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)

Introduction The shape of the glucose curve during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) reflects β-cell function in populations without diabetes but has not been as well studied in those with diabetes. A monophasic shape has been associated with higher risk of diabetes, while a biphasic pattern has been associated with lower risk. We sought to determine if phenotypic or metabolic characteristics were associated with glucose response curve shape in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin alone.Research design and methods This is a cross-sectional analysis of 3108 metformin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes diagnosed

Objective: We captured continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics from a large online survey of adults with type 1 diabetes to determine how glycemic outcomes varied by insulin delivery form., Research Design and Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes from the T1D Exchange Registry/online communities completed the survey and contributed retrospective CGM data for up to 1 year. Self-reported glycemic outcomes and CGM measures were described overall and by insulin delivery method., Results: The 926 participants completed the survey and provided CGM data. Mean ± SD age was 41.9 ± 15.7 years, and 50.8% reported using automated insulin delivery (AID). While AID users spent more time in range, 27.9% did not achieve time in range targets, 15.5% reported severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs), and 16.0% had CGM-detected level 2 hypoglycemic events., Conclusions: Despite use of diabetes technologies, many individuals are unable to achieve glycemic targets and experience severe hypoglycemia, highlighting the need for novel treatments., (©2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To evaluate whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic patterns observed throughout pregnancy were associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, specifically fetal growth disorders and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP)., Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of individuals with viable singleton pregnancies and screening hemoglobin A 1c levels less than 6.5%. Those with preexisting diabetes were excluded. Enrollment occurred at the earliest gestational age before 17 weeks. Participants wore blinded continuous glucose monitors consecutively as willing until delivery. Those with at least 14 days of CGM data were included in analysis. Rates of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates, small-for-gestational age (SGA) neonates, and HDP were assessed. Continuous glucose monitoring-derived glycemic metrics were calculated, including mean glucose level and percent time above and below thresholds. Two-sample t tests were used to compare glycemic metrics between participants with and without adverse perinatal outcomes., Results: Of 937 participants enrolled, 760 met inclusion criteria. Those delivering LGA neonates or who were diagnosed with HDP had higher mean glucose levels (102±9 vs 100±8, P =.01 and 103±8 vs 99±8, P <.001) and spent more time above 120 mg/dL (median 16% vs 12%, P =.006, and 16% vs 12%, P <.001, respectively) and above 140 mg/dL (median 3.9% vs 2.8%, P =.006, and 3.5% vs 2.8%, P <.001, respectively) throughout gestation than those without these outcomes. These findings were present regardless of gestational diabetes mellitus status. Participants with SGA neonates had lower mean glucose levels (97±7 vs 101±8, P =.01) and spent less time above 140 mg/dL (median 1.6% vs 2.3%, P =.01) and more time below 63 mg/dL (median 3.0% vs 2.3%, P =.02) than those without SGA neonates., Conclusion: Individuals with LGA neonates or HDP exhibit a slightly higher mean glucose levels and spend more time hyperglycemic in early pregnancy than those who do not experience these outcomes., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Celeste Durnwald reports advisory work for Dexcom for GDM patient facing materials and system implementation. Money was paid to her institution from the Jaeb Center for Health Research. Roy W. Beck reports no personal financial disclosures but reports that his institution has received funding on his behalf as follows: grant funding and study supplies from Dexcom. Rich M. Bergenstal has received research support, has acted as a consultant, or has been on the scientific advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia, Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., CeQur, DexCom, Eli Lilly, Embecta, Hygieia, Insulet, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Onduo, Roche Diabetes Care, Tandem Diabetes Care, Sanofi, United Healthcare, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Zealand Pharma. Rich M. Bergenstal's employer, non-profit HealthPartners Institute, contracts for his services and he receives no personal income for any of these activities. ALC reports no personal financial disclosures but reports that his institution has received funding on his behalf as follows; research support from Medtronic, Tandem, Insulet, Abbott, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk, Sanofi and United Health Group and consultancy fees from Mannkind and NovoNordisk. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the performance of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-measured glycemic metrics in predicting development of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and select perinatal complications. Research Methods: In a prospective observational study, CGM data were collected from 760 pregnant females throughout gestation after study enrollment. GDM was diagnosed using the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24-34 weeks of gestation. Predictive models were built using logistic and elastic net regression. Predictive performance was assessed by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Results: The AUROCs of using second trimester percent time >140 mg/dL (TA140) and week 13-14 TA140 in predicting GDM were 0.81 and 0.74, respectively. The AUROCs for predicting large-for-gestational-age (LGA) births and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) using second trimester TA140 were both 0.58. When matching the specificity of OGTT, a model using TA140 in weeks 13-14 achieved similar sensitivity to OGTT in predicting HDP (13% vs. 10%, respectively) and LGA (6% for both methods). Elastic net also demonstrated similar AUROC and diagnostic performance with no meaningful improvement by using multiple predictors. Conclusion: CGM-measured hyperglycemic metrics such as TA140 predicted GDM with high AUROCs as early as 13-14 weeks of gestation. These metrics were also similar statistically to the OGTT at 24-34 weeks in predicting perinatal complications, although sensitivity was low for both. CGM could potentially be used as an early screening tool for elevated hyperglycemia during gestation, which could be used in addition to or instead of the OGTT.

