Evaluating the role of time in range as a glycemic target during short-term intensive insulin therapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Tight glycemic control during short-term intensive insulin therapy (SIIT) is critical for inducing diabetes remission in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D). This work aimed to investigate the role of time in range (TIR) during SIIT as a novel glycemic target by predicting clinical outcomes.

METHODS

SIIT was given to 116 patients with newly diagnosed T2D, with daily eight-point capillary glucose monitored. Glycemic targets (fasting/premeal glucose, 3.9-6.0 mmol/L; 2 h postprandial blood glucose, 3.9-7.8 mmol/L) were achieved and maintained for 2 weeks. TIR_PIR was calculated as the percentage of glucose points within these glycemic targets during the maintenance period and was compared to TIR_{3.9-7.8mmol/L} and TIR_{3.9-10.0mmol/L} . Acute insulin response (AIR), HOMA-IR, HOMA-B, and disposition index (DI) were measured. Patients were followed up for 1 year to observe clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

TIR_PIR , TIR_{3.9-7.8mmol/L} , and TIR_{3.9-10.0mmol/L} were 67.2 ± 11.2%, 80.8 ± 9.2%, and 90.1 ± 6.2%, respectively. After SIIT, β-cell function and insulin sensitivity improved remarkably, and the 1-year remission rate was 55.2%. △AIR and △DI were positively correlated with all the TIR values, whereas only TIR_PIR was correlated with △HOMA-IR (r = -0.22, p = 0.03). Higher TIR_PIR but not TIR_{3.9-7.8mmol/L} or TIR_{3.9-10.0mmol/L} was robustly associated with diabetes remission; patients in the lower TIR_PIR tertile had an elevated risk of hyperglycemia relapse (hazard ratio 3.4, 95% confidence interval 1.6-7.2， p = .001). Only those with TIR_PIR  ≥ 65% had a one-year remission rate of over 60%.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings advocate TIR_PIR  ≥ 65% as a novel glycemic target during SIIT for clinical decision-making.

The association of energy and macronutrient intake at dinner vs breakfast with the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in a cohort study: The China Health and Nutrition Survey, 1997-2011

BACKGROUND

This study aims to investigate the association of energy and macronutrient intake at dinner vs breakfast with the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A total of 11 153 adults, including 811 with T2DM, completed a questionnaire about energy and macronutrient intake in the China Health and Nutrition Survey (1997-2011). The differences (Δ) in energy and macronutrient intake between dinner and breakfast (Δ = dinner - breakfast) were categorized into quintiles. Cox proportional hazards regression models were performed to explore the association between Δ and the risk of T2DM and to investigate the change of the risk when 5% total energy or energy provided by macronutrients at dinner was substituted with total energy or energy provided by macronutrients at breakfast by isocaloric substitution models.

RESULTS

After adjustment for potential confounders, compared with participants in the lowest quintile, participants in the highest quintile were more likely to develop T2DM (hazard ratio [HR]_Δenergy 1.46, 95% CI 1.13-1.87; HR_Δfat 1.85, 95% CI 1.43-2.41; HR_Δprotein 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.78). Isocalorically replacing 5% energy at dinner with energy at breakfast was associated with a 7% lower T2DM risk. Replacing 5% energy provided by fat at dinner with energy provided by carbohydrate, protein, and fat at breakfast was associated with a 9%, 5%, and 7% lower T2DM risk, respectively. Replacing 5% energy provided by protein at dinner with energy provided by carbohydrate or protein at breakfast was associated with a 5% lower T2DM risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher intake of energy, protein, and fat at dinner than at breakfast increased the risk of T2DM.

The impact of type 2 diabetes and its management on the prognosis of patients with severe COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Although type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop a more severe condition compared to those without diabetes, the mechanisms for this are unknown. Moreover, the impact of treatment with antihyperglycemic drugs and glucocorticoids is unclear.

METHODS

From 1584 COVID-19 patients, 364 severe/critical COVID-19 patients with clinical outcome were enrolled for the final analysis, and patients without preexisting T2DM but elevated glucose levels were excluded. Epidemiological data were obtained and clinical status evaluation carried out to assess the impact of T2DM and its management on clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 364 enrolled severe COVID-19 inpatients, 114 (31.3%) had a history of T2DM. Twenty-seven (23.7%) T2DM patients died, who had more severe inflammation, coagulation activation, myocardia injury, hepatic injury, and kidney injury compared with non-DM patients. In severe COVID-19 patients with T2DM, we demonstrated a higher risk of all-cause fatality with glucocorticoid treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.61; 95% CI, 1.14-11.46; P = .029) and severe hyperglycemia (fasting plasma glucose ≥11.1 mmol/L; adjusted HR, 11.86; 95% CI, 1.21-116.44; P = .034).

