CGM-measured glucose values have a strong correlation with C-peptide, HbA1c and IDAAC, but do poorly in predicting C-peptide levels in the two years following onset of diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this work was to assess the association between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data, HbA1c, insulin-dose-adjusted HbA1c (IDAA1c) and C-peptide responses during the first 2 years following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted of data collected from a randomised trial assessing the effect of intensive management initiated within 1 week of diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, in which mixed-meal tolerance tests were performed at baseline and at eight additional time points through 24 months. CGM data were collected at each visit. RESULTS: Among 67 study participants (mean age [± SD] 13.3 ± 5.7 years), HbA1c was inversely correlated with C-peptide at each time point (p < 0.001), as were changes in each measure between time points (p < 0.001). However, C-peptide at one visit did not predict the change in HbA1c at the next visit and vice versa. Higher C-peptide levels correlated with increased proportion of CGM glucose values between 3.9 and 7.8 mmol/l and lower CV (p = 0.001 and p = 0.02, respectively) but not with CGM glucose levels <3.9 mmol/l. Virtually all participants with IDAA1c < 9 retained substantial insulin secretion but when evaluated together with CGM, time in the range of 3.9-7.8 mmol/l and CV did not provide additional value in predicting C-peptide levels. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In the first 2 years after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, higher C-peptide levels are associated with increased sensor glucose levels in the target range and with lower glucose variability but not hypoglycaemia. CGM metrics do not provide added value over the IDAA1c in predicting C-peptide levels

A Practical Approach to Using Trend Arrows on the Dexcom G5 CGM System to Manage Children and Adolescents With Diabetes

After assessing previously published methods, we developed a practical approach to adjusting insulin doses using rtCGM trend arrows in pediatric patients with diabetes

Assessing the efficacy, safety and utility of 6-month day-and-night automated closed-loop insulin delivery under free-living conditions compared with insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: an open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, randomised, parallel group study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Closed-loop systems titrate insulin based on sensor glucose levels, providing novel means to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia while improving glycaemic control. We will assess effectiveness of 6-month day-and-night closed-loop insulin delivery compared with usual care (conventional or sensor-augmented pump therapy) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial adopts an open-label, multicentre, multinational (UK and USA), randomised, single-period, parallel design. Participants (n=130) are children and adolescents (aged ≥6 and 16.7 mmol/L (300 mg/dL), area under the curve of glucose >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), total, basal and bolus insulin dose, body mass index z-score and blood pressure. Cognitive, emotional and behavioural characteristics of participants and caregivers and their responses to the closed-loop and clinical trial will be assessed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for closed-loop will be estimated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee and Jaeb Center for Health Research Institutional Review Office approved the study. The findings will be disseminated by peer-review publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02925299; Pre-results

Sotagliflozin Added to Optimized Insulin Therapy Leads to Lower Rates of Clinically Relevant Hypoglycemic Events at Any HbA1c at 52 Weeks in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Hypoglycemia rates usually increase when insulin treatment is intensified to improve glycemic control. We evaluated (post hoc) hypoglycemic rates in adult patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on sotagliflozin (a dual sodium-glucose cotransporter [SGLT] 1 and 2 inhibitor) in two phase 3, 52-week clinical trials (inTandem 1 and 2; NCT02384941 and NCT02421510). Materials and Methods: We analyzed rates of documented hypoglycemia (level 1, blood glucose 6554 to &lt;70\u2009mg/dL) and clinically important hypoglycemia (level 2, glucose &lt;54\u2009mg/dL) in a patient-level pooled analysis (n\u2009=\u20091362) using a negative binomial model adjusted for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at 52 weeks in patients receiving placebo, sotagliflozin 200\u2009mg, and sotagliflozin 400\u2009mg. Results: Rates of level 1 hypoglycemia events per patient-year were 58.25 (95% confidence interval: 50.26-67.50) with placebo, 44.86 (38.83-51.82; P\u2009=\u20090.0138 vs. placebo) with sotagliflozin 200\u2009mg, and 45.68 (39.52-52.81; P\u2009=\u20090.0220) with sotagliflozin 400\u2009mg. Sotagliflozin was also associated with lower rates of level 2 hypoglycemia: 15.95 (14.37-17.70), 11.51 (10.39-12.76; P\u2009&lt;\u20090.0001), and 11.13 (10.03-12.35; P\u2009&lt;\u20090.0001) for placebo and sotagliflozin 200 and 400\u2009mg, respectively. The difference in rates of hypoglycemia with sotagliflozin versus placebo became more pronounced as HbA1c decreased. Conclusions: At week 52, level 1 and 2 hypoglycemia events were 22% to 30% less frequent with sotagliflozin added to optimized insulin therapy versus placebo in adults with T1D at any HbA1c level, with greater differences at lower HbA1c values. These findings support the use of sotagliflozin as an insulin adjunct in T1D

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

International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control. However, it does not reflect intra- and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), either from real-time use (rtCGM) or intermittently viewed (iCGM), addresses many of the limitations inherent in HbA1c testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA1c measurement as the sole marker of glycemic control, standardized metrics for analyzing CGM data are lacking. Moreover, clear criteria for matching people with diabetes to the most appropriate glucose monitoring methodologies, as well as standardized advice about how best to use the new information they provide, have yet to be established. In February 2017, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address these issues. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations and represents the current understanding of how CGM results can affect outcomes