Comparison of Control-IQ and open-source AndroidAPS automated insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes: The CODIAC study

AIM

To compare open-source AndroidAPS (AAPS) and commercially available Control-IQ (CIQ) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial.

METHODS

Adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using AAPS by their own decision entered the first 3-month AAPS phase then were switched to CIQ for 3 months. The results of this treatment were compared with those after the 3-month AAPS phase. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (% TIR; 70-80 mg/dL).

RESULTS

Twenty-five people with diabetes (mean age 34.32 ± 11.07 years; HbA1c 6.4% ± 3%) participated in this study. CIQ was comparable with AAPS in achieving TIR (85.72% ± 7.64% vs. 84.24% ± 8.46%; P = .12). Similarly, there were no differences in percentage time above range (> 180 and > 250 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose (130.3 ± 13.9 vs. 128.3 ± 16.9 mg/dL; P = .21) or HbA1c (6.3% ± 2.1% vs. 6.4% ± 3.1%; P = .59). Percentage time below range (< 70 and < 54 mg/dL) was significantly lower using CIQ than AAPS. Even although participants were mostly satisfied with CIQ (63.6% mostly agreed, 9.1% strongly agreed), they did not plan to switch to CIQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The CODIAC study is the first prospective study investigating the switch between open-source and commercially available AID systems. CIQ and AAPS were comparable in achieving TIR. However, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with CIQ.

Coverage for Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Nonintensive Therapies: An Evidence-Based Approach to Policymaking

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are treated with intensive insulin regimens. Based on this evidence, CGM is now a standard of care for individuals within these diabetes populations and widely covered by commercial and public insurers. Moreover, recent clinical guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinology now endorse CGM use in individuals treated with nonintensive insulin regimens. However, despite increasing evidence supporting CGM use for individuals treated with less-intensive insulin therapy or noninsulin medications, insurance coverage is limited or nonexistent. This narrative review reports key findings from recent randomized, observational, and retrospective studies investigating use of CGM in T2D individuals treated with basal insulin only and/or noninsulin therapies and presents an evidence-based rationale for expanding access to CGM within this population.

Stimulating Results Signal a New Treatment Option for People Living With Painful Diabetic Neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a progressive condition that deprives many patients of quality of life. With limited treatment options available, successful pain management can be difficult to achieve.

METHODS

We reviewed results of recent data evaluating high frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS).

RESULTS

from the SENZA-PDN randomized clinical trial (NCT03228420), the largest such trial to date, demonstrated 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation substantially reduced PDN refractory to conventional medical management along with improvements in health-related quality-of-life measures that were sustained over 12 months. These data supported the recent U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval for 10-kHz SCS in PDN patients and contributed to the body of evidence on SCS available to health care professionals managing the effects of PDN.

CONCLUSION

High frequency spinal cord simulation appears to hold promise in treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. We look forward to future works in the literature that will further elucidate these promising findings.

Low Initial Adherence with Flash Glucose Monitoring is Not a Predictor of Long-Term Glycemic Outcomes: Longitudinal Analysis of the Association Between Experience, Adherence, and Glucose Control for FreeStyle Libre Users

INTRODUCTION

Frequent scanning of FreeStyle Libre (FSL) flash glucose monitoring sensors is known to be important whilst wearing an active sensor, but adherence to sensor reapplication is also critical to effective glucose monitoring. We report novel measures of adherence for users of the FSL system and their association with improvements in metrics of glucose control.

METHODS

Anonymous data were extracted for 1600 FSL users in the Czech Republic with ≥ 36 completed sensors from October 22, 2018 to December 31, 2021. "Experience" was defined by the number of sensors used (1-36 sensors). "Adherence" was defined by time between the end of one sensor and the start of the next (gap time). User adherence was analyzed for four experience levels after initiating FLASH; Start (sensors 1-3); Early (sensors 4-6); Middle (sensors 19-21); End (sensors 34-36). Users were split into two adherence levels based on mean gap time during Start period, "low" (> 24 h, n = 723) and "high" (≤ 8 h, n = 877).

RESULTS

Low-adherence users reduced their sensor gap times significantly: 38.5% applied a new sensor within 24 h during sensors 4-6, rising to 65.0% by sensors 34-36 (p < 0.001). Improved adherence was associated with increased %TIR (time in range; mean + 2.4%; p < 0.001), reduced %TAR (time above range; mean - 3.1%; p < 0.001), and reduced glucose coefficient of variation (CV; mean - 1.7%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

With experience, FSL users became more adherent in sensor reapplication, with associated increases in %TIR, and reductions in %TAR and glucose variability.

Early intervention and intensive management of patients with diabetes, cardiorenal, and metabolic diseases

Increasing rates of obesity and diabetes have driven corresponding increases in related cardiorenal and metabolic diseases. In many patients, these conditions occur together, further increasing morbidity and mortality risks to the individual. Yet all too often, the risk factors for these disorders are not addressed promptly in clinical practice, leading to irreversible pathologic progression. To address this gap, we convened a Task Force of experts in cardiology, nephrology, endocrinology, and primary care to develop recommendations for early identification and intervention in obesity, diabetes, and other cardiorenal and metabolic diseases. The recommendations include screening and diagnosis, early interventions with lifestyle, and when and how to implement medical therapies. These recommendations are organized into primary and secondary prevention along the continuum from obesity through the metabolic syndrome, prediabetes, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and heart failure (HF). The goal of early and intensive intervention is primary prevention of comorbidities or secondary prevention to decrease further worsening of disease and reduce morbidity and mortality. These efforts will reduce clinical inertia and may improve patients' well-being and adherence.

Improved Glycemia with Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) (P < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

Lower Glycated Hemoglobin with Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than with Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring After 1 Year: The CORRIDA LIFE Study

Background: The aim was to compare the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) focusing on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the primary endpoint. Methods: The CORRIDA LIFE was a 12-month, real-world, nonrandomized study that is part of the CORRIDA clinical trials program. The study compared rtCGM (Dexcom G5 or G6) and isCGM (FreeStyle Libre 14-Day; Abbott) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Only patients on multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with no automatic functions were included in this study. Primary outcome was the difference in HbA1c between study groups at 12 months. Results: One hundred ninety-one adults with T1D (mean age 40 ± 13 years, HbA1c 8.1% ± 3.4% [65 ± 14 mmol/mol]) participated in this study; 81 patients initiated rtCGM and 110 initiated isCGM. After 12-months, HbA1c was significantly lower with rtCGM versus isCGM (7.1% ± 3.1% [54.1 ± 10.1 mmol/mol] vs. 7.7% ± 3.3% [61.2 ± 12.2 mmol/mol]), P = 0.0001. The percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]) was lower among rtCGM vs. isCGM participants [4.3% ± 2.8% vs. 6.4% ± 5.3%], P = 0.003). Patients with rtCGM spent less time in clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL [<3.0 mmol/L]) (0.9% ± 1.0% vs. 2.3% ± 2.5%, P < 0.0001) and more time in target range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]) than isCGM users (67.5% ± 14.8% vs. 57.8% ± 17.0%), P = 0.0002. Conclusions: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in HbA1c, hypoglycemia, and other glycemic outcomes. Our findings provide guidance to clinicians when discussing monitoring options with their patients. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04759495).

Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial

Background: Standard insulin infusion sets (IISs) are to be replaced every 2 to 3 days to avoid complications and diabetic ketosis due to set failure. This pivotal trial evaluated the safety and performance of a new extended-wear infusion set (EIS) when used for 7 days by adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: This single-arm, nonrandomized trial enrolled adults (18-80 years of age) with T1D, who used their own MiniMed™ 670G system with insulin lispro or insulin aspart and the EIS for up to 7 days, across 12 consecutive wears. Safety endpoints included incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse device effects (SADEs), unanticipated adverse device effects (UADEs), severe hypoglycemia (SevHypo), severe hyperglycemia (SevHyper), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and skin infection. The EIS failure rate due to unexplained hyperglycemia (i.e., suspected occlusion), the overall EIS survival rate, glycemic control outcomes (i.e., A1C, mean sensor glucose and time spent in established glucose ranges), total daily insulin delivered, and satisfaction with the EIS were determined. Results: The intention to treat population (n = 259, 48% men, 45.0 ± 14.1 years) wore a total of 3041 EIS devices. No SADE, UADE, or DKA events was reported. Overall rates of SAEs, SevHypo, SevHyper, and skin infection were 3.8, 2.5, 104.1, and 20.1 events per 100 participant-years. The rate of EIS failure due to unexplained hyperglycemia at the end of day 7 was 0.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.51) and 0.4% (95% CI: 0.16-1.00) for insulin lispro and aspart use, respectively. Overall EIS survival rate at the end of day 7 was 77.8% (95% CI: 76.2-79.3), glycemic control did not change, and participants reported greater satisfaction with the EIS compared with standard IISs worn before the study (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This investigation demonstrates that the EIS, when worn for up to 7 days, was safe and rated with high satisfaction, without adversely affecting glycemic control in adults with T1D. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04113694 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04113694).

DCRM Multispecialty Practice Recommendations for the management of diabetes, cardiorenal, and metabolic diseases