Objective: To determine how diabetes technologies, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, impact glycemic metrics, prevalence of severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs), and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) in people with type 1 diabetes in a real-world setting within the U.S., Research Design and Methods: In this retrospective, observational study with cross-sectional elements, participants aged ≥18 years were enrolled from the T1D Exchange Registry/online community. Participants completed a one-time online survey describing glycemic metrics, SHEs, and IAH. The primary objective was to determine the proportions of participants who reported achieving glycemic targets (assessed according to self-reported hemoglobin A1c) and had SHEs and/or IAH. We performed additional subgroup analyses focusing on the impact of CGM and insulin delivery modality., Results: A total of 2,074 individuals with type 1 diabetes were enrolled (mean ± SD age 43.0 ± 15.6 years and duration of type 1 diabetes 26.3 ± 15.3 years). The majority of participants (91.7%) were using CGM, with one-half (50.8%) incorporating AID. Despite high use of diabetes technologies, only 57.7% reported achieving glycemic targets (hemoglobin A1c <7%). SHEs and IAH still occurred, with ∼20% of respondents experiencing at least one SHE within the prior 12 months and 30.7% (95% CI 28.7, 32.7) reporting IAH, regardless of CGM or AID use., Conclusions: Despite use of advanced diabetes technologies, a high proportion of people with type 1 diabetes do not achieve glycemic targets and continue to experience SHEs and IAH, suggesting an ongoing need for improved treatment strategies., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Aims: To assess if the risk of all-cause mortality increases in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with increasing number of severe hypoglycaemia episodes requiring hospitalization., Materials and Methods: We conducted a national retrospective observational cohort study in people with T1D (diagnosed between 2000 and 2018). Clinical, comorbidity and demographic variables were assessed for impact on mortality for people with no, one, two and three or more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization. The time to death (all-cause mortality) from the timepoint of the last episode of severe hypoglycaemia was modelled using a parametric survival model., Results: A total of 8224 people had a T1D diagnosis in Wales during the study period. The mortality rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 6.9 (6.1-7.8) deaths/ 1000 person-years (crude) and 15.31 (13.3-17.63) deaths/ 1000 person-years (age-adjusted) for those with no occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization. For those with one episode of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization the mortality rate (95% CI) was 24.9 (21.0-29.6; crude) and 53.8 (44.6-64.7) deaths/ 1000 person-years (age-adjusted), for those with two episodes of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization it was 28.0 (23.1-34.0; crude) and 72.8 (59.2-89.5) deaths/ 1000 person-years (age-adjusted), and for those with three or more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization it was 33.5 (30.0-37.3; crude) and 86.3 (71.7-103.9) deaths/ 1000 person years (age-adjusted; P < 0.001). A parametric survival model showed that having two episodes of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization was the strongest predictor for time to death (accelerated failure time coefficient 0.073 [95% CI 0.009-0.565]), followed by having one episode of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization (0.126 [0.036-0.438]) and age at most recent episode of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization (0.917 [0.885-0.951])., Conclusions: The strongest predictor for time to death was having two or more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia requiring hospitalization., (© 2023 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Diabetes Technology Society assembled a panel of clinician experts in diabetology, cardiology, clinical chemistry, nephrology, and primary care to review the current evidence on biomarker screening of people with diabetes (PWD) for heart failure (HF), who are, by definition, at risk for HF (Stage A HF). This consensus report reviews features of HF in PWD from the perspectives of 1) epidemiology, 2) classification of stages, 3) pathophysiology, 4) biomarkers for diagnosing, 5) biomarker assays, 6) diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers, 7) benefits of biomarker screening, 8) consensus recommendations for biomarker screening, 9) stratification of Stage B HF, 10) echocardiographic screening, 11) management of Stage A and Stage B HF, and 12) future directions. The Diabetes Technology Society panel recommends 1) biomarker screening with one of two circulating natriuretic peptides (B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide), 2) beginning screening five years following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and at the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D), 3) beginning routine screening no earlier than at age 30 years for T1D (irrespective of age of diagnosis) and at any age for T2D, 4) screening annually, and 5) testing any time of day. The panel also recommends that an abnormal biomarker test defines asymptomatic preclinical HF (Stage B HF). This diagnosis requires follow-up using transthoracic echocardiography for classification into one of four subcategories of Stage B HF, corresponding to risk of progression to symptomatic clinical HF (Stage C HF). These recommendations will allow identification and management of Stage A and Stage B HF in PWD to prevent progression to Stage C HF or advanced HF (Stage D HF)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interests APandey has received research support from the National Institute on Aging GEMSSTAR Grant (1R03AG067960-01), and the National Institute on Minority Health and Disparities (R01MD017529). APandey has received grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; has received honoraria outside of the present study as an advisor/consultant for Tricog Health Inc., Lilly USA, Rivus, Cytokinetics, Pieces Technologies, and Roche Diagnostics, and has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck. APandey is also a consultant for Palomarin Inc. with stock compensation. CMR has received funding from AstraZeneca, Dexcom Inc., Fresenius, Nutricia, and Recor. VNS' employer, University of Colorado, receives research support from Sanofi, NovoNordisk, Insulet, Dexcom, Tandem Diabetes Care, JDRF and NIH, and received honorarium from Dexcom, Insulet, NovoNordisk, Medscape, Lifescan and Tandem Diabetes Care for speaking or advisory role. ABG has received honoraria for lectures/ advisory boards from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehirnger Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor. JB is a consultant for Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, American Regent, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVRx, G3 Pharma, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Occlutech, Relypsa, Roche, Sequana, and Vifor. RMB has received research support, has acted as a consultant, or has been on the scientific advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia, Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., CeQur, DexCom, Eli Lilly, Hygieia, Insulet, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Onduo, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, United Healthcare, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Zealand Pharma. RMB's employer, non-profit HealthPartners Institute, contracts for his services for which he receives no personal income. SJG has received research support from the Duke University Department of Medicine Chair's Research Award, American Heart Association (#929502), Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; has served on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, scPharmaceuticals, and Sanofi; has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Cytokinetics; and serves as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corteria Pharmaceuticals, CSL Vifor, Merck, PharmaIN, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Tricog Health, and Urovant Pharmaceuticals. MNK is a consultant or on the advisory board for Alnylam, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma, and Youngene. MNK received other research support from Astra Zeneca. MNK received honorariums from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. LAL has received research funding from, has provided CME on behalf of and/or has acted as an advisor to Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Esperion, HLS, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi and Servier and is on a DSMB for Applied Therapeutics. BM was speaker honorarium and member of advisory board of Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk. CM serves or has served on the advisory panel for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Medtronic, ActoBio Therapeutics, Pfizer, Imcyse, Insulet, Zealand Pharma, Avotres, Mannkind, Sandoz and Vertex. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven; KU Leuven has received research support for CM from Medtronic, Imcyse, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and ActoBio Therapeutics; CM serves or has served on the speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca and Novartis. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven. TWM provides research support and speaking support for Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Lilly Diabetes, and Sanofi; research support for Insulet Corporation and Novo Nordisk; and is on the advisory panel for Dexcom and Medscape. All funds from all activities are managed by his employer, non-profit HealthPartners Institute dba International Diabetes Center and TWM receives no personal income from these activities. VM has acted as consultant and speaker, received research or educational grants from Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, MSD, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lifescan J & J, Roche Diagnostics, Abbott, USV, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Sun Pharma and from several Indian pharmaceutical companies. KVP has served as a consultant to Novo Nordisk. APeters received research support from Abbott, Dexcom, and Insulet; was on the advisory board for Zealand, Vertez, and Medscape; and has stock options in Omada/Teladoc. YS was on the advisory board for Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics and was a a speaker for Roche Diagnostics. YS has a patent: 20210401347. JJS is faculty at Lifescan Diabetes Institute. GU has received research grant support from Dexcom and Abbott. GU's employer, Emory University, has received funding from Bayer. DCK is a consultant for EOFlow, Integrity, Lifecare, Rockley Photonics, and Thirdwayv. AMY, JH, DK, RP-B, LB, YMB, GAF, GG, ER, GMCR, DBS, KW, EEW, and AHBW have nothing relevant to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Automated insulin delivery systems are associated with improved glycemic outcomes for patients with diabetes. Ultrarapid lispro (URLi), which has an accelerated pharmacokinetic profile and shows superior postprandial glucose control compared to lispro (Humalog ® ), is a potential candidate for use in these systems. Methods: In this double-blind, crossover trial over two 4-week treatment periods, we evaluated URLi in a hybrid closed-loop system using the Medtronic MiniMed™ 670G system (670G). After a 2-week lead-in on lispro, 42 adults with type 1 diabetes were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences of URLi and lispro delivered via the 670G. Primary endpoint was the percentage of time with glucose values within target range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL; %TIR). Results: Both treatments achieved %TIR over the 24-h period that was above the 70% minimum recommended by the International Consensus Guidance: URLi, 77.0%; lispro, 77.8%; P  = 0.339. %Time <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) was similar between treatments (URLi, 0.3%; lispro, 0.4%; P  = 0.548) and %time <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) was lower with URLi (1.5%) versus lispro (2.2%); P  = 0.009, while %time >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) was higher with URLi (21.5% [309.4 min] vs. 19.9% [287.2 min]; P  = 0.088). Mean sensor glucose was significantly higher with URLi versus lispro with least squares mean difference of 0.17 mmol/L or 3.0 mg/dL ( P  = 0.011) between treatments. Insulin dose, %time in Auto Mode per week, and pump settings were similar between treatments. No serious adverse events (AEs) (including severe hypoglycemia) or discontinuations occurred, and the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was similar between treatments. Although the overall incidence and rate of unplanned infusion set changes were similar between treatments, a significantly higher rate of unplanned infusion set changes due to infusion site reactions was seen during URLi treatment compared with lispro: 0.12 versus 0.00 events/30 days ( P  = 0.063). Conclusions: URLi demonstrated good glycemic control that was comparable to lispro and showed a similar safety profile to lispro with the 670G hybrid closed-loop system. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03760640.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunct dapagliflozin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D)., Materials and Methods: DEPICT-1 and -2 were randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week studies, with 28-week extension periods. Adults with T1D and HbA1c 7.5%-10.5% were randomized (1:1:1) to receive dapagliflozin 5 mg, 10 mg or placebo. The short- and long-term efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were examined in an exploratory pooled analysis of both studies., Results: Efficacy analyses included 530, 529 and 532 and safety analysis included 548, 566 and 532 patients in the dapagliflozin 5 mg, 10 mg and placebo groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. At week 24, reductions were seen with dapagliflozin 5 and 10 mg compared with placebo in HbA1c (-0.40%, -0.43% vs. 0.00%) and body weight (-2.45, -2.91 vs. 0.11 kg). HbA1c and body weight reductions versus placebo were also seen after 52 weeks of treatment. There was no imbalance in occurrence of severe hypoglycaemic events between groups. The proportion of patients experiencing definite diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was higher with dapagliflozin 5 mg (4.0%) and 10 mg (3.5%) compared with placebo (1.1%) over 52 weeks; most events were of mild or moderate severity, and all resolved with treatment., Conclusions: Over 52 weeks, dapagliflozin provided glycaemic and weight benefits, with no increased frequency of severe hypoglycaemia compared with placebo. More DKA events were reported with dapagliflozin than placebo, highlighting the importance of appropriate patient selection, education and risk-mitigation strategies., (© 2020 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Suboptimal glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is known to lead to long-term micro- and macrovascular complications and, unfortunately, it is still prevalent even in the most affluent societies. Although glycated haemoglobin monitoring is considered to be the gold standard for assessing glycaemic control, such monitoring is unable to reliably measure acute glycaemic excursions. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glucose control and reduce the incidence of hypoglycaemia, and also allow a more complete assessment of overall glycaemic control and hyper- and hypoglycaemic excursions. The use of CGM has led to time-in-range, which is the time that a patient is within the glycaemic range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, to be adopted as a treatment target. To date, only limited data comparing the second-generation insulins glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg-100) in people with T1D are available, and there is no CGM literature on comparisons of the use of CGM results to assess primary, secondary and tertiary endpoints. The aim of the InRange study was to address this unmet need., Methods: InRange is a multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, 12-week, open-label, phase 4, comparative study. Adults with T1D will be randomised to receive once-daily Gla-300 or IDeg-100 by subcutaneous injection in the morning. Following an 8-week titration period, CGM data will be collected over 20 consecutive days., Planned Outcomes: The primary objective is to demonstrate that Gla-300 is noninferior to IDeg-100 in terms of glycaemic control [time-in-range ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dL (≥ 3.9 to ≤ 10 mmol/L)] and variability, as assessed using CGM, in adults with T1D. The results are expected to help confirm the utility of CGM in clinical practice in this population and provide insight into its application as an outcome measure in clinical practice., Trial Registration: NCT04075513.

Context: Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasing for insulin-requiring patients with diabetes. Although data on glycemic profiles of healthy, nondiabetic individuals exist for older sensors, assessment of glycemic metrics with new-generation CGM devices is lacking., Objective: To establish reference sensor glucose ranges in healthy, nondiabetic individuals across different age groups using a current generation CGM sensor., Design: Multicenter, prospective study., Setting: Twelve centers within the T1D Exchange Clinic Network., Patients or Participants: Nonpregnant, healthy, nondiabetic children and adults (age ≥6 years) with nonobese body mass index., Intervention: Each participant wore a blinded Dexcom G6 CGM, with once-daily calibration, for up to 10 days., Main Outcome Measures: CGM metrics of mean glucose, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability., Results: A total of 153 participants (age 7 to 80 years) were included in the analyses. Mean average glucose was 98 to 99 mg/dL (5.4 to 5.5 mmol/L) for all age groups except those over 60 years, in whom mean average glucose was 104 mg/dL (5.8 mmol/L). The median time between 70 to 140 mg/dL (3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L) was 96% (interquartile range, 93 to 98). Mean within-individual coefficient of variation was 17 ± 3%. Median time spent with glucose levels >140 mg/dL was 2.1% (30 min/d), and median time spent with glucose levels <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) was 1.1% (15 min/d)., Conclusion: By assessing across age groups in a healthy, nondiabetic population, normative sensor glucose data have been derived and will be useful as a benchmark for future research studies., (Copyright © 2019 Endocrine Society.)

Objective: To provide a snapshot of the profile of adults and youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States and assessment of longitudinal changes in T1D management and clinical outcomes in the T1D Exchange registry., Research Design and Methods: Data on diabetes management and outcomes from 22,697 registry participants (age 1-93 years) were collected between 2016 and 2018 and compared with data collected in 2010-2012 for 25,529 registry participants., Results: Mean HbA1c in 2016-2018 increased from 65 mmol/mol at the age of 5 years to 78 mmol/mol between ages 15 and 18, with a decrease to 64 mmol/mol by age 28 and 58-63 mmol/mol beyond age 30. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) HbA1c goal of <58 mmol/mol for youth was achieved by only 17% and the goal of <53 mmol/mol for adults by only 21%. Mean HbA1c levels changed little between 2010-2012 and 2016-2018, except in adolescents who had a higher mean HbA1c in 2016-2018. Insulin pump use increased from 57% in 2010-2012 to 63% in 2016-2018. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) increased from 7% in 2010-2012 to 30% in 2016-2018, rising >10-fold in children <12 years old. HbA1c levels were lower in CGM users than nonusers. Severe hypoglycemia was most frequent in participants ≥50 years old and diabetic ketoacidosis was most common in adolescents and young adults. Racial differences were evident in use of pumps and CGM and HbA1c levels., Conclusions: Data from the T1D Exchange registry demonstrate that only a minority of adults and youth with T1D in the United States achieve ADA goals for HbA1c.

Background Blood pressure ( BP ) treatment goals in patients with diabetes mellitus and increased cardiovascular risk remain controversial. Our study objective was to determine cardiovascular outcomes according to achieved BP s over the average follow-up period in the EXAMINE (Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes With Alogliptin Versus Standard of Care) trial. Methods and Results EXAMINE was a cardiovascular outcomes trial in 5380 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and recent acute coronary syndromes. Risks of major adverse cardiac events and cardiovascular death or heart failure were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model with adjustment for baseline covariates in 10-mm Hg increments of clinician-measured systolic BP from ≤100 to >160 mm Hg and diastolic BP from ≤60 to >100 mm Hg averaged during the 24 months after randomization. Based on 2015 guidelines from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association and the American Society of Hypertension and 2017 American Diabetes Association guidelines, systolic BP s of 131 to 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP s of 81 to 90 mm Hg were the reference groups. A U-shaped relationship between cardiovascular outcomes and BP s was observed. Importantly, compared with the systolic BP reference group, adjusted hazard ratios for major adverse cardiac events and cardiovascular death or heart failure were significantly higher in patients with systolic BP s <130 mm Hg. Similarly, compared with the diastolic BP reference group, adjusted hazard ratios for major adverse cardiac events and for cardiovascular death or heart failure were significantly higher for diastolic BP s <80 mm Hg. Conclusions In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and recent acute coronary syndrome, average BP s <130/80 mm Hg were associated with worsened cardiovascular outcomes. These data suggest that intensive control of BP in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease should be evaluated in a prospective randomized trial. Clinical Trial Registration URL : https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 00968708.

