Are we Ready for Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital Setting? Benefits, Challenges, and Practical Approaches for Implementation : Case Vignette: Remote Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Hospitalized Care in Quincy Koala.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While preliminary evidence for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) in the hospital setting is encouraging, challenges with currently available devices and technology will need to be overcome as part of real-world integration. This paper reviews the current evidence and guidelines regarding use of rtCGM in the hospital and suggests a practical approach to implementation. RECENT FINDINGS: There is now a considerable body of real-world evidence on the benefits of reducing dysglycemia in the hospital using both traditional point-of-care (POC) glucose testing and rtCGM. Benefits of rtCGM include decreased frequency of hypo- and hyperglycemia with reduced need of frequent POC checks and it is both feasible and well-accepted by nursing staff and providers. If expansion to additional sites is to be considered, practical solutions will need to be offered. Recommendations for an operational workflow and tools are described to guide implementation in the non-ICU setting. Further testing in randomized controlled trials and real-world dissemination and implementation designs is needed, together with industry and technology collaborations, to further streamline the integration into health systems.

Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa: Design and rationale for the QWINT phase 3 clinical development programme.

AIMS: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This review describes the study design and rationale of the efsitora phase 3 Once Weekly (QW) Insulin Therapy (QWINT) clinical development programme, including the five trials, QWINT-1 through QWINT-5. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The five trials included insulin-naïve adults (QWINT-1 and -2) with type 2 diabetes (T2D), adults with T2D previously treated with basal insulin (QWINT-3 and -4), and QWINT-5 in adults with type 1 diabetes. All five trials were designed as multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label, treat-to-target studies to investigate the efficacy and safety of efsitora versus active once-daily basal insulin comparators (insulin glargine U100 or insulin degludec U100). The primary objective of each trial is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or 52 between efsitora and the active comparator. The key secondary objectives include change in fasting glucose, insulin dose and continuous glucose monitoring variables, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The QWINT development programme includes a racially and geographically diverse population to provide important information regarding the efficacy and safety of efsitora and its clinical management of people with diabetes.

Mi Puente (My Bridge) Care Transitions Program for Hispanic/Latino Adults with Multimorbidity: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity frequently co-occurs with behavioral health concerns and leads to increased healthcare costs and reduced quality and quantity of life. Unplanned readmissions are a primary driver of high healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: We tested the effectiveness of a culturally appropriate care transitions program for Latino adults with multiple cardiometabolic conditions and behavioral health concerns in reducing hospital utilization and improving patient-reported outcomes. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, single-blind parallel-groups. PARTICIPANTS: Hispanic/Latino adults (N=536; 75% of those screened and eligible; M=62.3 years (SD=13.9); 48% women; 73% born in Mexico) with multiple chronic cardiometabolic conditions and at least one behavioral health concern (e.g., depression symptoms, alcohol misuse) hospitalized at a hospital that serves a large, mostly Hispanic/Latino, low-income population. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care (UC) involved best-practice discharge processes (e.g., discharge instructions, assistance with appointments). Mi Puente ("My Bridge"; MP) was a culturally appropriate program of UC plus inpatient and telephone encounters with a behavioral health nurse and community mentor team who addressed participants' social, medical, and behavioral health needs. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was 30- and 180-day readmissions (inpatient, emergency, and observation visits). Patient-reported outcomes (quality of life, patient activation) and healthcare use were also examined. KEY RESULTS: In intention-to-treat models, the MP group evidenced a higher rate of recurrent hospitalization (15.9%) versus UC (9.4%) (OR=1.91 (95% CI 1.09, 3.33)), and a greater number of recurrent hospitalizations (M=0.20 (SD=0.49) MP versus 0.12 (SD=0.45) UC; P=0.02) at 30 days. Similar trends were observed at 180 days. Both groups showed improved patient-reported outcomes, with no advantage in the Mi Puente group. Results were similar in per protocol analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this at-risk population, the MP group experienced increased hospital utilization and did not demonstrate an advantage in improved patient-reported outcomes, relative to UC. Possible reasons for these unexpected findings are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02723019. Registered on 30 March 2016.

