Search

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the greatest health crises of our time and its prevalence is projected to increase by >50% globally by 2045. Currently, 10 classes of drugs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of T2DM. Drugs in development for T2DM must show meaningful reductions in glycaemic parameters as well as cardiovascular safety. Results from an increasing number of cardiovascular outcome trials using modern T2DM therapeutics have shown a reduced risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, congestive heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Hence, guidelines have become increasingly evidence based and more patient centred, focusing on reaching individualized glycaemic goals while optimizing safety, non-glycaemic benefits and the prevention of complications. The bar has been raised for novel therapies under development for T2DM as they are now expected to achieve these aims and possibly even treat concurrent comorbidities. Indeed, the pharmaceutical pipeline for T2DM is fertile. Drugs that augment insulin sensitivity, stimulate insulin secretion or the incretin axis, or suppress hepatic glucose production are active in more than 7,000 global trials using new mechanisms of action. Our collective goal of being able to truly personalize medicine for T2DM has never been closer at hand.

Diabetes is one of the most important comorbidities linked to the severity of all three known human pathogenic coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Patients with diabetes have an increased risk of severe complications including Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome and multi-organ failure. Depending on the global region, 20-50% of patients in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had diabetes. Given the importance of the link between COVID-19 and diabetes, we have formed an international panel of experts in the field of diabetes and endocrinology to provide some guidance and practical recommendations for the management of diabetes during the pandemic. We aim to briefly provide insight into potential mechanistic links between the novel coronavirus infection and diabetes, present practical management recommendations, and elaborate on the differential needs of several patient groups., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: While sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor (SGLTi) therapy has been evaluated in type 1 diabetes (T1D) trials, patient reactions to benefits and risks are unknown. Using established methodology, we evaluated patient preferences for different adjunct-to-insulin therapy options in T1D., Research Design and Methods: An online survey, completed by 701 respondents with T1D (231 U.S., 242 Canada, and 228 Germany), used conjoint analysis to present six hypothetical, masked, pairwise drug profile choices composed of different benefit-risk attributes and effect ranges. Data used in analyses were derived from actual phase 3 trials of a low-dose SGLTi (comparable to oral empagliflozin 2.5 mg q.d.), a high-dose SGLTi (comparable to oral sotagliflozin 400 mg q.d.), and an available adjunct-to-insulin therapy (comparable to subcutaneous pramlintide 60 μg t.i.d.)., Results: Conjoint analysis identified diabetic ketoacidosis risk as most important to patients (23% relative score; z test, P < 0.05); ranked second were HbA 1c reduction (14%), risk of severe hypoglycemia (13%), oral versus injectable treatment (12%), and risk of genital infection (12%). Next was risk of nausea (11%), followed by weight reduction (8%) and the risk of diarrhea (7%). A low-dose SGLTi drug profile was identified by conjoint analysis as the top patient preference (83% of participants; z test, P < 0.05) versus high-dose SGLTi (8%) or pramlintide (9%). Separate from conjoint analysis, when respondents were asked to choose their preferred adjunct-to-insulin therapy (masked to drug name/dose), 69%, 17%, 6%, and 9% of respondents chose low-dose SGLTi, high-dose SGLTi, pramlintide, and insulin therapy alone, respectively., Conclusions: Low-dose SGLTi profile was the favored adjunct-to-insulin therapy by persons with T1D., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of empagliflozin 10- and 25-mg doses plus a unique lower dose (2.5 mg) as adjunct to intensified insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D)., Research Design and Methods: The EASE (Empagliflozin as Adjunctive to inSulin thErapy) program ( N = 1,707) included two double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: EASE-2 with empagliflozin 10 mg ( n = 243), 25 mg ( n = 244), and placebo ( n = 243), 52-week treatment; and EASE-3 with empagliflozin 2.5 mg ( n = 241), 10 mg ( n = 248), 25 mg ( n = 245), and placebo ( n = 241), 26-week treatment. Together they evaluated empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg, doses currently approved in treatment of type 2 diabetes, and additionally 2.5 mg on 26-week change in glycated hemoglobin (primary end point) and weight, glucose time-in-range (>70 to ≤180 mg/dL), insulin dose, blood pressure, and hypoglycemia., Results: The observed largest mean placebo-subtracted glycated hemoglobin reductions were -0.28% (95% CI -0.42, -0.15) for 2.5 mg, -0.54% (-0.65, -0.42) for 10 mg, and -0.53% (-0.65, -0.42) for 25 mg (all P < 0.0001). Empagliflozin 2.5/10/25 mg doses, respectively, reduced mean weight by -1.8/-3.0/-3.4 kg (all P < 0.0001); increased glucose time-in-range by +1.0/+2.9/+3.1 h/day ( P < 0.0001 for 10 and 25 mg); lowered total daily insulin dose by -6.4/-13.3/-12.7% (all P < 0.0001); and decreased systolic blood pressure by -2.1/-3.9/-3.7 mmHg (all P < 0.05). Genital infections occurred more frequently on empagliflozin. Adjudicated diabetic ketoacidosis occurred more with empagliflozin 10 mg (4.3%) and 25 mg (3.3%) but was comparable between empagliflozin 2.5 mg (0.8%) and placebo (1.2%). Severe hypoglycemia was rare and frequency was similar between empagliflozin and placebo., Conclusions: Empagliflozin improved glycemic control and weight in T1D without increasing hypoglycemia. Ketoacidosis rate was comparable between empagliflozin 2.5 mg and placebo but increased with 10 mg and 25 mg. Ketone monitoring for early ketoacidosis detection and intervention and lower empagliflozin doses may help to reduce this risk., (© 2018 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Importance: Type 1 diabetes requires major lifestyle changes and carries increased morbidity and mortality. Prevention or delay of diabetes would have major clinical effect., Objective: To determine whether oral insulin delays onset of type 1 diabetes in autoantibody-positive relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes., Design, Setting, and Participants: Between March 2, 2007, and December 21, 2015, relatives with at least 2 autoantibodies, including insulin autoantibodies and normal glucose tolerance, were enrolled in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, Finland, and Germany. The main study group (n = 389) had first-phase insulin release on an intravenous glucose tolerance test that was higher than the threshold. The 55 patients in the secondary stratum 1 had an identical antibody profile as the main study group except they had first-phase insulin release that was lower than the threshold. Secondary strata 2 (n = 114) and strata 3 (n = 3) had different autoantibody profiles and first-phase insulin release threshold combinations. Follow-up continued through December 31, 2016., Interventions: Randomization to receive 7.5 mg/d of oral insulin (n = 283) or placebo (n = 277), including participants in the main study group who received oral insulin (n = 203) or placebo (n = 186)., Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was time to diabetes in the main study group. Significance was based on a 1-sided threshold of .05, and 1-sided 95% CIs are reported., Results: Of a total of 560 randomized participants (median enrollment age, 8.2 years; interquartile range [IQR], 5.7-12.1 years; 170 boys [60%]; 90.7% white non-Hispanic; 57.6% with a sibling with type 1 diabetes), 550 completed the trial including 389 participants (median age, 8.4 years; 245 boys [63%]), 382 (96%) in the main study group. During a median follow-up of 2.7 years (IQR, 1.5-4.6 years) in the main study group, diabetes was diagnosed in 58 participants (28.5%) in the oral insulin group and 62 (33%) in the placebo group. Time to diabetes was not significantly different between the 2 groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0-1.2; P = .21). In secondary stratum 1 (n = 55), diabetes was diagnosed in 13 participants (48.1%) in the oral insulin group and in 19 participants (70.3%) in the placebo group. The time to diabetes was significantly longer with oral insulin (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0-0.82; P = .006). The HR for time to diabetes for the between-group comparisons for the 116 participants in the other secondary stratum was 1.03 (95% CI, 0-2.11; P = .53) and for the entire cohort of 560 participants was 0.83 (95% CI, 0-1.07; P = .11), which were not significantly different. The most common adverse event was infection (n = 254), with 134 events in the oral insulin group and 120 events in the placebo group, but no significant study-related adverse events occurred., Conclusions and Relevance: Among autoantibody-positive relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes, oral insulin at a dose of 7.5 mg/d, compared with placebo, did not delay or prevent the development of type 1 diabetes over 2.7 years. These findings do not support oral insulin as used in this study for diabetes prevention., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00419562.

