Miriam E. Tucker

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some automated insulin delivery systems currently in development add glucagon and/or pramlintide to insulin, but whether the extra hormones are worth the additional cost and effort is a subject of debate.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Also called closed-loop or artificial pancreas systems, they are comprised of an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) that communicate via a built-in algorithm to deliver insulin based on glucose levels. Currently available systems are called hybrid closed loops because they still require user input for meals, exercise, illness, and other special circumstances.

Two hybrid closed-loop systems available in the United States, the Medtronic Minimed 670G and the Tandem Control-IQ, as well as the Medtronic Minimed 780G that was just approved in Europe, use insulin only.

Of all ongoing active closed-loop clinical studies, 44 involve insulin-only systems, as of May 2020.

However, two such systems in development add a glucagon analogue to insulin in the same pump (in separate cartridges), with the aim of minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia. And four investigational systems combine insulin with pramlintide (Symlin, AstraZeneca), an amylin analogue that reduces postmeal glucose spikes. Three systems in development combine all three hormones. 

In a debate during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions, Roman Hovorka, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England) argued in favor of insulin-only systems on the basis of efficacy, less burden and complexity, and lower cost.

But Steven J. Russell, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, countered that glucagon adds safety and value to the system by allowing for more aggressive insulin dosing with lower hypoglycemia risk, benefits which he said would overcome any downsides.
 

Insulin-only systems are good enough

Dr. Hovorka began by defining a “good” artificial pancreas as one that produces consensus time-in-range targets of at least 70% of glucose values between 3.9 to 10 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) and less than 3% below 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL). At the same time, he said, the burden should be low, which he suggested means no more than 10-20 minutes a day spent managing the system, low “alarm burden,” and minimal technical issues.

“We need to balance glucose control and the burden. For some people, reducing the burden is sometimes even more important than the glucose control,” Dr. Hovorka commented.

He pointed out that, in addition to Medtronic’s and Tandem’s systems, two other insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems are marketed outside the United States. These are the CamDiab system, available in the United Kingdom, which uses his group’s Cambridge control algorithm in a Dana pump with the Dexcom G6 sensor, and the Diabeloop algorithm, available in Europe, that combines a patch pump with the Dexcom G6.

“Lots of energy and resources are going to taking [insulin-only] systems into clinic use,” Dr. Hovorka observed.

He reviewed recently published data for both the Tandem Control-IQ and the Cambridge control algorithm showing similar results meeting the “good artificial pancreas” definition.

In his current clinic population of 160 patients aged 2-80 years using the Cambridge algorithm, 69% of users have achieved 70% or greater time in range and 28% have achieved 80% or greater time in range.

“So, the insulin-only system can achieve acceptable, and in some instances very good, glucose control,” Dr. Hovorka said.

He acknowledged that there are still challenges with insulin-only systems, including exercise-related dysglycemia and postprandial hyperglycemia related to slow insulin absorption, missed or incorrect boluses, or large meals.

But, Dr. Hovorka said, downsides of dual-hormone systems include the need for room-temperature stable glucagon and for dual-chamber pumps with two cannulas and two infusion sites (in addition to the sensor site), and the unknown long-term biological risks of chronic subcutaneous glucagon or pramlintide delivery.

Moreover, he said, costs are expected to be higher for a two-chamber versus single-chamber pump, as well as for the second hormone, reservoir, and infusion set.

Data thus far from short-term studies suggest that insulin-only systems are sufficient in eliminating nocturnal hypoglycemia, while the addition of glucagon potentially reduces daytime hypoglycemia, especially during exercise.

However, longer-term head-to-head studies will be needed, Dr. Hovorka said, noting, “Comparative benefits of the single- and dual-hormone system for improving hemoglobin A1c and preventing severe hypoglycemia remain unknown.”

He suggested that glucagon dual-hormone closed-loop systems might be suitable for patients who are particularly prone to hypoglycemia, whereas pramlintide dual-hormone systems have the potential to more fully close the loop when used with ultra rapid-acting insulin analogues.

Nonetheless, he said, “Many, if not most, users may achieve acceptable control with insulin-only systems.”

Dual-hormone systems: Extra benefit worth it?

Dr. Russell, who is an investigator in multicenter pivotal studies of both insulin-only and bihormonal configurations of the Beta Bionics iLet bionic pancreas, began his debate presentation by endorsing the effectiveness of insulin-only hybrid systems and stating that he encourages his patients with type 1 diabetes to use them.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

But, he said, adding glucagon can allow for better automation of hypoglycemia prevention and treatment in situations such as exercise.

“A bihormonal system achieves lower glucose, higher time-in-range, and less hypoglycemia than a well-functioning insulin-only system.”

Moreover, Dr. Russell said, “Glucagon reduces the need for medicinal carbohydrates, promotes satiety, and increases energy expenditure. ... Combined, these three factors may oppose weight gain or encourage weight loss as opposed to a system that uses insulin only.”

He pointed to a 2017 meta-analysis that showed improved time-in-range and greater reductions in hypoglycemia with dual- versus single-hormone systems. 

And, in unpublished data from a randomized random-order crossover study of 23 patients with type 1 diabetes who each spent a week with usual care (insulin pump with or without CGM), insulin-only iLet, and bihormonal iLet, mean glucose levels were 165, 148, and 139 mg/dL, respectively. Time-in-range was 60%, 72%, and 79%, and median time with glucose below 54 mg/dL was 0.6%, 0.6%, and 0.2%, respectively.

Dr. Russell also addressed each of the arguments made by Dr. Hovorka and others against glucagon use.

Regarding the need for a stable glucagon formulation, he said that the analogue being developed for the iLet, dasiglucagon (Zealand pharma), is stable for more than a month at 40º C, with higher bioavailability and slightly slower absorption than glucagon.

And while he acknowledged the need for two separate hormone cartridges, Dr. Russell said that the Gen4 version of the iLet is fairly simple and intuitive, and the device itself is about the same size as the Tandem t:slim.

Use of glucagon didn’t increase insulin use in iLet trials, nor was it associated with increased reported nausea or liver glycogen depletion.

And users universally reported preferring the bihormonal system.

Long-term safety of chronic glucagon exposure has yet to be addressed, but animal data are reassuring, Dr. Russell said.

Regarding increased cost, he pointed to 2018 data showing that the incremental improvement in glycemic control from no automation to single-hormone automation is the same as from single to dual (mean glucose reductions of 7.4 and 13.6 mg/dL, respectively, and decreases in time spent in hypoglycemia of 1.28% vs. 2.95%).

“I would argue that, if one can justify adding automation, one could justify some additional expense to add the cost of glucagon.” And, he said, the cost would likely be based on a negotiation around the extra value offered by the dual-hormone system.

“The addition of glucagon, I believe, will be justified by the improved outcomes and improved quality of life,” he concluded.

Dr. Hovorka has reported receiving research support from MiniMed Medtronic, Abbott Diabetes Care, and Dexcom; being a speaker for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom; holding license fees from B. Braun and Medtronic; and being director of CamDiab. Dr. Russell has reported holding patents on aspects of the bionic pancreas; receiving honoraria, travel expenses, and/or research support from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Tandem Diabetes, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Ascensia, Zealand Pharma, and Beta Bionics; being a consultant for Flexion Therapeutics, Senseonics, and Beta Bionics; and participating in scientific advisory boards for Companion Medical, Tandem Diabetes, and Unomedical.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Some automated insulin delivery systems currently in development add glucagon and/or pramlintide to insulin, but whether the extra hormones are worth the additional cost and effort is a subject of debate.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Also called closed-loop or artificial pancreas systems, they are comprised of an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) that communicate via a built-in algorithm to deliver insulin based on glucose levels. Currently available systems are called hybrid closed loops because they still require user input for meals, exercise, illness, and other special circumstances.

Two hybrid closed-loop systems available in the United States, the Medtronic Minimed 670G and the Tandem Control-IQ, as well as the Medtronic Minimed 780G that was just approved in Europe, use insulin only.

Of all ongoing active closed-loop clinical studies, 44 involve insulin-only systems, as of May 2020.

However, two such systems in development add a glucagon analogue to insulin in the same pump (in separate cartridges), with the aim of minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia. And four investigational systems combine insulin with pramlintide (Symlin, AstraZeneca), an amylin analogue that reduces postmeal glucose spikes. Three systems in development combine all three hormones. 

In a debate during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions, Roman Hovorka, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England) argued in favor of insulin-only systems on the basis of efficacy, less burden and complexity, and lower cost.

But Steven J. Russell, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, countered that glucagon adds safety and value to the system by allowing for more aggressive insulin dosing with lower hypoglycemia risk, benefits which he said would overcome any downsides.
 

Insulin-only systems are good enough

Dr. Hovorka began by defining a “good” artificial pancreas as one that produces consensus time-in-range targets of at least 70% of glucose values between 3.9 to 10 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) and less than 3% below 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL). At the same time, he said, the burden should be low, which he suggested means no more than 10-20 minutes a day spent managing the system, low “alarm burden,” and minimal technical issues.

“We need to balance glucose control and the burden. For some people, reducing the burden is sometimes even more important than the glucose control,” Dr. Hovorka commented.

He pointed out that, in addition to Medtronic’s and Tandem’s systems, two other insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems are marketed outside the United States. These are the CamDiab system, available in the United Kingdom, which uses his group’s Cambridge control algorithm in a Dana pump with the Dexcom G6 sensor, and the Diabeloop algorithm, available in Europe, that combines a patch pump with the Dexcom G6.

“Lots of energy and resources are going to taking [insulin-only] systems into clinic use,” Dr. Hovorka observed.

He reviewed recently published data for both the Tandem Control-IQ and the Cambridge control algorithm showing similar results meeting the “good artificial pancreas” definition.

In his current clinic population of 160 patients aged 2-80 years using the Cambridge algorithm, 69% of users have achieved 70% or greater time in range and 28% have achieved 80% or greater time in range.

“So, the insulin-only system can achieve acceptable, and in some instances very good, glucose control,” Dr. Hovorka said.

He acknowledged that there are still challenges with insulin-only systems, including exercise-related dysglycemia and postprandial hyperglycemia related to slow insulin absorption, missed or incorrect boluses, or large meals.

But, Dr. Hovorka said, downsides of dual-hormone systems include the need for room-temperature stable glucagon and for dual-chamber pumps with two cannulas and two infusion sites (in addition to the sensor site), and the unknown long-term biological risks of chronic subcutaneous glucagon or pramlintide delivery.

Moreover, he said, costs are expected to be higher for a two-chamber versus single-chamber pump, as well as for the second hormone, reservoir, and infusion set.

Data thus far from short-term studies suggest that insulin-only systems are sufficient in eliminating nocturnal hypoglycemia, while the addition of glucagon potentially reduces daytime hypoglycemia, especially during exercise.

However, longer-term head-to-head studies will be needed, Dr. Hovorka said, noting, “Comparative benefits of the single- and dual-hormone system for improving hemoglobin A1c and preventing severe hypoglycemia remain unknown.”

He suggested that glucagon dual-hormone closed-loop systems might be suitable for patients who are particularly prone to hypoglycemia, whereas pramlintide dual-hormone systems have the potential to more fully close the loop when used with ultra rapid-acting insulin analogues.

Nonetheless, he said, “Many, if not most, users may achieve acceptable control with insulin-only systems.”

Dual-hormone systems: Extra benefit worth it?

Dr. Russell, who is an investigator in multicenter pivotal studies of both insulin-only and bihormonal configurations of the Beta Bionics iLet bionic pancreas, began his debate presentation by endorsing the effectiveness of insulin-only hybrid systems and stating that he encourages his patients with type 1 diabetes to use them.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

But, he said, adding glucagon can allow for better automation of hypoglycemia prevention and treatment in situations such as exercise.

“A bihormonal system achieves lower glucose, higher time-in-range, and less hypoglycemia than a well-functioning insulin-only system.”

Moreover, Dr. Russell said, “Glucagon reduces the need for medicinal carbohydrates, promotes satiety, and increases energy expenditure. ... Combined, these three factors may oppose weight gain or encourage weight loss as opposed to a system that uses insulin only.”

He pointed to a 2017 meta-analysis that showed improved time-in-range and greater reductions in hypoglycemia with dual- versus single-hormone systems. 

And, in unpublished data from a randomized random-order crossover study of 23 patients with type 1 diabetes who each spent a week with usual care (insulin pump with or without CGM), insulin-only iLet, and bihormonal iLet, mean glucose levels were 165, 148, and 139 mg/dL, respectively. Time-in-range was 60%, 72%, and 79%, and median time with glucose below 54 mg/dL was 0.6%, 0.6%, and 0.2%, respectively.

Dr. Russell also addressed each of the arguments made by Dr. Hovorka and others against glucagon use.

Regarding the need for a stable glucagon formulation, he said that the analogue being developed for the iLet, dasiglucagon (Zealand pharma), is stable for more than a month at 40º C, with higher bioavailability and slightly slower absorption than glucagon.

And while he acknowledged the need for two separate hormone cartridges, Dr. Russell said that the Gen4 version of the iLet is fairly simple and intuitive, and the device itself is about the same size as the Tandem t:slim.

Use of glucagon didn’t increase insulin use in iLet trials, nor was it associated with increased reported nausea or liver glycogen depletion.

And users universally reported preferring the bihormonal system.

Long-term safety of chronic glucagon exposure has yet to be addressed, but animal data are reassuring, Dr. Russell said.

Regarding increased cost, he pointed to 2018 data showing that the incremental improvement in glycemic control from no automation to single-hormone automation is the same as from single to dual (mean glucose reductions of 7.4 and 13.6 mg/dL, respectively, and decreases in time spent in hypoglycemia of 1.28% vs. 2.95%).

“I would argue that, if one can justify adding automation, one could justify some additional expense to add the cost of glucagon.” And, he said, the cost would likely be based on a negotiation around the extra value offered by the dual-hormone system.

“The addition of glucagon, I believe, will be justified by the improved outcomes and improved quality of life,” he concluded.

Dr. Hovorka has reported receiving research support from MiniMed Medtronic, Abbott Diabetes Care, and Dexcom; being a speaker for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom; holding license fees from B. Braun and Medtronic; and being director of CamDiab. Dr. Russell has reported holding patents on aspects of the bionic pancreas; receiving honoraria, travel expenses, and/or research support from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Tandem Diabetes, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Ascensia, Zealand Pharma, and Beta Bionics; being a consultant for Flexion Therapeutics, Senseonics, and Beta Bionics; and participating in scientific advisory boards for Companion Medical, Tandem Diabetes, and Unomedical.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Some automated insulin delivery systems currently in development add glucagon and/or pramlintide to insulin, but whether the extra hormones are worth the additional cost and effort is a subject of debate.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Also called closed-loop or artificial pancreas systems, they are comprised of an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) that communicate via a built-in algorithm to deliver insulin based on glucose levels. Currently available systems are called hybrid closed loops because they still require user input for meals, exercise, illness, and other special circumstances.

Two hybrid closed-loop systems available in the United States, the Medtronic Minimed 670G and the Tandem Control-IQ, as well as the Medtronic Minimed 780G that was just approved in Europe, use insulin only.

Of all ongoing active closed-loop clinical studies, 44 involve insulin-only systems, as of May 2020.

However, two such systems in development add a glucagon analogue to insulin in the same pump (in separate cartridges), with the aim of minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia. And four investigational systems combine insulin with pramlintide (Symlin, AstraZeneca), an amylin analogue that reduces postmeal glucose spikes. Three systems in development combine all three hormones. 

In a debate during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions, Roman Hovorka, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England) argued in favor of insulin-only systems on the basis of efficacy, less burden and complexity, and lower cost.

But Steven J. Russell, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, countered that glucagon adds safety and value to the system by allowing for more aggressive insulin dosing with lower hypoglycemia risk, benefits which he said would overcome any downsides.
 

Insulin-only systems are good enough

Dr. Hovorka began by defining a “good” artificial pancreas as one that produces consensus time-in-range targets of at least 70% of glucose values between 3.9 to 10 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) and less than 3% below 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL). At the same time, he said, the burden should be low, which he suggested means no more than 10-20 minutes a day spent managing the system, low “alarm burden,” and minimal technical issues.

“We need to balance glucose control and the burden. For some people, reducing the burden is sometimes even more important than the glucose control,” Dr. Hovorka commented.

