Tight Blood-Glucose Control without Early Parenteral Nutrition in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Randomized, controlled trials have shown both benefit and harm from tight blood-glucose control in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Variation in the use of early parenteral nutrition and in insulin-induced severe hypoglycemia might explain this inconsistency. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, on ICU admission, to liberal glucose control (insulin initiated only when the blood-glucose level was >215 mg per deciliter [>11.9 mmol per liter]) or to tight glucose control (blood-glucose level targeted with the use of the LOGIC-Insulin algorithm at 80 to 110 mg per deciliter [4.4 to 6.1 mmol per liter]); parenteral nutrition was withheld in both groups for 1 week. Protocol adherence was determined according to glucose metrics. The primary outcome was the length of time that ICU care was needed, calculated on the basis of time to discharge alive from the ICU, with death accounted for as a competing risk; 90-day mortality was the safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 9230 patients who underwent randomization, 4622 were assigned to liberal glucose control and 4608 to tight glucose control. The median morning blood-glucose level was 140 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 122 to 161) with liberal glucose control and 107 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 98 to 117) with tight glucose control. Severe hypoglycemia occurred in 31 patients (0.7%) in the liberal-control group and 47 patients (1.0%) in the tight-control group. The length of time that ICU care was needed was similar in the two groups (hazard ratio for earlier discharge alive with tight glucose control, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.04; P = 0.94). Mortality at 90 days was also similar (10.1% with liberal glucose control and 10.5% with tight glucose control, P = 0.51). Analyses of eight prespecified secondary outcomes suggested that the incidence of new infections, the duration of respiratory and hemodynamic support, the time to discharge alive from the hospital, and mortality in the ICU and hospital were similar in the two groups, whereas severe acute kidney injury and cholestatic liver dysfunction appeared less prevalent with tight glucose control. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients who were not receiving early parenteral nutrition, tight glucose control did not affect the length of time that ICU care was needed or mortality. (Funded by the Research Foundation-Flanders and others; TGC-Fast ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03665207.).

Weekly Icodec versus Daily Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec is an investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue for diabetes management. METHODS: We conducted a 78-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target phase 3a trial (including a 52-week main phase and a 26-week extension phase, plus a 5-week follow-up period) involving adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin level, 7 to 11%) who had not previously received insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly insulin icodec or once-daily insulin glargine U100. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 52; the confirmatory secondary end point was the percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) in weeks 48 to 52. Hypoglycemic episodes (from baseline to weeks 52 and 83) were recorded. RESULTS: Each group included 492 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The mean reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level at 52 weeks was greater with icodec than with glargine U100 (from 8.50% to 6.93% with icodec [mean change, -1.55 percentage points] and from 8.44% to 7.12% with glargine U100 [mean change, -1.35 percentage points]); the estimated between-group difference (-0.19 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.36 to -0.03) confirmed the noninferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P = 0.02) of icodec. The percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was significantly higher with icodec than with glargine U100 (71.9% vs. 66.9%; estimated between-group difference, 4.27 percentage points [95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62]; P<0.001), which confirmed superiority. Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were 0.30 events per person-year of exposure with icodec and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure with glargine U100 at week 52 (estimated rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.75) and 0.30 and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure, respectively, at week 83 (estimated rate ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control was significantly better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ONWARDS 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04460885.).

Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In persons with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the benefits of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels are uncertain. METHODS: In a parallel-group, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving participants with type 1 diabetes and glycated hemoglobin levels between 7.5% and 11.0%, we investigated the efficacy of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring as compared with participant monitoring of blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing. The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 24 weeks, analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes included sensor data, participant-reported outcome measures, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 156 participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (the intervention group, 78 participants) or to monitor their own blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing (the usual-care group, 78 participants). At baseline, the mean (±SD) age of the participants was 44±15 years, and the mean duration of diabetes was 21±13 years; 44% of the participants were women. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 8.7±0.9% in the intervention group and 8.5±0.8% in the usual-care group; these levels decreased to 7.9±0.8% and 8.3±0.9%, respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean between-group difference, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7 to -0.3; P<0.001). The time per day that the glucose level was in the target range was 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.7 to 13.3) higher or 130 minutes (95% CI, 68 to 192) longer in the intervention group than in the usual-care group, and the time spent in a hypoglycemic state (blood glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter [<3.9 mmol per liter]) was 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.5) lower or 43 minutes (95% CI, 20 to 65) shorter in the intervention group. Two participants in the usual-care group had an episode of severe hypoglycemia, and 1 participant in the intervention group had a skin reaction to the sensor. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels resulted in significantly lower glycated hemoglobin levels than levels monitored by fingerstick testing. (Funded by Diabetes UK and others; FLASH-UK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03815006.).

Tmem117 in AVP neurons regulates the counterregulatory response to hypoglycemia.

The counterregulatory response to hypoglycemia (CRR), which ensures a sufficient glucose supply to the brain, is an essential survival function. It is orchestrated by incompletely characterized glucose-sensing neurons, which trigger a coordinated autonomous and hormonal response that restores normoglycemia. Here, we investigate the role of hypothalamic Tmem117, identified in a genetic screen as a regulator of CRR. We show that Tmem117 is expressed in vasopressin magnocellular neurons of the hypothalamus. Tmem117 inactivation in these neurons increases hypoglycemia-induced vasopressin secretion leading to higher glucagon secretion in male mice, and this effect is estrus cycle phase dependent in female mice. Ex vivo electrophysiological analysis, in situ hybridization, and in vivo calcium imaging reveal that Tmem117 inactivation does not affect the glucose-sensing properties of vasopressin neurons but increases ER stress, ROS production, and intracellular calcium levels accompanied by increased vasopressin production and secretion. Thus, Tmem117 in vasopressin neurons is a physiological regulator of glucagon secretion, which highlights the role of these neurons in the coordinated response to hypoglycemia.

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE). LIMITATIONS: Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons. CONCLUSION: In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).

Efficacy and safety of oral orforglipron in patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, dose-response, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Orforglipron, an oral, non-peptide glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, is in development for type 2 diabetes and obesity. We assessed the efficacy and safety of orforglipron versus placebo or dulaglutide in participants with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this 26-week, phase 2, double-blind, randomised, multicentre study, participants were recruited from 45 centres (private clinics, hospitals, and research centers) in the USA, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Adult participants aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with diet and exercise, with or without metformin, and with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7·0-10·5%, and stable BMI of 23 kg/m2 or more, were randomly assigned (5:5:5:5:5:3:3:3:3) via an interactive web-response system to placebo, dulaglutide 1·5 mg once per week, or orforglipron 3 mg, 12 mg, 24 mg, 36 mg (group 1), 36 mg (group 2), 45 mg (group 1), or 45 mg (group 2) once per day with no food or water restrictions. Two different dose escalation regimens were evaluated for each of the 36 mg and 45 mg cohorts. Participants were masked to the study drug, dulaglutide, and placebo. The primary efficacy outcome The primary efficacy outcome was mean change in HbA1c from baseline with orforglipron versus placebo at week 26. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study drug and excluded data after the permanent discontinuation of study drug or initiation of rescue medication. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05048719) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 15, 2021, and Sept 30, 2022, 569 participants were screened and 383 were enrolled and randomly assigned to a group. 352 (92%) completed the study and 303 (79%) completed 26 weeks of treatment. At baseline, the mean age was 58·9 years, HbA1c was 8·1%, BMI was 35·2 kg/m2, 226 (59%) were men, and 157 (41%) were women. At week 26, mean change in HbA1c with orforglipron was up to -2·10% (-1·67% placebo adjusted), versus -0·43% with placebo and -1·10% with dulaglutide. HbA1c reduction was statistically superior with orforglipron versus placebo (estimated treatment difference -0·8% to -1·7%). Change in mean bodyweight at week 26 was up to -10·1 kg (95% CI -11·5 to -8·7; 7·9 kg placebo adjusted [-9·9 to -5·9]) with orforglipron versus -2·2 kg (-3·6 to -0·7) for placebo and -3·9 kg (-5·3 to -2·4) for dulaglutide. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events ranged from 61·8% to 88·9% in orforglipron-treated participants, compared with 61·8% with placebo and 56·0% with dulaglutide. The majority were gastrointestinal events (44·1% to 70·4% with orforglipron, 18·2% with placebo, and 34·0% with dulaglutide) of mild to moderate severity. Three participants receiving orforglipron and one participant receiving dulaglutide had clinically significant (<54 mg/dL [<3 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia and no participants had severe hypoglycaemia. One death occurred in the placebo group and was not related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: In this phase 2 trial the novel, oral, non-peptide GLP-1 receptor agonist orforglipron at doses of 12 mg or greater showed significant reductions in HbA1c and bodyweight compared with placebo or dulaglutide. The adverse event profile was similar to other GLP-1 receptor agonists in similar stage of development. Orforglipron might provide an alternative to injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists and oral semaglutide, with the prospect of less burdensome administration to achieve treatment goals in people with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec as part of a basal-bolus regimen in individuals with type 1 diabetes (ONWARDS 6): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target trial.

