOH is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aimed to synthesize the current literature to understand the impact of diabetes technologies on FOH in T1D. Methods: In this SRMA, we searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception up to May 21st, 2023 for studies assessing the effect of using real-time or intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitors (rtCGM or isCGM); insulin pumps (CSII); and their combinations on FOH as the primary outcome, measured using the Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey (HFS; including total, worries [HFS-W], and behaviours [HFS-B] scores), in non-pregnant adults with T1D. Data was extracted by the first and second authors. Results were pooled using a random-effects model based on study design (RCT and non-RCT), with subgroup analysis based on the type of technology, reported change in hypoglycaemia frequency, and duration of use. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute tools. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021253618. Findings: A total of 51 studies (n = 8966) were included, 22 of which were RCTs. Studies on rtCGM and CSII reported lower FOH levels with ≥8 weeks of use. Studies on CSII and rtCGM combinations reported lower FOH levels after ≥13 weeks of automated insulin delivery (AID) use or 26 weeks of sensor-augmented pump (SAP) use. The meta-analysis showed an overall lower FOH with technologies, specifically for the HFS-W subscale. The RCT meta-analysis showed lower HFS-W scores with rtCGM use (standard mean difference [95%CI]: -0.14 [-0.23, -0.05], I2 = 0%) and AID (-0.17 [-0.33, -0.01], I2 = 0%). Results from non-RCT studies show that SAP users (-0.33 [-0.38, -0.27], I2 = 0%) and rtCGM users (-0.38 [-0.61, -0.14], I2 = 0%) had lower HFS-W. Interpretation: We found consistent, yet small to moderate, effects supporting that diabetes technologies (specifically rtCGM, SAP, and AID) may reduce hypoglycaemia-related worries in adults with T1D. Current literature, however, has limitations including discrepancies in baseline characteristics and limited, mainly descriptive, statistical analysis. Thus, future studies should assess FOH as a primary outcome, use validated surveys, and appropriate statistical analysis to evaluate the clinical impacts of technology use beyond just glucose metrics. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Ltd.

Diabetes remission and relapse following an intensive metabolic intervention combining insulin glargine/lixisenatide, metformin and lifestyle approaches: Results of a randomised controlled trial.

AIM: Non-surgical options for inducing type 2 diabetes remission are limited. We examined whether remission can be achieved by combining lifestyle approaches and short-term intensive glucose-lowering therapy. METHODS: In this trial, 160 patients with type 2 diabetes on none to two diabetes medications other than insulin were randomised to (a) an intervention comprising lifestyle approaches, insulin glargine/lixisenatide and metformin, or (b) standard care. Participants with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.3% (56 mmol/mol) at 12 weeks were asked to stop diabetes medications and were followed for an additional 52 weeks. The primary outcome was diabetes relapse defined as HbA1c ≥6.5% (48 mmol/mol) at 24 weeks or thereafter, capillary glucose ≥10 mmol/L on ≥50% of readings, or use of diabetes medications, analysed as time-to-event. Main secondary outcomes included complete or partial diabetes remission at 24, 36, 48 and 64 weeks defined as HbA1c <6.5% (48 mmol/mol) off diabetes medications since 12 weeks after randomisation. A hierarchical testing strategy was applied. RESULTS: The intervention significantly reduced the hazard of diabetes relapse by 43% (adjusted hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.81; p = .002). Complete or partial diabetes remission was achieved in 30 (38.0%) intervention group participants versus 16 (19.8%) controls at 24 weeks and 25 (31.6%) versus 14 (17.3%) at 36 weeks [relative risk 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.14-3.24) and 1.83 (1.03-3.26), respectively]. The relative risk of diabetes remission in the intervention versus control group was 1.88 (1.00-3.53) at 48 weeks and 2.05 (0.98-4.29) at 64 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: A 12-week intensive intervention comprising insulin glargine/lixisenatide, metformin and lifestyle approaches can induce remission of diabetes.

Ease of Use of the iGlarLixi SoloStar Pen from the LixiLan ONE CAN Pen Sub-Study: Questionnaire Findings from People Living with Type 2 Diabetes and Their HealthCare Providers.

INTRODUCTION: For people with type 2 diabetes mellitus who do not achieve glycated hemoglobin A1C targets after treatment with basal insulin therapies, additional therapy with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) may be required. One option is to use a once-daily fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA such as iGlarLixi (which is composed of insulin glargine 100 U/ml and lixisenatide). However, the ease of transitioning from basal insulin to an FRC has not been studied. METHODS: This sub-study of the LixiLan ONE CAN trial (NCT03767543) was conducted to assess the ease of transitioning from insulin glargine 100 U/ml to the FRC, iGlarLixi, using the iGlarLixi SoloStar® pen. Patients completed a validated, ten-item questionnaire, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) completed a five-item questionnaire. Both questionnaires used either five-point Likert scales or yes/no answers as appropriate, and both were completed after 4 weeks of using the iGlarLixi SoloStar pen. RESULTS: Overall, 95.1% of patients reported that the iGlarLixi Solostar pen was "easy" or "very easy" to use. Similarly, 100% of HCPs reported that it was "easy" or "very easy" to train people to use the pen. Nearly all participants (97.5% of patients and 94% of HCPs) responded that they would recommend the iGlarLixi Solostar pen to others. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that during the transition from insulin glargine 100 U/ml to iGlarLixi, there were no difficulties associated with using the iGlarLixi SoloStar pen injector regarding instruction for use by HCPs or actual use by the majority of patients. The results indicate a broad consensus between patients and HCPs on the relative simplicity of transitioning from self-administration of insulin glargine 100 U/ml to iGlarLixi. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03767543; Date of registration: December 6, 2018; Retrospectively registered.

Many people take basal insulin to control their blood sugar, but for those in whom basal insulin injections do not work well enough to achieve their target blood glucose, treatment needs to be advanced. One option to do this is with a fixed-ratio combination therapy that combines basal insulin with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, such as iGlarLixi. Both basal insulin and fixed-ratio combination therapies are administered using injection pens, but the ease of transitioning from a basal insulin pen to a fixed-ratio combination pen has not been assessed. In this study, people with type 2 diabetes who had previously received the basal insulin insulin glargine 100 U/ml using a SoloStar^® pen, and who transitioned to the iGlarLixi SoloStar pen, were asked to complete a questionnaire to rate their experience of using the new pen injector after 4 weeks of use. Their doctors also completed a questionnaire at the same time. Over 95% of patients reported that the iGlarLixi SoloStar^® pen was "easy" or "very easy" to use, and all of the doctors reported that it was "easy" or "very easy" to train people to use it. Nearly all of those who completed questionnaires (97.5% of patients and 94% of doctors) said that they would recommend use of the iGlarLixi Solostar pen to others. These results suggest that both patients and their doctors thought that it was relatively easy to transition from self-administration of insulin glargine 100 U/ml to iGlarLixi using the SoloStar pen injector.

Are nocturnal hypoglycemia prevention strategies influenced by diabetes technology usage? A BETTER registry analysis.

AIM: To assess the association of nocturnal hypoglycemia prevention strategies (NH-PS) and diabetes technology usage (insulin pump and/or continuous glucose monitors [CGM]) in people with type 1 diabetes (PWT1D). METHODS: Logistic regression models were used to describe associations between self-reported NH-PS and diabetes technology (pump with intermittently-scanned or real-time CGM (isCGM or rtCGM), or automated insulin delivery (AID)), hypoglycemia history, and fear of hypoglycemia (FOH). RESULTS: Among 831 adults (65 % female, aged 44 ± 15 years, T1D duration 26 ± 15 years), 32 % reported HbA1c ≤ 7.0 %, 88 % used ≥ 1 diabetes technology, 66 % reported ≥ 1 symptomatic NH in the past month, and 64 % used ≥ 2 NH-PS. Compared to multiple daily injections (MDI) + capillary blood glucose (CBG), bedtime snack consumption was less likely among pump + isCGM (OR [95 %CI]: 0.55 [0.31, 0.98]), pump + rtCGM (0.40 [0.20, 0.81]), and AID (0.34 [0.17, 0.66]) users, while evening insulin basal reduction was associated with CSII + CBG (3.15 [1.25, 7.99]), pump + isCGM 4.00 [1.99, 8.01]), and pump + rtCGM 2.89 [1.28, 6.50] use. Elevated FOH was associated with snack consumption (1.37 [1.00, 1.89]), evening bolus insulin avoidance (1.77 [1.11, 2.83]), limiting exercise (2.50 [1.30, 4.82]), and limiting alcohol consumption (2.33 [1.15, 4.70]) as NH-PS. CONCLUSION: Technology use and elevated FOH might influence PWT1D' choice of NH-PS.

2022 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guideline for Use of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and SGLT2 Inhibitors for Cardiorenal Risk Reduction in Adults.

This guideline synthesizes clinical trial data supporting the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) for treatment of heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease, and for optimizing prevention of cardiorenal morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is on the basis of a companion systematic review and meta-analysis guided by a focused set of population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) questions that address priority cardiorenal end points. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and a modified Delphi process were used. We encourage comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular (CV) patients with routine measurement of estimated glomerular filtration rate, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c), and documentation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) when evaluating symptoms of HF. For patients with HF, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy for the reduction of hospitalization for HF when LVEF is > 40% and for the reduction of all-cause and CV mortality, hospitalization for HF, and renal protection when LVEF is ≤ 40%. In patients with albuminuric chronic kidney disease, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for HF. We provide recommendations and algorithms for the selection of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2i for patients with type 2 diabetes and either established atherosclerotic CV disease or risk factors for atherosclerotic CV disease to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal stroke, and for the prevention of hospitalization for HF and decline in renal function. We offer practical advice for safe use of these diabetes-associated agents with profound cardiorenal benefits.

Comparing a daily versus weekly titration algorithm in people with type 2 diabetes switching from basal insulin to iGlarLixi in the LixiLan ONE CAN randomized trial.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of a simple daily titration algorithm compared with a weekly dose adjustment of iGlarLixi in people with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LixiLan ONE CAN (NCT03767543), a randomized, 26-week, open-label, multicentre phase 3 trial conducted in Canada, involved 265 people with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c of ≥7.5% to ≤ 10.5% or less (≥58 to ≤91 mmol/mol) on basal insulin for 6 months or longer. Participants were randomized 1:1 with instructions to self-titrate iGlarLixi daily (1 unit/day) or once weekly (2 or 4 units/week) to a common target fasting plasma glucose of 4.4 to 5.6 mmol/L (79 to 101 mg/dl). The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the daily versus weekly titration algorithm. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, daily titration of iGlarLixi was not inferior to a weekly titration for both the prespecified primary endpoint of change in HbA1c from baseline (least square [LS] mean change: -1.24% vs. -0.92%, respectively; LS mean difference: 0.32%; 95% CI [0.07, 0.57]; P < .0001) and for the secondary endpoint of change in weight from baseline (LS mean change: -0.22 vs. +0.81 kg, respectively; LS mean difference: 1.03 kg; 95% CI [0.01, 2.06]; P < .0001). Indeed, for both the primary and secondary outcome, the daily titration of iGlarLixi was superior. There were no statistically significant differences in hypoglycaemia incidence between the two titration strategies during the 26-week study. CONCLUSION: A daily titration algorithm for switching basal insulin to iGlarLixi was shown to be non-inferior and superior for glycaemic control and weight compared with weekly titration.

Empagliflozin add-on therapy to closed-loop insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes: a 2 × 2 factorial randomized crossover trial.

There is a need to optimize closed-loop automated insulin delivery in type 1 diabetes. We assessed the glycemic efficacy and safety of empagliflozin 25 mg d-1 as add-on therapy to insulin delivery with a closed-loop system. We performed a 2 × 2 factorial randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover two-center trial in adults, assessing 4 weeks of closed-loop delivery versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy and empagliflozin versus placebo. The primary outcome was time spent in the glucose target range (3.9-10.0 mmol l-1). Primary comparisons were empagliflozin versus placebo in each of closed-loop or SAP therapy; the remaining comparisons were conditional on its significance. Twenty-four of 27 randomized participants were included in the final analysis. Compared to placebo, empagliflozin improved time in target range with closed-loop therapy by 7.2% and in SAP therapy by 11.4%. Closed-loop therapy plus empagliflozin improved time in target range compared to SAP therapy plus empagliflozin by 6.1% but by 17.5% for the combination of closed-loop therapy and empagliflozin compared to SAP therapy plus placebo. While no diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia occurred during any intervention, uncomplicated ketosis events were more common on empagliflozin. Empagliflozin 25 mg d-1 added to automated insulin delivery improves glycemic control but increases ketone concentration and ketosis compared to placebo.

Real-world use of once-weekly semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: pooled analysis of data from four SURE studies by baseline characteristic subgroups.