He pointed out that, in addition to Medtronic’s and Tandem’s systems, two other insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems are marketed outside the United States. These are the CamDiab system, available in the United Kingdom, which uses his group’s Cambridge control algorithm in a Dana pump with the Dexcom G6 sensor, and the Diabeloop algorithm, available in Europe, that combines a patch pump with the Dexcom G6.

“Lots of energy and resources are going to taking [insulin-only] systems into clinic use,” Dr. Hovorka observed.

He reviewed recently published data for both the Tandem Control-IQ and the Cambridge control algorithm showing similar results meeting the “good artificial pancreas” definition.

In his current clinic population of 160 patients aged 2-80 years using the Cambridge algorithm, 69% of users have achieved 70% or greater time in range and 28% have achieved 80% or greater time in range.

“So, the insulin-only system can achieve acceptable, and in some instances very good, glucose control,” Dr. Hovorka said.

He acknowledged that there are still challenges with insulin-only systems, including exercise-related dysglycemia and postprandial hyperglycemia related to slow insulin absorption, missed or incorrect boluses, or large meals.

But, Dr. Hovorka said, downsides of dual-hormone systems include the need for room-temperature stable glucagon and for dual-chamber pumps with two cannulas and two infusion sites (in addition to the sensor site), and the unknown long-term biological risks of chronic subcutaneous glucagon or pramlintide delivery.

Moreover, he said, costs are expected to be higher for a two-chamber versus single-chamber pump, as well as for the second hormone, reservoir, and infusion set.

Data thus far from short-term studies suggest that insulin-only systems are sufficient in eliminating nocturnal hypoglycemia, while the addition of glucagon potentially reduces daytime hypoglycemia, especially during exercise.

However, longer-term head-to-head studies will be needed, Dr. Hovorka said, noting, “Comparative benefits of the single- and dual-hormone system for improving hemoglobin A1c and preventing severe hypoglycemia remain unknown.”

He suggested that glucagon dual-hormone closed-loop systems might be suitable for patients who are particularly prone to hypoglycemia, whereas pramlintide dual-hormone systems have the potential to more fully close the loop when used with ultra rapid-acting insulin analogues.

Nonetheless, he said, “Many, if not most, users may achieve acceptable control with insulin-only systems.”

Dual-hormone systems: Extra benefit worth it?

Dr. Russell, who is an investigator in multicenter pivotal studies of both insulin-only and bihormonal configurations of the Beta Bionics iLet bionic pancreas, began his debate presentation by endorsing the effectiveness of insulin-only hybrid systems and stating that he encourages his patients with type 1 diabetes to use them.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

But, he said, adding glucagon can allow for better automation of hypoglycemia prevention and treatment in situations such as exercise.

“A bihormonal system achieves lower glucose, higher time-in-range, and less hypoglycemia than a well-functioning insulin-only system.”

Moreover, Dr. Russell said, “Glucagon reduces the need for medicinal carbohydrates, promotes satiety, and increases energy expenditure. ... Combined, these three factors may oppose weight gain or encourage weight loss as opposed to a system that uses insulin only.”

He pointed to a 2017 meta-analysis that showed improved time-in-range and greater reductions in hypoglycemia with dual- versus single-hormone systems. 

And, in unpublished data from a randomized random-order crossover study of 23 patients with type 1 diabetes who each spent a week with usual care (insulin pump with or without CGM), insulin-only iLet, and bihormonal iLet, mean glucose levels were 165, 148, and 139 mg/dL, respectively. Time-in-range was 60%, 72%, and 79%, and median time with glucose below 54 mg/dL was 0.6%, 0.6%, and 0.2%, respectively.

Dr. Russell also addressed each of the arguments made by Dr. Hovorka and others against glucagon use.

Regarding the need for a stable glucagon formulation, he said that the analogue being developed for the iLet, dasiglucagon (Zealand pharma), is stable for more than a month at 40º C, with higher bioavailability and slightly slower absorption than glucagon.

And while he acknowledged the need for two separate hormone cartridges, Dr. Russell said that the Gen4 version of the iLet is fairly simple and intuitive, and the device itself is about the same size as the Tandem t:slim.

Use of glucagon didn’t increase insulin use in iLet trials, nor was it associated with increased reported nausea or liver glycogen depletion.

And users universally reported preferring the bihormonal system.

Long-term safety of chronic glucagon exposure has yet to be addressed, but animal data are reassuring, Dr. Russell said.

Regarding increased cost, he pointed to 2018 data showing that the incremental improvement in glycemic control from no automation to single-hormone automation is the same as from single to dual (mean glucose reductions of 7.4 and 13.6 mg/dL, respectively, and decreases in time spent in hypoglycemia of 1.28% vs. 2.95%).

“I would argue that, if one can justify adding automation, one could justify some additional expense to add the cost of glucagon.” And, he said, the cost would likely be based on a negotiation around the extra value offered by the dual-hormone system.

“The addition of glucagon, I believe, will be justified by the improved outcomes and improved quality of life,” he concluded.

Dr. Hovorka has reported receiving research support from MiniMed Medtronic, Abbott Diabetes Care, and Dexcom; being a speaker for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom; holding license fees from B. Braun and Medtronic; and being director of CamDiab. Dr. Russell has reported holding patents on aspects of the bionic pancreas; receiving honoraria, travel expenses, and/or research support from Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Tandem Diabetes, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Ascensia, Zealand Pharma, and Beta Bionics; being a consultant for Flexion Therapeutics, Senseonics, and Beta Bionics; and participating in scientific advisory boards for Companion Medical, Tandem Diabetes, and Unomedical.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Glycemic control among youth with diabetes is no better today than it was in 2002 and in some subgroups it’s worse, despite increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and more aggressive recommended blood glucose targets, new research finds.

The sobering data from 6,399 participants in the longitudinal SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study were presented June 15 at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions by Faisal S. Malik, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

“Our finding that current youth and young adults with diabetes are not demonstrating improved glycemic control, compared to earlier cohorts in the SEARCH study was surprising given how the landscape of diabetes management has changed dramatically over the past decade,” Dr. Malik said in an interview.
 

Urgent need to improve glycemic control in youth with diabetes

The SEARCH study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the largest and most diverse study of diabetes in youth in the United States. It has over 27,000 participants seen at five study sites in California, Colorado, Ohio, South Carolina, and Washington state.

Among youth with type 1 diabetes in the study, average hemoglobin A1c rose from 8.6% in 2002-2007 (n = 3,451) to 8.8% in 2008-2014 (n = 2,254), and remained at 8.8% in 2014-2019 (n = 1,651).

Among those with type 2 diabetes, A1c levels fluctuated from 8.8% (n = 379) to 8.4% (n = 327) to 8.5% (n = 469) in the three time periods, respectively.

By contrast, in 2014 the ADA recommended an A1c of less than 7.5% for youth of all ages with type 1 diabetes, down from prior less stringent targets.

In 2018, the ADA advised A1c levels below 7% for youth with type 2 diabetes. In both cases, targets may be adjusted based on individual circumstances.

A particularly striking data point was seen among youth who had type 2 diabetes for 10 years or more: average A1c skyrocketed from 7.9% in 2008-2013 to 10.1% in 2014-2019. The numbers were small, 25 patients in the earlier cohort and 149 patients in the later, yet the difference was still significant (P < .01). And in those with type 1 diabetes for 5-9 years, average A1c rose from 8.7% in 2002-2007 (n = 769) to 9.2% in 2014-2019 (n = 654) (P < .01).

“These results suggest that not all youth with diabetes are directly benefiting from the increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and the use of more aggressive glycemic targets for youth with diabetes over time,” Dr. Malik said.

“Recognizing that lower A1c levels in adolescence and young adulthood is associated with lower risk and rate of microvascular and macrovascular complications, this study further underscores the urgent need for effective treatment strategies to improve glycemic control in youth and young adults with diabetes,” he added.

Asked to comment, David M. Maahs, MD, said in an interview that the type 1 diabetes data are “very consistent” with those found in the T1D Exchange registry study but that both datasets include patients seen at diabetes centers and therefore may not represent the entire population.

“I don’t think there’s reason to think we’re actually doing any better than these data indicate,” said Dr. Maahs, professor of pediatrics and division chief of pediatric endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Other countries improving, U.S. getting worse

Dr. Maahs contrasted the U.S. situation with that of the English/Welsh National Paediatric Diabetes Audit and some European countries that have improved pediatric diabetes control and outcomes using a population-based approach.

“In the United States we have a disjointed irrational health care system that doesn’t invest in diabetes education and in the basic care and monitoring that children with diabetes need to get better glucose control,” he said.

“We’re not having systematic approaches to it as many European countries have. They have gotten better results over this same time period. In the United States we’re getting worse,” Dr. Maahs observed.

And as far as diabetes technology is concerned, Dr. Maahs said, “there’s more to it than just throwing technology at it. People who are using technology are getting better outcomes, but there are a lot of people who don’t get access to it.”

Indeed, Dr. Malik pointed out, “while the recent SEARCH [type 1 diabetes] cohorts had increased insulin pump use, it’s worth noting that more than half of the participants in the most recent cohort were not using diabetes technology.” And even “fewer participants were likely using continuous glucose monitors during our study period.”
 

Barriers to care, type 1 diabetes is “very labor intensive”

Dr. Malik said that barriers to care include “high cost, alarm fatigue, and encumbrances of wearing a mechanical device [that] continue to present challenges around technology use,” as well as “inequities in the use of these technologies across socioeconomic status, health insurance, and race/ethnicity, which need to be addressed.”

Dr. Maahs did have a recommendation for U.S. primary care physicians who are managing youth with either type of diabetes: a tele-education program called Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes), which uses a train-the-trainer model, rather than direct telehealth, to bring tele-education to primary care providers.

Such programs in diabetes have shown some success, he said.

Type 1 diabetes, Dr. Malik noted, “is very labor intensive. Frequent or constant monitoring of glucose and multiple daily doses of basal and bolus insulin are commonly recommended by type 1 diabetes care providers in the United States.”

“This has led to increasingly burdensome management for children and their caregivers, which often results in suboptimal adherence, suboptimal glycemic control, and greater risk of complications.”

Dr. Malik encourages providers “to engage in person-centered collaborative care as recommended by the ADA, which is guided by shared decision-making in treatment regimen selection, facilitation of obtaining needed medical and psychosocial resources, and shared monitoring of agreed-upon regimen and lifestyle.”

Dr. Malik has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Maahs has reported being on advisory boards for Medtronic, Lilly, and Abbott.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Glycemic control among youth with diabetes is no better today than it was in 2002 and in some subgroups it’s worse, despite increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and more aggressive recommended blood glucose targets, new research finds.

The sobering data from 6,399 participants in the longitudinal SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study were presented June 15 at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions by Faisal S. Malik, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

“Our finding that current youth and young adults with diabetes are not demonstrating improved glycemic control, compared to earlier cohorts in the SEARCH study was surprising given how the landscape of diabetes management has changed dramatically over the past decade,” Dr. Malik said in an interview.
 

Urgent need to improve glycemic control in youth with diabetes

The SEARCH study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the largest and most diverse study of diabetes in youth in the United States. It has over 27,000 participants seen at five study sites in California, Colorado, Ohio, South Carolina, and Washington state.

Among youth with type 1 diabetes in the study, average hemoglobin A1c rose from 8.6% in 2002-2007 (n = 3,451) to 8.8% in 2008-2014 (n = 2,254), and remained at 8.8% in 2014-2019 (n = 1,651).

Among those with type 2 diabetes, A1c levels fluctuated from 8.8% (n = 379) to 8.4% (n = 327) to 8.5% (n = 469) in the three time periods, respectively.

By contrast, in 2014 the ADA recommended an A1c of less than 7.5% for youth of all ages with type 1 diabetes, down from prior less stringent targets.

In 2018, the ADA advised A1c levels below 7% for youth with type 2 diabetes. In both cases, targets may be adjusted based on individual circumstances.

A particularly striking data point was seen among youth who had type 2 diabetes for 10 years or more: average A1c skyrocketed from 7.9% in 2008-2013 to 10.1% in 2014-2019. The numbers were small, 25 patients in the earlier cohort and 149 patients in the later, yet the difference was still significant (P < .01). And in those with type 1 diabetes for 5-9 years, average A1c rose from 8.7% in 2002-2007 (n = 769) to 9.2% in 2014-2019 (n = 654) (P < .01).

“These results suggest that not all youth with diabetes are directly benefiting from the increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and the use of more aggressive glycemic targets for youth with diabetes over time,” Dr. Malik said.

“Recognizing that lower A1c levels in adolescence and young adulthood is associated with lower risk and rate of microvascular and macrovascular complications, this study further underscores the urgent need for effective treatment strategies to improve glycemic control in youth and young adults with diabetes,” he added.

Asked to comment, David M. Maahs, MD, said in an interview that the type 1 diabetes data are “very consistent” with those found in the T1D Exchange registry study but that both datasets include patients seen at diabetes centers and therefore may not represent the entire population.

“I don’t think there’s reason to think we’re actually doing any better than these data indicate,” said Dr. Maahs, professor of pediatrics and division chief of pediatric endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Other countries improving, U.S. getting worse

Dr. Maahs contrasted the U.S. situation with that of the English/Welsh National Paediatric Diabetes Audit and some European countries that have improved pediatric diabetes control and outcomes using a population-based approach.

“In the United States we have a disjointed irrational health care system that doesn’t invest in diabetes education and in the basic care and monitoring that children with diabetes need to get better glucose control,” he said.

“We’re not having systematic approaches to it as many European countries have. They have gotten better results over this same time period. In the United States we’re getting worse,” Dr. Maahs observed.

And as far as diabetes technology is concerned, Dr. Maahs said, “there’s more to it than just throwing technology at it. People who are using technology are getting better outcomes, but there are a lot of people who don’t get access to it.”

Indeed, Dr. Malik pointed out, “while the recent SEARCH [type 1 diabetes] cohorts had increased insulin pump use, it’s worth noting that more than half of the participants in the most recent cohort were not using diabetes technology.” And even “fewer participants were likely using continuous glucose monitors during our study period.”
 

Barriers to care, type 1 diabetes is “very labor intensive”

Dr. Malik said that barriers to care include “high cost, alarm fatigue, and encumbrances of wearing a mechanical device [that] continue to present challenges around technology use,” as well as “inequities in the use of these technologies across socioeconomic status, health insurance, and race/ethnicity, which need to be addressed.”

Dr. Maahs did have a recommendation for U.S. primary care physicians who are managing youth with either type of diabetes: a tele-education program called Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes), which uses a train-the-trainer model, rather than direct telehealth, to bring tele-education to primary care providers.

Such programs in diabetes have shown some success, he said.

Type 1 diabetes, Dr. Malik noted, “is very labor intensive. Frequent or constant monitoring of glucose and multiple daily doses of basal and bolus insulin are commonly recommended by type 1 diabetes care providers in the United States.”

“This has led to increasingly burdensome management for children and their caregivers, which often results in suboptimal adherence, suboptimal glycemic control, and greater risk of complications.”

Dr. Malik encourages providers “to engage in person-centered collaborative care as recommended by the ADA, which is guided by shared decision-making in treatment regimen selection, facilitation of obtaining needed medical and psychosocial resources, and shared monitoring of agreed-upon regimen and lifestyle.”

Dr. Malik has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Maahs has reported being on advisory boards for Medtronic, Lilly, and Abbott.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Glycemic control among youth with diabetes is no better today than it was in 2002 and in some subgroups it’s worse, despite increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and more aggressive recommended blood glucose targets, new research finds.

The sobering data from 6,399 participants in the longitudinal SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study were presented June 15 at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions by Faisal S. Malik, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

“Our finding that current youth and young adults with diabetes are not demonstrating improved glycemic control, compared to earlier cohorts in the SEARCH study was surprising given how the landscape of diabetes management has changed dramatically over the past decade,” Dr. Malik said in an interview.
 

Urgent need to improve glycemic control in youth with diabetes

The SEARCH study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the largest and most diverse study of diabetes in youth in the United States. It has over 27,000 participants seen at five study sites in California, Colorado, Ohio, South Carolina, and Washington state.

Among youth with type 1 diabetes in the study, average hemoglobin A1c rose from 8.6% in 2002-2007 (n = 3,451) to 8.8% in 2008-2014 (n = 2,254), and remained at 8.8% in 2014-2019 (n = 1,651).

Among those with type 2 diabetes, A1c levels fluctuated from 8.8% (n = 379) to 8.4% (n = 327) to 8.5% (n = 469) in the three time periods, respectively.

By contrast, in 2014 the ADA recommended an A1c of less than 7.5% for youth of all ages with type 1 diabetes, down from prior less stringent targets.

In 2018, the ADA advised A1c levels below 7% for youth with type 2 diabetes. In both cases, targets may be adjusted based on individual circumstances.

A particularly striking data point was seen among youth who had type 2 diabetes for 10 years or more: average A1c skyrocketed from 7.9% in 2008-2013 to 10.1% in 2014-2019. The numbers were small, 25 patients in the earlier cohort and 149 patients in the later, yet the difference was still significant (P < .01). And in those with type 1 diabetes for 5-9 years, average A1c rose from 8.7% in 2002-2007 (n = 769) to 9.2% in 2014-2019 (n = 654) (P < .01).

“These results suggest that not all youth with diabetes are directly benefiting from the increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and the use of more aggressive glycemic targets for youth with diabetes over time,” Dr. Malik said.

“Recognizing that lower A1c levels in adolescence and young adulthood is associated with lower risk and rate of microvascular and macrovascular complications, this study further underscores the urgent need for effective treatment strategies to improve glycemic control in youth and young adults with diabetes,” he added.

Asked to comment, David M. Maahs, MD, said in an interview that the type 1 diabetes data are “very consistent” with those found in the T1D Exchange registry study but that both datasets include patients seen at diabetes centers and therefore may not represent the entire population.

“I don’t think there’s reason to think we’re actually doing any better than these data indicate,” said Dr. Maahs, professor of pediatrics and division chief of pediatric endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Other countries improving, U.S. getting worse

Dr. Maahs contrasted the U.S. situation with that of the English/Welsh National Paediatric Diabetes Audit and some European countries that have improved pediatric diabetes control and outcomes using a population-based approach.

“In the United States we have a disjointed irrational health care system that doesn’t invest in diabetes education and in the basic care and monitoring that children with diabetes need to get better glucose control,” he said.

“We’re not having systematic approaches to it as many European countries have. They have gotten better results over this same time period. In the United States we’re getting worse,” Dr. Maahs observed.

And as far as diabetes technology is concerned, Dr. Maahs said, “there’s more to it than just throwing technology at it. People who are using technology are getting better outcomes, but there are a lot of people who don’t get access to it.”

Indeed, Dr. Malik pointed out, “while the recent SEARCH [type 1 diabetes] cohorts had increased insulin pump use, it’s worth noting that more than half of the participants in the most recent cohort were not using diabetes technology.” And even “fewer participants were likely using continuous glucose monitors during our study period.”
 

Barriers to care, type 1 diabetes is “very labor intensive”

Dr. Malik said that barriers to care include “high cost, alarm fatigue, and encumbrances of wearing a mechanical device [that] continue to present challenges around technology use,” as well as “inequities in the use of these technologies across socioeconomic status, health insurance, and race/ethnicity, which need to be addressed.”

Dr. Maahs did have a recommendation for U.S. primary care physicians who are managing youth with either type of diabetes: a tele-education program called Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes), which uses a train-the-trainer model, rather than direct telehealth, to bring tele-education to primary care providers.

Such programs in diabetes have shown some success, he said.

Type 1 diabetes, Dr. Malik noted, “is very labor intensive. Frequent or constant monitoring of glucose and multiple daily doses of basal and bolus insulin are commonly recommended by type 1 diabetes care providers in the United States.”

“This has led to increasingly burdensome management for children and their caregivers, which often results in suboptimal adherence, suboptimal glycemic control, and greater risk of complications.”

Dr. Malik encourages providers “to engage in person-centered collaborative care as recommended by the ADA, which is guided by shared decision-making in treatment regimen selection, facilitation of obtaining needed medical and psychosocial resources, and shared monitoring of agreed-upon regimen and lifestyle.”

Dr. Malik has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Maahs has reported being on advisory boards for Medtronic, Lilly, and Abbott.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL (Lyumjev, Eli Lilly) for the treatment of adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The product is a novel formulation of insulin lispro developed to speed absorption of insulin into the bloodstream. It will be available in two strengths: U-100 (100 units/mL) and U-200 (200 units/mL). The Lyumjev U-200 prefilled pen contains twice as much insulin per 1 mL as standard (U-100) insulin.

Approval was based on data from two phase 3 randomized, active-controlled, treat-to-target studies comparing lispro-aabc with insulin lispro injection 100 units/mL (Humalog, Lilly) in people with type 1 diabetes (PRONTO-T1D) and type 2 diabetes (PRONTO-T2D).

In both studies, noninferiority in A1c reduction was demonstrated when the two insulins were dosed at mealtime, but lispro-aabc showed superior blood glucose reduction at 1-hour and 2-hours post-meal compared with lispro.

Lyumjev is approved only in the United States for use as part of a multiple daily injection regimen, not for use in insulin pumps. Lilly intends to submit for this latter indication later in 2020.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp).

Fiasp had a big head start: It was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017, for use in insulin pumps in October 2019, and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

However, in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association 79th Scientific Sessions in 2019, lispro-aabb demonstrated faster insulin absorption than lispro, insulin aspart (Novolog/Novorapid, Novo Nordisk), or Fiasp.

Early half-maximal drug concentration was reached at 13 minutes with lispro-aabb, compared with 19 minutes with faster aspart and 25-27 minutes with the two conventional insulins (P < .05 for lispro-aabb vs other insulins).  

Insulin lispro-aabc was approved in the European Union and Japan in March 2020.

Lilly is currently working to make Lyumjev available to adults with diabetes in the United States as quickly as possible and says it will be included in the Lilly Insulin Value Program, allowing anyone with commercial insurance and those without insurance to fill their monthly prescription of Lyumjev for $35.

The list price of Lyumjev will be the same as the list price for Humalog, it adds.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL (Lyumjev, Eli Lilly) for the treatment of adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The product is a novel formulation of insulin lispro developed to speed absorption of insulin into the bloodstream. It will be available in two strengths: U-100 (100 units/mL) and U-200 (200 units/mL). The Lyumjev U-200 prefilled pen contains twice as much insulin per 1 mL as standard (U-100) insulin.

Approval was based on data from two phase 3 randomized, active-controlled, treat-to-target studies comparing lispro-aabc with insulin lispro injection 100 units/mL (Humalog, Lilly) in people with type 1 diabetes (PRONTO-T1D) and type 2 diabetes (PRONTO-T2D).

In both studies, noninferiority in A1c reduction was demonstrated when the two insulins were dosed at mealtime, but lispro-aabc showed superior blood glucose reduction at 1-hour and 2-hours post-meal compared with lispro.

Lyumjev is approved only in the United States for use as part of a multiple daily injection regimen, not for use in insulin pumps. Lilly intends to submit for this latter indication later in 2020.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp).

Fiasp had a big head start: It was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017, for use in insulin pumps in October 2019, and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

However, in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association 79th Scientific Sessions in 2019, lispro-aabb demonstrated faster insulin absorption than lispro, insulin aspart (Novolog/Novorapid, Novo Nordisk), or Fiasp.

Early half-maximal drug concentration was reached at 13 minutes with lispro-aabb, compared with 19 minutes with faster aspart and 25-27 minutes with the two conventional insulins (P < .05 for lispro-aabb vs other insulins).  

Insulin lispro-aabc was approved in the European Union and Japan in March 2020.

Lilly is currently working to make Lyumjev available to adults with diabetes in the United States as quickly as possible and says it will be included in the Lilly Insulin Value Program, allowing anyone with commercial insurance and those without insurance to fill their monthly prescription of Lyumjev for $35.

The list price of Lyumjev will be the same as the list price for Humalog, it adds.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL (Lyumjev, Eli Lilly) for the treatment of adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The product is a novel formulation of insulin lispro developed to speed absorption of insulin into the bloodstream. It will be available in two strengths: U-100 (100 units/mL) and U-200 (200 units/mL). The Lyumjev U-200 prefilled pen contains twice as much insulin per 1 mL as standard (U-100) insulin.

Approval was based on data from two phase 3 randomized, active-controlled, treat-to-target studies comparing lispro-aabc with insulin lispro injection 100 units/mL (Humalog, Lilly) in people with type 1 diabetes (PRONTO-T1D) and type 2 diabetes (PRONTO-T2D).

In both studies, noninferiority in A1c reduction was demonstrated when the two insulins were dosed at mealtime, but lispro-aabc showed superior blood glucose reduction at 1-hour and 2-hours post-meal compared with lispro.

Lyumjev is approved only in the United States for use as part of a multiple daily injection regimen, not for use in insulin pumps. Lilly intends to submit for this latter indication later in 2020.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp).

Fiasp had a big head start: It was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017, for use in insulin pumps in October 2019, and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

However, in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association 79th Scientific Sessions in 2019, lispro-aabb demonstrated faster insulin absorption than lispro, insulin aspart (Novolog/Novorapid, Novo Nordisk), or Fiasp.

Early half-maximal drug concentration was reached at 13 minutes with lispro-aabb, compared with 19 minutes with faster aspart and 25-27 minutes with the two conventional insulins (P < .05 for lispro-aabb vs other insulins).  

Insulin lispro-aabc was approved in the European Union and Japan in March 2020.

Lilly is currently working to make Lyumjev available to adults with diabetes in the United States as quickly as possible and says it will be included in the Lilly Insulin Value Program, allowing anyone with commercial insurance and those without insurance to fill their monthly prescription of Lyumjev for $35.

The list price of Lyumjev will be the same as the list price for Humalog, it adds.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new article in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) addresses unique concerns and considerations regarding diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in the setting of COVID-19.

Corresponding author Marie E. McDonnell, MD, director of the diabetes program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, discussed the recommendations with Medscape Medical News and also spoke about the news this week that the corticosteroid dexamethasone reduced death rates in severely ill patients with COVID-19.

The full JCEM article, by lead author Nadine E. Palermo, DO, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, covers DKA diagnosis and triage, and emphasizes that usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 to help preserve personal protective equipment and ICU beds.

“Hospitals and clinicians need to be able to quickly identify and manage DKA in COVID patients to save lives. This involves determining the options for management, including when less intensive subcutaneous insulin is indicated, and understanding how to guide patients on avoiding this serious complication,” McDonnell said in an Endocrine Society statement.
 

What about dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 in diabetes?

The new article briefly touches on the fact that upward adjustments to intensive intravenous insulin therapy for DKA may be necessary in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving concomitant corticosteroids or vasopressors.

But it was written prior to the June 16 announcement of the “RECOVERY” trial results with dexamethasone. The UK National Health Service immediately approved the drug’s use in the COVID-19 setting, despite the fact that there has been no published article on the findings yet.

McDonnell told Medscape Medical News that she would need to see formal results to better understand exactly which patients were studied and which ones benefited.

“The peer review will be critical. It looks as if it only benefits people who need respiratory support, but I want to understand that in much more detail,” she said. “If they all had acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS],” that’s different.

“There are already some data supporting steroid use in ARDS,” she noted, but added that not all of it suggests benefit.

She pointed to one of several studies now showing that diabetes, and hyperglycemia among people without a prior diabetes diagnosis, are both strong predictors of mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

“There was a very clear relationship between hyperglycemia and outcomes. We really shouldn’t put people at risk until we have clear data,” she said.

If, once the data are reviewed and appropriate dexamethasone becomes an established treatment for severe COVID-19, hyperglycemia would be a concern among all patients, not just those with previously diagnosed diabetes, she noted.

“We know a good number of people with prediabetes develop hyperglycemia when put on steroids. They can push people over the edge. We’re not going to miss anybody, but treating steroid-induced hyperglycemia is really hard,” McDonnell explained.

She also recommended 2014 guidance from Diabetes UK and the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, which addresses management of inpatient steroid-induced DKA in patients with and without pre-existing diabetes.

Another major concern, she said, is “patients trying to get dexamethasone when they start to get sick” because this is not the right population to use this agent.

“We worry about people who do not need this drug. If they have diabetes, they put themselves at risk of hyperglycemia, which then increases the risk of severe COVID-19. And then they’re also putting themselves at risk of DKA. It would just be bad medicine,” she said.

Managing DKA in the face of COVID-19: Flexibility is key

In the JCEM article, Palermo and colleagues emphasize that the usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 in the interest of reducing transmission risk and preserving scare resources.

They provide evidence for alternative treatment strategies, such as the use of subcutaneous rather than intravenous insulin when appropriate.

“We wanted to outline when exactly you should consider nonintensive management strategies for DKA,” McDonnell further explained to Medscape Medical News.

“That would include those with mild or some with moderate DKA. ... The idea is to remind our colleagues about that because hospitals tend to operate on a protocol-driven algorithmic methodology, they can forget to step off the usual care pathway even if evidence supports that,” she said.   

But on the other hand, she also said that, in some very complex or severely ill patients with COVID-19, classical intravenous insulin therapy makes the most sense even if their DKA is mild.
 

The outpatient setting: Prevention and preparation

The new article also addresses several concerns regarding DKA prevention in the outpatient setting.

As with other guidelines, it includes a reminder that patients with diabetes should be advised to discontinue sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors if they become ill with COVID-19, especially if they’re not eating or drinking normally, because they raise the risk for DKA.

Also, for patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with a history of repeated DKA, “this is the time to make sure we reach out to patients to refill their insulin prescriptions and address issues related to cost and other access difficulties,” McDonnell said.

The authors also emphasize that insulin starts and education should not be postponed during the pandemic. “Patients identified as meeting criteria to start insulin should be referred for urgent education, either in person or, whenever possible and practical, via video teleconferencing,” they urge.

McDonnell has reported receiving research funding from Novo Nordisk. The other two authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new article in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) addresses unique concerns and considerations regarding diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in the setting of COVID-19.

Corresponding author Marie E. McDonnell, MD, director of the diabetes program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, discussed the recommendations with Medscape Medical News and also spoke about the news this week that the corticosteroid dexamethasone reduced death rates in severely ill patients with COVID-19.

The full JCEM article, by lead author Nadine E. Palermo, DO, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, covers DKA diagnosis and triage, and emphasizes that usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 to help preserve personal protective equipment and ICU beds.

“Hospitals and clinicians need to be able to quickly identify and manage DKA in COVID patients to save lives. This involves determining the options for management, including when less intensive subcutaneous insulin is indicated, and understanding how to guide patients on avoiding this serious complication,” McDonnell said in an Endocrine Society statement.
 

What about dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 in diabetes?

The new article briefly touches on the fact that upward adjustments to intensive intravenous insulin therapy for DKA may be necessary in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving concomitant corticosteroids or vasopressors.

But it was written prior to the June 16 announcement of the “RECOVERY” trial results with dexamethasone. The UK National Health Service immediately approved the drug’s use in the COVID-19 setting, despite the fact that there has been no published article on the findings yet.

McDonnell told Medscape Medical News that she would need to see formal results to better understand exactly which patients were studied and which ones benefited.

“The peer review will be critical. It looks as if it only benefits people who need respiratory support, but I want to understand that in much more detail,” she said. “If they all had acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS],” that’s different.

“There are already some data supporting steroid use in ARDS,” she noted, but added that not all of it suggests benefit.

She pointed to one of several studies now showing that diabetes, and hyperglycemia among people without a prior diabetes diagnosis, are both strong predictors of mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

“There was a very clear relationship between hyperglycemia and outcomes. We really shouldn’t put people at risk until we have clear data,” she said.

If, once the data are reviewed and appropriate dexamethasone becomes an established treatment for severe COVID-19, hyperglycemia would be a concern among all patients, not just those with previously diagnosed diabetes, she noted.

“We know a good number of people with prediabetes develop hyperglycemia when put on steroids. They can push people over the edge. We’re not going to miss anybody, but treating steroid-induced hyperglycemia is really hard,” McDonnell explained.

She also recommended 2014 guidance from Diabetes UK and the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, which addresses management of inpatient steroid-induced DKA in patients with and without pre-existing diabetes.

Another major concern, she said, is “patients trying to get dexamethasone when they start to get sick” because this is not the right population to use this agent.

“We worry about people who do not need this drug. If they have diabetes, they put themselves at risk of hyperglycemia, which then increases the risk of severe COVID-19. And then they’re also putting themselves at risk of DKA. It would just be bad medicine,” she said.

