How tightly controlled do fluctuations in blood glucose levels need to be to reduce the risk of developing complications in people with Type 1 diabetes?

6. Glycemic Goals and Hypoglycemia: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Real-World User and Clinician Perspective and Experience with MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop System

INTRODUCTION

The advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) MiniMed™ 780G system changes basal insulin delivery every 5 min and auto bolus in response to sensor glucose values. We assessed the performance of the AHCL system in real-world settings for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) as well as user and clinician perspectives and satisfaction.

METHODS

We held two peer group discussions: one having adults with T1DM/parents of children and adolescents with T1DM to understand their experiences with the AHCL system and another with healthcare providers (HCPs). Responses from the discussions were analyzed and categorized into themes by two independent researchers, with any inconsistencies resolved by consensus. We also analyzed data from the system uploaded to CareLink personal software. Glycemic outcomes, including time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), mean sensor glucose (SG) levels, glucose management indicator (GMI), sensor use, and percentage of time spent in AHCL, were determined.

RESULTS

The peer group discussions revealed numerous key themes and issues for each group, such as the significance of setting reasonable expectations, carbohydrate counting and bolus dosing, technical difficulties, and overall user experience. The users (n = 25; T1DM; 17 female; age 13.8 ± 7.49 years; A1C 6.54 ± 0.45%; duration of diabetes 6 ± 6.78 years) were very satisfied with the system. Most users experienced consistent blood glucose values with very few hypoglycemic episodes. However, there were a few limitations reported, such as hyperglycemic episodes caused by inaccuracies in carb counting, issues with sensor connectivity, and cannula blockages or kinking for those using insulin Fiasp. Users achieved a mean GMI of 6.4 ± 0.26%, TIR of 83.0 ± 8.12%, TBR (54-70 mg/dL) of 2.0 ± 0.81%, TBR* (< 54 mg/dL) of 0%. All of the users achieved a TIR of > 70%.

CONCLUSION

The use of the AHCL system in T1DM resulted in robust glycemic control, minimizing hypoglycemia. Providing training to both users and HCPs can help them use the system effectively.

6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) satisfaction and its effect on mental health and glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes

Background and aim

A continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) helps the user stay continuously informed about blood glucose levels and reach the right target range. This study aimed to compare glycemic control and mental health of adults with type 1 diabetes with or without CGM and to examine their experiences using it.

Methods

Patients were included in the survey, whether or not they had used a CGM. Standardized questionnaires were used to assess mental health, problems with disease management, hypoglycemia attitudes and behavior, as well as glucose monitoring satisfaction.

Results

277 people participated in the study. CGM users (61.3%) had a more favorable glycemic control than those who were not. No differences were observed between the 2 groups in mental health and in response to hypoglycemic events; however, users reported more disease-related problems. CGM users reported they felt more open and free about diabetes, however, the pain and skin irritation caused by the device was disturbing and it was difficult to cope emotionally with the constant thought and worrying about diabetes.

Conclusions

CGM did not show clear satisfaction among users, however, less fear of hypoglycemia, fewer depression symptomology and improved glycemic control indicate better clinical status, which is one of the most important goals of disease management.

Complications of Diabetes and Metrics of Glycemic Management Derived From Continuous Glucose Monitoring

CONTEXT

Although glycated hemoglobin A1c is currently the best parameter used clinically to assess risk for the development of diabetes complications, it does not provide insight into short-term fluctuations in glucose levels. This review summarizes the relationship between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived metrics of glycemic variability and diabetes-related complications.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed and Embase databases were searched from January 1, 2010 to August 22, 2020, using the terms type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, diabetes-related microvascular and macrovascular complications, and measures of glycaemic variability. Exclusion criteria were studies that did not use CGM and studies involving participants who were not diabetic, acutely unwell (post stroke, post surgery), pregnant, or using insulin pumps.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 1636 records were identified, and 1602 were excluded, leaving 34 publications in the final review. Of the 20 852 total participants, 663 had type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 19 909 had type 2 diabetes (T2D). Glycemic variability and low time in range (TIR) showed associations with all studied microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes. Notably, higher TIR was associated with reduced risk of albuminuria, retinopathy, cardiovascular disease mortality, all-cause mortality, and abnormal carotid intima-media thickness. Peripheral neuropathy was predominantly associated with standard deviation of blood glucose levels (SD) and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE).

CONCLUSION

The evidence supports the association between diabetes complications and CGM-derived measures of intraday glycemic variability. TIR emerged as the most consistent measure, supporting its emerging role in clinical practice. More longitudinal studies and trials are required to confirm these associations, particularly for T1D, for which there are limited data.

6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Treatment of cardiometabolic risk factors in patients with type 1 diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have excess cardiovascular risk and reduced life expectancy. Adolescence is the time when the first signs of vascular complications appear and a critical window for interventions. This article reviews recent evidence on cardiometabolic risk factors and their management in youth with T1D.

RECENT FINDINGS

Adolescents with T1D show early signs of vascular complications, as a result of several cardiometabolic risk factors. Poor glycemic control is one of the main risk factors and the main target of treatment. However, only a minority of adolescents with T1D reaches recommended targets for glycemic control. Hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, alcohol use, obesity and insulin resistance are other common cardiometabolic risk factors in this age group. Recent data confirm that screening for these risk factors is suboptimal and use of pharmacological interventions for hypertension and dyslipidemia remains low. Data on adjunctive noninsulin agents to improve glycemic control and other cardiometabolic risk factors are still lacking in this age group.

SUMMARY

Vascular complications and the associated mortality remain a major issue for youth with T1D. Better screening strategies for cardiometabolic risk factors and interventions are required to improve the long-term prognosis of youth with T1D.

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.

Carbohydrate Restriction in Type 1 Diabetes: A Realistic Therapy for Improved Glycaemic Control and Athletic Performance?

Around 80% of individuals with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States do not achieve glycaemic targets and the prevalence of comorbidities suggests that novel therapeutic strategies, including lifestyle modification, are needed. Current nutrition guidelines suggest a flexible approach to carbohydrate intake matched with intensive insulin therapy. These guidelines are designed to facilitate greater freedom around nutritional choices but they may lead to higher caloric intakes and potentially unhealthy eating patterns that are contributing to the high prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome in people with T1D. Low carbohydrate diets (LCD; <130 g/day) may represent a means to improve glycaemic control and metabolic health in people with T1D. Regular recreational exercise or achieving a high level of athletic performance is important for many living with T1D. Research conducted on people without T1D suggests that training with reduced carbohydrate availability (often termed "train low") enhances metabolic adaptation compared to training with normal or high carbohydrate availability. However, these "train low" practices have not been tested in athletes with T1D. This review aims to investigate the known pros and cons of LCDs as a potentially effective, achievable, and safe therapy to improve glycaemic control and metabolic health in people with T1D. Secondly, we discuss the potential for low, restricted, or periodised carbohydrate diets in athletes with T1D.