Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this large clinical trial, the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan reduced the risk of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. However, the effect was small, and there was no reduction in the rate of cardiovascular events. Thus, impaired glucose tolerance is probably best managed with lifestyle intervention. In this large clinical trial, the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan reduced the risk of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. However, the effect was small, and there was no reduction in the rate of cardiovascular events. Patients with impaired glucose tolerance have an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. 1 – 3 Interventions that might reduce the incidence of diabetes and associated rates of death and complications from cardiovascular causes in such patients are therefore of importance. 3 Several trials have shown that lifestyle modification, including increased physical activity and weight loss, reduces the risk of diabetes, although these trials did not evaluate cardiovascular outcomes. 3 – 8 Certain drugs, including metformin, acarbose, and rosiglitazone, also reduce the incidence of diabetes, although their effect on cardiovascular events is uncertain. 6 , 9 , 10 Another pharmacologic approach to reducing the . . .

Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance, the short-acting insulin secretagogue nateglinide did not reduce the incidence of diabetes over the course of 5 years. Nateglinide also did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. Therefore, nateglinide does not have a place in the management of impaired glucose tolerance. Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance, the short-acting insulin secretagogue nateglinide did not reduce the incidence of diabetes over the course of 5 years. Nateglinide also did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. Persons with impaired glucose tolerance are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease 1 – 3 ; therefore, treatments that might reduce the incidence of diabetes and associated cardiovascular disease and death are potentially important. 3 The risk of diabetes is reduced with lifestyle interventions that involve increasing physical activity and reducing weight 4 – 6 and with metformin, 6 acarbose, 7 or rosiglitazone 8 therapy, but no trials to date have been powered to consider cardiovascular outcomes. Among persons with type 2 diabetes, reducing glycemia results in a small reduction in the risk of major macrovascular events. 9 Glucose levels after a glucose challenge, . . .

OBJECTIVE: The benefits of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have been demonstrated in patients with type 1 diabetes. Our aim was to compare the effect of two modes of use of CGM, patient led or physician driven, for 1 year in subjects with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with type 1 diabetes aged 8–60 years with HbA1c ≥8% were randomly assigned to three groups (1:1:1). Outcomes for glucose control were assessed at 1 year for two modes of CGM (group 1: patient led; group 2: physician driven) versus conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (group 3: control). RESULTS: A total of 257 subjects with type 1 diabetes underwent screening. Of these, 197 were randomized, with 178 patients completing the study (age: 36 ± 14 years; HbA1c: 8.9 ± 0.9%). HbA1c improved similarly in both CGM groups and was reduced compared with the control group (group 1 vs. group 3: –0.52%, P = 0.0006; group 2 vs. group 3: –0.47%, P = 0.0008; groups 1 + 2 vs. group 3: –0.50%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in the three groups. Patient SF-36 questionnaire physical health score improved in both experimental CGM groups (P = 0.004). Sensor consumption was 34% lower in group 2 than in group 1 (median [Q1–Q3] consumption: group 1: 3.42/month [2.20–3.91] vs. group 2: 2.25/month [1.27–2.99], P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both patient-led and physician-driven CGM provide similar long-term improvement in glucose control in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes, but the physician-driven CGM mode used fewer sensors.

Abstract Context Consuming calories later in the day is associated with obesity and metabolic syndrome. We hypothesized that eating a late dinner alters substrate metabolism during sleep in a manner that promotes obesity. Objective The objective of this work is to examine the impact of late dinner on nocturnal metabolism in healthy volunteers. Design and Setting This is a randomized crossover trial of late dinner (LD, 22:00) vs routine dinner (RD, 18:00), with a fixed sleep period (23:00-07:00) in a laboratory setting. Participants Participants comprised 20 healthy volunteers (10 male, 10 female), age 26.0 ± 0.6 years, body mass index 23.2 ± 0.7 kg/m2, accustomed to a bedtime between 22:00 and 01:00. Interventions An isocaloric macronutrient diet was administered on both visits. Dinner (35% daily kcal, 50% carbohydrate, 35% fat) with an oral lipid tracer ([2H31] palmitate, 15 mg/kg) was given at 18:00 with RD and 22:00 with LD. Main Outcome Measures Measurements included nocturnal and next-morning hourly plasma glucose, insulin, triglycerides, free fatty acids (FFAs), cortisol, dietary fatty acid oxidation, and overnight polysomnography. Results LD caused a 4-hour shift in the postprandial period, overlapping with the sleep phase. Independent of this shift, the postprandial period following LD was characterized by higher glucose, a triglyceride peak delay, and lower FFA and dietary fatty acid oxidation. LD did not affect sleep architecture, but increased plasma cortisol. These metabolic changes were most pronounced in habitual earlier sleepers determined by actigraphy monitoring. Conclusion LD induces nocturnal glucose intolerance, and reduces fatty acid oxidation and mobilization, particularly in earlier sleepers. These effects might promote obesity if they recur chronically.

In a 13-week, randomized trial involving persons 6 to 79 years of age with type 1 diabetes, use of a bionic pancreas was associated with a greater reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level than standard care.

In this pragmatic, randomized trial comparing one-step screening for gestational diabetes mellitus with two-step screening, one-step screening resulted in more diagnoses of gestational diabetes mellitus but did not affect the incidence of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes.

Results of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) show significantly lower rates of coronary and stroke events in individuals allocated an amlodipine-based combination drug regimen than in those allocated an atenolol-based combination drug regimen (HR 0·86 and 0·77, respectively). Our aim was to assess to what extent these differences were due to significant differences in blood pressures and in other variables noted after randomisation. We used data from ASCOT-BPLA (n=19 257) and compared differences in accumulated mean blood pressure levels at sequential times in the trial with sequential differences in coronary and stroke events. Serial mean matching for differences in systolic blood pressure was used to adjust HRs for differences in these events. We used an updated Cox-regression model to assess the effects of differences in accumulated mean levels of various measures of blood pressure, serum HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and potassium, fasting blood glucose, heart rate, and bodyweight on differences in event rates. We noted no temporal link between size of differences in blood pressure and different event rates. Serial mean matching for differences in systolic blood-pressure attenuated HRs for coronary and stroke events to a similar extent as did adjustments for systolic blood-pressure differences in Cox-regression analyses. HRs for coronary events and stroke adjusted for blood pressure rose from 0·86 (0·77–0·96) to 0·88 (0·79–0·98) and from 0·77 (0·66–0·89) to 0·83 (0·72–0·96), respectively. Multivariate adjustment gave HRs of 0·94 (0·81–1·08) for coronary events (HDL cholesterol being the largest contributor) and 0·87 (0·73–1·05) for stroke events. Multivariate adjustment accounted for about half of the differences in coronary events and for about 40% of the differences in stroke events between the treatment regimens tested in ASCOT-BPLA, but residual differences were no longer significant. These residual differences could indicate inadequate statistical adjustment, but it remains possible that differential effects of the two treatment regimens on other variables also contributed to the different rates noted, particularly for stroke.

The 20-year UK Prospective Diabetes Study showed major clinical benefits for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes randomly allocated to intensive glycaemic control with sulfonylurea or insulin therapy or metformin therapy, compared with conventional glycaemic control. 10-year post-trial follow-up identified enduring and emerging glycaemic and metformin legacy treatment effects. We aimed to determine whether these effects would wane by extending follow-up for another 14 years. 5102 patients enrolled between 1977 and 1991, of whom 4209 (82·5%) participants were originally randomly allocated to receive either intensive glycaemic control (sulfonylurea or insulin, or if overweight, metformin) or conventional glycaemic control (primarily diet). At the end of the 20-year interventional trial, 3277 surviving participants entered a 10-year post-trial monitoring period, which ran until Sept 30, 2007. Eligible participants for this study were all surviving participants at the end of the 10-year post-trial monitoring period. An extended follow-up of these participants was done by linking them to their routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) data for another 14 years. Clinical outcomes were derived from records of deaths, hospital admissions, outpatient visits, and accident and emergency unit attendances. We examined seven prespecified aggregate clinical outcomes (ie, any diabetes-related endpoint, diabetes-related death, death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and microvascular disease) by the randomised glycaemic control strategy on an intention-to-treat basis using Kaplan–Meier time-to-event and log-rank analyses. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN75451837. Between Oct 1, 2007, and Sept 30, 2021, 1489 (97·6%) of 1525 participants could be linked to routinely collected NHS administrative data. Their mean age at baseline was 50·2 years (SD 8·0), and 41·3% were female. The mean age of those still alive as of Sept 30, 2021, was 79·9 years (SD 8·0). Individual follow-up from baseline ranged from 0 to 42 years, median 17·5 years (IQR 12·3–26·8). Overall follow-up increased by 21%, from 66 972 to 80 724 person-years. For up to 24 years after trial end, the glycaemic and metformin legacy effects showed no sign of waning. Early intensive glycaemic control with sulfonylurea or insulin therapy, compared with conventional glycaemic control, showed overall relative risk reductions of 10% (95% CI 2–17; p=0·015) for death from any cause, 17% (6–26; p=0·002) for myocardial infarction, and 26% (14–36; p<0·0001) for microvascular disease. Corresponding absolute risk reductions were 2·7%, 3·3%, and 3·5%, respectively. Early intensive glycaemic control with metformin therapy, compared with conventional glycaemic control, showed overall relative risk reductions of 20% (95% CI 5–32; p=0·010) for death from any cause and 31% (12–46; p=0·003) for myocardial infarction. Corresponding absolute risk reductions were 4·9% and 6·2%, respectively. No significant risk reductions during or after the trial for stroke or peripheral vascular disease were observed for both intensive glycaemic control groups, and no significant risk reduction for microvascular disease was observed for metformin therapy. Early intensive glycaemic control with sulfonylurea or insulin, or with metformin, compared with conventional glycaemic control, appears to confer a near-lifelong reduced risk of death and myocardial infarction. Achieving near normoglycaemia immediately following diagnosis might be essential to minimise the lifetime risk of diabetes-related complications to the greatest extent possible. University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Population Health Pump Priming.

Despite the increasing adoption of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring devices, most people with type 1 diabetes do not achieve their glycemic goals 1 . This could be related to a lack of expertise or inadequate time for clinicians to analyze complex sensor-augmented pump data. We tested whether frequent insulin dose adjustments guided by an automated artificial intelligence-based decision support system (AI-DSS) is as effective and safe as those guided by physicians in controlling glucose levels. ADVICE4U was a six-month, multicenter, multinational, parallel, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in 108 participants with type 1 diabetes, aged 10–21 years and using insulin pump therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT03003806). Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive remote insulin dose adjustment every three weeks guided by either an AI-DSS, (AI-DSS arm, n  = 54) or by physicians (physician arm, n  = 54). The results for the primary efficacy measure—the percentage of time spent within the target glucose range (70–180 mg dl −1 (3.9–10.0 mmol l −1 ))—in the AI-DSS arm were statistically non-inferior to those in the physician arm (50.2 ± 11.1% versus 51.6 ± 11.3%, respectively, P  < 1 × 10 −7 ). The percentage of readings below 54 mg dl −1 (<3.0 mmol l −1 ) within the AI-DSS arm was statistically non-inferior to that in the physician arm (1.3 ± 1.4% versus 1.0 ± 0.9%, respectively, P  < 0.0001). Three severe adverse events related to diabetes (two severe hypoglycemia, one diabetic ketoacidosis) were reported in the physician arm and none in the AI-DSS arm. In conclusion, use of an automated decision support tool for optimizing insulin pump settings was non-inferior to intensive insulin titration provided by physicians from specialized academic diabetes centers. The randomized-controlled trial ADVICE4U demonstrates non-inferiority of an automated AI-based decision support system compared with advice from expert physicians for optimal insulin dosing in youths with type 1 diabetes.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, including baricitinib, block cytokine signaling and are effective disease-modifying treatments for several autoimmune diseases. Whether baricitinib preserves β-cell function in type 1 diabetes is unclear. In this phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with type 1 diabetes diagnosed during the previous 100 days to receive baricitinib (4 mg once per day) or matched placebo orally for 48 weeks. The primary outcome was the mean C-peptide level, determined from the area under the concentration-time curve, during a 2-hour mixed-meal tolerance test at week 48. Secondary outcomes included the change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level, the daily insulin dose, and measures of glycemic control assessed with the use of continuous glucose monitoring. A total of 91 patients received baricitinib (60 patients) or placebo (31 patients). The median of the mixed-meal-stimulated mean C-peptide level at week 48 was 0.65 nmol per liter per minute (interquartile range, 0.31 to 0.82) in the baricitinib group and 0.43 nmol per liter per minute (interquartile range, 0.13 to 0.63) in the placebo group (P = 0.001). The mean daily insulin dose at 48 weeks was 0.41 U per kilogram of body weight per day (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.48) in the baricitinib group and 0.52 U per kilogram per day (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.60) in the placebo group. The levels of glycated hemoglobin were similar in the two trial groups. However, the mean coefficient of variation of the glucose level at 48 weeks, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring, was 29.6% (95% CI, 27.8 to 31.3) in the baricitinib group and 33.8% (95% CI, 31.5 to 36.2) in the placebo group. The frequency and severity of adverse events were similar in the two trial groups, and no serious adverse events were attributed to baricitinib or placebo. In patients with type 1 diabetes of recent onset, daily treatment with baricitinib over 48 weeks appeared to preserve β-cell function as estimated by the mixed-meal-stimulated mean C-peptide level. (Funded by JDRF International and others; BANDIT Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12620000239965.).