Managing DKA in the face of COVID-19: Flexibility is key

In the JCEM article, Palermo and colleagues emphasize that the usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 in the interest of reducing transmission risk and preserving scare resources.

They provide evidence for alternative treatment strategies, such as the use of subcutaneous rather than intravenous insulin when appropriate.

“We wanted to outline when exactly you should consider nonintensive management strategies for DKA,” McDonnell further explained to Medscape Medical News.

“That would include those with mild or some with moderate DKA. ... The idea is to remind our colleagues about that because hospitals tend to operate on a protocol-driven algorithmic methodology, they can forget to step off the usual care pathway even if evidence supports that,” she said.   

But on the other hand, she also said that, in some very complex or severely ill patients with COVID-19, classical intravenous insulin therapy makes the most sense even if their DKA is mild.
 

The outpatient setting: Prevention and preparation

The new article also addresses several concerns regarding DKA prevention in the outpatient setting.

As with other guidelines, it includes a reminder that patients with diabetes should be advised to discontinue sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors if they become ill with COVID-19, especially if they’re not eating or drinking normally, because they raise the risk for DKA.

Also, for patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with a history of repeated DKA, “this is the time to make sure we reach out to patients to refill their insulin prescriptions and address issues related to cost and other access difficulties,” McDonnell said.

The authors also emphasize that insulin starts and education should not be postponed during the pandemic. “Patients identified as meeting criteria to start insulin should be referred for urgent education, either in person or, whenever possible and practical, via video teleconferencing,” they urge.

McDonnell has reported receiving research funding from Novo Nordisk. The other two authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new article in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) addresses unique concerns and considerations regarding diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in the setting of COVID-19.

Corresponding author Marie E. McDonnell, MD, director of the diabetes program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, discussed the recommendations with Medscape Medical News and also spoke about the news this week that the corticosteroid dexamethasone reduced death rates in severely ill patients with COVID-19.

The full JCEM article, by lead author Nadine E. Palermo, DO, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension, also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, covers DKA diagnosis and triage, and emphasizes that usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 to help preserve personal protective equipment and ICU beds.

“Hospitals and clinicians need to be able to quickly identify and manage DKA in COVID patients to save lives. This involves determining the options for management, including when less intensive subcutaneous insulin is indicated, and understanding how to guide patients on avoiding this serious complication,” McDonnell said in an Endocrine Society statement.
 

What about dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 in diabetes?

The new article briefly touches on the fact that upward adjustments to intensive intravenous insulin therapy for DKA may be necessary in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving concomitant corticosteroids or vasopressors.

But it was written prior to the June 16 announcement of the “RECOVERY” trial results with dexamethasone. The UK National Health Service immediately approved the drug’s use in the COVID-19 setting, despite the fact that there has been no published article on the findings yet.

McDonnell told Medscape Medical News that she would need to see formal results to better understand exactly which patients were studied and which ones benefited.

“The peer review will be critical. It looks as if it only benefits people who need respiratory support, but I want to understand that in much more detail,” she said. “If they all had acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS],” that’s different.

“There are already some data supporting steroid use in ARDS,” she noted, but added that not all of it suggests benefit.

She pointed to one of several studies now showing that diabetes, and hyperglycemia among people without a prior diabetes diagnosis, are both strong predictors of mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

“There was a very clear relationship between hyperglycemia and outcomes. We really shouldn’t put people at risk until we have clear data,” she said.

If, once the data are reviewed and appropriate dexamethasone becomes an established treatment for severe COVID-19, hyperglycemia would be a concern among all patients, not just those with previously diagnosed diabetes, she noted.

“We know a good number of people with prediabetes develop hyperglycemia when put on steroids. They can push people over the edge. We’re not going to miss anybody, but treating steroid-induced hyperglycemia is really hard,” McDonnell explained.

She also recommended 2014 guidance from Diabetes UK and the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, which addresses management of inpatient steroid-induced DKA in patients with and without pre-existing diabetes.

Another major concern, she said, is “patients trying to get dexamethasone when they start to get sick” because this is not the right population to use this agent.

“We worry about people who do not need this drug. If they have diabetes, they put themselves at risk of hyperglycemia, which then increases the risk of severe COVID-19. And then they’re also putting themselves at risk of DKA. It would just be bad medicine,” she said.

Managing DKA in the face of COVID-19: Flexibility is key

In the JCEM article, Palermo and colleagues emphasize that the usual hospital protocols for DKA management may need to be adjusted during COVID-19 in the interest of reducing transmission risk and preserving scare resources.

They provide evidence for alternative treatment strategies, such as the use of subcutaneous rather than intravenous insulin when appropriate.

“We wanted to outline when exactly you should consider nonintensive management strategies for DKA,” McDonnell further explained to Medscape Medical News.

“That would include those with mild or some with moderate DKA. ... The idea is to remind our colleagues about that because hospitals tend to operate on a protocol-driven algorithmic methodology, they can forget to step off the usual care pathway even if evidence supports that,” she said.   

But on the other hand, she also said that, in some very complex or severely ill patients with COVID-19, classical intravenous insulin therapy makes the most sense even if their DKA is mild.
 

The outpatient setting: Prevention and preparation

The new article also addresses several concerns regarding DKA prevention in the outpatient setting.

As with other guidelines, it includes a reminder that patients with diabetes should be advised to discontinue sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors if they become ill with COVID-19, especially if they’re not eating or drinking normally, because they raise the risk for DKA.

Also, for patients with type 1 diabetes, particularly those with a history of repeated DKA, “this is the time to make sure we reach out to patients to refill their insulin prescriptions and address issues related to cost and other access difficulties,” McDonnell said.

The authors also emphasize that insulin starts and education should not be postponed during the pandemic. “Patients identified as meeting criteria to start insulin should be referred for urgent education, either in person or, whenever possible and practical, via video teleconferencing,” they urge.

McDonnell has reported receiving research funding from Novo Nordisk. The other two authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) was comparable in efficacy and safety with once-daily insulin glargine U100, new research suggests.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, presented the data from the phase 2 pivotal study of icodec on June 14 during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour half-life. A once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

“Many people with type 2 diabetes are reluctant to start on insulin therapy due to the need for daily injections. ... I’m truly excited about the potential of such innovative treatments which could reduce the number of basal insulin injections for my patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rosenstock commented in a Novo Nordisk statement.

During his presentation, he added that the product “has the potential to be a major player in the management of type 2 diabetes if eventually approved.”

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said that “it’s a phase 2 study. Obviously we need to see the phase 3 data, but it’s very encouraging.”

Dr. Alexander, who was global medical director for diabetes in medical affairs at Merck from 2008 to 2015, observed that “the theory is that you have better adherence to once-weekly, compared to daily [dosing], but when you actually do the studies it’s very difficult to prove that.

“I think the big advantage is that the company can develop a coformulation of [the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist] semaglutide and icodec in the same pen or vial. ... There is a convenience factor of once weekly over daily.”

In fact, he noted, Novo Nordisk is already in phase 1 trials with that product, called icosema.

“Potential to be transformational”

The phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial included 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with about half also taking a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). All participants took seven injections per week with a vial and syringe plus one injection per week with a pen injector. Doses were titrated up or down to achieve blood glucose levels 70-108 mg/dL, with glargine dose adjustments of 2 or 4 units and icodec units of 14 or 28 units.

Participants were a mean age of 59.6 years, had a diabetes duration of 9.7 years, and 56.3% were men. Baseline A1c was 8.0% overall and fasting blood glucose was 181 mg/dL, and both were similar between the two groups.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, which was not significantly different (P = .08). Estimated mean A1c levels were 6.7% for icodec and 6.9% for glargine.

The icodec result, Dr. Rosenstock said, “is a very impressive final A1c.”

The proportions of patients achieving A1c <7% by week 26 for icodec versus glargine were 72% versus 68%, and for A1c ≤6.5% were 49% and 39%, respectively. Those differences weren’t statistically significant because of lack of power, Dr. Rosenstock observed.

Fasting plasma glucose levels were nearly identical at 26 weeks, with drops of 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

However, there was a significant difference in favor of icodec in the 9-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profile, with a difference in mean change from baseline to week 26 of –7.9 mg/dL (P = .01).

Lower postbreakfast and postlunch glucose peaks at 90 minutes accounted for most of the difference, Dr. Rosenstock noted. 

Total insulin doses during the last 2 weeks of treatment with icodec versus glargine were 229 versus 284 units/week (P = .01); those translate to approximate daily doses of 33 versus 41 units/day, respectively.

Both groups gained a small amount of weight, 1.5 kg with icodec and 1.6 kg with glargine by week 26 (P = .88).

Hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine, including mild (53.6% vs. 37.7%), moderate or clinically significant (16.0% vs. 9.8%), and severe (1 [0.8%] vs. 0 participants). Corresponding event rates were 508.9 versus 210.8 per 100 patient-years (mild hypoglycemia), 52.5 versus 45.6 per 100 patient-years (moderate or clinically significant), and 1.4 versus 0 per 100 patient-years (severe) for icodec versus glargine.

The difference between the two groups in moderate or clinically significant hypoglycemia wasn’t statistically significant (P = .85), and the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between groups.

“Based on the robustness of these data, further evidence on the role of weekly basal insulin icodec will be pursued in a comprehensive phase 3 clinical development program,” Dr. Rosenstock explained. If those data confirm the phase 2 results, “I believe personally that a weekly basal insulin has the potential to be transformational in the management of people with type 2 diabetes needing insulin therapy.”

Dr. Rosenstock has reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) was comparable in efficacy and safety with once-daily insulin glargine U100, new research suggests.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, presented the data from the phase 2 pivotal study of icodec on June 14 during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour half-life. A once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

“Many people with type 2 diabetes are reluctant to start on insulin therapy due to the need for daily injections. ... I’m truly excited about the potential of such innovative treatments which could reduce the number of basal insulin injections for my patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rosenstock commented in a Novo Nordisk statement.

During his presentation, he added that the product “has the potential to be a major player in the management of type 2 diabetes if eventually approved.”

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said that “it’s a phase 2 study. Obviously we need to see the phase 3 data, but it’s very encouraging.”

Dr. Alexander, who was global medical director for diabetes in medical affairs at Merck from 2008 to 2015, observed that “the theory is that you have better adherence to once-weekly, compared to daily [dosing], but when you actually do the studies it’s very difficult to prove that.

“I think the big advantage is that the company can develop a coformulation of [the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist] semaglutide and icodec in the same pen or vial. ... There is a convenience factor of once weekly over daily.”

In fact, he noted, Novo Nordisk is already in phase 1 trials with that product, called icosema.

“Potential to be transformational”

The phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial included 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with about half also taking a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). All participants took seven injections per week with a vial and syringe plus one injection per week with a pen injector. Doses were titrated up or down to achieve blood glucose levels 70-108 mg/dL, with glargine dose adjustments of 2 or 4 units and icodec units of 14 or 28 units.

Participants were a mean age of 59.6 years, had a diabetes duration of 9.7 years, and 56.3% were men. Baseline A1c was 8.0% overall and fasting blood glucose was 181 mg/dL, and both were similar between the two groups.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, which was not significantly different (P = .08). Estimated mean A1c levels were 6.7% for icodec and 6.9% for glargine.

The icodec result, Dr. Rosenstock said, “is a very impressive final A1c.”

The proportions of patients achieving A1c <7% by week 26 for icodec versus glargine were 72% versus 68%, and for A1c ≤6.5% were 49% and 39%, respectively. Those differences weren’t statistically significant because of lack of power, Dr. Rosenstock observed.

Fasting plasma glucose levels were nearly identical at 26 weeks, with drops of 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

However, there was a significant difference in favor of icodec in the 9-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profile, with a difference in mean change from baseline to week 26 of –7.9 mg/dL (P = .01).

Lower postbreakfast and postlunch glucose peaks at 90 minutes accounted for most of the difference, Dr. Rosenstock noted. 

Total insulin doses during the last 2 weeks of treatment with icodec versus glargine were 229 versus 284 units/week (P = .01); those translate to approximate daily doses of 33 versus 41 units/day, respectively.

Both groups gained a small amount of weight, 1.5 kg with icodec and 1.6 kg with glargine by week 26 (P = .88).

Hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine, including mild (53.6% vs. 37.7%), moderate or clinically significant (16.0% vs. 9.8%), and severe (1 [0.8%] vs. 0 participants). Corresponding event rates were 508.9 versus 210.8 per 100 patient-years (mild hypoglycemia), 52.5 versus 45.6 per 100 patient-years (moderate or clinically significant), and 1.4 versus 0 per 100 patient-years (severe) for icodec versus glargine.

The difference between the two groups in moderate or clinically significant hypoglycemia wasn’t statistically significant (P = .85), and the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between groups.

“Based on the robustness of these data, further evidence on the role of weekly basal insulin icodec will be pursued in a comprehensive phase 3 clinical development program,” Dr. Rosenstock explained. If those data confirm the phase 2 results, “I believe personally that a weekly basal insulin has the potential to be transformational in the management of people with type 2 diabetes needing insulin therapy.”

Dr. Rosenstock has reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The investigational once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) was comparable in efficacy and safety with once-daily insulin glargine U100, new research suggests.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, presented the data from the phase 2 pivotal study of icodec on June 14 during the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour half-life. A once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

“Many people with type 2 diabetes are reluctant to start on insulin therapy due to the need for daily injections. ... I’m truly excited about the potential of such innovative treatments which could reduce the number of basal insulin injections for my patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rosenstock commented in a Novo Nordisk statement.

During his presentation, he added that the product “has the potential to be a major player in the management of type 2 diabetes if eventually approved.”

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said that “it’s a phase 2 study. Obviously we need to see the phase 3 data, but it’s very encouraging.”

Dr. Alexander, who was global medical director for diabetes in medical affairs at Merck from 2008 to 2015, observed that “the theory is that you have better adherence to once-weekly, compared to daily [dosing], but when you actually do the studies it’s very difficult to prove that.

“I think the big advantage is that the company can develop a coformulation of [the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist] semaglutide and icodec in the same pen or vial. ... There is a convenience factor of once weekly over daily.”

In fact, he noted, Novo Nordisk is already in phase 1 trials with that product, called icosema.

“Potential to be transformational”

The phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial included 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with about half also taking a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). All participants took seven injections per week with a vial and syringe plus one injection per week with a pen injector. Doses were titrated up or down to achieve blood glucose levels 70-108 mg/dL, with glargine dose adjustments of 2 or 4 units and icodec units of 14 or 28 units.

Participants were a mean age of 59.6 years, had a diabetes duration of 9.7 years, and 56.3% were men. Baseline A1c was 8.0% overall and fasting blood glucose was 181 mg/dL, and both were similar between the two groups.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, which was not significantly different (P = .08). Estimated mean A1c levels were 6.7% for icodec and 6.9% for glargine.

The icodec result, Dr. Rosenstock said, “is a very impressive final A1c.”

The proportions of patients achieving A1c <7% by week 26 for icodec versus glargine were 72% versus 68%, and for A1c ≤6.5% were 49% and 39%, respectively. Those differences weren’t statistically significant because of lack of power, Dr. Rosenstock observed.

Fasting plasma glucose levels were nearly identical at 26 weeks, with drops of 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

However, there was a significant difference in favor of icodec in the 9-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profile, with a difference in mean change from baseline to week 26 of –7.9 mg/dL (P = .01).

Lower postbreakfast and postlunch glucose peaks at 90 minutes accounted for most of the difference, Dr. Rosenstock noted. 

Total insulin doses during the last 2 weeks of treatment with icodec versus glargine were 229 versus 284 units/week (P = .01); those translate to approximate daily doses of 33 versus 41 units/day, respectively.

Both groups gained a small amount of weight, 1.5 kg with icodec and 1.6 kg with glargine by week 26 (P = .88).

Hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine, including mild (53.6% vs. 37.7%), moderate or clinically significant (16.0% vs. 9.8%), and severe (1 [0.8%] vs. 0 participants). Corresponding event rates were 508.9 versus 210.8 per 100 patient-years (mild hypoglycemia), 52.5 versus 45.6 per 100 patient-years (moderate or clinically significant), and 1.4 versus 0 per 100 patient-years (severe) for icodec versus glargine.

The difference between the two groups in moderate or clinically significant hypoglycemia wasn’t statistically significant (P = .85), and the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between groups.

“Based on the robustness of these data, further evidence on the role of weekly basal insulin icodec will be pursued in a comprehensive phase 3 clinical development program,” Dr. Rosenstock explained. If those data confirm the phase 2 results, “I believe personally that a weekly basal insulin has the potential to be transformational in the management of people with type 2 diabetes needing insulin therapy.”

Dr. Rosenstock has reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Abbott FreeStyle Libre glucose monitoring system significantly reduced hospitalizations for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), diabetes-related emergencies, and all-cause hospitalizations among patients with diabetes, data from two new studies indicate.

The results were presented June 13 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions.

One large database analysis, from France, revealed that use of the Libre system halved hospitalization rates for DKA among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

In the other study, a retrospective analysis of data from over 1200 insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes in the United States, use of the Libre was associated with significant reductions in both hospitalizations for acute diabetes-related emergency events and all-cause hospitalizations.

The Libre system reads glucose levels through a sensor worn on the back of the upper arm for up to 14 days. Users wave a scanner over the device to obtain a reading.

Asked to comment, Nicholas Argento, MD, diabetes technology director at Maryland Endocrine and Diabetes, Columbia, told Medscape Medical News: “One of the biggest problems with access to continuous glucose monitoring is cost. Payers need to see that there’s some cost-saving to offset the cost of paying for these devices. I think both of these studies are important for that reason.”

However, Argento also said he recommends that people with type 1 diabetes use the Dexcom continuous glucose monitor (CGM) if possible rather than the Libre, despite the former’s higher cost, because it has an alarm feature that the Libre doesn’t and is more accurate in the hypoglycemic range.

Large French study: Libre cuts DKA hospitalizations by 50%

The FreeStyle Libre system has been reimbursed in France since June 1, 2017 for patients over 4 years of age with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who take at least 3 insulin injections per day or use an insulin pump.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The new results were presented by Ronan Roussel, MD, PhD, chief of the endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition department at Hôpital Bichat, Fédération de Diabétologie, AP-HP, Paris, France.

The DKA hospitalization data Roussel reported were part of a larger longitudinal retrospective cohort study looking at overall prescribing and use of the Libre system, and its impact on healthcare outcomes and associated costs in standard practice in France. The data came from a large nationwide claims database containing all healthcare expenses for over 66 million people.

The current study participants were 74,076 individuals with at least a full year of follow-up beginning in 2017 with the date of first reimbursement for the FreeStyle Libre system. Of those, 44.8% (33,203) had type 1 diabetes and 55.2% (40,955) had type 2 diabetes.

Prior to initiation of Libre use, about a quarter of each group was using 0 fingerstick test strips per day, about 19% of the type 1 diabetes group and 28% of the type 2 diabetes group were using 1-3 strips per day, and about half of both groups were using 4 or more strips per day.

Compared with the year prior to the date of first reimbursement for the Libre, hospitalization rates for DKA during the first year of Libre use fell by 52% in the type 1 diabetes group, from 5.46 to 2.59 per 100 patient-years, and by 47% in the type 2 diabetes group, from 1.70 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years.

The impact of Libre on DKA hospitalizations was most dramatic among those not using any test strips prior to Libre use, with a 60% reduction for the type 1 diabetes group (8.31 to 3.31 per 100 patient-years) and a 51% reduction in the type 2 diabetes group (2.51 to 1.23 per 100 patient-years).

But interestingly, the next-biggest impact was among those who had been using more than 5 test strips per day, with drops of 59% among those with type 1 diabetes (5.55 to 2.26 per 100 patient-years) and 52% in the type 2 diabetes group (1.88 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years).

This finding is important for the United States, Argento said, because some insurers, including Medicare, require that the patient performs at least 4 fingerstick glucose measurements per day to qualify for reimbursement for the Libre or any CGM system.

“I think that speaks to the importance of not requiring that patients first show they’re frequently doing self-blood glucose monitoring before they can get these devices,” he observed.

The large benefit in the high strip use group is interesting too, Argento said. “It’s a different group of people. They’re more engaged in their care...This U-shaped curve they showed is fascinating.”

Reductions in DKA hospitalizations were also similar between patients using insulin pumps and those using multiple daily injections of insulin, Roussel reported.

“It is plausible that use of the FreeStyle Libre system allowed people to detect and limit persistent hyperglycemia, and subsequently ketoacidosis,” Roussel said.

“This analysis has significant implications for patient-centered clinical care in diabetes and also for long-term health economic outcomes in the treatment of diabetes at a national level.”

All-cause hospitalizations drop 30% with Libre in type 2 diabetes

Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, presented the US results, obtained from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan, a database of commercial and Medicare supplemental insurance claims for over 30 million Americans.

The study population included 2463 patients with type 2 diabetes using basal-bolus daily insulin injections but who had not previously used Libre or any other CGM, and for whom data were available 6 months prior to and after Libre initiation.

Compared with 6 months prior to Libre use, the number of acute diabetes-related events — including hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, DKA, hypoglycemic coma, and hyperosmolarity — in the subsequent 6 months dropped by 60%, from 0.180 to 0.072 events per patient-year (P < .001).

Similarly significant reductions were seen between males and females, and among those aged ≥ 50 years or < 50 years.

All-cause hospitalizations also significantly dropped by 33% (P < 0.001), from 0.420 to 0.283 events per patient-year. Among diagnostic codes for the hospitalizations, circulatory system causes remained number one during both time periods, with little change from pre-Libre to during Libre use.

However, “endocrine, nutritional, and metabolism system” codes dropped from the second position pre-Libre (6.4 events/100 patient-years) down to the fifth position (2.6 events/100 patient-years).

And, Bergenstal noted, other major diagnostic categories that also dropped included respiratory (3.5 to 2.1 events/100 patient-years), kidney and urinary tract (3.3 to 1.7 events/100 patient-years), and hepatobiliary system and pancreas (2.4 to 1.4 events/100 patient-years).

“We’re seeing a resurgence of certain types of complications, but all of these were reduced in the 6 months after Libre,” Bergenstal pointed out.

And, pertinent to the current COVID-19 situation, “infectious and parasitic disease and disorders” dropped as well, from 4.8 to 2.8 per 100 patient-years.

Argento commented: “The fact that infections went down speaks to something that is important right now. Hyperglycemia impairs immune function chronically, but also acutely...so patients who become ill and their blood glucose deteriorates rapidly are much more likely to have a poor outcome regardless of infection. There are data for COVID-19 now.”

“These findings provide compelling support for use of [Libre] to improve both clinical outcomes and potentially reduce costs in this patient population,” Bergenstal concluded.

Roussel has reported being on advisory panels for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Diabnext, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis. Bergenstal has reported being a consultant for Ascensia Diabetes Care, Johnson & Johnson, and has other relationships with Abbott, Dexcom, Hygieia, Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Onduo, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and UnitedHealth Group. Argento has reported consulting and being on speaker bureaus for Omnipod, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Dexcom, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

The Abbott FreeStyle Libre glucose monitoring system significantly reduced hospitalizations for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), diabetes-related emergencies, and all-cause hospitalizations among patients with diabetes, data from two new studies indicate.

The results were presented June 13 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions.

One large database analysis, from France, revealed that use of the Libre system halved hospitalization rates for DKA among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

In the other study, a retrospective analysis of data from over 1200 insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes in the United States, use of the Libre was associated with significant reductions in both hospitalizations for acute diabetes-related emergency events and all-cause hospitalizations.

The Libre system reads glucose levels through a sensor worn on the back of the upper arm for up to 14 days. Users wave a scanner over the device to obtain a reading.

Asked to comment, Nicholas Argento, MD, diabetes technology director at Maryland Endocrine and Diabetes, Columbia, told Medscape Medical News: “One of the biggest problems with access to continuous glucose monitoring is cost. Payers need to see that there’s some cost-saving to offset the cost of paying for these devices. I think both of these studies are important for that reason.”

However, Argento also said he recommends that people with type 1 diabetes use the Dexcom continuous glucose monitor (CGM) if possible rather than the Libre, despite the former’s higher cost, because it has an alarm feature that the Libre doesn’t and is more accurate in the hypoglycemic range.

Large French study: Libre cuts DKA hospitalizations by 50%

The FreeStyle Libre system has been reimbursed in France since June 1, 2017 for patients over 4 years of age with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who take at least 3 insulin injections per day or use an insulin pump.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The new results were presented by Ronan Roussel, MD, PhD, chief of the endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition department at Hôpital Bichat, Fédération de Diabétologie, AP-HP, Paris, France.

The DKA hospitalization data Roussel reported were part of a larger longitudinal retrospective cohort study looking at overall prescribing and use of the Libre system, and its impact on healthcare outcomes and associated costs in standard practice in France. The data came from a large nationwide claims database containing all healthcare expenses for over 66 million people.

The current study participants were 74,076 individuals with at least a full year of follow-up beginning in 2017 with the date of first reimbursement for the FreeStyle Libre system. Of those, 44.8% (33,203) had type 1 diabetes and 55.2% (40,955) had type 2 diabetes.

Prior to initiation of Libre use, about a quarter of each group was using 0 fingerstick test strips per day, about 19% of the type 1 diabetes group and 28% of the type 2 diabetes group were using 1-3 strips per day, and about half of both groups were using 4 or more strips per day.

Compared with the year prior to the date of first reimbursement for the Libre, hospitalization rates for DKA during the first year of Libre use fell by 52% in the type 1 diabetes group, from 5.46 to 2.59 per 100 patient-years, and by 47% in the type 2 diabetes group, from 1.70 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years.

The impact of Libre on DKA hospitalizations was most dramatic among those not using any test strips prior to Libre use, with a 60% reduction for the type 1 diabetes group (8.31 to 3.31 per 100 patient-years) and a 51% reduction in the type 2 diabetes group (2.51 to 1.23 per 100 patient-years).

But interestingly, the next-biggest impact was among those who had been using more than 5 test strips per day, with drops of 59% among those with type 1 diabetes (5.55 to 2.26 per 100 patient-years) and 52% in the type 2 diabetes group (1.88 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years).

This finding is important for the United States, Argento said, because some insurers, including Medicare, require that the patient performs at least 4 fingerstick glucose measurements per day to qualify for reimbursement for the Libre or any CGM system.

“I think that speaks to the importance of not requiring that patients first show they’re frequently doing self-blood glucose monitoring before they can get these devices,” he observed.

The large benefit in the high strip use group is interesting too, Argento said. “It’s a different group of people. They’re more engaged in their care...This U-shaped curve they showed is fascinating.”

Reductions in DKA hospitalizations were also similar between patients using insulin pumps and those using multiple daily injections of insulin, Roussel reported.

“It is plausible that use of the FreeStyle Libre system allowed people to detect and limit persistent hyperglycemia, and subsequently ketoacidosis,” Roussel said.

“This analysis has significant implications for patient-centered clinical care in diabetes and also for long-term health economic outcomes in the treatment of diabetes at a national level.”

All-cause hospitalizations drop 30% with Libre in type 2 diabetes

Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, presented the US results, obtained from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan, a database of commercial and Medicare supplemental insurance claims for over 30 million Americans.

The study population included 2463 patients with type 2 diabetes using basal-bolus daily insulin injections but who had not previously used Libre or any other CGM, and for whom data were available 6 months prior to and after Libre initiation.

Compared with 6 months prior to Libre use, the number of acute diabetes-related events — including hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, DKA, hypoglycemic coma, and hyperosmolarity — in the subsequent 6 months dropped by 60%, from 0.180 to 0.072 events per patient-year (P < .001).

Similarly significant reductions were seen between males and females, and among those aged ≥ 50 years or < 50 years.

All-cause hospitalizations also significantly dropped by 33% (P < 0.001), from 0.420 to 0.283 events per patient-year. Among diagnostic codes for the hospitalizations, circulatory system causes remained number one during both time periods, with little change from pre-Libre to during Libre use.

However, “endocrine, nutritional, and metabolism system” codes dropped from the second position pre-Libre (6.4 events/100 patient-years) down to the fifth position (2.6 events/100 patient-years).

And, Bergenstal noted, other major diagnostic categories that also dropped included respiratory (3.5 to 2.1 events/100 patient-years), kidney and urinary tract (3.3 to 1.7 events/100 patient-years), and hepatobiliary system and pancreas (2.4 to 1.4 events/100 patient-years).

“We’re seeing a resurgence of certain types of complications, but all of these were reduced in the 6 months after Libre,” Bergenstal pointed out.

And, pertinent to the current COVID-19 situation, “infectious and parasitic disease and disorders” dropped as well, from 4.8 to 2.8 per 100 patient-years.

Argento commented: “The fact that infections went down speaks to something that is important right now. Hyperglycemia impairs immune function chronically, but also acutely...so patients who become ill and their blood glucose deteriorates rapidly are much more likely to have a poor outcome regardless of infection. There are data for COVID-19 now.”

“These findings provide compelling support for use of [Libre] to improve both clinical outcomes and potentially reduce costs in this patient population,” Bergenstal concluded.

Roussel has reported being on advisory panels for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Diabnext, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis. Bergenstal has reported being a consultant for Ascensia Diabetes Care, Johnson & Johnson, and has other relationships with Abbott, Dexcom, Hygieia, Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Onduo, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and UnitedHealth Group. Argento has reported consulting and being on speaker bureaus for Omnipod, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Dexcom, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

The Abbott FreeStyle Libre glucose monitoring system significantly reduced hospitalizations for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), diabetes-related emergencies, and all-cause hospitalizations among patients with diabetes, data from two new studies indicate.

The results were presented June 13 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions.

One large database analysis, from France, revealed that use of the Libre system halved hospitalization rates for DKA among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

In the other study, a retrospective analysis of data from over 1200 insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes in the United States, use of the Libre was associated with significant reductions in both hospitalizations for acute diabetes-related emergency events and all-cause hospitalizations.

The Libre system reads glucose levels through a sensor worn on the back of the upper arm for up to 14 days. Users wave a scanner over the device to obtain a reading.

Asked to comment, Nicholas Argento, MD, diabetes technology director at Maryland Endocrine and Diabetes, Columbia, told Medscape Medical News: “One of the biggest problems with access to continuous glucose monitoring is cost. Payers need to see that there’s some cost-saving to offset the cost of paying for these devices. I think both of these studies are important for that reason.”

However, Argento also said he recommends that people with type 1 diabetes use the Dexcom continuous glucose monitor (CGM) if possible rather than the Libre, despite the former’s higher cost, because it has an alarm feature that the Libre doesn’t and is more accurate in the hypoglycemic range.

Large French study: Libre cuts DKA hospitalizations by 50%

The FreeStyle Libre system has been reimbursed in France since June 1, 2017 for patients over 4 years of age with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who take at least 3 insulin injections per day or use an insulin pump.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The new results were presented by Ronan Roussel, MD, PhD, chief of the endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition department at Hôpital Bichat, Fédération de Diabétologie, AP-HP, Paris, France.

The DKA hospitalization data Roussel reported were part of a larger longitudinal retrospective cohort study looking at overall prescribing and use of the Libre system, and its impact on healthcare outcomes and associated costs in standard practice in France. The data came from a large nationwide claims database containing all healthcare expenses for over 66 million people.

The current study participants were 74,076 individuals with at least a full year of follow-up beginning in 2017 with the date of first reimbursement for the FreeStyle Libre system. Of those, 44.8% (33,203) had type 1 diabetes and 55.2% (40,955) had type 2 diabetes.

Prior to initiation of Libre use, about a quarter of each group was using 0 fingerstick test strips per day, about 19% of the type 1 diabetes group and 28% of the type 2 diabetes group were using 1-3 strips per day, and about half of both groups were using 4 or more strips per day.

Compared with the year prior to the date of first reimbursement for the Libre, hospitalization rates for DKA during the first year of Libre use fell by 52% in the type 1 diabetes group, from 5.46 to 2.59 per 100 patient-years, and by 47% in the type 2 diabetes group, from 1.70 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years.

The impact of Libre on DKA hospitalizations was most dramatic among those not using any test strips prior to Libre use, with a 60% reduction for the type 1 diabetes group (8.31 to 3.31 per 100 patient-years) and a 51% reduction in the type 2 diabetes group (2.51 to 1.23 per 100 patient-years).

But interestingly, the next-biggest impact was among those who had been using more than 5 test strips per day, with drops of 59% among those with type 1 diabetes (5.55 to 2.26 per 100 patient-years) and 52% in the type 2 diabetes group (1.88 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years).