BACKGROUND: ONWARDS 6 compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous insulin icodec (icodec) and once-daily insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This 52-week (26-week main phase plus a 26-week safety extension), randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial was done at 99 sites across 12 countries. Adults with type 1 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] <10·0% [86 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, both in combination with insulin aspart (two or more daily injections). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26, tested for non-inferiority (0·3 percentage point margin) in all randomly assigned participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04848480, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between April 30 and Oct 15, 2021, of 655 participants screened, 582 participants were randomly assigned to icodec (n=290) or degludec (n=292). At week 26, from baseline values of 7·59% (icodec) and 7·63% (degludec), estimated mean changes in HbA1c were -0·47 percentage points and -0·51 percentage points, respectively (estimated treatment difference 0·05 percentage points [95% CI -0·13 to 0·23]), confirming non-inferiority of icodec to degludec (p=0·0065). Overall rate of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia (baseline to week 26) was statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec (19·9 vs 10·4 events per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·9 [95% CI 1·5 to 2·3]; p<0·0001). The rate was also statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec when evaluated over 57 weeks (52 weeks plus a 5-week follow-up period). 39 serious adverse events were reported in 24 (8%) participants receiving icodec, and 25 serious adverse events were reported in 20 (7%) participants receiving degludec. One participant in the icodec group died; this was judged unlikely to be due to the trial product. INTERPRETATION: In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly icodec showed non-inferiority to once-daily degludec in HbA1c reduction at week 26, with statistically significantly higher rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. For icodec, time below 3·0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL) was at the threshold of the internationally recommended target (<1%) during weeks 22-26 and below target during weeks 48-52. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Use of Analog and Human Insulin in a European Hemodialysis Cohort With Type 2 Diabetes: Associations With Mortality, Hospitalization, MACE, and Hypoglycemia.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Poor glycemic control may contribute to the high mortality rate in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving hemodialysis. Insulin type may influence glycemic control, and its choice may be an opportunity to improve outcomes. This study assessed whether treatment with analog insulin compared with human insulin is associated with different outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and kidney failure receiving hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: People in the Analyzing Data, Recognizing Excellence and Optimizing Outcomes (AROii) study with kidney failure commencing hemodialysis and type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin within 288 dialysis facilities between 2007 and 2009 across 7 European countries. Study participants were followed for 3 years. People with type 1 diabetes were excluded using an established administrative data algorithm. EXPOSURE: Treatment with an insulin analog or human insulin. OUTCOME: All-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause hospitalization, and confirmed hypoglycemia (blood glucose<3.0mmol/L sampled during hemodialysis). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Inverse probability weighted Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios for analog insulin compared with human insulin. RESULTS: There were 713 insulin analog and 733 human insulin users. Significant variation in insulin type by country was observed. Comparing analog with human insulin at 3 years, the percentage of patients experiencing end points and adjusted hazard ratios (AHR) were 22.0% versus 31.4% (AHR, 0.808 [95% CI, 0.66-0.99], P=0.04) for all-cause mortality, 26.8% versus 35.9% (AHR, 0.817 [95% CI, 0.68-0.98], P=0.03) for MACE, and 58.2% versus 75.0% (AHR, 0.757 [95% CI, 0.67-0.86], P<0.001) for hospitalization. Hypoglycemia was comparable between insulin types at 14.1% versus 15.0% (AHR, 1.169 [95% CI, 0.80-1.72], P=0.4). Consistent strength and direction of the associations were observed across sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: Residual confounding, lack of more detailed glycemia data. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multinational cohort of people with type 2 diabetes and kidney failure receiving maintenance hemodialysis, treatment with analog insulins was associated with better clinical outcomes when compared with human insulin. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: People with diabetes who are receiving dialysis for kidney failure are at high risk of cardiovascular disease and death. This study uses information from 1,446 people with kidney failure from 7 European countries who are receiving dialysis, have type 2 diabetes, and are prescribed either insulin identical to that made in the body (human insulin) or insulins with engineered extra features (insulin analog). After 3 years, fewer participants receiving analog insulins had died, had been admitted to the hospital, or had a cardiovascular event (heart attack, stroke, heart failure, or peripheral vascular disease). These findings suggest that analog insulins should be further explored as a treatment leading to better outcomes for people with diabetes on dialysis.

