Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes

Background The cardiovascular effect of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, when added to standard care in patients with type 2 diabetes, remains unknown. Methods In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk to receive liraglutide or placebo. The primary composite outcome in the time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The primary hypothesis was that liraglutide would be noninferior to placebo with regard to the primary outcome, with a margin of 1.30 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. No adjustments for multiplicity were performed for the prespecified exploratory outcomes. Results A total of 9340 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 3.8 years. The primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the liraglutide group (608 of 4668 patients [13.0%]) than in the placebo group (694 of 4672 [14.9%]) (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority). Fewer patients died from cardiovascular causes in the liraglutide group (219 patients [4.7%]) than in the placebo group (278 [6.0%]) (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P=0.007). The rate of death from any cause was lower in the liraglutide group (381 patients [8.2%]) than in the placebo group (447 [9.6%]) (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97; P=0.02). The rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure were nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. The most common adverse events leading to the discontinuation of liraglutide were gastrointestinal events. The incidence of pancreatitis was nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. Conclusions In the time-to-event analysis, the rate of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was lower with liraglutide than with placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk and the National Institutes of Health; LEADER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01179048 .)

Emerging technologies for the management of Type 1 diabetes in pregnancy

Purpose of Review: The purpose of the study is to discuss emerging technologies available in the management of type 1 diabetes in pregnancy. Recent Findings: The latest evidence suggests that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) should be offered to all women on intensive insulin therapy in early pregnancy. Studies have additionally demonstrated the ability of CGM to help gain insight into specific glucose profiles as they relate to glycaemic targets and pregnancy outcomes. Despite new studies comparing insulin pump therapy to multiple daily injections, its effectiveness in improving glucose and pregnancy outcomes remains unclear. Sensor-integrated insulin delivery (also called artificial pancreas or closed-loop insulin delivery) in pregnancy has been demonstrated to improve time in target and performs well despite the changing insulin demands of pregnancy. Summary: Emerging technologies show promise in the management of type 1 diabetes in pregnancy; however, research must continue to keep up as technology advances. Further research is needed to clarify the role technology can play in optimising glucose control before and during pregnancy as well as to understand which women are candidates for sensor-integrated insulin delivery

Assessing the effectiveness of a 3-month day-and-night home closed-loop control combined with pump suspend feature compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in youths and adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a randomised parallel study protocol

$\textbf{Introduction:}$ Despite therapeutic advances, many individuals with type 1 diabetes are unable to achieve tight glycaemic target without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a 3-month day-and-night home closed-loop glucose control combined with a pump suspend feature, compared with sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in youths and adults with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes. $\textbf{Methods and analysis:}$ The study adopts an open-label, multi-centre, multi-national (UK and USA), randomised, single-period, parallel design and aims for 84 randomised patients. Participants are youths (6-21 years) or adults (>21 years) with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy and suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol) and ≤10% (86 mmol/mol)). Following a 4-week run-in period, eligible participants will be randomised to a 3-month use of automated closed-loop insulin delivery combined with pump suspend feature or to sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome is the time spent in the target glucose range from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L based on continuous glucose monitoring levels during the 3-month free-living phase. Secondary outcomes include HbA1c at 3 months, mean glucose, time spent below and above target; time with glucose levels 16.7 mmol/L, glucose variability; total, basal and bolus insulin dose and change in body weight. Participants' and their families' perception in terms of lifestyle change, daily diabetes management and fear of hypoglycaemia will be evaluated. $\textbf{Ethics and dissemination:}$ Ethics/institutional review board approval has been obtained. Before screening, all participants/guardians will be provided with oral and written information about the trial. The study will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. $\textbf{Trial registration number:}$ NCT02523131; Pre-results.JDRF, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Strategic Award (100574/Z/12/Z)

Perspectives of patients with type 1 or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes on self-monitoring of blood glucose: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), including self-regulation, is an important tool to achieve good glycemic control. However, many patients measure their glucose concentrations less often than is recommended. This study investigates patients' perspectives of SMBG and all relevant aspects influencing SMBG in patients with type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In depth interviews were conducted with 13 patients with type 1 diabetes from an outpatient clinic and 15 patients with type 2 diabetes from general practices. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the Grounded Theory approach.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A wide variety of SMBG was encountered. Perceptions, goals of SMBG and personal and contextual factors were identified, influencing the respondents' perspective of SMBG, and leading to this variety. Respondents experienced a discrepancy between their own and the professionals' perceptions and goals. Respondents' perception of SMBG ranged along a continuum from 'friend' to 'foe'. With respect to the goals, the respondents experienced tension between achieving good glycemic control and quality of life, and deliberately made their own choices. The performance of SMBG was tailored to their perceptions and personal goals. Personal and contextual factors such as hypo- or hyper (un)awareness, knowledge, and contact with professionals acted as either facilitating factors or as barriers to SMBG, depending on the respondents' perspective. A SMBG model was developed providing a representation of the factors and their interrelations.</p> <p>Respondents with type 1 diabetes seemed more resigned to their situation and SMBG was more integrated into their lives.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>From the patients' perspective, professionals positively present SMBG as a 'friend' in order to achieve strict glycemic control. Whereas patients can also perceive SMBG as a 'foe'. They primarily seek a personal balance between achieving glycemic control and quality of life, leading them to deliberately make other choices regarding SMBG performance than was recommended. Gaining insight and discussing all factors affecting SMBG will help professionals and patients come to mutually agreed goals and to tailor the performance of SMBG to the individual patient. This should result in a more optimal use of SMBG, an improved quality of life, and improved clinical parameters.</p

What are the basic self-monitoring components for cardiovascular risk management?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Self-monitoring is increasingly recommended as a method of managing cardiovascular disease. However, the design, implementation and reproducibility of the self-monitoring interventions appear to vary considerably. We examined the interventions included in systematic reviews of self-monitoring for four clinical problems that increase cardiovascular disease risk.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched Medline and Cochrane databases for systematic reviews of self-monitoring for: heart failure, oral anticoagulation therapy, hypertension and type 2 diabetes. We extracted data using a pre-specified template for the identifiable components of the interventions for each disease. Data was also extracted on the theoretical basis of the education provided, the rationale given for the self-monitoring regime adopted and the compliance with the self-monitoring regime by the patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From 52 randomized controlled trials (10,388 patients) we identified four main components in self-monitoring interventions: education, self-measurement, adjustment/adherence and contact with health professionals. Considerable variation in these components occurred across trials and conditions, and often components were poorly described. Few trials gave evidence-based rationales for the components included and self-measurement regimes adopted.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The components of self-monitoring interventions are not well defined despite current guidelines for self-monitoring in cardiovascular disease management. Few trials gave evidence-based rationales for the components included and self-measurement regimes adopted. We propose a checklist of factors to be considered in the design of self-monitoring interventions which may aid in the provision of an evidence-based rationale for each component as well as increase the reproducibility of effective interventions for clinicians and researchers.</p