Rationale and design of the phase 3a development programme (ONWARDS 1-6 trials) investigating once-weekly insulin icodec in diabetes.

AIM: To describe the phase 3a ONWARDS clinical development programme investigating insulin icodec (icodec), a once-weekly basal insulin, including the design and rationale for each of the ONWARDS 1-6 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six randomized controlled trials have been initiated in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (insulin-naive: ONWARDS 1, 3 and 5; previously insulin-treated: ONWARDS 2 and 4) and type 1 diabetes (T1D) (ONWARDS 6). Each trial will investigate icodec use in a unique clinical scenario, with consideration of long-term safety and varied comparator treatments (insulin glargine U100 or U300 or insulin degludec). ONWARDS 5 will incorporate real-world elements and a digital dose titration solution to guide icodec dosing. The primary objective for each of the trials is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or week 52 between icodec and comparator arms. Secondary objectives include investigating other glycaemic control and safety parameters, such as fasting glucose, time in glycaemic range and hypoglycaemia. Patient-reported outcomes will assess treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The ONWARDS 1-6 trials will evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with currently available daily basal insulin analogues in T2D and T1D. These trials will generate comprehensive evidence of icodec use in diverse populations across the spectrum of diabetes progression and treatment experience.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal Insulin: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be beneficial for adults with type 2 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy, but its use in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin has not been well studied. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin in primary care practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 15 centers in the US (enrollment from July 30, 2018, to October 30, 2019; follow-up completed July 7, 2020) and included adults with type 2 diabetes receiving their diabetes care from a primary care clinician and treated with 1 or 2 daily injections of long- or intermediate-acting basal insulin without prandial insulin, with or without noninsulin glucose-lowering medications. Interventions: Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring (n = 59). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at 8 months. Key secondary outcomes were CGM-measured time in target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with glucose level at greater than 250 mg/dL, and mean glucose level at 8 months. Results: Among 175 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [9] years; 88 women [50%]; 92 racial/ethnic minority individuals [53%]; mean [SD] baseline HbA1c level, 9.1% [0.9%]), 165 (94%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 9.1% at baseline to 8.0% at 8 months in the CGM group and from 9.0% to 8.4% in the BGM group (adjusted difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -0.8% to -0.1%]; P = .02). In the CGM group, compared with the BGM group, the mean percentage of CGM-measured time in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL was 59% vs 43% (adjusted difference, 15% [95% CI, 8% to 23%]; P < .001), the mean percentage of time at greater than 250 mg/dL was 11% vs 27% (adjusted difference, -16% [95% CI, -21% to -11%]; P < .001), and the means of the mean glucose values were 179 mg/dL vs 206 mg/dL (adjusted difference, -26 mg/dL [95% CI, -41 to -12]; P < .001). Severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 1 participant (1%) in the CGM group and in 1 (2%) in the BGM group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin, continuous glucose monitoring, as compared with blood glucose meter monitoring, resulted in significantly lower HbA1c levels at 8 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03566693.

Risk of hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U300 in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: the randomised, head-to-head CONCLUDE trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: A head-to-head randomised trial was conducted to evaluate hypoglycaemia safety with insulin degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. METHODS: This randomised (1:1), open-label, treat-to-target, multinational trial included individuals with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥18 years with HbA1c ≤80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and BMI ≤45 kg/m2. Participants were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs (excluding insulin secretagogues) and had to fulfil at least one predefined criterion for hypoglycaemia risk. Both degludec U200 and glargine U300 were similarly titrated to a fasting blood glucose target of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Endpoints were assessed during a 36 week maintenance period and a total treatment period up to 88 weeks. There were three hypoglycaemia endpoints: (1) overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia (either severe, an event requiring third-party assistance, or confirmed by blood glucose [<3.1 mmol/l] with symptoms); (2) nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (severe or confirmed by blood glucose with symptoms, between 00:01 and 05:59 h); and (3) severe hypoglycaemia. The primary endpoint was the number of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemic events in the maintenance period. Secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints included the number of nocturnal symptomatic events and number of severe hypoglycaemic events during the maintenance period. RESULTS: Of the 1609 randomised participants, 733 of 805 (91.1%) in the degludec U200 arm and 734 of 804 (91.3%) in the glargine U300 arm completed the trial (87.3% and 87.8% completed on treatment, respectively). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two treatment arms. For the primary endpoint, the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia was not significantly lower with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 (rate ratio [RR] 0.88 [95% CI 0.73, 1.06]). As there was no significant difference between treatments for the primary endpoint, the confirmatory testing procedure for superiority was stopped. The pre-specified confirmatory secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints were analysed using pre-specified statistical models but were now considered exploratory. These endpoints showed a lower rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.48, 0.84]) and severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07, 0.57]) with degludec U200 vs glargine U300. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: There was no significant difference in the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 in the maintenance period. The rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were nominally significantly lower with degludec U200 during the maintenance period compared with glargine U300. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03078478 FUNDING: This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk (Bagsvaerd, Denmark).

Benefits of insulin degludec/liraglutide are maintained even in patients discontinuing sulphonylureas or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors upon initiation of degludec/liraglutide therapy: A post hoc analysis of the DUAL II and DUAL IX trials.

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of initiating insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who had discontinued pretrial sulphonylureas (SUs) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) versus patients not previously treated with these regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In DUAL II, patients with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin and metformin ± SU/glinides were randomized to insulin degludec or IDegLira (both capped at 50 U). In DUAL IX, patients were randomized to insulin glargine U100 (no maximum dose) or IDegLira, as add-on to sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors ± oral antidiabetic drugs. In this post hoc analysis, patients were grouped according to pretrial use of SU (DUAL II) or DPP4i (DUAL IX). RESULTS: Regardless of pretrial SU/DPP4i use, IDegLira was favourable versus insulin comparators with respect to change in HbA1c and body weight. Lower hypoglycaemia rates and comparable end-of-trial daily insulin dose were achieved with IDegLira, regardless of pretrial regimen. There was no clinically relevant increase in mean self-measured blood glucose in the early weeks after IDegLira initiation. There was no statistically significant interaction between the randomized treatments and previous SU/DPP4i use. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira was more favourable compared with degludec or glargine U100 in terms of change in HbA1c and body weight, regardless of antecedent treatment. Clinicians should be aware of a potential transient rise in self-measured blood glucose when transitioning therapy in patients. This shows that SUs/DPP4is can be safely discontinued, without deterioration in glycaemic control when initiating IDegLira, allowing a simplified treatment regimen.

The relationship between HbA1c and hypoglycaemia in patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL.

AIM: Treat-to-target, randomized controlled trials have confirmed lower rates of hypoglycaemia at equivalent glycaemic control with insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Treat-to-target trials are designed to enable comparisons of safety and tolerability at a similar HbA1c level. In this post hoc analysis of the SWITCH 1 and 2 trials, we utilised a patient-level modelling approach to compare how glycaemic control might differ between basal insulins at a similar rate of hypoglycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for HbA1c and symptomatic hypoglycaemia from the SWITCH 1 and SWITCH 2 trials were analyzed separately for patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The association between the individual patient-level risk of hypoglycaemia and HbA1c was investigated using a Poisson regression model and used to estimate potential differences in glycaemic control with degludec versus glargine U100, at the same rate of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: Improvements in glycaemic control increased the incidence of hypoglycaemia with both basal insulins across diabetes types. Our analysis suggests that patients could achieve a mean HbA1c reduction of 0.70 [0.05; 2.20]95% CI (for type 1 diabetes) or 0.96 [0.39; 1.99]95% CI (for type 2 diabetes) percentage points (8 [1; 24]95% CI or 10 [4; 22]95% CI mmol/mol, respectively) further with degludec than with glargine U100 before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that patients in clinical practice may be able to achieve lower glycaemia targets with degludec versus glargine U100, before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia.