The impact of prior exposure to hypoglycaemia on the inflammatory response to a subsequent hypoglycaemic episode.

BACKGROUND: Hypoglycaemia has been shown to induce a systemic pro-inflammatory response, which may be driven, in part, by the adrenaline response. Prior exposure to hypoglycaemia attenuates counterregulatory hormone responses to subsequent hypoglycaemia, but whether this effect can be extrapolated to the pro-inflammatory response is unclear. Therefore, we investigated the effect of antecedent hypoglycaemia on inflammatory responses to subsequent hypoglycaemia in humans. METHODS: Healthy participants (n = 32) were recruited and randomised to two 2-h episodes of either hypoglycaemia or normoglycaemia on day 1, followed by a hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemic (2.8 ± 0.1 mmol/L) glucose clamp on day 2. During normoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, and after 24 h, 72 h and 1 week, blood was drawn to determine circulating immune cell composition, phenotype and function, and 93 circulating inflammatory proteins including hs-CRP. RESULTS: In the group undergoing antecedent hypoglycaemia, the adrenaline response to next-day hypoglycaemia was lower compared to the control group (1.45 ± 1.24 vs 2.68 ± 1.41 nmol/l). In both groups, day 2 hypoglycaemia increased absolute numbers of circulating immune cells, of which lymphocytes and monocytes remained elevated for the whole week. Also, the proportion of pro-inflammatory CD16+-monocytes increased during hypoglycaemia. After ex vivo stimulation, monocytes released more TNF-α and IL-1ß, and less IL-10 in response to hypoglycaemia, whereas levels of 19 circulating inflammatory proteins, including hs-CRP, increased for up to 1 week after the hypoglycaemic event. Most of the inflammatory responses were similar in the two groups, except the persistent pro-inflammatory protein changes were partly blunted in the group exposed to antecedent hypoglycaemia. We did not find a correlation between the adrenaline response and the inflammatory responses during hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSION: Hypoglycaemia induces an acute and persistent pro-inflammatory response at multiple levels that occurs largely, but not completely, independent of prior exposure to hypoglycaemia. Clinical Trial information Clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT03976271 (registered 5 June 2019).

Efficacy and safety of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) were extensively investigated by the global DUAL trials. However, the evidence on its efficacy and safety in T2DM has not been systematically reviewed. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published in English that compared IDegLira with placebo or GLP-1 agonists or insulin in patients with T2DM were selected up to December 2022. Data on the study characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted. We compared the efficacy and safety between "IDegLira versus Insulin," "IDegLira versus GLP-1RA," and "IDegLira versus Placebo". The risk of potential bias was assessed. RESULTS: In terms of glycaemic efficacy, IDegLira reduced levels of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; weighted mean differences (WMDs) 0.52%, 95% CI 0.33%-0.71%); fasting blood glucose (0.32 mg/dL, 0.14-0.50 mg/dL), and the nine-point self-measured plasma glucose (0.25 mmol/L, 0.25-0.36 mmol/L). Furthermore, IDegLira was generally better in the attainment of HbA1c < 7.0% or ≤6.5%, HbA1c < 7.0% or ≤6.5% without weight gain and/or without severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes. In non-glycaemic efficacy aspects, IDegLira decreased systolic blood pressure but elevated heart rate. In terms of safety outcomes, IDegLira did not appear to be associated with a risk of hypoglycaemia (RR 1.23, 0.85-1.78) and nocturnal hypoglycaemia (0.89, 0.52-1.52) occurring when compared with other hypoglycaemic agents or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira improves better glycaemic and non-glycaemic outcomes without weight gain and/or without severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes in T2DM. Side effects of IDegLira are mild.

Differences in Glycemic Control for Inpatients with Type 1 Diabetes on Insulin Pump Versus Subcutaneous Insulin Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient use of insulin pump therapy has been increasing due to greater availability of this technology, however there is a paucity of research that investigates glycemic control of inpatient insulin pump users. OBJECTIVE: To compare the glycemic control of hospitalized patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who used insulin pump vs. multiple daily injections (MDI). DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with T1D who were hospitalized between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, in an academic medical center in the New York metropolitan area. MAIN MEASURES: Patients were categorized into three groups based on their method of insulin administration: "pump only" group used insulin pump exclusively, "MDI only" group used MDI only, and "intermittent pump" group used a combination of both methods. The primary endpoints are mean blood glucose, rates of hypoglycemic events (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL), and rates of hyperglycemic events (blood glucose > 250 mg/dL). Separate multivariable Poisson regressions were performed to determine the association between the type of insulin administration and rate outcomes (i.e., rate of hypoglycemic events and rate of hyperglycemic events). RESULTS: The study included 78 patients with a mean age of 51, who were mostly male (54%), and white (72%). The average proportion of glucose measurements that were hyperglycemic for the "pump only", "MDI only", and "intermittent pump" groups were 0.11 (SD = 0.11), 0.25 (SD = 0.19), and 0.24 (SD = 0.25), respectively. The "pump only" group has a significantly lower proportion of hyperglycemic events as compared to the "MDI only" group (p = 0.0227). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, patients who exclusively used their insulin pump while inpatient had a lower rate of hyperglycemic events than patients who used MDI only; suggesting that select patients can safely continue their insulin pump therapy in the inpatient setting.

Factors associated with maternal hyperglycaemia and neonatal hypoglycaemia after antenatal betamethasone administration in women with diabetes in pregnancy.

AIMS: Bespoke glycaemic control strategies following antenatal corticosteroids for women with diabetes in pregnancy (DIP) may mitigate hyperglycaemia. This study aims to identify predictive factors for the glycaemic response to betamethasone in a large cohort of women with DIP. METHODS: Evaluation of a prospective cohort study of 347 consecutive DIP pregnancies receiving two doses of 11.4 mg betamethasone 24 h apart between 2017 and 2021 and treated with the Pregnancy-IVI intravenous insulin protocol. Regression modelling identified factors associated with maternal glycaemic time-in-range (TIR) and maternal insulin requirements following betamethasone. Factors associated with neonatal hypoglycaemia (glucose <2.6 mmol/L) in infants born within 48 h of betamethasone administration (n = 144) were investigated. RESULTS: The mean maternal age was 31.9 ± 5.8 years, with gestational age at betamethasone of 33.5 ± 3.4 weeks. Gestational diabetes was present in 81% (12% type 1; 7% type 2). Pre-admission subcutaneous insulin was prescribed for 63%. On-infusion maternal glucose TIR (4.0-7.8 mmol/L) was 83% [IQR 77%-90%] and mean on-IVI glucose was 6.6 ± 0.5 mmol/L. Maternal hypoglycaemia (<3.8 mmol/L) was uncommon (0.47 h/100 on-IVI woman hours). Maternal glucose TIR was negatively associated with indicators of insulin resistance (type 2 diabetes, polycystic ovary syndrome), late-pregnancy complications (pre-eclampsia, chorioamnionitis) and the 1-h OGTT result. Intravenous insulin requirements were associated with type of diabetes, pre-eclampsia and intrauterine infection, the 1-h OGTT result and the timing of betamethasone administration. Neonatal hypoglycaemia was associated with pre-existing diabetes but not with measures of glycaemic control. CONCLUSION: An intravenous infusion protocol effectively controls maternal glucose after betamethasone. A risk-factor-based approach may allow individualisation of therapy.

Canagliflozin or acarbose versus placebo to ameliorate post-bariatric hypoglycaemia - The HypoBar I randomized clinical trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Post-bariatric hypoglycaemia (PBH) is a rare yet disabling clinical condition, mostly reported after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery. RYGB is one of the most widely used and effective bariatric procedures. The pathophysiology of PBH remains unclear, and treatment options are limited in effectiveness and/or carry significant side effects. Acarbose slows carbohydrates digestion and absorption and is generally considered first-line pharmacological treatment for PBH but its gastrointestinal side effects limit patient compliance. Canagliflozin inhibits intestinal and renal sodium-dependent glucose absorption and reduces postprandial excursions of glucose, insulin and incretins after RYGB - effects that could be beneficial in ameliorating PBH. AIMS: The trial aims to investigate how blood glucose levels are affected during daily living in subjects with PBH during treatment with canagliflozin or acarbose compared with placebo, and to study the meal-induced entero-endocrine mechanisms implied in the treatment responses. METHODS: In a double-blinded, randomized, crossover clinical trial, HypoBar I will investigate the effectiveness in reducing the risk of PBH, safety, ambulatory glucose profile and entero-endocrine responses when PBH is treated with canagliflozin 300 mg twice daily during a 4-week intervention period, compared with acarbose 50 mg thrice daily or placebo. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: HypoBar I is approved by the Local regulatory entities. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSION: If effective, well-tolerated and safe, canagliflozin could be a novel treatment for people with PBH. HypoBar I might also unravel new mechanisms underlying PBH, potentially identifying new treatment targets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2022-000157-87.