INTRODUCTION: This post hoc pooled analysis of four real-world studies (SURE Canada, Denmark/Sweden, Switzerland and UK) aimed to characterize the use of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Semaglutide Real-world Evidence (SURE) studies had a duration of ~30 weeks. Changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight (BW) were analyzed for the overall population and the following baseline subgroups: GLP-1RA-naïve/GLP-1RA switchers; body mass index <25/≥25-<30/≥30-<35/≥35 kg/m2; age <65/≥65 years; HbA1c <7%/≥7-≤8%/>8-≤9%/>9%; T2D duration <5/≥5-<10/≥10 years. Data for patients achieving treatment targets were analyzed in the overall population and the baseline HbA1c ≥7% subgroup. RESULTS: Of 1212 patients, 960 were GLP-1RA-naïve and 252 had switched to semaglutide from another GLP-1RA. In the overall population, HbA1c was reduced from baseline to end of study (EOS) by -1.1% point and BW by -4.7 kg; changes were significant for all subgroups. There were significantly larger reductions of HbA1c and BW in GLP-1RA-naïve versus GLP-1RA switchers and larger reductions in HbA1c for patients with higher versus lower baseline HbA1c. At EOS, 52.6% of patients in the overall population achieved HbA1c <7%. No new safety concerns were identified in any of the completed SURE studies. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis, patients with T2D initiating OW semaglutide showed significant improvements from baseline to EOS in HbA1c and BW across various baseline subgroups, including patients previously treated with a GLP-1RA other than semaglutide, supporting OW semaglutide use in clinical practice. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03457012; NCT03631186; NCT03648281; NCT03876015.

Evaluation of the cost and medical resource use outcomes associated with nasal glucagon versus injectable glucagon for treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes in Canada: a modeling analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Treatments for severe hypoglycemia aim to restore blood glucose through successful administration of rescue therapy, and choosing the most effective and cost-effective option will improve outcomes for patients and may reduce costs for healthcare payers. The present analysis aimed to compare costs and use of medical services with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon in people with type 1 and 2 diabetes in Canada when used to treat severe hypoglycemic events when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrates using an economic model, based on differences in the frequency of successful administration of the two interventions. METHODS: A decision tree model was prepared in Microsoft Excel to project outcomes with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon. The model structure reflected real-world decision-making and treatment outcomes, based on Canada-specific sources. The model captured the use of glucagon, emergency medical services (EMS), emergency room, inpatient stay, and follow-up care. Costs were accounted for in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD). RESULTS: Nasal glucagon was associated with reduced use of all medical services compared with injectable glucagon. EMS call outs were projected to be reduced by 45%, emergency room treatments by 52%, and inpatient stays by 13%. Use of nasal glucagon was associated with reduced direct, indirect, and combined costs of CAD 1,249, CAD 460, and CAD 1,709 per severe hypoglycemic event, respectively, due to avoided EMS call outs and hospital costs, resulting from a higher proportion of successful administrations. CONCLUSIONS: When a patient with type 1 or type 2 diabetes is being treated for a severe hypoglycemic event when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrate, use of nasal glucagon was projected to be dominant versus injectable glucagon in Canada reducing costs and use of medical services.