Development of a hypoglycaemia risk score to identify high-risk individuals with advanced type 2 diabetes in DEVOTE.

AIMS: The ability to differentiate patient populations with type 2 diabetes at high risk of severe hypoglycaemia could impact clinical decision making. The aim of this study was to develop a risk score, using patient characteristics, that could differentiate between populations with higher and lower 2-year risk of severe hypoglycaemia among individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two models were developed for the risk score based on data from the DEVOTE cardiovascular outcomes trials. The first, a data-driven machine-learning model, used stepwise regression with bidirectional elimination to identify risk factors for severe hypoglycaemia. The second, a risk score based on known clinical risk factors accessible in clinical practice identified from the data-driven model, included: insulin treatment regimen; diabetes duration; sex; age; and glycated haemoglobin, all at baseline. Both the data-driven model and simple risk score were evaluated for discrimination, calibration and generalizability using data from DEVOTE, and were validated against the external LEADER cardiovascular outcomes trial dataset. RESULTS: Both the data-driven model and the simple risk score discriminated between patients at higher and lower hypoglycaemia risk, and performed similarly well based on the time-dependent area under the curve index (0.63 and 0.66, respectively) over a 2-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Both the data-driven model and the simple hypoglycaemia risk score were able to discriminate between patients at higher and lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia, the latter doing so using easily accessible clinical data. The implementation of such a tool (http://www.hyporiskscore.com/) may facilitate improved recognition of, and education about, severe hypoglycaemia risk, potentially improving patient care.

Risk of severe hypoglycaemia and its impact in type 2 diabetes in DEVOTE.

AIMS: To undertake a post-hoc analysis, utilizing a hypoglycaemia risk score based on DEVOTE trial data, to investigate if a high risk of severe hypoglycaemia was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, and whether reduced rates of severe hypoglycaemia in patients identified as having the highest risk affected the risk of cardiovascular outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The DEVOTE population was divided into quartiles according to patients' individual hypoglycaemia risk scores. For each quartile, the observed incidence and rate of severe hypoglycaemia, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and all-cause mortality were determined to investigate whether those with the highest risk of hypoglycaemia were also at the greatest risk of MACE and all-cause mortality. In addition, treatment differences within each risk quartile [insulin degludec (degludec) vs. insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100)] in terms of severe hypoglycaemia, MACE and all-cause mortality were investigated. RESULTS: Patients with the highest risk scores had the highest rates of severe hypoglycaemia, MACE and all-cause mortality. Treatment ratios between degludec and glargine U100 in the highest risk quartile were 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 (0.39; 0.80) (severe hypoglycaemia), 95% CI 0.76 (0.58; 0.99) (MACE) and 95% CI 0.77 (0.55; 1.07) (all-cause mortality). CONCLUSIONS: The risk score demonstrated that a high risk of severe hypoglycaemia was associated with a high incidence of MACE and all-cause mortality and that, in this high-risk group, those treated with degludec had a lower incidence of MACE. These observations support the hypothesis that hypoglycaemia is a risk factor for cardiovascular events.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Hypoglycemia in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time assessment of glucose levels and may be beneficial in reducing hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Objective: To determine whether CGM is effective in reducing hypoglycemia compared with standard blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 22 endocrinology practices in the United States among 203 adults at least 60 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to use CGM (n = 103) or standard BGM (n = 100). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CGM-measured percentage of time that sensor glucose values were less than 70 mg/dL during 6 months of follow-up. There were 31 prespecified secondary outcomes, including additional CGM metrics for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose control; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for false-discovery rate. Results: Of the 203 participants (median age, 68 [interquartile range {IQR}, 65-71] years; median type 1 diabetes duration, 36 [IQR, 25-48] years; 52% female; 53% insulin pump use; mean HbA1c, 7.5% [SD, 0.9%]), 83% used CGM at least 6 days per week during month 6. Median time with glucose levels less than 70 mg/dL was 5.1% (73 minutes per day) at baseline and 2.7% (39 minutes per day) during follow-up in the CGM group vs 4.7% (68 minutes per day) and 4.9% (70 minutes per day), respectively, in the standard BGM group (adjusted treatment difference, -1.9% (-27 minutes per day); 95% CI, -2.8% to -1.1% [-40 to -16 minutes per day]; P <.001). Of the 31 prespecified secondary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metrics, 6 of 7 HbA1c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes. Mean HbA1c decreased in the CGM group compared with the standard BGM group (adjusted group difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.4% to -0.1%; P <.001). The most commonly reported adverse events using CGM and standard BGM, respectively, were severe hypoglycemia (1 and 10), fractures (5 and 1), falls (4 and 3), and emergency department visits (6 and 8). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in hypoglycemia over 6 months. Further research is needed to understand the long-term clinical benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03240432.