CONCLUSIONS

T2DM status aggravated the clinical condition of COVID-19 patients and increased their critical illness risk. Poor fasting blood glucose (≥ 11.1 mmol/L) and glucocorticoid treatment are associated with poor prognosis for T2DM patients with severe COVID-19.

Early life exposure to 1959-1961 Chinese famine exacerbates association between diabetes and cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess whether early life exposure to the Chinese famine (1959-1961) modifies the association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adulthood.

METHODS

Data from 4247 adults born between 1954 and 1964 from the 2011 and 2015 China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) were analyzed. CVD in 2011 and 2015 was based on self-reported doctor's diagnosis of cardiac events (heart attack, coronary heart disease, angina, congestive heart failure, or other heart problems) and stroke. Diabetes in 2011 was defined by fasting blood glucose, HbA1C, or known diabetes.

RESULTS

Diabetes in 2011 was cross-sectionally associated with an increase of CVD risk in 2011 (OR 1.91, 95%CI 1.53-2.40, P < 0.001) after adjusting for age and gender. Famine exposure changed the association between diabetes and CVD in areas severely affected by famine. The odds ratios (OR) of diabetes in 2011 for CVD in 2015 were 1.24 (95%CI 0.73-2.10), 1.27 (95%CI 0.72-2.24), 2.25 (95%CI 1.29-3.91), 4.31 (95%CI 2.07-8.97) and 1.72 (95%CI 0.84-3.51) among adults in late childhood-, mid-childhood-, early childhood-, fetal-, and nonexposed cohorts in severe famine areas, respectively.

CONCLUSION

T2DM is associated with the risk of CVD among Chinese adults. Fetal and early childhood exposure to the Chinese famine exacerbated the associated risk.

Efficacy and safety of lixisenatide as add-on therapy to basal insulin in older adults with type 2 diabetes in the GetGoal-O Study

BACKGROUND

This study compared the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide with placebo as add-on therapy to basal insulin (BI) in adults aged ≥70 years with type 2 diabetes (T2D), with or without moderate renal insufficiency.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis evaluated data from non-frail patients with T2D inadequately controlled on BI with or without oral antidiabetic drugs (n = 108), randomized to once-daily lixisenatide 20 μg or placebo for 24 weeks (GetGoal-O Study). The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), average seven-point self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG), area under the curve for SMPG, daily BI dose, body weight, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c > 0.5%, and composite endpoints. Safety outcomes included the incidence of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (plasma glucose <60 mg/dL) and gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Outcomes were also analyzed by the occurrence of moderate renal insufficiency.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, lixisenatide-treated patients had significantly greater reductions in HbA1c, 2-hour PPG, average seven-point SMPG, and body weight. Documented symptomatic hypoglycemia was approximately two-fold higher in patients treated with placebo than lixisenatide (12.7% vs 5.7%). GI TEAEs occurred more frequently in the lixisenatide- than placebo-treated group (34% vs 9.1%). Moderate renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate between ≥30 and <60 mL/min/1.73 m² ) did not negatively affect lixisenatide efficacy or safety. A greater proportion of patients treated with lixisenatide than placebo achieved composite endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Add-on therapy with lixisenatide in non-frail patients aged ≥70 years with T2D uncontrolled with BI is effective, safe, and well tolerated and should be considered in this population.

Lower rates of hypoglycemia during maintenance treatment with insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30: a combined analysis of two Phase 3a studies in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble coformulation of the basal analog insulin degludec and the rapid-acting prandial insulin aspart in a single injection. The present combined analysis of two Phase 3a trials compared the incidence of hypoglycemia in participants treated twice daily with IDegAsp or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30).

METHODS

Hypoglycemia data were analyzed from two similarly designed randomized controlled open-label treat-to-target Phase 3a clinical trials of adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Participants were treated twice daily with IDegAsp or BIAsp 30, with breakfast and their main evening meal.

RESULTS

Over 26 weeks, the rates of overall confirmed, nocturnal confirmed and severe hypoglycemic events were 19%, 57%, and 39% lower, respectively, with IDegAsp (n = 504) than BIAsp 30 (n = 364); estimated rate ratios were 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67, 0.98; P = 0.0341), 0.43 (95% CI 0.31, 0.59; P = 0.0001), and 0.61 (95% CI 0.26, 1.45; P = NS). The between-treatment differences were more pronounced during the maintenance period (≥16 weeks); compared with BIAsp 30, rates of overall confirmed, nocturnal confirmed and severe hypoglycemic events with IDegAsp were 0.69 (95% CI 0.55, 0.87; -31%; P = 0.0015); 0.38 (95% CI 0.25, 0.58; -62%; P < 0.0001), and 0.16 (95% CI 0.04, 0.59; -84%; P = 0.0061), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with BIAsp 30 twice daily, IDegAsp twice daily provided similar improvements in glycemic control with a lower risk of hypoglycemia, particularly nocturnal hypoglycemia, in subjects with T2D previously treated with insulin.