Experience with FreeStyle Libre Flash glucose monitoring system in management of refractory dumping syndrome in pregnancy shortly after bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgery is an effective therapy for obesity but is associated with long-term complications such as dumping syndromes and nutritional deficiencies. We report a case of a 26-year-old caucasian female, with history of morbid obesity and gestational diabetes (GDM), who became pregnant 4 months after Roux-en-Y bypass surgery. She developed GDM during subsequent pregnancy, which was initially managed with metformin and insulin. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia causing sleep disturbance and daytime somnolence occured at 19 weeks of pregnancy (19/40). Treatment with rapid-acting carbohydrates precipitated further hypoglycaemia. Laboratory investigations confirmed hypoglycaemia at 2.2 mmol/L with appropriately low insulin and C-peptide, intact HPA axis and negative IgG insulin antibodies. The patient was seen regularly by the bariatric dietetic team but concerns about compliance persisted. A FreeStyle Libre system was used from 21/40 enabling the patient a real-time feedback of changes in interstitial glucose following high or low GI index food intake. The patient declined a trial of acarbose but consented to an intraveneous dextrose infusion overnight resulting in improvement but not complete abolishment of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Hypoglycaemias subsided at 34/40 and metformin and insulin had to be re-introduced due to high post-prandial blood glucose readings. An emergency C-section was indicated at 35 + 1/40 and a small-for-gestational-age female was delivered. There have been no further episodes of hypoglycaemia following delivery. This case illustrates challenges in the management of pregnancy following bariatric surgery. To our knowledge, this is the first use of FreeStyle Libre in dumping syndrome in pregnancy following bariatric surgery with troublesome nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Learning points: Bariatric surgery represents the most effective treatment modality in cases of severe obesity. With increasing prevalence of obesity, more people are likely to undergo bariatric procedures, many of which are women of childbearing age. Fertility generally improves after bariatric surgery due to weight reduction, but pregnancy is not recommended for at least 12-24 months after surgery. If pregnancy occurs, there are currently little evidence-based guidelines available on how to manage complications such as dumping syndromes or gestational diabetes (GDM) in women with history of bariatric surgery. Diagnosis of GDM relies on the use of a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The use of this test in pregnant women is not recommended due to its potential to precipitate dumping syndrome. Capillary glucose monitoring profiles or continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is being currently discussed as alternative testing modalities. As the CGM technology becomes more available, including the recently introduced FreeStyle Libre Flash glucose monitoring system, more pregnant women, including those after bariatric surgery, will have access to this technology. We suggest urgent development of guidelines regarding the use of CGM and flash glucose monitoring tools in these circumstances and in the interim recommend careful consideration of their use on a case-to-case basis

Insulin detemir offers improved glycemic control compared with NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes - A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE—Insulin detemir is a soluble long-acting basal insulin analog designed to overcome the limitations of conventional basal insulin formulations. Accordingly, insulin detemir has been compared with NPH insulin with respect to glycemic control (HbA1c, prebreakfast glucose levels and variability, and hypoglycemia) and timing of administration. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—People with type 1 diabetes (n = 408) were randomized in an open-label, parallel-group trial of 16-week treatment duration using either insulin detemir or NPH insulin. Insulin detemir was administered twice daily using two different regimens, either before breakfast and at bedtime (IDetmorn+bed) or at a 12-h interval (IDet12h). NPH insulin was administered before breakfast and at bedtime. Mealtime insulin was given as the rapid-acting insulin analog insulin aspart. RESULTS—With both insulin detemir groups, clinic fasting plasma glucose was lower than with NPH insulin (IDet12h vs. NPH, −1.5 mmol/l [95% CI −2.51 to −0.48], P = 0.004; IDetmorn+bed vs. NPH, −2.3 mmol/l (−3.32 to −1.29), P < 0.001), as was self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose (P = 0.006 and P = 0.004, respectively). The risk of minor hypoglycemia was lower in both insulin detemir groups (25%, P = 0.046; 32%, P = 0.002; respectively) compared with NPH insulin in the last 12 weeks of treatment, this being mainly attributable to a 53% reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia in the IDetmorn+bed group (P < 0.001). Although HbA1c for each insulin detemir group was not different from the NPH group, HbA1c for the pooled insulin detemir groups was significantly lower than for the NPH group (mean difference −0.18% [−0.34 to −0.02], P = 0.027). Within-person between-day variation in self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose was lower for both detemir groups (both P < 0.001). The NPH group gained weight during the study, but there was no change in weight in either of the insulin detemir groups (IDet12h vs. NPH, −0.8 kg [−1.44 to −0.24], P = 0.006; IDetmorn+bed vs. NPH, −0.6 kg [−1.23 to −0.03], P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS—Overall glycemic control with insulin detemir was improved compared with NPH insulin. The data provide a basis for tailoring the timing of administration of insulin detemir to the individual person’s needs

Periodontal treatment to improve glycaemic control in diabetic patients: study protocol of the randomized, controlled DIAPERIO trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Periodontitis is a common, chronic inflammatory disease caused by gram-negative bacteria leading to destruction of tissues supporting the teeth. Epidemiological studies have consistently shown increased frequency, extent and severity of periodontitis among diabetic adults. More recently, some controlled clinical trials have also suggested that periodontal treatment could improve glycaemic control in diabetic patients. However current evidence does not provide sufficient information on which to confidently base any clinical recommendations. The main objective of this clinical trial is to assess whether periodontal treatment could lead to a decrease in glycated haemoglobin levels in metabolically unbalanced diabetic patients suffering from chronic periodontitis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The DIAPERIO trial is an open-label, 13-week follow-up, randomized, controlled trial. The total target sample size is planned at 150 participants, with a balanced (1:1) treatment allocation (immediate treatment vs delayed treatment). Periodontal treatment will include full mouth non-surgical scaling and root planing, systemic antibiotherapy, local antiseptics (chlorhexidine 0.12%) and oral health instructions. The primary outcome will be the difference in change of HbA1c between the two groups after the 13-weeks' follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be the difference in change of fructosamine levels and quality of life between the two groups.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The DIAPERIO trial will provide insight into the question of whether periodontal treatment could lead to an improvement in glycaemic control in metabolically unbalanced diabetic patients suffering from periodontitis. The results of this trial will help to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians and a draft framework for designing national health policies.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15334496</p

Sense and nonsense in sensors

Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a developing technology in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. The first randomised controlled trials on its efficacy have been performed. In several studies, CGM lowered HbA1c in adult patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes mellitus, when selecting compliant patients who tolerate the device. However, as a preventive tool for hypoglycaemia, CGM has not fulfilled the great expectations. Increasing reimbursement of CGM is expected in the near future, awaiting studies on cost-effectiveness

Use of Sensors in the Treatment and Follow-up of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus

Glucose control is the cornerstone of Diabetes Mellitus (DM) treatment. Although self-regulation using capillary glycemia (SRCG) still remains the best procedure in clinical practice, continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGM) offer the possibility of continuous and dynamic assessment of interstitial glucose concentration. CGM systems have the potential to improve glycemic control while decreasing the incidence of hypoglycemia but the efficiency, compared with SRCG, is still debated. CGM systems have the greatest potential value in patients with hypoglycemic unawareness and in controlling daily fluctuations in blood glucose. The implementation of continuous monitoring in the standard clinical setting has not yet been established but a new generation of open and close loop subcutaneous insulin infusion devices are emerging making insulin treatment and glycemic control more reliable

The Impact of Insulin Pump Therapy on Glycemic Profiles in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Data from the OpT2mise Study

Background: The OpT2mise randomized trial was designed to compare the effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily injections (MDI) on glucose profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: Patients with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of ≥8% (64 mmol/mol) and ≤12% (108 mmol/mol) despite insulin doses of 0.7-1.8 U/kg/day via MDI were randomized to CSII (n=168) or continued MDI (n=163). Changes in glucose profiles were evaluated using continuous glucose monitoring data collected over 6-day periods before and 6 months after randomization. Results: After 6 months, reductions in HbA1c levels were significantly greater with CSII (-1.1±1.2% [-12.0±13.1 mmol/mol]) than with MDI (-0.4±1.1% [-4.4±12.0 mmol/mol]) (P&lt;0.001). Similarly, compared with patients receiving MDI, those receiving CSII showed significantly greater reductions in 24-h mean sensor glucose (SG) (treatment difference, -17.1 mg/dL; P=0.0023), less exposure to SG &gt;180 mg/dL (-12.4%; P=0.0004) and SG &gt;250 mg/dL (-5.5%; P=0.0153), and more time in the SG range of 70-180 mg/dL (12.3%; P=0.0002), with no differences in exposure to SG&lt;70 mg/dL or in glucose variability. Changes in postprandial (4-h) glucose area under the curve &gt;180 mg/dL were significantly greater with CSII than with MDI after breakfast (-775.9±1,441.2 mg/dL/min vs. -160.7±1,074.1 mg/dL/min; P=0.0015) and after dinner (-731.4±1,580.7 mg/dL/min vs. -71.1±1,083.5 mg/dL/min; P=0.0014). Conclusions: In patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes, CSII significantly improves selected glucometrics, compared with MDI, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia

Materials for Diabetes Therapeutics

This review is focused on the materials and methods used to fabricate closed-loop systems for type 1 diabetes therapy. Herein, we give a brief overview of current methods used for patient care and discuss two types of possible treatments and the materials used for these therapies–(i) artificial pancreases, comprised of insulin producing cells embedded in a polymeric biomaterial, and (ii) totally synthetic pancreases formulated by integrating continuous glucose monitors with controlled insulin release through degradable polymers and glucose-responsive polymer systems. Both the artificial and the completely synthetic pancreas have two major design requirements: the device must be both biocompatible and be permeable to small molecules and proteins, such as insulin. Several polymers and fabrication methods of artificial pancreases are discussed: microencapsulation, conformal coatings, and planar sheets. We also review the two components of a completely synthetic pancreas. Several types of glucose sensing systems (including materials used for electrochemical, optical, and chemical sensing platforms) are discussed, in addition to various polymer-based release systems (including ethylene-vinyl acetate, polyanhydrides, and phenylboronic acid containing hydrogels).Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International (17-2007-1063)Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (09PG-T1D027)United States. National Institutes of Health (F32 EB011580-01

A cluster randomised trial, cost-effectiveness analysis and psychosocial evaluation of insulin pump therapy compared with multiple injections during flexible intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes: the REPOSE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin is generally administered to people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) using multiple daily injections (MDIs), but can also be delivered using infusion pumps. In the UK, pumps are recommended for patients with the greatest need and adult use is less than in comparable countries. Previous trials have been small, of short duration and have failed to control for training in insulin adjustment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pump therapy compared with MDI for adults with T1DM, with both groups receiving equivalent structured training in flexible insulin therapy. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial, including economic and psychosocial evaluations. After participants were assigned a group training course, courses were randomly allocated in pairs to either pump or MDI. SETTING: Eight secondary care diabetes centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with T1DM for > 12 months, willing to undertake intensive insulin therapy, with no preference for pump or MDI, or a clinical indication for pumps. INTERVENTIONS: Pump or MDI structured training in flexible insulin therapy, followed up for 2 years. MDI participants used insulin analogues. Pump participants used a Medtronic Paradigm(®) Veo(TM) (Medtronic, Watford, UK) with insulin aspart (NovoRapid, Novo Nordisk, Gatwick, UK). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 2 years in participants whose baseline HbA1c was ≥ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Key secondary outcome - proportion of participants with HbA1c ≤ 7.5% at 2 years. Other outcomes at 6, 12 and 24 months - moderate and severe hypoglycaemia; insulin dose; body weight; proteinuria; diabetic ketoacidosis; quality of life (QoL); fear of hypoglycaemia; treatment satisfaction; emotional well-being; qualitative interviews with participants and staff (2 weeks), and participants (6 months); and ICERs in trial and modelled estimates of cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: We randomised 46 courses comprising 317 participants: 267 attended a Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating course (132 pump; 135 MDI); 260 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, of which 235 (119 pump; 116 MDI) had baseline HbA1c of ≥ 7.5%. HbA1c and severe hypoglycaemia improved in both groups. The drop in HbA1c% at 2 years was 0.85 on pump and 0.42 on MDI. The mean difference (MD) in HbA1c change at 2 years, at which the baseline HbA1c was ≥ 7.5%, was -0.24% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53% to 0.05%] in favour of the pump (p = 0.098). The per-protocol analysis showed a MD in change of -0.36% (95% CI -0.64% to -0.07%) favouring pumps (p = 0.015). Pumps were not cost-effective in the base case and all of the sensitivity analyses. The pump group had greater improvement in diabetes-specific QoL diet restrictions, daily hassle plus treatment satisfaction, statistically significant at 12 and 24 months and supported by qualitative interviews. LIMITATION: Blinding of pump therapy was not possible, although an objective primary outcome was used. CONCLUSION: Adding pump therapy to structured training in flexible insulin therapy did not significantly enhance glycaemic control or psychosocial outcomes in adults with T1DM. RESEARCH PRIORITY: To understand why few patients achieve a HbA1c of < 7.5%, particularly as glycaemic control is worse in the UK than in other European countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61215213. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information