Objective:
To formulate clinical practice guidelines for the use of continuous glucose monitoring and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in adults with diabetes.
Participants:
The participants ...include an Endocrine Society-appointed Task Force of seven experts, a methodologist, and a medical writer. The American Association for Clinical Chemistry, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, and the European Society of Endocrinology co-sponsored this guideline.
Evidence:
The Task Force developed this evidence-based guideline using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to describe the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. The Task Force commissioned one systematic review and used the best available evidence from other published systematic reviews and individual studies.
Consensus Process:
One group meeting, several conference calls, and e-mail communications enabled consensus. Committees and members of the Endocrine Society, the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, and the European Society of Endocrinology reviewed and commented on preliminary drafts of these guidelines.
Conclusions:
Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and continuous glucose monitoring have an important role in the treatment of diabetes. Data from randomized controlled trials are limited on the use of medical devices, but existing studies support the use of diabetes technology for a wide variety of indications. This guideline presents a review of the literature and practice recommendations for appropriate device use.
The objective is to formulate clinical practice guidelines for the use of continuous glucose monitoring and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in adults with diabetes.
To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg s.c. with exenatide extended release (ER) 2.0 mg s.c. in subjects with type 2 diabetes.
In this phase 3a, open-label, ...parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, 813 subjects with type 2 diabetes taking oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized (1:1) to semaglutide 1.0 mg or exenatide ER 2.0 mg for 56 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA
at week 56.
Mean HbA
(8.3% 67.7 mmol/mol at baseline) was reduced by 1.5% (16.8 mmol/mol) with semaglutide and 0.9% (10.0 mmol/mol) with exenatide ER (estimated treatment difference vs. exenatide ER ETD -0.62% 95% CI -0.80, -0.44 -6.78 mmol/mol (95% CI -8.70, -4.86);
< 0.0001 for noninferiority and superiority). Mean body weight (95.8 kg at baseline) was reduced by 5.6 kg with semaglutide and 1.9 kg with exenatide ER (ETD -3.78 kg 95% CI -4.58, -2.98;
< 0.0001). Significantly more subjects treated with semaglutide (67%) achieved HbA
<7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) versus those taking exenatide ER (40%). Both treatments had similar safety profiles, but gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in semaglutide-treated subjects (41.8%) than in exenatide ER-treated subjects (33.3%); injection-site reactions were more frequent with exenatide ER (22.0%) than with semaglutide (1.2%).
Semaglutide 1.0 mg was superior to exenatide ER 2.0 mg in improving glycemic control and reducing body weight after 56 weeks of treatment; the drugs had comparable safety profiles. These results indicate that semaglutide treatment is highly effective for subjects with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs.
In this study involving patients with type 1 diabetes, sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy plus automated insulin suspension when glucose dropped below 70 mg per deciliter reduced nocturnal ...hypoglycemia, without affecting glycated hemoglobin values.
Severe nocturnal hypoglycemia can be catastrophic,
1
,
2
and hypoglycemia remains one of the most formidable barriers to improving glycemic control in patients with diabetes.
3
Sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy offers substantial glycemic benefits, as compared with multiple daily insulin injections, but has not been shown to lower the risk of severe hypoglycemia significantly.
4
The automatic suspension of insulin delivery when a preset sensor glucose threshold is reached has the potential to mitigate hypoglycemia. The low-glucose suspend feature, available in the Medtronic Paradigm Veo pump outside the United States since 2009, was used in this study in the intervention group; the feature allows . . .
To assess the frequency of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use, factors associated with its use, and the relationship of CGM with diabetes outcomes (HbA1c, severe hypoglycemia SH, and ...diabetic ketoacidosis DKA).
Survey questions related to CGM device use 1 year after enrollment in the T1D Exchange clinic registry were completed by 17,317 participants. Participants were defined as CGM users if they indicated using real-time CGM during the prior 30 days.
Nine percent of participants used CGM (6% of children <13 years old, 4% of adolescents 13 to <18 years, 6% of young adults 18 to <26 years, and 21% of adults ≥26 years). CGM use was more likely with higher education, higher household income, private health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, and use of insulin pump (P < 0.01 all factors). CGM use was associated with lower HbA1c in children (8.3% vs. 8.6%, P < 0.001) and adults (7.7% vs. 7.9%, P < 0.001). In adults, more frequent use of CGM (≥6 days/week) was associated with lower mean HbA1c. Only 27% of users downloaded data from their device at least once per month, and ≤15% of users reported downloading their device at least weekly. Among participants who used CGM at baseline, 41% had discontinued within 1 year.
CGM use is uncommon but associated with lower HbA1c in some age-groups, especially when used more frequently. Factors associated with discontinuation and infrequent use of retrospective analysis of CGM data should be considered in developing next-generation devices and education on CGM use.
It is generally accepted that complete β-cell destruction eventually occurs in individuals with type 1 diabetes, which has implications for treatment approaches and insurance coverage. The frequency ...of residual insulin secretion in a large cohort of individuals at varying ages of diagnosis and type 1 diabetes duration is unknown.
The frequency of residual insulin secretion was determined by measurement of nonfasting serum C-peptide concentration in 919 individuals with type 1 diabetes according to prespecified groups based on age at diagnosis and duration of disease (from 3 to 81 years' duration). Stimulated C-peptide was measured in those with detectable nonfasting values and a group of those with undetectable values as control.
The overall frequency of detectable nonfasting C-peptide was 29%, decreasing with time from diagnosis regardless of age at diagnosis. In all duration groups, the frequency of C-peptide was higher with diagnosis age >18 years compared with ≤18 years. Nineteen percent of those with undetectable nonfasting C-peptide were C-peptide positive upon stimulation testing.
The American Diabetes Association's definition of type 1 diabetes as "usually leading to absolute insulin deficiency" results in clinicians often considering the presence of residual insulin secretion as unexpected in this population. However, our data suggest that residual secretion is present in almost one out of three individuals 3 or more years from type 1 diabetes diagnosis. The frequency of residual C-peptide decreases with time from diagnosis regardless of age at diagnosis, yet at all durations of disease, diagnosis during adulthood is associated with greater frequency and higher values of C-peptide.
The objective of this study was to compare glucose control in participants with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) or glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in the morning or ...evening, in combination with mealtime insulin.
In this 16-week, exploratory, open-label, parallel-group, two-period crossover study (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01658579), 59 adults with type 1 diabetes were randomized (1:1:1:1) to once-daily Gla-300 or Gla-100 given in the morning or evening (with crossover in the injection schedule). The primary efficacy end point was the mean percentage of time in the target glucose range (80-140 mg/dL), as measured using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), during the last 2 weeks of each 8-week period. Additional end points included other CGM glycemic control parameters, hypoglycemia (per self-monitored plasma glucose SMPG), and adverse events.
The percentage of time within the target glucose range was comparable between the Gla-300 and Gla-100 groups. There was significantly less increase in CGM-based glucose during the last 4 h of the 24-h injection interval for Gla-300 compared with Gla-100 (least squares mean difference -14.7 mg/dL 95% CI -26.9 to -2.5;
= 0.0192). Mean 24-h glucose curves for the Gla-300 group were smoother (lower glycemic excursions), irrespective of morning or evening injection. Four metrics of intrasubject interstitial glucose variability showed no difference between Gla-300 and Gla-100. Nocturnal confirmed (<54 mg/dL by SMPG) or severe hypoglycemia rate was lower for Gla-300 participants than for Gla-100 participants (4.0 vs. 9.0 events per participant-year; rate ratio 0.45 95% CI 0.24-0.82).
Less increase in CGM-based glucose levels in the last 4 h of the 24-h injection interval, smoother average 24-h glucose profiles irrespective of injection time, and reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia were observed with Gla-300 versus Gla-100.
To determine whether the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) without confirmatory blood glucose monitoring (BGM) measurements is as safe and effective as using CGM adjunctive to BGM in adults ...with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (T1D).
A randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 14 sites in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Participants were ≥18 years of age (mean 44 ± 14 years), had T1D for ≥1 year (mean duration 24 ± 12 years), used an insulin pump, and had an HbA
≤9.0% (≤75 mmol/mL) (mean 7.0 ± 0.7% 53 ± 7.7 mmol/mol); prestudy, 47% were CGM users. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to the CGM-only (
= 149) or CGM+BGM (
= 77) group. The primary outcome was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) over the 26-week trial, with a prespecified noninferiority limit of 7.5%.
CGM use averaged 6.7 ± 0.5 and 6.8 ± 0.4 days/week in the CGM-only and CGM+BGM groups, respectively, over the 26-week trial. BGM tests per day (including the two required daily for CGM calibration) averaged 2.8 ± 0.9 and 5.4 ± 1.4 in the two groups, respectively (
< 0.001). Mean time in 70-180 mg/dL was 63 ± 13% at both baseline and 26 weeks in the CGM-only group and 65 ± 13% and 65 ± 11% in the CGM+BGM group (adjusted difference 0%; one-sided 95% CI -2%). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM-only group, and one occurred in the CGM+BGM group.
Use of CGM without regular use of confirmatory BGM is as safe and effective as using CGM with BGM in adults with well-controlled T1D at low risk for severe hypoglycemia.
Abstract Underutilization of glucose data and lack of easy and standardized glucose data collection, analysis, visualization, and guided clinical decision making are key contributors to poor glycemic ...control among individuals with type 1 diabetes. An expert panel of diabetes specialists, facilitated by the International Diabetes Center and sponsored by the Helmsley Charitable Trust, met in 2012 to discuss recommendations for standardization of analysis and presentation of glucose monitoring data, with the initial focus on data derived from CGM systems. The panel members were introduced to a universal software report, the Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP), and asked to provide feedback on its content and functionality, both as a research tool and in clinical settings. This paper provides a summary of the topics and issues discussed during the meeting and presents recommendations from the expert panel regarding the need to standardize glucose profile summary metrics and the value of a uniform glucose report to aid clinicians, researchers, and patients.
OBJECTIVE:--The purpose of this study was to compare two analog insulin therapies (prandial premixed therapy PPT versus basal/bolus therapy BBT) in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with ...insulin glargine (>=30 units/day) plus oral agents, with the aim of demonstrating noninferiority of PPT to BBT. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--Patients were randomly assigned to PPT (lispro mix 50/50: 50% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 50% lispro; n = 187) t.i.d. with meals or BBT (glargine at bedtime plus mealtime lispro; n = 187) in a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial. Investigators could replace lispro mix 50/50 with lispro mix 75/25 at the evening meal if the fasting plasma glucose target was unachievable. RESULTS:--Baseline A1C was similar (PPT 8.8%; BBT 8.9%; P = 0.598). At week 24, A1C was lower with BBT (6.78 vs. 6.95%, P = 0.021). A1C was reduced significantly from baseline for both therapies (P < 0.0001). The difference in A1C change from baseline to the end point (BBT minus PPT) was -0.22% (90% CI -0.38 to -0.07). Noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated based on the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%. The percentages of patients achieving target A1C <7.0% (PPT versus BBT, respectively) were 54 vs. 69% (P = 0.009) and for target <=6.5% were 35 vs. 50% (P = 0.01) but did not differ for target <=6.0% or <7.5%. Rates of hypoglycemia were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS:--Although noninferiority of PPT to BBT was not demonstrated, findings for A1C reduction, percentage of patients achieving A1C targets, hypoglycemia, and number of required injections should be considered in the individual decision-making process of advancing insulin replacement to PPT versus BBT in type 2 diabetes.
Severe hypoglycemia is common in older adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes, but little is known about factors associated with its occurrence.
A case-control study was conducted at 18 diabetes ...centers in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Participants were ≥60 years old with type 1 diabetes for ≥20 years. Case subjects (n = 101) had at least one severe hypoglycemic event in the prior 12 months. Control subjects (n = 100), frequency-matched to case subjects by age, had no severe hypoglycemia in the prior 3 years. Data were analyzed for cognitive and functional abilities, social support, depression, hypoglycemia unawareness, various aspects of diabetes management, C-peptide level, glycated hemoglobin level, and blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics.
Glycated hemoglobin (mean 7.8% vs. 7.7%) and CGM-measured mean glucose (175 vs. 175 mg/dL) were similar between case and control subjects. More case than control subjects had hypoglycemia unawareness: only 11% of case subjects compared with 43% of control subjects reported always having symptoms associated with low blood glucose levels (P < 0.001). Case subjects had greater glucose variability than control subjects (P = 0.008) and experienced CGM glucose levels <60 mg/dL for ≥20 min on 46% of days compared with 33% of days in control subjects (P = 0.10). On certain cognitive tests, case subjects scored worse than control subjects.
In older adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes, greater hypoglycemia unawareness and glucose variability are associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. A study to assess interventions to prevent severe hypoglycemia in high-risk individuals is needed.
PDF
