Perceptions of diabetes control among people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin in Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom

Patient Markers of Successful Diabetes Management

PURPOSE

For individuals with diabetes, diabetes health status may not align with A1C targets. Patients may use nonclinical targets when assessing their diabetes management success. Identifying these targets is important in developing patient-centered management plans. The purpose of this study was to identify patient markers of successful diabetes management among patients in an urban academic health system.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of semistructured interviews was completed with 89 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Participants had a recent diabetes-related emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalization or were primary care patients with an A1C >7.5%. Interviews were conducted to saturation. Demographic data were collected via self-report and electronic medical records. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis. This analysis focused on patient perceptions of successful management coded to "measuring management success."

RESULTS

Although most participants cited A1C or blood glucose as a marker of successful diabetes management, they had varied understanding of these metrics. Most used a combination of targets from the following categories: 1) A1C, blood glucose, and numbers; 2) engagement in medical care; 3) taking medication and medication types; 4) symptoms; 5) diet, exercise, and weight; and 6) stress management and social support.

CONCLUSION

Individuals not meeting glycemic goals and/or with recent diabetes-related ED visits or hospitalizations had varied understanding of A1C and blood glucose targets. They use multiple additional markers of successful management and had a desire for management discussions that incorporate these markers. These measures should be incorporated into their care plans along with clinical targets.

Lixisenatide in type 1 diabetes: A randomised control trial of the effect of lixisenatide on post-meal glucose excursions and glucagon in type 1 diabetes patients

AIMS

The GLP1 agonist lixisenatide is glucagonostatic and reduces post-prandial blood glucose (PPBG) in type 2 diabetes. This study investigates its impact in type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

In a blinded, crossover trial, 25 patients with T1D were randomised to 4 weeks adjunctive treatment with lixisenatide (L) or placebo (P), with a 4-week washout period. The primary outcome was percentage of 3 hours PPBG in target (4-10 mmol/L) assessed by CGM before and after treatment. Participants also underwent post-treatment standardised mixed meal test (MMT, n = 25) and hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemic clamp (n = 15).

RESULTS

PPBG CGM readings in target were similar between L vs P (Mean % ± SE, breakfast 45.4 ± 6.0 vs 44.3 ± 6.0, P = .48, lunch 45.5 ± 5.8 vs 50.6 ± 5.3, P = .27 and dinner 43.0 ± 6.7 vs 47.7 ± 5.6, P = .30). HbA1C was similar between L vs P (64.7 ± 1.6 vs 64.1 ± 1.6 mmol/mol, P = .30). Prandial insulin fell after lixisenatide (dose change -0.7 ± 0.6 vs +2.4 ± 0.7 units/d, P = .004), but basal insulin dose was similar between groups. The post-MMT glucose area under the curve (AUC) was lower with L than P (392.0 ± 167.7 vs 628.1 ± 132.5 mmol/L × min, P < .001), as was the corresponding glucagon AUC (140.0 ± 110.0 vs 304.2 ± 148.2 nmol/L × min, P < .001). Glucagon and counter-regulatory hormone values at a blood glucose of 2.4 mmol/L during the hypoglycaemic clamp were similar between L and P.

CONCLUSION

In T1D, PPBG values were not altered by adjunctive lixisenatide although prandial insulin dose fell. Glucose and glucagon level during an MMT were significantly lower after lixisenatide, without affecting counter-regulatory response during hypoglycaemia.

Reductions in food cravings are similar with low-fat weight loss diets differing in protein and carbohydrate in overweight and obese adults with type 2 diabetes: A randomized clinical trial

Food cravings are common in type 2 diabetes (T2D). Higher-protein diets are effective in improving satiety but their effect on cravings is unclear. It was hypothesized that a high protein (HP) diet would provide greater reductions in cravings than an isocaloric higher-carbohydrate diet (HC). In a randomized controlled trial, 61 adults (54% males) with T2D (means ± SD: BMI 34.3 ± 5.1 kg/m²; aged 55 ± 8 years) consumed either a HP diet (mean across study: 29% protein, 34% carbohydrate, 31% fat) or an isocaloric HC diet (21%:48%:24%) for 12-weeks each of weight loss (WL) and weight maintenance (WM). The Food Craving Inventory (FCI), measuring types of foods craved and the General Food Craving Questionnaires measuring traits (G-FCQ-T) and states (G-FCQ-S) were assessed at Weeks 0, 12 and 24. Weight changes were similar between groups (means ± SEM: WL: -7.8 ± 0.6 kg, WM: -0.6 ± 0.4 kg). No group effects or group x time interactions were found for any outcome (P ≥ .07). Independent of group, all food cravings (except carbohydrates) and G-FCQ-T subscales decreased over the 24-week study (P ≤ .04) with sweets and fast food cravings, loss of control and emotional cravings reducing following WL (P ≤ .03). Obsessive preoccupation with food decreased following both phases (WL: P = .03; WM: P = .001). Weight was associated with several FCI subscales (r ≥ 0.24, P ≤ .04). In conclusion, both the HP and HC diets provided significant reductions in food cravings after similar weight losses which were maintained when weight was stabilized.