Management of type 1 diabetes is challenging. We compared outcomes using a commercially available hybrid closed-loop system versus a new investigational system with features potentially useful for ...adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes.
In this multinational, randomised, crossover trial (Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation FLAIR), individuals aged 14–29 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes with a duration of at least 1 year, using either an insulin pump or multiple daily insulin injections, and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7·0–11·0% (53–97 mmol/mol) were recruited from seven academic-based endocrinology practices, four in the USA, and one each in Germany, Israel, and Slovenia. After a run-in period to teach participants how to use the study pump and continuous glucose monitor, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence, with a permuted block design (block sizes of two and four), stratified by baseline HbA1c and use of a personal MiniMed 670G system (Medtronic) at enrolment, to either use of a MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system (670G) or the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system (Medtronic) for the first 12-week period, and then participants were crossed over with no washout period, to the other group for use for another 12 weeks. Masking was not possible due to the nature of the systems used. The coprimary outcomes, measured with continuous glucose monitoring, were proportion of time that glucose levels were above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) during 0600 h to 2359 h (ie, daytime), tested for superiority, and proportion of time that glucose levels were below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) calculated over a full 24-h period, tested for non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin 2%). Analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03040414, and is now complete.
Between June 3 and Aug 22, 2019, 113 individuals were enrolled into the trial. Mean age was 19 years (SD 4) and 70 (62%) of 113 participants were female. Mean proportion of time with daytime glucose levels above 180 mg/dL (>10·0 mmol/L) was 42% (SD 13) at baseline, 37% (9) during use of the 670G system, and 34% (9) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system −3·00% 95% CI −3·97 to −2·04; p<0·0001). Mean 24-h proportion of time with glucose levels below 54 mg/dL (<3·0 mmol/L) was 0·46% (SD 0·42) at baseline, 0·50% (0·35) during use of the 670G system, and 0·46% (0·33) during use of the advanced hybrid closed-loop system (mean difference advanced hybrid closed-loop system minus 670G system −0·06% 95% CI −0·11 to −0·02; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). One severe hypoglycaemic event occurred in the advanced hybrid closed-loop system group, determined to be unrelated to study treatment, and none occurred in the 670G group.
Hyperglycaemia was reduced without increasing hypoglycaemia in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes using the investigational advanced hybrid closed-loop system compared with the commercially available MiniMed 670G system. Testing an advanced hybrid closed-loop system in populations that are underserved due to socioeconomic factors and testing during pregnancy and in individuals with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia would advance the effective use of this technology
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
To evaluate the relationship between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-measured time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) and time-in-tight-range 70-140 mg/dL (TITR).
TIR and TITR were calculated from CGM ...data collected using blinded or unblinded Dexcom sensors from 9 studies with 912 participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 2 studies with 184 participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The TIR-TITR relationship was assessed overall and stratified by coefficient of variation (CV) and by time below range <70 mg/dL (TBR).
The correlation between TIR and TITR was 0.94. TITR was higher for a given TIR for T2D compared with T1D. However, after adjusting for the differences in CV or TBR, both of which were higher with T1D than T2D, the differences were minimized. The TIR-TITR relationship was nonlinear, with a higher ratio of TITR:TIR observed as TIR increased ranging from 0.42 when TIR was 20% to 0.66 when TIR was 80%. Similarly, as TITR increased, the ratio of TIR:TITR decreased, varying from 2.6 with TITR of 10% to 1.3 for TITR of 70%. The TIR-TITR relationship varied according to CV and TBR, such that the higher the CV or higher the amount of TBR the greater was TITR for a given TIR.
TIR and TITR are highly correlated, although the relationship is nonlinear. With knowledge of TIR, TITR can be estimated with reasonable precision.
IMPORTANCE: Ranibizumab is a viable treatment option for eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) through 2 years. However, longer-term results are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy ...and safety of 0.5-mg intravitreous ranibizumab vs panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) over 5 years for PDR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluated 394 study eyes with PDR enrolled February through December 2012. Analysis began in January 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Eyes were randomly assigned to receive intravitreous ranibizumab (n = 191) or PRP (n = 203). Frequency of ranibizumab was based on a protocol-specified retreatment algorithm. Diabetic macular edema could be managed with ranibizumab in either group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mean change in visual acuity (intention-to-treat analysis) was the main outcome. Secondary outcomes included peripheral visual field loss, development of vision-impairing diabetic macular edema, and ocular and systemic safety. RESULTS: The 5-year visit was completed by 184 of 277 participants (66% excluding deaths). Of 305 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 52 (12) years, 135 (44%) were women, and 160 (52%) were white. For the ranibizumab and PRP groups, the mean (SD) number of injections over 5 years was 19.2 (10.9) and 5.4 (7.9), respectively; the mean (SD) change in visual acuity letter score was 3.1 (14.3) and 3.0 (10.5) letters, respectively (adjusted difference, 0.6; 95% CI, −2.3 to 3.5; P = .68); the mean visual acuity was 20/25 (approximate Snellen equivalent) in both groups at 5 years. The mean (SD) change in cumulative visual field total point score was −330 (645) vs −527 (635) dB in the ranibizumab (n = 41) and PRP (n = 38) groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 208 dB; 95% CI, 9-408). Vision-impairing diabetic macular edema developed in 27 and 53 eyes in the ranibizumab and PRP groups, respectively (cumulative probabilities: 22% vs 38%; hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7). No statistically significant differences between groups in major systemic adverse event rates were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although loss to follow-up was relatively high, visual acuity in most study eyes that completed follow-up was very good at 5 years and was similar in both groups. Severe vision loss or serious PDR complications were uncommon with PRP or ranibizumab; however, the ranibizumab group had lower rates of developing vision-impairing diabetic macular edema and less visual field loss. Patient-specific factors, including anticipated visit compliance, cost, and frequency of visits, should be considered when choosing treatment for patients with PDR. These findings support either anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy or PRP as viable treatments for patients with PDR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adults 65 years old and older with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using basal without bolus insulin.
