Fall in prevalence of impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) has been reported to affect up to a third of people with type 1 diabetes. Whether the increased use of sensor technology has changed its prevalence remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the current prevalence of IAH and its change over time in a cohort of individuals with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

IAH was assessed using the modified Clarke questionnaire in adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants were recruited from the diabetes outpatient clinic from February 2020 through April 2021. The scores were compared to similar data collected during previous assessments in 2006, 2010 and 2016 respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 488 individuals (51.2% male) with a mean (±SD) age of 51.3 ± 15.9 years, median [Q1-Q3] diabetes duration of 30 [16-40] years and mean HbA1c of 60 ± 12 mmol/mol (7.7 ± 1.1%) were included. Sensors were used by 85% of the study population. IAH was present among 78 (16.0%) participants, whereas 86 (17.6%) participants had a history of severe hypoglycaemia. By comparison, the prevalence of IAH equalled 32.5% in 2006, 32.3% in 2010 and 30.1% in 2016 (p for trend <0.001), while the proportion of individuals reporting severe hypoglycaemia equalled 21.2%, 46.7% and 49.8% respectively (p for trend 0.010). Comparing sequential assessments over time, the proportion of individuals with persistent IAH decreased from 74.0% and 63.6% between 2006 and 2016 to 32.5% in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Among individuals with type 1 diabetes and high use of sensor technology, the current prevalence of IAH was 16%, about 50% lower as compared to previous years.

Effect of Mexiletine on Muscle Stiffness in Patients With Nondystrophic Myotonia Evaluated Using Aggregated N-of-1 Trials

IMPORTANCE

In rare diseases it is difficult to achieve high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy because of small cohorts and clinical heterogeneity. With emerging treatments for rare diseases, innovative trial designs are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of mexiletine in nondystrophic myotonia using an aggregated N-of-1 trials design and compare results between this innovative design and a previously conducted RCT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A series of aggregated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled N-of-1-trials, performed in a single academic referral center. Thirty Dutch adult patients with genetically confirmed nondystrophic myotonia (38 patients screened) were enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015. Follow-up was completed in September 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Mexiletine (600 mg daily) vs placebo during multiple treatment periods of 4 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Reduction in daily-reported muscle stiffness on a scale of 1 to 9, with higher scores indicating more impairment. A Bayesian hierarchical model aggregated individual N-of-1 trial data to determine the posterior probability of reaching a clinically meaningful effect of a greater than 0.75-point difference.

RESULTS

Among 30 enrolled patients (mean age, 43.4 [SD, 15.24] years; 22% men; 19 CLCN1 and 11 SCN4A genotype), 27 completed the study and 3 dropped out (1 because of a serious adverse event). In 24 of the 27 completers, a clinically meaningful treatment effect was found. In the Bayesian hierarchical model, mexiletine resulted in a 100% posterior probability of reaching a clinically meaningful reduction in self-reported muscle stiffness for the nondystrophic myotonia group overall and the CLCN1 genotype subgroup and 93% posterior probability for the SCN4A genotype subgroup. In the total nondystrophic myotonia group, the median muscle stiffness score was 6.08 (interquartile range, 4.71-6.80) at baseline and was 2.50 (95% credible interval [CrI], 1.77-3.24) during the mexiletine period and 5.56 (95% CrI, 4.73-6.39) during the placebo period; difference in symptom score reduction, 3.06 (95% CrI, 1.96-4.15; n = 27) favoring mexiletine. The most common adverse event was gastrointestinal discomfort (21 mexiletine [70%], 1 placebo [3%]). One serious adverse event occurred (1 mexiletine [3%]; allergic skin reaction). Using frequentist reanalysis, mexiletine compared with placebo resulted in a mean reduction in daily-reported muscle stiffness of 3.12 (95% CI, 2.46-3.78), consistent with the previous RCT treatment effect of 2.69 (95% CI, 2.12-3.26).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In a series of N-of-1 trials of mexiletine vs placebo in patients with nondystrophic myotonia, there was a reduction in mean daily-reported muscle stiffness that was consistent with the treatment effect in a previous randomized clinical trial. These findings support the efficacy of mexiletine for treatment of nondystrophic myotonia as well as the feasibility of N-of-1 trials for assessing interventions in some chronic rare diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02045667.

Combined N-of-1 trials to investigate mexiletine in non-dystrophic myotonia using a Bayesian approach; study rationale and protocol

Background

To obtain evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments for patients with rare diseases is a challenge. Non-dystrophic myotonia (NDM) is a group of inherited, rare muscle diseases characterized by muscle stiffness. The reimbursement of mexiletine, the expert opinion drug for NDM, has been discontinued in some countries due to a lack of independent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It remains unclear however, which concessions can be accepted towards the level 1 evidence needed for coverage decisions, in rare diseases. Considering the large number of rare diseases with a lack of treatment evidence, more experience with innovative trial designs is needed. Both NDM and mexiletine are well suited for an N-of-1 trial design. A Bayesian approach allows for the combination of N-of-1 trials, which enables the assessment of outcomes on the patient and group level simultaneously.

Methods/Design

We will combine 30 individual, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled N-of-1 trials of mexiletine (600 mg daily) vs. placebo in genetically confirmed NDM patients using hierarchical Bayesian modeling. Our results will be compared and combined with the main results of an international cross-over RCT (mexiletine vs. placebo in NDM) published in 2012 that will be used as an informative prior. Similar criteria of eligibility, treatment regimen, end-points and measurement instruments are employed as used in the international cross-over RCT.

Discussion

The treatment of patients with NDM with mexiletine offers a unique opportunity to compare outcomes and efficiency of novel N-of-1 trial-based designs and conventional approaches in producing evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments for patients with rare diseases.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02045667