Search

Introduction Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a powerful risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), conferring a greater relative risk in women than men. We sought to examine sex differences in cardiometabolic risk factors and management in the contemporary cohort represented by the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).Research design and methods GRADE enrolled 5047 participants (1837 women, 3210 men) with T2DM on metformin monotherapy at baseline. The current report is a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data collected July 2013 to August 2017.Results Compared with men, women had a higher mean body mass index (BMI), greater prevalence of severe obesity (BMI≥40 kg/m2), higher mean LDL cholesterol, greater prevalence of low HDL cholesterol, and were less likely to receive statin treatment and achieve target LDL, with a generally greater prevalence of these risk factors in younger women. Women with hypertension were equally likely to achieve blood pressure targets as men; however, women were less likely to receive ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. Women were more likely to be divorced, separated or widowed, and had fewer years of education and lower incomes.Conclusions This contemporary cohort demonstrates that women with T2DM continue to have a greater burden of cardiometabolic and socioeconomic risk factors than men, particularly younger women. Attention to these persisting disparities is needed to reduce the burden of CVD in women.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01794143)

Summary: Background: Closed-loop insulin delivery systems have the potential to address suboptimal glucose control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. We compared safety and efficacy of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm with usual care over 6 months in this population. Methods: In a multicentre, multinational, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants aged 6–18 years using insulin pump therapy were recruited at seven UK and five US paediatric diabetes centres. Key inclusion criteria were diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, insulin pump therapy for at least 3 months, and screening HbA1c levels between 53 and 86 mmol/mol (7·0–10·0%). Using block randomisation and central randomisation software, we randomly assigned participants to either closed-loop insulin delivery (closed-loop group) or to usual care with insulin pump therapy (control group) for 6 months. Randomisation was stratified at each centre by local baseline HbA1c. The Cambridge closed-loop algorithm running on a smartphone was used with either (1) a modified Medtronic 640G pump, Medtronic Guardian 3 sensor, and Medtronic prototype phone enclosure (FlorenceM configuration), or (2) a Sooil Dana RS pump and Dexcom G6 sensor (CamAPS FX configuration). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c at 6 months combining data from both configurations. The primary analysis was done in all randomised patients (intention to treat). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02925299. Findings: Of 147 people initially screened, 133 participants (mean age 13·0 years [SD 2·8]; 57% female, 43% male) were randomly assigned to either the closed-loop group (n=65) or the control group (n=68). Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·2% (SD 0·7) in the closed-loop group and 8·3% (0·7) in the control group. At 6 months, HbA1c was lower in the closed-loop group than in the control group (between-group difference −3·5 mmol/mol (95% CI −6·5 to −0·5 [–0·32 percentage points, −0·59 to −0·04]; p=0·023). Closed-loop usage was low with FlorenceM due to failing phone enclosures (median 40% [IQR 26–53]), but consistently high with CamAPS FX (93% [88–96]), impacting efficacy. A total of 155 adverse events occurred after randomisation (67 in the closed-loop group, 88 in the control group), including seven severe hypoglycaemia events (four in the closed-loop group, three in the control group), two diabetic ketoacidosis events (both in the closed-loop group), and two non-treatment-related serious adverse events. There were 23 reportable hyperglycaemia events (11 in the closed-loop group, 12 in the control group), which did not meet criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis. Interpretation: The Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm had an acceptable safety profile, and improved glycaemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. To ensure optimal efficacy of the closed-loop system, usage needs to be consistently high, as demonstrated with CamAPS FX. Funding: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common types of cancer and is associated with relatively low survival rates. Despite its considerable burden, there is limited guidance for Canadian clinicians on the management of unresectable metastatic GC and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). Therefore, we aimed to discuss best practices and provide expert recommendations for patient management within the current Canadian unresectable GC and GEJC landscape. A multidisciplinary group of Canadian healthcare practitioners was assembled to develop expert recommendations via a working group. The often-rapid progression of unresectable GC and GEJC and the associated malnutrition have a significant impact on the patient's quality of life and ability to tolerate treatment. Hence, recommendations include early diagnosis, identification of relevant biomarkers to improve personalized treatment, and relevant support to manage comorbidities. A multidisciplinary approach including early access to registered dietitians, personal support networks, and palliative care services, is needed to optimize possible outcomes for patients. Where possible, patients with unresectable GC and GEJC would benefit from access to clinical trials and innovative treatments.

Background: Iron deficiency is highly prevalent worldwide and is an issue of health inequity. Despite its high prevalence, uncertainty on the clinical applicability and evidence-base of iron-related lab test cut-offs remains. In particular, current ferritin decision limits for the diagnosis of iron deficiency may not be clinically appropriate nor scientifically grounded., Methods: A modified Delphi study was conducted with various clinical experts who manage iron deficiency across Canada. Statements about ferritin decision limits were generated by a steering committee, then distributed to the expert panel to vote on agreement with the aim of achieving consensus and acquiring feedback on the presented statements. Consensus was reached after two rounds, which was defined as 70% of experts rating their agreement for a statement as 5 or higher on a Likert scale from 1 to 7., Results: Twenty-six clinical experts across 10 different specialties took part in the study. Consensus was achieved on 28 ferritin decision limit statements in various populations (including patients with multiple comorbid conditions, pediatric patients, and pregnant patients). For example, there was consensus that a ferritin <30 μg/L rules in iron deficiency in all adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) and warrants iron replacement therapy., Conclusion: Consensus statements generated through this study corresponded with current evidence-based literature and guidelines. These statements provide clarity to facilitate clinical decisions around the appropriate detection and management of iron deficiency., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and the rapid expansion of telemedicine have increased the need for accurate and reliable capillary hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing. Nevertheless, validation studies of commercially available products suitable for home use have been in short supply. Methods: Three commercial home-use capillary blood sample HbA1c tests (Home Access, CoreMedica, and A1cNow+) were evaluated in 219 participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (4-80 years years of age, HbA1c 5.1%-13.4% [32-123 mmol/mol]) at four clinical sites. Comparisons were made between HbA1c measurements from the commercial tests and paired venous samples for which HbA1c was measured at two central reference laboratories. The primary outcome was percentage of commercial HbA1c values within 5% of the corresponding reference values. Results: HbA1c values were within 5% (relative difference) of paired reference values for 82% of Home Access samples, 29% of CoreMedica samples, and 46% of A1cNow+ samples. Absolute differences were within 0.3% of the reference value for 75% of Home Access samples, 28% of CoreMedica samples, and 44% of A1cNow+ samples and exceeded 0.5% for 8%, 55%, and 37%, respectively. Conclusions: None of the commercial home-use HbA1c tests produced the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program goal of ≥90% measurements within 5% of a DCCT venous reference. However, the Home Access product performed substantially better than the CoreMedica or A1cNow+ products. Telemedicine is likely to persist as a mainstay of diabetes care well after the COVID-19 era. As such, accurate home-based HbA1c assessment represents an urgent need for the diabetes community.