Improving the clinical value and utility of CGM systems: issues and recommendations: a joint statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group

The first systems for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) became available over 15 years ago. Many then believed CGM would revolutionize the use of intensive insulin therapy in diabetes; however, progress toward that vision has been gradual. Although increasing, the proportion of individuals using CGM rather than conventional systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose on a daily basis is still low in most parts of the world. Barriers to uptake include cost, measurement reliability (particularly with earlier-generation systems), human factors issues, lack of a standardized format for displaying results, and uncertainty on how best to use CGM data to make therapeutic decisions. This Scientific Statement makes recommendations for systemic improvements in clinical use and regulatory (pre- and postmarketing) handling of CGM devices. The aim is to improve safety and efficacy in order to support the advancement of the technology in achieving its potential to improve quality of life and health outcomes for more people with diabetes

Improving the clinical value and utility of CGM systems: issues and recommendations : a joint statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group

The first systems for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) became available over 15 years ago. Many then believed CGM would revolutionise the use of intensive insulin therapy in diabetes; however, progress towards that vision has been gradual. Although increasing, the proportion of individuals using CGM rather than conventional systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose on a daily basis is still low in most parts of the world. Barriers to uptake include cost, measurement reliability (particularly with earlier-generation systems), human factors issues, lack of a standardised format for displaying results and uncertainty on how best to use CGM data to make therapeutic decisions. This scientific statement makes recommendations for systemic improvements in clinical use and regulatory (pre- and postmarketing) handling of CGM devices. The aim is to improve safety and efficacy in order to support the advancement of the technology in achieving its potential to improve quality of life and health outcomes for more people with diabetes

Low cardiorespiratory fitness in people at risk for type 2 diabetes: early marker for insulin resistance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>There is a significant association between insulin resistance and low cardiorespiratory fitness in nondiabetic subjects. In a population with risk factors for type 2 diabetes (T2DM), before they are insulin resistant, we investigated low exercise capacity (VO2max) as an early marker of impaired insulin sensitivity in order to determine earlier interventions to prevent development of insulin resistance syndrome (IRS) and T2DM.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional analyses of data on 369 (78 men and 291 women) people at risk for IRS and T2DM, aged 45.6 +/- 10 years (20-65 years) old from the Community Diabetes Prevention Project in Minnesota were carried out. The cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max) by respiratory gas exchange and bicycle ergometer were measured in our at risk non insulin resistant population and compared with a control group living in the same geographic area. Both groups were equally sedentary, matched for age, gender and BMI.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The most prevalent abnormality in the study population was markedly low VO2max when compared with general work site screening control group, (n = 177; 137F; 40 M, mean age 40 ± 11 years; BMI = 27.8 ± 6.1 kg/m²). Individuals at risk for IRS and T2DM had a VO2max (22 ± 6 ml/kg/min) 15% lower than the control group VO2max (26 ± 9 ml/kg/min) (p < 0.001). It was foun that VO₂max was inversely correlated with HOMA-IR (r = -0.30, p < 0.0001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Decreased VO2max is correlated with impaired insulin sensitivity and was the most prevalent abnormality in a population at risk for IRS and T2DM but without overt disease. This raises the possibility that decreased VO2 max is among the earliest indicators of IRS and T2DM therefore, an important risk factor for disease progression.</p

Diabetes Digital App Technology: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Technology Working Group

Digital health technology, especially digital and health applications ("apps"), have been developing rapidly to help people manage their diabetes. Numerous health-related apps provided on smartphones and other wireless devices are available to support people with diabetes who need to adopt either lifestyle interventions or medication adjustments in response to glucose-monitoring data. However, regulations and guidelines have not caught up with the burgeoning field to standardize how mobile health apps are reviewed and monitored for patient safety and clinical validity. The available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of mobile health apps, especially for diabetes, remains limited. The European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) have therefore conducted a joint review of the current landscape of available diabetes digital health technology (only stand-alone diabetes apps, as opposed to those that are integral to a regulated medical device, such as insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring systems, and automated insulin delivery systems) and practices of regulatory authorities and organizations. We found that, across the U.S. and Europe, mobile apps intended to manage health and wellness are largely unregulated unless they meet the definition of medical devices for therapeutic and/or diagnostic purposes. International organizations, including the International Medical Device Regulators Forum and the World Health Organization, have made strides in classifying different types of digital health technology and integrating digital health technology into the field of medical devices. As the diabetes digital health field continues to develop and become more fully integrated into everyday life, we wish to ensure that it is based on the best evidence for safety and efficacy. As a result, we bring to light several issues that the diabetes community, including regulatory authorities, policy makers, professional organizations, researchers, people with diabetes, and health care professionals, needs to address to ensure that diabetes health technology can meet its full potential. These issues range from inadequate evidence on app accuracy and clinical validity to lack of training provision, poor interoperability and standardization, and insufficient data security. We conclude with a series of recommended actions to resolve some of these shortcomings

New insulin glargine 300 U/ml compared with glargine 100 U/ml in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes on oral glucose-lowering drugs:a randomized controlled trial (EDITION 3)

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of new insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) with that of glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes using oral glucose-lowering drugs. METHODS: The EDITION 3 study was a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group study. Participants were randomized to Gla-300 or Gla-100 once daily for 6 months, discontinuing sulphonylureas and glinides, with a dose titration aimed at achieving pre-breakfast plasma glucose concentrations of 4.4–5.6 mmol/l (80–100 mg/dl). The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to month 6. The main secondary endpoint was percentage of participants with ≥1 nocturnal confirmed [≤3.9 mmol/l (≤70 mg/dl)] or severe hypoglycaemia from week 9 to month 6. Other measures of glycaemia and hypoglycaemia, weight change and insulin dose were assessed. RESULTS: Randomized participants (n = 878) had a mean (standard deviation) age of 57.7 (10.1) years, diabetes duration 9.8 (6.4) years, body mass index 33.0 (6.7) kg/m(2) and HbA1c 8.54 (1.06) % [69.8 (11.6) mmol/mol]. HbA1c levels decreased by equivalent amounts with the two treatments; the least squares mean difference in change from baseline was 0.04 [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.09 to 0.17] % or 0.4 (−1.0 to 1.9) mmol/mol. Numerically fewer participants reported ≥1 nocturnal confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/l) or severe hypoglycaemia from week 9 to month 6 [relative risk (RR) 0.89 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.20)] with Gla-300 versus Gla-100; a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia with this definition was found over the 6-month treatment period [RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.99)]. No between-treatment differences in adverse events were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Gla-300 is as effective as Gla-100 in reducing HbA1c in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes, with lower hypoglycaemia risk

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with new insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus insulin glargine 100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs: the EDITION 2 randomized 12-month trial including 6-month extension

Peer reviewe

Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

Glycemic management in type 2 diabetes mellitus has become increasingly complex and, to some extent, controversial, with a widening array of pharmacological agents now available (1–5), mounting concerns about their potential adverse effects and new uncertainties regarding the benefits of intensive glycemic control on macrovascular complications (6–9). Many clinicians are therefore perplexed as to the optimal strategies for their patients. As a consequence, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a joint task force to examine the evidence and develop recommendations for antihyperglycemic therapy in nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes. Several guideline documents have been developed by members of these two organizations (10) and by other societies and federations (2,11–15). However, an update was deemed necessary because of contemporary information on the benefits/risks of glycemic control, recent evidence concerning efficacy and safety of several new drug classes (16,17), the withdrawal/restriction of others, and increasing calls for a move toward more patient-centered care (18,19). This statement has been written incorporating the best available evidence and, where solid support does not exist, using the experience and insight of the writing group, incorporating an extensive review by additional experts (acknowledged below). The document refers to glycemic control; yet this clearly needs to be pursued within a multifactorial risk reduction framework. This stems from the fact that patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; the aggressive management of cardiovascular

Relationship of glycated haemoglobin and reported hypoglycaemia to cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndrome events: The EXAMINE trial.

AIMS: To investigate relationships between glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and reported hypoglycaemia and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). METHODS: The EXAMINE trial randomized 5380 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event, in 49 countries, to double-blind treatment with alogliptin or placebo in addition to standard of care. We used Cox proportional hazards models to analyse relationships among MACE, HbA1c levels and hypoglycaemic events. RESULTS: Patients randomized to alogliptin achieved lower HbA1c levels than the placebo group in all baseline HbA1c categories without differences in hypoglycaemia rates. No systematic change was found in MACE rates according to baseline HbA1c (Pinteraction  = 0.971) or HbA1c category at 1 month. Patients in the combined treatment groups (n = 5380) who experienced serious hypoglycaemia (n = 34) had higher MACE rates than those who did not (35.3% vs 11.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-4.60; P = .007), although the association was less strong when analysing only events after the hypoglycaemic event (adjusted HR 1.60, 95% CI 0.80, 3.20). CONCLUSIONS: There were no relationships between baseline HbA1c levels or HbA1c levels after 1 month of treatment and the risk of MACE. Alogliptin improved glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia. Reported events of hypoglycaemia and serious hypoglycaemia were associated with MACE. These data underscore the safety of alogliptin in improving glycaemic control in T2DM post-ACS. Further study of hypoglycaemia as an independent risk factor for MACE in patients with T2DM and coronary disease is needed

Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Clinical Trials: Recommendations on Reporting.

Thanks to significant improvements in the precision, accuracy, and usability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), its relevance in both ambulatory diabetes care and clinical research is increasing. In this study, we address the latter perspective and derive provisional reporting recommendations. CGM systems have been available since around the year 2000 and used primarily in people with type 1 diabetes. In contrast to self-measured glucose, CGM can provide continuous real-time measurement of glucose levels, alerts for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and a detailed assessment of glycemic variability. Through a broad spectrum of derived glucose data, CGM should be a useful tool for clinical evaluation of new glucose-lowering medications and strategies. It is the only technology that can measure hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic exposure in ambulatory care, or provide data for comprehensive assessment of glucose variability. Other advantages of current CGM systems include the opportunity for improved self-management of glycemic control, with particular relevance to those at higher risk of or from hypoglycemia. We therefore summarize the current status and limitations of CGM from the perspective of clinical trials and derive suggested recommendations for how these should facilitate optimal CGM use and reporting of data in clinical research