Frequency of hypoglycaemia with basal insulin treatments in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin regimens in treat-to-target trials: A narrative review.

AIM: To summarise, in a narrative review, published data on hypoglycaemia occurrence with basal insulin therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin regimens in treat-to-target randomised controlled trials. METHODS: Data were included from 21 eligible trials, which mainly used self-measured blood glucose or plasma glucose to detect hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: All-day self-measured blood glucose or plasma glucose level 2 (glucose threshold of 3.1 or 3.0 mmol/L) and level 3 (severe, requiring assistance) hypoglycaemic events were reported, respectively, by a range of 69.0%-97.5% and 0%-13.4% adults when receiving basal-bolus insulin therapy, with rates of 10.6-68.1 and 0.0-0.4 events per patient-year of exposure, respectively. Hypoglycaemia rates measured using continuous glucose monitoring (three studies) were numerically, yet consistently, higher than with either other method, except when limiting to symptomatic events. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were generally less than 30% of the equivalent all-day rates. CONCLUSIONS: Differences across the studies in design (e.g., titration targets) and participant characteristics hindered comparison of hypoglycaemia rates by insulin formulation. Consequently, few trends were identified by insulin formulation, study methodology or individuals' characteristics, suggesting that further research is required to identify treatment strategies that facilitate development of individualised recommendations to lower hypoglycaemia risk. These findings are useful to understand hypoglycaemia risk with available basal insulin therapies when used in a multiple daily injection regimen, as well as to provide context for the results of ongoing and future clinical trials, including those for two once-weekly basal insulins, insulin icodec and basal insulin Fc.

Does fully closed-loop automated insulin delivery improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of fully closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systemically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from inception until April 26, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fully closed-loop AID versus conventional insulin therapy. The outcomes were pooled as the mean difference (MD) and risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) in the random effect model. Our primary outcome was the proportion of time in the target glucose range (5.6-10 mmol/L, 3.9-10 mmol/L, or 3.9-8 mmol/L, depending on the study). Key secondary outcomes included the proportion of time spent in hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: We included seven RCTs (three crossover and four parallel design), compromising 390 patients. Our analysis showed that compared to the control group, fully closed-loop AID increased the proportion of time spent within the target glucose range by additional 337 min per 24 h (MD = 23.39%, 95% CI [16.64%, 30.14%], p < 0.01), additional 108 min overnight (MD = 22.40%, 95% CI [12.88%, 31.91%], p < 0.01), and additional 258 min during the daytime period (MD = 26.85%, 95% CI [21.06%, 32.63%], p < 0.01). Compared to the control group, the overall time in hyperglycaemia was shortened by 326 min per 24 h (MD = -22.67%, 95% CI [-30.87%, -14.46%], p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall, overnight, and daytime periods spent in hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that fully closed-loop AID may improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly for those with more challenging diabetes management. Further research is required to establish the feasibility of implementing these systems in clinical practice. [Correction added on 26 August 2023 after first online publication: Under Results, the first sentence "We included seven RCTs (three crossover and one parallel designs)" has been changed to "We included seven RCTs (three crossover and four parallel designs)".].

Assessing the feasibility of time in tight range (TITR) targets with advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) use in children and adolescents: A single-centre real-world study.

AIMS: Time in Tight Range (TITR) is a novel glycaemic metric in monitoring type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. The aim of this study was to assess the attainability of the TITR target in children and adolescents using the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL). METHODS: The 2128-day CGM data from 56 children and adolescents with T1D using AHCL (Minimed-780G) were analysed. Time in Range (TIR) (3.9-10 mmol/L), TITR (3.9-7.7 mmol/L), and other glycaemic parameters were separately analysed in terms of whole day, daytime (06.00-23:59), and nighttime (00.00-05.59) results. The participants were divided into two groups by autocorrection rate where Group 1 had a rate of <30% and Group 2 had a rate of ≥30. RESULTS: All glycaemic parameters indicated a better glycaemic outcome in the nighttime with higher TIR and TITR values compared with daytime (for TIR 87.5 ± 9.5% vs. 78.8 ± 8%, p < 0.001, and TITR 68.2 ± 13.5% vs. 57.5 ± 8.8%, p < 0.001). The rates of TITR >50% and >60% were 87% and 52%, respectively. When those with TITR >60% (n: 29) and those without (n: 27) were evaluated in terms of hypoglycaemia, no statistically significant difference was found in time below range (TBR) 3-3.9 mmol/L (0.3% vs. 2.1%, p: 0.084) and TBR < 3 mmol/L (0.47% vs. 0.3%, p: 0.298). Group 1 had a significantly higher TIR and TITR compared to Group 2 (82.6 ± 6.1% vs. 75.6 ± 8.6%, p: 0.008 and 62.1 ± 7.5% vs. 53.8 ± 7.5%, p: 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Most children and adolescents on AHCL achieved the 50% target for TITR whereas more than half achieved the >60% target. A target of >50% for TITR seems realistic in children with T1D using AHCL.

Pre-exercise protein intake is associated with reduced time in hypoglycaemia among adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: Secondary analyses were conducted from a randomized trial of an adaptive behavioural intervention to assess the relationship between protein intake (g and g/kg) consumed within 4 h before moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) bouts and glycaemia during and following MVPA bouts among adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adolescents (n = 112) with T1D, 14.5 (13.8, 15.7) years of age and 36.6% overweight/obese, provided measures of glycaemia using continuous glucose monitoring [percentage of time above range (>180 mg/dl), time in range (70-180 mg/dl), time below range (TBR; <70 mg/dl)], self-reported physical activity (previous day physical activity recalls), and 24 h dietary recall data at baseline and 6 months post-intervention. Mixed effects regression models adjusted for design (randomization assignment, study site), demographic, clinical, anthropometric, dietary, physical activity and timing covariates estimated the association between pre-exercise protein intake on percentage of time above range, time in range and TBR during and following MVPA. RESULTS: Pre-exercise protein intakes of 10-19.9 g and >20 g were associated with an absolute reduction of -4.41% (p = .04) and -4.83% (p = .02) TBR during physical activity compared with those who did not consume protein before MVPA. Similarly, relative protein intakes of 0.125-0.249 g/kg and ≥0.25 g/kg were associated with -5.38% (p = .01) and -4.32% (p = .03) absolute reductions in TBR during physical activity. We did not observe a significant association between protein intake and measures of glycaemia following bouts of MVPA. CONCLUSIONS: Among adolescents with T1D, a dose of ≥10 g or ≥0.125 g/kg of protein within 4 h before MVPA may promote reduced time in hypoglycaemia during, but not following, physical activity.

Validation of an international classification of disease, tenth revision, clinical modification (ICD-10-CM) algorithm in identifying severe hypoglycaemia events for real-world studies.

AIM: The transition to the ICD-10-CM coding system has reduced the utility of hypoglycaemia algorithms based on ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes in real-world studies of antidiabetic drugs. We mapped a validated ICD-9-CM hypoglycaemia algorithm to ICD-10-CM codes to create an ICD-10-CM hypoglycaemia algorithm and assessed its performance in identifying severe hypoglycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assembled a cohort of Medicare patients with DM and linked electronic health record (EHR) data to the University of North Carolina Health System and identified candidate severe hypoglycaemia events from their Medicare claims using the ICD-10-CM hypoglycaemia algorithm. We confirmed severe hypoglycaemia by EHR review and computed a positive predictive value (PPV) of the algorithm to assess its performance. We refined the algorithm by removing poor performing codes (PPV ≤0.5) and computed a Cohen's κ statistic to evaluate the agreement of the EHR reviews. RESULTS: The algorithm identified 642 candidate severe hypoglycaemia events, and we confirmed 455 as true severe hypoglycaemia events, PPV of 0.709 (95% confidence interval: 0.672, 0.744). When we refined the algorithm, the PPV increased to 0.893 (0.862, 0.918) and missed <2.42% (<11) true severe hypoglycaemia events. Agreement between reviewers was high, κ = 0.93 (0.89, 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: We translated an ICD-9-CM hypoglycaemia algorithm to an ICD-10-CM version and found its performance was modest. The performance of the algorithm improved by removing poor performing codes at the trade-off of missing very few severe hypoglycaemia events. The algorithm has the potential to be used to identify severe hypoglycaemia in real-world studies of antidiabetic drugs.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of ONWARDS phase 3 randomized controlled trials.

AIM: Insulin icodec is a novel ultra-long action basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration. With the merit of once-a-week administration, it promises better adherence and greater treatment satisfaction because of reduced injection frequency. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec in comparison with other basal insulin analogues in the management of type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were followed during the conduct of this study. For the eligible studies, five databases and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened until July 2023. All randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin icodec in type 2 diabetes versus other insulin analogues were included. The extracted data were then analysed for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: Five clinical trials with 3764 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed that once-weekly insulin icodec had higher glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction [mean difference -0.17%, 95% confidence interval (CI; -0.28 to -0.06), p = .003], with no significant difference in fasting plasma glucose compared with other insulin analogues. HbA1c achievement <7% [odds ratio 1.51, 95% CI (1.14-1.99), p = .004] and HbA1c achievement <7% without hypoglycaemia [odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI (1.26-1.67), p < .00001] were observed in higher proportions with insulin icodec compared with the comparator group. The percentage of time spent in the target glycaemic range was comparatively similar between insulin icodec and the comparator [mean difference 2.42%, 95% CI (0.01-4.84), p = .05]. There was a significantly higher incidence of level 1 hypoglycaemia with insulin icodec but no significant difference was seen for the incidence of levels 2, 3 and combined 2/3 hypoglycaemia. Any adverse events and adverse events related to basal insulin were comparably similar in insulin icodec and comparators. The subgroup analysis of once-weekly insulin icodec with individual insulin analogues (glargine U100 and degludec) showed that insulin icodec had similar efficacy with insulin glargine U100 but superior efficacy with higher HbA1c reduction with insulin icodec compared with insulin degludec. The safety profile was comparable between insulin icodec and glargine U100, whereas insulin icodec reported higher incidence of hypoglycaemia events and any adverse events when compared with degludec. CONCLUSION: Once-weekly insulin icodec showed a better HbA1c reduction with a higher proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets in comparison with once-daily basal insulin analogues. They were no major safety concerns with respect to hypoglycaemia or adverse events.

Treatment responses to basal insulin glargine 300 U/ml and glargine 100 U/ml in newly defined subphenotypes of type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the EDITION 3 randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: To compare responses to basal insulin glargine 300 U/ml (IGlar-300) and 100 U/ml (IGlar-100) in newly defined subphenotypes of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Insulin-naive participants (n = 858) from the EDITION 3 trial were assigned to subphenotypes 'Mild Age-Related Diabetes (MARD)', 'Mild Obesity Diabetes (MOD)', 'Severe Insulin Resistant Diabetes (SIRD)' and 'Severe Insulin Deficient Diabetes (SIDD)'. Key variables were analysed at baseline and 26 weeks. RESULTS: Participants were comprised of MOD 56.1% (n = 481), SIDD 22.1% (n = 190), MARD 18.2% (n = 156) and SIRD 3.0% (n = 26). After 26 weeks a similar decrease in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 16-19 mmol/mol and 1.4-1.7 mmol/L, respectively, occurred in MARD and MOD with both insulins. SIDD had the most elevated HbA1c and FPG (80-83 mmol/mol/11.1-11.4 mmol/L) and reduction in both HbA1c and FPG was greater with IGlar-100 than with IGlar-300 (-18 vs. -15 mmol/mol and -1.6 vs. -1.3 mmol/L, respectively; each p = .03). In SIDD, despite receiving the highest basal insulin doses, HbA1c decline (57-60 mmol/mol/7.3-7.6%) was suboptimal at week 26. In MOD and SIDD lower incidences with IGlar-300 were found for level 1 nocturnal hypoglycaemia [odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.36-0.97; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.99]. In addition, fewer level 2 hypoglycaemia episodes occurred at any time with IGlar-300 in SIDD (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.77). CONCLUSION: Both insulins produce comparable outcomes in type 2 diabetes subphenotypes, but in SIDD, add-on treatment to basal insulin is required to achieve glycaemic targets.