A randomized, multicentre trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in adults with type 1 diabetes (onset 5).

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) vs insulin aspart (IAsp) used in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, treat-to-target, randomized, 16-week trial investigating CSII treatment with faster aspart (n = 236) or IAsp (n = 236). All available information, regardless of treatment discontinuation, was used for the evaluation of effect. RESULTS: Faster aspart was non-inferior to IAsp regarding the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; primary endpoint). The mean HbA1c changed from 58.4 mmol/mol (7.5%) at baseline to 57.8 mmol/mol (7.4%) with faster aspart and to 56.8 mmol/mol (7.4%) with IAsp after 16 weeks' treatment, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of 1.0 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14; 1.87) or 0.09% (95% CI 0.01; 0.17; P < 0.001) for non-inferiority (0.4% margin; P < 0.02 for statistical significance in favour of IAsp). Faster aspart was superior to IAsp in change from baseline in 1-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increment after a meal test (ETD -0.91 mmol/L [95% CI -1.43; -0.39] or -16.4 mg/dL [95% CI -25.7; -7.0]; P = 0.001), with statistically significant reductions also at 30 minutes and 2 hours. The improvement in PPG was reflected in the change from baseline in 1-hour interstitial glucose increment after all meals (ETD -0.21 mmol/L [95% CI -0.31; -0.11] or -3.77 mg/dL [95% CI -5.53; -2.01]). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed hypoglycaemia (estimated rate ratio 1.00 [95% CI 0.85; 1.16]). A numerical imbalance in severe hypoglycaemic episodes between faster aspart and IAsp was seen in the treatment (21 vs 7) and 4-week run-in periods (4 vs 0). CONCLUSIONS: Faster aspart provides an effective and safe option for CSII treatment in T1D.NovoNordis

Implementation of Basal-Bolus Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes:A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Bolus Insulin Delivery Using an Insulin Patch with an Insulin Pen

Background: Barriers to mealtime insulin include complexity, fear of injections, and lifestyle interference. This multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluated efficacy, safety, and self-reported outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes, inadequately controlled on basal insulin, initiating and managing mealtime insulin with a wearable patch versus an insulin pen. Methods: Adults with type 2 diabetes (n = 278, age: 59.2 +/- 8.9 years), were randomized to patch (n = 139) versus pen (n = 139) for 48 weeks, with crossover at week 44. Baseline insulin was divided 1:1 basal: bolus. Using a pattern-control logbook, subjects adjusted basal and bolus insulin weekly using fasting and premeal glucose targets. Results: Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change (least squares mean +/- standard error) from baseline to week 24 (primary endpoint) improved (P \u3c 0.0001) in both arms, -1.7% +/- 0.1% and -1.6% +/- 0.1% for patch and pen (-18.6 +/- 1.1 and -17.5 +/- 1.1 mmol/mol), and was maintained at 44 weeks. The coefficient of variation of 7-point self-monitoring blood glucose decreased more (P = 0.02) from baseline to week 44 for patch versus pen. There were no differences in adverse events, including hypoglycemia (three severe episodes per arm), and changes in weight and insulin doses. Subject-reported treatment satisfaction, quality of life, experience ratings at week 24, and device preferences at week 48 significantly favored the patch. Most health care providers preferred patch for mealtime insulin. Conclusions: Bolus insulin delivered by patch and pen using an algorithm-based weekly insulin dose titration significantly improved HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes, with improved subject and health care provider experience and preference for the patch

Continuous Glucose Monitors and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline.

This article is the work product of the Continuous Glucose Monitor and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline Panel, which was organized by Diabetes Technology Society and met virtually on April 23, 2020. The guideline panel consisted of 24 international experts in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin dosing (AID) systems representing adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, advanced practice nursing, diabetes care and education, clinical chemistry, bioengineering, and product liability law. The panelists reviewed the medical literature pertaining to five topics: (1) continuation of home CGMs after hospitalization, (2) initiation of CGMs in the hospital, (3) continuation of AID systems in the hospital, (4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGMs and AID systems, and (5) data management of CGMs and AID systems in the hospital. The panelists then developed three types of recommendations for each topic, including clinical practice (to use the technology optimally), research (to improve the safety and effectiveness of the technology), and hospital policies (to build an environment for facilitating use of these devices) for each of the five topics. The panelists voted on 78 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 77 recommendations were classified as either strong or mild. One recommendation failed to reach consensus. Additional research is needed on CGMs and AID systems in the hospital setting regarding device accuracy, practices for deployment, data management, and achievable outcomes. This guideline is intended to support these technologies for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes

Threshold-based insulin-pump interruption for reduction of hypoglycemia

*Q1Artículo original224-232Background The threshold-suspend feature of sensor-augmented insulin pumps is designed to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia by interrupting insulin delivery at a preset sensor glucose value. We evaluated sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy with and without the threshold-suspend feature in patients with nocturnal hypoglycemia. Methods We randomly assigned patients with type 1 diabetes and documented nocturnal hypoglycemia to receive sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy with or without the threshold-suspend feature for 3 months. The primary safety outcome was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level. The primary efficacy outcome was the area under the curve (AUC) for nocturnal hypoglycemic events. Two-hour threshold-suspend events were analyzed with respect to subsequent sensor glucose values. Results A total of 247 patients were randomly assigned to receive sensor-augmented insulinpump therapy with the threshold-suspend feature (threshold-suspend group, 121 patients) or standard sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy (control group, 126 patients). The changes in glycated hemoglobin values were similar in the two groups. The mean AUC for nocturnal hypoglycemic events was 37.5% lower in the thresholdsuspend group than in the control group (980±1200 mg per deciliter [54.4±66.6 mmol per liter]×minutes vs. 1568±1995 mg per deciliter [87.0±110.7 mmol per liter]×minutes, P<0.001). Nocturnal hypoglycemic events occurred 31.8% less frequently in the threshold-suspend group than in the control group (1.5±1.0 vs. 2.2±1.3 per patientweek, P<0.001). The percentages of nocturnal sensor glucose values of less than 50 mg per deciliter (2.8 mmol per liter), 50 to less than 60 mg per deciliter (3.3 mmol per liter), and 60 to less than 70 mg per deciliter (3.9 mmol per liter) were significantly reduced in the threshold-suspend group (P<0.001 for each range). After 1438 instances at night in which the pump was stopped for 2 hours, the mean sensor glucose value was 92.6±40.7 mg per deciliter (5.1±2.3 mmol per liter). Four patients (all in the control group) had a severe hypoglycemic event; no patients had diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusions This study showed that over a 3-month period the use of sensor-augmented insulinpump therapy with the threshold-suspend feature reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia, without increasing glycated hemoglobin values. (Funded by Medtronic MiniMed; ASPIRE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01497938.

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) Technologies in Clinical Practice

International audienceThe significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past six years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage

A Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Validated by Clinician Ratings

BackgroundA composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data.MethodsWe assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low-glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high-glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation.ResultsThe analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals.ConclusionThe GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments