Sglt-2 Inhibitors As Adjunct Therapy In Type 1 Diabetes: Reason For Hope And Caution

Abbreviations:CGM = continuous glucose monitoringDCGM = Dexcom G4 Platinum CGMDKA = diabetic ketoacidosisDM = diabetes mellitusHbA1c = glycated hemoglobin A1cSGLT-2 = sodium glucose cotransporter 2     

The Emerging Role Of Adjunctive Noninsulin Antihyperglycemic Therapy In The Management Of Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: Review available data on adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes (T1D), with a special focus on newer antihyperglycemic agents.Methods: Published data on hypoglycemia, obesity, mortality, and goal attainment in T1D were reviewed to determine unmet therapeutic needs. PubMed databases and abstracts from recent diabetes meetings were searched using the term “type 1 diabetes” and the available and investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, and metformin.Results: The majority of patients with T1D do not meet glycated hemoglobin (A1C) goals established by major diabetes organizations. Hypoglycemia risks and a rising incidence of obesity and metabolic syndrome featured in the T1D population limit optimal use of intensive insulin therapy. Noninsulin antihyperglycemic agents may enable T1D patients to achieve target A1C levels using lower insulin doses, which may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia. In pilot studies, the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin and the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide reduced blood glucose, weight, and insulin dose in patients with T1D. Phase 2 studies with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin and the dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor sotagliflozin, which acts in the gut and the kidney, have demonstrated reductions in A1C, weight, and glucose variability without an increased incidence of hypoglycemia.Conclusion: Newer antihyperglycemic agents, particularly GLP-1 agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, and dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitors, show promise as adjunctive treatment for T1D that may help patients achieve better glucose control without weight gain or increased hypoglycemia.Abbreviations:A1C = glycated hemoglobinBMI = body mass indexCI = confidence intervalDKA = diabetic ketoacidosisDPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase 4GLP-1 = glucagonlike peptide 1PYY = polypeptide tyrosine tyrosineSGLT = sodium-glucose cotransporterSGLT1 = sodium-glucose cotransporter 1SGLT2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter 2T1D = type 1 diabetesT2D = type 2 diabetesTDD = total daily dosage     

Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycemia Continues to be a Risk Factor for Severe Hypoglycemia Despite the Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: Impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) is a risk factor for severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) not using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system. The current study investigated the prevalence of IAH and its relationship with severe hypoglycemia in T1D patients using CGM systems.Methods: This cross-sectional observational study enrolled 135 patients with T1D and ongoing real-time CGM use. A survey was conducted to assess hypoglycemia awareness with the Gold, Clarke, and Pedersen-Bjergaard questionnaires and the 6-month history of severe hypoglycemia. Other diabetes histories and the CGM glucose data were collected.Results: The Gold, Clarke, and Pedersen-Bjergaard questionnaires demonstrated the overall prevalence of IAH/abnormal awareness to be 33.3%, 43.7%, and 77.0%, respectively. Participant age and duration of T1D were consistently related to IAH or hypoglycemia unawareness with all three questionnaires (P<.05). Amongst the patients using CGM for >6 months, 24.5% were found to have at least one episode of severe hypoglycemia in the preceding 6 months. IAH identified by the Gold and Clarke questionnaires and hypoglycemia unawareness identified by the Pedersen-Bjergaard questionnaire were related to 6-, 4.63-, and 5.83-fold increased risk of severe hypoglycemia (P = .001, .004, and .013), respectively. IAH identified by the Gold/Clarke questionnaires was associated with a longer duration of CGM glucose <54 mg/dL and higher glucose coefficients of variation (P<.05).Conclusion: IAH is highly prevalent and related to a higher risk for severe hypoglycemia in T1D patients using CGM.Abbreviations: CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; CI = confidence interval; HAAF = hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1C; IAH = impaired awareness of hypoglycemia; T1D = type 1 diabetes     

Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Consensus Conference of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology

Objective/Methods: Barriers to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use continue to hamper adoption of this valuable technology for the management of diabetes. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology convened a public consensus conference February 20, 2016, to review available CGM data and propose strategies for expanding CGM access.Results: Conference participants agreed that evidence supports the benefits of CGM in type 1 diabetes and that these benefits are likely to apply whenever intensive insulin therapy is used, regardless of diabetes type. CGM is likely to reduce healthcare resource utilization for acute and chronic complications, although real-world analyses are needed to confirm potential cost savings and quality of life improvements. Ongoing technological advances have improved CGM accuracy and usability, but more innovations in human factors, data delivery, reporting, and interpretation are needed to foster expanded use. The development of a standardized data report using similar metrics across all devices would facilitate clinician and patient understanding and utilization of CGM. Expanded CGM coverage by government and private payers is an urgent need.Conclusion: CGM improves glycemic control, reduces hypoglycemia, and may reduce overall costs of diabetes management. Expanding CGM coverage and utilization is likely to improve the health outcomes of people with diabetes.Abbreviations:A1C = glycated hemoglobinAACE = American Association of Clinical EndocrinologistsACE = American College of EndocrinologyASPIRE = Automation to Simulate Pancreatic Insulin ResponseCGM = continuous glucose monitoringHRQOL = health-related quality of lifeICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratioJDRF = Juvenile Diabetes Research FoundationMARD = mean absolute relative differenceMDI = multiple daily injectionsQALY = quality-adjusted life yearsRCT = randomized, controlled trialSAP = sensor-augmented pumpSMBG = self-monitoring of blood glucoseSTAR = Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy for A1C ReductionT1D = type 1 diabetesT2D = type 2 diabetes     

How Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Translate Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data into Diabetes Management Decisions

Objective: To understand how patients use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data in their diabetes management.Methods: We surveyed patients who regularly used CGM (>6 days per week), using 70 questions, many scenario-based. The survey had 6 sections: patient characteristics, general CGM use, hypoglycemia prevention and management, hyperglycemia prevention and management, insulin dosing adjustments (both for incidental hyperglycemia not at meals and at mealtimes), and real-time use versus retrospective analysis.Results: The survey was completed by 222 patients with type 1 diabetes. In response to a glucose of 220 mg/dL, the average correction dose adjustment based on rate of change arrows varied dramatically. Specifically, when the CGM device showed 2 arrows up (glucose increasing >3 mg/dL/minute), respondents stated they would increase their correction bolus, on average, by 140% (range, 0 to 600%). Conversely, 2 arrows down (glucose decreasing >3 mg/dL/minute) caused respondents to reduce their dose by 42%, with 24% omitting their dose entirely. Furthermore, 59% of respondents stated they would delay a meal in response to rapidly rising glucose, whereas 60% would wait until after a meal to bolus in response to falling glucose levels. With a glucose value of 120 mg/dL and a falling glucose trend, 70% of respondents would prophylactically consume carbohydrates to avoid hypoglycemia.Conclusion: CGM users utilize CGM data to alter multiple aspects of their diabetes care, including insulin dose timing, dose adjustments, and in hypoglycemia prevention. The insulin adjustments are much larger than common recommendations. Additional studies are needed to determine appropriate insulin adjustments based on glucose trend data.Abbreviations: A_1c = hemoglobin A_1c CGM = continuous glucose monitoring ROC = rate of change SMBG = self-monitored blood glucose     

Self Blood Glucose Monitoring Underestimates Hyperglycemia And Hypoglycemia As Compared To Continuous Glucose Monitoring In Type 1 And Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: When glucose records from self blood glucose monitoring (SBGM) do not reflect estimated average glucose from glycosylated hemoglobin (HgBA1) or when patients' clinical symptoms are not explained by their SBGM records, clinical management of diabetes becomes a challenge. Our objective was to determine the magnitude of differences in glucose values reported by SBGM versus those documented by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).Methods: The CGM was conducted by a clinical diabetes educator (CDE)/registered nurse by the clinic protocol, using the Medtronic iPRO2™ system. Patients continued SBGM and managed their diabetes without any change. Data from 4 full days were obtained, and relevant clinical information was recorded. De-identified data sets were provided to the investigators.Results: Data from 61 patients, 27 with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and 34 with T2DM were analyzed. The lowest, highest, and average glucose recorded by SBGM were compared to the corresponding values from CGM. The lowest glucose values reported by SBGM were approximately 25 mg/dL higher in both T1DM (P = .0232) and T2DM (P = .0003). The highest glucose values by SBGM were approximately 30 mg/dL lower in T1DM (P = .0005) and 55 mg/dL lower in T2DM (P<.0001). HgBA1c correlated with the highest and average glucose by SBGM and CGM. The lowest glucose values were seen most frequently during sleep and before breakfast; the highest were seen during the evening and postprandially.Conclusion: SBGM accurately estimates the average glucose but underestimates glucose excursions. CGM uncovers glucose patterns that common SBGM patterns cannot.Abbreviations: CDE = certified diabetes educator; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; HgBA1c = glycosylated hemoglobin; MAD = mean absolute difference; SBGM = self blood glucose monitoring; T1DM = type 1 diabetes; T2DM = type 2 diabetes     