Superior efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide versus insulin glargine U100 as add-on to sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor therapy: A randomized clinical trial in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) as add-on to sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 26-week, phase IIIb, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, conducted at 74 sites in 11 countries, insulin-naïve people aged ≥18 years with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 53-97 mmol/mol (7.0-11.0%), body mass index 20-40 kg/m2 and inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on SGLT2 inhibitor ± oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized 1:1 to once-daily IDegLira or IGlar U100, both as add-on to existing therapy. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26. RESULTS: A total of 210 participants were randomized to each treatment arm. Mean HbA1c reductions were 21 mmol/mol (1.9%-points) with IDegLira and 18 mmol/mol (1.7%-points) with IGlar U100; confirming non-inferiority (P < 0.0001) and superiority of IDegLira (difference in HbA1c change -3.90 mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.45; -2.35 (-0.36%-points; 95% CI -0.50, -0.21)). Superiority for IDegLira over IGlar U100 was also confirmed for: body weight (difference -1.92 kg; 95% CI -2.64, -1.19); severe or blood-glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia (rate ratio 0.42; 95% CI 0.23, 0.75); total daily insulin dose (difference -15.37 U; 95% CI -19.60, -11.13). The overall treatment-emergent adverse event rate was higher with IDegLira as a result of higher increased lipase and nausea rates. CONCLUSIONS: The favourable safety and efficacy profile of IDegLira in people with uncontrolled T2D on SGLT2 inhibitors, and lower weight gain and hypoglycaemia risk versus IGlar U100, suggest that clinicians should consider IDegLira initiation in this population.

Day-to-day fasting self-monitored blood glucose variability is associated with risk of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the SWITCH Trials.

AIMS: To investigate the association between day-to-day fasting self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) variability and risk of hypoglycaemia in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), and to compare day-to-day fasting SMBG variability between treatments with insulin degludec (degludec) and insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were retrieved from two double-blind, randomized, treat-to-target, two-period (32 weeks each) crossover trials of degludec vs glargine U100 in T1D (SWITCH 1, n = 501) and T2D (SWITCH 2, n = 720). Available fasting SMBGs were used to determine the standard deviation (SD) of day-to-day fasting SMBG variability for each patient and the treatment combination. The association between day-to-day fasting SMBG variability and overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia was analysed for the pooled population using linear regression, with fasting SMBG variability included as a three-level factor defined by population tertiles. Finally, day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was compared between treatments. RESULTS: Linear regression showed that day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was significantly associated with overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia risk in T1D and T2D (P < 0.05). Day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was significantly associated (P < 0.01) with all categories of hypoglycaemia risk, with the exception of severe hypoglycaemia in T2D when analysed within tertiles. Degludec was associated with 4% lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability than glargine U100 in T1D (P = 0.0082) and with 10% lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability in T2D (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher day-to-day fasting SMBG variability is associated with an increased risk of overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia. Degludec has significantly lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability vs glargine U100.

Innovative Diabetes Interventions in the U.S. Hispanic Population.

IN BRIEF In the United States, Hispanics have a 66% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes and, once diagnosed, exhibit worse outcomes than non-Hispanic whites. It is therefore imperative to ensure that interventions meet the specific needs of this at-risk group. This article provides a selective review of the evidence on innovative, real-world approaches (both live and technology-based) to improving behavioral, psychosocial, and clinical outcomes in underserved Hispanics with type 2 diabetes. Key aspects of successful live interventions have included multimodal delivery, greater dosage/attendance, and at least some in-person delivery; effective technology-based approaches involved frequent but intermittent communication, bi-directional messaging, tailored feedback, multimodal delivery, and some human interaction. Across modalities, cultural tailoring also improved outcomes. Additional research is needed to address methodological limitations of studies to date and pinpoint the most efficacious components and optimal duration of interventions. Future efforts should also attend to variability within the U.S. Hispanic population to ensure acceptability and sustainability of interventions in this diverse group.

Effect of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Hispanic Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results From the SWITCH 2 Trial.

IN BRIEF Hispanic patients with type 2 diabetes have poorer glycemic control and are at higher risk of severe diabetes complications and mortality than non-Hispanic white patients. This post hoc analysis investigated the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in the Hispanic patient subpopulation from the SWITCH 2 trial. In Hispanic patients, hypoglycemia was consistently lower and nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower with degludec versus glargine U100 at similar levels of glycemic control. Overall, results in Hispanic patients in SWITCH 2 were consistent with those in non-Hispanic patients.

Efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart in comparison with insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (onset 1): A 52-week, randomized, treat-to-target, phase III trial.

AIMS: To compare the safety and efficacy of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) with conventional insulin aspart (IAsp) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: onset 1 was a randomized, multicentre, treat-to-target, phase III, 52-week (initial 26 weeks + additional 26 weeks) trial conducted at 165 sites across 9 countries. Adults with T1D were randomly allocated to double-blind mealtime faster aspart or IAsp, each with once- or twice-daily insulin detemir. The primary endpoint, change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline after the initial 26 weeks, has been reported previously. In the present paper, we report data from the full 52-week study period. RESULTS: Between August 2013 and June 2015, 381 participants were assigned to double-blind faster aspart and 380 participants to IAsp. After 52 weeks, estimated mean changes from baseline in HbA1c levels were -0.08% (faster aspart) and +0.01% (IAsp); estimated treatment difference significantly favoured faster aspart (-0.10% [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.19;-0.00]; P = .0424). Changes from baseline in 1-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) increment (meal test; faster aspart -1.05 mmol/L; IAsp -0.14 mmol/L) also significantly favoured faster aspart (estimated treatment difference -0.91 mmol/L [95% CI -1.40;-0.43]; -16.48 mg/dL [95% CI -25.17;-7.80]; P = .0002). There was no difference in overall severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes or treatment-emergent adverse events between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: At 52 weeks, overall glycaemic control had significantly improved with faster aspart vs IAsp, consistent with the 26-week study findings. Achieving an insulin profile closer to physiological insulin secretion with faster aspart translates into lower PPG and HbA1c levels compared with those achieved with IAsp in people with T1D.

When insulin degludec enhances quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: Anecdotal reports suggest that insulin degludec (IDeg) may offer unique health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits. As the nature of these benefits remain unclear, this study utilized qualitative research methods to investigate and elucidate the experience of "feeling better" after initiating IDeg. METHODS: Twenty adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who reported "feeling better" on IDeg for > 3 months participated in 90-min interviews. One focus group and nine telephone interviews were conducted at two sites in the United States (US) and one focus group was conducted in Switzerland. Patients were ≥ 18 years of age, did not take mealtime insulin, and had switched to IDeg from another basal insulin. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and translated (Swiss German). Utilizing grounded theory, transcripts were analyzed by sorting quotes into concepts using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 66 years and the average duration of T2D was 17.6 years. Mean duration of IDeg use was 1.45 years. Four major factors were identified as key contributors to patients' sense of "feeling better": 1) reduced sense of diabetes as burdensome and requiring excessive attention; 2) enhanced feelings of adaptability and freedom; 3) heightened sense of security, especially regarding concerns about hypoglycemia; and 4) greater sense of physical well-being (greater energy/less fatigue). Content saturation was achieved. Generally, patients from the US sites were more focused on medical results than Swiss patients, who were more likely to identify IDeg's effect on overall HRQoL. A limitation of the study was that the population was primarily white, > 60 and otherwise healthy (no comorbid physical or mental condition). CONCLUSIONS: A group of patients with T2D, who had switched to IDeg from another basal insulin, reported HRQoL benefits which were attributed to both diabetes-specific improvements (feeling less burdened by day-to-day diabetes demands) and non-specific gains (greater energy). The conclusions may have limited transferability due to the characteristics of the sample population and further research is needed.

