73 research outputs found

    Early Response to Preventive Strategies in the Diabetes Prevention Program

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND Recommendations for diabetes prevention in patients with prediabetes include lifestyle modification and metformin. However, the significance of early weight loss and glucose measurements when monitoring response to these proven interventions is unknown. OBJECTIVE To quantify the relationship between early measures of weight and glucose and subsequent diabetes in patients undergoing diabetes prevention interventions. DESIGN Analysis of results from a randomized controlled trial in 27 academic medical centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTIONS 3,041 adults with hyperglycemia randomized to lifestyle (n = 1,018), metformin (n = 1,036), or placebo (n = 987) with complete follow-up in The Diabetes Prevention Program. MAIN MEASURES Independent variables were weight loss at 6 and 12 months; fasting glucose (FG) at 6 months; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at 6 months; and post-load glucose at 12 months. The main outcome was time to diabetes diagnosis. KEY RESULTS After 6 months, 604 participants developed diabetes in the lifestyle (n = 140), metformin (n = 206), and placebo (n = 258) arms over 2.7 years. In the lifestyle arm, 6-month weight loss predicted decreased diabetes risk in a graded fashion: adjusted HR (95 % CI) 0.65 (0.35–1.22), 0.62 (0.33–1.18), 0.46 (0.24–0.87), 0.34 (0.18–0.64), and 0.15 (0.07–0.30) for 0–60 % lower diabetes risk across arms. We found a significant interaction between 6-month weight loss and FG in the lifestyle arm (P = 0.038). CONCLUSION Weight and glucose at 6 and 12 months strongly predict lower subsequent diabetes risk with a lifestyle intervention; lower FG predicts lower risk even with substantial weight loss. Early reduction in glycemia is a stronger predictor of future diabetes risk than weight loss for metformin. We offer the first evidence to guide clinicians in making interval management decisions for high-risk patients undertaking measures to prevent diabetes

    Comparing Patch vs Pen Bolus Insulin Delivery in Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics and Profiles

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: CeQur Simplicity™ (CeQur, Marlborough, MA) is a 3-day insulin delivery patch designed to meet mealtime insulin requirements. A recently reported 48-week, randomized, multicenter, interventional trial compared efficacy, safety and self-reported outcomes in 278 adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin therapy who initiated and managed mealtime insulin therapy with a patch pump versus insulin pen. We assessed changes in key glycemic metrics among a subset of patients who wore a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device. METHODS: Study participants (patch, n = 49; pen, n = 48) wore a CGM device in masked setting during the baseline period and prior to week 24. Glycemic control was assessed using international consensus guidelines for percentage of Time In Range (%TIR: \u3e70% at 70-180 mg/dL), Time Below Range (%TBR: \u3c4% at \u3c70 mg/dL; \u3c1% at \u3c54 mg/dL), and Time Above Range (%TAR: \u3c25% at \u3e180 mg/dL; \u3c5% at \u3e250 mg/dL). RESULTS: Both the patch and pen groups achieved recommended targets in %TIR (74.1% ± 18.7%, 75.2 ± 16.1%, respectively) and marked reductions in %TAR \u3e180 mg/dL (21.1% ± 19.9%, 19.7% ± 17.5%, respectively) but with increased %TBR \u3c70 mg/dL (4.7% ± 5.2%, 5.1 ± 5.8, respectively), all P \u3c .0001. No significant between-group differences in glycemic improvements or adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: CGM confirmed that the patch or pen can be used to safely initiate and optimize basal-bolus therapy using a simple insulin adjustment algorithm with SMBG. Preference data suggest that use of the patch vs pen may enhance treatment adherence

    Consistent findings in glycaemic control, body weight and hypoglycaemia with iGlarLixi (insulin glargine/lixisenatide titratable fixed-ratio combination) vs insulin glargine across baseline HbA1c, BMI and diabetes duration categories in the LixiLan-L trial

