A randomized pilot study in Type 1 diabetes complicated by severe hypoglycaemia, comparing rigorous hypoglycaemia avoidance with insulin analogue therapy, CSII or education alone

Effect of diabetes technologies on the fear of hypoglycaemia among people living with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Fear of hypoglycaemia (FOH) significantly disrupts the daily management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and increases the risk of complications. Recent technological advances can improve glucose metrics and reduce hypoglycaemia frequency, yet their impact on FOH is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aimed to synthesize the current literature to understand the impact of diabetes technologies on FOH in T1D.

Methods

In this SRMA, we searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception up to May 21st, 2023 for studies assessing the effect of using real-time or intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitors (rtCGM or isCGM); insulin pumps (CSII); and their combinations on FOH as the primary outcome, measured using the Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey (HFS; including total, worries [HFS-W], and behaviours [HFS-B] scores), in non-pregnant adults with T1D. Data was extracted by the first and second authors. Results were pooled using a random-effects model based on study design (RCT and non-RCT), with subgroup analysis based on the type of technology, reported change in hypoglycaemia frequency, and duration of use. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute tools. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021253618.

Findings

A total of 51 studies (n = 8966) were included, 22 of which were RCTs. Studies on rtCGM and CSII reported lower FOH levels with ≥8 weeks of use. Studies on CSII and rtCGM combinations reported lower FOH levels after ≥13 weeks of automated insulin delivery (AID) use or 26 weeks of sensor-augmented pump (SAP) use. The meta-analysis showed an overall lower FOH with technologies, specifically for the HFS-W subscale. The RCT meta-analysis showed lower HFS-W scores with rtCGM use (standard mean difference [95%CI]: -0.14 [-0.23, -0.05], I2 = 0%) and AID (-0.17 [-0.33, -0.01], I2 = 0%). Results from non-RCT studies show that SAP users (-0.33 [-0.38, -0.27], I2 = 0%) and rtCGM users (-0.38 [-0.61, -0.14], I2 = 0%) had lower HFS-W.

Interpretation

We found consistent, yet small to moderate, effects supporting that diabetes technologies (specifically rtCGM, SAP, and AID) may reduce hypoglycaemia-related worries in adults with T1D. Current literature, however, has limitations including discrepancies in baseline characteristics and limited, mainly descriptive, statistical analysis. Thus, future studies should assess FOH as a primary outcome, use validated surveys, and appropriate statistical analysis to evaluate the clinical impacts of technology use beyond just glucose metrics.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Ltd.

Optimizing type 1 diabetes after multiple daily injections and capillary blood monitoring: Pump or sensor first? A meta-analysis using pooled differences in outcome measures

AIMS

Most people living with type 1 diabetes self-manage using multiple daily injection (MDI) insulin regimens and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are adjuncts to education and support self-management optimization. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess which first-line technology is most effective.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and WEB OF SCIENCE) were systematically searched from 1999 to September 2020. Randomized controlled trials comparing either CSII with MDI or CGM with SMBG in adults with type 1 diabetes were included. Data were extracted in duplicate by two reviewers, and were analysed to assess individual and overall treatment effect measures (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020149915).

RESULTS

Glycated haemoglobin was significantly reduced for CGM when compared with SMBG [Cohen's d - 0.62 (95% CI -0.79 to -0.45)] and for CSII when compared with MDI [Cohen's d - 0.44 (95% CI -0.67 to -0.22)]. Rates of severe hypoglycaemia were significantly reduced with CGM compared with SMBG, but did not change for CSII when compared with MDI. Episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis were more likely to occur with CSII than MDI. Both CSII and CGM reduced glucose standard deviation, compared with MDI and SMBG respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both CGM and CSII remain impactful interventions compared with SMBG and MDI but in adults with type 1 diabetes and in the contexts in which they have been studied, CGM might have a greater positive impact on glycaemic variability and severe hypoglycaemia than CSII, when added to MDI and SMBG. A head-to-head study, including patient reported outcomes, is required to explore these findings further.

A cluster randomised trial, cost-effectiveness analysis and psychosocial evaluation of insulin pump therapy compared with multiple injections during flexible intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes: the REPOSE Trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin is generally administered to people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) using multiple daily injections (MDIs), but can also be delivered using infusion pumps. In the UK, pumps are recommended for patients with the greatest need and adult use is less than in comparable countries. Previous trials have been small, of short duration and have failed to control for training in insulin adjustment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pump therapy compared with MDI for adults with T1DM, with both groups receiving equivalent structured training in flexible insulin therapy.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial, including economic and psychosocial evaluations. After participants were assigned a group training course, courses were randomly allocated in pairs to either pump or MDI.

SETTING

Eight secondary care diabetes centres in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with T1DM for > 12 months, willing to undertake intensive insulin therapy, with no preference for pump or MDI, or a clinical indication for pumps.

INTERVENTIONS

Pump or MDI structured training in flexible insulin therapy, followed up for 2 years. MDI participants used insulin analogues. Pump participants used a Medtronic Paradigm^® Veo^TM (Medtronic, Watford, UK) with insulin aspart (NovoRapid, Novo Nordisk, Gatwick, UK).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome - change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) at 2 years in participants whose baseline HbA_1c was ≥ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Key secondary outcome - proportion of participants with HbA_1c ≤ 7.5% at 2 years. Other outcomes at 6, 12 and 24 months - moderate and severe hypoglycaemia; insulin dose; body weight; proteinuria; diabetic ketoacidosis; quality of life (QoL); fear of hypoglycaemia; treatment satisfaction; emotional well-being; qualitative interviews with participants and staff (2 weeks), and participants (6 months); and ICERs in trial and modelled estimates of cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

We randomised 46 courses comprising 317 participants: 267 attended a Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating course (132 pump; 135 MDI); 260 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, of which 235 (119 pump; 116 MDI) had baseline HbA_1c of ≥ 7.5%. HbA_1c and severe hypoglycaemia improved in both groups. The drop in HbA_1c% at 2 years was 0.85 on pump and 0.42 on MDI. The mean difference (MD) in HbA_1c change at 2 years, at which the baseline HbA_1c was ≥ 7.5%, was -0.24% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53% to 0.05%] in favour of the pump (p = 0.098). The per-protocol analysis showed a MD in change of -0.36% (95% CI -0.64% to -0.07%) favouring pumps (p = 0.015). Pumps were not cost-effective in the base case and all of the sensitivity analyses. The pump group had greater improvement in diabetes-specific QoL diet restrictions, daily hassle plus treatment satisfaction, statistically significant at 12 and 24 months and supported by qualitative interviews.

LIMITATION

Blinding of pump therapy was not possible, although an objective primary outcome was used.

CONCLUSION

Adding pump therapy to structured training in flexible insulin therapy did not significantly enhance glycaemic control or psychosocial outcomes in adults with T1DM.

RESEARCH PRIORITY

To understand why few patients achieve a HbA_1c of < 7.5%, particularly as glycaemic control is worse in the UK than in other European countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61215213.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring with Multiple Daily Insulin Treatment: Outcome Studies

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is developing into an increasingly useful tool for glucose monitoring and therapeutic guidance in the treatment of diabetes. Multiple daily doses of insulin (MDI) is the most common method for intensive insulin treatment of type 1 diabetes and is also becoming more common in the treatment of type 2 diabetes as an increasing population with type 2 diabetes experiences progressive beta cell loss. The clinical evidence demonstrating the benefit of CGM in the outcomes of patients treated with MDI is becoming clearer, particularly with the recent completion of several randomized clinical trials addressing both type 1 and 2 diabetes. This evidence is reviewed.

Integrated sensor-augmented pump therapy systems [the MiniMed® Paradigm™ Veo system and the Vibe™ and G4® PLATINUM CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) system] for managing blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

In recent years, meters for continuous monitoring of interstitial fluid glucose have been introduced to help people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) to achieve better control of their disease.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project was to summarise the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed(®) Paradigm™ Veo system (Medtronic Inc., Northridge, CA, USA) and the Vibe™ (Animas(®) Corporation, West Chester, PA, USA) and G4(®) PLATINUM CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) system (Dexcom Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) in comparison with multiple daily insulin injections (MDIs) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), both with either self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or CGM, for the management of T1DM in adults and children.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Diagnostic Assessment Programme manual. We searched 14 databases, three trial registries and two conference proceedings from study inception up to September 2014. In addition, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were checked. In the absence of randomised controlled trials directly comparing Veo or an integrated CSII + CGM system, such as Vibe, with comparator interventions, indirect treatment comparisons were performed if possible.

METHODS

A commercially available cost-effectiveness model, the IMS Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness diabetes model version 8.5 (IMS Health, Danbury, CT, USA), was used for this assessment. This model is an internet-based, interactive simulation model that predicts the long-term health outcomes and costs associated with the management of T1DM and type 2 diabetes. The model consists of 15 submodels designed to simulate diabetes-related complications, non-specific mortality and costs over time. As the model simulates individual patients over time, it updates risk factors and complications to account for disease progression.

RESULTS

Fifty-four publications resulting from 19 studies were included in the review. Overall, the evidence suggests that the Veo system reduces hypoglycaemic events more than other treatments, without any differences in other outcomes, including glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. We also found significant results in favour of the integrated CSII + CGM system over MDIs with SMBG with regard to HbA1c levels and quality of life. However, the evidence base was poor. The quality of the included studies was generally low, often with only one study comparing treatments in a specific population at a specific follow-up time. In particular, there was only one study comparing Veo with an integrated CSII + CGM system and only one study comparing Veo with a CSII + SMBG system in a mixed population. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicated that MDI + SMBG is the option most likely to be cost-effective, given the current threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, whereas integrated CSII + CGM systems and Veo are dominated and extendedly dominated, respectively, by stand-alone, non-integrated CSII with CGM. Scenario analyses did not alter these conclusions. No cost-effectiveness modelling was conducted for children or pregnant women.

CONCLUSIONS

The Veo system does appear to be better than the other systems considered at reducing hypoglycaemic events. However, in adults, it is unlikely to be cost-effective. Integrated systems are also generally unlikely to be cost-effective given that stand-alone systems are cheaper and, possibly, no less effective. However, evidence in this regard is generally lacking, in particular for children. Future trials in specific child, adolescent and adult populations should include longer term follow-up and ratings on the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions scale at various time points with a view to informing improved cost-effectiveness modelling.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42014013764.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Interventions That Restore Awareness of Hypoglycemia in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) increases the risk of severe hypoglycemia (SH) sixfold and affects 30% of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This systematic review and meta-analysis looks at the educational, technological, and pharmacological interventions aimed at restoring hypoglycemia awareness (HA) in adults with T1D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception until 1 October 2014. Included studies described HA status at baseline. Outcome measures were SH rates, change in HA, counterregulatory hormone responses, and glycemic control.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies (18 randomized controlled trials, 25 before-and-after studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 27 educational, 11 technological, and 5 pharmacological interventions. Educational interventions included structured diabetes education on flexible insulin therapy, including psychotherapeutic and behavioral techniques. These were able to reduce SH and improve glycemic control, with greater benefit from the latter two techniques in improving IAH. Technological interventions (insulin pump therapy, continuous glucose monitoring, and sensor-augmented pump) reduced SH, improved glycemic control, and restored awareness when used in combination with structured education and frequent contact. Pharmacological studies included four insulin studies and one noninsulin study, but with low background SH prevalence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence for the effectiveness of a stepped-care approach in the management of patients with IAH, initially with structured diabetes education in flexible insulin therapy, which may incorporate psychotherapeutic and behavioral therapies, progressing to diabetes technology, incorporating sensors and insulin pumps, in those with persisting need.

Recovery of hypoglycemia awareness in long-standing type 1 diabetes: a multicenter 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial comparing insulin pump with multiple daily injections and continuous with conventional glucose self-monitoring (HypoCOMPaSS)

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) can be improved and severe hypoglycemia (SH) prevented in type 1 diabetes, we compared an insulin pump (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) with multiple daily injections (MDIs) and adjuvant real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT) with conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A 24-week 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial in adults with type 1 diabetes and IAH was conducted. All received comparable education, support, and congruent therapeutic targets aimed at rigorous avoidance of biochemical hypoglycemia without relaxing overall control. Primary end point was between-intervention difference in 24-week hypoglycemia awareness (Gold score).

RESULTS

A total of 96 participants (mean diabetes duration 29 years) were randomized. Overall, biochemical hypoglycemia (≤3.0 mmol/L) decreased (53 ± 63 to 24 ± 56 min/24 h; P = 0.004 [t test]) without deterioration in HbA1c. Hypoglycemia awareness improved (5.1 ± 1.1 to 4.1 ± 1.6; P = 0.0001 [t test]) with decreased SH (8.9 ± 13.4 to 0.8 ± 1.8 episodes/patient-year; P = 0.0001 [t test]). At 24 weeks, there was no significant difference in awareness comparing CSII with MDI (4.1 ± 1.6 vs. 4.2 ± 1.7; difference 0.1; 95% CI -0.6 to 0.8) and RT with SMBG (4.3 ± 1.6 vs. 4.0 ± 1.7; difference -0.3; 95% CI -1.0 to 0.4). Between-group analyses demonstrated comparable reductions in SH, fear of hypoglycemia, and insulin doses with equivalent HbA1c. Treatment satisfaction was higher with CSII than MDI (32 ± 3 vs. 29 ± 6; P = 0.0003 [t test]), but comparable with SMBG and RT (30 ± 5 vs. 30 ± 5; P = 0.79 [t test]).

CONCLUSIONS

Hypoglycemia awareness can be improved and recurrent SH prevented in long-standing type 1 diabetes without relaxing HbA1c. Similar biomedical outcomes can be attained with conventional MDI and SMBG regimens compared with CSII/RT, although satisfaction was higher with CSII.

A low-glycemic index meal and bedtime snack prevents postprandial hyperglycemia and associated rises in inflammatory markers, providing protection from early but not late nocturnal hypoglycemia following evening exercise in type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To examine the influence of the glycemic index (GI) of foods consumed after evening exercise on postprandial glycemia, metabolic and inflammatory markers, and nocturnal glycemic control in type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

On two evenings (∼1700 h), 10 male patients (27 ± 5 years of age, HbA1c 6.7 ± 0.7% [49.9 ± 8.1 mmol/mol]) were administered a 25% rapid-acting insulin dose with a carbohydrate bolus 60 min before 45 min of treadmill running. At 60 min postexercise, patients were administered a 50% rapid-acting insulin dose with one of two isoenergetic meals (1.0 g carbohdyrate/kg body mass [BM]) matched for macronutrient content but of either low GI (LGI) or high GI (HGI). At 180 min postmeal, the LGI group ingested an LGI snack and the HGI group an HGI snack (0.4 g carbohdyrate/kg BM) before returning home (∼2300 h). Interval samples were analyzed for blood glucose and lactate; plasma glucagon, epinephrine, interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α); and serum insulin, cortisol, nonesterified fatty acid, and β-hydroxybutyrate concentrations. Interstitial glucose was recorded for 20 h postlaboratory attendance through continuous glucose monitoring.

RESULTS

Following the postexercise meal, an HGI snack induced hyperglycemia in all patients (mean ± SD glucose 13.5 ± 3.3 mmol/L) and marked increases in TNF-α and IL-6, whereas relative euglycemia was maintained with an LGI snack (7.7 ± 2.5 mmol/L, P < 0.001) without inflammatory cytokine elevation. Both meal types protected all patients from early hypoglycemia. Overnight glycemia was comparable, with a similar incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia (n = 5 for both HGI and LGI).

CONCLUSIONS

Consuming LGI food with a reduced rapid-acting insulin dose following evening exercise prevents postprandial hyperglycemia and inflammation and provides hypoglycemia protection for ∼8 h postexercise; however, the risk of late nocturnal hypoglycemia remains.

Severe hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus: underlying drivers and potential strategies for successful prevention

Hypoglycaemia remains an over-riding factor limiting optimal glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes. Severe hypoglycaemia is prevalent in almost half of those with long-duration diabetes and is one of the most feared diabetes-related complications. In this review, we present an overview of the increasing body of literature seeking to elucidate the underlying pathophysiology of severe hypoglycaemia and the limited evidence behind the strategies employed to prevent episodes. Drivers of severe hypoglycaemia including impaired counter-regulation, hypoglycaemia-associated autonomic failure, psychosocial and behavioural factors and neuroimaging correlates are discussed. Treatment strategies encompassing structured education, insulin analogue regimens, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pumps, continuous glucose sensing and beta-cell replacement therapies have been employed, yet there is little randomized controlled trial evidence demonstrating effectiveness of new technologies in reducing severe hypoglycaemia. Optimally designed interventional trials evaluating these existing technologies and using modern methods of teaching patients flexible insulin use within structured education programmes with the specific goal of preventing severe hypoglycaemia are required. Individuals at high risk need to be monitored with meticulous collection of data on awareness, as well as frequency and severity of all hypoglycaemic episodes.

The evidence base for diabetes technology: appropriate and inappropriate meta-analysis

When we are interested in making decisions about best use, comparative therapeutic efficacy, or cost-effectiveness of diabetes technologies such as insulin pump therapy [continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)] or continuous glucose monitoring, meta-analysis for the purpose of literature summary is inappropriate and may be misleading. Instead, "decision-making meta-analysis" is more appropriate and should involve either preselection of trials based on intended use [e.g., elevated baseline hemoglobin A1c or hypoglycemia rate for trials of multiple daily injections (MDI) versus CSII] or metaregression of summary effect sizes in different trials against potential effect-modifying covariates such as baseline risk, or models of the covariates that determine effect size using individual patient data. Appropriate meta-analysis should also only include trials that are of sufficient duration to accurately measure outcomes such as severe hypoglycemia, and they should not use obsolete technology that is of proven inferiority to current technology. The use of appropriate decision-making meta-analysis is illustrated by the change in the rate ratio for severe hypoglycemia in randomized controlled trials of MDI versus CSII in type 1 diabetes from 1.56 (95% confidence interval 0.96-2.55; p = .074) for literature-summary meta-analysis to 2.0 (1.08-3.69; p = .027) for decision-making meta-analysis of all patients and 3.91 (1.35-11.36; p = .01) for trials in children.

Comparison of Optimised MDI versus Pumps with or without Sensors in Severe Hypoglycaemia (the Hypo COMPaSS trial)

BACKGROUND

Severe hypoglycaemia (SH) is one of the most feared complications of type 1 diabetes (T1DM) with a reported prevalence of nearly 40%. In randomized trials of Multiple Daily Injections (MDI) and Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) therapy there is a possible benefit of CSII in reducing SH. However few trials have used basal insulin analogues as the basal insulin in the MDI group and individuals with established SH have often been excluded from prospective studies. In published studies investigating the effect of Real Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (RT-CGM) benefit in terms of reduced SH has not yet been demonstrated. The primary objective of this study is to elucidate whether in people with T1DM complicated by impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH), rigorous prevention of biochemical hypoglycaemia using optimized existing self-management technology and educational support will restore awareness and reduce risk of recurrent SH.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a multicentre prospective RCT comparing hypoglycaemia avoidance with optimized MDI and CSII with or without RT-CGM in a 2×2 factorial design in people with type 1 diabetes who have IAH. The primary outcome measure for this study is the difference in IAH (Gold score) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes include biomedical measures such as HbA1c, SH incidence, blinded CGM analysis, self monitored blood glucose (SMBG) and response to hypoglycaemia in gold standard clamp studies. Psychosocial measures including well-being and quality of life will also be assessed using several validated and novel measures. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis.

DISCUSSION

Most existing RCTs using this study's interventions have been powered for change in HbA1c rather than IAH or SH. This trial will demonstrate whether IAH can be reversed and SH prevented in people with T1DM in even those at highest risk by using optimized conventional management and existing technology.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN52164803 Eudract No: 2009-015396-27.

A prospective randomised cross-over study of the effect of insulin analogues and human insulin on the frequency of severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes and recurrent hypoglycaemia (the HypoAna trial): study rationale and design

BACKGROUND

Severe hypoglycaemia still represents a significant problem in insulin-treated diabetes. Most patients do not experience severe hypoglycaemia often. However, 20% of patients with type 1 diabetes experience recurrent severe hypoglycaemia corresponding to at least two episodes per year. The effect of insulin analogues on glycaemic control has been documented in large trials, while their effect on the frequency of severe hypoglycaemia is less clear, especially in patients with recurrent severe hypoglycaemia. The HypoAna Trial is designed to investigate whether short-acting and long-acting insulin analogues in comparison with human insulin are superior in reducing the occurrence of severe hypoglycaemic episodes in patients with recurrent hypoglycaemia. This paper reports the study design of the HypoAna Trial.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study is a Danish two-year investigator-initiated, prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE), multicentre, cross-over trial investigating the effect of insulin analogues versus human insulin on the frequency of severe hypoglycaemia in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Patients are randomised to treatment with basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir / insulin aspart or human NPH insulin / human regular insulin in random order. The major inclusion criterion is history of two or more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia in the preceding year.

DISCUSSION

In contrast to almost all other studies in this field the HypoAna Trial includes only patients with major problems with hypoglycaemia. The HypoAna Trial will elucidate whether basal-bolus regimen with short-acting and long-acting insulin analogues in comparison with human insulin are superior in reducing occurrence of severe hypoglycaemic episodes in hypoglycaemia prone patients with type 1 diabetes. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00346996.

Assessing fear of hypoglycemia in children with Type 1 diabetes and their parents

This article summarizes the literature on fear of hypoglycemia in pediatric Type 1 diabetes and the assessment of this fear in both children with Type 1 diabetes and their parents. The most common instrument for assessing fear of hypoglycemia in this population is the children's and parent's versions of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS), although studies using other assessment measures are also reviewed. Studies using this survey have identified variables contributing to fear of hypoglycemia in children with Type 1 diabetes and their parents, such as history of frequent or traumatic hypoglycemia, as well as trait anxiety. In addition to this summary of the literature, new data are presented supporting the reliability of hypoglycemic fear assessment in younger children and comparing fear of hypoglycemia in children in different age groups (6-18 years old) and their parents. Also reviewed are studies investigating the relationship between fear of hypoglycemia and diabetes control, which have yielded inconsistent results. Given the potential importance of fear of hypoglycemia in pediatric diabetes, there has been limited research in this area.

Hypoglycemia rates with basal insulin analogs

Hypoglycemia has for the most part been studied inadequately for both of the commonly used long-acting insulin analogs in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Almost all existing trials have been designed to investigate changes in glycemic control and not differences in hypoglycemia events. In this review, we present an overview of the hypoglycemic data available from the randomized controlled trials comparing insulin glargine and insulin detemir with NPH or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The limited head-to-head glargine versus detemir data are also discussed with comments on early results relating to the newer insulin analog, degludec. Basal insulin analogs are associated with reduced nocturnal hypoglycemia in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Most studies have excluded participants with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia or previous severe events, however, and hypoglycemia reporting is variable and inconsistent. This limits interpretation for those with long-duration type 1 diabetes, and particularly impaired awareness of hypoglycemia, or long-duration more insulin-deficient type 2 diabetes. New optimally designed studies are required to elucidate the true impact of basal analogs on hypoglycemia burden in those living with long-term insulin therapy.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily insulin injections in type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is considered an option for type 1 diabetic patients unsatisfactorily controlled with multiple daily injections (MDI). Short-acting analogs are superior to regular human insulin in CSII. This meta-analysis is aimed at assessing the advantages of short-acting analog-based CSII over MDI in type 1 diabetes. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing CSII (with analogs) and MDI for at least 12 weeks in type 1 diabetic patients were retrieved, assessing between-group differences in HbA1c and incidence of hypoglycemia. A total of 11 RCTs was included in the analysis. CSII was associated with a significant improvement of HbA1c in comparison with MDI (standardized difference in mean: -0.3 [-0.4;-0.1]%; P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes. The reduction of HbA1c with CSII was evident in trials enrolling patients with mean age greater than 10 years, but not in younger children. Available data justify the use of CSII for basal-bolus insulin therapy in type 1 diabetic patients unsatisfactorily controlled with MDI.

Clinical review: Hypoglycemia with intensive insulin therapy: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized trials of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections

CONTEXT

Hypoglycemia limits the efficacy of intensive insulin therapy. The extent to which continuous insulin infusion (CSII) overcomes this limitation is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to summarize evidence on the effect of CSII and multiple daily injections (MDIs) on glycemic control and hypoglycemia.

DATA SOURCES

We searched electronic databases between 2002 and March 2008.

STUDY SELECTION

We selected published randomized trials of CSII vs. MDI.

DATA EXTRACTION

Reviewers working in duplicate and independently extracted study characteristics and quality and differences in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and hypoglycemic events.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We found 15 eligible randomized trials of moderate quality, with elevated baseline and end-of-study HbA1c levels. Patients with type 1 diabetes using CSII had slightly lower HbA1c [random-effects weighted mean difference, -0.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.3, -0.1, compared with MDI], with no significant difference in severe (pooled odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.23, 1.00) or nocturnal hypoglycemia (pooled odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.33, 2.03). Adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes enrolled in crossover trials had nonsignificantly fewer minor hypoglycemia episodes per patient per week (-0.08; 95% CI, -0.21, 0.06) with CSII than MDI; children enrolled in parallel trials had significantly more episodes (0.68; 95% CI, 0.16, 1.20; P(interaction) = 0.03). Outcomes were not different in patients with type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary evidence indicates that compared to MDI, CSII slightly reduced HbA1c in adults with type 1 diabetes, with unclear impact on hypoglycemia. In type 2 diabetes, CSII and MDI had similar outcomes. The effect in patients with hypoglycemia unawareness or recurrent severe hypoglycemia remains unclear because of lack of data.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) 30 years later: still the best option for insulin therapy

Thirty years after its introduction, the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) keeps increasing, especially among children and adolescents. The technique, when used properly, is safe and effective.Compared with traditional NPH-based multiple daily injections (MDI), CSII provides a small but clinically important reduction of HbA(1c) levels, diminishes blood glucose variability, decreases severe hypoglycaemic episodes and offers a better way to cope with the dawn phenomenon.Insulin analogues have improved the treatment of diabetes, eroding part of the place previously occupied by CSII, but CSII still remains the first option for patients experiencing severe hypoglycaemic episodes, high HbA(1c) values or marked glucose variability while being treated with optimized MDI. Furthermore CSII is better than MDI considering the effects on quality of life and the possibility to adjust insulin administration according to physical activity or food intake.CSII may be limited by cost. Present estimates suggest that CSII may be cost-effective just for patients experiencing a marked improvement in HbA(1c) or a decrease in severe hypoglycaemic episodes, but the effects on quality of life are difficult to measure.CSII does not merely imply wearing an external device; it requires a multidisciplinary team, intensive patient education and continuous follow up.