Effect of Insulin Analogs on Frequency of Non-Severe Hypoglycemia in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Prone to Severe Hypoglycemia: Much Higher Rates Detected by Continuous Glucose Monitoring than by Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose-The HypoAna Trial

Evaluating Latent Adrenal Insufficiency in Elderly Patients with Nocturnal Hypoglycemia: A Retrospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between nocturnal hypoglycemia (NH) and latent adrenal insufficiency (LAI) among elderly aged >65 years.

METHODS

This propensity-matched, retrospective observational study was conducted in an outpatient setting, assessing 1238 elderly aged >65 years between November 2017 and February 2020. Of them, 430 patients with unassessed LAI were monitored for NH using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with Freestyle Libre Pro®. The primary outcome was the combined prevalence of newly diagnosed and suspected LAI in patients with NH.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 192 patients were included (96 each in the NH and non-NH group). The overall incidence rate of NH was 28.8% (124/430). The association of NH with newly diagnosed and suspected LAI was significantly higher in the NH group (26.04%, 50/192) than in the non-NH (12.5%, 24/192) (odds ratio: 3.26; 95% confidence interval: 2.59-9.06; P < 0.001). In the NH, compared with patients without LAI, those with new-diagnosed LAI had a higher incidence of hypoglycemia CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosing and treating LAI in the elderly with NH may prevent complications, including fatal diseases, and extend their life expectancy.

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.

Management of Individuals With Diabetes at High Risk for Hypoglycemia: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

CONTEXT

Hypoglycemia in people with diabetes is common, especially in those taking medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas (SU) that place them at higher risk. Hypoglycemia is associated with distress in those with diabetes and their families, medication nonadherence, and disruption of life and work, and it leads to costly emergency department visits and hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the diabetes-specific parts of the 2009 Evaluation and Management of Adult Hypoglycemic Disorders: Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address developing issues surrounding hypoglycemia in both adults and children living with diabetes. The overriding objectives are to reduce and prevent hypoglycemia.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative, and methodologists with expertise in evidence synthesis and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to hypoglycemia in people living with diabetes. Systematic reviews were conducted to address all the questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 10 questions specific to hypoglycemia risk and prevention in people with diabetes for which 10 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs, and initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia. Strong recommendations were made for structured diabetes education programs for those at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of glucagon preparations that do not require reconstitution vs those that do for managing severe outpatient hypoglycemia for adults and children, use of real-time CGM for individuals with T1D receiving multiple daily injections, and the use of inpatient glycemic management programs leveraging electronic health record data to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are based on the consideration of critical outcomes as well as implementation factors such as feasibility and values and preferences of people with diabetes. These recommendations can be used to inform clinical practice and health care system improvement for this important complication for people living with diabetes.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on nocturnal glycaemia assessed by plasma glucose profiles in people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia

AIM

To compare nocturnal glucose profiles according to hourly plasma glucose measurements during treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in a cohort of people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The HypoDeg trial is a 2-year investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled crossover trial in 149 participants randomized to treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 for 12 months each. The 51 participants in this predefined substudy stayed at least one night in hospital during each treatment arm for plasma glucose samples to be taken. Endpoints were glucose profiles, including mean plasma glucose, glycaemic variability and risk of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

There were no differences between treatments regarding mean plasma glucose. We saw a flatter glucose profile during insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 treatment, which had a nadir at 4:00 AM, with a subsequent rise. During treatment with insulin degludec, the participants had lower glycaemic variability, with an estimated treatment difference of -4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.1 to -0.5; P < 0.05). Participants treated with insulin degludec were less likely to experience nocturnal hypoglycaemia below 3.0 mmol/L (hazard ratio 0.36 [95% CI 0.17-0.73; P < 0.05]).

CONCLUSION

Based on nocturnal plasma glucose measurements, treatment with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 administered in the evening results in lower glycaemic variability and lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia without differences in mean plasma glucose.

A comprehensive risk assessment for nocturnal hypoglycemia in geriatric patients with type 2 diabetes: A single-center case-control study

AIMS

To evaluate the overall association between clinically significant nocturnal hypoglycemia (CsNH) and risk factors in geriatric patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Overall, 606 geriatric with type 2 diabetes were evaluated for CsNH using Freestyle Libre Pro® (Abbott Diabetes Care, Tokyo, Japan) during October 2018-February 2020. We defined CsNH as blood glucose level <54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). We investigated clinical characteristics and efficacies of hypoglycemic agents and insulin and analyzed CsNH risk factors using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

We enrolled 152 patients each for the CsNH and non-nocturnal hypoglycemia groups. Insulin use (OR = 3.77 [95 % CI: 1.92-7.67]; P = 0.0002), age (OR = 1.06 [95 % CI: 1.01-1.12]; P = 0.0492), estimated glomerular filtration rate (OR = 0.97 [95 % CI: 0.95-0.98]; P = 0.0492), and fasting blood glucose level (OR = 0.94 [95 % CI: 0.91-0.94]; P < 0.0001) were independent CsNH risk factors. The combined results demonstrated a higher predictability of CsNH than each of the individual risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified risk factors that could help predict CsNH in geriatric patients with type 2 diabetes and demonstrated a comprehensive risk factor assessment.

Comparison of treatment with insulin degludec and glargine U100 in patients with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia: The HypoDeg randomized, controlled, open-label, crossover trial

AIM

To investigate whether the long-acting insulin analogue insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 reduces the risk of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Adults with T1D and at least one episode of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia during the last 2 years were included in a 2-year prospective, randomized, open, multicentre, crossover trial. A total of 149 patients were randomized 1:1 to basal-bolus therapy with insulin degludec and insulin aspart or insulin glargine U100 and insulin aspart. Each treatment period lasted 1 year and consisted of 3 months of run-in or crossover followed by 9 months of maintenance. The primary endpoint was the number of blindly adjudicated nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes. Secondary endpoints included the occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia. We analysed all endpoints by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a 28% (95% CI: 9%-43%; P = .02) relative rate reduction (RRR) of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia at level 1 (≤3.9 mmol/L), a 37% (95% CI: 16%-53%; P = .002) RRR at level 2 (≤3.0 mmol/L), and a 35% (95% CI: 1%-58%; P = .04) RRR in all-day severe hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine U100.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with T1D prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia have lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia and all-day severe hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100.

Largest Amplitude of Glycemic Excursion Calculating from Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Predicted the Episodes of Nocturnal Asymptomatic Hypoglycemia Detecting by Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Outpatients with Type 2 Diabetes

AIMS

Nocturnal asymptomatic hypoglycemia (NAH) is a serious complication of diabetes, but it is difficult to be detected clinically. This study was conducted to determine the largest amplitude of glycemic excursion (LAGE) to predict the episodes of NAH in outpatients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Data were obtained from 313 outpatients with type 2 diabetes. All subjects received continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for consecutive 72 hours. The episodes of NAH and glycemic variability indices (glucose standard deviation [SD], mean amplitude of plasma glucose excursion [MAGE], mean blood glucose [MBG]) were accessed via CGM. LAGE was calculated from self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG).

RESULTS

A total of 76 people (24.3%) had NAH. Compared to patients without NAH, patients with NAH showed higher levels of glucose SD (2.4 ± 0.9 mmol/L vs 1.7 ± 0.9 mmol/L, p <0.001), MAGE (5.2 ± 2.1 mmol/L vs 3.7 ± 2.0, p<0.001) and LAGE (4.6 ± 2.3 mmol/L vs 3.8 ± 1.9 mmol/L, p=0.007), and lower level of MBG (7.5 ± 1.5 mmol/L vs 8.4 ± 2.2 mmol/L, p=0.002). LAGE was significantly associated with the incidence of NAH and time below rang (TBR) in model 1 [NAH: 1.189 (1.027-1.378), p=0.021; TBR: 0.008 (0.002-0.014), p=0.013] with adjustment for age, BMI, sex, work, hyperlipidemia, complication and medication, and in model 2 [NAH: 1.177 (1.013-1.367), p=0.033; TBR: 0.008 (0.002-0.014), p=0.012] after adjusting for diabetes duration based on model 1, as well as in model 3 [NAH: 1.244 (1.057-1.464), p=0.009; TBR: 0.009 (0.002-0.016), p=0.007] with further adjustment for HbA1c based on model 2. In addition, no significant interactions were found between LAGE and sex, age, HbA1c, duration of diabetes, BMI and insulin therapy on the risk of NAH. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve shows the ideal cutoff value of LAGE for the prediction of NAH was 3.48 mmol/L with 66.7% sensitivity, 50% specificity and 0.587 (95% CI: 0.509-0.665) of area under the ROC curve.

CONCLUSIONS

High glycemic variability is strongly associated with the risk of NAH. The LAGE based on SMBG could be an independent predictor of NAH for outpatients with type 2 diabetes, and LAGE greater than 3.48 mmol/L could act as a warning alarm for high risk of NAH in daily life.

Felix dies natalis, insulin… ceterum autem censeo "beta is better"

One hundred years after its discovery, insulin remains the life-saving therapy for many patients with diabetes. It has been a 100-years-old success story thanks to the fact that insulin therapy has continuously integrated the knowledge developed over a century. In 1982, insulin becomes the first therapeutic protein to be produced using recombinant DNA technology. The first "mini" insulin pump and the first insulin pen become available in 1983 and 1985, respectively. In 1996, the first generation of insulin analogues were produced. In 1999, the first continuous glucose-monitoring device for reading interstitial glucose was approved by the FDA. In 2010s, the ultra-long action insulins were introduced. An equally exciting story developed in parallel. In 1966. Kelly et al. performed the first clinical pancreas transplant at the University of Minnesota, and now it is a well-established clinical option. First successful islet transplantations in humans were obtained in the late 1980s and 1990s. Their ability to consistently re-establish the endogenous insulin secretion was obtained in 2000s. More recently, the possibility to generate large numbers of functional human β cells from pluripotent stem cells was demonstrated, and the first clinical trial using stem cell-derived insulin producing cell was started in 2014. This year, the discovery of this life-saving hormone turns 100 years. This provides a unique opportunity not only to celebrate this extraordinary success story, but also to reflect on the limits of insulin therapy and renew the commitment of the scientific community to an insulin free world for our patients.

Synthetic long-acting insulin analogs for the management of type 1 diabetes: an update

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes is characterized by insulin deficiency and requires near-physiological insulin replacement. In most patients, this is accomplished by basal bolus therapy consisting of a long-acting basal insulin administered once or twice daily and short-acting insulin with main meals. Several long-acting insulin analogs have been developed to optimize basal insulin therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews the design of - and data from - randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess glucose lowering efficacy and safety of long-acting insulin analogs for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Due to the non-inferiority treat-to-target design of insulin, RCTs treatment differences primarily appear as differences in hypoglycemia risk. Data suggest that the first generation long-acting insulin analogs insulin glargine U100 and insulin detemir have a similar glucose lowering efficacy compared to NPH insulin but a lower risk of hypoglycemia, particularly during nighttime. The newer analogs insulin glargine U300 and insulin degludec provide non-inferior efficacy, although insulin glargine U300 is less potent unit-to-unit. Insulin degludec reduces hypoglycemia risk compared to insulin glargine U100. Future studies should explore the potential for further improvement of treatment results in type 1 diabetes by a structured approach to personalization of basal insulin therapy.

Effects of continuous glucose monitor-recorded nocturnal hypoglycaemia on quality of life and mood during daily life in type 1 diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this work was to assess the effect of spontaneous nocturnal hypoglycaemia on quality of life and mood during subsequent days in type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 153 people with type 1 diabetes participated in 6 days of blinded continuous glucose monitoring while documenting hypoglycaemic symptoms, quality of life and mood, daily. Hypoglycaemia was defined by interstitial glucose ≤3.9 mmol/l (IG_3.9) and ≤ 3.0 mmol/l (IG_3.0) for ≥15 min and was classified as asymptomatic if no hypoglycaemic symptoms were reported.