A fully artificial pancreas versus a hybrid artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes: a single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled, crossover, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: For people with type 1 diabetes, there is currently no automated insulin delivery system that does not require meal input. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a novel faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system that does not require meal input. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled, crossover, non-inferiority trial we compared the Fiasp (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) plus pramlintide closed-loop system with no meal input (fully artificial pancreas) and the Fiasp-alone closed-loop system with precise carbohydrate counting (hybrid artificial pancreas). Adults (≥18 years) who had a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, had glycated haemoglobin 12% or lower, and had been on insulin pump therapy for at least 6 months were enrolled at McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. The Fiasp plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system delivered pramlintide in a basal-bolus manner with a fixed ratio of 10 µg:U relative to insulin. A research staff member counted the carbohydrate content of meals to input in the hybrid closed-loop system. Participants completed the two full-day crossover interventions in a random order allocated by a computer-generated code implementing a blocked randomisation (block size of four). The primary outcome was the percentage of time spent within the glucose target range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L), with a 6% non-inferiority margin, assessed in all participants who completed both interventions. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03800875. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2019, and Sept 19, 2020, we enrolled 28 adults, of whom 24 completed both interventions and were included in analyses. The percentage of time spent in the target range was 74·3% (IQR 61·5-82·8) with the fully closed-loop system versus 78·1% (66·3-87·5) with the hybrid Fiasp-alone closed-loop system (paired difference 2·6%, 95% CI -2·4 to 12·2; non-inferiority p=0·28). Eight (33%) participants had at least one hypoglycaemia event (<3·3 mmol/L) with the fully closed-loop system compared with 14 (58%) participants with the hybrid closed-loop system (2200-2200 h). Non-mild nausea was reported by three (13%) participants and non-mild bloating by one (4%) participant with the fully closed-loop system compared with zero participants with the hybrid closed-loop system. INTERPRETATION: The Fiasp plus pramlintide fully closed-loop system was not non-inferior to the Fiasp-alone hybrid closed-loop system for the overall percentage of time in the glucose target range. However, participants still spent a high percentage of time within the target range with the fully-closed loop system. Outpatient studies comparing the fully closed-loop hybrid systems with patient-estimated, rather than precise, carbohydrate counting are warranted. FUNDING: Diabetes Canada.

Cardiovascular risk factor management in patients with diabetes: Does management differ with disease duration?

AIMS: Our objective was to examine risk factor modification targets and treatment in relation to duration of diabetes. METHODS: The Diabetes Mellitus Status in Canada (DM-SCAN) study collected data on 5109 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in 2012 in primary care. We compared the prevalence of vascular complications, treatment targets, and interventions between patients with diagnosed diabetes duration ≤10 and > 10 years. RESULTS: Physicians more frequently assigned HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin) targets of 7.1-8.5% (54-69 mmol/mol) to patients with longer duration of diabetes (n = 1647) (19.8% vs 9.5%, p < 0.001). Patients with longer duration of diabetes were less likely to achieve HbA1c targets of ≤7.0% (53 mmol/mol) (39% vs. 55%, p < 0.001), had similar likelihood of achieving blood pressure targets of ≤130/80 mmHg (38% vs. 36%, p = 0.26) and were more likely to achieve LDL-C targets of ≤2.0 mmol/L (≤77.3 mg/dL) (63% vs. 53%, p < 0.001) compared to patients with shorter duration of diabetes (n = 3462). Achievement of all three targets between both groups were similar (13% vs. 13%, p = 0.82). Overall, patients with longer duration of diabetes were more likely to be prescribed anti-hyperglycemic, anti-hypertensive, lipid-lowering medications and referred for diabetes education. CONCLUSIONS: Only 13% of patients achieved glycemic, blood pressure, and LDL-C targets irrespective of duration of diabetes. Despite being managed with more medications, patients with longer duration of diabetes were less likely to achieve glycemic targets. More focus is needed on developing methods to bridge best care and real-world practice.

Use of once-weekly semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice: Results from the SURE Canada multicentre, prospective, observational study.

AIM: To investigate once-weekly (OW) semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The SURE Canada study was a multicenter, prospective, observational study. Adults with T2D and one or more documented HbA1c values 12 weeks or less before semaglutide initiation were enrolled. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to end of study (EOS; ~30 weeks). Secondary endpoints included change in body weight (BW), waist circumference and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c of less than 7.0%, weight loss (WL) of 5% or higher, and a composite of HbA1c reduction of 1% or higher and WL of 3% or higher at EOS. Data were analysed and presented for patients on semaglutide at EOS overall and for the following baseline medication subgroups: oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) only; GLP-1RA experienced; insulin ± OADs without GLP-1RA. RESULTS: In total, 452 patients initiated semaglutide and 356 completed the study on treatment. For the 452 patients, mean baseline HbA1c was 8.1%; 86 (19.0%) patients had HbA1c of less than 7.0%. Mean dose of semaglutide at EOS was 0.76 ± 0.31 mg. Mean HbA1c was reduced by 0.9%-point (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97; 0.78). Mean BW was reduced by 4.3 kg (95% CI: 4.79; 3.76). At EOS, 46.9% of patients achieved HbA1c of less than 7.0%, 40.9% achieved WL of 5% or higher and 24.1% achieved the composite endpoint. PROs improved from baseline to EOS. No new safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In SURE Canada, patients treated with OW semaglutide in routine clinical practice experienced clinically significant improvements in HbA1c, BW and other outcomes, supporting semaglutide use in routine clinical practice.

