Search

Background: Albuminuria has been widely considered a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), which is associated with hypertension (HTN), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), HTN with T2DM, and dyslipidemia. However, the associations between albuminuria and HTN, T2DM, HTN with T2DM, dyslipidemia, and CVDs are still unclear. Thus, this study aimed to explore the association of albuminuria thoroughly, especially within the normal range, with the abovementioned diseases in the Chinese population. Methods: This study included 40,188 participants aged over 40 years from seven centers across China. Urinary albumin–creatinine ratio (UACR) was firstly divided into the ≥30-mg/g group, indicating kidney damage, and <30-mg/g group. Furthermore, UACR was divided into five groups: the <20%, 20%–39%, 40%–59%, 60%–79%, and ≥80% groups, according to the quintile division of participants within the normal range. Propensity score matching was used to reduce bias, and multiple logistic regression models were conducted to examine the association between UACR and HTN, T2DM, HTN with T2DM, dyslipidemia, and CVDs. Results: Multivariable regression analysis revealed that UACR, even within the normal range, is significantly associated with HTN, T2DM, HTN with T2DM, dyslipidemia, and CVDs, and the association between UACR and HTN with T2DM was the most significant in model 3 even after adjusting for confounding factors (HTN: OR = 1.56 (95% CI = 1.45–1.68), p < 0.0001; T2DM: OR = 1.78 (95% CI = 1.60–1.97), p < 0.0001; HTN with T2DM: OR = 1.76 (95% CI = 1.59–1.95), p < 0.0001; dyslipidemia: OR = 1.08 (95% CI = 1.01–1.14), p = 0.0146; CVDs: OR = 1.12 (95% CI = 1.00–1.25), p = 0.0475). In the stratified analysis, high normal UACR was significantly associated with HTN, T2DM, HTN with T2DM, and dyslipidemia in subgroups. Conclusions: In summary, we observe a higher prevalence of HTN, T2DM, HTN with T2DM, dyslipidemia, and CVDs in abnormal UACR and reveal a significant association of UACR, even within the normal range, with HTN, T2DM, HTN with T2DM, dyslipidemia, and CVDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Diabetes is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus insulin degludec (degludec) in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal insulin. Materials and Methods: In DUAL II China, a randomized, double‐blinded, multicentre, treat‐to‐target trial, Chinese adults with T2D and HbA1c of 7.5% or more on basal insulin and metformin, with or without other oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), were randomized 2:1 to 26 weeks of treatment with either IDegLira (max. dose 50 U degludec/1.8 mg liraglutide) or degludec (max. 50 U/day), respectively, combined with metformin. At 26 weeks, superiority of IDegLira over degludec was assessed for change in HbA1c (primary endpoint), and body weight and number of severe or blood glucose (BG)‐confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (confirmatory secondary endpoints). Results: Overall, 453 participants were randomized to IDegLira (n = 302) or degludec (n = 151). Superiority was confirmed for IDegLira over degludec in HbA1c change (−1.9% vs. −1.0%, respectively, estimated treatment difference [ETD] [95% confidence interval]: −0.92% [−1.09; −0.75], P <.0001), body weight change (−0.7 vs. +0.4 kg, respectively, ETD [95% CI]: −1.08 kg [−1.63; −0.52], P =.0002) and severe or BG‐confirmed hypoglycaemia (estimated rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.53 [0.30; 0.94], P =.0297). The odds of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% without hypoglycaemia and/or weight gain were greater with IDegLira than degludec (P <.0001 for all). Daily insulin dose at 26 weeks was lower for IDegLira (34.3 U) than degludec (37.4 U) (P =.0014). No unexpected safety signals were observed. Conclusions: IDegLira may be an efficacious and well‐tolerated treatment intensification option for Chinese people with T2D uncontrolled on basal insulin and OADs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While evidence supports glycemic control benefits for individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) using hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, HCL automated insulin delivery therapy in China has not been assessed. This study evaluated safety events and effectiveness during HCL system use by Chinese adolescents and adults with T1DM. Methods: Sixty-two participants (n = 12 adolescents with a mean ± standard deviation [SD] of 15.5 ± 1.1 years and n = 50 adults [mean ± SD of 37.6 ± 11.1 years]) with T1DM and baseline A1C of 7.1% ± 1.0% underwent a run-in period (∼2 weeks) using open-loop Manual Mode (sensor-augmented pump) insulin delivery with the MiniMed™ 770G system with the Guardian™ Sensor (3) glucose sensor, followed by a study period (4 weeks) with HCL Auto Mode enabled. Analyses compared continuous glucose monitoring data and insulin delivered during the run-in versus study period (Wilcoxon signed-rank test or t-test). Safety events included rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Compared to baseline run-in, overall Auto Mode use increased time in range (TIR, 70–180 mg/dL) from 75.3% to 80.9% (P < 0.001) and reduced time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL) from 4.7% to 2.2% (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that participants (n = 29) with baseline A1C <7.0% had TBR that reduced from 5.6% to 2.0%, while participants (n = 21) with baseline A1C ≥7.5% had time above range (TAR, >180 mg/dL) that reduced from 31.6% to 20.8%. Auto Mode use also increased the percentage achieving combined recommendations for time at sensor glucose ranges (i.e., TIR of >70%, TBR of <4% and TAR of <25%) from 24.2% at baseline to 77.4% at study end. Total daily insulin dose reduced from 42.8 ± 19.8 to 40.7 ± 18.9 U (P = 0.013). There were no severe hypoglycemic, DKA, or serious adverse events. Conclusions: Chinese adolescents and adults, some of whom met target A1C at baseline, safely achieved significantly improved glycemia with 1 month of MiniMed 770G system use when compared to open-loop insulin delivery. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04663295. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]