Therapeutic inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with non-insulin agents

Trends in diabetes prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control in French-speaking Switzerland

Diabetes is increasing in Switzerland, but whether its management has improved is unknown. We aimed to assess diabetes prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, and control in French-speaking Switzerland. Our study used cross-sectional data for years 2005-2019 from a population-based study in Geneva, Switzerland. Overall prevalence (self-reported diagnosis and/or fasting plasma glucose level ≥ 7 mmol/L), diagnosed, treated (among diagnosed participants) and controlled diabetes (defined as a fasting plasma glucose FPG < 6.7 mmol/L among treated participants) were calculated for periods 2005-9, 2010-4 and 2015-9. Data from 12,348 participants (mean age ± standard deviation: 48.6 ± 13.5 years, 51.7% women) was used. Between 2005-9 and 2015-9, overall prevalence and frequency of diagnosed diabetes decreased (from 8.7 to 6.2% and from 7.0 to 5.2%, respectively). Among participants diagnosed with diabetes, treatment and control rates did not change from 44.1 to 51.9%, p = 0.251 and from 30.2 to 34.0%, p = 0.830, respectively. A trend towards higher treatment of participants with diabetes was found after multivariable adjustment, while no changes were found for overall prevalence, diagnosis, nor control. Among antidiabetic drugs, percentage of combinations increased from 12 to 23%; percentage of sulfonylureas and biguanides decreased from 15 to 6% and from 63 to 54%, respectively, while no trend was found for insulin. After multivariable analysis, women with diabetes were less likely to be treated but more likely to be controlled, the opposite association being found for obesity. In conclusion, in Canton Geneva, antidiabetic combination therapy is gaining importance, but only half of participants diagnosed with diabetes are treated, and glycaemic control remains poor.

Managing weight and glycaemic targets in people with type 2 diabetes—How far have we come?

Introduction

As the vast majority of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are also overweight or obese, healthcare professionals (HCP) are faced with the task of addressing both weight management and glucose control. In this narrative review, we aim to identify the challenges of reaching and maintaining body weight targets in people with T2D and highlight current and future treatment interventions.

Methods

A search of the PubMed database was conducted using the search terms “diabetes” and “weight loss.”

Results

According to emerging evidence, treating obesity may be antecedent to the development and progression of T2D. While clinical benefits typically set in upon achieving a weight loss of 3–5%, these benefits are progressive leading to further health improvements, and weight loss of >15% can have a disease‐modifying effect in people with T2D, an outcome that up to recently could not be achieved with any blood glucose‐lowering pharmacotherapy. However, advanced treatment options with weight‐loss effects currently in development including the dual GIP/GLP‐1 receptor agonists may enable simultaneous achievement of individual glycemic and weight goals.

Conclusion

Despite considerable therapeutic progress, there is still a large unmet medical need in patients with T2D who miss their individualized glycemic and weight‐loss targets. Nonetheless, it is to be expected that development of future therapies and their use will favourably change the scenario of weight and glucose control in T2D.

Continuous glucose monitoring in primary care - are we there?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we examine the expanding role of continuous glucose monitoring in glycaemic management in primary care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Improving technology and decreasing cost have increased the uptake of use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for glycaemic management in primary care, wherein most diabetes is managed. Optimized use of this technology, however, will require a convergence of several factors. Availability of devices for people with diabetes, availability of data at the time of clinical interactions, and expertise in interpretation of CGM and ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) data, as well as optimization of therapies, will be required. Significant progress has been made in all three areas in recent years, yet creating systems of support for widespread use of CGM in primary care remains an area of active investigation.

SUMMARY

There has been significant uptake in the use of CGM in the management of diabetes in primary care. Optimized use, however, requires both access to CGM data and the expertise to use the data. Although promising strategies have emerged, the task of generalizing these strategies to the broad population of primary care in America is ongoing. CGM technology holds significant potential for improving glycaemic management in primary care, yet important work remains to leverage the full potential of this promising technology.

Are There Differences in Gut Microbiome in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated by Metformin or Metformin and Insulin?

INTRODUCTION

Recently, gut microbiota has been described as being involved in the health and diseases of the host, and together with diet and drugs may influence metabolic health. Yet, there is still no answer which type of treatment plays the most important role in the interplay of gut microbiota and type of treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2DM). An attempt was made to answer the question of which factors have the most significant impact on the intestinal microbiome in the context of metformin or metformin+insulin use in treatment of the patients with T2DM. Thus the aim of the study was to compare the gut microbiome profiles of patients with T2DM and two of the most traditional treatment methods.

METHODS

T2DM patients treated by metformin (Met) and metformin+insulin (Met+Ins), with the treatment duration of 5-10 years were enrolled. Biochemically blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), lipids and kidney function were investigated and the quantitative and qualitative examination of the fecal intestinal flora were performed through the next-generation sequencing.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the study of the gut microbiome: the dominant bacterial phyla were Firmicutes and Verrucomicrobia, while Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria shared smaller proportions in both groups. However, the group Met+Ins had worse metabolic control in terms of blood glucose and HbA1c in comparison with the Met group.

CONCLUSION

As there are no differences in gut microbiome in T2DM patients treated with metformin only or metformin plus insulin, adding insulin in the treatment of T2DM may delay late diabetic complications development.