A post hoc analysis was performed of the SWITCH (SWITCH 1: n = 501, type 1 diabetes; SWITCH 2: n = 721, type 2 diabetes) and DEVOTE (n = 7,637, type 2 diabetes) trials utilizing the IHSG low glucose definitions. Patients in all trials were randomized to either insulin degludec or insulin glargine 100 units/mL. In the main analysis, the following definitions were compared: 1) American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2005 (plasma glucose [PG] confirmed ≤3.9 mmol/L with symptoms); and 2) IHSG level 2 (PG confirmed <3.0 mmol/L, independent of symptoms).

In SWITCH 2, the estimated rate ratios of hypoglycemic events indicated increasing differences between treatments with decreasing PG levels until 3.0 mmol/L, following which no additional treatment differences were observed. Similar results were observed for the SWITCH 1 trial. In SWITCH 2, the IHSG level 2 definition produced a rate ratio that was lower than the ADA 2005 definition.

The IHSG level 2 definition was validated in a series of clinical trials, demonstrating its ability to discriminate between basal insulins. This definition is therefore recommended to be uniformly adopted by regulatory bodies and used in future clinical trials.

Patients with diabetes and chronic DFUs were randomized (double-blind) to either active TWO2 therapy or sham control therapy—both in addition to optimal SOC. The primary outcome was the percentage of ulcers in each group achieving 100% healing at 12 weeks. A group sequential design was used for the study with three predetermined analyses and hard stopping rules once 73, 146, and ultimately 220 patients completed the 12-week treatment phase.

At the first analysis point, the active TWO2 arm was found to be superior to the sham arm, with a closure rate of 41.7% compared with 13.5%. This difference in outcome produced an odds ratio (OR) of 4.57 (97.8% CI 1.19, 17.57), P = 0.010. After adjustment for University of Texas Classification (UTC) ulcer grade, the OR increased to 6.00 (97.8% CI 1.44, 24.93), P = 0.004. Cox proportional hazards modeling, also after adjustment for UTC grade, demonstrated >4.5 times the likelihood to heal DFUs over 12 weeks compared with the sham arm with a hazard ratio of 4.66 (97.8% CI 1.36, 15.98), P = 0.004. At 12 months postenrollment, 56% of active arm ulcers were closed compared with 27% of the sham arm ulcers (P = 0.013).

This sham-controlled, double-blind randomized controlled trial demonstrates that, at both 12 weeks and 12 months, adjunctive cyclical pressurized TWO2 therapy was superior in healing chronic DFUs compared with optimal SOC alone.

A Stepped Insulin Secretion Test with Arginine was used to quantify functional β-cell capacity by hyperglycemia and arginine stimulation. Thirty-nine of 57 participants initially achieved remission (HbA_1c <6.5% [<48 mmol/mol] and fasting plasma glucose <7 mmol/L on no antidiabetic drug therapy) with a 16.4 ± 7.7 kg weight loss and were followed up with supportive advice on avoidance of weight regain. At 2 years, 20 participants remained in remission in the study. A nondiabetic control (NDC) group, matched for age, sex, and weight after weight loss with the intervention group, was studied once.

During remission, median (interquartile range) maximal rate of insulin secretion increased from 581 (480–811) pmol/min/m² at baseline to 736 (542–998) pmol/min/m² at 5 months, 942 (565–1,240) pmol/min/m² at 12 months (P = 0.028 from baseline), and 936 (635–1,435) pmol/min/m² at 24 months (P = 0.023 from baseline; n = 20 of 39 of those initially in remission). This was comparable to the NDC group (1,016 [857–1,507] pmol/min/m²) by 12 (P = 0.064) and 24 (P = 0.244) months. Median first-phase insulin response increased from baseline to 5 months (42 [4–67] to 107 [59–163] pmol/min/m²; P < 0.0001) and then remained stable at 12 and 24 months (110 [59–201] and 125 [65–166] pmol/min/m², respectively; P < 0.0001 vs. baseline) but lower than that of the NDC group (250 [226–429] pmol/min/m²; P < 0.0001).

A gradual increase in assessed functional β-cell capacity occurred after weight loss, becoming similar to that of NDC group participants by 12 months. This result was unchanged at 2 years with continuing remission of type 2 diabetes.

We studied the effects of more intensive glycemic control in 11,071 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), without missing values, in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial, using Cox models.

During 5 years’ follow-up, intensive glycemic control reduced major vascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90 [95% CI 0.83–0.98]), with the major driver being a reduction in the development of macroalbuminuria. There was no evidence of differences in the effect, regardless of baseline ASCVD risk or HbA_1c level (P for interaction = 0.29 and 0.94, respectively). Similarly, the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic control on all-cause mortality were not significantly different across baseline ASCVD risk (P = 0.15) or HbA_1c levels (P = 0.87). The risks of severe hypoglycemic events were higher in the intensive glycemic control group compared with the standard glycemic control group (HR 1.85 [1.41–2.42]), with no significant heterogeneity across subgroups defined by ASCVD risk or HbA_1c at baseline (P = 0.09 and 0.18, respectively).

The major benefits for patients with T2D in ADVANCE did not substantially differ across levels of baseline ASCVD risk and HbA_1c.

Standard summary metrics and functional data analysis (FDA) were applied to CGM data from the CONCEPTT trial (RT-CGM, n = 100; SMBG, n = 100) taken at baseline and at 24- and 34-weeks gestation. Multivariable regression analysis determined if temporal differences in 24-h glucose profiles occurred between comparators in each of the three groups.

FDA revealed that women using RT-CGM had significantly lower glucose (0.4–0.8 mmol/L [7–14 mg/dL]) for 7 h/day (0800 h–1200 h and 1600 h–1900 h) compared with those with SMBG. Women using pumps had significantly higher glucose (0.4–0.9 mmol/L [7–16 mg/dL]) for 12 h/day (0300 h to 0600 h, 1300 h to 1800 h, and 2030 h to 0030 h) at 24 weeks with no difference at 34 weeks compared with MDI. Women who had an LGA infant ran a significantly higher glucose by 0.4–0.7 mmol/L (7–13 mg/dL) for 4.5 h/day at baseline; by 0.4–0.9 mmol/L (7–16 mg/dL) for 16 h/day at 24 weeks; and by 0.4–0.7 mmol/L (7–13 mg/dL) for 14 h/day at 34 weeks.

FDA of temporal glucose profiles gives important information about differences in glucose control and its timing, which are undetectable by standard summary metrics. Women using RT-CGM were able to achieve better daytime glucose control, reducing fetal exposure to maternal glucose.

Up to September 2018, 1.4 million office BP measurements in 79,849 children and adolescents (aged 5–20 years) with T1DM have been documented in the DPV (Diabetes Prospective Follow-up) registry. BP values of the most recent year were aggregated, and BP values of 74,677 patients without antihypertensive medication were analyzed (median age 16 years and diabetes duration 5.3 years and 52.8% boys). BP values were classified according to AAP 2017 and the references of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS) (2011) and the Fourth Report on the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents (fourth report) (2004).

Of the patients, 44.1%, 29.5%, and 26.5% were hypertensive according to AAP 2017, KiGGS, and fourth report, respectively. Differences in prevalence of HTN were strongly age dependent: <10 years, AAP 2017 31.4%, KiGGS 30.7%, fourth report 19.6%; 10 to <15 years, AAP 2017 30.9%, KiGGS 31.2%, fourth report 22.4%; and ≥15 years, AAP 2017 53.2%, KiGGS 28.4%, fourth report 30.0%. Among teenagers ≥15 years, 59.1% of boys but only 46.3% of girls were classified as hypertensive by AAP 2017 but only 21.1%/26% of boys and 36.7%/34.4% of girls by KiGGS/fourth report, respectively.

Classification of BP as hypertension depends strongly on the normative data used. Use of AAP 2017 results in a significant increase in HTN in teenagers ≥15 years with T1DM, particularly in boys. AAP 2017 enhances the awareness of elevated BP in children, particularly in patients with increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

We included 2,236 adults aged ≥65 years without known diabetes from the 2005–2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Diabetes was defined using: 1) the Endocrine Society approach (HbA_1c ≥6.5%, FPG ≥126 mg/dL, or 2-h plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dL among those with HbA_1c 5.7–6.4% or FPG 100–125 mg/dL); and 2) a standard approach (HbA_1c ≥6.5% or FPG ≥126 mg/dL). Treatment eligibility was defined using HbA_1c cut points (≥7 to ≥9%). OGTT screening costs were estimated using Medicare fee schedules.

Diabetes prevalence was 15.7% (~5.0 million) using the Endocrine Society’s approach and 7.3% (~2.3 million) using the standard approach. Treatment eligibility ranged from 5.4 to 0.06% and 11.8–1.3% for diabetes cases identified through the Endocrine Society or standard approach, respectively. By definition, diabetes identified exclusively through the Endocrine Society approach had HbA1_1c <6.5% and would not be recommended for glucose-lowering treatment. Screening all older adults with prediabetic HbA_1c/FPG (~18.3 million) with OGTT could cost between $737 million and $1.7 billion.

Adopting the 2019 Endocrine Society guidelines would substantially increase the number of older adults classified as having diabetes, require significant financial resources, but likely offer limited benefits.

In this phase 3, open-label, multicenter trial, 321 patients with HbA_1c≥7.5 to ≤10.0% (58–86 mmol/mol) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≤13.8 mmol/L (250 mg/dL) were randomized 1:1 to iGlarLixi or Lixi for 52 weeks. The primary end point was change in HbA_1c at week 26.

Change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 26 was significantly greater with iGlarLixi (–1.58% [–17.3 mmol/mol]) than with Lixi (–0.51% [–5.6 mmol/mol]), confirming the superiority of iGlarLixi (least squares [LS] mean difference –1.07% [–11.7 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001). At week 26, significantly greater proportions of patients treated with iGlarLixi reached HbA_1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) (65.2% vs. 19.4%; P < 0.0001), and FPG reductions were greater with iGlarLixi than Lixi (LS mean difference –2.29 mmol/L [–41.23 mg/dL], P < 0.0001). Incidence of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (≤3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL]) was higher with iGlarLixi (13.0% vs. 2.5%) through week 26, with no severe hypoglycemic events in either group. Incidence of gastrointestinal events through week 52 was lower with iGlarLixi (36.0% vs. 50.0%), and rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar.

This phase 3 study demonstrated superior glycemic control and fewer gastrointestinal adverse events with iGlarLixi than with Lixi, which may support it as a new treatment option for Japanese patients with T2DM that is inadequately controlled with OADs.

Baseline data from the publications of the three trials were obtained and entered into the BRAVO model to predict cardiovascular outcomes. Projected benefits of reducing risk factors of interest (A1C, systolic blood pressure [SBP], LDL, or BMI) on cardiovascular events were evaluated, and simulated outcomes were compared with those observed in each trial.

BRAVO achieved the best prediction accuracy when simulating outcomes of the CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58 trials. For the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, a mild bias was observed (~20%) in the prediction of mortality and angina. The effect of risk reduction on outcomes in treatment versus placebo groups predicted by the BRAVO model strongly correlated with the observed effect of risk reduction on the trial outcomes as published. Finally, the BRAVO engine revealed that most of the clinical benefits associated with SGLT2i treatment are through A1C control, although reductions in SBP and BMI explain a proportion of the observed decline in cardiovascular events.

The BRAVO risk engine was effective in predicting the benefits of SGLT2is on cardiovascular health through improvements in commonly measured risk factors, including A1C, SBP, and BMI. Since these benefits are individually small, the use of the complex, dynamic BRAVO model is ideal to explain the cardiovascular outcome trial results.