Type 2 diabetes (T2D), chronic kidney disease (CKD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and heart failure (HF)-along with their associated risk factors-have overlapping etiologies, and two or more of these conditions frequently occur in the same patient. Many recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have demonstrated the benefits of agents originally developed to control T2D, ASCVD, or CKD risk factors, and these agents have transcended their primary indications to confer benefits across a range of conditions. This evolution in CVOT evidence calls for practice recommendations that are not constrained by a single discipline to help clinicians manage patients with complex conditions involving diabetes, cardiorenal, and/or metabolic (DCRM) diseases. The ultimate goal for these recommendations is to be comprehensive yet succinct and easy to follow by the nonexpert-whether a specialist or a primary care clinician. To meet this need, we formed a volunteer task force comprising leading cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians to develop the DCRM Practice Recommendations, a multispecialty consensus on the comprehensive management of the patient with complicated metabolic disease. The task force recommendations are based on strong evidence and incorporate practical guidance that is clinically relevant and simple to implement, with the aim of improving outcomes in patients with DCRM. The recommendations are presented as 18 separate graphics covering lifestyle therapy, patient self-management education, technology for DCRM management, prediabetes, cognitive dysfunction, vaccinations, clinical tests, lipids, hypertension, anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, antihyperglycemic therapy, hypoglycemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), ASCVD, HF, CKD, and comorbid HF and CKD, as well as a graphical summary of medications used for DCRM.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: The Use of Advanced Technology in the Management of Persons With Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, health care professionals, and other stakeholders.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) conducted literature searches for relevant articles published from 2012 to 2021. A task force of medical experts developed evidence-based guideline recommendations based on a review of clinical evidence, expertise, and informal consensus, according to established AACE protocol for guideline development.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes of interest included hemoglobin A1C, rates and severity of hypoglycemia, time in range, time above range, and time below range.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 37 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for advanced diabetes technology and contains 357 citations that inform the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evidence-based recommendations were developed regarding the efficacy and safety of devices for the management of persons with diabetes mellitus, metrics used to aide with the assessment of advanced diabetes technology, and standards for the implementation of this technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced diabetes technology can assist persons with diabetes to safely and effectively achieve glycemic targets, improve quality of life, add greater convenience, potentially reduce burden of care, and offer a personalized approach to self-management. Furthermore, diabetes technology can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical decision-making. Successful integration of these technologies into care requires knowledge about the functionality of devices in this rapidly changing field. This information will allow health care professionals to provide necessary education and training to persons accessing these treatments and have the required expertise to interpret data and make appropriate treatment adjustments.

Consensus Statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology on the Management of Dyslipidemia and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Algorithm - 2020 Executive Summary

The treatment of lipid disorders begins with lifestyle therapy to improve nutrition, physical activity, weight, and other factors that affect lipids. Secondary causes of lipid disorders should be addressed, and pharmacologic therapy initiated based on a patient's risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Patients at extreme ASCVD risk should be treated with high-intensity statin therapy to achieve a goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of <55 mg/dL, and those at very high ASCVD risk should be treated to achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL. Treatment for moderate and high ASCVD risk patients may begin with a moderate-intensity statin to achieve an LDL-C <100 mg/dL, while the LDL-C goal is <130 mg/dL for those at low risk. In all cases, treatment should be intensified, including the addition of other LDL-C-lowering agents (i.e., proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, colesevelam, or bempedoic acid) as needed to achieve treatment goals. When targeting triglyceride levels, the desirable goal is <150 mg/dL. Statin therapy should be combined with a fibrate, prescription-grade omega-3 fatty acid, and/or niacin to reduce triglycerides in all patients with triglycerides ≥500 mg/dL, and icosapent ethyl should be added to a statin in any patient with established ASCVD or diabetes with ≥2 ASCVD risk factors and triglycerides between 135 and 499 mg/dL to prevent ASCVD events. Management of additional risk factors such as elevated lipoprotein(a) and statin intolerance is also described.

Real-time CGM Is Superior to Flash Glucose Monitoring for Glucose Control in Type 1 Diabetes: The CORRIDA Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy of real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM and isCGM, respectively) in maintaining optimal glycemic control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this randomized study, adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and normal hypoglycemia awareness (Gold score <4) used rtCGM (Guardian Connect Mobile) or isCGM (FreeStyle Libre) during 4 days of physical activity (exercise phase) and in the subsequent 4 weeks at home (home phase). Primary end points were time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) and time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]). The isCGM group wore an additional masked Enlite sensor (iPro2) for 6 days to check for bias between the different sensors used by the rtCGM and isCGM systems.

RESULTS

Sixty adults with T1D (mean age 38 ± 13 years; A1C 62 ± 12 mmol/mol [7.8 ± 1.1%]) were randomized to rtCGM (n = 30) or isCGM (n = 30). All participants completed the study. Percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) was lower among rtCGM versus isCGM participants in the exercise phase (6.8 ± 5.5% vs. 11.4 ± 8.6%, respectively; P = 0.018) and during the home phase (5.3 ± 2.5% vs. 7.3 ± 4.4%, respectively; P = 0.035). Hypoglycemia differences were significant and most notable during the night. rtCGM participants spent more time in range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]) than isCGM participants throughout both the exercise (78.5 ± 10.2% vs. 69.7 ± 16%, respectively; P = 0.0149) and home (75.6 ± 9.7% vs. 67.4 ± 17.8%, respectively; P = 0.0339) phases. The results were robust to the insignificant bias between rtCGM and isCGM sensors that masked CGM found in the isCGM arm.

CONCLUSIONS

rtCGM was superior to isCGM in reducing hypoglycemia and improving time in range in adults with T1D with normal hypoglycemia awareness, demonstrating the value of rtCGM alarms during exercise and in daily diabetes self-management.