IMPROVED HBA1C,TOTAL DAILY INSULIN DOSE,AND TREATMENT SATISFACTION WITH INSULIN PUMP THERAPY COMPARED TO MULTIPLE DAILY INSULIN INJECTIONS IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES IRRESPECTIVE OF BASELINE C-PEPTIDE LEVELS

Objective: Fasting C-peptide levels are used to differentiate type 1 from type 2 diabetes (T2D), thereby determining eligibility for coverage of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) for patients with T2D.Methods: A total of 168 patients (74 female/94 male, aged 55.5 ± 9.7 years) were randomized to CSII, and 163 patients (77 female/86 male, aged 56.4 ± 9.5 years) were randomized to multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin and grouped by baseline C-peptide level: group A (≤183 pmol/L [≤0.55 ng/mL]); group B (>183 pmol/L [>0.55 ng/mL]). At 6 months, the MDI group crossed over to CSII. Within- and between-group comparisons were recorded at 6 and 12 months in the entire group and separately for those patients aged ≥65 years.Results: CSII reduced hemoglobin A1c (A1c) equally in groups A (P = .0006, P = .0022) and B (P<.0001, P<.0001) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. There was an increase in weight in group A versus group B at 6 months but not 12 months (P<.03). CSII therapy reduced total daily dose (TDD) of insulin and improved treatment satisfaction similarly in groups A and B. The results for patients aged ≥65 years displayed a similar trend as the entire group.Conclusion: A1c, TDD of insulin, and treatment satisfaction improved for T2D patients using CSII versus MDI therapy, irrespective of baseline C-peptide level. A subgroup of patients aged ≥65 years displayed a similar trend. These results support abandoning C-peptide as a criterion for reimbursing CSII therapy in patients with diabetes.Abbreviations: A1c = hemoglobin A1c; CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; DTSQ = Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire; MDI = multiple daily injections; RCT = randomized controlled trials; T1D = type 1 diabetes; T2D = type 2 diabetes; TDD = total daily dose     

Hba1C Control And Cost-Effectiveness in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Initiated On Canagliflozin or A Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist in A Real-World Setting

Objective: To compare glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) control and medication costs between patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with canagliflozin 300 mg (CANA) or a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) in a real-world setting.Methods: Adults with T2DM newly initiated on CANA or a GLP-1 RA (index date) were identified from IQVIA™ Real-World Data Electronic Medical Records U.S. database (March 29, 2012–April 30, 2016). Inverse probability of treatment weighting accounted for differences in baseline characteristics. HbA1c levels at 3-month intervals were compared using generalized estimating equations. Medication costs used wholesale acquisition costs.Results: For both cohorts (CANA: n = 11,435; GLP-1 RA: n = 11,582), HbA1c levels decreased at 3 months postindex and remained lower through 30 months. Absolute changes in mean HbA1c from index to 3 months postindex for CANA and GLP-1 RA were -1.16% and -1.21% (patients with baseline HbA1c ≥7% &lsqb;53 mmol/mol]); -1.54% and -1.51% (patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8% &lsqb;64 mmol/mol]); and -2.13% and -1.99% (patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9% &lsqb;75 mmol/mol]), respectively. Postindex, CANA patients with baseline HbA1c ≥7% had similar HbA1c levels at each interval versus GLP-1 RA patients, except 9 months (mean HbA1c, 7.75% &lsqb;61 mmol/mol] vs. 7.86% &lsqb;62 mmol/mol]; P = .0305). CANA patients with baseline HbA1c ≥8% and ≥9% had consistently lower HbA1c numerically versus GLP-1 RA patients and statistically lower HbA1c at 9 (baseline HbA1c ≥8% or ≥9%), 27, and 30 months (baseline HbA1c ≥9%). Continuous 12-month medication cost $3,326 less for CANA versus GLP-1 RA.Conclusion: This retrospective study demonstrated a similar evolution of HbA1c levels among CANA and GLP-1 RA patients in a real-world setting. Lower medication costs suggest CANA is economically dominant over GLP-1 RA (similar effectiveness, lower cost).Abbreviations:AHA = antihyperglycemic agentBMI = body mass indexCANA = canagliflozin 300 mgDCSI = diabetes complications severity indexeGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rateEMR = electronic medical recordGLP-1 RA = glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonistHbA1c = glycated hemoglobinICD-9-CM = International Classification of Diseases–Ninth Revision–Clinical ModificationICD-10-CM = International Classification of Diseases–Tenth Revision–Clinical ModificationIPTW = inverse probability of treatment weightingITT = intent-to-treatMPR = medication possession ratioPDC = proportion of days coveredPS = propensity scorePSM = propensity score matchingQuan-CCI = Quan-Charlson comorbidity indexSGLT2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter 2T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitusWAC = wholesale acquisition cost     

Evaluation of Total Daily Dose and Glycemic Control for Patients Taking U-500 Regular Insulin Admitted to the Hospital

Objective: Patients using U-500 regular insulin are severely insulin resistant, requiring high doses of insulin. It has been observed that a patient's insulin requirements may dramatically decrease during hospitalization. This study sought to systematically investigate this phenomenon.Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with U-500 insulin outpatient regimens who were admitted to the San Antonio Military Medical Center over a 5-year period. Each patient's outpatient total daily dose (TDD) of insulin was compared to the average inpatient TDD. The outpatient estimated average glucose (eAG) was calculated from the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and compared to the average inpatient glucose.Results: There were 27 patients with a total of 62 separate admissions. The average age was 64.4 years, with a mean body mass index of 38.9 kg/m² and eAG of 203 mg/dL (HbA1c, 8.7%, 71.6 mmol/mol). All patients were converted from U-500 to U-100 upon admission. The average inpatient TDD of insulin was 91 units, versus 337 units as outpatients (P<.001). Overall, 89% of patients received ≤50% of their outpatient TDD. The average inpatient glucose was slightly higher than the outpatient eAG, 234 mg/dL versus 203 mg/dL (P = .003).Conclusion: U-500 insulin is prone to errors in the hospital setting, so conversion to U-100 insulin is a preferred option. Despite a significant reduction in insulin TDD, these patients had clinically similar glucose levels. Therefore, patients taking U-500 insulin as an outpatient can be converted to a U-100 basal-bolus regimen with at least a 50% reduction of their outpatient TDD.Abbreviations:BG = blood glucoseeAG = estimated average glucoseHbA1c = glycated hemoglobinNPO = nil per osSPSS = Statistical Package for the Social SciencesTDD = total daily dose     

Evaluation of Insulin Glargine and Exenatide Alone and in Combination: a Randomized Clinical Trial with Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Ambulatory Glucose Profile Analysis

Objective: Characterize the effectiveness of insulin glargine alone, exenatide alone, or combined in subjects taking stable doses of metformin and evaluate their impact on hemoglobin A1C, hypoglycemia, weight, and glucose variability.Methods: Open-label, randomized, parallel-arm study of adults with type 2 diabetes naïve to both insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist who were not at A1C goal despite treatment with metformin. This prospective interventional study employed blinded continuous glucose monitoring ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) reports over 32 weeks. Subjects were randomized to treatment with glargine (Iglar), exenatide (GLP-1), or combination of glargine and exenatide (Iglar + GLP-1). At midpoint, those not at A1C target had the second medication added; those on Iglar + GLP-1 continued therapy optimization.Results: Decreases in A1C were: 7.6 to 6.2% for Iglar + GLP-1, 7.5 to 6.6% for Iglar, and 7.5 to 6.4% for GLP-1. Iglar + GLP-1 achieved A1C targets faster (14 to 16 weeks) but had more hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia rates increased slightly for all arms. Weight loss was achieved in all regimens including GLP-1. Glucose variability was not reduced to the same extent in the Iglar arm as the GLP-1 arm.Conclusion: Addition of Iglar and/or GLP-1 to metformin for patients not at treatment goal was safe and effective. The order of medication addition needs to consider individualized AGP patterns and goals. Iglar + GLP-1 resulted in rapid A1C lowering, whereas GLP-1 was noted to have less hypoglycemia. Weight loss was most pronounced in GLP-1 monotherapy, suggesting that GLP-1 may mitigate the weight gain of Iglar. Any treatment with GLP-1 showed significant decreases in glucose variability.Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1c; AGP = ambulatory glucose profile; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; GLM = general linear model; GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1 (exenatide); Iglar = insulin glargine; SGLT2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter 2; SMBG = self-monitoring blood glucose; SU = sulfonylurea; T2D = type 2 diabetes mellitus     

Perception of Graduating Endocrinology,Diabetes, and Metabolism Fellows on the Benefits of Wearing A Continuous Glucose Monitor and/or Insulin Pump for Their Education

Objectives: To our knowledge, no prior research has explored the prevalence of wearing continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and/or insulin pumps among in-training fellows and their perception of doing so as part of their education. Our objectives therefore were to estimate the frequency with which wearing a CGM and/or insulin pump is used as a learning opportunity and explore the main motivators and perception on its value.Methods: A multiple-choice survey that addressed each fellow's level of training, type of fellowship training program, and use of CGM and/or insulin pump was sent to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism program coordinators or program directors. We asked them to forward this survey to their graduating fellows. Their perception on the value of wearing these devices was addressed.Results: Fifty-one graduating fellows responded to the survey; 78.43% and 62.5% of them wore a CGM and insulin pump, respectively. A total of 89.48% and 90% of those who wore a CGM and insulin pump, respectively, thought it was above-average value for their education, and the most common reasons were to learn the technical aspects and understand what patients with diabetes go through.Conclusion: Wearing a CGM and/or insulin pump is perceived by endocrinology graduating fellows as valuable to their education, specifically, to learn the technical aspects, understand the patient's experience, and develop empathy.Abbreviations: ACGME = Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; CGM = continuous glucose monitor     

Potential Place of SGLT2 Inhibitors in Treatment Paradigms for type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Objective: Following the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2013, sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have generated much interest among physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Here, the role in treatment with this drug class is considered in the context of T2DM treatment paradigms.Methods: The clinical trials for the SGLT2 inhibitors are examined with a focus on canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin.Results: Evidence from clinical trials in patients with T2DM supports the use of SGLT2 inhibitors either as monotherapy or in addition to other glucose-lowering treatments as adjuncts to diet and exercise, and we have gained significant clinical experience in a relatively short time.Conclusion: The drugs appear to be useful in a variety of T2DM populations, contingent primarily on renal function. Most obviously, SGLT2 inhibitors appear to be well suited for patients with potential for hypoglycemia or weight gain. In clinical trials, patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors have experienced moderate weight loss and a low risk of hypoglycemic events except when used in combination with an insulin secretagogue. In addition, SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce blood pressure, so they may be beneficial in patients with T2DM complicated by hypertension. SGLT2 inhibitors were incorporated into the 2015 American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) position statement on the management of hyperglycemia and received an even more prominent position in the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE)/American College of Endocrinology (ACE) comprehensive diabetes management guidelines and algorithm.Abbreviations: AE = adverse event A1C = glycated hemoglobin CI = confidence interval CKD = chronic kidney disease DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase 4 eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate FDA = Food and Drug Administration FPG = fasting plasma glucose GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1 HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HR = hazard ratio LADA = late-onset autoimmune diabetes of adulthood LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol MACE = major adverse cardiovascular events SGLT1 = sodium glucose cotransporter 1 SGLT2 = sodium glucose cotransporter 2 T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus UACR = urine albumin to creatinine ratio     

Flash Glucose Monitoring: A Patient's and Clinician's Caveats and Concerns

Abbreviations: CGM = continuous glucose monitor; FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration; iCGM = intermittently scanned CGM; MBG = mean blood glucose; rtCGM = real-time CGM; T1D = type 1 diabetes     

Efficacy and Safety of Iglarlixi in Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites with Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is more common in Hispanic than non-Hispanic white (NHW) populations worldwide, and ethnicity, among other factors, may affect response to therapy. The efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 100 units/mL (iGlar) and the fixed-ratio combination of iGlar and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) was assessed in Hispanic and NHW patients with T2D from 25 countries.Methods: In this post hoc analysis, data from two 30-week randomized controlled trials comparing iGlar and iGlarLixi in patients with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin ± oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs; LixiLan-L: NCT02058160) or uncontrolled on metformin ± OADs (LixiLan-O: NCT02058147) were evaluated.Results: Of the 1,512 patients included across trials, 301 were Hispanic and 1,211 NHW. Compared with iGlar, iGlarLixi resulted in greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and 2-hour postprandial glucose and a higher proportion of patients at target A1C <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol), regardless of ethnicity. Among NHWs from the LixiLan-L trial, documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (plasma glucose ≤70 mg/dL) rates were higher with iGlar compared with iGlarLixi (P = .06), whereas this trend was reversed among Hispanics (P = .07). Nevertheless, in both trials, a greater proportion of patients taking iGlarLixi than iGlar reached the composite efficacy endpoints of target A1C without hypoglycemia and target A1C without weight gain, regardless of ethnicity.Conclusion: These results indicate that iGlarLixi is a viable therapeutic option for both Hispanic and NHW patients with T2D, as it is efficacious without a significant increase in hypoglycemia, irrespective of ethnicity.Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin; BMI = body mass index; FPG = fasting plasma glucose; FRC = fixed-ratio combination; GLP-1 RA = glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist; HDL-C = high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; iGlar = insulin glargine; iGlarLixi = insulin glargine + lixisenatide; LDL-C = low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; NHW = non-Hispanic white; OAD = oral antidiabetes drug; PPG = postprandial glucose; T2D = type 2 diabetes     

The Impact of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists on Patients with Diabetes on Insulin Therapy

Objective: The clinical benefit of adding a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) to basal-bolus or very high dose insulin regimens is unclear. This study investigated the impact of adding a GLP-1RA to a spectrum of insulin regimens (basal, basal-bolus, and U-500) to determine the impact on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), weight loss, and total daily insulin dose (TDD) over the course of 12 months.Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 113 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus using insulin therapy. Each participant's HbA1c, body weight, and TDD were recorded prior to initiation of GLP-1RA therapy and at the 3, 6, and 12-month time points while on combination therapy.Results: Across all participants, the HbA1c values decreased significantly from a baseline of 8.9 (74 mmol/mol) ± 0.14% to 8.2 (66 mmol/mol) ± 0.14% (P<.01) in the first 3 months, 8.0 (64 mmol/mol) ± 0.12% (P<.01) at 6 months, to 8.3 (67 mmol/mol) ± 0.14% (P<.01) at 12 months. There was no significant decrease in weight or TDD with the addition of a GLP-1RA overall or in different insulin groups. However, there was a clinically significant decrease in weight over the study duration.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that adding a GLP-1RA to various insulin regimens may help to achieve glycemic goals while avoiding the less desirable side effects of weight gain and increasing insulin regimens. However, the expected weight loss and decrease in TDD may not be as sizable in the clinical setting.Abbreviations: DCOE = Diabetes Center of Excellence; DM = diabetes mellitus; GLP-1RA = glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; RCT = randomized controlled trial; TDD = total daily dose     

Glycated Albumin at 4 Weeks Correlates with A1C Levels at 12 Weeks and Reflects Short-Term Glucose Fluctuations

Objective: Evaluate the performance of glycated albumin (GA) monitoring by comparing it to other measures of glycemic control during intensification of antidiabetic therapy.Methods: This 12-week, prospective, multicenter study compared the diagnostic clinical performance of GA to glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C), fructosamine corrected for albumin (FRA), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and mean blood glucose (MBG) estimated from self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in 30 patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 or 2 diabetes.Results: Mean A1C decreased from 9.5% to 8.1%. Mean SMBG correlated closely with CGM (Pearson r = 0.783 for daily estimates and r = 0.746 for weekly estimates, P<.0001). Both GA and FRA levels significantly correlated with changes from baseline in A1C and mean weekly SMBG (P<.001). The lowest observed median GA occurred at 4 weeks, followed by a small increase and then a slight reduction, mirroring changes in overall mean SMBG values. The median A1C fell throughout the treatment period, failing to reflect short-term changes in SMBG. A ≥1% reduction in GA at 4 weeks was significantly associated with a ≥0.5% change in A1C at 12 weeks (odds ratio &lsqb;OR] = 19.0, 95% confidence interval &lsqb;CI]: 1.4, 944, P = .018).Conclusion: In patients receiving glucose-lowering therapy, changes in GA at 4 weeks were concordant with changes in A1C at 12 weeks, and both GA and FRA more accurately reflected short-term blood glucose fluctuations than A1C.Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin A1C ARIC = Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities CGM = continuous glucose monitoring FPG = fasting plasma glucose FRA = fructosamine corrected for albumin GA = glycated albumin MBG = mean blood glucose OR = odds ratio SMBG = self-monitoring of blood glucose     

Integrated Insulin Pump and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology in Diabetes Care Today: A Perspective of Real-Life Experience With the Minimed™ 670G Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Objective: Intensive glucose management with insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring therapy in insulin-treated patients with diabetes poses many challenges in all aspects of daily life. Automated insulin delivery (AID) is the ultimate goal of insulin replacement therapy to reduce the burden of managing this condition. Many systems are being tested in the clinical research setting, and one hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system has received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use in type 1 diabetes patients above the age of 14 years.Methods: Literature review and clinical practice experience from the Diabetes and Technology Program at an academic medical center.Results: This review outlines recent advances in AID systems, focusing on the FDA-approved MiniMed™ 670G HCL system and the real-life experience 1-year post-release in an academic medical center with over 60 patients on this system. The unique challenges of adapting to this new system outside the clinical trial setting are highlighted, and a training protocol designed specifically for the onboarding of first-time users is described.Conclusion: HCL insulin therapy offers several advantages, at the same time posing unique challenges to the user. Systematic training of patients with diabetes transitioning to this system is essential for retention and success of use.Abbreviations: AID = automated insulin delivery; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin; HCL = hybrid closed-loop; ICR = insulin to carbohydrate ratio; SAP = sensor augmented pump; T1DM = type 1 diabetes     

How Much Do I Give? Reevaluation of Insulin Dosing Estimation Formulas Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring

ObjectiveTo reevaluate current formulas for determining the total basal insulin dosage (TBD), insulin to carbohydrate ratio (ICR), and correction factor (CF) from weight or total daily dosage (TDD) in pump-treated patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.MethodsFrom a post hoc analysis of data from 4 previously published studies, subjects who met the inclusion criteria were selected. No subject was duplicated. For all studies, the basal glucose target was to have fewer than 20% of glucose readings greater than 170 mg/dL and to have 10% or fewer glucose readings less than 70 mg/dL. Bolus insulin was adjusted to achieve a 2to 4-hour postbolus glucose value within 20% of the premeal glucose (ICR) or 80 to 120 mg/dL from premeal hyperglycemia (CF). In the first 2 studies, dosing titration by CGM was performed from 72-hour CGM tracings every week to every 6 weeks. In the other 2 studies, 24to 72-hour CGM downloads and insulin adjustments were done each weekday.ResultsOf 101 participants, 61 (59% women) met the inclusion criteria. Estimation formulas could be rounded to the following: TBD = 0.2 × weight (kg) or 0.4 × TDD; ICR = 300 ÷ TDD; and CF = 1500 ÷ TDD. In particular the relationship between all 3 dosing factors could be represented as 100 ÷ TBD = ICR = CF ÷ 4.5.ConclusionsThese results suggest that current formulas give a higher estimate for TBD and a lower estimate for the bolus dose. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:428-432)     