Background: Diabetes care is predominately done at home by the patient. When clinics do not have a reliable, easy process for obtaining this patient data, clinical decisions must be made with incomplete verbal recall reports. Unused or inaccessible glucose data represent a large information gap affecting clinical decision making. This study's purpose was to design an optimized glucose device download system with a standardized report and to evaluate its efficiency., Methods: Observations and evaluations of glucose data retrieval occurred at two clinics; an additional clinic utilized the optimized process doing only post process timings. Patients/families and clinicians were surveyed about their experiences with the system and the standardized report (AGP). The study was approved by all the sites' IRBs., Results: Optimized systems saved staff at least 3 min per patient. Standardized AGP reports and an optimized data system made the work flow of glucose data easier to complete. The AGP report was preferred by patients, families, and clinicians., Conclusions: An optimized system takes advantage of patient lobby downtime to download glucose devices and ensures that diabetes clinical decisions are made utilizing all available data. Staff and patients liked the software lobby system and found it a valuable time-saving tool.

Aims: We sought to assess the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by utilizing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndrome., Materials and Methods: Study participants enrolled in the EXAMINE trial (Clinical trials registration number: NCT00968708) and were stratified by baseline hsCRP levels (<1, 1-3 and >3 mg/L). They were also sub-divided into 4 groups according to baseline hsCRP (≤3 or >3 mg/L) and achieved LDL-C (<70 or ≥70 mg/dL) levels. Among 5380 patients, the MACE rate, a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke, was evaluated during the 30 months of follow-up., Results: Cumulative incidence of MACE was 11.5% (119 events), 14.6% (209 events) and 18.4% (287 events) in patients with hsCRP levels of <1, 1 to 3 and >3 mg/L, respectively (P < .001). In patients with hsCRP >3 mg/L, the adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) was 1.42 (1.13, 1.78; P = .002) for MACE compared with patients with hsCRP <1 mg/L. MACE cumulative incidences were 11.0% (128 events), 14.4% (100 events), 15.6% (194 events) and 21.3% (182 events) in patients with low LDL-C and low hsCRP, low LDL-C and high hsCRP, high LDL-C and low hsCRP, and high LDL-C and high hsCRP levels, respectively (P < .001)., Conclusions: Levels of hsCRP were associated with recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndrome, and this association appears to be independent of and additive to the achieved LDL-C level., (© 2017 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which studies have shown is beneficial for adults with type 1 diabetes, has not been well-evaluated in those with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin., Objective: To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily injections of insulin., Design: Randomized clinical trial. (The protocol also included a type 1 diabetes cohort in a parallel trial and subsequent second trial.) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02282397)., Setting: 25 endocrinology practices in North America., Patients: 158 adults who had had type 2 diabetes for a median of 17 years (interquartile range, 11 to 23 years). Participants were aged 35 to 79 years (mean, 60 years [SD, 10]), were receiving multiple daily injections of insulin, and had hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels of 7.5% to 9.9% (mean, 8.5%)., Intervention: Random assignment to CGM (n = 79) or usual care (control group, n = 79)., Measurements: The primary outcome was HbA1c reduction at 24 weeks., Results: Mean HbA1c levels decreased to 7.7% in the CGM group and 8.0% in the control group at 24 weeks (adjusted difference in mean change, -0.3% [95% CI, -0.5% to 0.0%]; P = 0.022). The groups did not differ meaningfully in CGM-measured hypoglycemia or quality-of-life outcomes. The CGM group averaged 6.7 days (SD, 0.9) of CGM use per week., Limitation: 6-month follow-up., Conclusion: A high percentage of adults who received multiple daily insulin injections for type 2 diabetes used CGM on a daily or near-daily basis for 24 weeks and had improved glycemic control. Because few insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes currently use CGM, these results support an additional management method that may benefit these patients., Primary Funding Source: Dexcom.

Thanks to significant improvements in the precision, accuracy, and usability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), its relevance in both ambulatory diabetes care and clinical research is increasing. In this study, we address the latter perspective and derive provisional reporting recommendations. CGM systems have been available since around the year 2000 and used primarily in people with type 1 diabetes. In contrast to self-measured glucose, CGM can provide continuous real-time measurement of glucose levels, alerts for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and a detailed assessment of glycemic variability. Through a broad spectrum of derived glucose data, CGM should be a useful tool for clinical evaluation of new glucose-lowering medications and strategies. It is the only technology that can measure hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic exposure in ambulatory care, or provide data for comprehensive assessment of glucose variability. Other advantages of current CGM systems include the opportunity for improved self-management of glycemic control, with particular relevance to those at higher risk of or from hypoglycemia. We therefore summarize the current status and limitations of CGM from the perspective of clinical trials and derive suggested recommendations for how these should facilitate optimal CGM use and reporting of data in clinical research.

Importance: Previous clinical trials showing the benefit of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the management of type 1 diabetes predominantly have included adults using insulin pumps, even though the majority of adults with type 1 diabetes administer insulin by injection., Objective: To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin injections., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted between October 2014 and May 2016 at 24 endocrinology practices in the United States that included 158 adults with type 1 diabetes who were using multiple daily insulin injections and had hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels of 7.5% to 9.9%., Interventions: Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 105) or usual care (control group; n = 53)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measure was the difference in change in central-laboratory-measured HbA1c level from baseline to 24 weeks. There were 18 secondary or exploratory end points, of which 15 are reported in this article, including duration of hypoglycemia at less than 70 mg/dL, measured with CGM for 7 days at 12 and 24 weeks., Results: Among the 158 randomized participants (mean age, 48 years [SD, 13]; 44% women; mean baseline HbA1c level, 8.6% [SD, 0.6%]; and median diabetes duration, 19 years [interquartile range, 10-31 years]), 155 (98%) completed the study. In the CGM group, 93% used CGM 6 d/wk or more in month 6. Mean HbA1c reduction from baseline was 1.1% at 12 weeks and 1.0% at 24 weeks in the CGM group and 0.5% and 0.4%, respectively, in the control group (repeated-measures model P < .001). At 24 weeks, the adjusted treatment-group difference in mean change in HbA1c level from baseline was -0.6% (95% CI, -0.8% to -0.3%; P < .001). Median duration of hypoglycemia at less than <70 mg/dL was 43 min/d (IQR, 27-69) in the CGM group vs 80 min/d (IQR, 36-111) in the control group (P = .002). Severe hypoglycemia events occurred in 2 participants in each group., Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with type 1 diabetes who used multiple daily insulin injections, the use of CGM compared with usual care resulted in a greater decrease in HbA1c level during 24 weeks. Further research is needed to assess longer-term effectiveness, as well as clinical outcomes and adverse effects., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02282397.

