Search

Aim: Whether glucose sensor alarms improve metabolic control and are accepted by individuals with diabetes is unclear. Here, we investigated whether switching from a standard flash glucose monitoring system (FGM1) to a system equipped with hypo- and hyperglycemia alarms (FGM2) improves glycemic control and psychological outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D)., Methods: Subjects with T1D and > 4% of time in hypoglycemia or > 40% of time in hyperglycemia were studied while wearing FGM1 (4 weeks) and after switching to FGM2 for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dl [3.9-10.0 mmol/L]) after 4 weeks of FGM2 use. Time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), mean glucose, coefficient of variation (CV), sensor scans, treatment satisfaction, and hypoglycemia fear were secondary outcomes., Results: We included 38 subjects aged 33.7 ± 12.6 year. During 4 weeks of FGM2 use, TIR increased from 52.8 to 57.0% (p = 0.001), TBR decreased from 6.2 to 3.4% (p < 0.0001) as did time < 54 mg/dl (from 1.4 to 0.3%, p < 0.0001) and CV (from 39.6% to 36.1%, p < 0.0001). These changes were confirmed after 8 weeks of FGM2 use. Treatment satisfaction improved and fear of hypoglycemia decreased. Subjects who had > 4% of time in hypoglycemia at baseline showed the greatest improvements in glucose control and treatment satisfaction., Conclusion: Switching from FGM1 to FGM2 improved TIR and treatment satisfaction and reduced fear of hypoglycemia. Participants who benefited most from switching from FGM1 to FGM2 were those prone to hypoglycemia., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Aims: Automated insulin delivery improves glucose control. Aim of this study was to compare in real life the effects on glucose control and patient reported outcomes of an advanced hybrid closed loop system (Control-IQ), versus a simpler system with predictive low glucose suspend function (Basal-IQ)., Methods: Thirty-one type 1 diabetic subjects were studied during Basal-IQ and after switching to Control-IQ. Variables analyzed were time spent in range (70-180 mg/dL), in tight range (70-140 mg/dL), above range (>180 mg/dL), below range (<70 mg/dL), mean glucose, coefficient of variation and glycated hemoglobin. Questionnaires were administered regarding therapy satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire in status/change form), fear of hypoglycemia (Hypoglycemia Fear Survey), quality of sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index)., Results: After 12 weeks of Control-IQ, time in range increased from 62.7 to 74.0%, p < 0.0001, time in tight range increased from 37.1 to 44.6 %, p < 0.001, time above range decreased from 35.6 to 24.4% p < 0.0001. Improvements were observed in mean glucose and glucose variability. Glycated hemoglobin decreased from 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) to 6.6% (49 mmol/mol), p < 0.0001. Subjects using Control-IQ manifested greater satisfaction and less fear of hypoglycemia., Conclusion: Compared to Basal-IQ, Control-IQ improves glucose control and therapy satisfaction., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Iatrogenic hypoglycemia is the most common acute diabetic complication, and it significantly increases morbidity. In people with diabetes, reduction in the levels of circulating stem and progenitor cells predicts adverse outcomes., Objective: To evaluate whether hypoglycemia in diabetes affects circulating stem cells and endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs)., Design: We performed an experimental hypoglycemia study (Study 1) and a case-control study (Study 2)., Setting: Tertiary referral inpatient clinic., Patients and Other Participants: Type 1 diabetic patients (Study 1, n = 19); diabetic patients hospitalized for severe iatrogenic hypoglycemia, matched inpatient and outpatient controls (Study 2, n = 22/group)., Interventions: Type 1 diabetic patients underwent two in-hospital sessions of glucose monitoring during a breakfast meal with or without induction of hypoglycemia in random order. In Study 2, patients hospitalized for hypoglycemia and matched controls were compared., Main Outcome Measure: Circulating stem cells and EPCs were measured by flow cytometry based on the expression of CD34 and kinase insert domain receptor (KDR)., Results: In Study 1, the physiologic decline of CD34+KDR+ EPCs from 8 am to 2 pm was abolished by insulin-induced hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetic patients. In Study 2, diabetic patients hospitalized for severe iatrogenic hypoglycemia had significantly lower levels of CD34+ stem cells and CD34+KDR+ EPCs compared with diabetic inpatients or outpatient controls., Conclusions: In diabetic patients, a single mild hypoglycemic episode can compromise the physiologic EPC fluctuation, whereas severe hypoglycemia is associated with a marked reduction in stem cells and EPCs. These data provide a possible link between hypoglycemia and adverse outcomes of diabetes.

Aim: To assess the influence of health locus of control and fear of hypoglycaemia on metabolic control and treatment satisfaction in people with Type 1 diabetes mellitus on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion., Methods: People with Type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for at least 1 year, sub-classified as an 'acceptable glucose control' group [HbA 1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol (7.5%)] and a 'suboptimum glucose control' group [HbA 1c > 58 mmol/mol (7.5%)], were consecutively enrolled in a multicentre cross-sectional study. Questionnaires were administered to assess health locus of control [Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) scale, with internal and external subscales], fear of hypoglycaemia [Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey II (HFS-II)] and treatment satisfaction [Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ)]., Results: We enrolled 214 participants (mean ± sd age 43.4 ± 12.1 years). The suboptimum glucose control group (n = 127) had lower mean ± sd internal MHLC and DTSQ scores than the acceptable glucose control group (19.6 ± 5.2 vs 21.0 ± 5.0, P = 0.04 and 28.8 ± 4.8 vs 30.9 ± 4.5, P < 0.001). HFS-II scores did not differ between the two groups. Internal MHLC score was negatively associated with HbA 1c (r = -0.15, P < 0.05) and positively associated with the number of mild and severe hypoglycaemic episodes (r = 0.16, P < 0.05 and r = 0.18, P < 0.001, respectively) and with DTSQ score (r = 0.17, P < 0.05). HFS-II score was negatively associated with DTSQ score (r = -0.18, P < 0.05) and positively with number of severe hypoglycaemic episodes (r = 0.16, P < 0.5)., Conclusions: In adults with Type 1 diabetes receiving continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, high internal locus represents the most important locus of control pattern for achieving good metabolic control., (© 2017 Diabetes UK.)

Aim: To assess the impact on fear of hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction with an artificial pancreas system used for 2 consecutive months, as well as participant acceptance of the artificial pancreas system., Methods: In a randomized crossover trial patient-related outcomes associated with an evening-and-night artificial pancreas and sensor-augmented pump therapy were compared. Both intervention periods lasted 8 weeks. The artificial pancreas acceptance questionnaire (range 0-90, higher scores better), Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey II (range 0-72, higher scores worse) and Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (range 0-36, higher scores better) were completed by 32 participants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after study completion in a subset of six participants. Outcomes were compared using a repeated-measures anova model or paired t-test when appropriate., Results: The total artificial pancreas acceptance questionnaire score at the end of the artificial pancreas period was 69.1 (sd 14.7; 95% CI 63.5, 74.7), indicating a positive attitude towards the artificial pancreas. No significant differences were found among the scores at baseline, end of sensor-augmented pump therapy period or end of the artificial pancreas period with regard to fear of hypoglycaemia [28.2 (sd 17.5), 23.5 (sd 16.6) and 23.5 (sd 16.7), respectively; P = 0.099] or diabetes treatment satisfaction [29.0 (sd 3.9), 28.2 (sd 5.2) and 28.0 (sd 7.1), respectively; P = 0.43]. Themes frequently mentioned in the interviews were 'positive effects at work', 'improved blood glucose', 'fewer worries about blood glucose', but also 'frequent alarms', 'technological issues' and 'demand for an all-in-one device'., Conclusions: The psychological outcomes of artificial pancreas and sensor-augmented pump therapy were similar. Current artificial pancreas technology is promising but user concerns should be taken into account to ensure utility of these systems., (© 2016 The Authors Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.)