Alleviating carbohydrate counting with a FiASP-plus-pramlintide closed-loop delivery system (artificial pancreas): Feasibility and pilot studies.

AIM: To assess whether a FiASP-and-pramlintide closed-loop system has the potential to replace carbohydrate counting with a simple meal announcement (SMA) strategy (meal priming bolus without carbohydrate counting) without degrading glycaemic control compared with a FiASP closed-loop system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 24-hour feasibility study comparing a FiASP system with full carbohydrate counting (FCC) with a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA. We conducted a subsequent 12-day outpatient pilot study comparing a FiASP-and-placebo system with FCC, a FiASP-and-pramlintide system with SMA, and a FiASP-and-placebo system with SMA. Basal-bolus FiASP-and-pramlintide were delivered at a fixed ratio (1 U:10 µg). Glycaemic outcomes were measured, surveys evaluated gastrointestinal symptoms and diabetes distress, and participant interviews helped establish a preliminary coding framework to assess user experience. RESULTS: Seven participants were included in the feasibility analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between both interventions (81%-84%). Four participants were included in the pilot analysis. Time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/L was similar between the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA interventions (70%), but was lower in the FiASP-and-placebo with SMA intervention (60%). Time less than 3.9 mmol/L and gastrointestinal symptoms were similar across all interventions. Emotional distress was moderate at baseline, after the FiASP-and-placebo with FCC and SMA interventions, and fell after the FiASP-and-pramlintide with SMA intervention. SMA reportedly afforded participants flexibility and reduced mealtime concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The FiASP-and-pramlintide system has the potential to substitute carbohydrate counting with SMA without degrading glucose control.

Fully Automated Artificial Pancreas for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Multiple Hormones: Exploratory Experiments.

OBJECTIVES: A fully automated insulin-pramlintide-glucagon artificial pancreas that alleviates the burden of carbohydrate counting without degrading glycemic control was iteratively enhanced until convergence through pilot experiments on adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Nine participants (age, 37±13 years; glycated hemoglobin, 7.7±0.7%) completed two 27-hour interventions: a fully automated multihormone artificial pancreas and a comparator insulin-alone artificial pancreas with carbohydrate counting. The baseline algorithm was a model-predictive controller that administered insulin and pramlintide in a fixed ratio, with boluses triggered by a glucose threshold, and administered glucagon in response to low glucose levels. RESULTS: The baseline multihormone dosing algorithm resulted in noninferior time in target range (3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L) (71%) compared with the insulin-alone arm (70%) in 2 participants, with minimal glucagon delivery. The algorithm was modified to deliver insulin and pramlintide more aggressively to increase time in range and maximize the benefits of glucagon. The modified algorithm displayed a similar time in range for the multihormone arm (79%) compared with the insulin-alone arm (83%) in 2 participants, but with undesired glycemic fluctuations. Subsequently, we reduced the glucose threshold that triggers glucagon boluses. This resulted in inferior glycemic control for the multihormone arm (81% vs 91%) in 2 participants. Thereafter, a model-based meal-detection algorithm to deliver insulin and pramlintide boluses closer to mealtimes was added and glucagon was removed. The final dual-hormone system had comparable time in range (81% vs 83%) in the last 3 participants. CONCLUSION: The final version of the fully automated system that delivered insulin and pramlintide warrants a randomized controlled trial.

Reducing the need for carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes using closed-loop automated insulin delivery (artificial pancreas) and empagliflozin: A randomized, controlled, non-inferiority, crossover pilot trial.

AIM: To assess whether adding empagliflozin to closed-loop automated insulin delivery could reduce the need for carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes (T1D) without worsening glucose control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an open-label, crossover, non-inferiority trial, 30 adult participants with T1D underwent outpatient automated insulin delivery interventions with three random sequences of prandial insulin strategy days: carbohydrate counting, simple meal announcement (no carbohydrate counting) and no meal announcement. During each sequence of prandial insulin strategies, participants were randomly assigned empagliflozin (25 mg/day) or not, and crossed over to the comparator. Mean glucose for carbohydrate counting without empagliflozin (control) was compared with no meal announcement with empagliflozin (in the primary non-inferiority comparison) and simple meal announcement with empagliflozin (in the conditional primary non-inferiority comparison). RESULTS: Participants were aged 40 ± 15 years, had 27 ± 15 years diabetes duration and HbA1c of 7.6% ± 0.7% (59 ± 8 mmol/mol). The system with no meal announcement and empagliflozin was not non-inferior (and thus reasonably considered inferior) to the control arm (mean glucose 10.0 ± 1.6 vs. 8.5 ± 1.5 mmol/L; non-inferiority p = .94), while simple meal announcement and empagliflozin was non-inferior (8.5 ± 1.4 mmol/L; non-inferiority p = .003). Use of empagliflozin on the background of automated insulin delivery with carbohydrate counting was associated with lower mean glucose, corresponding to a 14% greater time in the target range. While no ketoacidosis was observed, mean fasting ketones levels were higher on empagliflozin (0.22 ± 0.18 vs. 0.13 ± 0.11 mmol/L; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin added to automated insulin delivery has the potential to eliminate the need for carbohydrate counting and improves glycaemic control in conjunction with carbohydrate counting, but does not allow for the elimination of meal announcement.

The Canadian LMC Diabetes Registry: A Profile of the Demographics, Management, and Outcomes of Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: Clinical guidelines now define the standard of diabetes care, but few health care jurisdictions systematically assess their practicality and impact. The Canadian LMC Diabetes Registry includes the electronic health records of >50 endocrinologists in three provinces and provides quarterly real-time outcome reports to each endocrinologist. This retrospective cohort study aimed to characterize the demographics, treatment regimens, and outcomes of the type 1 diabetes (T1D) patient population in the registry. Research Design and Methods: Adults were included if they had a clinical diagnosis of T1D, had seen an LMC endocrinologist between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018, and had follow-up >6 months. This study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04162067). Results: The resulting cohort included 3600 individuals with mean age of 43.9 ± 15.3 years and duration of diabetes of 21.5 ± 13.9 years. Mean hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) was 8.1% ± 1.5% and only 22.5% had achieved HbA1c ≤7.0%. In each measure, individuals in younger cohorts showed poorer glycemic control than older cohorts. Within each age cohort, insulin pump users showed a lower mean HbA1c than those using multiple daily injections, especially in cohorts who were also not using a continuous glucose monitor. Overall, 63.1% reported at least weekly hypoglycemia, whereas 3.6% reported severe hypoglycemia ≥1 per year. Conclusions: Despite receiving care in an advanced well-resourced environment, within a public health care system, from specialists armed with regular patient outcomes feedback, most individuals with T1D are unable to achieve the goals recommended by clinical practice guidelines.

A Novel Dual-Hormone Insulin-and-Pramlintide Artificial Pancreas for Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas improves glycemia in type 1 diabetes but daytime control remains suboptimal. We propose two novel dual-hormone artificial pancreas systems. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover trial comparing a rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas with rapid insulin-and-pramlintide and with regular insulin-and-pramlintide artificial pancreas systems in adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants were assigned to the interventions in random order during three 24-h inpatient visits. Each visit was preceded by an outpatient hormonal open-loop run-in period of 10-14 days. The dual-hormone artificial pancreas delivered pramlintide in a basal-bolus manner, using a novel dosing algorithm, with a fixed ratio relative to insulin. The primary outcome was time in the range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L. RESULTS: Compared with the rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas system, the rapid insulin-and-pramlintide system increased the time in range from 74% (SD 18%) to 84% (13%) (P = 0.0014), whereas the regular insulin-and-pramlintide system did not change the time in range (69% [19%]; P = 0.22). The increased time in range with the rapid insulin-and-pramlintide system was due to improved daytime control (daytime time in range increased from 63% [23%] to 78% [16%], P = 0.0004). There were 11 (1 per 2.5 days) hypoglycemic events (<3.3 mmol/L with symptoms or <3.0 mmol/L irrespective of symptoms) with the rapid insulin-alone system, compared with 12 (1 per 2.3 days) and 18 (1 per 1.4 days) with the rapid and regular insulin-and-pramlintide systems, respectively. Gastrointestinal symptoms were reported after 0% (0 of 112) of meals with the rapid insulin-alone system, compared with 6% (6 of 108) and 11% (11 of 104) with the rapid and regular insulin-and-pramlintide systems, respectively; none of the symptoms were severe. CONCLUSIONS: A novel rapid insulin-and-pramlintide artificial pancreas improves glucose control compared with a rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02814123).