Effectiveness of V-Go® for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting: A Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

V-Go is a wearable, patch-like, 24-h insulin delivery device that delivers both a continuous preset basal rate and on-demand bolus dosing. The aim of this study was to observe glycemic control, insulin dosing, and hypoglycemia risk in patients switched to V-Go in a real-world setting. The primary objective was to compare change in mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to the end of V-Go use.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, multicenter study recruited patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) across 28 centers. Efficacy analyses were conducted for all patients with a post-baseline HbA1c and results stratified based on prior antihyperglycemic medication therapies. Insulin dosing was at the discretion of the health care provider and the protocol did not mandate glycemic targets. Treatment satisfaction surveys were utilized to gain patient feedback on the use of V-Go.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled in the study, among whom 140 patients had a valid post-baseline HbA1c and were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Use of V-Go resulted in a change of - 0.64%; (P = 0.003) in HbA1c from baseline, and in those prescribed insulin, the total daily dose of insulin was decreased by 12 units/day (P < 0.0001). Twenty-two patients (12%) reported hypoglycemic events (≤ 70 mg/dL), with an event rate of 1.51 events/patient/year.

CONCLUSION

In a T2D population with suboptimal HbA1c, initiating V-Go therapy in a real-world setting significantly improved glycemic control and led to significant insulin dose reductions. ClinicalTrial.gov registry identifier: NCT01326598.

Human regular U-500 insulin via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in adults with type 2 diabetes: The VIVID study

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of U500-R delivered by a novel, specifically designed U500-R insulin pump with U-500R delivered by multiple daily injections (MDI).

METHODS

The phase 3 VIVID study randomized people with type 2 diabetes to U-500R by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or MDI. Participants (aged 18-85 years) had HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤12.0% and a total daily dose of insulin >200 and ≤600 U/day. After a 2-week transition to three times daily injections of U-500R, participants were treated for 24 weeks with U-500R by CSII or MDI. Treatment arms were compared using mixed model repeated measures analysis.

RESULTS

The study randomized 420 participants (CSII: 209, MDI: 211) with 365 completers. Mean changes from baseline were: HbA1c, -1.27% (-13.9 mmol/mol) with CSII and -0.85% (-9.3 mmol/mol) with MDI (difference - 0.42% [-4.6 mmol/mol], P <0.001); fasting plasma glucose, -33.9 mg/dL (-1.9 mmol/L) with CSII and 1.7 mg/dL (0.09 mmol/L) with MDI (difference - 35.6 mg/dL [-2.0 mmol/L], P <0.001); total daily dose, 2.8 U with CSII and 51.3 U with MDI (P < 0.001). Weight changes and rates of documented symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were similar between groups; the CSII group had a higher rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetes requiring high doses of insulin, both methods of U-500R delivery lowered HbA1c. However, the CSII group attained greater HbA1c reduction with significantly less insulin. Individualized dose titration will be important to balance glycaemic control with hypoglycaemia risk.

Treatment Intensification With Insulin Pumps and Other Technologies in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Physician Survey in the United States

An online survey was conducted to assess the perspectives and use of diabetes technologies by a sample of U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) and endocrinologists to optimize intensive insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Overall, endocrinologists reported using diabetes technologies more frequently than PCPs for patients with type 2 diabetes requiring basal-bolus insulin therapy. PCPs and endocrinologists who were highly focused on diabetes management with insulin therapy reported using insulin delivery devices (insulin pumps and wearable tube-free patches) when patients are not achieving their A1C target while taking basal plus three or more prandial injections of insulin daily.

Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With T1D Are Impacted More by Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than by Insulin Delivery Method: 3 Years of Follow-Up From the COMISAIR Study

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the clinical impact of four treatment strategies in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D): real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with multiple daily insulin injections (rtCGM+MDI), rtCGM with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (rtCGM+CSII), self-monitoring of blood glucose with MDI (SMBG+MDI), and SMBG with CSII (SMBG+CSII).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This 3-year, nonrandomized, prospective, real-world, clinical trial followed 94 participants with T1D (rtCGM+MDI, n = 22; rtCGM+CSII, n = 26; SMBG+MDI, n = 21; SMBG+CSII, n = 25). The main end points were changes in A1C, time in range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]), time below range (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]), glycemic variability, and incidence of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

At 3 years, the rtCGM groups (rtCGM+MDI and rtCGM+CSII) had significantly lower A1C (7.0% [53 mmol/mol], P = 0.0002, and 6.9% [52 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001, respectively), compared with the SMBG+CSII and SMBG+MDI groups (7.7% [61 mmol/mol], P = 0.3574, and 8.0% [64 mmol/mol], P = 1.000, respectively), with no significant difference between the rtCGM groups. Significant improvements in percentage of time in range were observed in the rtCGM subgroups (rtCGM+MDI, 48.7-69.0%, P < 0.0001; and rtCGM+CSII, 50.9-72.3%, P < 0.0001) and in the SMBG+CSII group (50.6-57.8%, P = 0.0114). Significant reductions in time below range were found only in the rtCGM subgroups (rtCGM+MDI, 9.4-5.5%, P = 0.0387; and rtCGM+CSII, 9.0-5.3%, P = 0.0235). Seven severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred: SMBG groups, n = 5; sensor-augmented insulin regimen groups, n = 2.

