Search

Objective: According to recent guidelines, individuals with type 1 diabetes should spend <4.0% of time per day with glucose levels <3.9 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL) and <1.0% per day with glucose levels <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL).Research Design and Methods: In the GOLD randomized crossover trial, 161 individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) were randomized to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or conventional therapy with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and evaluated over 16 months. We estimated the association between time spent in hypoglycemia and various mean glucose and HbA1c levels.Results: Time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L) increased significantly with lower mean HbA1c and mean glucose levels during both CGM and conventional therapy. During CGM, 24 (57.1%) individuals with HbA1c <7.5% (<58 mmol/mol) had <1.0% time spent in hypoglycemia <3.0 mmol/L and 23 (54.8%) had <4.0% time spent in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L. During CGM, mean time spent in hypoglycemia for individuals with mean HbA1c 7.0% (52 mmol/mol) was estimated to be 5.4% for <3.9 mmol/L and 1.5% for <3.0 mmol/L. The corresponding values during SMBG were 9.2% and 3.5%, respectively. Individuals with mean glucose levels of 8 mmol/L spent 4.9% units more time with glucose levels <3.9 mmol/L and 2.8% units more time <3.0 mmol/L during SMBG compared with CGM.Conclusions: Reaching current targets for time in hypoglycemia while at the same time reaching HbA1c targets is challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI both with CGM and SMBG monitoring. However, CGM is associated with considerably less time in hypoglycemia than SMBG at a broad range of HbA1c levels and is crucial for patients with MDI treatment if they are to have a chance to approach hypoglycemia targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: The majority of individuals with type 1 diabetes do not meet recommended glycemic targets.Objective: To evaluate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections.Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label crossover randomized clinical trial conducted in 15 diabetes outpatient clinics in Sweden between February 24, 2014, and June 1, 2016 that included 161 individuals with type 1 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of at least 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) treated with multiple daily insulin injections.Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive treatment using a continuous glucose monitoring system or conventional treatment for 26 weeks, separated by a washout period of 17 weeks.Main Outcomes and Measures: Difference in HbA1c between weeks 26 and 69 for the 2 treatments. Adverse events including severe hypoglycemia were also studied.Results: Among 161 randomized participants, mean age was 43.7 years, 45.3% were women, and mean HbA1c was 8.6% (70 mmol/mol). A total of 142 participants had follow-up data in both treatment periods. Mean HbA1c was 7.92% (63 mmol/mol) during continuous glucose monitoring use and 8.35% (68 mmol/mol) during conventional treatment (mean difference, -0.43% [95% CI, -0.57% to -0.29%] or -4.7 [-6.3 to -3.1 mmol/mol]; P < .001). Of 19 secondary end points comprising psychosocial and various glycemic measures, 6 met the hierarchical testing criteria of statistical significance, favoring continuous glucose monitoring compared with conventional treatment. Five patients in the conventional treatment group and 1 patient in the continuous glucose monitoring group had severe hypoglycemia. During washout when patients used conventional therapy, 7 patients had severe hypoglycemia.Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections, the use of continuous glucose monitoring compared with conventional treatment for 26 weeks resulted in lower HbA1c. Further research is needed to assess clinical outcomes and longer-term adverse effects.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02092051. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What are the effects of liraglutide, an incretin based treatment, on glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections? METHODS The study was a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial with a parallel group design carried out at 13 hospital based outpatient clinics and one primary care unit in Sweden. Patients were considered eligible for inclusion if they had type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c concentrations ≥58 mmol/mol (7.5%) and ≤102 mmol/mol (11.5%)), a body mass index of 27.5-45 kg/m², and required multiple daily insulin injections. Overall, 124 participants were randomised 1:1 to subcutaneous liraglutide or placebo by minimisation allocation. The main outcome measure was change in HbA1c level from baseline to week 24. STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS Liraglutide was associated with a significant reduction of 16.9 mmol/mol (1.5%) in HbA1c versus 4.6 mmol/ mol (0.4%) for placebo, difference -12.3 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval -15.8 to -8.8 mmol/mol; -1.13%,-1.45 to-0.81 mmol/mol). Body weight was significantly reduced in participants in the liraglutide compared with placebo group (3.8 v 0.0 kg, difference -3.8, -4.9 to -2.8 kg), and total daily insulin doses were significantly reduced, by 18.1 units and 2.3 units (difference-15.8, -23.1 to-8.5 units). Reductions in mean and standard deviation of glucose levels estimated by masked continuous glucose monitoring were significantly greater in the liraglutide group than placebo group (-1.9 and -0.5 mmol/L). Neither group experienced severe hypoglycaemic events nor were there any significant differences in symptomatic or asymptomatic non-severe hypoglycaemia (<4.0 or <3.0 mmol/L). The mean number of non-severe symptomatic hypoglycaemic events (<4.0 mmol/L) during follow-up was 1.29 in the liraglutide group and 1.24 in the placebo group (P=0.96). One of the study's limitations was its relatively short duration. Sustained effects of liraglutide have, however, been found over lengthier periods in connection with other treatment regimens. Cardiovascular safety and potential adverse events during longer exposure to liraglutide need to be evaluated. Nausea was experienced by 21 (32.8%) participants in the liraglutide group and 5 (7.8%) in the placebo group and 3 (5%) and 4 (7%) participants in these groups, respectively, had any serious adverse event. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS Adding liraglutide to multiple daily insulin injections in people with type 2 diabetes improves glycaemic control without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia, reduces body weight, and enables patients to lower their insulin doses. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING This study was an investigator initiated trial, supported in part by Novo Nordisk and InfuCare. Potential competing interests have been reported and are available on thebmj.com. STUDY REGISTRATION EudraCT 2012-001941-42. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a tool widely used in the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate whether accuracy and patient treatment satisfaction differ between the Enlite™ (Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Northridge, CA) and Dexcom(®) (San Diego, CA) G4 PLATINUM CGM sensors., Subjects and Methods: Thirty-eight ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes used the Dexcom G4 and Enlite sensors simultaneously for a minimum of 4 and maximum of 6 days. Patients measured capillary glucose levels with a HemoCue(®) (Ängelholm, Sweden) system six to 10 times a day. In addition, two inpatient studies were performed between Days 1-3 and 4-6., Results: The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) in blood glucose for the Dexcom G4 was significantly lower (13.9%) than for the Enlite sensor (17.8%) (P<0.0001). The corresponding MARDs for Days 1-3 were 15.0% versus 19.4% (P=0.0027) and 13.6% versus 15.9% (P=0.026) for Days 4-6. For glucose levels in the hypoglycemic range (<4.0 mmol/L), the MARD for the Dexcom G4 was 20.0% compared with 34.7% for the Enlite (P=0.0041). On a visual analog scale (VAS) (0-100), patients rated the Dexcom G4 more favorably than the Enlite in 12 out of the 13 user experience questions. For example, more patients rated their experience with the Dexcom G4 as positive (VAS, 79.7 vs. 46.6; P<0.0001) and preferred to use it in their daily lives (VAS, 79.1 vs. 42.1; P<0.0001)., Conclusions: The Dexcom G4 sensor was associated with greater overall accuracy than the Enlite sensor during initial (Days 1-3) and later (Days 4-6) use and for glucose levels in the hypoglycemic range. Patients reported a significantly more positive experience using the Dexcom G4 than the Enlite.