Background: An artificial pancreas (AP) that can be worn at home from dinner to waking up in the morning might be safe and efficient for first routine use in patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effect on glucose control with use of an AP during the evening and night plus patient-managed sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) during the day, versus 24 h use of patient-managed SAP only, in free-living conditions., Methods: In a crossover study done in medical centres in France, Italy, and the Netherlands, patients aged 18-69 years with type 1 diabetes who used insulin pumps for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion were randomly assigned to 2 months of AP use from dinner to waking up plus SAP use during the day versus 2 months of SAP use only under free-living conditions. Randomisation was achieved with a computer-generated allocation sequence with random block sizes of two, four, or six, masked to the investigator. Patients and investigators were not masked to the type of intervention. The AP consisted of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and insulin pump connected to a modified smartphone with a model predictive control algorithm. The primary endpoint was the percentage of time spent in the target glucose concentration range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) from 2000 to 0800 h. CGM data for weeks 3-8 of the interventions were analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis including patients who completed at least 6 weeks of each intervention period. The 2 month study period also allowed us to asses HbA1c as one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02153190., Findings: During 2000-0800 h, the mean time spent in the target range was higher with AP than with SAP use: 66·7% versus 58·1% (paired difference 8·6% [95% CI 5·8 to 11·4], p<0·0001), through a reduction in both mean time spent in hyperglycaemia (glucose concentration >10·0 mmol/L; 31·6% vs 38·5%; -6·9% [-9·8% to -3·9], p<0·0001) and in hypoglycaemia (glucose concentration <3·9 mmol/L; 1·7% vs 3·0%; -1·6% [-2·3 to -1·0], p<0·0001). Decrease in mean HbA1c during the AP period was significantly greater than during the control period (-0·3% vs -0·2%; paired difference -0·2 [95% CI -0·4 to -0·0], p=0·047), taking a period effect into account (p=0·0034). No serious adverse events occurred during this study, and none of the mild-to-moderate adverse events was related to the study intervention., Interpretation: Our results support the use of AP at home as a safe and beneficial option for patients with type 1 diabetes. The HbA1c results are encouraging but preliminary., Funding: European Commission., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To test in an outpatient setting the safety and efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) driven by a modular model predictive control (MMPC) algorithm informed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measurement., Methods: 13 patients affected by type 1 diabetes participated to a non-randomized outpatient 42-h experiment that included two evening meals and overnight periods (in short, dinner & night periods). CSII was patient-driven during dinner & night period 1 and MMPC-driven during dinner&night period 2. The study was conducted in hotels, where patients could move around freely. A CGM system (G4 Platinum; Dexcom Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) and insulin pump (AccuChek Combo; Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) were connected wirelessly to a smartphone-based platform (DiAs, Diabetes Assistant; University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA) during both periods., Results: A significantly lower percentage of time spent with glucose levels <3.9 mmol/l was achieved in period 2 compared with period 1: 1.96 ± 4.56% vs 12.76 ± 15.84% (mean ± standard deviation, p < 0.01), together with a greater percentage of time spent in the 3.9-10 mmol/l target range: 83.56 ± 14.02% vs 62.43 ± 29.03% (p = 0.04). In addition, restricting the analysis to the overnight phases, a lower percentage of time spent with glucose levels <3.9 mmol/l (1.92 ± 4.89% vs 12.7 ± 19.75%; p = 0.03) was combined with a greater percentage of time spent in 3.9-10 mmol/l target range in period 2 compared with period 1 (92.16 ± 8.03% vs 63.97 ± 2.73%; p = 0.01). Average glucose levels were similar during both periods., Conclusions: The results suggest that MMPC managed by a wearable system is safe and effective during evening meal and overnight. Its sustained use during this period is currently being tested in an ongoing randomized 2-month study., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To assess the accuracy and reliability of the two most widely used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems., Methods: We studied the Dexcom®G4 Platinum (DG4P; Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA) and Medtronic Paradigm Veo Enlite system (ENL; Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) CGM systems, in 24 patients with type 1 diabetes. The CGM systems were tested during 6-day home use and a nested 6-h clinical research centre (CRC) visit. During the CRC visit, frequent venous blood glucose samples were used as reference while patients received a meal with an increased insulin bolus to induce an aggravated postprandial glucose nadir. At home, patients performed at least six reference capillary blood measurements per day. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed using all data points ≥15 min apart., Results: The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) value [standard deviation (s.d.)] measured at the CRC was 13.6 (11.0)% for the DG4P and 16.6 (13.5)% for the ENL [p < 0.0002, confidence interval of difference (CI Δ) 1.7-4.3%, n = 530]. The overall MARD assessed at home was 12.2 (12.0)% for the DG4P and 19.9 (20.5)% for the ENL (p < 0.0001, CI Δ = 5.8-8.7%, n = 839). During the CRC visit, the MARD in the hypoglycaemic range [≤3.9 mmol/l (70 mg/dl)], was 17.6 (12.2)% for the DG4P and 24.6 (18.8)% for the ENL (p = 0.005, CI Δ 3.1-10.7%, n = 117). Both sensors showed higher MARD values during hypoglycaemia than during euglycaemia [3.9-10 mmol/l (70-180 mg/dl)]: for the DG4P 17.6 versus 13.0% and for the ENL 24.6 versus 14.2%., Conclusions: During circumstances of intended use, including both a CRC and home phase, the ENL was noticeably less accurate than the DG4P sensor. Both sensors showed lower accuracy in the hypoglycaemic range. The DG4P was less affected by this negative effect of hypoglycaemia on sensor accuracy than was the ENL., (© 2014 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The Control to Range Study was a multinational artificial pancreas study designed to assess the time spent in the hypo- and hyperglycemic ranges in adults and adolescents with type 1 diabetes while under closed-loop control. The controller attempted to keep the glucose ranges between 70 and 180 mg/dL. A set of prespecified metrics was used to measure safety., Research Design and Methods: We studied 53 individuals for approximately 22 h each during clinical research center admissions. Plasma glucose level was measured every 15-30 min (YSI clinical laboratory analyzer instrument [YSI, Inc., Yellow Springs, OH]). During the admission, subjects received three mixed meals (1 g of carbohydrate/kg of body weight; 100 g maximum) with meal announcement and automated insulin dosing by the controller., Results: For adults, the mean of subjects' mean glucose levels was 159 mg/dL, and mean percentage of values 71-180 mg/dL was 66% overall (59% daytime and 82% overnight). For adolescents, the mean of subjects' mean glucose levels was 166 mg/dL, and mean percentage of values in range was 62% overall (53% daytime and 82% overnight). Whereas prespecified criteria for safety were satisfied by both groups, they were met at the individual level in adults only for combined daytime/nighttime and for isolated nighttime. Two adults and six adolescents failed to meet the daytime criterion, largely because of postmeal hyperglycemia, and another adolescent failed to meet the nighttime criterion., Conclusions: The control-to-range system performed as expected: faring better overnight than during the day and performing with variability between patients even after individualization based on patients' prior settings. The system had difficulty preventing postmeal excursions above target range.

Objective: This study assessed the accuracy and reliability of three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems., Research Design and Methods: We studied the Animas® (West Chester, PA) Vibe™ with Dexcom® (San Diego, CA) G4™ version A sensor (G4A), the Abbott Diabetes Care (Alameda, CA) Freestyle® Navigator I (NAV), and the Medtronic (Northridge, CA) Paradigm® with Enlite™ sensor (ENL) in 20 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. All systems were investigated both in a clinical research center (CRC) and at home. In the CRC, patients received a meal with a delayed and increased insulin dose to induce a postprandial glucose peak and nadir. Hereafter, randomization determined which two of the three systems would be worn at home until the end of functioning, attempting use beyond manufacturer-specified lifetime. Patients performed at least five reference finger sticks per day. An analysis of variance was performed on all data points ≥15 min apart., Results: Overall average mean absolute relative difference (MARD) (SD) measured at the CRC was 16.5% (14.3%) for NAV and 16.4% (15.6%) for ENL, outperforming G4A at 20.5% (18.2%) (P<0.001). Overall MARD when assessed at home was 14.5% (16.7%) for NAV and 16.5 (18.8%) for G4A, outperforming ENL at 18.9% (23.6%) (P=0.006). Median time until end of functioning was similar: 10.0 (1.0) days for G4A, 8.0 (3.5) days for NAV, and 8.0 (1.5) days for ENL (P=0.119)., Conclusions: In the CRC, G4A was less accurate than NAV and ENL sensors, which seemed comparable. However, at home, ENL was less accurate than NAV and G4A. Moreover, CGM systems often show sufficient accuracy to be used beyond manufacturer-specified lifetime.

Diabet. Med. 28, 1158-1167 (2011) Abstract Aims To investigate the efficacy of sensor-augmented pump therapy vs. multiple daily injection therapy in patients with suboptimally controlled Type 1 diabetes. Methods In this investigator-initiated multi-centre trial (the Eurythmics Trial) in eight outpatient centres in Europe, we randomized 83 patients with Type 1 diabetes (40 women) currently treated with multiple daily injections, age 18-65 years and HbA1c≥ 8.2% (≥ 66 mmol/mol) to 26 weeks of treatment with either a sensor-augmented insulin pump ( n = 44) (Paradigm® REAL-Time) or continued with multiple daily injections ( n = 39). Change in HbA1c between baseline and 26 weeks, sensor-derived endpoints and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. Results The trial was completed by 43/44 (98%) patients in the sensor-augmented insulin pump group and 35/39 (90%) patients in the multiple daily injections group. Mean HbA1c at baseline and at 26 weeks changed from 8.46% ( sd 0.95) (69 mmol/mol) to 7.23% ( sd 0.65) (56 mmol/mol) in the sensor-augmented insulin pump group and from 8.59% ( sd 0.82) (70 mmol/mol) to 8.46% ( sd 1.04) (69 mmol/mol) in the multiple daily injections group. Mean difference in change in HbA1c after 26 weeks was −1.21% (95% confidence interval −1.52 to −0.90, P < 0.001) in favour of the sensor-augmented insulin pump group. This was achieved without an increase in percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia: between-group difference 0.0% (95% confidence interval −1.6 to 1.7, P = 0.96). There were four episodes of severe hypoglycaemia in the sensor-augmented insulin pump group and one episode in the multiple daily injections group ( P = 0.21). Problem Areas in Diabetes and Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores improved in the sensor-augmented insulin pump group. Conclusions Sensor augmented pump therapy effectively lowers HbA1c in patients with Type 1 diabetes suboptimally controlled with multiple daily injections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims The aim of this case–control study was to compare quality of life (QoL) and treatment satisfaction in adults with Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) treated with either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) or multiple daily injections (MDI). Methods Consecutive patients aged between 18 and 55 years, and attending diabetes clinics for a routine visit, completed the Diabetes-Specific Quality-of-Life Scale (DSQOLS), the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) and the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36). Case (CSII) and control subjects (MDI) were recruited in a 1 : 2 ratio. Results Overall, 1341 individuals were enrolled by 62 diabetes clinics; 481 were cases and 860 control subjects. Cases had a longer diabetes duration and were more likely to have eye and renal complications. Age, school education, occupation and HbA1c were similar. Of control subjects, 90% followed glargine-based MDI regimens and 10% used NPH-based MDI regimens. On multivariate analysis, after adjusting for socioeconomic and clinical characteristics, scores in the following areas of the DSQOLS were higher in cases than control subjects: diet restrictions (β = 5.96; P < 0.0001), daily hassles (β = 3.57; P = 0.01) and fears about hypoglycaemia (β = 3.88; P = 0.006). Treatment with CSII was also associated with a markedly higher DTSQ score (β = 4.13; P < 0.0001) compared with MDI. Results were similar when CSII was compared separately with glargine- or NPH-based MDI regimens. Conclusions This large, non-randomized, case–control study suggests quality of life gains deriving from greater lifestyle flexibility, less fear of hypoglycaemia, and higher treatment satisfaction, when CSII is compared with either glargine-based or NPH-based MDI regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims The goal of the study was to determine whether continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) differs from a multiple daily injection (MDI) regimen based on neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) as basal insulin with respect to glycaemic control and quality of life in people with Type 1 diabetes. Methods The 5-Nations trial was a randomized, controlled, crossover trial conducted in 11 European centres. Two hundred and seventy-two patients were treated with CSII or MDI during a 2-month run-in period followed by a 6-month treatment period, respectively. The quality of glycaemic control was assessed by HbA1c, blood glucose values, and the frequency of hypoglycaemic events. For the evaluation of the quality of life, three different self-report questionnaires have been assessed. Results CSII treatment resulted in lower HbA1c (7.45 vs. 7.67%, P < 0.001), mean blood glucose level (8.6 vs. 9.4 mmol/l, P < 0.001) and less fluctuation in blood glucose levels than MDI ( ± 3.9 vs. ± 4.3 mmol/l, P < 0.001). There was a marked reduction in the frequency of hypoglycaemic events using CSII compared with MDI, with an incidence ratio of 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08–1.17] and 2.61 (95% CI: 1.59–4.29) for mild and severe hypoglycaemia, respectively. The overall score of the diabetes quality of life questionnaire was higher for CSII ( P < 0.001), and an improvement in pump users’ perception of mental health was detected when using the SF-12 questionnaire ( P < 0.05). Conclusion CSII usage offers significant benefits over NPH-based MDI for individuals with Type 1 diabetes, with improvement in all significant metabolic parameters as well as in patients’ quality of life. Additional studies are needed to compare CSII with glargine- and detemir-based MDI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]