Explore the vast range of titles available.

Many patients with advanced type 2 diabetes do not meet their glycated haemoglobin targets and randomised controlled studies comparing the efficacy of pump treatment and multiple daily injections for lowering glucose in insulin-treated patients have yielded inconclusive results. We aimed to resolve this uncertainty with a randomised controlled trial (OpT2mise). We did this multicentre, controlled trial at 36 hospitals, tertiary care centres, and referal centres in Canada, Europe, Israel, South Africa, and the USA. Patients with type 2 diabetes who had poor glycaemic control despite multiple daily injections with insulin analogues were enrolled into a 2-month dose-optimisation run-in period. After the run-in period, patients with glycated haemoglobin of 8·0–12·0% (64–108 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation sequence (block size 2 with probability 0·75 and size 4 with probability 0·25) to pump treatment or to continue with multiple daily injections. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was change in mean glycated haemoglobin between baseline and end of the randomised phase for the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01182493. 495 of 590 screened patients entered the run-in phase and 331 were randomised (168 to pump treatment, 163 to multiple daily injections). Mean glycated haemoglobin at baseline was 9% (75 mmol/mol) in both groups. At 6 months, mean glycated haemoglobin had decreased by 1·1% (SD 1·2; 12 mmol/mol, SD 13) in the pump treatment group and 0·4% (SD 1·1; 4 mmol/mol, SD 12) in the multiple daily injection group, resulting in a between-group treatment difference of −0·7% (95% CI −0·9 to −0·4; −8 mmol/mol, 95% CI −10 to −4, p<0·0001). At the end of the study, the mean total daily insulin dose was 97 units (SD 56) with pump treatment versus 122 units (SD 68) for multiple daily injections (p<0·0001), with no significant difference in bodyweight change between the two groups (1·5 kg [SD 3·5] vs 1·1 kg [3·6], p=0·322). Two diabetes-related serious adverse events (hyperglycaemia or ketosis without acidosis) resulting in hospital admission occurred in the pump treatment group compared with one in the multiple daily injection group. No ketoacidosis occurred in either group and one episode of severe hypoglycaemia occurred in the multiple daily injection group. In patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes despite using multiple daily injections of insulin, pump treatment can be considered as a safe and valuable treatment option. Medtronic.

Pen needles (PNs) are essential for insulin injections using pen devices. PN characteristics affect patients’ injection experience. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of a new extra-thin wall (XTW) PN versus usual PNs on overall patient preference, ease of injection, perceived time to complete the full dose, thumb button force to deliver the injection, and dose delivery confidence in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM). Subjects injected insulin with the KwikPenTM (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana), SoloSTAR® (sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey), and FlexPen® (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) insulin pens, and included some with impaired hand dexterity. We first performed quantitative testing of XTW and comparable PNs with the 3 insulin pens for thumb force, flow rate, and time to deliver medication. A prospective, randomized, 2-period, open-label, crossover trial was then conducted in patients aged 35 to 80 years with type 1 or type 2 DM who injected insulin by pen for ≥2 months, with at least 1 daily dose ≥10 U. Patients who used 4- to 8-mm length PNs with 31- to 32-G diameter were randomly assigned to use their current PN or the same/similar size XTW PN at home for ~1 week and the other PN the second week. They completed several comparative 150-mm visual analog scales and direct questions at the end of period 2. XTW PNs had statistically significant better performance for each studied PN characteristic (thumb force, flow, and time to deliver medication) for all pens combined and each individual pen brand (all, P ≤ 0.05). Of 216 patients randomized to study groups (80, SoloSTAR; 77, FlexPen; 59, KwikPen), 209 completed both periods; 198 were evaluable. Baseline characteristics revealed a mean (SD) age of 60.8 (9.3) years, insulin pen use duration of 4.3 (4.1) years, and mean total daily dose of 75.1 (52.3) U (range, 10–420 U). Approximately 50% of patients were female; 81.5% were white and 14.8% were black; and 89.8% had type 2 DM. Nearly 99% used a single PN: 8 mm, 49.5%; 5 mm, 24.1%; 6 mm, 14.4%; and 4 mm, 12.0%. Patients rated the XTW PNs (mean [95% CI]) as preferable by a mean of 31.9 mm (27.2–36.6), P < 0.001; XTW PNs required less thumb force, less time to inject the dose, and were rated as providing greater confidence in full dose delivery by 28.4 mm (23.7–33.2), 21.7 mm (17.0–26.4), and 24.4 mm (19.7–29.1), respectively; all, P < 0.001. Results were similar for each of the 3 pens, those with impaired hand dexterity, and for all users of 4-mm PNs. Skin leakage and insulin dripping from the needle tip were rated as less frequent with the XTW PNs (P < 0.05). The most common adverse events were hypoglycemia in 8.3% and 6.0% of patients using XTW PNs and current PNs (P = NS), respectively; hyperglycemia occurred in 2.9% and 4.1% (P = NS). None of the adverse events was serious or considered device related. XTW PNs were preferred overall, rated as requiring less time and less thumb force to inject, and providing greater confidence in completing a full dose compared with usual PNs in this group of patients with type 1 or type 2 DM. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01852136

IntroductionWe aimed to develop algorithms distinguishing type 1 diabetes (T1D) from type 2 diabetes in adults ≥18 years old using primary care electronic medical record (EMRPC) and administrative healthcare data from Ontario, Canada, and to estimate T1D prevalence and incidence.Research design and methodsThe reference population was a random sample of patients with diabetes in EMRPC whose charts were manually abstracted (n=5402). Algorithms were developed using classification trees, random forests, and rule-based methods, using electronic medical record (EMR) data, administrative data, or both. Algorithm performance was assessed in EMRPC. Administrative data algorithms were additionally evaluated using a diabetes clinic registry with endocrinologist-assigned diabetes type (n=29 371). Three algorithms were applied to the Ontario population to evaluate the minimum, moderate and maximum estimates of T1D prevalence and incidence rates between 2010 and 2017, and trends were analyzed using negative binomial regressions.ResultsOf 5402 individuals with diabetes in EMRPC, 195 had T1D. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the best performing algorithms were 80.6% (75.9–87.2), 99.8% (99.7–100), 94.9% (92.3–98.7), and 99.3% (99.1–99.5) for EMR, 51.3% (44.0–58.5), 99.5% (99.3–99.7), 79.4% (71.2–86.1), and 98.2% (97.8–98.5) for administrative data, and 87.2% (81.7–91.5), 99.9% (99.7–100), 96.6% (92.7–98.7) and 99.5% (99.3–99.7) for combined EMR and administrative data. Administrative data algorithms had similar sensitivity and specificity in the diabetes clinic registry. Of 11 499 711 adults in Ontario in 2017, there were 24 789 (0.22%, minimum estimate) to 102 140 (0.89%, maximum estimate) with T1D. Between 2010 and 2017, the age-standardized and sex-standardized prevalence rates per 1000 person-years increased (minimum estimate 1.7 to 2.56, maximum estimate 7.48 to 9.86, p<0.0001). In contrast, incidence rates decreased (minimum estimate 0.1 to 0.04, maximum estimate 0.47 to 0.09, p<0.0001).ConclusionsPrimary care EMR and administrative data algorithms performed well in identifying T1D and demonstrated increasing T1D prevalence in Ontario. These algorithms may permit the development of large, population-based cohort studies of T1D.

Background A variety of diabetes self-management instruments have been developed but few of them consist of the preparedness for diabetes self-management behavior. The novel psychometric evaluation tool “the LMC Skills, Confidence & Preparedness Index (SCPI)” measures three key aspects of a patient’s diabetes self-management: knowledge of the skill, confidence in being able to perform skill and preparedness to implement the skill. The objective of this study was to translate, adapt and validate the SCPI for use in Chinese adult patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods This study followed the guideline recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Evidence Based Medicine Committee (AAOS) to indigenize the scale. Forward and back translation, and cross-cultural language debugging were completed according to the recommended steps. A convenience sample of Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 375) were recruited from a university-affiliated hospital in Shanghai. The validity (criterion, discriminant validity, and construct validity), reliability (internal consistency and test–retest reliability) and the interpretability of the instrument were examined. The content validity was calculated by experts’ evaluation. Results The Chinese version of SCPI (C-SCPI) has good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92. The ceiling effects of the preparedness subscales is 21%. The criterion validity of three dimensions of C-SCPI was established with significantly moderate correlations between the DKT, DES-SF and SDSCA ( p  < 0.05). The S-CVI of the whole scale was 0.83. Except for entry 21, the I-CVI values of all entries were greater than 0.78. The C-SCPI has also shown good discriminative validity with statistically significant differences between the patients with good and poor glycemic control. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that modified results indicate that the fitting degree of the model is good, χ 2 /df = 2.775, RMSEA = 0.069, CFI = 0.903, GFI = 0.873, TLI = 0.889, IFI = 0.904. The test–retest reliability coefficient was 0.61 ( p  < 0.01). Conclusion We established a Chinese version of SCPI through translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The C-SCPI is reliable and valid for assessment of the level of self-management in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes.

This double-blind, randomized trial compared canagliflozin with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and evidence of kidney disease that was treated with renin–angiotensin system blockade. The canagliflozin group had a lower risk of kidney disease progression or cardiovascular events than the placebo group.

Despite availability of new treatments for patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), optimal management of glycemic control remains challenging. Treatment with basal insulin can improve HbA1c, but may not be sufficient to control postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) levels. Both fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and PPG levels contribute to overall glycemic control. In patients with moderate hyperglycemia, PPG excursions have a greater contribution to overall hyperglycemia, with this contribution being greatest when HbA1c is approximately 7-8% [1]. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have been designed to restore and maintain GLP-1 levels and attenuate PPG excursions. GLP-1RAs that predominantly affect PPG may complement the FPG lowering provided by basal insulin, possibly improving overall glycemic control without additional weight gain and with limited incidence of hypoglycemia. Lixisenatide as an add-on to basal insulin lowers PPG levels, improves HbA1c control and has a beneficial effect on weight in T2DM patients.

Abstract Objective To examine diabetes remission following a short-term intensive metabolic intervention combining lifestyle and glucose-lowering approaches. Methods We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial in 154 patients with type 2 diabetes up to 8 years in duration on 0 to 2 glucose-lowering medications. Participants were randomized to (a) a 12-week intensive intervention comprising lifestyle approaches and treatment with insulin glargine, metformin, and dapagliflozin or (b) standard diabetes care. At 12 weeks, diabetes medications were discontinued in participants with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1C) < 7.3% (56 mmol/mol). Participants were then followed for diabetes relapse until 64 weeks. The primary outcome was complete or partial diabetes remission (HbA1C < 6.5% [48 mmol/mol] off chronic diabetes drugs) at 24 weeks. Main secondary outcomes were complete or partial diabetes remission at 36, 48, and 64 weeks. Results The primary outcome was achieved in 19 (24.7%) intervention group participants and 13 (16.9%) control group participants at 24 weeks (relative risk [RR] 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-2.7). The relative risks of remission at 36, 48, and 64 weeks were 2.4 (95% CI, 1.2-5.0), 2.1 (95% CI, 1.0-4.4), and 1.8 (95% CI, 0.7-4.7), respectively. In an exploratory analysis, the intervention reduced the hazard of diabetes relapse with overt hyperglycemia by 43% (hazard ratio 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.81). Conclusions Our primary outcome of diabetes remission at 24 weeks was not statistically significantly different. However, our overall results suggest that some patients with early type 2 diabetes are able to achieve sustained diabetes remission following a short-term intensive intervention. Further studies are needed to optimize the combined therapeutic approach used.

BACKGROUND: A variety of diabetes self-management instruments have been developed but few of them consist of the preparedness for diabetes self-management behavior. The novel psychometric evaluation tool \"the LMC Skills, Confidence & Preparedness Index (SCPI)\" measures three key aspects of a patient's diabetes self-management: knowledge of the skill, confidence in being able to perform skill and preparedness to implement the skill. The objective of this study was to translate, adapt and validate the SCPI for use in Chinese adult patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This study followed the guideline recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Evidence Based Medicine Committee (AAOS) to indigenize the scale. Forward and back translation, and cross-cultural language debugging were completed according to the recommended steps. A convenience sample of Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 375) were recruited from a university-affiliated hospital in Shanghai. The validity (criterion, discriminant validity, and construct validity), reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability) and the interpretability of the instrument were examined. The content validity was calculated by experts' evaluation. RESULTS: The Chinese version of SCPI (C-SCPI) has good internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92. The ceiling effects of the preparedness subscales is 21%. The criterion validity of three dimensions of C-SCPI was established with significantly moderate correlations between the DKT, DES-SF and SDSCA (p < 0.05). The S-CVI of the whole scale was 0.83. Except for entry 21, the I-CVI values of all entries were greater than 0.78. The C-SCPI has also shown good discriminative validity with statistically significant differences between the patients with good and poor glycemic control. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that modified results indicate that the fitting degree of the model is good, chi(2)/df = 2.775, RMSEA = 0.069, CFI = 0.903, GFI = 0.873, TLI = 0.889, IFI = 0.904. The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.61 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: We established a Chinese version of SCPI through translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The C-SCPI is reliable and valid for assessment of the level of self-management in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether glargine is noninferior to detemir regarding the percentage of patients reaching A1C <7% without symptomatic hypoglycemia [less-than or equal to]3.1 mmol/l. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 24-week trial, 973 insulin-naive type 2 diabetic patients on stable oral glucose-lowering drugs with A1C 7.0-10.5% were randomized to glargine once daily or detemir twice daily. Insulin doses were systematically titrated. RESULTS: 27.5 and 25.6% of patients reached the primary outcome with glargine and detemir, respectively, demonstrating the noninferiority of glargine. Improvements in A1C were -1.46 ± 1.09% for glargine and -1.54 ± 1.11% for detemir (P = 0.149), with similar proportions of patients achieving A1C <7% (P = 0.254) but more detemir-treated patients reaching A1C <6.5% (P = 0.017). Hypoglycemia risk was similar. Weight gain was higher for glargine (difference: 0.77 kg, P < 0.001). Glargine doses were lower than detemir doses: 43.5 ± 29.0 vs. 76.5 ± 50.5 units/day (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In insulin-naive type 2 diabetic patients, glargine reached similar control as detemir, with more weight gain, but required significantly lower doses.

Background Optimal diabetes care requires a specific set of self-management behaviours. The purpose of this study was to present the development and initial psychometric evaluation of a new tool to measure three key aspects of a patient’s diabetes self-management: knowledge of the skill, confidence in being able to perform the skill and preparedness to implement the skill. Methods A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design was used. A panel of educators, researchers and clinicians established a scale with items that would adequately capture skills, confidence and preparedness in seven core health behaviours central to diabetes care. The psychometric properties of the items were pilot tested on 120 participants with diabetes from a tertiary referral centre, and repeated 6 months later on 70 participants. Item selection was informed by factor analysis, item-total statistics and the need for brevity. Results Twenty five items from a pool of 36 were retained, with an excellent overall intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.99; p  < 0.001). Internal consistency for the subscales (skills-9 items, confidence - 8 items, preparedness – 8 items) was very good (intraclass correlation between 0.83 and 0.88), and retest reliability after 6 months was also good ( r  = 0.48; p  < 0.01). The scale was positively correlated to established scales that assess skill (Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test) ( r  = 0.21; p  = 0.01), and assess skill and confidence (Diabetes Empowerment Scale) ( r  = 0.28; p  < 0.01). Conclusions The Skills, Confidence & Preparedness Index is a brief and easy to administer new scale that is more comprehensive than existing tools. It should be used to assess self-management in patients with diabetes, optimize the resources applied to each patient, and determine educational needs and direct clinical management. The scale should be further evaluated in a broader population of patients with diabetes.