Effect of Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: The SWITCH 1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Hypoglycemia, common in patients with type 1 diabetes, is a major barrier to achieving good glycemic control. Severe hypoglycemia can lead to coma or death. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether insulin degludec is noninferior or superior to insulin glargine U100 in reducing the rate of symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blind, randomized, crossover noninferiority trial involving 501 adults with at least 1 hypoglycemia risk factor treated at 84 US and 6 Polish centers (January 2014-January 12, 2016) for two 32-week treatment periods, each with a 16-week titration and a 16-week maintenance period. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U100 (n = 249) or to receive insulin glargine U100 followed by insulin degludec (n = 252) and randomized 1:1 to morning or evening dosing within each treatment sequence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the rate of overall severe or blood glucose-confirmed (<56 mg/dL) symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes during the maintenance period. Secondary end points included the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes and proportion of patients with severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period. The noninferiority criterion for the primary end point and for the secondary end point of nocturnal hypoglycemia was defined as an upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for a rate ratio of 1.10 or lower; if noninferiority was established, 2-sided statistical testing for superiority was conducted. RESULTS: Of the 501 patients randomized (mean age, 45.9 years; 53.7% men), 395 (78.8%) completed the trial. During the maintenance period, the rates of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia were 2200.9 episodes per 100 person-years' exposure (PYE) in the insulin degludec group vs 2462.7 episodes per 100 PYE in the insulin glargine U100 group for a rate ratio (RR) of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority; rate difference, -130.31 episodes per 100 PYE; 95% CI, -193.5 to -67.16). The rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia were 277.1 per 100 PYE in the insulin degludec group vs 428.6 episodes per 100 PYE in the insulin glargine U100 group, for an RR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.73; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority; rate difference, -61.94 episodes per 100 PYE; 95% CI, -83.85 to -40.03). A lower proportion of patients in the insulin degludec than in the insulin glargine U100 group experienced severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period (10.3%, 95% CI, 7.3%-13.3% vs 17.1%, 95% CI, 13.4%-20.8%, respectively; McNemar P = .002; risk difference, -6.8%; 95% CI, -10.8% to -2.7%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with type 1 diabetes and at least 1 risk factor for hypoglycemia, 32 weeks' treatment with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 resulted in a reduced rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02034513.

Implementing community-based diabetes programs: the scripps whittier diabetes institute experience.

Diabetes affects a large and growing segment of the US population. Ethnic and racial minorities are at disproportionate risk for diabetes, with Hispanics and non-Hispanic Blacks showing a near doubling of risk relative to non-Hispanic Whites. There is an urgent need to identify low cost, effective, and easily implementable primary and secondary prevention approaches, as well as tertiary strategies that delay disease progression, complications, and associated deterioration in function in patients with diabetes. The Chronic Care Model provides a well-accepted framework for improving diabetes and chronic disease care in the community and primary care medical home. A number of community-based diabetes programs have incorporated this model into their infrastructure. Diabetes programs must offer accessible information and support throughout the community and must be delivered in a format that is understood, regardless of literacy and socioeconomic status. This article will discuss several successful, culturally competent community-based programs and the key elements needed to implement the programs at a community or health system level. Health systems together with local communities can integrate the elements of community-based programs that are effective across the continuum of the care to enhance patient-centered outcomes, enable patient acceptability and ultimately lead to improved patient engagement and satisfaction.