Objective: To assess the safety, tolerability, and feasibility of adult allogeneic bone marrow-derived mesenchymal precursor cells (MPCs) in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin either alone or with one additional oral antidiabetic agent., Research Design and Methods: The study was a dose-escalating randomized placebo-controlled trial assessing one intravenous (IV) infusion of MPCs (rexlemestrocel-L; Mesoblast Inc.) 0.3 × 10(6)/kg (n = 15), 1.0 × 10(6)/kg (n = 15), or 2.0 × 10(6)/kg (n = 15) or placebo (n = 16). Study duration was 12 weeks., Results: Subjects (21 women, 40 men) with a mean ± SD baseline HbA1c 8.3 ± 1.0% (67 ± 10.9 mmol/mol), BMI 33.5 ± 5.5 kg/m(2), and diabetes duration 10.1 ± 6.0 years were enrolled at 18 U.S. sites. No acute adverse events (AEs) were associated with infusion. No serious AEs, serious hypoglycemia AEs, or discontinuations due to AEs over 12 weeks were found. No subjects developed donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies or became sensitized. The safety profile was comparable among treatment groups. Compared with placebo, a single IV infusion of rexlemestrocel-L reduced HbA1c at all time points after week 1. The adjusted least squares mean ± SE dose-related differences in HbA1c from placebo in the rexlemestrocel-L groups ranged from -0.1 ± 0.2% (-1.1 ± 2.2 mmol/mol) to -0.4 ± 0.2% (4.4 ± 2.2 mmol/mol) at 8 weeks and from 0.0 ± 0.25% to -0.3 ± 0.25% (-3.3 ± -2.7 mmol/mol) at 12 weeks (P < 0.05 for 2.0 × 10(6)/kg dose at 8 weeks). The clinical target HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) was achieved by 33% (5 of 15) of the subjects who received the 2.0 × 10(6)/kg dose vs. 0% of those who received placebo (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: This short-term study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of up to 246 million MPCs in subjects with type 2 diabetes., (© 2015 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Objective: Ranolazine is an antianginal drug that mediates its effects by inhibition of cardiac late sodium current. Although ranolazine is not approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, in post hoc analyses of pivotal angina trials, ranolazine was associated with reductions in percent glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in subjects with type 2 diabetes. The study prospectively assessed the safety and efficacy of ranolazine in subjects with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control managed by lifestyle alone., Research Design and Methods: The study was conducted worldwide in 465 subjects, with baseline HbA1c of 7-10% (53-86 mmol/mol) and fasting serum glucose of 130-240 mg/dL, randomized to placebo versus ranolazine., Results: Compared with placebo, there was a greater decline in HbA1c at week 24 from baseline (primary end point) in subjects taking ranolazine (mean difference -0.56% [-6.1 mmol/mol]; P < 0.0001). Moreover, the proportion of subjects achieving an HbA1c <7.0% was greater with ranolazine (25.6% vs. 41.2%; P = 0.0004). Ranolazine was associated with reductions in fasting (mean difference -8 mg/dL; P = 0.0266) and 2-h postprandial glucose (mean difference -19 mg/dL; P = 0.0008 vs. placebo). Subjects taking ranolazine trended toward a greater decrease from baseline in fasting insulin (P = 0.0507), a greater decrease in fasting glucagon (P = 0.0003), and a lower postprandial 3-h glucagon area under the curve (P = 0.0031 vs. placebo). Ranolazine was safe and well tolerated., Conclusions: Compared with placebo, use of ranolazine monotherapy over 24 weeks, in subjects with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control on diet and exercise alone, significantly reduced HbA1c and other measures of glycemic control., (© 2015 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) rapidly lose β cell function and/or mass, leading to a life-long dependence on insulin therapy. β Cell destruction is mediated by aberrant immune responses; therefore, immune modulation has potential to ameliorate disease. While immune intervention in animal models of diabetes has shown promising results, treatment of patients with T1D with the same agents has not been as successful. In this issue of the JCI, Haller and colleagues present data from a small clinical trial that tested the efficacy of a combination of immunomodulatory agents, anti-thymocyte globulin and pegylated granulocyte CSF, neither of which have shown benefit for T1D as single treatment agents. Many patients that received combination therapy maintained β cell function at baseline levels up to a year after treatment. The results from this study challenge current trial design paradigm that for combined therapy to be successful individual agents should show benefit.

A recent autopsy analysis asserted that incretin drugs have the potential of increasing the risk for pancreatic cancer and for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. We examined the Network for Pancreatic Organ Donors with Diabetes (nPOD) database from which that analysis was derived. Our findings raise important questions about the comparability of the two groups of diabetes patients used for the analysis. Our review of the data available on the nPOD Web site and our reading of the earlier article lead us to the conclusion that the data, and the implications of the data, as expressed by the authors of the autopsy analysis are vastly overstated and are a misrepresentation of the information available.

Background: Innate immunity contributes to the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases, such as type 1 diabetes, but until now no randomised, controlled trials of blockade of the key innate immune mediator interleukin-1 have been done. We aimed to assess whether canakinumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-1 antibody, or anakinra, a human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, improved β-cell function in recent-onset type 1 diabetes., Methods: We did two randomised, placebo-controlled trials in two groups of patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes and mixed-meal-tolerance-test-stimulated C peptide of at least 0·2 nM. Patients in the canakinumab trial were aged 6-45 years and those in the anakinra trial were aged 18-35 years. Patients in the canakinumab trial were enrolled at 12 sites in the USA and Canada and those in the anakinra trial were enrolled at 14 sites across Europe. Participants were randomly assigned by computer-generated blocked randomisation to subcutaneous injection of either 2 mg/kg (maximum 300 mg) canakinumab or placebo monthly for 12 months or 100 mg anakinra or placebo daily for 9 months. Participants and carers were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was baseline-adjusted 2-h area under curve C-peptide response to the mixed meal tolerance test at 12 months (canakinumab trial) and 9 months (anakinra trial). Analyses were by intention to treat. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00947427 and NCT00711503, and EudraCT number 2007-007146-34., Findings: Patients were enrolled in the canakinumab trial between Nov 12, 2010, and April 11, 2011, and in the anakinra trial between Jan 26, 2009, and May 25, 2011. 69 patients were randomly assigned to canakinumab (n=47) or placebo (n=22) monthly for 12 months and 69 were randomly assigned to anakinra (n=35) or placebo (n=34) daily for 9 months. No interim analyses were done. 45 canakinumab-treated and 21 placebo-treated patients in the canakinumab trial and 25 anakinra-treated and 26 placebo-treated patients in the anakinra trial were included in the primary analyses. The difference in C peptide area under curve between the canakinumab and placebo groups at 12 months was 0·01 nmol/L (95% CI -0·11 to 0·14; p=0·86), and between the anakinra and the placebo groups at 9 months was 0·02 nmol/L (-0·09 to 0·15; p=0·71). The number and severity of adverse events did not differ between groups in the canakinumab trial. In the anakinra trial, patients in the anakinra group had significantly higher grades of adverse events than the placebo group (p=0·018), which was mainly because of a higher number of injection site reactions in the anakinra group., Interpretation: Canakinumab and anakinra were safe but were not effective as single immunomodulatory drugs in recent-onset type 1 diabetes. Interleukin-1 blockade might be more effective in combination with treatments that target adaptive immunity in organ-specific autoimmune disorders., Funding: National Institutes of Health and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) results from the autoimmune destruction of pancreatic β-cells, and as such it should respond to immunotherapy. George Eisenbarth gave many significant contributions to this field. He has been involved at some level in most immunotherapy trials during the past three decades. He was among the pioneers who attempted immunotherapy approaches in patients with recent-onset T1D. In the early 1980s he began studying relatives of those with the disease, leading to the concept that T1D was a chronic autoimmune disease, in which islet autoimmune responses would silently destroy β-cells and cause progressive impairment of insulin secretion, years to months before a diagnosis was made. Consequently, he was one of the first to attempt immune intervention in people at high risk of T1D. Throughout his career he developed autoantibody assays and predictive models (which included metabolic testing and later genetics) to identify individuals at risk of T1D. He provided seminal intellectual contributions and critical tools for prevention trials. His focus on insulin as a critical autoantigen led to multiple prevention trials, including the Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1), which studied both parenteral and oral insulin. In the DPT-1 Oral Insulin Trial, a cohort with higher levels of insulin autoantibodies was identified that appeared to have delayed disease progression. Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet is conducting a new trial to verify or refute this observation. Moreover, George identified and tested in the mouse small molecules that block or modulate presentation of a key insulin peptide and in turn prevent the activation of insulin-specific T-lymphocytes. Thus, we believe his greatest contribution is yet to come, as in the near future we should see this most recent work translate into clinical trials.

Objective: To provide an overview of U-500 regular insulin action, review published clinical studies with U-500 regular insulin, and offer guidance to practicing endocrinologists for identifying patients for whom U-500 regular insulin may be appropriate., Methods: This review has been produced through a synthesis of relevant published literature compiled via a literature search (MEDLINE search of the English-language literature published between January 1969, and July 2008, related to U-500, insulin resistance, concentrated insulin, high-dose insulin, insulin pharmacokinetics, and diabetes management) and the authors' collective clinical experience., Results: The obesity epidemic is contributing to an increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, as well as to increasing insulin requirements in insulin-treated patients. Many of these patients exhibit severe insulin resistance, manifested by daily insulin requirements of 200 units or greater or more than 2 units/kg. Delivering an appropriate insulin volume to these patients can be difficult and inconvenient and may be best accomplished with U-500 regular insulin by multiple daily injections or with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, rather than with standard U-100 insulin. Implementation of U-500 regular insulin in patients previously on other insulin formulations is described with a treatment algorithm covering dosage requirements ranging from 150 to more than 600 units per day on the basis of the authors' experience., Conclusions: Regimen conversion of appropriately selected patients from high-dose, U-100 insulin to U-500 regular insulin therapy on the basis of the recommendations presented in this article may potentially result in improved glycemic control and lower cost.

Objective: To assess pulmonary safety during discontinuation and readministration of inhaled human insulin (EXU; Exubera((R)) insulin human [rDNA origin]) Inhalation Powder) therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes., Methods: Patients were randomized to receive basal insulin plus either pre-meal EXU (n=290) or a short-acting subcutaneous (SC) insulin (n=290) for 2 years (comparative phase), followed by 6 months of SC insulin (washout) and 6 months of their original therapy (readministration). Highly standardized lung function tests were performed throughout., Results: Small treatment group differences favoring SC insulin in change from baseline forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)) and carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DL(CO)) occurred early and were non-progressive. These differences resolved during washout and recurred at the same magnitude during readministration. Both groups maintained glycemic control, and hypoglycemic event rates were similar. In the EXU group, insulin antibody (IAb) levels plateaued at 12 months, declined to near baseline levels during washout and increased during readministration to levels observed in the comparative phase., Conclusions: FEV(1) and DL(CO) changes observed during discontinuation and readministration of EXU therapy are consistent with a reversible, non-progressive and non-pathological effect on lung function. EXU readministration is not associated with an augmented IAb response.

Objective: This randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial tested whether oral insulin administration could delay or prevent type 1 diabetes in nondiabetic relatives at risk for diabetes., Research Design and Methods: We screened 103,391 first- and second-degree relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes and analyzed 97,273 samples for islet cell antibodies. A total of 3,483 were antibody positive; 2,523 underwent genetic, immunological, and metabolic staging to quantify risk of developing diabetes; 388 had a 5-year risk projection of 26-50%; and 372 (median age 10.25 years) were randomly assigned to oral insulin (7.5 mg/day) or placebo. Oral glucose tolerance tests were performed every 6 months. The median follow-up was 4.3 years, and the primary end point was diagnosis of diabetes., Results: Diabetes was diagnosed in 44 oral insulin and 53 placebo subjects. Annualized rate of diabetes was similar in both groups: 6.4% with oral insulin and 8.2% with placebo (hazard ratio 0.764, P = 0.189). In a hypothesis-generating analysis of a subgroup with insulin autoantibody (IAA) levels confirmed (on two occasions) > or =80 nU/ml (n = 263), there was the suggestion of benefit: annualized diabetes rate 6.2% with oral insulin and 10.4% with placebo (0.566, P = 0.015)., Conclusions: It is possible to identify individuals at high risk for type 1 diabetes and to enroll them in a large, multisite, randomized, controlled clinical trial. However, oral insulin did not delay or prevent type 1 diabetes. Further studies are needed to explore the potential role of oral insulin in delaying diabetes in relatives similar to those in the subgroup with higher IAA levels.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors are new oral antidiabetes medications shown to effectively reduce glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and glycemic variability, blood pressure, and body weight without intrinsic properties to cause hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes. However, recent studies, particularly in individuals with type 1 diabetes, have demonstrated increases in the absolute risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Some cases presented with near-normal blood glucose levels or mild hyperglycemia, complicating the recognition/diagnosis of DKA and potentially delaying treatment. Several SGLT inhibitors are currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European regulatory agencies as adjuncts to insulin therapy in people with type 1 diabetes. Strategies must be developed and disseminated to the medical community to mitigate the associated DKA risk. This Consensus Report reviews current data regarding SGLT inhibitor use and provides recommendations to enhance the safety of SGLT inhibitors in people with type 1 diabetes.

In December 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry setting new expectations for the development of antidiabetes drugs for type 2 diabetes. This guidance expanded the scope and cost of research necessary for approval of such drugs by mandating long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) for safety. Since 2008, 9 CVOTs have been reported, 13 are under way, and 4 have been terminated. Reassuringly, each of the completed trials demonstrated the noninferiority of their respective drugs to placebo for their primary cardiovascular (CV) composite end point. Notably, four additionally provided evidence of CV benefit in the form of significant decreases in the primary CV composite end point, two suggested reductions in CV death, and three suggested reductions in all-cause mortality. Although these trials have yielded much valuable information, whether that information justifies the investment of time and resources is controversial. In June 2016, a Diabetes Care Editors' Expert Forum convened to review the processes and challenges of CVOTs, discuss the benefits and limitations of their current designs, and weigh the merits of modifications that might improve the efficiency and clinical value of future trials. Discussion and analysis continued with the CVOT trial results released in June 2017 at the American Diabetes Association's Scientific Sessions and in September 2017 at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes scientific meeting. This article summarizes the discussion and findings to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As has been well established, the Diabetes Care journal's most visible signature event is the Diabetes Care Symposium held each year during the American Diabetes Association's Scientific Sessions. Held this past year on 10 June 2017 in San Diego, California, at the 77th Scientific Sessions, this event has become one of the most attended sessions during the Scientific Sessions. Each year, in order to continue to have the symposium generate interest, we revise the format and content of this event. For this past year, our 6th annual symposium, I felt it was time to provide a comprehensive overview of our efforts in diabetes care to determine, first and foremost, how we arrived at our current state of management. I also felt the narrative needed to include the current status of management, especially with a focus toward cardiovascular disease, and finally, we wanted to ask what the future holds. Toward this goal, I asked four of the most noted experts in the world to provide their opinion on this topic. The symposium started with a very thoughtful presentation by Dr. Jay Skyler entitled "A Look Back as to How We Got Here." That was followed by two lectures on current concepts by Dr. Bernard Zinman entitled "Current Treatment Paradigms Today-How Well Are We Doing?" and by Dr. Matthew Riddle entitled "Evolving Concepts and Future Directions for Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials." The final lecture for the symposium was delivered by Dr. Ele Ferrannini and was entitled "What Does the Future Hold?" As always, a well-attended and well-received symposium is now the norm for our signature event and our efforts were rewarded by the enthusiasm of the attendees. This narrative summarizes the lectures held at the symposium.-William T. CefaluChief Scientific, Medical & Mission Officer, American Diabetes Association. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Diabetes Association, JDRF, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists convened a research symposium, "The Differentiation of Diabetes by Pathophysiology, Natural History and Prognosis" on 10-12 October 2015. International experts in genetics, immunology, metabolism, endocrinology, and systems biology discussed genetic and environmental determinants of type 1 and type 2 diabetes risk and progression, as well as complications. The participants debated how to determine appropriate therapeutic approaches based on disease pathophysiology and stage and defined remaining research gaps hindering a personalized medical approach for diabetes to drive the field to address these gaps. The authors recommend a structure for data stratification to define the phenotypes and genotypes of subtypes of diabetes that will facilitate individualized treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE - We assessed diabetes risk associated with zinc transporter-8 antibodies (ZnT8A), islet cell antibodies (ICA), and HLA type and age in relatives of people with type 1 diabetes with the standard biochemical autoantibodies (BAA) to insulin (IAA), GAD65 (GAD65A), and/or insulinoma-associated protein 2 antigen (IA-2A). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - For this analysis, 2,256 relatives positive for at least one BAA, of whom 142 developed diabetes, were tested for ZnT8A, ICA, and HLA genotype followed by biannual oral glucose tolerance tests. ZnT8A were also tested in 911 randomly chosen antibody-negative relatives. RESULTS - ZnT8A were associated with the other BAA (548 of 2,256 [24.3%] BAA+ vs. 8 of 911 [0.8%] BAA- P<0.001) and BAA number (177 of 1,683 [10.5%] single-, 221 of 384 [57.6%] double-, and 150 of 189 [79.4%] triple-BAA positivity, P<0.001). The 4-year diabetes riskwas higher in single BAA+ relatives with ZnT8A than ZnT8A- relatives (31 vs. 7%, P , 0.001). In multivariable analysis, age<20 years (hazard ratio 2.13, P = 0.03), IA-2A (2.15, P = 0.005), IAA (1.73, P =0.01),ICA (2.37, P = 0.002), and ZnT8A (1.87, P = 0.03) independently predicted diabetes, whereas HLA type (high and moderate vs. low risk) and GAD65A did not (P = 0.81 and 0.86, respectively). CONCLUSIONS - relatives with one standard BAA, ZnT8A identified a subset at higher diabetes risk. ZnT8A predicted diabetes independently of ICA, the standard BAA, age, and HLA type. ZnT8A should be included in type 1 diabetes prediction and prevention studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE -- The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term (2-year) safety and efficacy of inhaled human insulin (Exubera [insulin human (rDNA origin)] inhalation powder) (EXU) in adult patients with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -- Patients were randomly assigned to receive EXU (n = 290) or subcutaneous (SC) insulin (n = 290), plus basal (intermediate- or long-acting) insulin. The primary end point was the annual rate of decline in pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] and carbon monoxide diffusing capacity [DLCO]). RESULTS -- The mean ± SEM annual rates of change between months 0 and 24 were -0.051 ± 0.005 l/year with EXU and -0.034 ± 0.005 l/year with SC insulin (significant mean difference -0.017 ± 0.007 l/year [90% CI -0.028 to -0.005]) for FEV1 and -0.437 ± 0.073 ml ⋅ min-1 ⋅ mmHg-1 ⋅ year-1 with EXU and -0.287 ± 0.065 ml ⋅ min-1 ⋅ mmHg-1 ⋅ year-1 with SC insulin (nonsignificant mean difference -0.150 ml ⋅ min-1 ⋅ mmHg-1 ⋅ year-1 [-0.31.0 to 0.011]) for DLCO. The mean annual rates of change in FEV1 between months 3 and 24 were -0.041. ± 0.005 and -0.031 ± 0.006 l/year in the EXU and SC insulin groups, respectively (nonsignificant mean difference -0.011 l/year [-0.023 to 0.002]), indicating that the significant difference between the treatment groups in FEV1 developed during the first 3 months and was not progressive thereafter. Adverse event profiles were similar except for a higher incidence of cough (usually mild and unproductive) in patients receiving EXU (37.6 vs. 13.1.%) that decreased to 1.3% by month 24. Glycemic control was sustained in both groups (adjusted mean treatment difference in change from baseline A1C at month 24 0.25 ± 0.07% [0.13-0.37]). Although the overall hypoglycemic events were comparable between groups (4.0 vs. 3.8 events/subject-month), the incidence of severe hypoglycemic events was lower with EXU than with SC insulin (2.8 vs. 4.1 events/100 subject-months, risk ratio 0.67 [0.57-0.79]). Body weight increased to a significantly lesser extent with EXU (adjusted mean treatment difference -1.25 ± 0.36 kg [-1.85 to -0.66]). CONCLUSIONS -- Treatment group differences in lung function between EKU and SC insulin in adult patients with type 1 diabetes are small, develop early, and are nonprogressive for up to 2 years of therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cardiometabolic syndrome (CMS) has been an organizing conceptual framework for subclinical cardiovascular pathophysiology. Using cross-sectional data from 338 healthy men and women aged 18 to 55 years, the study examined the role of central adiposity and insulin sensitivity and assessed potential relationships with other metabolic indices (insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance, fibrinolysis, lipidemia, endothelial function, and inflammation) and measures of cardiac structure and function (cardiac mass, compliance and contractility, myocardial oxygen demand, and blood pressure). Structural equation modeling analyses, which controlled for sex, age, and race, demonstrated good fit to the data. The derived relationships provided a physiologically consistent model of CMS, with an initiating role for central adiposity and insulin resistance. The model accounted for 30% and 82% of the variance in diastolic blood pressure and myocardial oxygen demand, respectively. The findings suggest predominant pathways through which subclinical metabolic processes may exert pathogenic impact on the heart and vasculature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]