CONCLUSIONS

rtCGM was superior to SMBG in reducing A1C, hypoglycemia, and other end points in individuals with T1D regardless of their insulin delivery method. rtCGM+MDI can be considered an equivalent but lower-cost alternative to sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and superior to treatment with SMBG+MDI or SMBG+CSII therapy.

Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range

Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.

Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range

Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.

International Consensus on Risk Management of Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Treated With Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter (SGLT) Inhibitors

Sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors are new oral antidiabetes medications shown to effectively reduce glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and glycemic variability, blood pressure, and body weight without intrinsic properties to cause hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes. However, recent studies, particularly in individuals with type 1 diabetes, have demonstrated increases in the absolute risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Some cases presented with near-normal blood glucose levels or mild hyperglycemia, complicating the recognition/diagnosis of DKA and potentially delaying treatment. Several SGLT inhibitors are currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European regulatory agencies as adjuncts to insulin therapy in people with type 1 diabetes. Strategies must be developed and disseminated to the medical community to mitigate the associated DKA risk. This Consensus Report reviews current data regarding SGLT inhibitor use and provides recommendations to enhance the safety of SGLT inhibitors in people with type 1 diabetes.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DYSLIPIDEMIA AND PREVENTION OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE

OBJECTIVE

The development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

METHODS

Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols.

RESULTS

The Executive Summary of this document contains 87 recommendations of which 45 are Grade A (51.7%), 18 are Grade B (20.7%), 15 are Grade C (17.2%), and 9 (10.3%) are Grade D. These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world medical care. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for Executive Summary Recommendations. This update contains 695 citations of which 203 (29.2 %) are EL 1 (strong), 137 (19.7%) are EL 2 (intermediate), 119 (17.1%) are EL 3 (weak), and 236 (34.0%) are EL 4 (no clinical evidence).

CONCLUSION

This CPG is a practical tool that endocrinologists, other health care professionals, health-related organizations, and regulatory bodies can use to reduce the risks and consequences of dyslipidemia. It provides guidance on screening, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations for a range of individuals with various lipid disorders. The recommendations emphasize the importance of treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in some individuals to lower goals than previously endorsed and support the measurement of coronary artery calcium scores and inflammatory markers to help stratify risk. Special consideration is given to individuals with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, women, and youth with dyslipidemia. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness data are provided to support treatment decisions.

ABBREVIATIONS

4S = Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study A1C = glycated hemoglobin AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists AAP = American Academy of Pediatrics ACC = American College of Cardiology ACE = American College of Endocrinology ACS = acute coronary syndrome ADMIT = Arterial Disease Multiple Intervention Trial ADVENT = Assessment of Diabetes Control and Evaluation of the Efficacy of Niaspan Trial AFCAPS/TexCAPS = Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study AHA = American Heart Association AHRQ = Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AIM-HIGH = Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides trial ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ATP = Adult Treatment Panel apo = apolipoprotein BEL = best evidence level BIP = Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention trial BMI = body mass index CABG = coronary artery bypass graft CAC = coronary artery calcification CARDS = Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study CDP = Coronary Drug Project trial CI = confidence interval CIMT = carotid intimal media thickness CKD = chronic kidney disease CPG(s) = clinical practice guideline(s) CRP = C-reactive protein CTT = Cholesterol Treatment Trialists CV = cerebrovascular CVA = cerebrovascular accident EL = evidence level FH = familial hypercholesterolemia FIELD = Secondary Endpoints from the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes trial FOURIER = Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk trial HATS = HDL-Atherosclerosis Treatment Study HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HHS = Helsinki Heart Study HIV = human immunodeficiency virus HoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HPS = Heart Protection Study HPS2-THRIVE = Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events trial HR = hazard ratio HRT = hormone replacement therapy hsCRP = high-sensitivity CRP IMPROVE-IT = Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial IRAS = Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study JUPITER = Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol Lp-PLA2 = lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 MACE = major cardiovascular events MESA = Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis MetS = metabolic syndrome MI = myocardial infarction MRFIT = Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial NCEP = National Cholesterol Education Program NHLBI = National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PCOS = polycystic ovary syndrome PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 Post CABG = Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft trial PROSPER = Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk trial QALY = quality-adjusted life-year ROC = receiver-operator characteristic SOC = standard of care SHARP = Study of Heart and Renal Protection T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus TG = triglycerides TNT = Treating to New Targets trial VA-HIT = Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial VLDL-C = very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol WHI = Women's Health Initiative.

Glucose Management Indicator (GMI): A New Term for Estimating A1C From Continuous Glucose Monitoring

While A1C is well established as an important risk marker for diabetes complications, with the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to help facilitate safe and effective diabetes management, it is important to understand how CGM metrics, such as mean glucose, and A1C correlate. Estimated A1C (eA1C) is a measure converting the mean glucose from CGM or self-monitored blood glucose readings, using a formula derived from glucose readings from a population of individuals, into an estimate of a simultaneously measured laboratory A1C. Many patients and clinicians find the eA1C to be a helpful educational tool, but others are often confused or even frustrated if the eA1C and laboratory-measured A1C do not agree. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration determined that the nomenclature of eA1C needed to change. This led the authors to work toward a multipart solution to facilitate the retention of such a metric, which includes renaming the eA1C the glucose management indicator (GMI) and generating a new formula for converting CGM-derived mean glucose to GMI based on recent clinical trials using the most accurate CGM systems available. The final aspect of ensuring a smooth transition from the old eA1C to the new GMI is providing new CGM analyses and explanations to further understand how to interpret GMI and use it most effectively in clinical practice. This Perspective will address why a new name for eA1C was needed, why GMI was selected as the new name, how GMI is calculated, and how to understand and explain GMI if one chooses to use GMI as a tool in diabetes education or management.