Using data ...from the MOBILE randomized trial comparing CGM versus blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring for T2D treated with basal insulin, the treatment effect in participants ≥65 years (range: 65-79 years,
= 42) was compared with the treatment effect in participants <65 years (range: 33-64 years,
= 133).
For participants ≥65 years old, mean change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -1.08% in the CGM group and -0.38% in the BGM group (adjusted mean difference = -0.65% 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.49 to 0.19). In contrast, the adjusted mean difference in HbA1c between treatment groups was -0.35% 95% CI -0.77 to 0.07 in the <65 years age group. For time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR), mean adjusted treatment group difference was 19% (95% CI 4 to 35,
= 0.01) in ≥65 years old participants and 12% (95% CI 4 to 19,
= 0.003) in those <65 years old. Comparable treatment group differences favoring the CGM group were observed in both the ≥65 and <65 years age groups for mean glucose and less time >180, 250, and 300 mg/dL. Hypoglycemia was low in both groups with little difference between treatment groups in both age groups.
In this study of adults with T2D treated with basal insulin without bolus insulin, participants ≥65 years old using CGM had a greater increase in TIR and a reduction in hyperglycemia than those using BGM and the benefit appeared to be at least as great as that observed in younger adults.
A trial of three drugs — bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept — for the treatment of diabetic macular edema showed that each drug improved visual acuity, but aflibercept outperformed the other ...two drugs for eyes with a baseline visual acuity of 20/50 or worse.
Diabetic macular edema, a manifestation of diabetic retinopathy that impairs central vision, affects approximately 750,000 people in the United States and is a leading cause of vision loss.
1
The costs associated with visual disability and treatment of diabetic macular edema are high.
2
The increasing prevalence of diabetes worldwide highlights the importance of diabetic macular edema as a global health issue.
3
Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is an important mediator of abnormal vascular permeability in diabetic macular edema.
4
,
5
Intravitreous injections of anti-VEGF agents have been shown to be superior to laser photocoagulation of the macula, the standard treatment for diabetic . . .
Randomised controlled trials and other prospective clinical studies for novel medical interventions in people with diabetes have traditionally reported HbA
as the measure of average blood glucose ...levels for the 3 months preceding the HbA
test date. The use of this measure highlights the long-established correlation between HbA
and relative risk of diabetes complications; the change in the measure, before and after the therapeutic intervention, is used by regulators for the approval of medications for diabetes. However, with the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in clinical practice, prospective clinical studies are also increasingly using CGM devices to collect data and evaluate glucose profiles among study participants, complementing HbA
findings, and further assess the effects of therapeutic interventions on HbA
. Data is collected by CGM devices at 1-5 min intervals, which obtains data on glycaemic excursions and periods of asymptomatic hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia (ie, details of glycaemic control that are not provided by HbA
concentrations alone that are measured continuously and can be analysed in daily, weekly, or monthly timeframes). These CGM-derived metrics are the subject of standardised, internationally agreed reporting formats and should, therefore, be considered for use in all clinical studies in diabetes. The purpose of this consensus statement is to recommend the ways CGM data might be used in prospective clinical studies, either as a specified study endpoint or as supportive complementary glucose metrics, to provide clinical information that can be considered by investigators, regulators, companies, clinicians, and individuals with diabetes who are stakeholders in trial outcomes. In this consensus statement, we provide recommendations on how to optimise CGM-derived glucose data collection in clinical studies, including the specific glucose metrics and specific glucose metrics that should be evaluated. These recommendations have been endorsed by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, DiabetesIndia, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, the Japanese Diabetes Society, and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. A standardised approach to CGM data collection and reporting in clinical trials will encourage the use of these metrics and enhance the interpretability of CGM data, which could provide useful information other than HbA
for informing therapeutic and treatment decisions, particularly related to hypoglycaemia, postprandial hyperglycaemia, and glucose variability.
Abstract
Glucose and insulin metabolism in patients with diabetes are profoundly altered by advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). Risk of hypoglycemia is increased by failure of kidney ...gluconeogenesis, impaired insulin clearance by the kidney, defective insulin degradation due to uremia, increased erythrocyte glucose uptake during hemodialysis, impaired counterregulatory hormone responses (cortisol, growth hormone), nutritional deprivation, and variability of exposure to oral antihyperglycemic agents and exogenous insulin. Patients with end-stage kidney disease frequently experience wide glycemic excursions, with common occurrences of both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Assessment of glycemia by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is hampered by a variety of CKD-associated conditions that can bias the measure either to the low or high range. Alternative glycemic biomarkers, such as glycated albumin or fructosamine, are not fully validated. Therefore, HbA1c remains the preferred glycemic biomarker despite its limitations. Based on observational data for associations with mortality and risks of hypoglycemia with intensive glycemic control regimens in advanced CKD, an HbA1c range of 7% to 8% appears to be the most favorable. Emerging data on the use of continuous glucose monitoring in this population suggest promise for more precise monitoring and treatment adjustments to permit fine-tuning of glycemic management in patients with diabetes and advanced CKD.
Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract
PDF
