Fast-acting insulin aspart versus insulin aspart in the setting of insulin degludec-treated type 1 diabetes: Efficacy and safety from a randomized double-blind trial

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mealtime or post-meal fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) vs mealtime insulin aspart (IAsp), both in combination with insulin degludec, in participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: This multicentre, treat-to-target trial (Clinical trial registry: NCT02500706, ClinicalTrials.gov) randomized participants to double-blind mealtime faster aspart (n = 342) or IAsp (n = 342) or open-label post-meal faster aspart (n = 341). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c 26 weeks post randomization. All available information, regardless of treatment discontinuation, was used for evaluation of the effect. Results: Non-inferiority for the change from baseline in HbA1c was confirmed for mealtime and post-meal faster aspart vs IAsp (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: 95%CI, −0.02% [−0.11; 0.07] and 0.10% [0.004; 0.19], respectively). Mealtime faster aspart was superior to IAsp for 1-hour PPG increment using a meal test (ETD, −0.90 mmol/L [−1.36; –0.45]; P < 0.001). Self-monitored 1-hour PPG increment favoured faster aspart at breakfast (ETD, −0.58 mmol/L [−0.99; −0.17]; P = 0.006) and across all meals (−0.48 mmol/L [−0.74; −0.21]; P < 0.001). Safety profiles and overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia were similar between treatments, but significantly less hypoglycaemia was seen 3 to 4 hours after meals with mealtime faster aspart. Conclusion: Mealtime and post-meal faster aspart in conjunction with insulin degludec provided effective glycaemic control compared with IAsp, with no increased safety risk. Mealtime faster aspart provided PPG control superior to that of IAsp

The associations of sedentary time and breaks in sedentary time with 24-hour glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes

The aim of this study was to investigate the associations of accelerometer-assessed sedentary time and breaks in sedentary time with 24-h events and duration of hypoglycaemia (7.8 mmol/l) and above target glucose (>9 mmol/l). Thirty-seven participants with type 2 diabetes (age, 62.8 ± 10.5 years; body mass index, 29.6 ± 6.8 kg/m2) in Glasgow, United Kingdom were enrolled between February 2016 and February 2017. Participants wore an activity monitor (activPAL3) recording the time and pattern of sedentary behaviour and a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM, Abbott FreeStyle Libre) for up to 14 days. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate the associations. Participants spent 3.7%, 64.7%, 32.1% and 19.2% of recording h/day in hypoglycaemia, euglycaemia, hyperglycaemia and above target, respectively. There was a negative association between sedentary time and time in euglycaemia (β = -0.44, 95% CI -0.86; -0.03, p = 0.04). There was a trend towards a positive association between sedentary time and time in hyperglycaemia (β = 0.36, 95% CI -0.05; 0.78, p = 0.08). Breaks in sedentary time was associated with higher time in euglycaemia (β = 0.38, 95% CI 0.00; 0.75, p = 0.04). To conclude, in individuals with type 2 diabetes, more time spent in unbroken and continuous sedentary behaviour was associated with poorer glucose control. Conversely, interrupting sedentary time with frequent breaks appears to improve glycaemic control. Therefore, this should be considered as a simple adjunct therapy to improve clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes

Extremely short duration interval exercise improves 24-h glycaemia in men with type 2 diabetes

PurposeReduced-exertion high-intensity interval training (REHIT) is a genuinely time-efficient exercise intervention that improves aerobic capacity and blood pressure in men with type 2 diabetes. However, the acute effects of REHIT on 24-h glycaemia have not been examined.Methods11 men with type 2 diabetes (mean ± SD: age, 52 ± 6 years; BMI, 29.7 ± 3.1 kg/m2; HbA1c, 7.0 ± 0.8%) participated in a randomised, four-trial crossover study, with continual interstitial glucose measurements captured during a 24-h dietary-standardised period following either (1) no exercise (CON); (2) 30 min of continuous exercise (MICT); (3) 10 × 1 min at ~ 90 HRmax (HIIT; time commitment, ~ 25 min); and (4) 2 × 20 s ‘all-out’ sprints (REHIT; time commitment, 10 min).ResultsCompared to CON, mean 24-h glucose was lower following REHIT (mean ± 95%CI: − 0.58 ± 0.41 mmol/L, p = 0.008, d = 0.55) and tended to be lower with MICT (− 0.37 ± 0.41 mmol/L, p = 0.08, d = 0.35), but was not significantly altered following HIIT (− 0.37 ± 0.59 mmol/L, p = 0.31, d = 0.35). This seemed to be largely driven by a lower glycaemic response (area under the curve) to dinner following both REHIT and MICT (− 11%, p  0.9 for both) but not HIIT (− 4%, p = 0.22, d = 0.38). Time in hyperglycaemia appeared to be reduced with all three exercise conditions compared with CON (REHIT: − 112 ± 63 min, p = 0.002, d = 0.50; MICT: -115 ± 127 min, p = 0.08, d = 0.50; HIIT − 125 ± 122 min, p = 0.04, d = 0.54), whilst indices of glycaemic variability were not significantly altered.ConclusionREHIT may offer a genuinely time-efficient exercise option for improving 24-h glycaemia in men with type 2 diabetes and warrants further study