AACE/ACE POSITION STATEMENT ON THE USE OF FOLLOW-ON BIOLOGICS AND BIOSIMILARS FOR ENDOCRINE DISEASES

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Where there were no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position and consensus statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician.

ABBREVIATIONS

BPCIA = Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; FFDC = Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act; PHS = Public Health Services Act; TE = therapeutic equivalence.

Ertugliflozin in Patients with Stage 3 Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The VERTIS RENAL Randomized Study

INTRODUCTION

Ertugliflozin is a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor in development for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The safety and efficacy of ertugliflozin were evaluated over 52 weeks in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized study (NCT01986855), patients with glycated hemoglobin (A1C) 7.0-10.5% and stage 3 CKD [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 30 to < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²] who were undergoing treatment with standard diabetes therapy (or therapies) including insulin and/or sulfonylureas were randomized to once-daily ertugliflozin 5 mg, 15 mg, or placebo. Patients on metformin underwent a pre-randomization ≥ 10-week wash-off period. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1C at week 26 in the overall cohort. Secondary efficacy endpoints were assessed in the stage 3A CKD cohort (eGFR ≥ 45 to < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²) at weeks 26 and 52. Safety was assessed in the overall cohort.

RESULTS

468 patients were randomized (baseline mean A1C 8.2%). At week 26, reductions from baseline in A1C were observed across groups in the overall cohort [least squares mean changes (95% confidence interval) - 0.3% (- 0.4, - 0.1), - 0.3% (- 0.4, - 0.1), and - 0.4% (- 0.6, - 0.3) for placebo and for ertugliflozin 5 mg and 15 mg, respectively]. Prohibited use of metformin was identified in ~ 17% of patients and impacted evaluation of the primary endpoint. Greater reductions from baseline in body weight, fasting plasma glucose, and systolic blood pressure were observed with ertugliflozin versus placebo at week 26 (stage 3A CKD cohort). The incidences of urinary tract infections, genital mycotic infections, and hypoglycemia adverse events were not meaningfully different between groups. The incidence of hypovolemia-related adverse events was higher with ertugliflozin relative to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Although surreptitious metformin use impacted the primary analysis, reductions in blood glucose and body weight were observed with ertugliflozin in patients with T2DM and stage 3 CKD; ertugliflozin had an acceptable safety profile.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA and Pfizer Inc.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01986855.

Impact of baseline glycated haemoglobin, diabetes duration and body mass index on clinical outcomes in the LixiLan-O trial testing a titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) vs insulin glargine and lixisenatide monocomponents

To determine whether baseline characteristics had an impact on clinical outcomes in the LixiLan-O trial (N = 1170), we compared the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U (iGlar) and lixisenatide (Lixi) with iGlar or Lixi alone in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on oral therapy. Subgroups according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; <8% or ≥8% [<64 or ≥64 mmol/mol]), T2DM disease duration (<7 or ≥7 years) and body mass index (BMI; <30 or ≥30 kg/m² ) were investigated. In all subpopulations, iGlarLixi was consistently statistically superior to iGlar and Lixi alone in reducing HbA1c from baseline to week 30; higher proportions of patients achieved HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) with iGlarLixi vs iGlar and Lixi alone. Compared with iGlar, iGlarLixi resulted in a substantial decrease in 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose levels, and mitigation of weight gain, with no differences among subpopulations in incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia. iGlarLixi consistently improved glycaemic control compared with iGlar and Lixi alone, without weight gain or increase in hypoglycaemic risk compared with iGlar in the subpopulations tested, regardless of baseline HbA1c, disease duration and BMI.

Should Side Effects Influence the Selection of Antidiabetic Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are currently over 40 different drugs in 12 distinct classes approved in the USA to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This review summarizes our current knowledge about potential side effects of antidiabetic therapy and attempts to apply it to a clinical practice setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Given the heterogeneity of both the patients and the disease, it is mathematically impossible to test every available drug combination in long-term outcome, prospective, randomized blinded fashion before a clinician decides which agent(s) to prescribe to a specific patient in a given situation. To complicate the clinician's dilemma, there is lack of available tests to predict an individual's response or propensity to side effects. Further, the data available are derived from small, short-term registration trials and typically focus on relative rather than absolute risks of any given drug and do not address the potential adverse outcomes if a patient's diabetes remains untreated. Clinicians have to personalize their choice of antidiabetic therapy based both on the specific characteristics of the patient in front of them (stage of diabetes and its complications, overall health status, socioeconomic situation, other medications present, desire to improve control of diabetes, etc.) and the current knowledge about the relative and absolute balance of benefits and risks of any individual medication in that specific patient. It has to be recognized that this requires constant re-evaluation as database of our experience with antidiabetic therapy expands.