    Get PDF
    IGTPAims: To assess the impact of baseline characteristics on clinical outcomes in the LixiLan-L trial, a randomized open-label trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a novel fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U (iGlar) plus lixisenatide, in comparison with iGlar over 30 weeks in a population of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on a previous regimen of basal insulin alone or in combination with 1 or 2 oral glucose-lowering drugs. Materials and Methods: In this exploratory analysis of LixiLan-L (N = 736), efficacy outcomes were assessed within population subgroups derived from the following baseline characteristics: glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c; <8%, ≥8% (<64, ≥64 mmol/mol)]; duration of T2DM (<10, ≥10 years); body mass index (<30, ≥30 kg/m2). Furthermore, the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia with plasma glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L (≤70 mg/dL) was also analysed according to the same subgroups. Results: Compared with the iGlar treatment group, patients treated with iGlarLixi showed consistently greater reductions in HbA1c during the treatment period, with higher percentages of patients achieving the HbA1c target level of <7% (<53 mmol/mol) in all of the subpopulations tested (P < .0001 for all), having consistent mitigation of body weight gain and with no major differences in the incidence of hypoglycaemia. Conclusions: iGlarLixi consistently improved glycaemic control compared with iGlar in all baseline characteristic subgroups of patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with insulin, including difficult-to-treat subgroups of patients with long duration of diabetes, obesity and high HbA1c. Clinical trial number: NCT02058160 (clinicaltrials.gov)

    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

    Get PDF
    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

    Analysis of Metabolic Syndrome Components in >15 000 African Americans Identifies Pleiotropic Variants: Results From the Population Architecture Using Genomics and Epidemiology Study

    Get PDF
    Metabolic syndrome (MetS) refers to the clustering of cardio-metabolic risk factors including dyslipidemia, central adiposity, hypertension and hyperglycemia in individuals. Identification of pleiotropic genetic factors associated with MetS traits may shed light on key pathways or mediators underlying MetS

    Vitamin D Supplementation and Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND Observational studies support an association between a low blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, whether vitamin D supplementation lowers the risk of diabetes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned adults who met at least two of three glycemic criteria for prediabetes (fasting plasma glucose level, 100 to 125 mg per deciliter; plasma glucose level 2 hours after a 75-g oral glucose load, 140 to 199 mg per deciliter; and glycated hemoglobin level, 5.7 to 6.4%) and no diagnostic criteria for diabetes to receive 4000 IU per day of vitamin D3 or placebo, regardless of the baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. The primary outcome in this time-to-event analysis was new-onset diabetes, and the trial design was event-driven, with a target number of diabetes events of 508. RESULTS A total of 2423 participants underwent randomization (1211 to the vitamin D group and 1212 to the placebo group). By month 24, the mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in the vitamin D group was 54.3 ng per milliliter (from 27.7 ng per milliliter at baseline), as compared with 28.8 ng per milliliter in the placebo group (from 28.2 ng per milliliter at baseline). After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the primary outcome of diabetes occurred in 293 participants in the vitamin D group and 323 in the placebo group (9.39 and 10.66 events per 100 person-years, respectively). The hazard ratio for vitamin D as compared with placebo was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.04; P = 0.12). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes not selected for vitamin D insufficiency, vitamin D3 supplementation at a dose of 4000 IU per day did not result in a significantly lower risk of diabetes than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; D2d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01942694.

    Vitamin D Supplementation and Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND Observational studies support an association between a low blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, whether vitamin D supplementation lowers the risk of diabetes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned adults who met at least two of three glycemic criteria for prediabetes (fasting plasma glucose level, 100 to 125 mg per deciliter; plasma glucose level 2 hours after a 75-g oral glucose load, 140 to 199 mg per deciliter; and glycated hemoglobin level, 5.7 to 6.4%) and no diagnostic criteria for diabetes to receive 4000 IU per day of vitamin D3 or placebo, regardless of the baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. The primary outcome in this time-to-event analysis was new-onset diabetes, and the trial design was event-driven, with a target number of diabetes events of 508. RESULTS A total of 2423 participants underwent randomization (1211 to the vitamin D group and 1212 to the placebo group). By month 24, the mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in the vitamin D group was 54.3 ng per milliliter (from 27.7 ng per milliliter at baseline), as compared with 28.8 ng per milliliter in the placebo group (from 28.2 ng per milliliter at baseline). After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the primary outcome of diabetes occurred in 293 participants in the vitamin D group and 323 in the placebo group (9.39 and 10.66 events per 100 person-years, respectively). The hazard ratio for vitamin D as compared with placebo was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.04; P = 0.12). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes not selected for vitamin D insufficiency, vitamin D3 supplementation at a dose of 4000 IU per day did not result in a significantly lower risk of diabetes than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; D2d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01942694.
    corecore