This finding is important for the United States, Argento said, because some insurers, including Medicare, require that the patient performs at least 4 fingerstick glucose measurements per day to qualify for reimbursement for the Libre or any CGM system.

“I think that speaks to the importance of not requiring that patients first show they’re frequently doing self-blood glucose monitoring before they can get these devices,” he observed.

The large benefit in the high strip use group is interesting too, Argento said. “It’s a different group of people. They’re more engaged in their care...This U-shaped curve they showed is fascinating.”

Reductions in DKA hospitalizations were also similar between patients using insulin pumps and those using multiple daily injections of insulin, Roussel reported.

“It is plausible that use of the FreeStyle Libre system allowed people to detect and limit persistent hyperglycemia, and subsequently ketoacidosis,” Roussel said.

“This analysis has significant implications for patient-centered clinical care in diabetes and also for long-term health economic outcomes in the treatment of diabetes at a national level.”

All-cause hospitalizations drop 30% with Libre in type 2 diabetes

Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, presented the US results, obtained from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan, a database of commercial and Medicare supplemental insurance claims for over 30 million Americans.

The study population included 2463 patients with type 2 diabetes using basal-bolus daily insulin injections but who had not previously used Libre or any other CGM, and for whom data were available 6 months prior to and after Libre initiation.

Compared with 6 months prior to Libre use, the number of acute diabetes-related events — including hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, DKA, hypoglycemic coma, and hyperosmolarity — in the subsequent 6 months dropped by 60%, from 0.180 to 0.072 events per patient-year (P < .001).

Similarly significant reductions were seen between males and females, and among those aged ≥ 50 years or < 50 years.

All-cause hospitalizations also significantly dropped by 33% (P < 0.001), from 0.420 to 0.283 events per patient-year. Among diagnostic codes for the hospitalizations, circulatory system causes remained number one during both time periods, with little change from pre-Libre to during Libre use.

However, “endocrine, nutritional, and metabolism system” codes dropped from the second position pre-Libre (6.4 events/100 patient-years) down to the fifth position (2.6 events/100 patient-years).

And, Bergenstal noted, other major diagnostic categories that also dropped included respiratory (3.5 to 2.1 events/100 patient-years), kidney and urinary tract (3.3 to 1.7 events/100 patient-years), and hepatobiliary system and pancreas (2.4 to 1.4 events/100 patient-years).

“We’re seeing a resurgence of certain types of complications, but all of these were reduced in the 6 months after Libre,” Bergenstal pointed out.

And, pertinent to the current COVID-19 situation, “infectious and parasitic disease and disorders” dropped as well, from 4.8 to 2.8 per 100 patient-years.

Argento commented: “The fact that infections went down speaks to something that is important right now. Hyperglycemia impairs immune function chronically, but also acutely...so patients who become ill and their blood glucose deteriorates rapidly are much more likely to have a poor outcome regardless of infection. There are data for COVID-19 now.”

“These findings provide compelling support for use of [Libre] to improve both clinical outcomes and potentially reduce costs in this patient population,” Bergenstal concluded.

Roussel has reported being on advisory panels for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Diabnext, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis. Bergenstal has reported being a consultant for Ascensia Diabetes Care, Johnson & Johnson, and has other relationships with Abbott, Dexcom, Hygieia, Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Onduo, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and UnitedHealth Group. Argento has reported consulting and being on speaker bureaus for Omnipod, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Dexcom, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available 670G hybrid closed-loop, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest.

Automated insulin delivery systems are comprised of an insulin pump, continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an automated insulin dosing algorithm.

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented June 12 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. The AHCL is the algorithm used in Medtronic’s new MiniMed 780G system, which received a CE Mark on June 11 for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in people aged 7 to 80 years.

One trial, presented by Bruce W. Bode, MD, of Atlanta Diabetes Associates, Georgia, was the US pivotal safety study that will be submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for approval of the Medtronic 780G.

Another trial, presented by Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, was a separate comparison of the AHCL with the 670G. (The AHCL-based system used in the three trials was identical to the 780G except it didn’t include Bluetooth, which will be a feature of the final product.)

A third trial, presented by Martin de Bock, PhD, of the University of Otago, New Zealand, included the CE Mark dataset for the 780G.

In contrast to the 670G, the 780G adds automated correction boluses for high blood glucose levels (rather than simply adjusting the basal infusion) and allows for adjustment of target glucose levels down to 100 mg/dL rather than a minimum of 120 mg/dL.

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction. And specifically compared to the 670G, the AHCL-based system reverts to open-loop far less often because it only exits closed-loop mode when the sensor stops working or during sensor changes, but not during hyperglycemia even above 300 mg/dL.

Asked to comment, session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, president and CEO of the AMCR Institute, Escondido, California, told Medscape Medical News: “Automated insulin delivery systems are getting better and better.”

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They all take people from where they are now to better time-in-range, less time with hypoglycemia, and most important, they might make the quality of their lives better. That’s really underappreciated.”

One factor that has allowed for the improvements, Bailey said, is the recognition by regulatory bodies that the hybrid closed-loop devices are generally safer than current open-loop type 1 diabetes management so that fewer “safety” device features that interfere with tight glycemic control are necessary.

With first-generation closed-loop systems, “If a wide variety of conditions occur, users get kicked off [hybrid closed-loop mode]. Originally it was perceived by the regulatory agencies as a safety feature because they perceived the standard of care as safe. The new system was allowed to have fewer rules.”
 

Pivotal trial: Time-in-range improved, 96% say system easy to use

The goal of the AHCL system is to maximize the time-in-range of blood glucose between 70-180 mg/dL. Automated basal delivery of insulin is programmed to a set-point of 100 or 120 mg/dL, with dosing every 5 minutes.

The US pivotal trial was a single-arm, 16-center, in-home trial of 157 people with type 1 diabetes, including 39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged 22-75 years. All had type 1 diabetes for at least 2 years, A_1c levels below 10%, and had been using insulin pumps for at least 6 months, with or without CGMs.

After a 14-day run-in, they wore the systems with a 100 or 120 mg/dL set-point for 45 days, then switched to the other setpoint for another 45 days. Average A1c dropped from 7.5% to 7.0%, with the proportions having an A1c ≤ 7.0% increasing from 34% to 61%.

Overall time-in-range was 75% compared to 69% at baseline, with time below range (< 70 mg/dL) of 1.8%. Overnight time-in-range was 82%, with 1.5% below range. Time-in-range increased from 62% to 73% in the adolescents and from 71% to 75% in the adults.

There were no incidences of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis, and no device-related serious adverse events.

Participants reported being in hybrid closed-loop, or auto-mode, 95% of the time, compared with 33% for those who had been previously using the 670G.

The number of AHCL exits was 1.3 per week, significantly less than with the 670G. Of those, 29% were user-initiated while the rest were implemented by the device, most often when the sensor wasn’t working.

In a study questionnaire, 96% reported that the system was easy to use.
 

AHCL vs 670G: Major improvements seen

Bergenstal presented data from the Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation (FLAIR) study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease, comparing Medtronic’s AHCL-based system with the currently marketed 670G hybrid closed-loop, in 113 individuals with type 1 diabetes aged 14-29 years.

“This age group has traditionally been the most difficult group in which to optimize glucose management,” Bergenstal said.

FLAIR is believed to be the first-ever study comparing an investigational automated insulin delivery system with a commercially approved system, he noted. All participants used each automated insulin delivery system for 3 months in the randomized crossover trial.

The primary outcome, time spent above 180 mg/dL during the day combined with time below 54 mg/dL over 24 hours at baseline with the 670G and AHCL went from 42% to 37% to 34%, respectively, for the former and from 0.46% to 0.50% to 0.45%, respectively, for the latter.

The percentage time-in-range over 24 hours went from 57% at baseline to 67% with the AHCL versus 63% with the 670G. A1c levels dropped from 7.9% at baseline to 7.6% with the 670G and 7.4% with AHCL.

“Remember, these are the adolescents who are the toughest of the tough, yet there was a 10% increase in time-in-range ... this is very clinically significant,” Bergenstal said.

Even among 14 patients who had been using multiple daily injections without CGM prior to the study, a group often excluded from closed-loop studies, time-in-range improved from 45% at baseline to 63% with the 670G to 65% with AHCL.

“I’m making a plea not to exclude people just because they haven’t previously used technology,” Bergenstal said.

One patient who had dosed with extra insulin manually had a severe hypoglycemia event with AHCL. No patient had diabetic ketoacidosis.

The proportion of insulin given as auto-correction boluses was 36%, which is important as it means that the system was compensating for missed meal doses, a common phenomenon among teenagers, Bergenstal noted.

“There is still room for further improvement in glycemic control in this population of patients with type 1 diabetes, but AHCL represents a significant step forward,” he concluded.
 

New Zealand study: More data in youth show AHCL benefits

Unlike the US study populations of just teens aged 14 and older, and adults, the study data used for approval in the EU — from New Zealand — included a total of 60 patients with 20 children aged 7-15 years. It, too, was a 10-week randomized crossover clinical trial comparing the AHCL to a sensor-augmented pump system with an algorithm only for predictive low-glucose management (PLGM) and no adjustments for high blood glucose.

Time-in-range was 59% at baseline and 58% with PLGM, compared to 70.4% with AHCL, and most of the time-in-range improvement occurred at night. Time below 70 mg/dL dropped from 3.1% to 2.5% to 2.1%, respectively.

Similar to the US studies, participants spent 96% of the time in closed-loop mode with only 1.2 exits per week. On a questionnaire, 95% of patients agreed that the system was easy to use and 85% that the system improved their quality of life.

De Bock showed a slide with some quotes, including one from a parent saying, “We didn’t have to be fearful at night or have that thought when we opened her bedroom door in the morning that she might not be conscious,” and from a patient, “I forgot I had diabetes today.”

Bailey commented: “Of course these devices are not free. So, the challenge is how do we make them available, less expensive, and easy to use? We have our work cut out for us, but this is heartening data. Everything has gotten better but we’re not out of a job yet.”

Bailey has reported receiving research support from Abbott, Capillary Biomedical, Dexcom, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Kowa, Lexicon, Medtronic, Medtrum, Novo Nordisk, REMD, Sanofi, Senseonics, ViaCyte, vTv Therapeutics, Zealand Pharma, and consulting or speaking honoraria from Abbott, LifeScan, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Medtronic. Bode has reported receiving consulting and speaker fees from Medtronic. Bergenstal has reported participating in clinical research, being an advisory board member, and/or serving as a consultant for Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia, CeQure, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Hygieia, Senseonics, and United Healthcare. De Bock has reported receiving honoraria or expenses from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, and Lilly, and research funds from Novo Nordisk and Medtronic.



This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available 670G hybrid closed-loop, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest.

Automated insulin delivery systems are comprised of an insulin pump, continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an automated insulin dosing algorithm.

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented June 12 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. The AHCL is the algorithm used in Medtronic’s new MiniMed 780G system, which received a CE Mark on June 11 for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in people aged 7 to 80 years.

One trial, presented by Bruce W. Bode, MD, of Atlanta Diabetes Associates, Georgia, was the US pivotal safety study that will be submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for approval of the Medtronic 780G.

Another trial, presented by Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, was a separate comparison of the AHCL with the 670G. (The AHCL-based system used in the three trials was identical to the 780G except it didn’t include Bluetooth, which will be a feature of the final product.)

A third trial, presented by Martin de Bock, PhD, of the University of Otago, New Zealand, included the CE Mark dataset for the 780G.

In contrast to the 670G, the 780G adds automated correction boluses for high blood glucose levels (rather than simply adjusting the basal infusion) and allows for adjustment of target glucose levels down to 100 mg/dL rather than a minimum of 120 mg/dL.

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction. And specifically compared to the 670G, the AHCL-based system reverts to open-loop far less often because it only exits closed-loop mode when the sensor stops working or during sensor changes, but not during hyperglycemia even above 300 mg/dL.

Asked to comment, session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, president and CEO of the AMCR Institute, Escondido, California, told Medscape Medical News: “Automated insulin delivery systems are getting better and better.”

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They all take people from where they are now to better time-in-range, less time with hypoglycemia, and most important, they might make the quality of their lives better. That’s really underappreciated.”

One factor that has allowed for the improvements, Bailey said, is the recognition by regulatory bodies that the hybrid closed-loop devices are generally safer than current open-loop type 1 diabetes management so that fewer “safety” device features that interfere with tight glycemic control are necessary.

With first-generation closed-loop systems, “If a wide variety of conditions occur, users get kicked off [hybrid closed-loop mode]. Originally it was perceived by the regulatory agencies as a safety feature because they perceived the standard of care as safe. The new system was allowed to have fewer rules.”
 

Pivotal trial: Time-in-range improved, 96% say system easy to use

The goal of the AHCL system is to maximize the time-in-range of blood glucose between 70-180 mg/dL. Automated basal delivery of insulin is programmed to a set-point of 100 or 120 mg/dL, with dosing every 5 minutes.

The US pivotal trial was a single-arm, 16-center, in-home trial of 157 people with type 1 diabetes, including 39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged 22-75 years. All had type 1 diabetes for at least 2 years, A_1c levels below 10%, and had been using insulin pumps for at least 6 months, with or without CGMs.

After a 14-day run-in, they wore the systems with a 100 or 120 mg/dL set-point for 45 days, then switched to the other setpoint for another 45 days. Average A1c dropped from 7.5% to 7.0%, with the proportions having an A1c ≤ 7.0% increasing from 34% to 61%.

Overall time-in-range was 75% compared to 69% at baseline, with time below range (< 70 mg/dL) of 1.8%. Overnight time-in-range was 82%, with 1.5% below range. Time-in-range increased from 62% to 73% in the adolescents and from 71% to 75% in the adults.

There were no incidences of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis, and no device-related serious adverse events.

Participants reported being in hybrid closed-loop, or auto-mode, 95% of the time, compared with 33% for those who had been previously using the 670G.

The number of AHCL exits was 1.3 per week, significantly less than with the 670G. Of those, 29% were user-initiated while the rest were implemented by the device, most often when the sensor wasn’t working.

In a study questionnaire, 96% reported that the system was easy to use.
 

AHCL vs 670G: Major improvements seen

Bergenstal presented data from the Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation (FLAIR) study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease, comparing Medtronic’s AHCL-based system with the currently marketed 670G hybrid closed-loop, in 113 individuals with type 1 diabetes aged 14-29 years.

“This age group has traditionally been the most difficult group in which to optimize glucose management,” Bergenstal said.

FLAIR is believed to be the first-ever study comparing an investigational automated insulin delivery system with a commercially approved system, he noted. All participants used each automated insulin delivery system for 3 months in the randomized crossover trial.

The primary outcome, time spent above 180 mg/dL during the day combined with time below 54 mg/dL over 24 hours at baseline with the 670G and AHCL went from 42% to 37% to 34%, respectively, for the former and from 0.46% to 0.50% to 0.45%, respectively, for the latter.

The percentage time-in-range over 24 hours went from 57% at baseline to 67% with the AHCL versus 63% with the 670G. A1c levels dropped from 7.9% at baseline to 7.6% with the 670G and 7.4% with AHCL.

“Remember, these are the adolescents who are the toughest of the tough, yet there was a 10% increase in time-in-range ... this is very clinically significant,” Bergenstal said.

Even among 14 patients who had been using multiple daily injections without CGM prior to the study, a group often excluded from closed-loop studies, time-in-range improved from 45% at baseline to 63% with the 670G to 65% with AHCL.

“I’m making a plea not to exclude people just because they haven’t previously used technology,” Bergenstal said.

One patient who had dosed with extra insulin manually had a severe hypoglycemia event with AHCL. No patient had diabetic ketoacidosis.

The proportion of insulin given as auto-correction boluses was 36%, which is important as it means that the system was compensating for missed meal doses, a common phenomenon among teenagers, Bergenstal noted.

“There is still room for further improvement in glycemic control in this population of patients with type 1 diabetes, but AHCL represents a significant step forward,” he concluded.
 

New Zealand study: More data in youth show AHCL benefits

Unlike the US study populations of just teens aged 14 and older, and adults, the study data used for approval in the EU — from New Zealand — included a total of 60 patients with 20 children aged 7-15 years. It, too, was a 10-week randomized crossover clinical trial comparing the AHCL to a sensor-augmented pump system with an algorithm only for predictive low-glucose management (PLGM) and no adjustments for high blood glucose.

Time-in-range was 59% at baseline and 58% with PLGM, compared to 70.4% with AHCL, and most of the time-in-range improvement occurred at night. Time below 70 mg/dL dropped from 3.1% to 2.5% to 2.1%, respectively.

Similar to the US studies, participants spent 96% of the time in closed-loop mode with only 1.2 exits per week. On a questionnaire, 95% of patients agreed that the system was easy to use and 85% that the system improved their quality of life.

De Bock showed a slide with some quotes, including one from a parent saying, “We didn’t have to be fearful at night or have that thought when we opened her bedroom door in the morning that she might not be conscious,” and from a patient, “I forgot I had diabetes today.”

Bailey commented: “Of course these devices are not free. So, the challenge is how do we make them available, less expensive, and easy to use? We have our work cut out for us, but this is heartening data. Everything has gotten better but we’re not out of a job yet.”

Bailey has reported receiving research support from Abbott, Capillary Biomedical, Dexcom, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Kowa, Lexicon, Medtronic, Medtrum, Novo Nordisk, REMD, Sanofi, Senseonics, ViaCyte, vTv Therapeutics, Zealand Pharma, and consulting or speaking honoraria from Abbott, LifeScan, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Medtronic. Bode has reported receiving consulting and speaker fees from Medtronic. Bergenstal has reported participating in clinical research, being an advisory board member, and/or serving as a consultant for Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia, CeQure, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Hygieia, Senseonics, and United Healthcare. De Bock has reported receiving honoraria or expenses from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, and Lilly, and research funds from Novo Nordisk and Medtronic.



This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available 670G hybrid closed-loop, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest.

Automated insulin delivery systems are comprised of an insulin pump, continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an automated insulin dosing algorithm.

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented June 12 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. The AHCL is the algorithm used in Medtronic’s new MiniMed 780G system, which received a CE Mark on June 11 for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in people aged 7 to 80 years.

One trial, presented by Bruce W. Bode, MD, of Atlanta Diabetes Associates, Georgia, was the US pivotal safety study that will be submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for approval of the Medtronic 780G.

Another trial, presented by Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, was a separate comparison of the AHCL with the 670G. (The AHCL-based system used in the three trials was identical to the 780G except it didn’t include Bluetooth, which will be a feature of the final product.)

A third trial, presented by Martin de Bock, PhD, of the University of Otago, New Zealand, included the CE Mark dataset for the 780G.

In contrast to the 670G, the 780G adds automated correction boluses for high blood glucose levels (rather than simply adjusting the basal infusion) and allows for adjustment of target glucose levels down to 100 mg/dL rather than a minimum of 120 mg/dL.

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction. And specifically compared to the 670G, the AHCL-based system reverts to open-loop far less often because it only exits closed-loop mode when the sensor stops working or during sensor changes, but not during hyperglycemia even above 300 mg/dL.

Asked to comment, session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, president and CEO of the AMCR Institute, Escondido, California, told Medscape Medical News: “Automated insulin delivery systems are getting better and better.”

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They all take people from where they are now to better time-in-range, less time with hypoglycemia, and most important, they might make the quality of their lives better. That’s really underappreciated.”

One factor that has allowed for the improvements, Bailey said, is the recognition by regulatory bodies that the hybrid closed-loop devices are generally safer than current open-loop type 1 diabetes management so that fewer “safety” device features that interfere with tight glycemic control are necessary.

With first-generation closed-loop systems, “If a wide variety of conditions occur, users get kicked off [hybrid closed-loop mode]. Originally it was perceived by the regulatory agencies as a safety feature because they perceived the standard of care as safe. The new system was allowed to have fewer rules.”
 

Pivotal trial: Time-in-range improved, 96% say system easy to use

The goal of the AHCL system is to maximize the time-in-range of blood glucose between 70-180 mg/dL. Automated basal delivery of insulin is programmed to a set-point of 100 or 120 mg/dL, with dosing every 5 minutes.

The US pivotal trial was a single-arm, 16-center, in-home trial of 157 people with type 1 diabetes, including 39 adolescents aged 14-21 years and 118 adults aged 22-75 years. All had type 1 diabetes for at least 2 years, A_1c levels below 10%, and had been using insulin pumps for at least 6 months, with or without CGMs.

After a 14-day run-in, they wore the systems with a 100 or 120 mg/dL set-point for 45 days, then switched to the other setpoint for another 45 days. Average A1c dropped from 7.5% to 7.0%, with the proportions having an A1c ≤ 7.0% increasing from 34% to 61%.

Overall time-in-range was 75% compared to 69% at baseline, with time below range (< 70 mg/dL) of 1.8%. Overnight time-in-range was 82%, with 1.5% below range. Time-in-range increased from 62% to 73% in the adolescents and from 71% to 75% in the adults.

There were no incidences of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis, and no device-related serious adverse events.

Participants reported being in hybrid closed-loop, or auto-mode, 95% of the time, compared with 33% for those who had been previously using the 670G.

The number of AHCL exits was 1.3 per week, significantly less than with the 670G. Of those, 29% were user-initiated while the rest were implemented by the device, most often when the sensor wasn’t working.

In a study questionnaire, 96% reported that the system was easy to use.
 

AHCL vs 670G: Major improvements seen

Bergenstal presented data from the Fuzzy Logic Automated Insulin Regulation (FLAIR) study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease, comparing Medtronic’s AHCL-based system with the currently marketed 670G hybrid closed-loop, in 113 individuals with type 1 diabetes aged 14-29 years.

“This age group has traditionally been the most difficult group in which to optimize glucose management,” Bergenstal said.

FLAIR is believed to be the first-ever study comparing an investigational automated insulin delivery system with a commercially approved system, he noted. All participants used each automated insulin delivery system for 3 months in the randomized crossover trial.

The primary outcome, time spent above 180 mg/dL during the day combined with time below 54 mg/dL over 24 hours at baseline with the 670G and AHCL went from 42% to 37% to 34%, respectively, for the former and from 0.46% to 0.50% to 0.45%, respectively, for the latter.

The percentage time-in-range over 24 hours went from 57% at baseline to 67% with the AHCL versus 63% with the 670G. A1c levels dropped from 7.9% at baseline to 7.6% with the 670G and 7.4% with AHCL.

“Remember, these are the adolescents who are the toughest of the tough, yet there was a 10% increase in time-in-range ... this is very clinically significant,” Bergenstal said.

Even among 14 patients who had been using multiple daily injections without CGM prior to the study, a group often excluded from closed-loop studies, time-in-range improved from 45% at baseline to 63% with the 670G to 65% with AHCL.

“I’m making a plea not to exclude people just because they haven’t previously used technology,” Bergenstal said.

One patient who had dosed with extra insulin manually had a severe hypoglycemia event with AHCL. No patient had diabetic ketoacidosis.

The proportion of insulin given as auto-correction boluses was 36%, which is important as it means that the system was compensating for missed meal doses, a common phenomenon among teenagers, Bergenstal noted.

“There is still room for further improvement in glycemic control in this population of patients with type 1 diabetes, but AHCL represents a significant step forward,” he concluded.
 

New Zealand study: More data in youth show AHCL benefits

Unlike the US study populations of just teens aged 14 and older, and adults, the study data used for approval in the EU — from New Zealand — included a total of 60 patients with 20 children aged 7-15 years. It, too, was a 10-week randomized crossover clinical trial comparing the AHCL to a sensor-augmented pump system with an algorithm only for predictive low-glucose management (PLGM) and no adjustments for high blood glucose.

Time-in-range was 59% at baseline and 58% with PLGM, compared to 70.4% with AHCL, and most of the time-in-range improvement occurred at night. Time below 70 mg/dL dropped from 3.1% to 2.5% to 2.1%, respectively.

Similar to the US studies, participants spent 96% of the time in closed-loop mode with only 1.2 exits per week. On a questionnaire, 95% of patients agreed that the system was easy to use and 85% that the system improved their quality of life.

De Bock showed a slide with some quotes, including one from a parent saying, “We didn’t have to be fearful at night or have that thought when we opened her bedroom door in the morning that she might not be conscious,” and from a patient, “I forgot I had diabetes today.”

Bailey commented: “Of course these devices are not free. So, the challenge is how do we make them available, less expensive, and easy to use? We have our work cut out for us, but this is heartening data. Everything has gotten better but we’re not out of a job yet.”

Bailey has reported receiving research support from Abbott, Capillary Biomedical, Dexcom, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Kowa, Lexicon, Medtronic, Medtrum, Novo Nordisk, REMD, Sanofi, Senseonics, ViaCyte, vTv Therapeutics, Zealand Pharma, and consulting or speaking honoraria from Abbott, LifeScan, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Medtronic. Bode has reported receiving consulting and speaker fees from Medtronic. Bergenstal has reported participating in clinical research, being an advisory board member, and/or serving as a consultant for Abbott Diabetes Care, Ascensia, CeQure, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Hygieia, Senseonics, and United Healthcare. De Bock has reported receiving honoraria or expenses from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, and Lilly, and research funds from Novo Nordisk and Medtronic.



This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing [email protected].

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing [email protected].

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing [email protected].

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Diabetes Association’s 80th Scientific Sessions will forge ahead virtually this year in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, with nearly all of its originally scheduled content to be presented online.

The meeting will take place online June 12-16, the same days it was slated to occur in Chicago and at the same times. All presentations were recorded in advance, but participants will be able to ask real-time questions during some sessions. Registered attendees – who paid a reduced fee – will have access to the online content for 90 days afterward.

ADA announced the shift in plans on April 3, after Chicago’s McCormick Place convention center became unavailable due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While some major medical meetings had to be canceled entirely or trimmed down online, “This is one of the international meetings that has had more time to really get ready to plan such a virtual session,” association co-president Robert H. Eckel, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

This year’s program features fewer blockbuster randomized clinical trials than in years past.

But it does offer a huge amount of clinical research focused on both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, children with diabetes, gestational diabetes, and much more. Also included are deep dives into optimal clinical translation of findings from previous cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

Noteworthy sessions include four new automated insulin delivery system trials on Friday, new diabetes-specific data from the DAPA-HF trial on Saturday, and a debate on Sunday about the future of metformin as first-line therapy for people with established heart disease or at high risk.

And on Tuesday morning, full results from the CVOT VERTIS-CV, with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor ertugliflozin (Steglatro, Merck), will be reported.

Also presented on Tuesday will be the first cardiovascular and cancer outcomes from the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS).

The online content will cover roughly 90% of what was originally scheduled, meeting planning committee chair Jose C. Florez, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

There is no session officially addressing COVID-19, he said, because the topics were already finalized by February, but “I’m sure it will be discussed in informal exchanges ... the data are just coming out,” he said.

Florez also called attention to two symposia addressing the other major topic dominating today’s news: racial disparities. One on Friday will address that topic with regard to maternal/fetal health, and another on Monday will cover disparities in diabetes care generally.

“Both because of COVID-19 and how it has affected people with diabetes, and within that, disadvantaged people, more aggressively, and in the current context of how racism is coming to the surface, these two sessions will become very, very pertinent,” he said.
 

Putting the Treatment Pieces Together in Type 2 Diabetes

The Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (VERTIS-CV) session will include the major cardiovascular, metabolic, renal, and safety outcomes for that drug, along with a meta-analysis of outcomes from trials of several different SGLT2 inhibitors.

All eyes will be on the VERTIS-CV presentation because ertugliflozin broke ranks with the other drugs in this class and failed to produce statistically significant drops in the relevant endpoints, as detailed in top-line data issued by the company in April.

And the provocatively titled session, “DAPA-HF Update: Have We Lost SGLT2 inhibitors to Cardiologists?!” will include a review of the trial’s main findings presented at the European Society of Cardiology meeting in September 2019, and published a few weeks later in the New England Journal of Medicine, along with new data on patient-centered and metabolic outcomes, and diabetes prevention. An independent commentator will presumably address the session title’s question.

Eckel, who has been working to establish a new cardiometabolic medicine subspecialty, commented: “I think we have not lost it, but I think SGLT2 inhibitors are a perfect example of why we need physicians trained in this overlap of diabetes medicine and cardiology.”

And, he said, we may be coming to the end of the CVOTs trial phenomenon.

“I think unless there’s a whole new class of drugs developed, we may be done with CVOTs for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. We’ve learned a lot, and I’m not sure we need more other than mechanistic studies ... I don’t think we really know yet how SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists work,” Eckel said.

Metformin, on the other hand, has not been subject to a CVOT because it has been available as a generic since long before the US Food and Drug Administration mandated the CVOTs for new drugs for type 2 diabetes in 2008.

Such a trial is unlikely to be conducted at this point, but the new DPPOS data might actually come close, Florez noted.

The DPPOS is the observational follow-up of the landmark randomized DPP trial, which found that intensive lifestyle intervention and metformin reduced progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes.

Numerous additional outcomes have been reported over the years, but this will be the first-ever reporting of DPPOS data on both hard cardiovascular events and cancer incidence in people who have been continuously taking metformin for more than 20 years.

“There’s a lot of interest in whether metformin has an effect on cardiovascular events and cancer ... I think that’s going to be a very interesting session,” Florez said, noting that “short of a randomized clinical trial, which it’s hard to imagine would come to be, this is really, really good.”

Also examining metformin will be a debate on Sunday, “Should Metformin Be Considered First-Line Therapy for Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes With Established Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) or at High Risk for ASCVD?”

And on Saturday, a debate will address another old-guard diabetes drug class, asking: “Is There a Current Place for Sulfonylureas in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes?”

Overall, Florez said, meeting attendees will come away with “a more clear understanding of the placement of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in the type 2 diabetes treatment algorithm.”

“What are the settings in which these [newer] drugs ought to be used, compared to the old-timers like metformin and sulfonylureas? One thing is having the trials, but the other is figuring out how you interpret these in deciding what happens at the point of care.”

Two more future-looking type 2 diabetes symposia of potential interest to clinicians are “Unraveling the Heterogeneity in Type 2 Diabetes” on Sunday and “Perspectives on the Future of Precision Diabetes Medicine — A Joint ADA/EASD Symposium” on Monday.
 

Type 1 Diabetes, Technology, and Kids

A symposium on Friday will feature four new clinical trials of automated insulin delivery systems for people with type 1 diabetes, the “US Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) Pivotal Safety Study, FLAIR — An NIDDK-Sponsored International, Multi-site Randomized Crossover Trial of AHCL vs 670G,” the New Zealand AHCL randomized crossover trial, and the Horizon Automated Glucose Control System pre-pivotal trial data.

“Closed-loop devices are getting a lot of traction ... These trials will continue to advance the notion that these devices will narrow the glycemic range, prevent hypoglycemia, and improve quality of life because people don’t have to pay as much attention mentally to the management of the diabetes,” Florez said.

He added that although these trials “have been in the works for a while and they’re not big surprises, they continue to build a body of evidence suggesting that these devices will be part of our armamentarium in the very near future.”

And on Saturday, a debate will address the somewhat controversial question of whether continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes is worth the cost.

There will also be plenty of pediatric diabetes material presented this year, too.

On Sunday, there will be new insights from the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) study, which examines prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in youth, and on Monday, 20-year data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study will be reported.

And on Monday, the most recent findings from The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study of environmental triggers of type 1 diabetes will be presented.
 

All-Virtual Meeting: Pros and Cons

The all-virtual meeting format will have pluses and minuses, Eckel predicts.

Advantages include the fact that attendees don’t have to physically run from room to room or make difficult decisions about conflicting sessions.

“The fact that this meeting will be taking place in reality in terms of the timing of sessions, one can transition from one room to another in a matter of seconds if you want to,” he noted.

However, he observed, “a lot of interesting things happen in the hallways at meetings. Colleagues from around the world get together and knock heads about their ongoing research and potential collaborations can be formulated.

“Opportunities to engage with one another beyond the formality of the meeting is going to be lost to some extent.”

What’s more, the sessions will all be in Central US (Chicago) time, “So if you live in Thailand, the session may be occurring at a time when you’re in bed. If you want to see it live, then you’ve got to get up. Then you can ask a question.”

On the other hand, since all the content will be available online for 90 days, “if you want to stay in bed and you live in Thailand, you can get up a week from now during the day and log into a session you may have missed.”

Indeed, Florez said, “One silver lining of this virtual conference is that we’ve lowered the barriers for people to attend. It’s much more global. We’ve had an amazing influx of new registrants who were not planning on coming and were not registered for the original meeting and have registered since [more than 10,000 at the time of writing], and they continue to pile in.”

“We plan to reach people we haven’t reached before. The big question for ADA moving forward will be how much this can become a permanent feature, where even if we do it in person in the future, maybe we offer at least some virtual options so that our reach can go farther.”

Eckel has reported sitting on the scientific advisory board for a Kowa Company trial of pemafibrate and on an advisory board for Novo Nordisk. Florez has reported being a speaker for Novo Nordisk and receiving an honorarium from ADA for chairing the conference planning committee.
 

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Diabetes Association’s 80th Scientific Sessions will forge ahead virtually this year in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, with nearly all of its originally scheduled content to be presented online.

The meeting will take place online June 12-16, the same days it was slated to occur in Chicago and at the same times. All presentations were recorded in advance, but participants will be able to ask real-time questions during some sessions. Registered attendees – who paid a reduced fee – will have access to the online content for 90 days afterward.

ADA announced the shift in plans on April 3, after Chicago’s McCormick Place convention center became unavailable due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While some major medical meetings had to be canceled entirely or trimmed down online, “This is one of the international meetings that has had more time to really get ready to plan such a virtual session,” association co-president Robert H. Eckel, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

This year’s program features fewer blockbuster randomized clinical trials than in years past.

But it does offer a huge amount of clinical research focused on both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, children with diabetes, gestational diabetes, and much more. Also included are deep dives into optimal clinical translation of findings from previous cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

Noteworthy sessions include four new automated insulin delivery system trials on Friday, new diabetes-specific data from the DAPA-HF trial on Saturday, and a debate on Sunday about the future of metformin as first-line therapy for people with established heart disease or at high risk.

And on Tuesday morning, full results from the CVOT VERTIS-CV, with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor ertugliflozin (Steglatro, Merck), will be reported.

Also presented on Tuesday will be the first cardiovascular and cancer outcomes from the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS).

The online content will cover roughly 90% of what was originally scheduled, meeting planning committee chair Jose C. Florez, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

There is no session officially addressing COVID-19, he said, because the topics were already finalized by February, but “I’m sure it will be discussed in informal exchanges ... the data are just coming out,” he said.

Florez also called attention to two symposia addressing the other major topic dominating today’s news: racial disparities. One on Friday will address that topic with regard to maternal/fetal health, and another on Monday will cover disparities in diabetes care generally.

“Both because of COVID-19 and how it has affected people with diabetes, and within that, disadvantaged people, more aggressively, and in the current context of how racism is coming to the surface, these two sessions will become very, very pertinent,” he said.
 

Putting the Treatment Pieces Together in Type 2 Diabetes

The Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (VERTIS-CV) session will include the major cardiovascular, metabolic, renal, and safety outcomes for that drug, along with a meta-analysis of outcomes from trials of several different SGLT2 inhibitors.

All eyes will be on the VERTIS-CV presentation because ertugliflozin broke ranks with the other drugs in this class and failed to produce statistically significant drops in the relevant endpoints, as detailed in top-line data issued by the company in April.

And the provocatively titled session, “DAPA-HF Update: Have We Lost SGLT2 inhibitors to Cardiologists?!” will include a review of the trial’s main findings presented at the European Society of Cardiology meeting in September 2019, and published a few weeks later in the New England Journal of Medicine, along with new data on patient-centered and metabolic outcomes, and diabetes prevention. An independent commentator will presumably address the session title’s question.

Eckel, who has been working to establish a new cardiometabolic medicine subspecialty, commented: “I think we have not lost it, but I think SGLT2 inhibitors are a perfect example of why we need physicians trained in this overlap of diabetes medicine and cardiology.”

And, he said, we may be coming to the end of the CVOTs trial phenomenon.

“I think unless there’s a whole new class of drugs developed, we may be done with CVOTs for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. We’ve learned a lot, and I’m not sure we need more other than mechanistic studies ... I don’t think we really know yet how SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists work,” Eckel said.

Metformin, on the other hand, has not been subject to a CVOT because it has been available as a generic since long before the US Food and Drug Administration mandated the CVOTs for new drugs for type 2 diabetes in 2008.

Such a trial is unlikely to be conducted at this point, but the new DPPOS data might actually come close, Florez noted.

The DPPOS is the observational follow-up of the landmark randomized DPP trial, which found that intensive lifestyle intervention and metformin reduced progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes.

Numerous additional outcomes have been reported over the years, but this will be the first-ever reporting of DPPOS data on both hard cardiovascular events and cancer incidence in people who have been continuously taking metformin for more than 20 years.

“There’s a lot of interest in whether metformin has an effect on cardiovascular events and cancer ... I think that’s going to be a very interesting session,” Florez said, noting that “short of a randomized clinical trial, which it’s hard to imagine would come to be, this is really, really good.”

Also examining metformin will be a debate on Sunday, “Should Metformin Be Considered First-Line Therapy for Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes With Established Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) or at High Risk for ASCVD?”

And on Saturday, a debate will address another old-guard diabetes drug class, asking: “Is There a Current Place for Sulfonylureas in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes?”

Overall, Florez said, meeting attendees will come away with “a more clear understanding of the placement of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in the type 2 diabetes treatment algorithm.”

“What are the settings in which these [newer] drugs ought to be used, compared to the old-timers like metformin and sulfonylureas? One thing is having the trials, but the other is figuring out how you interpret these in deciding what happens at the point of care.”

Two more future-looking type 2 diabetes symposia of potential interest to clinicians are “Unraveling the Heterogeneity in Type 2 Diabetes” on Sunday and “Perspectives on the Future of Precision Diabetes Medicine — A Joint ADA/EASD Symposium” on Monday.
 

Type 1 Diabetes, Technology, and Kids

A symposium on Friday will feature four new clinical trials of automated insulin delivery systems for people with type 1 diabetes, the “US Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) Pivotal Safety Study, FLAIR — An NIDDK-Sponsored International, Multi-site Randomized Crossover Trial of AHCL vs 670G,” the New Zealand AHCL randomized crossover trial, and the Horizon Automated Glucose Control System pre-pivotal trial data.

“Closed-loop devices are getting a lot of traction ... These trials will continue to advance the notion that these devices will narrow the glycemic range, prevent hypoglycemia, and improve quality of life because people don’t have to pay as much attention mentally to the management of the diabetes,” Florez said.

He added that although these trials “have been in the works for a while and they’re not big surprises, they continue to build a body of evidence suggesting that these devices will be part of our armamentarium in the very near future.”

And on Saturday, a debate will address the somewhat controversial question of whether continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes is worth the cost.

There will also be plenty of pediatric diabetes material presented this year, too.

On Sunday, there will be new insights from the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) study, which examines prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in youth, and on Monday, 20-year data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study will be reported.

And on Monday, the most recent findings from The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study of environmental triggers of type 1 diabetes will be presented.
 

All-Virtual Meeting: Pros and Cons

The all-virtual meeting format will have pluses and minuses, Eckel predicts.

Advantages include the fact that attendees don’t have to physically run from room to room or make difficult decisions about conflicting sessions.

“The fact that this meeting will be taking place in reality in terms of the timing of sessions, one can transition from one room to another in a matter of seconds if you want to,” he noted.

However, he observed, “a lot of interesting things happen in the hallways at meetings. Colleagues from around the world get together and knock heads about their ongoing research and potential collaborations can be formulated.

“Opportunities to engage with one another beyond the formality of the meeting is going to be lost to some extent.”

What’s more, the sessions will all be in Central US (Chicago) time, “So if you live in Thailand, the session may be occurring at a time when you’re in bed. If you want to see it live, then you’ve got to get up. Then you can ask a question.”

On the other hand, since all the content will be available online for 90 days, “if you want to stay in bed and you live in Thailand, you can get up a week from now during the day and log into a session you may have missed.”

Indeed, Florez said, “One silver lining of this virtual conference is that we’ve lowered the barriers for people to attend. It’s much more global. We’ve had an amazing influx of new registrants who were not planning on coming and were not registered for the original meeting and have registered since [more than 10,000 at the time of writing], and they continue to pile in.”

“We plan to reach people we haven’t reached before. The big question for ADA moving forward will be how much this can become a permanent feature, where even if we do it in person in the future, maybe we offer at least some virtual options so that our reach can go farther.”

Eckel has reported sitting on the scientific advisory board for a Kowa Company trial of pemafibrate and on an advisory board for Novo Nordisk. Florez has reported being a speaker for Novo Nordisk and receiving an honorarium from ADA for chairing the conference planning committee.
 

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Diabetes Association’s 80th Scientific Sessions will forge ahead virtually this year in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, with nearly all of its originally scheduled content to be presented online.

The meeting will take place online June 12-16, the same days it was slated to occur in Chicago and at the same times. All presentations were recorded in advance, but participants will be able to ask real-time questions during some sessions. Registered attendees – who paid a reduced fee – will have access to the online content for 90 days afterward.

ADA announced the shift in plans on April 3, after Chicago’s McCormick Place convention center became unavailable due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While some major medical meetings had to be canceled entirely or trimmed down online, “This is one of the international meetings that has had more time to really get ready to plan such a virtual session,” association co-president Robert H. Eckel, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

This year’s program features fewer blockbuster randomized clinical trials than in years past.

But it does offer a huge amount of clinical research focused on both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, children with diabetes, gestational diabetes, and much more. Also included are deep dives into optimal clinical translation of findings from previous cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

Noteworthy sessions include four new automated insulin delivery system trials on Friday, new diabetes-specific data from the DAPA-HF trial on Saturday, and a debate on Sunday about the future of metformin as first-line therapy for people with established heart disease or at high risk.

And on Tuesday morning, full results from the CVOT VERTIS-CV, with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor ertugliflozin (Steglatro, Merck), will be reported.

Also presented on Tuesday will be the first cardiovascular and cancer outcomes from the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS).

The online content will cover roughly 90% of what was originally scheduled, meeting planning committee chair Jose C. Florez, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

There is no session officially addressing COVID-19, he said, because the topics were already finalized by February, but “I’m sure it will be discussed in informal exchanges ... the data are just coming out,” he said.

Florez also called attention to two symposia addressing the other major topic dominating today’s news: racial disparities. One on Friday will address that topic with regard to maternal/fetal health, and another on Monday will cover disparities in diabetes care generally.

“Both because of COVID-19 and how it has affected people with diabetes, and within that, disadvantaged people, more aggressively, and in the current context of how racism is coming to the surface, these two sessions will become very, very pertinent,” he said.
 

Putting the Treatment Pieces Together in Type 2 Diabetes

The Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (VERTIS-CV) session will include the major cardiovascular, metabolic, renal, and safety outcomes for that drug, along with a meta-analysis of outcomes from trials of several different SGLT2 inhibitors.

All eyes will be on the VERTIS-CV presentation because ertugliflozin broke ranks with the other drugs in this class and failed to produce statistically significant drops in the relevant endpoints, as detailed in top-line data issued by the company in April.

And the provocatively titled session, “DAPA-HF Update: Have We Lost SGLT2 inhibitors to Cardiologists?!” will include a review of the trial’s main findings presented at the European Society of Cardiology meeting in September 2019, and published a few weeks later in the New England Journal of Medicine, along with new data on patient-centered and metabolic outcomes, and diabetes prevention. An independent commentator will presumably address the session title’s question.

Eckel, who has been working to establish a new cardiometabolic medicine subspecialty, commented: “I think we have not lost it, but I think SGLT2 inhibitors are a perfect example of why we need physicians trained in this overlap of diabetes medicine and cardiology.”

And, he said, we may be coming to the end of the CVOTs trial phenomenon.

“I think unless there’s a whole new class of drugs developed, we may be done with CVOTs for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. We’ve learned a lot, and I’m not sure we need more other than mechanistic studies ... I don’t think we really know yet how SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists work,” Eckel said.

Metformin, on the other hand, has not been subject to a CVOT because it has been available as a generic since long before the US Food and Drug Administration mandated the CVOTs for new drugs for type 2 diabetes in 2008.

Such a trial is unlikely to be conducted at this point, but the new DPPOS data might actually come close, Florez noted.

The DPPOS is the observational follow-up of the landmark randomized DPP trial, which found that intensive lifestyle intervention and metformin reduced progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes.

Numerous additional outcomes have been reported over the years, but this will be the first-ever reporting of DPPOS data on both hard cardiovascular events and cancer incidence in people who have been continuously taking metformin for more than 20 years.

“There’s a lot of interest in whether metformin has an effect on cardiovascular events and cancer ... I think that’s going to be a very interesting session,” Florez said, noting that “short of a randomized clinical trial, which it’s hard to imagine would come to be, this is really, really good.”

Also examining metformin will be a debate on Sunday, “Should Metformin Be Considered First-Line Therapy for Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes With Established Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) or at High Risk for ASCVD?”

And on Saturday, a debate will address another old-guard diabetes drug class, asking: “Is There a Current Place for Sulfonylureas in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes?”

Overall, Florez said, meeting attendees will come away with “a more clear understanding of the placement of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in the type 2 diabetes treatment algorithm.”

“What are the settings in which these [newer] drugs ought to be used, compared to the old-timers like metformin and sulfonylureas? One thing is having the trials, but the other is figuring out how you interpret these in deciding what happens at the point of care.”

Two more future-looking type 2 diabetes symposia of potential interest to clinicians are “Unraveling the Heterogeneity in Type 2 Diabetes” on Sunday and “Perspectives on the Future of Precision Diabetes Medicine — A Joint ADA/EASD Symposium” on Monday.
 

Type 1 Diabetes, Technology, and Kids

A symposium on Friday will feature four new clinical trials of automated insulin delivery systems for people with type 1 diabetes, the “US Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) Pivotal Safety Study, FLAIR — An NIDDK-Sponsored International, Multi-site Randomized Crossover Trial of AHCL vs 670G,” the New Zealand AHCL randomized crossover trial, and the Horizon Automated Glucose Control System pre-pivotal trial data.

“Closed-loop devices are getting a lot of traction ... These trials will continue to advance the notion that these devices will narrow the glycemic range, prevent hypoglycemia, and improve quality of life because people don’t have to pay as much attention mentally to the management of the diabetes,” Florez said.

He added that although these trials “have been in the works for a while and they’re not big surprises, they continue to build a body of evidence suggesting that these devices will be part of our armamentarium in the very near future.”

And on Saturday, a debate will address the somewhat controversial question of whether continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes is worth the cost.

There will also be plenty of pediatric diabetes material presented this year, too.

On Sunday, there will be new insights from the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) study, which examines prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in youth, and on Monday, 20-year data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study will be reported.

And on Monday, the most recent findings from The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study of environmental triggers of type 1 diabetes will be presented.
 

All-Virtual Meeting: Pros and Cons

The all-virtual meeting format will have pluses and minuses, Eckel predicts.

Advantages include the fact that attendees don’t have to physically run from room to room or make difficult decisions about conflicting sessions.

“The fact that this meeting will be taking place in reality in terms of the timing of sessions, one can transition from one room to another in a matter of seconds if you want to,” he noted.

However, he observed, “a lot of interesting things happen in the hallways at meetings. Colleagues from around the world get together and knock heads about their ongoing research and potential collaborations can be formulated.

“Opportunities to engage with one another beyond the formality of the meeting is going to be lost to some extent.”

What’s more, the sessions will all be in Central US (Chicago) time, “So if you live in Thailand, the session may be occurring at a time when you’re in bed. If you want to see it live, then you’ve got to get up. Then you can ask a question.”

On the other hand, since all the content will be available online for 90 days, “if you want to stay in bed and you live in Thailand, you can get up a week from now during the day and log into a session you may have missed.”

Indeed, Florez said, “One silver lining of this virtual conference is that we’ve lowered the barriers for people to attend. It’s much more global. We’ve had an amazing influx of new registrants who were not planning on coming and were not registered for the original meeting and have registered since [more than 10,000 at the time of writing], and they continue to pile in.”

“We plan to reach people we haven’t reached before. The big question for ADA moving forward will be how much this can become a permanent feature, where even if we do it in person in the future, maybe we offer at least some virtual options so that our reach can go farther.”

Eckel has reported sitting on the scientific advisory board for a Kowa Company trial of pemafibrate and on an advisory board for Novo Nordisk. Florez has reported being a speaker for Novo Nordisk and receiving an honorarium from ADA for chairing the conference planning committee.
 

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.