Importance: Weight loss of 5% to 10% can improve type 2 diabetes and related comorbidities. Few safe, effective weight-management drugs are currently available., Objective: To investigate efficacy and safety of liraglutide vs placebo for weight management in adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes., Design, Setting, and Participants: Fifty-six-week randomized (2:1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial with 12-week observational off-drug follow-up period. The study was conducted at 126 sites in 9 countries between June 2011 and January 2013. Of 1361 participants assessed for eligibility, 846 were randomized. Inclusion criteria were body mass index of 27.0 or greater, age 18 years or older, taking 0 to 3 oral hypoglycemic agents (metformin, thiazolidinedione, sulfonylurea) with stable body weight, and glycated hemoglobin level 7.0% to 10.0%., Interventions: Once-daily, subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) (n = 423), liraglutide (1.8 mg) (n = 211), or placebo (n = 212), all as adjunct to 500 kcal/d dietary deficit and increased physical activity (≥150 min/wk)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Three coprimary end points: relative change in weight, proportion of participants losing 5% or more, or more than 10%, of baseline weight at week 56., Results: Baseline weight was 105.7 kg with liraglutide (3.0-mg dose), 105.8 kg with liraglutide (1.8-mg dose), and 106.5 kg with placebo. Weight loss was 6.0% (6.4 kg) with liraglutide (3.0-mg dose), 4.7% (5.0 kg) with liraglutide (1.8-mg dose), and 2.0% (2.2 kg) with placebo (estimated difference for liraglutide [3.0 mg] vs placebo, -4.00% [95% CI, -5.10% to -2.90%]; liraglutide [1.8 mg] vs placebo, -2.71% [95% CI, -4.00% to -1.42%]; P < .001 for both). Weight loss of 5% or greater occurred in 54.3% with liraglutide (3.0 mg) and 40.4% with liraglutide (1.8 mg) vs 21.4% with placebo (estimated difference for liraglutide [3.0 mg] vs placebo, 32.9% [95% CI, 24.6% to 41.2%]; for liraglutide [1.8 mg] vs placebo, 19.0% [95% CI, 9.1% to 28.8%]; P < .001 for both). Weight loss greater than 10% occurred in 25.2% with liraglutide (3.0 mg) and 15.9% with liraglutide (1.8 mg) vs 6.7% with placebo (estimated difference for liraglutide [3.0 mg] vs placebo, 18.5% [95% CI, 12.7% to 24.4%], P < .001; for liraglutide [1.8 mg] vs placebo, 9.3% [95% CI, 2.7% to 15.8%], P = .006). More gastrointestinal disorders were reported with liraglutide (3.0 mg) vs liraglutide (1.8 mg) and placebo. No pancreatitis was reported., Conclusions and Relevance: Among overweight and obese participants with type 2 diabetes, use of subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) daily, compared with placebo, resulted in weight loss over 56 weeks. Further studies are needed to evaluate longer-term efficacy and safety., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT01272232.

Objective: Glycemic variability may contribute to adverse medical outcomes of type 2 diabetes, but prior therapies have had limited success in controlling glycemic fluctuations, and the hypothesis has not been adequately tested., Research Design and Methods: People with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk were enrolled during a run-in period on basal-bolus insulin (BBI), and 102 were randomized to continued BBI or to basal insulin with a prandial GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLIPULIN) group, each seeking to maintain HbA(1c) levels between 6.7% and 7.3% (50-56 mmol/mol) for 6 months. The primary outcome measure was glycemic variability assessed by continuous glucose monitoring; other measures were HbA(1c), weight, circulating markers of inflammation and cardiovascular risk, albuminuria, and electrocardiographic patterns assessed by Holter monitoring., Results: At randomization, the mean age of the population was 62 years, median duration of diabetes 15 years, mean BMI 34 kg/m(2), and mean HbA(1c) 7.9% (63 mmol/mol). Thirty-three percent had a prior cardiovascular event, 18% had microalbuminuria, and 3% had macroalbuminuria. At baseline, the continuous glucose monitoring coefficient of variation for glucose levels was similar in both groups., Conclusions: FLAT-SUGAR is a proof-of-concept study testing whether, in a population of individuals with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk, the GLIPULIN regimen can limit glycemic variability more effectively than BBI, reduce levels of cardiovascular risk markers, and favorably alter albuminuria and electrocardiographic patterns. We successfully randomized a population that has sufficient power to answer the primary question, address several secondary ones, and complete the protocol as designed., (© 2015 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) with glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin (≥42 units/day) plus oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs)., Research Design and Methods: EDITION 2 was a multicenter, open-label, two-arm study. Adults receiving basal insulin plus OADs were randomized to Gla-300 or Gla-100 once daily for 6 months. The primary end point was change in HbA1c. The main secondary end point was percentage of participants with one or more nocturnal confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycemic events from week 9 to month 6., Results: Randomized participants (n = 811) had a mean (SD) HbA₁c of 8.24% (0.82) and BMI of 34.8 kg/m(2) (6.4). Glycemic control improved similarly with both basal insulins; least squares mean (SD) reduction from baseline was -0.57% (0.09) for Gla-300 and -0.56% (0.09) for Gla-100 (mean difference -0.01% [95% CI -0.14 to 0.12]), with 10% higher dose of Gla-300. Less nocturnal confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycemia was observed with Gla-300 from week 9 to month 6 (relative risk 0.77 [95% CI 0.61-0.99]; P = 0.038) and during the first 8 weeks. Fewer nocturnal and any time (24 h) hypoglycemic events were reported during the entire 6-month period. Weight gain was lower with Gla-300 than with Gla-100 (P = 0.015). No between-treatment differences in safety parameters were identified., Conclusions: Gla-300 was as effective as Gla-100 and associated with a lower risk of hypoglycemia during the night and at any time of the day., (© 2014 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Objective: This study compared the efficacy, safety, device satisfaction, and quality of life (QOL) in people with diabetes using an insulin bolus-patch versus current devices (pen/syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin., Research Design and Methods: Thirty-eight subjects with diabetes (26 with type 1 and 12 with type 2) were randomized to bolus-patch or current injection device (55% pen and 45% syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin in a multicenter, 6-week crossover study. Efficacy was assessed by equivalence in mean daily seven-point blood glucose (MDBG). Safety assessments included severe hypoglycemia episodes, adverse device effects (ADEs), and adverse events (AEs). Device satisfaction was determined by the validated Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) and QOL by the validated Diabetes Specific QOL Scale (DSQOLS)., Results: Using bolus-patch, MDBG (mean±SE) was equivalent to that using pen/syringe (8.61±0.28 vs. 9.02±0.26 mmol/L; P=0.098). SD of the seven-point blood glucose measurements was lower using bolus-patch (3.18±0.18 vs. 3.63±0.17 mmol/L; P=0.004), as was the coefficient of variation (CV) (37.2±1.7 vs. 40.3±1.7%; P=0.046). Hemoglobin A1c, 1,5-anhydroglucitol, fructosamine, and insulin use were similar between groups. There were no severe hypoglycemia episodes or serious ADEs. Between-device AEs were comparable. Subjects scored better on six of seven subscales on the DSQOLS and five of six subscales on the IDSRQ while using bolus-patch versus pen/syringe. At study completion, 76% of subjects would choose to switch to bolus-patch (P=0.001)., Conclusions: Delivery of mealtime insulin with bolus-patch compared with pen/syringe resulted in equivalent MDBG, lower SD and CV of seven-point blood glucose measurements, good safety, significant device satisfaction, and improved QOL.

Aims: In the initial 26-week, double-blind, double-dummy assessment period of the DURATION-2 trial in patients with Type 2 diabetes on metformin, the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist exenatide once-weekly resulted in greater HbA(1c) improvement and weight reduction compared with maximum approved daily doses of sitagliptin or pioglitazone. This subsequent, 26-week, open-label, uncontrolled assessment period evaluated the safety and efficacy of (i) continued exenatide once-weekly treatment and (ii) switching from sitagliptin or pioglitazone to exenatide once-weekly., Methods: Randomised oral medications were discontinued and all patients received exenatide once-weekly. Of the 364 patients [original baseline HbA(1c) 8.5 ± 1.1% (70 mmol/mol), fasting plasma glucose 9.0 ± 2.5 mmol/l, weight 88 ± 20 kg) who continued into the open-label period, 319 patients (88%) completed 52 weeks., Results: Evaluable patients who received only exenatide once-weekly demonstrated significant 52-week improvements (least square mean ± se) in HbA(1c) (-1.6 ± 0.1%), fasting plasma glucose (-1.8 ± 0.3 mmol/l) and weight (-1.8 ± 0.5 kg). Evaluable patients who switched from sitagliptin to exenatide once-weekly demonstrated significant incremental improvements in HbA(1c) (-0.3 ± 0.1%), fasting plasma glucose (-0.7 ± 0.2 mmol/l) and weight (-1.1 ± 0.3 kg). Patients who switched from pioglitazone to exenatide once-weekly maintained HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose improvements (week 52: -1.6 ± 0.1%, -1.7 ± 0.3 mmol/l), with significant weight reduction (-3.0 ± 0.3 kg). Exenatide once-weekly was generally well tolerated and adverse events were predominantly mild or moderate in intensity. Nausea was the most frequent adverse event in this assessment period (intent-to-treat: exenatide once-weekly-only 5%; sitagliptin→exenatide once-weekly 11%; pioglitazone→exenatide once-weekly 10%). No major hypoglycaemia was observed., Conclusions: Patients who switched to once-weekly exenatide from daily sitagliptin or pioglitazone had improved or sustained glycaemic control, with weight loss., (© 2011 Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Diabetic Medicine © 2011 Diabetes UK.)

Objective: To use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to characterize diurnal glucose patterns produced by a novel formulation of exenatide consisting of biodegradable polymeric microspheres that entrap exenatide and provide extended release enabling once-weekly administration., Methods: We performed a subgroup analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes who participated in a multicenter trial (DURATION-1: Effects of Exenatide Long-Acting Release on Glucose Control and Safety in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) comparing once-weekly with twice-daily formulations of exenatide. We are the only center to use CGM with ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) analysis to characterize glucose exposure, variability, and stability in participants assigned to exenatide once weekly., Results: Seven of the 303 patients in the larger study population were included in the subgroup analysis. Mean age (57.6 +/- 7 years), weight (102 +/- 17 kg), body mass index (34 +/- 3 kg/m2), and duration of diabetes (5 +/- 2 years) were comparable to characteristics of the larger study population. At 30 weeks and 52 weeks, participants treated with exenatide once weekly had a mean reduction in hemoglobin A1c level of 1.3 +/- 0.3% and 1.0 +/- 0.3%, respectively (P<.05). CGM analysis revealed a significant (P<.01) decrease in diurnal glucose exposure for 4 participants during nocturnal and daytime periods. Excess glucose exposure (compared with reference values) decreased in 6 of 7 participants, as did glucose variability. Glucose stability improved in 5 participants. The percentage of glucose values less than 70 mg/dL initially increased during the first half of the study then decreased to baseline levels by study end., Conclusions: Individual glucose profiles revealed that changes in hemoglobin A1c did not consistently parallel alterations in glucose exposure, variability, and stability. AGPs provided a visual representation of improved glucose responses to exenatide once weekly.

Background: The objective of the analysis was to compare detection of hypoglycemic episodes (glucose <70 mg/dL lasting >15 min) with the FreeStyle Navigator Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (FSN-CGM) (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) alarms to detection with traditional finger stick testing at an average frequency of eight tests per day., Methods: The performance of FSN-CGM alarms was evaluated in a clinic setting using 58 subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) monitoring interstitial glucose concentration over a 5-day period compared to reference YSI measurements (instrument manufactured by YSI, Yellow Springs, OH) at 15-min intervals. Finger stick glucose testing was evaluated in the home environment with 91 subjects with TIDM monitoring with the blood glucose meter integrated into the FreeStyle Navigator (FSN-BG) over a 20-day period. The reference was FSN-CGM with results masked from the subjects. Blood glucose values <=85 mg/dL were considered the optimal treatment level to avoid or reverse hypoglycemia., Results: With a threshold alarm setting of 85 mg/dL, 90.6% of hypoglycemic episodes were detected within +/- 30 min by FSN-CGM in the clinic study. When the alarm was activated, YSI glucose was <= 85 mg/dL 77.2% of the time. In the home environment, the average FSN-BG testing frequency was 7.9 tests per day. Hypoglycemia was verified within +/- 30 min by FSN-BG measurements <= 85 mg/dL at a rate of 27.5%., Conclusions: Even with a high rate of FSN-BG testing, hypoglycemia detected by FSN-CGM was verified by patients with T1DM very infrequently. A high rate of hypoglycemia detection with a moderate rate of unnecessary alarms can be attained using FSN-CGM.

Aims: Insulin analogues are widely used but few data exist comparing different analogue regimens. We compared two such regimens in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled by oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) with or without basal insulin., Methods: In a 26-week multinational, multicentre, randomized treat-to-target trial, OADs were discontinued and subjects randomized to analogue basal-bolus therapy (insulin detemir once daily and insulin aspart mealtimes) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (30% rapid-acting insulin aspart), twice daily. Insulin was titrated to targets for fasting, predinner and postprandial plasma glucose (PG), as appropriate., Results: Of 719 subjects, 92% completed the study; 58% achieved haemoglobin fraction A(1c) (HbA(1c)) < or =7.0%, with reductions of 1.56% (to 6.96%) with basal-bolus therapy and 1.23% (to 7.17%) with biphasic insulin aspart. Reduction with basal-bolus therapy was superior in the overall population by 0.23% (p = 0.0052), with no difference between regimens in insulin-naive patients. Major hypoglycaemia occurred in five basal-bolus patients (0.9%) and in no patients with biphasic insulin aspart. Incidence of minor hypoglycaemia was similar in both groups. All insulin doses increased during titration, with increase in lunchtime insulin aspart dose and equal distribution of breakfast and dinner biphasic insulin aspart doses. Insulin detemir remained once daily in 87% of patients., Conclusions: Modern insulin analogue regimens, adjusted to PG targets, enable a majority of people with T2DM to reach HbA(1c)< or =7.0% after failure of OADs and OAD-basal insulin therapy. Insulin-treated patients may benefit more from transfer to analogue basal-bolus therapy, while insulin-naive individuals benefit equally well from the more convenient biphasic analogue regimen.

Objective: To compare safety and efficacy of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) with exenatide in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not achieving glycemic targets with metformin and sulfonylurea in a randomized, open-label, 24-week trial., Research Design and Methods: Subjects (N = 372, T2DM > 6 months, age > or = 18 and < or = 80 years, HbA1c > or = 8%, insulin naive not achieving glycaemic targets, receiving metformin and sulfonylurea) were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive either BIAsp 30 QD (12 U before supper); BIAsp 30 BID (12 U divided equally between pre-breakfast and pre-supper); or exenatide (5 microg BID for 4 weeks and 10 microg BID thereafter). Efficacy (HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose [FPG]) and safety (adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes) were assessed., Results: Glycemic control achieved with both BIAsp 30 BID and BIAsp 30 QD was superior to that with exenatide (BIAsp 30 BID-exenatide: HbA1c difference -0.91% [95% CI: -1.23 to -0.59%] and BIAsp 30 QD-exenatide: difference: -0.67% [95% CI: -0.99 to -0.34%]). At the end of the study, more subjects achieved HbA1c < 7% and < or = 6.5% in the BIAsp 30 BID group than in the exenatide group (HbA1c < 7%: 37% vs. 20%, p = 0.0060; HbA1c < or = 6.5%: 25% vs. 8%, p = 0.0004, respectively). Combined hypoglycemic episodes (major, minor, symptoms only) were reported by 56%, 61%, and 29% of the subjects in the BIAsp 30 QD, BIAsp 30 BID, and exenatide groups, respectively. Weight gain was observed in the BIAsp 30 group (BIAsp 30 QD: 2.85 kg, BIAsp 30 BID: 4.08 kg) and weight loss was observed in the exenatide group (-1.96 kg). Nausea or vomiting was responsible for discontinuation of seven subjects in the exenatide group and one subject in the BIAsp 30 BID group., Conclusions: Significantly more T2DM patients (poorly controlled with combination metformin/sulfonylurea) achieved glycemic goals when treated with BIAsp 30 than with exenatide. The high baseline HbA1c values (approximately 10.2%) and the long duration of diabetes (approximately 9 years) suggests that some subjects may have been in an advanced stage of their diabetes and may not have had sufficient beta-cell function for a GLP-1 mimetic to be effective. The insulin-treated groups had more minor hypoglycemic events and weight gain but less gastrointestinal side-effects. In summary, BIAsp 30 was more efficacious in helping patients with high baseline HbA1c achieve glycemic goals., Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00097877.