Evaluation of a novel continuous glucose monitoring-based method for mealtime insulin dosing - the iBolus - in subjects with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy: a randomized controlled trial

This is a copy of an article published in the Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics © 2012 [copyright Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.]; Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics is available online at: http://online.liebertpub.com.[EN] Objective: Prandial insulin dosing is an empirical practice associated frequently with poor reproducibility in postprandial glucose response. Based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), a method for prandial insulin administration (iBolus) is presented and evaluated for people with type 1 diabetes using CSII therapy. Subjects and Methods: An individual patient¿s model for a 5-h postprandial period was obtained from 6-day ambulatory CGM and used for iBolus calculation in 12 patients with type 1 diabetes. In a double-blind, crossover study each patient underwent four meal tests with 40 g or 100 g of carbohydrates (CHOs), both on two occasions. For each meal, the iBolus or the traditional bolus (tBolus) was given before mealtime (t 0) in a randomized order. We measured the postprandial glycemic response as the area under the curve of plasma glucose (AUC-PG0¿5h) and variability as the individual coef¿cient of variation (CV) of AUC-PG0¿5h. The contribution of the insulin-to-CHO ratio, CHO, plasma glucose at t 0 (PGt0), and insulin dose to AUC-PG0¿5h and its CV was also investigated. Results: AUC-PG0¿5h was similar with either bolus for 40-g (iBolus vs. tBolus, 585.5¿127.5 vs. 689.2¿180.7 mg/dL$h) or 100-g (752.1¿237.7 vs. 760.0¿263.2 mg/dL$h) CHO meals. A multiple regression analysis revealed a signi¿cant model only for the tBolus, with PGt0 being the best predictor of AUC-PG0¿5h explaining approximately 50% of the glycemic response. Observed variability was greater with the iBolus (CV, 16.7¿15.3% vs. 10.1¿12.5%) but independent of the factors studied. Conclusions: A CGM-based algorithm for calculation of prandial insulin is feasible, although it does not reduce unpredictability of individual glycemic responses. Causes of variability need to be identi¿ed and analyzed for further optimization of postprandial glycemic control.We are grateful to Mrs. Sara Correa, Fundacion INCLIVA-Hospital Clinico Universitario de Valencia, and Mrs. Geles Viguer, Hospital Clinico Universitario de Valencia, for their invaluable help in conducting the study. We also thanks Dr. Carmine Fanelli, University of Perugia, Dr. Howard Zisser, Sansum Diabetes Research Institute, and Prof. Alberto Ferrer, Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, for their suggestions on study design and data analysis. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007/2013) under grant agreement 252085 and from the Spanish Ministry of Science under grants DPI2010-20764-C02-01 and DPI2011-28112-C04-01.Rossetti, P.; Ampudia Blasco, FJ.; Laguna Sanz, AJ.; Revert Tomás, A.; Vehí Casellas, J.; Ascaso, JF.; Bondía Company, J. (2012). Evaluation of a novel continuous glucose monitoring-based method for mealtime insulin dosing - the iBolus - in subjects with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 14(11):1043-1052. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2012.0145S10431052141

Basal plus basal-bolus approach in type 2 diabetes

This is a copy of an article published in the Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics © 2011 [copyright Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.]; Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics is available online at: http://online.liebertpub.com.[EN] Type 2 diabetes is characterized by insulin resistance and progressive b-cell deterioration. As b-cell function declines, most patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral agents, in monotherapy or combination, will require insulin therapy. Addition of basal insulin (glargine, detemir, or NPH/neutral protamine lispro insulin) to previous treatment is accepted as the simplest way to start insulin therapy in those patients. But even when basal insulin is adequately titrated, some patients will also need prandial insulin to achieve or maintain individual glycemic targets over time. Starting with premixed insulin is an effective option, but it is frequently associated with increased hypoglycemia risk, ¿xed meal schedules, and weight gain. As an alternative, a novel approached known as ``basal plus strategy¿¿ has been developed. This approach considers the addition of increasing injections of prandial insulin, beginning with the meal that has the major impact on postprandial glucose values. Finally, if this is not enough intensi¿cation to basal¿bolus will be necessary. In reducing hyperglycemia, this modality still remains the most effective option, even in people with type 2 diabetes. This article will review the currently evidence on the basal plus strategy and also its progression to basal¿bolus therapy. In addition, practical recommendations to start and adjust basal plus therapy will be provided.F.J.A.-B. has received honoraria as speaker and/or consultant from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glaxo-SmithKline, LifeScan, Lilly, Madaus, MannKind Corp., Medtronic, Menarini, Merch Farma y Quimica, SA, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Schering-Plough, and Solvay. In addition, F.J.A.-B. has participated in clinical trials supported totally or partially by AstraZeneca, Glaxo-SmithKline, LifeScan, Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, and Servier. P. R. has no potential conflicts of interest to declare. J.F.A. has received honoraria as speaker and/or consultant form AstraZeneca, Ferrer, Glaxo-SmithKline, Laboratorios Dr. Esteve, Lilly, MSD, and Solvay.Ampudia-Blasco, J.; Rossetti ., P.; Ascaso, JF. (2011). Basal plus basal-bolus approach in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 13:75-83. doi:10.1089/dia.2011.0001S75831

The role of retinal fluid location in atrophy and fibrosis evolution of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration long-term treated in real world

Purpose: To assess the effect of clinical factors on the development and progression of atrophy and fibrosis in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) receiving long-term treatment in the real world. Methods: An ambispective 36-month multicentre study, involving 359 nAMD patients from 17 Spanish hospitals treated according to the Spanish Vitreoretinal Society guidelines, was designed. The influence of demographic and clinical factors, including the presence and location of retinal fluid, on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and progression to atrophy and/or fibrosis were analysed. Results: After 36 months of follow-up and an average of 13.8 anti-VEGF intravitreal injections, the average BCVA gain was +1.5 letters, and atrophy and/or fibrosis were present in 54.8% of nAMD patients (OR = 8.54, 95% CI = 5.85-12.47, compared to baseline). Atrophy was associated with basal intraretinal fluid (IRF) (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.09-3.20), whereas basal subretinal fluid (SRF) was associated with a lower rate of atrophy (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.23-0.71) and its progression (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.26-0.75), leading to a slow progression rate (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.14-0.83). Fibrosis development and progression were related to IRF at any visit (p < 0.001). In contrast, 36-month SRF was related to a lower rate of fibrosis (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.29-0.81) and its progression (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.31-0.81). Conclusion: Atrophy and/or fibrosis were present in 1 of 2 nAMD patients treated for 3 years. Both, especially fibrosis, lead to vision loss. Subretinal fluid (SRF) was associated with good visual outcomes and lower rates of atrophy and fibrosis, whereas IRF yields worse visual results and a higher risk of atrophy and especially fibrosis in routine clinical practice

Lipid profile, cardiovascular disease and mortality in a Mediterranean high-risk population: The ESCARVAL-RISK study.

The potential impact of targeting different components of an adverse lipid profile in populations with multiple cardiovascular risk factors is not completely clear. This study aims to assess the association between different components of the standard lipid profile with all-cause mortality and hospitalization due to cardiovascular events in a high-risk population. This prospective registry included high risk adults over 30 years old free of cardiovascular disease (2008-2012). Diagnosis of hypertension, dyslipidemia or diabetes mellitus was inclusion criterion. Lipid biomarkers were evaluated. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and hospital admission due to coronary heart disease or stroke. We estimated adjusted rate ratios (aRR), absolute risk differences and population attributable risk associated with adverse lipid profiles. 51,462 subjects were included with a mean age of 62.6 years (47.6% men). During an average follow-up of 3.2 years, 919 deaths, 1666 hospitalizations for coronary heart disease and 1510 hospitalizations for stroke were recorded. The parameters that showed an increased rate for total mortality, coronary heart disease and stroke hospitalization were, respectively, low HDL-Cholesterol: aRR 1.25, 1.29 and 1.23; high Total/HDL-Cholesterol: aRR 1.22, 1.38 and 1.25; and high Triglycerides/HDL-Cholesterol: aRR 1.21, 1.30, 1.09. The parameters that showed highest population attributable risk (%) were, respectively, low HDL-Cholesterol: 7.70, 11.42, 8.40; high Total/HDL-Cholesterol: 6.55, 12.47, 8.73; and high Triglycerides/HDL-Cholesterol: 8.94, 15.09, 6.92. In a population with cardiovascular risk factors, HDL-cholesterol, Total/HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides/HDL-cholesterol ratios were associated with a higher population attributable risk for cardiovascular disease compared to other common biomarkers.S

Lipid profile, cardiovascular disease and mortality in a Mediterranean high-risk population: the ESCARVAL-RISK study

The potential impact of targeting different components of an adverse lipid profile in populations with multiple cardiovascular risk factors is not completely clear. This study aims to assess the association between different components of the standard lipid profile with all cause mortality and hospitalization due to cardiovascular events in a high-risk population. Methods This prospective registry included high risk adults over 30 years old free of cardiovascular disease (2008±2012). Diagnosis of hypertension, dyslipidemia or diabetes mellitus was inclusion criterion. Lipid biomarkers were evaluated. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and hospital admission due to coronary heart disease or stroke. We estimated adjusted rate ratios (aRR), absolute risk differences and population attributable risk associated with adverse lipid profiles. Results 51,462 subjects were included with a mean age of 62.6 years (47.6% men). During an average follow-up of 3.2 years, 919 deaths, 1666 hospitalizations for coronary heart disease and 1510 hospitalizations for stroke were recorded. The parameters that showed an increased rate for total mortality, coronary heart disease and stroke hospitalization were, respectively, low HDL-Cholesterol: aRR 1.25, 1.29 and 1.23; high Total/HDL-Cholesterol: aRR 1.22, 1.38 and 1.25; and high Triglycerides/HDL-Cholesterol: aRR 1.21, 1.30, 1.09. The parameters that showed highest population attributable risk (%) were, respectively, low HDL-Cholesterol: 7.70, 11.42, 8.40; high Total/HDL-Cholesterol: 6.55, 12.47, 8.73; and high Triglycerides/ HDL-Cholesterol: 8.94, 15.09, 6.92. Conclusions In a population with cardiovascular risk factors, HDL-cholesterol, Total/HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides/HDL-cholesterol ratios were associated with a higher population attributable risk for cardiovascular disease compared to other common biomarkers

Correction: Lipid profile, cardiovascular disease and mortality in a Mediterranean high-risk population: The ESCARVAL-RISK study.

The potential impact of targeting different components of an adverse lipid profile in populations with multiple cardiovascular risk factors is not completely clear. This study aims to assess the association between different components of the standard lipid profile with all-cause mortality and hospitalization due to cardiovascular events in a high-risk populatio