RESULTS

Self-estimated quality of life assessed by the EQ-5D VAS (but not by the WHO Well-Being Index) was higher the day after asymptomatic (but not after symptomatic) hypoglycaemic nights, as compared with non-hypoglycaemic nights (IG_3.9, p = 0.021; IG_3.0, p = 0.048). The effect increased with lower glucose nadir and longer duration of nocturnal hypoglycaemia (IG_3.9, p = 0.03). The finding was confined to participants with impaired hypoglycaemia awareness. There was no effect of nocturnal hypoglycaemia on mood or self-estimated effectiveness at work the following day.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Individuals with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycaemia awareness reported higher quality of life on days preceded by nights with asymptomatic (but not symptomatic) hypoglycaemia. The effect was amplified by lower glucose nadir and longer duration of the episodes and may help explain resistance to implementation of interventions to reduce hypoglycaemia in many people with impaired hypoglycaemia awareness.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

Hypoglycaemia and its management in primary care setting

Hypoglycaemia is common in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes and constitutes a major limiting factor in achieving glycaemic control among people with diabetes. While hypoglycaemia is defined as a blood glucose level under 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L), symptoms may occur at higher blood glucose levels in individuals with poor glycaemic control. Severe hypoglycaemia is defined as an episode requiring the assistance of another person to actively administer carbohydrate, glucagon, or take other corrective actions to assure neurologic recovery. Hypoglycaemia is the most important safety outcome in clinical studies of glucose lowering agents. The American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care recommends that a management protocol for hypoglycaemia should be designed and implemented by every hospital, along with a clear prevention and treatment plan. A tailored approach, using clinical and pathophysiologic disease stratification, can help individualize glycaemic goals and promote new therapies to improve quality of life of patients. Data from recent large clinical trials reported low risk of hypoglycaemic events with the use of newer anti-diabetic drugs. Increased hypoglycaemia risk is observed with the use of insulin and/or sulphonylureas. Vulnerable patients with T2D at dual risk of severe hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular outcomes show features of "frailty." Many of such patients may be better treated by the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors rather than insulin. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) should be considered for all individuals with increased risk for hypoglycaemia, impaired hypoglycaemia awareness, frequent nocturnal hypoglycaemia and with history of severe hypoglycaemia. Patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia benefit from real-time CGM. The diabetes educator is an invaluable resource and can devote the time needed to thoroughly educate the individual to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia and integrate the information within the entire construct of diabetes self-management. Conversations about hypoglycaemia facilitated by a healthcare professional may reduce the burden and fear of hypoglycaemia among patients with diabetes and their family members. Optimizing insulin doses and carbohydrate intake, in addition to a short warm up before or after the physical activity sessions may help avoiding hypoglycaemia. Several therapeutic considerations are important to reduce hypoglycaemia risk during pregnancy including administration of rapid-acting insulin analogues rather than human insulin, pre-conception initiation of insulin analogues, and immediate postpartum insulin dose reduction.

Hypoglycemia Incidence and Factors Associated in a Cohort of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Hospitalized in General Ward Treated With Basal Bolus Insulin Regimen Assessed by Continuous Glucose Monitoring

INTRODUCTION

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a better tool to detect hyper and hypoglycemia than capillary point of care in insulin-treated patients during hospitalization. We evaluated the incidence of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal bolus insulin regimen using CGM and factors associated with hypoglycemia.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study. Hypoglycemia was documented in terms of incidence rate and percentage of time <54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) and <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L). Factors evaluated included glycemic variability analyzed during the first 6 days of basal bolus therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 34 hospitalized patients with T2D in general ward were included, with admission A1c of 9.26 ± 2.62% (76.8 ± 13 mmol/mol) and mean blood glucose of 254 ± 153 mg/dL. There were two events of hypoglycemia below 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) and 11 events below 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) with an incidence of hypoglycemic events of 0.059 and 0.323 per patient, respectively. From second to fifth day of treatment the percentage of time in range (140-180 mg/dL, 7.8-10.0 mmol/L) increased from 72.1% to 89.4%. Factors related to hypoglycemic events <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) were admission mean glucose (IRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79, 0.95, P < .01), glycemic variability measured as CV (IRR 3.12, 95% CI 1.33, 7.61, P < .01) and SD, and duration of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Basal bolus insulin regimen is effective and the overall incidence of hypoglycemia detected by CGM is low in hospitalized patients with T2D. Increased glycemic variability as well as the decrease in mean glucose were associated with events <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L).

A multiparameter model for non-invasive detection of hypoglycemia

OBJECTIVE

Severe hypoglycemia is the most serious acute complication for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Approximately 25% of people with T1D have impaired ability to recognize impending hypoglycemia, and nocturnal episodes are feared.

APPROACH

We have investigated the use of non-invasive sensors for detection of hypoglycemia based on a mathematical model which combines several sensor measurements to identify physiological responses to hypoglycemia. Data from randomized single-blinded euglycemic and hypoglycemic glucose clamps in 20 participants with T1D and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia was used in the analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Using a sensor combination of sudomotor activity at three skin sites, ECG-derived heart rate and heart rate corrected QT interval, near-infrared and bioimpedance spectroscopy; physiological responses associated with hypoglycemia could be identified with an F1 score accuracy up to 88%.

SIGNIFICANCE

We present a novel model for identification of non-invasively measurable physiological responses related to hypoglycemia, showing potential for detection of moderate hypoglycemia using a wearable sensor system.

The effect of insulin degludec on risk of symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes and high risk of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia (the HypoDeg trial): study rationale and design

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycaemia, especially nocturnal, remains the main limiting factor of achieving good glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes. The effect of first generation long-acting insulin analogues in reducing nocturnal hypoglycaemia is well documented in patient with type 1 diabetes. The effect of the newer long-acting insulin degludec on risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia remains undocumented in patients with type 1 diabetes and recurrent severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. The HypoDeg trial is designed to investigate whether insulin degludec in comparison with insulin glargine U100 is superior in limiting the occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in patients with recurrent nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia. This paper reports the study design of the HypoDeg trial.

METHODS/DESIGN

A Danish investigator-initiated, prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE), multicentre, two-year cross-over study investigating the effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on frequency of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes and one or more episodes of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia during the preceding two years as the major inclusion criteria. Patients are randomised (1:1) to basal therapy with insulin degludec or insulin glargine. Insulin aspart is used as bolus therapy in both treatment arms.

DISCUSSION

In contrast to most other insulin studies the HypoDeg trial includes only patients at high risk of hypoglycaemia. The HypoDeg trial will compare treatment with insulin degludec to insulin glargine U100 in terms of risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes in patients with type 1 diabetes with the greatest potential to benefit from near-physiological insulin replacement therapy. www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02192450.

Lag Time Remains with Newer Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology During Aerobic Exercise in Adults Living with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices help detect glycemic excursions associated with exercise, meals, and insulin dosing in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, the delay between interstitial and blood glucose may result in CGM underestimating the true change in glycemia during activity. The purpose of this study was to examine CGM discrepancies during exercise and the meal postexercise versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: Seventeen adults with T1D using insulin pump therapy and CGM completed 60 min of aerobic exercise on three occasions. A standardized meal was given 30 min postexercise. SMBG was measured during exercise and in recovery using OmniPod® Personal Diabetes Manager (PDM; Insulet, Billerica, MA) with built-in glucose meter (FreeStyle; Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL), while CGM was measured with Dexcom G4® with 505 algorithm (n = 4) or G5® (n = 13), which were calibrated with subjects' own PDM. Results: SMBG showed a large drop in glycemia during exercise, while CGM showed a lag of 12 ± 11 (mean ± standard deviation) minutes and bias of -7 ± 19 mg/dL/min during activity. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for CGM versus SMBG was 13 (6-22)% [median (interquartile range)] during exercise and 8 (5-14)% during mealtime. Clarke error grids showed CGM values were in zones A and B 94%-99% of the time for SMBG. Conclusion: In summary, the drop in CGM lags behind the drop in blood glucose during prolonged aerobic exercise by 12 ± 11 min, and MARD increases to 13 (6-22)% during exercise as well. Therefore, if hypoglycemia is suspected during exercise, individuals should confirm glucose levels with a capillary glucose measurement.