Search

Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy of a smartphone-based, patient-centered diabetes care system (mDiabetes) for type 2 diabetes that contains comprehensive modules for glucose monitoring, diet, physical activity, and a clinical decision support system.Research Design and Methods: We conducted a 24-week, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with adult patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. The patients were randomly assigned to the mDiabetes group or the paper logbook (pLogbook) group. The primary end point was the difference of the change in HbA1c from baseline between the two groups.Results: HbA1c reduction from baseline was greater in the mDiabetes group (-0.40 ± 0.09%, n = 90) than in the pLogbook group (-0.06 ± 0.10%, n = 82). The difference of adjusted mean changes was 0.35% (95% CI 0.14-0.55, P = 0.001). The proportion of patients whose HbA1c fell below 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) was 41.1% for the mDiabetes group and 20.7% for the pLogbook group (odds ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% CI 1.24-3.25, P = 0.003). The percentage of patients who attained HbA1c levels below 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycemia was 31.1% in the mDiabetes group and 17.1% in the pLogbook group (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.03-3.21, P = 0.024). There was no difference in the event numbers of severe hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia between the two groups.Conclusions: The implementation of the mDiabetes for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c levels, with tolerable safety profiles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the impact of a telemedicine visit using the platform Diabetic compared with a face-to-face visit on clinical outcomes, patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and physicians' satisfaction in patients with type 1 diabetes.Research Design and Methods: PLATEDIAN (Telemedicine on Metabolic Control in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Andalusian Patients) (NCT03332472) was a multicenter, randomized, 6-month follow-up, open-label, parallel-group controlled study performed in patients with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal metabolic control (HbA1c <8% [<64 mmol/mol]), treated with multiple daily injections. A total of 388 patients were assessed for eligibility; 379 of them were randomized 1:1 to three face-to-face visits (control cohort [CC]) (n = 167) or the replacement of an intermediate face-to-face visit by a telemedicine visit using Diabetic (intervention cohort [IC]) (n = 163). The primary efficacy end point was the mean change of HbA1c levels from baseline to month 6. Other efficacy and safety end points were mean blood glucose, glucose variability, episodes of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, patient-reported outcomes, and physicians' satisfaction.Results: At month 6, the mean change in HbA1c levels was -0.04 ± 0.5% (-0.5 ± 5.8 mmol/mol) in the CC and 0.01 ± 0.6% (0.1 ± 6.0 mmol/mol) in the IC (P = 0.4941). The number of patients who achieved HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) was 73 and 78 in the CC and IC, respectively. Significant differences were not found regarding safety end points at 6 months. Changes in HRQoL between the first visit and final visit did not differ between cohorts, and, regarding fear of hypoglycemia (FH-15 score ≥28), statistically significant differences observed at baseline remained unchanged at 6 months (P < 0.05).Conclusions: The use of telemedicine in patients with type 1 diabetes with HbA1c <8% (<64 mmol/mol) provides similar efficacy and safety outcomes as face-to-face visits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypoglycemia is the leading limiting factor in glycemic management of insulin-treated diabetes. Skeletal muscle is the predominant site of insulin-mediated glucose disposal. Our study used a crossover design to test to what extent insulin-induced hypoglycemia affects glucose uptake in skeletal muscle and whether hypoglycemia counterregulation modulates insulin and catecholamine signaling and glycogen synthase activity in skeletal muscle. Nine healthy volunteers were examined on three randomized study days: 1) hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia (bolus insulin), 2) hyperinsulinemic euglycemia (bolus insulin and glucose infusion), and 3) saline control with skeletal muscle biopsies taken just before, 30 min after, and 75 min after insulin/saline injection. During hypoglycemia, glucose levels reached a nadir of ∼2.0 mmol/L, and epinephrine rose to ∼900 pg/mL. Hypoglycemia impaired insulin-stimulated glucose disposal and glucose clearance in skeletal muscle, whereas insulin signaling in glucose transport was unaffected by hypoglycemia. Insulin-stimulated glycogen synthase activity was completely ablated during hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia, and catecholamine signaling via cAMP-dependent protein kinase and phosphorylation of inhibiting sites on glycogen synthase all increased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A1C is associated with diabetes complications but does not reflect glycemic variability (GV), which may worsen outcomes by inducing inflammation, oxidative stress, and cardiac arrhythmias. We tested whether a glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist-based regimen can reduce GV and cardiometabolic risk markers while maintaining similar A1C levels in people with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk.Research Design and Methods: After run-in on metformin and basal-bolus insulin (BBI), 102 participants continued metformin and basal insulin and were randomized to exenatide dosing before the two largest meals (glucacon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and insulin [GLIPULIN group]) or continuation of rapid-acting insulin analogs (BBI group). Indices of GV by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), hypoglycemia, weight, risk markers, and cardiac arrhythmias were assessed. The primary end point was change in glucose coefficients of variation (CV) by CGM from baseline to 26 weeks.Results: At randomization, the median A1C was 7.3% (57 mmol/mol) for GLIPULIN and 7.4% (56.3 mmol/mol) for BBI, and glucose CVs were 30.3 for BBI and 31.9 for GLIPULIN. At 26 weeks, A1C levels were similar (7.1% [54 mmol/mol] vs. 7.2% [55 mmol/mol]), whereas mean CV improved with GLIPULIN (-2.4 vs. 0.4, P = 0.047). Other GV indices followed similar nonsignificant patterns of improvement with GLIPULIN. There were no differences in hypoglycemic events during CGM or arrhythmias during electrocardiographic monitoring. On-trial changes in body weight (-4.8 kg vs. +0.7 kg, P < 0.001), alanine aminotransferase (P = 0.0002), and serum amyloid A (P = 0.023) favored GLIPULIN.Conclusions: GLIPULIN reduced GV, weight, and some cardiometabolic risk markers while maintaining equivalent A1C levels versus BBI and might improve clinical outcomes in a larger trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]