[Quo vadis diabetes technology?]

Management of patients with diabetes mellitus who require intensive insulin therapy has changed dramatically. From urine and then whole blood glucose monitoring patients can now wear personal continuous glucose monitors; from using multiple insulin injections they can now deliver subcutaneous insulin continuously using ever-more sophisticated insulin pumps. With the current integration of continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps a new era is arriving when "smart" insulin pumps can automate insulin delivery to assure more stable glycemic control while minimizing episodes of hypoglycemia. This review briefly summarizes results of key research studies demonstrating feasibility of the technology. It also discusses patient selection and potential challenges faced by attempting to incorporate diabetes technology into daily clinical practice. Finally, an overview of integrated systems in current and planned clinical trials is presented.

Quo vadis diabetes technology?

Management of patients with diabetes mellitus who require intensive insulin therapy has changed dramatically. From urine and then whole blood glucose monitoring patients can now wear personal continuous glucose monitors; from using multiple insulin injections they can now deliver subcutaneous insulin continuously using ever-more sophisticated insulin pumps. With the current integration of continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps a new era is arriving when "smart" insulin pumps can automate insulin delivery to assure more stable glycemic control while minimizing episodes of hypoglycemia. This review briefly summarizes results of key research studies demonstrating feasibility of the technology. It also discusses patient selection and potential challenges faced by attempting to incorporate diabetes technology into daily clinical practice. Finally, an overview of integrated systems in current and planned clinical trials is presented.

Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a comprehensive review of the dulaglutide clinical data focusing on the AWARD phase 3 clinical trial program

Dulaglutide (DU) is a once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Glycaemic efficacy and safety characteristics of dulaglutide have been assessed in six Phase 3 studies in the AWARD program. The objective of this review article is to summarize these results from the six completed AWARD studies. At the primary endpoint, in five of the six studies, once weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg was superior to the active comparator [exenatide, insulin glargine (two studies), metformin, and sitagliptin], with a greater proportion of patients reaching glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets of <7.0% (53.0 mmol/mol) and ≤6.5% (47.5 mmol/mol). Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was non-inferior to liraglutide in AWARD-6. Once weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg was evaluated in five of these trials and demonstrated superiority to the active comparator in four of five AWARD studies (exenatide, glargine, metformin, and sitagliptin), and non-inferiority to glargine in the AWARD-2 study. Similar to other GLP-1 receptor agonists, treatment with dulaglutide was associated with weight loss or attenuation of weight gain and low rates of hypoglycaemia when used alone or with non-insulin-secretagogue therapy. The most frequently reported adverse events were gastrointestinal, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The incidence of dulaglutide antidrug antibody formation was 1-2.8% with rare injection site reactions. In conclusion, dulaglutide is an effective treatment for T2DM and has an acceptable tolerability and safety profile. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Benefits of LixiLan, a Titratable Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Glargine Plus Lixisenatide, Versus Insulin Glargine and Lixisenatide Monocomponents in Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Oral Agents: The LixiLan-O Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of LixiLan (iGlarLixi), a novel titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine (iGlar) and lixisenatide (Lixi), compared with both components, iGlar and Lixi, given separately in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin with or without a second oral glucose-lowering drug.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

After a 4-week run-in to optimize metformin and stop other oral antidiabetic drugs, participants (N = 1,170, mean diabetes duration ∼8.8 years, BMI ∼31.7 kg/m²) were randomly assigned to open-label once-daily iGlarLixi or iGlar, both titrated to fasting plasma glucose <100 mg/dL (<5.6 mmol/L) up to a maximum insulin dose of 60 units/day, or to once-daily Lixi (20 μg/day) while continuing with metformin. The primary outcome was HbA_1c change at 30 weeks.

RESULTS

Greater reductions in HbA_1c from baseline (8.1% [65 mmol/mol]) were achieved with iGlarLixi compared with iGlar and Lixi (-1.6%, -1.3%, -0.9%, respectively), reaching mean final HbA_1c levels of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) for iGlarLixi versus 6.8% (51 mmol/mol) and 7.3% (56 mmol/mol) for iGlar and Lixi, respectively (both P < 0.0001). More subjects reached target HbA_1c <7% with iGlarLixi (74%) versus iGlar (59%) or Lixi (33%) (P < 0.0001 for all). Mean body weight decreased with iGlarLixi (-0.3 kg) and Lixi (-2.3 kg) and increased with iGlar (+1.1 kg, difference 1.4 kg, P < 0.0001). Documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (≤70 mg/dL) was similar with iGlarLixi and iGlar (1.4 and 1.2 events/patient-year) and lower with Lixi (0.3 events/patient-year). iGlarLixi improved postprandial glycemic control versus iGlar and demonstrated considerably fewer nausea (9.6%) and vomiting (3.2%) events than Lixi (24% and 6.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi complemented iGlar and Lixi effects to achieve meaningful HbA_1c reductions, close to near normoglycemia without increases in either hypoglycemia or weight, compared with iGlar, and had low gastrointestinal adverse effects compared with Lixi.

A randomized clinical trial of basal insulin peglispro vs NPH in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: the IMAGINE 6 trial

AIMS

Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) has a longer duration of action than conventional insulin analogues and a hepato-preferential mechanism of action. This study assessed whether BIL was non-inferior to isophane insulin (NPH) in reducing HbA1c in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes, when added to pre-study oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a Phase 3, open-label, treat-to-target (TTT), randomized trial with a 2-week lead-in, 26-week treatment and a 4-week safety follow-up period. Patients were randomized to bedtime (pm) NPH, morning (am) BIL or pm BIL in a 1:1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

Six hundred and forty-one patients [NPH, n = 213; BIL, n = 428 (am, n = 213; pm, n = 215)] received study drug. BIL was non-inferior to NPH for HbA1c change from baseline at Week 26 with a between-treatment difference (95% confidence interval) of -0.37% (-0.50, -0.23%). HbA1c at baseline was 8.5%, and was lower in BIL- vs NPH-treated patients after 26 weeks of treatment (6.8% vs 7.1%; P < .001). More BIL-treated patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% and HbA1c <7.0% without nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Fasting serum glucose levels and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were lower in BIL-treated patients; total hypoglycaemia rates were similar. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups. Fasting triglycerides decreased from baseline in both groups and to a greater extent with NPH, but were not significantly different between groups at Week 26. Mean alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased with BIL treatment, but there was no evidence of acute severe hepatotoxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

In this TTT study, BIL treatment showed clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control and a significant reduction in nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared to NPH.

CONSENSUS STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE TYPE 2 DIABETES MANAGEMENT ALGORITHM--2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology. Where there were no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician.

Effects of Extended-Release Niacin Added to Simvastatin/Ezetimibe on Glucose and Insulin Values in AIM-HIGH

BACKGROUND

Niacin is an antidyslipidemic agent that may cause blood sugar elevation in patients with diabetes, but its effects on glucose and insulin values in nondiabetic statin-treated subjects with cardiovascular disease and at high risk for diabetes are less well known.

METHODS

This was a prespecified, intent-to-treat analysis of the Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic syndrome with low high-density lipoprotein/high triglycerides: Impact on Global Health outcomes trial which randomized 3,414 participants at 92 centers in the US and Canada to extended-release niacin (ERN) plus simvastatin/ezetimibe (ERN) or simvastatin/ezetimibe plus placebo (Placebo). Baseline and annual fasting glucose and insulin values were measured. Those experiencing an adverse event indicative of diabetes or starting medications for diabetes were considered to have confirmed diabetes. In addition, nondiabetic subjects with 2 annual follow-up glucose measurements were categorized into normal, impaired fasting glucose or newly diagnosed diabetes (presumed or confirmed) states.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, ERN increased annual fasting glucose from baseline to 1 year in both those with normal (7.9 ± 15.8 vs 4.3 ± 10.3 mg/dL; P < .001) and impaired fasting glucose (4.1 ± 18.7 vs 1.4 ± 14.9; P < .02) and increased insulin levels. Both effects waned over the next 2 years. There were less consistent effects in those with baseline diabetes. There was an increased risk of progressing from normal to presumed or confirmed impaired fasting glucose (ERN 197/336) cases (58.6%) vs placebo 135/325 cases (41.5%; P < .001) over time, but no difference in diabetes development in the 2 treatment groups except in those with normal fasting glucose at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of ERN to simvastatin/ezetimibe had marginal effects on glycemia in those with diabetes at baseline, and there was a trend toward increased development of new-onset diabetes. In addition, ERN increased the risk of developing impaired fasting glucose, which may have deleterious consequences over time and warrants further study.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY POSITION STATEMENT ON THE ASSOCIATION OF SGLT-2 INHIBITORS AND DIABETIC KETOACIDOSIS

ABBREVIATIONS

AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACE = American College of Endocrinology DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis EMA = European Medicines Agency FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration SGLT-2 = sodium glucosecotransporter 2 T1D = type 1 diabetes T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Early fasting glucose measurements can predict later glycaemic response to once weekly dulaglutide

AIMS

To assess whether early measures of fasting blood glucose predict later glycaemic response with once-weekly dulaglutide in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Post hoc analyses were conducted separately for two phase 3 studies (AWARD-5 and AWARD-1) in patients assigned to once-weekly dulaglutide. Week 2 fasting blood glucose was used as a predictor variable, and glycaemic treatment response was defined by HbA1c response based on a composite efficacy endpoint. The association between fasting blood glucose and the glycaemic response was analysed using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

There was a strong association between fasting blood glucose < 7.9 mmol/l at week 2 and achieving the HbA1c composite efficacy endpoint at week 26 (P < 0.01). Higher fasting blood glucose at week 2, however, did not predict absence of glycaemic response and requires further assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Fasting blood glucose measured at 2 weeks may be an early and useful predictor of glycaemic response to once-weekly dulaglutide treatment.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY 2016 OUTPATIENT GLUCOSE MONITORING CONSENSUS STATEMENT

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Where there were no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician.