Search

Purpose of Review: While preliminary evidence for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) in the hospital setting is encouraging, challenges with currently available devices and technology will need to be overcome as part of real-world integration. This paper reviews the current evidence and guidelines regarding use of rtCGM in the hospital and suggests a practical approach to implementation. Recent Findings: There is now a considerable body of real-world evidence on the benefits of reducing dysglycemia in the hospital using both traditional point-of-care (POC) glucose testing and rtCGM. Benefits of rtCGM include decreased frequency of hypo- and hyperglycemia with reduced need of frequent POC checks and it is both feasible and well-accepted by nursing staff and providers. Summary: If expansion to additional sites is to be considered, practical solutions will need to be offered. Recommendations for an operational workflow and tools are described to guide implementation in the non-ICU setting. Further testing in randomized controlled trials and real-world dissemination and implementation designs is needed, together with industry and technology collaborations, to further streamline the integration into health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once‐weekly basal insulin. This review describes the study design and rationale of the efsitora phase 3 Once Weekly (QW) Insulin Therapy (QWINT) clinical development programme, including the five trials, QWINT‐1 through QWINT‐5. Materials and Methods: The five trials included insulin‐naïve adults (QWINT‐1 and ‐2) with type 2 diabetes (T2D), adults with T2D previously treated with basal insulin (QWINT‐3 and ‐4), and QWINT‐5 in adults with type 1 diabetes. All five trials were designed as multicentre, randomized, controlled, open‐label, treat‐to‐target studies to investigate the efficacy and safety of efsitora versus active once‐daily basal insulin comparators (insulin glargine U100 or insulin degludec U100). The primary objective of each trial is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or 52 between efsitora and the active comparator. The key secondary objectives include change in fasting glucose, insulin dose and continuous glucose monitoring variables, and patient‐reported outcome questionnaires. Conclusions: The QWINT development programme includes a racially and geographically diverse population to provide important information regarding the efficacy and safety of efsitora and its clinical management of people with diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE This cluster (clinic-level) randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared medical assistant (MA) health coaching (MAC) with usual care (UC) among at-risk adults with type 2 diabetes in two diverse real-world primary care environments: a federally qualified health center (FQHC; Neighborhood Healthcare) and a large nonprofit private insurance--based health system (Scripps Health). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 600 adults with type 2 diabetes who met one or more of the following criteria in the last 90 days were enrolled: HbA1c ≥8% and/or LDL cholesterol ≥100 mg/dL and/or systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg. Participants at MAC clinics received in-person and telephone self-management support from a specially trained MA health coach for 12 months. Electronic medical records were used to examine clinical outcomes in the overall sample. Behavioral and psychosocial outcomes were evaluated in a subsample (n = 300). RESULTS All clinical outcomes improved significantly over 1 year in the overall sample (P < 0.001). The reduction in HbA1c was significantly greater in the MAC versus UC group (unstandardized Binteraction = -0.06; P = 0.002). A significant time by group by site interaction also showed that MAC resulted in greater improvements in LDL cholesterol than UC at Neighborhood Healthcare relative to Scripps Health (Binteraction = -1.78 vs. 1.49; P < 0.05). No other statistically significant effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS This was the first large-scale pragmatic RCT supporting the real-world effectiveness of MAC for type 2 diabetes in U.S. primary care settings. Findings suggest that this team-based approach may be particularly effective in improving diabetes outcomes in FQHC settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis assessed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)–based metrics and hypoglycemia duration with once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin analogs in insulin-experienced individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes from two 26-week phase 3a trials (ONWARDS 2 and ONWARDS 4). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Time in range (TIR) (3.9–10.0 mmol/L), time above range (TAR) (>10.0 mmol/L), and time below range (TBR) (<3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L) were assessed during three CGM time periods (switch [weeks 0–4], end of treatment [weeks 22–26], and follow-up [weeks 27–31]) for icodec versus comparators (ONWARDS 2, insulin degludec [basal regimen]; ONWARDS 4, insulin glargine U100 [basal-bolus regimen]) using double-blind CGM data. CGM-derived hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was assessed. RESULTS: In both trials, there were no statistically significant differences in TIR, TAR, or TBR (<3.0 mmol/L) for icodec versus comparators across all time periods. In the end-of-treatment period, mean TIR was 63.1% (icodec) vs. 59.5% (degludec) in ONWARDS 2 and 66.9% (icodec) vs. 66.4% (glargine U100) in ONWARDS 4. Mean TBR <3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L remained within recommended targets (<4% and <1%, respectively) across time periods and treatment arms. Hypoglycemic episode duration (<3.9 mmol/L) was comparable across time periods and treatment arms (median duration ≤40 min). CONCLUSIONS: In insulin-experienced participants with long-standing type 2 diabetes, CGM-based TIR, TAR, and CGM-derived hypoglycemia duration (<3.9 mmol/L) were comparable for icodec and once-daily basal insulin analogs during all time periods. TBR remained within recommended targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Type 2 diabetes disproportionately impacts ethnic minorities and individuals from low socioeconomic status. Diabetes self-management education and support has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in these populations, and mobile health (mHealth) interventions can reduce barriers to access. Dulce Digital-Me (DD-Me) was developed to integrate adaptive mHealth technologies to enhance self-management and reduce disparities in the high-risk, underserved Hispanic population. The objective of the present study was to evaluate reach, adoption, and implementation of an mHealth diabetes self-management education and support intervention in this underrepresented population. The present analysis is a multimethod process evaluation using the Reach , Effectiveness, Adoption , Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. The study was effective in reaching a sample that was representative of the intended population; only modest but significant differences were observed in sex and age. The DD-Me health coach (HC) cited several important facilitators of intervention adoption , including outreach frequency and personalization, and the automated HC report. Implementation fidelity was high, with participants receiving >90% of intended interventions. Participants who received DD-Me with support from a HC were most engaged, suggesting utility and acceptability of integrating HCs with mHealth interventions. Perceptions of implementation among study participants were positive and consistent across study arms. This evaluation revealed the target population was successfully reached and engaged in the digital health interventions, which was implemented with high fidelity. Further studies should evaluate the efficacy and maintenance of the study following the RE-AIM model to determine whether this intervention warrants expansion to additional settings and populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To describe the phase 3a ONWARDS clinical development programme investigating insulin icodec (icodec), a once‐weekly basal insulin, including the design and rationale for each of the ONWARDS 1–6 trials. Materials and Methods: Six randomized controlled trials have been initiated in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (insulin‐naive: ONWARDS 1, 3 and 5; previously insulin‐treated: ONWARDS 2 and 4) and type 1 diabetes (T1D) (ONWARDS 6). Each trial will investigate icodec use in a unique clinical scenario, with consideration of long‐term safety and varied comparator treatments (insulin glargine U100 or U300 or insulin degludec). ONWARDS 5 will incorporate real‐world elements and a digital dose titration solution to guide icodec dosing. The primary objective for each of the trials is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or week 52 between icodec and comparator arms. Secondary objectives include investigating other glycaemic control and safety parameters, such as fasting glucose, time in glycaemic range and hypoglycaemia. Patient‐reported outcomes will assess treatment satisfaction. Conclusions: The ONWARDS 1–6 trials will evaluate the efficacy and safety of once‐weekly icodec compared with currently available daily basal insulin analogues in T2D and T1D. These trials will generate comprehensive evidence of icodec use in diverse populations across the spectrum of diabetes progression and treatment experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes prevalence is predicted to rise dramatically during the next 20 years, and associated spending is expected to increase threefold. (1-3) Cultural barriers contribute to this burden by preventing optimal [...]

Keywords: insulin analogues; insulin therapy; type 2 diabetes EN insulin analogues insulin therapy type 2 diabetes 332 336 5 01/11/22 20220201 NES 220201 PEER REVIEW The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/dom.14564. Risk of hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U300 in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: the randomised, head-to-head CONCLUDE trial. HbA1c levels and rates of hypoglycemia with insulin degludec U200 and insulin glargine U300 stratified by estimated renal function in people with type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis from the CONCLUDE trial. [Extracted from the article]

Team-based models that use medical assistants (MAs) to provide self-management support for adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have not been pragmatically tested in diverse samples. This cluster-randomized controlled trial compares MA health coaching with usual care in adults with T2D and poor clinical control ("MAC Trial"). The purpose was to conduct a multi-method process evaluation of the MAC Trial using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. Reach was assessed by calculating the proportion of enrolled participants out of the eligible pool and examining representativeness of those enrolled. Key informant interviews documented adoption by MA Health Coaches. We examined implementation from the research and patient perspectives by evaluating protocol adherence and the Patient Perceptions of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-SF) measure, respectively. Findings indicate that the MAC Trial was efficient and effective in reaching patients who were representative of the target population. The acceptance rate among those approached for health coaching was high (87%). Both MA Health Coaches reported high satisfaction with the program and high levels of confidence in their role. The intervention was well-implemented, as evidenced by the protocol adherence rate of 79%; however, statistically significant changes in PACIC-SF scores were not observed. Overall, if found to be effective in improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes, the MAC model holds potential for wider-scale implementation given its successful adoption and implementation and demonstrated ability to reach patients with poorly controlled T2D who are at-risk for diabetes complications in diverse primary care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore the effect of discontinuing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) after 8 months of CGM use in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal without bolus insulin.Research Design and Methods: This multicenter trial had an initial randomization to either real-time CGM or blood glucose monitoring (BGM) for 8 months followed by 6 months in which the BGM group continued to use BGM (n = 57) and the CGM group was randomly reassigned either to continue CGM (n = 53) or discontinue CGM with resumption of BGM for glucose monitoring (n = 53).Results: In the group that discontinued CGM, mean time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL, which improved from 38% before initiating CGM to 62% after 8 months of CGM, decreased after discontinuing CGM to 50% at 14 months (mean change from 8 to 14 months -12% [95% CI -21% to -3%], P = 0.01). In the group that continued CGM use, little change was found in TIR from 8 to 14 months (baseline 44%, 8 months 56%, 14 months 57%, mean change from 8 to 14 months 1% [95% CI -11% to 12%], P = 0.89). Comparing the two groups at 14 months, the adjusted treatment group difference in mean TIR was -6% (95% CI -16% to 4%, P = 0.20).Conclusions: In adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin who had been using real-time CGM for 8 months, discontinuing CGM resulted in a loss of about one-half of the initial gain in TIR that had been achieved during CGM use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be beneficial for adults with type 2 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy, but its use in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin has not been well studied.Objective: To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin in primary care practices.Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 15 centers in the US (enrollment from July 30, 2018, to October 30, 2019; follow-up completed July 7, 2020) and included adults with type 2 diabetes receiving their diabetes care from a primary care clinician and treated with 1 or 2 daily injections of long- or intermediate-acting basal insulin without prandial insulin, with or without noninsulin glucose-lowering medications.Interventions: Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring (n = 59).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at 8 months. Key secondary outcomes were CGM-measured time in target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with glucose level at greater than 250 mg/dL, and mean glucose level at 8 months.Results: Among 175 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [9] years; 88 women [50%]; 92 racial/ethnic minority individuals [53%]; mean [SD] baseline HbA1c level, 9.1% [0.9%]), 165 (94%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 9.1% at baseline to 8.0% at 8 months in the CGM group and from 9.0% to 8.4% in the BGM group (adjusted difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -0.8% to -0.1%]; P = .02). In the CGM group, compared with the BGM group, the mean percentage of CGM-measured time in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL was 59% vs 43% (adjusted difference, 15% [95% CI, 8% to 23%]; P < .001), the mean percentage of time at greater than 250 mg/dL was 11% vs 27% (adjusted difference, -16% [95% CI, -21% to -11%]; P < .001), and the means of the mean glucose values were 179 mg/dL vs 206 mg/dL (adjusted difference, -26 mg/dL [95% CI, -41 to -12]; P < .001). Severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 1 participant (1%) in the CGM group and in 1 (2%) in the BGM group.Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin, continuous glucose monitoring, as compared with blood glucose meter monitoring, resulted in significantly lower HbA1c levels at 8 months.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03566693. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death and results in significant morbidity. The purpose of this study is to determine what demographic, health status, treatment, access/quality of care, and behavioral factors are associated with poor glycemic control in a Type 2 diabetic, low-income, minority, San Diego population. Methods Longitudinal observational data was collected on patients with Type 2 diabetes from Project Dulce, a program in San Diego County designed to care for an underserved diabetic population. The study sample included 573 patients with a racial/ethnic mix of 53% Hispanic, 7% black, 18% Asian, 20% white, and 2% other. We utilized mixed effects models to determine the factors associated with poor glycemic control using hemoglobin A1C (A1C) as the outcome of interest. A multi-step model building process was used resulting in a final parsimonious model with main effects and interaction terms. Results Patients had a mean age of 55 years, 69% were female, the mean duration of diabetes was 7.1 years, 31% were treated with insulin, and 57% were obese. American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommendations for blood pressure and total cholesterol were met by 71% and 68%, respectively. Results of the mixed effects model showed that patients who were uninsured, had diabetes for a longer period of time, used insulin or multiple oral agents, or had high cholesterol had higher A1C values over time indicating poorer glycemic control. The younger subjects also had poorer control. Conclusion This study provides factors that predict glycemic control in a specific low-income, multiethnic, Type 2 diabetic population. With this information, subgroups with high risk of disease morbidity were identified. Barriers that prevent these patients from meeting their goals must be explored to improve health outcomes.

Aims: The ability to differentiate patient populations with type 2 diabetes at high risk of severe hypoglycaemia could impact clinical decision making. The aim of this study was to develop a risk score, using patient characteristics, that could differentiate between populations with higher and lower 2‐year risk of severe hypoglycaemia among individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Materials and methods: Two models were developed for the risk score based on data from the DEVOTE cardiovascular outcomes trials. The first, a data‐driven machine‐learning model, used stepwise regression with bidirectional elimination to identify risk factors for severe hypoglycaemia. The second, a risk score based on known clinical risk factors accessible in clinical practice identified from the data‐driven model, included: insulin treatment regimen; diabetes duration; sex; age; and glycated haemoglobin, all at baseline. Both the data‐driven model and simple risk score were evaluated for discrimination, calibration and generalizability using data from DEVOTE, and were validated against the external LEADER cardiovascular outcomes trial dataset. Results: Both the data‐driven model and the simple risk score discriminated between patients at higher and lower hypoglycaemia risk, and performed similarly well based on the time‐dependent area under the curve index (0.63 and 0.66, respectively) over a 2‐year time horizon. Conclusions: Both the data‐driven model and the simple hypoglycaemia risk score were able to discriminate between patients at higher and lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia, the latter doing so using easily accessible clinical data. The implementation of such a tool (http://www.hyporiskscore.com/) may facilitate improved recognition of, and education about, severe hypoglycaemia risk, potentially improving patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To undertake a post‐hoc analysis, utilizing a hypoglycaemia risk score based on DEVOTE trial data, to investigate if a high risk of severe hypoglycaemia was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, and whether reduced rates of severe hypoglycaemia in patients identified as having the highest risk affected the risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Materials and Methods: The DEVOTE population was divided into quartiles according to patients' individual hypoglycaemia risk scores. For each quartile, the observed incidence and rate of severe hypoglycaemia, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and all‐cause mortality were determined to investigate whether those with the highest risk of hypoglycaemia were also at the greatest risk of MACE and all‐cause mortality. In addition, treatment differences within each risk quartile [insulin degludec (degludec) vs. insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100)] in terms of severe hypoglycaemia, MACE and all‐cause mortality were investigated. Results: Patients with the highest risk scores had the highest rates of severe hypoglycaemia, MACE and all‐cause mortality. Treatment ratios between degludec and glargine U100 in the highest risk quartile were 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 (0.39; 0.80) (severe hypoglycaemia), 95% CI 0.76 (0.58; 0.99) (MACE) and 95% CI 0.77 (0.55; 1.07) (all‐cause mortality). Conclusions: The risk score demonstrated that a high risk of severe hypoglycaemia was associated with a high incidence of MACE and all‐cause mortality and that, in this high‐risk group, those treated with degludec had a lower incidence of MACE. These observations support the hypothesis that hypoglycaemia is a risk factor for cardiovascular events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite significant treatment advances, diabetes outcomes remain suboptimal and health care costs continue to rise. There are limited data on the feasibility and financial implications of integrating a diabetes-specific care team in the primary care setting (ie, where the majority of diabetes is treated). This pragmatic quality improvement project investigated whether a cardiometabolic care team intervention (CMC-TI) could achieve greater improvements in clinical, behavioral, and cost outcomes compared to usual diabetes care in a large primary care group in Southern California. Over 12 months, n = 236 CMC-TI and n = 239 usual care patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes were identified using the electronic medical record. In the CMC-TI group, a registered nurse (RN)/certified diabetes educator care manager, medical assistant health coach, and RN depression care manager utilized electronic medical record-based risk stratification reports, standardized decision-support tools, live and remote tailored treatments, and coaching to manage care. Results indicated that the CMC-TI group achieved greater improvements in glycemic and lipid control, diabetes self-management behaviors, and emotional distress over 1 year compared with the usual care group (all P < .05). The CMC-TI group also had a significant 12.6% reduction in total health care costs compared to a 51.7% increase in the usual care group during the same period and inclusive of CMC-TI program costs. Patients and providers reported high satisfaction with CMC-TI. These findings highlight that team-based care management interventions that utilize nurses, medical assistant health coaches, and behavioral specialists to support diabetes patients can help primary care practices achieve value-based targets of improved health, cost, and patient experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The current standard for hospital glucose management is point-of-care (POC) testing. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) compared with POC in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) hospital setting.Research Design and Methods: A total of 110 adults with type 2 diabetes on a non-ICU floor received RT-CGM with Dexcom G6 versus usual care (UC). RT-CGM data were wirelessly transmitted from the bedside. Hospital telemetry monitored RT-CGM data and notified bedside nursing of glucose alerts and trends. Standardized protocols were used for interventions.Results: The RT-CGM group demonstrated significantly lower mean glucose (M∆ = -18.5 mg/dL) and percentage of time in hyperglycemia >250 mg/dL (-11.41%) and higher time in range 70-250 mg/dL (+11.26%) compared with UC (P values <0.05). Percentage of time in hypoglycemia was very low.Conclusions: RT-CGM can be used successfully in community-based hospital non-ICU settings to improve glucose management. Continuously streaming glucose readings may truly be the fifth vital sign. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time assessment of glucose levels and may be beneficial in reducing hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes.Objective: To determine whether CGM is effective in reducing hypoglycemia compared with standard blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in older adults with type 1 diabetes.Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 22 endocrinology practices in the United States among 203 adults at least 60 years of age with type 1 diabetes.Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to use CGM (n = 103) or standard BGM (n = 100).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CGM-measured percentage of time that sensor glucose values were less than 70 mg/dL during 6 months of follow-up. There were 31 prespecified secondary outcomes, including additional CGM metrics for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose control; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for false-discovery rate.Results: Of the 203 participants (median age, 68 [interquartile range {IQR}, 65-71] years; median type 1 diabetes duration, 36 [IQR, 25-48] years; 52% female; 53% insulin pump use; mean HbA1c, 7.5% [SD, 0.9%]), 83% used CGM at least 6 days per week during month 6. Median time with glucose levels less than 70 mg/dL was 5.1% (73 minutes per day) at baseline and 2.7% (39 minutes per day) during follow-up in the CGM group vs 4.7% (68 minutes per day) and 4.9% (70 minutes per day), respectively, in the standard BGM group (adjusted treatment difference, -1.9% (-27 minutes per day); 95% CI, -2.8% to -1.1% [-40 to -16 minutes per day]; P <.001). Of the 31 prespecified secondary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metrics, 6 of 7 HbA1c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes. Mean HbA1c decreased in the CGM group compared with the standard BGM group (adjusted group difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.4% to -0.1%; P <.001). The most commonly reported adverse events using CGM and standard BGM, respectively, were severe hypoglycemia (1 and 10), fractures (5 and 1), falls (4 and 3), and emergency department visits (6 and 8).Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in hypoglycemia over 6 months. Further research is needed to understand the long-term clinical benefit.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03240432. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]