Minimal Reduction in Insulin Dosage with Pramlintide Therapy When Pretreatment Near-Normal Glycemia is Established and Square-Wave Meal Bolus is Used

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of near-normal glucose control before initiation of pramlintide therapy and square-wave meal bolus on self-reported hypoglycemia and the percentage change in dosing parameters after attaining the maximum pramlintide dosage.MethodsIn this prospective study, insulin pump–treated patients with type 1 diabetes had insulin dosages optimally titrated on the basis of daily continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Pramlintide therapy was initiated, and the dosage was increased 15 mcg/meal per week. Insulin dosage was adjusted during 30-minute visits after review of self-monitored blood glucose records, adverse effects, and hypoglycemia diary. Within 2 weeks of achieving a pramlintide dosage of 60 mcg/meal, the second CGM–guided insulin dosage adjustment was done. The primary end point was the percentage change in total basal insulin dosage (TBD) from baseline. The secondary end points were the percentage change in the insulin to carbohydrate ratio (ICR) and the assessment of symptoms of nausea and hypoglycemia during the pramlintide dosing escalation.ResultsNine patients were enrolled. The difference between before and during CGM–guided insulin dosing was a mean (± standard deviation) TBD change of -11.2 ± 13.2% (P = 0.023) and mean ICR change of 7.8 ± 13.4% (P = 0.053). Pramlintide was well tolerated and resulted in decrease in weight and hemoglobin A_1c values. Hypoglycemia occurred in 6 patients during the study; the assistance of another person was not required in any of these cases. No hypoglycemia was reported in the first week of starting pramlintide. Mild to moderate nausea was reported in 6 patients during the titration phase.ConclusionsPatients with near-normal glucose control who use a square-wave bolus may not need initial bolus dosage reduction. With weight loss, small adjustments in both TBD and ICR may be required. Greater incidence of hypoglycemia seen in previous studies may in part be due to mismatched insulin dosing. (Endocr Pract. 2009;15:229-233)     

Effect of Gluten-FREE Diet on Metabolic Control and Anthropometric Parameters in Type 1 Diabetes with Subclinical Celiac Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: It is unclear whether the institution of gluten-free diet (GFD) is beneficial in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and subclinical celiac disease (CD). Our primary objective was to evaluate the effect of GFD on the frequency of hypoglycemia, in patients with T1DM and subclinical CD. Our secondary objective was to investigate the effect of GFD on height, weight, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), insulin dose requirement, and bone mineral homeostasis.Methods: We carried out a prospective open label randomized controlled trial (RCT). Patients with T1DM and subclinical CD were randomized to receive GFD or a normal diet for 1 year. The primary outcome was the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose <70 mg/dL) measured by self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) at the sixth month of the study in the 2 groups.Results: Screening for CD was carried out in 320 T1DM patients. Thirty eligible patients were randomized to receive GFD (n = 15) or a normal diet (n = 15). The mean number of hypoglycemic episodes/month recorded by SMBG and the mean time spent in hypoglycemia measured by CGM (minutes) in the GFD group versus the non-GFD group at six months was 2.3 minutes versus 3.4 minutes (P = .5) and 124.1 minutes versus 356.9 minutes (P = .1), respectively. The mean number of hypoglycemic episodes/month significantly declined in the GFD group (3.5 episodes at baseline versus 2.3 episodes at the sixth month; P = .03). The mean HbA1c declined by 0.73% in the GFD group and rose by 0.99% in non-GFD group at study completion.Conclusion: This is the first RCT to assess the effect of GFD in T1DM and subclinical CD. A trend towards a decrease in hypoglycemic episodes and better glycemic control was seen in patients receiving GFD.Abbreviations: BMC = bone mineral content; BMI = body mass index; CD = celiac disease; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; GFD = gluten-free diet; Hb = hemoglobin; HbA1c = glycosylated hemoglobin; iPTH = intact parathyroid hormone; RCT = randomized controlled trial; SMBG = self-monitoring of blood glucose; T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus; tTG-IgA = tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A