Search

Objective: We examined longitudinal associations between emotional distress (specifically, depressive symptoms and diabetes distress) and medication adherence in Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE), a large randomized controlled trial comparing four glucose-lowering medications added to metformin in adults with relatively recent-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Research Design and Methods: The Emotional Distress Substudy assessed medication adherence, depressive symptoms, and diabetes distress in 1,739 GRADE participants via self-completed questionnaires administered biannually up to 3 years. We examined baseline depressive symptoms and diabetes distress as predictors of medication adherence over 36 months. Bidirectional visit-to-visit relationships were also examined. Treatment satisfaction, beliefs about medication, diabetes care self-efficacy, and perceived control over diabetes were evaluated as mediators of longitudinal associations., Results: At baseline, mean ± SD age of participants (56% of whom were White, 17% Hispanic/Latino, 18% Black, and 66% male) was 58.0 ± 10.2 years, diabetes duration 4.2 ± 2.8 years, HbA1c 7.5% ± 0.5%, and medication adherence 89.9% ± 11.1%. Higher baseline depressive symptoms and diabetes distress were independently associated with lower adherence over 36 months (P < 0.001). Higher depressive symptoms and diabetes distress at one visit predicted lower adherence at the subsequent 6-month visit (P < 0.0001) but not vice versa. Treatment assignment did not moderate relationships. Patient-reported concerns about diabetes medications mediated the largest percentage (11.9%-15.5%) of the longitudinal link between emotional distress and adherence., Conclusions: Depressive symptoms and diabetes distress both predict lower adherence to glucose-lowering medications over time among adults with T2DM. Addressing emotional distress and concerns about anticipated negative effects of taking these treatments may be important to support diabetes treatment adherence., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To evaluate whether baseline levels of depressive symptoms and diabetes-specific distress are associated with glycemic control in Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE), a large randomized controlled trial comparing the metabolic effects of four common glucose-lowering medications when combined with metformin in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Research Design and Methods: The primary and secondary outcomes were defined as an HbA1c value ≥7%, subsequently confirmed, and an HbA1c value >7.5%, subsequently confirmed, respectively. Separate Cox proportional hazards models assessed the association between baseline levels of each exposure of interest (depressive symptoms measured with the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire and diabetes distress measured with the Diabetes Distress Scale) and the subsequent risk of metabolic outcomes., Results: This substudy included 1,739 participants (56% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 18% non-Hispanic Black, 17% Hispanic, and 68% male; mean [SD] age 58.0 [10.2] years, diabetes duration 4.2 [2.8] years, and HbA1c 7.5% [0.48%]). A total of 1,157 participants reached the primary outcome, with time to event of 2.1 years on average, while 738 participants reached the secondary outcome at 3 years on average. With adjustment for sex, race/ethnicity, treatment group, baseline age, duration of T2DM, BMI, and HbA1c, there were no significant associations between the depressive symptoms or diabetes distress and the subsequent risk of the primary or secondary outcomes., Conclusions: The current findings suggest that, at least for individuals with diabetes of relatively short duration, baseline levels of emotional distress are not associated with glycemic control over time., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Aim: To determine the potential impact of the cross-reactivity of insulin glargine U-100 and its metabolites on insulin sensitivity and β-cell measures in people with type 2 diabetes., Materials and Methods: Using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), we measured concentrations of endogenous insulin, glargine and its two metabolites (M1 and M2) in fasting and oral glucose tolerance test-stimulated plasma from 19 participants and fasting specimens from another 97 participants 12 months after randomization to receive the insulin glargine. The last dose of glargine was administered before 10:00 PM the night before testing. Insulin was also measured on these specimens using an immunoassay. We used fasting specimens to calculate insulin sensitivity (Homeostatic Model Assessment 2 [HOMA2]-S%; QUICKI index; PREDIM index) and β-cell function (HOMA2-B%). Using specimens following glucose ingestion, we calculated insulin sensitivity (Matsuda ISI[comp] index) and β-cell response (insulinogenic index [IGI], and total incremental insulin response [iAUC] insulin/glucose)., Results: In plasma, glargine was metabolized to form the M1 and M2 metabolites that were quantifiable by LC-MS; however, the analogue and its metabolites cross-reacted by less than 100% in the insulin immunoassay. This incomplete cross-reactivity resulted in a systematic bias of fasting-based measures. By contrast, because M1 and M2 did not change following glucose ingestion, a bias was not observed for IGI and iAUC insulin/glucose., Conclusions: Despite glargine metabolites being detected in the insulin immunoassay, dynamic insulin responses can be used to assess β-cell responsiveness. However, given the cross-reactivity of the glargine metabolites in the insulin immunoassay, fasting-based measures of insulin sensitivity and β-cell function are biased., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: We compared HbA1c values obtained from capillary blood collection kits versus venous whole blood collections in study participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes., Methods: A total of 122 subjects, 64 with type 2 diabetes participating in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness (GRADE) Study and 58 with type 1 diabetes from the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Study, participated in the validation study. Capillary tubes were filled by fingerstick by the participants on the same day as the collection of venous whole blood samples in EDTA-containing test tubes and were mailed to the central laboratory. HbA1c in all samples was measured with the same high-performance liquid chromatography. GRADE participants also completed a questionnaire on the ease of performing capillary collections., Results: Participants from 22 clinical centers (GRADE n = 5, EDIC n = 17) were between 35 and 86 years of age, with 52% male and diverse race/ethnicities. Venous HbA1c results ranged between 5.4-11.9% (35.5-106.6 mmol/mol) with corresponding capillary results ranging between 4.2-11.9% (22.4-106.6 mmol/mol). The venous and capillary results were highly correlated (R2 = 0.993) and 96.7% differed by ≤0.2% (2.2 mmol/mol). Of participants surveyed, 69% indicated that the instructions and collection were easy to follow and 97% felt the collection method would be easy to do at home., Conclusions: The capillary blood HbA1c results compared well with the conventional venous whole blood results. The capillary kits can be employed in other studies to reduce interruption of critical data collection and potentially to augment clinical care when in-person visits are not possible., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: DMN, HKS, BHB, NY, GL, MWS, JML report grants from NIDDK/NIH during the conduct of the study. VLA, PM, CL, MJ, and XG have nothing to disclose. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. The GRADE Study received material support in the form of donated medications and supplies provided by Becton, Dickinson and Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, NovoNordisk, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi. Industry contributors have had no role in the DCCT/EDIC study but have provided free or discounted supplies or equipment to support participants’ adherence to the study: Abbott Diabetes Care (Alameda, CA), Animas (Westchester, PA), Bayer Diabetes Care (North America Headquarters, Tarrytown, NY), Becton, Dickinson and Company (Franklin Lakes, NJ), Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, IN), Extend Nutrition (St. Louis, MO), Insulet Corporation (Bedford, MA), Lifescan (Milpitas, CA), Medtronic Diabetes (Minneapolis, MN), Nipro Home Diagnostics (Ft. Lauderdale, FL), Nova Diabetes Care (Billerica, MA), Omron (Shelton, CT), Perrigo Diabetes Care (Allegan, MI), Roche Diabetes Care (Indianapolis, IN), and Sanofi-Aventis (Bridgewater, NJ). This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials."